- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I can’t stand the phrase “blue blood” in sports
Posted on 11/15/17 at 9:33 am to lsutigers1992
Posted on 11/15/17 at 9:33 am to lsutigers1992
I'm pretty sure Lester is gonna think this is a racist thread.
0
Posted on 11/15/17 at 9:43 am to kjntgr
I don't see a problem with it.
I've been saying here for years CFB should just come out and put the teams in the P5 conferences in three tiers:
Blue Bloods
Tier 2
Tier 3
The Blue Bloods live by different standards due to brand and history (don't have to win key regular season games, don't have to win their conference to make playoffs, etc).
Tier 2 must meet all the standards of winning key games AND the conference
Tier 3 must meet all the standards PLUS have the BBs and Tier 2s above them having more than two loses to make the playoffs.
This way when fans are watching games, they know which games are "really" important and which teams, should they lose, won't matter.
I don't think it would make the sport any less entertaining to watch if they were just honest about all of it.
I've been saying here for years CFB should just come out and put the teams in the P5 conferences in three tiers:
Blue Bloods
Tier 2
Tier 3
The Blue Bloods live by different standards due to brand and history (don't have to win key regular season games, don't have to win their conference to make playoffs, etc).
Tier 2 must meet all the standards of winning key games AND the conference
Tier 3 must meet all the standards PLUS have the BBs and Tier 2s above them having more than two loses to make the playoffs.
This way when fans are watching games, they know which games are "really" important and which teams, should they lose, won't matter.
I don't think it would make the sport any less entertaining to watch if they were just honest about all of it.
Posted on 11/15/17 at 10:07 am to Jones
If I recall, Kentucky is ranked higher in academics then LSU you smug shite.
ETA: I have degrees from Kentucky and LSU.
ETA: I have degrees from Kentucky and LSU.
This post was edited on 11/15/17 at 10:18 am
Posted on 11/15/17 at 10:45 am to WildcatMike
quote:
ETA: I have degrees from Kentucky and LSU
Posted on 11/15/17 at 11:43 am to Forkbeard3777
quote:
I think of it as an overall, consistent winner.
I think of it as an overall, past consistent winner.
Teams like Nebraska, Texas, USC, and Michigan right before Harbaugh. I'd call them all blue bloods, and none are consistent winners. But they all were at some point in the past.
This post was edited on 11/15/17 at 11:45 am
Posted on 11/15/17 at 2:07 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Michigan didn't win a Natty for 50 years and they are the ultimate blue blood.
The ultimate blue blood?
Wtf
Notre Dame? USC? Alabama? Texas? Oklahoma?
All more “blue blood” than fricking Michigan.
Posted on 11/15/17 at 2:18 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
Notre Dame? USC? Alabama? Texas? Oklahoma?
All more “blue blood” than fricking Michigan.
Michigan was winning when Notre Dame was still in diapers.
Michigan taught Notre Dame how to play football and then whipped them 3 times after teaching them the game.
When Michigan was being called "the Champions of the West" - USC was still called the Methodists and was playing maybe 2 games a year against high schools.
On their way to a game in Chicago in 1887, Michigan players stopped in South Bend, Indiana and introduced football to students at the University of Notre Dame.
In 1894, Michigan defeated Cornell, which was the "first time in collegiate football history that a western school defeated an established power from the east."
On May 30, 1879, Michigan played its first intercollegiate football game against Racine College at White Stocking Park in Chicago. The Chicago Tribune called it "the first rugby-football game to be played west of the Alleghenies."
It was Michigan and the Eastern Ivies. And only Michigan continued on having great success over the entire next century...with the most wins of an CFB team.
They had a coach who is one of the founding fathers of modern football - setting it apart from Rugby - Fielding Yost.
No fewer than 75 men who either played for Yost, or coached under him as an assistant, went on to become head coaches in college football.
Michigan is the ultimate blue-blood...they were there at the beginning, won big since the beginning, spread the growth of CFB across the nation - when it was just a Northeastern privileged Ivy League game - won 11 Nattys and 42 Conference Titles and the most games of anyone.
This post was edited on 11/15/17 at 2:21 pm
Posted on 11/15/17 at 2:22 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
That’s great. They played the Ivies.
Posted on 11/15/17 at 2:25 pm to TheCaterpillar
Just pointing out you don't know the history of college football.
