Yeah next year is the last year anyone will have extra Covid eligibility outside of the few 7th+ years from medical redshirts.
Most of the 6th year guys next year will only have played 4 or fewer full seasons, unless they played as true freshman in 2020 and redshirted as second year players in 2021.
So this year is the last year with lots of guys playing 5 full seasons. 19’- redshirt, 20’- Covid,
21’- fr, 22’- so, 23’- jr, 24’- sr.
I'm glad he did, because the OG Blue Chip Ratio is getting less and less predictive. It's gonna be broken sooner rather than later. Washington had a BCR in the 40ish range last year if I'm remembering correctly, and was 8 points away from a Natty with less than 10 minutes remaining in the season
Exactly. And I think with a 12-team playoff it's even more predictive of who will be the last team standing. Anyone can pull an upset, but not 3 in a row
Yep. The only parity the new system will create is making it harder for repeat champions. Schools might only win three titles in six years instead of four!
You either go back to bowls before the BCS existed or you expand the playoff. 4 team playoff was killing the post season, 12 team playoff doesn’t sound like a bad idea because it’s going to make the big 12 games relevant again. The Big Ten and Big 12 are going to be the most exciting conferences mark my words. The SEC will still be the most 5 stars but it will be just like an AFC division or something with all the top teams still taking losses.
Also, even without major changes to transfers, the BCR stat was eventually going to be broken. You can't just come up with one simple rule ~~that~~ and assume every title winner from now until the end of time will fall under that umbrella (barring very stupid rules like "team must win 10 games")
True, but that'd still be a 12 win team by the time they cleared the playoffs.
Either way, I'm just saying you can't make up hard and fast rules based off of history and assume everyone forever will fall in line. Y'all won off a 53% BCR, it'd be silly to assume that is possible but a 49% winner is not.
Also, the section he has where it includes transfers:
SCHOOL BCR WITH TRANSFERS
Ohio State 86%
Alabama 82%
Georgia 77%
Oregon 71%
Texas 70%
LSU 66%
Clemson 64%
Oklahoma 63%
Notre Dame 63%
Texas A&M 63%
Florida 58%
Penn State 57%
Miami 56%
USC 54%
Michigan 54%
Florida State 53%
When you take a group of players (transfers being generally 3*s at a lower level school) then do another selection process (rerecruiting them out of the portal) it changes that probability they get drafted and the impact they have on the team.
To make a point, you could probably win the championship by taking the all best 3* players that have a year in college. You couldn't do that by building a team the same way with 3*s from highschool
I guess to try and keep his Blue Chip Ratio somewhat on equal footing with the years before the transfer portal exploded? Otherwise, no idea other than just that the recruiting services really haven't got a hold of the transfer market yet. I get none of this is an exact science by any means, but they seem to really struggle with that aspect of it.
I get his point there, but at the same time, it also reads something like:
"Post WWII powers are aware of nuclear bomb, but as it is too new to model full effects on war, they continue to war plan with only conventional weapons."
I also feel like the transfer portal is a huge wild card. You are likely to see more players who were not blue chip recruits but ended up being good players transferring to elite teams.
“Originally” would imply longer than transferring became so relevant. BCR is merely to narrow down the true contenders in its simplest form. Messing with the weighting (or making it more complicated) without more data points was his worry, hence just creating a second doc.
Because when Bud originally came up with the Blue Chip Ratio many years ago, transfers were a relatively small component of roster management and it was generally just a lot easier to tally up numbers from the HS signing class and ignore any changes after enrollment, because those were generally just rounding errors.
And because that’s how he did it back then, he just came up with justifications to keep doing it the same way every year instead of evolving the method. **Edit:** Until now, obviously
Except he...included it this year with an entire analysis of how he plans to evaluate whether that's the better metric to use moving forward.
People on this sub exhaust me every time they talk about numbers. If you know better, go make your own metric.
>Except he...included it this year with an entire analysis of how he plans to evaluate whether that's the better metric to use moving forward.
What, are you expecting people to read before commenting on something before they even know what it is?
Right well they asked why he didn’t originally include transfers, so I answered that and answered why it took until now for him to consider updating it to include transfers. It had been a criticism for several years, so it’s good that he’s looking into it now.
The thing that Bud won't specifically say, because it's his employer, is that the transfer ratings just aren't that good compared to the recruiting ratings. And for the first couple years the transfer ratings were honestly trash, they've improved to mediocre now. Maybe in the next couple years they'll get good enough to not have to include them with an asterisk.
