What do you consider to be a blue blood program?

[WizardHawk]

I believe i said End/thread please don't waste my time until you have facts and a legitimate argument. I will not reply until you have something of content

He's wasting YOUR time on a thread he created?
You throw around your elitist BS and make claims of fact without clearly defining why it's a fact and then chide others for not giving facts. You just end up looking like a fucking ass.

Carry on.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

He's wasting YOUR time on a thread he created?
You throw around your elitist BS and make claims of fact without clearly defining why it's a fact and then chide others for not giving facts. You just end up looking like a fucking ass.

Carry on.

Theres a reason i received no supporting stats as pertaining to his argument. And You're going to have to just trust me i had tout him on ignore for good reason. And i'll leave it at that

 

[WizardHawk]

Ignore anyone you want, I just call things like I see them. I don't have a dog in this hunt.
Telling people they can stop talking on a thread they created because your version of an opinion is fact is beyond elitist. It's shitty.
The whole idea of a board is to have these discussions. Say what you want about the posts you disagree with, but that elitist BS should be called out for what it is.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Ignore anyone you want, I just call things like I see them. I don't have a dog in this hunt.
Telling people they can stop talking on a thread they created because your version of an opinion is fact is beyond elitist. It's shitty.
The whole idea of a board is to have these discussions. Say what you want about the posts you disagree with, but that elitist BS should be called out for what it is.

Sorry wiz but I've been taught to go on facts. And if I have an opinion to back it up with facts. At any point statistics and several other factors could have been provided to make a case. Sorry if you feel I'm being an elitist but in truth I'm being realistic. I've also defined what a blue blood and has been defined as on multiple occasions. The term is an elitist term in a sense but it is what it is. Otherwise without a foundation to back up a theory provided the theory holds no weight. Its nothing more than talking in a circle. The teams that have been labeled blue bloods have the resume to carry that label. What do you deem a blue blood? I can copy and paste my definition in a bit

 

[WizardHawk]

I don't know that there is such a clear definition that there can only be one interpretation, but the point I was making was more about telling others they can't have a different opinion on their own thread.

Do I consider UW a blue blood program? Probably not, but I don't really care about that term. When I think of 'storied' programs I'd have to add more teams. I do think people will have different lists which means it's a matter of opinion as much as any clearly definable fact. That's just how I see it.

 

[Pariah]

Ignore anyone you want, I just call things like I see them. I don't have a dog in this hunt.
Telling people they can stop talking on a thread they created because your version of an opinion is fact is beyond elitist. It's shitty.
The whole idea of a board is to have these discussions. Say what you want about the posts you disagree with, but that elitist BS should be called out for what it is.

Washington isn't a blue blood, sry.

 

[WizardHawk]

Washington isn't a blue blood, sry.

When did I say they were? Oh right. I actually already said they aren't.
Get a clue.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

This is how i defined blue blood and the last contribution i will make to this thread. We've had this discussion before.. And i really cant waste time holding a debate that doesn't involve basing claims on facts. Otherwise its just speculation and banter

There are a select group of teams that have earned that label over many years of success, history and tradition. A blue blood is a very unique combination. National titles, heisman a, extensive win loss records, conference championships, team history and traditions, a name that exceeds the game which is often seen the clearest when it comes to recruiting with other examples, NFL hall of famers and storied players. There is a ton of factors within that label. Very few teams have earned the distinction of that label, we will never see another achieving the label in our lifetimes and a lot of teams like to try to claim it or make a case for it. However no matter how many times the topic is discussed no one is ever able to provide the resume that fits the bill. But there's always that one homer or casual fan that likes rehashing the dead topic

 

[ElTexan]

Washington isn't a blue blood, sry.

Washington is a noob as a state of the union.

 

[WizardHawk]

This is how i defined blue blood and the last contribution i will make to this thread. We've had this discussion before.. And i really cant waste time holding a debate that doesn't involve basing claims on facts. Otherwise its just speculation and banter

There are a select group of teams that have earned that label over many years of success, history and tradition. A blue blood is a very unique combination. National titles, heisman a, extensive win loss records, conference championships, team history and traditions, a name that exceeds the game which is often seen the clearest when it comes to recruiting with other examples, NFL hall of famers and storied players. There is a ton of factors within that label. Very few teams have earned the distinction of that label, we will never see another achieving the label in our lifetimes and a lot of teams like to try to claim it or make a case for it. However no matter how many times the topic is discussed no one is ever able to provide the resume that fits the bill. But there's always that one homer or casual fan that likes rehashing the dead topic

The problem with your idea of fact is it has no clear lines. For example: "extensive win loss record" Exactly how many wins? Where is the cut-off? How many of each of your criteria EXACTLY?

Once you peg those with actual defined criteria all we are left with is YOUR clearly defined lines. It still isn't a universal set of truths. This is why it is still very much debatable. Is Nebraska in or out? It's opinion not a fact either way.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

The problem with your idea of fact is it has no clear lines. For example: "extensive win loss record" Exactly how many wins? Where is the cut-off? How many of each of your criteria EXACTLY?

Once you peg those with actual defined criteria all we are left with is YOUR clearly defined lines. It still isn't a universal set of truths. This is why it is still very much debatable. Is Nebraska in or out? It's opinion not a fact either way.

I would have to dig up the other thread but we ran a comparison of all the stats of the teams that are known as blue bloods,ran them in comparison all the way down to recruiting classes and found a very impressive template. I' really should find that template its a very good tool to have. I had it bookmarked years ago but this is my 3rd laptop since then

 

[WizardHawk]

But even then, it's just YOUR template. That's all I'm saying. The OP asked for what others thought of what it means to have that label and you are clearly free to disagree with how far his list goes. It just seems like a vague enough term in general to allow others to see it differently.

Now the lists that have like 15+ seem excessive to me. Laughed at the one that wanted to add the ducks given they are just a recent flash in the pan, but again that's just my opinion. The term blue blood really means nothing to me so I think more in what I'd call a storied program which is at least similar. It's like the idea of where do you draw the line at something being pron: I know it when I see it. There are names that are known to be legendary in the sport, but my sense of it is probably different from some others.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

The problem with your idea of fact is it has no clear lines. For example: "extensive win loss record" Exactly how many wins? Where is the cut-off? How many of each of your criteria EXACTLY?

Once you peg those with actual defined criteria all we are left with is YOUR clearly defined lines. It still isn't a universal set of truths. This is why it is still very much debatable. Is Nebraska in or out? It's opinion not a fact either way.

heres another good tool to run teams head to head. If you look at the numbers across the board with any team as compared to a blue blood. You will see how far apart they really are. when you factor in the history tradition and other variables. Its not hard to see why the blue bloods were deemed blue bloods. Facts and data are not hard to find but they are concrete. Which is why this is a dead topic


Winsipedia - USC Trojans vs. Georgia Bulldogs football series history

 

[TheRobotDevil]

But even then, it's just YOUR template. That's all I'm saying. The OP asked for what others thought of what it means to have that label and you are clearly free to disagree with how far his list goes. It just seems like a vague enough term in general to allow others to see it differently.

Now the lists that have like 15+ seem excessive to me. Laughed at the one that wanted to add the ducks given they are just a recent flash in the pan, but again that's just my opinion. The term blue blood really means nothing to me so I think more in what I'd call a storied program which is at least similar. It's like the idea of where do you draw the line at something being pron: I know it when I see it. There are names that are known to be legendary in the sport, but my sense of it is probably different from some others.

Its a title that was earned not handed out and respect that is well deserved. Its also a part of cfb history and should be respected imo. Like i said compare the teams in the link provided w. and whether people like it or not its quite clear why the hold the label and why it should be respected. The blue bloods like pron are a clear line tho . I didn't see the ducks added I'm hoping that was a joke but also hoping miami listed top 4 was a joke too tho

 

[The Crimson King]

Its a title that was earned not handed out and respect that is well deserved. Its also a part of cfb history and should be respected imo. Like i said compare the teams in the link provided w. and whether people like it or not its quite clear why the hold the label and why it should be respected. The blue bloods like pron are a clear line tho . I didn't see the ducks added I'm hoping that was a joke but also hoping miami listed top 4 was a joke too tho

 

[TheRobotDevil]

 

[trojanfan12]

I think that everyone has their own definition of what a "blue blood" program is. That is why we have some folks with as many as 15 that they consider "blue blood" and others have as few as 4.

I look at it in a similar fashion to determining whether or not a player is a hall of famer or not. I once heard hall of fame consideration described this way: If you have to think about whether or not a player is a hall of famer and try to build a case, they aren't a hall of famer.

So imo, if you have to think about whether or not a program is a blue blood or not and have to build a case for them, they're not.

Using that criteria, I have, in no particular order: Notre Dame, Alabama, Oklahoma, USC, tOSU, Michigan and Texas.

This doesn't mean there aren't other great programs with great histories, but beyond those listed, I have to start trying to build a case for them.

 

[WizardHawk]

I'd still add Nebraska. Sure, they have been down in recent years, but when you think of the great programs in college football over the last 30+ years their name is still quite high. To me, I don't have to think or make up a case to put them in there. Just like things have been thin for USC and Michigan in recent years, but it doesn't change that storied and rich history.

Frankly I'm fine with anyone's individual views. All I was saying to Clark is it's a bit much to basically demand others stop talking about the topic at all because he declared some kind of universal truth/victory that requires the thread to be all but locked. Everyone should still be free to share their views no matter how wrong he thinks they are.

 

[Tin Man]

Harvard

Yes. "Blue blood" brings to mind the Ivy league. Wannabes include other expensive, private universities - Duke, Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt...

And, no, Miami isn't "in." They're in Miami. Sheesh... Eat a Cuban sammie. Drink some Cuban coffee. Sit in the shade and watch hawt street cart vendors in thong bikinis.

 

[Chewbaccer]

Washington isn't a blue blood, sry.

They made my rather long list.