That's easy.

Texas
Notre Dame
OU
Alabama
Ohio State
USC
Michigan
Nebraska


That's it.

Teslag said:

---

That's easy.

Texas
Notre Dame
OU
Alabama
Ohio State
USC
Michigan
Nebraska


That's it.

---

Just what I thought. It's like the last 30 years never happened.

Jimbo4win said:

---

Teslag said:

---

That's easy.

Texas
Notre Dame
OU
Alabama
Ohio State
USC
Michigan
Nebraska


That's it.

---

Just what I thought. It's like the last 30 years never happened.

---

Like I said, it's a media driven term based on history politics and influence. We could win the next 10 national titles in a row and not be a blue blood.

Pretty solid that our two biggest rivals are #1 and #4

Jimbo4win said:

---

We have extreme wealth and are one of the top 10 most watched programs(per TV ratings)-even higher ratings than Notre Dame..but if you read Texags, it's victim mentality 24/7..

---

Decades of being a never was that laughably does less with more in comparison to any university out there will do that.

Teslag said:

---

Jimbo4win said:

---

Teslag said:

---

That's easy.

Texas
Notre Dame
OU
Alabama
Ohio State
USC
Michigan
Nebraska


That's it.

---

Just what I thought. It's like the last 30 years never happened.

---

Like I said, it's a media driven term based on history politics and influence. We could win the next 10 national titles in a row and not be a blue blood.

---

The list is merely a function of the age of the media types that made the list and when they made the list. It's as simple as that. The list was a snapshot from the late 70s/maybe early 80s. Believe me-when I think history, politics and influence, Nebraska does NOT come to mind. I am quite certain the term existed in the 1930s too and included Princeton and Yale. It just needs to be updated to live loosely in the present..But younger media types simply don't care about it..

Nebraska doesn't come to mind when you think history? 5 national titles, 3 heisman winners, and the 8th winningest program doesn't have history?

Hmmm no Indiana or Miami on that list ?
Wait they just win

surprised to see nebraska so high.

It's amazing to me that such a valuable brand is taken for granted by Greg Sankey, the SEC, and essentially the NCAA in general.

P.U.T.U said:

---

Texas and A&M have much become like the Dallas Cowboys, top highest earning teams that haven't won championships in a while. As a business that is great, as a team not so much.

---

In a while? LOL

Jimbo4win said:

---

We have extreme wealth and are one of the top 10 most watched programs(per TV ratings)-even higher ratings than Notre Dame..but if you read Texags, it's victim mentality 24/7..

---

You're right. Fans shouldn't care about winning. They should care about how much money the program is making.

In the NIL and portal era money will directly correspond with winning more so than it ever has.

Teslag said:

---

Nebraska doesn't come to mind when you think history? 5 national titles, 3 heisman winners, and the 8th winningest program doesn't have history?

---

Even with that said, the media will give more respect and love to LSU than they will Nebraska. I have a lot of respect for Nebraska, and my hate for LSU is on a ut-Austin level. With that said, Nebraska is just 10 years away from disappearing from the list probably. I havent heard a peep about Nebraska in what feels like 20 years.

If LSU wins on average of 4 more games each season than Nebraska it would take them 25 years to catch them. I don't think you realize how historically meh LSU was.

Blonde Coffee Beans said:

---

Teslag said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

The only non-blue blood on the list.

---

LSU hasn't been known as a blue blood. Up until Sabans arrival they basically matched us historically.

---

Lol

Bless your heart

---

Uh, he's spot on.

Blonde Coffee Beans said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

fulshearAg96 said:

---

We rich... I smell a Natty in our future! lol

---

Could you imagine how much more it would be if we had won a national championship recently?

---

Come on. Let's not act like 1939 was that long ago

---

I was born in 1972. 39' is closer than 26'. Let that sink in.

Teslag said:

---

Nebraska doesn't come to mind when you think history? 5 national titles, 3 heisman winners, and the 8th winningest program doesn't have history?

---

Correct..and this is why I ask what defines blue blood? Is it national championships? If so, there are 20 programs with more national championships than Texas. The reality is that the blue blood list DOES change despite your feeling that it doesn't/won't. Minnesota was removed from the list. Princeton, Yale and Army were removed. Nebraska, if they continue on their path will be removed. Texas is 5th in all time wins with a number of programs-OU(who has way more titles), Penn State, and Georgia closing in. Georgia has more national championships than Texas and has been way more relevant in my lifetime(50 years). Is it politics? Is it influence? Georgia has had better ratings than Texas for 10 straight years. Look-I get it. You are defending a list made in the 70s. It's understandable..but Great Britain no longer rules the world and Pamela Anderson is no longer hot..

Bag said:

---

OKC~Ag said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/college-football-team-value-16fd09bb?mod=wknd_pos1

How Much Is Your Team Worth?

Quote:

---

How Much Is Your Team Worth?


Rank
2025 FBS Program
Adjusted Revenue 2025
Valuation1
Texas
298,000,000
2,197,000,000
2
Texas A&M
218,000,000
1,593,000,000
3
Ohio State
185,000,000
1,547,000,000
4
Lousiana State
213,000,000
1,543,000,000
5
Michigan
200,000,000
1,463,000,000
6
Notre Dame
170,000,000
1,418,000,000
7
Georgia
195,000,000
1,472,000,000
8
Penn State
193,000,000
1,411,000,000
9
Alabama
192,000,000
1,407,000,000
10
Nebraska
197,000,000
1,236,000,000

---

well formatting is bit off for copy and paste...first number listed is the revenue and 2nd number is estimated team value.

tejas full of t shirt fans I guess...

---

when I look at this list, all I see is Texas and everyone else

---

Totally-If only that counted for a win against Florida.

Jimbo4win said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Nebraska doesn't come to mind when you think history? 5 national titles, 3 heisman winners, and the 8th winningest program doesn't have history?

---

Correct..and this is why I ask what defines blue blood? Is it national championships? If so, there are 20 programs with more national championships than Texas. The reality is that the blue blood list DOES change despite your feeling that it doesn't/won't. Minnesota was removed from the list. Princeton, Yale and Army were removed. Nebraska, if they continue on their path will be removed. Texas is 5th in all time wins with a number of programs-OU(who has way more titles), Penn State, and Georgia closing in. Georgia has more national championships than Texas and has been way more relevant in my lifetime(50 years). Is it politics? Is it influence? Georgia has had better ratings than Texas for 10 straight years. Look-I get it. You are defending a list made in the 70s. It's understandable..but Great Britain no longer rules the world and Pamela Anderson is no longer hot..

---

Most of that is pure fiction. The blue blood list never changes

Teslag said:

---

Jimbo4win said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Nebraska doesn't come to mind when you think history? 5 national titles, 3 heisman winners, and the 8th winningest program doesn't have history?

---

Correct..and this is why I ask what defines blue blood? Is it national championships? If so, there are 20 programs with more national championships than Texas. The reality is that the blue blood list DOES change despite your feeling that it doesn't/won't. Minnesota was removed from the list. Princeton, Yale and Army were removed. Nebraska, if they continue on their path will be removed. Texas is 5th in all time wins with a number of programs-OU(who has way more titles), Penn State, and Georgia closing in. Georgia has more national championships than Texas and has been way more relevant in my lifetime(50 years). Is it politics? Is it influence? Georgia has had better ratings than Texas for 10 straight years. Look-I get it. You are defending a list made in the 70s. It's understandable..but Great Britain no longer rules the world and Pamela Anderson is no longer hot..

---

Most of that is pure fiction. The blue blood list never changes

---

What is pure fiction?