College football blue bloods

[WillisWG]

The term "blue blood" is subjective, but Miami's three decade run (barf) and Florida State's four decade run (baaaaaarf) make them meet the criteria, to an extent, of the idea at least. But programs are also not that old in the grand scheme of things. I'd argue that y'all (don't shoot the messenger) and Georgia don't belong on any of those lists above Nebraska or Miami. Y'all have two nattys (AP or Coaches poll are the ones that count) and Georgia has three, while Nebraska and Miami have five each.

There are programs that can and will argue themselves, but as I see it, these are the only "blue bloods". (Also, Staples gets his Gator card revoked for that list LOL.)

Notre Dame
Michigan
Ohio State
Oklahoma
USC
Nebraska
Texas
*Fringe but makes the cut*
Miami

that's minor chapped butt, I expected more

 

[Volizona]

The term "blue blood" is subjective, but Miami's three decade run (barf) and Florida State's four decade run (baaaaaarf) make them meet the criteria, to an extent, of the idea at least. But programs are also not that old in the grand scheme of things. I'd argue that y'all (don't shoot the messenger) and Georgia don't belong on any of those lists above Nebraska or Miami. Y'all have two nattys (AP or Coaches poll are the ones that count) and Georgia has three, while Nebraska and Miami have five each.

There are programs that can and will argue themselves, but as I see it, these are the only "blue bloods". (Also, Staples gets his Gator card revoked for that list LOL.)

Notre Dame
Michigan
Ohio State
Oklahoma
USC
Nebraska
Texas
*Fringe but makes the cut*
Miami

Gator Muppet. Interesting topic. I did some Wiki research. Miami was more like 20-25 years of dominance. Outside of these years, their history is very mediocre. I don’t think they are blue blood. I was surprised about FSU. I didn’t really think Bowden started winning until the late 80s. I was wrong. He took over a terrible program and had them winning in the late 70s all the the early 2000s. I really think you could argue the Bowden is the GOAT for turning a program around. All other great coaches took over great programs, maybe not your boy Spurrier. I think FSU had been elite closet to 50 years so my opinion has chanded

 

[Volizona]

Also, in terms of number of championships, there was so much historical bias in voting that you can’t take past results prior to the modern era. For the Vols, the 6 Nattys they claim, minus 1967, are appropriate and realistic. For 1938, 1939, 1940 UT went undefeated and gave up less than 30 points each season, one of which nobody scored any points. UT also had the largest number of polls awarding them #1, only the AP was missing which I am going to call BS on. Definitely biases by writers then. We should have been consensus champs those 3 years. There were also several years in the 50s where we were undefeated but did not win the AP Natty. Other schools are claiming much more bogus natties and what about Michigan? They have only one 2 consensus natties, including the asterisk from 2 years ago. I saw a lot of very average seasons in their history as well. Again, I can agree they are blue blood, but very borderline.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Also, in terms of number of championships, there was so much historical bias in voting that you can’t take past results prior to the modern era. For the Vols, the 6 Nattys they claim, minus 1967, are appropriate and realistic. For 1938, 1939, 1940 UT went undefeated and gave up less than 30 points each season, one of which nobody scored any points. UT also had the largest number of polls awarding them #1, only the AP was missing which I am going to call BS on. Definitely biases by writers then. We should have been consensus champs those 3 years. There were also several years in the 50s where we were undefeated but did not win the AP Natty. Other schools are claiming much more bogus natties and what about Michigan? They have only one 2 consensus natties, including the asterisk from 2 years ago. I saw a lot of very average seasons in their history as well. Again, I can agree they are blue blood, but very borderline.

