If only 8% of recruits are 4/5 stars then the vast majority of the 128 FBS schools won't even land one in any given class. Also, I've always wondered how much (if at all) recruiting sites take into account WHO is offering a kid.
It seems often times if a kid has offers from say UNT, SMU, UH and Rice they are a 2 maybe 3 star. However if UT, A&M and OU make an offer the kid suddenly becomes a 4 star. Maybe it's a misconception on my end or maybe the recruiting sites don't know enough about every potential recruit in the country and partially rely on top programs to shine the light on a recruit.
So the question is do top programs simply attract better talent or do top programs better assess talent, especially for their specific system? Like most things it's probably some of both.
If top programs (all of which are in power 5 conferences or indepenents in ND's case) attract better talent there isn't a lot mid-major schools can do to catch up. But if top programs attribute part of their recruiting success to assessment of talent then in that regard a school like UNT can somewhat level the playing field.
I think this at least partially explains the Boise States of college football. They seem to do a great job of identifying talent that fits what they need and then getting the most out of them while on campus. UT on the other hand (lately) seems to do the opposite.
I realize these are just two examples but I think it helps show the importance of evaluating talent for your system. You could also consider the importance of strength and conditioning and the overall ability of a program to develop talent but that would require a lot more discussion.