More Blue Chip ratio numbers

[jlb321_rivals110621]

looked at the blue chip ratios of recruiting classes the last 10 years based on rivals rankings (note the true ratio is calculated using 247composite rankings)

-Calculated the mean and median ratios for the #s 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25th ranked classes
-the medians were only +/- 2% so I did not report

-a few things that can skew the ratio are unusually small or large classes - as you can be ranked higher with a larger class but have a lower ratio - interestingly it is the schools that heavily over sign that despite higher class sizes still maintain a high ratio

- an additional factor that can skew the results is that the ratio does not distinguish between 5* and 4* but you will be ranked higher in recruiting with a greater proportion of 5* players.


#1 -- 76% ratio
#5 -- 61.9
#10 - 53.4
#15 - 42.9
#20 - 34.6
#25 - 26

 

[Skerz4Life50]

I was also playing around with the rankings from both 247 and Rivals to see Nebraska’s blue chip ratio since 2002. Below are ratios NU had:

 

[dand84]

No one said there would be math involved!

 

[SnohomishRed]

so is signing 10 highly ranked players in a class of 16 better than signing 10 highly ranked players in a class of 25 - I still contend class size is as important as highly rated talent. Where Alabama and Ohio State excel is they do both

For example if you bring in 30 walkons but only 10% contribute on the field that is still 3 players a year

Riley in his three years never signed a full class - he signed 62 kids - during that same period of time OSU signed 73 and the recruits were much higher ranked. The principle behind rankings is the percent of success in college from higher ranking vs a lower one, otherwise the whole ranking thing would make no sense.

Our issue has been roster management as much as getting blue chip talent in fact I would say the roster management has been more important

 

[jlb321_rivals110621]

so is signing 10 highly ranked players in a class of 16 better than signing 10 highly ranked players in a class of 25 - I still contend class size is as important as highly rated talent. Where Alabama and Ohio State excel is they do both

For example if you bring in 30 walkons but only 10% contribute on the field that is still 3 players a year

Riley in his three years never signed a full class - he signed 62 kids - during that same period of time OSU signed 73 and the recruits were much higher ranked. The principle behind rankings is the percent of success in college from higher ranking vs a lower one, otherwise the whole ranking thing would make no sense.

Our issue has been roster management as much as getting blue chip talent in fact I would say the roster management has been more important

if you just look at a single year yes - but remember the blue chip ratio is based on the 4 recruiting classes that make up the predominance of your roster - if you are artificially getting a ratio boost in one class because of small size that will be evened out in coming years as you sign larger classes to be at the 85 limit. That is why you typically have to string elite recruiting classes together to be elite

 

[SnohomishRed]

if you just look at a single year yes - but remember the blue chip ratio is based on the 4 recruiting classes that make up the predominance of your roster - if you are artificially getting a ratio boost in one class because of small size that will be evened out in coming years as you sign larger classes to be at the 85 limit.

you may be correct but I do not think that is universally true - if you sign 25 each year and only 50% make it to a point where they contribute in 4 years thats 50 kids.

You should have kids on scholarship that are going to contribute on the field in most cases. Without trying to be nasty that is what Ohio State does and that is what Alabama does

 

[jlb321_rivals110621]

you may be correct but I do not think that is universally true - if you sign 25 each year and only 50% make it to a point where they contribute in 4 years thats 50 kids.

You should have kids on scholarship that are going to contribute on the field in most cases. Without trying to be nasty that is what Ohio State does and that is what Alabama does

no argument - they recruit elite talent across the board and if a particular 4* isn't cutting it they replace them with another 4*. I agree you can't have the roster filled with noncontributors.

However it is a fact that 4 and 5 star players have better odds to be high NFL draft choices. So if on your roster you have 6 4* recruits at offensive tackle you have better odds that you will have a high NFL draft choice playing tackle for your team versus a roster with 2 4*s and 4 3* recruits.

 

[SnohomishRed]

no argument - they recruit elite talent across the board and if a particular 4* isn't cutting it they replace them with another 4*. I agree you can't have the roster filled with noncontributors.

However it is a fact that 4 and 5 star players have better odds to be high NFL draft choices. So if on your roster you have 6 4* recruits at offensive tackle you have better odds that you will have a high NFL draft choice playing tackle for your team versus a roster with 2 4*s and 4 3* recruits.

