What do you consider to be a blue blood program?

[The Crimson King]

Without looking at other lists:

True Blue Bloods:
Alabama
USC
Georgia
Notre Dame
Michigan
Nebraska
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas

Iffy Blue Bloods:
Auburn
Florida State (All three Florida schools are in based on recent strength but iffy because of recency)
Florida
Georgia Tech
Miami
LSU
Penn State
Clemson
TAMU
Washington

Why would Georgia be there but not auburn?

 

[Hook'Em0608]

If winning is the main criteria, Nebraska is a must have on the list. If you want to argue Texas's history over Nebraska's, you're delusional.

Championships

Nebraska - 5
Texas - 4

Conference titles

Nebraska - 46
Texas - 32

Top 5 finishes

Texas - 20
Nebraska - 14

Top 10 finishes

Nebraska - 33
Texas - 28

Top 25 finishes

Nebraska - 49
Texas - 48

Losing seasons

Texas - 15
Nebraska - 23

Total wins

Texas - 885
Nebraska - 879

Winning Percentage

Texas - .709
Nebraska - .699

I swear some of you let your hatred of ElTexan effect your brains. You can absolutely make an argument for Texas over Nebraska. And Vice Versa. There is no delusion either way.

 

[Across The Field]

They went 9-1-1 in their first year of existence. They've never had a losing season in their ENTIRE history. If we're going to use serious criteria besides National titles, Florida State is easily the greatest college program. Never had a single season outside of the top 25 either.

Is this serious?

 

[Deep Creek]

Anything else just waters down the definition of blue blood. Theres A lot of history in the definition. Its a title that was earned throughout many years of history of college football Its not a shiny little prize for teams or fans to claim.

The equivalent of "old money" versus "new money"?

 

[Chewbaccer]

Championships

Nebraska - 5
Texas - 4

Conference titles

Nebraska - 46
Texas - 32

Top 5 finishes

Texas - 20
Nebraska - 14

Top 10 finishes

Nebraska - 33
Texas - 28

Top 25 finishes

Nebraska - 49
Texas - 48

Losing seasons

Texas - 15
Nebraska - 23

Total wins

Texas - 885
Nebraska - 879

Winning Percentage

Texas - .709
Nebraska - .699

I swear some of you let your hatred of ElTexan effect your brains. You can absolutely make an argument for Texas over Nebraska. And Vice Versa. There is no delusion either way.

Honestly, I'm pretty surprised at how good Texas's history is. I'd still take Nebraska over them, but point taken. I have no opinion of el-Texan, just ignorance on my part of the history of Texas football.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

The equivalent of "old money" versus "new money"?

by definition of the term blue blood and its origins no. Eltexan is correct

 

[Jakology]

Is this serious?

Already covered. I fucked up. I was looking at their football wiki and only looked at the winning seasons chart.

 

[Smart]

Why would Georgia be there but not auburn?

Their resumes are pretty close to identical, you are right. 55-55 head to head. I was going based on my general impressions of each.

I think Georgia seems more blue bloodish because they clearly have the most iconic coach (Dooley). Auburn's winningest coach (Jordan) only won one SEC title and their most successful coach (Dye) was pushed out because of cheating and general ineffectiveness.

All of the other blue bloods have at least one very iconic coach. That's almost a requirement to be a blue blood. Auburn doesn't have that.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Michigan - 910 wins @ 73%, 11(claimed) mNCs, 3 Heismans, 42 Conference Championships

* Michigan went undefeated in 1992 but didn't get awarded a national title.

Texas - 875 wins @ 71%, 4 mNCs, 2 Heismans, 32 Conference Championships

Notre Dame - 874 wins @ 73%, 11 mNCs, 7 Heismans,

* did you know that Notre Dame could technically claim a 2012 national championship? They should pull an Auburn.

Nebraska - 865 wins @ 70%, 5 mNCs, 3 Heismans, 43 Conference Championships

Ohio State - 849 wins @ 71%, 7 mNCs, 7 Heismans, 36 Conference Championships

Oklahoma - 842 wins @ 71%, 7 mNCs, 5 Heismans, 44 Conference Championships

Alabama - 838 wins @ 71%, 15 claimed mNCs, 1 Heisman, 27 Conference Championships

USC - 796 wins @ 70%, 11 mNCs (10 after stripped), 7* Heismans (6 after stripped), 36 Conference Championships

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Their resumes are pretty close to identical, you are right. 55-55 head to head. I was going based on my general impressions of each.

I think Georgia seems more blue bloodish because they clearly have the most iconic coach (Dooley). Auburn's winningest coach (Jordan) only won one SEC title and their most successful coach (Dye) was pushed out because of cheating and general ineffectiveness.

