Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/28/18 at 10:07 am to VADawg
Where are you kids getting your info?
I’d say mine in know order.
UF
Stanford
UCLA
Ucon
Duke
Stanford has more overall championships but play more sports than the others.
UF is just Heads above most in the SEC and right up with any national program.
I’m sure that’s going to rustle some jimmies but it is what it is.
It was vague in the title. If you’re talking one sport then I may need to modify my list.
I’d say mine in know order.
UF
Stanford
UCLA
Ucon
Duke
Stanford has more overall championships but play more sports than the others.
UF is just Heads above most in the SEC and right up with any national program.
I’m sure that’s going to rustle some jimmies but it is what it is.
It was vague in the title. If you’re talking one sport then I may need to modify my list.
This post was edited on 1/28/18 at 10:19 am
Posted on 1/28/18 at 10:22 am to VADawg
Michigan has won a ton of games, and has won the Big10 a lot, but has one modern national title in 1997. They are a better version of UGA, basically UT with a better pre 1950 history. Not a blue blood for me. The RichRod Hoke years solidified this.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 10:23 am to VADawg
Why is Michigan considered a BB on these lists? They've won one championship since We were still occupying post-WWII Japan.
Does this prestige come from all the claimed championships at the turn of the century when their victories were coming against colleges that barely existed then let alone now?
Does this prestige come from all the claimed championships at the turn of the century when their victories were coming against colleges that barely existed then let alone now?
Posted on 1/28/18 at 10:33 am to BenDover
quote:
Bama
Texas
Michigan
tOSU
ND
USC
OU
Nebraska
So-called Blue Bloods - SC's record vs so-called Blue Bloods
Bama 3-12
Texas 1-0
Michigan 3-1
tOSO 2-0
ND 1-3
SoCal 1-1
Oklahoma 0-0
Nebraska 1-3
SC's record vs the so-called Blue Bloods 12-20 or .375 ... fricking Bama owns us but, meh, they own everybody.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 10:33 am to BenDover
quote:
Bama
Texas
Michigan
tOSU
ND
USC
OU
Nebraska
That’s the list I’ve got, Tennessee isn’t in that class.
Thats the list
Posted on 1/28/18 at 10:41 am to Cocotheape
quote:
Michigan has won a ton of games, and has won the Big10 a lot, but has one modern national title in 1997. They are a better version of UGA, basically UT with a better pre 1950 history. Not a blue blood for me. The RichRod Hoke years solidified this.
Agreed. Ton of wins (the most all-time) with relatively little hardware to show for it
Posted on 1/28/18 at 10:42 am to tylerdurden24
Any list of blue bloods that doesn’t include Kentucky can’t be taken seriously.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 10:43 am to CapstoneGrad06
Who are the 10 blueblood programs? I only recognize eight blueblood programs.
Alabama
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
USC
Ohio State
Michigan
Texas
Nebraska
The likes of Pedo State, LSU, Tennessee are the best of the second tier.
Alabama
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
USC
Ohio State
Michigan
Texas
Nebraska
The likes of Pedo State, LSU, Tennessee are the best of the second tier.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 10:50 am to Bench McElroy
There needs to be an old money - new money separate classification in my humble opinion. The programs like Miami, Florida, Auburn, LSU, Clemson, Fla St, are not historically wealthy but they deserve respect in 2018 and they will remain relevant.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 10:58 am to Bench McElroy
That's the correct answer.
I will say that Nebraska is in real danger of falling out.
One of the things about the Blue Bloods is they go through periods where they're not terribly good, but they rise again. It's hard to remember the last time Nebraska was a contender. All the rest have been in the national title conversation at the end of the year or played for one in the last decade.
I just wonder if the recruiting landscape has changed too much for them to overcome for the future.
I will say that Nebraska is in real danger of falling out.
One of the things about the Blue Bloods is they go through periods where they're not terribly good, but they rise again. It's hard to remember the last time Nebraska was a contender. All the rest have been in the national title conversation at the end of the year or played for one in the last decade.
I just wonder if the recruiting landscape has changed too much for them to overcome for the future.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 11:01 am to Phat Phil
quote:
1980
It's been 20 years since Tennessee has won a SEC Championship, so I'm not sure I would be touting 1980.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 11:06 am to Cocotheape
quote:
Michigan has won a ton of games, and has won the Big10 a lot, but has one modern national title in 1997. They are a better version of UGA, basically UT with a better pre 1950 history. Not a blue blood for me. The RichRod Hoke years solidified this.
I tend to agree with this.
Who would you put in the class of Blue Bloods?
Posted on 1/28/18 at 11:10 am to CapstoneGrad06
Since the SEC's reign of terror on the national championship landscape since 2003 with LSU, the overall Blue Blood profile has changed.
I think you can label several programs as Blue Bloods nowadays. But there are tiers in Blue Bloods.
EXTREME BLUE BLOOD - Alabama
BLUE BLOOD - Oklahoma, Southern California, Ohio State, Notre Dame
MEDIUM BLUE BLOOD - Miami, Florida, Florida State, Texas, Nebraska, Penn State
LIGHT BLUE BLOOD - Michigan, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Michigan State
GOOD STANDING - Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, TCU, Stanford, UCLA
STALEMATE - Colorado, Army, Navy, BYU, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Texas A&M, Arkansas
I think you can label several programs as Blue Bloods nowadays. But there are tiers in Blue Bloods.
EXTREME BLUE BLOOD - Alabama
BLUE BLOOD - Oklahoma, Southern California, Ohio State, Notre Dame
MEDIUM BLUE BLOOD - Miami, Florida, Florida State, Texas, Nebraska, Penn State
LIGHT BLUE BLOOD - Michigan, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Michigan State
GOOD STANDING - Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, TCU, Stanford, UCLA
STALEMATE - Colorado, Army, Navy, BYU, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Texas A&M, Arkansas
Posted on 1/28/18 at 11:12 am to bamagreycoat
quote:
There needs to be an old money - new money separate classification in my humble opinion. The programs like Miami, Florida, Auburn, LSU, Clemson, Fla St, are not historically wealthy but they deserve respect in 2018 and they will remain relevant.
I agree. And with no snark intended old money = blue blood. New money = new blood. I swear I don't know why people have problems understanding what blue blood means to begin with.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 11:14 am to Oklahomey
Nebraska is no longer a blueblood since Osborne retired and the recruiting landscape changed. They may never return to their lofty status they once had.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 11:19 am to BenDover
Texas and Nebraska as blue bloods? You’re living in a fantasy land. Neither has sniffed a great season in almost a decade. Texas hasn’t been good since 2009.
This post was edited on 1/28/18 at 11:22 am
Posted on 1/28/18 at 11:23 am to Mizzou4ever
Mostly I agree. They have been on a slow, downward trajectory ever since the 2001 BCSNCG loss. The 16 years since their last NC appearance and 5 national championships still hold enough weight to keep them where I have them, but they are still falling.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 11:25 am to Oklahomey
Btw, I miss the old Big 8, those were some fun times.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 11:25 am to CapstoneGrad06
There aren't 10 bluebloods
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News