(01-17-2017 05:58 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Blue Blood status is a combination of the size of the fanbase (i.e. resources) and historical performance over decades (i.e. since the oldest & richest fans graduated). Elite would refer to performance within the memory of current students. Blue blood status almost never changes, but elite status can easily change. For example, Miami was "elite" in the 90s but is not elite now.

Blue Bloods:
Notre Dame
Michigan
Alabama
Ohio State
USC
Also sometimes on the list: Texas (purely based on size alone), Oklahoma, Nebraska, Penn State, Florida

Elite:
Alabama
Ohio State
Clemson
Florida State
Stanford
Oklahoma
On the doorstep: Oklahoma State, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Washington, Michigan, Texas A&M, West Virginia
Recently elite, but fading: Louisiana State, Auburn, Florida, Oregon, Michigan State, Boise, TCU, Wisconsin, USC

So Florida State isn't a blue blood? haha good one. If FSU can't get in the blue blood club at this point, then I guess the door is locked

And Stanford and Oklahoma are elite?? Stanford has had some good years, but they've played for 0 National Championships. Oklahoma is tops in Big XII but it's been awhile since they've won a National Championship...they don't dominate like they used to, at least in the big games

I don't think there is a sound argument for FSU being a blue-blood.

I think you can say they are an excellent football program but they've achieved no all-time anything.

I consider the title of being a college football blue-blood to take a complete view of the program's entire existence. A program can be very good, excellent in fact, at any given time but only a few continue to rise to the top no matter what era we are in.

There are only 4 blue-blooded programs, those being the absolute best of the absolute best;

UA
OU
ND
USC

(01-18-2017 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think there is a sound argument for FSU being a blue-blood.

I think you can say they are an excellent football program but they've achieved no all-time anything.

I consider the title of being a college football blue-blood to take a complete view of the program's entire existence. A program can be very good, excellent in fact, at any given time but only a few continue to rise to the top no matter what era we are in.

There are only 4 blue-blooded programs, those being the absolute best of the absolute best;

UA
OU
ND
USC

There's a very good argument for FSU. Just depends how much weight you put on history. Since 1985 (the year after BYU won the title and OU/UGA won the lawsuit against the NCAA TV monopoly), the number of top 5 finishes:
1. FSU 15
2. OSU 12
3. Miami 11
4. Florida 10
4. OU 10
6. AL 9
7. USC 8
8. NE 6
9. ND, UT, PSU, MI, LSU, TN, OR 5
16. Auburn, Colorado, Washington 4
19. UGA 3
20-28 with 2-TCU, WV, Clemson, MO, MI St., Stanford, OR St., AZ St., Boise

There are only 27 schools who have cracked the top 3 in those 32 years in the final AP poll and only 21 who have done it more than once and that includes all 18 schools that have won a title.
1-2 FSU, Miami 10
3-7 OSU, FL, OU, AL, USC 6
8-9 NE, PSU 5
10-11 LSU, OR* 4
12-13 ND, AU 3
14-21 UT, MI, TN, CO, UGA*, WA, TCU*, Clemson 2

*-no title in that era

(01-18-2017 10:57 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 08:24 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Again, using three years to measure performance when we have 80+ years is ridiculous. We may as well argue that teams should be considered elite by how many games they win when it's sunny outside. Even so using the CFP as a measuring stick how is FSU elite then? And wouldn't Oregon be considered elite?

Using your silly criteria Oregon is one of the most successful playoff teams since it's existence. See how stupid this is?

Just start from 2000 and average out the amount of wins, championships, award winners, draft picks, and top 25 finishes. Then you can really measure who is elite. Your precious Ohio State is still up there.

Elite is about who's at the top right now....Ohio State, Alabama, FSU, and Clemson....

They are playing for and winning National Championships...they are recruiting like crazy...winning major bowls

Cmon man, you're a USC fan, you should know what "Elite" means...USC was ELITE for a good portion of the last decade. Surely you witnessed the significant bump in recruiting from 2000-2005

Again let's pick a criteria. You say it's about right now and RIGHT NOW we are ranked higher than Ohio State in every poll...

(01-18-2017 01:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think there is a sound argument for FSU being a blue-blood.

I think you can say they are an excellent football program but they've achieved no all-time anything.

I consider the title of being a college football blue-blood to take a complete view of the program's entire existence. A program can be very good, excellent in fact, at any given time but only a few continue to rise to the top no matter what era we are in.

There are only 4 blue-blooded programs, those being the absolute best of the absolute best;

UA
OU
ND
USC

There's a very good argument for FSU. Just depends how much weight you put on history. Since 1985 (the year after BYU won the title and OU/UGA won the lawsuit against the NCAA TV monopoly), the number of top 5 finishes:
1. FSU 15
2. OSU 12
3. Miami 11
4. Florida 10
4. OU 10
6. AL 9
7. USC 8
8. NE 6
9. ND, UT, PSU, MI, LSU, TN, OR 5
16. Auburn, Colorado, Washington 4
19. UGA 3
20-28 with 2-TCU, WV, Clemson, MO, MI St., Stanford, OR St., AZ St., Boise

When you add "since" your argument is already faulty.

(01-18-2017 02:01 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 01:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think there is a sound argument for FSU being a blue-blood.

I think you can say they are an excellent football program but they've achieved no all-time anything.

I consider the title of being a college football blue-blood to take a complete view of the program's entire existence. A program can be very good, excellent in fact, at any given time but only a few continue to rise to the top no matter what era we are in.

There are only 4 blue-blooded programs, those being the absolute best of the absolute best;

UA
OU
ND
USC

There's a very good argument for FSU. Just depends how much weight you put on history. Since 1985 (the year after BYU won the title and OU/UGA won the lawsuit against the NCAA TV monopoly), the number of top 5 finishes:
1. FSU 15
2. OSU 12
3. Miami 11
4. Florida 10
4. OU 10
6. AL 9
7. USC 8
8. NE 6
9. ND, UT, PSU, MI, LSU, TN, OR 5
16. Auburn, Colorado, Washington 4
19. UGA 3
20-28 with 2-TCU, WV, Clemson, MO, MI St., Stanford, OR St., AZ St., Boise

When you add "since" your argument is already faulty.

So if I said since 1930 it would be faulty?

Minnesota is not what they once were, no matter how much of a blue blood they were in the 20s and 30s.

Things are not static. The past does matter. But not equally. Notre Dame is a blue blood, but their stature isn't as high was it was a quarter century ago when Lou Holtz retired.

(01-18-2017 01:57 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 10:57 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 08:24 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Again, using three years to measure performance when we have 80+ years is ridiculous. We may as well argue that teams should be considered elite by how many games they win when it's sunny outside. Even so using the CFP as a measuring stick how is FSU elite then? And wouldn't Oregon be considered elite?

Using your silly criteria Oregon is one of the most successful playoff teams since it's existence. See how stupid this is?

Just start from 2000 and average out the amount of wins, championships, award winners, draft picks, and top 25 finishes. Then you can really measure who is elite. Your precious Ohio State is still up there.

Elite is about who's at the top right now....Ohio State, Alabama, FSU, and Clemson....

They are playing for and winning National Championships...they are recruiting like crazy...winning major bowls

Cmon man, you're a USC fan, you should know what "Elite" means...USC was ELITE for a good portion of the last decade. Surely you witnessed the significant bump in recruiting from 2000-2005

Again let's pick a criteria. You say it's about right now and RIGHT NOW we are ranked higher than Ohio State in every poll...

Do elite teams get beat by 46 points?

This is always a funny subject. I tend to focus on the BCS era forward as the "modern era" of football. That's also roughly the same time period the recruits have been alive which means something as well.
By every measure in the modern era FSU is a blue blood program. From a recruit's perspective they are a blue blood program. All that stuff from the 20's 30's 40's 50's 60's 70's and 80's is great but it's old news and not really relevant to the modern game.

This is always a funny subject to talk about with Husker fans. Teams who once were but who are no longer really tend to focus on old accomplishments. REcruits have short memories and schools like Oregon and Baylor have made a lot of progress in the last 10 years and others like the huskers haven't really done anything in 10 years. That is what recruits care about. Cool helmets and uniforms, and nice facilities. Minnesota's championships from great grand dads era dont' mean diddly anymore. Just like Harvard and Armys championships.