All of the other blue bloods have at least one very iconic coach. That's almost a requirement to be a blue blood. Auburn doesn't have that.

Neither fit the criteria

 

[Chewbaccer]

Neither fit the criteria

Who established this criteria exactly?

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Why would that surprise you?

Oh yeah, you're only 24

This topic has been beat to death over the years hasn't it? Almost makes it worth bumping the old thread to compare opinions from the old school and new school

 

[occupant]

Blue bloods have tradition AND championships.

OU
Alabama
Notre Dame
Ohio State
USC
Nebraska

almost there....
texico
Florida State
Miami

 

[outofyourmind]

Championships

Nebraska - 5
Texas - 4

Conference titles

Nebraska - 46
Texas - 32

Top 5 finishes

Texas - 20
Nebraska - 14

Top 10 finishes

Nebraska - 33
Texas - 28

Top 25 finishes

Nebraska - 49
Texas - 48

Losing seasons

Texas - 15
Nebraska - 23

Total wins

Texas - 885
Nebraska - 879

Winning Percentage

Texas - .709
Nebraska - .699

I swear some of you let your hatred of ElTexan effect your brains. You can absolutely make an argument for Texas over Nebraska. And Vice Versa. There is no delusion either way.

And Oklahoma played both for 80 years.

 

[Chewbaccer]

Their resumes are pretty close to identical, you are right. 55-55 head to head. I was going based on my general impressions of each.

I think Georgia seems more blue bloodish because they clearly have the most iconic coach (Dooley). Auburn's winningest coach (Jordan) only won one SEC title and their most successful coach (Dye) was pushed out because of cheating and general ineffectiveness.

All of the other blue bloods have at least one very iconic coach. That's almost a requirement to be a blue blood. Auburn doesn't have that.

56-55 now in favor of Georgia.

Is there a shit eating grin smiley?

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Who established this criteria exactly?

College football history the criteria for true blue bloods has already been written. And attempted to be rewritten over. And no matter how it's been spun in several discussions it's always ended I. The same result. The tradition and numbers speak for themselves. There are true blue bloods then everyone else.

 

[Across The Field]

Michigan - 910 wins @ 73%, 11(claimed) mNCs, 3 Heismans, 42 Conference Championships

* Michigan went undefeated in 1992 but didn't get awarded a national title.

Texas - 875 wins @ 71%, 4 mNCs, 2 Heismans, 32 Conference Championships

Notre Dame - 874 wins @ 73%, 11 mNCs, 7 Heismans,

* did you know that Notre Dame could technically claim a 2012 national championship? They should pull an Auburn.

Nebraska - 865 wins @ 70%, 5 mNCs, 3 Heismans, 43 Conference Championships

Ohio State - 849 wins @ 71%, 7 mNCs, 7 Heismans, 36 Conference Championships

Oklahoma - 842 wins @ 71%, 7 mNCs, 5 Heismans, 44 Conference Championships

Alabama - 838 wins @ 71%, 15 claimed mNCs, 1 Heisman, 27 Conference Championships

USC - 796 wins @ 70%, 11 mNCs (10 after stripped), 7* Heismans (6 after stripped), 36 Conference Championships

Actually, one of those national titles for OSU isn't a "mNC". It's a NC.

 

[Chewbaccer]

College football history the criteria for true blue bloods has already been written. And attempted to be rewritten over. And no matter how it's been spun in several discussions it's always ended I. The same result. The tradition and numbers speak for themselves. There are true blue bloods then everyone else.

Eh, I think it's all a matter of opinion and everyone has a right to have their own opinion of the meaning of a term.

A long history, national championships, a large fan base, revenue, NFL stars, etc.

It's not set in stone.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Actually, one of those national titles for OSU isn't a "mNC". It's a NC.

Ohio state fits the criteria personally I'm not sure why people obsess the topic of blue bloods. The definition is clear and written in history,stats and traditions that are not comparable. I remember this talk from ESPN to SportsHoopla and it spanned several other forums of discussion.As well as been discussed in several other threads and scenarios throughout the years. Heres the Florida state argument from last year , Blue bloods are a piece of college football history and will remain an elite group that will never change. Its like trying to compare george bush to george washington
Is FSU a blue blood of cfb | SportsHoopla Sports Forums

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Eh, I think it's all a matter of opinion and everyone has a right to have their own opinion of the meaning of a term.

A long history, national championships, a large fan base, revenue, NFL stars, etc.

It's not set in stone.

And opinions are like are not facts nor do they change history or definitions. When someone can find a team that fits the criteria and resumes set by the teams that earned their status of blue blood they we can talk. But its not going to be in our lifetime...........