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

[DayButtAssMans’s]

I think the thing the traditional "blue bloods" have is the resources that keep them the right coach away from being a playoff team any given year. I guess you can say that about any program. But like USC, for example, they will always have the talent on hand, or at least close to it, to be up there with anyone, even when they're down.

Maybe debatable if all the traditional power programs are still that (looking at you, Nebraska), but some are.

 

[Thiefery]

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

 

[ericd7633]

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.

I get it, but at what point, does some form of current success come into play? Michigan, ND and Nebraska have, by and large, not done anything significant in the last quarter century. Yes, I get I'm leaving off the 1997 season with that cut off, but that's a nice round number and the start of the BCS era in 1998. Michigan and ND have three combined titles in the last 50 years(ND two, Michigan one). There isn't anything blue blood about that. And yes, Michigan had great success in 1900's, 1930's and 1940's, same with ND in the 1920's and 1940's. But that was so long ago. If both go another 25 seasons without winning a title, what's it going to matter what they did, at that point, 100-150 years ago? Army and Michigan have the same amount of titles since 1940, and nobody would call Army a blue blood.

Nebraska is the weirdest one to me. By and large, irrelevant for the first 25 years of the AP poll era, and the last 25 years, but in between that, unreal consistency and elite, elite teams.

 

[Volbound1700]

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.

I think Georgia has 5. They have one back in the early 20th Century as well, I believe. However, anything before 1940 or so is suspect. Many years you have 4-5 teams that have an argument for National Champion because the sport was more regional.

 

[Bayou Tiger]

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.

That's not too bad. It's as good a perception as anyone else could produce.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I think Georgia has 5. They have one back in the early 20th Century as well, I believe. However, anything before 1940 or so is suspect. Many years you have 4-5 teams that have an argument for National Champion because the sport was more regional.

I am not Bama or Aggie ... we have 4 - 1942, 1980, 2021, 2022

 

[fishinabarrel]

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.

Joe burrow got sacked like 55 times in the playoffs last season and went to the super bowl. I think he would be fine

 

[Volbound1700]

I am not Bama or Aggie ... we have 4 - 1942, 1980, 2021, 2022

I get the joke and agree (especially that one title Alabama claims where they lost 2 games and are not even recognized as the SEC Champion).

Tennessee is an interesting setup from that era and fun to talk about. They had 6 (if you take out bowl games it is 9) undefeated seasons with Neyland at the helm but only 1 AP title. Interestingly, the year we won the AP title, we don't deserve it and we lost the bowl game. In his era, you often had to go unbeaten or have a great season, win the bowl game, and then go unbeaten again to win a National Title unless you were Michigan, Notre Dame, or a team in a good media market. Most of the SEC Champions had to do that.

In 1950, Tennessee went 10-1 and won the bowl game over the #3 but got nothing. So when Tennessee went undefeated in the regular season 1951, the AP gave Tennessee the National Title but they lost the bowl game. Also from a performance aspect, the 1950 team was an overall better team. 1950 Tennessee really deserved that AP title and not the 1951 (or 1938 which I will explain below).

With UPI poll, the same thing happened. Tennessee went unbeaten in 1938 but got nothing and then went unbeaten and unscored on in 1939 and got UPI National Title (equivalent to today's coaches poll). However, they went on to lose 14-0 in the Rose Bowl to the USC Trojans. Interestingly though, the best 2-3 players didn't even play in the Bowl Game because Bowl games were treated basically like they are treated now and not taken seriously.

1920s, Neyland had multiple undefeateds with no championships. So often teams would get AP titles in NOT their best years but based on performance from previous seasons that were built up.

Of course about 10 years ago, Tennessee started claiming 6 National Titles and included 1938, 1940, 1950, and 1951. They also claim 1967, I think, but I don't see that one. 1940 is an odd one to claim because they finished #6 (although they were 10-1) and the sole loss was to Boston College in the Bowl Game. I think they have an argument at 1939 based on the facts above that they really didn't travel with the full team to the Rose Bowl. Plus it is the last team in CFB to go undefeated and unscored on in the regular season.

I just looked up Georgia and they claim 4 (1942, 1980, 2022, and 2023) but you have 4 unclaimed ones in 1920, 1927, 1946, and 1968. The 1946 one looks legit and I think you could have argument for that one.

 

[Red_Alert]

To understand what it means to be a blueblood, you simply need to look at which conferences would absolutely trip over themselves to land Notre Dame........... i.e. All of them.

USC to the Big 10, and TX/OU to the SEC are recent examples of conferences going after programs that haven't won much recently. They wanted the blueblood.

The Big 10 jumped on Nebraska, yet it only has a population of 1.9 million. They weren't after the 1.9 million Nebraska eyeballs, they wanted it's national exposure and history. Sure the Huskers have been horrible for 5 years now (tell us something we don't know, wise ones ), but you can be sure Nebraska played a role in the Big 10 landing their last two massive media rights deals.

 

[Red_Alert]

Who do you think gets the better media rights contract as a group?

Bluebloods

Alabama
Ohio St
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
Nebraska
Michigan
USC
Texas
Penn St

OR

Non Bluebloods

Georgia (CFP)
Clemson (CFP)
LSU (CFP)
Florida St (CFP)
Oregon (CFP)
Michigan St (CFP)
Washington (CFP)
TCU (CFP)
Cincinnati (CFP)

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

I think UGA has been hurting the blue bloods here lately, having more playoff wins than all the blue bloods other than Bama combined

Let's be honest though -- Georgia has had a massive amount of luck in winning those two titles. They couldn't cover Marvin Harrison Jr. -- he gets hurt and is out for the rest of the game, Georgia comes back and wins.

