Blue Chip Ratio

[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

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/

247 recently started re-rating guys that go in the portal, so if they apply those to the teamtalent composite then yes it would be better. But it looks like they're still using transfer's high school rating to apply to the teamtalent. Which is going to massively overrate/underrate the impact of transfers depending on the situation.

 

[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/

247 recently started re-rating guys that go in the portal, so if they apply those to the teamtalent composite then yes it would be better. But it looks like they're still using transfer's high school rating to apply to the teamtalent. Which is going to massively overrate/underrate the impact of transfers depending on the situation.

That’s a fair and valid criticism. that would be a good change. But status quo is still better than including them in the BCR of their old school. Jacob Eason was helping Georgia blue chip ratio in Both 2018 and 2019 - while he was at UW

 

[dnc]

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.

Where do you get 39?

I have it at 43. Maybe my math is wrong.
https://247sports.com/Team/Washington-160/Roster/

Adams
Baini
Bandes
Beulow
Draco
Bynum
Calvert
Covington

Davis
Fabic
Fautanu
Gilchrist
Gordon
Garbers
Hatchett
Heimuli
Irvin
Jones
Kalepo
Latu
Tuli
McDduffie
McGrew
McKinney
McMillian
Molden
Morris
Murao
Nacua
Odunze
Levi O
Osbourne
Paama
Redman
Rosengaarten
Sirmon
Smalls
Spiker
Taimani
Taylor
Tui
Turner
Wattenberg

I'm not sure we're actually at 85 either but that doesn't make a big difference.

Where do you get 39?

 

[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.

Where do you get 39?

I have it at 43. Maybe my math is wrong.
https://247sports.com/Team/Washington-160/Roster/

Adams
Baini
Bandes
Beulow
Draco
Bynum
Calvert
Covington

Davis
Fabic
Fautanu
Gilchrist
Gordon
Garbers
Hatchett
Heimuli
Irvin
Jones
Kalepo
Latu
Tuli
McDduffie
McGrew
McKinney
McMillian
Molden
Morris
Murao
Nacua
Odunze
Levi O
Osbourne
Paama
Redman
Rosengaarten
Sirmon
Smalls
Spiker
Taimani
Taylor
Tui
Turner
Wattenberg

I'm not sure we're actually at 85 either but that doesn't make a big difference.

Where do you get 39?

By year:
2017: 7
2018: 8
2019: 15
2020: 10

I had left Adams off my original count (I did it a few weeks ago) because I assumed at the time he wasn’t going to enroll. So 40 then

This is based off composite because that’s what Bud uses too

 

[dnc]

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.

Where do you get 39?

I have it at 43. Maybe my math is wrong.
https://247sports.com/Team/Washington-160/Roster/

Adams
Baini
Bandes
Beulow
Draco
Bynum
Calvert
Covington

Davis
Fabic
Fautanu
Gilchrist
Gordon
Garbers
Hatchett
Heimuli
Irvin
Jones
Kalepo
Latu
Tuli
McDduffie
McGrew
McKinney
McMillian
Molden
Morris
Murao
Nacua
Odunze
Levi O
Osbourne
Paama
Redman
Rosengaarten
Sirmon
Smalls
Spiker
Taimani
Taylor
Tui
Turner
Wattenberg

I'm not sure we're actually at 85 either but that doesn't make a big difference.

Where do you get 39?

By year:
2017: 7
2018: 8
2019: 15
2020: 10

I had left Adams off my original count (I did it a few weeks ago) because I assumed at the time he wasn’t going to enroll. So 40 then

This is based off composite because that’s what Bud uses too

So no McGrew, Wattenberg, Gilchrist or Onzurieke.

Got it.

 

[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.

Where do you get 39?

I have it at 43. Maybe my math is wrong.
https://247sports.com/Team/Washington-160/Roster/

Adams
Baini
Bandes
Beulow
Draco
Bynum
Calvert
Covington

Davis
Fabic
Fautanu
Gilchrist
Gordon
Garbers
Hatchett
Heimuli
Irvin
Jones
Kalepo
Latu
Tuli
McDduffie
McGrew
McKinney
McMillian
Molden
Morris
Murao
Nacua
Odunze
Levi O
Osbourne
Paama
Redman
Rosengaarten
Sirmon
Smalls
Spiker
Taimani
Taylor
Tui
Turner
Wattenberg

I'm not sure we're actually at 85 either but that doesn't make a big difference.

Where do you get 39?

By year:
2017: 7
2018: 8
2019: 15
2020: 10

I had left Adams off my original count (I did it a few weeks ago) because I assumed at the time he wasn’t going to enroll. So 40 then

This is based off composite because that’s what Bud uses too

So no McGrew, Wattenberg, Gilchrist or Onzurieke.

Got it.

Where do players from the c/o 2014 fit in to this? Asking for a fren

 

[CFetters_Nacho_Lover]

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.

This is why the world needs noted talent evaluator @ballz

 

[dnc]

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.

This is why the world needs noted talent evaluator @ballz

View attachment 21942

 

[FireCohen]

are we still counting stars

 

[DawgFader]

I though the Dawgs used the Blue Collar, Lunch Pail, kinda guy you would want your daughter to date, recruiting philosophy.

 

[FireCohen]

I though the Dawgs used the Blue Collar, Lunch Pail, kinda guy you would want your daughter to date, recruiting philosophy.

Yeah under Jim Owens