Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/20/20 at 11:02 pm to texashorn
quote:
1893
With this argument Yale is a "blue blood."
Posted on 2/20/20 at 11:05 pm to ryker
Show us your work.
Posted on 2/20/20 at 11:08 pm to texashorn
quote:
Show us your work.
Give me some more modern statistics.
Posted on 2/20/20 at 11:18 pm to ryker
You asked when we started playing those teams I listed (and I told you), then you spouted off something about Yale.
Cool story, bro.
Cool story, bro.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 12:29 am to texashorn
quote:
Record against Arkansas, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Missouri and aggy:
168-74
Record against THE UofSC .... 0-1.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 12:53 am to Clark14
quote:
when they faced the big dogs in the country they got that butt beat.
Bacon boy that's pretty good.
Take a review of Texas' all time record in bowl games, versus ranked opponents, number of games vs Blue Bloods, winning % and total wins in games vs the other Blue Bloods.
Only program to beat every Blue Blood and have 5+ game win streak versus three of them? A: You sucked his dick for half a century+ and his name rhymes with Bevo.
Then go through every key metric one would rate programs on & see where Texas ranks.
How I never monetized on the cerebral drop off south of the Mason Dixon will be the blemish on my career. Low hanging fruit & I walked right past it.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 12:59 am to GoGators04
Yes, Texas is a blue blood. Blue blood programs are the most historically high profile programs and draw interest even when they aren’t winning. It’s not just about wins and titles but interest, visibility, and intrigue as well.
It’s like the Dallas Cowboys. They haven’t come close to a Super Bowl in 25 years but they are still the premiere NFL franchise.
It’s like the Dallas Cowboys. They haven’t come close to a Super Bowl in 25 years but they are still the premiere NFL franchise.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 12:59 am to ryker
quote:
Give me some more modern statistics.
In a thread covering Blue Blood status... well, we won't be fixing stupid today.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 1:05 am to GoGators04
Annoying fanbase or not, they are a blue blood.
They were in a title game as recently as 2009, and could have easily been in it in 2008. I want to say they were the winningest program in the country during that decade with the exception of Boise State.
OP says they were terrible in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s. They were a muffed punt away from winning a title in ‘83. They were ranked #1 at one point in ‘85. They won conference titles in ‘95 and ‘96. Had a Heisman winner in ‘98.
Furthermore, Saying they ONLY have 2 Heisman winners and using that as an argument is silly. How many does Bama have? And LSU?
How many blue bloods are there? 10? 12? If that’s your answer, then they are most certainly in that class. They also aren’t so far removed from their success that they will never achieve it again. This isn’t like Pitt or Princeton here...
Hell, even Ohio State had a stretch of 34 years where they didn’t win a natty. And in that case, old school college football didn’t revolve around the obsession of a national title. The goal was to win your conference and represent in your respective bowl.
Blue blood? Yes.
They were in a title game as recently as 2009, and could have easily been in it in 2008. I want to say they were the winningest program in the country during that decade with the exception of Boise State.
OP says they were terrible in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s. They were a muffed punt away from winning a title in ‘83. They were ranked #1 at one point in ‘85. They won conference titles in ‘95 and ‘96. Had a Heisman winner in ‘98.
Furthermore, Saying they ONLY have 2 Heisman winners and using that as an argument is silly. How many does Bama have? And LSU?
How many blue bloods are there? 10? 12? If that’s your answer, then they are most certainly in that class. They also aren’t so far removed from their success that they will never achieve it again. This isn’t like Pitt or Princeton here...
Hell, even Ohio State had a stretch of 34 years where they didn’t win a natty. And in that case, old school college football didn’t revolve around the obsession of a national title. The goal was to win your conference and represent in your respective bowl.
Blue blood? Yes.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 6:45 am to Clark14
quote:
when they faced the big dawgs in the country they got that butt beat.
Yes they did... them dawgs beat their butts.
This post was edited on 2/22/20 at 7:24 am
Posted on 2/21/20 at 7:05 am to GoGators04
General/national perception wise I would say Texas is a blue blood football school. They get ranked in the top 25 every preseason 100% regardless of returning players and how terribly they always finish the previous year.
Surprisingly to me, Herman hasn't been able to right that ship. He may be getting close to chopping block time.
Surprisingly to me, Herman hasn't been able to right that ship. He may be getting close to chopping block time.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 7:07 am to Globetrotter747
quote:
It’s like the Dallas Cowboys. They haven’t come close to a Super Bowl in 25 years but they are still the premiere NFL franchise.
That's a rather, uhhh, interesting thought process.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 7:09 am to GoGators04
I've always been of my opinion a blue blood is a dynamic thing. I.E. if you maybe get considered a blue blood for all time wins, etc, you still have to keep that status over time, you cant go missing for long periods of time and be considered a CURRENT blue blood.
For example, Nebraska is a commonly thrown out there blue blood in football. They have won over 900 games and 5 NC. However, they haven't won anything of note in 2 decades now practically, no longer a blue blood.
That being said, I'm not throwing Texas in that category yet, they won a NC in 2005, which wasn't forever ago, and went to the NC in 2009. That's still holding onto recent enough relevancy. Another decade of the past decade though, no longer a blue blood. I feel like 2ish decades is kind of the turning point because at that point you've been washed out of many recruits minds of being relevant.
For example, Nebraska is a commonly thrown out there blue blood in football. They have won over 900 games and 5 NC. However, they haven't won anything of note in 2 decades now practically, no longer a blue blood.
That being said, I'm not throwing Texas in that category yet, they won a NC in 2005, which wasn't forever ago, and went to the NC in 2009. That's still holding onto recent enough relevancy. Another decade of the past decade though, no longer a blue blood. I feel like 2ish decades is kind of the turning point because at that point you've been washed out of many recruits minds of being relevant.
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 7:17 am
Posted on 2/21/20 at 7:11 am to GoGators04
They have over 900 wins, a winning percentage over 70%, have won four national championships in the poll era, and 32 conference championships.
Yes, they are a blue blood.
Yes, they are a blue blood.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 7:22 am to texashorn
quote:
Show us your work.
You’re 9-8-1 against little ole LSU. Not too impressive for such a blue blood.
Same number of NCs and Heisman winners, and your lofty winning % comes from a joke of conferences you’ve been a member of. Play in the SEC all those years and see where you’d land. I guarantee you it wouldn’t be that high.
My biggest issue with Texas, is pretty much the same as it is for most of the other “blue bloods” of college football. It’s your arrogance. You’ve not gone through anything that has awarded you any real character and appreciation, so you’re pretty much just a pain in the arse to be around.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 7:25 am to GoGators04
Yes.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 7:28 am to GoGators04
Blue blood is a subjective term.
I like this 2 word description better: National Champions. Very objective.
Who gives a shite about what some idiot thinks is a “blue blood”.
I like this 2 word description better: National Champions. Very objective.
Who gives a shite about what some idiot thinks is a “blue blood”.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 7:31 am to r2d2
National titles were mythical though for such a large part of CFB history.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 7:33 am to Korin
I know but not right now.
National Champions is a description that fits one team and one team only right now. Everyone else is inferior.
National Champions is a description that fits one team and one team only right now. Everyone else is inferior.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News