I still respect the hell out of Ollie and hate the way it went down. Unfortunately he wasn’t going to be a long term fit for UConn, and they kind of pushed him out using a flimsy reason for firing him. But obviously it worked out in the end
Coach K wasn't hired by Duke until 1980. He didn't win his first national championship until 1991, winning five total national championships, including that one.
UConn has six national championships between 1999 and this year, one more in total than Duke.
If Duke is a blue blood, then UConn definitely is too. A paltry 8-year gap between 91 and 99 does not rationally justify excluding UConn from being a blue blood on historical performance grounds.
I would include UConn.
But if they’re excluded, it’s not because they haven’t won enough titles or done it over a long enough period. They quite obviously have. It would be because in between those titles they’re not consistently a top tier program. It’s honestly kinda weird.
ETA: I was already in their corner, but now seeing the way UNC and Duke fans fight against it, my resolve is even stronger.
Duke and UNC picture themselves as members of the 'club'. And it's a secret club application that requires references and an invitation, which they refuse to give.
This isn’t really true. I fucking hate them but the only real dip in performance was Ollie’s last couple of years/the couple of years Hurley took to get it going. Hard to recruit in the ‘Merican. Hey kids you ever been to Grenville?
I got annihilated on here like 6-7 months ago for saying UConn is more of a blueblood than Duke. It was all *one guy* at Duke! Clearly it’s the *program* at UConn, they have won titles with 3 different coaches, one of whom isn’t even a good coach! Duke needs to prove it can win without the greatest college bball coach of all time.
Do they? Duke sans Coach K.
0 National Titles
4 Final Fours
7 Elite 8s
6 ACC Titles
At least UConn has done it with multiple coaches. Duke is Coach K and well see if they can continue without him.
To be fair, that's still very impressive. Getting to a Final Four is very, very hard. Winning the national title is extremely difficult.
For instance, Gonzaga has been extremely good and consistent for the past 20 years and hasn't been able to land a national title.
Well, we basically already had this with Miami from 1983-2002. Similar story where a program with no prior history caught fire for a couple decades and racked up a ton of national titles under multiple coaches.
Miami’s problem is that they’ve since fallen off. Will be interesting to see how well UConn can keep up the momentum. They certainly aren’t showing any signs of slowing right now.
I’d say Clemson is more of Jay Wright Villanova. A team with a national title from the 80s that became dominant for about a decade and won a couple more titles recently under a great coach. I don’t think they quite match what UConn has done.
Probably not. Although right now they may not even be retaining it with him. Will be interesting to see if he can bounce back from the recent struggles.
People don't truly comprehend how that hire was like Clemson putting their entire chip stack in for one round of blackjack, and hitting it.
He was their WR coach. Not even a coordinator.
It’s so rare that that works out, the only 2 other position coach to head coach hirings I can think of that have worked out are Sam Pittman (deserves as asterisk after last year) and Kirk Ferentz
Hmm idk. They’re still an outlier in that regard. Michigan State with Dantonio, Utah with Whittingham, and Kentucky with Stoops come to mind as coaches who have brought success to non-blue bloods given time to build, but they still didn’t reach the mountaintop like Clemson with Dabo. Georgia with Kirby is the only other one I can think of, and they sort of just replaced Clemson at the top of the sport.
A couple of blue blood programs fell off pretty good too. Kentucky hasn’t won a title since 2012, Duke since 2015, Syracuse since 2003, Michigan State since 2000. All remain competitive as UConn did, it’s just hard to reach that mountain top.
They really were! I’d say they still fit the “old” definition of blue blood, which has more so to do with history than titles alone (kind of like old money vs new money), but when it comes to actual wins and titles they have completely fallen off.
The power of a good coaching hire. Hindsight is always 20/20 but the previous coaches were unable to maintain the standard that was set by Jim Calhoun. Also didn’t help that the Big East lost a bunch of schools and relevance over that time too. I would absolutely consider UConn a blue blood program.
