- 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
Is it time to revise or add to the CFB blue bloods roster?
Posted on 6/30/16 at 6:09 am
Posted on 6/30/16 at 6:09 am
As of the end of the 2015 season, here are a few statistics regarding the 8 traditional blue bloods, with their rank in comparison to the field in each statistic:
Alabama: 864 wins (6), .718 % (6), 14 Nat'l titles (1), 29 Conference Championships (CCs) (9)
Michigan: 925 Wins (1), .73 % (2) 11 Nat'l titles (3), 42 CCs (3)
Notre Dame: 892 wins (2), .732 % (1), 13 Nat'l tites (2), 0 CCs (ind.)
USC(w): 813 wins (10), .7 % (8), 10 Nat'l titles (4), 38 CCs (4)
Nebraska: 880 wins (4), .699 % (9), 5 Nat'l titles (9), 46 CCs (1)
Oklahoma: 861 wins (7), .72 % (5), 7 Nat'l titles (7), 44 CCs (2)
Texas: 885 wins (3), .709 % (7) 4 Nat'l titles (12), 31 CCs (8)
Ohio State: 875 wins (5), .722 % (4), 8 Nat'l titles (6), 38 CCs (4)
Common statistics: 800+ wins, ~70%+ win/loss ratio, 4+ titles, ~30+ CCs (except ND)
This is not considering current team trends. I get that Texas is bad now, but they still have a fantastic history. This is a purely historical analysis. For some reference, here some teams of interest (obviously some a good bit more than others):
Penn State: 856 wins (8), .685 % (10), 4 Nat'l titles (12), 4 CCs (95)
LSU: 770 wins (12), .65 % (13), 4 Nat'l titles (12), 14 CCs (43)
Auburn: 748 wins (13), .631 % (17) 3 Nat'l titles (20), 12 CCs (57)
Tennessee: 820 wins (9), .68 % (11), 4 Nat'l titles (12), 16 CCs (32)
Florida State: 522 wins (81), .68 % (11), 3 Nat'l titles (20), 18 CCs (23)
Clemson: 703 wins (20), .603 % (25), 1 Nat'l title (27), 19 CCs (21)
Florida: 701 wins (23), .63 % (18), 3 Nat'l titles (20), 8 CCs (82)
Georgia: 787 wins (11), .649 % (15), 2 Nat'l titles (23), 14 CCs (43)
Illinois: 597 wins (49), .513 % (79), 4 Nat'l titles (12), 15 CCs (36)
Washington: 702 wins (21), .61 % (21), 1 Nat'l title (27), 15 CCs (36)
Miami: 596 wins (50), .629 % (19), 5 Nat'l titles (9), 9 CCs (78)
Syracuse: 712 wins (18), .574 % (44), 1 Nat'l title (27), 5 CCs (92)
Texas A&M: 717 wins (16), .602 % (26), 2 Nat'l titles (23), 19 CCs (21)
Vir. Tech: 719 wins (15), .607 % (23), 0 Nat'l titles (39), 10 CCs (72)
Pittsburgh: 704 wins (19), .575 % (43), 9 Nat'l titles (5), 2 CCs (104)
All of these stats are from Winsipedia. I'm sure I left off some, so feel free to tell me to add any.
Things that stood out to me: Michigan has won a shitload of games. Notre Dame is a season away from the 900-win club. Florida State's win/loss ratio compared to their wins. Pittsburgh's title count.
The biggest disparity between the traditional blue bloods and the teams who are arguing for a spot is CCs. This is because those teams had a near-monopoly on that statistic for so long. CCs is the stat that I am willing to forgive because being a blue blood is a national recognition, not a conference one. Being a blue blood is a measure of how consistently your team is winning and competing for the best in the land. At least that's how I see it. I can also understand the argument as to why CCs are important, which is why I included them, but it isn't the key component to what makes a blue blood a blue blood to me. Alas, they are still included for you if you feel like they are more important than I do. I also left off Heisman winners, All-Americans, and 1st rounders because this is a team evaluation. Those are player-specific statistics. I also didn't include bowl record because that's a part of wins and win/loss ratio.
