Started By
Message
The changing of the Blue-Bloods
Posted on 4/18/18 at 7:41 am
Posted on 4/18/18 at 7:41 am
Should Michigan still be considered a Blue-Blood?
Michigan only has the overall lead in wins due to the fact they started in 1879, and has played in only one NC game in its history (1997 and won). The previous NC was in 1948
Michigan only has the overall lead in wins due to the fact they started in 1879, and has played in only one NC game in its history (1997 and won). The previous NC was in 1948
11
Posted on 4/18/18 at 7:44 am to TideFaninFl
Who do you consider all the blue-bloods?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 7:46 am to TideFaninFl
quote:
Michigan only has the overall lead in wins due to the fact they started in 1879,
So about 18-22 games to get to similar years for others
next is yale(est 1872 also) at 41 less wins and then ohio state at 45
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:17 am to TideFaninFl
Depends on criteria of blue bloods as discussed in the "is UT still a blue blood" thread last month.
Criteria I liked best from linked article there:
-70 percent or better win %
- multiple national titles
- sustained success over time (800+ wins seems to be a trend with the current bluebloods, which seems a good mark for this category to establish history of success)
-iconic coaches
-longstanding tradition and rabid fan bases
Blue Bloods (no particular order):
Texas
Bama
Michigan
USC
ND
tOSU
OU
On the cusp (no order, but Nebraska/UT seem the closest to meeting the criteria):
- Nebraska (only because they've recently fallen below the .700 win % threshold)
- UTenn
- Penn St
- UF
- Auburn
- LSU
- UGA
- FSU
- Miami
Criteria I liked best from linked article there:
-70 percent or better win %
- multiple national titles
- sustained success over time (800+ wins seems to be a trend with the current bluebloods, which seems a good mark for this category to establish history of success)
-iconic coaches
-longstanding tradition and rabid fan bases
Blue Bloods (no particular order):
Texas
Bama
Michigan
USC
ND
tOSU
OU
On the cusp (no order, but Nebraska/UT seem the closest to meeting the criteria):
- Nebraska (only because they've recently fallen below the .700 win % threshold)
- UTenn
- Penn St
- UF
- Auburn
- LSU
- UGA
- FSU
- Miami
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 8:27 am
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:19 am to TideFaninFl
Who gives a shite what colleges did before your parents could even walk? Why do you wear this "blue blood" title like a badge of honor?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:25 am to VermilionTiger
quote:Because we are still a culture rooted in a Great Gatsby like class division of old money, new money, and no money, with behaviors, expectations,and stereotypes well-defined by each class.
Why do you wear this "blue blood" title like a badge of honor?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:32 am to TideFaninFl
recognized national titles...
polling era 1936-present
Alabama 13
Notre Dame 8
Oklahoma 7
Southern California 7
Ohio State 6
UMiami 5
Nebraska 5
Conference Championship Game era 1992-present
Alabama 6
Florida 3
Florida State 3
LSU 2
Ohio State 2
^^^^ only schools to win more more than 1
polling era 1936-present
Alabama 13
Notre Dame 8
Oklahoma 7
Southern California 7
Ohio State 6
UMiami 5
Nebraska 5
Conference Championship Game era 1992-present
Alabama 6
Florida 3
Florida State 3
LSU 2
Ohio State 2
^^^^ only schools to win more more than 1
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:47 am to Che Boludo
quote:
On the cusp (no order, but Nebraska/UT seem the closest to meeting the criteria):
- Nebraska (only because they've recently fallen below the .700 win % threshold)
- UTenn
- Penn St
- UF
- Auburn
- LSU
- UGA
- FSU
- Miami
As of now, UGA really does not fit in this group.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:51 am to LSU Patrick
quote:
As of now, UGA really does not fit in this group.
Why not?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:54 am to LSU Patrick
quote:
As of now, UGA really does not fit in this group.
I realize that the sole criteria of most on this board is national titles, I don't agree that UGA doesn't belong.
