Started By
Message

re: Besides LSU who is considered a Blue Blood in Baseball ?

Posted on 6/6/23 at 1:27 pm to
Posted by Broski
Member since Jun 2011
81275 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 1:27 pm to
quote:

The College World Series was one of these obscure things ESPN would broadcast, because they didn't have access to major sports yet.



You say this as if the CWS championship game wasn't broadcast on CBS in the 80's.
Posted by LSUNV
In the woods or on the water
Member since Feb 2011
23113 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 1:29 pm to
There is no doubt that we were lucky with timing of Skip but what he built is a blue blood program because of all the media exposure we got. Everybody in the country now perceives us as a blue blood and perception is all that matters
This post was edited on 6/6/23 at 1:32 pm
Posted by Scoob
Near Exxon
Member since Jun 2009
23528 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 1:39 pm to
I'm not going to get into technicalities battles with who or what is a blueblood

LSU had no measure of success until the 80's.

However, the sport changed due to the emergence of ESPN. People need to remember, college baseball isn't on the same level as college football or basketball, either in viewing, or in skill level (at least not until VERY recently). Good players went to the minors, although some definitely came through college. But college ball wasn't at the same tier as AA minor leagues for most of it's existence. It was more accepted that good players came out of high school straight to the minors, not college. Fundamental difference in those sports.

LSU emerged the same time college baseball began to elevate. It's almost certainly the face of college ball today, and has been for a couple decades. It's been THE team since ESPN started covering the sport, and that has taken off now. So in that respect, LSU is THE blue blood, the premier team of the modern game.

But we had basically zero presence before then.

You can get pissy and indignant all you like, but that doesn't change. And it kinda sounds like that accusation people used to make on the SEC Rant, about LSU fans thinking college football started in 2001.

Posted by Honest Tune
Louisiana
Member since Dec 2011
19285 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 1:41 pm to
We started making noise in the 80s… damn near 40 years ago…

It didn’t take them very long to kick the door in either.
This post was edited on 6/6/23 at 1:42 pm
Posted by MikeTheTiger71
Member since Dec 2021
4488 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 1:42 pm to
quote:

IMO… Ok. St. Texas Wichita St. Stanford FSU Miami CSF Believe it or not Maine LSU was not a blue blood. Maybe y’all think they are but not in the sense I understand blue bloods to be


Wichita St made their first CWS appearance 4 years before LSU and won their only title 2 years before LSU. I could go with a standard for blue blood that stretches back to an earlier time in history as seems to be your intent, but some of your choices seem inconsistent by that standard.

Maine had a good run from 1981-1986, but only 2 appearances before and none since with no titles. That doesn’t meet any criteria for blue blood status I’ve ever seen. They were neither dominant over a long period of time nor do they have multiple titles. And, again, most of their success only predates LSU by a few years.

Cal St Fullerton’s run predates LSU’s by about a decade. I would consider them a blue blood, but I question a cutoff that would include CSF but not LSU. Miami is very similar.

Stanford had a couple of isolated appearances in the CWS before 1982, but otherwise they were only a few years ahead of LSU.

So, I guess my question to you is what point in time is the cutoff for blue blood in your opinion? I think your list either needs to be much smaller or it needs to include LSU. Given how regional college baseball was prior to the mid-80’s and how little the sport was followed, I don’t think I would use a time frame stretching back before then. Blue blood would imply people actually cared back then.
This post was edited on 6/6/23 at 2:19 pm
Posted by LSUgrad88
Member since Jun 2009
9140 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 1:44 pm to
quote:

From there, it all snowballed.


And your point is??? HOW we became the preeminent baseball program in the country isn’t really relevant, just the fact that we are.
Posted by MikeTheTiger71
Member since Dec 2021
4488 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 1:50 pm to
quote:

LSU emerged the same time college baseball began to elevate.


quote:

But we had basically zero presence before then.


I think you somewhat contradict yourself here. It’s reasonable to say that there is a lot of college football history prior to 2001, but not so much for college baseball prior to 1986. Most college baseball fans have no ties to the baseball world prior to that time nor do the schools they follow. The blue bloods from pre-history would be very limited and not particularly relevant.
Posted by El Magnifico
La casa de tu mamá
Member since Jan 2014
7017 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 1:55 pm to
Stanford, Miami, Texas, USC
Posted by LSUStar
Medellin
Member since Sep 2009
11405 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 1:58 pm to
No one else.
Posted by LSUgrad88
Member since Jun 2009
9140 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 2:01 pm to
quote:

think you somewhat contradict yourself here


Actually he pretty much completely contradicts himself. The fact that college baseball was non-existent from any type of television coverage prior to ESPN in the 80’s makes it absolutely necessary for you to be relevant in the sport from that time forward to be a “blue blood .”
Posted by TheDude321
Member since Sep 2005
3268 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 2:18 pm to
quote:

Maybe Florida State.




quote:

NCAA championships: none
Posted by OchoDedos
Republic of Texas
Member since Oct 2014
39921 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 2:24 pm to
quote:


Texas
USCw
Cal St Fullerton
Stanford

Arizona and Arizona St
Miami
FL St
Okie State
Posted by Dissident Aggressor
Member since Aug 2011
5654 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 2:27 pm to
quote:

They have won more CWS than anyone else since 2005

thats new money brah, not a blue blood...
Posted by TigerFanNKaty
texas
Member since Sep 2008
10313 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 2:49 pm to
If that is the there are no blue bloods in baseball because nobody invested heavily until recently
Posted by choupiquesushi
yaton rouge
Member since Jun 2006
35066 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 2:55 pm to
USC, Arizona State, Stanford, Texas, Vandy, Rice, Fullerton, Whichita state, OKie State
Posted by LSUSkip
Central, LA
Member since Jul 2012
24717 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 2:57 pm to
quote:

Arizona State


Actually had that conversation the other day with someone. I contended that they were not due to not being relevant anymore. He thought that they still were. The only reason that USCw is still relevant is because of how many titles they hold. It's been two generations since they've last won one though.
Posted by bhtigerfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
33612 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:08 pm to
quote:

Oregon State is not a blue blood.
Yeah, I’d say they’re a newb because their success has only been since the mid 2000’s.
Posted by LSUNV
In the woods or on the water
Member since Feb 2011
23113 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:09 pm to
Doesn’t matter what your perception is or isn’t, the rest of the country considers us one. A few people’s perception is moot

And I am not getting pissy. Just trying to show that the rest of the country considers us a blue blood so it really don’t matter what you or I think
This post was edited on 6/6/23 at 3:20 pm
Posted by AtlantaLSUfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2009
27199 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:13 pm to
quote:

Stanford, Miami, Texas, USC

/thread
Posted by Beavers_Baseball
Eugene, OR
Member since Jun 2023
3 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:13 pm to
this guy is not wrong...
first pageprev pagePage 7 of 9Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram