Did your team make the Blue Blood list?

[fredsdeadfriend]

Lol. You are balding with a mullet. Real cool look for the short bus crew.

Is that all you have in your arsenal? WOW, you are pathetic.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

And PSU has been consistent, more so than Nebraska, but that is only in light of Nebraska's recent troubles.

Some think Nebraska's days as a blue blood are done? I think it just might depend on Frost, because at the rate UMn and Wisconsin are moving, I don't think Nebraska has time to screw around with Frost only to let him go and try to find another coach. Eventually the recruits are going to start figuring out NU's days are over. Iowa is also still a contender, until their coach finally decides to retire, and then that may be the end of their days being a contender, too? Unless they can get an Iowa Alum to want to go home, then maybe? But neither UMn or Wisconsin are going anywhere for a very long time I'm thinking, I mean I hope Wisco's coach is not for real, but so far, he's holding his own, and I know Fleck is for real.


The way PSU is going, maybe they can move up and take Nebraska's spot? I mean, not anytime soon, by this time next decade maybe?


And if Minnesota somehow pulls off what all of you think is the impossible and wins another Natty, and starts winning 10+ games consisently, how long before they can be let back into the Blue Blood club? A straight decade of consistently Top 10 finishes with at least 1 title or will more than 1 be needed? Or more than one decade? Maybe the 50 years of not being a blue blood cancel out the previous 7 decades? Maybe they have to make a special rule or category for has been blue bloods that resurrect from the dead and rise again? Any examples of such a thing happening in cbb maybe? Or does UMn's fb success have to extend beyond PJ Fleck to qualify them as officially back to being a blue blood?

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

And if Minnesota somehow pulls off what all of you think is the impossible and wins another Natty,

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

And if Minnesota somehow pulls off what all of you think is the impossible and wins another Natty, and starts winning 10+ games consisently, how long before they can be let back into the Blue Blood club? A straight decade of consistently Top 10 finishes with at least 1 title or will more than 1 be needed? Or more than one decade? Maybe the 50 years of not being a blue blood cancel out the previous 7 decades? Maybe they have to make a special rule or category for has been blue bloods that resurrect from the dead and rise again? Any examples of such a thing happening in cbb maybe? Or does UMn's fb success have to extend beyond PJ Fleck to qualify them as officially back to being a blue blood?

As I said in my comment, if we are just talking recently from say 2000, I would agree that Penn St has been more consistent than Nebraska, but if we are talking since the 1960's or all time, then I we aren't going to agree.

But you bring up an interesting question Fred, what would it take for Minnesota to be considered a blue blood?

I am not trying to bash Minnesota when I say this, but I honestly think it would take a lot, multiple decades. Every blue blood has had tremendous and prolonged success. Take for example, Minnesota has only had 6 double digit winning seasons in their entire existence. Nebraska has had 6 double digit winning seasons since 2000 and everyone practically agrees that this is their worst 2 decades in nearly 70 years.

This is why I have FSU so high on my blue blood list given they have only had around half the amount of seasons as other blue bloods. FSU has been CRAZY successful in a short amount of time. Now obviously their location makes them a prime target for that success, but they had to do it nonetheless. FSU has had 8 double digit winnings seasons... since 2000. And they had a period where they had 14 straight seasons of double digit winning seasons. That's impressive. FSU has had 24 seasons with double digit wins. Take Penn St, they only strung together 4, but they have also had 24 throughout their history. Likewise, Nebraskas best streak is 5 seasons, but have had 28 throughout history.

But all in all, titles speak the loudest. Problem is that Minnesota claims most of their titles from a time before what I think most people would consider as modern football. So I think at least 3-5 titles with consistently putting up say 13 double digit winning seasons out of 20, but keep in mind that the year you aren't at double digits, does not mean 3 wins is acceptable, you still have to be at like 9. Sprinkle in a few heismans and down years for teams in front of you and I could see a significant jump in say 20 years if all that happened.


I think when most people talk about blue bloods and best of all time, they try focus on post WWII (say 1950's) to now. I could be wrong, but I think most people think that because they are trying to bridge together a large amount of time with as modern of football as you can get. Meaning more games, bowls, polls, rankings, etc... That isn't to say that pre WWII doesn't count, but that it is weighted less. Seasons where teams played the local YMCA or Dentist schools and only played 5 games aren't really in contention even IF you were awarded titles (this is a hypothetical, I am not saying this is Minnesota). I also think it is a moving timescale. In the year 2060, people will probably only consider stuff from as far back as the 1980's or 90's when this conversation is happening.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

I think when most people talk about blue bloods and best of all time, they try focus on post WWII (say 1950's) to now. I could be wrong, but I think most people think that because they are trying to bridge together a large amount of time with as modern of football as you can get. Meaning more games, bowls, polls, rankings, etc... That isn't to say that pre WWII doesn't count, but that it is weighted less. Seasons where teams played the local YMCA or Dentist schools and only played 5 games aren't really in contention even IF you were awarded titles (this is a hypothetical, I am not saying this is Minnesota). I also think it is a moving timescale. In the year 2060, people will probably only consider stuff from as far back as the 1980's or 90's when this conversation is happening.

I think that's fair...otherwise you'd have to say that Princeton, Yale, etc. are blue bloods still.

 

[BigRedMoe]

Boston College leads the all time series against Alabama, better apply this logic to them now.

Look at all the other comparative categories other than head to head and get back to me on that one, Karen.

 

[We Are Decent]

@Blackshirts BLVD I must commend you for replying back with a nice response.

1. The past 60 years Penn St has had 5 sub .500 seasons. Nebraska has had 8. I feel like that is splitting hairs, but you brought it up...

The past 60 years Penn St has had 24 double digit winning seasons. Nebraska has had 26.

In that time frame, Penn St won 2 national titles. Nebraska won 5.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have more above .500 seasons with less below .500 rather than having a couple-decade dynasty, then just fade into any regular P5 team.

As for the titles, I once again reaffirm this was only due to bias since Penn State was just an independent team, hence why they moved into Big Ten for a more hopeful recognition.

Evidence being that Penn State had five undefeated seasons between the 60s-90s compared to Nebraska's four during that time, at the latter got the title for all four compared Penn State's just one. I think if PSU was given the same shot as the Midwest/Southern Teams it would've fared better in accolades than what we see now. But that's just my two cents on the subject.

2. That is true. Penn St could beat out Nebraska in total wins in a year or two and given how bad Nebraska has been as of late, I would almost say that it is expected. However, Penn St has also been playing for 3 years longer than Nebraska. One would think that accomplishing more in less time (even if that 'less time' isn't egregious) is better than accomplishing less in more time.

Hmmmm not exactly. But I doubt either of our figures would change much.
Nebraska actually has played more games compared to Penn State playing more years, at least going by adding the all-time record on Wikipedia, though it's still a minor margin of four games just like the three years (face it, football seasons before 1900 were very short, only several games at best)

However, I think we can come to an agreement that these two schools are in the same tier when it just comes down to the basic level of winning all time, my only problem is the consistent side of it

3. Don't bash the conference titles just because you don't have them.

Now, will you now say Nebraska is above Notre Dame is prestige now? Conference Titles are not indicative of success unless if it's a comparison of two schools that were usually in a conference.

I find it funny that you want to be the one to set the timeframes as standards for all these topics. That is called cherry picking. If we are going to talk conference titles, lets keep it fair... Penn St joined a conference in 1993, lets start there.

Since 1993 - Penn St has 2 outright conference titles and 2 split conference titles. Nebraska has had 5 outright conference titles.

It's not called cherry-picking at all my friend. I'm merely picking the most accurate time frames for their respective subject. Conference Championships for this should account for the past two decades while others the past six decades while others just simply all time.

While we're on this, it's ludicrous to act like Nebraska has been better recently with conference titles. All five of those came from the 90s dynasty compared to the void of nothingness that is 21st Century Nebraska football. No. Simply no. PSU has been outclassing Nebraska here, and PSU was located in a harder conference and division vs Nebraska all throughout the century.

4. I am responding with the assumption that your numbers are correct. You can talk about consistency all you want, fact is that Nebraska has been consistently better than Penn St - hence being invited to nearly 10 more NY6 bowls. Penn St is fairly consistent, problem is that they are very rarely consistently at the top. Whereas Nebraska was perennially at the top throughout the much of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's.

Wait a minute? What? My friend, do you know what consistent means? By consistent we talking in the present tense therefore we are talking about now, not if we were in 1998 or whatever. It's been 14 years since the last Nebraska NY6 Bowl and they've only had two this century. Two. PSU achieved more in four years alone. And let's say I knocked off Nebraska's 10 losses of NY6 Bowls, it's still inferior compared to PSU! (.667>.609) Like it or not bud, the Nittany Lions are more consistent at winning, or generally superior when it comes to the NY6. I'd rather win more than appear more! But Nebraska hails from the Midwest, home of the Sooners and Longhorns. Dear god! the bragging of appearing at games just to lose is so common!

5. More 1st rounders makes you more consistent? What's the logic there?

Better collegiate players and overall team chemistry.

I am curious, hopefully you can help me and this is honest and genuine, does Penn St have a draft streak? I couldn't find anything when I tried searching about it. When it comes to Nebraska (since I get updates, feeds, etc on them) I have learned that Nebraska had a streak of players getting drafted that extended every single year all the way back to 1962 up until 2018... that is 56 straight years. Call me biased, but I think THAT is consistency. And you can find that easily just by searching 'nebraska draft streak' in google.