It's clear that the original 8 are there to stay, probably forever. I do think it's time to add some teams though.
The teams that are no-brainer additions are Penn State and Tennessee. They have everything but the CCs, including more wins than some of the traditional blue bloods.
The next tier is a group of teams that are right on the cusp. These are LSU, Auburn, and Georgia. LSU has close to the wins, a little less win %, and enough titles. If LSU keeps on it's current course, it'll be up there within the next decade or two. Georgia has even closer to the wins, but less titles. If they could add a title or two with Kirby and get their win % up a bit in the next 10-20 years, they should be included. Auburn is probably the weakest of the three by a hair. They have over half a decades worth less wins and a slightly weaker win %, but they have three titles. For me, LSU is next in line (after TN and PSU) because it's easier to increase a win total than it is to increase a title count.
There's a couple teams that are in some weird spots. Florida State has a very low win-total at 522, but a really good win-% at .68 in addition to 3 titles. I did not realize that they were late-adopters to football in comparison with the rest of the teams considered really good. If they had started playing football earlier, they would undoubtedly be up there in the traditional blue bloods. If you are willing to forgive them for their late-entry to the game, they are probably a blue blood already. Pittsburgh is also a team in a weird spot. They just cracked 700 wins this year and have a comparatively bad win-%, but they have 9 national titles (good for 5th). If you're someone who views sports as championship or bust, they're probably a blue blood to you.
Welp, that's pretty much my observation. Sorry for the wall of text, thought this would be interesting to talk about and I'm in Europe for the summer so there's no sports news from America until 3-4pm here. Boredom hit me like a truck. If anything, enjoy a nice read with your morning coffee
Alabama: 864 wins (6), .718 % (6), 14 Nat'l titles (1), 29 Conference Championships (CCs) (9)
Michigan: 925 Wins (1), .73 % (2) 11 Nat'l titles (3), 42 CCs (3)
Notre Dame: 892 wins (2), .732 % (1), 13 Nat'l tites (2), 0 CCs (ind.)
USC(w): 813 wins (10), .7 % (8), 10 Nat'l titles (4), 38 CCs (4)
Nebraska: 880 wins (4), .699 % (9), 5 Nat'l titles (9), 46 CCs (1)
Oklahoma: 861 wins (7), .72 % (5), 7 Nat'l titles (7), 44 CCs (2)
Texas: 885 wins (3), .709 % (7) 4 Nat'l titles (12), 31 CCs (8)
Ohio State: 875 wins (5), .722 % (4), 8 Nat'l titles (6), 38 CCs (4)
Common statistics: 800+ wins, ~70%+ win/loss ratio, 4+ titles, ~30+ CCs (except ND)
This is not considering current team trends. I get that Texas is bad now, but they still have a fantastic history. This is a purely historical analysis. For some reference, here some teams of interest (obviously some a good bit more than others):
Penn State: 856 wins (8), .685 % (10), 4 Nat'l titles (12), 4 CCs (95)
LSU: 770 wins (12), .65 % (13), 4 Nat'l titles (12), 14 CCs (43)
Auburn: 748 wins (13), .631 % (17) 3 Nat'l titles (20), 12 CCs (57)
Tennessee: 820 wins (9), .68 % (11), 4 Nat'l titles (12), 16 CCs (32)
Florida State: 522 wins (81), .68 % (11), 3 Nat'l titles (20), 18 CCs (23)
Clemson: 703 wins (20), .603 % (25), 1 Nat'l title (27), 19 CCs (21)
Florida: 701 wins (23), .63 % (18), 3 Nat'l titles (20), 8 CCs (82)
Georgia: 787 wins (11), .649 % (15), 2 Nat'l titles (23), 14 CCs (43)
Illinois: 597 wins (49), .513 % (79), 4 Nat'l titles (12), 15 CCs (36)
Washington: 702 wins (21), .61 % (21), 1 Nat'l title (27), 15 CCs (36)
Miami: 596 wins (50), .629 % (19), 5 Nat'l titles (9), 9 CCs (78)
Syracuse: 712 wins (18), .574 % (44), 1 Nat'l title (27), 5 CCs (92)
Texas A&M: 717 wins (16), .602 % (26), 2 Nat'l titles (23), 19 CCs (21)
Vir. Tech: 719 wins (15), .607 % (23), 0 Nat'l titles (39), 10 CCs (72)
Pittsburgh: 704 wins (19), .575 % (43), 9 Nat'l titles (5), 2 CCs (104)
All of these stats are from Winsipedia. I'm sure I left off some, so feel free to tell me to add any.
