forums

Updated Blue Chip Ratio – Star Truthers Beware

jmccomber5 said:
I believe in the Blue Chip Ratio theory, mostly because it’s been proven as a strong indicator of rosters capable of winning a national title based on roster make up. Okay, so good news and bad news. The bad news is based on our current roster, we are not going to win a national championship in 2019 (shocker). Good news is that we increased our overall ratio year over year, increased the blue chip ratio for all but two of our position groups and increased the average star rating of all positions but two this cycle.

** Everything below is based on the 247 Composite rating and uses their actual ranking (e.g. I didn’t put Brevin as a 5* even though we all know he’s a 5*). I also used the position they are coming to play (Joyner is playing LB here even though he’s listed as a DE on 247).

- We aren’t winning a national title unless we have a Heisman caliber season from someone. Our overall Blue Chip Ratio is 46%; I don’t know if Pastor Richt uses this ratio (doubtful), but he wasn’t wrong when he said we needed one more class to compete for a title. We are a similar ratio to Oklahoma from last year (I think they were around 48%), but they had Baker Mayfield and we do not.
- Offensively, we have a championship level roster. We are at 51% blue chip ratio and we average 3.56 stars per position. To no one’s surprise, our running back room and wide receiver rooms are sick (57%, 3.71 star average and 64%, 3.63 star average respectively). Pretty pretty good.
- Our worst offensive position group is our OL, but it’s being dragged down by the left over Golden Gang and our transfers– our overall average star rating is 3.4 with a 40% ratio, but our last two classes have a 50% ratio and 3.50 average.
- Defensively… it’s not good, boss. Our Blue Chip ratio is 40% with an average star ranking of 3.4. and our best position group on paper is our, believe it or not, corner back room that averages 3.66 stars per player and has a 67% ratio. On average, it’s actually a better room than our WR room… but that doesn’t excuse missing who we missed on.
- **** gets dicey in the front seven: DE ratio is nice at 60% and an average of 3.6, but consider that last year we were 7 deep and this year we are at 5 deep, including a converted-unconverted-converted tight end in Scott Patchan and a true freshman.
- Defensive Tackle is at 33% and 3.33 star average, which is just not good enough to win big. Sorry.
- The worst position group on the team is the linebacker position and it’s not close. We have a paltry ratio of 20% and the only two 4 star prospects at the position are juniors this year. We average 3.2 stars per player (the second lowest on the team is DT at 3.33… see where I’m going with this?). If you’re not strong up the middle, you’re not strong.
- Our safety group is only at 38% and has a few converted tweeners back there for an average rating of 3.38. After Jaquan, we are probably looking at playing the freshman ASAP.

Basically, we better hope we score a **** ton of points. It is going to be worse next year, too. We lose 20% of our 4 star players on defense next year, so Manny and Co are REALLY banking on our 3 linebackers to play their senior years. Given the bull**** we go through with early entrants, that seems rather foolish.

Based only on the numbers, we have a top 20 roster in the country, but we are not going to compete for a national title or a conference title this year. Not with Clemson getting who they get back and who they signed and obviously there are the Bamas, Georgias, Ohio States of the world to remind us what elite recruiting looks like. I do think, however, that we are building a championship roster even if it’s not at the pace I want.

TL;DR – we aint ready, but maybe next year.
Click to expand...


Show your work, please. 46 percent blue chip ratio seems too high. I think we’re lower than that.

Do you have it in a spreadsheet?
 

Advertisement
Good post. Was doing a similar analysis but focused on just the past 2 years of recruiting, which is what we should use to judge the current staff.

**Using similar methodology with 247 composite rankings excluding kickers and long snappers. Also note these numbers are in a vacuum and do not take into account transfers in or out, etc**

Here's how the numbers work out:

Canes: 45 signed
1 five star, 24 four stars, 20 three stars = 55.6%

Now let’s look at some competitors during the same 2 year span:

Bama - 45 signed
8 five stars, 30 four stars, 7 three stars = 84.4%

Clemson – 30 signed
7 five stars, 15 four stars, 8 three stars = 73.3%

FSU – 44 signed
4 five stars, 21 four stars, 19 three stars = 56.8%

V-Tech – 50 signed
0 five stars, 12 four stars, 38 three stars = 24.0%

Found some real interesting stuff through the analysis, just a few quick points:
  • Numbers wise our LB recruiting might be better than most think. Star power might not be what we want, but we signed 4 LB the past two years while Bama and FSU signed 5, Clemson signed 2.
  • Same goes for DB recruiting. As disappointing as it is to lose out on Surtain/Campbell, our numbers and star power compare pretty well to the others in the secondary.
  • Our DT/DE numbers look REALLY bad compared to the rest. We signed 6 DL total including DJ Johnson, so really it's 5 signees at 40% blue chip. Bama signed 9 (100% blue chip), Clemson 8 (87.5% blue chip), FSU 10 (60% blue chip) and VTech 7 (0% blue chip). It's abundantly clear that the staff had no clue that both McIntosh and Norton were leaving. Really hope we have a plan to fix this going forward...or that Kul will earn his keep with coaching them up.
  • We've done really well on the OL with 8 signees at a 50% ratio. Clemson by comparison had 5 signees at 40% (1 five star, 1 four star and 3 three stars).
 
jmccomber5 said:
Yes at work. Upload it Monday, chief
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it. I checked it myself. We have 34 blue chip players (per 247 composite).... for a blue chip ratio of 40%.




Blue Chippers:

Lorenzo Lingard, Gerald Willis, Brevin Jordan, Jeff Thomas, Nesta Silvera, Mark Pope, Navaughn Donaldson, Jarren Williams, Al Blades Jr, Shaquille Quarterman, Delone Scaife, Brian Hightower, Ahmmon Richards, Camron Davis, Gilbert Frierson, Gurvan Hall. N'Kosi Perry, Will Mallory, Joe Jackson, Jaquan Johnson, Bar Milo, Trajan Bandy, Travis Homer, Cleveland Reed, Kai-Leon Herbert, DeeJay Dallas, Jonathan Garvin, Pat Bethel, Tyree St. Louis, Jhavonte Dean, Zach McCloud, Mike Harley, Marquez Ezzard, DJ Ivey
 
brock said:
Nice breakdown but I think You need to take a look at what Clemson recruiting rankings were when they won the championship or Auburn’s when cam newton was there. If you have a transcendent qb then anything can happen. We was 1 game away from the playoffs This year even with limited scholarships(67.....) major injuries on offense and an inaccurate quarterback yet we almost went undefeated in the regular season. Everyone will be beatable next year. Bama is losing a lot and so is uga. If uga’s junior left this last draft they would have won only 8 games or so. Just let it play out
Click to expand...
Fairly sure they were over 50%
 
Advertisement
Here's how it all breaks down.......


roster.webp
 

Attachments

  • roster.webp
    roster.webp
    36.7 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
rustywalkedaway said:
The first part of your post is just a baseless argument. We won titles in 83, 87, 89, 91, and 01. Did you spend a lot of time online back then? No, because you didn't have it.

A ton of guys on those teams would be 4 and 5 stars now, its just that nobody half a country away knew about them and you didn't
have the recruiting business that the internet feeds . The game changed. I'm not all about stars, but stop with the "we won before with" bull****. Many schools can say that, and most of them haven't done **** for years. ND has 8, anything recently (and 1998 shouldn't even count)? Oklahoma has 7, none since before our last one. Nebraska also has 5, how's that going for them?

We are making progress; no question. But we have to. And what worked in the past doesn't matter much unless you think others schools are suddenly going to leave south Florida.
Click to expand...

Not sure a lot of those guys would be 4 or 5 star now. Maybe, but I'm skeptical. What set our kids apart was an incredible work ethic, very good coaching and kids with a burning desire to win. We had to overcome being outsized by almost every team we played. We used the passing attack to overcome physical inferiority. Schnellenberger called the "great equalizer."
 
TheRichtShow said:
The idea those 3 LBs are all leaving early is hilarious.

McCloud probably won't even be a starter by the end of the season.
Pinckney isn't getting drafted unless he gets in much better shape.
Shaq could leave, but at the same time he seems like another Jaquan who wants to be here 4 years.

This time last year, everybody already knew those DTs were gone with good seasons
Click to expand...

This is Miami. Where juniors with "STAY IN SCHOOL" draft grades immediately decide to leave.

Be prepare to hold a beer or two.
 
Advertisement
As far as spending time online-- no. But I spent many hours reading virtually every recruiting newsletter:

Joe Terranova
Max Emfinger
Tom Lemming
Allen Wallace's Superprep
G&W
Bill Buchalter

In addition to the many, many hours, I spent hundreds of dollars on these publications. I used to spend a lot more time talking to well connected friends in south Florida. Got a lot more inside information.

I would also talk to Buchalter, Emfinger, Wallace,etc.

So I had an idea who was highly-rated back then. There are fewer under-the-radar guys now, but they're still there. Jordan Miller might be an example. I hope so.
 
**** of a job on this! Good work! It's absolutely ridiculous we recruited as poorly as we did on defense after the year we had with the turnover chain and leading the county in turnovers. What kid wouldn't want to come play in a defense like that? I know, I know, we still have some defensive studs coming in, but we all know there should've been more, which would've bumped the blue chip ratio up.
 
Good info.

15 of our 23 recruits this year are 4/5*.
That's 65%

We pull a couple more top 5-10 classes (with an emphasis on the D side) some really good things are going to happen.
 
Advertisement
Matador, I respect your opinion and explanation. I simply disagree with the scope.

