Ahmed was a 2 for me since he massively underwhelmed. I suppose he deserved a 3 on the basis of how he performed but he was supposed to be a super stud and wasn’t.
Harris I gave a 3 because I thought he regressed some this year, but he probably deserved a 4.
Strange criteria. Most of us try to come up with an objective way of grading. You seem to take the opposite approach.
Mine is something like:
*...never played or played, played in significantly, or was a total liability. A * rating means a wasted scholarship.
**...played a decent amount but poorly. A ** rating means the player contributed as a warm body needed to fill a spot, but was a liability. Its still a contribution.
***...played a lot and generally not a liability. A *** player probably wasnt very good and took heat from critics, but was good enough to keep trotting out there. This can also be someone who sat most of their career but finally made somewhat of a splash at some point, usually at the end.
****...Multi year starter that, in my best estimation was good enough to start on a good team. At least in the conversation for all Pac 12. A team full of **** would be good enough to win the conference.
*****...Great player and in the conversation for AA. Dominant, not just good, for at least one season.
Something like that. Ahmed, for example, was an excellent backup to Gaskin who averaged about 6ypc for two years and put up 1000 yards as the primary starter. I dont see how he's not **** even with his obvious shortcomings. 1000 yards is 1000 yards.