Posted on 11/15/17 at 2:30 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
Blue Bloods
yeah i see it...
quote:
Tier 2
i see it too, but if Vanderbilt were for example able to win the SEC and be a playoff contender, being in the SEC would give them the benefit of some doubt
quote:
Tier 3
don't believe this exists in P5 conferences... now in G5 conferences, it does
Posted on 11/15/17 at 3:43 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
In 1894, Michigan defeated Cornell, which was the "first time in collegiate football history that a western school defeated an established power from the east."
quote:
Hail! Hail! to Michigan,
the champions of the West!
Best fight song in collegiate athletics
Posted on 11/15/17 at 4:44 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
won 11 Nattys
Posted on 11/15/17 at 5:34 pm to Korin
11 (1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1918, 1923, 1932, 1933, 1947, 1948, 1997)
If Alabama can claim 2 National titles over two teams they lost to during that season...and 5 retroactive Helms titles as well as 2 retroactive computer titles.
Michigan can claim all their early titles by major newspaper publications at the time.
If Alabama can claim 2 National titles over two teams they lost to during that season...and 5 retroactive Helms titles as well as 2 retroactive computer titles.
Michigan can claim all their early titles by major newspaper publications at the time.
Posted on 11/15/17 at 5:59 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
There were no "major newspaper publications" at the time. The first poll was the AP starting in 1936. Michigan retroactively claimed 6 titles even before Alabama did.
Posted on 11/15/17 at 9:37 pm to Korin
That wasn't the first poll.
The Sun was a major NY publication.
"If you see it in the Sun, it's so." - Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
1901
And I thought the AP was bullshite from everyone saying so on here during the BCS era.
So why are we counting AP titles from 1936?
Either something is legit or it's not.
But there were teams declared National Champs before your AP Poll.
And what's the difference? It's all opinion. AP, Helms, NCF, whatever...it's the same nonsense. So if every other team can claim titles by them - including Alabama or Notre Dame and USC which I think they claim a combined 155 National titles...
Michigan can certainly claim 11.
And they were there before you. Before anybody but Harvard and Princeton.
Blueblood.
The Sun was a major NY publication.
"If you see it in the Sun, it's so." - Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
1901
And I thought the AP was bullshite from everyone saying so on here during the BCS era.
So why are we counting AP titles from 1936?
Either something is legit or it's not.
But there were teams declared National Champs before your AP Poll.
And what's the difference? It's all opinion. AP, Helms, NCF, whatever...it's the same nonsense. So if every other team can claim titles by them - including Alabama or Notre Dame and USC which I think they claim a combined 155 National titles...
Michigan can certainly claim 11.
And they were there before you. Before anybody but Harvard and Princeton.
Blueblood.
This post was edited on 11/15/17 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 11/15/17 at 11:34 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
I've been saying here for years CFB should just come out and put the teams in the P5 conferences in three tiers:
Blue Bloods
Can you imagine the blood bath of blood baths if you made this conference:
Alabama
Ohio State
USC
Notre Dame
Texas
Michigan
Florida
Penn State
Oklahoma
Florida State
Posted on 11/15/17 at 11:42 pm to Giant Leaf
quote:
Can you imagine the blood bath of blood baths if you made this conference:
Alabama
Ohio State
USC
Notre Dame
Texas
Michigan
Florida
Penn State
Oklahoma
Florida State
Notre Dame
USC
Michigan
Ohio State
Florida
Oklahoma
Florida State
Alabama
Texas
Penn State
Which division would you want your team to be in?
Posted on 11/15/17 at 11:52 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Best fight song in collegiate athletics
It is.
I'm not a Michigan man...but Hail to the Victors IS sort of college football if we're being fair and honest.
Dick Schapp used to tell a story how he was sitting on a Subway and heard a guy next to him humming Hail to the Victors...
And Schapp turned to him and said, "oh are you a University of Michigan Grad?"
And the guy said:
"No, I just love college football."
This post was edited on 11/15/17 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 11/16/17 at 10:47 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Notre Dame
USC
Michigan
Ohio State
Florida
Oklahoma
Florida State
Alabama
Texas
Penn State
Which division would you want your team to be in?
Easily.
Posted on 11/16/17 at 12:45 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News