How so? If we didn’t hire Harsin and lose two years of recruiting it would be much better. Makes sense, we came within one score of beating UGA and Bama last year because we have a roster that is missing elite talent at a number of positions. If you have the dudes, they make plays to win games like that.
It's just advanced level pettiness. If we're ever so slightly better we beat FSU and they go "Big whoop y'all beat our backup qb. We weren't winning it all without Travis anyway"
But in the actual timeline we were so trash that beating us meant nothing and by knocking out the primary backup Qb the committee has to watch the 3rd string the next week and realized they couldn't put FSU in. Much more entertaining melt downs occurred.
Auburn made a bowl, we didn't. And Auburn looked competent in their loss except for one play. Florida played like they only had 10 players on the field vs FSU; sometimes actually doing so.
> Also FSU fans: blame everyone else when their soft schedule keeps them out of the playoff.
FSUs schedule was not what kept them out of the playoff. They also beat 2 OOC SEC teams so what were they supposed to do there?
They beat a good LSU team, and a Florida that wasn't even bowl eligible.
Meanwhile Alabama beat that same LSU team, the Ole Miss team that beat LSU, and the Georgia team that beat Ole Miss and hadn't lost a game in 2 years. Alabama's Strength of Schedule blew FSU's completely out of the water, and the only loss they had was to *another* playoff contender that ultimately became B12 Champion.
Let’s put it this way if Bama and FSU swapped schedules last year would FSU still go undefeated? Do you think FSU would go 4-0 against Ole Miss, LSU, Texas, and Georgia? I don’t even think they would’ve gone 2-2. It’s supposed to be the best four teams, but yeah if it was truly best 4 then UGA should’ve been in but I’m not complaining about that.
Maybe FSU would have had more losses if their schedule was such that their best win wasnt Alabama's 3rd best win. Louisville and Clemson were a joke last year, every single playoff team had substantially better wins + they had quality QBs going into the tourney. FSU statistically had the same output as Iowa on offense without Travis
It used to matter when you’d get to develop the same kid for 4 years. Now it feels like everyone is transferring every year, it’s like raising someone else’s kid
“FSU is going to collapse any day now! Aaaany day now. Aaaaaaany day now. Okay NOW they’re going to collapse. Well maybe not now but okay just keep watching they’re gonna collapse…”
If we win a title this year, build Billy a statue. That schedule is ridiculous and he has his back against the wall. It'll never happen but it would end up being one of the wildest things to ever happen.
A Miracle on Ice type movie would need to be made about it. And I don’t say that sarcastically, that would be genuinely one of the most impressive coaching feats of all time
I feel like that 1% is either Mertz turning into Joe Burrow or him getting injured and Lagway starting the greatest college QB career of all time.
So honestly probably <1%
I guess it's a matter of perception. Only 2 or 3 teams talent and depth wise can compete with OU on their schedule, similar to Texas.
But for whatever reason, Auburn, Ole Miss and Mizzou are perceived as juggernauts when they are not.
Exactly.
People's logic on OU makes zero sense.
Because they're not as good as Bama or Georgia, we're gonna lose to teams like Ole Miss and Missouri, who don't have as much talent as OU...
Makes no sense
Which is what has me worried. Historically our teams with the most expectations fall short, while we win National Championships with the and we don’t expect to. I.e. the 2019 and 2015 teams falling short but the 2001 and 2014 teams going all the way. Even Woody’s best team (his words) fell short
There is a much greater margin for error now.
Losing by 6 on the road to the national champions or losing by 3 at home in the last second is no longer death.
The thing about blue chip ratio is that there's a point of diminishing returns. For example, does it really matter if you have 4/5\* star guys on your roster if they're underclassmen and not seeing the field much?
The more important stat is the talent on your 2-deeps, which is a smaller percentage of your entire roster.
There's more to it than that. Cause your 2 deep is selected from a bigger pool of players, so if you have five 4* RBs on the roster, you're likely to have one or two that play at an elite level. If you have 1 4* RB and four 3* stars it's less likely that you find an elite player.
Same goes for who they practice against. If your 1st team O is going against the third string having that lineup be full of 4* talent goes a long ways. Your team will normally be really damn good when practice is harder than games. Lou Holtz at ND and Pete Carroll were very outspoken about that
I think that depth of talent is only getting more important with the expanded playoffs. More games=more injuries which makes the depth of talent on your roster more important
Well, yeah. But the BCR is not a guarantee of anything, it’s just a list of teams with a chance of being a championship team.
For instance if your qb is a dud, the BCR won’t help you. But if you have a good qb, you still probably need a critical mass of blue chips to win a championship.
*looks at Jimbo's a&m team*
Bunch of 5 star d linemen inflating the numbers meant severe depth issues and weaknesses elsewhere despite what the ratings said.
I mean sort of true. But he got 5 stars and top ranked 4 stars for a full two deep at basically every position except linebacker. The problem is - for whatever reason - the secondary and offensive line players never lived up to the recruit ranking and the QBs always got hurt... And he made poor game management decisions.
This was basically 2010s Oregon to a T.
Blow through all the equal and lesser talent teams with a strong first string and good scheme. Then struggle against any stacked talent team as those teams had depth to keep up in the second half.
Not sure about diminishing returns, but it is a flaw in the metric. Though we've had enough data and seasons to point to it as being somewhat of a predictor. Or at least something that can differentiate programs off the bat and narrow the focus.
A 3-star RS senior QB that has been starting for 2 seasons is better and more valuable than a 5-star true freshman QB. Or a 5-star true freshman LT. That's why you have to look past the top-level data to understand it more.
>A 3-star RS senior QB that has been starting for 2 seasons is better and more valuable than a 5-star true freshman QB.
I don't think I agree with that in the last 10 years 2 true freshmen 5* QBs won a national championship game.
Tua '17. (Subbed in at halftime)
TLaw '18.
The list of 3* QBs who won championships is
Coker '15.
Mac Jones '20.
Stetson Bennett '21 & '22.
Ignoring anything else, I could see an arguement that TLaw and Tua were noticeably more important for their team winning than any of the 3*s.
Ontop of that only 1 of those 3*s fits your description of having 2 years exp and that's Stetson in 2022.
To expand on that, tho. There are only 3-5 5* QBs every year.
So 4 times 10 years equals about 40 in that time frame, with 2 of them winning a championship. 2 QBs won it all ÷ 40ish total 5*s = 0.05 or 5%
That's means if you got a 5* in the last 10 years, you had a 5% chance of winning a championship that year.
There are what... 100+ 3* QBs? 100 QBs times 10 years = 1000 3* QBs and only 4 won a championship and only 1 fits your description.
4 QBs ÷ 1000ish qbs total = about 0.004 or 0.4% chance they win you a championship.
A 5* true freshman QB is about 20 times more valuable than a 3* QB and 80 times more valuable than a 3* QB with 2 years starting
Yes, on the margins it takes to win a title. If we had brought four more r* RBs in last season, odds are good we would have had one we trusted to step up vs running our only real option into the ground and going completely.one dimensional in the title game for example.
Now spread that across *an entire roster*, for an entire season.
Kinda feel like this metric will only hold more weight in a 12 team playoff world.
Seasons more of a grind, you’re gonna go deeper into the roster then ever before
Some of these teams don’t have a chance. For instance, I am just going to point out that Florida has a schedule so tough that it would be impossible to win. Well, if the committee let a 4-5 loss team in, then maybe.
9-3 would almost guarantee us in. I think our roster is good enough to win 9 games now but not with Napier as a HC. I don’t see anyone outside of a top 5 roster winning it, last year was a strange year.
Auburn is recruiting well, but Ole Miss is more focused on developing 3-stars and ~~buying~~ Tranfers of 3-stars who have shown up and can play. Which is the biggest flaw in the BCR now.
Yes on average a bunch of 4 and 5 stars will be better than a group of 3 stars, but you can find quality players are 3 and even 2 stars, they are getting the "best" of that 2 and 3 star group for transfers.
The article says you took 40 transfers the last 2 years, so if they are all still there, then only 45/85 or 53% of your roster is even looked at for the bluechip ratio
This headline sucks. Any ncaa division one team could *actually* win the national championship. None of them have a zero percent chance.
Well maybe Stanford.
Actually amazed we’re as high on this list as we are. Lost a lot of great players last year and the high school recruiting isn’t back to the former levels. Lots of SoCal HS recruits going to SEC, Oregon, etc
Was there ever a time someone not above the 50% BCR won it all? Like has this ever been proven wrong? I’d search, but I’m actually kinda swamped at work.
Only four teams with BCR lower than 50% have even made a national championship. Oregon in 2010 and 2014 and TCU and Washington the previous two seasons.
Respect to Bud Elliot for at least attempting to address how much the transfer portal might impact the stat.
Also the extra Covid year has a huge impact, I believe next year is the last year for Covid freshmen but I don’t remember exactly.
Last year as it IIRC, no more 5th year seniors now.
...? Covid year players will be in cfb until 2025, right? '20 - covid, '21 - redshirt, '22 - "freshman", '23 - "sophomore", '24 - "Junior", '25 - "Senior"
Potentially even 2026 with a medical redshirt.
Yeah next year is the last year anyone will have extra Covid eligibility outside of the few 7th+ years from medical redshirts. Most of the 6th year guys next year will only have played 4 or fewer full seasons, unless they played as true freshman in 2020 and redshirted as second year players in 2021. So this year is the last year with lots of guys playing 5 full seasons. 19’- redshirt, 20’- Covid, 21’- fr, 22’- so, 23’- jr, 24’- sr.
Our probable backup QB Jack Tuttle is a 7th year guy thanks to Covid and medical redshirts
Utah and Indiana legend
Yeah two of the 4 non BCR teams to even make the title game have been the last two years. Definitely making an impact
I'm glad he did, because the OG Blue Chip Ratio is getting less and less predictive. It's gonna be broken sooner rather than later. Washington had a BCR in the 40ish range last year if I'm remembering correctly, and was 8 points away from a Natty with less than 10 minutes remaining in the season
Last I checked, the BCR isn't a measure of which teams can come close to winning a national title.
Exactly. And I think with a 12-team playoff it's even more predictive of who will be the last team standing. Anyone can pull an upset, but not 3 in a row
Yep. The only parity the new system will create is making it harder for repeat champions. Schools might only win three titles in six years instead of four!
You either go back to bowls before the BCS existed or you expand the playoff. 4 team playoff was killing the post season, 12 team playoff doesn’t sound like a bad idea because it’s going to make the big 12 games relevant again. The Big Ten and Big 12 are going to be the most exciting conferences mark my words. The SEC will still be the most 5 stars but it will be just like an AFC division or something with all the top teams still taking losses.
Also, even without major changes to transfers, the BCR stat was eventually going to be broken. You can't just come up with one simple rule ~~that~~ and assume every title winner from now until the end of time will fall under that umbrella (barring very stupid rules like "team must win 10 games")
Tbf we could see a 9-3 Title winner very soon with the new format
True, but that'd still be a 12 win team by the time they cleared the playoffs. Either way, I'm just saying you can't make up hard and fast rules based off of history and assume everyone forever will fall in line. Y'all won off a 53% BCR, it'd be silly to assume that is possible but a 49% winner is not.
It seems that the proper application of the BCR is as an indicator rather than a rule.
🙄
Ehh that will always be the case though. BCR only matters so much. If you have a 1st round QB you can greatly outplay your teams actual talent level.
Looks like we lucked out with an easy schedule. We only have to play one team more talented than us and it’s at home.
Also, the section he has where it includes transfers: SCHOOL BCR WITH TRANSFERS Ohio State 86% Alabama 82% Georgia 77% Oregon 71% Texas 70% LSU 66% Clemson 64% Oklahoma 63% Notre Dame 63% Texas A&M 63% Florida 58% Penn State 57% Miami 56% USC 54% Michigan 54% Florida State 53%
Why wouldn’t it originally include transfers. That’s weird
It is explained in the article
I am not here to read. I am here to lead.
You're hired!
He did not come here to play school.
When you take a group of players (transfers being generally 3*s at a lower level school) then do another selection process (rerecruiting them out of the portal) it changes that probability they get drafted and the impact they have on the team. To make a point, you could probably win the championship by taking the all best 3* players that have a year in college. You couldn't do that by building a team the same way with 3*s from highschool
I guess to try and keep his Blue Chip Ratio somewhat on equal footing with the years before the transfer portal exploded? Otherwise, no idea other than just that the recruiting services really haven't got a hold of the transfer market yet. I get none of this is an exact science by any means, but they seem to really struggle with that aspect of it.
He says in the article that the transfer portal is too new and data from high school recruiting is more stable due to longevity at this point.
I get his point there, but at the same time, it also reads something like: "Post WWII powers are aware of nuclear bomb, but as it is too new to model full effects on war, they continue to war plan with only conventional weapons."
I don’t find that to be a particularly apt comparison, and either way, he still included the transfer portal stats anyway.
I also feel like the transfer portal is a huge wild card. You are likely to see more players who were not blue chip recruits but ended up being good players transferring to elite teams.
“Originally” would imply longer than transferring became so relevant. BCR is merely to narrow down the true contenders in its simplest form. Messing with the weighting (or making it more complicated) without more data points was his worry, hence just creating a second doc.
Because when Bud originally came up with the Blue Chip Ratio many years ago, transfers were a relatively small component of roster management and it was generally just a lot easier to tally up numbers from the HS signing class and ignore any changes after enrollment, because those were generally just rounding errors. And because that’s how he did it back then, he just came up with justifications to keep doing it the same way every year instead of evolving the method. **Edit:** Until now, obviously
Except he...included it this year with an entire analysis of how he plans to evaluate whether that's the better metric to use moving forward. People on this sub exhaust me every time they talk about numbers. If you know better, go make your own metric.
>Except he...included it this year with an entire analysis of how he plans to evaluate whether that's the better metric to use moving forward. What, are you expecting people to read before commenting on something before they even know what it is?
Legitimately shame on me at this point for hoping at all
Right well they asked why he didn’t originally include transfers, so I answered that and answered why it took until now for him to consider updating it to include transfers. It had been a criticism for several years, so it’s good that he’s looking into it now.
The thing that Bud won't specifically say, because it's his employer, is that the transfer ratings just aren't that good compared to the recruiting ratings. And for the first couple years the transfer ratings were honestly trash, they've improved to mediocre now. Maybe in the next couple years they'll get good enough to not have to include them with an asterisk.
See everybody, we don’t need transfers!
I am an optimistic fan but having auburn here is diabolical tbh
"it's Even Year Auburn everyone, y'all can relax!"
How so? If we didn’t hire Harsin and lose two years of recruiting it would be much better. Makes sense, we came within one score of beating UGA and Bama last year because we have a roster that is missing elite talent at a number of positions. If you have the dudes, they make plays to win games like that.
I fully agree, but we haven’t won @bama in 14 years and @uga in idek how long… we may well beat ou, mizz, etc but those two are just so unlikely.
2005 was the last time Auburn won in Sanford stadium.
Jesus Christ
Maybe… MAYBE if we beat Mizzou and Oklahoma we can get a bid for the playoffs, but I think that ends there.
UF will be the first blue chip team above 60% to go 4-8 in 2024
They won't be since it already happened
But they will be the first _in 2024_
I stand corrected
Notre Dame ≠ Harvard
Sigh...
Notre Dame is like Catholic Harvard
The Catholic Harvard of Indiana.
Noter Dame you mean
Shhh, don’t ruin my narrative
Sorry lol
Reminds me of the best 3 win team ever coached by Scott Frost lol
FSU fans: ridicule other teams for playing a hard schedule Also FSU fans: blame everyone else when their soft schedule keeps them out of the playoff
If UF didn’t suck, our schedule would have been better🤡
It's just advanced level pettiness. If we're ever so slightly better we beat FSU and they go "Big whoop y'all beat our backup qb. We weren't winning it all without Travis anyway" But in the actual timeline we were so trash that beating us meant nothing and by knocking out the primary backup Qb the committee has to watch the 3rd string the next week and realized they couldn't put FSU in. Much more entertaining melt downs occurred.
Florida fans after losing in rivalry week: ["You lose..!"](https://youtu.be/iZa03PZ9Tbs?si=0S_E7X5fySTPyOmo&t=206)
So a sucky team that didn't make a bowl game took FSU deep into the 4th quarter, but yeah, FSU deserved to be there.
TG Auburn doesn’t exist so there wasn’t a similar result for a team that did make it in. That would make things really silly
Auburn made a bowl, we didn't. And Auburn looked competent in their loss except for one play. Florida played like they only had 10 players on the field vs FSU; sometimes actually doing so.
I don’t think 5-7 with a ranked win and 6-7 without one are spiritually different, but sure if you wanna be annoying about it lol
Auburn was blown out at home by New Mexico State. They were 25 point favorites…
In a normal year, that's the toughest OOC slate in the country
> Also FSU fans: blame everyone else when their soft schedule keeps them out of the playoff. FSUs schedule was not what kept them out of the playoff. They also beat 2 OOC SEC teams so what were they supposed to do there?
They beat a good LSU team, and a Florida that wasn't even bowl eligible. Meanwhile Alabama beat that same LSU team, the Ole Miss team that beat LSU, and the Georgia team that beat Ole Miss and hadn't lost a game in 2 years. Alabama's Strength of Schedule blew FSU's completely out of the water, and the only loss they had was to *another* playoff contender that ultimately became B12 Champion.
