247 Talent Composite - 2020

[Duckboy33]

ACC:
1. Florida State (6th nationally)
2. Clemson (8th nationally)
3. Notre Dame (11th nationally)
4. Miami FL (18th nationally)
5. North Carolina (29th nationally)
6. Virginia Tech (30th nationally)
7. NC State (35th nationally)
8. Duke (39th nationally)
9. Georgia Tech (41st nationally)
10. Pittsburgh (43rd nationally)
11. Louisville (58th nationally)
12. Virginia (59th nationally)
13. Syracuse (60th nationally)
14. Boston College (65th nationally)
15. Wake Forest (69th nationally)

Big 12:
1. Texas (7th nationally)
2. Oklahoma (9th nationally)
3. TCU (28th nationally)
4. Baylor (36th nationally)
5. West Virginia (42nd nationally)
6. Oklahoma State (44th nationally)
7. Iowa State (56th nationally)
8. Texas Tech (61st nationally)
9. Kansas State (72nd nationally)
10. Kansas (73rd nationally)

Big Ten:
1. Ohio State (2nd nationally)
2. Penn State (10th nationally)
3. Michigan (12th nationally)
4. Nebraska (24th nationally)
5. Maryland (26th nationally)
6. Wisconsin (32nd nationally)
7. Michigan State (33rd nationally)
8. Illinois (37th nationally)
9. Iowa (38th nationally)
10. Minnesota (45th nationally)
11. Northwestern (48th nationally)
12. Purdue (50th nationally)
13. Indiana (51st nationally)
14. Rutgers (57th nationally)

PAC 12:
1. USC (4th nationally)
2. Oregon (15th nationally)
3. Washington (19th nationally)
4. Stanford (20th nationally)
5. UCLA (22nd nationally)
6. Arizona State (34th nationally)
7. Utah (46th nationally)
8. Colorado (47th nationally)
9. California (53rd nationally)
10. Oregon State (54th nationally)
11. Arizona (63rd nationally)
12. Washington State (71st nationally)

SEC:
1. Alabama (1st nationally)
2. Georgia (3rd nationally)
3. LSU (5th nationally)
4. Texas A&M (13th nationally)
5. Auburn (14th nationally)
6. Florida (16th nationally)
7. Tennessee (17th nationally)
8. South Carolina (21st nationally)
9. Mississippi State (23rd nationally)
10. Ole Miss (25th nationally)
11. Arkansas (27th nationally)
12. Kentucky (31st nationally)
13. Missouri (40th nationally)
14. Vanderbilt (52nd nationally)

Top 10 G5:
1. Houston (49th nationally)
2. UCF (55th nationally)
3. Cincinnati (62nd nationally)
4. Boise State (64th nationally)
5. SMU (66th nationally)
6. USF (67th nationally)
7. BYU (68th nationally)
8. Memphis (70th nationally)
9. FIU (74th nationally)
10. FAU (75th nationally)

 

[Codaxx]

I hate these. So little thought is given to the allocation of the talent. Is it grouped on one side of the ball? Does it lack on the LOS? It doesn’t look at the age of the talent.

 

[Duckboy33]

I hate these. So little thought is given to the allocation of the talent. Is it grouped on one side of the ball? Does it lack on the LOS? It doesn’t look at the age of the talent.

There’s no formula that’s perfect. I think its actually fairly useful. Very few teams that win the CFP fall outside the top couple of teams. But as you said, there are a lot of variables. You always see some teams perform a lot lower and others perform higher.

Who do you think will underperform or over perform based on these ratings?

 

[DeafOranguntan]

There’s no formula that’s perfect. I think its actually fairly useful. Very few teams that win the CFP fall outside the top couple of teams. But as you said, there are a lot of variables. You always see some teams perform a lot lower and others perform higher.

Who do you think will underperform or over perform based on these ratings?

That's dumb. Most of the teams that win the CFP fall outside the top couple of teams. 2016, Clemson was considered #9 best. They won it all. 2018 was by far their most talented team, and it was #6. LSU was #5 last year. Perennial top 10 teams in this metric are USC, Florida State, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan. Those 5 teams have basically been irrelevant. Sure, if you have a million 5 stars like Alabama you can be certain you'll be decent, but that doesn't make the metric useful.

It's trash for a few reasons. First, there's the fact that it doesn't account for where the talent on a team is. If all of your 5 Stars are cornerbacks, that's not going to be super helpful. Second, it only account for their "experts'" own estimations of players. They suck at judging talent because they rank based on big camps attended and who offered someone, rather than watching the player (let's not forget Rivals and 247 ranked a fictional player a 3 Star based entirely on a fictional offer from Alabama). Some of Clemson's biggest stars were very low ranked recruits. Etienne, Isaiah Simmons, Tanner Muse, K'Von Wallace, and Jordan Leggett were some 3 Stars off the top of my head (and everyone knows Renfrow). Joe Burrow and Baker Mayfield were also 3 Stars I believe. Some coaches are far better judges of talent than the randos on 247 (and of course, team dynamics are more important than raw talent. Some schools sign a lot of 5 Star troublemakers and are irrelevant because of it.

There's no value in that metric that you couldn't already estimate based on recruiting rankings.

 

[Duckboy33]

That's dumb. Most of the teams that win the CFP fall outside the top couple of teams. 2016, Clemson was considered #9 best. They won it all. 2018 was by far their most talented team, and it was #6. LSU was #5 last year. Perennial top 10 teams in this metric are USC, Florida State, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan. Those 5 teams have basically been irrelevant. Sure, if you have a million 5 stars like Alabama you can be certain you'll be decent, but that doesn't make the metric useful.

It's trash for a few reasons. First, there's the fact that it doesn't account for where the talent on a team is. If all of your 5 Stars are cornerbacks, that's not going to be super helpful. Second, it only account for their "experts'" own estimations of players. They suck at judging talent because they rank based on big camps attended and who offered someone, rather than watching the player (let's not forget Rivals and 247 ranked a fictional player a 3 Star based entirely on a fictional offer from Alabama). Some of Clemson's biggest stars were very low ranked recruits. Etienne, Isaiah Simmons, Tanner Muse, K'Von Wallace, and Jordan Leggett were some 3 Stars off the top of my head (and everyone knows Renfrow). Joe Burrow and Baker Mayfield were also 3 Stars I believe. Some coaches are far better judges of talent than the randos on 247 (and of course, team dynamics are more important than raw talent. Some schools sign a lot of 5 Star troublemakers and are irrelevant because of it.

There's no value in that metric that you couldn't already estimate based on recruiting rankings.

So every champion has been in the top 10 in this metric. That seems significant. Also, Georgia hasn’t been irrelevant. They played in the championship in the 2017 season.

All that said, of course other factors matter. Nobody is denying that. But let’s be real, despite some misses, the recruiting rankings are usually a pretty good indicator of future success. 5 stars are vastly more likely to make the NFL than 3 stars. Also, no team has won a title in the modern era with more 3 stars on their roster than 4/5 stars. Pointing out a few exceptional 3 stars doesn’t change this

 

[Deep Creek]

So every champion has been in the top 10 in this metric. That seems significant. Also, Georgia hasn’t been irrelevant. They played in the championship in the 2017 season.

All that said, of course other factors matter. Nobody is denying that. But let’s be real, despite some misses, the recruiting rankings are usually a pretty good indicator of future success. 5 stars are vastly more likely to make the NFL than 3 stars. Also, no team has won a title in the modern era with more 3 stars on their roster than 4/5 stars. Pointing out a few exceptional 3 stars doesn’t change this

If, and emphasis on IF, we ever see a champion that is NOT in the top 10 in this metic, one could easily argue that there were at least 10 realy shitty coaching jobs done that year.

 

[DeafOranguntan]

So every champion has been in the top 10 in this metric. That seems significant. Also, Georgia hasn’t been irrelevant. They played in the championship in the 2017 season.

All that said, of course other factors matter. Nobody is denying that. But let’s be real, despite some misses, the recruiting rankings are usually a pretty good indicator of future success. 5 stars are vastly more likely to make the NFL than 3 stars. Also, no team has won a title in the modern era with more 3 stars on their roster than 4/5 stars. Pointing out a few exceptional 3 stars doesn’t change this

Don't get me wrong, talent matters in football. No team is going to win if they're the 40th best in recruiting. But I was taking umbrage with your claim that you have to be in the top couple teams to stand a chance, which actually doesn't fit any team but Alabama. And the metric still fails compared to just looking at recruiting rankings. There are too many issues it doesn't account for (Georgia's losing their 5 Stars, Florida State and USC's recruiting well at a couple positions while neglecting others, etc.).

 

[foster4prez]

Don't get me wrong, talent matters in football. No team is going to win if they're the 40th best in recruiting. But I was taking umbrage with your claim that you have to be in the top couple teams to stand a chance, which actually doesn't fit any team but Alabama. And the metric still fails compared to just looking at recruiting rankings. There are too many issues it doesn't account for (Georgia's losing their 5 Stars, Florida State and USC's recruiting well at a couple positions while neglecting others, etc.).

Don't get me wrong, talent matters in football. No team is going to win if they're the 40th best in recruiting. But I was taking umbrage with your claim that you have to be in the top couple teams to stand a chance, which actually doesn't fit any team but Alabama. And the metric still fails compared to just looking at recruiting rankings. There are too many issues it doesn't account for (Georgia's losing their 5 Stars, Florida State and USC's recruiting well at a couple positions while neglecting others, etc.).

Read up on the Blue Chip Ratio. Elite talent doesn't mean you will win the title. But you don't win the title without elite talent.

Blue-Chip Ratio 2020: The 15 teams who can win a national title

 

[Gohogs14]

Top 25 class is in the bottom 5 of the SEC. Jeez.