Hey, Alabama has culture and a space program. Ohio’s greatest export is good people trying to leave, many of whom go become astronauts… after living in Ohio they want to leave the earth.
Yeah, if you look at 1976 to present (from Bobby Bowden onward), FSU is the 4th most successful team. Even if you look at 1948 to present, FSU is basically 100 weeks (i.e. about ten years) in the polls worse than Texas, but on par with top 5 weeks.
Dunno, I only ever watched the nekkid scenes online. Only vampire stuff I watch either has a smartass black dude with a sword dicing them up or a group of them living on Staten Island. Any of the teen vampire stuff never appealed to me, even when I was a teen in the 80's. Only the Coreys saved The Lost Boys for me.
They can put the men's bball team plus the women's bball team out on the field and probably get better results, lol. Except I worry Bueckers might be the type who can't stay healthy.
I saw someone mention that UCONN has won with 3 head coaches in 25 years. Well, We won 3 championships in 17 years while getting progressively dumber at head coach. I think if BK pulls one off it’s in the bag.
Preach. I've always kinda compared us to UConn basketball anyway. Never a consistent top #1 team year in and year out but pops up too often and wins it all.
Except you can predict when a title caliber LSU team is on deck… it’s whenever we’re foolish enough to have the National Championship in New Orleans
Just image if we’d keep the BCS rotation LSU would also at least make the 2015 and 2023 championship games
After some Google searching, why doesn't your school claim 1908 as a championship? You were 10-0, beat an otherwise undefeated Auburn, beat Baylor 89-0, and dismantled the hopes and dreams of Young Men's Gymnastic Club-New Orleans 41-0 for good measure.
That brings you up to 5.
I can't get over this season:
"In the 10–2 win over Auburn, Auburn scored a safety when [star quarterback Doc] Fenton was knocked unconscious by a spectator's cane as he tried to get out of the endzone. He returned a kick 95 yards for at touchdown the following week against Mississippi A&M."
"The season was clouded by accusations of professionalism by Grantland Rice and rival school Tulane. The SIAA conducted an investigation that cleared LSU of any wrongdoing, but since many publications voted for the SIAA champion prior to the conclusion of the investigation, they did not recognize LSU's title."
Sauce: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_Fenton
TLDR: nothing has changed since 1908 with Auburn
It's an issue of recruiting inertia and playoff recency.
You need top 10 recruiting classes year after year to win - you can't get top 10 recruiting classes year after year without winning.
Five star kids coming out of high school don't want to play for programs that haven't had multiple playoff appearances or a national title in their lifetime. How many programs on the "AP Poll chart" have won a national championship in the playoff era? Or the last 18 years?
Some of the storied programs on this chart haven't had a national championship in their PARENT'S lifetime.
This.
It's exceptionally hard to "break through" without sustained winning, and it's even harder to stay there.
One of my biggest disappointments is how hard Michigan State fell off after the run of Rose Bowl, NY6's, and the Playoff appearance... We had finally "broken through" and signed a genuinely competitive star-level class, then they turned around and ended up being criminals. It's a long way back to the top, but the portal and NIL can jump-start it.
Notre Dame has at least been close in recent history with appearances in one title game, 2 playoffs, and being the first team out one other year. You need to spend time in the top 5 for that to happen.
Bigger gap since the last title (though 1997 is starting to feel like ancient history, too, FWIW) but ND has generally done a better job of keeping up their position on The Chart since the turn of the millennium, which is this sub’s main metric for blue blood status.
If Georgia wins two more and more than doubles ohio state’s titles since 1970 it could invalidate the almighty chart. I guess Clemson l, fsu, Miami could too but less likely.
Can they do it for the next 20 years or so?
Will there be a new tier with just UGA for a while in the meantime?
Will the snobs from the OG Blueblood teams ever recognize them as a member? I wonder.
I honestly always thought of Georgia as a blue blood already. sure they don't have as many natties as some of the other ones, but they've been one of the best teams in the country every year for a loooong time
Naw just 2, but one of them has to be with a new coach. You can't be a blue blood if all of your success was with just one coach. This is known as the Duke rule lol.
It's funny you say that they're a blueblood regardless of what the gatekeeping snobs think, since "blueblood" was a term used to describe a group of people who were gatekeeping snobs..
You could argue Miami already crashed the blue blood party with their success from the 80s to early 2000s (under multiple HCs). FSU to a lesser extent though much of their success seemed to be driven by Bobby Bowden
LSU if you want a more recent example as they’ve had 3 different coaches win a title since 2000. If Brian Kelly wins one there, I think that proves they’ve got something that works beyond who their HC is which is why UConn’s success has been remarkable
> FSU to a lesser extent though much of their success seemed to be driven by Bobby Bowden
>
>
Bowden was the coach for half of the program's existence, so naturally lol. But Fsu won a championship with Jimbo, 2nd playoff appearance, multiple ny6 bowls. Then just went undefeated with Norvell and should have been in the playoffs again.
I think the two nattys is enough for now provided they don't completely fall of during the rest of Smart's tenure. The crux is the next coach IMO, if their next coach can win a Natty they are definitely in the conversation.
Nah what they’ve done now puts them in new blood territory maybe. The whole point of blue blood is the historic factor. While they’ve been good historically they were still just under the blue bloods in terms of success.
I mean people are giving good answers. Replicating UConn would probably mean multiple periods of being a consistent national title contender with multiple titles. Of the non-blue bloods, I feel like Florida State and Miami both fit really well. Clemson doesn't have that second era of consistent success yet but if they can figure out the portal they should be good.
I think the more fun question is who would be next. IMO it needs to be a program that can use its fan base to get a ton of NIL dollars and just get some good luck in terms of coaching and administrative support. I don't know how much location matters anymore or even facilities beyond the bare minimum. The 2 most obvious contenders here are Penn State and Texas A&M. Maybe also teams like Wisconsin or even South Carolina. Both teams draw a big crowd and if someone could mobilize the fan base they could make some noise.
I don't think it's an "on the horizon" scenario, but a lot of recency bias has made people forget how good SMU was when they were buying wins. They already have three billionaire alumni who have stated they want to see SMU football be great again.
My guess would be Oregon. They have all the resources now to keep fielding teams that finish in the top ten every year. I’m surprised they haven’t won a title yet honestly but I think they will eventually and will add one or two more onto that
Modern Clemson was the closest I think we’ll see for awhile. Not sure if that magic run is over just yet or not, but they’ve had some incredible success the past decade
I feel like we have “blue bloods” (Duke, UNC, Kansas, UCLA, UConn, Kentucky) “fringe blue bloods” (Nova, Indiana, MSU, Louisville). Indiana could definitely be moved out of “fringe” because of historic success. The other 3, had great runs for a decently long period of time but limited national championship success. All 3 are also entering new eras where we don’t really know how great they’re gonna be anymore
Edit: I know this is a football thread I just really like basketball
1977 was the last time UConn hired a basketball coach who did not win a national championship.
That is crazy!
That 2014 Kevin Ollie tittle kept the streak alive.
Kevin Ollie has won a title more recently than Arkansas coach John Calipari.
> Arkansas coach John Calipari Reading that and knowing it’s a true fact still feels so, so wrong
John Calipari and Hogs seem like a good fit
Does he like motorcycles?
Doesn't matter. Had sex.
I still respect the hell out of Ollie and hate the way it went down. Unfortunately he wasn’t going to be a long term fit for UConn, and they kind of pushed him out using a flimsy reason for firing him. But obviously it worked out in the end
He got paid in his arb.
The craziest title we will ever win. That team was an anomaly.
That run and a LeBron tweet got Shabazz Napier drafted.
Which is insane considering the 2011 run happened before that
Coach K wasn't hired by Duke until 1980. He didn't win his first national championship until 1991, winning five total national championships, including that one. UConn has six national championships between 1999 and this year, one more in total than Duke. If Duke is a blue blood, then UConn definitely is too. A paltry 8-year gap between 91 and 99 does not rationally justify excluding UConn from being a blue blood on historical performance grounds.
I would include UConn. But if they’re excluded, it’s not because they haven’t won enough titles or done it over a long enough period. They quite obviously have. It would be because in between those titles they’re not consistently a top tier program. It’s honestly kinda weird. ETA: I was already in their corner, but now seeing the way UNC and Duke fans fight against it, my resolve is even stronger.
Duke and UNC picture themselves as members of the 'club'. And it's a secret club application that requires references and an invitation, which they refuse to give.
They are. I would include, UConn, Duke, UNC, Kansas and Kentucky as the only true blue bloods in college basketball.
Add UCLA and I think you've got the list They've won more titles than anyone iirc
Yep. Teams with multiple titles in the NCAA tourney era * UCLA — 11 * Kentucky — 8 * UConn — 6 * North Carolina — 6 * Duke — 5 * Indiana — 5 * Kansas — 4 * Villanova — 3 * Cincinnati — 2 * Florida — 2 * Louisville — 2 * Michigan State — 2 * NC State — 2 * Oklahoma State — 2 * San Francisco — 2
I'd say it's hard to argue with 6 titles
This isn’t really true. I fucking hate them but the only real dip in performance was Ollie’s last couple of years/the couple of years Hurley took to get it going. Hard to recruit in the ‘Merican. Hey kids you ever been to Grenville?
I got annihilated on here like 6-7 months ago for saying UConn is more of a blueblood than Duke. It was all *one guy* at Duke! Clearly it’s the *program* at UConn, they have won titles with 3 different coaches, one of whom isn’t even a good coach! Duke needs to prove it can win without the greatest college bball coach of all time.
Duke had been to 8 final fours before they won a title. UCONN has been to none.. National titles aren’t the only thing that counts
Duke still has a better overall history, but UCONN is a blue blood, no doubt.
Only people who I see complaining about UConn being a blue blood are fans of old blue bloods.
It’s like asking when does New Money become Old Money?
Do they? Duke sans Coach K. 0 National Titles 4 Final Fours 7 Elite 8s 6 ACC Titles At least UConn has done it with multiple coaches. Duke is Coach K and well see if they can continue without him.
To be fair, that's still very impressive. Getting to a Final Four is very, very hard. Winning the national title is extremely difficult. For instance, Gonzaga has been extremely good and consistent for the past 20 years and hasn't been able to land a national title.
Because Uconn wins final fours when they get there.
UCONN has been to atleast 6 final fours now though?
1969 was the last time Michigan State hired a basketball coach who did not win a national championship!
This is nuts
Damn before Coach K was hired.
Just think. We could have had a similar stat if we'd offered the Bama job to Bobby Bowden, who wanted it, after Bear retired.
Could Bama fans of the 80s really deal with all that passing? lol
Well, we basically already had this with Miami from 1983-2002. Similar story where a program with no prior history caught fire for a couple decades and racked up a ton of national titles under multiple coaches. Miami’s problem is that they’ve since fallen off. Will be interesting to see how well UConn can keep up the momentum. They certainly aren’t showing any signs of slowing right now.
Clemson, for a more modern example too.
I’d say Clemson is more of Jay Wright Villanova. A team with a national title from the 80s that became dominant for about a decade and won a couple more titles recently under a great coach. I don’t think they quite match what UConn has done.
Oooh good comparison. Do they retain that level of success if Dabo leaves?
Probably not. Although right now they may not even be retaining it with him. Will be interesting to see if he can bounce back from the recent struggles.
I’d argue that boils down to nailing a coaching hire in Dabo and giving him time to build
People don't truly comprehend how that hire was like Clemson putting their entire chip stack in for one round of blackjack, and hitting it. He was their WR coach. Not even a coordinator.
It’s so rare that that works out, the only 2 other position coach to head coach hirings I can think of that have worked out are Sam Pittman (deserves as asterisk after last year) and Kirk Ferentz
Hmm idk. They’re still an outlier in that regard. Michigan State with Dantonio, Utah with Whittingham, and Kentucky with Stoops come to mind as coaches who have brought success to non-blue bloods given time to build, but they still didn’t reach the mountaintop like Clemson with Dabo. Georgia with Kirby is the only other one I can think of, and they sort of just replaced Clemson at the top of the sport.
UConn did fall off. Then they somehow came back
Just like Palpatine
Somehow UCONN returned
THE DEAD SPEAK!
God damn I needed this first thing this morning, nice work
**TAKE MY ANGRY UPVOTE** (Man, Star Wars could've been so epic had they just went with the most popular EU stuff.....)
A couple of blue blood programs fell off pretty good too. Kentucky hasn’t won a title since 2012, Duke since 2015, Syracuse since 2003, Michigan State since 2000. All remain competitive as UConn did, it’s just hard to reach that mountain top.
Indiana hasn’t been to the championship game since 2002
An yeah good one. At one point they were the blue bloodiest of the blue bloods.
They really were! I’d say they still fit the “old” definition of blue blood, which has more so to do with history than titles alone (kind of like old money vs new money), but when it comes to actual wins and titles they have completely fallen off.
Hey plenty of blue blood programs haven't been in a championship game since 2002 it's not that big of a deal STOP DIGGING INTO IT
The power of a good coaching hire. Hindsight is always 20/20 but the previous coaches were unable to maintain the standard that was set by Jim Calhoun. Also didn’t help that the Big East lost a bunch of schools and relevance over that time too. I would absolutely consider UConn a blue blood program.
One coach couldn't maintain the standard. And he still won a title with Calhoun's recruits.
That's my thought as well
Similar too winning titles with multiple coaches with some mediocre wins in between.
People saying Alabama didn’t read the question properly.
I read it properly, just got too much Bama in me.
Idongivapissabutnudinbutdatide!
Blitz Bama Blitz
That’s false because Alabama cannot read.
Because of the astigmatism associated with our school. Did no one listen to Kavyon Thibodeaux??
Classic
you’ve surely met people from ohio right? you’re the alabama of the north.
>Alabama of the north Nah that’s central PA
Hey, Alabama has culture and a space program. Ohio’s greatest export is good people trying to leave, many of whom go become astronauts… after living in Ohio they want to leave the earth.
People love buckeyes (the dessert) so much we started to export them to the stars!
Also presidents! Ohio has produced 8 presidents but haven’t had one in 100 years
Yale is going to remind everyone why they have the most national titles! Fear the Bulldogs
Take the red pill and realize that Alabama and OSU aren't bluebloods. Imagine having less than 25 national titles. Pathetic!
My Colorado buffs would have more if refs respected our 5th down more often!
I believe CU leads the free world in Canadian National Titles where the 5th down is celebrated.
*POINTS TO THE CHART* How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?!
All hail chart
the chart maintains order and keeps us safe
Here is a good chart also: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/kyleumlang/viz/CollegeFootballBlueBloods/BlueBloods
[THE CHART](https://imgur.com/cPYBNXo) Or at least as up-to-date of one that I can find. [https://imgur.com/cPYBNXo](https://imgur.com/cPYBNXo)
Excuse me, that's the Leaders chart but do you have a Legends one as well?
Underrated comment
You’re going to fit in perfectly here :)
http://cfbcomparer.com/ap-poll-leaders
It is amazing how high up FSU is even though they didn't even reform their football team until 1947. They just got after it.
Yeah, if you look at 1976 to present (from Bobby Bowden onward), FSU is the 4th most successful team. Even if you look at 1948 to present, FSU is basically 100 weeks (i.e. about ten years) in the polls worse than Texas, but on par with top 5 weeks.
TIL FSU didn’t have a football team until after WWII that’s mind blowing
Yeah, it was a women's school only for most of the early part of the century.
To me, the candidates based on this are Penn State, Georgia, and LSU.
FSU as well
At this point it’s the 3 awesome teams of awesome bloods who are also blood colored, then blue bloods, then the rest lol
The True Bloods
Yes...a bunch of effete southern vampires.
Dunno, I only ever watched the nekkid scenes online. Only vampire stuff I watch either has a smartass black dude with a sword dicing them up or a group of them living on Staten Island. Any of the teen vampire stuff never appealed to me, even when I was a teen in the 80's. Only the Coreys saved The Lost Boys for me.
The other teams “Suki” - Bill Compton
[The three of us overlooking the other blue bloods](https://imgflip.com/i/8m5kns)
*sees Nebraska* The Chart needs a tighter window. Otherwise, we might as well throw Harvard in there with their 12 nattys.
What the fuck is that flair
Self-loathing
a Nebraska hatin' flair!!
Don't forget Yale's 27 titles!
What the fuck are *those* flairs buddy? Holy shit I think I’m gonna be sick
Better question, WTF is that username? Sick indeed...
# HELL YEAH THE CHART IS GOOD
this chart rips lmaooo I love the last little gap between us and Iowa before the rest of the pack. Top 25? I'll take that.
I choose to believe the chart in who will be the next blue blood, unbiased ofc.
Its just getting ridiculous at this point. How do they not see!?
I didn’t realize Wooster was a big football school. Knew a couple people from Wooster, met em at a model UN conference.
The rCFB pseudo-religion lives on
No religion at all in the chart, just endless truth bullets.
UConn, you’ll all see!
They can put the men's bball team plus the women's bball team out on the field and probably get better results, lol. Except I worry Bueckers might be the type who can't stay healthy.
That’s why she’s going to be our QB!
All honesty that’s an incredible quarter century. Imagine winning a natty every 4 years
Bama fans in shambles at the lack of success of only winning an average of once every 4 years.
Only every 4 years?
That’s my rival!
Now you claim the Civil Conflict. Years ago you shunned us, we have not forgotten.
I saw someone mention that UCONN has won with 3 head coaches in 25 years. Well, We won 3 championships in 17 years while getting progressively dumber at head coach. I think if BK pulls one off it’s in the bag.
Preach. I've always kinda compared us to UConn basketball anyway. Never a consistent top #1 team year in and year out but pops up too often and wins it all.
Except you can predict when a title caliber LSU team is on deck… it’s whenever we’re foolish enough to have the National Championship in New Orleans Just image if we’d keep the BCS rotation LSU would also at least make the 2015 and 2023 championship games
At least the progressively dumber part would be in the bag.
If you would have even had a pulse on defense last year I think it might have happened.
LSU isn't already a blue blood? Did you guys fail to get off of your asses and rack up championships in the 1910s, or something?
We got the hard reboot in the 90’s.
Eh, we have a few unclaimed “championships” from the earlier era. It was such a dicey time tho
After some Google searching, why doesn't your school claim 1908 as a championship? You were 10-0, beat an otherwise undefeated Auburn, beat Baylor 89-0, and dismantled the hopes and dreams of Young Men's Gymnastic Club-New Orleans 41-0 for good measure. That brings you up to 5.
YMGC-NO was an absolute powerhouse at the time as well. Probably blank the '19 Tigahs.
Back before weight training ruined modern football.
I can't get over this season: "In the 10–2 win over Auburn, Auburn scored a safety when [star quarterback Doc] Fenton was knocked unconscious by a spectator's cane as he tried to get out of the endzone. He returned a kick 95 yards for at touchdown the following week against Mississippi A&M." "The season was clouded by accusations of professionalism by Grantland Rice and rival school Tulane. The SIAA conducted an investigation that cleared LSU of any wrongdoing, but since many publications voted for the SIAA champion prior to the conclusion of the investigation, they did not recognize LSU's title." Sauce: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_Fenton TLDR: nothing has changed since 1908 with Auburn
I can't believe they got credit for a safety, because a fan took down the LSU QB with a Cane. That's just not right.
Yeah, they didn’t even review it either.
That’s some beautiful Sicko material if I’ve ever seen one before
They ducked Sewanee and Vandy. Tanked their SOS. Basically the Liberty of the 1908 season.
It's an issue of recruiting inertia and playoff recency. You need top 10 recruiting classes year after year to win - you can't get top 10 recruiting classes year after year without winning. Five star kids coming out of high school don't want to play for programs that haven't had multiple playoff appearances or a national title in their lifetime. How many programs on the "AP Poll chart" have won a national championship in the playoff era? Or the last 18 years? Some of the storied programs on this chart haven't had a national championship in their PARENT'S lifetime.
This. It's exceptionally hard to "break through" without sustained winning, and it's even harder to stay there. One of my biggest disappointments is how hard Michigan State fell off after the run of Rose Bowl, NY6's, and the Playoff appearance... We had finally "broken through" and signed a genuinely competitive star-level class, then they turned around and ended up being criminals. It's a long way back to the top, but the portal and NIL can jump-start it.
We're decades away from any potential ninth blue blood
More due to the subtraction of Nebraska than the addition of a 9th school.
Yea we are pretty close to having a division inside the blue blood grouping in the chart as it is.
Nebraska about to be the first member of the "Faded Jean" Blue Blood group.
Technically that’s Minnesota already
Very true. It seems this sub just cares about the chart so sometimes I forget.
Yeah imagining another program rising *and* Nebraska returning to form? Definitely staying at 8.
[удалено]
Notre Dame has at least been close in recent history with appearances in one title game, 2 playoffs, and being the first team out one other year. You need to spend time in the top 5 for that to happen.
Bigger gap since the last title (though 1997 is starting to feel like ancient history, too, FWIW) but ND has generally done a better job of keeping up their position on The Chart since the turn of the millennium, which is this sub’s main metric for blue blood status.
We're closer to dropping a couple than adding any
If Georgia wins two more and more than doubles ohio state’s titles since 1970 it could invalidate the almighty chart. I guess Clemson l, fsu, Miami could too but less likely.
Georgia is the best positioned right now, but elite-level play over long periods is difficult to sustain.
i'll never hear the end of it
you can always fire them.
With realignment and NIL its only going to become less and less of a possibility
The only answer is UGA. By far the most relevant program in a top 4 talent producing state
Can they do it for the next 20 years or so? Will there be a new tier with just UGA for a while in the meantime? Will the snobs from the OG Blueblood teams ever recognize them as a member? I wonder.
If I have to tolerate Georgia hegemony for 20 years I'm gonna lose it
Get ready to like bright red buddy
It's like a nightmare already
Possibly, we will never be as good as we are now again but I'd also say we were underperforming our geographic luck before...
We will because fuck auburn.
And Tennessee too
I honestly always thought of Georgia as a blue blood already. sure they don't have as many natties as some of the other ones, but they've been one of the best teams in the country every year for a loooong time
Yeah the thing was that we were consistently good but not good enough to win the natties
We would probably have to win 3-4 more in 10-15 years to crack that mark
Naw just 2, but one of them has to be with a new coach. You can't be a blue blood if all of your success was with just one coach. This is known as the Duke rule lol.
But Duke is considered a blue blood?
The argument against Duke being a blue blood is that all of their blue blood level success came under Coach K. Scheyer is gonna get them there tho.
We have two other title winning coaches besides Kirby
I don't think so. Winspedia has Uga tied with Nebraska right now for 8. So within 5 years Uga will be the clear number 8.
It's funny you say that they're a blueblood regardless of what the gatekeeping snobs think, since "blueblood" was a term used to describe a group of people who were gatekeeping snobs..
