Started By
Message
re: The changing of the Blue-Bloods
Posted on 4/18/18 at 5:50 pm to I Bleed Garnet
Posted on 4/18/18 at 5:50 pm to I Bleed Garnet
quote:
Who do you consider all the blue-bloods?
Whatever the criteria, these threads always talk about blue bloods improperly. That's a status that was earned long ago that you can't lose or gain no matter what you do.
Threads like this one should be called Now-bloods and New-bloods. UF, Miami and a few others are every bit as solid and laurel filled as some of the old blue blood programs but they're New Bloods. Clemson is a Now-blood that might well make it to New Blood soon. They could also lose their Now-Blood status rather quickly if they start losing.
Alabama is a good example of this... Alabama is both a Blueblood and a Now-Blood. The blue blood part of them won't change if they lose every game for the next 20 years. The Now-blood status could change quickly. However, it's not possible for them to ever be a New Blood.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 5:57 pm
1
Posted on 4/18/18 at 6:13 pm to Prof
quote:
Whatever the criteria, these threads always talk about blue bloods improperly. That's a status that was earned long ago that you can't lose or gain no matter what you do.
I don't know why we're talking about football programs like plantation owners. If you want to go that route, the only true blue bloods are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, and Michigan. Alabama took about 50 years before they joined the national title club. shite LSU had a recognized NC before Alabama. So in your context, Alabama is still new money and always will be since true blue bloods will always be blue bloods and no one else can ever join the club.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 6:13 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News