I always said why even though I understand why UT claims the 1967 NC, they SHOULD claim other years with even better arguments:

1914, 1931, 1939 (all season unscored upon), 1956

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

FSU wasn’t elite until the Bowden years starting in the 80s. I don’t think they have the longevity. Same with LSU. They weren’t a perennial powerhouse until the 2000s. Really the same for Miami and Georgia too - outside of a few Dooley years and recent Kirby years, GA wasn’t elite. Of the missed the cut teams, none have been dominant for 80-100 years. Through the 20th century, Nebraska absolutely belonged, but the past 20-25 years have tainted their legacy. If we are honest, we should be compared to Nebraska. The past 20 years have killed us less the past few Heupel years. Through the end of the Neyland years, we were blue blood and we were really good from mid 60s through early 70s and late 80s through very early 2000s but had some really bad years in late 50s/early 60s, mid 70s /early 80s and the terrible post Fulmer years. I think these eras would kick out of blue blood status. Clemson had historically been a slightly above avg program and have only been elite the past 10-15 years. That isn’t enough. Florida wasn’t on the map until Spurrier. Auburn has been a solid program but not blue blood. Was PSU any good before Paterno? If yes, maybe they belong
View attachment 763028

I would kick out Miami and Florida State, and add Penn State and Nebraska instead. Penn State and Nebraska are 7th and 8th in all-time wins respectively. People here rag on Nebraska's record since 2000 but unfortunately they have more wins than we do over that time period. Florida State and Miami were real solid for about 25 years of the history of the sport but not much since, and definitely not before. Georgia has the 9th most wins all-time, and actually has the 4th most in CFB since the founding of the SEC in 1933, that's a long period, the most recent 90+ seasons. The best knock on Georgia was "1980" but they cured that. LSU has the 12th most wins but 4 legit national championships, 3 since 2003. If I had to cut the list down to 10, I'd probably dock LSU first rhough and then probably Penn State due to no national championships since 1986.

 

[Rickyvol77]

I would kick out Miami and Florida State, and add Penn State and Nebraska instead. Penn State and Nebraska are 7th and 8th in all-time wins respectively. People here rag on Nebraska's record since 2000 but unfortunately they have more wins than we do over that time period. Florida State and Miami were real solid for about 25 years of the history of the sport but not much since, and definitely not before. Georgia has the 9th most wins all-time, and actually has the 4th most in CFB since the founding of the SEC in 1933, that's a long period, the most recent 90+ seasons. The best knock on Georgia was "1980" but they cured that. LSU has the 12th most wins but 4 legit national championships, 3 since 2003. If I had to cut the list down to 10, I'd probably dock LSU first rhough and then probably Penn State due to no national championships since 1986.

Tennessee has had more wins than Nebraska since 2000, but we vacated 11 of them. But they still happened

 

[NighthawkVol]

Also, in terms of number of championships, there was so much historical bias in voting that you can’t take past results prior to the modern era. For the Vols, the 6 Nattys they claim, minus 1967, are appropriate and realistic. For 1938, 1939, 1940 UT went undefeated and gave up less than 30 points each season, one of which nobody scored any points. UT also had the largest number of polls awarding them #1, only the AP was missing which I am going to call BS on. Definitely biases by writers then. We should have been consensus champs those 3 years. There were also several years in the 50s where we were undefeated but did not win the AP Natty. Other schools are claiming much more bogus natties and what about Michigan? They have only one 2 consensus natties, including the asterisk from 2 years ago. I saw a lot of very average seasons in their history as well. Again, I can agree they are blue blood, but very borderline.

This, and the regional nature of college football are why national championships shouldn’t be weighed too heavily in this conversation. All-time wins and percentage is the best measure. Tennessee is a blueblood by that measure, as are Nebraska and Penn State. The Florida schools and Clemson fall short.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Tennessee has had more wins than Nebraska since 2000, but we vacated 11 of them. But they still happened

By 5 wins, if you give us back the Pruitt 11. Point being, throwing shade at Nebraska's record since 2000, isn't the flex some here think it is.

Here is where I got the numbers, which shows Nebraska ahead by 9 since 2000.

I-A Wins 2000-2023

I don't think it counts the 11 or last year, so UT plus 5.

 

[zjcvols]

There are only 10 traditional blue bloods in college football based on wins, winning pct, bowls, national titles, all americans, NFL players etc.

