Zach Charbonnet gets huge bump on Rivals

Damn Oregon is tearing it up on the recruiting trail

No. Getting a bump up is good at this point because it shows he's good, and not just a hard body like Green was. 

Why would someone who thinks stars don't matter care one way or the other what someone's stars are

Take a hint. 

I have never read or seen anyone on this board say "stars don't matter".  Have you?  There are those who say stars aren't the ONLY thing that matters, and they would be right.  You, on the other hand, believe stars ARE the only thing that matters.

No one here will say they don't like getting highly-ranked recruits, but they are also realistic and understand that you can't recruit solely based on how a few people/services rank their future potential. They also understand it is unrealistic to get every highly-ranked recruit Michigan will go after.  There are a lot of great schools and football programs around the country.

But, sure, keep pushing your narrative.

The entire basis of the “stars don’t matter” argument is that IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT THE STARS SAY. So why would they not like a player getting a ratings bump when their entire opinion is that it doesn’t matter what he’s ranked? 

In reality, stars DONT matter. What matters is identifying talent and players that fit your team both culturally and schematically. Sometimes the star rankings align with that, sometimes they don’t. That is why it doesnt matter. Sometimes the stars are way behind the curve with a player and a player people complain about the team taking because they’re a 3* end up being a 4* and sometimes those highly ranked guys take a nosedive in the rankings. 

Where a player is ranked doesn’t mean he’s good or bad at football. It’s an arbitrary system based on the opinions of a group of people. They’re wrong quite a bit. There are more factors than just a ranking. It’s a piece of the puzzle, not the whole damn thing

I don't often get involved in the STARZ conversations, but I think I've identified your problem: you've confused cause and effect. 

Players get stars because they're good (gross oversimplification, I know). They aren't good because they get stars.

We recruit players because we think they're good. We don't recruit players because they have stars.

In a perfect world with perfect information, there would be perfect alignment between those two statements and perfect reciprocity between each half of those two statements.  We do not live in a perfect world, which is why there is a continual stream of underestimated players going pro or becoming stars in college. 

I'm sure I've confused you, so let me simplify: stars generally matter, but not for the reasons you think they do, and they aren't a perfect measure due to the inherent biases and errors that necessarily come with evaluating the athletic achievement/potential of teenagers. 

EDIT: to simplify even more, it's like thinking that the only good stocks to buy are the ones at their all time highs. Please tell me you don't think like that.

Still pushing this boulder up the hill Maizen?

Everyone knows stars are usually a good metric in recruiting.  We wish Michigan could land every "5 star" they could, but that isn't feasible. 

Do you ever get tired of beating this poor dead horse?

Frankly; you're boring us to death.