Serious question. Is the Blue Chip Ratio becoming outdated in the portal era?

Pennstate_one

Pennstate_one

Active member
College players don’t sign binding contracts, NIL doesn’t stop transfers, and roster turnover now feels closer to annual free agency than traditional roster building.

The Blue Chip Ratio only measures high school recruiting over a four-year window, but it completely ignores developed transfers, multi-year starters, and proven production. At some point, we’re measuring potential instead of results.

I’m not saying high school recruiting doesn’t matter. It clearly still does. But it feels like roster construction is shifting from “recruit and wait” to “develop somewhere else, then pay for experience.”

In that environment, non-elite programs risk becoming development pipelines for bigger programs. Curious how people think this evolves long-term, especially with limited regulation (no regulation imo) and no real contracts.
 
Coaches will play those who will be the most productive. The universities and programs want the revenue, and the most revenue comes from winning. 90% of HS players will go where the money is best. With the portal, Cignetti's model is the best and the HS recruit model is almost useless. Luckily for PSU fans, CMC doesn't mind telling players who think they deserve things that their paychecks have stopped.
 
A new quantitative team pay model in this "wild west" may work. The base pay is set by position, then a certain percent increase is determined by per-game grades (like what those things on OSU's helmets represent), and by each win, a conference championship, each playoff win, and a national championship. A commission with base model.
Some players may be enticed by it and react well to it. Others will go elsewhere.
 
Pennstate_one said:
College players don’t sign binding contracts, NIL doesn’t stop transfers, and roster turnover now feels closer to annual free agency than traditional roster building.

The Blue Chip Ratio only measures high school recruiting over a four-year window, but it completely ignores developed transfers, multi-year starters, and proven production. At some point, we’re measuring potential instead of results.

I’m not saying high school recruiting doesn’t matter. It clearly still does. But it feels like roster construction is shifting from “recruit and wait” to “develop somewhere else, then pay for experience.”

In that environment, non-elite programs risk becoming development pipelines for bigger programs. Curious how people think this evolves long-term, especially with limited regulation (no regulation imo) and no real contracts.
Click to expand...

Who would you rather have as a senior?

Answer... I don't effing know.
Well in this case I do. The National 179 guy who is Kaytron Allen vs. Nick Singleton.

That's why HS recruiting is a waste today for bluechippers.
 
Pennstate_one said:
College players don’t sign binding contracts, NIL doesn’t stop transfers, and roster turnover now feels closer to annual free agency than traditional roster building.

The Blue Chip Ratio only measures high school recruiting over a four-year window, but it completely ignores developed transfers, multi-year starters, and proven production. At some point, we’re measuring potential instead of results.

I’m not saying high school recruiting doesn’t matter. It clearly still does. But it feels like roster construction is shifting from “recruit and wait” to “develop somewhere else, then pay for experience.”

In that environment, non-elite programs risk becoming development pipelines for bigger programs. Curious how people think this evolves long-term, especially with limited regulation (no regulation imo) and no real contracts.
Click to expand...
Yes. At this point, HS recruiting barely matters
 
Pennstate_one said:
In that environment, non-elite programs risk becoming development pipelines for bigger programs.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what is happening with basketball.

That said, who WAS elite and who WILL BE elite going forward is two different things.

Stanford has enough money backing it to pay any price for a team.
Whereas, a school like Nebraska does not. (although they weren't recently a power)

There's going to be a seismic shift in CFB of who is elite and not. You can't just have a bigger fanbase, larger stadium and better facilities.
It's all about roster pay.

AND, paying $10M for a coach is in the rearview mirror. Some schools haven't gotten this yet. They were paying the coaches and the coaches were handing bags of money to players.
Your average college coach, now, is worth significantly less.

LdN
 
LionDeNittany said:
This is exactly what is happening with basketball.

That said, who WAS elite and who WILL BE elite going forward is two different things.

Stanford has enough money backing it to pay any price for a team.
Whereas, a school like Nebraska does not. (although they weren't recently a power)

There's going to be a seismic shift in CFB of who is elite and not. You can't just have a bigger fanbase, larger stadium and better facilities.
It's all about roster pay.

AND, paying $10M for a coach is in the rearview mirror. Some schools haven't gotten this yet. They were paying the coaches and the coaches were handing bags of money to players.
Your average college coach, now, is worth significantly less.

LdN
Click to expand...
Where a coach matters and may be worth the pay in this environment is his ability to shape teams into complete and productive units. Cignetti, maybe CMC, probably Meyer and Saban. Big12, speed & skill position mentality guys like Riley, Franklin, and Sark not so much.
 
Frank Lee said:
Where a coach matters and may be worth the pay in this environment is his ability to shape teams into complete and productive units. Cignetti, maybe CMC, probably Meyer and Saban. Big12, speed & skill position mentality guys like Riley, Franklin, and Sark not so much.
Click to expand...

Any coach who is an expert in that would be in the NFL.

And, I guess to your point, there's very few of them in CFB.

Rumor is that Raiders will take both the QB and HC from Indiana as an example.
 
LionDeNittany said:
Any coach who is an expert in that would be in the NFL.

And, I guess to your point, there's very few of them in CFB.

Rumor is that Raiders will take both the QB and HC from Indiana as an example.
Click to expand...
How much does the NFL pay its coaches (e.g. $10m+?) and does success translate between CFB "pro" and NFL "pro"? And, like Paterno, Cignetti might be someone who understands this and likes where he's at. There are various factors that lead to success in both. E.g. Saban, Meyer, Belichick, Chip Kelly, Pete Carroll, etc.
 
Frank Lee said:
How much does the NFL pay its coaches (e.g. $10m+?) and does success translate between CFB "pro" and NFL "pro"? And, like Paterno, Cignetti might be someone who understands this and likes where he's at. There are various factors that lead to success in both. E.g. Saban, Meyer, Belichick, Chip Kelly, Pete Carroll, etc.
Click to expand...
Agreed there are differences and some are suited to the nfl or college over the other. But I would imagine it is generally nicer to not have to recruit your entire roster and HS kids every single waking moment. That has to take a toll.
 
Frank Lee said:
How much does the NFL pay its coaches (e.g. $10m+?) and does success translate between CFB "pro" and NFL "pro"? And, like Paterno, Cignetti might be someone who understands this and likes where he's at. There are various factors that lead to success in both. E.g. Saban, Meyer, Belichick, Chip Kelly, Pete Carroll, etc.
Click to expand...

Not sure. But the salesman collegr coaches of yesterday are in the rearview mirror.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top