Started By
Message
re: Why do Texas fans believe they are a blue blood?
Posted on 11/19/25 at 1:49 pm to TigerScorpion
Posted on 11/19/25 at 1:49 pm to TigerScorpion
“was great when the sport was in its adolescence.”
0
Posted on 11/19/25 at 1:49 pm to TigerScorpion
quote:A "blue blood" is just someone with social status arising from someone else's success, long ago. It is VERY difficult to lose "blue blood" status. It requires a LOT of less-than-mediocrity, over a very long period of time (e.g. Nebraska).
Define “blue blood.”
I can live with "nouveau riche," because it arises from contemporaneous accomplishments. But it IS a status that is much easier to lose. If a "nouveau riche" manages to STAY "riche" long enough, he can BECOME a "blue blood," but it takes a LOT of "riche" over an extended period of time. LSU was approaching this threshold, until the current debacle. They have been demoted back to "trailer trash."
This post was edited on 11/19/25 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 11/19/25 at 2:13 pm to DawginSC
quote:
Are they #1? No. But they're top 5.
Ohio State
ND
Alabama
USCw
Oklahoma
Michigan
Out of curiosity...which two programs listed above are you putting them ahead of?
Posted on 11/19/25 at 2:20 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Is Oklahoma not in the SEC now?
They're Top 3 on ANY list.
Plus they historically have the same jaded mindset of SEC "Scools" outside of Vanderbilt..."We want a university that the football team can be proud of." - Oklahoma president George L. Cross (1960s)
What does it say that, like Missouri, I keep forgetting that they're here
You're right though. I stand corrected. Alabama and Oklahoma.
Posted on 11/19/25 at 2:27 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
Because they beat up on weak SWC teams for most of their existence outspending the powerhouses of Baylor and University of Houston.
Lots of money. Lots of branding
In the end, blue blood (which is a strange thing to obsess over anyway) is just winning record and heavy branding and marketing
Lots of money. Lots of branding
In the end, blue blood (which is a strange thing to obsess over anyway) is just winning record and heavy branding and marketing
Posted on 11/19/25 at 2:28 pm to DawgsLife
quote:The USC Trojans are a perfect example of what I have been saying. A longtime blueblood that has been slowly sinking into Nebraska-like mediocrity over the last 40 years, with a brief but temporary seven-year reprieve under Pete Carroll.
Ohio State
ND
Alabama
USCw
Oklahoma
Michigan
They have been mediocre enough, for long enough, that it is fair to ask whether they have lost blueblood status.
Posted on 11/19/25 at 2:37 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
Darrell Royal. Simple as that. Many peripheral "blue bloods" get one really successful coach and then coast off of those years forever.
Posted on 11/19/25 at 2:40 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
Why do Texas fans believe they are a blue blood?
Deep down, they don't.
Posted on 11/19/25 at 2:42 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Plus they historically have the same jaded mindset of SEC "Scools" outside of Vanderbilt..."We want a university that the football team can be proud of." - Oklahoma president George L. Cross (1960s)
For the record.....
that happened when GL Cross went in front of the Oklahoma State Legislature in February of 1951...
Secondly, Cross' comments were made when a legislator asked him "why the University needed more money"... after Cross had just spent 45 minutes explaining why the University needed an increase in funding.
In other words... he made those comments because he thought the guy was a moron. The comments weren't to be taken seriously.
Posted on 11/19/25 at 2:48 pm to DawginSC
They went over 80 years before they won their first championship and they haven’t one but one championship in the last 54 years
Wins that you rack up during the leather helmet days without any championships to show for it does not make anyone a blue blood
Posted on 11/19/25 at 2:52 pm to Old Sarge
My point exactly. Take away Vince young and a usc collapse and they’re about as relevant in modern college football as Arkansas
Posted on 11/19/25 at 2:52 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
I can't believe people care.
The media says we are. Does it matter? not one bit. It doesn't win games. It does nothing to help recruiting, especially now that nil is in play. Look who we have at head coach. It sure doesn't ensure you'll have the best leading your program.
It's yet another silly topic to fight about. It doesn't matter. It's a status you can point to in order to dull the pain of another season of failure with a pedestrian head coach......wait , what were talking about again?
