quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,231
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2443
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans |
RE: When does a school lose "blueblood" status?
(03-16-2021 09:31 AM)ken d Wrote: (03-16-2021 09:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (03-15-2021 08:46 PM)adcorbett 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.
Over the last decade or so I’ve agreed with about everything you’ve posted. This I don’t. Blue bloods have a shelf life. In all sports. Look at the browns, the bears, the white Sox, and for a long time even the warriors. New blood like the cowboys, patriots, and 49ers replaces them. Army and navy? Florida state and Florida have their crowns. CCNY? Its Duke now (who is not old money in this sport). We can debate their level of blue blood, but even your example of the Rockefeller’s doesn’t hold: their great grandkids couldn’t even get a reality show right now. The Walton’s replaced them. Even the royal family, the very definition of blue bloods, is even degraded now.
I’m not saying Indiana, or Nebraska - the examples given - have lost blue blood status, becuase that’s up for debate. But old money doesn’t hold the prestige in any walk of life as it does even 30 years ago.
I agree in part. Blue blood can fade over time. Heck, over the longest run the earth will get absorbed by the sun. If Nebraska and Indiana fade for long enough, their blue blood might fade away. So I agree it can happen.
But I disagree in part. In football, IMO schools like FSU and Miami are not blue bloods, which is analogous to "old money". They are certainly football elite, but FSU and Miami are new money, nouveaux-riche, like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. Michigan and USC are blue bloods. The Patriots in the NFL are new money, the Bears are blue-blood old money and their lack of recent success hasn't changed that. That does not mean that old money necessarily trumps new money in terms of current power, in many cases new money is clearly ascendant in terms of power. But there is a status and prestige that the old money has that the newcomers lack, and that always counts for something, especially in academia. One of the main struggles in academia is the attempt by new schools, often well-funded, to overcome the status and prestige that centuries-old schools have. My USF is in that struggle.
And sure, over a long enough time, today's nouveaux-riche can become blue bloods. In the long run, anything can happen.
IIRC, in the late 1800s, as many new millionaires were being created by the industrial booms, "new money" families would try to gain prestige and status by marrying in to titled European families that had fallen on hard financial times. The newly-minted railroad "baron" had money, but no prestige, while the real Alsatian Baron had a title that went back centuries, but a broken down castle and no money to fix it. Hence the marriage.
So, if somehow Florida State could merge with Alabama they would become blue blods? 
LOL .... I do know that programs try to do this. E.g., here in my town, there is a local city hospital that has formed a partnership with the Mayo Clinic, the equivalent of a medical "blue blood". They are advertising that linkage, the goal obviously being for some of the Mayo's status and prestige to rub off on their facility.
|
|
/
When does a school lose "blueblood" status?
