Link to the Re-Rank Results is LIVE

[CokeGreaterThanPepsi]

What @CokeGreaterThanPepsi‌ said. I really went back and forth on it with (Danny too), 4.5 would have been right. But he only had one season where I was fearing for the life of opposing QB. I also didn't really remember his FR season.

FWIW, we argued about including an option of 0 for guys that actually enrolled. I gave in to Poopsi and included it.

But I guess a 0 fits for guys like Gilliland/Enewally/Lavon Washington who did set foot on campus but were non-existant or got kicked off right away.

Here's my issue with this... with this criteria, a 5* player has to essentially be Steve Emtman. Once every 20 year player. By this kind of measure we might have had 3-4 5* players in the last 20 years... Dillon, Marques... who else? Jerramy Stevens?

We're dividing up performance in to quintiles... Is he in the bottom 20% of players, the lower middle 20%, the middle 20%, upper middle 20% or the top 20%?

If you were an All-American at any point, you were a 5-star. Otherwise no one will be a 5-star outside of Hall Of Fame level players. I don't see how that really makes sense as an evaluation criteria.

If Shelton wasn't a 5, who the HOLY HECK is?

I don't know, I mean. Shelton is over a 4.5 which in my opinion is an ELITE player. Bishop, Hau'oli and Shaq were all over that (Desmond was 4.46). I think it worked fine for this study, which was determining contribution. Like I said, over 4.5 you are ELITE.

I'm not arguing about averages; about specific ratings.

Gotcha... Still a lot of people gave those players 5 stars. And in fact, thinking more about it I probably would have given Danny and Hau'oli a 5th star if I could just because I agree that they were great players. Bishop was one vote shy of getting all 5's. Danny and Hau'oli got 23 5's. Shaq got 19. That's a lot of 5 stars people voted.