Started By
Message
re: Why the lack of bluebloods in the SEC?
Posted on 7/9/22 at 5:51 pm to DawgsLife
Posted on 7/9/22 at 5:51 pm to DawgsLife
No disrespect to Michigan but they’ve won a 1/2 National Championship in 74 years. And that 97 Nebraska team would have steamrolled Michigan.
Oklahoma hasn’t won a NC in 20 years
Texas has won one National Championship in 50 years
Ohio State has won 2 NC in 50 years
USC has won one NC in over 40 years
Nebraska hasn’t won a NC in 25 years
Notre Dame hasn’t won a NC in 33 years
In the last 25 years
LSU has won 3
Florida has won 2
Florida State has won 2
In the last 40 years Miami has won 5 NC
The idea of a blue blood is pretty fluid, but based on consistency it’s not hard to argue that Alabama is really the only blue blood.
Oklahoma hasn’t won a NC in 20 years
Texas has won one National Championship in 50 years
Ohio State has won 2 NC in 50 years
USC has won one NC in over 40 years
Nebraska hasn’t won a NC in 25 years
Notre Dame hasn’t won a NC in 33 years
In the last 25 years
LSU has won 3
Florida has won 2
Florida State has won 2
In the last 40 years Miami has won 5 NC
The idea of a blue blood is pretty fluid, but based on consistency it’s not hard to argue that Alabama is really the only blue blood.
2
Posted on 7/9/22 at 7:24 pm to Pulpwood Patterson
First you said this
quote:And I'm fine with that because it is true. Then you tried to spin this
Ohio State has won 2 NC in 50 years
quote:Leaving out Ohio State has 2 national title the same time span.
In the last 25 years
LSU has won 3
Florida has won 2
Florida State has won 2
Posted on 7/9/22 at 8:34 pm to Pulpwood Patterson
It's difficult to pinpoint what a blueblood is. Everybody has their own idea and their own criteria.
Some base it off National Championships. Some off all-time wins. Others throw in Heisman winners, conference championships etc.
Still others want recency to rule the day, while others don't care and think wins alone rule the day.
I really don't care. I do agree that Alabama would belong on any blueblood list as they have all of the criteria mentioned. In the end, it really doesn't matter who is a blueblood and who is not. What it all boils down to me is who is winning today. Nebraska success30-40 years ago was interesting to watch, but does not affect me today at all.
ETA
I should add that whatever criteria you choose Alabama still comes out on top. That has to be impressive by any metric.
Some base it off National Championships. Some off all-time wins. Others throw in Heisman winners, conference championships etc.
Still others want recency to rule the day, while others don't care and think wins alone rule the day.
I really don't care. I do agree that Alabama would belong on any blueblood list as they have all of the criteria mentioned. In the end, it really doesn't matter who is a blueblood and who is not. What it all boils down to me is who is winning today. Nebraska success30-40 years ago was interesting to watch, but does not affect me today at all.
ETA
I should add that whatever criteria you choose Alabama still comes out on top. That has to be impressive by any metric.
This post was edited on 7/9/22 at 8:38 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News