this is 100 percent correct. michigan was carefull how they did this because he was an in state kid and they didnt want to upset any in state coaches
Dez Fitzpatrick, David Reese, and Tony Butler
- Thread starter Gucci_mAYne420
- Start date
Name the team that has won the NC without a lot of stars from rivals. Please. Stars matter.
If you have a great coach they don't, but then you need continuity to build a team, ala Baylor, TCU and Michigan St.
In game coaching puts the lesser talented teams over the top/
If you have a great coach they don't, but then you need continuity to build a team, ala Baylor, TCU and Michigan St.
In game coaching puts the lesser talented teams over the top/
You're going all the way back to the BYU title to prove a point? Really? Did they even have recruiting rankings back then?
So what you're saying is that you trust Rivals evaluation over the evaluation of all the coaches that made the offers to these kids?
ANY TEAM that won a national title prior to 1998 would be the obvious answer. Ohio State in 2002 wasn't a team that I thought was exceptionally talented either. But it really isn't about the Stars because every program to win a National Title since 1998 is a Blue Blood. Most services bump star ratings when traditional programs recruit a kid. So it is not Rivals that aligns the stars (Its the traditional programs). Programs to win a national title since 1998... Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, Miami, USC, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Florida Sate, Tennessee. In fact prior to that, you might say that Nebraska was the lone anomaly previous to 1998 because I would be highly skeptical of the actual evaluations recruiting services were capable of.
That being said talent alone will not equate to winning football games, let alone national championships. There are plenty of teams/programs that are very talented (in stars)... year in and year out (USC,UCLA, Miami, etc.) but underachieve and won't win anything of importance for the foreseeable future, let alone a national championship (remember only one team can win it a year).
When it comes to national championships you need coaching AND talent AND luck. You don't need to have a top ten class every year, but maybe just one special class every once in a while.
Then it would only be right to mention their schedule was PATHETIC, and it happened 33 years ago. Most people would consider that an outlier, and most people understand consistent success cannot be achieved with that method.
A little concerned that Reese is headed to Florida...if these 3 don't work out, after losing Chandler I would think if we don't land Farniok this class might not have the expected bang. Reese is a huge domino tomorrow.
if I had to guess, all the 5 star guys this. year, I'm sure our coaches offered and went after them but after finding out they had no interest or whatever they moved on to there next guy. Stars matter to a point, there's a reason these guys get there ranking. Now how much better is a 5 star compared to 4 star guy? Like a 5 Star QB like Eason compared to our 4 star O'Brien? Is there a huge bridge between the 2 or is it close?
Good to know that Rivals was around before the world wide web was invented. Was rivals on a usernet system back then? When you logged into the site in the early 1980's was it like the movie "War Games" with Matthew Broderick?
In other words, YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED. Re-read please
Reese is heading to Florida. All the smoke on Twitter are his buddies trying to convince him otherwise.
I've heard the same...but sounds like we are in good position for Dez and Butler.
You would think so. I just hope their interest in NU wasn't predicated too heavily on the package deal scenario. If it was and Reese isn't on board, then we may not land these guys either.
have no idea what school he is going to pick. i do know the florida dc was in michigan the day reese put on twitter that he was going to choose a school
Again Rivals does not predict National Champions... blue blood programs do.... the last non-blue bloods to win a national title is Washington (shared) in 1991 and Colorado/Georgia Tech (shared) in 1990 and BYU in 1984
What? Just this decade:
Florida State 2013
Auburn 2010
Florida 2008
LSU 2007
Florida 2006
LSU 2003
Miami 2001
All big-time programs in fertile recruiting grounds, but none are blue-bloods.
I agree with this. Back when we were winning titles I only knew LSU had a baseball team because of the CWS. No way is LSU a blue blood program
Blue Blood Pograms in my eyes are...
Alabama
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Notre Dame
USC
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Texas
To a lesser extent, and some could argue
Tennessee
It's not weird. The 8 blue-bloods of college football are:
Notre Dame
USC
Alabama
Oklahoma
Michigan
Ohio State
Nebraska
Texas
Outside looking in:
Penn State
Tennessee
I would doubt that others would consider Nebraska as a
"Blue Blood" program in 2015. Maybe 1995. There is much work to be done to return to that level. Not that it can't be done but realistically the last big name bowl that Nebraska played was in the 2001-2002 season.
"Blue Blood" program in 2015. Maybe 1995. There is much work to be done to return to that level. Not that it can't be done but realistically the last big name bowl that Nebraska played was in the 2001-2002 season.
Nebraska has the most wins and the highest winning percentage the past 50 years, plus 5 NC's. Being a blue blood isn't about being great one year, it's sustained excellence. Nebraska hasn't lost its status as a blue-blood, jus like Alabama and Oklahoma didn't during their down times in the 1990's and early 2000's.
Yeah, even Iowa has played in 3 major bowls since the last time we have. Today's recruits were in diapers the last time we were relevant. How many mediocre seasons does a program have to have before they lose "blue-blood" status?
Oklahoma was absolulute dog poo from 1988 to 1999... Would you not consider them "Blue Blood"?
