I agree with the bottom one being a bit janky. The top one shows the spirit of the phrase the best though. It's not about a decade or two of success it's about a history of it and you can clearly see 8 teams are in a group of their own. Having said that I wouldn't mind seeing what this picture looks like post WW2 where I feel represents what the game and programs are more accurately
No, I mean it doesn't even follow its own math / formula.
Take Washington, 6 spots closer to blue blood in the total score column. They are lower than Miami in all but one category, and that category is not the most heavily weighted. How can that math work? Michigan State is a click closer to being a BB, and they are behind Miami in all but two categories, and in the Natties category, all of Michigan State's work was done prior to the mid-60s. All of it. Are they really closer to being a BB? Miami has done things in the last 40 years that that program hasn't even sniffed.
Besides, there are other inputs you could consider. For one, number of players in the Pro Football HOF. If draft picks matter, and everyone seems to think they do, then it would be logical to consider how many players are good enough to make that cut. Miami is tied with Michigan and Ohio State at 11, behind only USC and Notre Dame at 14. And Miami is likely to add 1 to 2 players in the next few cycles. There is the home winning streak. Miami is tied for #2 all time for most wins against a #1 ranked opponent. They also fielded some of the most fierce teams in the game's history.
I also think there is something to be said for your suggestion about post WWII considerations. But even if we ignore than and assume what you did in 1920 is as good as what you did last year, then you still have to consider that there are programs that did a lot of their winning a long time ago and haven't done anything significant in a very, very long time. Michigan State. Is that better, worse, or the same with Miami inventing football in the late 70s (which, btw, wasn't yesterday)?
Like I said, they may not check all the boxes, particularly not boxes that by definition depend on being good 70 or more years ago. Notre Dame racked up a lot of its wins, stats, players, etc. a while back. Still a respectable program and looking a little scary for the first time in memory. But Miami has been elite more recently than has Notre Dame.
I think this is generally accurate. There was little doubt that, back in the day, several of the mainstay broadcasters had a hard on for them … the bad kind. The whining for Notre Dame, as one example, was insufferable.
Comments
the bottom one doesn’t add up, or I am missing something.
there are other things you could add to those factors as well. I could make a case for Miami knocking on the door.
No.
I agree with the bottom one being a bit janky. The top one shows the spirit of the phrase the best though. It's not about a decade or two of success it's about a history of it and you can clearly see 8 teams are in a group of their own. Having said that I wouldn't mind seeing what this picture looks like post WW2 where I feel represents what the game and programs are more accurately
No, I mean it doesn't even follow its own math / formula.
Take Washington, 6 spots closer to blue blood in the total score column. They are lower than Miami in all but one category, and that category is not the most heavily weighted. How can that math work? Michigan State is a click closer to being a BB, and they are behind Miami in all but two categories, and in the Natties category, all of Michigan State's work was done prior to the mid-60s. All of it. Are they really closer to being a BB? Miami has done things in the last 40 years that that program hasn't even sniffed.
Besides, there are other inputs you could consider. For one, number of players in the Pro Football HOF. If draft picks matter, and everyone seems to think they do, then it would be logical to consider how many players are good enough to make that cut. Miami is tied with Michigan and Ohio State at 11, behind only USC and Notre Dame at 14. And Miami is likely to add 1 to 2 players in the next few cycles. There is the home winning streak. Miami is tied for #2 all time for most wins against a #1 ranked opponent. They also fielded some of the most fierce teams in the game's history.
I also think there is something to be said for your suggestion about post WWII considerations. But even if we ignore than and assume what you did in 1920 is as good as what you did last year, then you still have to consider that there are programs that did a lot of their winning a long time ago and haven't done anything significant in a very, very long time. Michigan State. Is that better, worse, or the same with Miami inventing football in the late 70s (which, btw, wasn't yesterday)?
Like I said, they may not check all the boxes, particularly not boxes that by definition depend on being good 70 or more years ago. Notre Dame racked up a lot of its wins, stats, players, etc. a while back. Still a respectable program and looking a little scary for the first time in memory. But Miami has been elite more recently than has Notre Dame.
Blue blood definition. Law and order. TV show. Miami is the anti notre dame by brand. Convicts vs catholics. Etc.
They appear to have branded themselves as non blue blood.
The things keeping miami from being a blueblood are not really quantifiable on the graph provided..
I think this is generally accurate. There was little doubt that, back in the day, several of the mainstay broadcasters had a hard on for them … the bad kind. The whining for Notre Dame, as one example, was insufferable.