Objectively when you take multiple criteria into account UGA clearly fits. UGA has more wins, a higher win %, and more conference titles than AU, LSU, and UF. I assume you're not arguing that AU, LSU, and UF don't belong on this list (I'm not).
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:03 am to TideFaninFl
quote:
1997 and won). The previous NC was in 1948
quote:So, 2?
and has played in only one NC game in its history
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:10 am to TideFaninFl
quote:
has played in only one NC game in its history (1997 and won)
Didn't even play in a national title game that year. Nebraska basically killed everyone that year they played and beat Tennessee by 4 touchdowns.
Michigan scraped by their last 3 games, and beat a barely top 10 WSU team by 5 in the Rose.
No way to know from that who would have won a game between them, but at best for Michigan it was a split
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:11 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
1997 and won). The previous NC was in 1948
quote:
So, 2?
A better way to say this is Michigan claims 11 national championships, but only one after 1948.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:13 am to VermilionTiger
quote:
Who gives a shite what colleges did before your parents could even walk?
If your team had actually done anything before your parents could walk you would understand. So few fans of rival programs understand Bama tradition because so few other programs can match it.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:16 am to Che Boludo
I have never really thought of Texas as a Blue Blood. What does their resume look like? It seems comparable to someone like Auburn (really good and brief periods of being great, but not really sustained periods of greatness).
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:15 am to LSU Patrick
quote:From the article I mentioned that used the posted criteria for Blue Bloods. Mind you, it is 2 year old data, so add an SEC Championship and NCG runner up to the resume. I think they clearly belong in second tier. Just a bit short on win%
As of now, UGA really does not fit in this group.
quote:
Georgia: Georgia claims two national titles, a 65% winning percentage and two Heisman Trophy winners. The Bulldogs are third all-time in winning percentage in the SEC, and boast 14 conference titles. But UGA, at least during the Mark Richt era, developed a reputation for not being able to get over the hump. They’re actually somewhat of a sleeping giant, at the moment.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:20 am to Rocco Lampone
quote:Here is the 2016 Article that breaks each down.
have never really thought of Texas as a Blue Blood. What does their resume look like?
quote:
Texas
The state of the Longhorns’ program isn’t what many in Austin, Texas would like it to be, but its ceiling is still as high as anyone’s. Much of that can be attributed to the lengthy, consistent tradition the state’s flagship program has. Football is bigger in Texas and no one has done it better over time than the Longhorns.
National titles: 4
Wins: 886
Winning percentage: .709
Heisman Trophy winners: Two (Earl Campbell, Ricky Williams)
Conference Titles: 32
Like Nebraska, Texas has struggled in recent seasons – the Longhorns haven’t won at least 10 games since Colt McCoy’s senior season – but the Longhorns are bringing in a great recruiting class and should continue to recruit at a high level. Will Charlie Strong still be the man leading this program when it climbs back to the nationally elite level, though?
change the Charlie Strong plug out for Herman and the wheels keep spinning at UTxThis post was edited on 4/18/18 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:23 am to LSU Patrick
quote:
of now, UGA really does not fit in this group.
Don’t be dumb. Uga has fit into this group for a long time.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:23 am to Rocco Lampone
quote:
I have never really thought of Texas as a Blue Blood. What does their resume look like? It seems comparable to someone like Auburn
Wins - Texas, 2nd; Auburn, 13th
Winning % - Texas, 7th; Auburn - 19th
Claimed National Championships - Texas, 4; Auburn, 3
Bowl Games - Texas, 2nd; Auburn, 15th
Consensus All-Americans - Texas, 7th; Auburn, 23rd
NFL Draft Picks - Texas, 11th; Auburn, 23rd
Weeks in AP Poll - Texas, 8th; Auburn, 14th
Conference Championships - Texas, 8th; Auburn, 58th
Bowl Record - Auburn, 22nd; Texas, 29th
Heisman Winners - Auburn, 3; Texas, 2
I think it's fair to say their resumes aren't comparable.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:33 am to Dawgsontop34
A&M is close to being in the discussion.
Page 1 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News