Back then, no internet, few national newspapers, no cable/satellite/ streaming, 3 games on Tv per week, no stats or sophisticated analytics for comparisons, no compatible standards (Joe Schmuck in the northwest might use 3 stars, Bubba Crankshaft in the southeast uses 4, guy in Texas goes by "yee haws"), etc....
Any guru then was likely to know his own region where he hung his hat, degree of error increasing in proportions to the radii of the circles extending past that. Not criticizing, it just would be the restraints of the time. When everything would effectively need observed or corroborated in person, or hearsay, subjectively.
But even working on the assumption that ratings on paper for most of our players being essentially 3 stars then as well as now ... you presumably saw them play then, and see our players of today, can you honestly say you truly think most of those '3 star' guys you cited are only merely about as talented as the 2-3 star guys we go to battle with today? Clearly even the eye test alone would convince that Rickey J is a bit better than say Patrick Jones...
But if really close to equal, it's really an indictment of how woeful the coaching (not recruiting) skills we've had since Sherrill & co... that they made jabronies like Rickey and Hugh into legends. I'm actually not unwilling to get behind that one. I think our coaches, particularly position coaches, haven't exactly mined much gold from the ore so to speak. Witness 2016-17 as merely one example, multiple of our DBs and LB getting legit NFL chances, after some playing on one of the worst college defenses in history. That's coaching underachievement. Those defenses shouldn't have won the NC, but shouldn't have stunk so bad.
As with the political thread now alas removed, nothing is totally black or white. We've been subpar, or perhaps just about par (if par is .500) at recruiting AND coaching.
Lack of national ranking services IS a legit point. All the independent recruiting "experts" were very parochial and very limited in who they got to see and evaluate.
Additionally, that particular Pitt class was almost officially the class which broke the Jim Crow geographic barrier. The SEC began accepting and recruiting the skilled black athlete shortly after that. Guys like Hugh Green were no longer limited to attending schools north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Before that, those athletes were ignored by many local writers in the South.
Recruiting was MUCH different in those days. It was basically condensed into the brief period between the end of the college season until National Letter of Intent day. It was a mad scramble.
Still, there was an anecdote told several times by Jackie Sherril regarding the recruiting class who were seniors in 1980. Apparently, when Majors left for Tennessee and Sherrill was hired, Majors took ALL the recruiting files with him.
When Jackie came back from his "internship" at Washington St., he had only a very short time to put together a list of targets and recruit them.
His new staff decided to work from recruiting magazines and newsletters, with a twist. They called guys who were mentioned as good prospects and asked them WHICH SCHOOLS WERE RECRUITING THEM?
If big schools were recruiting them and had offered, the kids's names were marked for follow-up visits. If only small or also-ran programs were contacting the prospects, Pitt basically dropped them from consideration. So, their recruiting search wasn't bound by Terranova or any one other guru.
Yeah, they looked at films. That's how Hugh Green was discovered. Nobody knew anything about him until Pitt coaches saw him going up against Rooster Jones' Pascagoula team.
But, mostly they basically piggy-backed on OTHER teams' scouting efforts. Having just won the national title made Pitt legitimate in the eyes of recruits.
Clearly, they identified a lot of good prospects.