I've never liked the term "blue-blood" for CFB teams. I've always preferred using bond rating language... AAA, AA, etc. Teams getting favorable consideration because of past accomplishments always struck me as b.s. But it's the way of the world so my griping won't change anything.

The teams I consider blue-bloods is as follows:

• Alabama
• Michigan
• Notre Dame
• Ohio State
• Oklahoma
• Southern Cal

Teams that I see as being "fringe blue-bloods" are:

• Florida State
• LSU
• Miami
• Penn State
• Texas

Former blue-bloods:

• Nebraska

Who do you consider blue-bloods in CFB?

I don't know if there are truly "blue bloods" anymore. The term made me think of "royalty," as if somehow those schools were better than the rest in an inherent way. I think you can see the fall of Nebraska as an example of how the "blue blood" model is falling to the wayside. But in seeing that list, I think Texas and Georgia should be in the top tier, Oklahoma in mid-tier, and no vote for me for Miami.

Michigan probably deserves to be in that first list, but my gut reaction is they are a fraud.

I also have a gut reaction on Miami not really deserving to be in the conversation.

Nebraska definitely is not a part of the conversation anymore.

ND feels like they should be talked about but ND is the Manti Tao of college football. The embarrassing fraud that just won't leave the party even though everyone is laughing at them.

Big 12-0 said:

---

I don't know if there are truly "blue bloods" anymore. The term made me think of "royalty," as if somehow those schools were better than the rest in an inherent way. I think you can see the fall of Nebraska as an example of how the "blue blood" model is falling to the wayside. But in seeing that list, I think Texas and Georgia should be in the top tier, Oklahoma in mid-tier, and no vote for me for Miami.

---

Why would you have Oklahoma below Texas?

TPS_Report said:

---

Big 12-0 said:

---

I don't know if there are truly "blue bloods" anymore. The term made me think of "royalty," as if somehow those schools were better than the rest in an inherent way. I think you can see the fall of Nebraska as an example of how the "blue blood" model is falling to the wayside. But in seeing that list, I think Texas and Georgia should be in the top tier, Oklahoma in mid-tier, and no vote for me for Miami.

---

Why would you have Oklahoma below Texas?

---

I always felt that Oklahoma always needed a heated rival to thrive. With the Big 8, they had Nebraska, and then the Red River Rivalry with Texas. They always seemed a bit of the underdog in those situations (I know, they won many national championships). Oklahoma, on its own, just doesn't have the mystique of Texas. Just my gut feeling, may not make logical sense when you look at records and championships and such.

And the more I think about it I have a hard time with Penn State being on the second list. They haven't been a threat to win anything since before Joe Pa died. They haven't fallen as far as Nebraska, but they're working on it.

Florida probably belongs on that list somewhere.

Big 12-0 said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

Big 12-0 said:

---

I don't know if there are truly "blue bloods" anymore. The term made me think of "royalty," as if somehow those schools were better than the rest in an inherent way. I think you can see the fall of Nebraska as an example of how the "blue blood" model is falling to the wayside. But in seeing that list, I think Texas and Georgia should be in the top tier, Oklahoma in mid-tier, and no vote for me for Miami.

---

Why would you have Oklahoma below Texas?

---

I always felt that Oklahoma always needed a heated rival to thrive. With the Big 8, they had Nebraska, and then the Red River Rivalry with Texas. They always seemed a bit of the underdog in those situations (I know, they won many national championships). Oklahoma, on its own, just doesn't have the mystique of Texas. Just my gut feeling, may not make logical sense when you look at records and championships and such.

---

Without agreed-upon metrics our own biases take the reins... which makes your take just as valid/invalid as mine. I would agree with you that t.u. is a more iconic brand than OU, and part of the blue-blood discussion always involves brand recognition. For me the fact that OU has had the fewest losing seasons all-time and is tied for the fewest in the past 50 years with 3 gives them a distinct edge over sippy with me.

Martels Hammer said:

---

ND feels like they should be talked about but ND is the Manti Tao of college football. The embarrassing fraud that just won't leave the party even though everyone is laughing at them.

---

Yeah it was so embarrassing how they made it all the way to the national title game last year.

I would put Florida in that blue blood list.

I would also put Clemson on the almost blue blood list.

The interesting thing to me is how this list changes based on generations.

There are big brands past and present (which apparently the CFP comimitee is trying to protect) versus actual accomplished teams.

Texas and Michigan are big brands. Florida is a blue blood based on success the past 30 years

So let's try to agree on some metrics. I'm going to list some (no order) and y'all lemme know any you want added/removed. Once we agree on metric categories, I'll propose a weighting schema and we can debate that. We will also need to address the different eras of CFB as the game has changed a lot since the 19th century.

Total wins
Fewest losing seasons
Most winning seasons
Bowls won
Natties (BCS/CFP)
Natties (AP)
Natties (CP)
Natties (Awarded Decades Later)
Top 5 finishes
Top 10 finishes
Top 25 finishes
Victories over Top 25 teams

TPS_Report said:

---

I've never liked the term "blue-blood" for CFB teams. I've always preferred using bond rating language... AAA, AA, etc. Teams getting favorable consideration because of past accomplishments always struck me as b.s. But it's the way of the world so my griping won't change anything.

The teams I consider blue-bloods is as follows:

• Alabama
• Michigan
• Notre Dame
• Ohio State
• Oklahoma
• Southern Cal

Teams that I see as being "fringe blue-bloods" are:

• Florida State
• LSU
• Miami
• Penn State
• Texas

Former blue-bloods:

• Nebraska

Who do you consider blue-bloods in CFB?

---

As an American Capitalist/Conservative I dont GaF about royalty, legacy, or Blue Blood BS. I care about who gets the job done today. Innovation and accomplishment > Legacy

TPS_Report said:

---

Big 12-0 said:

---

I don't know if there are truly "blue bloods" anymore. The term made me think of "royalty," as if somehow those schools were better than the rest in an inherent way. I think you can see the fall of Nebraska as an example of how the "blue blood" model is falling to the wayside. But in seeing that list, I think Texas and Georgia should be in the top tier, Oklahoma in mid-tier, and no vote for me for Miami.

---

Why would you have Oklahoma below Texas?

---

I'm a Texas grad, and I would put OK above TX in the mythical "blue blood" rankings.

Forever

NIL money is the new "Blue Blood"

ttu_85 said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

I've never liked the term "blue-blood" for CFB teams. I've always preferred using bond rating language... AAA, AA, etc. Teams getting favorable consideration because of past accomplishments always struck me as b.s. But it's the way of the world so my griping won't change anything.

The teams I consider blue-bloods is as follows:

• Alabama
• Michigan
• Notre Dame
• Ohio State
• Oklahoma
• Southern Cal

Teams that I see as being "fringe blue-bloods" are:

• Florida State
• LSU
• Miami
• Penn State
• Texas

Former blue-bloods:

• Nebraska

Who do you consider blue-bloods in CFB?

---

As an American Capitalist/Conservative I dont GaF about royalty, legacy, or Blue Blood BS. I care about who gets the job done today. Innovation and accomplishment > Legacy

---

Welp, this thread ain't for you then. Feel free to move along.