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

#26
#26
Volosaurus rex said:
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."
Click to expand...
Yeah, my point is that it's mainly significant to us Tennessee fans, if you ever arguing with someone outside of the fanbase, I'd pick some landmark of wider significance, like the AP poll era to argue our blue blood status. As noted, we are still top 10 in wins there.
 
#27
#27
McDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think to call certain programs "blue blood" it goes beyond just the wins and losses. There's a certain "gravitas" and prestige that goes with it and I've never looked at Tennessee that way. If anything, I feel like we are the antithesis of a blue blood program in the sense that, we are the rednecks, the outcasts, the hillbilly's, the common folk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again and McDad
#28
#28
volbound1700 said:
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.
Click to expand...
We can claim a lot more then 6 titles
 
#29
#29
McDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, sustained excellence over a very long period of time should be the criteria, not where a program stands in the short-term ebb and flow of events. Traditional powers, in a nutshell, approach or exceed an all-time winning percentage of .700. They typically exhibit higher and more sustained peaks, combined with shorter and less severe valleys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#30
#30
Brave Volunteer said:
I think to call certain programs "blue blood" it goes beyond just the wins and losses. There's a certain "gravitas" and prestige that goes with it and I've never looked at Tennessee that way. If anything, I feel like we are the antithesis of a blue blood program in the sense that, we are the rednecks, the outcasts, the hillbilly's, the common folk.
Click to expand...
I unequivocally agree with your 1st two sentences.
I don't think we are the antithesis. I feel like we are just outside blue blood status. Much like Penn State, Michigan, UGA, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GAVol and Volizona
#31
#31
volbound1700 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Rose Bowl loss in '39/'40(?) saw the Vols travel by train across the country with only 35 of their 45 players. Plus their star running back had a knee injury going into the game. Also played USC, which was basically a home game for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bpalmer28
#32
#32
Volosaurus rex said:
Yes, sustained excellence over a very long period of time should be the criteria, not where a program stands in the short-term ebb and flow of events. Traditional powers, in a nutshell, approach or exceed an all-time winning percentage of .700. They typically exhibit higher and more sustained peaks, combined with shorter and less severe valleys.
Click to expand...
It may be circular reasoning but I feel like attractiveness of head coaching job is part of the standard as well.
Like, I wouldn't want to compete for the same candidate against Bama or Ohio State or Texas. I don't feel the same about competing for the same candidate against UGA, Michigan, LSU Etc
 
#34
#34
McDad said:
I unequivocally agree with your 1st two sentences.
I don't think we are the antithesis. I feel like we are just outside blue blood status. Much like Penn State, Michigan, UGA, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc.
Click to expand...
I'm just saying, mainstream media outlets will NEVER see us as equals to the likes of Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, etc. Many of.them hate us! Plus you don't see blue blood fanbases hurling mustard bottles and golf balls at referees lol!
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#40
#40
first time caller said:
The Rose Bowl loss in '39/'40(?) saw the Vols travel by train across the country with only 35 of their 45 players. Plus their star running back had a knee injury going into the game. Also played USC, which was basically a home game for them.
Click to expand...


You raise a really interesting point about USC. Appearances in the Rose Bowl by them, of course, typically coincide with outstanding seasons for the Trojans. And several of them occurred during the period when the visiting team traveled cross-country by train, whereas USC essentially rolled out of bed and travelled by bus to Pasadena. For anyone who wants to make the effort, compare USC's record in Rose Bowl appearances vs. their record in other bowl games. The difference is astonishing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: first time caller
#43
#43
No, and the term "blue blood" doesn't mean what many think it does. Blue blood means old money, not necessarily most successful program, and certainly not most successful program today. Success on the field is only part of the definition; prestige/how people perceive the brand is the biggest part of it. For example, Oklahoma is a more successful football program on the field than Texas is, but I'd argue Texas has more brand prestige (even though I think they're both blue bloods).