(01-18-2017 02:35 PM)p23570 Wrote:  This is always a funny subject. I tend to focus on the BCS era forward as the "modern era" of football. That's also roughly the same time period the recruits have been alive which means something as well.
By every measure in the modern era FSU is a blue blood program. From a recruit's perspective they are a blue blood program. All that stuff from the 20's 30's 40's 50's 60's 70's and 80's is great but it's old news and not really relevant to the modern game.

This is always a funny subject to talk about with Husker fans. Teams who once were but who are no longer really tend to focus on old accomplishments. REcruits have short memories and schools like Oregon and Baylor have made a lot of progress in the last 10 years and others like the huskers haven't really done anything in 10 years. That is what recruits care about. Cool helmets and uniforms, and nice facilities. Minnesota's championships from great grand dads era dont' mean diddly anymore. Just like Harvard and Armys championships.

Notre Dame has cracked the top 10 twice since 1995-#4 in 2013 and #9 in 2005. Yet they are unquestionably still a blue blood. So yes, that old stuff is still relevant to the modern game. Prior to this year in the BCS era, Michigan St. was tied with Michigan with 4 top 10 finishes and MSU's were higher on average. Yet those two are not remotely close in stature.

(01-18-2017 02:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 02:35 PM)p23570 Wrote:  This is always a funny subject. I tend to focus on the BCS era forward as the "modern era" of football. That's also roughly the same time period the recruits have been alive which means something as well.
By every measure in the modern era FSU is a blue blood program. From a recruit's perspective they are a blue blood program. All that stuff from the 20's 30's 40's 50's 60's 70's and 80's is great but it's old news and not really relevant to the modern game.

This is always a funny subject to talk about with Husker fans. Teams who once were but who are no longer really tend to focus on old accomplishments. REcruits have short memories and schools like Oregon and Baylor have made a lot of progress in the last 10 years and others like the huskers haven't really done anything in 10 years. That is what recruits care about. Cool helmets and uniforms, and nice facilities. Minnesota's championships from great grand dads era dont' mean diddly anymore. Just like Harvard and Armys championships.

Notre Dame has cracked the top 10 twice since 1995-#4 in 2013 and #9 in 2005. Yet they are unquestionably still a blue blood. So yes, that old stuff is still relevant to the modern game. Prior to this year in the BCS era, Michigan St. was tied with Michigan with 4 top 10 finishes and MSU's were higher on average. Yet those two are not remotely close in stature.

Just becasue you think ancient accomplishments are relevant to the modern game does not mean recruits feel the same way or anyone else for that matter.

Stuff like cool uniforms at oregon mean more than an ancient championships. At some point team's accomplishments are all but forgotten. Minnesota, Army, Harvard, and even Pitt's NC's have long been forgotten. Most recruits dont' care about that old stuff.

Hell OU's last championship was so long ago it barely counts anymore. Nebraska's have been forgotten already.

(01-18-2017 12:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think there is a sound argument for FSU being a blue-blood.

I think you can say they are an excellent football program but they've achieved no all-time anything.

I consider the title of being a college football blue-blood to take a complete view of the program's entire existence. A program can be very good, excellent in fact, at any given time but only a few continue to rise to the top no matter what era we are in.

There are only 4 blue-blooded programs, those being the absolute best of the absolute best;

UA
OU
ND
USC

so....Ohio State and Michigan aren't bluebloods?? That is nuts

(01-18-2017 02:35 PM)p23570 Wrote:  This is always a funny subject. I tend to focus on the BCS era forward as the "modern era" of football. That's also roughly the same time period the recruits have been alive which means something as well.
By every measure in the modern era FSU is a blue blood program. From a recruit's perspective they are a blue blood program. All that stuff from the 20's 30's 40's 50's 60's 70's and 80's is great but it's old news and not really relevant to the modern game.

This is always a funny subject to talk about with Husker fans. Teams who once were but who are no longer really tend to focus on old accomplishments. REcruits have short memories and schools like Oregon and Baylor have made a lot of progress in the last 10 years and others like the huskers haven't really done anything in 10 years. That is what recruits care about. Cool helmets and uniforms, and nice facilities. Minnesota's championships from great grand dads era dont' mean diddly anymore. Just like Harvard and Armys championships.

