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

[just bob]

There's a lot of self hate going on here.

 

[jarnol32]

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.

Take the rope off your neck and step down from the chair…

 

[GulfCoasterVol]

Depends on what they were wondering.
Most likely they were wondering about how long they would be wandering in the wilderness.
I wonder.

Thank Goodness for the proof reader police. I went back and edited. I should be banned for such a grievous incorrect letter application.
But it does everyone a little good to be made fun of now and then.

Cause I'm the wanderer
Yeah, the wanderer
I roam around, around, around
Oh well, I roam from town to town
I go through life without a care
And I'm as happy as a clown

 

[volbound1700]

Take the rope off your neck and step down from the chair…

Honestly, being on the fringe is still great. We are still far better than 90% of programs in Division I.

 

[CaliVol2009]

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.

Lol, Notre Dame with like 3 more wins all time, they are a blue blood and we aren’t? Lmao

 

[VOL89grad]

For what it’s worth, I was intrigued enough by the title of the thread to do a little research. Bottom Line, for those who favor “recency (e.g. championships in the BCS/CFP era),” then Alabama (6), LSU (3), Georgia and Ohio State (2) are the modern era “blue bloods” of CFB.

Interesting that many still believe that Notre Dame is a Blue Blood… there last Championship was claimed in 1988. I haven’t heard anyone saying “feels like 88” since I graduated from UT in 1989

Similarly, there are some out there who believe Oklahoma (2000), USC (2004), Texas (2005) and Michigan (2023) are somehow “Blue Bloods” and above our VOLS despite the simple fact that each of them have the same number of consensus National Championships as our team in the modern (BCS/CFP era). Truth be told, I’m guessing both FSU and Auburn fans would remind us all that they could make the same claim that they should be included into the “Blue Blood Club” just like those who believe ND, OSU OU, TX, etc etc are “above” the non-championship programs.

 

[illvol]

Thank Goodness for the proof reader police. I went back and edited. I should be banned for such a grievous incorrect letter application.
But it does everyone a little good to be made fun of now and then.

Cause I'm the wanderer
Yeah, the wanderer
I roam around, around, around
Oh well, I roam from town to town
I go through life without a care
And I'm as happy as a clown

I certainly am no police. Well, I was. Recently retired. But just struck me as funny. Definitely wasn’t trying to criticize.

 

[VOL89grad]

Beyond FSU and Auburn, I’m also thinking Huskers and Hurricanes would be knocking on the door (and wanting folks to recognize their more recent titles than ND)

For what it’s worth, I was intrigued enough by the title of the thread to do a little research. Bottom Line, for those who favor “recency (e.g. championships in the BCS/CFP era),” then Alabama (6), LSU (3), Georgia and Ohio State (2) are the modern era “blue bloods” of CFB.

Interesting that many still believe that Notre Dame is a Blue Blood… there last Championship was claimed in 1988. I haven’t heard anyone saying “feels like 88” since I graduated from UT in 1989

Similarly, there are some out there who believe Oklahoma (2000), USC (2004), Texas (2005) and Michigan (2023) are somehow “Blue Bloods” and above our VOLS despite the simple fact that each of them have the same number of consensus National Championships as our team in the modern (BCS/CFP era). Truth be told, I’m guessing both FSU and Auburn fans would remind us all that they could make the same claim that they should be included into the “Blue Blood Club” just like those who believe ND, OSU OU, TX, etc etc are “above” the non-championship programs.

 

[Volnuck]

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

I think it’s amusing to see the top 3 teams with ties are all SEC. My man coach Majors loved a good tie, lol. One of our most beloved teams (1985 Sugar Vols) had 2 ties.

 

[Tarkus]

The problem I have with Tennessee is our inability to win against certain teams like Alabama and Florida. Losing more often than winning is one thing but these decade long losing streaks are ridiculous.

 

[Enki_Amenra]

Twixter has spoken and the results are final. Tennessee is a CFB Blue Blood

 

[just bob]

Twixter has spoken and the results are final. Tennessee is a CFB Blue Blood

View attachment 609954

Vol Twitter baby!

Check out the total votes in this one vs the other schools. haha

 

[Woodlawn VOL]

Yes we are in the historical sense in which it is measured. GBO

 

[stolitonic]

Up until 2007-ish, yes. Now, we are probably one of the final cuts honestly. 15 years of garbage was hell to the fans and the program.

Nothing saying the rest of the 2020s can't belong to the Vols though. We go on a good run for 5-6 years I think we would qualify again.

 

[DaddyChad]

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.

You had one of the greatest QBs in college football and probably the second best all time NFL QB that didn’t win a Heisman bc of a BS agenda ESPN had to push. Heisman is an irrelevant award. Domination in this conference is pretty cyclical.

 

[mudhen]

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.

I have to disagree with you here. Being college football royalty is not just W's and L's. It's tradition and legend, and the sense of honor and pride that players carry long after their playing days are done. I can only imagine the pride and wonder that all of those young men felt when running out to the checkerboard for the first time . The Vols were there at the beginning, and they will be there long after we are gone. VFL. No other program has such an instantly recognizable slogan and they never will.

 

[UTwild82]

I think we're on tier 2.

There's a clear top 8 historically in terms of wins, national championships, and conference championships (obviously this doesn't apply to ND). In no particular order it's Bama, Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Texas, Nebraska, and USC. I would consider them true blue bloods.

