Trending Up: Miami Blue Chip Progress (Defense)

[TC@ne]

Do you know what a ratio is?

It’s a fraction. Since most people on this board failed the 3rd grade, I’ll give a refresher....fractions have two parts. A numerator, which is the number “upstairs”, and a denominator, which is the number “downstairs.”

Fractions and ratios can go up in exactly two ways - increasing the numerator OR decreasing the denominator

So tell me this, in the blue chip ratio, what value does the “downstairs” number (denominator) add? Does decreasing the denominator make your team better?

In other words, why not just forget the downstairs number, and just compare teams by looking at the COUNT of blue chip players on the roster?

Youre getting caught up in semantics. Idk if it’s because this concept is foreign to you or because youre no fun at parties, but either way it tells you the same ****

 

[AllAboutTheU]

Youre getting caught up in semantics. Idk if it’s because this concept is foreign to you or because youre no fun at parties, but either way it tells you the same ****

Clearly the latter. I thought he was complaining about the idea of blue chips matter. Dude is throwing a tantrum about semantics.

 

[RightSaidFred]

Every roster doesn’t have the same number of players. Every recruiting class doesn’t have the same number of players. So count is less relevant.

I don’t even get what you’re fuming about in this post. That it isn’t actually a ratio or that they aren’t just counting? Either way — the point is you need to bring in >50% blue chips as a baseline to have a national title contender roster. That’s the conversation here, which I thought you were calling dumb. It doesn’t seem like you are.

Blue chip ratio rewards teams for having too little players on the roster.

For example Miami has less than 85 on scholarship all these years, and our blue chip ratio goes up because of it. That’s why the ratio is garbage, because that’s backward logic.

More players make the team stronger, not weaker. More players means more depth and more competition, a better scout team, etc.

What really matters is how much total talent you have on the team.

 

[RightSaidFred]

Youre getting caught up in semantics. Idk if it’s because this concept is foreign to you or because youre no fun at parties, but either way it tells you the same ****

I’m very popular at the chess club.

 

[AllAboutTheU]

Blue chip ratio rewards teams for having too little players on the roster.

For example Miami has less than 85 on scholarship all these years, and our blue chip ratio goes up because of it. That’s why the ratio is garbage, because that’s backward logic.

More players make the team stronger, not weaker. More players means more depth and more competition, a better scout team, etc.

What really matters is how much total talent you have on the team.

Not true at all. The number of blue chips we have in each class is increasing. Specifically can look at the 20 and 21 classes which are pretty clear indications.

We’ve been under the scholarship numbers for years now, but we’ve only started to improve our blue chip ratio to the requisite standard as we’ve — recruited better players.

 

[305to954]

Whole lot of guys who was bust...

 

[RVACane]

Not true at all. The number of blue chips we have in each class is increasing. Specifically can look at the 20 and 21 classes which are pretty clear indications.

We’ve been under the scholarship numbers for years now, but we’ve only started to improve our blue chip ratio to the requisite standard as we’ve — recruited better players.

I think he’s saying that if one school has 30 blue chips on a 60 man roster and Another school has 30 blue chips on an 85 man roster than the ratio doesn’t work but they must calculate it by scholarship and class or something???

 

[AllAboutTheU]

I think he’s saying that if one school has 30 blue chips on a 60 man roster and Another school has 30 blue chips on an 85 man roster than the ratio doesn’t work but they must calculate it by scholarship and class or something???

But nobody is playing that far under the scholarship totals. We don’t see huge disparities in scholarship players like that.

Even with Miami, we’re usually a few men under, which isn’t significantly impacting that. Our blue chip ratio improved because of bringing in better players, not because of being under scholarship totals. The Blue Chip ratio isn’t full proof it’s just obvious that you can’t even think about winning a national championship without being around that 50% threshold of blue chips at least.

 

[RVACane]

But nobody is playing that far under the scholarship totals. We don’t see huge disparities in scholarship players like that.

Even with Miami, we’re usually a few men under, which isn’t significantly impacting that. Our blue chip ratio improved because of bringing in better players, not because of being under scholarship totals. The Blue Chip ratio isn’t full proof it’s just obvious that you can’t even think about winning a national championship without being around that 50% threshold of blue chips at least.

Yeah, they should measure it by # of blue chips players over # of scholarship players for each class. It changes though. For instance, Lingard was a blue chip player who transferred to the gaytor and so then they would add him in I guess, and regardless of performance since high school.

Regardless, it seems like the dude was making a big deal and calling it idiotic with a broad stroke because of the concept of no equal denominators across the board but my understanding is that this ratio is present in all recent championship teams.