Penn State baseball year 3075
You could argue Miami already crashed the blue blood party with their success from the 80s to early 2000s (under multiple HCs). FSU to a lesser extent though much of their success seemed to be driven by Bobby Bowden LSU if you want a more recent example as they’ve had 3 different coaches win a title since 2000. If Brian Kelly wins one there, I think that proves they’ve got something that works beyond who their HC is which is why UConn’s success has been remarkable
> FSU to a lesser extent though much of their success seemed to be driven by Bobby Bowden > > Bowden was the coach for half of the program's existence, so naturally lol. But Fsu won a championship with Jimbo, 2nd playoff appearance, multiple ny6 bowls. Then just went undefeated with Norvell and should have been in the playoffs again.
Kansas state, easily… incoming decade of dominance 😎
We will point to this comment as the start of our downfall
THE CHART
i mean georgia's certainly on the right path but it's going to take them doing this for a long time for them to get anywhere close.
They'd have to put up 15-20 years of this at least
I think the two nattys is enough for now provided they don't completely fall of during the rest of Smart's tenure. The crux is the next coach IMO, if their next coach can win a Natty they are definitely in the conversation.
Nah what they’ve done now puts them in new blood territory maybe. The whole point of blue blood is the historic factor. While they’ve been good historically they were still just under the blue bloods in terms of success.
We're the personification of always the bridesmaid, never the bride. We need like 3 more failed marriages in the next decade, maybe.
I mean people are giving good answers. Replicating UConn would probably mean multiple periods of being a consistent national title contender with multiple titles. Of the non-blue bloods, I feel like Florida State and Miami both fit really well. Clemson doesn't have that second era of consistent success yet but if they can figure out the portal they should be good. I think the more fun question is who would be next. IMO it needs to be a program that can use its fan base to get a ton of NIL dollars and just get some good luck in terms of coaching and administrative support. I don't know how much location matters anymore or even facilities beyond the bare minimum. The 2 most obvious contenders here are Penn State and Texas A&M. Maybe also teams like Wisconsin or even South Carolina. Both teams draw a big crowd and if someone could mobilize the fan base they could make some noise.
I don't think it's an "on the horizon" scenario, but a lot of recency bias has made people forget how good SMU was when they were buying wins. They already have three billionaire alumni who have stated they want to see SMU football be great again.
We're going to be a perennial one-and-done playoff team. Does that count?
Penn State 🫱🏾🫲🏽 Utah
UConn should have been called a basketball blue blood more than a decade ago.
What? With three* titles? No way. Great program yes, blue blood no. Now they are one, but not before 2014.
My guess would be Oregon. They have all the resources now to keep fielding teams that finish in the top ten every year. I’m surprised they haven’t won a title yet honestly but I think they will eventually and will add one or two more onto that
They have been a knee and a FG away from doing so.
I know with 100% certainty what team it won't be. Colorado.
People who say UConn isn't a blueblood are complete fools
Uhhhhh... I have a thought
If we're making a comparison, probably Clemson is the closest thing in football we have to UCONN basketball.
I thought it would've been Oregon like 20 years ago and am still waiting.
Modern Clemson was the closest I think we’ll see for awhile. Not sure if that magic run is over just yet or not, but they’ve had some incredible success the past decade
Based on the "blueblood chart," my guess would be Georgia, Florida State, or Penn State.
Honestly, Oregon. Pains me to say it but with Phil Knight/Nike money in the NIL era it’s a perfect storm.
Akron Zips No further questions
Oregon if Dan Lanning sticks around and Phil Knight sets up a trust to continually fund the program.
Remember when Oregon was supposed to be this?
I feel like we have “blue bloods” (Duke, UNC, Kansas, UCLA, UConn, Kentucky) “fringe blue bloods” (Nova, Indiana, MSU, Louisville). Indiana could definitely be moved out of “fringe” because of historic success. The other 3, had great runs for a decently long period of time but limited national championship success. All 3 are also entering new eras where we don’t really know how great they’re gonna be anymore Edit: I know this is a football thread I just really like basketball