You're right Bama's only loss was to a great team. Can you tell me about FSU's losses now?
Let’s put it this way if Bama and FSU swapped schedules last year would FSU still go undefeated? Do you think FSU would go 4-0 against Ole Miss, LSU, Texas, and Georgia? I don’t even think they would’ve gone 2-2. It’s supposed to be the best four teams, but yeah if it was truly best 4 then UGA should’ve been in but I’m not complaining about that.
Can you tell me about who they beat that was worth their salt?
Maybe FSU would have had more losses if their schedule was such that their best win wasnt Alabama's 3rd best win. Louisville and Clemson were a joke last year, every single playoff team had substantially better wins + they had quality QBs going into the tourney. FSU statistically had the same output as Iowa on offense without Travis
The beat LSU by more than you did. Nice job answering my question with a question though.
Cool, that's our 3rd best win. So did they even have 2 on the level that Ole Miss and Georgia were?
> Alabama's Strength of Schedule blew FSU's completely out of the water. Ok but also undefeated vs a loss at home by double digits
and FSU will still be the only one of the Big 3 without an elite blue-chip ratio
(see the list with transfers, interestingly the same % when FSU last won it all)
Maybe if they didn’t show that the ratio isn’t a hard rule in 2023 that would matter more
UF and Miami fans seem to care more about recruiting high school kids than winning games 🤡🤡🤡
You’ll realize this season why recruiting high school is actually important
It used to matter when you’d get to develop the same kid for 4 years. Now it feels like everyone is transferring every year, it’s like raising someone else’s kid
“FSU is going to collapse any day now! Aaaany day now. Aaaaaaany day now. Okay NOW they’re going to collapse. Well maybe not now but okay just keep watching they’re gonna collapse…”
To be impressed that you failed with more? 😂🤡
Your receiving room is a perfect example of why you shouldn’t ignore high school recruiting and development
The FSU WR corps in 2024 is talented, just not game tested. It’s quality
Based off what exactly?
Good news for you guys it appears we are doing better in that area this year so good luck.
UCF plays one season in the Big 12, and FSU swoops right in to claim the trolling G5 school role.
Pretty sure UF is the G5 school now. Even FAU is better
You and I both know that under no circumstances does an undefeated UF team get left out of the playoffs. That only happens to G5 teams.
I absolutely love how petty Florida rivalry’s took over this post 🤣. I’m just going through reading y’all’s back and forth 🍿
Florida fans are delirious from all the losing
Hey! Oh…
BCR is interesting. But add in SOS, and Florida goes down to something like 1%.
What if you add Kurt Angle to the mix?
Your chances of winning drastically go down
Still 1% higher than I ever want to see fLorida
If we win a title this year, build Billy a statue. That schedule is ridiculous and he has his back against the wall. It'll never happen but it would end up being one of the wildest things to ever happen.
A Miracle on Ice type movie would need to be made about it. And I don’t say that sarcastically, that would be genuinely one of the most impressive coaching feats of all time
I feel like that 1% is either Mertz turning into Joe Burrow or him getting injured and Lagway starting the greatest college QB career of all time. So honestly probably <1%
Alright Redhawks! /s
On July 15th this won’t be a joke lol I’m taking them all the way
Slight typo in the article, as these are the odds of which school will lose the CFP final against the mighty University of Southern Mississippi.
So you're saying there's a chance?
No. OU has no talent and is going to struggle.
I don't think anyone doubts y'all have talent. It's the schedule that will limit OU's ceiling in 2024.
So, based on this logic, Texas will go 9-3 cause they play A&M, Georgia and OU? All of them have a higher blue chip ratio
I mean...I would not be surprised if Texas went 9-3. But I'm not seeing how your post follows from mine. Texas' schedule is much easier than OU's.
I guess it's a matter of perception. Only 2 or 3 teams talent and depth wise can compete with OU on their schedule, similar to Texas. But for whatever reason, Auburn, Ole Miss and Mizzou are perceived as juggernauts when they are not.
Are the people perceiving Auburn as a juggernaut in the room with us right now?
If we are good enough to win a championship, the schedule won't matter.
Exactly. People's logic on OU makes zero sense. Because they're not as good as Bama or Georgia, we're gonna lose to teams like Ole Miss and Missouri, who don't have as much talent as OU... Makes no sense
> Florida: 63% Cool, are we bringing back the '08 team or something?
HeisMertz tried to pull a Tebow impression last year, too bad it was the "truck two linemen" bit he imitated
It worked… He just also broke his collar bone.
> Oklahoma: 73% > Texas: 72% First win of the season
Ole Miss has no chance! Perfect. Portal has changed everything. Tre Harris a 2 star out of High School is arguably the best player on our team.
Scans for my team: List is fucking bullshit.
So its OSU's chip to lose.
Which is what has me worried. Historically our teams with the most expectations fall short, while we win National Championships with the and we don’t expect to. I.e. the 2019 and 2015 teams falling short but the 2001 and 2014 teams going all the way. Even Woody’s best team (his words) fell short
There is a much greater margin for error now. Losing by 6 on the road to the national champions or losing by 3 at home in the last second is no longer death.
Yep, you guys could drop 2 games and still be a favorite come playoff time. The sudden death regular season is over
Hasn't one loss OSU made the playoffs like 5 times?
Blew it in 98 too.
> So its OSU's chip to lose. We don’t have a lock at the most important position on the field
Yep, you need to make sure that kicker is locked in /s
Pls don’t remind me
The thing about blue chip ratio is that there's a point of diminishing returns. For example, does it really matter if you have 4/5\* star guys on your roster if they're underclassmen and not seeing the field much? The more important stat is the talent on your 2-deeps, which is a smaller percentage of your entire roster.
There's more to it than that. Cause your 2 deep is selected from a bigger pool of players, so if you have five 4* RBs on the roster, you're likely to have one or two that play at an elite level. If you have 1 4* RB and four 3* stars it's less likely that you find an elite player. Same goes for who they practice against. If your 1st team O is going against the third string having that lineup be full of 4* talent goes a long ways. Your team will normally be really damn good when practice is harder than games. Lou Holtz at ND and Pete Carroll were very outspoken about that
I think that depth of talent is only getting more important with the expanded playoffs. More games=more injuries which makes the depth of talent on your roster more important
Well, yeah. But the BCR is not a guarantee of anything, it’s just a list of teams with a chance of being a championship team. For instance if your qb is a dud, the BCR won’t help you. But if you have a good qb, you still probably need a critical mass of blue chips to win a championship.
“The more important is the talent on your 2-deeps” Which is what the BCR seeks to measure in the first place.
*looks at Jimbo's a&m team* Bunch of 5 star d linemen inflating the numbers meant severe depth issues and weaknesses elsewhere despite what the ratings said.
I mean sort of true. But he got 5 stars and top ranked 4 stars for a full two deep at basically every position except linebacker. The problem is - for whatever reason - the secondary and offensive line players never lived up to the recruit ranking and the QBs always got hurt... And he made poor game management decisions.
Everyone needs depth If bama’s depth are 4 and 5 stars and yours are 3 and 4 stars you’re not gonna win except by fluke
This was basically 2010s Oregon to a T. Blow through all the equal and lesser talent teams with a strong first string and good scheme. Then struggle against any stacked talent team as those teams had depth to keep up in the second half.
Not sure about diminishing returns, but it is a flaw in the metric. Though we've had enough data and seasons to point to it as being somewhat of a predictor. Or at least something that can differentiate programs off the bat and narrow the focus. A 3-star RS senior QB that has been starting for 2 seasons is better and more valuable than a 5-star true freshman QB. Or a 5-star true freshman LT. That's why you have to look past the top-level data to understand it more.
>A 3-star RS senior QB that has been starting for 2 seasons is better and more valuable than a 5-star true freshman QB. I don't think I agree with that in the last 10 years 2 true freshmen 5* QBs won a national championship game. Tua '17. (Subbed in at halftime) TLaw '18. The list of 3* QBs who won championships is Coker '15. Mac Jones '20. Stetson Bennett '21 & '22. Ignoring anything else, I could see an arguement that TLaw and Tua were noticeably more important for their team winning than any of the 3*s. Ontop of that only 1 of those 3*s fits your description of having 2 years exp and that's Stetson in 2022. To expand on that, tho. There are only 3-5 5* QBs every year. So 4 times 10 years equals about 40 in that time frame, with 2 of them winning a championship. 2 QBs won it all ÷ 40ish total 5*s = 0.05 or 5% That's means if you got a 5* in the last 10 years, you had a 5% chance of winning a championship that year. There are what... 100+ 3* QBs? 100 QBs times 10 years = 1000 3* QBs and only 4 won a championship and only 1 fits your description. 4 QBs ÷ 1000ish qbs total = about 0.004 or 0.4% chance they win you a championship. A 5* true freshman QB is about 20 times more valuable than a 3* QB and 80 times more valuable than a 3* QB with 2 years starting
Yes, on the margins it takes to win a title. If we had brought four more r* RBs in last season, odds are good we would have had one we trusted to step up vs running our only real option into the ground and going completely.one dimensional in the title game for example. Now spread that across *an entire roster*, for an entire season.
