With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

There's no hard-and-fast rule.

For example, Nebraska has won 3 national titles and five BCS-level bowl games since the last time Notre Dame has won either, and yet you are questioning Nebraska's blue-blood status, not Notre Dame's. And I agree that you are hardly alone in doing that.

It just depends on a whole lot of things.

(03-15-2021 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

There's no hard-and-fast rule.

For example, Nebraska has won 3 national titles and five BCS-level bowl games since the last time Notre Dame has won either, and yet you are questioning Nebraska's blue-blood status, not Notre Dame's. And I agree that you are hardly alone in doing that.

It just depends on a whole lot of things.

Ah, but at least Notre Dame a) commands enough eyeballs/national interest to warrant their own TV contract, and b) has been in the CFP playoff twice in the last 7 years. The only schools who have been there more are all unquestionable bluebloods (Bama, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma). The better comparison would have been Michigan, though one could argue that they've never been a football blueblood.

USFFan

(03-15-2021 11:25 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

There's no hard-and-fast rule.

For example, Nebraska has won 3 national titles and five BCS-level bowl games since the last time Notre Dame has won either, and yet you are questioning Nebraska's blue-blood status, not Notre Dame's. And I agree that you are hardly alone in doing that.

It just depends on a whole lot of things.

Ah, but at least Notre Dame a) commands enough eyeballs/national interest to warrant their own TV contract, and b) has been in the CFP playoff twice in the last 7 years. The only schools who have been there more are all unquestionable bluebloods (Bama, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma). The better comparison would have been Michigan, though one could argue that they've never been a football blueblood.

USFFan

Michigan is as "blue" of a football blue blood as there is. Always has been.

And I hate Michigan, LOL.

Blue blood is not just about national titles. E.g., in hoops, Kansas is true-blue blue blood, way moreso than UConn, even though UConn has won more NCAA titles.

"Blue blood" means "old money", it means tracing your ancestors back to the Mayflower, not just winning recently. Jeff Bezos is richer than anyone, but he's not a blue blood even though he has like 100x more money than some old New England families that are blue-bloods.

I think blue blood should be replaced by Elite.

Is Nebraska an elite football program? No

Is Indiana an elite basketball program? No

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

You don't lose blue blood status. The very definition of "blue blood" is specifically that the earning of money (or in this case, championships) occurred in the LONG past. The fact that Nebraska and Indiana won championships a LONG time ago is what makes them blue bloods in the first place. That's the point!

The Rockefellers are blue bloods. Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are NOT blue bloods, despite them being significantly more wealthy than the all of the Rockefeller descendants combined at this point. The fact that the Rockefeller descendants haven't really built anything new in generations (at least on the scale of the aforementioned billionaires) is irrelevant to their blue blood status: they will ALWAYS be blue bloods.

We seem to get into this argument all of the time on this forum. Recent accomplishments (or lack thereof), by *definition*, have absolutely zero to do with *blue blood* status.

I think the problem is that too many people conflate "blue blood" with "sustained greatness/excellence". They might be highly correlated, but they are NOT one and the same same.

(03-15-2021 11:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:25 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

There's no hard-and-fast rule.

For example, Nebraska has won 3 national titles and five BCS-level bowl games since the last time Notre Dame has won either, and yet you are questioning Nebraska's blue-blood status, not Notre Dame's. And I agree that you are hardly alone in doing that.

It just depends on a whole lot of things.

Ah, but at least Notre Dame a) commands enough eyeballs/national interest to warrant their own TV contract, and b) has been in the CFP playoff twice in the last 7 years. The only schools who have been there more are all unquestionable bluebloods (Bama, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma). The better comparison would have been Michigan, though one could argue that they've never been a football blueblood.

USFFan

Michigan is as "blue" of a football blue blood as there is. Always has been.

And I hate Michigan, LOL.

Blue blood is not just about national titles. E.g., in hoops, Kansas is true-blue blue blood, way moreso than UConn, even though UConn has won more NCAA titles.

"Blue blood" means "old money", it means tracing your ancestors back to the Mayflower, not just winning recently. Jeff Bezos is richer than anyone, but he's not a blue blood even though he has like 100x more money than some old New England families that are blue-bloods.

At least I'm not the only one who's asked this question...

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/colum...401556001/

USFFan

In football, if all your national titles occurred before 1936, you’re no longer a blueblood.

(03-15-2021 11:34 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  I think blue blood should be replaced by Elite.

Is Nebraska an elite football program? No

Is Indiana an elite basketball program? No

But is Joe Flacco elite?

USFFan

(03-15-2021 11:40 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:25 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

There's no hard-and-fast rule.

