I've always felt that it is like a three legged stool. It takes coaching, talent, and experience for any team at any level to reach the top. If a team is deficient in any of these areas, they can try to make up for it by strengthening the other legs, but it is a tall task. It also seems to me that coaching is the one leg that has the most impact on the others (coaches recruit talent, develop talent, and develop experience/reps and game situations).
More Blue Chip ratio numbers
- Thread starter jlb321_rivals110621
- Start date
Completely agree - I certainly am not arguing that the other “legs” aren’t as or more important - just some way to measure the talent portion. And you are correct - in today’s world coaching involves talent acquisition
Last edited:
The ratio was defined by using the national championship team dataset, so of course when it is applied back to the data it yields 100%. 60% of the time, it works every time.
And I'm not trying to argue that recruiting is important. I think you need to get the highest ranked players possible. I just think the actual star assignments are kind of arbitrary, and to base an analysis on these assignments is kind of sloppy. I'd rather see the analysis performed on some kind of universal ranking system.
The ranking system is subjective - it always will be. The ratio uses the 247 composite which looks at rankings from several different sites. The model is an attempt to take imperfect data and come up with a predictive model. Looking at 13 years of data they have concluded that a national champion will come from a small group of teams with a ratio of 50%. They could have set the number at 60% and said 80% of champions have this ratio. When a team wins it with a below 50% ratio then the model would be predictive at 90%+.
If you have another model please share
My guess is that if I offered you a monetary bet over the next decade of who will win the national championship and I get the 10-12 teams with a ratio of 50% or higher and you get the rest of the field there is no way you would take the bet
Everyone agrees that you need talent to win the NC - this is just one way of trying to quantify a teams roster talent
You are right, I wouldn't take that bet. How 'bout you let me pick 12 teams and you get the rest of the field?
If i gave you the top 15 ranked teams that didn’t have the 50% ratio, (or a shade of red in their colors...kidding) and i took the field would you take that bet?
The main point of this thread for me was to show what recruiting rankings are associated with what blue chip ratios
Many have said that 50% might not be consistently possible at Nebraska (which may be true) but with coaching and player development we shoul be able to compete if we can hit a 40% ratio.
Looking at class rankings the 15th ranked class over the last 10 years was at a ratio of 40% or more 6 times. The more realistic goal of 40+% set by some still means you better have top 15 classes every year. This probably is achievable
The 50% mark requires yearly top 10 classes for the most part - as even the 10th ranked class over the last 10 years was only above 50% 6 times
Many have said that 50% might not be consistently possible at Nebraska (which may be true) but with coaching and player development we shoul be able to compete if we can hit a 40% ratio.
Looking at class rankings the 15th ranked class over the last 10 years was at a ratio of 40% or more 6 times. The more realistic goal of 40+% set by some still means you better have top 15 classes every year. This probably is achievable
The 50% mark requires yearly top 10 classes for the most part - as even the 10th ranked class over the last 10 years was only above 50% 6 times
Nah, that’s my bad. I kind of took exception to that and shouldn’t have. I really don’t think we are as far apart on the issue as it appears.