re: The changing of the Blue-Bloods

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.