In a modern sense, what does being a blue blood actually mean?

[Illustrious Potentate]

I am going to jump into this one (may regret it).

I agree with your post.

I think the debate for the best team is between 2019 LSU and 2020 Alabama although perhaps 2022-2023 Georgia should enter the conversation.

1995 Nebraska would have no clue on how to cover modern offenses. Keep in mind that between 1995 and today you had multiple new offenses such as the Wild Hog, Spread, Hurry-up, Air Raid, etc. implemented and many of these ideas are present in 2019 LSU and 2020 Alabama. These offenses vastly changed the game and caused dramatic shifts on defense strategy and how defenses should play. 1995 Nebraska's defensive coaching staff would have 0 clue how to cover these offenses in a matchup. I also think secondaries, overall, were not as strong as then. I watched 1998 Tennessee vs. Florida and 1995 Tennessee vs. Alabama recently. All were top 10 teams in that era with solid defenses and what was considered solid secondaries. All four would have been torched by modern offenses and schemes.

Look at QB stats. QBs today are far more dominant than Elite QBs of that era when it comes to TD-INT ratio, Completion ratio, etc. Athletes overall between 1990 and 2000s got bigger. I do think some of the athletes have regressed a little in modern era but not enough to where I cannot say that athletes in 2019 are overall faster, bigger, and more talented than most players from 1995.

I do think Nebraska might could win some physical matchups but I just don't see how schematically they could have matched up with a modern offense unless they all of a sudden were able to download all the info of how the game changes like Neo does in the Matrix with Martial Arts.

To take a war comparison. It is like matching up the USA navy in 1945 vs. a modern USA naval fleet. It would get ugly quickly. The game has changed that much.

Now sometimes people look at "greatest" in terminology in a different manner. They look at how dominant that team was against teams of that era. If you make that argument, Nebraska has a case. It is like in movies. Gone with the Wind is still the top grossing movies if you adjust for inflation but it would not even been in the top 25 revenue generating movie for 2023 if you look at how much it actually grossed.

Adjust Nebraska for inflation and they do have an argument that they are the greatest team. However, they are not beating 2019 LSU or 2020 Alabama (or even keeping it close).

Had the 2021 UGA team went undefeated, they might be in the discussion, but I’d take the 2019 LSU team over them all day. This year’s team is one of the few to reach 15-0, but they played with fire too many times to be in the discussion for best ever.

 

[ericd7633]

I thought that was the case but saying anyone that isn't in the title picture is irrelevant pretty much eliminates 99% of College Football Programs.

I guess when I think of irrelevancy, I'm doing it over a more prolonged period of time. Michigan and ND have popped up and have had great years, but the level of consistency hasn't been there. OU is a good example of this. They only have one title this century, but they made a lot of CFP's and BCSCG appearances. There is something to be said for that level of consistency. That's why a team like OU I have ranked ahead of teams like LSU, UF and UGA who have more titles this century.

 

[Knight&Day]

THIS is the attitude of a blue blood. You newbies watch and learn.

To a real blue blood, natties don't mean shit. Damn, you youngins are dense.

So, in summary; “old shit >>>> new shit. because I said so, that’s why” and winning the sport’s greatest achievement “doesn’t mean shit”.

All the more reason to completely reject the entire ‘true blue blood’ thing and their horseshit attitude.

 

[Volbound1700]

I guess when I think of irrelevancy, I'm doing it over a more prolonged period of time. Michigan and ND have popped up and have had great years, but the level of consistency hasn't been there. OU is a good example of this. They only have one title this century, but they made a lot of CFP's and BCSCG appearances. There is something to be said for that level of consistency. That's why a team like OU I have ranked ahead of teams like LSU, UF and UGA who have more titles this century.

I mean it is all opinion so you are NOT wrong by any means.

I think winning back-to-back B1G titles and making it to CFB playoff both those years makes Michigan relevant. Notre Dame was also in playoff mix just last year.

I do agree that both programs are no where near what they were in their heyday. Notre Dame used to be thought of like Alabama or Ohio State are now.

 

[huskers1217]

That LSU team would have threw all over Nebraska and LSU had the speed on defense to stop Nebraska’s offense. Speed kills. LSU was faster

The minute someone like Boz or Wistrom got a hold of Burrow and planted his ass in the ground. he wouldn't have gotten up.

nebraska could have pulled a guard out and knocked one of those speedsters 15 yards back.


you don't realize how much more they hit and how vicious the sport was back then.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

That LSU team would have threw all over Nebraska and LSU had the speed on defense to stop Nebraska’s offense. Speed kills. LSU was faster

Not relative to their opponents like the video shows. The problem is trying to compare different era teams, hence doing it via stats and statistically, they don't match up.

 

[Illustrious Potentate]

The minute someone like Boz or Wistrom got a hold of Burrow and planted his ass in the ground. he wouldn't have gotten up.

nebraska could have pulled a guard out and knocked one of those speedsters 15 yards back.


you don't realize how much more they hit and how vicious the sport was back then.

Can’t hit what they can’t catch. Also, modern drugs and strength and conditioning. LSU was bigger, faster and stronger

 

[Volbound1700]

The minute someone like Boz or Wistrom got a hold of Burrow and planted his ass in the ground. he wouldn't have gotten up.

nebraska could have pulled a guard out and knocked one of those speedsters 15 yards back.


you don't realize how much more they hit and how vicious the sport was back then.

First you have to catch him. One HUGE change today is the mobility of QBs and ability to get out of sacks. As a Tennessee fan, I see numerous plays all of the time today that would have been sacks in 1998 or 1999 but QB escapes and gets a 1st down or TD (think the Stetson Bennett run for the first TD against Tennessee as an example).

Second, you don't think the defensive linemen for Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, or his own LSU team that he played against weren't big or as fast as Nebraska's defensive line? He got sacked and held up well in his time, why would Nebraska be different?

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I am going to jump into this one (may regret it).

I agree with your post.

I think the debate for the best team is between 2019 LSU and 2020 Alabama although perhaps 2022-2023 Georgia should enter the conversation.

1995 Nebraska would have no clue on how to cover modern offenses. Keep in mind that between 1995 and today you had multiple new offenses such as the Wild Hog, Spread, Hurry-up, Air Raid, etc. implemented and many of these ideas are present in 2019 LSU and 2020 Alabama. These offenses vastly changed the game and caused dramatic shifts on defense strategy and how defenses should play. 1995 Nebraska's defensive coaching staff would have 0 clue how to cover these offenses in a matchup. I also think secondaries, overall, were not as strong as then. I watched 1998 Tennessee vs. Florida and 1995 Tennessee vs. Alabama recently. All were top 10 teams in that era with solid defenses and what was considered solid secondaries. All four would have been torched by modern offenses and schemes.

Look at QB stats. QBs today are far more dominant than Elite QBs of that era when it comes to TD-INT ratio, Completion ratio, etc. Athletes overall between 1990 and 2000s got bigger. I do think some of the athletes have regressed a little in modern era but not enough to where I cannot say that athletes in 2019 are overall faster, bigger, and more talented than most players from 1995.

I do think Nebraska might could win some physical matchups but I just don't see how schematically they could have matched up with a modern offense unless they all of a sudden were able to download all the info of how the game changes like Neo does in the Matrix with Martial Arts.

To take a war comparison. It is like matching up the USA navy in 1945 vs. a modern USA naval fleet. It would get ugly quickly. The game has changed that much.

Now sometimes people look at "greatest" in terminology in a different manner. They look at how dominant that team was against teams of that era. If you make that argument, Nebraska has a case. It is like in movies. Gone with the Wind is still the top grossing movies if you adjust for inflation but it would not even been in the top 25 revenue generating movie for 2023 if you look at how much it actually grossed.

Adjust Nebraska for inflation and they do have an argument that they are the greatest team. However, they are not beating 2019 LSU or 2020 Alabama (or even keeping it close).

You guys aren't comparing properly though. You are just talking about today vs yesterday. No one is denying that athletes nowadays are more athletic, bigger, stronger, faster, etc... or that offenses and defenses are different from then to now, THAT is why measuring the statistics via the competition of the time is the only way to compare teams across eras.