(not in order):
Alabama
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Michigan
Notre Dame
Texas
USC
Tennessee
Penn State
Nebraska


now another 25-50 years of success these programs are "right outside the door":
Georgia
LSU
Florida State
Miami
Florida
Auburn
Clemson
Washington

Damn good list. I'm curious what happens in 20 years with Nebraska because it seems we finally have it together, while Nebraska (though I like Rhule) is still in the depths. There's a good chance if Smart continues his run that Georgia will enter that discussion. If you look at their overall history, they've had few lean years even when they weren't great in the 90's.

 

[tobybeast]

I bleed orange not blue..... Sorry could not resist...

 

[zjcvols]

Miami is kind of hilarious. They only had 5 AP finishes from 1936-1979. Schellenberger takes over, they get good in 1980. They win 5 national titles WITH 3 DIFFERENT HEAD COACHES from 1980-2001. Coker keeps them afloat to 2005. And then they fall off. It's crazy.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Damn good list. I'm curious what happens in 20 years with Nebraska because it seems we finally have it together, while Nebraska (though I like Rhule) is still in the depths. There's a good chance if Smart continues his run that Georgia will enter that discussion. If you look at their overall history, they've had few lean years even when they weren't great in the 90's.

Serious question, Georgia has more all-time wins than us currently, more SEC championships, more NFL draftees, more first round draftees, more bowl appearances, the same number of consensus All-Americans, and the head to head record against us (29-23). We have more national championships (6 to 4), and a slight edge in winning percentage that we are apt to lose to them any year now. I can get on board with saying our programs historically basically even, and "if they are a blue blood, we are one" and vice-versa, but how does anyone figure they need any more years to catch us? In the here and now, it looks like they are already there, if we are being honest.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Damn good list. I'm curious what happens in 20 years with Nebraska because it seems we finally have it together, while Nebraska (though I like Rhule) is still in the depths. There's a good chance if Smart continues his run that Georgia will enter that discussion. If you look at their overall history, they've had few lean years even when they weren't great in the 90's.

I kind of feel like Nebraska lost their identity when they moved from the Big 12 to the Big 10. At the time, I thought it was a wise move but in hindsight, I'm not so sure it was the best decision, at least not in terms of success.

 

[zjcvols]

I kind of feel like Nebraska lost their identity when they moved from the Big 12 to the Big 10. At the time, I thought it was a wise move but in hindsight, I'm not so sure it was the best decision, at least not in terms of success.

Way less to do with the conference change and more how the landscape of college football changed game-wise. Nebraska's core strength was their ability to dominate the LOS. While still important, you have to be able to spread the ball around and get guys in space, plus have elite secondary players (and allegedly an incredibly protected and proficient PED program, again allegedly). It's easy to find midwest 300 lb dudes. It's a lot harder to find 190 4.3 speed WR and CB in the midwest. That became a lot harder for Nebraska to recruit. You combine that with terrible HC hires (Frost made sense but couldn't handle the job, Callahan was a pro coach and Riley was an abject disaster hire that never made sense) and they fell off.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Way less to do with the conference change and more how the landscape of college football changed game-wise. Nebraska's core strength was their ability to dominate the LOS. While still important, you have to be able to spread the ball around and get guys in space, plus have elite secondary players (and allegedly an incredibly protected and proficient PED program, again allegedly).It's easy to find midwest 300 lb dudes. It's a lot harder to find 190 4.3 speed WR and CB in the midwest. That became a lot harder for Nebraska to recruit. You combine that with terrible HC hires (Frost made sense but couldn't handle the job, Callahan was a pro coach and Riley was an abject disaster hire that never made sense) and they fell off.

LOL!

 

[zjcvols]

Serious question, Georgia has more all-time wins than us currently, more SEC championships, more NFL draftees, more first round draftees, more bowl appearances, the same number of consensus All-Americans, and the head to head record against us (29-23). We have more national championships (6 to 4), and a slight edge in winning percentage that we are apt to lose to them any year now. I can get on board with saying our programs historically basically even, and "if they are a blue blood, we are one" and vice-versa, but how does anyone figure they need any more years to catch us? In the here and now, it looks like they are already there, if we are being honest.

