Started By
Message
re: College football blue bloods
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:20 pm to IAmNERD
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:20 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
I would think all time wins would carry more weight than anything outside of national championships. Especially more weight than Heisman winners.
I agree. National Championships should be first, then all time wins, then bowl games.
0
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:20 pm to PorkSammich
In the interest of decency: championships from mulligan games such as Alabama 2011 and Florida 1996 should be disregarded, as should Alabama's NC "won" after getting a bye week for the SEC Championship Game in 2017.
This post was edited on 11/21/19 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:22 pm to PorkSammich
Ohio State too low.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:22 pm to PorkSammich
The fact they have Heisman's on here immediately discredits it.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:23 pm to Mithridates6
quote:
In the interest of decency: championships from mulligan games such as Alabama 2011 and Florida 1996 should be disregarded, as should Alabama's NC "won" after getting a bye week for the SEC Championship Game in 2017.
This is what a long-term melt looks like.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:25 pm to PorkSammich
Wish we could've gone OU and Texas over aTm and Missouri 
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:26 pm to AHM21
quote:
OU
Fine.
quote:
Texas
No.
This post was edited on 11/21/19 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:27 pm to AHM21
No, Oklahoma isn't southeastern and a small market. Texas is is a conference killer
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:29 pm to PorkSammich
wow thats a whole lot of meh for FSU. Growing up in the 90s I had no idea how irrelevant they were. Guess Fisher officially finished off that program, theyve come and gone now.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:39 pm to Who_Dat_Tiger
FSU has accomplished a lot more than FU despite being all-girls school until 1947. Their run from 1987-2000 was one of the best ever
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:06 pm to PorkSammich
A few tweaks:
#1. I'd change All-time wins for all-time winning % (with a minimum number of games or a scaling system)
#2. I'd probably weigh Heismans a bit lower. Mostly because of Notre Dame getting a few under absurd circumstances.
#3. I'd probably separate Bowl Games vs Big/NY6 bowl games for when that designation become more relevant. Being in 30 Weedeater bowls is hardly news worthy.
I'd also weigh National Titles a bit heavier.
#1. I'd change All-time wins for all-time winning % (with a minimum number of games or a scaling system)
#2. I'd probably weigh Heismans a bit lower. Mostly because of Notre Dame getting a few under absurd circumstances.
#3. I'd probably separate Bowl Games vs Big/NY6 bowl games for when that designation become more relevant. Being in 30 Weedeater bowls is hardly news worthy.
I'd also weigh National Titles a bit heavier.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:45 pm to Mithridates6
quote:
Also Texas has been a rollercoaster compared to the others besides the 2000s
Actually Texas and USC have followed very similar tracks in the 2000s.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:46 pm to StopRobot
quote:
as stated. Its a generational thing not even a decade thing.
I get that. A generation is about 25 years, though. I haven't seen anything out of most of those teams in the last 25 years to warrant Blueblood status.
Most should be on the verge of losing that status.
Penn State
Texas
Southern Cal
Nebraska????
Believe me. I probably have as much respect for the older powerhouses than most. I am an old man. I grew up watching Archie Griffin, Johnny Rodgers, Lynn Swann
...all of those guys. I watched the powerhouse Nebraska, Southern Cal and Texas teams. I remember the Selmon brothers and Brian Bosworth.
But when they have not done a whole lot and are not at least competing....well...at some point they need to go.
I hate ND with a passion, but at least they have played for a NC in the last 10 years. (Such as it was) They are at least contending.
I can't say the same about Texas, Nebraska or Southern cal lately. Penn State is doing a little something this year, but when is the last time they have won their conference and contended for a title?
Bluebloods should contend most years and at least win their conference every 10 years or so. Everybody has down years, but at some point they should return to their contending status. Otherwise lets put Army and Minnesota back in the Blue Blood category.
Just my opinion.
This post was edited on 11/21/19 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:52 pm to PorkSammich
By far the most indicative list is the all time AP list. It does neglect the early years of the sport but, despite being based on a subjetive poll, over time it is the most objective.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:53 pm to r2d2
quote:
By far the most indicative list is the all time AP list. It does neglect the early years of the sport but, despite being based on a subjetive poll, over time it is the most objective.
This place HATES that one though. It has UF #2 in the SEC.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:57 pm to UAinSOUTHAL
quote:
The fact they have Heisman's on here immediately discredits it.
And yet you display your Heismans with your titles.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 5:03 pm to Mithridates6
quote:
Sucks to be a Florida Gator!
Florida has represented their division in the SEC title game more than any east team and has won more SEC titles, since divisional play began, than any team with the exception of Alabama
Posted on 11/21/19 at 5:04 pm to John Milner
The dude is still melting from something that happened over 20 years ago that doesn't even involve his team.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 5:08 pm to Korin
quote:
This place HATES that one though. It has UF #2 in the SEC.
Actually LSU is one spot ahead if I read that correctly.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 5:09 pm to PorkSammich
What qualifies as a "blueblood" is highly opinion-determined based on which criteria the opinion-holder decides to include and how much weight is placed on each factor.
The above is greatly lacking in bluebloods as I've seen in most lists/rankings, etc. There are definitely more than 8 bluebloods. But, that's this one person's opinion.
Most lists/rankings I've seen include about 15 programs most commonly listed in various orders:
Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Nebraska, Tennessee, Georgia, Penn State, LSU, Florida, Auburn....I've seen a few also include FSU and Miami as examples of "post-1980's bluebloods", some don't include them at all.
***Info on the chart of the OP is actually incorrect in terms of bowl games re: Georgia & Texas. UGA & Texas are tied with 55 bowl games each, but UGA wins the tie-breaker due to having a higher bowl-game winning pctg. and having won more bowl games of its 55 than Texas has. The chart has them in reverse-order.
The above is greatly lacking in bluebloods as I've seen in most lists/rankings, etc. There are definitely more than 8 bluebloods. But, that's this one person's opinion.
Most lists/rankings I've seen include about 15 programs most commonly listed in various orders:
Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Nebraska, Tennessee, Georgia, Penn State, LSU, Florida, Auburn....I've seen a few also include FSU and Miami as examples of "post-1980's bluebloods", some don't include them at all.
***Info on the chart of the OP is actually incorrect in terms of bowl games re: Georgia & Texas. UGA & Texas are tied with 55 bowl games each, but UGA wins the tie-breaker due to having a higher bowl-game winning pctg. and having won more bowl games of its 55 than Texas has. The chart has them in reverse-order.
This post was edited on 11/21/19 at 5:17 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News