Blue-Blood Programs in College Football

[Terry Jillery]

I couldn’t find another thread on this, so I thought it’d be fun to dive in! The concept of “blue blood” programs is often debated—who belongs, who doesn’t, and what makes a program deserving of the title.


If we’re talking potential future blue bloods, Georgia and Clemson are the first that come to mind to me due to recency bias, but if LSU (5 titles) replaces Kelly I could see them joining over Nebraska (4). Sorry, Yale. I do think Georgia with 4 championships has a good argument and it does span from the 40’s until today.

I’d rank top 8, in no order

Notre Dame
Alabama
Michigan
Ohio State
USC

Texas
Oklahoma
Nebraska

Considerations someday…
Penn State
Georgia
LSU
Miami
FSU
Florida
Clemson

 

[stlnd01]

I think Georgia’s an interesting conversation. Agree on all the others.

But one question: At what point does Nebraska fall out? Or is being a blue blood like having descendants who came over on the Mayflower? Something you always have.

 

[greyhammer90]

There can be no new bluebloods. Clemson and UGA may have better football programs than Nebraska but they will never be bluebloods. They are new money. Bluebloods are Rockefeller.

The two closest to blueblood status based on history and prestige is probably Penn State and Tennessee, but they don't quite clear the bar.

 

[Terry Jillery]

I think Georgia’s an interesting conversation. Agree on all the others.

But one question: At what point does Nebraska fall out? Or is being a blue blood like having descendants who came over on the Mayflower? Something you always have.

Agree. Georgia is knocking on the door. Especially bc I don’t see Nebraska ever coming back for a variety of reasons.

Whether Georgia qualifies as a “blue blood” is a fascinating debate. With national championships dating back to 1942, a dominant modern era under Kirby Smart, and a rabid fan base, they’ve built a case. However, “blue blood” status often involves sustained excellence over decades, not just championship wins. Programs like Alabama, Notre Dame, and Ohio State have consistently remained elite across eras, which some might argue Georgia hasn’t achieved until recently.

That said, Georgia is arguably knocking on the door, especially after back-to-back championships in 2021 and 2022.

Top 8 Blue Blood Programs (My Take):

These are programs with iconic histories, sustained success, and cultural impact:

1. Alabama – Dominant across multiple eras, including the modern Nick Saban dynasty.

2. Notre Dame – A global brand, historic dominance, and 13 national titles.

3. Ohio State – A perennial powerhouse with 8 titles and dominance in the Big Ten.

4. Michigan – Most all-time wins, 11 titles, and rich tradition.

5. USC – The kings of the West Coast, with 11 titles and Heisman winners galore.

6. Oklahoma – A storied program with 7 titles and consistent dominance since the 1950s.

7. Texas – Rich history, 4 titles, and enormous influence in the sport.

8. Nebraska – 5 titles and an iconic legacy, especially during the Tom Osborne years.

Honorable Mentions (Just Outside Top 8):

1. Georgia – Rising quickly with 4 titles and modern dominance. They could break into the top 8 with sustained success.

2. LSU – 4 titles, a historic program with modern prominence under Saban, Miles, and Orgeron.

3. Miami (FL) – A modern-era powerhouse with 5 titles but less history before the 1980s.

4. Florida State – 3 titles and a dominant run under Bobby Bowden.

5. Penn State – Two titles but a consistent presence in the national conversation.

Conclusion:

Georgia is on the cusp of becoming a blue blood, but they’ll need sustained success to match the historical consistency of the programs in the top 8. If they dominate the next decade like Alabama has under Saban, they’ll firmly secure their spot. Would you place them in the top 8 now, or wait to see if their success continues?

If I’m Miami I hire Deion. I don’t necessarily think he’s great but the money and recruiting would be silly. They could get a 6th.

 

[IA4irish]

I think Georgia’s an interesting conversation. Agree on all the others.

But one question: At what point does Nebraska fall out? Or is being a blue blood like having descendants who came over on the Mayflower? Something you always have.

Recency bias, but I’d put lsu or Georgia in over Nebraska. I’m from the Midwest so I understand Nebraska’s history. We are approaching a quarter century of mediocrity. Nebraska would kill for ND’s last twenty years. I don’t see them getting it back either. Too much has changed in the game

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

I always thought of Penn St as a blue blood.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

UGA is 8 wins from 900 all time.

ND
Michigan
USC
Ohio State
Alabama
Oklahoma
Texas
Nebraska
Georgia
Penn State

 

[greyhammer90]

I always thought of Penn St as a blue blood.