Very true all the more reason we must sign big classes every year

 

[21Husker1984]

 

[SoFL Husker]

You guys need to get laid really good. A few times perhaps.

 

[HuskerIsNumberOne]

You guys need to get laid really good. A few times perhaps.

I'm sure they have. Just didn't work. LOL

 

[F5Tornado]

looked at the blue chip ratios of recruiting classes the last 10 years based on rivals rankings (note the true ratio is calculated using 247composite rankings)

-Calculated the mean and median ratios for the #s 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25th ranked classes
-the medians were only +/- 2% so I did not report

-a few things that can skew the ratio are unusually small or large classes - as you can be ranked higher with a larger class but have a lower ratio - interestingly it is the schools that heavily over sign that despite higher class sizes still maintain a high ratio

- an additional factor that can skew the results is that the ratio does not distinguish between 5* and 4* but you will be ranked higher in recruiting with a greater proportion of 5* players.


#1 -- 76% ratio
#5 -- 61.9
#10 - 53.4
#15 - 42.9
#20 - 34.6
#25 - 26

That's heavy!

 

[CheeseRunza_rivals]

Is this where the 45% - 50% four star ratio that is referred to in other threads comes from? Are Blue Chips basically 4 star and 5 star recruits?

 

[Skerz4Life50]

Is this where the 45% - 50% four star ratio that is referred to in other threads comes from? Are Blue Chips basically 4 star and 5 star recruits?

Yes and yes. It is explained by the creator of the ratio below:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sb...o-recruit-national-title-championship-playoff

 

[jflores]

I think the truth is this. If you believe in frost you have to believe in the power to go against the statistics.

Frost is not reeling in blue chips at the rate of a UGA or BAma nor is he likely to. He's going to have to prime the motor with mid tier type if classes at least as far as the Top 25goes and then see if that bumps him up any for a run at the big one. Or maybe get lucky and he's a Snyder type as well who can punch above his weight as well as reel in enough top talent at key positions.

 

[Skerz4Life50]

I think the truth is this. If you believe in frost you have to believe in the power to go against the statistics.

Frost is not reeling in blue chips at the rate of a UGA or BAma nor is he likely to. He's going to have to prime the motor with mid tier type if classes at least as far as the Top 25goes and then see if that bumps him up any for a run at the big one. Or maybe get lucky and he's a Snyder type as well who can punch above his weight as well as reel in enough top talent at key positions.

I think the two biggest issues NU will face if they don’t have enough talent is the style of offense/defense we play and the new playoff format.

Our o/d are not trying to slow down games like Iowa and wisconsin, but instead are trying to use superior athletes to beat teams. Which obviously only works in theory if you actually have better athletes. Should work more than not in the B1G West, but the teams in the East will be more of a struggle.

And with the playoff, we would now most likely have to go through 3 teams of at least comparable, if not superior talent in the B1G championship, the CFP, and the NC. We may be able to outplay 1 or 2 teams with better development, coaching, scheme, etc., but it seems unlikely we would be able to do it 3 times in a row with lesser talent. But like you said, that may be all we can really hope for.

 

[jflores]

I think the two biggest issues NU will face if they don’t have enough talent is the style of offense/defense we play and the new playoff format.

Our o/d are not trying to slow down games like Iowa and wisconsin, but instead are trying to use superior athletes to beat teams. Which obviously only works in theory if you actually have better athletes. Should work more than not in the B1G West, but the teams in the East will be more of a struggle.

And with the playoff, we would now most likely have to go through 3 teams of at least comparable, if not superior talent in the B1G championship, the CFP, and the NC. We may be able to outplay 1 or 2 teams with better development, coaching, scheme, etc., but it seems unlikely we would be able to do it 3 times in a row with lesser talent. But like you said, that may be all we can really hope for.

I honestly think people have to decide what the spread is or isn't. For a long time we mocked Texas Tech as being a gimmicky type team, and while their Air Raid wasn't really the modern spread, it was part of the beginnings of the whole "just get a 3* in space and most opposition you face won't have a back 7 that can get him down every time" type of offense.

Most coaches say that the spread is the great equalizer among teams that have lesser talent. Every kid across America can break ankles on at least a regular basis or at least practices to do so, how many teams really go 5-7 deep on the starting D who are going to keep up with a marginal athlete in space and get him to the ground every time? Almost none. And ain't no kid in his backyard practicing that.

If the spread *doesn't* equalize talent, then we're all screwed and it doesn't matter what system you run. Power I, spread, whatever, you simply just need to outrecruit the South and that won't be done on a regular basis.

I think people forget before Oregon became a powerhouse they were embarrasing teams with fairly average talent for a big time football program.

The gripes on the Iowa board are the same sorts of gripes we had circa 2000. If we got behind 7-9 points, we were done. We were strong enough up front to play with a lead and hold it, but we lacked dynamic talent to erase any sort of gap with a team that might have it. And making a guy like Lord throw was just awful.

Lest I belabor the point, our Top WR on that last NC appearance team was Wilson Thomas, a kid who primarily played DE in high school, didn't really have great hands or speed, and chief skill was being 6'6 and able to put a DB on the ground. A playmaker he was not.

 

[jflores]

I think the two biggest issues NU will face if they don’t have enough talent is the style of offense/defense we play and the new playoff format.

Our o/d are not trying to slow down games like Iowa and wisconsin, but instead are trying to use superior athletes to beat teams. Which obviously only works in theory if you actually have better athletes. Should work more than not in the B1G West, but the teams in the East will be more of a struggle.

And with the playoff, we would now most likely have to go through 3 teams of at least comparable, if not superior talent in the B1G championship, the CFP, and the NC. We may be able to outplay 1 or 2 teams with better development, coaching, scheme, etc., but it seems unlikely we would be able to do it 3 times in a row with lesser talent. But like you said, that may be all we can really hope for.

I think as far as the skill positions go... I'm not tremendously worried about the "enough talent" thing. At least for the offensive skill positions. And on Defense we seem to be doing fine as well.

We've really sort of struggled with OL recruiting even with Frost. Struggled being a relative term here, its not going as well as other positions on the team. We certainly have our share of projects there, but we have enough RB's to last a while.

 

[CheeseRunza_rivals]

Yes and yes. It is explained by the creator of the ratio below:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sb...o-recruit-national-title-championship-playoff

Thanks.

What I am trying to determine is how the star ratings are normalized to a common scale. Somewhere in a recent thread, someone posted information on how stars are assigned by the different services. If I recall correctly, the stars are roughly assigned based on recruit rankings and are not on an absolute scale. Meaning a recruit that is a 4 star 120 ranked player one year, may have been a 3 star 150 ranked player had he been in the previous class (if that class had more talent). It would seem that without the data being on an absolute scale, the results would be invalid. I suppose it could be used in general terms, but of course, everyone already knows that generally a team with the most talent will win championships. I couldn't find the post with the star assignment information, so maybe I'm off base, or maybe the star rating process has changed so that a 4 star is always a 4 star regardless of ranking.

 

[jflores]

Thanks.

What I am trying to determine is how the star ratings are normalized to a common scale. Somewhere in a recent thread, someone posted information on how stars are assigned by the different services. If I recall correctly, the stars are roughly assigned based on recruit rankings and are not on an absolute scale. Meaning a recruit that is a 4 star 120 ranked player one year, may have been a 3 star 150 ranked player had he been in the previous class (if that class had more talent). It would seem that without the data being on an absolute scale, the results would be invalid. I suppose it could be used in general terms, but of course, everyone already knows that generally a team with the most talent will win championships. I couldn't find the post with the star assignment information, so maybe I'm off base, or maybe the star rating process has changed so that a 4 star is always a 4 star regardless of ranking.

I don't think the scale slides a whole heck of a lot honestly. Rivals has a Top 250, who I think are pretty much all four stars, every year. Regardless of whether that class has 250 Deion Sander's in it, or 250 members of the Little Giants. And there's only ~25 five stars, also come hell or high water

 

[CheeseRunza_rivals]

I don't think the scale slides a whole heck of a lot honestly. Rivals has a Top 250, who I think are pretty much all four stars, every year. Regardless of whether that class has 250 Deion Sander's in it, or 250 members of the Little Giants. And there's only ~25 five stars, also come hell or high water

But that's kind of my point. If one year a 4 star is a Deion Sanders and another year a 4 star is a little giant, wouldn't that invalidate the results.

