Blue Bloods

[husker2612]

Was having a discussion with a guy on twitter a few days ago. He put out a list of his "true blue bloods" Neb was not on the list. He said they had "fallen off the blue blood list" I called him out for it and he said, well they were, but they aren't any more. I was like, what? once your a Blue Blood your always a blue blood. You can't just stop being one. He said you can.
So what say you, #1 Can teams jump off and on the Blue blood list. # 2 is Nebraska still considered a Blue Blood. #3 What is your top ten Blue Blood list.
My thoughts. No, teams can not come on and off this list. This isn't a freaking merry go round at the amusement park. Blue bloods are called that for a reason. It is something earned over a long period of time and achievements. Once you got that title it is yours till death. I don't care if it is a royal family or a football program. In my opinion these top 10 will always and forever be the True Blue Blood list.
My top 10 no particular order.

Bama
Ohio St
Penn St
Mich
Nebraska
FL St
ND
Okla
USC
Texas

I could also see arguments for Miami, Tenn, LSU, FL

 

[scarletred]

I don’t get people saying “ they are no longer a blue blood”

Blue Bloods are about history through out time not the last 4 years or a decade or 2..

Nebraska if they claimed all Time wins like the rest of the country would have 905 victories and would be tied with Bama for 4 most all time wins..They’re also among the top 8 in all time winning pct and they had 2 of the best all time teams in College Football History ( 1971 and 1995).And only 3 schools have played in more Bowl games than Nebraska...

 

[headcard]

The blue bloods are:

Alabama
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
Michigan
OSU
Texas
USC
Nebraska

PSU and Tennessee have a great case and I would put them on my list. but they aren’t considered blue bloods.

 

[headcard]

 

[HBK4life]

NU is still a blue blood. EOD

 

[barney44]

You can’t erase history...

 

[PeliniTheCrutch]

Iowa sucks.

 

[scarletred]

The blue bloods are:

Alabama
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
Michigan
OSU
Texas
USC
Nebraska

PSU and Tennessee have a great case and I would put them on my list. but they aren’t considered blue bloods.

I personally have no problem with calling Penn St a blue blood they are 8th in all Time wins and in the Top 10 in winning Pct...

 

[RedMyMind]

You can’t erase history...

it's all the rage these days

 

[Truehuskerfan]

I do know Stewart Mandel periodically does a list of power 5 conference teams and puts them in 4 categories(Kings, Barons, Knights and Peasants). His most recent list in 2017 had us dropping from the Kings category to the Barons. I think if you want to know whether we are still a college football blue blood, look at all of the preseason hype for next year. I don't think we get that kind of hype if we're not in the top echelon of teams. You still hear people today who say college football is better when Nebraska is good. People don't say that about second-tier teams.

 

[scarletred]

Iowa sucks.

Iowa doesn’t even need to be mentioned in this thread..

 

[HBK4life]

Iowa sucks.

Iowa is a blue ball. They never finish!!

 

[huskerfan66]

it's all the rage these days

Or alter it

 

[CatColumbia]

We are but we need to start owning championships (conference or titles) asap. We’re going on a 20 year drought.
Being the UCLA of basketball isn’t something nice to be compared to imo.

 

[timnsun]

Iowa is a blue ball. They never finish!!

So good...

 

[husker2612]

I think that is what many in the younger generation have a hard time understanding. They look at a blue bloods as a team who is good right now/ of the last 10-20 years. When looking at the definition of a blood blue it was originally use to describe a respected, important, well off, family. This status was gained over generations not decades. Once on it, you don't go off.

 

[TruHusker]

Well, I guess my first question what criteria lands a team on the list? That would also reflect on the back side of what it takes to get off.

I am not looking this all up so the this for what it's worth.

Minnesota was great "in the day" so would they have been considered a BB and then fallen off?

Seems to me Florida State didn't do all the much until Bobby took over so they would be of the more recent variety in that case.

Miami might be in that same boat.

Is the criteria total wins, league championships, National Titles (that one alone is in question), or how good they have been in the "modern era."

I would venture to say any younger writer would not know the Nebraska history and it would be easy to leave them off the list.

I have no problems with a team dropping off the list, the armed forces had great teams at one time as did the Ivy League as I recall.

 

[scarletred]

Well, I guess my first question what criteria lands a team on the list? That would also reflect on the back side of what it takes to get off.

I am not looking this all up so the this for what it's worth.

Minnesota was great "in the day" so would they have been considered a BB and then fallen off?

Seems to me Florida State didn't do all the much until Bobby took over so they would be of the more recent variety in that case.

Miami might be in that same boat.

