Started By
Message

re: Blue chip ratios for first year coaches

Posted on 7/10/24 at 6:19 am to
Posted by HighTide_ATL
Member since Aug 2020
1947 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 6:19 am to
quote:

Maybe it was. Maybe it wasnt. Doesnt make your point about Clemson good either way.


So 51% was enough blue chips to win the natty that year, but not enough to be considered a "good situation" to start out with?
Posted by djsdawg
Member since Apr 2015
33379 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 7:30 am to
As for Clemson, it was an established roster that had an elite game breaking qb, but they needed serious luck so as to not lose 2 ACC games, which would have eliminated them from the playoff. You simply trade our qb for theirs, and they go 6-6.
Posted by Rolltide10
Guntersville
Member since Aug 2009
1016 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 8:17 am to
Why must this board constantly turn into a pissing match?
Posted by Alistair
Orlando
Member since Jul 2021
220 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 8:37 am to
It's not the number of Blue Chippers, it's the quality and positions.
Posted by bdavids09
Member since Jun 2017
732 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 8:41 am to
Is that real numbers? I thought floridas roster was a disaster when Mullen was fired?
Posted by Schleynole
Member since Sep 2022
520 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 8:49 am to
quote:

that real numbers? I thought floridas roster was a disaster when Mullen was fired?


I'd hate to jump conclusions but it appears Napier is the disaster.
Posted by 3down10
Member since Sep 2014
23487 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:09 am to
quote:

UGA's schedule before the playoff was harder than BAma's was in 2017.


No, they did not. Alabama played FSU with their starting QB. They started the season #3, but obviously did horrible after losing their starting QB, and then Jimbo bailed to A&M.


Posted by 3down10
Member since Sep 2014
23487 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:23 am to
quote:

Is that real numbers? I thought floridas roster was a disaster when Mullen was fired?


Half the truth is often the greatest lie.

The OP says nothing about how the players were developed, how many years they had been in the program, the breakdown of players, the number of players on scholarship, etc.





Posted by koreandawg
South Korea
Member since Sep 2015
9317 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:25 am to
quote:


As for Clemson, it was an established roster that had an elite game breaking qb, but they needed serious luck so as to not lose 2 ACC games, which would have eliminated them from the playoff. You simply trade our qb for theirs, and they go 6-6.


If you are talking about 2016, it was the weakest national champion of the playoff era. Michigan is probably second.
This post was edited on 7/10/24 at 11:28 am
Posted by koreandawg
South Korea
Member since Sep 2015
9317 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:39 am to
quote:

There isn't a doubt that Georgia recruiting improved under Kirby. I'm just saying the team wasn't in bad shape at all, and the stats your OP is quoting aren't a real reflection of much.

Additionally, it also took Kirby like 6 years to win a NC. None of the other coaches have been at their jobs that long.


Let's compare those coaches.

Day is really the only one that's worth a convo. He's entering his sixth year. MIchigan has stopped him the last three and he really wasn't that close in 2020 as they looked awful in the championship game. We went to OT and gave up a busted coverage play on third and a mile. Did almost beat us in 2022, so he could've won it had the dude kicked the FG.

Napier is trying to keep his job in his third year. Kirby was coming off of a conference title and NCG appearance.

We'll see about DeBoer, but he's got way more experience than Kirby had starting his first year. And is inheriting the conference champ.



This post was edited on 7/11/24 at 4:57 am
Posted by DawginSC
Member since Aug 2022
4932 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:43 am to
quote:

So 51% was enough blue chips to win the natty that year, but not enough to be considered a "good situation" to start out with?


The point of the blue chip ratio is that being above 50% is viewed as a requirement to win a national title.

But it's incorrect to think that by itself is enough. If you're around 50% you need a lot of other things going your way.

One thing that helps you get past having a barely qualifying blue chip ratio is an elite experienced QB.

UGA had a true freshmen QB starting in 2016. Clemson had Junior Deshaun Watson, who was an elite college QB and had played EXTREMELY well the whole season in 2015 and a chunk of 2014.

That covers a lot of warts.

UGA was up to 63% for blue-chip ratio in 2017, but still needed a couple of truly elite RB's (Chubb and Michel) to cover for another true freshman QB and nearly win a title. And Fromm as a frosh was as "mature" a true freshman as we've seen in a long time.

Talent isn't the only factor. But it's a big part of the equation.

*edit*

Another factor is overall roster experience. This was the main reason Michigan won a title with a blue chip ratio on the low end this past season. They had a huge number of seniors and covid-seniors on their roster this past year. It was probably the oldest non-BYU roster we've seen in decades in college football.

