Started By
Message
re: Everyone recognizes the 10 blueblood programs as the standard
Posted on 1/28/18 at 4:46 pm to DawgsLife
Posted on 1/28/18 at 4:46 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Don't look now, but Texas is in danger of losing it's Blue Blood status. You've got a great history, but Texas simply does not scare anybody and hasn't scared anybody for quite awhile. You have brought in several coaches that could have brought you back and they didn't. You've had the talent. quote: Give them a per decade or era “ blue blood” option so we can move along. I think you (Texas) can move along right now. You have one National Championship since 1977? Welcome to Georgia territory. Your last Conference Championship was 2009? Now you aren't even in Georgia territory. Texas is as bad as Georgia has been since you've been alive. Worse, yet. Since I've been alive, and I am old.
Still doesn’t get it.. at least ur consistent.
0
Posted on 1/28/18 at 6:47 pm to PowHound
quote:
agree.
There really is no changing who the blue bloods are. For example Clemson is not going to join the blue bloods because they won a Title, and have had some success lately.
Bama
USC
Texas
Ohio State
Michigan
Oklahoma
ND (blue blood that went broke a long time ago, but still gets invited to all the parties somehow)
a 'blue blood' has a history further back than the 60s, along with multiple runs with natties ... texas was a nobody in college football until 1963 ... and the 60s is their only extended period of success, natty wise ... so they're not a bb ... being a top 5 coaching job does not a bb make ...
bama, the dame, usc, ou, osu and michigan, though michigan and the dame have fallen out ... you can fall out and re-enter, but you cannot attain bb status unless you're one of those 6 programs ... honorary bb status has been given to army and navy for their historical influence/relevance ...
/thread
Posted on 1/28/18 at 6:52 pm to CapstoneGrad06
Pop in the 'ol NCAA Football on the PS3. IIRC, they list the "Blue Chip/Blood" programs on there.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 7:02 pm to DawgsLife
Alabama
ND
USC
Oklahoma
Ohio State
On the edge: Nebraska
Notre Dame has obviously tailed off like Nebraska, but they have a better consistent history. I'd say they can continue at current pace for 20 years before they fall into the Nebraska zone.
ND
USC
Oklahoma
Ohio State
On the edge: Nebraska
Notre Dame has obviously tailed off like Nebraska, but they have a better consistent history. I'd say they can continue at current pace for 20 years before they fall into the Nebraska zone.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 7:06 pm to CapstoneGrad06
You started off on the wrong foot and never recovered.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 7:23 pm to CapstoneGrad06
Tenner is not a blue blood. 
Posted on 1/28/18 at 7:44 pm to Oklahomey
Still,pissed we kicked their arse in 2003 and never gotten over it.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 7:54 pm to tylerdurden24
quote:
Nebraska and Notre Dame
Equivalent of Indiana in basketball
Posted on 1/28/18 at 7:58 pm to bamagreycoat
quote:
There needs to be an old row - new row separate classification in my humble opinion.
FIFY
Posted on 1/28/18 at 10:46 pm to Razor Dawg
quote:
Never heard him argue for the '89 claim and it would be absurd to do so.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Lou argue that, but I would’ve liked to have played them outside the Orange Bowl that year. I think a playoff would’ve been interesting.
We probably have a better claim to 1993, and I wouldn’t have a problem if we did something to make a claim on it.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 10:34 am to Tigerman97
quote:
Tigerman97
quote:
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.
I can understand the case you make for AU. But you have to remember that that Neb team was considered possibly the greatest of all time, then Miami beat them.
Yes, AU played a tough schedule, but for anyone who saw their Texas game, it was hard to get over. Score 20-7, game 40-0, i.e., Texas eviscerated AU. You looked pathetic, your offense looked like they couldn't have scored in 20 qts 'til garbage time - and it was at home. Then the lackluster 9-7 win over a below average Mich team in the Sugar Bowl did not help. Couldn't score a TD.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 11:04 am to tattoo
Michigan is in because of “most wins all-time”. Here’s a list, need to remove the 4 Ivy League schools.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 12:17 pm to tiderider
quote:
a 'blue blood' has a history further back than the 60s, along with multiple runs with natties ... texas was a nobody in college football until 1963 ... and the 60s is their only extended period of success, natty wise ... so they're not a bb ... being a top 5 coaching job does not a bb make ...
The history of CFB is not your strength.
Going into the 1963 season:
UT had 6 top 5 season vs BAMA's 5
BAMA had 6 NC's to UT's 2
Conf Championships... UT 16 BAMA 10
Top 4 Bowls... BAMA 14 UT 11
Of course the next 8 years were the most dominant in TEXAS history with 3 NC'S and 5 top 5 finishes. Going into 1970 Texas was arguably the better program to date.
Head to head:
Texas went 4-0-1 vs BAMA
Posted on 1/29/18 at 12:54 pm to tattoo
quote:
can understand the case you make for AU. But you have to remember that that Neb team was considered possibly the greatest of all time, then Miami beat them.
Yes, AU played a tough schedule, but for anyone who saw their Texas game, it was hard to get over. Score 20-7, game 40-0, i.e., Texas eviscerated AU. You looked pathetic, your offense looked like they couldn't have scored in 20 qts 'til garbage time - and it was at home. Then the lackluster 9-7 win over a below average Mich team in the Sugar Bowl did not help. Couldn't score a TD.
This is some serious revisionist history. Auburn ran the table against the toughest schedule in CFB history to date. Miami avoided a tie at home against Nebraska. Miami won the title because the TV affiliate spent an entire month billing a #1 vs #5 match up as the "National Championship Game" Laughable.
As I have said...any objective person looking only at the schedules and results would have picked Miami 4th. Texas likely 2nd but historically a late season loss would have prevented them from getting credit in the head to head against Auburn. Maybe you give Nebraska #2 because they basically gave away the tie and the title. #1 isn't really an argument based on schedules and results.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News