Definition should be multiple hall of fame coaches, winning throughout multiple multiple decades, Multiple Heisman Winners, and more than a Handful of National Championships.
@RonaldDub60
2 ай бұрын
Like OU
@FredPitre-o4b
2 ай бұрын
Just that NONE of those National Championships are this century.
@lucasjames5187
2 ай бұрын
@@FredPitre-o4b Or just like he said. It's the whole tire program history is what defines a blue blood. OU having 7 national championships, 7 Heisman winners and 167 first-team All-Americans. As well OU has amassed of 41 seasons with 10 or more wins in a season. Including 18 10 or more wins seasons sense 2000. And overall winning and losing record as a program.OU has compiled an overall record of 944 wins, 341 losses, and 53 ties. Easily in the top 3 of programs of all time.
@FredPitre-o4b
2 ай бұрын
@@lucasjames5187 18 seasons with 10+ wins this century and NOT a SINGLE NATIONAL title to show for it. ok ranks as #6 in total wins just ahead of such heavyweights as Harvard, Yale and Penn. Never questioned what the OP said. What I said was also correct oo.
@davidlorenz4449
2 ай бұрын
Why are we trying to change the definition of a blue blood program? HISTORY, sustained success, big, passionate fan bases, national titles, conference titles, Heisman trophy winners, AP top-5 finishes, BRAND, national recognition. The definition hasn't changed. Having said that, there are probably tiers of blue bloods. Here's mine: Tier One Alabama Ohio State Oklahoma Michigan USC That's it....those are the only historic, true up-to-date blue bloods. There are no others. Not discounting recent success of programs like Georgia, LSU, etc. But they just don't have the history. Tier Two: Georgia Nebraska (history only -they're falling fast) Texas Miami Florida FSU LSU Notre Dame (not as bad recently as Nebraska, but kinda the same) Oregon (just in last 30 years, which is why they're not a true blue blood). Penn State That's it. Here's the official list lol.
@agent_JorDi
3 ай бұрын
As an Oregon fan new blood upon winning a title or two would be the word to use. Blue blood has historical roots. Roots we don’t have. Notre dame, usc, Michigan, Ohio state. I don’t think it’s a term you should be able to take away. Clemson would be a new blood
@marcvslicinivscrassvs7536
Ай бұрын
Minnesota lost its BlueBlood status and Nebraska is on that road.
@colebrignac8207
3 ай бұрын
Oregon is not a blue blood and not even close 😂
@robo7767
3 ай бұрын
Just because you have Nike buying all the players you need does not make you a blue blood.
@Mike-sp7zv
3 ай бұрын
Facts
@agent_JorDi
3 ай бұрын
Pls shut the hell up
@kyletucker3811
3 ай бұрын
😂😂😂 This is the most hilariously hypocritical and shallow opinion there is. Plenty of other schools have had billionaires and millionaires bankrolling their success. Just because you can put a face a name and a logo to the people buying ours, somehow its less legitimate. The funny part is I'd actually agree we aren't a blueblood-yet. But we've sure as hell got better credentials than most other candidates. 5x NY6 bowl wins since 2010, 3x more appearances. 2x National Championship appearances. Only 2 losing seasons since 2000.
@justanornalintrovert514
3 ай бұрын
Cry me a river
@SurferRC
3 ай бұрын
@@kyletucker3811you have to have a championship or two first! Oregon has no good wins or seasons ever 😂😂😂
@JOpalensky
3 ай бұрын
You have to win national championships to be a blue-blood
@daelkolwitz3509
2 ай бұрын
So Georgia Tech and UCF are Bluebloods?
@maceoa9903
3 ай бұрын
Penn State Notre Dame Ohio State Michigan Nebraska Alabama Tennessee Miami Florida Florida State Georgia LSU Texas Oklahoma USCal Those are the Blue Bloods. Long history and you can't tell the story of College Football without any of these teams.
@TravelinOn-tb9hy
2 ай бұрын
Solid list... that's about right.
@maceoa9903
2 ай бұрын
@@TravelinOn-tb9hy and I didn't put in order. I just went around country/conferences in my mind. And for the history aspect of not being able to tell story of College Football, got to throw Army and Navy in. Once blue bloods on field but now just in the history of the sport
@HeadlessAce
2 ай бұрын
True blue bloods lists aren’t this extensive. There’s like maybe 7 total
@maceoa9903
2 ай бұрын
@@HeadlessAce I can't see which 8 you'd remove. If you were in a coma for 20 years, woke up in 2044 and one of those were the National Champion, you say to yourself "that's about right".
@HeadlessAce
2 ай бұрын
@@maceoa9903 First we must define a blue blood. How many 10-win seasons do they have, conference championships, Heismans, national championships, consistent winning programs over the decades? Basically, a blue blood program defines college football between generations & a true blue blood is based on each school’s overall impact on the history of college football. With that said, I was initially wrong. There are actually 8 true blue-blooded programs… 1. Alabama 2. Oklahoma 3. Ohio State 4. Michigan 5. USC 6. Texas 7. Norte Dame 8. Nebraska Nebraska needs to get its act together if it wants to stand the test of time. Between falling off the map in the b12 and producing very little in the b10…well, let’s just say a true blue blood’s success should transcend a conference change. It’s about consistency over a large period of time and it’s going into about the 3rd decade for them. LSU is on the cusp, along with Penn State, Florida, Georgia, & FSU. Miami, for example, had a reign that only transcended about 20 years. But, that doesn’t cut it as a blue blood. At the end of the day, a blue blood definition is a very subjective matter & is not unanimously defined or agreed upon. I’m just providing what a majority can agree upon. Hope it helps!
@DedHedRy
3 ай бұрын
Not listening to this but if you have Oklahoma honestly anywhere close to being compared to FSU or Oregon that’s utterly ridiculous. Oklahoma has been a top 3 or top 5 at worst, in the list of blue bloods from the beginning of time. Based on over 100 years winning record percentage( 6th all time in wins and 5th in winning percentage and only 5 wins away from being 3rd all-time in wins ) the winningest program in the modern era. Number of conference titles, all Americans, heismans, bowl appearances and wins. ( bowls used to mean something ) 7 freaking NC’s ( I don’t care it’s been 23 years either, from a blue blood standpoint it’s from the time they have been playing the game until now but Oklahoma has still played for multiple ones since 2000 and have made 4 playoff appearances since its inception. Oklahoma and those 2 schools are in different stratospheres much less worth talking about in the same conversation.
@brandonringer7592
2 ай бұрын
@@DedHedRy FSU never finished outside the top 3 in the 90s. Has 2 National Championships in the last 30 years while OU has 1. (3 in 31 for FSU).... During that 93-00 stretch, FSU went to 5 National Championship games FSU is a blue blood now... Oregon not so much
@saldiven2009
2 ай бұрын
What is your definition of "modern era?" OSU is well into 1st place in winning percentage since 2001. Personally, even though I'm an older dude, I've never given much of a poop about stuff that happened 30+ years ago. That history doesn't have anything to do with who's gonna win this coming year. I don't think it's worthwhile or even healthy to cling to stuff my team did when I was a kid.
@JamesGlass-z7b
28 күн бұрын
@@brandonringer7592 i hate to tell u bro but fsu just isnt a blue blood they dont have the program history to be considered one
@brandonringer7592
25 күн бұрын
@@JamesGlass-z7b FSU never finished out of the top 3 from 88 to 2001... But tell me they are not a blue blood 😂
@michaelhapgood782
2 ай бұрын
Oregon is not a Blue Blood. History makes a Blue Blood.
@countryfriedhvac
2 ай бұрын
Oklahoma is definitely a Blue Blood program but they’re in danger of slipping off the cliff. They built their dynasty back in the 50s and 60s playing in the Big 8. In the SEC they’re in danger of becoming a South Carolina tier program.
@CiviTac
3 ай бұрын
I think you should have multiple nattys with multiple coaches. A winning percentage of .75 or greater, at least 10 conference championships and a top 10 brand evaluation. I also believe you should have Heisman in the mix too. Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia, USC (not sure about their winning percentage), LSU (new to the blue blood club), Florida State just to name a few
@tycardwell2991
3 ай бұрын
This title is moronic. People who have no memory of college football past the last 10 years have no business talking about who and who isn’t blue bloods
@kyletucker3811
3 ай бұрын
So what you're saying is your program hasn't done anything for the past 10 years? Got it.
@tycardwell2991
3 ай бұрын
@@kyletucker3811 how tf did you get that from my comment.
