Well, mathematical anyway, a consistent and objective way to rank recruiting classes. “Scientific“ implies (to me) the outcome has predictive values re: results on the field. I suppose it does, but only indirectly, as it’s just one input among many. As many point out here, you need a minimum level of fundamental athletic talent for success, which hinges on much more than just recruiting the very best of the best performers on H.S. fields.
IOW, results = f (recruiting, individual coaching, play calling, playbook/strategy aligned with talent, weight training, motivation, fan support, and more). Recruiting is a necessary but insufficient input on its own. Sounds like we’re approaching the necessary level for success if we can excel at the others elements too.