Blue Chip Ratio vs Coaching & Developing??

[PennState_one]

All this talk about "blue chip ratio" has made me wander how much developing really matters. Do you believe it is more X's and O's or Jimmie and Joes?

What is your realistic take? The Jimmie and Joe's is a proven model, but does scheme play a pretty big part?

How much do the top recruiting schools cover up X and O problems with "high ranking" recruits? Some schools recruit themselves, and I really wander why a team like the USC Trojans (among others) aren't in the playoffs every year....

 

[LionJim]

Jimmies and Joes.

 

[artsandletters]

How does Wisconsin perennially have excellent OLs with 3 star players. The run game has been at the center of their offense for years. So, in this case, coaching, right?

 

[Springcity]

Alabama develops Ohio State covers it up

 

[ACGT]

All this talk about "blue chip ratio" has made me wander how much developing really matters. Do you believe it is more X's and O's or Jimmie and Joes?

What is your realistic take? The Jimmie and Joe's is a proven model, but does scheme play a pretty big part?

How much do the top recruiting schools cover up X and O problems with "high ranking" recruits? Some schools recruit themselves, and I really wander why a team like the USC Trojans (among others) aren't in the playoffs every year....

Reminds me of the Nature vs. Nurture discussions from Psych 101 at PSU. Both play a roll and the percentage of which is more important is debatable. Five star restaurants start with the best ingredients which are fashioned by a talented chef into a fine meal. Give me the same ingredients and my presentation would be borderline edible.

 

[Thomas1945]

How does Wisconsin perennially have excellent OLs with 3 star players. The run game has been at the center of their offense for years. So, in this case, coaching, right?

Even with excellent coaching going back to the Alvarez era 3 stars only take you so far. At the end of the season when all the dust has settled how often has Wisconsin been a National Title contender? Granted USC usually is a recruiting machine, but without a good coach they under perform. To win it all you really need a boatload of 4 and 5 stars and decent coaching that doesn’t screw up the product on the field. But that’s just my opinion.

 

[Art]

Both. Relative importance of each depends on what is arrayed agin' ya.

 

[PennState_one]

Yeah IMO, USC has zero excuse to not be a top 5 team year in and year out. Hopefully PSU can get into that club. When Franklin talks about being "elite", I can't help but think that this is a huge part of it.

I think that PSU will jump some of these teams before long and the train will keep rolling. Rayne should be much much better next season. I do not care for the "training grounds" per se, but who can complain considering where they have came from.

I'm enjoying every second if it and many FBS teams will envy them whether they want to admit it or not... For real...

 

[ejb25]

Wisconsin still hasn't competed for a National Championship. The Blue Chip Ratio has proven that teams with who have competed for National Championships have more Blue Chip players than non blue chip players.

Case in point:

1. Alabama - 77%
2. Clemson - 66%
3. Oklahoma - 53%
4. Notre Dame - 51%

Bud Elliot called it that only 13 teams this year had a realistic shot to compete for a national championship. He was proven right yet again.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/8/22/17606048/blue-chip-ratio-2018

How does Wisconsin perennially have excellent OLs with 3 star players. The run game has been at the center of their offense for years. So, in this case, coaching, right?

 

[Nitt1300]

character and luck play big roles- it's no one thing, never has been

 

[PennState_one]

Wisconsin still hasn't competed for a National Championship. The Blue Chip Ratio has proven that teams with who have competed for National Championships have more Blue Chip players than non blue chip players.

Case in point:

1. Alabama - 77%
2. Clemson - 66%
3. Oklahoma - 53%
4. Notre Dame - 51%

Bud Elliot called it that only 13 teams this year had a realistic shot to compete for a national championship. He was proven right yet again.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/8/22/17606048/blue-chip-ratio-2018

Who would be the closest to the 13 teams to compete? Wisconsin? Michigan State? Other?

 

[PSUinSTL]

I think it is more about WHO you have than the schemes you have.

You look at the top teams - why do they seldom lose to lesser teams. Talent tends to win out at the end. Coaching can improve a team or 'lower' a team. Aka Vandy under Franklin - they were able to play better than the talent dictated.

That doesn't mean that the more talented team always wins - mistakes happen (dropped passes/fumbles/etc).

There are teams that are coached well - MSU/Wiscy that are close enough in talent that they can beat the big boys if things go right. You put those coaches on a MAC team and it doesn't matter - they won't beat the PSUs/OSUs.

Also - 1 game doesn't prove anything (ala boise/UCF beating the big boys in a bowl) - motivation/etc plays a role and it is easy to get up for 1 game and to plan for one game when that is all you have left

The other thing to remember when looking at talent - and saying PSU has more talent than MSU - is who knows. Yes the ratings say we are more talented - but they may have mis-rated a few guys and MSU might have the talent we do.

People bring up FSU/Texas/USC to disprove the talent - 1) The players might not truly be top talent just rated highly because where they grew up, 2) The chemistry a team has is important. Saban ensures the team buys in. Meyer let the players run the show in FL, and look what happened.

People bring up Wisconsin to disprove the talent/coaching argument. A few points - 1) What is there record against top teams. They beat average-worse teams and aren't great vs the upper teams.
2) I liken them to a mid major Basketball 'power' (ala Gonzaga/Butler). They don't churn through players. There starters are usually upper class man. They are typically bigger and more mature than opponents. They don't make the mistakes other teams do typically. This is their edge.

Where coaching comes into play - is when teams play teams with equal talent (Something that PSU is finally equal on to UM and OSU (close enough to not matter)).

