Started By
Message
re: Everyone recognizes the 10 blueblood programs as the standard
Posted on 1/28/18 at 1:19 pm to CapstoneGrad06
Posted on 1/28/18 at 1:19 pm to CapstoneGrad06
Alabama is the only blue blood team in the SEC and this run of dominance solidifies them for another generation. Blue blood status is more fluid than anyone would like to believe, and it takes multiple, consistent runs of dominance across the decades without a true extended down period over time to reach that status. Southern Cal, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Ohio State are true blue blood programs. Texas and Michigan are steady winners with a national reputation - meaning ability to pick who they want from the coaching ranks, enjoy big media exposure, and recruit top tier talent consistently from out of state. Florida, Miami, and FSU could be argued to be on the cusp of entering this group and also on the cusp of falling away from this group. All of them are a step below the top four. If Georgia maintained 2017 level success for another 20 years, won a couple of championships, and produced a couple of Heisman winners then they’d have a good argument to move into that Texas/ Michigan realm. The same could be said of Auburn, LSU, or Tennessee.
Georgia is the most consistent winner of the teams fighting to jump into second place in the SEC over the last 20 years - meaning no abysmal seasons over that time span. Auburn and LSU have higher highs and lower lows but none of the three have the consistency, dominance, and championships to separate from the others. College football may not be around long enough for that to ever change.
Georgia is the most consistent winner of the teams fighting to jump into second place in the SEC over the last 20 years - meaning no abysmal seasons over that time span. Auburn and LSU have higher highs and lower lows but none of the three have the consistency, dominance, and championships to separate from the others. College football may not be around long enough for that to ever change.
This post was edited on 1/28/18 at 1:21 pm
0
Posted on 1/28/18 at 1:27 pm to tylerdurden24
quote:
Ton of wins (the most all-time) with relatively little hardware to show for it
most people ignore the fact that UM started playing football in 1879, a full ~10-15 years prior to many other major programs. From 1879-1891 (the year prior to UGA fielding a team) they amassed 26 wins. Granted, to their credit, they would still be in 1st without these 26 wins, but who knows the collateral advantage they have by having a 10 year head start on the sport compared to everyone else. For reference, the next 5 years they amassed 40 wins.
they have played 1,318 games all time. The highest SEC team has played is 1,282 (UGA).
Also what struck me in looking at their history is they only have TWO (2) AP national titles. 8 of their 11 claimed titles were between 1901-1933.
The more I look at things, theh more I realize the mystique of michigan football is largely a sham.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 1:29 pm to Razor Dawg
quote:
Yea,I get that AU is still pissy about '83
Well, it's considered to be one of the most obvious examples of how a team based on prestige can win a title that their on the field record didn't deserve.
Any football fan looking at Texas, Nebraska, Miami and Auburn's '83 schedule without knowing the team who played the games would have picked Miami 4th based on record. People loved Howard and cocaine in the early '80's so why not give it to Miami.
Notre Dame in 1989 might argue to eye test on that title.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 1:40 pm to Tigerman97
quote:
People loved Howard and cocaine in the early '80's so why not give it to Miami
What?They were virtually unknown leading up to that game and Nebraska was considered one of the all time great teams that year.The ONLY reason you had any type of claim is because we beat a UT team that waxed AU.
Using your logic UGA had just as big of a claim in '83.Our schedule that year included the ACC Champ,Pac 10 Champ,SEC Champ and SWC Champ and we beat the defacto #1 team because they were #2 behind UN.
Yea,the right team won period.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 1:42 pm to BenDover
Serious question: why is Texas on this list? They carry more weight than most but they don't have close the relevancy (on the field) of the other programs you list.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 1:45 pm to Tigerman97
quote:
Notre Dame in 1989 might argue to eye test on that title.
