Started By
Message
re: Is LSU a blue blood? Is Georgia?
Posted on 10/21/20 at 9:40 pm to cajunbama
Posted on 10/21/20 at 9:40 pm to cajunbama
quote:
You obviously don’t know the meaning of the term blue blood.
You obviously think Russia is still ruled by the Romanovs. It's an irrelevant concept that gets you nothing other than conversation. I'm not trying to redefine "blue blood", I'm observing that trying to bring it into sports is completely useless. What I said is 100% true. What Minnesota did 60 years ago has zero bearing on what they are right now. Things bama did before you went all contrarian against your neighbors and picked an easy front-runner to declare your team aren't going to help them win this year and bama won't get another trophy if VH1 puts you and other teams in some top 10 all time list.
0
Posted on 10/21/20 at 9:51 pm to themetalreb
Who cares. The only blue bloods that don’t suck are Bama and Ohio State. OU just hangs on to the notion they still matter. The rust suck anyway. I’ll take 3 NCs in 4 attempts the last 17 years and punt the blue blood status.
Posted on 10/21/20 at 10:38 pm to remaster916
quote:
Tennessee (About to lose that status)
Wtf?
Posted on 10/21/20 at 10:42 pm to RiverCityTider
quote:
think I would rate Auburn above LSU. But it is close.
Zero credibility. Stop littering the thread with your BS
Posted on 10/22/20 at 12:51 am to Topwater Trout
quote:Those that were before the 60's, that remained so for decades following.
I am guessing blue bloods refers to power house teams before the 60's
So, Michigan and Ohio State, yes. Minnesota, no. Notre Dame, yes. Army, no.
Alabama, yes. LSU, Georgia, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Clemson... no.
Texas, Penn State... eh, only if you INSIST that a region (Penn St in the East) or traditional conference (Texas from the SWC) MUST have a blueblood.
And that kinda defines the Blueblood concept- they're the big fish in the little ponds across college football.
Alabama has owned the SEC (and Southern football), Michigan and Ohio State have owned the Big 10, Penn State was the Beast of the East, Texas owned the SWC, Oklahoma and Nebraska owned the Big 8, USC owned the Pac. Notre Dame has been THE independent powerhouse.
That's it; there are no further entries.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 5:44 am to RiverCityTider
quote:
And Shakespeare hasn't written anything worth reading in a while. Would you rate him below John Gresham?
No. But you can still read Shakespear. You cannot watch USC play.
I'm not arguing for USC to be kicked out, so much as arguing that some of the arguments people are using seem contradictory.
People want Nebraska left out or kicked out because they have won anything in 20-30 years, yet it has been 40+ for USC. You don't see an inconsistency there?
Posted on 10/22/20 at 5:48 am to Che Boludo
quote:
Jeebus Harry Christ, does no one read the 37 off season "blue blood" threads every off season?
Sure I do. I didn't start the thread. But the thread was started, and I commented n it, just like you are doing.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 5:54 am to tiger perry
quote:
That is a good point. My mind still remembers Pete Carroll’s dominance even though Reggie Bush tainted some of that. Nebraska was a power that fell off after Tom Osbourne retired. I do not see them returning to glory. They have become a faded power. Tennessee to some extent too.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It all boils down to memory and perception. I grew up in the 60s and 70s, watching college football mostly in the 70s, so those powerhouses mean more to me. As time goes by their legend grows in our minds and to a degree dwarf the accomplishments we see today.
Accomplishments of today seem lesser to people because they have heard the stories of teams from "old timers" like me of Archie Griffin, Bo Jackson, Hershcel Walker, Terry Beasley, Pat Sullivan and on and on.
in 20-30 years I suspect the legends of Clemson, Ohio State, Alabama and LSU will grow and they will be considered Blue Bloods, and if teams like Nebraska and USC don't get their act together their memory will fade away much like Army, Harvard and some of the ooooooold teams.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 7:38 am to DawgsLife
quote:
People want Nebraska left out or kicked out because they have won anything in 20-30 years, yet it has been 40+ for USC. You don't see an inconsistency there?