The newsletters you refer to were much more limited than what the internet allows and creates. Guys like Highsmith and Bratton, in the class that really made Miami, would have been 5 stars and pursued by everyone in America. That simply didn't happen back then because awareness was much more limited. It wasn't really that such prospects were under the radar, but that the radar was much more primitive. Look at how out of state schools recruited south Florida 30 years ago, as compared to today. And look at how and where south Florida players have been ranked in the last 10-15 years. You see LOTS of rankings darlings. Those guys were here back then, too. We just got more of them as there was less awareness and competition.
 
This is interesting, to me, if UM gets better QB play(yeah, I dont want to see Rosier under center next season) and become a real consistent offense that can get the ball into the hands of the playmakers(of which there are plenty) and become a unit that can consistently score 31-35 points a game.

As disappointing as last seasons end was, I do think much of that had to do with Rosier's limitations
 
rustywalkedaway said:
Matador, I respect your opinion and explanation. I simply disagree with the scope.

The newsletters you refer to were much more limited than what the internet allows and creates. Guys like Highsmith and Bratton, in the class that really made Miami, would have been 5 stars and pursued by everyone in America. That simply didn't happen back then because awareness was much more limited. It wasn't really that such prospects were under the radar, but that the radar was much more primitive. Look at how out of state schools recruited south Florida 30 years ago, as compared to today. And look at how and where south Florida players have been ranked in the last 10-15 years. You see LOTS of rankings darlings. Those guys were here back then, too. We just got more of them as there was less awareness and competition.
Click to expand...

You lose credibility with post a like this. Not trying to be offensive you just can’t make something up to fit your narrative (that we need to have more 5 stars than everyone else to win ) and label a wild assumption as fact.

It’s not a fact that guys like highsmith would have been 5 stars. And if you watched the U documentary kids from South Florida we’re going to schools out of the state all the time. Highsmith himself had offers from Norte Dame and Michigan and choose the U over them.
 
Advertisement
Liberty City El said:
Agree with your premise that we need more 4 & 5-star recruits no doubt. But it should also be noted that in 2017,

LSU's ratio was 65%, somehow still managed to lose to ND, Miss St 37-7 & Troy 24-21
FSU was 65%, Boston College beat'em 35-3
USC was 63%, lost to Wash St
Michigan was 61%, lost to Mich St, Penn St & South Carolina
Auburn was 59%, Clemson, LSU, UGA & UCF, they also beat 80% Bama
Notre Dame was 56%, both Stanford & us crushed them

Ultimately stars absolutely matter, accumulation of talent is extremely important in order to win College Football. Coaching makes a big difference as well.

Every P5 conference championship winner had a BC ratio of 50% or higher with the exception of Oklahoma & considering the Big XII is probably the easiest conference to win at the moment that makes sense.

With that said, I'm still not immediately counting us out, I believe we can win the ACC this year ratios be damned. I'm just a Green & Orange lensed homer so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Wash the salt down with some koolaid, and then pass it down this way!!
 
The "Blue Chip Ratio" rule was never identified by who had a good year or who won their conference, it was the common denominator among the last 10+ national champions. It has proven to be the standard for national championship teams. Can teams have great years and even win their conference with a lesser BC ratio? Of course. But to compete for national championships you need a certain standard of BC guys. WE did great in this class in terms of the BC ratio just for the 2018 class but we came out way too thin on defense.
 
jmccomber5 said:
I didn’t do it based on total 85 available scholarships. I did it vs total signed on the roster.
Click to expand...

Most (if not all) other schools are going to be at 85. Therefore, if you are going to do any comparative analysis, basing it on the 85 total scholarships is what makes sense.

Great work overall though! Appreciate your analysis.

GO CANES!!
 
Liberty City El said:
Agree with your premise that we need more 4 & 5-star recruits no doubt. But it should also be noted that in 2017,

LSU's ratio was 65%, somehow still managed to lose to ND, Miss St 37-7 & Troy 24-21
FSU was 65%, Boston College beat'em 35-3
USC was 63%, lost to Wash St
Michigan was 61%, lost to Mich St, Penn St & South Carolina
Auburn was 59%, Clemson, LSU, UGA & UCF, they also beat 80% Bama
Notre Dame was 56%, both Stanford & us crushed them

Ultimately stars absolutely matter, accumulation of talent is extremely important in order to win College Football. Coaching makes a big difference as well.

Every P5 conference championship winner had a BC ratio of 50% or higher with the exception of Oklahoma & considering the Big XII is probably the easiest conference to win at the moment that makes sense.

With that said, I'm still not immediately counting us out, I believe we can win the ACC this year ratios be damned. I'm just a Green & Orange lensed homer so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Agreed in part. Talent is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to win a national title. Same applies to coaching.

GO CANES!
 
Advertisement
Back
Top