What?They beat ND head to head 27-10 In '89
Posted on 1/28/18 at 1:54 pm to Razor Dawg
quote:
They were virtually unknown leading up to that game
So a team waxed by Florida, who beat Nebraska, a Nebraska team who could have tied the game. Oh yea, Miami played at home and that some how warrants jumping them from #5 to #1 over a team who played arguably the most difficult schedule in CFB history and without doubt the most difficult schedule in history as of 1983. Who shared a common opponent with Miami and had waxed that opponent who waxed Miami. Texas and Nebraska had better claims to the title than Miami. It's was a beauty contest chosen for reasons that had little to do with the on the field performance in those days.
quote:
Using your logic UGA had just as big of a claim in '83.Our schedule that year included the ACC Champ,Pac 10 Champ,SEC Champ and SWC Champ and we beat the defacto #1 team because they were #2 behind UN.
You had a loss (late in the season) which used to penalize a team greater than an early season loss. Plus a tie. The tie eliminated you from discussion. As an uga fan you should be familiar with your play on the field eliminating you from consideration for at title.
quote:
Yea,the right team won period.
I agree the right team was selected when Auburn received selections. Unfortunately for Auburn it wasn't the cool kids selector that picked us.
This post was edited on 1/28/18 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 1/28/18 at 1:55 pm to Razor Dawg
quote:
What?They beat ND head to head 27-10 In '89
I don't know ask Lou. He likes to argue it. I try to limit my arguments to what I know to be factual.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 2:13 pm to CapstoneGrad06
You could argue Auburn, LSU, Florida, and Georgia could be the next in the top ten. But right now they aren't there.
Alabama/Texas/ND/Michigan/Ohio State/Nebraska/Oklahoma/USC/Tenn/Princeton all are above obviously.
Alabama/Texas/ND/Michigan/Ohio State/Nebraska/Oklahoma/USC/Tenn/Princeton all are above obviously.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 2:50 pm to Tigerman97
quote:
Oh yea, Miami played at home and that some how warrants jumping them from #5 to #1 over a team
Absolutely,you got FOUR votes in the coaches poll and Miami got 30.So I guess the coaches were mesmerized by Miami.God,LET IT GO!Not one objective person agrees with you including coaches.
quote:
arguably the most difficult schedule in CFB history and without doubt the most difficult schedule in history as of 1983
Huh?We played just as many top 10's plus a top 15 and STFU about bowl "home" games.Texas had almost the same advantage as Miami.
This post was edited on 1/28/18 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 1/28/18 at 2:51 pm to Tigerman97
quote:
I don't know ask Lou. He likes to argue it
Never heard him argue for the '89 claim and it would be absurd to do so.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 3:16 pm to PowHound
quote:
forgot to mention that UGA won the East the year the East was the weakest its been ever.
Seriously when has the SEC East ever been this bad ? It's pathetic.
Probably never been this bad. But we won the SEC, We beat the West Champions, so....why do people keep forgetting that? I mean, we ended the year with the #6 hardest schedule according to Sagarin's SOS. It's not like we played a really weak schedule, yet we still finished 2nd in the nation and came a play or two away from winning it all. Yes. We all know we fell short again, but can anybody on here say they thought Georgia would play for the National Championship at the start of the season?
Posted on 1/28/18 at 3:26 pm to Tigerman97
quote:
Like it or not bama getting into the CFP 2017 was about prestige. IMO they are the only team, save maybe USC, that gets in over tOSU with a conference title.
Yes and no. I mean, I know the argument, but their prestige was the tie breaker. They had to have a pretty stellar record to get considered. It's not like they had a bad team and got put in because they were successful 60 years ago.
quote:I'm not sure if you are saying this to me, or in general. I have never made the argument that it was about money.
It's not about money...it's about prestige.
quote:
There is a list of 4 to 5 blue bloods who will always get benefits of the doubt in close comparison scenarios.