For example, Nebraska has won 3 national titles and five BCS-level bowl games since the last time Notre Dame has won either, and yet you are questioning Nebraska's blue-blood status, not Notre Dame's. And I agree that you are hardly alone in doing that.

It just depends on a whole lot of things.

Ah, but at least Notre Dame a) commands enough eyeballs/national interest to warrant their own TV contract, and b) has been in the CFP playoff twice in the last 7 years. The only schools who have been there more are all unquestionable bluebloods (Bama, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma). The better comparison would have been Michigan, though one could argue that they've never been a football blueblood.

USFFan

Michigan is as "blue" of a football blue blood as there is. Always has been.

And I hate Michigan, LOL.

Blue blood is not just about national titles. E.g., in hoops, Kansas is true-blue blue blood, way moreso than UConn, even though UConn has won more NCAA titles.

"Blue blood" means "old money", it means tracing your ancestors back to the Mayflower, not just winning recently. Jeff Bezos is richer than anyone, but he's not a blue blood even though he has like 100x more money than some old New England families that are blue-bloods.

At least I'm not the only one who's asked this question...

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/colum...401556001/

USFFan

And once again, that's because the writer here is confusing "blue blood" with "sustained excellence". They are NOT one and the same. It honestly drives me nuts because anyone that understands the definition of "blue blood" should understand that the fact that accomplishments have occurred long in the past is the entire point of being defined as a blue blood (as opposed to what has been accomplished recently).

(03-15-2021 11:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:25 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

There's no hard-and-fast rule.

For example, Nebraska has won 3 national titles and five BCS-level bowl games since the last time Notre Dame has won either, and yet you are questioning Nebraska's blue-blood status, not Notre Dame's. And I agree that you are hardly alone in doing that.

It just depends on a whole lot of things.

Ah, but at least Notre Dame a) commands enough eyeballs/national interest to warrant their own TV contract, and b) has been in the CFP playoff twice in the last 7 years. The only schools who have been there more are all unquestionable bluebloods (Bama, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma). The better comparison would have been Michigan, though one could argue that they've never been a football blueblood.

USFFan

Michigan is as "blue" of a football blue blood as there is. Always has been.

And I hate Michigan, LOL.

Blue blood is not just about national titles. E.g., in hoops, Kansas is true-blue blue blood, way moreso than UConn, even though UConn has won more NCAA titles.

"Blue blood" means "old money", it means tracing your ancestors back to the Mayflower, not just winning recently. Jeff Bezos is richer than anyone, but he's not a blue blood even though he has like 100x more money than some old New England families that are blue-bloods.

What Quo said. With that being said the old money also would indicate “power” and don’t know that Indiana hoops had any “power” in the B10. Ohio State and Michigan have the biggest you know what in the room. Penn State would be a distant third. Which brings me back to Nebraska- in the BXII they were a titan alongside Texas and Oklahoma. A move to the B10 and they are staring up at the colleges sports equivalent of the Rothchild’s and the Rockefeller’s.

(03-15-2021 11:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

You don't lose blue blood status. The very definition of "blue blood" is specifically that the earning of money (or in this case, championships) occurred in the LONG past. The fact that Nebraska and Indiana won championships a LONG time ago is what makes them blue bloods in the first place. That's the point!

The Rockefellers are blue bloods. Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are NOT blue bloods, despite them being significantly more wealthy than the all of the Rockefeller descendants combined at this point. The fact that the Rockefeller descendants haven't really built anything new in generations (at least on the scale of the aforementioned billionaires) is irrelevant to their blue blood status: they will ALWAYS be blue bloods.

We seem to get into this argument all of the time on this forum. Recent accomplishments (or lack thereof), by *definition*, have absolutely zero to do with *blue blood* status.

I think the problem is that too many people conflate "blue blood" with "sustained greatness/excellence". They might be highly correlated, but they are NOT one and the same same.

OK, fair enough, I stand corrected by you and quo.

Maybe the better question should have been "when does a schools fanbase have to admit that they no longer command the respect that they think they deserve?" Some of these schools are Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard at this point...



USFFan

(03-15-2021 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

There's no hard-and-fast rule.

For example, Nebraska has won 3 national titles and five BCS-level bowl games since the last time Notre Dame has won either, and yet you are questioning Nebraska's blue-blood status, not Notre Dame's. And I agree that you are hardly alone in doing that.

It just depends on a whole lot of things.

A lot of it also depends on what you've done since your last title.

Notre Dame has finished top-11 in 6 of the last 9 years. In 3 of those years they've been in the BCS national title game or the CFP playoff.

If Nebraska had done the same as Notre Dame over the past decade, we wouldn't be asking if Nebraska is still a blueblood. Notre Dame has been in 6 BCS-level bowl games since the last time Nebraska was in one (the 2001 Rose Bowl).

(03-15-2021 11:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  In football, if all your national titles occurred before 1936, you’re no longer a blueblood.

Where exactly did 1936 come from? That seems like a random year out of the blue. You're not that old are you?

^ As I indicated above, there has to be a shelf life as “power” along with past success and money plays a hand. If this forum existed in 1941, posters would include Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Army and Navy among the elite and would find the idea that Ohio State is a power as laughable.

(03-15-2021 11:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

You don't lose blue blood status. The very definition of "blue blood" is specifically that the earning of money (or in this case, championships) occurred in the LONG past. The fact that Nebraska and Indiana won championships a LONG time ago is what makes them blue bloods in the first place. That's the point!

The Rockefellers are blue bloods. Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are NOT blue bloods, despite them being significantly more wealthy than the all of the Rockefeller descendants combined at this point. The fact that the Rockefeller descendants haven't really built anything new in generations (at least on the scale of the aforementioned billionaires) is irrelevant to their blue blood status: they will ALWAYS be blue bloods.

We seem to get into this argument all of the time on this forum. Recent accomplishments (or lack thereof), by *definition*, have absolutely zero to do with *blue blood* status.

I think the problem is that too many people conflate "blue blood" with "sustained greatness/excellence". They might be highly correlated, but they are NOT one and the same same.

I tend to agree.

For me in FB any program that has a 75,000 seat stadium is a blue blood because it required generations of success to get to that point. That is almost the entire SEC and B1G but that is true.

In basketball money the P leagues are making has allowed for new dynasties which has upset the traditional hierarchy within those conferences in a few cases.

(03-15-2021 11:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

You don't lose blue blood status. The very definition of "blue blood" is specifically that the earning of money (or in this case, championships) occurred in the LONG past. The fact that Nebraska and Indiana won championships a LONG time ago is what makes them blue bloods in the first place. That's the point!

The Rockefellers are blue bloods. Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are NOT blue bloods, despite them being significantly more wealthy than the all of the Rockefeller descendants combined at this point. The fact that the Rockefeller descendants haven't really built anything new in generations (at least on the scale of the aforementioned billionaires) is irrelevant to their blue blood status: they will ALWAYS be blue bloods.

We seem to get into this argument all of the time on this forum. Recent accomplishments (or lack thereof), by *definition*, have absolutely zero to do with *blue blood* status.

I think the problem is that too many people conflate "blue blood" with "sustained greatness/excellence". They might be highly correlated, but they are NOT one and the same same.

I tend to agree.

For me in FB any program that has a 75,000 seat stadium is a blue blood because it required generations of success to get to that point. That is almost the entire SEC and B1G but that is true.

In basketball money the P leagues are making has allowed for new dynasties which has upset the traditional hierarchy within those conferences in a few cases.

So you would consider South Carolina a blue blood in FB? Not sure I would go there. There is a huge difference in power and success between Alabama and Arkansas (two teams who play in 75k+ stadiums).

(03-15-2021 11:46 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

You don't lose blue blood status. The very definition of "blue blood" is specifically that the earning of money (or in this case, championships) occurred in the LONG past. The fact that Nebraska and Indiana won championships a LONG time ago is what makes them blue bloods in the first place. That's the point!

The Rockefellers are blue bloods. Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are NOT blue bloods, despite them being significantly more wealthy than the all of the Rockefeller descendants combined at this point. The fact that the Rockefeller descendants haven't really built anything new in generations (at least on the scale of the aforementioned billionaires) is irrelevant to their blue blood status: they will ALWAYS be blue bloods.

We seem to get into this argument all of the time on this forum. Recent accomplishments (or lack thereof), by *definition*, have absolutely zero to do with *blue blood* status.

I think the problem is that too many people conflate "blue blood" with "sustained greatness/excellence". They might be highly correlated, but they are NOT one and the same same.

OK, fair enough, I stand corrected by you and quo.

Maybe the better question should have been "when does a schools fanbase have to admit that they no longer command the respect that they think they deserve?" Some of these schools are Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard at this point...



USFFan

I think most of the people on this board are old enough to remember those Nebraska football and Indiana basketball teams from the 1980s and 1990s, right? Unless there's some truly young whipper snappers here, we're certainly all old enough to remember 2002 when Indiana made it to the National Championship Game? It's been a while now that I think about it and no current recruit was even born at that time, but it's not like it's ancient history for *me* personally.

As long as a critical mass of those fan bases still directly remember those times (which will continue to be the case for the next 20 to 30 years), NO, they will NEVER "admit it". They'll always believe (and to be honest, not necessarily incorrectly) to be one great coach and one great recruiting class from getting back to greatness.

