You guys seem to think ability to teach is all that's important, but a coach needs knowledge to pass on too. That's why I said it's ok for blue belts to teach within certain guidelines. A point most of you seem to have ignored.
Also, a team's results are influenced by more than just the level of technique taught. If a coach encourages their students to do s&c, for instance, they will have an advantage over other teams who don't. The question was about teaching jiu-jitsu though, not running a team.
If you are a beginner, high level BJJ is the last thing on the agenda, so black, brown, purple can be used for senior classes, so if a blue belt was teaching a beginners class, i see no problem there.
The original post asked about the gracies doing this, yes they do, blue belt curriculum is all combatives against unskilled opponents, so blue belts are qualified to teach combatives classes should they achieve 90% in the exam.
Final point, the GCG way is also great, due to the fact that the highest rank stated on the thread was the same as other guys, with 3rd party overseers and tuition, when the playing field is even, the motion of learning is perpetual, and due to this GCG have some great guys, so blue belt or not, achievement and skill speaks for itself.
If you are a beginner with the attitude " just a blue belt " when you are a white belt, then its best to revaluate... a blue belt sure as hell knows how to teach trap and roll, elbow pass, kimura armlock, take the back and rear naked choke, (first 5 lessons of combatives) which will be keeping you busy as a beginner.
Some people watch so much BJJ and have seen techniques applied so many times that they go i can do that at their first class, sacrificing base and control because they saw gsp do it in ufc.... i used to be one of those people
Highest belt is a 2 stripe brown why jimbo.
I've been to classes with blue belts who were good and bad at coaching - and high ranked belts who were good and bad at coaching. I have experience of a fair bit of different styles of coaching. I'm not saying you don't have that - but I believe it's important to have that experience when thinking of this topic.
And on the football point - you should watch 'Being Liverpool' and there you will see a coach in Brendan Rodgers giving advice to footballers who are better than him. But see what he tells them and how he puts it across. It's a great insight into sports coaching.
anyway back to topic, does the colour matter when the talent is enough, discarding someone by belt colour is misplaced logic unless the person sucks, but that is very rare and usually comes down to " all we got taught was an escape from mount and a guard pass for the whole class, get a black belt so i can learn some berimbolo or a mounted gogoplata"
Fabricio Werdums purple belt instructional was one of the most sought after dvd, he was only a purple at the tiime, but everyone wanted it, even blackbelts, the content was broken down into 4 concepts, the technique, the counter, the bottom positioning and the top positioning, while other dvds just taught techniques... there was only a few thousand printed and they go for about $200 on ebay, anyway thats just 1 example of how talent on its own spoke more than rank.
The GCG posts are closest to accurate based off of talent speaking for itself, and them being "just blue belts" however what Asa is teaching seems to be working, this isnt the same as other places obviously since some instructors suck, but disputing a system which is perpetual and works with the " just the blue belt " argument makes no sense.
Everyone has their opinions though, so if a black belt is needed, find one