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.
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.
Listen, my swarthy bro, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and The USA all have vastly higher standards of living than your Cortez the Killer cuntries. Rule Britannia.
Maybe Argentina will unfuck themselves some day. Their geography and resources are phenomenal.
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.
You'll get no beef from me on Miamuh's achievement. They are, rather easily, the best college football program of the post Bear Bryant - pre Saban at Bammer era. Ironically, Bammer's only title during this timeframe came against the Cane.
But it's almost like Miami never wanted to transition into a Blue Blood in waiting (stadium situation being prime example) and the bust cycle is coming up on 20 years.
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.
This is exactly what a fan of the Canes would say.
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.
This is exactly what a fan of the Canes would say.
And that is exactly what makes a Cane fan a real American. If one wishes to worship at the feet of one's aristocratic overlords, then one is free to do as one wishes.
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.
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.
Listen, my swarthy bro, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and The USA all have vastly higher standards of living than your Cortez the Killer cuntries. Rule Britannia.
Maybe Argentina will unfuck themselves some day. Their geography and resources are phenomenal.
Probably good SC is leaving the conference. Nobody on this board, nor will their grandchildren, live to the day when they lose their perch. Sad, really. But I guess it explains all the respect.
The Illinois Rose Bowl is the first husky game I remember watching start to finish with the parents. I had watched parts of Rose Bowls and remember thinking how cool it was that our DAWGS were getting all that NBC free pub. It was THE game back then. I was 7
Billy Douglass from Wapato broke his leg and it was a lost cause. I don't recall Butkus in that game quite honestly
The Bears won the 1963 NFL title without Butkus and Sayers. Didn't win shit with them
UW lost to USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, and Illinois. Quality losses for those who rely on that. Pitt is the other loss
That was a GOOD Illinois squad!
The truth is, Washington had the better team that day, and was in the process of kicking tenderfoot Illinois ass when our QB went out of the game with a leg injury in the first quarter.
Douglas was a good option QB, and they were moving the ball with real momentum. Silas comes in and he was a loser 2nd string QB that never saw game time because he shouldn't have [no freaking talent], and in this game couldn't find his ass with either hand. The Dawgs kept it close anyway because they were the better team. This was a good Washington option team in the great tradition back in the day, and by the end of the season the defense was really stepping up at the same time as the offense had finally started to move the ball with authority. Just so you know, the final would have been 31-10 UW as the winner, not the final of 17-7 Illinois as it turned out.
And, as usual, Race is right... Butkus was nothing to write home about in his stint with Washington... he was not a recognized star at the time, and no one expected him to be an animal later on any account.
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.
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.
Listen, my swarthy bro, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and The USA all have vastly higher standards of living than your Cortez the Killer cuntries. Rule Britannia.
Maybe Argentina will unfuck themselves some day. Their geography and resources are phenomenal.
Just to reiterate ~ we had Junior Coffey, Dave Kopay, Ron Medved and Charley Browning at RB [all of which went to the pros], the little guy Steve Bramwell that set the record for runbacks, as well as Jake Kupp, Rick Redmond and Jim Lambright ~ a lot of freaking talent for a team in those days. And, correction, it wasn't Butkus [Illinois Captain] that was a no count at UW, it was Ben Davidson [1959, then an all pro later with the Raiders] that surprised us all with a good pro career after not doing much at UW.
UW lost to USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, and Illinois. Quality losses for those who rely on that. Pitt is the other loss
That was a GOOD Illinois squad!
I know you’re being sarcastic but that’s a gif of the Chicago Bears and while Chicago is in Illinois, the Bears don’t play in the Rose Bowl game because they’re a professional team.
Comments
Maybe Argentina will unfuck themselves some day. Their geography and resources are phenomenal.
But it's almost like Miami never wanted to transition into a Blue Blood in waiting (stadium situation being prime example) and the bust cycle is coming up on 20 years.
@Canadawg
[Mike Drop]
@trublue
I mean I know he's one of the best LBs of all time in the way I know Jim Brown is one of the best RBs of all time.
Billy Douglass from Wapato broke his leg and it was a lost cause. I don't recall Butkus in that game quite honestly
The Bears won the 1963 NFL title without Butkus and Sayers. Didn't win shit with them
Go figure
first quarter.
Douglas was a good option QB, and they were moving the ball with real momentum. Silas comes in and he was a loser 2nd string QB that never saw game time because
he shouldn't have [no freaking talent], and in this game couldn't find his ass with either hand. The Dawgs kept it close anyway because they were the better team. This
was a good Washington option team in the great tradition back in the day, and by the end of the season the defense was really stepping up at the same time as the offense
had finally started to move the ball with authority. Just so you know, the final would have been 31-10 UW as the winner, not the final of 17-7 Illinois as it turned out.
And, as usual, Race is right... Butkus was nothing to write home about in his stint with Washington... he was not a recognized star at the time, and no one expected him to
be an animal later on any account.