Have the last 10 years removed us from being a 'blue blood'

#51
#51
I’m famous!

And on a side note, I got pretty burned up in that thread 😂

But for football, we had unreal talent in the 1990s and early 2000s, but we just didn’t come away with enough championships in my opinion. We should have had 3 or 4. Next time we get to the top, we need 3 to 4 to 5 nattys before we fall off again. This is just for recent history of course. No one will ever take away from what the great General Neyland did here.
 
#52
#52
My answer is "no", but under a different rationale.

Tennessee has a losing record all time vs. Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, and Florida. You can't have a losing record against 4 conference opponents (i don't count the newcomers here) all time and be a "blue blood". The thing the blue bloods have in common is they dominated their leagues except against another potential blue blood. Michigan/Ohio State, Nebraska/Oklahoma, etc.

JMO
 
#54
#54
UT was certainly a blue blood for a decent stretch of time. But 5 conference titles and 1 NC in the last half a century would suggest that time is past.
 
#55
#55
99gator said:
My answer is "no", but under a different rationale.

Tennessee has a losing record all time vs. Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, and Florida. You can't have a losing record against 4 conference opponents (i don't count the newcomers here) all time and be a "blue blood". The thing the blue bloods have in common is they dominated their leagues except against another potential blue blood. Michigan/Ohio State, Nebraska/Oklahoma, etc.

JMO
Click to expand...

The teams you mentioned all play in **** conferences. Those 4 teams historically played one really good team a year and it was each other. Texas is only considered a blue blood because of their money. In reality, they have done less with more than any team in the history of college football.
 
#56
#56
99gator said:
My answer is "no", but under a different rationale.

Tennessee has a losing record all time vs. Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, and Florida. You can't have a losing record against 4 conference opponents (i don't count the newcomers here) all time and be a "blue blood". The thing the blue bloods have in common is they dominated their leagues except against another potential blue blood. Michigan/Ohio State, Nebraska/Oklahoma, etc.

JMO
Click to expand...

Also Tennessee has a losing record versus only 4 SEC programs and UGA is not one of them. Missouri unfortunately is. Florida has a losing record versus 5 SEC programs. Just saying....
 
#57
#57
I think we are a blue blood, blue blood isn't who is the latest hot thing, it's who has done the best over time. We are historically a power house even if we haven't been lately.
 
#60
#60
Looked at this for purposes of the BYU thread. Thought it might be relevant to this conversation.

Most Wins, Last 50 Seasons:

1. Nebraska, 472
2. Oklahoma, 467
3. Ohio St., 466
4. Alabama, 448
5. Penn State, 446
6. Michigan, 444
7. Georgia, 427
8. Florida State, 426
9. Texas, 419
10. BYU, 416
11t. Florida, 415
11t. Southern Cal, 415
13. Notre Dame, 410
14. Auburn, 404
15t. Tennessee, 398
15t. Clemson, 398
15t. Miami, 398
18. LSU, 396
19. Texas A&M, 372
20. Virginia Tech, 369
 
#61
#61
Most Wins, the last 100 Seasons:

1. Alabama, 807
2. Oklahoma, 777
3. Notre Dame, 768
4. Southern Cal, 761
5t. Texas, 753
5t. Ohio State, 753
7. Tennessee, 745
8. Penn State, 734
9. Georgia, 733
10t. Nebraska, 731
10t. Michigan, 731
12. LSU, 698
13. Florida, 673
14. Auburn, 660
15. Clemson, 657
16. West Virginia, 634
17. Georgia Tech, 632
18. Washington, 628
19t. Texas A&M, 622
19t. Arkansas, 622
19t. Miami, 622

At this point, I think everything before that is pretty much irrelevant.
 
#62
#62
It is absolutely impossible to answer this question definitively.

Which is, perhaps, why it gets asked so often.

The more vague and nebulous the wording, the more room exists for debate. "Blue blood" is about as nebulous as it gets. Even the dictionaries don't agree on what it means.

Mirriam-Webster says all you have to do to be a blue blood is be a member of a noble or socially prominent family. By that definition, and since the SEC is socially prominent in the world of college football, even Vanderbilt is a blue blood.

Oxford says a blue blood is a person of noble birth. As the United States eschews nobility in favor of social equality, there are no blue bloods in America according to Oxford (can you see calling places like Alabama and Oklahoma "noble"? hehe).

Point is, any answer anyone gives in this forum is right. And wrong. It all depends on the observer's definition of the term.

Me personally, I think Tennessee is one of the blue bloods of college football. Among the 10-15 winningest programs all time, six national titles (okay, really four), and a host of memories, traditions, games, players, and coaches of importance to the sport. Being down on our luck the past decade doesn't make us less of a blue blood, any more than one of the Rothschild heirs going broke removes them from that social stratum.