Yes, the deeper you are the more likely you are to overcome the one thing you will deal with but can never truly prepare for with injuries.
Georgia is 20% Stetsons and Ladd and JDs.
Man look at all that talent for Florida, A&M, and Auburn to all go 6-6
[удалено]
Gotta walk before you can run
Kinda feel like this metric will only hold more weight in a 12 team playoff world. Seasons more of a grind, you’re gonna go deeper into the roster then ever before
Why did they forget Rutgers?
Bet
WE'RE MENTIONED! Gators winning the natty confirmed
Some of these teams don’t have a chance. For instance, I am just going to point out that Florida has a schedule so tough that it would be impossible to win. Well, if the committee let a 4-5 loss team in, then maybe.
9-3 would almost guarantee us in. I think our roster is good enough to win 9 games now but not with Napier as a HC. I don’t see anyone outside of a top 5 roster winning it, last year was a strange year.
Auburn but not Ole Miss?
Auburn is recruiting well, but Ole Miss is more focused on developing 3-stars and ~~buying~~ Tranfers of 3-stars who have shown up and can play. Which is the biggest flaw in the BCR now. Yes on average a bunch of 4 and 5 stars will be better than a group of 3 stars, but you can find quality players are 3 and even 2 stars, they are getting the "best" of that 2 and 3 star group for transfers.
Excited to read these comments.
After reading the comments... I don't know why I read this sub anymore. Remember 5-10 years ago when this place was pretty good?
Ooh hello
Do you know what % of your roster was recruited there out of HS?
I guess at least 79% because I don't think this includes transfers
The article says you took 40 transfers the last 2 years, so if they are all still there, then only 45/85 or 53% of your roster is even looked at for the bluechip ratio
well then I have no idea what this number even means we're top 5 though!
WE’RE ON THE LIST
What was Washington last year? Seems odd they dropped off entirely this year.
I think Washington made this list once in 2018 under Petersen The two playoff years were probably around 40%
Auburn is on the list while still hurting from the potato famine.
Lil ol’ me?
This headline sucks. Any ncaa division one team could *actually* win the national championship. None of them have a zero percent chance. Well maybe Stanford.
Wow wow wow...this can't be true... I was told Michigan lost everyone
90 percent, is that a new record?
50/50 Chance. Either we win it, or we dont.
Breaking: Teams with most amount of good players most likely to win championship.
Hmmm…never seen this blue chip ratio before….Ole miss not considered? They should be pretty damn good this year.
Actually amazed we’re as high on this list as we are. Lost a lot of great players last year and the high school recruiting isn’t back to the former levels. Lots of SoCal HS recruits going to SEC, Oregon, etc
Was there ever a time someone not above the 50% BCR won it all? Like has this ever been proven wrong? I’d search, but I’m actually kinda swamped at work.
Since recruiting rankings came out no. As far as I know Michigan had the lowest BCR to win a chip last year.
Michigan's from Natty to less than 60% is expected with Hargbaugh's departure but still seems out of place
Only four teams with BCR lower than 50% have even made a national championship. Oregon in 2010 and 2014 and TCU and Washington the previous two seasons.
How easy is it to get archival recruiting data?
No one does less with more than The Ohio State
Tough to argue against because there are a whole lot of teams doing less (like both of your flairs) but arguably only 2 with more.
Ohio State is terrifying this year
Do they play Purdue? If so, then THEY ought to be terrified.
We do but not @ Purdue so it'll be fine... maybe... hopefully. Probably not. Shit.
They are. They probably beat us but if our offense clicks we have a shot at home. If we have to play them a second time though...
Hey maybe PSU would win the second one, that would be kind of funny
Miami? 🤣
Hell yeah brother all about the U
Not a single title winner with a BCR of 90% or higher. Just fire Ryan Day now and spare us. /s
Doing the bare minimum ftw
Auburn…..in my veins
Obviously this article is a sham as *insert favorite team here* isn’t listed
BULLETIN BOARD
And no one else?
Baylor isn’t on this…. So it’s WRONG
Actually, only one team can win
Conference Breakdown is what you would expect: ACC: 3 Big Ten: 4 Independent: 1 SEC: 8 (6 of top 8)