Commented "While recruiting talent is obviously vital to a seems success, stars next to a players name on scout and rivals don't necessarily mean they're the best players available. Personally, I'll take a kids desire to be the best, work ethic, and humbleness (i.e. Ameer Abdullah), over a kid with 5 stars, dripping with talent, but has no desire to get better. Just take a peak at an NFL roster, most are made up of 3 star prospects. While you could argue that it is a numbers game (the ratio between 5 and 3 stars), I'd still presume its because of the "development" of talent. Furthermore, I think of it this way. A players rating is based on 1-99 (99 being the best, J.J. Watt, Calvin Johnson etc.), say a 5 star kid out of high school is roughly 75, and a 3 star is around 50. Have you seen some of these 18 year old kids that have a 5 star rating? They look around 30 with full beards. These are basically men playing amongst kids, so of course they're going to make a bigger impact on the field. However, I don't want to categorize all 5 stars in this manner for it is not true. While 3 stars on the other hand, may only be 50 right now, but their potential is much higher than 5 stars. Maybe they don't have much muscle, but a huge frame that has the potential. Maybe they can run a 40 in 4.5 seconds, but has not developed lateral movements. My point is that while 5 stars may have more of an immediate impact, 3 stars may have more of a ceiling, and may become better football players if "developed.""
Commented "I hate to say it, because FCS schools make some good coin from playing FBS schools which boosts their universities, but I'd rather cut out those games, shorten the out of conference schedules, and have an eight team playoff. Teams such as Mich St, Baylor, TCU, and a Pac 12 or SEC school would've made an extremely intriguing playoff scenario. It's my personal suggestion, but it certainly doesn't make it right by any means."