The media says we are. Does it matter? not one bit. It doesn't win games. It does nothing to help recruiting, especially now that nil is in play. Look who we have at head coach. It sure doesn't ensure you'll have the best leading your program.
It's yet another silly topic to fight about. It doesn't matter. It's a status you can point to in order to dull the pain of another season of failure with a pedestrian head coach......wait , what were talking about again?
Posted on 11/19/25 at 2:57 pm to tBrand
quote:
this stings, especially coming from an Arkansas fan. but the thing that hurts the most is when you guys add an S to the end of Texas to make it Tex-arse like you’re saying Texas is a butt
Well, the official web site is TexAssPorts.com
Posted on 11/19/25 at 2:59 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:the 'sips
Why do Texas fans believe they are a blue blood?
Before 1960, the 'sips were historically a pretty good football team, but would definitely NOT have qualified as a "blueblood."
The Darrell Royal years elevated them into that status, by being JUST good enough for JUST long enough. "Barely" on both points. Akers managed to tread water, but McWilliams and Mackovic ALMOST managed to lose that status for them.
Brown managed to revive their moribund blueblood status. Strong and Herman were basically a McWilliams/Mackovic redux, but they were not QUITE bad enough for QUITE long enough to lose it.
The jury is still out on Sark. The 'sips are not yet on the cusp of another McWilliams/Mackovic or Strong/Herman regression, but I don't see a Royal or Brown redux, either.
======
Swamp Kittens
LSU before about 2000 was basically much like t.u. pre-1960. A good football program, but lacking enough sustained EXTENSIVE success to be a "blueblood."
Three natty titles since 2000 would seem to be enough to confer blueblood statute, but there are a couple of caveats. First, you could argue that there have been too many peaks and valleys since 2000. There is some serious suckage mixed in there with the championships. Second, the longest SUSTAINED period of great teams was only four years.
I come down on the side of "almost, but not quite."
======
Aggy
And before some wag responds with "Aggy sucks," I do not REMOTELY contend that Aggy is a blueblood. Definitely nouveau riche at best, for now.
This post was edited on 11/19/25 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 11/19/25 at 3:14 pm to Gunny Hartman
quote:
Darrell Royal
Had a .762 Winnning % against in a conference where the average ranking of all time wins places a generic team in that conference somewhere in the high 40s (47.8). Mark Richt had a comparable winning % at UGA. .741, against a conference where a generic team is in the low 30s (32.4) in all time wins. Royal coached in a one program conference and had one game a year against anyone with a pulse. During that period Texas averaged 1.2 games per year against opponents ranked in the top 20 and had a winning % of .587 against those ranked opponents. Those opponents averaged a ranking of #13. The only thing blue about that blood is its lack of oxygen outside the body which in this case is the state of Texas.....
Posted on 11/19/25 at 3:19 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
These questions usually come from fans of teams who have never been mentioned in the conversation about who is a blue blood. You have valid point if the criteria is blue bloods are determined by more recent decades.
Posted on 11/19/25 at 4:02 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
For years it was 8 programs (alphabetical order) on r/CFB and Rivals:
Bama
Michigan
Nebraska
ND
Ohio St
OU
USC
Texas
Bama
Michigan
Nebraska
ND
Ohio St
OU
USC
Texas
Posted on 11/19/25 at 4:04 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:And three national championships.
Darrell Royal ... Had a .762 Winnning % against in a conference where the average ranking of all time wins places a generic team in that conference somewhere in the high 40s (47.8). Mark Richt had a comparable winning % at UGA. .741, against a conference where a generic team is in the low 30s (32.4) in all time wins. Royal coached in a one program conference and had one game a year against anyone with a pulse. During that period Texas averaged 1.2 games per year against opponents ranked in the top 20 and had a winning % of .587 against those ranked opponents. Those opponents averaged a ranking of #13. The only thing blue about that blood is its lack of oxygen outside the body which in this case is the state of Texas.....
Posted on 11/19/25 at 4:06 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
Y’all should do a SIG pic bet for the game
Posted on 11/19/25 at 4:15 pm to AwgustaDawg
You are an absolute retard
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News