BLUE BLOODS

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Being in the same ‘category’ doesn’t make them the ‘same.’

Doesn't make who the same? Tenn and Penn St the same as Auburn and Clemson? I never said it did. Tennessee and Penn St are clearly better than Clemson and Auburn. My point is that they are on the cusp of top 10 and not in my top 10.

Don’t bring that weak argumentation on here.

Uhh what? I gave you FACTS and STATS, you provided literally nothing.

Give us a little warning the next time your dumbass thinks no argument is better than facts and stats.

Plus, as already stated in this thread, NU is in my blue bloods list, but I left them off because the last several times this was discussed, others said they were just in the outside.

No one with any sense would have Nebraska off of a blue blood list, even with how they have been doing. When you discuss all time, Nebraska is still top 10 in all these categories even with doing poorly the last decade and change.

"Others said" -

 

[ELTEXAN]

Doesn't make who the same? Tenn and Penn St the same as Auburn and Clemson? I never said it did. Tennessee and Penn St are clearly better than Clemson and Auburn. My point is that they are on the cusp of top 10 and not in my top 10.

Uhh what? I gave you FACTS and STATS, you provided literally nothing.

Give us a little warning the next time your dumbass thinks no argument is better than facts and stats.

No one with any sense would have Nebraska off of a blue blood list, even with how they have been doing. When you discuss all time, Nebraska is still top 10 in all these categories even with doing poorly the last decade and change.

"Others said" -

Bad troll is bad. You brought up Nebraska. I answered your dumb argument. Now as usual you’re trolling. It’s not 1998 , trolling is not a thing anymore

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Can I call dibs on 13?

 

[ralphiewvu]

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Bad troll is bad. You brought up Nebraska. I answered your dumb argument. Now as usual you’re trolling. It’s not 1998 , trolling is not a thing anymore

Yes, I brought up Nebraska for context. Since you had them on the "waitlist", I brought context to your lack of argument with actual facts and stats.... you know, the shit you disregarded.

Are you really this fucking stupid?

 

[TigerBait1971]

Blue Bloods getting hammered in this round of coaching carousel

 

[Goldbug]

Blue-bloods that don't win National Championships eventually start to look like that guy in "Weekend at Bernie's".

 

[fordman84]

How about just call whomever is in the top 5 in wins blue blood and everyone else is a wanna be?

Michigan
tOSU
Alabama
Jexas
OU

End of story. Wanna be blue blood, win more than those guys. ND is 2 wins from tying OU for #5 and Nebraska is 15.

 

[Illustrious Potentate]

How about just call whomever is in the top 5 in wins blue blood and everyone else is a wanna be?

Michigan
tOSU
Alabama
Jexas
OU

End of story. Wanna be blue blood, win more than those guys. ND is 2 wins from tying OU for #5 and Nebraska is 15.

Texas has the same amount of natties all time as LSU does since 2003

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

How about just call whomever is in the top 5 in wins blue blood and everyone else is a wanna be?

Michigan
tOSU
Alabama
Jexas
OU

End of story. Wanna be blue blood, win more than those guys. ND is 2 wins from tying OU for #5 and Nebraska is 15.

Crazy part is that like 5 years ago, Nebraska was like #4 or so in all time wins. That's the type of separation you'll get when Nebraska only walks away with 3 wins a season and Bama and others get 10+ lol.

But with that said, fuck that, more matters than just wins.

 

[fordman84]

Texas has the same amount of natties all time as LSU does since 2003

Yeah I get that, but this "who is blue bloods still" stuff comes up every offseason. Gotta set a definitive line somewhere. And with the way Jexas has been going they will be out of the top5 soon enough

 

[fordman84]

Crazy part is that like 5 years ago, Nebraska was like #4 or so in all time wins. That's the type of separation you'll get when Nebraska only walks away with 3 wins a season and Bama and others get 10+ lol.

But with that said, fuck that, more matters than just wins.

Ok, propose something else? How about taking the top 5 of an average of the last ten years of recruiting ranks? That would show who the players think are the best programs over that decade. Can't just have it be natty's or even natty's by some random timeframe.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Ok, propose something else? How about taking the top 5 of an average of the last ten years of recruiting ranks? That would show who the players think are the best programs over that decade. Can't just have it be natty's or even natty's by some random timeframe.

LOL recruiting ranks? Wow, don't forget your roots, you're sounding like an SEC twat. Recruiting ranks don't matter, much as I would argue that draft picks don't matter. Recruits can bust and great players can be overlooked because they don't fit schemes. Never mind that recruits can pick schools for an assortment of reasons, none of which delineate how any program is better or worse than another.

IMO... wins, win%, national titles, conference titles, #bowls, all-americans, heismans, weeks ranked, and weeks ranked #1.... is a good starting point. From there, I think it depends on how far back you think it should matter, but I would think most would agree that you would at least have to go back to roughly 1960 (what many consider to be the start of modern era), I have no problem going all time, I just like to give Michigan fans shit since they haven't won an outright title since 1948 and most of them are before passing was allowed. Who knows, maybe Michigan can ride some hype into a title this year.