I think Georgia has a significant case and I am willing to listen. They just didn't have much succes pre Dooley and then after him it was 15 years of meh.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

I think Georgia has a significant case and I am willing to listen. They just didn't have much succes pre Dooley and then after him it was 15 years of meh.

Dooley was 25 years though, from roughly 1963 to 1988. I think they had been to the Rose, Orange and Sugar all before he ever got there. Bottom line is, they are ahead of us in most categories, albeit it's close, but it's also close in the couple we lead them in. All-time is all-time. In any event if you want to try to subdivide it into eras, I think it's pretty hard to make the argument that the pre-facemask era is more important now than the last 60 odd seasons. I don't think they are ahead of us, just that we are essentially even as far as program accolades at this point, if they are bluebloods, we are, and vice versa.

 

[volbound1700]

Miami is kind of hilarious. They only had 5 AP finishes from 1936-1979. Schellenberger takes over, they get good in 1980. They win 5 national titles WITH 3 DIFFERENT HEAD COACHES from 1980-2001. Coker keeps them afloat to 2005. And then they fall off. It's crazy.

I also think a lot of those Miami titles were bias/bogus. Take 1983 and compare Auburn against Miami who both had same records. Auburn had more top 25 wins and beat the team, Florida, that Miami lost to. Miami, even in its height, struggled with the SEC losing to Florida often, got blown out by Tennessee 35-7 in 1985, and got stomped by Alabama in 1992 SEC game. Had SEC gotten. More love in 1980s, they may have taken some of those titles that went to Miami.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

I also think a lot of those Miami titles were bias/bogus. Take 1983 and compare Auburn against Miami who both had same records. Auburn had more top 25 wins and beat the team, Florida, that Miami lost to. Miami, even in its height, struggled with the SEC losing to Florida often, got blown out by Tennessee 35-7 in 1985, and got stomped by Alabama in 1992 SEC game. Had SEC gotten. More love in 1980s, they may have taken some of those titles that went to Miami.

Meh, those teams with Warren Sapp and Michael Irvin were pretty doggone good. Florida tapped out of playing them every year in the late 80's because they were losing.

 

[NeverWe'llSever]

It’s such a vague definition. But realistically, the schools I see as truly dominant with championship teams across all or most eras of college football are Alabama, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Oklahoma.

Then there’s this group of great schools below them like Michigan, Texas, Nebraska, Tennessee, Penn State, USC, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Clemson that have consistently been good with 800+ wins all-time, multiple national championships and maybe dominant in 1 era or 2, but not as much as the top 4 and you can point out flaws on their resumés. But if you have 800 wins or more and multiple national championships, I think there’s a case to be made.

 

[NeverWe'llSever]

Dooley was 25 years though, from roughly 1963 to 1988. I think they had been to the Rose, Orange and Sugar all before he ever got there. Bottom line is, they are ahead of us in most categories, albeit it's close, but it's also close in the couple we lead them in. All-time is all-time. In any event if you want to try to subdivide it into eras, I think it's pretty hard to make the argument that the pre-facemask era is more important now than the last 60 odd seasons. I don't think they are ahead of us, just that we are essentially even as far as program accolades at this point, if they are bluebloods, we are, and vice versa.

Agree. They are ahead of us currently, but it’s not by much. I don’t see it as an insurmountable task to surpass them again in my lifetime like it would be with Bama, OSU, Oklahoma, Notre Dame.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Agree. They are ahead of us currently, but it’s not by much. I don’t see it as an insurmountable task to surpass them again in my lifetime like it would be with Bama, OSU, Oklahoma, Notre Dame.

Agree, we are basically tied. They are ahead of us in most categories, but only slightly, but we still hold winning percentage and claimed natties, 6 to 4.

 

[VOLnMiami]

Hard to believe we are over FL

Why is that?...Florida didn't even know what a football was until 1990....They aren't close to being a blue blood program.