(01-24-2023 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 01:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  So, LSU has been better in the past 25 years, and PSU was better in the 25-50 years ago window?

Look at their all time records, LSU has won about 2/3 of their games, PSU, more like 71%. Small advantage PSU. In Championships, PSU has 2 since 1912 and 4 overall, LSU has 4 since 1958 and 5 overall. A bit bigger advantage LSU.

They've both been in one of the 2 highest profile conferences for 30 years. During that time period, PSU has won 4 and LSU has won 5.

I'll admit, I thought that LSU would look much stronger than PSU, but they actually end up looking very similar overall. I'm not trying to say that SEC Titles mean more than B1G Titles, but they certainly don't mean less, and LSU has more Conference and National Titles across any time period you care to name. Based upon this, I wouldn't say that PSU is a "blue blood" while LSU is not. Or, rather, I'd say that if PSU is a blue blood, then so is LSU.

Bluebloods don't have 25 year periods as rough as LSU had, unless they were before WWII. From the NCAA record book 2021. PSU is virtually tied with Nebraska (and probably passed them in 2022). LSU is behind Tennessee, Georgia and relative newby FSU.

Rank Team Yrs. Won Lost Tied Pct. Games
1. Ohio St.* 131 931 327 53 .730 1,311
2. Alabama* 126 929 331 43 .729 1,303
3. Boise St. 53 465 172 2 .729 639
4. Notre Dame* 131 918 328 42 .729 1,288
5. Michigan 141 964 350 36 .727 1,350
6. Oklahoma 126 917 329 53 .726 1,299
7. Texas 128 923 378 33 .704 1,334
8. Southern California* 127 852 352 54 .699 1,258
9. Nebraska 131 905 400 40 .688 1,345
10. Penn St. 134 902 398 41 .688 1,341
11. Tennessee 124 849 402 53 .671 1,304
12. Florida St.* 74 553 270 17 .668 840
13. Georgia 127 839 427 54 .656 1,320
14. LSU 127 817 420 47 .655 1,284
15. App State 91 639 339 29 .649 1,007
16. Coastal Carolina 18 138 78 0 .639 216
17. Ga. Southern* 57 403 230 10 .635 643
18. Miami (FL) 95 644 370 19 .633 1,033
19. Florida 114 741 424 40 .632 1,205
20. Auburn 128 782 450 47 .630 1,279
21. Clemson 125 768 462 45 .620 1,275
22. Washington 131 746 455 50 .616 1,251

In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas.

The fact that who was played is not considered in that list enables Boise State to gain a position higher than that of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, etc. and it allows Coastal Carolina, App State, and Georgia Southern to rate above many of those as well is indicative of the fallacy of equivalency in wins and losses.

It's who you played and how you fared!

So Frank, we are in agreement about the contradictions and though you didn't expressly state it, the absurdity of such a list.

As to your view of LSU though, PSU and LSU are essentially in the same grouping. Your juices flow over Penn State because they are a Big 10 alternative which rises up often enough. LSU is the same, only in the SEC. Both fill 100,000 plus stadia, both have won championships, both have had downtimes, and both have strong regional appeal. Nobody up North gives a hoot about LSU and nobody down South gives a hoot about Penn State. To me you are a blue blood when you have people in every part of the nation stop to find out what you did this week.

That list may have half a dozen or so names and while Florida has a higher floor, they aren't one of them.

For football and in no particular order, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Notre Dame are the slam dunks historically. Everyone else is more of a regional favorite, though some are rising: Florida, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Penn State. Some have fallen: Florida State (which looks to be turning it around), Nebraska (who 25 years ago was in the top list), Washington, U.C.L.A., Auburn, Tennessee.

But I believe the first 7 would be near unanimous picks for most sports literate fans.

I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).