So I stumbled on this video, and it got me thinking about how much we obsess over our class ranking and the number of 4-5 ⭐ players we get each year.
I didn't post this to start a debate about whether 5⭐ players translate to success and MNC's. I simply found it interesting how some of these kids just don't pan out. So for all of the Cam'ron Kelly's and Fords, there's a Kam Chancellor and a Matt Forte. Development is key, and I'm hoping that will tip the scales in our favor. Imagine VT being a school that not only has great development techniques, but that also acquires highly rated kids to develop over time.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Maybe it's a pipe dream, but what we need to do is get ourselves to the Blue-Chip Ratio.
And 2018s just came out today
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/8/22/17606048/blue-chip-r...
Where is the full list?Where do we stand?
Just from a quick look through our lists of signees on 247, it seems we're at 17% for this year, up slightly from 14% last year thanks to the 2018 class signing 27% blue-chippers vs. 14% in 2014.
2016 was rock-bottom with only 1 blue-chipper out of 22 signees, whereas 2017 had 5 out of 27, so it seems like we're on an upswing.
Edit: No idea where that puts us nationally, however. Seems they don't like putting out the full data set for whatever reason. I did find additional information in their 2017 edition, such as UVA being at 6% (and likely dropping even further due to a 0/22 blue-chip rate in the 2018 class):
https://www.sbnation.com/a/cfb-preview-2017/blue-chip-ratio
I made a spreadsheet going back to 2010 using both 247's composite rankings and ESPN's.
Including the 2018 class, 247's rankings have us at a BCR of 18.09% (17/94) while ESPN's have us at 30.11% (33/93).
The difference in total numbers is ESPN didn't have a profile for Henri Murphy's transfer, while 247 did.
If people are interested, I'll try to convert this to a shareable spreadsheet this weekend so folks can see the assumptions I made.
EDIT: The BCR uses 247 composite, so the 18% is the comparative number.
I think you're missing a few signees that didn't enroll, which I believe are included in the BCR. I got a total of 17/99 signees when I looked through the records. Not that it makes a big difference (17% vs. 18%)
Yeah, I remove players that prep and include them in the year they arrive on campus. That means guys that prep and don't make it (Adonis Williamson, Mike Arnold, Eric Whitehead, etc.) don't factor in because they never occupy a scholarship. Maybe that's flawed logic, but that's how I drew it up. It does help prevent double counting the players that do make it in (Silas Dzansi, Christian Darrisaw, Zach Hoyt etc.).
Also worth noting: The BCR does not include transfers, so omitting Henri is appropriate if you're looking for something comparable to the original.
I don't know if that blue chip ratio is legit...it's kind of like the chicken or the egg, so it's somewhat debatable.
But coaching seems to matter more than talent. A well coached team with lesser talent statistically has greater records is ranked higher than talented teams that are poorly coached.
People look at these blue chip teams like Alabama and think they're only where they are because talent. Well they also have Nick Saban...there is a reason his assistants get head coaching jobs and succeed (mostly).
A really good example of this that's easy to see is 2007 on Michigans record throughout that time vs Michigan States record.
At one point Michigan started winning consistently by hiring a good coach, the recruiting classes were basically the same. Jim Harbaugh is a good coach *ducks, runs out, slams door*
I dunno. The BCR seems like a pretty solid, even if incomplete, indicator to me. You're correct that you do need talent AND coaching, but quality of coaching is much more difficult to quantify. If Saban abruptly quit at Alabama and moved to Marshall, they might win their conference, but there's no way they'd get a sniff at, much less win, the playoff. The BCR is a pretty simple way to quantify the talent coming in to a program. It gives you a starting point to see who has a realistic shot at competing for the title, so you can dig deeper into the minutiae to figure out who has the best shot at actually winning it.
I think that's why people put so much weight on recruiting and things like this. It's easy to quantify.
Keep all things equal. Put Nick Saban at Pitt and Pat Narduzzi at Alabama. How long until Pitts record is better than Alabama's? 2 years?
