For me there's a difference between Tier I and Blue Bloods. Tier I is more forward lookin (with obviously a healthy dose of accomplishments). Blue Bloods is more historical accomplishments. To me Nebraska is a dying Blue Blood but probably no longer in Tier 1.
I think you still gotta consider Nebraska a Blue Blood based on history. They are no doubt dying, but as we've so often seen, any school like that is just one home run hire away from getting the ship righted. The challenge is, of course, those guys are so far an few between.
So here's in interesting question: When did Cal cease being a Blue Blood? When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor they certainly still met all the requirements- e.g., NTs in 1920, 21, 22, 23 and 37.
Great question and I’m not precisely sure. I would say definitely by 1980 but probably before. By 80 they had gone 30 years without a top 10 finish and 43 years without an NC (or even a rose bowl win, or any bowel win though obviously bowl wins meant something back then).
Four of their five NCs were consecutive and under one coach. They never really established themselves as a serious power outside of Smith besides one 3-4 year run each under Stub and Pappy.
In all seriousness I think they’re in the next tier. Only 2 NCs is the big disqualifier though they have a couple other worthy seasons. Only one Heisman winner. They’re just on the outside looking in IMO. And that’s before any sort of asterisk for harboring a pedophile for decades.
In all seriousness I think they’re in the next tier. Only 2 NCs is the big disqualifier though they have a couple other worthy seasons. Only one Heisman winner. They’re just on the outside looking in IMO. And that’s before any sort of asterisk for harboring a pedophile for decades.
I agree. I looked at it and thought "Who is missing, if anyone?", and I have a probable bias towards them because they were dominant during the time I started to pay attention (late 60's), and they were on TV a lot (at the time, probably 3-4 times a year)...
So I haven’t researched it and maybe all of my own blue blood picks don’t qualify if we use this lens but I’m thinking a true Blue Blood should have at least 2 NCs even after you take away the accomplishments of their best coach. A blue blood is a top program over multiple eras and multiple administrations. Can’t just be held up by one coach and another random great year.
Blue blood is a restricted club. The votes don't surprise me
Michigan is a blue blood but Florida has been better for 30 years
Clemson had a big decade
UW has fits of glory followed by despair
Texas is a blue blood despite 7 wins a year
Its Notre Dame Michigan Texas Oklahoma Bama tOSU USC
Curious why you put Texas in and not Nebraska? They seem fairly equivalent to me.
I think the other 6 are clear blue bloods. To me there's either 6 or 8, I don't see enough separation between Texas and Nebraska to have one but not the other.
I like 6.
It's often been stated, that to be a true Blue Blood, you need to have tradition, location and money. Nebraska lacks the location piece these days. Notre Dame is the worst of the blue bloods on the field the past 30 years, but they still have all 3.
The IRON LAWS® of college football were always meant to be forward looking. Aubbie's (foolish) contention was if you have these three things you will succeed going forward it's only a matter of tim.
I don't think that's what "Blue Bloods" is trying to describe and Aubbie himself never applied them in that fashion that i'm aware of.
For one obvious poont he applied these IRON LAWS to UW (vis a vis Oregon) as a guarantee that we would surpass them again ultimately. I don't think even Aubbie would argue UW is a blue blood.
So no, I am confident it has not been often stated that these things are required to be a Blue Blood. I'm not sure it's ever been stated until this thread.
#AuburnDawgFSSuperiorityGuy
A few in-depth observations:
1. @Auburndawg was always stupid. I liked him and thought he was funny (to look at), but also always thought he was dumb. And, yes, I do have a view of who here is smart and who is not, and there is plenty of both.
2. Bluebloods - who really cares? It's a dumb designation/club/list/cohort/thing to discuss. It means absolutely nothing and has little to no consequence. If some team is a blue blood by virtue of piling up wins before black players were allowed or before TV was invented, then I don't care about it and I don't care that others do care about it. IJDC. It's dumb. Like @Auburndawg. Just dumb.
