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

ericd7633 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If we look at societal Blue Bloods, they are only irrelevant once their current status is so minute as to not even exist. The Vanderbilts still have a university and a large estate in NC. Gettys have a museum. But there are blue bloods of their time period we don't know about because they fell on such hard times as to not even exist any more. But, so long as they have some relevance today, their past blue blood status will always elevate them above where their status should really be.

Carry that over to football, and let's say Yale and Harvard should be blue bloods based on the definition. But, they gave up competitive football and sports, and are so irrelevant today that their past blue blood status doesn't matter.

So, I think I agree with that part of your post where a team could be so irrelevant for so long that their blue blood won't matter. Michigan, ND, and Nebraska still try ... so their blue blood status matters. I don't think Army is blue blood because of their status as an armed service academy.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Brittle bitches. Not my problem
 
Illustrious Potentate said:
Brittle bitches. Not my problem
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was your problem -- it is the exact opposite, it was your extremely good fortune those players got hurt. If they didn't -- you wouldn't be back to back national champs
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
I didn't say it was your problem -- it is the exact opposite, it was your extremely good fortune those players got hurt. If they didn't -- you wouldn't be back to back national champs
Click to expand...
I’ll take all the luck I can get, but brittle bitches getting hurt isn’t luck, it’s just what they do
 
One item that is up for debate and not really addressed well in this thread is who would classify as a blue blood and who would not?

In Basketball, it is pretty clear. It is the 5 that I listed and sometimes Indiana is included. Outside of that there is a gap.

I feel like the gap between the top 20 is not as wide unless you really want to focus on certain criteria.

For example, Nebraska has 5 claimed National Titles but Georgia has 4 and can arguable claim more. Why is Nebraska blue blood and NOT Georgia?

Miami has 5 National Titles, are they blue blood?

The issue in football is that the top 20 all have merits, not just the top 10. However, if I was going to be strick about it, I would actually limit blue bloods to just these programs:

1. Alabama
2. Notre Dame
3. Ohio State
4. Oklahoma
5. USC

I would say only those 5 are really blue bloods if you look at it based on how College Basketball looks at it. There is a gap between those 5 (especially counting national titles) and the rest of the field.

The issue is that if you include teams like Nebraska and Penn State, than how do Georgia, LSU, Miami, Florida, Auburn, FSU, Tennessee, Michigan State, etc. fit in the picture? There really isn't much of a gap with any of those teams on that list. I also left out Michigan because they have 1 National Title in the last 60 years or something insane like that and Texas because they just don't have sheer amount of Championships as teams in the 5 above. Texas would be the #6 team IMO sitting out.

However, the argument is that perhaps "blueblood" definition doesn't even work in football. Football has a little more historical parity and the Championship system prior to the playoffs was very speculative with teams not getting titles that probably should have and vice versa.


Basketball has a nice tournament format with metrics. You can cite to Tournament Appearances, Conference Regular Season and Tournament Titles, Sweet 16s, Elite 8s, Final Fours, and Championships as a metric.
 
In College Football, you have metrics but they are not as neat in clean as Basketball. Here are some important metrics:

All-Time Bowl Appearances top 10:

1. Alabama - 76
2. Georgia - 60
3. Texas - 58
4. Oklahoma - 56
5. USC - 56
6. LSU - 55
6. Ohio State - 55
6. Tennessee - 55
9. Nebraska - 53
10. Penn State - 52

All-Time Bowl Wins:

1. Alabama - 46
2. Georgia - 36
3. USC - 35
4. Oklahoma - 31
4. Penn State - 31
4. Texas - 31
7. Tennessee - 30
7. LSU - 30
9 Florida State - 29
10. Ohio State - 27

All-Time Wins:

1. Michigan - 989
2. Alabama - 956
3. Ohio State - 953
4. Notre Dame - 938
5. Texas - 936
6. Oklahoma - 934
7. Penn State - 919
8. Nebraska - 912
9. Georgia - 867
10t. USC - 866
10t. Tennessee - 866

If you adjust for winning percentage (some teams played more games than others, it looks like this)

1. Ohio State
2. Alabama
3. Michigan
4. Notre Dame
5. Oklahoma
6. USC
7. Texas
8. Penn State
9. Nebraska
10. Tennessee

(USC gets docked hard because they have played less games than other teams on the list)

National Titles:

1. Alabama - 16
2. Notre Dame - 13
3. Michigan - 9 (although most are prior to WW1)
4. USC - 9
5. Ohio State - 8
6. Oklahoma - 7
7. Minnesota - 6
8. LSU - 5
8. Miami - 5
8. Nebraska - 5
8. Pittsburgh - 5

National Titles 1936-Present:

1. Alabama - 13
2. Notre Dame - 9
3. Ohio State - 8
4. Oklahoma - 7
5. USC - 7
6. Miami - 5
6. Nebraska - 5
8. Texas - 4
8. Minnesota - 4
8. LSU - 4

So looking at all these stats, can you say that there is a definitive list of blue bloods? Some of the "blue bloods" discussed in this thread are not even in the top 10 of some categories.
 
Volbound1700 said:
In College Football, you have metrics but they are not as neat in clean as Basketball. Here are some important metrics:

All-Time Bowl Appearances top 10:

1. Alabama - 76
2. Georgia - 60
3. Texas - 58
4. Oklahoma - 56
5. USC - 56
6. LSU - 55
6. Ohio State - 55
6. Tennessee - 55
9. Nebraska - 53
10. Penn State - 52

All-Time Bowl Wins:

1. Alabama - 46
2. Georgia - 36
3. USC - 35
4. Oklahoma - 31
4. Penn State - 31
4. Texas - 31
7. Tennessee - 30
7. LSU - 30
9 Florida State - 29
10. Ohio State - 27

All-Time Wins:

1. Michigan - 989
2. Alabama - 956
3. Ohio State - 953
4. Notre Dame - 938
5. Texas - 936
6. Oklahoma - 934
7. Penn State - 919
8. Nebraska - 912
9. Georgia - 867
10t. USC - 866
10t. Tennessee - 866

If you adjust for winning percentage (some teams played more games than others, it looks like this)

1. Ohio State
2. Alabama
3. Michigan
4. Notre Dame
5. Oklahoma
6. USC
7. Texas
8. Penn State
9. Nebraska
10. Tennessee

(USC gets docked hard because they have played less games than other teams on the list)

National Titles:

1. Alabama - 16
2. Notre Dame - 13
3. Michigan - 9 (although most are prior to WW1)
4. USC - 9
5. Ohio State - 8
6. Oklahoma - 7
7. Minnesota - 6
8. LSU - 5
8. Miami - 5
8. Nebraska - 5
8. Pittsburgh - 5

National Titles 1936-Present:

1. Alabama - 13
2. Notre Dame - 9
3. Ohio State - 8
4. Oklahoma - 7
5. USC - 7
6. Miami - 5
6. Nebraska - 5
8. Texas - 4
8. Minnesota - 4
8. LSU - 4

So looking at all these stats, can you say that there is a definitive list of blue bloods? Some of the "blue bloods" discussed in this thread are not even in the top 10 of some categories.
Click to expand...
The only true blue bloods in cfb are the 14 current members of the SEC. Everyone else lacks the foot speed and the raw power to be considered elite
 
Hitman Hart said:
The only true blue bloods in cfb are the 14 current members of the SEC. Everyone else lacks the foot speed and the raw power to be considered elite
Click to expand...
Not enough Waffle House in their diet to complete
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
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.
Click to expand...
If I were the top recruit coming out of high school my choices would be.

1. Michigan (it's still me and I am a Michigan Slappy)
2. Georgia
3. Alabama
4. Texas
5. Florida
6. University of Southern Cal
7. Tennessee
8. Clemson
9. UCLA
10. Penn State

Some of these teams (maybe all) have great histories. But being a "Blue Blue" doesn't come into play.

Note: No ohio state because I am still me).
 
I like to rank college football like this and it is a great blend of both worlds. Instead of "blue bloods" I cited to Power Programs. Any of these power programs has the resources to make runs (theoretically). Some have that "geographical" disadvantage right now and could be somewhat questionable but I think they belong on the list. Here are what I would classify as power programs. I am counting the conferences based on realignment after 2024/2025:

ACC (3): Clemson, FSU, Miami
B1G (5): Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, USC
Ind (1): Notre Dame
SEC (8): Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas

On the cusp (these programs could have arguments to be in the list but also have arguments to be off the list):

Iowa, Michigan State, Oregon, UCLA, Texas A&M, Washington, and Wisconsin

The power programs above all make sense because they are the currently the most prestigious programs in football and have the ability to recruit and compete at a higher level. The only iffy power program that I truly see is Miami. I am not sure of the future of that program. I also listed the programs "on the cusp" because I feel like some of them could arguable fit the Power program. Oregon might be the most notably. Their history and lack of a National Title keeps them off the list but they have a lot of Financial Resources and a very fanatical fanbase. They are kind of like Gonzaga is right now in Basketball. Not a historical power but a big enough name now that they are a household commodity and in some ways more prestigious then some of the Power Programs.

Overall, I feel like the "Power" programs is a better approach for classifying college football.
 
trojanfan12 said:
lol @chewy turning into an Oregon fan.
Click to expand...
Oregon winning a natty would be the best thing to happen to this board. You know it. I know it.

But FTR, ever since I first heard the term blue blood used as a reference to a college football team, I’ve thought “ok, how does that help you win now, and shouldn’t the ones that aren’t Alabama and Ohio State be embarrassed that so many non blue bloods have outperformed them this century?”
 
Illustrious Potentate said:
Oregon winning a natty would be the best thing to happen to this board. You know it. I know it.

But FTR, ever since I first heard the term blue blood used as a reference to a college football team, I’ve thought “ok, how does that help you win now, and shouldn’t the ones that aren’t Alabama and Ohio State be embarrassed that so many non blue bloods have outperformed them this century?”
Click to expand...

Oregon fan confirmed.
 
Illustrious Potentate said:
If Georgia is out and Oregon has a chance, I’m definitely pulling for Oregon. OD would be in a form we’ve never seen
Click to expand...

Oregon fans are definitely obnoxious on here but I also have a little sympathy for Oregon right now because of the being left behind by USC in realignment. I will probably be rooting for them as well. Plus OD would be hilarious.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
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.
Click to expand...
This whole whining about players getting injured is so stupid, and anyone that keeps doing it is weak-minded.

1. Injuries are part of football. That's why the winning teams have the most depth.

2. UGA has purposefully gone to rotations at all positions. For example, we actually rotated OL this year, something that is rarely done. It paid off when our RT got injured in the Peach Bowl, and his replacement was just as good because we rotated him in all season long. That isn't luck, that's skill. If you choose not to rotate and get players ready to be next man up, that's on you, not the team that is properly prepared. On the final drive by tOSU in the Peach Bowl, we had 5 true freshman on the field because we had injuries during the game. I can assure you I would not have been whining here about that if tOSU had beaten us. Can you imagine what I pussy move it would be to come in and type, "tOSU go lucky that we had to play 5 freshman D during the game winning drive ... not fair." Get the fuck out of here with that.

3. No one seems to look at the losses and injuries that UGA has had. I am not going to go through them all last year and this year, but this year we lost one of our starting safeties, and our best rush end. Do you suppose things might have been different if Nolan Smith had been putting pressure on the QB? Of course it would have been. If you can make up shit about what would have happened, I'll make up shit - Nolan Smith would have had 5 sacks, 10 pressures, and our starting safety who was out would have had 3 picks, including 2 for TDs, and we would have won by 3 TDs. See how stupid this whole thing is?

4. All this said, you simply don't know how the game turns out. Because the players didn't keep playing, we have no idea what would have happened. Because we have players who were injured and out, you have no idea what would have happened if they had played. In other words, this is all make-believe and is used as a way to somehow minimize the accomplishment of UGA. So fuck off with that. Recruit better. Coach better. Maybe your team will get the "lucky breaks" next time.
 
@WhosYourDawggy - I am curious what your top ten programs all time are and how you go about organizing them?
 
Blackshirts BLVD said:
@WhosYourDawggy - I am curious what your top ten programs all time are and how you go about organizing them?
Click to expand...
That's a good question ... I am an old school guy, so I look at the teams I followed in the 60s, 70s, etc. So you have to have the Bluebloods back then - Bama, ND, Nebraska, OU, USC, tOSU, UM. Then you have the newer teams that got really good - Miami, FSU come to mind. Then you have the deep south teams that have been really good over time, if not Blueblood - UGA, UTjr, LSU.

If you look at all-time wins, you get:

Michigan
Ohio State
Alabama
Notre Dame
Texas
Oklahoma
Penn State
Nebraska
Georgia
USC
Tennessee
LSU
Auburn

That excludes Miami and FSU who are more recent. UF who was not very good until the 90s, and now not so for the last 15 years.

That seems to be as good a list as any. Some of those are really old timers ... PSU got a lot of their wins when they were indies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top