This chart looks as "scientific" to me as one that awarded the most points for players with last names that begin with the lowest letters in the alphabet.
Not only does the success of a recruit depend on position and team fit, but how that particular player develops complimentary skills, takes tough coaching, and handles the stress of being on a top team over four years of maturation.
Everyone thinks: well, 5 years ago Geno got 1, 2 and 6 (and the 6 might have been 1a if not injured) and so that proves that rankings work. But Geno brought that trio into a somewhat depleted group and brought them along, pretty much in tandem. Their dominance had as much to do with situation and coaching as it did with their high school rankings. So, that model was circumstance contingent. When integrating new players into line-ups already rich with top-performing veterans, there are far more variables in trying to predict how a recruiting class will end up being assessed 4 years later, when they finish college.
Attributed to Mark Twain, who in turn attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
