Started By
Message
re: Who Are The True Bluebloods Of College Football?
Posted on 8/25/16 at 9:29 am to CharlotteSooner
Posted on 8/25/16 at 9:29 am to CharlotteSooner
I seem to remember Michigan playing in a few Rose Bowls from 2003-2011...
Also, Michigan has a much better recruiting base than Nebraska
This is reality
Its not 1995 anymore
Also, Michigan has a much better recruiting base than Nebraska
This is reality
Its not 1995 anymore
This post was edited on 8/25/16 at 9:31 am
1
Posted on 8/25/16 at 9:31 am to AlabamaAlum07
Nebraska was beyond awful from 1941-1961. I read somewhere that Nebraska has the highest all time win % of any program if you take those 21 years out.
Posted on 8/25/16 at 9:43 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Notre Dame
Bama
Michigan
USC
UTexas
Oklahoma
Ohio State
This. You could add and subtract some for different eras (Miami, Nebraska), you could add some "close" and "almost" (like Nebraska, Tenn, UF, Auburn, UGA, Penn State), but the above is as good as it gets for the true blue bloods of the past 35 years.
Posted on 8/25/16 at 9:43 am to MizzouTrue
Michigan doesn't have a better recruiting base than Nebraska. Flip through their recruiting classes over that last few years. 80+% of their classes are from out of state. Ann Arbor isn't what I would call paradise yet they recruit in CA, FL, OH, and TX very well to play in a frozen shithole college town.
And the last time Michigan won a Rose Bowl was in 1998, which is when a lot of today's recruits were born. I doubt they remember Michigan being great. Last national title was 1997.
Nebraska needs to hire a real coach, who will in turn hire real assistants that have recruiting connections in NJ, OH, PA, TX, CA, FL etc., and they'll turn it around on a dime.
And the last time Michigan won a Rose Bowl was in 1998, which is when a lot of today's recruits were born. I doubt they remember Michigan being great. Last national title was 1997.
Nebraska needs to hire a real coach, who will in turn hire real assistants that have recruiting connections in NJ, OH, PA, TX, CA, FL etc., and they'll turn it around on a dime.
This post was edited on 8/25/16 at 9:44 am
Posted on 8/25/16 at 9:54 am to CharlotteSooner
If Nebraska was a blue blood they would be capable of recruiting big name coaches. Don't believe for a second that NU is not committed to football (what else do they do up there?) they would not skimp on their FB program. The reason they get second rate coaches is because they are the only ones attracted to the job.
Michigan can still get big names like Rich Rod (big name at the time) and Harbaugh.
Michigan is the better program now and should be for the foreseeable future
Michigan can still get big names like Rich Rod (big name at the time) and Harbaugh.
Michigan is the better program now and should be for the foreseeable future
Posted on 8/25/16 at 9:56 am to CharlotteSooner
quote:
Michigan doesn't have a better recruiting base than Nebraska. Flip through their recruiting classes over that last few years. 80+% of their classes are from out of state. Ann Arbor isn't what I would call paradise yet they recruit in CA, FL, OH, and TX very well to play in a frozen shithole college town.
Leave it to a Sooner to say completely ignorant things.
Population of Michigan: 9,922,576
Population of Nebraska: 1,896,190
Distance from Lincoln to Omaha, metro population, 915,312: 52 miles.
Distance from Lincoln to Kansas City, the next closest large city, metro population, 2,159,159: 211 miles.
Distance from Ann Arbor to Detroit, metro population 4,292,060: 42 miles
Distance from Ann Arbor to Cleveland, metro population 2,064,725: 168 miles
Distance from Ann Arbor to Chicago, metro population 9,551,031: 277 miles
Michigan very plainly has a superior recruiting base to Nebraska. Nebraska is in the middle of nowhere. BOTH schools recruit nationally though. In the regard, Michigan is the bigger name. It has more historical football success and is the better academic institution by leaps and bounds.
quote:
Ann Arbor isn't what I would call paradise yet they recruit in CA, FL, OH, and TX very well to play in a frozen shithole college town.
You've CLEARLY never been to Ann Arbor. It is cold in the winter, which may not be for you, but it is a really nice town. It is immeasurably better than Norman and definitely superior to Lincoln.
