Started By
Message
re: Nebraska no longer a core 8 blue blood….
Posted on 11/14/25 at 7:55 pm to Chad4Bama
Posted on 11/14/25 at 7:55 pm to Chad4Bama
I think it’s safe to say Bama rules the south and the Buckeyes rule up North. Usually. Then again there is no pro sports team to follow in Alabama or Mississippi so it stands to reason that a lot of folks in the south watch Bama
0
Posted on 11/14/25 at 7:59 pm to ScottLA
quote:
I'm not sure which children's stat site you from which you are getting your info but you are being misled.
I am including what is universally recognized by the NCAA without all your vacated wins. (And our 12 too). If you use ineligible player, the wins are vacated. Also several sites have Alabama with 342 losses. I think you are omitting a few to meet your narrative
Check Winsepdedia or any other accepted website. Show me one non Alabama homer website that shows Alabama having a better winning percentage than Ohio State. ESPN also often show Ohio State at .737 and Alabama 2nd at .734
This post was edited on 11/14/25 at 8:25 pm
Posted on 11/14/25 at 8:02 pm to molardog1
I can’t possible continue my life without determining this fact.
This is imperative and urgent.
This is imperative and urgent.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 8:04 pm to RollTide1987
I hate that this is true, but it’s true.
Texas has won far less major hardware than the other schools mentioned.
Texas beat up on the SWC and the BigX12 for over 100 years.
Texas has won far less major hardware than the other schools mentioned.
Texas beat up on the SWC and the BigX12 for over 100 years.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 8:09 pm to Pimphand
quote:
It's wild that Nebraska has spent a grand total of 7 weeks in the top 10 since joining B1G in 2011 and 3 of those weeks were in 2011
Lot of people on some old boards back then claimed that NEB would dominate the Big Ten for years. Ooof
Posted on 11/14/25 at 8:24 pm to Nasty_Canasta
quote:
Lot of people on some old boards back then claimed that NEB would dominate the Big Ten for years. Ooof
I mean it's usually bad to cut off all historical rivalries and be the furthest geographic spot in your new conference. See: Arkansas
That's why OU will still be in better shape is they still have our game.
Texas is the real winner because we get all 3 blood feuds (Ark, A&M, & OU) as our annual games.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 8:45 pm to molardog1
I just want to beat Texas tomorrow. 
Posted on 11/14/25 at 9:01 pm to Nasty_Canasta
quote:
Lot of people on some old boards back then claimed that NEB would dominate the Big Ten for years. Ooof
I think we would’ve fared better in the long run had we not gotten away from our bread and butter (physical RTDB and defense) but we decided to scrap all that old dependable shite (which curiously seems to still work in football) and decided we wanted to do West Coast offense and throw pretty passes all over the field.
Ooof indeed.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 9:07 pm to molardog1
Dawg fans are very insecure
Posted on 11/14/25 at 9:11 pm to molardog1
Dude we can’t count UGA without counting Minnesota and shite
It’s fine to just be an elite program capable of making the playoffs every year. Who gives a shite about historical perception? That is what programs lean on when they suck.
It’s fine to just be an elite program capable of making the playoffs every year. Who gives a shite about historical perception? That is what programs lean on when they suck.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 9:14 pm to Great Plains Drifter
quote:
I think we would’ve fared better in the long run had we not gotten away from our bread and butter (physical RTDB and defense) but we decided to scrap all that old dependable shite
Wisconsin is in the same boat as the Huskers. Two programs I always admired. To me traditional college ball will always be a little better when Nebraska and Wisky are playing well.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 9:19 pm to molardog1
In the new era of college football, “blue blood status” is about as important as living in a small town with two country clubs and arguing over which is better.
A whole new group of teams will be emerging over the next 50 years for the status of being a so called Blue Blood.
Nebraska will always be to my generation a blue blood.
Georgia certainly can claim the title as being the new blue blood for this century
Bottom line? Who cares.
A whole new group of teams will be emerging over the next 50 years for the status of being a so called Blue Blood.
Nebraska will always be to my generation a blue blood.
Georgia certainly can claim the title as being the new blue blood for this century
Bottom line? Who cares.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 9:40 pm to Chad4Bama
quote:
Must be why the top tv ratings game usually involves Alabama on a weekly basis lol.
Thats due to ESPN having waaaay more subscribers than Fox Sports in general. 2x or more from what i understand.
Im pretty sure the Buckeyes are unmatched when they are on ABC's national brodcast.
Anyways, ive been to tons of sports bars and hotels all over the country and other countries as well. and Buckeye fans represent the most and im not even a Buckeye fan.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 9:57 pm to Eldodroptop
Well, we have two in row against you and two nattys since your last. Entonces, ahí está eso, tejas.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 10:54 pm to McNet
quote:
Buckeye fan clubs and watch parties all over the world. No school really comes close to matching their following. Buckeyes everywhere. Rednecks to gangstees to yuppies to executives. Michigan is a bit more bougie and exclusive.
Alabama truly rules the South, Notre Dame with the Catholics, but Buckeyes are the better known program overall.
On field success is pretty much splitting hairs.
You are not equating blue blood status with wins/championships/percentages or any type of success on the field of play but on who you think has more fans.
Your metrics are bizarre and contain no value.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 11:02 pm to bamaoldtimer
This.
Nothing wrong with enjoying history, but the obsession with this designation is silly. Especially in this new era of college football
Nothing wrong with enjoying history, but the obsession with this designation is silly. Especially in this new era of college football
Posted on 11/14/25 at 11:02 pm to Buckeyeholic
quote:
am including what is universally recognized by the NCAA without all your vacated wins. (And our 12 too). If you use ineligible player, the wins are vacated. Also several sites have Alabama with 342 losses. I think you are omitting a few to meet your narrative
Check Winsepdedia or any other accepted website. Show me one non Alabama homer website that shows Alabama having a better winning percentage than Ohio State. ESPN also often show Ohio State at .737 and Alabama 2nd at .734
First of all, never visit Winsipedia again and especially don't mention it if you do.
Secondly, , as of today, Alabama has 333 losses and I defy you to show proof of any more losses than that. Please don't be extremely gay and weird and talk about forfeits.
I have provided you with the correct wins and loses and win %'s of all three teams I listed. There is no magic wand and we aren't living in a fairy tale where dreams and fantasies come true if you say they are true.
What I have provided you is the win/loss total and win% of 3 of the best teams in college football and that's it.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 1:05 am to molardog1
quote:
Why Georgia Qualifies as a True Blue Blood
Georgia is as new money as it gets. Who you fooling? Yall haven’t been a top tier program for even a decade yet.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 2:41 am to ScottLA
quote:
You are not equating blue blood status with wins/championships/percentages or any type of success on the field of play but on who you think has more fans.
Your metrics are bizarre and contain no value.
Really, dude?? Really?? I said on field results was splitting hairs, but here ya go:
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
Posted on 11/15/25 at 3:43 am to Buckeyeholic
quote:
Check that. Bama officially at 982, just behind Ohio St. 987
Actually on the field Bama has 1011
This post was edited on 11/15/25 at 3:56 am
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News