Blue Chip Ratio
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.
Comments
-
Hope we can hit 8 and 5 again
-
Spiteful old bitter man. That’s why I love you.RaceBannon said:Hope we can hit 8 and 5 again
-
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?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.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
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. -
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 rosterinsinceredawg said:
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?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
-
Yeah this.dnc said:
Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.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
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.
But yeah average composite of recruiting classes would be better than BCR -
Sounds really flawedDoug 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
-
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 rosterdnc said:
Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.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
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.
-
Neighbor2972 said:
Yeah this.dnc said:
Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.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
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.
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.Doug said:Neighbor2972 said:
Yeah this.dnc said:
Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.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
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.
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/
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 teamsdnc said:
You'll need to do the work to prove the Composite number is a more accurate predictor of success than the BCR.Doug said:Neighbor2972 said:
Yeah this.dnc said:
Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.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
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.
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/
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.
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?
-
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 fardnc said:
You'll need to do the work to prove the Composite number is a more accurate predictor of success than the BCR.Doug said:Neighbor2972 said:
Yeah this.dnc said:
Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.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
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.
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/
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.
-
We?Doug said:
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 fardnc said:
You'll need to do the work to prove the Composite number is a more accurate predictor of success than the BCR.Doug said:Neighbor2972 said:
Yeah this.dnc said:
Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.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
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.
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/
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.
-
Go play in traffic while drinking bleach or get an avatar you savageDoug 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 -
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. -
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. -
Miley_Cyrus said:
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.Doug said:Miley_Cyrus said: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. -
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 said:Neighbor2972 said:
Yeah this.dnc said:
Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.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
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.
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/ -
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 UWNeighbor2972 said:
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 said:Neighbor2972 said:
Yeah this.dnc said:
Butt all teams have that type of attrition. I don't think UW has had above average attrition by any means.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
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.
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/ -
Where do you get 39?Doug said:Miley_Cyrus said: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 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:dnc said:
Where do you get 39?Doug said:Miley_Cyrus said: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 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?
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.Doug said:
By year:dnc said:
Where do you get 39?Doug said:Miley_Cyrus said: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 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?
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
Got it. -
Where do players from the c/o 2014 fit in to this? Asking for a frendnc said:
So no McGrew, Wattenberg, Gilchrist or Onzurieke.Doug said:
By year:dnc said:
Where do you get 39?Doug said:Miley_Cyrus said: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 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?
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
Got it. -
This is why the world needs noted talent evaluator @ballzNeighbor2972 said:
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.Doug said:Miley_Cyrus said: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. -
CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
This is why the world needs noted talent evaluator @ballzNeighbor2972 said:
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.Doug said:Miley_Cyrus said: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.
-
are we still counting stars
-
I though the Dawgs used the Blue Collar, Lunch Pail, kinda guy you would want your daughter to date, recruiting philosophy.
-
Yeah under Jim OwensDawgFader said:I though the Dawgs used the Blue Collar, Lunch Pail, kinda guy you would want your daughter to date, recruiting philosophy.
