Started By
Message
re: Current Blue Bloods in the SEC
Posted on 7/15/24 at 7:45 am to GeauxTigers1983
Posted on 7/15/24 at 7:45 am to GeauxTigers1983
quote:
Georgia isn't that and neither are Texas and OU
You know Oklahoma has something like 7 titles, right?
1950
1955
1956
1974
1975
1985
2000
Nice mix of old and new.
1
Posted on 7/15/24 at 11:55 pm to BigDickRick16
UGA doesn’t claim non- consensus titles. If they did like UT, they would would claim 8. Claiming one where one no name poll recognized you like in 1950 is bush league and rather embarrassing.
UGA has 881 wins
UT has 865
(You need to get off of the UT football Wikipedia or whatever has you thinking they have 887 wins)
UGA has 16 conference titles (14 SEC, 2 Southern Conference)
UT has 16 (13 SEC, 2 Southern. And 1 SIAA)
You have some correct info but some pretty obvious and intentional fluff.
UGA has 881 wins
UT has 865
(You need to get off of the UT football Wikipedia or whatever has you thinking they have 887 wins)
UGA has 16 conference titles (14 SEC, 2 Southern Conference)
UT has 16 (13 SEC, 2 Southern. And 1 SIAA)
You have some correct info but some pretty obvious and intentional fluff.
Posted on 7/16/24 at 12:01 am to DawgsLife
I don’t know why anyone cares. Blue bloods seems like a term that’s just, set and forgotten. I don’t think any other team will be added to the “list” ever again, no matter how much success they have. It just seems like if you weren’t successful in the 60s and 70s you’re out.
Posted on 7/16/24 at 12:31 am to TN Tygah
quote:
I don’t know why anyone cares. Blue bloods seems like a term that’s just, set and forgotten. I don’t think any other team will be added to the “list” ever again, no matter how much success they have. It just seems like if you weren’t successful in the 60s and 70s you’re out.
That's a stupid opinion. The world needs blue bloods. It's who others look up to and admire and aspire to be.
In a football context, it gives young fans and young recruits something to strive for, something to inspire them, and gives them a feeling of being part of something larger and perhaps, if they are good enough, a tangible goal of adding even more validity to the already well established blue blood status..
If the only role models and ideals revolved around losers and never-have-beens like Tennessee, for example, what is the point of belonging to something?
No player or fan ever says I like Tennessee or I want to be like the Tennessee team or add to their achievements because it's a worthwhile endeavor.
With blue bloods, everyone wants to be like them, play for them, support them, etc... because it means something; it has value and prestige.
Tennessee's only real claim to fame, other than a single NC back in the olden days of yore, is being Alabama's rival and being #2 or lesser to Alabama in every single SEC stat ever recorded.
This post was edited on 7/16/24 at 12:36 am
Posted on 7/16/24 at 6:57 am to Smokey Okie
quote:
Tennessee's only real claim to fame, other than a single NC back in the olden days of yore, is being Alabama's rival and being #2 or lesser to Alabama in every single SEC stat ever recorded.
Before their 20-year sojourn in the wilderness, I would call Tennessee an all-time top 15 program. ALABAMA would historically be a top 5 program. I would still call Tennessee an all-time top 20 program.
Posted on 7/16/24 at 7:17 am to TN Tygah
quote:Not really. Almost yearly we see threads discussing it. I mean, in reality it is all opinionated media driven, but people discuss it nonetheless. I think it is an honor and a way to point out the greatest teams of all time.
I don’t know why anyone cares. Blue bloods seems like a term that’s just, set and forgotten.
ND
Alabama
USC
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Those, to me, are inarguable. For me a team can lose their Blue Blood status if they fall into a long period of decline or ineptitude. They can also regain their status if they regain their momentum.
Many would argue that Blue Blood should be reserved for past greatness...but teams playing today will be the teams of past greatness in a few years.
As much as i hate ND, I think they have remained viable by playing in title games lately. Nebraska would lose their standing as a Blue Blood.
Posted on 7/16/24 at 7:18 am to bamameister
quote:
ALABAMA would historically be a top 5 program.
Top 2 at worst, if not the top team.
Posted on 7/16/24 at 7:41 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Top 2 at worst, if not the top team.
Just speaking in general. Notre Dame would be difficult for me to call number 1. 1986 is a long time to reference your last National Championship and be top dog, historically or otherwise.
Posted on 7/16/24 at 7:46 am to jcolding41
quote:
Try winning a title this decade. Covid killed yalls program, with LSU's weak arse immune system
1/16/20 - NC vs Clemson,
Posted on 7/16/24 at 8:06 am to bamameister
People need to stop using claimed mythical titles when the topic of blue bloods comes up.
Posted on 7/16/24 at 8:19 am to GoGators1995
quote:
People need to stop using claimed mythical titles when the topic of blue bloods comes up.
It's a part of the equation. Conference domination would realistic be another. ALABAMA, I believe has more wins on the field than any other FBS team in history. That would be another.
Posted on 7/16/24 at 8:33 am to bamameister
quote:
It's a part of the equation.
Well it shouldn't be. Not when criteria varies from school to school. It would be different if everyone used the same standard (like only claiming AP and Coaches polls).
Posted on 7/16/24 at 9:43 am to GoGators1995
quote:
Well it shouldn't be. Not when criteria varies from school to school. It would be different if everyone used the same standard (like only claiming AP and Coaches polls).
That's your opinion. The media has always had a strong bias toward their region of the world. When teams can't settle it on the field, we take what we got. I'm happy with ALABAMA's history and would be happy to compare it to any program with any measurables.
Posted on 7/16/24 at 10:50 am to bamameister
quote:
Just speaking in general. Notre Dame would be difficult for me to call number 1. 1986 is a long time to reference your last National Championship and be top dog, historically or otherwise.
Agreed. That's why I said "if not the top team." I don't really see anybody that tops Alabama historically at this point.
Posted on 7/16/24 at 10:53 am to bamameister
quote:
ALABAMA, I believe has more wins on the field than any other FBS team in history.
If you are talking about adding games that have been vacated I would disagree. You should not get credit for games won by cheating or gaining an advantage unfairly.
For instance, I agree 100% for USC not getting credit for their "Reggie Bush" title when he would probably not be playing for them had they not bought him a house or other inducements.
Posted on 7/16/24 at 10:58 am to GoGators1995
quote:
(like only claiming AP and Coaches polls).
So none counted before 1935 or so?
The problem is where would you draw the line?
Consensus?
AP? (But what about before AP?)
Coaches Poll? How many coaches was able to see all the games played? Or even half of them?
Do we cut titles down to only BCS and forward?
Posted on 7/16/24 at 12:18 pm to bamameister
quote:
That's your opinion. The media has always had a strong bias toward their region of the world. When teams can't settle it on the field, we take what we got. I'm happy with ALABAMA's history and would be happy to compare it to any program with any measurables.
I mean it's not my opinion, what do you think the M in MNC stands for?
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News