Who is CFB blue blood?
- Thread starter psuro
- Start date
Texas is the most overrated program in College football. And Tennessee doesn't even belong in the discussion
Leave aside for the moment a school or two that might have been listed in those three groups that perhaps belonged there. I'm only discussing the schools that are in fact listed there.
The real question, I believe, is what length of a time are you applying in evaluating which school is a "Blue Blood." Michigan has not won a National Title in a long time, but they still have the most all time wins of any CFB school. So if we are applying the former metric, the Wolverines don't qualify, but if it is the latter metric, they quite obviously qualify. Same thing for Nebraska. Nebraska has not been good for YEARS.
Penn State and Miami have not won a national championship in a while, but both schools have been pretty damn competitive over the last couple of decades, especially the Lions.
Tennessee? I'm not seeing it. Notre Dame has not won since, when, 1988? They have had some truly awful seasons since then, but their history is undeniably blue blood. Texas won the NCG on 1/1/2005, beating USC behind Vince Young. But Texas has absolutely STUNK since then. Cal swept a home and home series from the Longhorns not long ago. Could there be more damning evidence of a lack of blue blood status?!
Perhaps the best thing you can say about this is that it makes for entertaining conversation and debate over drinks.
The real question, I believe, is what length of a time are you applying in evaluating which school is a "Blue Blood." Michigan has not won a National Title in a long time, but they still have the most all time wins of any CFB school. So if we are applying the former metric, the Wolverines don't qualify, but if it is the latter metric, they quite obviously qualify. Same thing for Nebraska. Nebraska has not been good for YEARS.
Penn State and Miami have not won a national championship in a while, but both schools have been pretty damn competitive over the last couple of decades, especially the Lions.
Tennessee? I'm not seeing it. Notre Dame has not won since, when, 1988? They have had some truly awful seasons since then, but their history is undeniably blue blood. Texas won the NCG on 1/1/2005, beating USC behind Vince Young. But Texas has absolutely STUNK since then. Cal swept a home and home series from the Longhorns not long ago. Could there be more damning evidence of a lack of blue blood status?!
Perhaps the best thing you can say about this is that it makes for entertaining conversation and debate over drinks.
Texas is - no doubt - down in recent years, compared to their historical norms (and certainly down compared to the level of investment in the program)
That said:
Since after their MNC in 2005:
- Texas ranks 20th among power 5 schools in winning percentage (certainly not what one - if they were a Texas fan - would want, but not bottom of the barrel by any stretch). For context, PSU ranks 13th. Those schools right at Texas's level over that time?, Michigan 17th, TAMU 23rd.
- Texas played for a MNC in 2009 (ie, more recently than PSU, and many others)
- In those 17 years since 2005, Texas has been to 13 bowls and been ranked in the final polls 9 times (not "Texas Standard", for sure - but hardly Rutgers either)
Charlie Strong's 3-year tenure was an unmitigated crapfest. No doubt. And they sent him packing quickly.
Herman was there for four years - and they played in, and won, bowl games every year of his tenure (Sugar Bowl, which is always nice, 2 Alamos and a Texas). But Herman was gone after year 4 (2020)
Sarkisian is 2 years in.
Now, the landscape is going to change DRASTICALLY for Texas (and Oklahoma). It will be interesting to see what happens.
I don't think anyone can really project with any confidence. SEC brings in a ton of money - but money (and spending it
) was never the thing holding Texas back. Competition will be much upgraded, no doubt. Even in bad times, Texas recruited with the Big Boys - will the SEC move help or hinder? Who knows. But they - and their fans - certainly "care", and certainly support the program (all sports at UT), and Texas (the state) remains one of the mother lodes for football talent. Interesting times.
That said:
Since after their MNC in 2005:
- Texas ranks 20th among power 5 schools in winning percentage (certainly not what one - if they were a Texas fan - would want, but not bottom of the barrel by any stretch). For context, PSU ranks 13th. Those schools right at Texas's level over that time?, Michigan 17th, TAMU 23rd.
- Texas played for a MNC in 2009 (ie, more recently than PSU, and many others)
- In those 17 years since 2005, Texas has been to 13 bowls and been ranked in the final polls 9 times (not "Texas Standard", for sure - but hardly Rutgers either)
Charlie Strong's 3-year tenure was an unmitigated crapfest. No doubt. And they sent him packing quickly.
Herman was there for four years - and they played in, and won, bowl games every year of his tenure (Sugar Bowl, which is always nice, 2 Alamos and a Texas). But Herman was gone after year 4 (2020)
Sarkisian is 2 years in.
Now, the landscape is going to change DRASTICALLY for Texas (and Oklahoma). It will be interesting to see what happens.
I don't think anyone can really project with any confidence. SEC brings in a ton of money - but money (and spending it
) was never the thing holding Texas back. Competition will be much upgraded, no doubt. Even in bad times, Texas recruited with the Big Boys - will the SEC move help or hinder? Who knows. But they - and their fans - certainly "care", and certainly support the program (all sports at UT), and Texas (the state) remains one of the mother lodes for football talent. Interesting times.
Be nice until it’s time to not be nice. Told my elementary sons every morning before boarding the bus
Blue bloods circled. PSU near the top of the list in terms of next one in. Nebraska first to drop out given recent history.
No to Nebraska. PSU undervalued by these criteria due to lack of respect for eastern football and overvaluation of old Big 8 teams.
Being a "blue blood" is not really a good thing.
"A blue blood is an aristocrat. Blue bloods come from privileged, noble families that are wealthy and powerful."
Generally, they're largely people who are given status, power and/or money based on what someone else did in the past. Often spoiled, corrupt and working against a meritocracy.
I'd rather be one of those dreaded uncouth "nouveau rich" folks.
"A blue blood is an aristocrat. Blue bloods come from privileged, noble families that are wealthy and powerful."
Generally, they're largely people who are given status, power and/or money based on what someone else did in the past. Often spoiled, corrupt and working against a meritocracy.
I'd rather be one of those dreaded uncouth "nouveau rich" folks.
Sounds a little John Wick or Rambo-ish. I like it.
You're pretty cute. The bunny ears is a nice touch.If it makes you feel any better, I have already determined you are.
