re: The changing of the Blue-Bloods

quote:

---

From the article I mentioned that used the posted criteria for Blue Bloods. Mind you, it is 2 year old data, so add an SEC Championship and NCG runner up to the resume. I think they clearly belong in second tier. Just a bit short on win%

---

Taken alone, I see your point, but I was considering your post in the context of the thread topic. The question was whether or not Michigan should still be considered a Blue Blood due to its more recent performance. This is why I say that UGA doesn't belong in that second tier. The other teams you had listed not only have strong overall football histories but have won a national championship within the past 30 years. I say that Penn State doesn't belong in the second tier either for the same reason. I give the benefit of the doubt to Nebraska because that program had a dynasty in the 90s, including probably the best CFB team of all time, and was considered a Blue Blood in the past.

UGA fans are really touchy about this, but it is true. Other than a few SEC championships and making the playoff last season, UGA hasn't really done shite since 19-freaking-82. I don't know about the rest of you, but I was 7 years old in 1982. I barely even remember that myself. Furthermore, it was nearly 40 years before that when UGA earned its prior claimed national title.

Bulldog fans have every reason to be excited about the future of the UGA football program, but if one is being honest, that program is not currently in the same category as most of the others listed in that second tier. Maybe Kirby can get them back there in another season or two.