So...Who are the real 'Blue Blood' College Football Programs?

[Ojb81]

Meanwhile logical fans that support logic agree with my factual based claim. Enjoy dwelling in the past. Your time is up the new bloods time is now. GD just ended this thread already go home it's over.

Bwahahaha yeah, thats what I thought. Par for the course

 

[Great Dayne]

Win a NC then you can start the talk of "new blood".

So winning one title makes a team a new blood in your opinion?

Wisconsin has one of the highest winning percentages consistently over the last 2.5 decades and since 2000 their winning % is 14th in the country and use a different approach than just banking on recruiter rankings they rely on their own internal rankings and develop kids mostly from their state but have recently gone into Bama, Florida, and obviously RB's come from New Jersey, etc. If they would've had RW now instead of 5 years ago they would win the title this year. Unfortunately, they are stuck with Hornytoad at QB while a more physically talented QB rides the pine. It's another 11+ win season but no NC for them until they get a QB that isn't the MVP for the opponent (Stave, Hornytoad).

 

[Eco]

Out with the old bloods and in with the new bloods.

If the Florida teams were added to the Blue Bloods list (which has been discussed in this thread), the totals of National Championships since '92 would be 21 - 5 in favor of the BB. As it stands now...

CFB National Championship Winners since 1992.

Blue Bloods:14
Alabama: 5
Nebraska: 3
Ohio State: 2
Michigan: 1
USC: 1
Texas: 1
Oklahoma: 1

Non Blue Bloods: 12
FSU: 3
Tennessee: 1
Miami: 1
LSU: 2
Florida: 3
Auburn: 1
Clemson: 1

 

[Great Dayne]

Bwahahaha yeah, thats what I thought. Par for the course

Birdie for the new bloods

It's over the new bloods are in and the old bloods are a thing of the past. Just accept it.

 

[Ojb81]

Birdie for the new bloods

It's over the new bloods are in and the old bloods are a thing of the past. Just accept it.

But I dont wanna accept it!

 

[kburjr]

Win a NC then you can start the talk of "new blood".

Illinois can claim 5 National Titles

 

[rsw626]

Win a NC then you can start the talk of "new blood".

 

[Eco]

Also since 1992,

Here is a breakdown of the Heisman Winners (With FL schools listed as NON-BB):
BB - 12
Non- Blue Blood - 13

With FL schools added to BB:

Blue Blood- 18
Non-Blue Blood - 7

 

[Great Dayne]

If the Florida teams were added to the Blue Bloods list (which has been discussed in this thread), the totals of National Championships since '92 would be 21 - 5 in favor of the BB. As it stands now...

CFB National Championship Winners since 1992.

Blue Bloods:14
Alabama: 5
Nebraska: 3
Ohio State: 2
Michigan: 1
USC: 1
Texas: 1
Oklahoma: 1

Non Blue Bloods: 12
FSU: 3
Tennessee: 1
Miami: 1
LSU: 2
Florida: 3
Auburn: 1
Clemson: 1

So it's nearly equivalent. Meanwhile the old bloods are relying on mostly Bama. Nebraska and Michigan haven't done squat since the 2000's. I believe in the 60's and 70's it was all blue bloods winning and now it's nearly evenly distributed which is why the term blue bloods is now obsolete and new bloods is taking over as a random team with no history can just start going to NC's all of a sudden.

 

[Great Dayne]

Illinois can claim 5 National Titles

That makes them a new blood then. Did we ever define what a new blood or a blue blood is? Are these terms based solely off National Championships or is it based off recruiting 5 star recruits?

 

[Eco]

So it's nearly equivalent. Meanwhile the old bloods are relying on mostly Bama. Nebraska and Michigan haven't done squat since the 2000's. I believe in the 60's and 70's it was all blue bloods winning and now it's nearly evenly distributed which is why the term blue bloods is now obsolete and new bloods is taking over as a random team with no history can just start going to NC's all of a sudden.

Not really, the last time a team won their 'first' National Championship was in 1996 (Florida), and before that was FSU (1993). So really we've had no 'new blood' since then.

 

[ellupo]

Illinois can claim 5 National Titles

Who cares. It takes more than that.

 

[ellupo]

So winning one title makes a team a new blood in your opinion?

Wisconsin has one of the highest winning percentages consistently over the last 2.5 decades and since 2000 their winning % is 14th in the country and use a different approach than just banking on recruiter rankings they rely on their own internal rankings and develop kids mostly from their state but have recently gone into Bama, Florida, and obviously RB's come from New Jersey, etc. If they would've had RW now instead of 5 years ago they would win the title this year. Unfortunately, they are stuck with Hornytoad at QB while a more physically talented QB rides the pine. It's another 11+ win season but no NC for them until they get a QB that isn't the MVP for the opponent (Stave, Hornytoad).

Nope, I said then you can start the conversation. Until then all this is just a good team, not a "new" blood.

14 should not be in consideration for any "blood" list.

Yeah if tOSU had *insert great player name here* they could be better too...

 

[kburjr]

Who cares. It takes more than that.

Nobody cares. My point.

 

[ellupo]

Nobody cares. My point.

So your point is that you were not making a point. I got it.

 

[Great Dayne]

Nope, I said then you can start the conversation. Until then all this is just a good team, not a "new" blood.

14 should not be in consideration for any "blood" list.

Yeah if tOSU had *insert great player name here* they could be better too...

So winning a NC just starts the conversation then. I guess Clemson just started that conversation. What about Illinois with 5 NC's?

Should a new blood have at least one NC within 20 years and average a top ten finish annually? Would that sound like a fair definition of a New Blood? Florida, Clemson, and I believe Auburn, and LSU I believe meet that criteria.

 

[kburjr]

So your point is that you were not making a point. I got it.

Illinois had 4 Nattys before OSU won their first one. OSU is a new blood.

I love how statistics can make any argument

 

[ellupo]

So winning a NC just starts the conversation then. I guess Clemson just started that conversation. What about Illinois with 5 NC's?

Should a new blood have at least one NC within 20 years and average a top ten finish annually? Would that sound like a fair definition of a New Blood? Florida, Clemson, and I believe Auburn, and LSU I believe meet that criteria.

See the IL 5 would "start" a conversation by asking, "When did they win those 5 and who were they awarded by?". That is how you "start" a conversation. Of course when you get the answer you "end" the conversation.
Yes those other teams would also "start" a conversation but no NC not "start".

 

[ellupo]

Illinois had 4 Nattys before OSU won their first one. OSU is a new blood.

I love how statistics can make any argument

It can make a wrong argument and you demonstrated that.

 

[kburjr]

See the IL 5 would "start" a conversation by asking, "When did they win those 5 and who were they awarded by?". That is how you "start" a conversation. Of course when you get the answer you "end" the conversation.
Yes those other teams would also "start" a conversation but no NC not "start".

hahahaha. I love jokes. Too bad you don't get them. am poking fun at the people who pull stats out of their ass to prove a point. The stats can be true from a certain viewpoint. Y'all win.