People gawk at Meyer's record and Saban's record. What is their record against equal teams. It is average (Bama has played maybe a handful of teams close to them talent wise since 2012).

 

[Ceasar]

Talent trumps all. Proof of that is the fact Les Miles won a NC at LSU.

 

[Ceasar]

Wisconsin still hasn't competed for a National Championship. The Blue Chip Ratio has proven that teams with who have competed for National Championships have more Blue Chip players than non blue chip players.

Case in point:

1. Alabama - 77%
2. Clemson - 66%
3. Oklahoma - 53%
4. Notre Dame - 51%

Bud Elliot called it that only 13 teams this year had a realistic shot to compete for a national championship. He was proven right yet again.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/8/22/17606048/blue-chip-ratio-2018

ejb, that's a great stat. Do you happen to know how they define "blue chip"? Is it 4 and 5 star players?

 

[Ranger Dan]

I think having the jimmies and joes is the price of admission into the elite level of CFB, but you will be competing against other teams who have jimmies and joes, and there are other teams who are a step below talent wise and keen on developing players and x’s And o’s, who can beat you on any given Saturday if you dont put your better talent t good use.

 

[Nitt1300]

A good example of character and coaching beating talent was the 1987 Fiesta Bowl.

 

[pointingdogsrule]

How does Wisconsin perennially have excellent OLs with 3 star players. The run game has been at the center of their offense for years. So, in this case, coaching, right?

Blue chip dominates, however there are some schools such as Wisconsin that are good at what they do. As a PSU fan living in Iowa, I see what Iowa does with 3 stars. No they don't win NC's however Farentz is good at developing players.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

All this talk about "blue chip ratio" has made me wander how much developing really matters. Do you believe it is more X's and O's or Jimmie and Joes?

What is your realistic take? The Jimmie and Joe's is a proven model, but does scheme play a pretty big part?

How much do the top recruiting schools cover up X and O problems with "high ranking" recruits? Some schools recruit themselves, and I really wander why a team like the USC Trojans (among others) aren't in the playoffs every year....

BOTH!

 

[Lion84]

How does Wisconsin perennially have excellent OLs with 3 star players. The run game has been at the center of their offense for years. So, in this case, coaching, right?

They actually get a lot of 4 star OL guys due to their reputation devolving this position.

 

[Raffycorn]

I’ve always looked at it as talent is what establishes your ceiling as a program, and coaching is what determines your floor.

For me? I think a coach’s most important job is recruiting, and I don’t think second place is all that close. The phrase goes “big time players make big time plays in big time games”, not “big time coaches make big time schemes in big time games”.

 

[PennState_one]

They actually get a lot of 4 star OL guys due to their reputation devolving this position.

I guess that's what keeps them in the running most years. Pretty good for being in the west...

 

[Obliviax]

It's up to the kid. And that is a combination of God given talent and work ethic. All you can do is provide the environment and motivation.

 

[ga.lion]

All this talk about "blue chip ratio" has made me wander how much developing really matters. Do you believe it is more X's and O's or Jimmie and Joes?

What is your realistic take? The Jimmie and Joe's is a proven model, but does scheme play a pretty big part?

How much do the top recruiting schools cover up X and O problems with "high ranking" recruits? Some schools recruit themselves, and I really wander why a team like the USC Trojans (among others) aren't in the playoffs every year....

Without a doubt the school with the elite recruits have a better chance to
win the championship than those without. Coaching, development, and injuries all play a factor in the success as well.

 

[PSUdraw]

I always look at this way about half your schedule you should be able to win just on talent alone but there is always those teams where talent is equal or you are slightly behind and then to me the combination of coaching and players is what matters because it could come down to a handful of plays to win or lose. So simple answer is Yes both matter just as equally when its all said and done.

 

[ejb25]

Yes, I believe he uses the composite rankings of 4 and 5 star players.

ejb, that's a great stat. Do you happen to know how they define "blue chip"? Is it 4 and 5 star players?

 

[BobPSU92]

The most important factor is making the team a family.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

You need blue chip talent to win an NC these days, but it isn't just Jimmy and Joes, and the coaching requirement goes way beyond recruiting. Recruiting is an essential part of it, but not all of it.

We can point to the 1987 NC as an outlier, but that outlier to me was just some over-the-top arrogance on the part of Jimmy Johnson. He could have won that game easily by just running it down our throats. Instead, he wanted a thrashing, and got a loss. So, in a way that game confirmed that it goes way beyond just recruiting Jimmy and Joes. It takes both.

These days I think a big part of your Jimmy and Joes is discipline and maturity. How often have we seen loaded teams go out and lay a big egg? See OSU. That doesn't happen if the team is focused and disciplined. This is a big part of why I hate the eye test for playoff participants. It tends to look past outlier games -- the result of a lack in discipline and team cohesion.

 

[pawildcat]

ESPN and social media will help ensure the top few teams mostly stay on top. Constant rankings of top classes featuring the usual suspects, media fawning over top football and BB coaches etc. Happens in basketball, too, but because there are many more BB teams and scholarships are limited there is slightly more diversity in that sport.

 

[mcgunns]

How does Wisconsin perennially have excellent OLs with 3 star players. The run game has been at the center of their offense for years. So, in this case, coaching, right?

No. This has been consistent through different coaches. Most reasonable explanation is improper evaluation of their regional talent by the recruiting sites. I’ve never looked into it but rural kids that don’t play the recruiting game are almost certainly the most consistently underrated recruits. City kids that go to every camp and talk to every coach/reporter are almost certainly the most consistently overrated.