- 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
0
Posted on 1/27/23 at 8:24 am to GoGators1995
Yes, the AP is a mythical poll.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 8:29 am to jlovel7
quote:
People saying Nebraska isn’t is sort of ridiculous. Being a blue blood is all about pedigree and you’re allowed to go back awhile for that. And Nebraska has an outstanding CFB pedigree.
Nebraska had a solid 30 year run playing in a laughable conference in the Big 8. Oklahoma also faced major sanctions in the Nebraska glory years, which helped them mightily. They had tough battles against Iowa state and the kansas schools, pre Bill Snyder were arguably 3 of the worst 5 Major programs of all time.
Their last 20 years has firmly displaced them from the ranks of the elite. None of these other programs ever had such a woeful run spanning two decades.
Head coaches: 6
Major Bowl Invitations: 0
AP preseason Top 25 Rankings: 10
Final AP Top 10 Teams: 0
Seasons w/losing record: 9
Bowl Record: 6-8
Best Bowl Wins: Alamo / Holiday / Gator
Consensus AA: 3
First Round Draft Picks: 4
This post was edited on 1/27/23 at 8:32 am
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:04 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
They've never wandered in the desert for periods like Bama and USC.
Nor has Ohio State. Their sustained success is impressive.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:08 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Nebraska
I'll be turning 30 this year and have religiously followed college football for as long as I can remember. Nebraska has never been relevant in my lifetime. No way can they be considered a blue blood over LSU who has won 3 nattys in the last 20 years.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:08 am to RollTide1987
Minus Nebraska, I would say that is what the current media would consider the Tier 1 programs.
These seven programs have much different standards for post season qualification than every other program.
These seven programs have much different standards for post season qualification than every other program.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:08 am to RollTide1987
At this point I think it's Bama, Ohio State, then everyone else. Theyre on a plane of their own. Oklahoma is probably the leader of tier 2.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:10 am to StrongOffer
quote:
Nebraska has never been relevant in my lifetime. No way can they be considered a blue blood
the overall point you're missing is that blue blood status isn't depending on StrongOffer's birth year. I'm not THAT much older than you but when I started following CFB they were THE program nationally. The bama of that era essentially. Are they now a blue blood again because my birth year is a few years before yours?
Blue blood status is based on history, all of it. Like from CFB inception til now. meaning a 10 or 20 year spurt of either shittiness or greatness isn't going ot move the status needle.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:11 am to ecb
quote:lol wut.
Michigan -no longer relevant
quote:i get they had one bad year but cmon man.
Oklahoma -no longer relevant
quote:i get middle of this decade but theyre gonna be a problem for the next few years at minimum.
USC -no longer relevant
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:29 am to StrongOffer
Being a blue blood implies history and how deeply rooted winning has been historically for a team. There is no such thing as "blue bloods of the last 30 years", that's just how successful they have been in the last 30 years. At the end of the day, Nebraska has more national championships and more Heisman's than we do.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:30 am to WG_Dawg
LSU is not a blue blood, ill just go ahead and make that clear.
Texas and Michigan are the two traditional "blue bloods" that are the most overrated. The quicker you have to go to pre-1960s rule change football, the worse your argument is.
Texas played in the sorry-arse SWC, most of their success was during segregation and since joining the big 12 they have won it 3 times. Congrats on being the biggest program in Texas
Michigan has 1 title since 1948 and it was a shared one. They have unquestionably been far behind Ohio State until recently.
Michigan and texas have not lived up to any blue blood standard since the major shifts in college football 60s rule changes, integration, and 90s conference reshuffles/BCS.
Texas and Michigan are the two traditional "blue bloods" that are the most overrated. The quicker you have to go to pre-1960s rule change football, the worse your argument is.
Texas played in the sorry-arse SWC, most of their success was during segregation and since joining the big 12 they have won it 3 times. Congrats on being the biggest program in Texas
Michigan has 1 title since 1948 and it was a shared one. They have unquestionably been far behind Ohio State until recently.