Is the criteria total wins, league championships, National Titles (that one alone is in question), or how good they have been in the "modern era."

I would venture to say any younger writer would not know the Nebraska history and it would be easy to leave them off the list.

I have no problems with a team dripping off the list, the armed forces had great teams at one time as did the Ivy League as I recall.

Minnesota has a 0.569 winning pct how does that make them a blue blood?

And after their National title which they didn’t win their bowl game they still weren’t in the Top 10 in winning pct up till 1961..

 

[nudan92]

Minnesota has a 0.569 winning pct how does that make them a blue blood?

And after their National title which they didn’t win their bowl game they still weren’t in the Top 10 in winning pct up till 1961..

By the early 1940s Minnesota would have clearly been thought of as a "Blue Blood". Without question.

 

[Wyldcard]

I think that is what many in the younger generation have a hard time understanding. They look at a blue bloods as a team who is good right now/ of the last 10-20 years. When looking at the definition of a blood blue it was originally use to describe a respected, important, well off, family. This status was gained over generations not decades. Once on it, you don't go off.

Overall the Millenials are too brain dead to understand anything and are an overall embarrassment!

 

[scarletred]

By the early 1940s Minnesota would have clearly been thought of as a "Blue Blood". Without question.

And Nebraska was with them during that same time frame of 73 years..

PS in winning pct..

 

[regoratsginrom]

We are to bluebloods in football as Indiana and UCLA are bluebloods in basketball.

We have some work to do.

 

[PlanOUred]

I think that is what many in the younger generation have a hard time understanding. They look at a blue bloods as a team who is good right now/ of the last 10-20 years. When looking at the definition of a blood blue it was originally use to describe a respected, important, well off, family. This status was gained over generations not decades. Once on it, you don't go off.

The term "Blue Bloods" regarding to football programs can be a matter of speculation depending on who you follow and root for. If you go on the above description then Yale and Army would be considered Blue Bloods since they at one time were truly Blue Bloods and if you can't take that description away then they would be Blue Bloods. Minnesota also should be considered....they have 4 Associated Press National Titles.

But if you want to refer to something that isn't speculation or biased to your favorite team (regardless of who you follow) then the all time Associated Press All Time poll should be valid. The AP is the first and oldest national poll....polls before that were regional or local polls and usually favored the local team of preference. But here is the culmination of the AP polls starting in 1935 and through the 2017 season (don't think the final poll including the 2018 season has been tabulated yet but it should not change much given the final standing of the teams in the 2018 season.

AP Final Rankings Greatest Teams Of All-Time
These rankings are created according to the CFN scoring system –this isn’t the official AP ranking of its all-time greatest teams.

Rankings from 1935 through to Alabama’s national championship after the 2017 season.

Top Teams Of The … 1930s | 1940s | 1950s 1960s | 1970s | 1980s | 1990s | 2000s | 2010s


Rank Teams Points Previous Rank
1 Oklahoma 1160 1
2 Alabama 1038 2
3 Ohio State 1029 3
4 Michigan 973 4
5 Notre Dame 954 5
6 USC 832 6
7 Nebraska 783 7
8 Texas 772 8
9 Tennessee 686 9
10 Penn State 685 10
11 LSU 633 11
T12 Auburn 572 13
T12 Georgia 572 14
14 Florida State 563 12
15 Miami 530 15
16 UCLA 503 16
17 Florida 499 17
18 Michigan State 454 18
19 Arkansas 439 19
20 Clemson 399 20
21 Texas A&M 365 21
T22 Washington 363 22
T22 Wisconsin 363 24
24 Ole Miss 347 23
25 Georgia Tech 343 25

There are similar rankings for the UPI/Coaches polls but those polls aren't as old and established as the AP poll is. I am not for sure when the UPI polls started. The UPI polls similar to this AP poll is pretty similar in rankings. This ranking should at least give you a view of Blue Blood programs and how they rank based on verified results in the polls and also on the field since these rankings are based on records of the programs from 1935 through 2017.

 

[z28craz]

Iowa is a blue ball. They never finish!!

Now that’s funny right there.

 

[Iwillnotpostdrunk....]

Is MN a blue blood?


You can in fact fall out of blue blood status.

 

[scarletred]

Is MN a blue blood?


You can in fact fall out of blue blood status.

After the 1940’s Minnesota was dreadful They were terrible in the 50’s along with us not to bad in the 60’s but not close to being a Top 10 program..

Then in the 70’s’ 80’s and 90’s they were a terrible program..

So when do you want to establish this Blue Blood Status?

First 50,75 years, 100 or more years which is it...