They're not considered blue blood by most. This thread is suffering greatly from recency bias. There was a chart that went around a few years ago that showed the gap between the 8 bluebloods and everyone else in wins/championships/conference championships/etc. I'll try to find it, but it showed that the gap is huge between bluebloods and tier 2.

 

[Terry Jillery]

They're not considered blue blood by most. This thread is suffering greatly from recency bias. There was a chart that went around a few years ago that showed the gap between the 8 bluebloods and everyone else in wins/championships/conference championships/etc. I'll try to find it, but it showed that the gap is huge between bluebloods and tier 2.

Even though they’re still good, I’m don’t know if I agree that the following top 5 represent recency bias. Especially USC.

Notre Dame
Alabama
Michigan
Ohio State
USC

 

[Terry Jillery]

The crazy thing is, in my opinion, the best three programs historically—Notre Dame, Michigan, and Ohio State—are all within a 250-mile radius. That tight proximity makes their rivalries and dominance even more incredible.

 

[IrishLax]

I would argue that both Texas and Oklahoma are blueblood but Nebraska is not. It is possible to lose blue blood status and they have for the same reason Army, Navy, Harvard, etc. are no longer considered powers when mid-century they would be considered "blue bloods."

 

[Henges24]

The crazy thing is, in my opinion, the best three programs historically—Notre Dame, Michigan, and Ohio State—are all within a 250-mile radius. That tight proximity makes their rivalries and dominance even more incredible.

Industrial revolution progression in the midwest could probably be a contributor to this

 

[Terry Jillery]

Industrial revolution progression in the midwest could probably be a contributor to this

That’s a great point. I’m a history buff and for some reason never really considered it. Industrial Revolution likely played an indirect role as Midwest became a hub of population growth and wealth, creating large alumni bases and regional pride that fueled support for college football. Proximity to industrial centers provided resources and funding, while the development of railroads enabled travel and early rivalries. A cultural mix from immigrant communities in the region probably helped shape the programs into the iconic “blue bloods” they are. Love it.

 

[Terry Jillery]

There can be no new bluebloods. Clemson and UGA may have better football programs than Nebraska but they will never be bluebloods. They are new money. Bluebloods are Rockefeller.

The two closest to blueblood status based on history and prestige is probably Penn State and Tennessee, but they don't quite clear the bar.

Then what about Yale and Harvard? What if Georgia wins 3 more and has 7? Or Miami hires the next Saban and has 12? I don’t see Nebraska ever coming back. It’s just not a place to be. ND, Michigan, Ohio State have significantly more resources, proximity to major cities, and a nationwide network of fans. Not to mention ND represents more than football and is literally worldwide. I LOVE the state of Tennessee, but they are still just a landlocked mountain state on the way to the north or south.

 

[ShamrockOnHelmet]

There are periods where Yale, Army and Minnesota were truly dominant, but they’ve never returned and never will. I very much see Nebraska becoming one of them. In my mind they already are, though I know some want to keep them in the conversation.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

 

[CANONIZEFATHERSORIN]

I think Georgia’s an interesting conversation. Agree on all the others.

But one question: At what point does Nebraska fall out? Or is being a blue blood like having descendants who came over on the Mayflower? Something you always have.

I feel like you can fall out (eg Minnesota, Yale) and Nebraska probably already has

 

[Irish2155]

Honest question because when I hear blue blood, I think college hoops. Do you think IU basketball as a blue blood anymore? They have the banners like similar to ND, but continue to be in turmoil like Nebraska.

 

[Irish#1]

There can be no new bluebloods. Clemson and UGA may have better football programs than Nebraska but they will never be bluebloods. They are new money. Bluebloods are Rockefeller.

The two closest to blueblood status based on history and prestige is probably Penn State and Tennessee, but they don't quite clear the bar.

Greyhammer nailed it. There can be no more bluebloods. You had to join a long time ago.

Looking at Cack’s chart, the issue I see is bowl games. ND always turned down bowl games until 1969.

 

[Huntr]

There is no debate. There is only the chart. This needs to be updated, but the underlying truth hasn't changed. There are 8 cfb bluebloods and there will never be more than that.

 

[Gladiator]

I couldn’t find another thread on this, so I thought it’d be fun to dive in! The concept of “blue blood” programs is often debated—who belongs, who doesn’t, and what makes a program deserving of the title.


If we’re talking potential future blue bloods, Georgia and Clemson are the first that come to mind to me due to recency bias, but if LSU (5 titles) replaces Kelly I could see them joining over Nebraska (4). Sorry, Yale. I do think Georgia with 4 championships has a good argument and it does span from the 40’s until today.