 

[jflores]

But that's kind of my point. If one year a 4 star is a Deion Sanders and another year a 4 star is a little giant, wouldn't that invalidate the results.

What's it matter really. If Bama gets all the five stars this year and the best players next year only top out at four stars and Bama gets the pick of those...at the end of the day Bama still has more talent than you when you collect four stars this year and three stars next year

 

[CheeseRunza_rivals]

What's it matter really. If Bama gets all the five stars this year and the best players next year only top out at four stars and Bama gets the pick of those...at the end of the day Bama still has more talent than you when you collect four stars this year and three stars next year

It doesn't. He just as easily could run the data on walkons and said that you need X% of walkons to win a championship. Or he could have counted redheads and said you need X% of gingers to win it all. What matters is identifying/evaluating/ranking your targets and how they project in your system and getting them to sign. The team that does this the best wins.

 

[tone1017]

We can crunch the numbers however we want. You get elite classes or you don't win titles. You dont have to be the absolute best at recruiting but if you're not consistently top 15 or reeling in a Cam or Deshaun Watson and top 20 you're not winning a title. Period.

 

[SoFL Husker]

In other earth-shattering breaking news of the day...

The earth revolves around the sun
The earth is round
The sun rises in the East
Tax cuts are good for the economy
Tariffs on Ag products makes their prices go down
An orangutan in the White House has orange hair...

 

[CheeseRunza_rivals]

What's it matter really. If Bama gets all the five stars this year and the best players next year only top out at four stars and Bama gets the pick of those...at the end of the day Bama still has more talent than you when you collect four stars this year and three stars next year

Obviously if Alabama gets all the top players each year than they are going to be the best team year in and year out. But that is different than saying that there is some concrete % of blue chips a team must be composed of to win a national championship. If team A gets 5 BCs out of 20 in year one (all Deion Sanders) and 15 BCs out of 20 in year two (all little giants), is that team equal to team B that gets 15 BCs out of 20 in year one (all Deions) and 5 out of 20 in year 2 (all little giants)? Both reached the magic 50% target.

I’m not saying a team shouldn’t recruit the best players. I’m just saying that a hard percentage number of 45% or 50% or whatever is being floated around doesn’t seem very valid if the methodology used to develop the number is flawed. If every recruit from every year is evaluated the same way using the same criteria and given a score on a uniform scale, then resulting number might hold a little more credence. But even then, coaches are going to evaluate recruits differently than recruiting services.

 

[Sinomatic]

Obviously if Alabama gets all the top players each year than they are going to be the best team year in and year out. But that is different than saying that there is some concrete % of blue chips a team must be composed of to win a national championship. If team A gets 5 BCs out of 20 in year one (all Deion Sanders) and 15 BCs out of 20 in year two (all little giants), is that team equal to team B that gets 15 BCs out of 20 in year one (all Deions) and 5 out of 20 in year 2 (all little giants)? Both reached the magic 50% target.

I’m not saying a team shouldn’t recruit the best players. I’m just saying that a hard percentage number of 45% or 50% or whatever is being floated around doesn’t seem very valid if the methodology used to develop the number is flawed. If every recruit from every year is evaluated the same way using the same criteria and given a score on a uniform scale, then resulting number might hold a little more credence. But even then, coaches are going to evaluate recruits differently than recruiting services.

You heard of that study that finds that a group of people who are asked a question and you tally up all the answers more often than not the herd is right and the outliers are wrong?

Simple 40 times, height weight at age, comparison of the division they're in against other players currently in that division across the country, and experience in evaluating players and comparing their results through to the NFL in the past yadda yadda.

You can at this point, some 13 years of compiling this data, get a decent idea of what to look for. And so I think you can just let those guys who spend all that time to do all that, rate the players, and for us fans we can take that as an educated rating and just accept it.

Then take a look at which teams have won the whole thing and look at their constitution of highly rated players vs teams that didn't get that kind of depth and see what you find........

Bill Snyder is still without a trophy hoss.

 

[jlb321_rivals110621]

Obviously if Alabama gets all the top players each year than they are going to be the best team year in and year out. But that is different than saying that there is some concrete % of blue chips a team must be composed of to win a national championship. If team A gets 5 BCs out of 20 in year one (all Deion Sanders) and 15 BCs out of 20 in year two (all little giants), is that team equal to team B that gets 15 BCs out of 20 in year one (all Deions) and 5 out of 20 in year 2 (all little giants)? Both reached the magic 50% target.

