Which Schools are "Blue Blood" Programs?

[Moiraine]

8 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

 

I think if I was creating this I would include years since last conference and national championship. That would move a team like Clemson up a little bit more. And it would eventually move teams like Nebraska or Notre Dame or Michigan down a little. 

[JJ Husker]

11 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I think if I was creating this I would include years since last conference and national championship. That would move a team like Clemson up a little bit more. And it would eventually move teams like Nebraska or Notre Dame or Michigan down a little. 

I'm not sure that has tremendous bearing on blue bloods status ...at least the way I view it. It should be difficult to get into the club and even harder to lose your spot in it. jmo.

[Moiraine]

16 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I'm not sure that has tremendous bearing on blue bloods status ...at least the way I view it. It should be difficult to get into the club and even harder to lose your spot in it. jmo.

 

 

I'm just thinking of Minnesota. At some point when they're far enough removed from being great, teams should slide off the list.

[Landlord]

45 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I'm just thinking of Minnesota. At some point when they're far enough removed from being great, teams should slide off the list.

 

 

Okay but, except when it comes to us.

[JJ Husker]

59 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I'm just thinking of Minnesota. At some point when they're far enough removed from being great, teams should slide off the list.

I mean it can change but how long did it take? They were a force in the 30's and 40's with their last anything in 1960. So yeah, 50-60 years of complete and utter futility can get anyone kicked off the list. A team like Clemson with some more sustained success could replace a team that does squat for 40+ years.

 

I also think historical reference can aid a team's claim. It's been awhile for Michigan and Notre Dame but I just don't see them ever losing blue bloods status. I kind of feel the same about Nebraska but I may be biased. I guess the length of a team's reign and their dominance within it may buy more time.

 

And I have no concerns when it comes to Nebraska. We'll be a force again before we ever get remotely close to losing BB status. Yeah these last 15 years have been rough but it won't be long now.

[Mavric]

24 minutes ago, Landlord said:

Okay but, except when it comes to us.

 

We've won a national championship more recently than two of the top three teams.

 

So we're not the only exception.

[Moiraine]

21 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I mean it can change but how long did it take? They were a force in the 30's and 40's with their last anything in 1960. So yeah, 50-60 years of complete and utter futility can get anyone kicked off the list. A team like Clemson with some more sustained success could replace a team that does squat for 40+ years.

 

I also think historical reference can aid a team's claim. It's been awhile for Michigan and Notre Dame but I just don't see them ever losing blue bloods status. I kind of feel the same about Nebraska but I may be biased. I guess the length of a team's reign and their dominance within it may buy more time.

 

And I have no concerns when it comes to Nebraska. We'll be a force again before we ever get remotely close to losing BB status. Yeah these last 15 years have been rough but it won't be long now.

 

 

I'm not implying anyone on the list is wrong. But if Nebraska were to not win a conference championship within the next 20 years, they wouldn't deserve to be on the list. They would probably move off it due to All Americans and other things slipping down. But I was actually thinking of Michigan and Notre Dame a little more. Michigan has ONE national championship (and they weren't the best team in the country that season) in the past 70 years. They have 9 conference championships in the last 30 years. Do they really deserve to be #3? I guess it depends whether you think winning a bunch of games 100 years ago matters.

[Landlord]

2 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

We've won a national championship more recently than two of the top three teams.

 

So we're not the only exception.

 

 

Huh? The only one of the eight we've won a natty more recently than is Notre Dame.

 

Alabama - 2017

OSU - 2014

Texas - 2005

USC - 2004

Oklahoma - 2000

Michigan/Nebraska - 1997

Notre Dame - 1988

 

 

[JJ Husker]

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I'm not implying anyone on the list is wrong. But if Nebraska were to not win a conference championship within the next 20 years, they wouldn't deserve to be on the list. They would probably move off it due to All Americans and other things slipping down. But I was actually thinking of Michigan and Notre Dame a little more. Michigan has ONE national championship in the past 70 years. They have 9 conference championships in the last 30 years. Do they really deserve to be #3? I guess it depends whether you think winning a bunch of games 100 years ago matters.

I guess all I can offer is my opinion. I don't think there is anything more definitive to work with. And my whole outlook has been shaped by about the last 40 years of my life. For whatever reason Michigan and Notre Dame still feel like blue blood programs to me. Maybe it's all those games with Bo Shembechler, Woody Hayes, Ara Parseghian, Bear Bryant and Bob Devaney I watched as a kid. That just always felt like college football to me. If those teams aren't included, I lose my basis in the sport.

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, Landlord said:

Michigan/Nebraska - 1997

 

We won the day after they did.  

[Landlord]