There is a big difference between basketball and football. In basketball, the top players face off against each other, and the even with more D-1 programs, recruiting classes are small. Football is far less accurate.
There is no doubt that there is some degree in accuracy in rating the top 100 players in the country (any idiot can look at 6-4 320 pound manchild Dexter Lawrence in HS and agree that he is special; so, when Clemson signs him over Bama and FSU; the rankings based on signing players of that type are likely to result in wins down the road for Clemson), maybe even the top 300 players in the nation, and so, the rankings based on the very top end of the available players have some validity. But, there are about 2500 football players that sign with FBS programs each year. Distinguising between #389 and #681 is not very accurate.
So, for teams like Bama and tOSU, it's not hard to determine how well they recruited, and the rankings are reasonably accurate at the top end. After the top 300, which amounts to the top 6 to 8 in a state like VA or NC, the ratings are not very accurate. As Dortch example presents, the 247 "recruiting" expert assigned to VA, just isn't as good at determining the 3rd best OG in VA as a college assistant coach assigned to the region. So, yes, when a school signs that the most 5 stars (and even 4 stars), that school is going to generally be, but not always, better than a school that signs 3 and 2 stars, but beyond that, when 247 tries to rank whether the 3 or 2 stars signed by Indiana or Minnesota or Texas Tech or Arizona State or Vandy or Iowa State are better than the 3 stars and 2 stars signed by WF, Duke or State, those rankings have no reliable degree of accuracy.
