The common theme in the past year or so worth of "hello" posts on the front page is the lackluster state of recruiting services. First there was scout/247 consolidation, and then it seemed rivals only scouted rivals camps, and then ESPN fired everyone except Sports Center anchors and Stephen A. Smith. Given all of that, it seems that stargazing is less informative than it was before. I'll quantifying this below.
While it's true that the top talent is still scouted and ranked highly by everyone (as in the top 50 or so), the recruits in the 3.5-4 star range are sometimes barely even scouted by all services, and thus the 247 composite is a lot less informative. You get a sqrt(n) improvement in measurement error for n times more measurements, so if you only have one legitimate scouting measurement of a given recruit instead of four in years past, the predictive power of the composite decreases by a factor of two. That is, a recruit with a composite rating of the 150th best recruit may truly be between 100-200 in the past with four services, but now there is no way to tell if he's between 50-250 if only a single site gave a thorough eval. If two sites have legit evaluations, then the predictive power of the composite is sqrt(4/2) ~ 1.4 times or 40% less informative. Finally, even if all three have legit evals it's still sqrt(4/3) ~ 1.15 or 15% less informative.
It's clear that stargazing is less informative than it used to be. Even a consensus #1 is 15% less certain than it was in the past due to an additional missing independent measurement. It'll be nice to see this in the data in the next few years, but put me on the record predicting starz to correlate with college success and NFL draft stock less than it used to.