There are very few blue bloods in the sport, IMO. Alabama, Ohio St, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, USC. What these programs have most in common is that they were very successful and heavily marketed when the sport began being broadcast on television. That's got a lot to do with their prestige and marketability, especially in the case of Ohio St, Michigan, and Notre Dame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#44
#44
Brave Volunteer said:
I think to call certain programs "blue blood" it goes beyond just the wins and losses. There's a certain "gravitas" and prestige that goes with it and I've never looked at Tennessee that way. If anything, I feel like we are the antithesis of a blue blood program in the sense that, we are the rednecks, the outcasts, the hillbilly's, the common folk.
Click to expand...
Excerpt from the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia.... "The Identity and Personality of the Tennessee Volunteers are instantly recognizable to any fan of the game. Just try to imagine college football without orange jerseys, blue tick hounds, that Promethean stadium on the river, checkered end zones and Saturday crowds the size of a small city. This is, in short, one of the major brands. One of only 10 Football programs with 700 wins, Tennesse has produced several national champions, a few legends and one mythic coach. The Vols are, without doubt, among college football's elite."

I don't think I have ever seen it stated better.... gives me goosebumps every time I read it. GO VOLS!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange., 'Boro-vol, EasternVol and 4 others
#45
#45
Can and if so, how do you fall from blue blood status? IMO if you go10-15 years without winning your conference, then you lose your blue blood status and become “Historically WAS a blue blood team”. Can you get your blue blood status back? Sure but we need to start winning some conference titles and competing with the final 4-8 for the championship.
 
#46
#46
AlsaceFreak said:
Excerpt from the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia.... "The Identity and Personality of the Tennessee Volunteers are instantly recognizable to any fan of the game. Just try to imagine college football without orange jerseys, blue tick hounds, that Promethean stadium on the river, checkered end zones and Saturday crowds the size of a small city. This is, in short, one of the major brands. One of only 10 Football programs with 700 wins, Tennesse has produced several national champions, a few legends and one mythic coach. The Vols are, without doubt, among college football's elite."

I don't think I have ever seen it stated better.... give me goosebumps ever time I read it. GO VOLS!!!!
Click to expand...
I agree with everything in that excerpt. However, calling a program elite and calling it a blue blood are two different things. Clemson, arguably, has been elite over the last 10 years. But I would never, ever, ever consider them blue blood.
 
#48
#48
Absolutely.


But boy, does it depend on your definition of "blue blood."

Brave Volunteer is pushing a definition so tied up in persona that I think only Harvard, Yale, and Princeton would qualify.

Others, like McDad, define it in a more normal way, but draw the circle so small that only 4 to 6 teams qualify.

Me, I would go with something more feet-on-the-ground (sorry, Ivy League), and something fairly tight, but not stupid-tight.

There are something like 135 FBS programs today. Let's say the top 10%, all time, are blue bloods. The Vols are certainly, in every way you can measure it, among the top 13 or 14 programs in the country, all-time.

Yes, all-time. Because that's what blue blood is about, is having pedigree. It's not a "what-have-you-done-for-me-lately" thing, that's called "new blood." Blue blood looks back over the decades with pride. As we do.

So forget all the "in history yes, lately no" responses, they miss the point. And give Brave his due for propping up the well-behaved, but football is a blood, sweat, puke and snot kind of game. It's not tennis or golf.

Yes. The Tennessee Volunteers are absolutely among the blue bloods of the sport. And will be back to championship caliber shortly, adding to that proud legacy.

Go Vols!
 
  • Like
Reactions: LittleVol, Cbateman7606, Volizona and 3 others
#49
#49
Volosaurus rex said:
You raise a really interesting point about USC. Appearances in the Rose Bowl by them, of course, typically coincide with outstanding seasons for the Trojans. And several of them occurred during the period when the visiting team traveled cross-country by train, whereas USC essentially rolled out of bed and travelled by bus to Pasadena. For anyone who wants to make the effort, compare USC's record in Rose Bowl appearances vs. their record in other bowl games. The difference is astonishing.
Click to expand...
Tennessee also lost to USC in the '45 Rose Bowl 25-0. Best I can tell that is their only 2 appearances in the Rose Bowl. So 0-2 and shutout both times. Let's keep that to ourselves...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top