Michigan and texas have not lived up to any blue blood standard since the major shifts in college football 60s rule changes, integration, and 90s conference reshuffles/BCS.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:33 am to WG_Dawg
The point you and SimplySam are missing is you can't be a blueblood if you go 30 years without being relevant. Y'all are choosing to pick a different 30 years when they were good. And I am not making the argument LSU is a blueblood. The same argument can be made for us.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:37 am to StrongOffer
quote:
The point you and SimplySam are missing is you can't be a blueblood if you go 30 years without being relevant
who gets to decide why some years are more important than others? If you have 110 years of awesome and 30 years of irrelvance, who is determining that the crappy years outweigh the great years in importance?
The individual years are irrelvant. What happened in 2022 means the exact same as what happened in 1922 when it comes to this topic. It's your resume. How many wins do you have? How many titles, how many bowls, etc etc. Teh fact that some schoosl racked up a frickton of all those things decades ago but haven't been so hot lately, doesn't take away from the fact that they still DID earn all those accolades and wins and titles.
Today's society is just SO reactionary and SO "what have you done for me lately" oriented that there's this constant push to appoint new blue bloods that have done well the last 10 years and push out other teams that were good for nearly a century but suck now. That's not how it works.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:41 am to RollTide1987
LSU is 11th all time in wins but we have been more relevant since 2000 than Texas, Nebraska, and Michigan.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:43 am to Blutarsky
quote:
LSU is 11th all time in wins but we have been more relevant since 2000 than Texas, Nebraska, and Michigan.
Everything you said is a true, inarguable fact.
It doesn't make LSu a blueblood though or them not a blue blood. Because each team's overall CFB resume doesn't begin in 2000.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:46 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
It doesn't make LSu a blueblood though or them not a blue blood. Because each team's overall CFB resume doesn't begin in 2000.
But, a team should stay relevant to maintain blue blood status.
We are almost through a generation with some of these teams being virtually irrelevant.
This post was edited on 1/27/23 at 9:55 am
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:47 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
Blue blood status is based on history, all of it. Like from CFB inception til now. meaning a 10 or 20 year spurt of either shittiness or greatness isn't going ot move the status needle.
+1
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:48 am to Blutarsky
quote:
But, a team should stay relevant to maintain blue blood status.
Agreed.
I think WG is saying Nebraska is still a blueblood despite sucking for the past two decades, and LSU is not a blueblood despite being dominant for the past two decades. However, if the current trend continues, Nebraska will no longer be a blueblood and LSU will.
Basically, an outlier twenty season span is not enough of a sample size to push someone down or up on the blueblood latter.
I also think it's easy to pile on Nebraska because they were just that damn dominant from the 50s to the 90s. They have had some success after 2000. Sure, they aren't winning national championships, but they played for one and have had some other good seasons. It's not like they've been consistently missing bowl games.
This post was edited on 1/27/23 at 9:52 am
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:53 am to Tornado Alley
quote:
Basically, an outlier twenty season span is not enough of a sample size to push someone down or up on the blueblood latter.
Yes exactly.
Teams like Minnesota or harvard had blips of massive megasuccess, but they clearly aren't blue bloods becuase it wasn't sustained and the rest of their histories have been blah. Nebraska/ND/Texas etc do have periods, sometimes even relatively sustained periods, of irrelevancy but still have DECADES worth of being elite. Liekwise LSu has been one of the best programs in america since 2001 but that doesn't automatically cancel out everything that happeend int he 100 years prior.
IMO, for a team to either lose or gain blue blood status it would take SEVERAL decades worth of either majorly winning or majorly losing. I don't mean like 8-4 seasons, I mean like 3-9 seasons. The fact that the list of blue bloods hasn't changed since the term was coined just speaks to the fact that those programs have won at such a high clip since CFB was formed.
Posted on 1/27/23 at 9:55 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Read my previous post, nobody can touch Oklahoma for historical sustained success. They've never wandered in the desert for periods like Bama and USC.
While I agree OU is a blueblood, they were 68-55-3 from 1989 - 1999. I think that's a bit of a trek in the desert. Sure, from 1950 - 1989 and then again from 2000 - 2020ish, they were great.
Page 4 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News