@tycardwell2991
3 ай бұрын
@@kyletucker3811 what I was saying is people who have no memory of college football past the last 10 years have no business talking about who and who isn’t blue bloods. Do you need me to state it again?
@kyletucker3811
3 ай бұрын
@@tycardwell2991Yes, because that really has no relevancy to the video or the current topic. And I can just as easily flip that and say anyone who is trying to reach to success back 30-40 years for programs that are no longer relevant, shouldn't be having an opinion on the subject either. And how I got it was fairly simple. You mentioned 10 years, it's a fairly odd number especially in the context of this conversation. To want to reach back only that far to me carries the implication that you probably are thinking of specific teams that saw success a bit further than 10 years but don't have much current relevance.
@tycardwell2991
3 ай бұрын
@@kyletucker3811 yes it does moron. Blue bloods by definition are historical programs. That’s why Nebraska is a blue blood. Like I said. Don’t try and argue with me if you have no idea what a blue blood is, it’s pointless.
@bryanmoore5616
2 ай бұрын
Bobby Bowden is second most winning coach ever, 87-01 FSU never finished outside the top 5, 3 championships, first ever playoff, last BCS champ, 13-0 last year, one of the highest nfl draft rates, nuff said, GO NOLES
@chestercarter6081
2 ай бұрын
My Father played against Ron Zook in high-school. He said hes the best athlete he ever saw in person. Anywho BOOMER SOONER 4LIFE
@danielclaudio7553
3 ай бұрын
Blue bloods Tier 1 Ohio state, Alabama, OU, Michigan Tier 2 ND, Texas, USC, Nebraska, Tennessee, FSU, LSU, GA Tier 3 Penn state, UF
@porterosbournejr.5083
2 ай бұрын
That’s a pretty accurate list.
@FredPitre-o4b
2 ай бұрын
Three of your tier 1 schools have a combined four national titles this century. We supposed to be impressed?
@wcfenderson5609
2 ай бұрын
Blue blood has no tier, it has a long history; either you are or not.
@danielclaudio7553
2 ай бұрын
@@FredPitre-o4b they are also the most consistent 🫡
@FredPitre-o4b
2 ай бұрын
@@wcfenderson5609 Blue bloods like Harvard, Yale and Penn.
@KlangerV
3 ай бұрын
Coaching changes are changes in eras…. It would be silly to think otherwise…
@Dr_Dan7982
3 ай бұрын
I’ll add Michigan to the blue blood group we can’t ignore the national championships they’ve had and they just won it recently
@Mike-sp7zv
3 ай бұрын
They didn't need a recent one to be a blue blood. That's not how that works
@johnnywebb2351
3 ай бұрын
Michigan is definitely a BB
@decojacksonjr2489
3 ай бұрын
Blue bloods are OG generational winners, in the history of college football (100 years is good barometer). Folks want to be included in conversation so try to include teams winning “recently”. Last 25-50 years would be more new blood than blue blood.
@porterosbournejr.5083
2 ай бұрын
Great discussion
@FLA813BMO
3 ай бұрын
Alabama, notre dame, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, Ohio state, usc, Nebraska, those are your current college football blue bloods. Let’s not try to change definitions.
@Mike-sp7zv
3 ай бұрын
I'd have Penn State on there to a lesser extent but that's the list.
@Noahdventure
3 ай бұрын
Kick Nebraska and notre dame off bc they are both embarrassing
@Mike-sp7zv
3 ай бұрын
@@Noahdventure how old are you?
@Noahdventure
3 ай бұрын
@@Mike-sp7zv 30
@KeyProphet_
3 ай бұрын
Exactly that’s the list we have to stop playing mental gymnastics
@OKG1979
3 ай бұрын
Multiple decades of winning championships, must still be relevant in the last 10 years. Dynasties of winning
@marcvslicinivscrassvs7536
Ай бұрын
Nebraska is on life support
@ALCanes73
2 ай бұрын
Blue Blood = Your program has a combination of some championship success on the field, a large number of successful NFL players that came from your school, national notoriety mainly for your football over at least a three decade period, and multiple other fan bases that hate you and actively take pleasure in your pain. Once a Blue Blood always a Blue Blood. ND is the original Blue Blood. All 3 big Florida schools are Blue Bloods. LSU Blue Blood. Oregon will be in once they win their 1st championship.
@fatsackafat1476
2 ай бұрын
You forgot Nebraska.
