The 8 "Blue Blood" Programs As Identified By 120,000 Twitter Users

[bamawriter]

8 wins out of 10 regular season games is a pretty decent showing.

Are we really pointing to a decade in which a team won < 53% of their games as some sort of golden era?

 

[GVF]

It just proves that most people are stupid and perception is not reality. For example, Michigan has one shared NC since 1948; Clemson has 3, Washington has 4, Tennessee has 2, and LSU has 4. The entire premise of a "blue blood" is idiotic. If you are going to base it on history alone then why aren't Princeton, Harvard, and Army included? Princeton has 7 during the same time Michigan claims most of theirs; Harvard has 6; and Army has 3 in the 1940's.

ESPN propaganda. At this point, Princeton and Harvard could probably beat Michigan.

 

[05_never_again]

It just proves that most people are stupid and perception is not reality. For example, Michigan has one shared NC since 1948; Clemson has 3, Washington has 4, Tennessee has 2, and LSU has 4. The entire premise of a "blue blood" is idiotic. If you are going to base it on history alone then why aren't Princeton, Harvard, and Army included? Princeton has 7 during the same time Michigan claims most of theirs; Harvard has 6; and Army has 3 in the 1940's.

Because Princeton and Harvard don't play in the top division of CFB anymore, and Army is 75 years removed from the last time they were relevant on a national stage.

The premise of a blue blood isn't idiotic - it just doesn't mean exactly what you think it means. In fact, it can be meant kind of as an insult, as in you have a level of prestige that is undeserved (and that's certainly the case with certain programs). Like I said earlier in the thread, blue blood doesn't necessarily mean "one of the best programs today." It means old money that is still relevant today. Michigan hasn't had a consistently good program since the late 90s, but they are still relevant in the sense that they compete in a P5 conference, consistently finish seasons ranked in the top 25, etc. Princeton and Harvard are the epitome of old money, but they aren't FBS schools.

I don't disagree with you for a second that perception isn't reality, and there is a lot of mythologizing about certain programs. If you knew nothing about college football and listened to programs like Michigan and Texas wax poetic about themselves, you'd think they have a combined 40 national championships between them.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Are we really pointing to a decade in which a team won < 53% of their games as some sort of golden era?

Yes...yes we are.

 

[GoDucks349]

Lists like this are fairly humorous in my opinion. If you did this with "countries" you'd have the Roman empire, Egypt, and possibly some "empires" that no longer exist.

 

[CardsNVols]

The fact that so many people seem to care about this kind of stuff is crazy to me. Reminds me of those small town folks who belong to "old money" families and use it as a reason to prop themselves up, even though 99% of other people don't really give a ****.

Full disclosure, not hating on those who do. It's just something I've never understood.

 

[CardsNVols]

"Blue blood" has an established definition in normal, regular conversation though: Definition of BLUE BLOOD

Blue blood means old money. It doesn't necessarily mean the richest family today, or the most successful family today - it's a status attained over a long period of time. Think about programs that more or less established the sport - Michigan, Notre Dame, USC. Think about fanbases that think they are better than everybody else. They are still good programs today, but are they the best programs today? No. Some blue blood programs actually are among the best programs today (Alabama).

Programs that have become successful in the relatively recent past (Florida, Florida St, LSU, etc.) are absolutely not blue bloods. Florida is a new money program that snobbish, old money programs like Notre Dame look down on, even though Florida has been more more successful over the last 30 years and is in a much better position to be successful in the future than Michigan is. Florida is a great program with a lot to be proud of, but their fanbase isn't what I'd call elitist. Fanbases like Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, etc. like to think of themselves as elites in the college football social hierarchy. Depending on the school, that opinion is either totally unfounded (Michigan and Texas), was true decades ago (Notre Dame), or actually based in reality (Alabama and Oklahoma).

I don't know about others here, but when I say "blue blood," I don't necessarily mean it as a compliment. It typically is referring to a status that might be, at least in recent times, undeserved. IMO, in the case of a program like Michigan, their high status as a program is undeserved. As for a program like Notre Dame, they haven't deserved the status they have for about the last 30 years.

