ESPN: Which programs are bluebloods?

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...rojans-lead-list-college-football-blue-bloods

This kind of thing is usually interesting - even if people will never agree. So ESPN had 12 of its college football writers rank programs. 10 was a perfect score, and 5 programs got a 10: Bama, Notre Dame, Ohio State, OU and USC. 3 others - Michigan, Texas, and Nebraska - got a 9.5 or better, which are rounded to 10. So you have 8 schools that ESPN considers royalty.

I suspect that's a pretty good list. Can't think of anyone else that should be in, or out.

SEC has 8 schools in the top 25: Bama, LSU, UF, UGa, UT, Auburn, A&M and Arkansas. UK comes in at #62 (ahead of only Vandy in-league, which is at #79). You get through 5 SEC schools before, for example, you get to the first ACC school, which is FSU at 13. There are 3 ACC schools in the top 25.

When I think "blueblood" I think tradition, all time records, that kind of thing. And that must have factored in to this vote - but you can tell there are concessions to recent success too. Oregon, Stanford and Wisconsin, for example, showing up in the top 25........

 

[JHB4UK]

college football for all the hype about programs coming out of nowhere to be on the national stage is still dominated by the same group of power schools that have always been there for 50+ years. Great stat I saw on twitter earlier in the week....do you know when was the last season that college football had a 1st time national champion?

1996 - Florida

every year since 1997 the national champion has been a school that had already won it before in the past

 

[JPFisher]

Miami and SMU are two programs that really could've made it if only.....

It's a lot different than basketball, though. UCONN has had a lot of recent success, but nobody would even consider bringing them into a conversation about blue bloods when the likes of UCLA, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, and Duke are on the table. I mean, hell, based on national championships, shouldn't several Ivy League schools be considered blue bloods?

I want to watch oOSU fans' heads roll when Yale whips their tails as a historic power. Make it happen, Talking Heads.

 

[gamecockcat]

Think that list would be a bit different if you were considering only the past 25-30 years. For instance, Notre Dame hasn't won a NC since 1988 (?) while Miami, FSU have won multiple times since then (and FSU finished Top Five 14 years in a row!!). The past 30 years, no way they're only #13. For all the hoopla surrounding Texas, they've won one NC since 1970. Plus, they had stretches of multiple mediocre-to-bad seasons along the way. Mack had consistent, sustained success but he took over a program that was in shambles, relatively, and has been nothing but mediocre since he left. Nebraska dominated in the 70s, 80s and early 90s but hasn't been really in the thick of the NC race for quite some time. Same could be said about Penn State.

It's interesting that of the 8 'royalty' schools named, only 4 (Bama, OSU, OU, USC) would be considered relevant nationally year-in and year-out for the past 30 years, i.e. in most years are at least in the conversation about who might win the NC. Michigan would be close and I wouldn't argue too much about their inclusion. But, ND, NE and TX? No way. I would certainly consider FSU royalty at this point. 3+ decades of excellence is pretty hard to argue with, imo.

 

[TeoJ]

Surprised Penn State didn't get some mentions.They have had a couple of bad PR years but been around for a while.

 

[BlueRaider22]

My definition of "Blue Blood" has to take into account total wins and percentage all time....and bowl/championships. Teams like ND and Michigan haven't won a title recently but they are "Blue Bloods" none-the-less.

I don't consider Miami one. They were barely a .500 program then blew up for 15-20 yrs.....then went back. Sure they were dominate during s few decades but getting it done 1/5th or 1/6th of the time is not "blue" in my book. Are they an upper program? Sure. But not Blue. And this is leaving out the possibility of cheating.

 

[NoviG8r]

In the last 80 years, since the beginning of widely-recognized national polling, these are the total AP and Coaches' Polls National Titles won or shared:

11 - Alabama
8 - Notre Dame
7 - Oklahoma, Southern Cal

5 - Nebraska, Miami, Ohio State
4 - Texas, Minnesota
3 -Florida, LSU, FSU

2 - Pittsburgh, Tennessee, Michigan, Penn State, Auburn, Michigan State, Army

1 - TCU, Texas A&M, Clemson, Georgia, Syracuse, Maryland, BYU, Colorado, Washington, UCLA, Georgia Tech

 

[WildCard]

While I like "rankings" based on quantitative factors and data (especially if trying to rank 128 teams ) I don't think anybody can make a case against the top 5 programs (AL, ND, tOSU, OU and USC) in that opinion poll. While USC is presently "down" a little bit (and all of those teams have suffered such "down" cycles) those 5 teams are among only 9 teams to have a win percentage of 70% and among only 10 teams to have 800 or more wins. All 5 are among the top 7 in all time AP final poll Top 10 appearances. These 5 clearly stand out by just about any measure.

After that it gets a bit harder. Their next 3 (MI, TX and NE) are historically great programs but have been going through some less than great seasons recently. And it really starts getting tough and debatable as you approach that #20 team.

Peace

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

In the last 80 years, since the beginning of widely-recognized national polling, these are the total AP and Coaches' Polls National Titles won or shared:

11 - Alabama
8 - Notre Dame
7 - Oklahoma, Southern Cal

5 - Nebraska, Miami, Ohio State
4 - Texas, Minnesota
3 -Florida, LSU, FSU

2 - Pittsburgh, Tennessee, Michigan, Penn State, Auburn, Michigan State, Army

1 - TCU, Texas A&M, Clemson, Georgia, Syracuse, Maryland, BYU, Colorado, Washington, UCLA, Georgia Tech

So 98 total titles. SEC has....22 (23 if you count A&M's)......

 

[kyhusker2]

It's interesting that of the 8 'royalty' schools named, only 4 (Bama, OSU, OU, USC) would be considered relevant nationally year-in and year-out for the past 30 years, i.e. in most years are at least in the conversation about who might win the NC.

Actually that's not true. Take Bama, for instance. Several losing years in the 80s and 90s. Hell, they were 3-8 and 4-9 in the 2000s.

 

[kyhusker2]

Actually that's not true. Take Bama, for instance. Several losing years in the 80s and 90s. Hell, they were 3-8 and 4-9 in the 2000s.

To follow up on this, if you look at 1984-2014 (31 years), the top 5 in terms of winning percentage are: FSU, Nebraska, OSU, Miami, Florida. Alabama would be 13th.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

Actually that's not true. Take Bama, for instance. Several losing years in the 80s and 90s. Hell, they were 3-8 and 4-9 in the 2000s.

To follow up on this, if you look at 1984-2014 (31 years), the top 5 in terms of winning percentage are: FSU, Nebraska, OSU, Miami, Florida. Alabama would be 13th.

yep. Like I said, the results of that - while generally fine to me - are hard to decipher in terms of how they evaluated a program. Some weird combination of past and present. Just smells kind of inconsistent. But like I said, I can't argue with the results.

Doing this for college basketball is much easier - the answer is kind of made plain. With college football, there are more possible teams when you talk about "elite".......

 

[TeoJ]

To follow up on this, if you look at 1984-2014 (31 years), the top 5 in terms of winning percentage are: FSU, Nebraska, OSU, Miami, Florida. Alabama would be 13th.

Why some try to prove a point with specific years,count all years/

 

[gamecockcat]

husker - you're right. But why include ND then when they've had just as many or more down years over the past 30 and not even close to the same success in the past 10 years? Just because they were consistently great 30+ years ago, I don't think that's relevant, especially with today's players. FSU is clearly the better program over the past 30, imo, as are others. Does that make them 'blue blood'? That's certainly one opinion.