Are there any bad 5 star recruits out there? And what factors are considered for them to get their 5 stars? Are non core attributes such as stamina, durability and work ethic factored in?

1. I don't ever remember seeing a 5 star recruit that I thought I wouldn't sign. I don't honestly look at all of them though. I have seen 3/4 stars that I thought this guy is a fringe role player on my team and my team isn't even that good.

2. Non core attributes must have some role. I don't know if they are weighted as much as other skill but they have some factor.

there are for sure 5 star guys who are not worth fighting for - I cant recall a 5 star I wouldnt take, but there are 5 stars where I say - someone is gonne see the 5 stars and spend a lot on this guy without looking at the cores and the lack of potentials

Never seen a 5 star I wouldn't take at D1 but I've seen plenty of 4 stars that were pretty bad (like 45 ath or something).

I actually think there are some ****** 5 stars in the sense that they have low-ish ATH, DE but massive total rating so they somehow leave after 2 years and never contribute even though they would have been useful as JR/SR.

Example

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/26/2019 10:24:00 AM (view original):
I actually think there are some ****** 5 stars in the sense that they have low-ish ATH, DE but massive total rating so they somehow leave after 2 years and never contribute even though they would have been useful as JR/SR.

Example

That guy is definitely good enough for High D1 though. Not quite as good as rating suggest but that LP/PER pushes him up the big board. But I wouldn't call him ******.

He wasn't a 5 start but I had this butthole leave early who didn't have high ath/def. Similar to your example.

ive definitely seen 5 stars i was on the fence about signing for no money, for AP only basically. some i signed some i decided against, and thats in like 10 seasons of recruits. i'm sure there are some i wouldn't really consider for high d1.

i do question if seble changed up the rankings in 3.0. it sure seems to me most 5 stars aren't total ****, which used to be a fairly common occurrence. i would say im 90% sure he changed it. old recruit rankings took into account only starting ratings, because of how potential was added later. the distribution of high d1 caliber players in the top 100 vs outside the top 100 seems massively different to me, than 2.0. i feel like 2.0 it was pretty severe, i would see 5 stars i would barely or really not at all consider at a good mid major. now i feel like there are guys i wouldn't take for free but they are more rare, with a fair amount of 5 stars i would basically take for minimum effort just because of what a crapshoot 3.0 recruiting seems to be, but i wouldn't feel good about it.

Main reason I was asking because I decided to go blindly(level 1 scouting) after a 5 star recruit. I used up my scouting money and saw something during recruiting that allowed me a decent shot at landing him.