re: Blue Chip Ratio this year vs all CBK years

(no message)

quote:

---

bc the class is probably our best ever with the 2 we lost

---

Interesting comment. Let's compare the blue chip ratios of past LSU top classes.

2007 - finished #4 BC ratio 80%
2009 - finished #2 BC ratio 58%
2014 - finished #2 BC ratio 73%
2016 - finished #3 BC ratio 76%
2019 - finished #5 BC ratio 58%
2020 - finished #4 BC ratio 85%
2021 - finished #4 BC ratio 90%
2025 - finished #7 BC ratio 83%


Notes. The great 2014 class was 73% bc ratio. That class had Fournette, Adams and Dupre. 2020 and 2021 were wasted classes due to Orgeron chasing tail and crazy kids (Arik Gilbert)

So this class by bc ratio is our 4th highest rated by that metric, the 2005 or 2006 class was at 90% but only 13 commits. We will see how they pan out but future looks bright.

Edited to add most of the other years classes finished in top 10 and bc ratio of 58-62% for comparisons..

quote:

---

I think, I could be wrong, the overall rankings only rank the top 18 signees for each team for their overall ranking, so if you sign 3 5 stars, 13 4 stars and 8 3 stars, only the 2 highest rated 3 stars count toward the overall team ranking.

---

So the way 247 does it, is that they use a weighting system where the highest-rated recruit in a class is worth a lot while the lowest-rated recruit is worth very little. The idea is that the bottom of a class is less likely to contribute. As a result, adding a 4* guy when you already have a bunch committed doesn’t make nearly as much difference as adding one when you don’t have any committed.

As I understand it, On3’s system is a bit different. Instead of using a bell curve to deal with class size variations, they cap the number of commits for the calculation at the average number of commits for the sport. This has a similar affect (reducing the impact of additional players at the bottom of a class) but without applying extra weight to the top of the class.

So basically 247 class ratings are mostly based on the top handful of recruits, with contribution falling off quickly after that, while On3’s class ratings are more like an average of the top 18 (at this time) recruits.

Yea I was saying it is best if we kept the 2 we lost lol

The rest of my post said it feels like “what could have been”

Wow! Good job in bringing that point out about the Blue Chip ratio.

This is clearly improvement year to year.

You'd think that is was a terrible class with so much of the negative sentiment in the Rant.

quote:

---

people are so upset about Underwood that they can’t admit we got a damn strong class.

---

This is the answer. We lost Underwood so LSU is broke and sinking.

I think at least one of the four DTs will make us forget Stewart.

quote:

---

2 5 stars out of 5 so far haven't worked out for Kelly

---

What about Maason Smith and Sage Ryan? Shelton Sampson was considered a 5* by some sites and he is bouncing with another 5* in Womack. Quincy Wiggins was a 5* on a few sites. Now he hasn't done shite at Colorado so I won't criticize that one much. Add that to disaster that the 2023 class is turning into and I don't understand why he is escaping the same criticism Coach O and Miles would face.

quote:

---

For the life of me I can’t figure out why people aren’t going crazy over this class. It is absolutely loaded. It’s like people are so upset about Underwood that they can’t admit we got a damn strong class.

---

For life of me I can't figure out why people get so excited about a recruiting class when they know at least fifty percent of the class won't do squat at LSU.

Next time your oogling at the signing class go ahead and start scratching names off the list for whatever reason.

We were all excited about Shelton Sampson. Dude is in the portal without every having contributed on the field. Do I need to continue naming bluechip prospects who have left the program?

As someone posted a day or two ago, the 2023 signing class already looks like dogsh*t two years in.