Much of what you say is well-founded. Individual rankings are far more accurate, in general, than the team rankings, but there is something to the team rankings. As with many things, however, it's important to look at more than just which teams are ranked 1-5 or whatever. It's important to look deeper at why the team is ranked where it is. Like you point out with the quantity vs quality discussion, purely where a team is ranked can be misleading. If you look at why a team is ranked there, you can make more sense of the team rankings and decide whether they're useful or not. In all honesty, looking at ranges is better. There's little difference in the top 10 teams in recruiting, but there is a pretty clear deliniation between the 10th team and the 50th team. That's where team rankings are more useful - grouping together the "top" recruiting classes vs the mediocre ones and on and on. Thats why I would rather look at the avg. star ranking. If looking at Rivals A&M is ranked 10th where USC is ranked 12th. However A&M has 25 commits to UCS 13. UCS has 3 5-Star Players and 7 4-Star players. Where A&M has 11 4-Star players and the rest are 3-Star or less. Personally I would take the smaller class with a greater ceiling. Obviously the star ratings are no where close to perfect, and it still comes down to coaching and developing. I like ESPN's 150 the best and Rivals would be 2nd. I would not even bother with Scout.