I might add most blue bloods have won over 875 Football games..

 

[headcard]

Blue bloods are the most successful teams of the modern era. By every metic the eight listed are the most success, it would absolutely be possible to fall out, but would t happen quickly. The comparisons of Nebraska football to Indiana and UCLA basketball are apt, IMO. But blue bloods falling on hard times is nothing new, we need to bounce back, now, like all the others have.

 

[scarletred]

Has there been a blue blood that has gone nearly 2 decades without at least one elite season? The UCLA and Indiana comparisons are good but a quick look shows Indiana has had 3 elite seasons and UCLA 5 since 2001.

In the next decade is are we going to be closer to an Iowa or a Oklahoma in the college football pecking order.

We’re already with Iowa the past 2 decades with one year left in 2010-2019..

2000-2018

Nebraska 154-91 0.628
Iowa 151-91 0.623

 

[barney44]

Has there been a blue blood that has gone nearly 2 decades without at least one elite season? The UCLA and Indiana comparisons are good but a quick look shows Indiana has had 3 elite seasons and UCLA 5 since 2001.

In the next decade are we going to be closer to an Iowa or a Oklahoma in the college football pecking order.

What exactly did USC do in the 80’s and 90’s that we could call elite? They had one 10 win season in the 80’s and like four 9 win seasons between the two decades. People completly forgot who USC was until Pete Carroll showed up.

 

[scarletred]

What exactly did USC do in the 80’s and 90’s that we could call elite? They had one 10 win season in the 80’s and like four 9 win seasons between the two decades. People completly forgot who USC was until Pete Carroll showed up.

Very good point during that time 1980-1999,USC winning pct is exactly the same as ours right time from 2000-2018.. 0.628..

 

[jlb321]

What exactly did USC do in the 80’s and 90’s that we could call elite? They had one 10 win season in the 80’s and like four 9 win seasons between the two decades. People completly forgot who USC was until Pete Carroll showed up.

3 top 10 finishes and 6 Rose bowls in the 80s and 90s ... that was a pretty bleak period for them but not the complete draught that we are experiencing.

 

[scarletred]

3 top 10 finishes and 6 Rose bowls in the 80s and 90s ... that was a pretty bleak period for them but not the complete draught that we are experiencing.

5 Rose Bowls, but who’s counting..

 

[barney44]

3 top 10 finishes and 6 Rose bowls in the 80s and 90s ... that was a pretty bleak period for them but not the complete draught that we are experiencing.

They went to the Rose bowl with an 8 win team in the 80’s and 90’s, hardly what I’d consider elite. We’re doing this in the era of the conference championship game. We’ve had OU and Texas in the B12 to contend with as well as the B1G teams we’re now facing. I’d say that the hill is a little more difficult to climb when you’re facing other blue blood programs to get there.

 

[jlb321]

They went to the Rose bowl with an 8 win team in the 80’s and 90’s, hardly what I’d consider elite. We’re doing this in the era of the conference championship game. We’ve had OU and Texas in the B12 to contend with as well as the B1G teams we’re now facing. I’d say that the hill is a little more difficult to climb when you’re facing other blue blood programs to get there.

Fair enough ... but this reasoning is lessening what Osborne achieved during much of his career if we are touting how much more difficult it is now vs then. Furthermore look at my original post and see what the other blue bloods have achieved during the last 20 years when things are supposedly much more difficult.

 

[jlb321]

5 Rose Bowls, but who’s counting..

Yes thank you for correct - 6 major bowls - 5 rose + a fiesta

 

[scarletred]

Fair enough ... but this reasoning is lessening what Osborne achieved during much of his career if we are touting how much more difficult it is now vs then. Furthermore look at my original post and see what the other blue bloods have achieved during the last 20 years when things are supposedly much more difficult.

Unfortunately for Notre Dame which given credit they had two unbeaten regular seasons and played in the 4 team playoff, they would have been worse than Nebraska with 4 losing season and two 0.500 seasons...

 

[saluno22]

Fair enough ... but this reasoning is lessening what Osborne achieved during much of his career if we are touting how much more difficult it is now vs then. Furthermore look at my original post and see what the other blue bloods have achieved during the last 20 years when things are supposedly much more difficult.

Yes and no. Osborne was competing for national titles regularly during that period, USC wasn't. However, I would say it is much more difficult for someone to win a national title now at a school like Nebraska compared to the 80s and 90s.

