Blue-Blood Programs in College Football

[stlnd01]

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.

Every blue blood has spent some years in the wilderness, few have spent as many as Nebraska’s current spell. They haven’t finished a season in the Top 10 since 2001. Maybe they come back, for the reasons you state. Maybe they don’t.

 

[Irish du Nord]

Nebraska is Pitt if they don’t have PEDs

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Interesting:

Yale has more wins than Nebraska

Harvard has more wins than UGA

Penn has more wins than USC and Tennessee

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

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.

The issue of fluidity is worth discussing but I do believe it will be difficult for any teams to really move up or lose their status as a blue blood considering if you factor in all the things you should, you still end up with about the same 8 teams far ahead of the next nearest pool of successful teams.

Obviously if you compute a rating or ranking using data then over time I can see those numbers leading to changes of the top tier maybe even expanding it.

 

[Irish2155]

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

I think you nailed it.

 

[Gladiator]

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.

They have 4 claimed NC's- 1942, 1980, 2021 and 2022. They are definitely not a Blue blood.
They just recently came back into the national conversation after Kirby took over.

 

[mrmcgrail]

Penn State only has 2

 

[Gladiator]

Penn State only has 2

They were ranked #2 behind Ohio State in 1942. They later claimed that title, kinda like Alabama has done multiple times.
Shows how the segregated south didn't get much credit back in those days for being foolish, and immature about the way people look.

 

[greyhammer90]

Speaking of titles, has Michigan inflated their title number? I do not remember them having 10 before 2024 but now I see they're claiming 11.

 

[IrishLax]

Every blue blood has spent some years in the wilderness, few have spent as many as Nebraska’s current spell. They haven’t finished a season in the Top 10 since 2001. Maybe they come back, for the reasons you state. Maybe they don’t.

Notre Dame's stretch of "irrelevance" was 1995 - 2005... a ten year stretch of being outside the Top 10ish. Then they had another stretch from 2007 to 2012 that was bad. So really ~17 years with a blip of relevancy under Weis.

Then from 2012 to now it has been sustained relevancy... ranked almost every year with a number of top 5 and top 10ish finishes.

Nebraska has been irrelevant since 2002. They are at 22 years without being a top 10 team and have one singular season where they ended up #14. This is unprecedented and if they end up at ~3 decades of being unranked then they are a "has been" not a "blue blood."

 

[Punky]

Notre Dame's stretch of "irrelevance" was 1995 - 2005... a ten year stretch of being outside the Top 10ish. Then they had another stretch from 2007 to 2012 that was bad. So really ~17 years with a blip of relevancy under Weis.

Then from 2012 to now it has been sustained relevancy... ranked almost every year with a number of top 5 and top 10ish finishes.

Nebraska has been irrelevant since 2002. They are at 22 years without being a top 10 team and have one singular season where they ended up #14. This is unprecedented and if they end up at ~3 decades of being unranked then they are a "has been" not a "blue blood."

The 5 seasons under Faust were nothing to write home about (30-26-1) and in the 4 years of Joe Kuharich (17-23), the Irish were downright putrid.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

UGA is 8 wins from 900 all time.

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

Right but Herbstreit said wins don’t matter & regardless of what all the millennials think the SEC (other than Bama of course) sucked before the BCS era.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

They have 4 claimed NC's- 1942, 1980, 2021 and 2022. They are definitely not a Blue blood.
They just recently came back into the national conversation after Kirby took over.

Agreed. Until Kirby, UGA was in a longer NC drought than ND & they had done nothing of note before 1980. I’m biased against Vince Dooley. He gets in the CFB HOF b/c of winning percentage but he wins nothing w/o Herschel Walker. I still remember his last game. It was a bowl vs Sparty & everyone knew it was his last game. Andre Rison went off but the refs made sure Dooley went out with a win.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Penn State only has 2

I hate PSU but have to admit they should’ve received a share of the title in 1994 w/ Nebraska. But wouldn’t count them as a blue blood as they earned all their cred under one HC. IMO, blue bloods sustained success under multiple HCs

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Penn State is 100% a New Blood, along with Georgia.

Reddit has many posters that seem to think the list updates as time goes on, where teams are replaced after long periods of futility (ex. IU Basketball being replaced by UCONN).

There are 8 CFB Blue Bloods, and their names are forever etched in stone.

The term Blue Blood doesn’t apply simply to success, it’s a huge brand that cultivated and shaped the landscape of college football in its hey day, and has a level of prestige based on both success and branding.

Think nationally: if a team like Tennessee has a shitty season, it pleases a few other fanbases in the South, nobody else cares.

If a team like Bama or ND has a shitty season, it pleases EVERY other fanbase, because everybody else cares.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irish4life]

I think of all the ways to say it, this is the best

 

[Irish du Nord]

Let’s add another non-blue blood:
UGA

 

[Bishop2b5]

I think you can move into blue blood status, but - and a BIG but - it takes a LONG time. It takes decades of sustained success and national titles won by multiple HC's. A decade of dominance under one HC doesn't do it. You have to have the sort of sustained, long-term success that makes you a national brand, that carries over beyond just a few years or one or two coaching regimes. Nobody has done it yet in several decades. UGA, Miami, FSU, LSU and others have taken a few steps in that direction in the past few decades, but are still a long way from reaching blue blood status. I don't really see anyone else joining the club with the top 8, let alone the top 4 bluebloods, but I think it's theoretically possible.

 

[IrishLax]

I think of all the ways to say it, this is the best

Yeah this is good, and Nebraska teetering on that "old blood" designation with Pitt.

 

[Classic Irish]

I will not acknowledge southern cal as a blue blood. And yes that’s because I hate that school with the intensity of 1,000 suns.

 

[OhioIrish]

I just do not consider OSU a blue-blood. Too much success is recent and they just lack something that is hard to define . . . it’s just a very Mickey Mouse program. Also, worst fanbase in sports.

 

[stlnd01]

I just do not consider OSU a blue-blood. Too much success is recent and they just lack something that is hard to define . . . it’s just a very Mickey Mouse program. Also, worst fanbase in sports.

I mean, they are a Mickey Mouse low-class fanbase, no doubt. And I've never met an Ohio State fan who didn't either go there or grow up in Ohio. They lack the aura and charm of Notre Dame, USC, Bama, even Michigan.
But they are probably the most consistently successful program in post-World War Two college football. Every other blue blood has had periods of wandering the darkness, but Ohio State never really has. Since Woody Hayes arrived in 1951, Ohio State's only had a losing record four times. They've won the Big Ten 40 times, and claim titles in six decades, with a seventh maybe coming later this month.
I don't like them either. But it's hard to argue with the results.

 

[BilboBaggins]

I just do not consider OSU a blue-blood. Too much success is recent and they just lack something that is hard to define . . . it’s just a very Mickey Mouse program. Also, worst fanbase in sports.

That hard to define thing is called bias lol

Ohio State is without question a blue blood. They've spent more weeks ranked in the top 25 than any program, third-most weeks in the top five, and they've never really had a "down decade" in modern times. They've pretty much always been good since the 1940s.

They have a really good argument for #2 behind Alabama.

Depending on the parameters, the blue bloodshed are:

1) Alabama
2) Ohio State
3) Oklahoma
4) Michigan
5) Notre Dame
6) USC

And if you wanted to stretch the parameters a little bit, you add 7) Texas and 8) Nebraska.

Then you have the clear tier below with Penn State, Miami, Florida, Florida State, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, and UCLA. UCLA and Auburn get the eye rolls, but in weeks ranked and weeks in the top 5, they're right there.

