Started By
Message
re: Is Tennessee still a Blue Blood?
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:42 am to Kamikaze25
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:42 am to Kamikaze25
Tennessee is not blue blood. Never has been.
Michigan
Notre Dame
Alabama
USCw
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Ohio St
Penn St
Ohio St and Penn St are bubble Blue Bloods in my opinion.
Pretty much teams that dominated the 60s-80s that carried long winning traditions with historic coaches and national following.
Michigan
Notre Dame
Alabama
USCw
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Ohio St
Penn St
Ohio St and Penn St are bubble Blue Bloods in my opinion.
Pretty much teams that dominated the 60s-80s that carried long winning traditions with historic coaches and national following.
3
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:44 am to Milk
quote:I'd consider switching Michigan and OSU. Michigan is coasting on the achievements of Fielding Yost -- revived briefly by Lloyd Carr, and the fact that they have been playing the game longer than 90% of the rest of the country.
Michigan
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:50 am to Kamikaze25
Never were. The criteria was established awhile ago - 800 wins and .700.
Alabama
Michigan
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Texas
USC
Alabama
Michigan
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Texas
USC
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:26 am to Milk
quote:
Tennessee is not blue blood. Never has been.
I know most on here born in the last 20 to 30 years but as the resident old guy I can tell you there was a time when the Vols were a top team.
History is lost on the young.....
In the modern era
quote:
Michigan < Tennessee
Notre Dame < Tennessee
Alabama > Tennessee
USCw < Tennseess (because of cheating)
Oklahoma > Tennessee
Nebraska > Tennessee
Ohio State > Tennessee
Penn State < Tennessee
quote:
Ohio St and Penn St are bubble Blue Bloods in my opinion.
Ohio State is the Johnny come lately and got a boost with the fall of Minnesota and the Chicago Maroons leaving the B1G.
Penn State was not even #1 in the state of PA as Penn dominated in the 1800's and Pittsburgh owned the state till JoPa arrived after WW II.
quote:
Pretty much teams that dominated the 60s-80s that carried long winning traditions with historic coaches and national following.
Historically the Vols are behind only Alabama in the current SEC membership
Historically the Vols were one of the first to seat 100K
The Vols are no slouches with historical coaches
1926 - 1952 || Robert Neyland (records would be gaudier except he left Vols to fight the Germans in WW II
1955 - 1962 || Bowden Wyatt
1964 - 1969 || Doug Dickey
1977 - 1992 || Johnny Majors
1998 - 2008 || Phillp Fulmer
That is (5) FIVE coaches in the Hall of Fame which is pretty much the indication of the history of the Vols in college football. As for Michigan and Texas and all those victories you need to brush up on your history of college football. Michigan was notorious for not playing home and home games with opponents from their early history and tended to stack the W-L in their favor. Texas was also know to rack up lots of wins against "sisters of the poor" type teams as well. Southern Cal had cheating and a virtual monopoly west of the Mississippi to protect their gaudy numbers.
Viewed by regions (from WW I to CFA and ESPN)
East Coast = IVY early on and then mostly Notre Dame (most fans in east)
Midwest = Michigan before WWII / Ohio State after WWII
South = Alabama + Tennessee + Georgia Tech (mostly when they were in SEC)
West = Oklahoma followed by Nebraska
West Coast = USC monopoly
As for Texas before 1980, take away DKR and their numbers look much different.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 8:27 am to Kamikaze25
quote:
Nah, the tv market we bring to the SEC is far too crucial
That is debatable
STL and KC are large markets, nobody is disputing this
College football, especially for an average team or below average team, has still yet to be established.
KC = Nebraska probably does best followed by Missou or Kansas (a big drop indeed)
STL = Illinois maybe but probably Notre Dame followed by Missou
Perhaps the East (via the REC) gifted the Tigers 2 years in a row to try and build the numbers but not sure it actually happened so now they may rethink to try and build the Tigers value in another SEC sport.
FWIW, Alabama is a small state but has one of the highest college football viewing markets in the USA. For college basketball the city of Louisville is the #1 viewing market for the product followed by Lexington even tho Kentucky is a small population state.
As to markets and advertisers.
90% of 4,000,000 = 3.6 million viewers in say AL or KY
30% of 6,000,000 = 1.8 million viewers in say MO
3.6 > 1.8 so advertisers will pay more to broadcast Alabama football and Kentucky basketball. Nobody is denying say high penetration in say STL for pro sports (especially the Cardinals) but the Tigers in Columbia for both football and basketball seem to be low penetration sports in the state.
It also appears Mizzou sports is very fractured in composition in that you have very loyal (but very few) fans that will watch in good stretches while you have a large base that will only tune in if they are winning. As much as the Mizzou posters on here talk about the Tigers it seems they just do not travel like most SEC schools.
While we may make fun of the current Tennessee slump it does make me wonder how much the Titans moving to TN has eroded their hold on sports in the state of Tennessee.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 9:28 am to Volatile
quote:
quote: Was Tennessee ever a blue blood? Better claim to it than Georgia.
As much as I loathe Tennessee, I have to agree if we are examining things from a historical perspective. In any credible list of Top 20 all time programs, UT is slightly ahead of UGA. Now, if you want to have that same dick measuring contest from 2000-present, I’d say UGA is ahead of the Vols.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 11:19 am to samson73103
:kige:
Posted on 12/7/17 at 11:28 am to Korin
So 833-383 dont count? Having the 12 winningest program of all time is overlooked....
Posted on 12/7/17 at 11:30 am to Kamikaze25
A blue blood doesn't go 0-6 vs Muschamp
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:01 pm to apiratelifeforme
quote:
So 833-383 dont count? Having the 12 winningest program of all time is overlooked....
Take it up with the powers that be.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:02 pm to Kamikaze25
Yes. Look at the historical standings.
EDIT: I thought he meant an SEC blue blood. But no, Tennessee is not and never has been a national blue blood
EDIT: I thought he meant an SEC blue blood. But no, Tennessee is not and never has been a national blue blood
This post was edited on 12/7/17 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:03 pm to Kamikaze25
There are 2 blue bloods in the SEC, and only 2.
Alabama
Kentucky
Alabama
Kentucky
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:04 pm to Kamikaze25
Missouri would give its right nut for half the history of UT
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:06 pm to Kamikaze25
Bama is the only blue blood for SEC football. Thats a fact.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:11 pm to Korin
quote:
Never were. The criteria was established awhile ago - 800 wins and .700.
Alabama
Michigan
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Texas
USC
This is the correct list.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:14 pm to TigerTalker16
quote:
Tennessee is poo
No swastikas, please.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:19 pm to Kamikaze25
quote:
Is Tennessee still a Blue Blood?
Let's cut'em open and find out.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:24 pm to Kamikaze25
If you're talking from a national standpoint, Bama is the only Blue Blood in the conference. Several others are in the next tier, but there are really only about 7 or 8 true Blue Blood programs in the nation.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:27 pm to Kamikaze25
Since we’ve been here they’ve shed a lot of blood, but none of it was blue.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:41 pm to BurgTiger
Simple answer. No
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News