buried on the depth chart at a school...they don't get the benefit of continued in-game development as a player. That 3 star player that found themselves in a situation that allowed meaningful game reps enabled their continued development and provided an opportunity to surpass the skillset of players previously ranked higher. I think this is often the case for why highly ranked players "bust" out of high school. At that moment in time, they may have had higher potential but the lower ranked player found better opportunity and greatly improved their skill-set compared to where they were coming out of high school. This is why fit matters so much for players at all levels. Game reps are invaluable and standing on the sidelines greatly impacts development. This is also why the transfer portal is such a valuable tool for both players and teams. The player can continue to pursue opportunities that offer the best fit at that moment in time (which helps them maximize their skillset) and teams can select players that they may have previously passed on due to their previously perceived potential and have now benefitted from game reps, coaching, hard work...etc. I still think that rankings matter, but equally important is playing time, position coaching and dedication to improvement ("work") throughout the process. It's just like any other job...you have to keep improving your skillset to stay ahead. By continuing to improve your skillset on the job you become a better employee. A player has to get better on the field (reps greatly help players get better) or prove through practice they are getting better to get game reps. However, it's prob an uphill battle to prove game readiness if you can't showcase your skillset on gamedays and thus you fall behind and may be overlooked on the bench. Potential is what coaches are looking for and past success showcasing talent factors into likely future success. High contribution percent as described just highlights those that found good or great fits. However, for great teams you need high percentages of the high potential players to also be good fits for the team to maximize impact and success. Lots of 3 star talent "fits" at say Syracuse don't necessarily translate equally to the 4 and 5 star fits at Ohio State and likely the 3 stars at Ohio State found ways to elevate their skillset over higher rated players at their school by other various ways. They all get high contribution rates but the skillset is likely better on average at Ohio State (for example). Even on average when comparing 3 stars on one team vs another. The average team skillset is what is important. But rating out of high school is just a snapshot at that moment in time. It doesn't mean the 4 star wasn't better in high school and that ratings are BS...it just means that variables over time impacted the players for various reasons differenty. Heck, they are 18 out of High School...maybe the 3 stars grew and hit the gym harder in College, accompanied with proper fit and coaching was enough to elevate them to a much greater potential than what was perceived in HS.