Started By
Message
re: “Blue bloods”
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:05 pm to HTX Horn
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:05 pm to HTX Horn
quote:
I’d argue a couple more should be in here though. LSU, maybe Penn St.
LSU is more of a newbie. Saban made them a power, and they've collected in the last 25 years. Does anyone remember them in the 80s and 90s? How bout before then? I think they have the 1958 Championship. Could claim the 1908
Penn State and Tennessee are blue-halfbloods....very on the fence with those two
0
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:06 pm to hughfreezehotline
You have zero concept of the word Blueblood do you?
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates may have far more wealth than the Mellons, Rockefellers, Carnegies etc these days, but they will never be American Blue Bloods no matter how rich they become or how much wealth the old families bleed out.
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates may have far more wealth than the Mellons, Rockefellers, Carnegies etc these days, but they will never be American Blue Bloods no matter how rich they become or how much wealth the old families bleed out.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:06 pm to Mizz-SEC
Nebraska probably has the most loyal fan base and in my 64 years experience of watching college football, the most knowledgeable fan base. I have a ton of respect for not only Nebraska but all the blue bloods. Winning and completing for championships year after year, decade after decade, that’s is what is impressive. And then there are programs that hasn’t won a co-conference championships in 56 years
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:07 pm to Oklahomey
quote:
Minnesota is used as a metric because they haven’t been relevant in nearly sixty years but still have more national titles than some current winners such as Georgia. BLUE BLOODS and current ranking
Not a bad list, but this seems more about just rankings bluebloods, instead of defining what a blueblood is and who qualifies
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:12 pm to hughfreezehotline
quote:
Thank you someone reasonable. At some point teams are gonna have to drop their status. How many of these schools national titles are even real?
Good question. That's why the AP (since 1936) and Coaches poll sort of became the standard. It's sloppy as shite, but you have to rely on something.
They've slowly become more legit. In the 80s, they tried harder to match 1 vs. 2, and the Bowl Coalition started to try and create that matchup. That eventually evolved into the BCS.
Alabama got a mulligan in 2011, so we got a 4 team playoff. The Ohio State title last year is the most legit title in college football history, earned completely on the field
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:13 pm to GoGators1995
Damn didn’t think atm would be that low honestly
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:24 pm to EV
quote:
Not a bad list, but this seems more about just rankings bluebloods, instead of defining what a blueblood is and who qualifies
That's the whole point of any discussion of "bluebloods". Since it's an undefined term, you get to make up your own definition to include your team and exclude your rivals. My definition of a blueblood is they have a bulldog mascot, hedges, and have won two national championships in the last 5 years. Here's my ranking
1. Georgia
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:26 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
That's the whole point of any discussion of "bluebloods". Since it's an undefined term, you get to make up your own definition to include your team and exclude your rivals. My definition of a blueblood is they have a bulldog mascot, hedges, and have won two national championships in the last 5 years. Here's my ranking
1. Georgia
good list as well
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:28 pm to 3down10
How is Nebraska a blue blood? They have been very, very bad for a long time. The others seem fine, but Nebraska I do not consider a blue blood anymore at all.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:33 pm to EV
Blue Bloods don't really exist. The concept is so subjective anyway. I'm 55 and would have a different idea of one than a 35yo.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:35 pm to Gatorbait2008
quote:
How is Nebraska a blue blood? They have been very, very bad for a long time. The others seem fine, but Nebraska I do not consider a blue blood anymore at all.
Because it's mostly a historical label.
People use to say the same things about Alabama.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:36 pm to hughfreezehotline
UGA isn't a blue blood.
We're one of the top teams right now, but All-time we're around 10th-12th which is outside of blue blood territory.
We're one of the top teams right now, but All-time we're around 10th-12th which is outside of blue blood territory.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:37 pm to Gatorbait2008
This is the one that keeps blowing my mind and how tf is almost everyone putting them in their list? The only good Nebraska football memory that replays in almost 95% of every college football fans brain, in this century would be the Suh game against Texas and they still loss, shocker
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:38 pm to Dr Rosenrosen
quote:
I don't think you know what blue blood means.
Not surprising that an Ole Miss fan doesn’t know that.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:41 pm to TheHarahanian
I saw it read “winning consistent” I guess 23 losses since 2019 is consistent. Only big university in the state and still can’t make it to the middle tier in the sec. Got a gold mine for in state recruits and yall still can’t compete. lol and the governor is involved. Your program in in shambles bitch boy.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:42 pm to hughfreezehotline
quote:So you are admitting that you don't know what a blue blood is.
their teams have been middle and below tier in the conference for 5-10 yrs now.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 5:49 pm to Diamondawg
I’ll admit that some teams are brands, some teams are true blue bloods, and that some teams need to drop their title of “blue bloods” there’s no reason Nebraska should be considered a blue blood anymore don’t care how good they were back then, what are they doing now? A blue blood is suppose to compete for championships at least every decade, correct? Football is so more advanced now that I’m willing to be you take the greatest teams from back then and the greatest teams now. Modern day football is beating those teams 95% of the time.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 6:11 pm to hughfreezehotline
quote:You can make the argument that the "blue bloods" term doesn't apply to college football (or any sport) but that doesn't change the fact that if you apply the same criteria to CFB programs as you do the old "captains of industry" families of the late 19th, early 20th century wealthy families (where the term originated) then the children of the corn can't be excluded.
I'll admit that some teams are brands, some teams are true blue bloods, and that some teams need to drop their title of “blue bloods” there’s no reason Nebraska should be considered a blue blood anymore don’t care how good they were back then, what are they doing now? A blue blood is suppose to compete for championships at least every decade, correct? Football is so more advanced now that I’m willing to be you take the greatest teams from back then and the greatest teams now. Modern day football is beating those teams 95% of the time.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 7:48 pm to scrooster
quote:
Johnny Vaught
Vaught all the way, Johnny Reb.
Posted on 11/2/25 at 8:00 pm to scrooster
quote:
Bwaaaahahahahalolololol an Ole Miss fan virtue signaling and talking uppity high and mighty blue blood crap.
Olive branch? You ain’t got chit, but you did then I guess. I was in diapers with you but in Meridian Mississippi surrounded by state and band riding Bammers. You can talk a little bit I guess and I do love Carolina folks. MS and Carolina folks are similar.
But: “Don’t be so evil. Don’t be so mean”. -R.L. Burnside
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News