This post was edited on 8/25/16 at 10:03 am
Posted on 8/25/16 at 10:01 am to Cooter Davenport
Michigan also borders Ohio while Nebraska is far away from Texas.
Posted on 8/25/16 at 10:03 am to MizzouTrue
Pretty sure Nebraska's coach salary being about half of what the major B1G programs are paying has more to do with what kind of coaches they can recruit.
Posted on 8/25/16 at 10:09 am to AlabamaAlum07
Yes. Ann Arbor, Michigan is very obviously a superior "local" recruiting location to Lincoln, Nebraska, and UM has an easier time of national recruiting as well, thanks to its superior cachet. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Is it as good of a location as Baton Rouge, Austin, Tuscaloosa, Athens, or Gainesville? No. For well known demographic and cultural reasons. But if I were a coach choosing between recruiting to Michigan or recruiting to Nebraska, I take Michigan, hands down. Better nearby recruiting grounds for UM and at either place you have to recruit nationally, so I take the better school with more history, which is UM, no contest.
Posted on 8/25/16 at 10:11 am to Cooter Davenport
Nebraska has always been in the middle of nowhere, yet they have 5 NTs, compared to ATM who's in a major talent state and hasn't won shite. Their geographical changes aren't new here, genius, yet they've done it before.
Posted on 8/25/16 at 10:31 am to CharlotteSooner
quote:
Nebraska has always been in the middle of nowhere, yet they have 5 NTs, compared to ATM who's in a major talent state and hasn't won shite. Their geographical changes aren't new here, genius, yet they've done it before.
More Sooner ignorance. Really living up to the stereotype.
First of all, no one was comparing Nebraska to A&M. No one in their right mind and no one on this thread has suggested that A&M is a blueblood of college football.
There was a comparison going on between Nebraska and Michigan, in which you made the idiotic claims that Michigan doesn't have a superior home recruiting territory to Nebraska and that Ann Arbor is a crappy town. I proceeded to clown you on those, and now you are salty.
Nebraska has the Natties they do because the old Big 8 had VERY lenient rules with respect to their ability to sign academic partial and non-qualifiers. In those days, Nebraska had free reign to scour the nation for talented idiots who couldn't qualify at the other big programs because those schools and their conferences had standards, and Nebraska and the Big 8 essentially didn't. Also, Nebraska had a County Scholarship program, whereby they could give one full-ride scholarship per Nebraska county to anyone they wanted and then have that person "walk on" to the football team, so that they never had to use a football scholarship on a native Nebraskan and could use all of their allotted football scholarships on out of state players. That's another advantage that other schools lacked. When the Big XII was formed, UTex but the kibosh on BOTH of those things. No more partial and non-qualifiers, no more "County Scholarships". And IMMEDIATELY, Nebraska fell off.
This post was edited on 8/25/16 at 10:36 am
Posted on 8/25/16 at 10:34 am to Cooter Davenport
I was about to bring up Texas before reading the rest of your post. Osborne wasn't a fan at all of them joining.
Posted on 8/25/16 at 10:45 am to jatebe
quote:
CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS
1. Nebraska 46
2. Oklahoma 44
3. Michigan 42
4. Ohio State 38
4. USC 38
6. Tulsa 35
7. Rutgers 32
8. Texas 31
9. Alabama 29
10. Colorado 26
This just seems ridiculous to me. The three I highlighted were all in the same conference for so many years.The combined years make up the entire length of existence of the oldest conferences.
More evidence of the SEC being the toughest conference in the land, in an all-time consideration?
Posted on 8/25/16 at 10:55 am to AlabamaAlum07
Good find. I thought they went further back in the Big Eight.
ETA; The Big Eight Conference had a real fluid beginning, IOWA was a member of both the Big Ten and the Big Eights previous conference. COLORADO actually joined the conference in 1947 only twenty years after the backbone of the Big Eight was truly formed; NU, OU, Mizzou,and the Kansas schools.
Since that time, It has been ALL Nebraska, OU, Colorado.