3. It is invariably implicated by fans of teams that used to be good but aren't anymore, or it's used against an upstart threat to try and squash their mo ... or whatever. It's a play for permanent respeck status that said fanbase tries to make stick to the wall. Sometimes the blueblood wannabes enable this nonsense (hi Husky fans with Trojan cocks in their mouths). I reject it as anti-American. You like permanent status? Go to England where they still pay homage to hereditary title and related bullshit. When you think about, being the opposite of that is what made American great in the first place, and better than GB ever was. Who came crawling to whom when Hitler was about to go in dry? Stiff upper lip wasn't going to get it done in the long-run. American industry made that happen bitches. We're better precisely because we don't stifle ourselves with rigid social hierarchy that has real-world implications. You gotta go get it here if you want it. The Brits have been third-tier forever. Don't twist it; I love The Crown. I eat that shit up. But I also think it's wildly stupid and love that I live somewhere that is full of people who wouldn't think for a second to accept such a ridiculous social arrangement. Same goes for cfb. You're either good now and have been recently or you're not. Don't waste my tim talking to me about all-time records Michigan. IDC. Me going around and squawking about Miami back when at the same time that Pitt is thrusting its cockus in our? collective asses, again, would just be dumb. I've probably done it, but it's still dumb.
4. Anybody who jerks off to perennial underachieving Texas is just straight pathetic.
Blue blood is a restricted club. The votes don't surprise me
Michigan is a blue blood but Florida has been better for 30 years
Clemson had a big decade
UW has fits of glory followed by despair
Texas is a blue blood despite 7 wins a year
Its Notre Dame Michigan Texas Oklahoma Bama tOSU USC
Curious why you put Texas in and not Nebraska? They seem fairly equivalent to me.
I think the other 6 are clear blue bloods. To me there's either 6 or 8, I don't see enough separation between Texas and Nebraska to have one but not the other.
I like 6.
It's often been stated, that to be a true Blue Blood, you need to have tradition, location and money. Nebraska lacks the location piece these days. Notre Dame is the worst of the blue bloods on the field the past 30 years, but they still have all 3.
The IRON LAWS® of college football were always meant to be forward looking. Aubbie's (foolish) contention was if you have these three things you will succeed going forward it's only a matter of tim.
I don't think that's what "Blue Bloods" is trying to describe and Aubbie himself never applied them in that fashion that i'm aware of.
For one obvious poont he applied these IRON LAWS to UW (vis a vis Oregon) as a guarantee that we would surpass them again ultimately. I don't think even Aubbie would argue UW is a blue blood.
So no, I am confident it has not been often stated that these things are required to be a Blue Blood. I'm not sure it's ever been stated until this thread.
#AuburnDawgFSSuperiorityGuy
A few in-depth observations:
1. @Auburndawg was always stupid. I liked him and thought he was funny (to look at), but also always thought he was dumb. And, yes, I do have a view of who here is smart and who is not, and there is plenty of both.
2. Bluebloods - who really cares? It's a dumb designation/club/list/cohort/thing to discuss. It means absolutely nothing and has little to no consequence. If some team is a blue blood by virtue of piling up wins before black players were allowed or before TV was invented, then I don't care about it and I don't care that others do care about it. IJDC. It's dumb. Like @Auburndawg. Just dumb.
3. It is invariably implicated by fans of teams that used to be good but aren't anymore, or it's used against an upstart threat to try and squash their mo ... or whatever. It's a play for permanent respeck status that said fanbase tries to make stick to the wall. Sometimes the blueblood wannabes enable this nonsense (hi Husky fans with Trojan cocks in their mouths). I reject it as anti-American. You like permanent status? Go to England where they still pay homage to hereditary title and related bullshit. When you think about, being the opposite of that is what made American great in the first place, and better than GB ever was. Who came crawling to whom when Hitler was about to go in dry? Stiff upper lip wasn't going to get it done in the long-run. American industry made that happen bitches. We're better precisely because we don't stifle ourselves with rigid social hierarchy that has real-world implications. You gotta go get it here if you want it. The Brits have been third-tier forever. Don't twist it; I love The Crown. I eat that shit up. But I also think it's wildly stupid and love that I live somewhere that is full of people who wouldn't think for a second to accept such a ridiculous social arrangement. Same goes for cfb. You're either good now and have been recently or you're not. Don't waste my tim talking to me about all-time records Michigan. IDC. Me going around and squawking about Miami back when at the same time that Pitt is thrusting its cockus in our? collective asses, again, would just be dumb. I've probably done it, but it's still dumb.
4. Anybody who jerks off to perennial underachieving Texas is just straight pathetic.
Blue blood is a restricted club. The votes don't surprise me
Michigan is a blue blood but Florida has been better for 30 years
Clemson had a big decade
UW has fits of glory followed by despair
Texas is a blue blood despite 7 wins a year
Its Notre Dame Michigan Texas Oklahoma Bama tOSU USC
Curious why you put Texas in and not Nebraska? They seem fairly equivalent to me.
I think the other 6 are clear blue bloods. To me there's either 6 or 8, I don't see enough separation between Texas and Nebraska to have one but not the other.
I like 6.
It's often been stated, that to be a true Blue Blood, you need to have tradition, location and money. Nebraska lacks the location piece these days. Notre Dame is the worst of the blue bloods on the field the past 30 years, but they still have all 3.
The IRON LAWS® of college football were always meant to be forward looking. Aubbie's (foolish) contention was if you have these three things you will succeed going forward it's only a matter of tim.
I don't think that's what "Blue Bloods" is trying to describe and Aubbie himself never applied them in that fashion that i'm aware of.
For one obvious poont he applied these IRON LAWS to UW (vis a vis Oregon) as a guarantee that we would surpass them again ultimately. I don't think even Aubbie would argue UW is a blue blood.
So no, I am confident it has not been often stated that these things are required to be a Blue Blood. I'm not sure it's ever been stated until this thread.
#AuburnDawgFSSuperiorityGuy
Things get misquoted around here all the Tim....ain't no big thing.
That being said, what's a better definition of a Blue Blood than the "Iron Laws"? @creepycoug isn't a Blue Blood because he still doesn't have tradition and no dinero either.
Miami is a boom or bust program. Would I prefer they were good all the time and had a coach that wanted to stay 25 years and beat everyone senseless? Sure. And there's enough money to make it happen. But I'd take what they've given me over flacid "consistently good but never great." I'd rather reach the peak and see the view and then descend to sea level for a while vs. spending my life at base camp. YMMV.
Miami has been part of some of the most historically important and visible games ever, has been part of some nationally-compelling rivalries, established sea changes in the game by way of style of play, by way of program culture, has produced a shit ton of truly great name players, is closing in on Buck and Michigan for most alumni in the pro fb HOF (and will then be knocking on SC's door), has one or two of the very best teams ever to be fielded and has been as nationally relevant, love them or hate them, as any program has ever been. Every single person knows who they are and what they've been about. The program that beat one of the most dominant cfb teams ever for its first title, and won 5 and played for 2 others. I could go on, and will if you make me. This is the program that made Jimmy Johnson cry like a little girl on his way to the airport for Dallas.
I'll take what they've given me over being a Nebraska, Texas, Michigan or ND fan any. day. of. the. week. Those of you who like the monarchy and who like to look down your noses at the newly rich may prefer otherwise. Again, IDFC. It's a Miami thing. You wouldn't understand.
Blue blood is a restricted club. The votes don't surprise me
Michigan is a blue blood but Florida has been better for 30 years
Clemson had a big decade
UW has fits of glory followed by despair
Texas is a blue blood despite 7 wins a year
Its Notre Dame Michigan Texas Oklahoma Bama tOSU USC
Curious why you put Texas in and not Nebraska? They seem fairly equivalent to me.
I think the other 6 are clear blue bloods. To me there's either 6 or 8, I don't see enough separation between Texas and Nebraska to have one but not the other.
I like 6.
It's often been stated, that to be a true Blue Blood, you need to have tradition, location and money. Nebraska lacks the location piece these days. Notre Dame is the worst of the blue bloods on the field the past 30 years, but they still have all 3.
The IRON LAWS® of college football were always meant to be forward looking. Aubbie's (foolish) contention was if you have these three things you will succeed going forward it's only a matter of tim.
I don't think that's what "Blue Bloods" is trying to describe and Aubbie himself never applied them in that fashion that i'm aware of.
For one obvious poont he applied these IRON LAWS to UW (vis a vis Oregon) as a guarantee that we would surpass them again ultimately. I don't think even Aubbie would argue UW is a blue blood.
So no, I am confident it has not been often stated that these things are required to be a Blue Blood. I'm not sure it's ever been stated until this thread.
#AuburnDawgFSSuperiorityGuy
A few in-depth observations:
1. @Auburndawg was always stupid. I liked him and thought he was funny (to look at), but also always thought he was dumb. And, yes, I do have a view of who here is smart and who is not, and there is plenty of both.
2. Bluebloods - who really cares? It's a dumb designation/club/list/cohort/thing to discuss. It means absolutely nothing and has little to no consequence. If some team is a blue blood by virtue of piling up wins before black players were allowed or before TV was invented, then I don't care about it and I don't care that others do care about it. IJDC. It's dumb. Like @Auburndawg. Just dumb.
3. It is invariably implicated by fans of teams that used to be good but aren't anymore, or it's used against an upstart threat to try and squash their mo ... or whatever. It's a play for permanent respeck status that said fanbase tries to make stick to the wall. Sometimes the blueblood wannabes enable this nonsense (hi Husky fans with Trojan cocks in their mouths). I reject it as anti-American. You like permanent status? Go to England where they still pay homage to hereditary title and related bullshit. When you think about, being the opposite of that is what made American great in the first place, and better than GB ever was. Who came crawling to whom when Hitler was about to go in dry? Stiff upper lip wasn't going to get it done in the long-run. American industry made that happen bitches. We're better precisely because we don't stifle ourselves with rigid social hierarchy that has real-world implications. You gotta go get it here if you want it. The Brits have been third-tier forever. Don't twist it; I love The Crown. I eat that shit up. But I also think it's wildly stupid and love that I live somewhere that is full of people who wouldn't think for a second to accept such a ridiculous social arrangement. Same goes for cfb. You're either good now and have been recently or you're not. Don't waste my tim talking to me about all-time records Michigan. IDC. Me going around and squawking about Miami back when at the same time that Pitt is thrusting its cockus in our? collective asses, again, would just be dumb. I've probably done it, but it's still dumb.
4. Anybody who jerks off to perennial underachieving Texas is just straight pathetic.
The UK has a permanent seat (with veto power) on the UN Security Council. That's about as Blue Blood as it gets.
Exhibit B for why "blue blood" is stupid. Sixth largest economy in the world. Bfd. Wake me up.
Setting aside our shared history and language, they being the source of a lot of our traditions, legal and economic, we wouldn't care about them. You know it, I know it, and the American people know. Fuck, Jackie Kennedy tried to explain this to you 60 years ago boo. Take your Anglophile perversions off the board ese. It's unmanly. And un-American.
Blue blood is a restricted club. The votes don't surprise me
Michigan is a blue blood but Florida has been better for 30 years
Clemson had a big decade
UW has fits of glory followed by despair
Texas is a blue blood despite 7 wins a year
Its Notre Dame Michigan Texas Oklahoma Bama tOSU USC
Curious why you put Texas in and not Nebraska? They seem fairly equivalent to me.
I think the other 6 are clear blue bloods. To me there's either 6 or 8, I don't see enough separation between Texas and Nebraska to have one but not the other.
I like 6.
It's often been stated, that to be a true Blue Blood, you need to have tradition, location and money. Nebraska lacks the location piece these days. Notre Dame is the worst of the blue bloods on the field the past 30 years, but they still have all 3.
The IRON LAWS® of college football were always meant to be forward looking. Aubbie's (foolish) contention was if you have these three things you will succeed going forward it's only a matter of tim.
I don't think that's what "Blue Bloods" is trying to describe and Aubbie himself never applied them in that fashion that i'm aware of.
For one obvious poont he applied these IRON LAWS to UW (vis a vis Oregon) as a guarantee that we would surpass them again ultimately. I don't think even Aubbie would argue UW is a blue blood.
So no, I am confident it has not been often stated that these things are required to be a Blue Blood. I'm not sure it's ever been stated until this thread.
#AuburnDawgFSSuperiorityGuy
Things get misquoted around here all the Tim....ain't no big thing.
That being said, what's a better definition of a Blue Blood than the "Iron Laws"? @creepycoug isn't a Blue Blood because he still doesn't have tradition and no dinero either.