Blue Blood is not "What have you done for me lately?" it is "What have you done in history?"
Football wasn't as relevant when Minnesota had their run, that is why they are not considered "Blue Blood"
When people refer to "blue bloods" they mean schools that have a long history of winning going back to the beginning of the modern era if not before...schools that have been doing it since back in the leather helmet days...think "old money families"...a name given to schools like Miami, FSU, etc. that I think fits is "New Bloods" since they have to continue to do it for a few more generations before being considered a "Blue Blood"
Nebraska was winning about 10 years before Miami started winning. 1971 versus 1983?? OK, 12 years, but long enough for me, plus, they had some of the best teams ever. I don't care personally, only enough to engage in a small friendly debate about it, BUT, how much longer can Nebraska continue to suck and still be considered a blue blood? Are we even still one? We haven't done jack for a REALLY long time, about one generation (when none of the players currently on the team were even born the last time we sniffed a title, that's my definition of a generation, I know we aren't there quite yet but it looks like were getting there fast). My guess is, if you went around the country and asked the casual fan, many of them would put some of those schools that you say are not blue bloods on that list, and leave us off. Of course we're biased and still think we are, but our success has been in the rearview for a really long time. I don't think the rest of CFB thinks of us the way we still do to be honest.
I hear what you're saying but it's more than just NCs... Total games won, winning percentage, conference championships, end of the year awards for individual players... Nebraska has so much history and is top 10 in so many categories. Miami is great, has the same number of NCs we have, won awards, but don't have the longevity. They became relevant in the 80s. We were winning conference championships well before that time.
Again, a big factor for me has to be winning percentage, number of victories overall, etc. those are things sustained over decades, not 30 years, like Miami and Florida state... Both great programs I would love to be like, but not blue blood status, imo.
Good discussion!
Well I expect almost every single Husker fan to say the same and agree with you, but I think we're losing our grip on the blueblood title personally. CFB as a whole doesn't think much of us. We haven't done squat in a LONG time. All the old ties to everything that made us great are gone. I'm glad that so many of our fans still think we are one, and I am grateful I got to watch us in the glory years, but man this sucking can't last to much longer before we're going to have to re-evaluate our standing as a blue blood, and I am afraid most of the country probably already has rethought that.
I hate this type of discussion, so I am not sure why I am responding...
Is Nebraska a blue blood right now? No. Too much mediocrity for too long.
Could we regain blue blood status? Yes. It would only take a couple years of Top 10 play to make our history relevant again.
Is Nebraska a blue blood right now? No. Too much mediocrity for too long.
Could we regain blue blood status? Yes. It would only take a couple years of Top 10 play to make our history relevant again.
I agree with you about not liking this type of discussion but...... Remember that the University of Chicago was voted the top football team of the first half of the 20th century. They dropped football in the late 1930's and still were relevant. In my opinion a team should or needs to be ranked consistently in the top 10-20 for a full decade or more in order to be even in the discussion of a present day blue blood.
Princeton still claims the most national championships (although I would dispute the 1881 and the 1894 championships which would give Yale the most titles. But let's be honest...Yale ain't blue blood in nothin' no more.
For us as fans it is all about expectations, realistic or lowered, or both. I feel that it will take time to reestablish the program here.
If you'd asked me in 1998, I'd probably say they were one more bad coaching hire from losing blue-blood status. Which is where we are at now with Riley, and why this hire was so important to get right. OU's conference championship drought was 12 years. We are currently at 16 years and it doesn't look like that is going to change anytime soon. How many other "blue bloods" have had a two-decade championship drought? Most haven't went more than one decade.
Plus, OU's proximity to Texas recruits was always going to make it easier for them to return to prominence. Same for Texas. Same for USC and Alabama in their respective regions. We don't have that advantage.
And I'd say we where one good coach away from winning 3 or 4 conference titles and playing in a BCS bowl the past 7 years. Remember Bo did take us to several conference championship games, he just bombed every single one...minus the one against TexAss, that one falls on the refs bailing TexAss out. My point is we have been there, we have had our chances to turn that corner and some of your guys beloved Bo just choked his rear away every time or we'd turn the corner a few times.
Hey man...I'm not a part of "we" as I'm a Michigan guy. My program is the very definition of a "Blue Blood." By that I mean we can suck for 7 or so years and once there is one hint of hope the media talks about us, recruits start flocking (we beat out FSU for two big recruits in just the last 36 hours) and the general sentiment is that it is "just a matter of time." Why? Because we are Michigan with the Big House, the winged helmet, the most wins in CFB history etc...it's perception....because of that perception we able to make mistakes and recover because we have a blue blood brand that has us still rolling in cash and a fan base that keeps coming back to get us through the bad times.
You are Nebraska for God's sake. It's going to take a lot more mistakes to completely destroy the foundation that was built. I'm not going to lie and say I think you are in good shape right now nor am I going to say that when it comes to Blue Bloods you aren't at a disadvantage (mostly speaking local talent). But if you get the right staff and some momentum you can not only go from 0 to 60 at maserati speed but sustain it...you are not some program that has a good year and people expect to just fall back into oblivion because you have the resorces to keep it going
Similar threads
