Started By
Message
re: Who are the Blue Blood football programs?
Posted on 7/9/24 at 1:26 pm to ClaimToFame
Posted on 7/9/24 at 1:26 pm to ClaimToFame
quote:
In order to be considered a blue blood, you had to win a bunch of games in the 1950s.
It's actually the 60's, 70's and early 80's.
That is when college football started to become mainstream. Games started to get televised occasionally, and the teams that were successful in those times were building up the biggest fan bases and became national brands.
So basically, if you were among those teams, your odds of having a game televised was greatly increased etc.
It's more a historical novelty than it is anything meaningful. I don't know why people get hung up on it.
2
Posted on 7/9/24 at 1:28 pm to GoGators1995
quote:
Are you sure you wanna do that?
Georgia fans don't pine about the old segregation days like Tennessee fans and Texas fans do.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 1:31 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
UGA, Florida, LSU all have more NCs in the last 50 years than every blueblood except Bama.
You left off Oklahoma. NC's in 1974, 1975, 1985, 2000.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 1:32 pm to Faurot fodder
My definition of blue blood isn't based on statistics. It's based on interest from CFB fans.
To me, blue bloods are teams that CFB fans will watch even if it's not their team and the blue blood isn't all that great (sometimes just because they want to watch them lose)
That list is very small. Even some very good teams (like UGA) don't hold that level of interest.
The blue bloods in my mind are:
Bama
Notre Dame
Texas
OU
Michigan
OSU
and that's it
Penn State, Nebraska, UGA, LSU, Southern Cal, Tennessee.... while they get interest when they're good they don't when they're just meh.
Southern Cal is the only one bordering on being a blue blood (they probably were 10 years ago).
This is why I don't think the SEC is in much of a hurry to add FSU or Clemson. Yeah, they're got pretty good programs. But they're not blue bloods and not even particularly close to being blue bloods. There's a reason the SEC added Texas and OU and the Big 10 targeted USC in their last expansion. Those are blue bloods or near blue bloods. The only team left in that category who's not in the SEC or Big 10 already is Notre Dame.
To me, blue bloods are teams that CFB fans will watch even if it's not their team and the blue blood isn't all that great (sometimes just because they want to watch them lose)
That list is very small. Even some very good teams (like UGA) don't hold that level of interest.
The blue bloods in my mind are:
Bama
Notre Dame
Texas
OU
Michigan
OSU
and that's it
Penn State, Nebraska, UGA, LSU, Southern Cal, Tennessee.... while they get interest when they're good they don't when they're just meh.
Southern Cal is the only one bordering on being a blue blood (they probably were 10 years ago).
This is why I don't think the SEC is in much of a hurry to add FSU or Clemson. Yeah, they're got pretty good programs. But they're not blue bloods and not even particularly close to being blue bloods. There's a reason the SEC added Texas and OU and the Big 10 targeted USC in their last expansion. Those are blue bloods or near blue bloods. The only team left in that category who's not in the SEC or Big 10 already is Notre Dame.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 1:35 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
Georgia fans don't pine about the old segregation days like Tennessee fans and Texas fans do.
But ignoring the segregation days puts UF ahead of UGA.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 1:44 pm to Faurot fodder
quote:
I will say this for Texas, you ushered in the beginning of the end of the big red machine, when you upset them in the inaugural Big XII championship game in St Louis. Good work.
We definitely broke Nebraska but they still went on to win the title the next year when they split with Michigan. When we rolled into Lincoln for Halloween 1998 and upset them handing them their first home loss since 1991 vs Washington that we really broke them. They had revenge on their minds and came up short. 9-1 as conference mates I do miss Nebraska ;-)
Posted on 7/9/24 at 1:46 pm to Pimphand
It was Colorado who ended Nebraska.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 1:48 pm to PerrillouxToTexas
Why do UT and OU and others listed except yamma get to pretend their wins are weighted the same as the Yamma (read SEC) teams that had to go through much harder schedules?
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:05 pm to Archibald
OU has a rivalry with 2 bluebloods (Nebraska and Texas)
UM has a rivalry with 2 bluebloods (Ohio State and Notre Dame)
ND has a rivalry with 2 bluebloods (Michigan and USC)
UT has a rivalry with 1 blueblood (Oklahoma)
NU has a rivalry with 1 blueblood (Oklahoma)
OSU has a rivalry with 1 blueblood (Michigan)
USC has a rivalry with 1 blueblood (Notre Dame)
UA has a rivalry with 0 bluebloods
UM has a rivalry with 2 bluebloods (Ohio State and Notre Dame)
ND has a rivalry with 2 bluebloods (Michigan and USC)
UT has a rivalry with 1 blueblood (Oklahoma)
NU has a rivalry with 1 blueblood (Oklahoma)
OSU has a rivalry with 1 blueblood (Michigan)
USC has a rivalry with 1 blueblood (Notre Dame)
UA has a rivalry with 0 bluebloods
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:07 pm to NewBOSSofSEC
Well it's not their fault UTjr spent 20 years as a dumpster fire.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:12 pm to StopRobot
That must be an old chart
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:20 pm to PerrillouxToTexas
quote:Yup. Pretty much everyone was saying Michigan is a goner...then they roar back to win a title. Alabama for a time before Saban was lol...but oh shite they came back.
If we all collectively agreed that Nebraska has lost blue blood status, they’d just gain it back anyway as soon as they have an upswing.
Bluebloods do go through down periods over the decades...but they most certainly can come back.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:23 pm to Faurot fodder
And this is why the Iron Bowl will never be better than the Red River Rivalry.
Aside from the atmosphere at the Cotton Bowl being astronomically better, this game has x2 Blue Bloods fighting it out every year.
Aside from the atmosphere at the Cotton Bowl being astronomically better, this game has x2 Blue Bloods fighting it out every year.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:24 pm to 49 to nada
Can we do different eras of Blue Bloods?
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:27 pm to PerrillouxToTexas
Thank you.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:27 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
Can we do different eras of Blue Bloods?
I'm not sure that makes sense. The basic definition of a blue blood is based on a significant history of winning excellence. You can't just take the last 20 years and say LSU is a blue blood... They could barely get into a three-point stance prior to Nick Saban having a ZIP code in baton rouge.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:30 pm to Faurot fodder
Hook is too shiny gump.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:32 pm to Faurot fodder
SEC Big 6 > CFB Blue Bloods
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:46 pm to Archibald
quote:
Flame away
You beat everyone to the punch, steer queer.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:47 pm to JustinOKC
quote:
Red River Rivalry.
I see y'all have given in to the pussification of your rivalry game.
Sad.
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News