I’ve always seen their useful quantity, but as a consensus of gathered data from true evaluators like coaching staffs…not as the ultimate SOURCE. Gazers will never convince me that virgin nerds dispensing shiny stars have any significant insight into a player’s potential other than their communication with actual coaches and teachers. They’re a glorified database.
gazers lack curiosity. they will never accept Jesse Perry until his redshirt JR campaign and all-SEC designation, and by then, it's too late to redeem themselves. dealing in prophecy as purely long term investment, so they can "told ya so" down the road. lazy, really. I do believe the average joe has the ability to evaluate talent. You generally know a good singer, dancer, acting performance; why also can't you develop the eye for the ability of an athlete on the gridiron? Hudl allows us to see what the coaches are seeing. Why not try to get a sense of why they believe in these recruits? We are able to describe what works with a polished athlete (Cedric Tillman is able to go up and get the tough catch in traffic, Jalin Hyatt has generational separation speed, etc). Why not for recruits? The star system, due to its natural constraints, relies on a certain amount of failure or "misses" to keep the wheels going, and it is in this failure where curious recruitniks can develop a keen eye for talent. Learn about the game of football and the systems within it, and always watch the film.
There is nothing perfect in this system, and in that way, freedom to make mistakes and be bold in your analysis. I always appreciate a good argument for why a player will be good for a system or not, if the analysis is rooted in film study and a wider measurement, beyond "5 stars duh" or "3 stars duh", even if I disagree on the analysis. Following only star ranking is a lazy and boring choice, and as a forum dedicated to following the recruiting period of the game, it should be frowned upon the moment it arrives. That's for the football forum. This is for analysis of recruits and the excitement that their abilities can bring for our system of ball. Sure it's fun getting 5 stars, and empirical evidence makes it a smart bet to wager on those teams winning games, but blindly following it without analysis of why the staff may prefer a 3* over a 4* is silly without first developing a sense for what it is you are talking about.
my humble, if poorly worded, opinion