This moves Husan into 5* range in On3's composite, and will surely do so in 247's composite once they update it. You have to imagine that similar increases are coming from Rivals and ESPN, since they tend to just do what the other two sites do with a time lag. Congratulations.

Whooooop!!!!!

Can we afford a 5 star? May have to rework the budget.

I'm betting that update didn't get full approval over there.

**** On3

Ermagard, Herston Lerngstert!

JFF was a three star so.........

Did they ask the sips if it was okay?

OneMoonGoon92 said:

---

JFF was a three star so.........

---

As we all know JFF turned out to be a five star and that's an example of why I don't put a lot of merit into star rankings.
Hard to measure a player's heart and desire to be the best.

BCEDAg said:

---

OneMoonGoon92 said:

---

JFF was a three star so.........

---

As we all know JFF turned out to be a five star and that's an example of why I don't put a lot of merit into star rankings.
Hard to measure a player's heart and desire to be the best.

---

Using the exception to claim that the rule is invalid.
Look at how the average 3* does and where the average 5* does.

infinity ag said:

---

BCEDAg said:

---

OneMoonGoon92 said:

---

JFF was a three star so.........

---

As we all know JFF turned out to be a five star and that's an example of why I don't put a lot of merit into star rankings.
Hard to measure a player's heart and desire to be the best.

---

Using the exception to claim that the rule is invalid.
Look at how the average 3* does and where the average 5* does.

---

Infinity ag strikes again with his wonderful words of wisdom.
Star rankings are not valid my friend. Some work out and a lot of them don't. The rankings are based on their potential and nothing else.

Studies have been done and posted here repeatedly demonstrating that you have to have a certain amount of blue chips to have a real chance at a title. There's no way around it, even with a Johnny or two on the team.

PeekingDuck said:

---

Studies have been done and posted here repeatedly demonstrating that you have to have a certain amount of blue chips to have a real chance at a title. There's no way around it, even with a Johnny or two on the team.

---

True but there are exceptions. How many five star players were on TCU's roster in 2022 when they played in the national championship game?

BCEDAg said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

Studies have been done and posted here repeatedly demonstrating that you have to have a certain amount of blue chips to have a real chance at a title. There's no way around it, even with a Johnny or two on the team.

---

True but there are exceptions. How many five star players were on TCU's roster in 2022 when they played in the national championship game?

---

Of course there are exceptions.

But to get the "exceptional" 3 star, you have 1,000s to pick from.

Or you could just go grab a 5* who is much more likely to "hit".

Imagine there are 2 tables.

Table A and Table B.

Table A has 5 paper bags on it.

Table B has 100 paper bags on it.

I tell you that each table has one bag with $1,000 inside.

People claiming that "stars don't matter" would say that your chances of getting the $1,000 are the same, no matter which table you pull from. Their reasoning? Cause one time years ago a guy grabbed the right bag from Table B.

BCEDAg said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

BCEDAg said:

---

OneMoonGoon92 said:

---

JFF was a three star so.........

---

As we all know JFF turned out to be a five star and that's an example of why I don't put a lot of merit into star rankings.
Hard to measure a player's heart and desire to be the best.

---

Using the exception to claim that the rule is invalid.
Look at how the average 3* does and where the average 5* does.

---

Infinity ag strikes again with his wonderful words of wisdom.
Star rankings are not valid my friend. Some work out and a lot of them don't. The rankings are based on their potential and nothing else.

---

You have to stop getting snarky when you lose the argument.

Going by what you say, it is okay for us to recruit all 3 stars and we will have the same results as if we recruit all 5 stars. Logic is that Manziel was a 3* and was a superstar.

Take a look at Alabama's winning teams and see how many 5 stars they had. The probability of a 5* working out is higher than a 3 star working out.

I actually think that the agencies made a mistake with Manziel's rating. Either that or he was a late bloomer.

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

BCEDAg said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

Studies have been done and posted here repeatedly demonstrating that you have to have a certain amount of blue chips to have a real chance at a title. There's no way around it, even with a Johnny or two on the team.

---

True but there are exceptions. How many five star players were on TCU's roster in 2022 when they played in the national championship game?

---

Of course there are exceptions.

But to get the "exceptional" 3 star, you have 1,000s to pick from.

Or you could just go grab a 5* who is much more likely to "hit".

Imagine there are 2 tables.

Table A and Table B.

Table A has 5 paper bags on it.

Table B has 100 paper bags on it.

I tell you that each table has one bag with $1,000 inside.

People claiming that "stars don't matter" would say that your chances of getting the $1,000 are the same, no matter which table you pull from. Their reasoning? Cause one time years ago a guy grabbed the right bag from Table B.

---

Well explained. I don't understand how someone like BCEDAg who claims to have watched Aggie football for 60 years cannot get such a simple concept.

Many people here like to bellyache about stars giving some 1/1000 example as "proof". What about the 300/1000 examples which show the opposite? Oh well.

BCEDAg said:

---

True but there are exceptions. How many five star players were on TCU's roster in 2022 when they played in the national championship game?

---

Not enough to keep it within 50 points, I guess.