@mrmrsplummer3526
3 ай бұрын
No Oregon is not an blue blood yet. They need a title or two. True Blue bloods are the teams that move the needle in college football. It doesn't matter if they're down or not, they put in the work historically to make CFB what it is today.. "College football is better when ______ team is good".. That's why Notre Dame, Michigan Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Ohio State USC, Miami etc will always be considered Blue bloods because they move the needle. When these teams are good, college football is better because of the brands. Just lay the helmets out and you'll be able to pick the blue bloods..
@alainateitelbaum6336
2 ай бұрын
Minimum of 5 or 6 National championships over decades or multiple generations including since 2000, multiple heisman trophy winners, top winning records in cfb, going without more than 10 years of a slump and multiple hall of famers (coaches/players).
@briley2177
3 ай бұрын
Gotta start with what level of success differentiates teams experiencing periodic success and those who gets bestowed the “new-blood” label… then, determine what level of consistency, repetition, or sustained success transforms a “new-blood” into a “blue-blood.” It’s also worth considering what level of regression causes “blue-bloods” to become the powers of bygone eras.
@TristinKorinek
2 ай бұрын
Blue Bloods is overall historical importance and dominance. Nebraska STILL is a top 10 most winning program (more than Georgia), has more national championships than Georgia, and has more heisman than Georgia. But apparently that information doesnt matter. Since when does a bad decade throw the scale off for the comparison of georgia having 1 good decade compared to Nebraskas 5. Understandable if we arent a New Blood, but never disrespect the history of the teams that defined this sport. Also who played the greatest game of the century 🤔 oh thats right Oklahoma and Nebraska.
@bygeorgehemayberite8385
2 ай бұрын
Imho, I believe a true blood has to meet the criteria of both historical dominance & current relevance. For instance, Minnesota, Army, Yale, Harvard, Princeton all have historical dominance, but would hardly be considered currently relevant. On the other hand, u have programs like Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, ND who both been historically dominant & currently relevant. Then u have a group of teams that were not historically dominant, but hit a period of dominance only to fall off. Relevance is subjective, but I view relevance not so much as winning a Nat’l title, but in discussions of winning a Nat’l title every few years, or playing for NY6 bowl games. I don’t consider Oregon a blue blood as opposed to a new blood. I’m a Canes fan, & I don’t consider us a blue blood b/c we were SunTan U for decades, then dominated a 20 yr window from 1983-2003, only to go back to being Suntan U from 2004-present. Even if teams like Bama, Texas, SC etc. have down yrs, there’s still periods w/in those down years where they are vying for conference crowns, 10+ win seasons. I do think a blue blood can be removed like a Nebraska, for instance…but, if they get it going under Rhule, b/c of their historical relevance, they’ll be right back at the table.
@billjames1127
2 ай бұрын
Tennessee has 26 college football hall of famers 2 to only Oklahoma they could recruit before nil
@robertacosta1293
3 ай бұрын
Lmao Oregon isn’t a blue blood😂😂 there is 7 blue bloods
@goatiestgoat12
3 ай бұрын
Im 44, abd FSU has only had 3 losing seasons in my life, 14 str8 yrs finishing top 5, FSU is for sure
@wcfenderson5609
2 ай бұрын
Typical Millennial and Gen X (and any other letter) talking points, where they think the world was created in 2000. They don’t know any history. Probably think the forward pass was created in 1999, and leather helmets just became extinct. 😂
@Dr_Dan7982
3 ай бұрын
Alabama is really the only detention of a blue blood , they’ve won multiple rings in every new era. No other team can say that
@Mike-sp7zv
3 ай бұрын
Every new era? That's not how that works
@ROUGHNECK75
3 ай бұрын
🤡
@jalencampbell718
3 ай бұрын
Alabama is at the top but you're tripping if you think they're the only blue blood. Really the last 15-20 years is the only thing that puts alabama ahead of the pact outside of that it's relatively close between the top 8 schools
@Dr_Dan7982
3 ай бұрын
@@Mike-sp7zv I don’t speak for other teams. I’m talking about my team. Alabama is the true Blue Blood of college football. They’ve won multiple national championships in every new era , no other team has won three national championships in the BCS and CFP. AP was before my time , but Bama won even more .
@Mike-sp7zv
3 ай бұрын
@@Dr_Dan7982 ND is more blue blood than bama and I'm not a ND fan
@StripedSooner
3 ай бұрын
An actual outlet, trying to say a team that has NEVER won a national championship is a blue blood, is actually hilarious.
