Started By
Message

re: The changing of the Blue-Bloods

Posted on 4/18/18 at 6:23 pm to
Posted by Prof
Member since Jun 2013
42751 posts
Posted on 4/18/18 at 6:23 pm to
quote:

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.



You just constructed a straw-man out of what you wanted in order to tear it down. However, the criteria you just ripped up was the criteria you just established for the purpose of ripping it (e.g. 50 years, inclusion of Ivies to define said status, exclusion of Bama plus your own specified time frame, and so on are all things you came up with (not me) to set your own criteria).
Posted by lsufball19
Franklin, TN
Member since Sep 2008
65527 posts
Posted on 4/18/18 at 6:31 pm to
How is that a strawman? You created the criteria that being a blue blood is something you can't lose or gain. So I applied your criteria and established who the blue bloods are based on your criteria. As to the time period, why do you get to be the authority on when football really started and how far back is adequate to establish true blue blooded-ness? I was just illustrating how stupid your characterization of a football program is unless you agree that the Ivies and Michigan are still blue bloods. I'm not arguing they are. You're attempting to apply societal class structures to sports. It's ridiculous.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter