I am curious if you know what happens behind the scenes in recruiting at all. I think once you see that and you start talking to other attorneys who do recruiting and are on recruiting committees, you'd probably see that no-offers are usually not given for no reason (unless there's some sort of financial issue with the firm). Again, what I'm really trying to convey to people is that unless there are other issues with the firm, don't rely too much on the 100% offer rate and other criteria are more important (like the strength of the practice area, the people you're working with). Giving more weight to those criteria will ensure longevity in the tough atmosphere of big law. It's already a tough place to be, and the 100% offer rate isn't going to be that much of a help in ensuring that you can stick it out for 3+ years to go in-house.
At the first firm I summered at, it previously had a 100% offer rate. During our summer, they ended up no-offering someone. The summer can be a nerve-wracking experience so I spent a lot of time agonizing about no offer rates for my 2L summer, so I have given this issue a lot of thought. I'm really just trying to put out some general advice to people who are also thinking about how much weight they should give to a non-100% offer rate. TLS usually encourages people to take the safe route to things - take the 100% offer rate firm! Retake the LSAT! One size fits all advice rarely ever does anyone that much good and I've been steered wrong by these boards before. Therefore, I just want to make sure that this perspective is out there for people's consideration. It's fine if you disagree with me, but please don't call me clueless.
Clueless comment was based entirely on you saying that this was the first time you've heard of someone getting no offered without a major screwup. Apologies if it was rude. ETA: This may just be a result of seeing different markets. In TX, some firms will no offer 25% of SAs (or more). There's no way all those people "screwed up." If you're just talking about dinging 1-2 people a year in a big class, that is not as significant. The problem I'm criticizing is firms taking on enough SAs that they *know* that they can't hire all of them even if they all had a good summer.
Yes, I'm aware of and involved in with recruiting. I think your caveat of "unless there's some sort of financial issue with the firm" is quite large. Also, one part that makes it really unfair is the fact that a firm and attorneys will consistently tell a person that they're doing great, rather than provide constructive feedback to help the person improve, and then no-offer them. People who don't know better take these reviews/comments at their word and assume everything is great.