Miami is a boom or bust program. Would I prefer they were good all the time and had a coach that wanted to stay 25 years and beat everyone senseless? Sure. And there's enough money to make it happen. But I'd take what they've given me over flacid "consistently good but never great." I'd rather reach the peak and see the view and then descend to sea level for a while vs. spending my life at base camp. YMMV.
Miami has been part of some of the most historically important and visible games ever, has been part of some nationally-compelling rivalries, established sea changes in the game by way of style of play, by way of program culture, has produced a shit ton of truly great name players, is closing in on Buck and Michigan for most alumni in the pro fb HOF (and will then be knocking on SC's door), has one or two of the very best teams ever to be fielded and has been as nationally relevant, love them or hate them, as any program has ever been. Every single person knows who they are and what they've been about. The program that beat one of the most dominant cfb teams ever for its first title, and won 5 and played for 2 others. I could go on, and will if you make me. This is the program that made Jimmy Johnson cry like a little girl on his way to the airport for Dallas.
I'll take what they've given me over being a Nebraska, Texas, Michigan or ND fan any. day. of. the. week. Those of you who like the monarchy and who like to look down your noses at the newly rich may prefer otherwise. Again, IDFC. It's a Miami thing. You wouldn't understand.
Blue blood is a restricted club. The votes don't surprise me
Michigan is a blue blood but Florida has been better for 30 years
Clemson had a big decade
UW has fits of glory followed by despair
Texas is a blue blood despite 7 wins a year
Its Notre Dame Michigan Texas Oklahoma Bama tOSU USC
Curious why you put Texas in and not Nebraska? They seem fairly equivalent to me.
I think the other 6 are clear blue bloods. To me there's either 6 or 8, I don't see enough separation between Texas and Nebraska to have one but not the other.
I like 6.
It's often been stated, that to be a true Blue Blood, you need to have tradition, location and money. Nebraska lacks the location piece these days. Notre Dame is the worst of the blue bloods on the field the past 30 years, but they still have all 3.
The IRON LAWS® of college football were always meant to be forward looking. Aubbie's (foolish) contention was if you have these three things you will succeed going forward it's only a matter of tim.
I don't think that's what "Blue Bloods" is trying to describe and Aubbie himself never applied them in that fashion that i'm aware of.
For one obvious poont he applied these IRON LAWS to UW (vis a vis Oregon) as a guarantee that we would surpass them again ultimately. I don't think even Aubbie would argue UW is a blue blood.
So no, I am confident it has not been often stated that these things are required to be a Blue Blood. I'm not sure it's ever been stated until this thread.
#AuburnDawgFSSuperiorityGuy
Things get misquoted around here all the Tim....ain't no big thing.
That being said, what's a better definition of a Blue Blood than the "Iron Laws"? @creepycoug isn't a Blue Blood because he still doesn't have tradition and no dinero either.
Miami is a boom or bust program. Would I prefer they were good all the time and had a coach that wanted to stay 25 years and beat everyone senseless? Sure. And there's enough money to make it happen. But I'd take what they've given me over flacid "consistently good but never great." I'd rather reach the peak and see the view and then descend to sea level for a while vs. spending my life at base camp. YMMV.
Miami has been part of some of the most historically important and visible games ever, has been part of some nationally-compelling rivalries, established sea changes in the game by way of style of play, by way of program culture, has produced a shit ton of truly great name players, is closing in on Buck and Michigan for most alumni in the pro fb HOF (and will then be knocking on SC's door), has one or two of the very best teams ever to be fielded and has been as nationally relevant, love them or hate them, as any program has ever been. Every single person knows who they are and what they've been about. The program that beat one of the most dominant cfb teams ever for its first title, and won 5 and played for 2 others. I could go on, and will if you make me. This is the program that made Jimmy Johnson cry like a little girl on his way to the airport for Dallas.
I'll take what they've given me over being a Nebraska, Texas, Michigan or ND fan any. day. of. the. week. Those of you who like the monarchy and who like to look down your noses at the newly rich may prefer otherwise. Again, IDFC. It's a Miami thing. You wouldn't understand.
but even the stupid city of Miami couldn't take away any of the things I listed. that's all for keeps.
If we can win an NC in the next couple of years, and claim a couple more retroactive NCs, I think we can make a strong case for being a dark purple blood with heavy blue tints mixed in.