I’m not saying a team shouldn’t recruit the best players. I’m just saying that a hard percentage number of 45% or 50% or whatever is being floated around doesn’t seem very valid if the methodology used to develop the number is flawed. If every recruit from every year is evaluated the same way using the same criteria and given a score on a uniform scale, then resulting number might hold a little more credence. But even then, coaches are going to evaluate recruits differently than recruiting services.

no formula will be 100%

referencing your example above regarding team A and team B - the ratio hasn't been looked at for head to head comparisons to my knowledge - all it does, is predict a small # of teams that will win the national championship that particular year. That list only includes the 10 plus/minus teams with a blue chip ratio of 50% or more. To date no team in that time span has won the national title with a ratio < 50%. No one is claiming that is impossible - just that to date, since this ratio has been available it hasn't happened.

Oklahoma has been close with ratios of about 45%.

Keep in mind 50% is the lowest ratio that has been observed - Alabama typically sits at 70-80%.

If you have an additional metric to look at please share.

 

[CheeseRunza_rivals]

You heard of that study that finds that a group of people who are asked a question and you tally up all the answers more often than not the herd is right and the outliers are wrong?

Simple 40 times, height weight at age, comparison of the division they're in against other players currently in that division across the country, and experience in evaluating players and comparing their results through to the NFL in the past yadda yadda.

You can at this point, some 13 years of compiling this data, get a decent idea of what to look for. And so I think you can just let those guys who spend all that time to do all that, rate the players, and for us fans we can take that as an educated rating and just accept it.

Then take a look at which teams have won the whole thing and look at their constitution of highly rated players vs teams that didn't get that kind of depth and see what you find........

Bill Snyder is still without a trophy hoss.

You are missing the point, sport. Lets say that the experts are dead on with all their evaluations each year. It still doesn’t matter because the star system uses a scale that changes each year. As I said before, a 4 star wouldn’t necessarily be a 4 star in a different year. So when compiling the annual data together, the data would need to be normalized to a common scale for it to have meaningful results. If they did that, great. If they didn’t than the results would have to be taken with a grain of salt. You can believe in the tooth fairy as far as I’m concerned, just don’t try to convince us skeptics and ridicule us unless you have more evidence than just a quarter under your pillow.

 

[jlb321_rivals110621]

low blue chip ratio teams (<50%) are 2-6 in the college football playoffs.
One of those wins was when 2 low ratio teams played each other meaning that thus far in the CFP only one low ratio team has beaten a high ratio team.

of the 6 losses referenced above - 4 of those losses were by 3 or more scores ...... woof

the only win was in 2014 when Oregon beat FSU -- in that season Oregon had a heisman trophy winner playing QB - which is a great equalizer.

 

[inWV]

We've really sort of struggled with OL recruiting even with Frost. Struggled being a relative term here, its not going as well as other positions on the team. We certainly have our share of projects there, but we have enough RB's to last a while.

For the recruiting arc that includes commits this year and going back to Farmer and Foster, the average star rank for 19 kids is 5.67. That rounds up to a high 3* player on average. I left out Mick and Walker who moved to D as well as Ober the long snapper. The ratings of the presumed starters for this year are 5.9, 5.7, 5.7, 5.7 and NR. Problems are less of failure to recruit rated talent and more of failure of recruited talent to get things done. The RS junior group that should be angling for starters snaps is pretty much a bust. Decker is gone, and Barnett and Gaylord are still waiting to make their move on the depth chart.

 

[mothmonsterman]

I think there are teams that could get around this ratio. If Wisconsin, for instance, does what it always does in recruiting, but adds a Russell Wilson caliber QB, a Julio Jones or Desean Jackson type Wideout and maybe an elite guy in the secondary, they would be capable of winning a NC without needing a fluke. But I think even this demonstrates the importance of recruiting elite difference makers. Wisconsin is the best program in the country at recruiting to a system, developing players to fit the system, and having it pay off on the field. They are clearly a top ten program, but even they probably couldn't beat Bama or Clemson as presently constituted. If we can develop talent like Wisconsin does, while more or less maintaining what looks like our present recruiting model but supplemented with a couple top 50 recruits, I think we'll be good enough to compete for national titles. I'm sure other people have made the same observation about this in the past, so sorry if you read through this post expecting penetrating insight.

