Started By
Message
re: The changing of the Blue-Bloods
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:17 am to TideFaninFl
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:17 am to TideFaninFl
Depends on criteria of blue bloods as discussed in the "is UT still a blue blood" thread last month.
Criteria I liked best from linked article there:
-70 percent or better win %
- multiple national titles
- sustained success over time (800+ wins seems to be a trend with the current bluebloods, which seems a good mark for this category to establish history of success)
-iconic coaches
-longstanding tradition and rabid fan bases
Blue Bloods (no particular order):
Texas
Bama
Michigan
USC
ND
tOSU
OU
On the cusp (no order, but Nebraska/UT seem the closest to meeting the criteria):
- Nebraska (only because they've recently fallen below the .700 win % threshold)
- UTenn
- Penn St
- UF
- Auburn
- LSU
- UGA
- FSU
- Miami
Criteria I liked best from linked article there:
-70 percent or better win %
- multiple national titles
- sustained success over time (800+ wins seems to be a trend with the current bluebloods, which seems a good mark for this category to establish history of success)
-iconic coaches
-longstanding tradition and rabid fan bases
Blue Bloods (no particular order):
Texas
Bama
Michigan
USC
ND
tOSU
OU
On the cusp (no order, but Nebraska/UT seem the closest to meeting the criteria):
- Nebraska (only because they've recently fallen below the .700 win % threshold)
- UTenn
- Penn St
- UF
- Auburn
- LSU
- UGA
- FSU
- Miami
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 8:27 am
8
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:47 am to Che Boludo
quote:
On the cusp (no order, but Nebraska/UT seem the closest to meeting the criteria):
- Nebraska (only because they've recently fallen below the .700 win % threshold)
- UTenn
- Penn St
- UF
- Auburn
- LSU
- UGA
- FSU
- Miami
As of now, UGA really does not fit in this group.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:16 am to Che Boludo
I have never really thought of Texas as a Blue Blood. What does their resume look like? It seems comparable to someone like Auburn (really good and brief periods of being great, but not really sustained periods of greatness).
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:37 am to Che Boludo
quote:
On the cusp (no order, but Nebraska/UT seem the closest to meeting the criteria):
- Nebraska (only because they've recently fallen below the .700 win % threshold)
- UTenn
- Penn St
- UF
- Auburn
- LSU
- UGA
- FSU
- Miami
None of these teams will ever be blue bloods. Just not enough history. Your team's dominance has to go back to at least before WW2.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:59 am to Che Boludo
As much as I hate to say it, I'm going to have to agree to move Nebraska out of blue blood status for the reasons you noted.
Texas is on the bottom rung now IMO.
Texas is on the bottom rung now IMO.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 1:53 pm to Che Boludo
quote:
On the cusp (no order, but Nebraska/UT seem the closest to meeting the criteria):
- Nebraska (only because they've recently fallen below the .700 win % threshold)
- UTenn
- Penn St
- UF
- Auburn
- LSU
- UGA
- FSU
- Miami
Idk...when I think "blue blood" I think old money teams that have succeeded throughout pretty much all eras. Bama, Michigan, USC, ND, etc are teams that have pretty much sustained success since the early 20th century. Teams like UF/FSU/Miami had meteoric rises but I still think of them as new money since they didn't really do much of note until the 90s (or late 80s in miamis case). Teams like AU/LSU/UGA I wouldn't say are even really close to "blue blood" status.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:20 pm to Che Boludo
quote:
Blue Bloods (no particular order):
Texas
Bama
Michigan
USC
ND
tOSU
OU
There's a good argument it's just tOSU, OU and Bama now. Most of those other schools havent done much the last decade or did something basically a decade ago. USC's mostly due to sanctions.
I guess ND played for a title not TOO long ago, but they've just had so many bad to mediocre seasons recently. 2 Top 10 finishes the last 24 years
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 4/18/18 at 5:57 pm to Che Boludo
quote:
Blue Bloods (no particular order):
Texas
Why are they a blue blood? Because they’re from a large state and have big-money boosters? Because they have a lot of wins while dictating terms to the other members of their (usually) ho-hum conferences? Because they tell us they are?
Historically, Texas has almost underachieved as badly as Michigan has.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 7:09 pm to Che Boludo
quote:
Blue Bloods (no particular order):
ND
Yeah, no.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News