Does being a blue blood really mean anything?

[knowyourenemy]

No they didn't.

Co-national champ, 1869.

 

[Mistaken4193]

Sick diss of Auburn man.

Fuck them. They had 3 good seasons...1 with an all-time player that carried a team that would have otherwise been 6-6 to a National Title, another where they were literally maybe the luckiest team in CFB history.....2004 was a legit good team but they weren’t beating USC.

 

[Chewbaccer]

Co-national champ, 1869.

There's not anyone official that recognizes it, including Rutgers.

 

[mcnabb7542]

No. I'd much rather be Clemson than tell everybody what ND did in the fucking 1920's and 1940's.

Hey man don't forget the early 90's....Lou's teams were fun to watch!

 

[Wild Turkey]

Modern Blue Bloods are:

Bama
Ohio State
LSU
Oklahoma
USC
Clemson
Florida

That’s teams that have done shit since 2000.

"Auburn had the second-most successful decade among SEC teams in the 2010s.

The Tigers won a national championship and two SEC titles, and advanced to two national championship games and three SEC title games. An Auburn player won the Heisman Trophy for the third time in history, and the program added a handful of trophies to their trophy case while winning championships with two coaches (Gene Chizik and Gus Malzahn) and multiple national awards among individuals such as legend Cam Newton." - 247 Sports

You can also add in an undefeated season in 2004.

 

[ericd7633]

Hey man don't forget the early 90's....Lou's teams were fun to watch!

It might as well happened in the 20's and 40's because I have no recollection of it. Lol.

 

[knowyourenemy]

There's not anyone official that recognizes it, including Rutgers.

Rutgers is probably just embarrassed that college football was born there and they haven’t done shit since then.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Fuck them. They had 3 good seasons...1 with an all-time player that carried a team that would have otherwise been 6-6 to a National Title, another where they were literally maybe the luckiest team in CFB history.....2004 was a legit good team but they weren’t beating USC.

Sour grapes.

Auburn has won the last 2 out of 3 against Bama and Gus is 3-4 verses Saban. So GTFO with your BS.

 

[78Cyclones]

It's a stupid term. Programs go in and out of greatness, goodness, badness, etc. mostly based on their current HC. Some schools do stay ahead of the curve more than others, but there is still an ebb and flow.

I judge Alabama on the Saban Era. What happened in the Rose Bowl Era or the Bryant Era really doesn't matter now. Neither does what happened in the Whitworth or DuBose Errors either.

I judge Iowa State on the Campbell Era. What happened under Johnny Majors, Earle Bruce, Jim Walden or Gene Chizik didn't have anything to do with Iowa State losing to Notre Dame yesterday.

I suppose it is fun to talk about (Alabama History) or ignore (Iowa State History), but it's not going to win or lose a football game for either team based on what happened in 1925, 1955, 1975 or 2000 with either of these (or any other) teams.

 

[kburjr]

It's a stupid term. Programs go in and out of greatness, goodness, badness, etc. mostly based on their current HC. Some schools do stay ahead of the curve more than others, but there is still an ebb and flow.

I judge Alabama on the Saban Era. What happened in the Rose Bowl Era or the Bryant Era really doesn't matter now. Neither does what happened in the Whitworth or DuBose Errors either.

I judge Iowa State on the Campbell Era. What happened under Johnny Majors, Earle Bruce, Jim Walden or Gene Chizik didn't have anything to do with Iowa State losing to Notre Dame yesterday.

I suppose it is fun to talk about (Alabama History) or ignore (Iowa State History), but it's not going to win or lose a football game for either team based on what happened in 1925, 1955, 1975 or 2000 with either of these (or any other) teams.

Ah, but the history of the game is interesting too. I have better memories of Wisconsin beating #1 OSU in 2010 than our 12-0 regular season 2017. When you get my age, memories fill a lot more space than any single game.

 

[78Cyclones]

Ah, but the history of the game is interesting too. I have better memories of Wisconsin beating #1 OSU in 2010 than our 12-0 regular season 2017. When you get my age, memories fill a lot more space than any single game.

Oh, I love CFB History as much or more as the next fella! I'm just saying that it doesn't make a difference on who wins and loses games TODAY.

 

[trojanfan12]

It matters, but not as much as it used to. Because of the 24/7 news/sports cycle, players are exposed to a lot more teams than they used be.

Back in the day, you pretty much only saw the blue bloods on tv. Now, you can see just about anyone.