That sort of roster isn't possible anymore since the players with extra covid years have finally rolled off rosters. So I don't think we'll see that low a talent level team win a title again in the future.
This post was edited on 7/10/24 at 11:48 am
Posted by HighTide_ATL
Member since Aug 2020
1947 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 1:20 pm to
quote:

The point of the blue chip ratio is that being above 50% is viewed as a requirement to win a national title.

But it's incorrect to think that by itself is enough. If you're around 50% you need a lot of other things going your way.


I don't think anyone is arguing that even great teams require some luck throughout a championship run. However if >50% is a requirement to win a natty, and only 10-15 teams in the entire nation meet that each year (though the number of teams is growing), then one could say that landing at a program that boasts a roster >50% BCR is a pretty good situation to be in.

quote:

Talent isn't the only factor. But it's a big part of the equation.


Agreed. And if you look at the quality of the players on roster via overall player composite roster points for 2016, you see that Kirby inherited the 6th best roster in the country.

quote:

Another factor is overall roster experience. This was the main reason Michigan won a title with a blue chip ratio on the low end this past season. They had a huge number of seniors and covid-seniors on their roster this past year. It was probably the oldest non-BYU roster we've seen in decades in college football.

That sort of roster isn't possible anymore since the players with extra covid years have finally rolled off rosters. So I don't think we'll see that low a talent level team win a title again in the future.


3 teams have won with 52-54% since BCR has been tracked. Now that the playoffs are starting, who knows if we'll see a sub 50% team take it home

Ultimately my point has been that Kirby found himself in a good situation to start with, at a program that not only had ample talent in-house, but there was plenty of talent available in his geo. He's done an amazing job of managing his roster since he got there.
Posted by djsdawg
Member since Apr 2015
33379 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 3:29 pm to
quote:

Ultimately my point has been that Kirby found himself in a good situation to start with, at a program that not only had ample talent in-house, but there was plenty of talent available in his geo. He's done an amazing job of managing his roster since he got there.


He was set up well for the future. He wasn’t set up well for 2016. That team was incredibly flawed, and thus destined to struggle.
Posted by rtr23242526
Member since Dec 2022
3295 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 3:36 pm to
KD..the train kept a rollin
Posted by rtr23242526
Member since Dec 2022
3295 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 3:45 pm to
Do not be deceived..talent is practically everything..ask nick..nick told the ad that
Posted by djsdawg
Member since Apr 2015
33379 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 6:58 pm to
quote:

you're still the dumbass who thinks a RB running for 66 yards on 3 drives that end in a FG isn't successful


I don’t recall saying this. You are once again confused.
Posted by 3down10
Member since Sep 2014
23487 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 8:32 pm to
quote:



I don’t recall saying this. You are once again confused.





That "21 point explosion" was a total of 4 drives and 15 plays.

In that time, Johnson has 13 yards rushing, 11 yards recieving and accounted for 2 first down. Of course, to anyone who understands football, they know the first 3 successful drives where he ran for over 60 yards on them is what opened up the passing game.



And this was about the time when I figured out you were a complete dumbass.

Especially since they scored a TD on their 5th drive of the game, but you want to pretend like the drive ended because Georgia had a penalty on 4th down.

fricking retard.

Posted by TouchdownTony
Central Alabama
Member since Apr 2016
9893 posts
Posted on 7/10/24 at 9:40 pm to
Wait, no, no. Bama lost all of its best players...or so said the rant.
I can see it now.
Feb 2024-Man, Bama is going to have a hard time fielding a team. Bama is burning. Everybody is leaving.
Jan 2025- Deboer only won because of all that talent Saban left him.

For the record, Richt recruited like a mfer. He couldn't win the big one's.
Kirby has proven he can...well, except against one team.
Posted by koreandawg
South Korea
Member since Sep 2015
9317 posts
Posted on 7/11/24 at 4:58 am to
quote:


Wait, no, no. Bama lost all of its best players...or so said the rant.
I can see it now.
Feb 2024-Man, Bama is going to have a hard time fielding a team. Bama is burning. Everybody is leaving.
Jan 2025- Deboer only won because of all that talent Saban left him.

For the record, Richt recruited like a mfer. He couldn't win the big one's.
Kirby has proven he can...well, except against one team.


Honestly, DeBoer was on the meme but was more of a footnote for me. Certainly wasn't the focus. But I know who was focused on him.

Posted by HighTide_ATL
Member since Aug 2020
1947 posts
Posted on 7/11/24 at 7:50 am to
quote:

He was set up well for the future. He wasn’t set up well for 2016. That team was incredibly flawed, and thus destined to struggle.


I won't say he was necessarily set to win the natty, but his BCR in 2016 should've yielded better results than 8-5.

Every single one of his losses was against a team with a lower BCR.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter