Blue Chip Ratio

[insinceredawg]

We're at 54% going into this season. With the current recruiting class where it is today, the ratio will drop slightly next year but should still stay above 50%. Another class like this year's however and we're off the list.https://247sports.com/LongFormArtic...n-win-a-national-title-148079661/#148079661_1

Blue Chippers who will be gone after this year
-Molden
-Taylor
-Gilchrist
-McKinney
-Levi
-McGrew
-Wattenburg

Of that list only Molden and Levi lived up to their blue chip status so there probably won't be an actual talent dropoff on the field.

 

[RaceBannon]

Hope we can hit 8 and 5 again

 

[dirtysouwfdawg]

Hope we can hit 8 and 5 again

Spiteful old bitter man. That’s why I love you.

 

[Doug]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

 

[insinceredawg]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. [/b] It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

Didn't know that. That's just lazy then to not spend a couple minutes to look at the actual players on the roster instead of going off the recruiting classes. If he's simply just looking at the last 4 classes for each program, does he include guys who have already left early for the draft too?

 

[dnc]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.

Also, the whole point is that you are starting with plenty of talent to rise to the top. If three star talent beats out the four stars and the four stars leave that's a totally different thing than if you are starting three stars because three stars are all you have.

It's a quick and dirty metric but it's pretty damn good.

 

[Doug]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. [/b] It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

Didn't know that. That's just lazy then to not spend a couple minutes to look at the actual players on the roster instead of going off the recruiting classes. If he's simply just looking at the last 4 classes for each program, does he include guys who have already left early for the draft too?

Yep! It’s a 4 year composite with no adjustments. So Eason never counted for UW In the BCR. Does it make sense for a metric to ignore the starting QB? He also ignores transfers in. The team talent composite is a full picture of the active roster

 

[Neighbor2972]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.

Also, the whole point is that you are starting with plenty of talent to rise to the top. If three star talent beats out the four stars and the four stars leave that's a totally different thing than if you are starting three stars because three stars are all you have.[/b]

It's a quick and dirty metric but it's pretty damn good.

Yeah this.

But yeah average composite of recruiting classes would be better than BCR

 

[DoogWhisperer]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

Sounds really flawed

 

[Doug]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.

Also, the whole point is that you are starting with plenty of talent to rise to the top. If three star talent beats out the four stars and the four stars leave that's a totally different thing than if you are starting three stars because three stars are all you have.

It's a quick and dirty metric but it's pretty damn good.

It’s good for looking at 100 teams and putting them in tiers. If you want to compare two teams, or teams within a conference, it’s actually pretty darn poor analytically. The talent composite is significantly better. Neither consider over/under achievers, which is hard to do without some sort of re-rating system, but at least the composite weights a .99 more than an .89, and evaluates the actual roster

 

[Doug]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.

Also, the whole point is that you are starting with plenty of talent to rise to the top. If three star talent beats out the four stars and the four stars leave that's a totally different thing than if you are starting three stars because three stars are all you have.[/b]

It's a quick and dirty metric but it's pretty damn good.

Yeah this.

But yeah average composite of recruiting classes would be better than BCR

A straight 4 year Average would be better than BCR, but would still ignore transfers ins/out. So the
Team talent composite is even better. 2020 isn’t out yet but previous years are:https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/

 

[dnc]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.

Also, the whole point is that you are starting with plenty of talent to rise to the top. If three star talent beats out the four stars and the four stars leave that's a totally different thing than if you are starting three stars because three stars are all you have.[/b]

It's a quick and dirty metric but it's pretty damn good.

Yeah this.

But yeah average composite of recruiting classes would be better than BCR

A straight 4 year Average would be better than BCR, but would still ignore transfers ins/out. So the
Team talent composite is even better. 2020 isn’t out yet but previous years are:https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/

You'll need to do the work to prove the Composite number is a more accurate predictor of success than the BCR.

It sound good in theory but Bud's actually demonstrated and tracked the success of his metric. You're just theorizing that this is better. It may well be.

 

[Doug]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.

Also, the whole point is that you are starting with plenty of talent to rise to the top. If three star talent beats out the four stars and the four stars leave that's a totally different thing than if you are starting three stars because three stars are all you have.[/b]

It's a quick and dirty metric but it's pretty damn good.

Yeah this.

But yeah average composite of recruiting classes would be better than BCR

A straight 4 year Average would be better than BCR, but would still ignore transfers ins/out. So the
Team talent composite is even better. 2020 isn’t out yet but previous years are:https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/

You'll need to do the work to prove the Composite number is a more accurate predictor of success than the BCR.

It sound good in theory but Bud's actually demonstrated and tracked the success of his metric. You're just theorizing that this is better. It may well be.

LOL. Bud is a tireless self promoter on this, I’ll give him that. But he also admits clearly. the metric is good enough for one and only one thing: identifying a group of teams capable of winning a title. That’s it. And of course it does, because his list always includes twice as many teams than would actually fall into that category. Also, UNike twice came close to breaking it. Bud also says himself explicitly NOT to use it to compare any two teams

Not sure why I Should have to prove something to you that is plainly evident to anyone with even a basic understanding of data and analytics. Unless you think including people not on the team is superior to excluding them, and weighing a .89 JAG the same as a .99 elite player makes sense?