 

[Irish du Nord]

I think you can move into blue blood status, but - and a BIG but - it takes a LONG time. It takes decades of sustained success and national titles won by multiple HC's. A decade of dominance under one HC doesn't do it. You have to have the sort of sustained, long-term success that makes you a national brand, that carries over beyond just a few years or one or two coaching regimes. Nobody has done it yet in several decades. UGA, Miami, FSU, LSU and others have taken a few steps in that direction in the past few decades, but are still a long way from reaching blue blood status. I don't really see anyone else joining the club with the top 8, let alone the top 4 bluebloods, but I think it's theoretically possible.

Top 4 being Bama, ND, Michigan, Southern Cal?

 

[OhioIrish]

That hard to define thing is called bias.

Ohio State is without question a blue blood. They've spent more weeks ranked in thr top 25 than any program, third-most weeks in the top five, and they've never really had a "down decade" in modern times. They've pretty much always been good since the 1940s. Is that recent enough for you?

They have a really good argument for #2 behind Alabama.

Depending on the parameters, the blue bloodshed are:

1) Alabama
2) Ohio State
3) Oklahoma
4) Michigan
5) Notre Dame
6) USC

And if you wanted to stretch the parameters a little bit, you add 7) Texas and 8) Nebraska.

Then you have the clear tier below with Penn State, Miami, Florida, Florida State, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, and UCLA. UCLA and Auburn get the eye rolls, but in weeks ranked and weeks in the top 5, they're right there.

They definitely have stats, no question. But, those are somewhat inflated, imo, because over the past 20 years they have often feasted on a weak Big 10. During that stretch they have not been a better program than Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma, or even Florida St. They pile up wins, but they are often embarrassed in matchups against that elite group. OSU has seen its branding explode since Tressel, much of their blue-blood status is based on branding perception, not reality. Prior to Tressel they went 32 years without a National Championship - so I don’t agree at all that they have been consistently great. Also, to me, blue bloods have legendary stories and characters, OSU doesn’t really have that — they have Archie, Woody, a big stadium, and a large nut for a mascot. If they are a blue blood, they are a paper blue-blood.

A quick note on bias, I am an OSU grad and have lived in Columbus for 20 years. Perhaps I have bias, but I have also watched the program fairly closely.

 

[OhioIrish]

I mean, they are a Mickey Mouse low-class fanbase, no doubt. And I've never met an Ohio State fan who didn't either go there or grow up in Ohio. They lack the aura and charm of Notre Dame, USC, Bama, even Michigan.
But they are probably the most consistently successful program in post-World War Two college football. Every other blue blood has had periods of wandering the darkness, but Ohio State never really has. Since Woody Hayes arrived in 1951, Ohio State's only had a losing record four times. They've won the Big Ten 40 times, and claim titles in six decades, with a seventh maybe coming later this month.
I don't like them either. But it's hard to argue with the results.

Fair. I think the one factor that I couldn’t identify is that they have never really had a dynasty — a period where there were the dominant program. They always seem to be 3rd or 4th best, which does result in some gaudy stats over time. I think I just need to see a dynasty from my blue bloods.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Top 4 being Bama, ND, Michigan, Southern Cal?

I'd probably replace UM or SC with Ohio St.

 

[NDRock]

I'd probably replace UM or SC with Ohio St.

UM it is.

 

[BilboBaggins]

Top 4 being Bama, ND, Michigan, Southern Cal?

I don't know someone can not have a top six for blue bloods. No real way to break it down to top four. It's probably a top eight with everyone questioning if Nebraska is still deserving.

My understanding is the term blue bloods was created in the 1980s go differentiate the old programs that dominated the 1940s-1970s, and the new kids on the block (Georgia, Miami, Penn State).

 

[LifelongFan]

Blue bloods need to have massive success under multiple head coaches and a certain aura. I think those 8 are a fine list but leaving off Nebraska makes sense. I think Pedo State could be a blue blood, but they'd need a least a mini-dynasty soon. Paterno (who knew), Bowden, Fulmer, those guys were their programs while blue bloods can have a Saban and still be bigger than that coach. I also think a Miami dynasty would put them in the UConn basketball new blue blood tier.