The only other champs in all those years were when:
Mizzou was given the 1960 title by forfeit
Mizzou shared a title with Nebrasksa in 1969
Kansas shared a title with Oklahoma in 1968
That is it. Amazing, really
ETA; The Big Eight Conference had a real fluid beginning, IOWA was a member of both the Big Ten and the Big Eights previous conference. COLORADO actually joined the conference in 1947 only twenty years after the backbone of the Big Eight was truly formed; NU, OU, Mizzou,and the Kansas schools.
Since that time, It has been ALL Nebraska, OU, Colorado.
The only other champs in all those years were when:
Mizzou was given the 1960 title by forfeit
Mizzou shared a title with Nebrasksa in 1969
Kansas shared a title with Oklahoma in 1968
That is it. Amazing, really
This post was edited on 8/25/16 at 11:12 am
Posted on 8/25/16 at 10:58 am to MartyMoose09
quote:
Notre Dame
Bama
Michigan
USC
UTexas
Oklahoma
Ohio State
So has OSU. They will have played ND, Michigan, OU and Bama in a 3 year period 2014-2016 and maybe another of USC or Texas in the near future (Texas has a series with OSU set up for the early 20s but who knows)
Posted on 8/25/16 at 11:20 am to Mizz-SEC
Alabama, OU, USC, and OSU are the only ones that maintained success post intergrating. The others had spurts of winning, but have struggled to win since AA's were allowed to play.
Posted on 8/25/16 at 11:36 am to Buckeye06
All time wins are never a factor because programs like Michigan started a lot earlier than others.
Michigan lost their blue blood status years ago. Even with a share of the 1997 national title, that didn't help their cause to stay as one of the elites.
Minnesota hasn't won a national title since 1960 and 55 years later, they still have more poll titles than Michigan.
Nebraska hasn't won a conference title since 1999 and hasn't played for a a title since 2001. Their blue blood status ended after the 2009 Big XII title loss to Texas. I believe you get a cushion of less than 10 years a long as you are winning for the most part, and NU did do that, but nothing more became of it.
The powerful Nebraska name will forever resonate because of the best team ever in 1995; three undefeated national titles in a five year stretch, and national championship caliber in 8 of 9 seasons from 1993-2001.
USC is still less than 10 years removed from a dominant stretch which added to their overall blue blood legacy. They may lower in tier status but not much. Their blue blood status is well intact.
Same with Notre Dame compared to USC. ND playing for 2012 NC elevated their rightful position and they are safe.
True Blue Bloods right now:
Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC
Michigan lost their blue blood status years ago. Even with a share of the 1997 national title, that didn't help their cause to stay as one of the elites.
Minnesota hasn't won a national title since 1960 and 55 years later, they still have more poll titles than Michigan.
Nebraska hasn't won a conference title since 1999 and hasn't played for a a title since 2001. Their blue blood status ended after the 2009 Big XII title loss to Texas. I believe you get a cushion of less than 10 years a long as you are winning for the most part, and NU did do that, but nothing more became of it.
The powerful Nebraska name will forever resonate because of the best team ever in 1995; three undefeated national titles in a five year stretch, and national championship caliber in 8 of 9 seasons from 1993-2001.
USC is still less than 10 years removed from a dominant stretch which added to their overall blue blood legacy. They may lower in tier status but not much. Their blue blood status is well intact.
Same with Notre Dame compared to USC. ND playing for 2012 NC elevated their rightful position and they are safe.
True Blue Bloods right now:
Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC
Posted on 8/25/16 at 11:42 am to Oklahomey
quote:
True Blue Bloods right now:
Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC
UTw won a natty in 2005 and played for another after going undefeated in 2009. That's within your 10 year definition of still being a Blue Blood program. I mean, I get why you won't include them - you hate them - as do I, but give the Devil his due. They are a Blue Blood program. Maybe the most under performing relative to potential, but still there. If they fumble the hire to replace The Midget after this season and don't get Herman, we can talk seriously about revoking their Blue Blood card, but I think they fire The Midget, hire Herman, and return to greatness in short order, unfortunately.
Posted on 8/25/16 at 11:51 am to Cooter Davenport
Yes, I hate Texas, but it's not about hate when not including them as a true blue blood. 4 national titles; 1 since 1970. Played for the NC in 1977, 1983, 2009. That's good and all, but that doesn't scream anything big. Considering the facilities, resources, opportunities, Texas should have a lot more accolades.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News