I think us, LSU, Georgia, Penn State, and maybe Clemson as tier 2. I think an argument could be made for all 3 Florida schools, especially Miami. Minnesota has something like 6 national championships and Pitt has a lot too, so maybe them as well.

Us and Penn State used to be clear 9 and 10, but LSU, Georgia, and Clemson have closed the gap the last 2 decades.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

I think we're on tier 2.

There's a clear top 8 historically in terms of wins, national championships, and conference championships (obviously this doesn't apply to ND). In no particular order it's Bama, Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Texas, Nebraska, and USC. I would consider them true blue bloods.

I think us, LSU, Georgia, Penn State, and maybe Clemson as tier 2. I think an argument could be made for all 3 Florida schools, especially Miami. Minnesota has something like 6 national championships and Pitt has a lot too, so maybe them as well.

Us and Penn State used to be clear 9 and 10, but LSU, Georgia, and Clemson have closed the gap the last 2 decades.

If Kirby stays at Georgia, they will pass Nebraska for 8th within 5 years. Winning 12-15 games a year makes up some ground. Especially if Nebraska keeps going 4-8. This is the current Top 20 all-time through 2023:

 

[Dirtyhairies]

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.

Youre right, its more about branding than stats

 

[VFL-82-JP]

If Kirby stays at Georgia, they will pass Nebraska for 8th within 5 years. Winning 12-15 games a year makes up some ground. Especially if Nebraska keeps going 4-8. This is the current Top 20 all-time through 2023:
View attachment 610103

Thanks for the reference.

This is one nicely objective way of determining blue blood status.

Because you don't get into the 800 club without winning a lot of football games over a long period of time.

Some might reply, "no, it needs to be the 900 club." But you know, the 800 club and the 900 club are only different by a few teams, and those few teams are--with the exception of LSU--only about two good seasons away from being in the 900 club as well. Talking about UGa, Tennessee, and USCw.

So thanks very much, this is one of the strongest arguments a person can make in defining a "blue blood." And we most certainly are one of them.

Go Vols!


EDIT: back to the tight circles vs looser circles, here's how that would look using this chart:



And at its widest, that's who I would include among college football's blue bloods. Those 16 programs.

[but usually, I limit it to 12 or so]

Go Vols!

 

[Volizona]

Thanks for the reference.

This is one nicely objective way of determining blue blood status.

Because you don't get into the 800 club without winning a lot of football games over a long period of time.

Some might reply, "no, it needs to be the 900 club." But you know, the 800 club and the 900 club are only different by a few teams, and those few teams are--with the exception of LSU--only about two good seasons away from being in the 900 club as well. Talking about UGa, Tennessee, and USCw.

So thanks very much, this is one of the strongest arguments a person can make in defining a "blue blood." And we most certainly are one of them.

Go Vols!


EDIT: back to the tight circles vs looser circles, here's how that would look using this chart:

View attachment 610128

And at its widest, that's who I would include among college football's blue bloods. Those 16 programs.

[but usually, I limit it to 12 or so]

Go Vols!

I still think Michigan is over hyped. Most of their “extra wins” and championships were in the stone ages.

 

[Volizona]

Thanks for the reference.

This is one nicely objective way of determining blue blood status.

Because you don't get into the 800 club without winning a lot of football games over a long period of time.

Some might reply, "no, it needs to be the 900 club." But you know, the 800 club and the 900 club are only different by a few teams, and those few teams are--with the exception of LSU--only about two good seasons away from being in the 900 club as well. Talking about UGa, Tennessee, and USCw.

So thanks very much, this is one of the strongest arguments a person can make in defining a "blue blood." And we most certainly are one of them.

Go Vols!


EDIT: back to the tight circles vs looser circles, here's how that would look using this chart:

View attachment 610128

And at its widest, that's who I would include among college football's blue bloods. Those 16 programs.

[but usually, I limit it to 12 or so]

Go Vols!

But generally speaking I agree with this chart. Most would agree with the teams in the inner two sections being blue bloods or just outside of blue blood status. Not sure I would include West Virginia it A&M in any discussion though. As much as I hate Florida, their recent history should at least add them to the third rung.

 

[Volizona]

If Kirby stays at Georgia, they will pass Nebraska for 8th within 5 years. Winning 12-15 games a year makes up some ground. Especially if Nebraska keeps going 4-8. This is the current Top 20 all-time through 2023:
View attachment 610103

It is sickening that we were within, what 6-7 wins from evening the Alabama series pre Saban and had a healthy advantage over Georgia prior to our dysfunctional 15 years.

 

[lawgator1]

There's a lot of self hate going on here.

Disagree. Its just a debate about the timeframe and whether its pure c-ship trophies or longstanding placement at the top.

Princeton won what was then the national title in 1869, '70, '72, '73, '78, '79, '80, '85, '93.... Yale won it more than that in the same period. Are they what you think of as blue bloods?

 

[just bob]

Disagree. Its just a debate about the timeframe and whether its pure c-ship trophies or longstanding placement at the top.

Princeton won what was then the national title in 1869, '70, '72, '73, '78, '79, '80, '85, '93.... Yale won it more than that in the same period. Are they what you think of as blue bloods?

Self hate perhaps not, more like self pity.

Bold - I'd say they were back then. haha

And I'm aware it's just opinion.... I suppose it would all come down to what you would define as a blue blood and whether it's all time or last 20 years or whatever. I think most people tend to go with what they saw in their lifetime so like from age 10 or so and on up.