Being a "blue blood" makes it easier to recover from down times.

I look, for example at USC. If Helton gets the right replacements for the coaches who just got let go and USC wins the PAC next year...or the fire Helton and bring in a known coach, they'll be back virtually overnight because higher end recruits will start signing again.

Heck, even though the team and school have had turmoil for several years now, this recruiting season is the first one where recruiting had a big drop off. I think a lot of that has to do with having "blue blood status".

 

[Chewbaccer]

It matters, but not as much as it used to. Because of the 24/7 news/sports cycle, players are exposed to a lot more teams than they used be.

Back in the day, you pretty much only saw the blue bloods on tv. Now, you can see just about anyone.

Being a "blue blood" makes it easier to recover from down times.

I look, for example at USC. If Helton gets the right replacements for the coaches who just got let go and USC wins the PAC next year...or the fire Helton and bring in a known coach, they'll be back virtually overnight because higher end recruits will start signing again.

Heck, even though the team and school have had turmoil for several years now, this recruiting season is the first one where recruiting had a big drop off. I think a lot of that has to do with having "blue blood status".

I'm not saying you're wrong, but being in a prime location for recruiting has a lot to do with that as well. The top recruits from Cali have been going elsewhere to play in college. The right USC coach can fix that, but I'd say that has more to do with location than history.

 

[kburjr]

That list of bluebloods would be a hellyva schedule. Get 'er done, Barry

 

[trojanfan12]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but being in a prime location for recruiting has a lot to do with that as well. The top recruits from Cali have been going elsewhere to play in college. The right USC coach can fix that, but I'd say that has more to do with location than history.

If that were the case, then UCLA should be a lot better historically. Especially since scholarship limits were instituted. USC can't just sign everybody anymore. The area where UCLA is located, is a nicer area than where USC is.

Location definitely helps. So, not saying you're wrong about that. But you still have to offer more than a good location.

 

[GoldRusher]

It might as well happened in the 20's and 40's because I have no recollection of it. Lol.

ND was dang good from 1988 til Lou left. Def Blue blood status at the time.

Now since Lou...some real good years under Kelly but not quite blue blood status.

 

[Bayou Tiger]

Someone tell OP Georgia hasn't been a blue blood since Hershel Walker played there.

 

[Deep Creek]

It's a stupid term. Programs go in and out of greatness, goodness, badness, etc. mostly based on their current HC. Some schools do stay ahead of the curve more than others, but there is still an ebb and flow.

I judge Alabama on the Saban Era. What happened in the Rose Bowl Era or the Bryant Era really doesn't matter now. Neither does what happened in the Whitworth or DuBose Errors either.

I judge Iowa State on the Campbell Era. What happened under Johnny Majors, Earle Bruce, Jim Walden or Gene Chizik didn't have anything to do with Iowa State losing to Notre Dame yesterday.

I suppose it is fun to talk about (Alabama History) or ignore (Iowa State History), but it's not going to win or lose a football game for either team based on what happened in 1925, 1955, 1975 or 2000 with either of these (or any other) teams.

Right now a lot of teams "rich in tradition and history" are what the modern era considers "down". Who gets back to "the top" first? Who never gets back?
USC, Texas, Michigan, Florida State, Nebraska, Tennessee, Florida, Miami, Notre Dame,

 

[mcnabb7542]

Not in today's game.
I think there is more programs picking off the 5* and 4* recruits with the early signing,
then you add the whole transfer portal, ( if Lincoln Riley gets a sound defense built he will land the stud QB's in the portal)

Bama is going to always be Bama as long as Saban is there, Dabo is continuing to build his under dog monster year in and year out, tOSU selected a good head coach that if he sticks around can also be in the hunt every year.

So as of today I see 3 legit blue bloods left and everyone else trying to keep up or slide in one year and steal the title away.

 

[78Cyclones]

Right now a lot of teams "rich in tradition and history" are what the modern era considers "down". Who gets back to "the top" first? Who never gets back?
USC, Texas, Michigan, Florida State, Nebraska, Tennessee, Florida, Miami, Notre Dame,

Tough question! None of them have an awe inspiring HC at the moment that I think can make them an Elite program year in and year out. Kelly has done the most but hit a glass ceiling in 2012 and 2018. I think Mullen @ UF is in that category. Harbaugh and Herman are capable of building Elite programs - if they are given time (like Dabo was at Clemson), and the new FSU coach has potential. Frost too, I suppose. USC, Tennessee and Miami are sinking ships.