Yes. I agree. This is the point I was making above. Bit it has to be a tie breaker situation. Honestly, though? Had Alabama not made it in after having only one loss, I would have thought they were left out as a backlash to their success. Ohio State had two losses, with one being a very bad loss to a bad Iowa team, and one to a good Oklahoma team. Had Alabama been left out, my feeling would have been, they didn't want two SEC teams in the playoffs, or it was due to Bama Fatigue. I honestly believe they made the right choice, and I think Alabama winning it all proved this. If Clemson had soundly beaten Alabama, then it would have been another story.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 3:28 pm to PowHound
quote:
Seriously when has the SEC East ever been this bad
When has the west been this bad?
Arkie, a&m, miss st, and Ole miss all with new coaches. Lsu and auburn both wishing they had new coaches this past season.
That is more pantshitting than in the East right now.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 3:31 pm to Gatorbait2008
quote:
You could argue Auburn, LSU, Florida, and Georgia could be the next in the top ten. But right now they aren't there.
If I am going to argue that Texas and Nebraska could be left out because they are built on a reputation from a long time ago, then Georgia would not be in the conversation, either. 1980 was a long time ago. Historically we have been very good, but not Blue Blood, good.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 3:39 pm to Gatorbait2008
quote:
Princeton
Without looking I would bet Princeton won all of their titles when only the Ivy League had teams. It's hard to take those seriously. It would be on par with winning a SEC Title. Good, but hardly earth shaking.
Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, and Michigan needs to show something soon, though...IF they want to be considered Blue Blood.
For me it would be hard to go beyond:
ND, Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma and USC.
ND keeps their place for making it to the National Championship game in 2012. But they are on shaky ground. This is just my opinion. I don't put a number on how many teams are Blue Bloods. For me it is a matter of having extended periods of success, and whiel they might have a down period or two, they come back with more extended periods of success. (By success, I mean tog e tin, they should have several national Titles, and then to stay they should make the playoffs, and/or play for a national title from time to time.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 3:40 pm to CapstoneGrad06
Tennessee is no blue blood.
Alabama
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Michigan
USC
Oklahoma
Texas
Penn State
Nebraska (traditionally higher but barely hanging on)
If you had to have 10 in the list, and it had to be a long term fairly successful program, then Tennessee used to be there, but since they're only about 5 in the SEC in winning pct and 6th in number of titles since 1970, yeah, UGA would deserve it more.
Some of the New Rich like Florida State and Miami aren't blue blood, but are easily better in the last 40 years than some in that list.
Alabama
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Michigan
USC
Oklahoma
Texas
Penn State
Nebraska (traditionally higher but barely hanging on)
If you had to have 10 in the list, and it had to be a long term fairly successful program, then Tennessee used to be there, but since they're only about 5 in the SEC in winning pct and 6th in number of titles since 1970, yeah, UGA would deserve it more.
Some of the New Rich like Florida State and Miami aren't blue blood, but are easily better in the last 40 years than some in that list.
This post was edited on 1/28/18 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 1/28/18 at 3:40 pm to Razor Dawg
quote:
Huh?We played just as many top 10's plus a top 15 and STFU about bowl "home" games.Texas had almost the same advantage as Miami.
Almost is right. The difference is Texas played in its home state...Miami, as I said played a home game.
quote:
Absolutely,you got FOUR votes in the coaches poll and Miami got 30.So I guess the coaches were mesmerized by Miami.God,LET IT GO!Not one objective person agrees with you including coaches.
You give to much credit to polls. Coaches literally only watch games against teams they play and most only vote in the final poll. They are by any objective measure the worst possible people to pick champions. This doesn't even recognize the conflict of interest that exist in their votes. So congrats on being a herd animal and grazing where the CFB powers that be told you to graze.
This post was edited on 1/28/18 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 1/28/18 at 3:41 pm to Razor Dawg
quote:
What?They beat ND head to head 27-10 In '89
LINK
Pay attention to his 1993 claim...its funny in light of his 1989 claim.
This post was edited on 1/28/18 at 3:44 pm
Posted on 1/28/18 at 3:50 pm to Tigerman97
Typical Lou...LOL
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News