I'm not saying talent doesn't matter. But statistically people overstate recruiting and understate program building coaches
Just look at teams who have had top 10 avg classes the past three cycles (2014-2016)
Alabama
Clemson
Ohio State
Georgia
Auburn
Stanford
Notre Dame
LSU
USC
FSUOle MissFloridaTexasTennTexas A&MMichiganBold finished in the top 10 last year
Strike didn't make it in the top 25
The rest finished between 10 and 25
So teams with top level elite recruits on their roster that are eligible to impact a season only 31% finish in the top 10. Only 56% make it to the top 25, so having an elite level class gives you just over a coin flip from even being a top 25 team? It doesn't add up.
I get it, the sample size is small it's one year, but you can literally do this every year back until the recruiting services existed.
I get the premise. But it's kind of hard to say "you need this ratio" to play in national championship when only 18 unique coaches have played for a national championship in the past 20 years.
So, let me get this straight...
#10 suffered a few injuries and then got arrested, which pretty much ended his career
#9the top "pocket passer" had a couple injuries and never regained his prior form#8 is a 7-time Pro-Bowler, considered one of the best in the NFL at his position
#7 turned out to not be very good and transferred to a D-2 school
#6 was the Big XII Defensive Player of the Year who never quite made a name for himself in the NFL
#5 led the SEC in receiving yards his freshman year, and is considered one of the best WRs in the NFL
#4 had a successful college career until it was shortened by a scandal, and has had a decent but unorthodox career in the NFL
#3 had a decent college career before going undrafted, spent a few years in the Arena league and then the NFL and is now in the CFL
#2 is better than #5
#1 won ACC DPOY as a Junior before spending 5 years in the NFL
By my count, that's 5 of 10 that came pretty close to expectations, and another 2 that still had successful college careers. I'd take a 70% success rate any day.
Hell, put these up against hastily googled numbers, high schoolers have about a 5.8% chance to make an NCAA team.
High school seniors that play football have a 0.09% chance to be drafted by an NFL team.
These top 10 players were drafted roughly 1000x more often (or at least played professionally) than a random high school senior.
What a unique topic to discuss.
I understand the point of this but I think it's funny that it's only the schools that don't get the 4 and 5 star recruits that bring up how not important star rankings are
Gotta fill that time not in the playoff with something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Filling the time with these discussions is a great scheme fit for our program
As I stated in the intro, wasn't looking to have the do we need "5 🌟 s debate." Simply thought it was interesting to assess a class 10 years out and see the percentages of successful outcomes.
I still take my chances highly rated 3*'s, 4*'s and 5*'s or better yet, players with multiple major P5 offers over the...
1) Under the radar guy
2) He fits our scheme
3) He was hurt so that's why nobody recruited him
4) I like his tape (even though all you will see is the best of the best)
5) Any other justification on a prospect that has only non-Power 5 offers
"he was focusing on basketball until his junior year"
"Recruiting services don't accurately rate European players." - LOLUVa this year
"Recruiting services don't accurately rate Mormon players who've been on mission." - Coach BM every year
He's literally "Coach BM". What a gift.
And mid BM, Coach BM is thinking about beating tech. I feel like that should be illegal.
This is the part that is not true. For every 100 Cam'ron Kelly's and Devin Fords there is a Kam and a Matt Forte. The Top 100 players have a much higher percentage of success than the bottom 1000 even if both groups generate 50 future pros.
The star system has some obvious flaws.. 1. Football scouting in general is not an exact science- see every NFL draft. Those teams spend millions in scouting college players and get it wrong - a lot. 2. A player that simply has offers or interest from traditional blue blood programs is going to have a higher star ranking- so its a chicken egg fallacy in some cases and not related to actual talent that has been scouted equally. 3. It's easier to be given a high star ranking at premium positions such as QB and DT... now having said that- Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State have a bunch more 4 and 5 star players than Virginia Tech does, and they are a lot better than we are right now. So it "works" to some degree too.
"STARS ARE ALL THAT MATTERS, PAWWWWWLLLL!'
Lost all credibility as knowledgeable when narrator pronounced the transfer destination as TUS-keh-gee in the first profile. Never seen the movie with airmen?