I've noticed that, when discussing a recruit, we tend to label him the highest number of stars any service has given him. So if Scout gives him four stars and the other 3 services give him 3 stars, we call the guy a 4 star player. But if the tables were turned, with Scout as the outlier, he is still a 4 star player. While this is an understandable tendency, it isn't a particularly accurate description: a 4 star player on every site is certainly more highly regarded than a player drawing that 4th star from only one site. Calling a player "consensus" 4 star helps, but is still inexact; consensus could mean 3 sites agree, or all 4 sites agree.
So what to do?
The most accurate method would be to calculate the average number of stars, but that is a bit labor-intensive, and there's trouble when a player hasn't been evaluated. Tim gives the player a "0" when he calculates the averages, but that seems a bit unfair; we can presume the player would receive at least 1 or 2 stars - but again, there's uncertainty. There are also questions of how much weight should be put into each respective service - should ESPN's opinion count less than Scout's? It's all subjective.
A while back, Turd Furgeson came up with a great method of aggregate recruitng rankings but, again, that method is unwieldy, particularly if the board is just discussing a new offer or talking about a new prospect.
A quick, easy way to accurately represent a recruit's evaluated potential can be obtained simply by listing his stars from each of the four sites, like this:
Jarrod Wilson (4444)
Devin Funchess (4443)
Kaleb Ringer (4333)
AJ Williams (333NR)
The order is descending, with no regard for which site gave which rating. Every site makes good evaluations and every site makes bad evaluations, what's important is the big picture. This method can be done with a quick Google search (or glancing at Tim's class rankings, if applicable) because most players' recruiting profiles from all four sites will be found on the first or second page of search results.
What does everyone think? If it's a terrible idea tell me why, I'm bored at work and up for a debate.