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

[outlaw okie]

Blue Bloods:

1. Michigan
2. Notre Dame
3. Texas
4. Nebraska
5. Ohio State
6. Alabama
7. Oklahoma
8. Penn State
9. Southern Cal
10. Tennessee

If I had to list 10 teams this looks legit.

 

[UtahUte]

What consideres a blue blood?

 

[Volbound1700]

1. Alabama (by a large margin)
2. Oklahoma
3. USC Trojans
4. Ohio State
5. Notre Dame (mostly due to lack of relevance over last 20 years)
6. Michigan
7. Texas
8. Nebraska
9. Tennessee
10. Auburn
11. Miami
12. Florida
13. LSU
14. Penn State
15. Florida State
16. Georgia


I think that completes the list. I would put the following on the just outside list: Clemson, TCU, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington, and Wisconsin

 

[Ottermatic]

Did you not read my qualifiers?

your qualifiers were SPECIFICALLY created to keep USC off the list, because, as you've admitted several times, you don't like USC

If you have to specifically work to find a set of criteria to keep a certain team off the list, that team belongs on the list.

 

[starbigd]

Their overall body of work doesn't compare to the other three. Atleast put USC there.

5 NCs and second most wins all time
1st or 2nd all time in bowl wins
Yeah they're near the TOP of the list, sorry

OU
Texas
Bama
ND
USC
FSU
Nebraska
Penn St
tOSU
Michigan

There really isn't much to debate there. All those schools are blue bloods regardless of current team play

 

[ElTexan]

Texas was one freak shoulder injury from being the INARGUABLE Team of the 2000s.
If McCoys arm doesn't fall off, we'd have been 4-0 in bcs bowls with 2 championships, had the most wins of all div 1a besides bsu, and have beaten in that decade: mich, tOSU, OU, nu, USC, and bama.

Leaving Texas off the blue blood list (and saying it's because of recent performance) is laughable.

 

[Chewbaccer]

your qualifiers were SPECIFICALLY created to keep USC off the list, because, as you've admitted several times, you don't like USC

If you have to specifically work to find a set of criteria to keep a certain team off the list, that team belongs on the list.

I have never said I on't like USC. In fact before Utah joined the Pac, I pulled for USC in the Pac. I have very little respect for USC fans simply because they're more sensitive than Michigan fans, but I have no issue at all with the team.

Common sense qualifiers, hoss.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

Alabama
Ohio State
Michigan
Notre Dame
USC
Nebraska
Oklahoma


Those are the preeminent Blue Bloods of the nation, in my opinion.

I'm not sure Nebraska is anymore.

Texas would have been, they're clearly not right now, but they have a much better chance of getting back to that status given their in-state recruiting advantage over everyone.

Penn State?

 

[BigAppleBadger]

Ohio St
Bama
USC
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Texas
Michigan

In that order

Just outside ( imo)

Florida St-
LSU
Auburn
PSU
Tennessee
UGA
Clemson
Miami


And teams who should be considered but who aren't for some reason

Pitt
Minnesota

Pitt and Minnesota would have been once, but aren't now, and neither has a chance of getting back to that level IMO.

 

[Eco]

Texas was one freak shoulder injury from being the INARGUABLE Team of the 2000s.
If McCoys arm doesn't fall off, we'd have been 4-0 in bcs bowls with 2 championships, had the most wins of all div 1a besides bsu, and have beaten in that decade: mich, tOSU, OU, nu, USC, and bama.

Leaving Texas off the blue blood list (and saying it's because of recent performance) is laughable.

I'll argue this one with you. While it certainly changed the game, Your backup, Gilbert or whatever his name was, brought you back in that game.

What really killed Texas in that game was that stupid play you ran before half that was picked off and ran in for a Touchdown my Dareus.

We were the favorite going into that game, so please don't assume Colt's injury is why you lost.

It's like Bama bitching about Bo's injury being the reason we lost to Clemson.

However, Texas is absolutely a Blue Blood. Hands down, no questions asked.

 

[fishinabarrel]

Pitt and Minnesota would have been once, but aren't now, and neither has a chance of getting back to that level IMO.

I'm not sure Minnesota would ever be considered a blue blood. They had a 10 year span of dominance like most teams have and never will see, but a decade of dominance isn't enough

 

[Eco]

I'm not sure Minnesota would ever be considered a blue blood. They had a 10 year span of dominance like most teams have and never will see, but a decade of dominance isn't enough

Correct, same reason Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Penn (all in top 15 in CFB total wins), will never be considered. All Natty for the Ivy League came when they were essentially the only colleges playing football

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Notre Dame and Michigan have been relevant for the last 20 years?

I know I'm going to catch shit for this -- but I'd argue yes. Michigan's had two very good shots at a national title game in the last 11 years. No, we haven't won won in a while, and historically haven't had much success there in the last 60 years.

 

[Lions=TeHsUcKs]

I was thinking the same thing and not just homer bias, but throw all the other criteria in the mix too, A number of blue blood teams have gone through droughts similar to Nebraska including Alabama USC and Texas and it isnt the first time Nebraska went from being great to being lack luster, Football has cycles, when an all time great like Coach Tom retires those are hard shoes to fill, and knee jerk reactions happen, i think Solich (who took us to NC in 2001) if given more time would have righted the ship, he knew the identity and tradition we have here and if nothing else would have been a much better coach in the interim than was he who shall not be named and the ass hat bopeepee

The only team to not have a long down time is OSU.

 

[Deep Creek]

Had a discussion on this very topic with some guys. Here is who I came up with (in no order)

Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC.

We discussed Nebraska, LSU, and the Florida schools, however I didn't agree with Nebraska as they have been mostly irrelevant for 20+ years, and no to LSU because they have only won 3 Nattys.

I think the Florida schools are interesting since they weren't really relevant 40 years ago, but each have had numerous periods where they dominated the game for multiple years.

So I'm curious, what do you think are the true 'Blue Bloods' of CFB?

I think you got it right. JMO

 

[fishinabarrel]

I know I'm going to catch shit for this -- but I'd argue yes. Michigan's had two very good shots at a national title game in the last 11 years. No, we haven't won won in a while, and historically haven't had much success there in the last 60 years.

Don't worry, you haven't been kicked out of the club....yet

 

[Red_Alert]

I think you got it right. JMO

Well yay for you.

You're saying someone's right who can't do simple math, thinks the winner of this season's CFP will be considered the 2018 champs, and thinks Nebraska is no longer in the Big 10.

Carry on. LOL

 

[Ojb81]

I'm not sure Nebraska is anymore.

Texas would have been, they're clearly not right now, but they have a much better chance of getting back to that status given their in-state recruiting advantage over everyone.

Penn State?

Penn State? Ummmm no, lol. Nebraska still is

 

[rmilia1]

Pitt and Minnesota would have been once, but aren't now, and neither has a chance of getting back to that level IMO.

It interesting to think about how long a team needs to go without a title before they lose that distinction

 

[8085sooner]

Undisputed

OU,Bama,tOSU,USC,and ND

others in the mix
Neb, Mich, Tex, Tenn, PSU


Great Programs, Blue Bloods, have at least GREAT 2 coaches 100+ wins, CC, NC