It was rumored that there was going to be a late addition to this year's recruiting class. I suppose this is the guy? I found this:
http://www.hustlebelt.com/mac-football-recruiting/2016/1/...

Ohio has really been adding some talent at DB in recent years. For Fall, it would seem the following are slated for DB:

De'vante Mitchell, 3-star safety from Florida, had 10 other offers (2 P5)
Jamal Hudson, 2-star DB from Florida, formerly committed to Air Force/Toledo
Marlin Brooks, 3-star CB from Florida, 6 other offers
Alvin Floyd, 2-star DB from Florida, 4 other offers (2 P5)
Tariq Drake, 2-star DB from Ohio, 6 other offers, 3rd in state in 200 Meters
Xavier Bradley, former high school QB from Ohio, 4th in state 200M, 5th in 100M
Michael Ballentine, Safety from Mentor, a top Ohio HS program

The last two are preferred walkons. There is some definite speed in this group.

As one who doesn't follow football recruiting, I need a little help. Someone enlighten me on what a a player does to be a "high 2-star rating"? Almost a 3* but didn't quite make the grade? Just seems to me you're either a 2, 3, 4, or 5. Not a 2+, or 3+ etc.

The rest of the answer is that the lower you get in the ratings, the less accuracy there is. Most of the money is spent rating and tracking the 4-5 star players, and the high three star players. Once you get down to two stars the ratings don't mean much.

It would make even better sense if it were used that way, and had much accuracy behind it. As a practical matter, here is how the athletes at the lower end get rated, from my observation:
ESPN - doesn't rate them at all. They try to focus on rating only the high 3-star and up athletes that end up at P5 schools. Typically only a couple recruits that end up at Ohio were rated by ESPN

Rivals - They used to rate the lower end with relative rigor, and on a scale of 4.9-5.4 for 2 star athletes. However, they have cut back on that dramatically. They officially rate them now on a 5.2-5.4 scale, but I've not seen a 5.2 in a long time, and they don't rate a lot of people at all. Last year they deleted their recruiting pages for G5 schools, and no longer even bother to cover schools, unless they have an active forum for that school. Thus, there is no Ohio recruiting page, and athletes recruited by Ohio do not get rated at all.

Scout.com - Offers no discrimination. You are a 2-star, 3-star, or 4-star. As a result, virtually all Ohio recruits are rated "2-star", which gives no insight at all as to which recruits are the better ones. That isn't very useful, but it is honest; they have no clue which are the better recruits.

247Sports - They do make an honest effort to actually evaluate every athlete on a scale of 70-100. The resulting scale, unfortunately, implies more accuracy than is actually there.

Once in awhile I do an analysis of the ratings by the different services, and compare them to what we actually see on the field for Ohio recruits. Which services are the most accurate? Here is my latest analysis, which covered the classes from 2012-14:
http://www.bobcatattack.com/messageboard/topic.asp?FromPa...

ESPN had a positive correlation, but a very small sample of players actually rated. Scout and Rivals had negative correlations - higher rated players were less likely to turn out to be good players than low rated players. 247Sports was uncorrelated. Combining all the ratings into the 247Sports Composite rating and you get a clear negative correlation. Note that that doesn't mean there aren't high rated players who do well, nor low rated players who don't do well, but consistently the very best players were the totally unrated players.