Generally recruiting rankings have predictive power at the top and bottom end. That is, the highest end of Ivy recruits in terms of rankings have very high hit rates and the bottom (no rankings at all) have had very low hit rates, while everything in between tended to be meaningless.

IIRC the last model I ran basically had win share credit for the top recruits (say 2* average and up) and then win share credit for the *number* of recruits.

So, I don't think the model is telling us a ton we don't already know: Really highly rated recruits are generally good, and anything beneath that is a relative crapshoot.

Anecdotally, I think the model could be greatly improved with *real* offers, but those are hard to come by in a bulk fashion. My own guesses at contributions aren't really based on this model but rather offers and what the programs are seeing from their players.