ESPN says there are 8 Blue Bloods in College Football

[PHXIowaClub]

We were talking about Elite Schools vs Blue Bloods in another thread and found it very interesting. ESPN (i know....espn) has an article out today with their 8 Blue Blood programs and list every college football team in order.

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...rojans-lead-list-college-football-blue-bloods

 

[BirdistheWord]

Hard to argue with our spot at #30. We have had some consistently good teams through stretches, but lack the recent NC or Rose Bowl wins. BCS win certainly helps. Not being a "sexy" team probably drops us 3-5 spots.

 

[GobysHawk]

4 in the top 10! B1G representing!!!

 

[EZ2BJZ]

Not too many surprises and all seem legit. However, I was a little surprised that Michigan State was ranked that high. I know they won a title in the 1960s, but they've had many years of futility since that time. I remember them going to one Rose Bowl in the 1980s with Lorenzo White, but none after that time until just recently. They must have given the real recent era a lot of weight when determining MSU's ranking.

 

[cmhawks99]

Not too many surprises and all seem legit. However, I was a little surprised that Michigan State was ranked that high. I know they won a title in the 1960s, but they've had many years of futility since that time. I remember them going to one Rose Bowl in the 1980s with Lorenzo White, but none after that time until just recently. They must have given the real recent era a lot of weight when determining MSU's ranking.

I only briefly looked at the list but I've personally always considered there to be 14 or 15... all teams that historically regardless of record sign top tier recruits even though the results vary.

 

[TKingpin]

I was thinking about this the other day, I came up with 10: all 3 Florida Schools, 'Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Notre Dame, Michigan and Ohio State. Now, Nebraska and PSU used to be in that class, but I think they are a wrung below that. Ditto UCLA, who has fallen off in the last 10 years. A few programs are on the rise, but still not there, yet with Oregon, Stanford and MSU. LSU is kind of in between there, IMHO. Not quite blue-blood and yet a step above the others. I could be convinced that they should be in the blue bloods.

Georgia: have they been elite since Hershel Walker? Great program, but not quite blue blood. With all the advantages they have in that state ... shouldn't they be better? I suppose Texas may have the same argument, but at least they won it all 11 years ago.

 

[hexumhawk]

It is a weird list that is for sure. Think Nebraska is too high as they are on the decent and you could make the argument for MSU, Iowa, Wisky to be interchangeable. All 3 programs have had great stretches and then bad periods.

 

[HawkAttackDial911]

I was thinking about this the other day, I came up with 10: all 3 Florida Schools, 'Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Notre Dame, Michigan and Ohio State. Now, Nebraska and PSU used to be in that class, but I think they are a wrung below that. Ditto UCLA, who has fallen off in the last 10 years. A few programs are on the rise, but still not there, yet with Oregon, Stanford and MSU. LSU is kind of in between there, IMHO. Not quite blue-blood and yet a step above the others. I could be convinced that they should be in the blue bloods.

Georgia: have they been elite since Hershel Walker? Great program, but not quite blue blood. With all the advantages they have in that state ... shouldn't they be better? I suppose Texas may have the same argument, but at least they won it all 11 years ago.

Solid list right there

TIER 1: Florida, Florida St., Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio St.
TIER 2: Nebraska, PSU, Oregon, Stanford, MSU, LSU, Georgia, Auburn, Clemson, Miami
TIER 3: UCLA, Texas A&M, Tennessee
TIER 4: Washington, Wisky, Iowa, Arkansas, TCU, Ole Miss, Utah, BYU,

To me, tier 3 and tier 4 gets murky.

 

[td77]

Solid list right there

TIER 1: Florida, Florida St., Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio St.



To me, tier 3 and tier 4 gets murky.

Glad you took Miami out. They aren't Tier 1 with only about 15 years of glory.

My overall ranking might go as follows:

Bama
ND
OSU
USC
Oklahoma
Michigan
Texas
FSU
Florida

 

[Alum-Ni]

Solid list right there

TIER 1: Florida, Florida St., Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio St.
TIER 2: Nebraska, PSU, Oregon, Stanford, MSU, LSU, Georgia, Auburn, Clemson, Miami
TIER 3: UCLA, Texas A&M, Tennessee
TIER 4: Washington, Wisky, Iowa, Arkansas, TCU, Ole Miss, Utah, BYU,

To me, tier 3 and tier 4 gets murky.

The list looks good, but curious what makes Michigan Tier 1? They have a lot of wins, but not a lot of titles, especially recently. Is Stanford really a Tier 2 program?

 

[whatsup13579er]

MSU and Oregon are given way too much clout for their recent success. Look at the history of Oregon football minus the last 15 years.

 

[Air Force Husker]

Not sure why Florida is considered Tier 1.

