CSNbbs

And the ACC is turning into a powerhouse right now

IMO, the ELITE teams right now are:
Alabama
Clemson
FSU
Ohio State

I don't see Dabo slowing down any time soon....FSU-Clemson is on track to become the new rivalry that championships hinge on

Elite Yes but not a Blue Blood.

I get the feeling that old people are the ones who love to talk about "blue bloods". The reality is that from an 18 year old's perspective Clemson and FSU are both blue bloods even though many old timers still prefer to talk about the Huskers and Vols neither of which have been relevant in a decade or more.

(01-10-2017 10:40 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]Elite Yes but not a Blue Blood.

Curious: how would you define a college football blue blood?

Clemson now has...
...multiple national championships
...top 25 all-time win%
...top 25 in terms of weeks in the AP top 25
...top 20 in conference championships, bowl games, and total wins
...top 30 in bowl record and all-Americans

http://www.winsipedia.com/clemson

I mean, you do realize no one's blood actually comes out blue, right?

(01-10-2017 10:40 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]Elite Yes but not a Blue Blood.

Blue Blood is not a college football term. It's for college basketball specifically referring to UNC, Duke, Kansas and Kentucky because they are all blue.

I'm sure you know that and didn't need it spelled out but I hate seeing people use the term 'Blue Blood' to describe sports other than college basketball.

(01-10-2017 02:58 PM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2017 10:40 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]Elite Yes but not a Blue Blood.

Blue Blood is not a college football term. It's for college basketball specifically referring to UNC, Duke, Kansas and Kentucky because they are all blue.

I'm sure you know that and didn't need it spelled out but I hate seeing people use the term 'Blue Blood' to describe sports other than college basketball.

Um, I think it's a nice coincidence in basketball, but the term blue blood originally refered to ROYALTY:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/blue-blood

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blue%20blood

I don't think Clemson is a "king" of college football, but I would classify them as lower royalty, such as a knight.

The term blue blood firstly refers to English royal family members then onto dogs, blue blood hounds now only blood hounds

(01-10-2017 10:38 AM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]And the ACC is turning into a powerhouse right now

IMO, the ELITE teams right now are:
Alabama
Clemson
FSU
Ohio State

I don't see Dabo slowing down any time soon....FSU-Clemson is on track to become the new rivalry that championships hinge on

These past Clemson teams were great but would you get they make it back to CFP again next year? Because it's almost a certainty that they won't. They aren't getting past FSU next year and I think they will struggle without Doctor Watson.

(01-10-2017 02:11 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]I get the feeling that old people are the ones who love to talk about "blue bloods". The reality is that from an 18 year old's perspective Clemson and FSU are both blue bloods even though many old timers still prefer to talk about the Huskers and Vols neither of which have been relevant in a decade or more.

Definitely a different perspective between older fans and younger ones. As a current student who started following CFB only in the last couple of years, I'm sure my outlook is different.

Here's who I see as elite programs, both historically and currently:
SEC: Alabama
ACC: FSU, Clemson(now), Miami
Big XII: Oklahoma, tu
Big Ten: Ohio State, Michigan, maybe Penn State
Pac-12: Stanford, Oregon, USC
Also Notre Dame

I'm sure older fans would have a different list, although I'm sure we can agree on some of these.

Clemson will have to have a strong year next year. If not. Then they are Auburn with a new version of Cam Newton.

(01-10-2017 03:05 PM)JHS55 Wrote: [ -> ]The term blue blood firstly refers to English royal family members then onto dogs, blue blood hounds now only blood hounds

I was hoping the VT guy was trying to be funny saying it was a basketball thing.

(01-10-2017 04:37 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ]Clemson will have to have a strong year next year. If not. Then they are Auburn with a new version of Cam Newton.

Blue Bloods can have a single good season and they are "back." Clemson is not a Blue Blood. They are in that 2nd or 3rd tier of programs. If you are going to call a program a Blue Blood simply because they are good over a few years, TCU would be one.

The Blue Bloods are USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio St., Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame and more debateably, Penn St. and the 3 Florida schools-Florida, Florida St. and Miami. Some think PSU is too much one coach. Some think Miami will never be back and some think the 3 Florida schools are too much of newbies.

SEC fans will argue the 2nd tier consists of Blue bloods-Tennessee, LSU, Georgia and Auburn.

Clemson is in that next group following those 4. They've been in the final AP top 10 3 of the last 4 years. Before that, you have to go back to 1990. That is NOT elite. TCU has been ranked in the top 10 6 times since 2005 and they aren't "elite."

