Started By
Message
re: The changing of the Blue-Bloods
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:58 pm to RD Dawg
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:58 pm to RD Dawg
I never said it's about just winning national titles, read the whole post
I consider OU definitely a blue blood and they havent won one in 17 years, but they've had several great seasons since then and havent faded off for an extended period of time like others have
I consider OU definitely a blue blood and they havent won one in 17 years, but they've had several great seasons since then and havent faded off for an extended period of time like others have
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 3:00 pm
0
Posted on 4/18/18 at 3:04 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
You seem to be placing 99.9% emphasis on entire history and 0.1% emphasis last 10-20 years
when talking abotu "all-time historical programs" I place 100% of the emphasis on the overall resume, as one should.
quote:
By your argument, seems like you fully think Nebraska is still a blue blood,
Idk if they are or not, it would depend on what a person defines as a "blue blood", which I have not personally done. I will say that despite their recent suckage they are still in the top 10 in just about every relevant category.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 3:20 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
when talking abotu "all-time historical programs" I place 100% of the emphasis on the overall resume, as one should.
We are talking blue bloods, which to qualify you have to have a great history, BUT, generally speaking, you also cant just fade off into oblivion for a decade or two still expect people to CURRENTLY call you a blue blood.
We seem to just have 2 entirely different definitions, I think you can get to blue blood status, lose it, re-earn it back over time. You seem to think maybe once you get it, you never lose it, but maybe if you do, you cant get it back? I dunno, to me I'm certainly not sitting here saying Nebraska is currently a football blue blood, and some other programs are dangerously close to losing it my opinion for being irrelevant too long recently. If you have 2 Top 10 finishes in over 2 decades, not looking great for you. When for an extended period of time in the recent era, you are no better than an average or maybe above average program, it's hard to sit here and call you a blue blood still.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 4/18/18 at 3:22 pm to Dawgsontop34
Blue blood
easily one of the gayest terms in college sports
Who fricking cares what happened in the leather helmet days. Junior high teams would whip those guys asses today
easily one of the gayest terms in college sports
Who fricking cares what happened in the leather helmet days. Junior high teams would whip those guys asses today
Posted on 4/18/18 at 3:32 pm to MeatPants
quote:
Who fricking cares what happened in the leather helmet days.
The vols
Posted on 4/18/18 at 4:17 pm to djsdawg
FSU started football in 1947. They could win the next 25 national championships in a row and not be a blue blood.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 4:20 pm to monceaux
Texas A&M all time stats
A&M is FAR from a blue blood, but not as derilict as you make us out to be. Top 20 program all time.
A&M is FAR from a blue blood, but not as derilict as you make us out to be. Top 20 program all time.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 5:33 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
We are talking blue bloods, which to qualify you have to have a great history, BUT, generally speaking, you also cant just fade off into oblivion for a decade or two still expect people to CURRENTLY call you a blue blood.
We seem to just have 2 entirely different definitions, I think you can get to blue blood status, lose it, re-earn it back over time. You seem to think maybe once you get it, you never lose it, but maybe if you do, you cant get it back? I dunno, to me I'm certainly not sitting here saying Nebraska is currently a football blue blood, and some other programs are dangerously close to losing it my opinion for being irrelevant too long recently. If you have 2 Top 10 finishes in over 2 decades, not looking great for you. When for an extended period of time in the recent era, you are no better than an average or maybe above average program, it's hard to sit here and call you a blue blood still.
Minnesota was a blue blood up until the 60s.
Nebraska is most certainly a blue blood but they're on probation for slipping below .700.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 5:33 pm to Pdubntrub
quote:
FSU started football in 1947. They could win the next 25 national championships in a row and not be a blue blood.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 5:50 pm to I Bleed Garnet
quote:
Who do you consider all the blue-bloods?
Whatever the criteria, these threads always talk about blue bloods improperly. That's a status that was earned long ago that you can't lose or gain no matter what you do.
Threads like this one should be called Now-bloods and New-bloods. UF, Miami and a few others are every bit as solid and laurel filled as some of the old blue blood programs but they're New Bloods. Clemson is a Now-blood that might well make it to New Blood soon. They could also lose their Now-Blood status rather quickly if they start losing.
Alabama is a good example of this... Alabama is both a Blueblood and a Now-Blood. The blue blood part of them won't change if they lose every game for the next 20 years. The Now-blood status could change quickly. However, it's not possible for them to ever be a New Blood.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 5:57 pm
Posted on 4/18/18 at 5:57 pm to Che Boludo
quote:
Blue Bloods (no particular order):
Texas
Why are they a blue blood? Because they’re from a large state and have big-money boosters? Because they have a lot of wins while dictating terms to the other members of their (usually) ho-hum conferences? Because they tell us they are?
Historically, Texas has almost underachieved as badly as Michigan has.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 6:01 pm to Sid E Walker
At least 800 wins and .700 win %. This was decided on long ago. 
Posted on 4/18/18 at 6:05 pm to Korin
They’re not a blue blood, period.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 6:13 pm to Prof
quote:
Whatever the criteria, these threads always talk about blue bloods improperly. That's a status that was earned long ago that you can't lose or gain no matter what you do.
I don't know why we're talking about football programs like plantation owners. If you want to go that route, the only true blue bloods are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, and Michigan. Alabama took about 50 years before they joined the national title club. shite LSU had a recognized NC before Alabama. So in your context, Alabama is still new money and always will be since true blue bloods will always be blue bloods and no one else can ever join the club.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 6:13 pm
Posted on 4/18/18 at 6:23 pm to lsufball19
quote:
I don't know why we're talking about football programs like plantation owners. If you want to go that route, the only true blue bloods are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, and Michigan. Alabama took about 50 years before they joined the national title club. shite LSU had a recognized NC before Alabama. So in your context, Alabama is still new money and always will be since true blue bloods will always be blue bloods and no one else can ever join the club.
You just constructed a straw-man out of what you wanted in order to tear it down. However, the criteria you just ripped up was the criteria you just established for the purpose of ripping it (e.g. 50 years, inclusion of Ivies to define said status, exclusion of Bama plus your own specified time frame, and so on are all things you came up with (not me) to set your own criteria).
Posted on 4/18/18 at 6:31 pm to Prof
How is that a strawman? You created the criteria that being a blue blood is something you can't lose or gain. So I applied your criteria and established who the blue bloods are based on your criteria. As to the time period, why do you get to be the authority on when football really started and how far back is adequate to establish true blue blooded-ness? I was just illustrating how stupid your characterization of a football program is unless you agree that the Ivies and Michigan are still blue bloods. I'm not arguing they are. You're attempting to apply societal class structures to sports. It's ridiculous.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 7:09 pm to Che Boludo
quote:
Blue Bloods (no particular order):
ND
Yeah, no.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 7:19 pm to lsufball19
quote:
don't know why we're talking about football programs like plantation owners
Why don't we just do an all time top 25 list and drop all this blue blood bullshite?
I'll start.
1. Bama
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 7:20 pm
Posted on 4/18/18 at 7:56 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Ohio State football went 34 years without a NC...does that count?
But had a bunch of teams that were in the hunt. Great teams. Woody Hayes teams in the early '70s that lost or tied one game. And teams in the 90's that had NFL talent out the ying yang like Orlando pace, mike vrabal, Eddie George, Joey Galloway and terry glenn.
Also dozens of top 5 AP final polls.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:17 pm to Dogfish
quote:
Also dozens of top 5 AP final poll
Dozens?They had 10 and zero in the 80's...they also didn't have much competition in the big 10.
There are a far better program and conference this century.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News