Bama with a healthy Jameson Williams and Metchie dominate Georgia -- Metchie blows out his knee before the game. Jameson Williams dominates Georgia in his 1 quarter of play and he blows out his knee. Georgia comes back and goes on to win the title.

So really, the best team didn't really win the national title the last two years, it was just the team who was able to be more healthy and had luck on their side.

 

[Volbound1700]

Who do you think gets the better media rights contract as a group?

Bluebloods

Alabama
Ohio St
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
Nebraska
Michigan
USC
Texas
Penn St

OR

Non Bluebloods

Georgia (CFP)
Clemson (CFP)
LSU (CFP)
Florida St (CFP)
Oregon (CFP)
Michigan St (CFP)
Washington (CFP)
TCU (CFP)
Cincinnati (CFP)

A little of both. Georgia and LSU do very well on media rights I imagine.

 

[Illustrious Potentate]

Let's be honest though -- Georgia has had a massive amount of luck in winning those two titles. They couldn't cover Marvin Harrison Jr. -- he gets hurt and is out for the rest of the game, Georgia comes back and wins.

Bama with a healthy Jameson Williams and Metchie dominate Georgia -- Metchie blows out his knee before the game. Jameson Williams dominates Georgia in his 1 quarter of play and he blows out his knee. Georgia comes back and goes on to win the title.

So really, the best team didn't really win the national title the last two years, it was just the team who was able to be more healthy and had luck on their side.

Depth and not rostering brittle bitches ain’t luck

 

[Red_Alert]

A little of both. Georgia and LSU do very well on media rights I imagine.

That's not an answer.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

Depth and not rostering brittle bitches ain’t luck

Wouldn't you just roster guys who could cover those players?

And yes, it is luck. Not one, not two, but three WR's you couldn't cover suffered injuries where they couldn't play against Georgia. Two of them were non-contact injuries.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

A little of both. Georgia and LSU do very well on media rights I imagine.

It wouldn't be close -- Alabama, Ohio State and Michigan are 1, 2, 3 in average viewers per game. To put it in perspective how large the difference is -- Ohio State was #1, Tennessee was #4 -. Ohio State averaged 1.7 million more viewers per game.

So the Blue Blood contract would be massive compared to what the 2nd group would get.

 

[78Cyclones]

It's a stupid term that means nothing to me as a college football or basketball fan.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I get the joke and agree (especially that one title Alabama claims where they lost 2 games and are not even recognized as the SEC Champion).

Tennessee is an interesting setup from that era and fun to talk about. They had 6 (if you take out bowl games it is 9) undefeated seasons with Neyland at the helm but only 1 AP title. Interestingly, the year we won the AP title, we don't deserve it and we lost the bowl game. In his era, you often had to go unbeaten or have a great season, win the bowl game, and then go unbeaten again to win a National Title unless you were Michigan, Notre Dame, or a team in a good media market. Most of the SEC Champions had to do that.

In 1950, Tennessee went 10-1 and won the bowl game over the #3 but got nothing. So when Tennessee went undefeated in the regular season 1951, the AP gave Tennessee the National Title but they lost the bowl game. Also from a performance aspect, the 1950 team was an overall better team. 1950 Tennessee really deserved that AP title and not the 1951 (or 1938 which I will explain below).

With UPI poll, the same thing happened. Tennessee went unbeaten in 1938 but got nothing and then went unbeaten and unscored on in 1939 and got UPI National Title (equivalent to today's coaches poll). However, they went on to lose 14-0 in the Rose Bowl to the USC Trojans. Interestingly though, the best 2-3 players didn't even play in the Bowl Game because Bowl games were treated basically like they are treated now and not taken seriously.

1920s, Neyland had multiple undefeateds with no championships. So often teams would get AP titles in NOT their best years but based on performance from previous seasons that were built up.

Of course about 10 years ago, Tennessee started claiming 6 National Titles and included 1938, 1940, 1950, and 1951. They also claim 1967, I think, but I don't see that one. 1940 is an odd one to claim because they finished #6 (although they were 10-1) and the sole loss was to Boston College in the Bowl Game. I think they have an argument at 1939 based on the facts above that they really didn't travel with the full team to the Rose Bowl. Plus it is the last team in CFB to go undefeated and unscored on in the regular season.

I just looked up Georgia and they claim 4 (1942, 1980, 2022, and 2023) but you have 4 unclaimed ones in 1920, 1927, 1946, and 1968. The 1946 one looks legit and I think you could have argument for that one.

46 is the only one that I would agree to. At the end of the day, let’s win 5 more under CKS, claim 9 total, and then I can die a happy man.

 

[Red_Alert]

Reminds me of.......

"i DoN't cArE AbOuT mOnEy"

Because you don't have any.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Who do you think gets the better media rights contract as a group?

Bluebloods

Alabama
Ohio St
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
Nebraska
Michigan
USC
Texas
Penn St

OR

Non Bluebloods

Georgia (CFP)
Clemson (CFP)
LSU (CFP)
Florida St (CFP)
Oregon (CFP)
Michigan St (CFP)
Washington (CFP)
TCU (CFP)
Cincinnati (CFP)

Penn State isn’t a Blue Blood, IMO.

That aside, the top group would get a better rights deal if those were two conferences. Blue Bloods draw the eyeballs.

Of your bottom group, UGA and LSU would be the two that are closer to Blue Blood than not Blue Blood, but I have no problem when we aren’t included. We have a strong history, and we are currently elite … the most elite. I am cool with that.