 

[DeafOranguntan]

Read up on the Blue Chip Ratio. Elite talent doesn't mean you will win the title. But you don't win the title without elite talent.

Blue-Chip Ratio 2020: The 15 teams who can win a national title

Your link says 15 teams. I agree with that. But the guy I responded to said you can't win the championship if you're not one of the top 2 most talented teams.

 

[Duckboy33]

Don't get me wrong, talent matters in football. No team is going to win if they're the 40th best in recruiting. But I was taking umbrage with your claim that you have to be in the top couple teams to stand a chance, which actually doesn't fit any team but Alabama. And the metric still fails compared to just looking at recruiting rankings. There are too many issues it doesn't account for (Georgia's losing their 5 Stars, Florida State and USC's recruiting well at a couple positions while neglecting others, etc.).

I don’t think we disagree. I might not have explained my thinking as well as I should have. My point was you need top 10 talent in order to win a title. If you’re out of the top 5, you will need an elite QB. Having top tier talent also doesn’t guarantee you success, you pointed out some of those reasons

 

[Duckboy33]

Your link says 15 teams. I agree with that. But the guy I responded to said you can't win the championship if you're not one of the top 2 most talented teams.

I don’t think I ever said top 2. If so, I’ll take that back

 

[Duckboy33]

If, and emphasis on IF, we ever see a champion that is NOT in the top 10 in this metic, one could easily argue that there were at least 10 realy shitty coaching jobs done that year.

If it happens, I think someone will have to have a generational talent at QB

 

[Codaxx]

Going off on a tangent here, but it is related. I have always though rankings should include positional composition. Trust me as a Texas fan, I understand the value of roster management. Texas would throw out terrible OL after terrible OL. QB mismanagement was another factor. The Blue Chip ratio is fine, but I don’t need someone to crunch those numbers. It’s pretty obvious stat. If you start looking into the composition of the talent and crunching those numbers, than you will have a stat that helps you understand strengths and vulnerabilities of teams

 

[8085sooner]

Most P5 teams 1st string players can hang. It's depth that separates the good, against the great.

Or bad roster management. I remember looking at the Aggys roster a few years ago. They were stacked at WR and DB. But thin everywhere else.

 

[WABLTY]

Most P5 teams 1st string players can hang. It's depth that separates the good, against the great.

Or bad roster management. I remember looking at the Aggys roster a few years ago. They were stacked at WR and DB. But thin everywhere else.

The hardest part for most programs is the line development. Most teams struggle to develop championship caliber lines, especially DL. One star DE doesn't a DL make. I suspect if you went through teams by number of blue chip defensive linemen, you'd probably find an even higher correlation than just aggregate recruit ratings.

 

[Duckboy33]

Don't get me wrong, talent matters in football. No team is going to win if they're the 40th best in recruiting. But I was taking umbrage with your claim that you have to be in the top couple teams to stand a chance, which actually doesn't fit any team but Alabama. And the metric still fails compared to just looking at recruiting rankings. There are too many issues it doesn't account for (Georgia's losing their 5 Stars, Florida State and USC's recruiting well at a couple positions while neglecting others, etc.).

Since the composite has come out, every champion has been in the top 10 in the composite for that year so I'd argue it fit almost every champion. And this is a better system than looking at recruiting rankings because it takes in account transfers and other roster changes.

 

[Ron G]

I don’t think we disagree. I might not have explained my thinking as well as I should have. My point was you need top 10 talent in order to win a title. If you’re out of the top 5, you will need an elite QB. Having top tier talent also doesn’t guarantee you success, you pointed out some of those reasons

Just a question here. Has there ever been a Heisman nominated QB who did not have at least one NFL level (3rd round or lower, or two 4th through 6 round) receiver on his team.?

 

[Duckboy33]

Just a question here. Has there ever been a Heisman nominated QB who did not have at least one NFL level (3rd round or lower, or two 4th through 6 round) receiver on his team.?

I have no idea about all time records. However, Marcus Mariota won the heisman in 2014 and I don't think Oregon had a WR that got drafted in the NFL from that season.

 

[Ron G]

I have no idea about all time records. However, Marcus Mariota won the heisman in 2014 and I don't think Oregon had a WR that got drafted in the NFL from that season.

I actually had no idea. But I have always felt that the QB winning the Heisman was as much a team effort as winning a single gam. Players often grow up with teams for which they dream to play and sign with those teams regardless of other offers. So hypnotically, If Jake Fromm had gone to LSU while Joe Barrow played at Illinois, who would likely have won the Heisman. As best I can remember, Paul Horning (sic) was the only winner from a losing team. Would either of the two Oklahoma winners have won if they played for say Kansas.
I believe that LSU would have won the Championship if it had the starting QB from any of the team that finished in the top 15.
So full circle about the requiting standing. Offensive lines and defensive front 7s win championships while QBs win Heisman. The lines are were to look when evaluating the best recruiting classes