I would expect every P5 team to have a considerable draft streak. Anyway from eyeballing it, PSU has a draft streak from 1940-Present in all but three years (1945, 1951, & 2005) but the 2005 year is excused due to having two players (Robbie Gould & Cameron Wake) being pro-bowlers (with Wake having three straight years!) PSU also has more hall of famers!

6. I'm sorry, do you think that Penn St has been a "consistent top ten" team the past 20 years? Not sure I would consider 6 seasons out of 20 as "consistent" especially since all 6 are not tied together through say 10 years, but spliced throughout the 20 years. No doubt this has been Nebraskas worst couple of decades since the 40's and 50's, I have said that numerous times, none of that makes Penn St better.

When I say consistent Top Ten I mean appeared every year as a Top Ten. Your own mini graph shows PSU and Nebraska clearly being in the same tier as well as showing the downfall of Cornhuskers football, unlike Nittany Lions.
Why do you keep flaunting on the success of decades ago? You're starting to sound like UM/ND fans lite. We get it, you had an incredible three decades, but you haven't been keeping that up. Remember Consistency =/= all time.

One, recent consistency does not negate what a team has done all time in terms of historical consistency. And two, I don't think you meant 'recent consistency' being as how you went as far back as the 60's - 60 years ago.

Two main points i'll be addressing here:
1) Recent consistency can indeed negate or at least affect all-time consistency. Prime examples: Minnesota, Army, Pitt, and to an extent UM/ND. You don't see people saying that these teams are contenders for blue-blood (except the latter) or title contenders despite having actual good success, well those came from Pre-Vietnam/Korean War times, Nebraska is about to be the second wave of that if something doesn't change soon, being a program only known to be good Pre-Afghanistan/Iraq War.
2)

 

[We Are Decent]

2) I only used the time frames for specific things, since past 20 years makes more sense for conference championships and the past 60 years makes more sense for all time winning.

>this is where i lost some progress on writing my response because internet problems so here's a brief summarization of what I wrote after<

-Your fun little fact only serves to help PSU due to the fact it never dropped that hard in terms of rankings unlike Nebraska. Meanwhile when Joe Pa entered the picture, he transformed PSU to a perennial successful team and is still going to date (no losing season since 2004, and I don't see this being broken for some time to be honest.)

-It's actually impossible for Nebraska to be historically more consistent because the Cornhusker's have had a fall in terms of quality the same simply cannot be said for the Nittany Lions. There's really only a few teams on FBS level to consistently "good" overall for the past 60 years.

-I feel like we hit it off wrong I never meant for this to be a PSU vs Nebraska war, I simply thought PSU was a Blue Blood due to consistent success which isn't seen in other Blue Blood teams like Nebraska & USC (first two schools I thought of tbh, I did not intend any shade at them) which I think is it's reason to be in that list. That much we can agree on.

So therefore I think it's better if we leave off here, we both obviously agree that both teams are Blue Bloods, so there's no real purpose in arguing, we simply disagree on a minor subject that can we really be honest here, it's just our personal love bias for our teams getting in the way.

Either way I liked debating with you, it's definitely been way better than some other users (Mr. Ralphie from WVU) so I hope to talk to you some more in the future!

 

[We Are Decent]

Look at all the other comparative categories other than head to head and get back to me on that one, Karen.

You should read my debate with the other person, who seems to be a more respectable and mature.

And seriously Karen? Weak.

 

[BigRedMoe]

You should read my debate with the other person, who seems to be a more respectable and mature.

And seriously Karen? Weak.

How many accounts are you using now?

 

[We Are Decent]

How many accounts are you using now?

One.

I don't even think there's another PSU fan here.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

But you bring up an interesting question Fred, what would it take for Minnesota to be considered a blue blood?

I am not trying to bash Minnesota when I say this, but I honestly think it would take a lot, multiple decades. Every blue blood has had tremendous and prolonged success. Take for example, Minnesota has only had 6 double digit winning seasons in their entire existence.

But all in all, titles speak the loudest. Problem is that Minnesota claims most of their titles from a time before what I think most people would consider as modern football. So I think at least 3-5 titles with consistently putting up say 13 double digit winning seasons out of 20, but keep in mind that the year you aren't at double digits, does not mean 3 wins is acceptable, you still have to be at like 9. Sprinkle in a few heismans and down years for teams in front of you and I could see a significant jump in say 20 years if all that happened.

