Jump to content

The 8 "blue bloods" of CF.


Recommended Posts

It depends on how we are defining blue bloods. What defines a blue blood? Is it titles? Total wins? Combination? 
 

Titles Minnesota has 4 titles. Nebraska and Miami have 5. 

My opinion is the blue bloods are Bama, OU, ND, Ohio st and USC. Those 5 schools have at least 7 titles and make up 5 of the top 6 in total wins. 
 

Texas is right on the fence. 5th in win totals but has half the titles of the 5 I mentioned. I lean towards including them in the blue blood discussion but I do think if they are in, Miami and  Nebraska should be as well. 
 

I also think blue blood is a term for older more historical programs. LSU has the same number of titles as Texas but 3 out 4 came in the last 20 years and I would consider LSU and Clemson to be “new money” rather than traditional powers. Michigan and Penn st also deserve spots somewhere on this list but they are lacking in the trophy case as well. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sportsfanatic1 said:

Nebraska?

College football has a longer list.

According to a poll conducted by Pick Six Previews, there are eight "blue blood" programs in college football.

They are:

  • Alabama
  • Ohio State
  • Oklahoma
  • Notre Dame
  • Nebraska
  • Michigan
  • USC
  • Texas

Blue blood… this list fits my definition which is “a team that is always relevant even when they aren’t.  Texas is the perfect example 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Coach Rab said:

Blue blood… this list fits my definition which is “a team that is always relevant even when they aren’t.  Texas is the perfect example 

I do think that there is an argument that blue bloods has nothing to do with wins and trophies and everything to do with the perception and what they did for the growth of the sport. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WETSU said:

Texas is right on the fence. 5th in win totals but has half the titles of the 5 I mentioned. I lean towards including them in the blue blood discussion but I do think if they are in, Miami and  Nebraska should be as well. 
 

I would agree with you 30 years ago on Nebraska, but not today. In my opinion, they lost their ability to be a “blue blood” when they left the Big 12. As long as they were playing Texas schools they had a foothold in Texas recruits. Today they have the same clout with Texas high school players as Wisconsin and Purdue. The same can be said of Colorado and Missouri. Rule and Sanders may have some initial success due to name recognition, but not sure that can be sustained. 
 

Texas is a “blue blood” based on history and current financial success. Texas is a school you love or hate no matter where in the country you live. By the way A&M is climbing the blue blood ladder primarily due to financial prowess of its former students.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bordertown said:

I would agree with you 30 years ago on Nebraska, but not today. In my opinion, they lost their ability to be a “blue blood” when they left the Big 12. As long as they were playing Texas schools they had a foothold in Texas recruits. Today they have the same clout with Texas high school players as Wisconsin and Purdue. The same can be said of Colorado and Missouri. Rule and Sanders may have some initial success due to name recognition, but not sure that can be sustained. 
 

Texas is a “blue blood” based on history and current financial success. Texas is a school you love or hate no matter where in the country you live. By the way A&M is climbing the blue blood ladder primarily due to financial prowess of its former students.

I agree with most of this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, WETSU said:

Miami, penn st and Florida st are really close to making that list as well. 

Penn St, Michigan, and Ohio St always matter in some form or another.  SEC has too many to consider but my list LSU, Alabama, Tenn, Florida, Georgia... probably others... but all have been huge influences on college football for a while, B12 Texas and OU, ACC Miami and FSU, PAC USC and UCLA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's weird. A lot of traditional "blue bloods" haven't done much in the last few decades. Like Nebraska. It's been 25 years since they've won a title. Or Michigan- for all their history, their last title was in 1997 and before that it was a few decades, I think. For Miami, they had an amazing run from 1983-2001 (5 titles in 19 years) but they haven't really done much in 20 years. Notre Dame had good decades throughout College Football's history, but they're 35 years removed from a title at this point. OU and Texas have incredible history, and each of them have won a championship since the turn of the century, at least, but it's been 17 and 22 years respectively. Same with USC. Then there's schools like Clemson who have been good recently but didn't really do much prior (except like 1981). 

So yeah, we have to look at a handful of factors. If we consider all time wins, all time titles, legendary players, etc... In no particular order:

Oklahoma

Alabama

Texas

Georgia 

Ohio State

Michigan

Notre Dame

 

And I think schools like Clemson, Miami, Florida State, Nebraska, and Penn State are in a level just slightly under. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Total wins, being relevant from generation to generation which I define as twenty year brackets and Brand/financial status. 

4 hours ago, JohnnyFootball said:

 

So yeah, we have to look at a handful of factors. If we consider all time wins, all time titles, legendary players, etc... In no particular order:

Oklahoma

Alabama

Texas

Georgia 

Ohio State

Michigan

Notre Dame

 

And I think schools like Clemson, Miami, Florida State, Nebraska, and Penn State are in a level just slightly under. 

