Wait, you are saying the size of the class affects rankings....so our low ranked 2013 class which had 14 recruits was a result of low numbers......and I have been saying this many years that rankings mean little. It is average stars. But then again, I think rankings mean little as how do you rank an 18 year old, particularly this year.
I hope you will engage on this, because it is a point people have made many times and takes the average stars concept but makes it better and more specific.
Average stars is an ok proxy but not the best, especially when you have a 5.7 3* vs 5.5 3* (Rivals). On average, there is a big difference in offer lists and upside potential between the two.
But if you want to go with average stars, 2021 outshines 2013:
2021: Based on average stars we finished 6th in the ACC (3.0 on Rivals) and 8th in the ACC (86.13 on 247).
2013: Based on average stars we finished 10th in the ACC (2.71 on Rivals) and 9th in the ACC (83.56 on 247)
And the analysis of these classes ignores the talent infusion we got via transfers this year. It ignores the fact that one of our recruiting advantages, allegedly, is the direct in-person interactions with the coaches, which was rendered moot this year. And ignores that in 2013, per Rivals, only 7 of the 14 recruits were rated 5.6 or higher. Whereas in 2021, 13 of the 16 recruits are 5.6 or higher.
I also believe volume should matter in overall ranking, but I hope you do not focus on this, as the basis of my post is in response to how avg. stars is fairly shallow in and of itself when there is better data available.
