Started By
Message
What is a ‘blue blood’ school?
Posted on 2/3/20 at 7:09 pm
Posted on 2/3/20 at 7:09 pm
My apologies for the follow-up thread.
But I’ve asked the question in the previous thread and haven’t received an answer.
Is there an actual definition?
Or is it subjective?
Looking at the winners at the turn of the 1800s-1900s is bangin’.
I love it.
Times changed as the World Wars were fought (how could they not? Should those eras even count?).
Then you’ve got the civil rights era.
Then ... mullets and shoulder pads (all I can think of is SMU).
Then the MNC? And the BCS? Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance? The FBS? CFP National Championship Game?
Do Blue Bloods even matter now, and do they exist?
But I’ve asked the question in the previous thread and haven’t received an answer.
Is there an actual definition?
Or is it subjective?
Looking at the winners at the turn of the 1800s-1900s is bangin’.
I love it.
Times changed as the World Wars were fought (how could they not? Should those eras even count?).
Then you’ve got the civil rights era.
Then ... mullets and shoulder pads (all I can think of is SMU).
Then the MNC? And the BCS? Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance? The FBS? CFP National Championship Game?
Do Blue Bloods even matter now, and do they exist?
31
Posted on 2/3/20 at 7:11 pm to EKG
Alabama
Michigan
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Texas
USC
Michigan
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Texas
USC
Posted on 2/3/20 at 7:13 pm to EKG
Not Aggy
Posted on 2/3/20 at 7:13 pm to EKG
quote:
Do Blue Bloods even matter now, and do they exist?
Nebraska, notre dame, and Michigan will argue that that it does matter. Because it’s all they have left.
Posted on 2/3/20 at 7:15 pm to dkreller
quote:
Not Aggy
Posted on 2/3/20 at 7:16 pm to EKG
Some fake shite that Michigan and Texas fans invented so they could act like they are on the same level as big bros OSU and OU
Posted on 2/3/20 at 7:48 pm to EKG
A school that was once relevant, that is no longer relevant, but needs a title to make them still feel relevant.
That is a blue blood.
That is a blue blood.
This post was edited on 2/3/20 at 7:49 pm
Posted on 2/3/20 at 7:59 pm to Rocket Surgeon
So what does that mean?
Is it wins-losses?
Championships?
I’m genuinely curious.
Is it wins-losses?
Championships?
I’m genuinely curious.
Posted on 2/3/20 at 8:02 pm to EKG
quote:
Do Blue Bloods even matter now, and do they exist?
You sound like a poor person who says their suburban mansion and Subaru are just as good.
Posted on 2/3/20 at 8:04 pm to EKG
quote:
So what does that mean?
Is it wins-losses?
Championships?
I’m genuinely curious.
The teams that made the game what it is today.
Posted on 2/3/20 at 8:05 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You sound like a poor person who says their suburban mansion and Subaru are just as good.
Hmmmm.
I don’t own a Subaru; rather, my sexy vehicle is a 2017 Honda Accord.
I have to beat the guys off with a stick, I tell ya.
No mansion.
More like a casita outside of downtown Houston.
Come visit any time.
This post was edited on 2/3/20 at 8:06 pm
Posted on 2/3/20 at 8:08 pm to EKG
In the SEC, there are 2.
Alabama
Kentucky
Alabama
Kentucky
Posted on 2/3/20 at 8:12 pm to EKG
quote:
So what does that mean?
Is it wins-losses?
Championships?
I’m genuinely curious.
Well the criteria on Rivals was at least 800 wins and a .700 win percentage.
But that puts Nebraska and USC on probation.
This post was edited on 2/3/20 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 2/3/20 at 8:19 pm to EKG
it’s an archeic word once used before Saban arrived in the south and wrecked ship.
Posted on 2/3/20 at 8:27 pm to EKG
Not clemson.
Not us, either. Obviously.
Not us, either. Obviously.
Posted on 2/3/20 at 10:05 pm to EKG
A blue blood school is a school that helped build the sport into what it is today. It mostly occurred in the 50's, 60's and 70's while the base of the bigger fan bases were forming. Limited coverage, but growing and these were the schools that were most often involved/covered/followed.
It has nothing to do with the number of championships a team has won, however it's success in itself that drives a good bit of the fanbase often times, so it's not uncommon that the 2 go hand and hand.
No, Notre Dame is not going to lose status, doesn't matter how many more years they go without winning a NC. No, other teams are not going to make to blue blood status no matter how many national championships they win. People are just going to see these programs as being good, and there is nothing wrong with that.
No, the Ivy Leagues do not count, they basically left big time college football before it grew.
LSU is not a blue blood and yet it was the team that gets a chance at a national championship with 2 losses. Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not a lack of respect to not be called a blue blood, it's just a matter of history. People can still see that LSU's program is better than Notre Dame, Michigan, Nebraska, Tennessee, etc right now.
Do they matter? It's mostly a matter of history, but they still usually carry more clout with the external parts of the game. They are the safe bet when it comes to preseason rankings, borderline teams like Texas, Nebraska, Tennessee and others lately will generally get named in preseason rankings and they'll generally be the safest bet over smaller programs that have a good year here and there(UCF for example). They'll also more likely be a final destination spot for college coaches. Things like that. But much of that can still be achieved without being a blue blood.
TLDR: It's nothing for people to cry about.
It has nothing to do with the number of championships a team has won, however it's success in itself that drives a good bit of the fanbase often times, so it's not uncommon that the 2 go hand and hand.
No, Notre Dame is not going to lose status, doesn't matter how many more years they go without winning a NC. No, other teams are not going to make to blue blood status no matter how many national championships they win. People are just going to see these programs as being good, and there is nothing wrong with that.
No, the Ivy Leagues do not count, they basically left big time college football before it grew.
LSU is not a blue blood and yet it was the team that gets a chance at a national championship with 2 losses. Because it's not that big of a deal. It's not a lack of respect to not be called a blue blood, it's just a matter of history. People can still see that LSU's program is better than Notre Dame, Michigan, Nebraska, Tennessee, etc right now.
Do they matter? It's mostly a matter of history, but they still usually carry more clout with the external parts of the game. They are the safe bet when it comes to preseason rankings, borderline teams like Texas, Nebraska, Tennessee and others lately will generally get named in preseason rankings and they'll generally be the safest bet over smaller programs that have a good year here and there(UCF for example). They'll also more likely be a final destination spot for college coaches. Things like that. But much of that can still be achieved without being a blue blood.
TLDR: It's nothing for people to cry about.
Posted on 2/3/20 at 11:16 pm to Rocket Surgeon
quote:
Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio St., Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas, USC, Nebraska, Penn St., Tennessee
OK. Those are the 10 best college football programs of all-time. No argument on that point. But LSU is a couple of good years away from passing up both Penn St. and Tennessee.
Posted on 2/3/20 at 11:23 pm to WilliamTaylor21
quote:
A school that was once relevant, that is no longer relevant, but needs a title to make them still feel relevant.
That is a blue blood.
The above post is what jealousy looks like.
This post was edited on 2/3/20 at 11:33 pm
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News