I know you are not trying to bash Minnesota and I fully agree that it will take time. I don't consider Clemson a Blue Blood right now. And they won't ever be while Dabo is the coach. A true Blue Blood has to transcend beyond one great coach. It's one of the reasons why alot of people hesitate to prop up PSU, because so much of it's historical accomplishments all came under one coach. So for Minnesota, is may take several decades? I'm not even sure they should be considered a blue blood again if Fleck leads them to 3-5 titles, because if UMn need Fleck to win, then they are not a blue blood. I mean, if others want to point to the 8 straight decades that UMn was a blue blood in the past, and want to add all of that to what Fleck does, I'd enjoy seeing that, but I might even be the one arguing against them. UMn dropped the ball, and took so long to pick it up again, I think they have to basically start over. They have to reprove their blue blood status and so I don't think they should regain that status until a coach coming after Fleck wins as well.


But one pet peeve of mine is that TIRED OLD stat of double digit win seasons meaning anything. Who cares. Why is an ACC team winning 10 games better than a Big or SEC team winning 9? The B1G or SEC team with only 9 wins is probably going to get the higher ranking, right? So # of wins, imo, is irrelevant. # of quality teams beaten is how teams should be judged. Seriously, I'd take UMn's four 8-0 seasons where every single one of those 8 teams was a P5 opponent over a 10-3 season every day of the week and ten times on Saturdays. I mean, a 10-3 season might not even get you ranked in the Top 20? UMn's 10-3 season in 2003 wouldn't make my Top 25 list of best Gopher teams. Who did they beat? And who did they lose to? There was an all-time greatest teams list I found last week, that had a Gopher team with 2 losses ranked #36 ALL-TIME!!! So that team only won 7 games, but still ranked Top 10 that year and was very underrated.

I'm just saying, the LAZY reporters who always bring up the bs # of wins crap, "and this is UMn's first season with more than 10 wins since 1904, drives me crazy. It's dishonest and hugely misleading. All they care about is ratings and saying stupid uneducated ignorant shallow crap like that plays well to their stupid lazy uneducated ignorant shallow viewership. No one, almost no one ever even makes any effort to mention that "but hey, that stat is misleading, because for many decades NO ONE played more than 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 games, so many Gopher teams won 7 or 8 games and were crowned Natl Champs by the pollsters as they were the most impressive looking teams, in who they played and how they beat them. How many teams went 9-1, some even being named Natl Champs, but don't qualify by that bs double digit win stat as being as worthy as any average team of modern times that goes 10-3 or even 10-4?

The 2009 Cincy season, for example. A 12-2 season. WOW, 12 wins, right? lol So beating only 1 team in the Top 25, zero in the Top 24, and losing their 2 games to Top Ten teams by HUGE margins, and somehow this season should get more credit than an 8-0 season in the 1930s or 40s? In 1940, UMn played Pac 8 Champs Wash and Big 6 Champs Nebraska in their ooc, beating them both, then went 6-0 vs legit Big Ten teams, 2 of which were ranked Top Ten AFTER getting beaten by UMn. 4 EOS Top Ten opponents UMn beat. It took til THIS YEAR for a team to best that accomplishment, and they had to play 15 frigging teams to do it, too.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

@Blackshirts BLVD I must commend you for replying back with a nice response.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have more above .500 seasons with less below .500 rather than having a couple-decade dynasty, then just fade into any regular P5 team.

You say that because that is kind of what Nebraska did. Difference is that Penn St has BEEN just 'any regular P5 team'.

As for the titles, I once again reaffirm this was only due to bias since Penn State was just an independent team, hence why they moved into Big Ten for a more hopeful recognition.

What bias? Again, schedules matter and every team from the ones I mentioned in my previous post had better schedules and also went undefeated. That's not bias, that's objectivity.

Evidence being that Penn State had five undefeated seasons between the 60s-90s compared to Nebraska's four during that time, at the latter got the title for all four compared Penn State's just one. I think if PSU was given the same shot as the Midwest/Southern Teams it would've fared better in accolades than what we see now. But that's just my two cents on the subject.

1. Nebraska had 5 undefeated seasons in that timeframe (70, 71, 94, 95, and 97). Won the title each and every time.

2. It isn't evidence that there was bias because Penn St was not awarded the titles. Again, fact is that those that were awarded the titles had a better schedule.


Info taken from sports-reference.com

In 94' Penn St beat 4 ranked opponents, one of which was inside the top 10. Nebraska 5 ranked opponents, 2 of which were ranked inside the top ten.

1973 Penn St played 2 ranked opponents, the highest being #13. Notre Dame played 3 ranked opponents, 2 inside the top 10.

1969 Penn St played 2 ranked opponents, 1 of which was top ten. Texas played 3 ranked opponents, all were top ten.

1968 Penn St played one ranked opponent, that opponent was top ten. Ohio St played 4 ranked opponents, 3 were top ten.

1947 Penn St played one ranked opponent, that opponent was top ten. Notre Dame played play ranked opponents, both were top ten.