I’d rank top 8, in no order

Notre Dame
Alabama
Michigan
Ohio State
USC

Texas
Oklahoma
Nebraska

Considerations someday…
Penn State
Georgia
LSU
Miami
FSU
Florida
Clemson

Graphic: College Football Blue Blood Tiers


I tend to believe Penn State Is above Oklahoma. Blue bloods are the old school most winningest and hardest programs, regardless of their coaching changes. PSU lost a lot of credibility through that end of the Paterno era and rightfully so.

If anything, they should be at the top tier with Oklahoma

 

[Irish du Nord]

I’ll tell you who’s for sure not a blue blood:
Penn fucking State

 

[Irish du Nord]

Graphic: College Football Blue Blood Tiers


I tend to believe Penn State Is above Oklahoma. Blue bloods are the old school wing and hard nosed programs that are always supposed to win, regardless of their coaching changes. PSU lost a lot of credibility through that end of thePaterno era and rightfully so.

If anything, they should be at the top tier with Oklahoma

Oklahoma has the longest winning streak in CFB history

 

[Irish#1]

Oklahoma has the longest winning streak in CFB history

And I know who ended it.

 

[Gladiator]

There is no debate. There is only the chart. This needs to be updated, but the underlying truth hasn't changed. There are 8 cfb bluebloods and there will never be more than that.


View attachment 3057659

ND and Bama are 1-2. Everyone else Is lower.
ND Is the Yankees, Cowboys of CFB.

We self reported some disciplinary education infractions and lost the winningest team percentage as well.
UM loves to act like they are the real winner of that stat. It should have an asterisk.

We still won all of those games.

 

[Terry Jillery]

There is no debate. There is only the chart. This needs to be updated, but the underlying truth hasn't changed. There are 8 cfb bluebloods and there will never be more than that.


View attachment 3057659

Sorry I can’t agree with any chart that has OU at the top, regardless of its slanted reasoning.

 

[Terry Jillery]

Greyhammer nailed it. There can be no more bluebloods. You had to join a long time ago.

Looking at Cack’s chart, the issue I see is bowl games. ND always turned down bowl games until 1969.

If there can be no more that means there can be no less. Yale and Harvard fell out. So if no more is the logic, someone could win 40 NC’s over the next 200 years and Nebraska still deserves to be in. If we are talking in the moment right now, fair argument. But I can’t understand a finality argument.

 

[greyhammer90]

If there can be no more that means there can be no less. Yale and Harvard fell out. So if that’s the logic, someone could win 40 NC’s over the next 200 years and Nebraska still deserves to be in. If we are talking in the moment right now, fair argument.

You keep using this argument, but I don't believe Yale or Harvard were ever bluebloods. Blueblood is not a "tier" nor a changing honorary title. It's a virtually permanent description of certain teams' performance in a certain time period. That's why it won't change. Someone saying Clemson is "knocking on the door" is the equivalent of saying "FDR and Lincoln were great presidents, I think they should be considered founding fathers." It doesn't work that way.

Georgia could win the next twenty championships, each with undefeated seasons. They would be the most successful program ever, and they would not be a blueblood.

 

[Terry Jillery]

You keep using this argument, but I don't believe Yale or Harvard were ever bluebloods. Blueblood is not a "tier" nor a changing honorary title. It's a virtually permanent description of certain teams' performance in a certain time period. That's why it won't change. Someone saying Clemson is "knocking on the door" is the equivalent of saying "FDR and Lincoln were great presidents, I think they should be considered founding fathers." It doesn't work that way.

Georgia could win the next twenty championships, each with undefeated seasons. They would be the most successful program ever, and they would not be a blueblood.

If being a blue blood means being a founding father, then I can agree with that. I didn’t think of it that way before. By that definition, someone like FDR wouldn’t qualify—he’s more associated with creating the welfare state, attempting to pack the Supreme Court, and challenging aspects of the U.S. Constitution, far removed from the founding principles.

But I’ve always viewed ‘blue blood’ as a more fluid concept, tied to consistent historical greatness rather than rigid origins. I don’t know what the true definition of a blue blood is, but to me, it’s about sustained excellence and influence over time, not necessarily being there from the very beginning.

 

[tussin]

Nebraska is a blue blood and anyone who is saying they won’t get it back because the “game has changed too much” is wrong. They will benefit from all the recent changes that have negated the SEC and added more parity across the sport. They have A+ facilities, a rabid fanbase, and significant NIL resources. Sleeping giant and it’s just a matter of getting the right coach.