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:

School Titles
Alabama 11
Notre Dame 8
Oklahoma 7
USC 7
Ohio State 6
Miami (FL) 5
Nebraska 5
Minnesota 4
Texas 4
Florida 3
Florida State 3
LSU 3
Army 2
Auburn 2
Michigan 2
Michigan State 2
Penn State 2
Pittsburgh 2
Tennessee 2
Clemson 2 (now)

BTW, to be a "KING", I'm saying you need at least FIVE or more national championships. That is a very exclusive group. The Miami Hurricanes are the "New Rich" of that group.

However, you can have "royal blood" without actually being a king. IMO, Clemson is now in that class by virtue of being "knighted" last night.

NOTE: Clemson now has as many "poll era" championships as Tennessee, and more than Georgia.

(01-10-2017 04:30 PM)techdawg28 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2017 02:11 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]I get the feeling that old people are the ones who love to talk about "blue bloods". The reality is that from an 18 year old's perspective Clemson and FSU are both blue bloods even though many old timers still prefer to talk about the Huskers and Vols neither of which have been relevant in a decade or more.

Definitely a different perspective between older fans and younger ones. As a current student who started following CFB only in the last couple of years, I'm sure my outlook is different.

Here's who I see as elite programs, both historically and currently:
SEC: Alabama
ACC: FSU, Clemson(now), Miami
Big XII: Oklahoma, tu
Big Ten: Ohio State, Michigan, maybe Penn State
Pac-12: Stanford, Oregon, USC
Also Notre Dame

I'm sure older fans would have a different list, although I'm sure we can agree on some of these.

Unfortunately perception is reality, but Texas is not a blue blood on the field as much as they believe it. They are like A&M but actually won a championship in 05. Other than that, you have to go back to the 60's. I would rate Nebraska over Texas in terms of blue blood programs by far.

(01-10-2017 05:09 PM)Shox Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2017 04:30 PM)techdawg28 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2017 02:11 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]I get the feeling that old people are the ones who love to talk about "blue bloods". The reality is that from an 18 year old's perspective Clemson and FSU are both blue bloods even though many old timers still prefer to talk about the Huskers and Vols neither of which have been relevant in a decade or more.

Definitely a different perspective between older fans and younger ones. As a current student who started following CFB only in the last couple of years, I'm sure my outlook is different.

Here's who I see as elite programs, both historically and currently:
SEC: Alabama
ACC: FSU, Clemson(now), Miami
Big XII: Oklahoma, tu
Big Ten: Ohio State, Michigan, maybe Penn State
Pac-12: Stanford, Oregon, USC
Also Notre Dame

I'm sure older fans would have a different list, although I'm sure we can agree on some of these.

Unfortunately perception is reality, but Texas is not a blue blood on the field as much as they believe it. They are like A&M but actually won a championship in 05. Other than that, you have to go back to the 60's. I would rate Nebraska over Texas in terms of blue blood programs by far.

As an A&M fan, I'm ok with demoting them
But again, like you said, perception is reality. And everyone talks about tu as a blue blood, Nebraska just comes across (to me, at least) as a team that was good once upon a time.

(01-10-2017 05:09 PM)Shox Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2017 04:30 PM)techdawg28 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2017 02:11 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]I get the feeling that old people are the ones who love to talk about "blue bloods". The reality is that from an 18 year old's perspective Clemson and FSU are both blue bloods even though many old timers still prefer to talk about the Huskers and Vols neither of which have been relevant in a decade or more.

Definitely a different perspective between older fans and younger ones. As a current student who started following CFB only in the last couple of years, I'm sure my outlook is different.

Here's who I see as elite programs, both historically and currently:
SEC: Alabama
ACC: FSU, Clemson(now), Miami
Big XII: Oklahoma, tu
Big Ten: Ohio State, Michigan, maybe Penn State
Pac-12: Stanford, Oregon, USC
Also Notre Dame

I'm sure older fans would have a different list, although I'm sure we can agree on some of these.

Unfortunately perception is reality, but Texas is not a blue blood on the field as much as they believe it. They are like A&M but actually won a championship in 05. Other than that, you have to go back to the 60's. I would rate Nebraska over Texas in terms of blue blood programs by far.

Championships are important, but there is more to it than that. All time won loss (through 2014) per NCAA 2015 record book. Clemson is #27 (22 among P5).

Rank Team Yrs. Won Lost Tied Pct. Games
1. Notre Dame 126 882 310 42 .732 1,234
2. Michigan 135 915 328 36 .729 1,279
3. Boise St. 47 408 155 2 .724 565
4. Ohio St.* 125 863 319 53 .720 1,235
5. Oklahoma 120 850 317 53 .718 1,220
6. Alabama* 120 850 325 43 .716 1,218
7. Texas 122 881 346 33 .712 1,260
8. Southern California* 121 805 327 54 .702 1,186
9. Nebraska 125 874 361 40 .701 1,275
10. Penn St. 128 849 376 41 .687 1,266
11. Tennessee 118 811 367 53 .680 1,231
12. Florida St.* 68 512 238 17 .679 767
13. LSU 121 761 401 47 .649 1,209
14. Ga. Southern (2015) 51 364 195 10 .649 569
15. Georgia 121 777 410 54 .648 1,241
16. Appalachian St. (2015) 85 576 324 29 .636 929
17. Miami (FL) 89 596 342 19 .633 957
18. Auburn 122 734 421 47 .630 1,202
19. Florida 108 691 400 40 .629 1,131
20. Arizona St. 102 589 368 24 .613 981

This is an AP listing of their top 100. Their points are pretty arbitrary. They give points for rankings during the season, not just at the end of the season and give a 10 point bonus for MNCs. But it gives a general idea.

http://collegefootball.ap.org/top-100

1. Ohio St.
2. Oklahoma
3. Notre Dame
4. Alabama
5. USC
6. Nebraska
7. Michigan
8. Texas
9. FSU
10.Florida
11.LSU
12.Penn St.
13.Miami (FL)
14.Tennessee
15.Auburn
16.Georgia
17.UCLA
18.Michigan St.
19.Texas A&M
20.Washington
Clemson is 21

(01-10-2017 05:09 PM)Shox Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2017 04:30 PM)techdawg28 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2017 02:11 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]I get the feeling that old people are the ones who love to talk about "blue bloods". The reality is that from an 18 year old's perspective Clemson and FSU are both blue bloods even though many old timers still prefer to talk about the Huskers and Vols neither of which have been relevant in a decade or more.

Definitely a different perspective between older fans and younger ones. As a current student who started following CFB only in the last couple of years, I'm sure my outlook is different.

Here's who I see as elite programs, both historically and currently:
SEC: Alabama
ACC: FSU, Clemson(now), Miami
Big XII: Oklahoma, tu
Big Ten: Ohio State, Michigan, maybe Penn State
Pac-12: Stanford, Oregon, USC
Also Notre Dame

I'm sure older fans would have a different list, although I'm sure we can agree on some of these.

Unfortunately perception is reality, but Texas is not a blue blood on the field as much as they believe it. They are like A&M but actually won a championship in 05. Other than that, you have to go back to the 60's. I would rate Nebraska over Texas in terms of blue blood programs by far.

Texas is "like A&M but with an 05 championship" if you ignore pretty much everything.

http://www.winsipedia.com/texas/vs/texas-am

All Time Wins: Texas 2nd vs A&M 16th
Winning Percentage: Texas 7th vs A&M 25th
Consensus All-Americans: Texas 7th vs A&M 24th
Weeks at #1 AP: Texas 9th vs A&M 28th

Yep, basically the same besides the 05 championship

(01-10-2017 04:30 PM)techdawg28 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2017 02:11 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]I get the feeling that old people are the ones who love to talk about "blue bloods". The reality is that from an 18 year old's perspective Clemson and FSU are both blue bloods even though many old timers still prefer to talk about the Huskers and Vols neither of which have been relevant in a decade or more.

Definitely a different perspective between older fans and younger ones. As a current student who started following CFB only in the last couple of years, I'm sure my outlook is different.

Here's who I see as elite programs, both historically and currently:
SEC: Alabama
ACC: FSU, Clemson(now), Miami
Big XII: Oklahoma, tu
Big Ten: Ohio State, Michigan, maybe Penn State
Pac-12: Stanford, Oregon, USC
Also Notre Dame

I'm sure older fans would have a different list, although I'm sure we can agree on some of these.

Miami, Oregon, Stanford and Texas aren't currently elite. Florida, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee are historically elite SEC schools.

(01-10-2017 02:23 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2017 10:40 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]Elite Yes but not a Blue Blood.

Curious: how would you define a college football blue blood?

Clemson now has...
...multiple national championships
...top 25 all-time win%
...top 25 in terms of weeks in the AP top 25
...top 20 in conference championships, bowl games, and total wins
...top 30 in bowl record and all-Americans

http://www.winsipedia.com/clemson

I mean, you do realize no one's blood actually comes out blue, right?

I'd say top ~5 are blue bloods. I might go as high as 10 if I was feeling really generous, but I'm more inclined to stay close to 5.

(01-10-2017 02:58 PM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2017 10:40 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]Elite Yes but not a Blue Blood.

Blue Blood is not a college football term. It's for college basketball specifically referring to UNC, Duke, Kansas and Kentucky because they are all blue.

I'm sure you know that and didn't need it spelled out but I hate seeing people use the term 'Blue Blood' to describe sports other than college basketball.

And you are wrong. You might hate seeing it used to describe football programs but it is acceptable. Google it...