I mean no disrespect, but what are you talking about? This is not bias, this is fact.

Hmmmm not exactly. But I doubt either of our figures would change much.
Nebraska actually has played more games compared to Penn State playing more years, at least going by adding the all-time record on Wikipedia, though it's still a minor margin of four games just like the three years (face it, football seasons before 1900 were very short, only several games at best)

Yes, we have played more which demonstrates how we have done better. Being invited to more bowls, winning additional games. We have played more games despite Penn St having 3 a year and I believe a 9 game advantage. That is still accomplishing more in less time no matter how you slice it. But I would also agree that this is such a minor stat, that it is irrelevant between our two programs.

Now, will you now say Nebraska is above Notre Dame is prestige now? Conference Titles are not indicative of success unless if it's a comparison of two schools that were usually in a conference.

No, and that is a silly statement. I kept it fair, I did not take Nebraska 46 conference titles and pit them against Penn St. I started from the time Penn St joined a conference. Even from that metric, Nebraska has more conference titles (all of which were outright). It wouldn't be a fair statistic to use against Notre Dame, but as I mentioned to Fred, titles hold the most weight... and Notre Dame has that, hence why I have them above Nebraska on my own BB list.

Conference titles are absolutely indicative of success. I mean this is silly. It is like saying that you don't need to win games to be successful, sorry, but you actually do. It's not the end all be all of success, but is absolutely involved.

While we're on this, it's ludicrous to act like Nebraska has been better recently with conference titles. All five of those came from the 90s dynasty compared to the void of nothingness that is 21st Century Nebraska football. No. Simply no. PSU has been outclassing Nebraska here, and PSU was located in a harder conference and division vs Nebraska all throughout the century.

A few things...

1) How was the big ten a harder conference? In the time frame of these titles, 50% of the Big 8 had been ranked inside the top ten one year. Has the Big 10 ever done that? Seriously asking, I don't know the answer and no one has ever responded. Also from 1990 to the time Nebraska joined the B1G in 2011... the Big8/12 claimed 6 national titles. The Big10 claimed 2 and one of those was split with the Big 12. Harder conference? How?

P.S. The Big8/12 still has more titles even if you didn't want to claim Nebraskas in that time frame.


2) Yes, Penn St has the more recent conference titles. Good for you.

3) 5 outright titles > than 2 outright and 2 split. Just sayin.

Wait a minute? What? My friend, do you know what consistent means? By consistent we talking in the present tense therefore we are talking about now, not if we were in 1998 or whatever. It's been 14 years since the last Nebraska NY6 Bowl and they've only had two this century. Two. PSU achieved more in four years alone. And let's say I knocked off Nebraska's 10 losses of NY6 Bowls, it's still inferior compared to PSU! (.667>.609) Like it or not bud, the Nittany Lions are more consistent at winning, or generally superior when it comes to the NY6. I'd rather win more than appear more! But Nebraska hails from the Midwest, home of the Sooners and Longhorns. Dear god! the bragging of appearing at games just to lose is so common!

No, I am actually afraid that it appears you do not know what consistency means as it can be reflective across differing patterns and timeframes. You are in a thread about blue bloods and claimed that Penn St should be considered a blue blood and also claimed that Penn St wins more than Nebraska even though Nebraska has more wins through less time, never mind that fact that you already contradicted your own statement that initiated all this...

Penn State not being blue blood makes zero sense, to be frank.
Penn State has a consistent side of winning unlike Nebraska & USC.

But we have ourselves to blame, if we were in a conference sooner PSU would've had more chances to prove their worth.

Followed up with...

However, I think we can come to an agreement that these two schools are in the same tier when it just comes down to the basic level of winning all time, my only problem is the consistent side of it

Better collegiate players and overall team chemistry.

Better players, yet we have more overall draft picks.
Better players, yet we have 3 players listed on the all time all america team to Penn Sts one.

How does being a first rounder mean you had overall better team chemistry? If you guys had better team chemistry, you should have won more titles.

But ok, whatever...

I would expect every P5 team to have a considerable draft streak. Anyway from eyeballing it, PSU has a draft streak from 1940-Present in all but three years (1945, 1951, & 2005) but the 2005 year is excused due to having two players (Robbie Gould & Cameron Wake) being pro-bowlers (with Wake having three straight years!) PSU also has more hall of famers!

1. Eyeballing it, I'm sorry I am not trusting that.
2. Those 3 years eliminate your alledged eyeballed streak. Pro bowlers make no difference. Don't try to justify it, it looks sad. It's ok to simply say that you don't/didn't have a streak like that. I wasn't trying to diss you or Penn St (I actually like Penn St a little), I just didn't find anything when I searched for it. How is your super bowl streak of having players play in the super bowl, Nebraska had at least one player play in each of the last 26 or 27 super bowls up until this year with KC eliminating the Titans.