In other words, by my definition, you don't earn your blue blood status over and over, you don't have to get your membership card renewed each year...you inherit it. In the case of sports programs, from your earlier self.

Which is why I would also call Nebraska a blue blood, and Texas, even though both those programs have--like us--been down in recent years.

Feel free to disagree; you'll be right, from your perspective. :)

Go Vols!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VolinMC, DWright39 and unfrozencvmanvol
#63
#63
Tennessee still recruits against the blue bloods and wins their share. Some of the best players to ever play football have played here. All of the Virginia Tech fans I worth with still most definitely consider Tennessee a blue blood. It’s still a big deal to win in Neyland Stadium for a lot of programs. Teams still get up for playing Tennessee. If this question were asked 20 years ago it wouldn’t even be a question. When I was younger even before the late 90s. When UT was playing on TV the announcers always talked about the Vols as if they were one of college footballs all time best programs. Just like the way they talk about Bama and the like now.
 
#64
#64
VFL-82-JP said:
It is absolutely impossible to answer this question definitively.

Which is, perhaps, why it gets asked so often.

The more vague and nebulous the wording, the more room exists for debate. "Blue blood" is about as nebulous as it gets. Even the dictionaries don't agree on what it means.

Mirriam-Webster says all you have to do to be a blue blood is be a member of a noble or socially prominent family. By that definition, and since the SEC is socially prominent in the world of college football, even Vanderbilt is a blue blood.

Oxford says a blue blood is a person of noble birth. As the United States eschews nobility in favor of social equality, there are no blue bloods in America according to Oxford (can you see calling places like Alabama and Oklahoma "noble"? hehe).

Point is, any answer anyone gives in this forum is right. And wrong. It all depends on the observer's definition of the term.

Me personally, I think Tennessee is one of the blue bloods of college football. Among the 10-15 winningest programs all time, six national titles (okay, really four), and a host of memories, traditions, games, players, and coaches of importance to the sport. Being down on our luck the past decade doesn't make us less of a blue blood, any more than one of the Rothschild heirs going broke removes them from that social stratum.

In other words, by my definition, you don't earn your blue blood status over and over, you don't have to get your membership card renewed each year...you inherit it. In the case of sports programs, from your earlier self.

Which is why I would also call Nebraska a blue blood, and Texas, even though both those programs have--like us--been down in recent years.

Feel free to disagree; you'll be right, from your perspective. :)

Go Vols!
Click to expand...
"Blue blood" to me implies people that think their better than everyone else. "Classier" than everyone else. I don't mean schools that just have great programs or have had great teams over the years. Blue blood goes further than that. They not only have good programs, but they see themselves as knowing how to properly conduct oneself, in contrast to the riff raff, who might have good teams but don't have the same social standing. Judge Smails versus Al Czervik. It's a certain snootiness you have to have - it's not just that you have a great program; it's that you think you hung the moon and are God's gift to the sport of college football.

If you use that definition, only a handful of schools fall into that category, and Tennessee isn't one of them. I'm thinking more like Notre Dame, Michigan, and Ohio St. You can throw Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Penn St in there too.

Of the "blue bloods," Michigan's reputation is by far the most undeserved and the most dependent upon things that happened decades and decades ago. Their most impressive achievement is having the most all-time wins, which is notable, because they were playing the game before a lot of other schools even had teams. If you were the first and simply started doing it before anybody else, that's going to lend itself to thinking you're better than everyone else. However, they've won one-half a national title since 1950.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VFL-82-JP
#66
#66
#67
#67
05_never_again said:
"Blue blood" to me implies people that think their better than everyone else. "Classier" than everyone else. I don't mean schools that just have great programs or have had great teams over the years. Blue blood goes further than that. They not only have good programs, but they see themselves as knowing how to properly conduct oneself, in contrast to the riff raff, who might have good teams but don't have the same social standing. Judge Smails versus Al Czervik. It's a certain snootiness you have to have - it's not just that you have a great program; it's that you think you hung the moon and are God's gift to the sport of college football.

If you use that definition, only a handful of schools fall into that category, and Tennessee isn't one of them. I'm thinking more like Notre Dame, Michigan, and Ohio St. You can throw Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Penn St in there too.

Of the "blue bloods," Michigan's reputation is by far the most undeserved and the most dependent upon things that happened decades and decades ago. Their most impressive achievement is having the most all-time wins, which is notable, because they were playing the game before a lot of other schools even had teams. If you were the first and simply started doing it before anybody else, that's going to lend itself to thinking you're better than everyone else. However, they've won one-half a national title since 1950.
Click to expand...
I disagree about Michigan being the most undeserving. Other than that fluke year a few ago when they got slaughtered by Alabama, Notre Dame hasn’t done crap in decades.
 
#68
#68
DWright39 said:
I disagree about Michigan being the most undeserving. Other than that fluke year a few ago when they got slaughtered by Alabama, Notre Dame hasn’t done crap in decades.
Click to expand...
Notre Dame has won 5 national titles and played for another since Michigan's last full national title. They definitely are more deserving.

The last full national title Michigan won was in 1948. Go and read up on the history of Michigan football...I think you'll be surprised at how much mythmaking there is about it. They aren't as storied of a program and their fans would like you to believe. Bo Schembechler, who Michigan fans will tell you is Bear Bryant, Bobby Bowden, Tom Osborne, and Nick Saban rolled into one, never won a national title and went 2-8 in the Rose Bowl. He is undoubtedly the most overrated college football coach of all time, and perhaps one of the most overrated figures in sports history. So much of the tradition and mystique around their program is a mythology they've created based in large part on marketing as opposed to what they've actually achieved on the field relative to other schools.
 
Last edited:
#69
#69
05_never_again said:
Notre Dame has won 5 national titles and played for another since Michigan's last full national title. They definitely are more deserving.

The last full national title Michigan won was in 1948.
Click to expand...

And let's be honest: they shouldn't really spit the '97 title. WSU got jobbed in that Rose Bowl, while Nebraska rolled in the Orange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTwild82, unfrozencvmanvol and 05_never_again
#70
#70
Weve never been a "blue blood." We're in that 2nd group. The only ones i would consider football blue bloods are...

Alabama
Notre Dame
Michigan
Ohio State
Southern Cal
Oklahoma

We are in the 2nd group that would include...

Tennessee
Texas
Penn State
Nebraska
UCLA

After these I'd put the "front runners" who have had a lot of modern day success but not much historically. These would be...

Miami
Florida
Florida State
Clemson
LSU
Georgia
 
#71
#71
IMO, when you take a look at all time wins, national championships, conference championships, bowl wins, and Heisman (this one being least important of all IMO) and combine those, there emerges a clear top 8. You can argue the order of the 8, but these would be the programs I would consider the blue bloods of CFB (in no particular order)

Bama, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and USC

I think we're in a second tier (again, no particular order). This is much more of my opinion list and more malleable than the first. To me, you need to be either A) historically really good (us and PSU) or B) newly minted great programs who have multiple nattys and have been dominant for large stretches recently (others).

Tennessee, Miami, Florida, Florida State, Penn State, LSU, and Clemson.

Georgia and Auburn are close to being on this, but IMO are just a bit short.
 
#72
#72
PhoenixAZVol said:
Maybe we never were a blue blood football program. I was just reading one of the basektball threads questioning whether or not the Bball progam could be a blue blood program after 20 years of great success (not likely). How about football? Were we ever a blue blood program? Folks like to think that we were at one time. Perhaps in the Neyland years? The late 80's to early 00's was probably the closest we came in the modern era but have the last 10-15 years completely destroyed our legacy? If I'm honest, I'm not sure we ever were a real blue blood program. Perhaps we were a tier below Bama, Ohio State, USC, Notre Dame etc. What think you all? With our facilities, resources, fanbase, money spent, etc., you would think we should be but over time the results just haven't been there.
Click to expand...

Hell, Notre Dame hasn't been Notre Dame in a long time. They have had about as much mismanagement as we have. Yes, we were about as blueblood as anyone during the Neyland years. But few to none of us were alive to see it. So we are just talking about what our dead grandparents told us. For most of us, our greatest pride has been the names of players who made an NFL lineup.

Personally, I have more hope of the Basketball team finally becoming a blueblood before we can honestly say it about football again.
 
#73
#73
Brave Volunteer said:
Weve never been a "blue blood." We're in that 2nd group. The only ones i would consider football blue bloods are...

Alabama
Notre Dame
Michigan
Ohio State
Southern Cal
Oklahoma

We are in the 2nd group that would include...

Tennessee
Texas
Penn State
Nebraska
UCLA
Click to expand...
UCLA? Ahead of Georgia? UCLA is not in the Top 20 in wins in either the last 50 years or the last 100. Georgia is 7th in wins in the last 50 seasons, 9th in the last 100 seasons. Hell, everybody else you named LSU, Clemson, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, and Miami should be ahead of UCLA, along with several you didn't name Texas A&M, Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Georgia Tech to name a few.
 
#75
#75
volsfanforlife73 said:
The teams you mentioned all play in **** conferences. Those 4 teams historically played one really good team a year and it was each other. Texas is only considered a blue blood because of their money. In reality, they have done less with more than any team in the history of college football.
Click to expand...

Not a problem for Alabama though, right?

Of the 9 other conference members that I grew up knowing as the "SEC", Tennessee has a winning record against LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, and Kentucky.

Now, I'm sorry. I stand by my argument. A "blue blood" is going to be better than that.

And yes, Florida is not a blue blood either.

But, and many other posters made similar lists, my blue bloods would be about 8 schools.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top