at least 50% blue chip prospects on roster=national champion

[58straight]

If any, what recruitng service is used to determined this racio?

"Every BCS champion since recruiting rankings could be accurately tracked (2005, or four classes after Scout joined Rivals in rating players) has met a benchmark: it's recruited more blue-chips (four- and five-star players) than lesser-rated players over its four previous signing classes."


"Note: Player ratings are from the 247Sports Composite, which blends ratings from 247Sports, Scout, ESPN and Rivals. We tried to confirm accurate and complete signing class data for every team. This does not include walk-ons or players who never signed scholarship papers.

thnx....I didn't read the entire artice....guess our 2015 class shoulda been better on paper....I do know '09 bama and '14 OSU had several 3* players with big roles.....how many blue chippers did '09 bama have?

no problem those quotes are from another article that's linked in the original i posted. i'm not sure what percent saban was at in 09 but i'm sure very high, I think miami is on track to get where we need to be all things considered with golden, the scandal and the last 10 years 38 percent is not bad, also looking where georgia is at mark richt left them with a roster that can contend immediately, there is no reason he cant surpass that at miami.

 

[canes614]

If any, what recruitng service is used to determined this racio?

"Every BCS champion since recruiting rankings could be accurately tracked (2005, or four classes after Scout joined Rivals in rating players) has met a benchmark: it's recruited more blue-chips (four- and five-star players) than lesser-rated players over its four previous signing classes."


"Note: Player ratings are from the 247Sports Composite, which blends ratings from 247Sports, Scout, ESPN and Rivals. We tried to confirm accurate and complete signing class data for every team. This does not include walk-ons or players who never signed scholarship papers.

The other important point: It doesn't matter who you sign, it matters who is on your roster. So just as important as signing a good class, it's important to keep your blue chips and send lesser players packing. Clear the roster of clutter.

Also keep in mind that some players develop in college. David Njoku was a 3-star in high school but today he is a blue chipper.

The way I like to look at it is for freshman and sophomores...look at their star rank. For juniors and seniors, look at their NFL draft forecast.

Experts believe Njoku will be drafted, therefore he is a blue chip. But on the other hand, you have players who were 5 stars in high school who are not on the draft board, then they lose blue chip status in my book

good point, alabama has an absurd percentage at 77 so they have breathing room when they have the 4/5 star busts that wash out you referenced

That's right, and they're not afraid to turn the roster over and cut kids who aren't up to par. Also over signing helps.

We should be doing all of that, and we should be taking partial qualifiers and kids with disciplinary problems who need a second chance (JC Jackson for example)

Whatever it takes to stack blue chip talent

if you look at the number of 3* players starting on those teams the blue chip numbers can be misleading....IMO....just think "if" TCU woulda made the first playoffs over OSU who knows? You can build a championship team with blue chippers along with older developed players.....many of those blue chippers leave early and some don't even play as frosh.....the bottom line is you haveta build quality depth one way or the other.

 

[MessiahChild]

Auburn won the national championship in 2011 without meeting this threshold.

 

[ThomasM]

Maybe good coaches get good players and it adds up to wins. Amazing theory.

 

[John77]

Here is some more empirical data from rivals to those who are interested. Since 1996 every team that has won a national championship besides Texas in 2005 and Oklahoma in 2000 had at least two top ten recruiting classes in the prior four years.

1996 Florida (#6 in 1993, #2 in 1995)

1997 Nebraska/Michigan (Nebraska #5 in 1995 and number #9 in 1996 Michigan: #4 in 1994, #7 in 1995, #8 in 1996, #4 in 1997)

1998 Tennessee (#7 in 1998, #5 in 1997, #3 in 1996)

1999 Florida State (#5 in 1998, #1 in 1997, #5 in 1996)

2000 Oklahoma (#1 3 in 2000, and #2 5 in both 1997 and 1998 Rivals) *OU is the only program without a top ten class to win the title in Rivals history. But it did have 3 top 25 classes

2001 Miami (#2 in 2001, #9 in 2000, #8 in 1999)

2002 Ohio State (#7 in 2002, #4 in 2000, #2 in 1999)

2003 LSU/USC (LSU #1 class in 2003, #4 in 2001 USC #3 in 2003, #1 4 in 2000, #2 1 in 2001)

2004 USC (#3 class in 2003, #1 class in 2004)

2005 Texas (#1 class in 2002, #1 5 class in 2003 with only 18 recruits, which averaged highest star rating in country, #1 8 class in 2004 -- only signed 15) If Texas had signed 20 players in either of these classes, they would have ranked in the top five. The #1 class in 2002 was simply too large, with over 30 players).