 

[milehighhawkeye24]

List seems pretty legit if you look at the whole body of work throughout the entire history of each program. I think with another good year this year, Iowa passes a few of these teams and cracks the top 25 because some of the teams ahead of us are trending down (Wisconin, Va Tech, Ga Tech) Pitt, BYU and Wash will be OK this year so kind of stagnent and it appears (and my hope is) Iowa is surging in the upward trend. Simply because we have some pretty strong returning older players along with several true freshman that impressive (cracking the lineup) and then include a very very good class 2017....I am hoping we have a good stretch like 2002-2005 and learn from mistakes from that time and just keep on winning

 

[thewop]

If the list were from the 90's, or even really until the Mid-2000's, Nebraska would be in, but not after the past 15 years they've put together. Now that recruits today don't remember Nebraska being dominant, it's most likely Nebraska and Iowa will duke it out annually for upper tier status, but not blue blood status.

 

[MepoDawg#]

Not sure why Florida is considered Tier 1.

Exactly, I was thinking the same. No way they're Tier 1.

 

[cmhawks99]

First and foremost my list has always been as a comparison to Iowa for recruiting advantages and I agree UCLA really hasn't been dominant for 30+ years. I also understand why Michigan is included and why Nebraska should be lower, Nebraska is an elite program but they're not the blue blood as far as recruiting goes.

Nor is Penn State as good a program as they have historically been. I didn't read ESPN's criteria, I don't care for them nor do I care for any of their propaganda even if I agree with it.

But, "this" ideology is something I've spent a lot of time researching and studying in past years. In recent years I've kind of let some of that go but here's where I'm coming from...

First & foremost if you go and look at records over the last 40-ish years Ohio State & Georgia have basically really never had several bad seasons, Alabama has, Tennessee has, Michigan has, USC has, Texas, etc. etc. etc.

Furthermore nobody pumps more people into the NFL than Georgia with the exception of LSU so clearly they both are the bluest of the blue bloods! Yes championships are important but honestly and I can't believe I'm saying this out loud because I'm as competitive as the next guy, but quite frankly there's too much emphasis on that and not enough on consistency in being a pipeline of consistent talent.

Miami also has to be considered because really over the last 40 years there's not been a better program starting in the early 80s to the early 2000's they were the dominant team in college football. They also are in the third most talent rich state. So of course you have the three Florida schools and you have Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee because again they are one of those top five or eight programs record wise and they've always had great talent regardless of the record. Auburn is right there on the Fringe of course Texas I'd probably also have to add Texas A&M because again they are in Texas then of course USC then of course you have Notre Dame, Ohio State and Michigan. Notre Dame and Michigan being two of the very very few teams may be the only teams that can consistently recruit nationally! Then of course you have Oklahoma that just as well be in Texas! And LSU which produces copious amounts of talent that typically stays in state!

 

[cmhawks99]

PS… Of those 15th the only two that are really debatable would be A&M & Auburn both of which typically have way more recruiting advantages than the rest of the world outside of UCLA that again is on the Fringe but just doesn't recruit like USC historically has.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

LOL at Nebraska in the Top Tier! PLEASE KEEP FEEDING THEM THIS LINE, ESPN! It makes watching the implosion when their inflated egos are popped every year all the more spectacular.

 

[HawkAttackDial911]

MSU and Oregon are given way too much clout for their recent success. Look at the history of Oregon football minus the last 15 years.

I think you have to look at their history, how they've trended recently, and how they project in the future. You may be correct on MSU but Oregon's Nike money isn't going away anytime soon. They're most likely going to stick in the upper echelon for the foreseeable future.

 

[HawkAttackDial911]

Not sure why Florida is considered Tier 1.

Solid history (3 national championships in the last 20 years), recruiting advantages, and a solid fan base. With a solid head coach they're a perennial top 15 team just because they can recruit so easily.

 

[HawkAttackDial911]

The list looks good, but curious what makes Michigan Tier 1? They have a lot of wins, but not a lot of titles, especially recently. Is Stanford really a Tier 2 program?

Just my opinion. Michigan has a solid history, a great fan base, and can recruit nationally. They're also trending up. They'll have success under Harbaugh. Stanford has had a lot of recent success and are trending up as well.

 

[Air Force Husker]

If the list were from the 90's, or even really until the Mid-2000's, Nebraska would be in, but not after the past 15 years they've put together. Now that recruits today don't remember Nebraska being dominant, it's most likely Nebraska and Iowa will duke it out annually for upper tier status, but not blue blood status.

Disagree. We were pretty decent in the 70's (2X national Champs) and a good streak of 9 game winning seasons from then up into the 2000's. The "Scoring Explosion" in the 80's and a couple Top 5 postings as well. We really didn't become a real football school to Devaney came to Nebraska in 62.

 

[Air Force Husker]

Solid history (3 national championships in the last 20 years), recruiting advantages, and a solid fan base. With a solid head coach they're a perennial top 15 team just because they can recruit so easily.

