[washingtonismoney]

I think the notion -- advanced in the article -- that scoring over .5 in blue chip ratio is somehow necessary, rather than suggested, is pretty weak. While all national champs over the past decade-plus may have surpassed .5, it's a pretty limited sample. Expanding it to national game champions and playoff participants adds several sub-.5 teams -- Oregon twice, Michigan State, Oklahoma, and Clemson.* If a sub-.5 team can make the final four (or two), it can win it all. (Indeed, Clemson was toe-to-toe with 'bama last year.)

* (Clemson was sub-.5 last year.)

EDIT: The interesting thing for Stanford is the way its blue-chip ratio has slipped -- in 2014, it was 39%. Now it's 33%. It appears the 2015 (26%) and 2016 (36%) dragged us down by this metric. Which is a bit flawed; it would seem to reward not filling out your roster. For example if Shaw never offered scholarships to Maddox, McNitzky, Toner, and Segina suddenly the ratio goes up to 42%. But it's surely better to have a filled-out roster than not to have one.

[washingtonismoney]

I think the notion -- advanced in the article -- that scoring over .5 in blue chip ratio is somehow necessary, rather than suggested, is pretty weak. While all national champs over the past decade-plus may have surpassed .5, it's a pretty limited sample. Expanding it to national game champions and playoff participants adds several sub-.5 teams -- Oregon twice, Michigan State, Oklahoma, and Clemson.* If a sub-.5 team can make the final four (or two), it can win it all. (Indeed, Clemson was toe-to-toe with 'bama last year.)

* (Clemson was sub-.5 last year.)

EDIT: The interesting thing for Stanford is the way its blue-chip ratio has slipped -- in 2014, it was 39%. Now it's 33%. It appears the 2015 (26%) and 2016 (36%) dragged us down by this metric. Which is a bit flawed; it would seem to reward not filling out your roster. For example if Shaw never offered scholarships to Maddox, McNitzky, Toner, and Segina suddenly the ratio goes up to 42%. But it's surely better to have a filled-out roster than not to have one.