Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:06 pm to OldPete
quote:
You may have forgotten 'bout the 2000's decade.
I didn't forget, but that's 10 years out of the last 38. I still think of Texas as a blueblood and was just pointing out that they've struggled a lot over the last 38 years.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:08 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I would have UGA around 12-14 and LSU around 10-12
I believe that in the "all time" discussion that UGA/UF/LSU/AU are all pretty much neck and neck. You could put the 4 in any order and have a solid case for doing so. At that point it's really just a coin flip until something else moves the needle. If we had won the title last year I think we would be the clear cut front runner but alas..
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:10 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:Ehhh
I believe that in the "all time" discussion that UGA/UF/LSU/AU are all pretty much neck and neck
I beleive all time LSU/UGA/Tenn are very close
I think UF and AU are just below those 3. But clearly below
Now, in saying that, in my lifetime (born in 1987)UF is number 1 and LSU is 2. Which selfishly, I only really give a frick about what happened since I am alive
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:11 pm to Che Boludo
I just looked at that article. I didn't even consider this.
That's pretty freaking impressive considering how good the SEC has been during that stretch of time.
quote:
[LSU] also posted a winning record every season since 2000.
That's pretty freaking impressive considering how good the SEC has been during that stretch of time.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:12 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Not sure why someone downvoted you for that
LOL, I got two downvotes. Haters.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:14 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I beleive all time LSU/UGA/Tenn are very close
I think UF and AU are just below those 3. But clearly below
I can see that. AU is only in there because of 2010. UF has had ridiculous success since 1990 but not much before, but that success still can't be understated.
And I believe all of the aforementioned are still behind UT, really goes to show how excellent they were their entire history prior to 2009.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:17 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:I would agree, which is why I think judging teams as a program based on 60-100 years ago seems strange
And I believe all of the aforementioned are still behind UT, really goes to show how excellent they were their entire history prior to 2009.
I definitely would rank Tenn #1 out of Tenn/UGA/UF/AU/LSU in terms of ALL time, but I would rank them last in my lifetime, and I am 30......
So at what point to I say they are actually the worst program instead of the best to those that hang on to the term blue blood?
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 2:18 pm
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 2:27 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I think judging teams as a program based on 60-100 years ago seems strange
eh I don't think so, it's not like they count any less just becuase we weren't there for it. I mean 60 years ago my uncle (not even grandparent) was in HS going to uga games and would attend a few years later. When I'm older I'd think it odd for someone to disregard UGA's 02 and 05 SEC titles that I was around for and went to just because they're too young to remember.
quote:
I would rank them last in my lifetime
yeah as far as RIGHT NOW there's no doubt they're on the bottom
quote:
So at what point to I say they are actually the worst program instead of the best to those that hang on to the term blue blood?
I mean I guess it depends on what the topic of discussion is, which in this case is "blue bloods" which in my mind means all time/historic.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:27 pm to LSU Patrick
quote:
Other than a few SEC championships and making the playoff last season, UGA hasn't really done shite since 19-freaking-82.
Touchy for pointing out you hold an opinion not shared by maybe any other rational person?
Uga has been very similar to lsu since saban arrived but minus the luck required to get mnc shots in similar seasons.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:27 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
There's a good argument it's just tOSU, OU and Bama now. Most of those other schools havent done much the last decade
there's literally zero argument, unless your rank of all time programs is only based on the last 10 years at a time.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:36 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:I wont find it odd for a 20 year old fan in 2045 to not give a frick I attended LSU when we won the title in 2007
When I'm older I'd think it odd for someone to disregard UGA's 02 and 05 SEC titles that I was around for and went to just because they're too young to remember.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:39 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
there's literally zero argument, unless your rank of all time programs is only based on the last 10 years at a time.
Being relevant is still pretty important to me to continue blue blood status, less and less matters the further you go back. So many of these teams just have accomplished very little the last, 10, some 20+ years. Doesn't mean they aren't a historically good program, but to me, to maintain being a blue blood, you cant go decade+ long hiatuses presently and still call yourself definitively one.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:40 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I wont find it odd for a 20 year old fan in 2045 to not give a frick I attended LSU when we won the title in 2007
but you should. Not about them giving a frick or not but about discounting it just because they weren't there for it.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:41 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:I dont discount things that happened in 1954 (I fully beleive it happened and should count), I just dont care at all
but you should. Not about them giving a frick or not but about discounting it just because they weren't there for it.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:43 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I dont discount things that happened in 1954 (I fully beleive it happened and should count), I just dont care at all
Just be glad you have a choice
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:43 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
So many of these teams just have accomplished very little the last, 10, some 20+ year
dude 10 years is absolutley nothing, I've got underwear older than that. Prior to 2008 bama went over 10+ years without doing much of anything besides an SEC title in 99 but nobody in america would discount them as being a blue blood.
To lose BB status to me it would take DECADES of futility. UT (although not a blue blood but is pretty unquestionably the #2 all time SEC team) is dangerously close to losing that spot they've held for so long, due to their record the last ~18 years. Nebraksa hasn't done hardly anythign since the late 90s either and they've started tumbling down the ranks. And both of those programs have had some BAAAAD years in there. I just don't think you can say "well you didn't win a national title the last 10 years so what you did in the previous 90 is irrelevant". It's far too short sighted.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:55 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
I just don't think you can say "well you didn't win a national title the last 10 years so what you did in the previous 90 is irrelevant
I think you're overreacting here, I never said you have to win a national title the last 10 years to be considered a blue blood, just if you have a storied past, and REMAIN RELEVANT recently, you should be considered a blue blood. Problem is a lot of these schools are on that "well it's been a decade since we've done anything" and some have just been flat out terrible (Texas).
Notre Dame did at least make the title game a few years back, but they also have just 2 Top 10 finishes the last 24 years, that's not an insignificant amount of time by any means.
You seem to be placing 99.9% emphasis on entire history and 0.1% emphasis last 10-20 years. To me, it should be pretty even, half of it is having a great history, the other half of it, as far as being considered one at the time you are considering it, needs to look at the recent, past 10-20 years as well. To me, it's a thing you can drop in and out of from time to time.
By your argument, seems like you fully think Nebraska is still a blue blood, but are they really? Pretty clear to anyone that after the 2000s, that program was just done for quite a bit.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:56 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
Doesn't mean they aren't a historically good program, but to me, to maintain being a blue blood, you cant go decade+ long hiatuses presently and still call yourself definitively one
Ohio State football went 34 years without a NC...does that count?
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News