BigRedBuster Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 We can't get more offseason than this thread. Should I bring up tire treads you can't see from the stands or on TV.....or the precise cuts of the stripes on shoulders of uniforms? Quote Link to comment
Landlord Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Hell, we have seen prominent sportscasters and sports writers give their own personal lists of blue-bloods that don't exactly line up with our own. One would think that they would be pretty well-educated sources of these types of opinions. Are you just making random stuff up? I'd like a source on this because I don't think it's true at all. Here's a thread of over 200 comments on /r/cfb (which has 247,000 subscribers of all different ages) and everyone pretty much gives the exact same lists of blueblood programs. Further, if you google 'college football bluebloods', every article on the first page of results has the same 8-10 teams. 1 Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 I have literally only told Knapp he is wrong. I told Enhance that I disagree with him. So, you would be wrong. In a post where you said you only told knapp he was wrong you told someone else they are wrong. Awesomeness. Well up until that point. But then the other poster had to be corrected Quote Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 I never considered Colorado a rival and never understood why they replaced Oklahoma as our final game of the season. But pretty soon I considered Colorado a rival. A good one, too. On the field and in the stands. Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Different ages don't consider different teams bluebloods. Anyone that pays attention from 6th grade to age 60 knows NU/Bama/OU/USC/Texas/Michigan/OSU/PSU/ND/LSU are the bluebloods, with some debate about schools like FSU/Miami/Georgia, but that's about it. Different people will have different opinions on who's elite based off of what year it is and recent success more than age. Michigan State was elite until they won like 2 games or whatever it was last season. I strongly disagree. Your age should and does affect which teams you consider "elite" or "blue bloods" because both terms are subjectively defined and not static. If you took a survey of 7 to 18 year olds in America on which teams are blue bloods I doubt Nebraska would Crack the top ten of that list. I'm not so sure we can really say one way or the other. Alabama sucked when I was young in the 90s but I knew they were a blue blood program because of things I heard from family, friends, etc. And if you listen to broadcasts of our games every year, announcers still use language like "tradition," "powerhouse," and "blue blood." Though, they're often used to describe our past. I'd be willing to bet that the average millennial Husker fan is a lot more aware of CFB history than other millennial football fans. You grew up around people with a strong vested interest in CFB tradition. There are likely many young Oregon and Wisconsin fans with an inflated view of their program's place in history. Are we talking about millennials or the age ranges you mentioned above? Millennials are between the ages of 18-34 right now with rough birth dates between (I think) 1982 and 2004. The vast majority of millennials are full fledged adults, and a significant portion of them were alive/cognizant during Nebraska's greatest era. This detail has a significant influence on the argument. Second, I too find a difference between being "elite" and "blue blood," so we should probably clarify what we're talking about here. Lastly, I'd put millennial Husker fans on par with similarly aged fans of other blue blood programs. Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 I never considered Colorado a rival and never understood why they replaced Oklahoma as our final game of the season. But pretty soon I considered Colorado a rival. A good one, too. On the field and in the stands. Colorado replaced Oklahoma because OU went to the south division and we only got to play them 2x every 4 years. Quote Link to comment
Kiyoat Husker Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Are we talking about millennials or the age ranges you mentioned above? Millennials are between the ages of 18-34 right now with rough birth dates between (I think) 1982 and 2004. The vast majority of millennials are full fledged adults, and a significant portion of them were alive/cognizant during Nebraska's greatest era. This detail has a significant influence on the argument. Second, I too find a difference between being "elite" and "blue blood," so we should probably clarify what we're talking about here. Lastly, I'd put millennial Husker fans on par with similarly aged fans of other blue blood programs. Yes, I know approximately what the age of a millennial is. (although there is some debate about the exact years) I was making an assumption based on your comments that you are a millennial. Your definition of elite and blue-blood is probably very similar to mine. I agree with the definitions that have been discussed in this thread. I'm just playing devil's advocate and saying that there is no gold standard way of defining either label. Thus, it is subjective. Further, I agree that millennial Husker fans and millennial Bama fans probably both have a good perspective on the history of CFB. I was comparing you with an "average millennial CFB fan" which is an entirely different thing. Quote Link to comment
Landlord Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 I'm just playing devil's advocate and saying that there is no gold standard way of defining either label. Thus, it is subjective. Yet pretty much everyone has the same list of blue-bloods. Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 I'm just playing devil's advocate and saying that there is no gold standard way of defining either label. Thus, it is subjective. Yet pretty much everyone has the same list of blue-bloods. There is a list of definite. Then there are about 6-10 that can be argued. Quote Link to comment
Kiyoat Husker Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Hell, we have seen prominent sportscasters and sports writers give their own personal lists of blue-bloods that don't exactly line up with our own. One would think that they would be pretty well-educated sources of these types of opinions. Are you just making random stuff up? I'd like a source on this because I don't think it's true at all. Yes, there are 8 to 10 teams that show up in most everyone's list of blue-bloods. I agree with you. All I'm saying is that there isn't one universally-accepted definition of what is a blue-blood. With that having been said, I did an internet search for blue-blood defining articles, and was surprised to find that you are right. If you are only looking at national-level sports writers, they are close to a consensus. I thought I remember a Colin Cowherd list that was a little out-there, but couldn't find it. It would be nice to have a more exact definition, but I guess we don't need one. There are plenty of small-scale writers (blogs, websites, fan boards, etc.) that have predictably biased lists, but that is to be expected. There are also several writers that have proposed "new-blood" or "CFP blue-blood" lists that include Clemson, FSU, etc. or articles that talk about how irrelevant blue-blood status is, but they don't try to re-define the term. I guess I was reading blogs and fan boards, and "mis-remembered" the "alternative facts". I did find one blasphemous writer confusing blue-blood with elite: http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/clemson-ohio-state-fiesta-bowl-alabama-national-championship-game-dabo-swinney-tigers-010117 Winning a National Championship is a surefire way to establish a program as a blueblood in college football, but make no mistake, the (Clemson) Tigers are already there, and even a loss to Alabama in Tampa cannot change that. Quote Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Who are these ten consensus Blue Bloods? Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Who are these ten consensus Blue Bloods? In my humble opinion: Michigan Ohio St Penn St Nebraska Alabama Oklahoma Florida St Southern Cal Notre Dame Texas Quote Link to comment
Landlord Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 There's 8 for sure, Penn State and FSU fall into a second tier category of kinda sorta maybe, along with LSU/Georgia/Miami Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 In addition to the poll being fairly split, it would seem that if it were not at least somewhat a rivalry - there can be different degrees, can't there? - this thread would not be be on page five. Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 There's 8 for sure, Penn State and FSU fall into a second tier category of kinda sorta maybe, along with LSU/Georgia/Miami If the parameter is say from 1960 forward, Penn St and FSU are high contenders to be considered a Blue blood program. Miami, LSU, Georgia are more from 80's forward. So that is where it gets tricky Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.