The first article is the reason why, when I did my recruiting analysis, I used average stars per class. Total rankings are skewed by the number of scholarships available to a school to offer each year. Schools who cycle their players - you know who you are - always sign the max every year and get a bonus for it. Tech doesn't. When you look at the average stars per class, we have done pretty well, especially in the last three years. Also, given the way these things work, I'd much rather field a recruiting class with high average star rankings then high total rank. The first is a decent - I didn't say good, mind - indicator of the talent of the young men involved; the second is more about coaching choices.
That said, I agree that Tech can get to a higher star average. We have had 2 4 star recruits in each of the last two years (three this year if you count Ezzard). We might get 4 - 5 a year with a bit more effort. To consistently get into the 20s we would need 7 - 8 consistently. That might be a bridge too far, but we'll have to see. The problem is that the competition for 4 - 5 star athletes is extremely intense; the more you recruit them, the harder it gets to succeed. Coach seems to think we can pull it off. Let's give him more resources and see if he can.
