it seemed to me that the following general rules applied to the rankings... they weight more heavily in favor of teams that have lots of bodies overall, even if that brings down the average star rating. they place more weight on classes that have some 5 stars or even 4 stars. if a guy has offers from an elite program, he's likely to be upgraded in stars. there used to be a lot more 2 stars and 1 stars. now, it seems like everyone is a default 3 star and then goes up or down from there. just looking at CU's ranking in the b12 (last) and ucla's ranking in the p10 (last), i am a bit confused by how each team ended up there. i presume it has a lot to do with number of offers rather than quality, because the star averages seem to be on par with much higher ranked teams. are they now looking at offers? i get that if you have way more 4 and 5 stars, you should be ranked higher, but what is the material difference between having eight 3 stars and having 12 3 stars? i just look at offers. that's all i have ever felt was a reliable comparison between schools. on that front, we aren't doing that well, but this was going to be a rough year. anyone care to opine?