Is FSU a blue blood of cfb

[Tharvot]

Agreed. Hell of a job by O'Brien to keep the ship from completely sinking. And the Franklon hire was really good.

B1G should be celebrating as a whole after the recent news. The conference must have PSU as a viable program again.

And IMO, they are on their way to just that. I also think they will sustain success.

I'm happy for them. The conference needs another contender. We've been waiting for Michigan to get their shit together since '08 and Nebraska seems mired in the middle of the road. MSU and Wisconsin have been very strong recently, but who knows how long that will last.

 

[WhiteMamba]

To me there are only two teams that can sustain high end success currently in b1g.

Ohio 1st then PSU

Michigan could definitely join that group with the right coach. Wisky is there now I guess also. But I am curious to see what their results are say 2014-2017 with Anderson.

MSU is a very good program, with a great team now. But can they sustain it for 5 years? Not sure.

 

[ericd7633]

In the last 40 years just off the top of my head they have to be considered a top 5 program. The run they had from 1987 to 2001 is absolutely insane. They don't have the history of some of the other teams that have been playing football forever, but I'll take their future as a program over almost every program.

 

[FSUmanager]

Very rarely do I agree with or have to give a thumbs up an ND fan.

Thanks a lot eric.

 

[LawDawg]

The term "blue blood" in college football or society inherently denotes a long past during which time there was wealth and greatness at some level.

If you look at the term as it applies to US society, there are many "blue blood" families that have fallen on hard times of late, while there is the nouveau riche who are doing great now but don't have any history of wealth and or greatness.

I can't argue with the list above. And, FSU, Oregon, UF, etc. would be deemed nouveau riche.

Teams like UT, Auburn, UGa (just looking at SEC), who can't be nouveau riche by definition, but also aren't blue blood, would have to be classified as upper class?

 

[WhiteMamba]

The term "blue blood" in college football or society inherently denotes a long past during which time there was wealth and greatness at some level.

If you look at the term as it applies to US society, there are many "blue blood" families that have fallen on hard times of late, while there is the nouveau riche who are doing great now but don't have any history of wealth and or greatness.

I can't argue with the list above. And, FSU, Oregon, UF, etc. would be deemed nouveau riche.

Teams like UT, Auburn, UGa (just looking at SEC), who can't be nouveau riche by definition, but also aren't blue blood, would have to be classified as upper class?

That is mighty big company you put Oregon with.

Thanks.

 

[LawDawg]

That is mighty big company you put Oregon with.

Thanks.

Perhaps I should have mentioned you are renting the carriage house?

 

[WhiteMamba]

Perhaps... Naaaah.....

 

[ericd7633]

Very rarely do I agree with or have to give a thumbs up an ND fan.

Thanks a lot eric.

It's just common sense to me. This whole discussion is dumb to me. I'd rather base programs on where they going instead of what they've done especially anything that was over 30-40 years ago. Because that means nothing now. For example ND is #1 in all time winning percentage, I believe. What the hell good does that do them now? ND hasn't been a top 10 program in the last 2 decades. It looks as they Kelly may be able to turn that around and get them back to where they were, but tradition doesn't get you good players this day and age.

 

[LawDawg]

It's just common sense to me. This whole discussion is dumb to me. I'd rather base programs on where they going instead of what they've done especially anything that was over 30-40 years ago. Because that means nothing now. For example ND is #1 in all time winning percentage, I believe. What the hell good does that do them now? ND hasn't been a top 10 program in the last 2 decades. It looks as they Kelly may be able to turn that around and get them back to where they were, but tradition doesn't get you good players this day and age.

Oh, the irony.

 

[jjc2009]

Oh, the irony.

What's ironic about what he said? It's a very honest and sober assessment about his team. Not many ND fans have the guts to call it like it is. Having said that, I don't agree with his position on this thread. I don't consider FSU, Miami or UF to be in the "blue blood" conversation. They all have had great runs in college football, but their history of greatness can be written after 1980. And even then, they have had down periods over that time. Yes. FSU had a great run where they were top 4. Hard to deny they've been consistently good for over the last 30 years or so, the last few years of Bobby's reign and the first couple of years of Jimbo's tenure were iffy. But let's face it, most of the "blue bloods" were making college football history when FSU was still just a girls' school. With demographic shifts south, the talent landscape has changed, and schools like FSU can reload quicker, but I guess at present, they don't pass the eye test in that category

 

[jjc2009]

As an addendum, we finished ranked 4th (3rd) in coaches poll in 2012, so we have finished in the top ten as early as two years ago.

 

[FSUmanager]

What's ironic about what he said? It's a very honest and sober assessment about his team. Not many ND fans have the guts to call it like it is. Having said that, I don't agree with his position on this thread. I don't consider FSU, Miami or UF to be in the "blue blood" conversation. They all have had great runs in college football, but their history of greatness can be written after 1980. And even then, they have had down periods over that time. Yes. FSU had a great run where they were top 4. Hard to deny they've been consistently good for over the last 30 years or so, the last few years of Bobby's reign and the first couple of years of Jimbo's tenure were iffy. But let's face it, most of the "blue bloods" were making college football history when FSU was still just a girls' school. With demographic shifts south, the talent landscape has changed, and schools like FSU can reload quicker, but I guess at present, they don't pass the eye test in that category

The other ND fan did not call them a blue blood. He stated over the last 30 yrs they are a top 5 program. Which is what I as an FSU fan said. They are a top tier program, but not a blue blood due to length of play and amount of wins. Now if some want to go by % which I guess the picked # is 70% FSU is quite close at 67.5% win margin.

FSU had 1 down period and that was a 7 yrs stretch at the end of Bobby's run. Jimbo has has seasons of 10, 9, 12, and 14 wins. He is 47-10 over a 4 yr period. Nothing "iffy" about that.

 

[LawDawg]

What's ironic about what he said? It's a very honest and sober assessment about his team. Not many ND fans have the guts to call it like it is. Having said that, I don't agree with his position on this thread. I don't consider FSU, Miami or UF to be in the "blue blood" conversation. They all have had great runs in college football, but their history of greatness can be written after 1980. And even then, they have had down periods over that time. Yes. FSU had a great run where they were top 4. Hard to deny they've been consistently good for over the last 30 years or so, the last few years of Bobby's reign and the first couple of years of Jimbo's tenure were iffy. But let's face it, most of the "blue bloods" were making college football history when FSU was still just a girls' school. With demographic shifts south, the talent landscape has changed, and schools like FSU can reload quicker, but I guess at present, they don't pass the eye test in that category

He said: "I'd rather base programs on where they going instead of what they've done especially anything that was over 30-40 years ago. Because that means nothing now. For example ND is #1 in all time winning percentage, I believe. What the hell good does that do them now? ND hasn't been a top 10 program in the last 2 decades."

The irony is there isn't a team in college football that gets more preferential treatment for what they did more than 30-40 years ago than ND. What good that does them now is that they get preferential treatment in the BCS and in the new format, and they play year after year in Bowl Games they have no right to play in other than what they did more than 30-40 years ago.

 

[Ironbreaker]

This whole discussion is dumb to me. I'd rather base programs on where they going instead of what they've done

ehh? How do you base anything off of plans that havent seen fruition? That seems dumb to me.

The term blue blood is all about what a program has done.

Teams like FSU are a top notch program right on the cusp of being recognized by SI, espn etc as a blue blood program.

The doors not shut. But there has to be a cover charge.

 

[jjc2009]

He said: "I'd rather base programs on where they going instead of what they've done especially anything that was over 30-40 years ago. Because that means nothing now. For example ND is #1 in all time winning percentage, I believe. What the hell good does that do them now? ND hasn't been a top 10 program in the last 2 decades."

The irony is there isn't a team in college football that gets more preferential treatment for what they did more than 30-40 years ago than ND. What good that does them now is that they get preferential treatment in the BCS and in the new format, and they play year after year in Bowl Games they have no right to play in other than what they did more than 30-40 years ago.

Oh what a pant load. Preferential treatment? In the BCS system, ND in order to get an at large bid had to finish in the top 8 in the final poll. In order to do that it could not afford to lose more than 1-2 games. There were many years where an AQ conference champion had 3 or more looses and got a free trip to a BCS game they "didn't deserve. It had to finish top 14 and have other factors play in it's favor to qualify for an at large bid. Time and again, it has been proven that ND's "special treatment" was a myth. Even when it got a slice of the $$ pie from those games, it worked out roughly the equivalent of your average AQ conference scrub that gets a share just for being in a conference but would never sniff a BCS bowl.

And as far as "having no right" to play in a bowl, last I checked, unless you're in a conference and they have to take you, you get invited to those. ND didn't show up with a gun and demand to be put in a bowl. They played well enough to earn a spot. You can say they were overmatched, sure, but they earned the right to be there. Finally, you obviously missed Eric's point with that rant. He clearly wants the team to be better and not live on it's glory days. As you can see, we don't get the automatic benefit of the doubt anymore ala preseason rankings. Several years of underachieving will do that. Can't say the same for the SEC though ahem, South Carolina, certainly unworthy of its preseason hype

 

[nddulac]

The irony is there isn't a team in college football that gets more preferential treatment for what they did more than 30-40 years ago than ND.