For past 20 + years I agree with you. But before that ... not so much. I would say to be a member of the "Blue Blood" your history should show up beginning before or around the 60's. I know Michigan and Notre Dame have been playing football since ... forever. But besides Spurrier's Heisman in the 60's, what else have they done ?? It wasn't till Spurrier came back to coach that they came back to prominence.

I would leave them on the border .. but that's just me.

 

[DarkThunder#61]

Not sure why Florida is considered Tier 1.

Yeah, they're more of a new face. Has a lot to do with their SEC dominance in the 90s and 00s. But if that's all they're going off of then Nebraska should at least be the very next team out on the list.

I enjoy watching Nebraska have to deal with life amongst the peasants (since 2002), but that doesn't erase what they did for the better part of their 120+ years of football.

It's the same difference in saying Miami is elite because they were great for a 20 year stretch.....

 

[DarkThunder#61]

I should also note that I think the word we're all searching for is "team prestige", for a little throwback to the EA NCAA football games.....that they need to bring back you're welcome.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I don't know about Texas being that high. Yes, if this was 1970. but it is not.

 

[Hoosker Du]

LOL at Nebraska in the Top Tier! PLEASE KEEP FEEDING THEM THIS LINE, ESPN! It makes watching the implosion when their inflated egos are popped every year all the more spectacular.

You are obviously new to college football. Not only should Nebraska be in the Top 8, but with 5 national titles vs Michigan's 2, Nebraska should be ahead of Michigan. Yes, I know Michigan has the most wins ever, but Nebraska is #4 on that list.

Over the history of college football, Nebraska and Texas are on very similar planes. Nebraska has more national titles (5 vs 4), but Texas has maybe 10 more wins than Nebraska.

On most of these lists, Nebraska is either #6 or #7.

 

[Hoosker Du]

Disagree. We were pretty decent in the 70's (2X national Champs) and a good streak of 9 game winning seasons from then up into the 2000's. The "Scoring Explosion" in the 80's and a couple Top 5 postings as well. We really didn't become a real football school to Devaney came to Nebraska in 62.

Sorry, you are absolutely wrong. The only decade Nebraska wasn't a football school was the '50s. We were very good prior to that time, and still have won the most games in college football during the last 50 years.

 

[Air Force Husker]

Sorry, you are absolutely wrong. The only decade Nebraska wasn't a football school was the '50s. We were very good prior to that time, and still have won the most games in college football during the last 50 years.

What National Championships did Nebraska win before Devaney got there??

 

[PCBHAWK]

Glad you took Miami out. They aren't Tier 1 with only about 15 years of glory.

My overall ranking might go as follows:

Bama
ND
OSU
USC
Oklahoma
Michigan
Texas
FSU
Florida

Florida and FSU should not be on the list. They both have no history prior to 1980

 

[blockm2]

You are obviously new to college football. Not only should Nebraska be in the Top 8, but with 5 national titles vs Michigan's 2, Nebraska should be ahead of Michigan. Yes, I know Michigan has the most wins ever, but Nebraska is #4 on that list.

Over the history of college football, Nebraska and Texas are on very similar planes. Nebraska has more national titles (5 vs 4), but Texas has maybe 10 more wins than Nebraska.

On most of these lists, Nebraska is either #6 or #7.

My problem with lists of "all time" is when they restrict criteria to certain periods. Michigan has 2 national titles? Sure, according to the AP poll. But a bunch more if you want to include "all time". Heck, even the AP era is flawed. Look at 1947. Michigan went 10-0 and beat USC 49-0 in the Rose Bowl, but back in those days the "final" AP poll was prior to the bowl games and Notre Dame got the "national title" from the AP poll despite Michigan being more dominant against common opponents. After the bowl games, the pollsters felt compelled to take a new poll and vote Michigan #1. But we still count that season for Notre Dame and not Michigan? WTF?

Michigan didn't lose a game from 1901-1904 and just slaughtered opponents by margins of 100+ points. Was it a long ass time ago and a different game than today? Of course. But so were games in the 50s and 40s and 30s.

If you want to talk "all time", then go "all time" and don't filter the data to only include the portion you want.

 

[terrehawk]

LOL at Nebraska in the Top Tier! PLEASE KEEP FEEDING THEM THIS LINE, ESPN! It makes watching the implosion when their inflated egos are popped every year all the more spectacular.

I rarely agree with anything that comes out of your mouth but I do agree with this. Why don't they just go ahead and put Minnesota on the list if they're going to put Nebraska on?

 

[terrehawk]

LOL at Nebraska in the Top Tier! PLEASE KEEP FEEDING THEM THIS LINE, ESPN! It makes watching the implosion when their inflated egos are popped every year all the more spectacular.

I rarely agree with anything that comes out of your mouth but I do agree with this. Why don't they just go ahead and put Minnesota on the list if they're going to put Nebraska on?

 

[Hoosker Du]

My problem with lists of "all time" is when they restrict criteria to certain periods. Michigan has 2 national titles? Sure, according to the AP poll. But a bunch more if you want to include "all time". Heck, even the AP era is flawed. Look at 1947. Michigan went 10-0 and beat USC 49-0 in the Rose Bowl, but back in those days the "final" AP poll was prior to the bowl games and Notre Dame got the "national title" from the AP poll despite Michigan being more dominant against common opponents. After the bowl games, the pollsters felt compelled to take a new poll and vote Michigan #1. But we still count that season for Notre Dame and not Michigan? WTF?

Michigan didn't lose a game from 1901-1904 and just slaughtered opponents by margins of 100+ points. Was it a long ass time ago and a different game than today? Of course. But so were games in the 50s and 40s and 30s.

If you want to talk "all time", then go "all time" and don't filter the data to only include the portion you want.

It is what it is. Michigan isn't the only team that would have more national titles if things were different way back when. Nebraska would have 7 or 8 national titles if things were done differently back then, but we only claim 5.

 

[thewop]

Disagree. We were pretty decent in the 70's (2X national Champs) and a good streak of 9 game winning seasons from then up into the 2000's. The "Scoring Explosion" in the 80's and a couple Top 5 postings as well. We really didn't become a real football school to Devaney came to Nebraska in 62.

I think you reinforced my point pretty well. Nebraska was a powerhouse, and still would have been considered so well into the 2000's. As such they'd have also been considered a blueblood. It's just that if you're naming blue blood programs in 2016, Nebraska doesn't have the brand name among players/fans under age 35, recruiting, or success on the field of any of the other programs listed. I agree with you in some sense though, if this list were comprised 20 years ago, Nebraska would easily be on it, and probably near the top.

 

[Hoosker Du]

I rarely agree with anything that comes out of your mouth but I do agree with this. Why don't they just go ahead and put Minnesota on the list if they're going to put Nebraska on?

Again, another ridiculous comment. Minnesota's last national title was over 50 years ago, and prior to that their last national title was over 75 years ago. 6 of their supposed 7 national titles were before Modern Day college football. Other than the 50s, Nebraska football has been solid for the entire history of college football.

 

[5Fan5]

Again, another ridiculous comment. Minnesota's last national title was over 50 years ago, and prior to that their last national title was over 75 years ago. 6 of their supposed 7 national titles were before Modern Day college football. Other than the 50s, Nebraska football has been solid for the entire history of college football.

Since 1928 and through 1995, Nebraska faced foes from the big 8. Then in the period from 1996 to 2010 inclusive, Nebraska played those same mediocre old big 8 opponents sans Oklahoma and OSU (which they faced occasionally). That alone explains much of the 'success' that Nebraskans like you want to boast about now.

 

[blockm2]

It is what it is. Michigan isn't the only team that would have more national titles if things were different way back when. Nebraska would have 7 or 8 national titles if things were done differently back then, but we only claim 5.

So you agree with my point then that if talking all time it shouldn't be restricted to a shorter period of measurement. Michigan has a lot more national titles prior to the ap poll. If you want to rank all time, then do it. If you want to restrict to since 1936 then call it that. Measuring wins over one time frame and national titles over a different time frame is as dishonest as you can get.

 

[Air Force Husker]

I think you reinforced my point pretty well. Nebraska was a powerhouse, and still would have been considered so well into the 2000's. As such they'd have also been considered a blueblood. It's just that if you're naming blue blood programs in 2016, Nebraska doesn't have the brand name among players/fans under age 35, recruiting, or success on the field of any of the other programs listed. I agree with you in some sense though, if this list were comprised 20 years ago, Nebraska would easily be on it, and probably near the top.

Here's my general list of what's needed to be considered a "Blue Blood" College Football Program:

Multiple National Championships in the ERA of Television: 1950's on onward
Multiple Heisman Trophy winners
Minimum 650 wins
Multiple Conference Championships
Being "consistent" throughout the decades: Yes, teams go up and down but i would expect a "Blue Blood" College Program to NOT miss 3 or more Bowl seasons in any decade.

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

Nebraska is not a blue blood. They've just sucked this whole millinium. And most of that was against Big12 competition. No excuse for being that bad of a program against weak competition in arguably the worst conference top to bottom this millinium. There's a reason why they've struggled so much in the B1G.

In fact, hasn't every team beaten them in just 5 years of conference play? Iowa, Minn, Wis, NW, Pur, Ill, Oh St, P St, Mich, & Mich St have all beaten them.

Not sure if they've played Ind or Mary. And I think they've only played Rut once. Amazing how quickly every team has beaten them. Even the leagues bad teams have beat them immediately after joining.