 

[Illustrious Potentate]

Not relative to their opponents like the video shows. The problem is trying to compare different era teams, hence doing it via stats and statistically, they don't match up.

Meh. Modern teams>>>

And LSU had to play a real natty winner’s slate of 15 games

 

[Volbound1700]

You guys aren't comparing properly though. You are just talking about today vs yesterday. No one is denying that athletes nowadays are more athletic, bigger, stronger, faster, etc... or that offenses and defenses are different from then to now, THAT is why measuring the statistics via the competition of the time is the only way to compare teams across eras.

Read my last paragraph .

 

[Volbound1700]

If you want to adjust for time, how about 1899 Sewanee? (look it up).

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Meh. Modern teams>>>

And LSU had to play a real natty winner’s slate of 15 games

and almost dropped 3 games.

 

[Kburjr]

So, in summary; “old shit >>>> new shit. because I said so, that’s why” and winning the sport’s greatest achievement “doesn’t mean shit”.

All the more reason to completely reject the entire ‘true blue blood’ thing and their horseshit attitude.

Exactly. "Blue Bloods" is an historical term. You can neither gain nor lose a spot on the list. For instance, I'd rather beat a blue blood than a non-blue blood. Dey is the debil. There are now the "nouveau riche".

 

[Illustrious Potentate]

and almost dropped 3 games.

But didn’t and those were 3 games those wussy Nebraska teams didn’t have to play with their sissy 12 games

 

[ericd7633]

I mean it is all opinion so you are NOT wrong by any means.

I think winning back-to-back B1G titles and making it to CFB playoff both those years makes Michigan relevant. Notre Dame was also in playoff mix just last year.

I do agree that both programs are no where near what they were in their heyday. Notre Dame used to be thought of like Alabama or Ohio State are now.

It makes them relevant to the discussion for that particular season(s). ND has made the CFP twice, Michigan has made it twice. Neither have won a game in the CFP though. Granted, only 7 teams have won a CFP game. If ND and Michigan can make some FF's once it's expanded, that will certainly help. A couple great year's doesn't make up for the lack of inconsistency from them the past 15-20 years IMO. That's why I had them in the lower tier of teams.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I think some don't understand the meaning of the phrase "blue blood."

The definition of blue blood doesn't mean you are currently elite. Blue blood status, by definition, is based on past success.

Outside of college sports, the term blue blood is often, maybe most often, used to describe families who were once wealthy, prominent, and influential, and no longer are. Like the Vanderbilts.

I dated a gal at and after Vandy for 4 years. The family was totally blue blood. There are counties, towns, and universities named after the family, and they were members of all the great clubs in Atlanta, New York, etc. She was a debutant at one of the most exclusive clubs in the south. Yet, the family didn't have a tenth of the wealth they had 50 - 100 years ago.

That's why Nebraska is a blue blood, and Miami, FSU, and Clemson are not. To keep our comparisons going, they would be deemed "nouveau riche." UGA is kind of a tweener - most people don't see them as a blue blood (I don't), but they have 4 NCs, including one way back in the 40s.

The better term to use would be the "currently elite" teams, IMO.

I'd rather be currently elite than a blue blood.

 

[DayButtAssMans’s]

• Alabama
• Ohio State
• Oklahoma
• Notre Dame
• Nebraska
• Michigan
• USC
• Texas

Of the 8 blue bloods I can name...

Only 3 of the 8 have had much success lately.

Which 3? Alabama and OSU obviously. Are we counting Oklahoma as the 3rd because they're always in some discussion until this year, or Michigan who hasn't been in much of any discussions until this year?

 

[Thiefery]

You'll be talked about for sure, as far as actually accomplishing anything though, it's been a LONG time for Texas. VY turns 40 in a couple months.

i'm sure ESPN will show the 2005 game again for his birthday too

 

[Hu War Yu]

It means you can join the SEC with no questions asked and bring a shit ton of money to the Conference.


Did I leave anything out ???

Go, Gamecocks!!!