Started By
Message
re: Anyone else tired of the term "Blue Blood" ?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 5:07 am to 3down10
Posted on 1/21/25 at 5:07 am to 3down10
quote:There aren’t 8.
There are 8 teams, they aren't going to change.
Some do have wins and national championship success in the last 100 years.
Part of being (and remaining) a blue blood is the ability to succeed, which yes requires winning championships and more than one for at least half that, and if you look at it in that light, the list gets shorter.
Bama, Ohio State, Oklahoma no question, no argument. Multiple titles, dominant team in their conferences for most of the last 50 years as well as success prior.
Still there, but not by a lot. Nebraska, Southern Cal, Notre Dame, Michigan.
A case can definitely be made to drop out Nebraska given their ineptitude for the last 20 years. Despite how dominant they were in the 70’s and 90’s.
1
Posted on 1/21/25 at 5:23 am to FAT SEXY
No.....Geez....
Posted on 1/21/25 at 5:54 am to LSUTigresFan
Texas is not a blue blood
Posted on 1/21/25 at 6:55 am to FAT SEXY
Bama is Blue Blood because they demand excellence. They're willing to go the extra mile like putting a gun to your son's head for asking for the keys during a game, shooting and killing a fellow fan for not being upset enough after the Iron Bowl loss, poisoning trees, celebrating by teabagging an LSU after a win, shooting at a neighbors house after the Tennessee loss, etc.
P.S.
Shame on the son. Surely he raised you better than that.
P.S.
Shame on the son. Surely he raised you better than that.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 6:59 am to FAT SEXY
quote:
I looked it up and Nebraska is considered a Blue Blood.
New Book of Knowledge or Encyclopedia Brittanica?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:01 am to FAT SEXY
OP must be 12.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:05 am to MtVernon
Nobody cares what your team did when our grandparents and great grandparents were born. The term blue blood is cringe. If you’re just going on titles and shite then Harvard and Yale are blue bloods
I’d say 1990 and above or 2000 and above. It’s about brand awareness and who draws eyeballs
When an average viewer is looking at this weeks matchups, what teams jump out.
Hell, most kids don’t even remember when Nebraska was good
I’d say 1990 and above or 2000 and above. It’s about brand awareness and who draws eyeballs
When an average viewer is looking at this weeks matchups, what teams jump out.
Hell, most kids don’t even remember when Nebraska was good
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 7:08 am
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:11 am to dallastiger55
I knew this was headed towards an LSU melt thread.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:18 am to llfshoals
The 6 legit blue bloods, programs that have been great in all eras of the game, are Alabama, USC, Notre Dame, Texas, Michigan and Ohio State (5 of the 6 are Top 5 in wins all time)
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:25 am to FAT SEXY
It means during the NIL era they can’t pay you as much and they are trying to get you to be happy with just being chosen.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:28 am to FAT SEXY
Don’t be dissing Frank Reagan and the Reagan family!!!
I enjoy sharing their Sunday dinner table every week.
Oh wait you did not say “Blue Bloods”
My bad, my bad…
I enjoy sharing their Sunday dinner table every week.
Oh wait you did not say “Blue Bloods”
My bad, my bad…
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:34 am to IMSA_Fan
Texas, but not Oklahoma, yeah ok.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:37 am to FAT SEXY
The term is 75 years old.
I’m sure Army was considered a blue blood at some point.
With NIL in play, we need to talk about “Green Bloods.”
I’m sure Army was considered a blue blood at some point.
With NIL in play, we need to talk about “Green Bloods.”
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:40 am to FAT SEXY
quote:
I looked it up and Nebraska is considered a Blue Blood. You gotta be f***** kidding me.
If you're a young'n (not a bad thing), then I could see where you might say that.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:42 am to Aggie in TN
quote:
With NIL in play, we need to talk about “Green Bloods.”
Sounds right but with NIL and TP, will there be any team that puts itself head and shoulders above others that's not already a blue blood?
I could see Ohio State and Texas thriving in this environment but they're already blue bloods.
Maybe we'll see a new Miami/SMU (not necessarily them but teams that shake things up like they did in the 80's) become a "green blood".
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 7:43 am
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:50 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:Texas hasn’t.
The 6 legit blue bloods, programs that have been great in all eras of the game,
Look back over the last 50 years, you won’t find their name much.
Oklahoma on the other hand, you find a lot.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:54 am to FAT SEXY
As a fan of the ultimate blue blood I say.
No
No
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:09 am to Clark14
quote:
Back then players literally died to play the game. They had to be playing for the love of the game because I doubt they much else from it and kept the sport alive. Teddy Roosevelt saved football from the death penalty it was so brutal yet these players still kept it going.
To try to compare anything fairly modern to it is ridiculous.
It is and always has been a gladiator sport. That's what draws people to the game. It has, on one hand, become progressively safer because of rules changes and modern equipment while, on the other hand the speed and size of combatants has increased and made it progressively unsafer (sic).
This is almost the exact same thing that happened to the original Roman gladiator games over two millenia ago .... when modern weapons and Africans were introduced into the games.
The outcomes will be similar in the end just as the arenas are today ... the same as then.
With that accepted as fact, and to get back on track, the term "blue bloods" is a subjective label most often pitched by those who live vicariously through programs deemed a "blue blood."
It's a self-bestowed honor with zero historical significance bantered about by fans who live vicariously through the achievements of others in their effort to realize some sort of delusional self worth.
Bama fans are, typically, the main offenders.
Now, if the simple word "modern" were regularly attached to "blue bloods" there would be some acceptance .... a case could be made to that affect. "Modern Blue Bloods," Bama, LSU, Ohio State, et al. But then it begs the question .... what about Nebraska, Notre Dame, Tennessee and even So Cal and the sheep humping sister banging taterheads?
At what point in history did it change?
With the advent if the telegraph and the boom of the newspaper industry and sports writers? Did it change with radio, or tv, or even the Internet?
It's all too subjective. It's tiring and boring and overused. It's more unintelligent waste of time bullshite.
"Blue Bloods," lol. Denotes royalty and a superior blood line ... superior genes.
Bwaaaahahahahalolololol. As usual when it comes to human history, blue bloods means inbreeding, incestuous rantings and bad teeth. It applies in all monarchys of any consequence and it applies to fan bases that scream it constantly from atop their delusional perches.
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 8:25 am
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:19 am to MtVernon
quote:
I knew this was headed towards an LSU melt thread.
They do get triggered easily.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:22 am to dallastiger55
quote:
I’d say 1990 and above or 2000 and above. It’s about brand awareness and who draws eyeballs
Now that you mentioned "cringe"...
I would define Blue Bloods are the teams who were dominant before football teams were considered "brands"...
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News