- Nebraska was on TV more than most other teams, a large recruiting advantage. Now every team have accessible exposure nationwide.
- Nebraska was in a position to exploit the Prop 48 rules, another recruiting advantage. The eligibility floor has been raised since then.
- Population demographics have shifted, concentrating talent in the south. People have physically moved, but the teams haven't, and there are more talented athletes that need to be convinced to move to a different climate compared to the 80s and 90s. Nebraska isn't exactly at the top of the destination list compared to other midwest schools like they were in the 80s and 90s when we were winning, putting players in the NFL, and was on the cutting edge for facilities, amenities, and processes (those three are interrelated, obviously).
- Conferences were smaller in the 80s and early 90s, so the paths to championships were easier without extra conference games or CCGs. The Big 8 was generally Nebraska, Oklahoma, then everyone else, and later Colorado and Kansas State picked it up < EDIT > when Oklahoma faded due to probation < /EDIT >.

If Frost can have 1980s Nebraska-type success, I will consider it to be a phenomenal feat.

 

[jlb321]

Yes and no. Osborne was competing for national titles regularly during that period, USC wasn't. However, I would say it is much more difficult for someone to win a national title now at a school like Nebraska compared to the 80s and 90s.

- Nebraska was on TV more than most other teams, a large recruiting advantage. Now every team have accessible exposure nationwide.
- Nebraska was in a position to exploit the Prop 48 rules, another recruiting advantage. The eligibility floor has been raised since then.
- Population demographics have shifted, concentrating talent in the south. People have physically moved, but the teams haven't, and there are more talented athletes that need to be convinced to move to a different climate compared to the 80s and 90s. Nebraska isn't exactly at the top of the destination list compared to other midwest schools like they were in the 80s and 90s when we were winning, putting players in the NFL, and was on the cutting edge for facilities, amenities, and processes (those three are interrelated, obviously).
- Conferences were smaller in the 80s and early 90s, so the paths to championships were easier without extra conference games or CCGs. The Big 8 was generally Nebraska, Oklahoma, then everyone else, and later Colorado and Kansas State picked it up < EDIT > when Oklahoma faded due to probation < /EDIT >.

If Frost can have 1980s Nebraska-type success, I will consider it to be a phenomenal feat.

Completely agree .... those are all the reasons why eventually our time as a blue blood may come to an end. You either are elite or not ... you don’t get to cite hardships as to why you may not have achieved the heights that other programs have. This isn’t like getting accepted to Harvard

 

[huskerfan66]

Yes and no. Osborne was competing for national titles regularly during that period, USC wasn't. However, I would say it is much more difficult for someone to win a national title now at a school like Nebraska compared to the 80s and 90s.

- Nebraska was on TV more than most other teams, a large recruiting advantage. Now every team have accessible exposure nationwide.
- Nebraska was in a position to exploit the Prop 48 rules, another recruiting advantage. The eligibility floor has been raised since then.
- Population demographics have shifted, concentrating talent in the south. People have physically moved, but the teams haven't, and there are more talented athletes that need to be convinced to move to a different climate compared to the 80s and 90s. Nebraska isn't exactly at the top of the destination list compared to other midwest schools like they were in the 80s and 90s when we were winning, putting players in the NFL, and was on the cutting edge for facilities, amenities, and processes (those three are interrelated, obviously).
- Conferences were smaller in the 80s and early 90s, so the paths to championships were easier without extra conference games or CCGs. The Big 8 was generally Nebraska, Oklahoma, then everyone else, and later Colorado and Kansas State picked it up < EDIT > when Oklahoma faded due to probation < /EDIT >.

If Frost can have 1980s Nebraska-type success, I will consider it to be a phenomenal feat.

Plus if you look at it, the national championship basically went through us every year. Someone we played was playing for it or us most years.

 

[saluno22]

Completely agree .... those are all the reasons why eventually our time as a blue blood may come to an end. You either are elite or not ... you don’t get to cite hardships as to why you may not have achieved the heights that other programs have. This isn’t like getting accepted to Harvard

No doubt about it. We have to significantly adjust to compete at an elite level to maintain/re-attain (depending on who you ask) blue blood status. The advantages we once held have been neutralized across major college football, and new challenges have emerged, which is why the golden age of NU football is well behind us and will likely never be seen here again (but definitely at places closer to large talent pools). The problem is current and future success will be viewed with through the optics of our peak as long as people who lived through it are still alive, which came in a completely different era of football.

In other words, IF we achieve and then maintain elite status, I think it will be even more impressive relative to other programs and previous eras. However, that would be an internal sense of pride, and being a blue blood from the national POV is viewed from a different perspective. Nebraska has to be that much more successful relative to other programs given the advantages/disadvantages (namely neutralized TV exposure and facility quality, plus population shift/proximity to talent).