Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Blue Chip Ratio

insinceredawg
insinceredawg Member Posts: 5,117
in The Fisching Hole (Recruiting)
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/LongFormArticle/Blue-chip-ratio-college-football-2020-Bud-Elliott-15-teams-who-can-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.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«13

Comments

  • Doug
    Doug Member Posts: 40
    edited July 2020
    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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • insinceredawg
    insinceredawg Member Posts: 5,117
    Doug said:

    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

    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?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,855
    edited July 2020
    Doug said:

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Doug
    Doug Member Posts: 40
    edited July 2020
    insinceredawg said:

    Doug said:

    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

    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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Neighbor2972
    Neighbor2972 Member Posts: 4,334
    dnc said:

    Doug said:

    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.
    Yeah this.

    But yeah average composite of recruiting classes would be better than BCR
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DoogWhisperer
    DoogWhisperer Member Posts: 1,035
    Doug said:

    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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Doug
    Doug Member Posts: 40
    dnc said:

    Doug said:

    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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Doug
    Doug Member Posts: 40
    Neighbor2972 said:

    dnc said:

    Doug said:

    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.
    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/
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter