Blue-chip ratio

[Redmich]

Always a fun discussion


“So, what is the minimum level of recruiting required to win it all?

Put simply, to win the national championship, college football teams need to sign more four- and five-star recruits (AKA “Blue Chips”) than two- and three-star players over the previous four recruiting classes.

This has been true basically as far back as modern internet recruiting rankings have existed.”

 

[Huskerfan2112]

 

[Redmich]

View embedded media

Our blue-chip ratio has far exceeded every other school in the big ten west yet since 2018 we have the worst conf record of any school ranking behind Illinois and are the only school in the division to have
not gone to a bowl

what gives?

 

[phoenix4nu]

Our blue-chip ratio has far exceeded every other school in the big ten west yet since 2018 we have the worst conf record of any school ranking behind Illinois and are the only school in the division to have
not gone to a bowl

what gives?

A combination of over-rated recruits and poor coaching.

 

[drubendall]

A combination of over-rated recruits and poor coaching.

Coaching and fit.

 

[huskerfan66]

Lack of development and evaluation, and coaching in general

 

[mgbreis]

Adrian Martinez.

 

[bigboxes]

Adrian Martinez.

He's the Jamarcus Russell of Nebraska. Of course, I'm thinking of his time with the Raiders, not LSU.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

Adrian Martinez.

^^^^This^^^^ AMart is the main reason we have lost more games by one score over the past 4 years than any team of recent memory. He was a skilled athlete who had no business playing QB. His decision making skills, ball protection skills, and spotting-an-open-receiver skills were just awful. But you also have to put a lot of blame on the head coach who apparently could not see what everyone else saw plainly, and who stubbornly stuck with “his guy” even as the losses mounted.

 

[redwine65]

no run game

 

[TruHusker]

no run game

You are talking about the symptom, not the problem.

 

[Dean Pope]

A combination of over-rated recruits and poor coaching.

Pay attention to where a kid takes an official visit and when. If a four star recruit only visits us and Minnesota, for example. And Minnesota takes the commitments of two others after he visits and fills up at his position. And then eventually that "four star" commits to Nebraska. Who exactly did we beat out for the kid? Allowing a kid to take an official visit is a pretty good sign that you are serious about the prospect and most kids are going to visit a top school if they allow him to.

 

[oldjar07]

Always a fun discussion


“So, what is the minimum level of recruiting required to win it all?

Put simply, to win the national championship, college football teams need to sign more four- and five-star recruits (AKA “Blue Chips”) than two- and three-star players over the previous four recruiting classes.

This has been true basically as far back as modern internet recruiting rankings have existed.”

View embedded media

Bullshit compared to the history of college football, internet recruiting rankings have not existed for that long.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Bullshit compared to the history of college football, internet recruiting rankings have not existed for that long.

What does this even mean? What are you arguing?

His post simply said "This has been true basically as far back as modern internet recruiting rankings have existed.” This is a true statement.

 

[mgbreis]

In any event, why are we talking about standards for competing for National Championships? It's like NASA talking about galaxies billions of light years away when they haven't been to the moon in 50 years. I'm over here just working myself into a frenzy at the possibility of beating the likes of Purdue, Illinois and Minnesota.

 

[oldjar07]

What does this even mean? What are you arguing?

His post simply said "This has been true basically as far back as modern internet recruiting rankings have existed.” This is a true statement.

And college football has existed for a 100 years prior to that. You can't make a statement saying you've proved something when you don't have a 100 years worth of data that that proof would require.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

And college football has existed for a 100 years prior to that. You can't make a statement saying you've proved something when you don't have a 100 years worth of data that that proof would require.

Well a lot of things didn't exist when college football started. For the first half of the history there probably wasn't much recruiting at all. Then at some point serious recruiting started, then magazines started and had a 1 page blimp about the best players. Then local recruiting experts started having lists of the best players in their area, then it went national, then we discovered the internet, and so on and so on. FFS, I still have no idea what point you are trying to make.

The Blue Chip Ratio has basically been around since the onset of the playoff. Winning a national championship is more difficult now that you have to beat 2 of the top 4 teams in the country than it was when you only had to win your league and beat the conference champ from another league in a predetermined matchup based on bowl tie ins.

 

[JabroniBlvd]

Our blue-chip ratio has far exceeded every other school in the big ten west yet since 2018 we have the worst conf record of any school ranking behind Illinois and are the only school in the division to have
not gone to a bowl

what gives?

We aren't getting 5* players out of HS . Much harder for all them to be overrated than random 4* kids

 

[oldjar07]

Well a lot of things didn't exist when college football started. For the first half of the history there probably wasn't much recruiting at all. Then at some point serious recruiting started, then magazines started and had a 1 page blimp about the best players. Then local recruiting experts started having lists of the best players in their area, then it went national, then we discovered the internet, and so on and so on. FFS, I still have no idea what point you are trying to make.

The Blue Chip Ratio has basically been around since the onset of the playoff. Winning a national championship is more difficult now that you have to beat 2 of the top 4 teams in the country than it was when you only had to win your league and beat the conference champ from another league in a predetermined matchup based on bowl tie ins.

You can make the argument that it's easier. You no longer have to be perfect throughout the season, but can slip up once or twice, as long as you're in the top 4 you get invited to the playoff. Then you just have to get lucky enough to win two in a row.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

You can make the argument that it's easier. You no longer have to be perfect throughout the season, but can slip up once or twice, as long as you're in the top 4 you get invited to the playoff. Then you just have to get lucky enough to win two in a row.

Then why hasn't it been done if it is easier. The only team to win a game in the CFP with a Blue Chip Ratio less than 50% was Oregon when they beat Florida St. Then they got whomped by tOSU. The other teams have all lost by 3 scores in their first game. If you need to be lucky then it ain't easy.

 

[Redmich]

We aren't getting 5* players out of HS . Much harder for all them to be overrated than random 4* kids

The ratio doesn’t distinguish between 4 stars and 5 stars - it is 4 or 5 stars


Over the last decade+ this list has included the national champion every single year.

The list is schools with > 50% of their recruiting class comprised of 4* and 5*s OVER THE PRIOR 4 YEARS

For reference - over the last 10 years we haven’t had even a single class with a blue- chip ratio of 50% or better

every other blue blood program as been on that list with some regularity (USC isn’t there this year) except us

 

[JabroniBlvd]

The ratio doesn’t distinguish between 4 stars and 5 stars - it is 4 or 5 stars


Over the last decade+ this list has included the national champion every single year.

The list is schools with > 50% of their recruiting class comprised of 4* and 5*s OVER THE PRIOR 4 YEARS

For reference - over the last 10 years we haven’t had even a single class with a blue- chip ratio of 50% or better

every other blue blood program as been on that list with some regularity (USC isn’t there this year) except us

Nebraska is a small population state surrounded by other small population states. I don't think people give enough credit to TO for how good we were for so long.

 

[NikkiSixx]

The bigger problem is not Adrian, but the decision making of the head coach, that allowed the prior 4 years to transpire by keeping him as the starter.

This kind of poor leadership, along with a laundry list of other poor decisions has resulted in the Husker brand becoming highly tarnished in more ways than one.

I hope Trev Alberts does what is necessary to restore Nebraska back to where it should be, as quickly as possible.

 

[TruHusker]

Nebraska is a small population state surrounded by other small population states. I don't think people give enough credit to TO for how good we were for so long.

Oh no, don't drag TO into this!

Just an FYI, this was said by another poster in another thread right after he did the very same. Just having a little fun.

 

[TruHusker]

The bigger problem is not Adrian, but the decision making of the head coach, that allowed the prior 4 years to transpire by keeping him as the starter.

This kind of poor leadership, along with a laundry list of other poor decisions has resulted in the Husker brand becoming highly tarnished in more ways than one.

I hope Trev Alberts does what is necessary to restore Nebraska back to where it should be, as quickly as possible.

Well, when one points to the erratic coaching and development, you are going to get the usual excuses. Frost inherited a mess, Frost needs his own players, covid year cost him a year, his poor assistant coaches, special teams, a QB he would never recruit over and the list goes on and on.

Do people learn from mistakes? Sometimes. Can Frost overcome all of this and become a better coach? We will know after this season.

 

[NikkiSixx]

Well, when one points to the erratic coaching and development, you are going to get the usual excuses. Frost inherited a mess, Frost needs his own players, covid year cost him a year, his poor assistant coaches, special teams, a QB he would never recruit over and the list goes on and on.

Do people learn from mistakes? Sometimes. Can Frost overcome all of this and become a better coach? We will know after this season.

Frost is an extremely stubborn person.. I think he can learn from mistakes, but the turnaround time isn't going to be this quick with most people, so my vote is a no.

 

[SuperBigFan]

Great info but this is all that has mattered.

The West is lame. NU out recruits all the teams in the west.

All they need to do is win the west and then anything can happen in the BTCG...

But NU can't get out of its own way.

That all changes when they go to pods.

 

[oldjar07]

Then why hasn't it been done if it is easier. The only team to win a game in the CFP with a Blue Chip Ratio less than 50% was Oregon when they beat Florida St. Then they got whomped by tOSU. The other teams have all lost by 3 scores in their first game. If you need to be lucky then it ain't easy.

Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it's impossible. There's been multiple teams who have gone to the playoffs who don't meet the ratio. Once you make the playoff, all you have to do is win 2 games. The fact that teams have made the playoffs without reaching the blue chip ratio tells me that it isn't necessary to win a championship.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it's impossible. There's been multiple teams who have gone to the playoffs who don't meet the ratio. Once you make the playoff, all you have to do is win 2 games. The fact that teams have made the playoffs without reaching the blue chip ratio tells me that it isn't necessary to win a championship.

not impossible does not equal easy

edit - 32 teams and 4 teams fit out side the ratio. 24 games and 1 time a team outside the ratio won ONE semi final. Then lost the final by 3 TDs, all other teams lost the semi final by 3 scores. App St beat Michigan once too.

 

[TruHusker]

I read this thread and went to reading a book, came back and thought about what @oldjar was stating or at least implying with his "last 100 year" statement.

Oldjar seems to hang his hat on the theory of chance, luck or if you get enough attempts, you will likely win sometime. Whenever that could be is anyone's guess. The fact is there were "best" teams many years ago, they proved it on the field, we just didn't have complicated analytics to tell us they had all the super blue, purple and green chip players of their day.


So, to just say we didn't have those metrics in place 100 years ago doesn't mean the players, teams and coaches were in place. The other side of the coin is those teams that were perpetual winners of yesteryear must have used up all of the collective luck and there is none left for the current Huskers. That's the only way to explain it.

 

[redwine65]

I liked the article I read once that said the modern era in college football started in 1970

if you go by that we are doing ok on NC's

 

[Rick.Shaw]

A combination of over-rated recruits and poor coaching.

Obviously many were over-rated by our staff. Talent evaluation is a gift. Not everyone is as good at it as others. Development is also several pegs lower than it was under TO. Lower than even Pelini’s years here.

 

[oldjar07]

I read this thread and went to reading a book, came back and thought about what @oldjar was stating or at least implying with his "last 100 year" statement.

Oldjar seems to hang his hat on the theory of chance, luck or if you get enough attempts, you will likely win sometime. Whenever that could be is anyone's guess. The fact is there were "best" teams many years ago, they proved it on the field, we just didn't have complicated analytics to tell us they had all the super blue, purple and green chip players of their day.