2006 Florida (#2 in 2003, #1 0 in 2004, #2 in 2006)

2007 LSU (#1 in 2003, #1 in 2004, #7 in 2006, #4 in 2007)

2008 Florida (#2 in 2006, #1 in 2007, #3 in 2008)

2009 Alabama (#1 0 in 2007, #1 in 2008, #1 in 2009)

2010 Auburn (#1 0 in 2006, #7 in 2007, #4 in 2010) Auburn was #2 0 in 2008 and #1 9 in 2009

2011 Alabama (#1 in 2008, #1 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #1 in 2011)

2012 Alabama (#1 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #1 in 2011, #1 in 2012)

2013 Florida State (#7 in 2009, #1 0 in 2010, #2 in 2011, #6 in 2012, #1 0 in 2013)

2014 Ohio State (#1 1 in 2011, #4 in 2012, #2 in 2013, #3 in 2014)

 

[clg003]

this article makes the case that the previous 10 plus national title winners all had signed at least 50% blue chip prospects to its roster (4 or 5 star players) for 4 years before winning. The 13 teams to reach the blue-chip threshold this year are Alabama, USC, Ohio State, LSU, Notre Dame, Florida State, Michigan, Auburn, UCLA, Texas A&M, Georgia, Clemson, and Texas.

Miami is listed at 38% I believe Mark Richt will have that number above 50% after a few more recruiting classes.

The 2016 Blue-Chip Ratio: How close is your CFB team to having title-level talent? - SBNation.com

I have been saying this for some time but bafoons on this site dont believe in stats as much as they can convince themselves that they know some ****.

I have thrown the challenge out several times as well.

Show me a national champ without multiple top 5 classes on their roster. Still nothing but crickets. Its why I think Richt was our best option as well. Because if you coach down here all you need to do is recruit your FN *** off and you will have enough blue chippers to dominate. No other school is smack dab in the middle of all this blue FN chip talent.

 

[canes614]

If any, what recruitng service is used to determined this racio?

"Every BCS champion since recruiting rankings could be accurately tracked (2005, or four classes after Scout joined Rivals in rating players) has met a benchmark: it's recruited more blue-chips (four- and five-star players) than lesser-rated players over its four previous signing classes."


"Note: Player ratings are from the 247Sports Composite, which blends ratings from 247Sports, Scout, ESPN and Rivals. We tried to confirm accurate and complete signing class data for every team. This does not include walk-ons or players who never signed scholarship papers.

Here is some more empirical data from rivals to those who are interested. Since 1996 every team that has won a national championship besides Texas in 2005 and Oklahoma in 2000 had at least two top ten recruiting classes in the prior four years.

1996 Florida (#6 in 1993, #2 in 1995)

1997 Nebraska/Michigan (Nebraska #5 in 1995 and number #9 in 1996 Michigan: #4 in 1994, #7 in 1995, #8 in 1996, #4 in 1997)

1998 Tennessee (#7 in 1998, #5 in 1997, #3 in 1996)

1999 Florida State (#5 in 1998, #1 in 1997, #5 in 1996)

2000 Oklahoma (#1 3 in 2000, and #2 5 in both 1997 and 1998 Rivals) *OU is the only program without a top ten class to win the title in Rivals history. But it did have 3 top 25 classes

2001 Miami (#2 in 2001, #9 in 2000, #8 in 1999)

2002 Ohio State (#7 in 2002, #4 in 2000, #2 in 1999)

2003 LSU/USC (LSU #1 class in 2003, #4 in 2001 USC #3 in 2003, #1 4 in 2000, #2 1 in 2001)

2004 USC (#3 class in 2003, #1 class in 2004)

2005 Texas (#1 class in 2002, #1 5 class in 2003 with only 18 recruits, which averaged highest star rating in country, #1 8 class in 2004 -- only signed 15) If Texas had signed 20 players in either of these classes, they would have ranked in the top five. The #1 class in 2002 was simply too large, with over 30 players).

2006 Florida (#2 in 2003, #1 0 in 2004, #2 in 2006)

2007 LSU (#1 in 2003, #1 in 2004, #7 in 2006, #4 in 2007)

2008 Florida (#2 in 2006, #1 in 2007, #3 in 2008)

2009 Alabama (#1 0 in 2007, #1 in 2008, #1 in 2009)

2010 Auburn (#1 0 in 2006, #7 in 2007, #4 in 2010) Auburn was #2 0 in 2008 and #1 9 in 2009

2011 Alabama (#1 in 2008, #1 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #1 in 2011)

2012 Alabama (#1 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #1 in 2011, #1 in 2012)

2013 Florida State (#7 in 2009, #1 0 in 2010, #2 in 2011, #6 in 2012, #1 0 in 2013)

2014 Ohio State (#1 1 in 2011, #4 in 2012, #2 in 2013, #3 in 2014)

Where's the '06 bama class? Also '07 class was 13 on 247.... Sabin had 3* players starting at several positions...

 

[kryptonite]

This should be obvious to everybody. Sure, there are 3* kids who become monsters, and game day coaching and development are key, but if you aren't pulling a bunch of 4/5* kids you probably won't win it all. Love that people want to point to the few outliers to justify poor recruiting being ok. I trust the staff when they say a 3* kids is a take, but you should still be getting 50%+ of your kids that everybody agrees are great prospects. No more classes ranked #20 , it needs to be top 10 from here on out.

 

[NJshoreCane]

I trust all of them except Scout. I wish the 247 composite would remove Scout then it would be perfect.

Any 4/5 star on Rivals, ESPN, 247 is a blue chip in my mind

I also consider any Army / Under Armour All American to be a 4/5 star regardless of what the rankings say

I'm glad you made this thread. We need to get away from settling for "under the radar" 3-stars just because they're from South Florida and we know the coach or whatever.

Can't make it personal, it's all business. Stack BLUE CHIPS. It's all about winning

"It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."

 

[SoCalPete73]

Well the article is Scout, presumably they're using their own rankings...would be interesting to see how much %'s changed w/ an aggregate star-ranking rather than 1 system's rankings...

 

[grover]

Which shows why Miami has a competitive advantage that no other team has in being located in South Florida where more blue chippers emerge every year than anywhere else. And the talent is evenly spread out. Hard to hit Homestead, the Muck, Palm Beach and downtown Miami if you're a carpetbagger from Ohio State, USC, or even Clemson and Bama. They get only a few cracks at the bat each year and mostly just hit up the big programs like STA. If your Richt's staff, you go to their pee wee & optimist football games. Now that we have a real coach, it's a question of when, not if.

 

[BigCaneAl]

Interesting how it mentions a talented Louisville team that could be in the top 20, yet there ratio is .07....seems to contradict the premise.

 

[canes614]

Well the article is Scout, presumably they're using their own rankings...would be interesting to see how much %'s changed w/ an aggregate star-ranking rather than 1 system's rankings...

I kinda figured it wasn't a "consensus" ratio...I do believe we need more Blue chip players to assure our chances in the future tho.....you still haveta start with player development....building quality depth is the key...imo....Even if they decided to use all services one could question that type of assessment.....1. Several 3 stars started on those teams...2. Blue Chip senior classes usually lose underclassmen to the league...3. How many true frosh actually play on stacked teams? It has to start with coaching....TCU and MSU were right there without a roster full of Blue chippers.....'09 bama had several 3* starters at key positions....QB McElroy....WR Maze...CB Arenas and Jackson...LB Reamer.....TE/fb Smelly....C Smelly...'14 OSU had QB Cardell Jones...WR Devin Smith....LB daron Lee.....etc.....Blue chips make a huge difference...but its not like championship teams have them starting at every postion....