I tend to agree with all this...

That's why it amazes me there are still people that don't want to call FSU a blueblood lol. Anyone not including FSU, Florida and Miami as historically significant has missed the last 30 years of college football. The Bowden dynasty, and the "U" and their championships, and the Gators with Spurrier and Meyer...that's all in the history books now, and that's A LOT of winning.

(01-18-2017 02:35 PM)p23570 Wrote:  This is always a funny subject. I tend to focus on the BCS era forward as the "modern era" of football. That's also roughly the same time period the recruits have been alive which means something as well.
By every measure in the modern era FSU is a blue blood program. From a recruit's perspective they are a blue blood program. All that stuff from the 20's 30's 40's 50's 60's 70's and 80's is great but it's old news and not really relevant to the modern game.

This is always a funny subject to talk about with Husker fans. Teams who once were but who are no longer really tend to focus on old accomplishments. REcruits have short memories and schools like Oregon and Baylor have made a lot of progress in the last 10 years and others like the huskers haven't really done anything in 10 years. That is what recruits care about. Cool helmets and uniforms, and nice facilities. Minnesota's championships from great grand dads era dont' mean diddly anymore. Just like Harvard and Armys championships.

This is a difference between mentioning them, ignoring them and arguing that they are important to today's game.

A championship is a championship. no matter when it was won and as such they should be noted.

Just thank the heavens that Oklahoma decided to buy players to start their post WW2 success.

(01-18-2017 03:04 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 02:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 02:35 PM)p23570 Wrote:  This is always a funny subject. I tend to focus on the BCS era forward as the "modern era" of football. That's also roughly the same time period the recruits have been alive which means something as well.
By every measure in the modern era FSU is a blue blood program. From a recruit's perspective they are a blue blood program. All that stuff from the 20's 30's 40's 50's 60's 70's and 80's is great but it's old news and not really relevant to the modern game.

This is always a funny subject to talk about with Husker fans. Teams who once were but who are no longer really tend to focus on old accomplishments. REcruits have short memories and schools like Oregon and Baylor have made a lot of progress in the last 10 years and others like the huskers haven't really done anything in 10 years. That is what recruits care about. Cool helmets and uniforms, and nice facilities. Minnesota's championships from great grand dads era dont' mean diddly anymore. Just like Harvard and Armys championships.

Notre Dame has cracked the top 10 twice since 1995-#4 in 2013 and #9 in 2005. Yet they are unquestionably still a blue blood. So yes, that old stuff is still relevant to the modern game. Prior to this year in the BCS era, Michigan St. was tied with Michigan with 4 top 10 finishes and MSU's were higher on average. Yet those two are not remotely close in stature.

Just becasue you think ancient accomplishments are relevant to the modern game does not mean recruits feel the same way or anyone else for that matter.

Stuff like cool uniforms at oregon mean more than an ancient championships. At some point team's accomplishments are all but forgotten. Minnesota, Army, Harvard, and even Pitt's NC's have long been forgotten. Most recruits dont' care about that old stuff.

Hell OU's last championship was so long ago it barely counts anymore. Nebraska's have been forgotten already.

Long forgotten by whom? Maybe the recruits but not those schools or the true fans of college football. Refrain from making wide brushstroke statements like that.

(01-17-2017 05:26 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-17-2017 03:44 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  My Clemson fan friend recently asked me what I thought it would take for Clemson to achieve "blue blood" status... so I researched it and posted my answer on ACCFootballRx. This is the meat of that article:

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2017/0...loods.html

To be a blue blood, you need to have MULTIPLE NATIONAL TITLES. Just one title = a good season; multiple titles = a good program. ONLY count championships since the "poll era" began. Here's the list:
...

That is a garbage way of ranking championships. The AP Poll is a sham of a picker that for years ended before the bowl games and often regular season games! Titles won before 1936 are just as valid. Minnesota's title in 1935 is the same as their title in 1936

Stick with Tiptop25.com and common sense.