Guess it was already spelled out in this thread lol

 

[RDU VOL#14]

That bolded part is actually Ohio St (minus the arrogant, they are arrogant). Michigan fans look down on Ohio St and their fans and consider them to be riff raff.

Michigan is a good school...the problem is they know it and think it's something akin to an Ivy League school. Penn St fans kind of do the same thing. You probably remember...that's an angle Harbaugh has taken repeatedly when he's come after SEC schools as cheaters. Says Michigan doesn't cheat because Michigan is such a good school academically, other schools take players Michigan can't take, etc. Michigan is a good school, but it isn't Harvard or Stanford.

Quote from Michigan director of recruiting Matt Dudek from

John U. Bacon's book Overtime: Jim Harbaugh and the Michigan Wolverines at the Crossroads of College Football:

“Name another school that competes with the bluebloods athletically—we're talking Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson—while competing with the bluebloods academically: Stanford, Northwestern, Princeton," Michigan director of recruiting, Matt Dudek, said, per Arnold. "Most of the players we recruit are good enough to play for Alabama or Clemson and smart enough to play for Ivy League schools. If you don't win in the classroom on Monday, you won't be here for many Saturdays."

What a load of Bull$hit. Stuff like this almost makes me dislike Michigan as much as Ohio State.

 

[05_never_again]

Quote from Michigan director of recruiting Matt Dudek from

John U. Bacon's book Overtime: Jim Harbaugh and the Michigan Wolverines at the Crossroads of College Football:

“Name another school that competes with the bluebloods athletically—we're talking Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson—while competing with the bluebloods academically: Stanford, Northwestern, Princeton," Michigan director of recruiting, Matt Dudek, said, per Arnold. "Most of the players we recruit are good enough to play for Alabama or Clemson and smart enough to play for Ivy League schools. If you don't win in the classroom on Monday, you won't be here for many Saturdays."

What a load of Bull$hit. Stuff like this almost makes me dislike Michigan as much as Ohio State.

Yeah. It's total bull$hit. Michigan is a good school, but they aren't competing with Stanford and Princeton academically. Northwestern, yeah perhaps, although N'western is a better school than Michigan.

I dislike Michigan way more than I dislike Ohio St. Ohio St fans seem kind of like Bammers to me. Are they obnoxious? Yes. Are they actually as prestigious and accomplished of a program as they think they are? Yes.

IMO, it's the unearned or undeserved arrogance/smugness that drives me crazy. And that's Michigan. Michigan fans think that the Ohio St program isn't worthy enough to shine their shoes, yet Ohio St is the far more accomplished program. Same deal with Oklahoma vs. Texas.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

Yeah. It's total bull$hit. Michigan is a good school, but they aren't competing with Stanford and Princeton academically. Northwestern, yeah perhaps, although N'western is a better school than Michigan.

I dislike Michigan way more than I dislike Ohio St. Ohio St fans seem kind of like Bammers to me. Are they obnoxious? Yes. Are they actually as prestigious and accomplished of a program as they think they are? Yes.

IMO, it's the unearned or undeserved arrogance/smugness that drives me crazy. And that's Michigan. Michigan fans think that the Ohio St program isn't worthy enough to shine their shoes, yet Ohio St is the far more accomplished program. Same deal with Oklahoma vs. Texas.

I agree with all that you said there, but after spending quite a bit of time in Coastal South Carolina I’ve come across a ton of Ohio State fans. It’s like the whole state comes down in June - August. They are a just a different level of obnoxious and they are everywhere. I’ll take some heat for this, but when Ohio State plays an SEC school I’ll take the SEC school. It drives them insane to lose to a southern team.

 

[UTwild82]

Those are the right top 8. All time wins, conference titles, and nattys those 8 are quite a bit ahead of the rest. I'd put us in a second tier with Penn State, the Florida schools, LSU, and Clemson.