Things that stood out to me: Michigan has won a shitload of games. Notre Dame is a season away from the 900-win club. Florida State's win/loss ratio compared to their wins. Pittsburgh's title count.
The biggest disparity between the traditional blue bloods and the teams who are arguing for a spot is CCs. This is because those teams had a near-monopoly on that statistic for so long. CCs is the stat that I am willing to forgive because being a blue blood is a national recognition, not a conference one. Being a blue blood is a measure of how consistently your team is winning and competing for the best in the land. At least that's how I see it. I can also understand the argument as to why CCs are important, which is why I included them, but it isn't the key component to what makes a blue blood a blue blood to me. Alas, they are still included for you if you feel like they are more important than I do. I also left off Heisman winners, All-Americans, and 1st rounders because this is a team evaluation. Those are player-specific statistics. I also didn't include bowl record because that's a part of wins and win/loss ratio.
It's clear that the original 8 are there to stay, probably forever. I do think it's time to add some teams though.
The teams that are no-brainer additions are Penn State and Tennessee. They have everything but the CCs, including more wins than some of the traditional blue bloods.
The next tier is a group of teams that are right on the cusp. These are LSU, Auburn, and Georgia. LSU has close to the wins, a little less win %, and enough titles. If LSU keeps on it's current course, it'll be up there within the next decade or two. Georgia has even closer to the wins, but less titles. If they could add a title or two with Kirby and get their win % up a bit in the next 10-20 years, they should be included. Auburn is probably the weakest of the three by a hair. They have over half a decades worth less wins and a slightly weaker win %, but they have three titles. For me, LSU is next in line (after TN and PSU) because it's easier to increase a win total than it is to increase a title count.
There's a couple teams that are in some weird spots. Florida State has a very low win-total at 522, but a really good win-% at .68 in addition to 3 titles. I did not realize that they were late-adopters to football in comparison with the rest of the teams considered really good. If they had started playing football earlier, they would undoubtedly be up there in the traditional blue bloods. If you are willing to forgive them for their late-entry to the game, they are probably a blue blood already. Pittsburgh is also a team in a weird spot. They just cracked 700 wins this year and have a comparatively bad win-%, but they have 9 national titles (good for 5th). If you're someone who views sports as championship or bust, they're probably a blue blood to you.
Welp, that's pretty much my observation. Sorry for the wall of text, thought this would be interesting to talk about and I'm in Europe for the summer so there's no sports news from America until 3-4pm here. Boredom hit me like a truck. If anything, enjoy a nice read with your morning coffee
16
Posted on 6/30/16 at 6:36 am to Dixie Normus
Thanks for giving me something to read at work Very interesting
Very interesting 
Posted on 6/30/16 at 6:41 am to Dixie Normus
Uh, I think you accidentally left off Ole Miss. Do you not read tRant?
Posted on 6/30/16 at 6:47 am to Dixie Normus
Illinois has four national titles? When did this happen?
Posted on 6/30/16 at 6:53 am to emoney
1910's and 20's except one in 1951 that the school began recognizing only 10 years ago after some power poll claimed them the best that year. Sounds a lot like Ole Miss.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 7:03 am to Dixie Normus
Damn, nice work.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 7:18 am to Dixie Normus
Id have to put FSU as either in the blue bloods or damn near it. Ahead of Tennessee for sure.
For a generation or two they've been an almost automatic contender for the most part. That's blue blood in my book.
I would also consider a programs ability to transcend playing styles, coaches, generations, etc in the decision too. Some programs are great for a while and then a change happens and they disappear. The blue bloods up there, all except Nebraska, were able to transcend the winds of change
For a generation or two they've been an almost automatic contender for the most part. That's blue blood in my book.
I would also consider a programs ability to transcend playing styles, coaches, generations, etc in the decision too. Some programs are great for a while and then a change happens and they disappear. The blue bloods up there, all except Nebraska, were able to transcend the winds of change
Posted on 6/30/16 at 7:32 am to Quatre Pot
FSU is absolutely a blue blood. It doesn't matter if they adopted late, hell if anything that makes their production more impressive.
They absolutely have a superior program history when compared to Penn St or Tennessee.
They absolutely have a superior program history when compared to Penn St or Tennessee.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:17 am to Dixie Normus
quote:
It's clear that the original 8 are there to stay, probably forever. I do think it's time to add some teams though.
To me, a blue blood is a team that immediately pops into the majority of people's heads when they think of college football. I don't care the number, but if you were to poll 100 college football fans ranging from 10-80 Family Feud style who were not alumni of one of the schools, which names would come up the most times?
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:23 am to Buckeye06
The bluebloods are also involved in some of the most iconic games/moments in CFB history, such as the 1971 Nebraska/Oklahoma game or the 2005 USC/Texas game.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:26 am to Dixie Normus
quote:
It's clear that the original 8 are there to stay, probably forever. I do think it's time to add some teams though.
Nebraska is about to fall off the cliff and they're not coming back. At least not the way I remember them back in the day.
And which sketchy service are you including in your analysis to give LSU its 4th title or is that a mistake?
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:29 am to lsutigers1992
quote:
And which sketchy service are you including in your analysis to give LSU its 4th title or is that a mistake?
If Alabama has 14 titles, LSU has 4
1908, 1958, 2003, 2007
Posted on 6/30/16 at 8:57 am to VADawg
quote:
The bluebloods are also involved in some of the most iconic games/moments in CFB history, such as the 1971 Nebraska/Oklahoma game or the 2005 USC/Texas game.
But I mean all the fringe schools have games/moments like that too right?
For Miami
1984 Nebraska/Miami, 2002 Miami/OSU
LSU
2011 Bama/LSU, 2007 UF/LSU (I'm on an LSU board but I'm just picking out a few recent great moments/games)
I just think if you randomly polled people more people would say Michigan than Tennessee or Florida State
I think Miami may be the school who would come out the most that isn't those 8, but because people know the name not necessarily the accomplishments
Posted on 6/30/16 at 9:05 am to lsutigers1992
Nebraska is about to become the modern version of Minnesota, another program that used to be awesome.
And let's slow the roll in Texas sucking as a program. It's been two down years, yet they are still recruiting like gangbusters. They are almost certain to bounce back due to their institutional advantages. Almost every program has down periods in the wilderness.
And let's slow the roll in Texas sucking as a program. It's been two down years, yet they are still recruiting like gangbusters. They are almost certain to bounce back due to their institutional advantages. Almost every program has down periods in the wilderness.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 9:08 am to Dixie Normus
Penn St shouldn't be in consideration. Ever
Posted on 6/30/16 at 9:09 am to Dixie Normus
I really think we should separate the "blue bloods" of college football by each title platform they played on (BCS,CFBP). The fact that a program like Nebraska is still considered a blue blood in some peoples eyes is laughable.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 9:41 am to JBeam
Michigan State should be considered moving forward. 6 National Championships! Dantonio has built them into a B1G power.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 9:57 am to Dixie Normus
quote:
It's clear that the original 8 are there to stay, probably forever.
Really?
Nebraska was a combined 17-10 in 2002 and 2003 and has lost a minimum of 4 games every season since.
USC has averaged 4.43 losses per season since 2008 while Stanford and Oregon have become perennial Top-10 programs.
Texas is 41-35 since 2009 and recruits are fleeiing the state like cockroaches when the lights come on. Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU are getting players that used to be UT's for the taking.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 10:06 am to Dixie Normus
quote:
USC(w): 813 wins (10), .7 % (8), 10 Nat'l titles (4), 38 CCs (4)
I love the (w) here as if anyone would ever think you were talking about South Carolina in a blue bloods convo.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News