ESPN says there are 8 Blue Bloods in College Football
- Thread starter PHXIowaClub
- Start date
We were undefeated in 1902, 1903, 1913, 1914, 1915.
Our 1902 team was unbeaten, untied, and unscored upon. That would certainly be one in the running for a mythical national title team, but there weren't bowl games back then.
We had a 24-game winning streak in the early 1900s and a 34-game winning streak in the early teens. Any of those 5 could have been considered for a national title, because there weren't bowl games, and no team really had the right to call themselves national champions.
I think the list is good , but they made it highly debatable by keeping it at 8. By their definition they include brands which have stood the test of time and will continue to do so. Here is the issue with that statement. Recruiting hotbeds currently reside in states south of the Mason Dixon and west of the Mississippi (Florida,Texas,California, Georgia,Louisiana).
The influx of talent to programs like Nebraska, Penn State and other northern programs is less and less than these southern teams. Heck look at Baylor and how fast they rose (leave jokes aside).
In the future this trend will continue imo. Florida will recruit better than Nebraska and will subsequently win more games. Does this tarnish Nebraska's history? The answer is no, but as their glory years get further and further away so will the prestige of those championships in the eyes of recruits.
Nebraska spends more money and has a far better fanbase than Minnesota so my comparision to them is a bit unfair. Minnesota has 7 national titles, if you asked most high school kids they would be shocked by that.
Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, Texas and Notre Dame are blue bloods locked into thoses spots for reasons posted above at nauseam. Nebraska is a great program for sure. I love having them in the BIG but they will never recruit as well as a team such as Florida who has a long history but fewer past championships. Does this make them a blue blood in 10 to 20 years? Florida has a far brighter future while Nebraska has a far brighter past. You cant knock Nebraska and to me this is why I think college football has more than 8 blue bloods. This ends my diatribe.
The influx of talent to programs like Nebraska, Penn State and other northern programs is less and less than these southern teams. Heck look at Baylor and how fast they rose (leave jokes aside).
In the future this trend will continue imo. Florida will recruit better than Nebraska and will subsequently win more games. Does this tarnish Nebraska's history? The answer is no, but as their glory years get further and further away so will the prestige of those championships in the eyes of recruits.
Nebraska spends more money and has a far better fanbase than Minnesota so my comparision to them is a bit unfair. Minnesota has 7 national titles, if you asked most high school kids they would be shocked by that.
Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, Texas and Notre Dame are blue bloods locked into thoses spots for reasons posted above at nauseam. Nebraska is a great program for sure. I love having them in the BIG but they will never recruit as well as a team such as Florida who has a long history but fewer past championships. Does this make them a blue blood in 10 to 20 years? Florida has a far brighter future while Nebraska has a far brighter past. You cant knock Nebraska and to me this is why I think college football has more than 8 blue bloods. This ends my diatribe.
Very interesting.
Yeah .. if it ain't in the modern world of College Football (after WW II and when TV really took off - 1950's). It should NOT be counted. Period.
And you wonder why Nebraska fans are all considered dorks & picked on by every fan base?! We need to "cool" you up a bit.
I suppose I understand your opinion, but if Osborne recruited well at Nebraska (they had Top 5 -10 classes on a regular basis; a few #1 classes), others are capable of doing the same. Sure, we're at a disadvantage based on location, but if Riley has some success in the next few years, our recruiting could get that much better. We should end up with 8-10 4-stars this year.
In 2011, Pelini and his coaching staff brought in 11 4-star recruits, and Callahan brought in something like 11 4-stars and 2 5-stars in 2005, so it can be done. But Riley and his staff have to develop them too. We'll see.
The only dorks I've seen in this thread are those that are allowing their dislike of Nebraska to cloud their judgement and leave us off their lists of the bluebloods of college football. Fortunately, these lists are mostly unbiased and rightfully usually have us at #6 - #8.
Michigan didn't just call themselves national champions, other groups did such as the National Championship Foundation. Just because there was no AP poll at the time doesn't mean somebody wasn't the best team in the country in a given year. Similar for Alabama.
So I wouldn't exactly take the moral high ground using the evidence of nobody else thinking that highly of Nebraska in those given years. I mean there are dozens of people/groups that have awarded titles in those years. If not one of them picked Nebraska it probably means they didn't have much of an argument. CFBdatawarehouse maintains and excellent database and you can scroll through all their data and find both "recognized" national titles as well as every random school that ever got a mention in a given year.
A national title from before the AP poll era has about as much validity as an AP national title from the 1930s through 1950s IMHO.
Since 1902 gets brought up, here's the link for that season. Nebraska did go 8-0 that year, albeit against a much easier schedule than some of the other undefeated teams and by much lower margins of victory. So some thought does go into those things, not just saying hey we went undefeated including beating the local HS team.
Last edited:
I would definitely include you in the dorky Nebraskan crowd. No doubt about it. You've been proven wrong time & time again & you just choose to ignore so you can be an idiot & keep arguing.
I'm going to assume the numbers above are correct. Did you by happen to compare them to Iowa's schedule in the same years? Maybe you should have before posting. I'll break it down for you. I'm no genius, but it appears Iowa played MORE .500 or below teams in the same time span. But yes..the Big 10 was by far better than the Big 8...bwahahahahaha
1980-5
1981-5
1982-6
1983-6
1984-6
1985-6
I pose this question to you. Since you've moved to the BIG has your recruiting territories changed?
Most BIG teams recruit Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and the Chicago area very well with a few instate gems sprinkled in.
If i may chime in ... with the Big Ten Network it should open up more doors for us across the country. Nebraska has ALWAYS recruited nationally. We've recruited from Jersey, Florida, Texas through to Arizona and California. I think we will continue to do so but now be able to get a guy or two out of Ohio / Michigan area.
And obviously didn't weight recent era at all in judging the Cornhuskers. Lots of 70-point beatings past 15 years!
I've forgotten more about college football then you will ever know that includes your own Iowa football history.
Well, let's see who is wrong in this argument. Dorky Iowa fan doesn't include Nebraska as a Blueblood program, but every sports publication on the face of the earth does. I guess you guys must have some sort of insider knowledge that ESPN, Fox Sports, and all of the major sports publications aren't privy to (snicker snicker).
I'll notify our Athletic Department that they have it all wrong. We have 7 national titles, not 5. And then I'll admonish them for leaving out our 1915 and 1921 titles.
This is how Michigan gets to their grand total of 40-something (may be in the 50-somethings by now) football national championships, which is a complete crock.
Claiming national titles in the early 1900s is why people laugh at Michigan. They aren't true national titles.
We have focused on California much more than we have in the past. We used to get more recruits from Texas, but those numbers are coming from CA now. That is the biggest change. We are getting more from Florida as well, and some from the Big 10 footprint. Our coaches are focusing on a 500-mile radius from Nebraska too.
We have always recruited nationally though. Back when Osborne was coaching, the only institutions that had recruits from more states than Nebraska were the military academies.
See, apparently you can't read. CFBdatawarehouse doesn't list Nebraska as having a recognized national championship in 1915 or 1921. Beating Lincoln HS just isn't that impressive.
Michigan doesn't claim 11 national championships, other people call them national champs in those years. In fact, many other people. If you'd like to go back and retroactively award "Hoosker Du"'s national championship trophies, please go do it. I'm sure the New York Times will be calling for the interview shortly thereafter.
Did you know from 1901-1905, Michigan went a combined 55-1-1 with 2821 points scored and 42 points allowed? Yes a long time ago, but still kinda impressive don't you think?
But please leave the debating to the big boys and go back to the kiddie table where you can cry and whine about why the people that make the rules don't agree with you.
Yes it does, dope. I think we have a pretty good idea who can't read now. But we don't claim the national titles.
You know the above time frame was before the advent of the forward pass?? The teams they faced? Case? Albion? Ferris Institute?? I mean, come on ... Ferris Bueller wasn't even thought of back then??
Yes Michigan (Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio State and others) have rich football history. Celebrate it and enjoy it. But when we're talking / bragging about games back when the forward pass wasn't around is a bit comical to say the least.
Thanks for exposing the fraud that is Michigan football. 10 national titles? Pffft..
Those were the years Nebraska played the Omaha YMCA, correct? Minnesota has more national championships in football than Nebraska and I think Princeton does to.
Nope. BTW, it's "too."
Just to mention a few of the teams mighty Michigan beat in 1903 to claim their share of the national title....Case, Albion, Beloit, Ohio Northern, Ferris State, Drake, Oberlin, and Chicago. EIGHT...count them....EIGHT of the 12 games they played were against, well, the word "cupcake" comes to mind. But who knows....Albion, Beloit, and Ferris State may have been all the rage back in 1903. Incidentally, Michigan and Minnesota played to a 6-6 tie, earning them both a share of the national title.
"Should we put a trophy in the trophy case?"