It comes down to this: do you want to cite a metric that tells you what you want to hear, or do you want cite one that is a much more accurate measure of where you are, and more importantly, where you need to get to?

 

[Doug]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.

Also, the whole point is that you are starting with plenty of talent to rise to the top. If three star talent beats out the four stars and the four stars leave that's a totally different thing than if you are starting three stars because three stars are all you have.[/b]

It's a quick and dirty metric but it's pretty damn good.

Yeah this.

But yeah average composite of recruiting classes would be better than BCR

A straight 4 year Average would be better than BCR, but would still ignore transfers ins/out. So the
Team talent composite is even better. 2020 isn’t out yet but previous years are:https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/

You'll need to do the work to prove the Composite number is a more accurate predictor of success than the BCR.

It sound good in theory but Bud's actually demonstrated and tracked the success of his metric. You're just theorizing that this is better. It may well be.

The last 5 CFP winners have ranked 1, 9, 1, 6, and 5 in the composite, with the lowest score being 840 for 2016 Clemson. I’d say 825 minimum and top 10 in the composite is a requirement. UW was 801 last year and should go up this year, so we are getting close if 2021 class doesn’t set us back too far

 

[dnc]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.

Also, the whole point is that you are starting with plenty of talent to rise to the top. If three star talent beats out the four stars and the four stars leave that's a totally different thing than if you are starting three stars because three stars are all you have.[/b]

It's a quick and dirty metric but it's pretty damn good.

Yeah this.

But yeah average composite of recruiting classes would be better than BCR

A straight 4 year Average would be better than BCR, but would still ignore transfers ins/out. So the
Team talent composite is even better. 2020 isn’t out yet but previous years are:https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/

You'll need to do the work to prove the Composite number is a more accurate predictor of success than the BCR.

It sound good in theory but Bud's actually demonstrated and tracked the success of his metric. You're just theorizing that this is better. It may well be.

The last 5 CFP winners have ranked 1, 9, 1, 6, and 5 in the composite, with the lowest score being 840 for 2016 Clemson. I’d say 825 minimum and top 10 in the composite is a requirement. UW was 801 last year and should go up this year, so we are getting close if 2021 class doesn’t set us back too far

We?

 

[dirtysouwfdawg]

The BCR isn’t a great way to measure current roster talent, as it includes kids who aren’t with the program any more. Once you factor those out, we drop down around 45%. It also counts a .8900 barely four star the same as a .9999 5-star stud, which is stupid. What would you rather have: 3 .99s and a .88 or 4 .89s? According to BCR, the latter. Asinine. The team talent composite from 247 is a much better indicator of roster strength relative to recruiting rankings.

At a 50,000 foot view, BCR is fine for for sorting teams into a binary yes/no bucket (can they win a CFP title) But of course it is, because half the teams above 50% really have zero chance of winning the title (including UW sadly). But Bud Elliot continues to pimp out BCR as some great amazing thing when it’s really just complete shit. Team talent composite is way better, but even that ignores player busts and overachievers

Go play in traffic while drinking bleach or get an avatar you savage

 

[IPukeOregonGrellow]

Mr. Burns gives the best explanation of Blue Chip Ratio in the softball ringer episode of the Simpsons.







Recruiting isn’t something you can rank in terms of numbers because no one knows exactly how it’ll turn out. The odds are the 99 on composite guy is the best guy in the class. But sometimes, the 93 on composite guy is better from day one.

For simple math, assume a four-star guy has an 81% chance of working out and the three star guy had a 19% chance. And you never know what camp an 18-year old will fall into until he’s on campus.

Recruiting isn’t something you rank. A good recruiting class is answered by a simple question: Did we? bring in enough talent.

 

[Miley_Cyrus]

For fuck’s sake it’s not that hard to understand.

It just means your talent IN THE AGGREGATE is good enough that you have the tools to compete for a title. All the rest (coaching, player dev, etc) has to go right in addition, but in our case the baseline talent is now there.

 

[Doug]

For fuck’s sake it’s not that hard to understand.

It just means your talent IN THE AGGREGATE is good enough that you have the tools to compete for a title. All the rest (coaching, player dev, etc) has to go right in addition, but in our case the baseline talent is now there.

I don’t consider 39 blue chip players out of 85 scholarships to be in the range personally. Not when 2/3s of those 39 are at the .89 to .92 end of the scale and all the favorites are sitting with at least 53/85 with a statistically significant higher percentage of them being .95 and above

All things the BCR ignores.

 

[Neighbor2972]

For fuck’s sake it’s not that hard to understand.

It just means your talent IN THE AGGREGATE is good enough that you have the tools to compete for a title. All the rest (coaching, player dev, etc) has to go right in addition, but in our case the baseline talent is now there.

I don’t consider 39 blue chip players out of 85 scholarships to be in the range personally. Not when 2/3s of those 39 are at the .89 to .92 end of the scale and all the favorites are sitting with at least 53/85 with a statistically significant higher percentage of them being .95 and above

All things the BCR ignores.

I mean yeah man, its not perfect. BCR is just an easy way to explain to casual fans which teams have the necessary talent to compete for a natty. Most fans don't know the nuances of a high 3 star/low 4 star, or high 4 star vs low 4 star.