So, to just say we didn't have those metrics in place 100 years ago doesn't mean the players, teams and coaches were in place. The other side of the coin is those teams that were perpetual winners of yesteryear must have used up all of the collective luck and there is none left for the current Huskers. That's the only way to explain it.

That's not remotely what I'm saying. You have to be a good team to get into the playoffs. As Tuco pointed out, 4 of the 32 teams didn't not adhere to the ratio. Then you have to beat two other good teams, and at that point, yes it is largely a matter of chance.

 

[oldjar07]

not impossible does not equal easy

edit - 32 teams and 4 teams fit out side the ratio. 24 games and 1 time a team outside the ratio won ONE semi final. Then lost the final by 3 TDs, all other teams lost the semi final by 3 scores. App St beat Michigan once too.

Never said it was easy. Just not impossible as the idolizers of the blue chip ratio like to claim.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Never said it was easy. Just not impossible as the idolizers of the blue chip ratio like to claim.

You can make the argument that it's easier. You no longer have to be perfect throughout the season, but can slip up once or twice, as long as you're in the top 4 you get invited to the playoff. Then you just have to get lucky enough to win two in a row.

Well a lot of things didn't exist when college football started. For the first half of the history there probably wasn't much recruiting at all. Then at some point serious recruiting started, then magazines started and had a 1 page blimp about the best players. Then local recruiting experts started having lists of the best players in their area, then it went national, then we discovered the internet, and so on and so on. FFS, I still have no idea what point you are trying to make.

The Blue Chip Ratio has basically been around since the onset of the playoff. Winning a national championship is more difficult now that you have to beat 2 of the top 4 teams in the country than it was when you only had to win your league and beat the conference champ from another league in a predetermined matchup based on bowl tie ins.

This is your reply to me that stated you could argue it would be easier because you can lose a game or 2 in the regular season. Clearly I went a little hyperbolic when I wrote easy and not easier, but the point remains. It is harder to win a CCG against a top 20ish opponent, (which most teams have to do), then win 2 games against top 4 teams in back to back weekends than it was under the old systems. Lesser talented teams will be able to win 1 game, like a CCG, they might even be able to win a semi final, but the chances of winning that 3rd game is going to be more rare than rolling through the Big 8 and a 4 handpicked opponents, and beating a team in the Orange Bowl.

 

[jflores]

You could overcome the blue chip ratio (I won’t argue about with what regularity) having a consistent staff and system designed to at least give you a punchers chance over the long run.

in this new market driven era of college football it will be at least as hard trying to maintain some sort of continuity as it will be recruiting blue chips.

If your coaching staff isn’t bailing for more promotion titles and money, a decent chunk of your recruits are going to portal as well.

Teams that are successful with regularity going forward are going to have to be comfortable running a more NFL style environment than say the environment we had from 1960s to the 90s

 

[Rick.Shaw]

This is your reply to me that stated you could argue it would be easier because you can lose a game or 2 in the regular season. Clearly I went a little hyperbolic when I wrote easy and not easier, but the point remains. It is harder to win a CCG against a top 20ish opponent, (which most teams have to do), then win 2 games against top 4 teams in back to back weekends than it was under the old systems. Lesser talented teams will be able to win 1 game, like a CCG, they might even be able to win a semi final, but the chances of winning that 3rd game is going to be more rare than rolling through the Big 8 and a 4 handpicked opponents, and beating a team in the Orange Bowl.

And without the elitist of elite coaching (e.g. TO)…winning it all despite being on the wrong end of talent disparity is very very difficult and close to impossible (IMO).

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

And without the elitist of elite coaching (e.g. TO)…winning it all despite being on the wrong end of talent disparity is very very difficult and close to impossible (IMO).

chicken and egg type argument. Talent makes coaches look good, and winning games gets more talent.

 

[Rick.Shaw]

chicken and egg type argument. Talent makes coaches look good, and winning games gets more talent.

Agree there.

 

[rcnut223]

Agree there.

Well if you suck as a coach, good talent doesn’t fix the fact that you suck as a coach!