Pulled this off X. What do you guys think?
Attachments
-
1784772422744.png
Blue bloods in football
- Thread starter Ash Williams
- Start date
Maybe the most random pile of junk after the first three
Duke not only being higher than UK, but 3 tiers higher? Lol.
Sadly though, we probably are on that tier level. Hopefully Stein can bring us up a peg or two during his time.
Sadly though, we probably are on that tier level. Hopefully Stein can bring us up a peg or two during his time.
If he does, that becomes the new normal for fans after awhile. Then, they get angry that the coach isn’t doing even more, despite the fact that he created the new standard. Then, if you still support that coach (best in 50 years), everyone tells you you’re an enemy of the program. I hope Stein picks up where Stoops left off — we’d be fortunate. If Stein wins 5 games in year one, I’ll be happy.
As for his comments, they didn’t bother me but I’m not sure I’ve ever been upset by a coach saying something at a press conference.
OU is the 4th blue blood
I'm still scratching my head on how UC ( listed as a storied program) is on the same level as a Tennessee and Florida State please explain that to me. They should be right down there in the same box as us or below us.
If we don't let the Bear go to Alabama back in the day is history different? Or is all that over hyped?
I would think it was created by someone in their 20s who doesn't have a full understanding of college football history. They got more right than wrong, but several stand out as wrong. Oh well.
Interesting list ..I just have no idea why we have teams on “never won a natty” tier…..vs many of the above tiers? I csn say that about all but 20 teams to be honest
So why are Duke, Arizona st mizzou etc in that tier vs “ never going to br a blue blood “ line? What is the difference
Finally…”respectable program line”…SMU, UL Cal etc. what in tithe world makes them respectable vs the next two tiers?
So why are Duke, Arizona st mizzou etc in that tier vs “ never going to br a blue blood “ line? What is the difference
Finally…”respectable program line”…SMU, UL Cal etc. what in tithe world makes them respectable vs the next two tiers?
We didn't let the Bear go to Alabama. He left UK for Texas A&M. He left them for Alabama.
But....had he not left UK for A&M, he would still have left us for Alabama.
Obviously I don't know the history that well so I guess I gotta say if he never left Kentucky. I never knew if he was a great coach or just wound up at a school that put football first.
Was he the Rupp of football?
How is UT, Florida State and Auburn below Duke? Lmao
I was about to say didn't we win a championship like way back in the day. Close to when Tennessee won their only one
I was about to say didn't we win a championship like way back in the day. Close to when Tennessee won their only one
Think 1951.
And UT claims way more than 1.
Michigan is not a blue blood if the list has only 3.
2 Championships since 1948. There are schools more accomplished in the past 80 years.
LSU is not a new blood, they won a title in 1959.
Penn St. , Nebraska, USC and Oklahoma should be in the “Programs that used to be significant”
2 Championships since 1948. There are schools more accomplished in the past 80 years.
LSU is not a new blood, they won a title in 1959.
Penn St. , Nebraska, USC and Oklahoma should be in the “Programs that used to be significant”
Bama
Ohio St
Michigan
Oklahoma
Texas
Notre Dame
Nebraska
Penn St
USC
Georgia
LSU
Florida
Clemson
Auburn
Florida St
Tennessee
Miami
Oregon
Washington
Texas A&M
Wisconsin
Virginia Tech
Iowa
Michigan State
BYU
There's my top 25. You can make arguments here and there if one school has more titles than another school, who may have a longer history of success.
Ohio St
Michigan
Oklahoma
Texas
Notre Dame
Nebraska
Penn St
USC
Georgia
LSU
Florida
Clemson
Auburn
Florida St
Tennessee
Miami
Oregon
Washington
Texas A&M
Wisconsin
Virginia Tech
Iowa
Michigan State
BYU
There's my top 25. You can make arguments here and there if one school has more titles than another school, who may have a longer history of success.
Just in the SEC, how do you justify Missouri being in front of Tennessee, Texas A&M and Auburn? Ridiculous.
I think in order to be considered a blue blood you have to be an established program with multiple titles. Thats why I will never consider UConn to be tier 1 blue blood in basketball like UK, UNC, Duke, UCLA. Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, USC, Notre Dame Penn State, Michigan are all tier 1 imo. Then you have the next which are the respectable programs like UGA, FSU, FLA, Miami ect. All have multiple titles but didn’t come until nearly 50 years later. The next are programs to reckon with nationally that haven’t won one, but are still considered to be strong programs.
Last edited:
The idiot made up a bunch of categories and then attempted to place teams in them.
Dumb categories and dumb team placements.
Dumb categories and dumb team placements.
Cincinnati Bearcats School History
Seasons: 72 (1954 to 2025)
Record (W-L-T): 409-395-12
Conferences: Big 12, American, Big East, CUSA, MVC, Ind
Now that's a really storied program.
Recency issues. And, who cares? IU would NEVER have been a “respectable program” just 2 years ago? UL has played in G6 like football conferences and benefited greatly by that. There should be a row that says SEC and a Row that says B1G and a row for the rest with an asterisk next to Notre Dame.
Note dame hasn't won a damn thing n almost 40 years.
Penn state? They won 2 national titles n 4 seasons n the 80s.
Bizarre inclusion.
UT is a level too high and NOT s blue blood.
2 AP consensus NCs:
- 1951 ( after getting blown out by Maryland)
- 1998 (better but a Clint Stoerner fumble away from losing to Arkansas)
everything else is lies
2 AP consensus NCs:
- 1951 ( after getting blown out by Maryland)
- 1998 (better but a Clint Stoerner fumble away from losing to Arkansas)
everything else is lies