"garbage"? Harsh! You have to pick some year as cut-off (or else you get these non-sense Ivy League championships cluttering up everything).

I suppose I could've simply used the year I was born, as nothing which happened in sports before that really matters to me...

My comment was not meant to attack you, it was directed at the polls and the clueless people who take the polls as gospel without realizing how fundamentally flawed they were. 1960 Minnesota is not a legitimate champion, despite the AP Poll thinks.

(01-18-2017 03:50 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  My comment was... directed at the polls and the clueless people who take the polls as gospel without realizing how fundamentally flawed they were. 1960 Minnesota is not a legitimate champion, despite the AP Poll thinks.

I agree, the polls are flawed. However, looking at national championships awarded in the years before the polls leads me to think the polls were at least an improvement... after only 3 years it seems like the CFP is a major improvement (I'm not so sure about the BCS with it's 7 consecutive SEC champs).

(01-18-2017 04:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 03:50 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  My comment was... directed at the polls and the clueless people who take the polls as gospel without realizing how fundamentally flawed they were. 1960 Minnesota is not a legitimate champion, despite the AP Poll thinks.

I agree, the polls are flawed. However, looking at national championships awarded in the years before the polls leads me to think the polls were at least an improvement... after only 3 years it seems like the CFP is a major improvement (I'm not so sure about the BCS with it's 7 consecutive SEC champs).

Not necessarily, often writers would propose a team as a national championship before 1936 and looking back, they were typically right.

(01-18-2017 02:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 01:57 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 10:57 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 08:24 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Again, using three years to measure performance when we have 80+ years is ridiculous. We may as well argue that teams should be considered elite by how many games they win when it's sunny outside. Even so using the CFP as a measuring stick how is FSU elite then? And wouldn't Oregon be considered elite?

Using your silly criteria Oregon is one of the most successful playoff teams since it's existence. See how stupid this is?

Just start from 2000 and average out the amount of wins, championships, award winners, draft picks, and top 25 finishes. Then you can really measure who is elite. Your precious Ohio State is still up there.

Elite is about who's at the top right now....Ohio State, Alabama, FSU, and Clemson....

They are playing for and winning National Championships...they are recruiting like crazy...winning major bowls

Cmon man, you're a USC fan, you should know what "Elite" means...USC was ELITE for a good portion of the last decade. Surely you witnessed the significant bump in recruiting from 2000-2005

Again let's pick a criteria. You say it's about right now and RIGHT NOW we are ranked higher than Ohio State in every poll...

Do elite teams get beat by 46 points?

I could ask you the same type of question buddy.

Remember that 33-70 Clemson loss to #23 West Virginia in the Orange Bowl?

That was much worse to the second best team in the county by a large margin in your first game with new coaches everywhere.

(01-18-2017 05:43 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 02:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 01:57 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 10:57 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 08:24 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Again, using three years to measure performance when we have 80+ years is ridiculous. We may as well argue that teams should be considered elite by how many games they win when it's sunny outside. Even so using the CFP as a measuring stick how is FSU elite then? And wouldn't Oregon be considered elite?

Using your silly criteria Oregon is one of the most successful playoff teams since it's existence. See how stupid this is?

Just start from 2000 and average out the amount of wins, championships, award winners, draft picks, and top 25 finishes. Then you can really measure who is elite. Your precious Ohio State is still up there.

Elite is about who's at the top right now....Ohio State, Alabama, FSU, and Clemson....

They are playing for and winning National Championships...they are recruiting like crazy...winning major bowls

Cmon man, you're a USC fan, you should know what "Elite" means...USC was ELITE for a good portion of the last decade. Surely you witnessed the significant bump in recruiting from 2000-2005

Again let's pick a criteria. You say it's about right now and RIGHT NOW we are ranked higher than Ohio State in every poll...

Do elite teams get beat by 46 points?

I could ask you the same type of question buddy.

Remember that 33-70 Clemson loss to #23 West Virginia in the Orange Bowl?

That was much worse to the second best team in the county by a large margin in your first game with new coaches everywhere.

So you are equating a loss in the 2011 season to one from THIS season?



Be glad you got left out of the playoffs or else you'd have embarrassing losses to bookend your "elite" season.