Did your team make the Blue Blood list?

[fredsdeadfriend]

Hence why I asked your criteria, as Michigan does not check off the recruiting box.

I disagree. Dabo would have won titles with the exact same ranked classes had he gone to Michigan. IMO.

Michigan's problem is their coach.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

I disagree. Dabo would have won titles with the exact same ranked classes had he gone to Michigan. IMO.

Michigan's problem is their coach.

Dabo wouldn't have won titles, because he wouldn't have even won his division.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Also, FWIW, I think Texas would meet almost all of your criteria.

Texas? When were they first good? And how many titles have they won and when was the last one? I don't think they compare to Michigan, but I could be wrong.

 

[7Samurai13]

Ability to win titles isn't what makes someone a blue blood according to his definition.

FWIW, Clemson just pulled in the #3 class, higher than any Michigan has had in quite a while.

Also, Clemson is not a blue blood.

Yes, did that class have anything to do with what happened on the field? It’s their first top 5 finish. Other than that one class they are usually a borderline top 10 recruiter. One of Michigan’s “out of the top 20” classes was because it was small. They had one class with only 19 recruits and another with only 16.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Dabo wouldn't have won titles, because he wouldn't have even won his division.

You don't know that. Clemson did beat OSU this year, did they not?

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Yes, did that class have anything to do with what happened on the field? It’s their first top 5 finish. Other than that one class they are usually a borderline top 10 recruiter. One of Michigan’s “out of the top 20” classes was because it was small. They had one class with only 19 recruits and another with only 16.

You are being far too reasonable and utilizing facts, shame on you, lol.

 

[7Samurai13]

Dabo wouldn't have won titles, because he wouldn't have even won his division.

Then you are ignorant. Michigan had more 4*+ recruits than Clemson did this past season.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Texas? When were they first good? And how many titles have they won and when was the last one? I don't think they compare to Michigan, but I could be wrong.

Using your criteria:

Texas has 4 National Titles since 1963. Michigan has 1/2 in that same timeframe. Texas also has a boatload of conference championships, a full stadium, and a willingness to pay a lot for a coach. Also, their recruiting has outperformed Michigan as well.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Yes, did that class have anything to do with what happened on the field? It’s their first top 5 finish. Other than that one class they are usually a borderline top 10 recruiter. One of Michigan’s “out of the top 20” classes was because it was small. They had one class with only 19 recruits and another with only 16.

And Clemson isn't a blue blood. This isn't my criteria, it's Fred's.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Then you are ignorant. Michigan had more 4*+ recruits than Clemson did this past season.

Michigan, with or without Dabo, isn't beating Ohio State.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

You don't know that. Clemson did beat OSU this year, did they not?

Clemson has better athletes than Michigan.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Using your criteria:

Texas has 4 National Titles since 1963. Michigan has 1/2 in that same timeframe. Texas also has a boatload of conference championships, a full stadium, and a willingness to pay a lot for a coach. Also, their recruiting has outperformed Michigan as well.

So nothing before 1963? Not exactly blueblood like, but 4 is not bad. How many does Nebraska have, they are also not on my list. And how long has it been since Texas was considered, LATE in the season, a contender for a title?

Texas may be a sleeping giant, like Michigan is, I'll give you that much. But no one is saying you have to be an old time blue blood in order to win. Clemson is NOT a blue blood, never has been, and may never be? If they go back to being pretty irrelevant when Dabo leaves, one great coach a blue blood does not make. But you are right, Texas does check off alot of the boxes. If I expanded my list to 8 or 10 I'd probably include them.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Michigan, with or without Dabo, isn't beating Ohio State.

You don't know that, you really don't.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

So nothing before 1963? Not exactly blueblood like, but 4 is not bad. How many does Nebraska have, they are also not on my list. And how long has it been since Texas was considered, LATE in the season, a contender for a title?

Texas may be a sleeping giant, like Michigan is, I'll give you that much. But no one is saying you have to be an old time blue blood in order to win. Clemson is NOT a blue blood, never has been, and may never be? If they go back to being pretty irrelevant when Dabo leaves, one great coach a blue blood does not make. But you are right, Texas does check off alot of the boxes. If I expanded my list to 8 or 10 I'd probably include them.

I wasn't the one who brought up Clemson.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

You don't know that, you really don't.

Sure I do.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Clemson has better athletes than Michigan.

And, had Dabo gone to Michigan and Harbaugh had gone to Clemson, Clemson would not have won a single title, and Michigan may have.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

And, had Dabo gone to Michigan and Harbaugh had gone to Clemson, Clemson would not have won a single title, and Michigan may have.

Michigan would not have won any additional titles.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Sure I do.

No, you don't.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Michigan would not have won any additional titles.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I put a lot of stock in coaching and not as much in recruiting, as others do. But that's just me.

 

[7Samurai13]

Sure I do.

Oregon should hire you for their staff since you can see the future and know what would happen in all scenarios.