3. Bro, you have ONE more HoF. You can claim it all you want, but it being such a small factor and one that is irrelevant to college football makes it look like you're reaching for a life preserver.

When I say consistent Top Ten I mean appeared every year as a Top Ten. Your own mini graph shows PSU and Nebraska clearly being in the same tier as well as showing the downfall of Cornhuskers football, unlike Nittany Lions.
Why do you keep flaunting on the success of decades ago? You're starting to sound like UM/ND fans lite. We get it, you had an incredible three decades, but you haven't been keeping that up. Remember Consistency =/= all time.

Again, if you want to have a conversation about what each team has done the last 3-5 years, go ahead, you're in the wrong thread and no Nebraska fan would deny how the Huskers have been lately.

But if you want to talk about historical consistency, if you look at that "graph" - it shows that Nebraska up until the very recent was not only consistently top ten, but literally MORE consistenly top ten than Penn St. Shit, we finished ranked inside the top ten zero times from 2010-2019 and we STILL average more top ten finishes than Penn St. You can claim your little 3 seasons this decade, 3 seasons that decade and call it consistency and you wouldn't be wrong... but I will take 7 seasons here, 9 seasons there all day. Again, like I mentioned previously, "Penn St is fairly consistent, problem is that they are very rarely consistently at the top". Further evidence to this claim is in that Nebraska has been ranked for 730 weeks... 70 weeks at #1. Penn St has been ranked 648 weeks, with only 21 weeks at #1.

Again, shake it out however you want... I just don't think anyone outside of Fred is going to agree with you.

1) Recent consistency can indeed negate or at least affect all-time consistency. Prime examples: Minnesota, Army, Pitt, and to an extent UM/ND. You don't see people saying that these teams are contenders for blue-blood (except the latter) or title contenders despite having actual good success, well those came from Pre-Vietnam/Korean War times, Nebraska is about to be the second wave of that if something doesn't change soon, being a program only known to be good Pre-Afghanistan/Iraq War.

Those aren't "recent" examples. Armys last title was in 45, Minnesotas was in 60 and throughout their history, they have never measured up to the successes of Alabama, Ohio St, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC, Nebraska, Michigan, or even Texas. No one is or has been calling them blue bloods ever... Army has had 3 seasons with double digit wins, Minnesota 6... and those are all time numbers. Fred is merely saying that if it was considered a thing back then, then he thinks Minnesota could have been one.

And again, for someone talking about consistency meaning recently, you sure jump around from now to the 60s quite often. Does recent to you mean 1960-now? "Recent consistency can indeed negate or at least affect all-time consistency" - can it have an impact, absolutely, but recent does not remove all that has been built over time. Like I said, these have been Nebraskas worst 2 decades in nearly 70 years and we are still ranked above most in most categories. Top ten in damn near every category, this is why we are considered blue blood and why Penn St, Minnesota, Army, or Pitt are not.


This has been long, so let me summarize... you're talking about winning yet Nebraska has more wins and a better winning percentage.

/conversation.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

-Your fun little fact only serves to help PSU due to the fact it never dropped that hard in terms of rankings unlike Nebraska. Meanwhile when Joe Pa entered the picture, he transformed PSU to a perennial successful team and is still going to date (no losing season since 2004, and I don't see this being broken for some time to be honest.)

Not sure we want to have two different conversations going at the same time about this lol.

Anyway, "dropped that hard"? bro there is no moral victory here... you are either ranked or not ranked it doesn't matter how far from ranked you are, only whether or not you are. When you are ranked, it matters where you are, but otherwise it doesn't..

and Nebraska has been ranked more than Penn St

-It's actually impossible for Nebraska to be historically more consistent because the Cornhusker's have had a fall in terms of quality the same simply cannot be said for the Nittany Lions. There's really only a few teams on FBS level to consistently "good" overall for the past 60 years.

Lol, your only hope in this consistency argument is to frame it specifically around the last 2 decades, because when you take all decades into account... these last two don't hurt Nebraskas overall that much and you know that when you take it all time... Nebraska > Penn St.

-I feel like we hit it off wrong I never meant for this to be a PSU vs Nebraska war, I simply thought PSU was a Blue Blood due to consistent success which isn't seen in other Blue Blood teams like Nebraska & USC (first two schools I thought of tbh, I did not intend any shade at them) which I think is it's reason to be in that list. That much we can agree on.

I can appreciate this comment. No ill will from any of my comments, just stating facts. As I have said, if it were me, I would round out the BB list to an even top ten in which case Penn St would be on there.

