(03-07-2022 03:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 02:46 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 02:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d add Penn St to the list of Ohio St, Mich, ND, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and USC.

LSU, Florida, and Clemson are trying to build themselves into blue bloods but aren’t there yet.

Nebraska definitely gets classified as a fading blue blood. USC could be in danger of joining them.

Miami and Florida St shined bright for awhile but couldn’t sustain their success.

I'd need to know the argument for Penn State as well, because I don't see it.

If you go 900+ wins as opposed to 925+ wins, they'd just get over that with 905. They're just over the 400 loss mark at 402. And they're just shy of the .700+ win percentage at .688. So, they're close. They're definitely an elite team, but there's a difference between elite and blue blood. I'd maybe be able to give them a pass if they had more than 2 NCs which occurred within 4 years of each other in the early/mid 80s.

I’d factor in size of fan base. If you’re packing in over 100K to your games, you’re unquestionably among the sport’s elite programs.

They may be a few wins and NCs shy of the others but they also weren’t a major program for as long

I'm not arguing that they're not elite. I even said they were. But there is a difference between blue blood and elite--a Tier 1/Tier 2 or even a 1a/1b if you prefer.

And I'd argue that they're more than a "few" NCs shy. They only have 2, coming in one 4 year stretch. That's just not enough. Personally, I don't think Texas has enough either, and I think there's a decent argument for leaving them off the blue blood list. But the huge financial success of the Longhorn athletic department in addition to their place on the all time W/L list makes up for that shortcoming. It just makes Texas important to the national college football zeitgeist in a way that Penn State just isn't.

I'd also argue against "they weren't a major program for as long." PSU is 8th on the all-time FBS wins list and have played the 3rd most number of games. They have 13 undefeated seasons across a good cross section of eras. They've appeared in 50 bowl games, many of them big-time New Year's Day games as an independent. They also won both national championships as an independent. They played plenty of big-boy football before joining the B1G.

(03-06-2022 10:48 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(03-06-2022 08:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Surfing the net, I see an agreed upon list from multiple articles as Blue Bloods: Alabama, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas and USC.

IMHO, I think the following makes one a Blue Blood:

1. Must have multiple national championships

2. Must have won at least one national championship under different coaches

3. Must have finished top 10 within last 18 years (essentially within the life of a recruit).

4. Fertile natural recruiting ground.

5. Throws money around on coaches and facilities.

6. Must have won a P5 conference within last 18 years (age of a true freshman). Obviously this rule does not apply to Notre Dame.

These may be the criteria that various websites may have been using in their own attempts to identity bluebloods, but they've overlooked one of the most important definition features of the "blue blood" - - a long, distinguished history of nobility.

THE TERM BLUE BLOOD HAS BEEN COMPLETELY MIS-APPLIED IN RECENT YEARS, AS NOTED BY THIS COLUMNIST, ADDRESSING THE REASONS WHY THERE ARE LESS THAN 10 CONSENSUS BLUE BLOOD SCHOOLS IN COLLEGE BASKETBALL:


What's A College Basketball "Blueblood" Anyway?

By John Cassillo@JohnCassillo EXCERPTS:

"The curious claim of “three bluebloods” (Villanova, Kansas, and Michigan) (in the 2018 Final Four) is (confusing), since most honest college basketball observers would not believe that statement whatsoever.

You heard it during the Villanova Wildcats’ broadcasts repeatedly that they’re a “blueblood” now, as if it’s a completely accepted fact. The thing is, two championships in five tries doesn’t make you one of the long-standing, traditional titans of the sport. And if ‘Nova grabs another championship next Monday night, that won’t either.

Tradition, consistency and resources are what dictate blueblood status. That’s not just college basketball, and not just sports.

Being real, college basketball’s blueblood list is pretty short. I’d agree with Matt Norlander that it’s limited to these six schools (and I’d probably trim Indiana off at this point):

"Historically speaking, there are only six bluebloods (in college basketball): Kentucky, UNC, Indiana, Duke, UCLA, and Kansas. Other programs are on the fringe..."

--Matt Norlander, CBS Sports Analyst

https://www.nunesmagician.com/2018/3/26/...tournament


"blue blood":

"From the medieval European belief that royalty and nobility had blue blood; the elite had enough power and wealth that they could afford to have peasants and the urban poor do their dirty work for them- since the aristocrats were able to stay inside and avoid long hours in the fields (and the sunlight), they were often so pale that their blue veins showed under their translucent skin, thus leading people to believe that their blood was blue.

Now it generally refers to people from old money: families who have been wealthy aristocrats for generations on generations.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p...ue%20blood

.

This could be remedied by adding another condition for blue blood status: at minimum, clear evidence of greatness (national championship, #1 ranking, etc.) before 1960.

That should pretty much end the discussion. "Blood" is the operative word. You either are or you aren't. You can't earn your way into it, or fumble your way out. The Rockefeller family could lose their entire fortune - they'd still be a blue-blood family. But in such a situation, having that designation wouldn't mean very much anymore.

Blue-blood and "elite" overlap, but they are not the exact same thing.