Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/21/24 at 9:48 pm to OU Guy
This list is retarded and completely invalid. Not having USC is enough to invalidate it entirely, but having Georgia, LSU, and Penn State on it INSTEAD of USC makes this an Onion article. 
This post was edited on 4/21/24 at 9:49 pm
Posted on 4/21/24 at 10:10 pm to OU Guy
The 8 blue bloods of CFB are pretty obvious
Alabama
USC
Notre Dame
Michigan
OSU
Nebraska
Texas
Oklahoma
Everyone else is behind them. The team closest to falling off from their blueblood status is Nebraska, but even then they're at least a decade or two of consistently terrible performance before that can be considered.
Alabama
USC
Notre Dame
Michigan
OSU
Nebraska
Texas
Oklahoma
Everyone else is behind them. The team closest to falling off from their blueblood status is Nebraska, but even then they're at least a decade or two of consistently terrible performance before that can be considered.
Posted on 4/21/24 at 10:15 pm to OU Guy
Interesting post. I still go with these 8 that a lot of CFB fans seem to hold to.
I will rank on history but also with a recency bias built in:
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State - I think we all hate them but they are consistent as hell, no doubt a top 4-5 program all time
3/4 Notre Dame & Oklahoma - can’t decide which way to rank right now.
5. Michigan - most of success was before most of us was born but still tons of wins and recent title vaults them ahead of…
6. USC
7. Texas - ranked here because only 4 titles and our shite era recently but we look poised to
contend again and not become…
8. Nebraska - blue blood rather we like it or not, drought has been so long, will they ever make another run again or come back to relevance? If not, what do we do with them?
Just because they aren’t blue bloods doesn’t mean that programs like Georgia and LSU aren’t as good or aren’t better positioned going forward - they just didn’t have the success far enough back.
I will rank on history but also with a recency bias built in:
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State - I think we all hate them but they are consistent as hell, no doubt a top 4-5 program all time
3/4 Notre Dame & Oklahoma - can’t decide which way to rank right now.
5. Michigan - most of success was before most of us was born but still tons of wins and recent title vaults them ahead of…
6. USC
7. Texas - ranked here because only 4 titles and our shite era recently but we look poised to
contend again and not become…
8. Nebraska - blue blood rather we like it or not, drought has been so long, will they ever make another run again or come back to relevance? If not, what do we do with them?
Just because they aren’t blue bloods doesn’t mean that programs like Georgia and LSU aren’t as good or aren’t better positioned going forward - they just didn’t have the success far enough back.
Posted on 4/21/24 at 10:16 pm to OU Guy
When the word "Blueblood" isn't enough, enter "Mega"......
Which has nothing to do with the words you may choose from when "Dipshit" isn't enough.
Which has nothing to do with the words you may choose from when "Dipshit" isn't enough.
Posted on 4/21/24 at 11:05 pm to OU Guy
I'm getting a shirt printed about UGA's SP+ once I figure out what the hell that means.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 8:16 am to OU Guy
Georgia is not
LSU is not
Texas is not
Penn state is not
Southern Cal is
LSU is not
Texas is not
Penn state is not
Southern Cal is
Posted on 4/22/24 at 8:44 am to OU Guy
UGA isn't really a blueblood.
But for a list like this using numbers, there's a reason UGA gets included. It's not because they were consistently in contention for national titles. They really haven't been other than the 1940's, early 1980's and 2017-present.
The reason UGA gets included is they don't suck as bad as other teams in their down years.
UGA has been more than one game below .500 the following seasons: 1990, 1961, 1955-8, 1953, 1949, 1932, 1914, 1909, 1905, 1904. 13 total seasons where UGA was bad enough to lose two more than they won. Only 2 of them since 1960. A lot of other teams who have been in competition for championships more frequently than UGA have way more frequent horrible years.
But for a list like this using numbers, there's a reason UGA gets included. It's not because they were consistently in contention for national titles. They really haven't been other than the 1940's, early 1980's and 2017-present.
The reason UGA gets included is they don't suck as bad as other teams in their down years.
UGA has been more than one game below .500 the following seasons: 1990, 1961, 1955-8, 1953, 1949, 1932, 1914, 1909, 1905, 1904. 13 total seasons where UGA was bad enough to lose two more than they won. Only 2 of them since 1960. A lot of other teams who have been in competition for championships more frequently than UGA have way more frequent horrible years.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 9:20 am to OU Guy
ALABAMA
Ohio State
Oklahoma
USC
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
USC
Notre Dame
Posted on 4/22/24 at 11:20 am to OU Guy
Blue blood doesn’t even mean anything anymore. Being a blue blood is like being a figurehead in football. Nebraska is STILL considered a blue blood, same with OU and Notre Dame. Michigan hadn’t accomplished a damn thing in forever before this past year. All are considered blue bloods over schools like LSU and Georgia.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 9:35 pm to OU Guy
IMO a true blueblood is never down for a sustained period of time(>5+ years) and when they're up will be a perinneal top 5 team competing for NCs. And seeing their name on your teams schedule will strike fear in you even if they're down
Notre Dame and Nebraska used to fit that description, but have lost their luster after sustained down years
USC used to fit that description, but the NCAA/powers at be will never allow an elite coach at USC to run free longterm again as the location and city's culture (much like Miami) can precipitate a sustained dynasty that's overly dominant and bad for CFB
Texas and Michigan are close to that description, but lack longterm dominance/sustained runs as title contenders. They'll generally have a decade of being borderline contenders(5-10 range) that ends in a title, but generally lack the ability to reload and replicate the success
The big 3 in Florida prevent each other from fitting this description as when one comes close, another rises and impedes the others recruiting monopoly
LSU and Georgia lack longterm relevance
Penn State has never been dominant
The only 3 true blue bloods are OSU, OU and Bama
Notre Dame and Nebraska used to fit that description, but have lost their luster after sustained down years
USC used to fit that description, but the NCAA/powers at be will never allow an elite coach at USC to run free longterm again as the location and city's culture (much like Miami) can precipitate a sustained dynasty that's overly dominant and bad for CFB
Texas and Michigan are close to that description, but lack longterm dominance/sustained runs as title contenders. They'll generally have a decade of being borderline contenders(5-10 range) that ends in a title, but generally lack the ability to reload and replicate the success
The big 3 in Florida prevent each other from fitting this description as when one comes close, another rises and impedes the others recruiting monopoly
LSU and Georgia lack longterm relevance
Penn State has never been dominant
The only 3 true blue bloods are OSU, OU and Bama
This post was edited on 4/22/24 at 9:39 pm
Posted on 4/23/24 at 4:19 pm to OU Guy
How is Texas on this list?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News