My kindergarten through college years as a Chicago sports fan directly coincided with Michael Jordan's entire run with the Bulls. The Bulls might have last won an NBA Championship in 1998 (23 years ago!), but it still *feels* like yesterday for me. In my mind, the Bulls are still a marquee NBA franchise even though the reality is that, save for those handful of years with a healthy Derrick Rose, they haven't been anywhere close to a championship contender since that time.

So, my feelings on the Bulls have no basis in current rationality... but there is no rational reason why any of us cheer for sports teams in the first place. That's why we're called "fans" - root word of "fanatics". There's no convincing a Nebraska or Indiana fan that they're anything less than a marquee program that's one season away from getting back to their "rightful" place on the top of the food chain in their minds.

(03-15-2021 11:46 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

You don't lose blue blood status. The very definition of "blue blood" is specifically that the earning of money (or in this case, championships) occurred in the LONG past. The fact that Nebraska and Indiana won championships a LONG time ago is what makes them blue bloods in the first place. That's the point!

The Rockefellers are blue bloods. Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are NOT blue bloods, despite them being significantly more wealthy than the all of the Rockefeller descendants combined at this point. The fact that the Rockefeller descendants haven't really built anything new in generations (at least on the scale of the aforementioned billionaires) is irrelevant to their blue blood status: they will ALWAYS be blue bloods.

We seem to get into this argument all of the time on this forum. Recent accomplishments (or lack thereof), by *definition*, have absolutely zero to do with *blue blood* status.

I think the problem is that too many people conflate "blue blood" with "sustained greatness/excellence". They might be highly correlated, but they are NOT one and the same same.

OK, fair enough, I stand corrected by you and quo.

Maybe the better question should have been "when does a schools fanbase have to admit that they no longer command the respect that they think they deserve?" Some of these schools are Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard at this point...



USFFan

As a TN fan I am reckoning with this issue. Recently, we command more respect in basketball than in football.

I would say that issue is clear when coaches don't want to come to your school.

We had a rough go in basketball after Bruce Pearl, but were still able to grab Barnes.

On the other hand, we've had a rough go in football, and haven't been able to grab top coaches.

By top coaches I mean either the up-and-comers/the "hot names" as well those with a track record.

(03-15-2021 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  With the news that Indiana has "parted ways" with Archie Miller and hearing somebody say that "Indiana is a blueblood that should regularly be winning B1G titles," it struck me that schools some of us (especially those of us who are longer in the tooth) think of as bluebloods probably aren't there any more.

For example, is Nebraska really a football blueblood any more? I mean sure, they've historically been among the most successful schools with 5 national titles, but the last was in 1997, meaning that there are 30 year olds who have no real memory of the Huskers winning a title like that. They've been in the B1G for a decade and haven't even won a conference title once.

Which brings me to Indiana basketball. They last won a title in 1987 with Bobby Knight as their coach and Steve Alford & Keith Smart as the backcourt. That's literally 1/3 of a century ago, and in the intervening years they've made 1 Final Four that was almost 20 years ago. Is Indiana really a blueblood in basketball any more?

USFFan

There's no hard-and-fast rule.

For example, Nebraska has won 3 national titles and five BCS-level bowl games since the last time Notre Dame has won either, and yet you are questioning Nebraska's blue-blood status, not Notre Dame's. And I agree that you are hardly alone in doing that.

It just depends on a whole lot of things.

I'm not so sure that the Biblical rule doesn't apply, 40 years. That's roughly the recent memory of the surviving generation. We live a bit longer today, but you get the point. Blueblood is a collective appellation given to those who within memory have always challenged for, or won, titles. When the overwhelming number of living people cannot remember the last title won or competed for by a school I think that school has passed from "Blueblood" to "Historic Program".

So I challenge people to make that distinction. We only have a few on the verge of becoming "Historic" programs. Indiana would have 6 more years in which to do something by the Biblical timeline. Georgia is one in football that is a great program but I'm not sure outside of the 1 Herschel Walker year that you can call them a Blueblood, and I'm not sure you can call them a Historic Program either since they've never had runs of championships. If they never win another title in football then Notre Dame would become the poster child of Historic Programs inasmuch as with their history of consistent championship runs they would epitomize a school synonymous with the history of college football.

So I guess what I'm saying is that some of us are old enough to remember Bob Knight well, but the Indiana of Knight's prime is not in any 40 year old's mind, is only dimly in the minds of folks in their 50's, and exists vividly only in those who are well into their 60's and 70's. So shelf life on Indiana basketball is set to expire in the not too distant future.