Is Tennessee a "CFB Blue Blood"? - Twitter Poll

[Enki_Amenra]

 

[Voltopia]

I know what that moron Rece Davis would vote.

 

[irish1485]

Historically yes.

Can't fault younger people who vote no, sad what has happened the last ~20 years.

 

[OrangeBeachVol]

Depends on how that is defined:

Last 12 yrs - no
Entire program life - yes

 

[volbound1700]

I would say no just because Tennessee just doesn't win a lot of National Titles and they don't have a Heisman. Even out of the 6 we claim, only 2 were from AP and one of the AP ones saw us losing the bowl game.

Even when Tennessee is good (such as the Fulmer era), they don't win a lot of Conference Championships. Blue Bloods usually just dominate their leagues. Us and Georgia are neck-and-neck in all-time rankings and I think due to the last 3 years Georgia passed us to be in top 10 so our program dropped to #11 in most rankings.

 

[VOLfrombama]

Absolutely yes. Just because the last 20 years hasn't been stellar doesn't erase the previous success.

 

[Illinoisvolfan2]

We are currently no 11 in all time program wins. I’d say the top 10 are for sure. We were prior to 2007.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Yes. We have just had a rough 15 years or so until the last 2.

 

[Carp]

I believe 20 years ago we were like 8th all time in wins. I believe Bama and us were only separated by roughly 20 wins. We'd easily be top 5 right now had we continued on that path.

Now, Bama has a 100 game advantage on us all time in wins. UGA and USC have leaped frogged us as well.

20 years in the wilderness can do a number on you.

 

[GulfCoasterVol]

Was Alabama a "blue blood" when they had their decade of wandering through the wilderness ?

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Historically and unequivocally yes. Look at where we rank in these two tables, which span 96 and 76 years, respectively: I-A Winning Percentage 1926-2021 and I-A Winning Percentage 1926-2001.

 

[Rocky Top T]

Close, but I don't think so

 

[McDad]

I say no. There are only a handful of bluebloods. Bama, Ohio state, Notre dame, texas, and USC.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

I would say no.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Historically and unequivocally yes. Look at where we rank in these two tables, which span 96 and 76 years, respectively: I-A Winning Percentage 1926-2021 and I-A Winning Percentage 1926-2001.

What is the historical significance of 1926 though? Other than being the start of General Neyland's tenure and thus gerrymandered to make us look as good as possible. Most of the top programs can pick some arbitrary set of years to measure where they look really good. To make an argument with someone outside our fanbase, I would pick a more universal landmark, like the AP poll era:



Or at least the founding of the SEC, either way, we are still top 10 in wins in both of those time periods:

 

[Brave Volunteer]

I say no. There are only a handful of bluebloods. Bama, Ohio state, Notre dame, texas, and USC.

I wouldn't categorize Texas as a blue blood program. They are actually very similar to us. Historically successful but just on the outside looking in.

Right now the blue blood programs to me are the following...

Notre Dame
Michigan
Ohio State
Alabama
Oklahoma

With a rather large rotating cast behind them.

 

[loservol]

Yes

 

[vegasvolfan]

Sadly no. Any program talking about returning to the glory days for nearly two decades, that has lost its top 5 recruiting class prowess and just got smashed by Missouri is not a blue blood. We have to at least start making the playoffs on a consistent basis. I think the list of blue bloods is very short. Bama, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio State are perhaps at the top. Clemson, Notre Dame, LSU, FSU, Washington, Utah, TX, Oregon are next level and are what we maybe heading towards. But I think then you have so many others. FL, Tennessee, OK, Penn St,, OK St., Missouri may have cracked this level, and perhaps others. I see FL being at the bottom of this totem pole especially after losing Etienne. Auburn has fallen out of this level but is hovering

All debatable, but that’s how I see it when you consider the last decade.

 

[rgvol]

Yes!

 

[McDad]

I wouldn't categorize Texas as a blue blood program. They are actually very similar to us. Historically successful but just on the outside looking in.

The blue blood programs to me are the following...

Notre Dame
Michigan
Alabama
Oklahoma
USC

With a rather large rotating cast behind them. In years past I would've put Nebraska in the blue blood category as well but they've been in wilderness for far too long and I don't see that ever changing for them.

I considered Michigan and Nebraska. My classification is based on historical prominence, expectations, and national perception. Perception doesn't always match records.
I think most objective people would say the programs I listed are the best HC jobs which are able to hire just about anyone they set their sights on.

 

[SGMVols]

I think no. We have only one real national title since integration. We’re in the tier just below blue blood IMO. In basketball equivalent terms, about on the Villanova/Louisville level.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

I considered Michigan and Nebraska. My classification is based on historical prominence, expectations, and national perception. Perception doesn't always match records.
I think most objective people would say the programs I listed are the best HC jobs which are able to hire just about anyone they set their sights on.

I actually amended my list and took USC off and added Ohio State. I'm not sure if USC is the job that it used to be. Especially now that they're headed to the Big 10 and can't enjoy that soft PAC 12 schedule anymore. Plus hardly anybody in LA gives a **** about college football. I put USC and Miami in similar ranks.

 

[VolBricks]

any school who is historically in the top 10 in wins has to be a blue blood or in our case an Orange Blood.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

What is the historical significance of 1926 though? Other than being the start of General Neyland's tenure and thus gerrymandered to make us look as good as possible. Most of the top programs can pick some arbitrary set of years to measure where they look really good. To make an argument with someone outside our fanbase, I would pick a more universal landmark, like the AP poll era:

View attachment 609586

Or at least the founding of the SEC, either way, we are still top 10 in wins in both of those time periods:

View attachment 609587

Needless to say, those are very lengthy periods of time during which Tennessee ranked among the top ten programs in college football history. And, obviously, 1926 is a very significant year precisely because it was the year that the trajectory of Tennessee football began to change dramatically for the better. Indeed, the 1928 victory over Alabama was, if memory serves me correctly, in the words of George Cafego, the game that "put Tennessee football on the map."

 

[McDad]

I actually amended my list and took USC off and added Ohio State. I'm not sure if USC is the job that it used to be. Especially now that they're headed to the Big 10 and can't enjoy that soft PAC 12 schedule anymore.

Blue bloods are fluctuating based circumstances...is that how you see it? It's not wrong. It's just different from my take. I think of it more as a historical standard than I do something which changes over time.