So therefore I think it's better if we leave off here, we both obviously agree that both teams are Blue Bloods, so there's no real purpose in arguing, we simply disagree on a minor subject that can we really be honest here, it's just our personal love bias for our teams getting in the way.

Sorry, made all my responses before I saw this lol. But sure... out of curiosity, what does your top ten BB list look like and can you back it up?

Either way I liked debating with you, it's definitely been way better than some other users (Mr. Ralphie from WVU) so I hope to talk to you some more in the future!

yeah @ralphiewvu is a little bitch lol


calm down ralphie, no need to get all riled up.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Not sure we want to have two different conversations going at the same time about this lol.

Anyway, "dropped that hard"? bro there is no moral victory here... you are either ranked or not ranked it doesn't matter how far from ranked you are, only whether or not you are. When you are ranked, it matters where you are, but otherwise it doesn't..

and Nebraska has been ranked more than Penn St





Lol, your only hope in this consistency argument is to frame it specifically around the last 2 decades, because when you take all decades into account... these last two don't hurt Nebraskas overall that much and you know that when you take it all time... Nebraska > Penn St.



I can appreciate this comment. No ill will from any of my comments, just stating facts. As I have said, if it were me, I would round out the BB list to an even top ten in which case Penn St would be on there.



Sorry, made all my responses before I saw this lol. But sure... out of curiosity, what does your top ten BB list look like and can you back it up?



yeah @ralphiewvu is a little bitch lol


calm down ralphie, no need to get all riled up.

That pussy doesn’t have the balls to tag me. He’s like all the other cult follower state penn fans I live around. Thanks for pointing that out 95 Nebraska!

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

You say that because that is kind of what Nebraska did. Difference is that Penn St has BEEN just 'any regular P5 team'.




What bias? Again, schedules matter and every team from the ones I mentioned in my previous post had better schedules and also went undefeated. That's not bias, that's objectivity.



1. Nebraska had 5 undefeated seasons in that timeframe (70, 71, 94, 95, and 97). Won the title each and every time.

2. It isn't evidence that there was bias because Penn St was not awarded the titles. Again, fact is that those that were awarded the titles had a better schedule.


Info taken from sports-reference.com

In 94' Penn St beat 4 ranked opponents, one of which was inside the top 10. Nebraska 5 ranked opponents, 2 of which were ranked inside the top ten.

1973 Penn St played 2 ranked opponents, the highest being #13. Notre Dame played 3 ranked opponents, 2 inside the top 10.

1969 Penn St played 2 ranked opponents, 1 of which was top ten. Texas played 3 ranked opponents, all were top ten.

1968 Penn St played one ranked opponent, that opponent was top ten. Ohio St played 4 ranked opponents, 3 were top ten.

1947 Penn St played one ranked opponent, that opponent was top ten. Notre Dame played play ranked opponents, both were top ten.

I mean no disrespect, but what are you talking about? This is not bias, this is fact.




Yes, we have played more which demonstrates how we have done better. Being invited to more bowls, winning additional games. We have played more games despite Penn St having 3 a year and I believe a 9 game advantage. That is still accomplishing more in less time no matter how you slice it. But I would also agree that this is such a minor stat, that it is irrelevant between our two programs.




No, and that is a silly statement. I kept it fair, I did not take Nebraska 46 conference titles and pit them against Penn St. I started from the time Penn St joined a conference. Even from that metric, Nebraska has more conference titles (all of which were outright). It wouldn't be a fair statistic to use against Notre Dame, but as I mentioned to Fred, titles hold the most weight... and Notre Dame has that, hence why I have them above Nebraska on my own BB list.

Conference titles are absolutely indicative of success. I mean this is silly. It is like saying that you don't need to win games to be successful, sorry, but you actually do. It's not the end all be all of success, but is absolutely involved.



A few things...

1) How was the big ten a harder conference? In the time frame of these titles, 50% of the Big 8 had been ranked inside the top ten one year. Has the Big 10 ever done that? Seriously asking, I don't know the answer and no one has ever responded. Also from 1990 to the time Nebraska joined the B1G in 2011... the Big8/12 claimed 6 national titles. The Big10 claimed 2 and one of those was split with the Big 12. Harder conference? How?

P.S. The Big8/12 still has more titles even if you didn't want to claim Nebraskas in that time frame.


2) Yes, Penn St has the more recent conference titles. Good for you.

3) 5 outright titles > than 2 outright and 2 split. Just sayin.




No, I am actually afraid that it appears you do not know what consistency means as it can be reflective across differing patterns and timeframes. You are in a thread about blue bloods and claimed that Penn St should be considered a blue blood and also claimed that Penn St wins more than Nebraska even though Nebraska has more wins through less time, never mind that fact that you already contradicted your own statement that initiated all this...


