Started By
Message
Question about "blue chip ratio" rankings.Does it take into account players who leave
Posted on 1/29/19 at 9:21 am
Posted on 1/29/19 at 9:21 am
transfer or have career ending injuries? I don't think it does.Looks like he just adds up 4 and 5 stars signed
over a 4 year span and adds them up.
This is from the site
He also doesn't count transfers coming into programs and still counts signees who don't even qualify.
It's a pretty lazy way of doing things and somewhat deceptive.
over a 4 year span and adds them up.
This is from the site
quote:
All signees count. Transfers and walk-ons do not. Transfers are not governed by recruit rules, are not rated and, though they’re important to every team, are rarely consequential enough to turn a non-contender into a contender. Walk-ons are almost never rated. Sticking with signees helps to standardize the process.
I use the 247Sports Composite, which blends the three major recruiting rankings by 247Sports, Rivals, and ESPN. It formerly used Scout as well, but 247Sports bought Scout, and its rankings no longer exist.
I manually curate it each year because publishers of some of the team sites erroneously list walk-ons under enrollees or signees. Removing non-scholarship players is by far the most time consuming element. Also, older classes are wrought with errors. For data in this current decade, it has improved, but more than a handful of team site publishers still lump in zero-star walk-ons with the others.
I also do not remove signees who fail to qualify academically or who are denied admission due to off-field reasons, because it’s difficult to track, with so signees on so many teams.
He also doesn't count transfers coming into programs and still counts signees who don't even qualify.
It's a pretty lazy way of doing things and somewhat deceptive.
Posted on 1/29/19 at 10:15 am to RD Dawg
quote:
This is from the site
What site?

Posted on 1/29/19 at 11:23 am to RD Dawg
Team Talent Composite
You could always look at this at the start of the year to see who is actually on the roster.
You could always look at this at the start of the year to see who is actually on the roster.
Posted on 1/29/19 at 11:56 am to RD Dawg
No, but that doesn’t have a huge impact. All schools are impacted by attrition and transfers.
Posted on 1/29/19 at 12:33 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
All schools are impacted by attrition and transfers
I don't know.UGA had much more attrition than normal under CMR.We lost over 1/3 of our blue Chips from our '13 class alone including 3 of our top 4 recruits.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 6:23 am to uf5514
quote:
Team Talent Composite
You could always look at this at the start of the year to see who is actually on the roster.
Interesting. I looked at your link and went back a year to 2017. It shows USCw and UGA as both having 85 commits. How does UGA have an average per player rating of 91.06 to 90.81, yet USCw has a higher team point of 934.0 to 930.34? (I hope this is clear)
Posted on 1/30/19 at 9:48 am to DawgsLife
The score is weighted for the best players. Once you get outside of your top 20 players, the value added dimishes.
This is how the recruiting classes are done.
When viewing an entire roster, it may or may not be modified for the top 20 (i.e. it might be top 30 or 40), but you understand the concept.
This is how the recruiting classes are done.
When viewing an entire roster, it may or may not be modified for the top 20 (i.e. it might be top 30 or 40), but you understand the concept.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 12:02 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
I don't know.UGA had much more attrition than normal under CMR.We lost over 1/3 of our blue Chips from our '13 class alone including 3 of our top 4 recruits.
That class was an outlier, but generally top recruiting schools are going to take roughly the same hit.
This stat isn’t meant to be anything more than an indicator among a lot of other data.
Popular
Back to top