"What?!! Hell yes, get that damn trophy made and get it in THAT TROPHY CASE...before people realize we beat 4 community colleges, 2 women's finishing schools, a chamber of commerce, and a culinary school!!!" Get on it, Wilson!!"
Quite the feat from a fan of a ten win team that lost to the same isu in Lincoln in 2009. Remind us all again of how great it is to go 10-4!
(And oh so very lucky that the isu TE dropped a sure two-points in the end zone to allow UN to escape with the narrowest of wins the following year.)
For anyone counting, that would be 1-1 versus isu in the most recent two games. Oh the irony of it all.
Uh, someone is really not good at research. The CFBdatawarehouse who whatever when link has Nebraska selected by a lot of selectors in those old black and white days. The same selectors that are used to prop up Michigan and other teams with questionable championships.
I am glad NU didn't count them. That would be just one more stupid thing for Iowa fans with their 1938 championship (or whenever) to bother us about. Win a National Title this century or at least play for one, and then we can talk.
I am glad NU didn't count them. That would be just one more stupid thing for Iowa fans with their 1938 championship (or whenever) to bother us about. Win a National Title this century or at least play for one, and then we can talk.
Perhaps you should mosey on over to the record books and take a look at our record vs ISU. I'm not sure they've even beat us 10 times in our entire history. And we certainly never went .500 against them over a 20-year period.
But I guess I should look at the positive. Iowa has a 1-game winning streak against them (snicker).
Same to UNL win a National Title or a Big 10 Title this century and we can talk. You might want (gonna need) to change coaches for the fourth time to possibly get to that.
I agree with you on changing coaches. Bo wore out his welcome but Riley is not the man. If I am wrong, then I am wrong and would be glad to eat crow.
Who knows.. If he can get the talent here, he may be able to make some noise. 2 5-stars and a host of 4-stars visiting this weekend...
http://www.cornnation.com/2016/8/31...sno-state-donovan-peoples-jones-foster-sarell
Or perhaps you should pay closer attention to the topic at hand...
Does a blue blood program that was ranked in the top fifteen one week earlier lose at hallowed Memorial Stadium to an isu team under a first year coach? Especially when you consider that Iowa beat that same isu team just weeks earlier by as margin of 35-3. Or maybe you can explain that blue blood worthiness of UN that while supposedly ranked as a top ten team can only narrowly escape losing to isu again having to first get to OT and then hang on with everything they had as the ball slips from the hands of the isu TE for what would have been the game winning conversion. (Again, Iowa won 35-7 only weeks earlier.)
Still confused by the AP all-time rankings? The fairly clear indication is that the Big Ten was not nearly as disparate as the old big8/big xii divisions were.
Nebraska played Lincoln High, Grand Island and Bellevue in 1903 lol. They also had the Omaha YMCA on the schedule at one point. Nebraska is not a "blueblood" anymore but keep telling yourself that. We enjoy beating wanna be "bluebloods". Wasn't Nebraska sub .500 last year?
We're back to the Callahan days of looking at stars again.
Give me football players, walk-ons 2,3,4,or 5 stars that WANT to play hard nose, physical style football and let's go from there.
Please be my/our guest and fill in the details. (I will be the first to admit that I do not pay particularly close attention to either UN or isu football when Iowa is not involved.)
1) I don't give a flying fart who ESPN thinks are blue blood programs.
2) everything else, such as this subject, is effectively 100% opinion, and don't mean dick. Is Nebraska's history better than Iowa's? Sure. But it's 2016, and 2016 don't give a crap about how many NC's either program has, cause those championships ain't playing on 11/25/2016.
The things posters here get worked up over cracks me up. Husker fans defending, Hawk fans deriding...one fan base needs to give more credit due the past, the other fan base needs to live more in the now.
Today, 9/1/2016, neither program is a blue blood (in a modern sense anyway). Probably the only verifiable "fact" everybody here should agree on.
Yet obviously won't...
2) everything else, such as this subject, is effectively 100% opinion, and don't mean dick. Is Nebraska's history better than Iowa's? Sure. But it's 2016, and 2016 don't give a crap about how many NC's either program has, cause those championships ain't playing on 11/25/2016.
The things posters here get worked up over cracks me up. Husker fans defending, Hawk fans deriding...one fan base needs to give more credit due the past, the other fan base needs to live more in the now.
Today, 9/1/2016, neither program is a blue blood (in a modern sense anyway). Probably the only verifiable "fact" everybody here should agree on.
Yet obviously won't...
Nebraska DB...Eric Hagg, intercepted the pass in the end zone to win the game for NU.