Weren't we undefeated for many years back in the 1920s and 1930s? I realize some of those games were against Ballard High School and the Crew of the USS Lincoln... but still. I bet those wins were as hard to come by as some of the wins that the pure blue bloods have from those years.
Comments
Four of their five NCs were consecutive and under one coach. They never really established themselves as a serious power outside of Smith besides one 3-4 year run each under Stub and Pappy.
@RhythmicSlappingDawg
1. @Auburndawg was always stupid. I liked him and thought he was funny (to look at), but also always thought he was dumb. And, yes, I do have a view of who here is smart and who is not, and there is plenty of both.
2. Bluebloods - who really cares? It's a dumb designation/club/list/cohort/thing to discuss. It means absolutely nothing and has little to no consequence. If some team is a blue blood by virtue of piling up wins before black players were allowed or before TV was invented, then I don't care about it and I don't care that others do care about it. IJDC. It's dumb. Like @Auburndawg. Just dumb.
3. It is invariably implicated by fans of teams that used to be good but aren't anymore, or it's used against an upstart threat to try and squash their mo ... or whatever. It's a play for permanent respeck status that said fanbase tries to make stick to the wall. Sometimes the blueblood wannabes enable this nonsense (hi Husky fans with Trojan cocks in their mouths). I reject it as anti-American. You like permanent status? Go to England where they still pay homage to hereditary title and related bullshit. When you think about, being the opposite of that is what made American great in the first place, and better than GB ever was. Who came crawling to whom when Hitler was about to go in dry? Stiff upper lip wasn't going to get it done in the long-run. American industry made that happen bitches. We're better precisely because we don't stifle ourselves with rigid social hierarchy that has real-world implications. You gotta go get it here if you want it. The Brits have been third-tier forever. Don't twist it; I love The Crown. I eat that shit up. But I also think it's wildly stupid and love that I live somewhere that is full of people who wouldn't think for a second to accept such a ridiculous social arrangement. Same goes for cfb. You're either good now and have been recently or you're not. Don't waste my tim talking to me about all-time records Michigan. IDC. Me going around and squawking about Miami back when at the same time that Pitt is thrusting its cockus in our? collective asses, again, would just be dumb. I've probably done it, but it's still dumb.
4. Anybody who jerks off to perennial underachieving Texas is just straight pathetic.
The UK has a permanent seat (with veto power) on the UN Security Council. That's about as Blue Blood as it gets.
Miami has been part of some of the most historically important and visible games ever, has been part of some nationally-compelling rivalries, established sea changes in the game by way of style of play, by way of program culture, has produced a shit ton of truly great name players, is closing in on Buck and Michigan for most alumni in the pro fb HOF (and will then be knocking on SC's door), has one or two of the very best teams ever to be fielded and has been as nationally relevant, love them or hate them, as any program has ever been. Every single person knows who they are and what they've been about. The program that beat one of the most dominant cfb teams ever for its first title, and won 5 and played for 2 others. I could go on, and will if you make me. This is the program that made Jimmy Johnson cry like a little girl on his way to the airport for Dallas.
I'll take what they've given me over being a Nebraska, Texas, Michigan or ND fan any. day. of. the. week. Those of you who like the monarchy and who like to look down your noses at the newly rich may prefer otherwise. Again, IDFC. It's a Miami thing. You wouldn't understand.
Setting aside our shared history and language, they being the source of a lot of our traditions, legal and economic, we wouldn't care about them. You know it, I know it, and the American people know. Fuck, Jackie Kennedy tried to explain this to you 60 years ago boo. Take your Anglophile perversions off the board ese. It's unmanly. And un-American.
- Bama
- Michigan
- Nebraska
- The Irish
- Ohio St
- Oklahomo
- Texas
- USC
Edit - We are the bottom of the elites I thinkand the ones that barely missed out
UGA
Penn State
LSU
FSU
Florida
Miami
Clemson
Tennessee
Auburn
Washington
Weren't we undefeated for many years back in the 1920s and 1930s? I realize some of those games were against Ballard High School and the Crew of the USS Lincoln... but still. I bet those wins were as hard to come by as some of the wins that the pure blue bloods have from those years.