Started By
Message

re: Why is Texas considered a blue blood program in football

Posted on 3/27/25 at 6:36 pm to
Posted by lsuson
Metairie
Member since Oct 2013
13977 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 6:36 pm to
They aren’t
Posted by 3down10
Member since Sep 2014
30934 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 6:39 pm to
Texas was popular/relevant in the 50s 60s and 70s.

LSU was not until the 2000s.

Posted by BigBro
Member since Jul 2021
17774 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 6:40 pm to
quote:

They literally made a living being Barry Switzer's bitch.

Switzer was 9-5-2 against Texas from 1973-1988.

Idk if 2 games makes us his bitch, but he definitely got the best of us..

quote:

Texas was just as irrelevant before Mack Brown going back to Darrell Royal.

Darrell Royal made us a blue blood.. not Mack Brown. I'd say Darrell Royal is pretty relevant to the discussion.
Posted by Rosenblatt91
Member since Mar 2025
162 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 6:40 pm to
Blue bloods means 1 national title in 54 years? Who the frick would want to be a blue blood? Might as well call it loser football program.
Posted by themetalreb
Mississippi
Member since Sep 2018
6010 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 6:44 pm to
Texas is a blue blood? Since when?
Posted by BigBro
Member since Jul 2021
17774 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 6:44 pm to
quote:

Blue bloods means 1 national title in 54 years? Who the frick would want to be a blue blood? Might as well call it loser football program.

Sounds like the people complaining in this thread would like to be called blue bloods.. and next week when this topic comes up again.. you can add them to the list too.. and the following week too.. rinse and repeat..

PS: Thank the Lord chicken allows us to block users like you..

BLOCK [ on ] off
Posted by 3down10
Member since Sep 2014
30934 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 6:46 pm to
quote:


I wouldn’t go that far. It’s funny to me yall have been this ‘dominant force’ for decades and were only able to muster up 4 titles. Like LSU.


You seem to think blue blood means something it doesn't.

Blue bloods are the teams that were popular when the sport started to gain national TV attention. As a result, they generally have the largest fan bases and most loyal fans. In the old days, TV time and things like that weren't as common, so being on a team that got on national TV was a big deal. Those types of things helped with recruiting and all that.

That's all it means. Many of those advantages don't even exist anymore due to so much TV time, NIL and so on. I wish people would quit getting so bent over the term and quit trying to redefine it. If you want to make a list of teams with most national titles and all that, best programs in history or whatever go ahead.

There are 8 blue bloods and it's not going to change.
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 6:47 pm
Posted by Darindawg
Member since May 2022
3161 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 6:47 pm to
First of all, there's no such thing as a 'blood blue'. This is an illusionary term that really means Jack. The only thing that matters is who is currently winning and winning championships. Texas obviously does NOT fit into this criteria.
Posted by billjamin
Houston
Member since Jun 2019
15134 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 7:17 pm to
quote:

BLOCK [ on ] off

A blue blood would never resort to such a bitch move
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 7:17 pm
Posted by Cheese Grits
Wherever I lay my hat is my home
Member since Apr 2012
58894 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 7:19 pm to
Texas = Georgia Tech

Both have 4 Natty's

Gay Frat Dudes > nerds

Posted by Rosenblatt91
Member since Mar 2025
162 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 7:21 pm to
quote:

BigBro



texas fans hate facts. 1 NC in 54 years is laughable
Posted by tBrand
Member since Oct 2022
1570 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 7:22 pm to
did you get banned again NFLSU?
Posted by SoFla Tideroller
South Florida
Member since Apr 2010
35781 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 7:23 pm to
Except for Michigan, no one has done less with more than Texas.
Posted by Jyrdis
TD Premium Member Level III
Member since Aug 2015
13109 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 7:25 pm to
I didn’t realize Texas was. I wouldn’t consider them one.
Posted by Hold da Mayo
Member since Dec 2024
839 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 7:29 pm to
Who said LSU isn’t. LSU head over heels better than Texas this century it’s not even close
Posted by AtlantaLSUfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2009
25226 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 7:52 pm to
quote:

Texas was popular/relevant in the 50s 60s and 70s. LSU was not until the 2000s

Geez what a bad post. LSU is undisputed national champions 1959. Far from irrelevant.
Posted by GoGators1995
Member since Jan 2023
4643 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:04 pm to
Texas is 4th in wins and 6th in win percentage. Can't go by mythical national "titles" in CFB.
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 8:11 pm
Posted by 3down10
Member since Sep 2014
30934 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:50 pm to
quote:


Geez what a bad post. LSU is undisputed national champions 1959. Far from irrelevant.


I think you mean 1958, Syracuse won it in 1959. Auburn won it in 1957, so winning a single national championship doesn't make you a blue blood.

Talking about sustained success over time while getting national attention.
Posted by 3down10
Member since Sep 2014
30934 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:51 pm to
quote:

Texas is 4th in wins and 6th in win percentage. Can't go by mythical national "titles" in CFB.


You can't go by history to understand where the term blue blood comes from?

This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 8:52 pm
Posted by GoGators1995
Member since Jan 2023
4643 posts
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:26 pm to
Like a moth to a flame.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on X and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter