It's been statistically demonstrated a bunch of times that ESPN's recruiting rankings are at best 3rd best of the bunch, and maybe behind 247 as well. I wouldn't get worked up.
Even if you assume that Rivals has rated everyone perfectly, then ND should rank better than 9th. They've got A&M ranked 6th for instance, in spite of them having the same number of 4*+ recruits, but with ND having the sole 5* guy of the bunch. I don't think anyone would take the A&M current class, on the strength of 9 three stars ahead of us.
Three star recruits are great. They often go on to be stars, and every team needs them. But until they blossom, they also have nothing to do with the overall quality of your class. They just reflect your level of attrition. (They matter obviously for MAC schools, who are trying to avoid two star guys, and hoping to land three stars, but not for ND, UM, Bama, etc...)
Using the Rivals rankings, a 5* recruit is about 2.67 times more likely to be a star than a 4* recruit (per Matt Hinton's studies). Using that weighting, you can redo the Rivals rankings, taking out the class size advantages of UM and A&M. You get:
1. UM
2. Texas
3. Alabama
4. Ohio State
5. USC
6. LSU
7. Florida
8. Notre Dame
9. Georgia
10. Auburn
That looks about right to me honestly. UM still probably has the best class so far, but the gap is extremely small between them and Texas. Ohio State and USC deserve credit for their monstrous classes so far as well, while Georgia and A&M take a step back.