I would eat at a restaurant if I knew that I had a 90% chance of not getting sick. I wouldn't eat at a restaurant if I had a 50% chance of getting sick. Similarly, I would consider going bungee jumping if I had a 95% chance of a successful dance with death. I would not even consider going bungee jumping if the odds dropped to 50%. 90% is a good standard for recruiting.

I consider a person a contributor when they make multiple starts and it depends on the university. A person who starts at a top-tier program gets a bump in my determination. I also consider catches/yards/tackles/interceptions over a player's career. I don't consider a person to be a contributor if they only make single digit tackles/catches/carries each season. Some schemes don't allow the players to rack up huge stats so their role in the scheme has to be considered. It's easier when a person doesn't play a down or they have a 500 yard season.

I would say overall that recruiting rankings are an exercise in nonsense. You can't assign a ranking to people who play different positions in different leagues against different competition in different states all over the country. I have the benefit of hindsight with my review. Unlike the recruiting services, I'm not making predictions. I now know who could play and who could not.