Started By
Message
re: Why do Texas fans believe they are a blue blood?
Posted on 11/21/25 at 11:09 am to lewis and herschel
Posted on 11/21/25 at 11:09 am to lewis and herschel
quote:
I mean Yale and Army are blue bloods as well. Maybe time to reassess.
No they aren't.
Maybe it's time for people to learn what the hell a blue blood is instead.
It's nothing more than a historical label of the teams that were most popular/biggest during the time period in which college football was starting to get more popular nationally. Back in the days when there were only a few games broadcast nationally, it was most often a game involving these teams.
As a result they built up a following across the country.
All this crap about how many national championships and whatever else has nothing to do with it. If you just want to make a list of the best X teams over the past X years, then go ahead and do so. But stop trying to hijack the blue blood label.
1
Posted on 11/21/25 at 11:11 am to 3down10
Yale and Army are absolutely considered college football blue bloods, especially when the term is defined by early and foundational success.
Here’s the breakdown:
---
?? Why Yale Is a Blue Blood
Yale is literally one of the founding pillars of college football.
Their dominance was in the late 1800s–early 1900s, but it was overwhelming.
18 claimed national championships (most all-time)
27 Ivy League championships
Home of Walter Camp, “The Father of American Football”
Created many of the sport’s first tactics, formations, and rules
Yale was the Alabama of the 1880–1910 era.
Even if they don't win now, history-wise they’re blue blood royalty.
---
?? Why Army Is a Blue Blood
Army’s dominance came later than Yale’s but was still era-defining.
3 national championships (1944, 1945, 1946)
Home of Heisman legends:
Doc Blanchard ("Mr. Inside") and Glenn Davis ("Mr. Outside")
One of the most iconic teams in CFB history (the 1940s cadets)
A top program nationwide from the 1940s through 1960s
Army isn’t a modern blue blood, but in historical terms, yes — they helped build the sport’s national identity.
---
? Conclusion
If your criteria is early success, foundational importance, and historical dominance:
?? Yale = DEFINITE blue blood
?? Army = HISTORICAL blue blood
Modern performance isn’t the measure — origin, impact, and titles are.
If you meant a different school by “y’all,” just tell me and I’ll adjust it.
Here’s the breakdown:
---
?? Why Yale Is a Blue Blood
Yale is literally one of the founding pillars of college football.
Their dominance was in the late 1800s–early 1900s, but it was overwhelming.
18 claimed national championships (most all-time)
27 Ivy League championships
Home of Walter Camp, “The Father of American Football”
Created many of the sport’s first tactics, formations, and rules
Yale was the Alabama of the 1880–1910 era.
Even if they don't win now, history-wise they’re blue blood royalty.
---
?? Why Army Is a Blue Blood
Army’s dominance came later than Yale’s but was still era-defining.
3 national championships (1944, 1945, 1946)
Home of Heisman legends:
Doc Blanchard ("Mr. Inside") and Glenn Davis ("Mr. Outside")
One of the most iconic teams in CFB history (the 1940s cadets)
A top program nationwide from the 1940s through 1960s
Army isn’t a modern blue blood, but in historical terms, yes — they helped build the sport’s national identity.
---
? Conclusion
If your criteria is early success, foundational importance, and historical dominance:
?? Yale = DEFINITE blue blood
?? Army = HISTORICAL blue blood
Modern performance isn’t the measure — origin, impact, and titles are.
If you meant a different school by “y’all,” just tell me and I’ll adjust it.
Posted on 11/21/25 at 11:12 am to 3down10
quote:
From NCAA.com...which does recognize multiple champions in some years.
quote:
The NCAA does not recognize national championships. I'd love for anyone to show me the official formula the NCAA uses for recognizing national championships.
Noted:
NCAA.com - Football Championship History
Technically, I was saying the website recognized champions. A few more years in the English as a Second Language (ESL) classes and I'm sure you will get the hang of it.
Posted on 11/21/25 at 11:15 am to lewis and herschel
There are 8 blue bloods.
Alabama
Oklahoma
Texas
Nebraska
Ohio St
USC
Michigan
Notre Dame
Alabama
Oklahoma
Texas
Nebraska
Ohio St
USC
Michigan
Notre Dame
Posted on 11/21/25 at 11:21 am to madmaxvol
quote:
Noted:
NCAA.com - Football Championship History
Technically, I was saying the website recognized champions. A few more years in the English as a Second Language (ESL) classes and I'm sure you will get the hang of it.
Ok, so what formula does Turner Sports use to generate the list?
Why does it change every year? They were previously claiming UCF in 2017, now it's just Alabama.
Is it possible it's because it's just what I said it was - just some random editor/writer who makes a list.
Posted on 11/21/25 at 11:22 am to Hawgnsincebirth55
Why do people from Arkansas have a reputation for mating with their cousins?
Posted on 11/21/25 at 12:07 pm to lewis and herschel
So Army attained blue blood status mainly due to the performances of two players and the popularity of the U.S. Army as a result of World War II?
Posted on 11/21/25 at 12:21 pm to DawginSC
quote:
quote:
Ohio State
ND
Alabama
USCw
Oklahoma
Michigan
In what metric?
Historical success? none of them. Texas fits in the next group of 3-4 teams which are still blue bloods.
Current job desireability? Theyre ahead of USC, Michigan, ND and OU. the amount of money they have and the location of the school in relation to talent puts texas ahead of those teams by a significant amount.
OU has to hit Texas to get talent. Michigan has to hit Ohio as well as going nation-wide. ND has no local talent of note. USC is not financially supportive of football (both the state of California and SC's internal use of finances) to remain a tthe top of the CFB landscape.
Texas is a top 5 job. Right now I'd say those jobs are Bama, OSU, UGA, Texas... and a gap before a group of other teams fighting for the 5th spot.
That takes into account the resources the school has, the commitment the school has to spending resources, having reasonable expectations, having great recruiting for both HS players and through the transfer portal and having less influence from the school or boosters into football decisions.
History plays a huge role in some of those, but it's not the only thing. UGA is a top 5 job but UGA is NOT a blue blood.
Texas is both. They're a top 7-8 school all-time and a top 5 job right now.
Outside of the history A&M has everything you listed as an advantage Texas has, if anything we are closer to the Houston Metro as well. Money are resources are equal, you could argue Texas has a little more of X but then A&M has a little more of Y. Neither has limitations in that regard.
Texas is a political nightmare for a coach though. Remember they ran off both DKR and Mack Brown much less everyone else. It's a great job because of the resources but you have a dozen folks who are sticking their fingers in the pie, even DKR had that problem and he won 3 Nattys for them and he finally quit even though he was a relatively young man. A lot of coaches want to be given the keys to the car and that will never happen at Texas.
Posted on 11/21/25 at 2:28 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
Texas has without a doubt the most toxic, meddlesome boosters in all of CFB. The pressure of unreasonable expectations is so intense that the coaches on the chopping block look like they are headed to their execution and would prefer a bullet in the head.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News