 

[inWV]

I think there are teams that could get around this ratio. If Wisconsin, for instance, does what it always does in recruiting, but adds a Russell Wilson caliber QB, a Julio Jones or Desean Jackson type Wideout and maybe an elite guy in the secondary, they would be capable of winning a NC without needing a fluke. But I think even this demonstrates the importance of recruiting elite difference makers. Wisconsin is the best program in the country at recruiting to a system, developing players to fit the system, and having it pay off on the field. They are clearly a top ten program, but even they probably couldn't beat Bama or Clemson as presently constituted. If we can develop talent like Wisconsin does, while more or less maintaining what looks like our present recruiting model but supplemented with a couple top 50 recruits, I think we'll be good enough to compete for national titles. I'm sure other people have made the same observation about this in the past, so sorry if you read through this post expecting penetrating insight.

Yes, put a proven blue chip QB and a couple of WRs on that team and the Badgers would still have a woeful blue chip percentage. But they would have a better chance of beating the Crimson Death Star or Clemson than nearly all of the teams that feature blue chip percentages above the magic number.

 

[CheeseRunza_rivals]

low blue chip ratio teams (<50%) are 2-6 in the college football playoffs.
One of those wins was when 2 low ratio teams played each other meaning that thus far in the CFP only one low ratio team has beaten a high ratio team.

of the 6 losses referenced above - 4 of those losses were by 3 or more scores ...... woof

the only win was in 2014 when Oregon beat FSU -- in that season Oregon had a heisman trophy winner playing QB - which is a great equalizer.

Teams with shades of red on their uniforms are 8 of 12 in bcs playoff games..... meow.

It's no shocker that teams with better recruits typically win more games. But that doesn't mean that the 50% rule is peer reviewed, validated, set in stone rule. And it certainly doesn't mean it is the only metric to be considered in determining champions.

 

[TheBeav815]

But that's kind of my point. If one year a 4 star is a Deion Sanders and another year a 4 star is a little giant, wouldn't that invalidate the results.

I don't think that's how it works. I think the stars are based on an overall rating of the player, based on his film and how he has looked at camps against other notable recruits, etc. Hence 5.6, 5.8, and so on.

It's not a percentile thing that the top x number of guys get the stars. They don't just hand out 4* and 5* ratings to kids because it's a bad class and somebody has to get them. It's based on the evaluation of the individual player.

 

[tone1017]

The issue is not if something else could work, the issue is it never has. Convince yourself you're the exception or strive to be the rule. Not difficult to understand.

 

[CheeseRunza_rivals]

I don't think that's how it works. I think the stars are based on an overall rating of the player, based on his film and how he has looked at camps against other notable recruits, etc. Hence 5.6, 5.8, and so on.

It's not a percentile thing that the top x number of guys get the stars. They don't just hand out 4* and 5* ratings to kids because it's a bad class and somebody has to get them. It's based on the evaluation of the individual player.

You may be right. I was using this as a reference, but it may be out of date.
https://www.cougcenter.com/wsu-foot...n-247-star-rating-system-national-signing-day

 

[CheeseRunza_rivals]

The issue is not if something else could work, the issue is it never has. Convince yourself you're the exception or strive to be the rule. Not difficult to understand.

I agree, but lets define the rule. Its my contention that it is dependent on more than just roster ratio.

 

[TheBeav815]

I agree, but lets define the rule. Its my contention that it is dependent on more than just roster ratio.

Well obviously you have to coach and develop them too. But the discussion is this simple: People are trying to say it's the coaching because they THINK we're saying, "No, coaching doesn't matter, it's the players."

We're saying it has to be both. You have to get elite players AND coach them up. If you don't have both, you're not making it to the top. We want to be back on top.

 

[jlb321_rivals110621]

Teams with shades of red on their uniforms are 8 of 12 in bcs playoff games..... meow.

It's no shocker that teams with better recruits typically win more games. But that doesn't mean that the 50% rule is peer reviewed, validated, set in stone rule. And it certainly doesn't mean it is the only metric to be considered in determining champions.

Teams with shades of red have won 62% of the national championships the last 13 years. Teams with a blue chip ratio of 50%+ have won a 100%.