What Notre Dame did 30-40 years ago is actually irrelevant. The reason ND gets preferential treatment is that they put butts in the stands, eyes on the TV, and money in the bank. Thinking that the BCS or for that matter the new playoff qualification rules have only to do with wins and losses is naive. It is all about the $$$.

 

[LawDawg]

Oh what a pant load. Preferential treatment? In the BCS system, ND in order to get an at large bid had to finish in the top 8 in the final poll. In order to do that it could not afford to lose more than 1-2 games. There were many years where an AQ conference champion had 3 or more looses and got a free trip to a BCS game they "didn't deserve. It had to finish top 14 and have other factors play in it's favor to qualify for an at large bid. Time and again, it has been proven that ND's "special treatment" was a myth. Even when it got a slice of the $$ pie from those games, it worked out roughly the equivalent of your average AQ conference scrub that gets a share just for being in a conference but would never sniff a BCS bowl.

And as far as "having no right" to play in a bowl, last I checked, unless you're in a conference and they have to take you, you get invited to those. ND didn't show up with a gun and demand to be put in a bowl. They played well enough to earn a spot. You can say they were overmatched, sure, but they earned the right to be there. Finally, you obviously missed Eric's point with that rant. He clearly wants the team to be better and not live on it's glory days. As you can see, we don't get the automatic benefit of the doubt anymore ala preseason rankings. Several years of underachieving will do that. Can't say the same for the SEC though ahem, South Carolina, certainly unworthy of its preseason hype

What a bunch of malarkey. Yes, ND gets preferential treatment, and if you don't think that is true you don't understand college football. Do you realize how often my team would have gone to a BCS bowl if "all" we had to do was come in the top 8? And, my team even had the SEC bias working in their favor. As to 3 losses, other than 2007, I am not aware of any or many years where teams with 3 losses got into any BCS bowl games. Please direct us to those teams and bowls. Then ... "all" you had to do was finish in top 14 to get an at large bid ... pity poor you ... count the number of other teams from AQ conferences that were in the top 14 and didn't get BCS bids. I actually think a good ND is good for college football, but the "special treatment" myth is no such thing.

By the way, I understood the rant ... it didn't make the post any less ironic.

 

[jjc2009]

What a bunch of malarkey. Yes, ND gets preferential treatment, and if you don't think that is true you don't understand college football. Do you realize how often my team would have gone to a BCS bowl if "all" we had to do was come in the top 8? And, my team even had the SEC bias working in their favor. As to 3 losses, other than 2007, I am not aware of any or many years where teams with 3 losses got into any BCS bowl games. Please direct us to those teams and bowls. Then ... "all" you had to do was finish in top 14 to get an at large bid ... pity poor you ... count the number of other teams from AQ conferences that were in the top 14 and didn't get BCS bids. I actually think a good ND is good for college football, but the "special treatment" myth is no such thing.

By the way, I understood the rant ... it didn't make the post any less ironic.

For your edification. And this was just through 2009 when this article was written. See, being in an AQ conference had a distinct advantage over being an independent. All you had to do was suck less than everyone else and you got to go. ND never got to go with more than two losses. Facts don't lie, you just parrot what the babbling heads say on TV.
Notre Dame and the BCS: The ?Notre Dame Rule? » Archive » Clashmore Mike

 

[ericd7633]

He said: "I'd rather base programs on where they going instead of what they've done especially anything that was over 30-40 years ago. Because that means nothing now. For example ND is #1 in all time winning percentage, I believe. What the hell good does that do them now? ND hasn't been a top 10 program in the last 2 decades."

The irony is there isn't a team in college football that gets more preferential treatment for what they did more than 30-40 years ago than ND. What good that does them now is that they get preferential treatment in the BCS and in the new format, and they play year after year in Bowl Games they have no right to play in other than what they did more than 30-40 years ago.

Couldn't be more wrong about this. In what years when ND made a BCS game was it not warranted? 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2012 ND was very warranted of being in that game. Did they perform well in those games, no, but that doesn't mean they didn't deserve to go to them based on their results from the regular season. You can make a case they don't get preferential treatment because they could have easily been picked in 2002 as well. Ranked 10th at the time, had 4 wins over teams that finished the year in the top 25.

As for the new playoff, it's not ND's past that will get them in. You realize ND plays annually one of the toughest schedules in the country? They go 11-1 or 12-0 with that schedule they should be included most years depending on how the rest of the country shakes out.