@kyletucker3811
3 ай бұрын
Did you even watch the video?
@SurferRC
3 ай бұрын
Lol oregon is not a blue blood or new blood! You have to win something first! Their logo tells you what they have won before…O!
@kyletucker3811
3 ай бұрын
I'm not sure who that dude thinks is trying to dodge the idea that Oregon is using NIL to try and win a championship. Most Oregon fans including myself basically go, "Yeah, and?". That's nothing new. And at least in terms of facilities and other things, we've never denied what we're trying to do. It's been going on for almost 25 years. Hate to break it to the people who want to say it's just because of Nike, no shit. That's like saying SEC schools and Ohio State, and USC wouldn't have been as successful without the hotbed of recruits in their backyards, and in the case of USC, the mystique of LA. Nike just happens to have been born on the UO Campus. Tough luck for everyone else. It's also not like those other traditional powers didn't and don't have their own rich donors that add up to the same as Phil Knight. He's just a lot more public.
@robertcotton9044
3 ай бұрын
Blue blood is what have you done for me lately (10 years) . Notre Dame,Nebraska, etc, I would consider them as legacy programs. If you look at this century and the last and it's pretty much the same teams and that's a fair competitive issue.
@darellspann6628
3 ай бұрын
Lol.. no it isn't just the last 10 years to be a Blueblood
@mark_a_vigil
2 ай бұрын
Your joking right. Over 100 hundred years of football and you wanna claim only the last 10 years less than 10% I'd what should decide Blue Blood status.
@robertcotton9044
Ай бұрын
@darellspann6628 ok tell Minnesota, Yale. Princeton, etc, are blue bloods, all multiple nattys"s
@robertcotton9044
Ай бұрын
@mark_a_vigil ok tell me Minnesota, Yale, etc, are blue bloods all have multiple Natty's
@Howhaveyouben
2 ай бұрын
Everyone knows Oregon Nike and some old white dude named Phil... Call us whatever we're here
@maxhill779
3 ай бұрын
If Oregon is paying you please just say that. Absolute joke of a network and an insult to the programs that have enjoyed historic success
@kyletucker3811
3 ай бұрын
🙄 Alright Fuck it I don't even want to be a blueblood if it comes with people this pretentious. New Blood all the way. Hate to break it to you, people are allowed to have high opinions on something that you don't agree with. And it doesn't mean they were paid. The fact you think it does speaks more negatively of your mindset then theirs even if you disagree with it. Because only a weak minded person comes to a conclusion that someone must be a schill because they have an opinion you don't like. In addition, just so ya know, success in college football is and always has been paid for. All those schools with historical success you're talking about, they paid just as much if not more than Oregon is. And they've had much deeper connections.
@maxhill779
2 ай бұрын
@@kyletucker3811 Oregon is an absolute poverty program when compared to the success of the Blue bloods. It’s completely absurd to merely suggest Oregon would be able to sniff the echelon of the blue bloods
@roger_butler
3 ай бұрын
@ Dr_Dan7982 stop being a homerist hater and expand some definitions
@TristinKorinek
2 ай бұрын
Idiotic list. LOOK AT NEBRASKAS STATS!!!!! 1 bad decade doesn't remove Nebraskas 50 years of dominance. Better stats than Georgia for sure 🙄. Your just so biased and don't want to do the research to see how Nebraska surprisingly still keeps up with these other jokes
@glenndj4215
3 ай бұрын
Define blueblood
@lucasjames5187
2 ай бұрын
Teams who have winning records for decades. As well the Amount of championships that come along with that.
@glenndj4215
2 ай бұрын
@@lucasjames5187 how many championships and you know 6-5 is a winning record.
@glenndj4215
2 ай бұрын
I don't think anybody has the same definition of blueblood
@lucasjames5187
2 ай бұрын
@@glenndj4215 6 or 5 is not a winning record. a winning record is actually 10 wins or more.
@glenndj4215
2 ай бұрын
@@lucasjames5187 where is that stated. I understood more wins than loses is a winning record
@fatsackafat1476
2 ай бұрын
Nebraska is a Blue Blood Andy, what a terrible take. They have 5 national titles and still one of the winningest programs in football history. Give me a break man.
Пікірлер: 132