Um...what? From 2002-2008, USC was the dominant power in college football. They finished in the Top 5 every single year of that run. They've also had good seasons interspersed throughout since Pete Carroll left, most recently in 2017 when they went 11-3 and won the Pac-12.
Nebraska, on the other hand, hasn't won a conference championship since 1999.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 12:03 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Um...what? From 2002-2008, USC was the dominant power in college football.
They won championships in 2003 and 2004. the 2004 championship was vacated due to the Reggie Bush cheating scandal. Bush played in 2003, too, so it should have been vacated, also. I mean, 2003 was his first season. The inducements he and his family received were received to get him to attend USC.
So, yes. They had some really good seasons that were made possible by cheating. They even got caught and punished for it. The championship they got before the vacated ones went all the way back to 1978. So no. You'll have to excuse me if I do not consider championships won by cheating as legitimate.
This post was edited on 10/22/20 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 10/22/20 at 12:10 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Nebraska, on the other hand, hasn't won a conference championship since 1999.
I missed the Nebraska part of your post. Sorry.
Nebraska has won legitimate National Championships in 1995, 1996 and 1998 not to mention 1970 and 1971. Legit national Championships mean more than Conference Championships for me.
Again. USCs last legit National Championship was 1979.
now if you want to make conference championships more important, then maybe Georgia should be considered a Blue Blood.
Also consider if we wipe out USCs 2003 and 2004 years because of cheating (which we should) then they had 4 really good years where they finished in the top 5....very similar to what Georgia is doing right now.
I would not claim that Georgia is dominating college football based on that, though.
This post was edited on 10/22/20 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 10/22/20 at 2:35 pm to armtackledawg
CURRENTLY there are 8 football schools deemed as "bluebloods": they are :ALABAMA,Ohio St ,Michigan,ND,Nebraska( could fall out soon ), USC,Texas and Oklahoma .
Real close to obtaining blue blood status:LSU, Penn St ,Florida and Georgia . FLorida St is 3rd tier and Clemson needs to do alot more to get into the conversation Miami 's steep dropoff in recent years set them back .They were on the cusp of blue blood at one time
Real close to obtaining blue blood status:LSU, Penn St ,Florida and Georgia . FLorida St is 3rd tier and Clemson needs to do alot more to get into the conversation Miami 's steep dropoff in recent years set them back .They were on the cusp of blue blood at one time
This post was edited on 10/22/20 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 10/22/20 at 2:37 pm to themetalreb
If your P5, won at least 3 national titles, & 17 conference titles then your a blue blood. Anyone disagree?
Posted on 10/22/20 at 3:25 pm to DawgsLife
Posted on 10/22/20 at 4:18 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I missed the Nebraska part of your post. Sorry.
Nebraska has won legitimate National Championships in 1995, 1996 and 1998 not to mention 1970 and 1971. Legit national Championships mean more than Conference Championships for me.
Again. USCs last legit National Championship was 1979.
now if you want to make conference championships more important, then maybe Georgia should be considered a Blue Blood.
Also consider if we wipe out USCs 2003 and 2004 years because of cheating (which we should) then they had 4 really good years where they finished in the top 5....very similar to what Georgia is doing right now.
I would not claim that Georgia is dominating college football based on that, though.
What makes a title “legit” in your eyes?
Posted on 10/22/20 at 4:22 pm to DawgFanDave
quote:
What makes a title “legit” in your eyes?
In context of my post, I would say just the opposite of USCs last two titles in which they paid players.
That said, is there a reason to doubt that Nebraska's titles were not legit? There were no clouds hanging over the program at that time. No investigations, or allegations. And they were named by the AP and/or Coaches poll.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 4:25 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
That said, is there a reason to doubt that Nebraska's titles were not legit?
They were roided the f up
Posted on 10/22/20 at 4:29 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
They were roided the f up
NCAA investigate it? I mean, we really have no proof, and there are plenty of titles that have been awarded under more than speculation.
USC was caught red handed paying Bush and his family. A bit of a difference there.
Posted on 10/22/20 at 4:32 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I mean, we really have no proof
It’s out there but I’m too lazy to go look it up right now
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News