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

Current blue bloods (in order IMO)

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma
4. Georgia
5. Clemson
6. Florida State
7. LSU
8. Florida (this one is debatable IMO)

Historical blue bloods

ND, Michigan, Texas, Nebraska, & USC.

The bottom tier has largely been irrelevant for the last 15 years or so, and doesn't belong to be grouped with the above IMO.

If Florida is debatable than so is Florida State IMO. Both haven't done much in years.

I don't like the word irrelevant because you really cannot argue that Michigan and Notre Dame are irrelevant. Michigan has been in the past 2 playoffs and Notre Dame has been in various as well. You feel like they cannot win the National Title but they are still good programs.

Texas and USC, IMO, are also far from irrelevant.
 
All blue bloods other than Bama and Ohio State:

 
If Florida is debatable than so is Florida State IMO. Both haven't done much in years.

I don't like the word irrelevant because you really cannot argue that Michigan and Notre Dame are irrelevant. Michigan has been in the past 2 playoffs and Notre Dame has been in various as well. You feel like they cannot win the National Title but they are still good programs.

Texas and USC, IMO, are also far from irrelevant.

As far as winning titles Michigan and ND have been irrelevant, which is where I'm basing this discussion on. I think ND has been more relevant than Michigan this century, but it's still behind all those programs in the top 8.

Texas & USC were certainly relevant in the first decade this century, but neither have been relevant in the current form of the sport(CFP era). Texas hasn't come close to making the CFP, and USC, has only come close once(this year).
 
Current blue bloods (in order IMO)

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma
4. Georgia
5. Clemson
6. Florida State
7. LSU
8. Florida (this one is debatable IMO)

Historical blue bloods

ND, Michigan, Texas, Nebraska, & USC.

The bottom tier has largely been irrelevant for the last 15 years or so, and doesn't belong to be grouped with the above IMO.
this just confirms that you don't understand what a blue blood really is.. LSU, UF, FSU, Clemson, UGA... they gotta win or compete of the highest level to be in discussions like these..

ND, UM, UT, SC and NU don't have to be.. When these programs are doing well, CFB is thriving.. when they don't.. you have everyone asking why? what's going on? Is this the season? The brands are bigger, the history is bigger.. so you lil peons are and will always be on the outside looking in.
 
As far as winning titles Michigan and ND have been irrelevant, which is where I'm basing this discussion on. I think ND has been more relevant than Michigan this century, but it's still behind all those programs in the top 8.

Texas & USC were certainly relevant in the first decade this century, but neither have been relevant in the current form of the sport(CFP era). Texas hasn't come close to making the CFP, and USC, has only come close once(this year).
Guess I can finally have an offseason with no UT or SC talk while the media focuses on.....????
 
this just confirms that you don't understand what a blue blood really is.. LSU, UF, FSU, Clemson, UGA... they gotta win or compete of the highest level to be in discussions like these..

ND, UM, UT, SC and NU don't have to be.. When these programs are doing well, CFB is thriving.. when they don't.. you have everyone asking why? what's going on? Is this the season? The brands are bigger, the history is bigger.. so you lil peons are and will always be on the outside looking in.
THIS is the attitude of a blue blood. You newbies watch and learn.
 
Im Better Jermaine Jackson GIF by Soul Train
 
this just confirms that you don't understand what a blue blood really is.. LSU, UF, FSU, Clemson, UGA... they gotta win or compete of the highest level to be in discussions like these..

ND, UM, UT, SC and NU don't have to be.. When these programs are doing well, CFB is thriving.. when they don't.. you have everyone asking why? what's going on? Is this the season? The brands are bigger, the history is bigger.. so you lil peons are and will always be on the outside looking in.

I understand what a blue blood is. I'm basically saying the term blue blood, doesn't mean anything to me, because I'd rather my team be lumped with the top 8 than the bottom 5. I don't really give a shit what my team did before I was born. Those bottom 5 haven't been thriving and for a long time, especially NU, Texas and USC(til this year).

As for some of those schools in the top 8. FSU has won a title in poll era and twice in the BCS era(1 year before the CFP). After Bama, Clemson and UGA have been the best programs of the CFP era(9 years). Both also won a title in the poll era. LSU has 2 titles in the BCS era and 1 in the CFP era. They also have 1 in the poll era.

I'll admit, Nebraska seems like the oddest of the group. 3 titles in 90's, but have done literally nothing this century.
 
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

Kind of dumb to go by the hypothetical ‘what if they played each other’ imo. Obviously LSU had better athletes a few yrs ago than Nebby did over two decades ago.

Better to go by how both teams did vs who they actually played; margin of ass-kicking, opponents’ W-L, etc.
 
Guess I can finally have an offseason with no UT or SC talk while the media focuses on.....????

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.
 
Kind of dumb to go by the hypothetical ‘what if they played each other’ imo. Obviously LSU had better athletes a few yrs ago than Nebby did over two decades ago.

Better to go by how both teams did vs who they actually played; margin of ass-kicking, opponents’ W-L, etc.
Maybe, but I’m always gonna give the more modern team the bigger benefit of the doubt
 
As far as winning titles Michigan and ND have been irrelevant, which is where I'm basing this discussion on. I think ND has been more relevant than Michigan this century, but it's still behind all those programs in the top 8.

Texas & USC were certainly relevant in the first decade this century, but neither have been relevant in the current form of the sport(CFP era). Texas hasn't come close to making the CFP, and USC, has only come close once(this year).

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.
 
Kind of dumb to go by the hypothetical ‘what if they played each other’ imo. Obviously LSU had better athletes a few yrs ago than Nebby did over two decades ago.

Better to go by how both teams did vs who they actually played; margin of ass-kicking, opponents’ W-L, etc.

Lsu played 5 top 8 teams and beat them by an avg of 20 ppg(Bama, UF, UGA, OU, and Clemson) with only one of those games at home. I always thought that was impressive.
 
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

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).
 
Lsu played 5 top 8 teams and beat them by an avg of 20 ppg(Bama, UF, UGA, OU, and Clemson) with only one of those games at home. I always thought that was impressive.
Even though they lost the rematch in the NCG, I still say that 2011 LSU team had one of the best resumes of all time. Beat 3 of the final top 5 teams(they were obviously one of the teams they didn’t beat) and also beat a BCS bowl team in West Virginia and a 10 win UGA team.

I know Bama gets to keep the trophy, but I still say 13-1 with a road win against Bama and the rest of the resume> 12-1 with a neutral site win against LSU
 
Back
Top