Started By
Message
re: Why is Texas considered a blue blood program in football
Posted on 3/27/25 at 10:56 pm to samson73103
Posted on 3/27/25 at 10:56 pm to samson73103
John Macovic was a great coach lol
0
Posted on 3/27/25 at 10:57 pm to LSUbacchus81
Because when you have 50 10 win seasons you get the title. They won a shite ton of games in the southwest conference. They been more than shite in the big 12. OU has owned the conference
Posted on 3/27/25 at 11:07 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
If you are not #1 in your region, how can your blood be blue
So are you leaving out Duke or UNC?
Oho State or Michigan?
Kentucky or Indiana?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 11:22 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Oklahoma > Nebraska > Texas > Arkansas
Texas was 10-2 vs Nebraska when both were in the big 12. Texas owned Nebraska.
The Tx-OU rivalry is about as even as it gets.
Texas also owns Arkansas dating back to SWC
Come up with something that doesn’t sound so stupid.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 11:27 pm to GoGators1995
Thanks for condensing your usual posts for a quick truth.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 11:28 pm to 3down10
Thanks for agreeing that national title claims are mythical.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 12:57 am to GoGators1995
quote:
Thanks for agreeing that national title claims are mythical.
National Championships are awarded.
Keep crying because you dislike history.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 1:39 am to HTX Horn
After all that y’all still only have 1 natty in the last 54 years. Y’all are almost in Michigan territory with 2 in the last 75 years and still claiming blue blood status. Of all 8 teams that are considered blue bloods only 3 of the 8 have won a natty in the last 2 decades. LSU has won 3 in a 22 year period with a title game in place for all of them. This wasn’t some random vote from writers. If they would have voted on the 85 champion before the Fiesta Bowl Miami would have another natty. Same with Ohio St in 06 and 07. Pretty much any natty before the advent of a title game I look at with suspicion.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 1:42 am to 3down10
Awarded and winning them on the field are two completely different things. If it weren’t for the BCS and a title game Ohio State would have been “awarded” back to back nattys in 06 and 07. When in reality they actually won 0 and were curb stomped in both games. Same with the 85 title. If Miami doesn’t play Penn St in the bowl game they win the natty. A defacto championship game stopped them from being “awarded” a title they didn’t deserve.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:14 am to BigBro
quote:
Duke or UNC?
Neither is a football blue blood, but in basketball, UNC has multiple Natty's with multiple coaches. Duke did it with a single coach and has not repeated
UNC = blue blood
Ruke = rocket
Bucknuts > MeatChicken
Kentucky = SEC / Southern Blueblood
Indiana = B1G / Midwestern Blueblood (tho down, still draws fans)
Are you new to sports and can't really tell the difference?
Kentucky = Blueblood
UCLA = Rocket with single coach who cheated
If it helps in football
Notre Dame = USA
BuckNuts = B1G / Midwest
Alabama = SEC / South
Oklahoma = SWC + Big 8 + Big 12 / Southwest
USC = PAC / West Coast
Alll are #1 in a conference / market
All have multiple Natty's
All have eras of Natty's, not a single era
All have multiple coaches, not a single rocket coach
Georgia Tech has 4 Natty's with 4 coaches in 4 eras and several different conferences
Texas has 4 Natty's with 2 coaches (3+1) in 2 eras in same basic conference
My question stands, do yo consider Georgia Tech a blue blood?
They are good I will grant you that, but have less than at least 1 school inn their market who has shown stamina over time, not in rocket bursts. If it helps, DKR has 3 of Texas 4 Natties, take him out and would anybody serious consider Texas a blueblood?
A prince may be king, but their is only 1 king
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:17 am to HTX Horn
quote:
Come up with something that doesn’t sound so stupid.
Yes that would be nice of you without the burnt orange Kool Aid
I can cherry pick any dat in shorter periods and "make" them look better but it does not make it true.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:17 am to HTX Horn
Wasn't that cheese grits guy kicked off the Texas board. He still seems salty
This post was edited on 3/28/25 at 4:18 am
Posted on 3/28/25 at 5:10 am to LSUbacchus81
Being top 5 all time wins vs God knows where your dog water arse lands on the list....
Posted on 3/28/25 at 5:24 am to Pimphand
quote:
Being top 5 all time wins
MeatChicken can still make that claim? (they could at least until the past 20 years when I followed it more)
Sounds really good unless you lived longer than most or are nerdy enough to actually research the games.
Look back at the first 50 - 100 years of MeatChicken football and look ate the ratio of home game heavy schedule with little or no return game of the opponent. Look at the same data and parse out the "cupcake" teams on the schedule. Also know that even 100 years ago, audience was where the $$$$ were and that part of the country was oversaturated with sports reporters in the print and radio days.
At least try to understand that unless you have a clue how the history is made you can not adjust for the skewed data.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 5:28 am to Cheese Grits
The amount of mental gymnastics y'all will do to avoid the fact that being blueblood means you have historically been good.
Sorry you didn't make the cut...
Sorry you didn't make the cut...
Posted on 3/28/25 at 5:31 am to LSUbacchus81
quote:
Why is Texas considered a blue blood program in football and lsu is not?
Neither are but LSU has a better argument to be the next in line
Texas = 3 Natty's 1 coach before most on here were born (DKR)
1 Natty 1 coach in modern era (butter tooth)
LSU = 1 Natty 1 coach before most on here were born (PD)
3 Natty's 3 coaches in modern era (Nick, Les, O)
Hence argument if giving modern history greater weight
LSU > Texas
Posted on 3/28/25 at 5:35 am to Pimphand
quote:
blueblood means you have historically been good.
In austin maybe
In the SEC, where you now reside, the bar is a bit higher, where you have MANY historical GOOD teams. Here it is the brass ring, the hardware, and the expectations of being #1 in the nation at the end, not just settling for being #1 in the conference and crowing about it.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 6:01 am to LSUbacchus81
quote:better question why do idiots like you start stupid threads like this? Is it a need for attention?
And lsu is not ?
Posted on 3/28/25 at 6:34 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
Notre Dame = USA BuckNuts = B1G / Midwest Alabama = SEC / South Oklahoma = SWC + Big 8 + Big 12 / Southwest USC = PAC / West Coast
Nope, I set the trap and you took the bait.
ND - USA
OSU - Big 10 - Rose
Bama - SEC - Sugar
OU - Big 8 - Orange
USC - PAC - Rose
Texas - SWC - Cotton
Close, yes.. but not in the same conference until 1996, and we were already a blue blood at that point.
I’m not gonna argue Nebraska and Michigan.. You can think what you want, but there are 8 Blue Bloods.
See you next week, next month, next year this topic comes up.
This post was edited on 3/28/25 at 6:35 am
Posted on 3/28/25 at 6:37 am to Rosenblatt91
quote:
without a mulligan.
Exhibit A.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News