All of these schools except Clemson make that list to one degree or another.

1. Alabama

2. Notre Dame

3. Michigan

4. Ohio State

5. Oklahoma

6. Texas

7. Nebraska

8. Penn State

9. Miami

10. Florida State.

11. Georgia

Edited by Baron
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you start by dismissing anything that happened before de-segregation. Yeah yeah, it's interesting for history buffs (and I'm one) but as far as I'm concerned that whole era has an asterisk beside it because not everyone was allowed to play. 

1970 to now is what I'd call the "modern era" of college football. That said, the winningest programs in that timespan are: 

  • Alabama
  • Ohio State
  • Oklahoma
  • Penn State
  • Michigan
  • Nebraska
  • Georgia
  • Florida State
  • Brigham Young
  • Clemson
  • Florida
  • Texas
  • Auburn
  • Louisiana State
  • Southern Cal
  • Miami

Granted, there are disparities in level of opposition among these teams, but these are the program who've consistently won games over the last half-century.

But your "blueblood" programs are not simply a matter of wins/losses and natties. There's historical relevancy, material resources, and cultural recognition. 

When I think of bluebloods, I think of programs like Alabama, Ohio State, and Oklahoma because they've been generally successful more often than not. But I also think of programs like Notre Dame, Texas, and Michigan, that each have massive resources and cultural cachet. Then you have lesser bluebloods that are "helmet" schools: programs who have high recognition due to multiple runs of major success, that have either fallen off in recent years (Nebraska, Miami, Southern Cal) or are still only recently relatively dominant (Georgia, Clemson, Louisiana State). 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Baron said:

Total wins, being relevant from generation to generation which I define as twenty year brackets and Brand/financial status. 

All of these schools except Clemson make that list to one degree or another.

1. Alabama

2. Notre Dame

3. Michigan

4. Ohio State

5. Oklahoma

6. Texas

7. Nebraska

8. Penn State

9. Miami

10. Florida State.

11. Georgia

Eh, Miami and Florida State had amazing runs between 83 and 2001. I feel like there were only a few seasons in that stretch where one of those teams wasn't at least playing for a title at the end of the year. But Miami hasn't been good since about 2003. Twenty years, now. Sadly, them moving out of the old Orange Bowl was the worst thing that could happen to them. I feel like they lost their identity. 

I get what you're saying, though. Total wins is a big one. But think about this- a LOT of Michigan's success came from like 1900-1912. Their last outright title was like 70 years ago (they split in 97). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr. P said:

I think you start by dismissing anything that happened before de-segregation. Yeah yeah, it's interesting for history buffs (and I'm one) but as far as I'm concerned that whole era has an asterisk beside it because not everyone was allowed to play. 

1970 to now is what I'd call the "modern era" of college football. That said, the winningest programs in that timespan are: 

  • Alabama
  • Ohio State
  • Oklahoma
  • Penn State
  • Michigan
  • Nebraska
  • Georgia
  • Florida State
  • Brigham Young
  • Clemson
  • Florida
  • Texas
  • Auburn
  • Louisiana State
  • Southern Cal
  • Miami

Granted, there are disparities in level of opposition among these teams, but these are the program who've consistently won games over the last half-century.

But your "blueblood" programs are not simply a matter of wins/losses and natties. There's historical relevancy, material resources, and cultural recognition. 

When I think of bluebloods, I think of programs like Alabama, Ohio State, and Oklahoma because they've been generally successful more often than not. But I also think of programs like Notre Dame, Texas, and Michigan, that each have massive resources and cultural cachet. Then you have lesser bluebloods that are "helmet" schools: programs who have high recognition due to multiple runs of major success, that have either fallen off in recent years (Nebraska, Miami, Southern Cal) or are still only recently relatively dominant (Georgia, Clemson, Louisiana State). 

Good stuff. 

I will say, however, that it is extremely weird and almost disconcerting to see LSU written out (and pronounced in my head) as Louisiana State. 

Edited by JohnnyFootball
  • LOL! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, JohnnyFootball said:

Good stuff. 

I will say, however, that it is extremely weird and almost disconcerting to see LSU written out (and pronounced in my head) as Louisiana State. 

Yeah I know, it messes with people. That's probably the main reason I do it.  :woot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2023 at 9:46 AM, JohnnyFootball said:

Good stuff. 

I will say, however, that it is extremely weird and almost disconcerting to see LSU written out (and pronounced in my head) as Louisiana State. 

I was like who is this Loserana State!?!  LSeaux!  

  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...