Followed up with...

Better players, yet we have more overall draft picks.
Better players, yet we have 3 players listed on the all time all america team to Penn Sts one.

How does being a first rounder mean you had overall better team chemistry? If you guys had better team chemistry, you should have won more titles.

But ok, whatever...




1. Eyeballing it, I'm sorry I am not trusting that.
2. Those 3 years eliminate your alledged eyeballed streak. Pro bowlers make no difference. Don't try to justify it, it looks sad. It's ok to simply say that you don't/didn't have a streak like that. I wasn't trying to diss you or Penn St (I actually like Penn St a little), I just didn't find anything when I searched for it. How is your super bowl streak of having players play in the super bowl, Nebraska had at least one player play in each of the last 26 or 27 super bowls up until this year with KC eliminating the Titans.

3. Bro, you have ONE more HoF. You can claim it all you want, but it being such a small factor and one that is irrelevant to college football makes it look like you're reaching for a life preserver.



Again, if you want to have a conversation about what each team has done the last 3-5 years, go ahead, you're in the wrong thread and no Nebraska fan would deny how the Huskers have been lately.

But if you want to talk about historical consistency, if you look at that "graph" - it shows that Nebraska up until the very recent was not only consistently top ten, but literally MORE consistenly top ten than Penn St. Shit, we finished ranked inside the top ten zero times from 2010-2019 and we STILL average more top ten finishes than Penn St. You can claim your little 3 seasons this decade, 3 seasons that decade and call it consistency and you wouldn't be wrong... but I will take 7 seasons here, 9 seasons there all day. Again, like I mentioned previously, "Penn St is fairly consistent, problem is that they are very rarely consistently at the top". Further evidence to this claim is in that Nebraska has been ranked for 730 weeks... 70 weeks at #1. Penn St has been ranked 648 weeks, with only 21 weeks at #1.

Again, shake it out however you want... I just don't think anyone outside of Fred is going to agree with you.




Those aren't "recent" examples. Armys last title was in 45, Minnesotas was in 60 and throughout their history, they have never measured up to the successes of Alabama, Ohio St, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC, Nebraska, Michigan, or even Texas. No one is or has been calling them blue bloods ever... Army has had 3 seasons with double digit wins, Minnesota 6... and those are all time numbers. Fred is merely saying that if it was considered a thing back then, then he thinks Minnesota could have been one.

And again, for someone talking about consistency meaning recently, you sure jump around from now to the 60s quite often. Does recent to you mean 1960-now? "Recent consistency can indeed negate or at least affect all-time consistency" - can it have an impact, absolutely, but recent does not remove all that has been built over time. Like I said, these have been Nebraskas worst 2 decades in nearly 70 years and we are still ranked above most in most categories. Top ten in damn near every category, this is why we are considered blue blood and why Penn St, Minnesota, Army, or Pitt are not.


This has been long, so let me summarize... you're talking about winning yet Nebraska has more wins and a better winning percentage.

/conversation.

PSU may have been the team to benefit more than any other had their been a cfp since the 60s.

1960 would have been a great year to start it, although they may have chosen to expand the playoff to 8 teams right away as 1960 is a year that sticks out more than any other in my opinion. Five of the Top 6 teams all beat each other with Team A beating Team B who beat Team C who beat Team D who beat Team A. And then Miss went undefeated but didn't play anyone ranked Top Ten I don't think, including playing an unranked team in their bowl game. No way you could narrow that field down to 4 teams, imo.

 

[handicappers]

PSU may have been the team to benefit more than any other had their been a cfp since the 60s.

1960 would have been a great year to start it, although they may have chosen to expand the playoff to 8 teams right away as 1960 is a year that sticks out more than any other in my opinion. Five of the Top 6 teams all beat each other with Team A beating Team B who beat Team C who beat Team D who beat Team A. And then Miss went undefeated but didn't play anyone ranked Top Ten I don't think, including playing an unranked team in their bowl game. No way you could narrow that field down to 4 teams, imo.

Didn't Minnesota lose the Rose Bowl that year? No way they were a top 5 team that year.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Didn't Minnesota lose the Rose Bowl that year? No way they were a top 5 team that year.

And they CRUSHED #1 at the time Iowa(finished #3), and it wasn't even close.

 

[handicappers]

And they CRUSHED #1 at the time Iowa(finished #3), and it wasn't even close.

They had two losses when several other schools had undefeated seasons or only one loss.

Mississippi was true champion.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

They had two losses when several other schools had undefeated seasons or only one loss.

Mississippi was true champion.

Who did Miss play in their bowl game? LMMFGDAO!!!!! Unranked who?


Yeah, Iowa only had one loss. TO MINNESOTA.