Interesting Exercise:

Name who you would consider the media's Top 20 "Blue Bloods" of College Football, and does their 15 - 20 year actual production make them deserving of the title, or is this just another farce based on a biased and lazy media.

Be interesting to see how they really perform year in and year out.

My list (67 years old) In no particular order (A&M not available to be considered in because of my incredible bias).

Alabama
Texas
Notre Dame
USCw
OU
tOSU
Michigan
LSU
Clemson
Florida
Georgia
Nebraska (?)
Stanford (?)
Tennessee (?)
Miami (?)
Auburn (?)
Florida State (?)
Iowa (?)
Michigan State (?)
Wiscy (?)

Taking A&M out of the discussion, I could only come up with 11 names that I would truly crown as Blue Bloods, and not really sure about Clemson historically.

In reality, with the exception of Bama, Georgia, Ohio State, and maybe ND, everybody else has, for the past 15-20 years, earned their reputation feasting on a constant diet of weak ass teams week in and week out (remember the SWC in the 90s ?)

In fact, in the 37 meetings since schollie limits, The Ags have a winning record against that "blue blood" (bullsh*t, cough) program in Austin

Define the blue bloods since 1972 with a point based system through last season:

-Important to have a modern era discussion
-1972 is when scholly limits where put in place, equalish playing field
-programs should have fewer sub .500 seasons or be docked for losing seasons with negative points
-should also have 10+ win seasons as bonus points
-double points for nattys seasons

You'd likely be surprised who makes the cut in top ten. Clemson definitely one. And you know who definitely isn't.

To me it really goes by decade and who was on TV more often than not. So the 60s were Notre Dame which also boosted their opponents such as USC and Penn State. Nebraska/OU game. Texas/OU was a big deal. Horns, Hogs and Nixon's Coming game in 1969. Bear Bryant's Bama teams.

By the 70s, as more games were televised it kind of depended on which region you were in as to which games were telecast in your area.

By the 80s, there were regional satellite companies like Jefferson Pilot and Raycom, after the Supreme Court ruling giving the schools their TV rights back. That's when the players themselves started to become the stars above the brand like the Boz, etc.

Some will never not be a brand, such as Notre Dame, irrespective of their records or dry spells. Maybe Ohio State and USC fall into that category, as well. But look no further than Nebraska. They were a brand but have fallen off of the map.

Let's say Texas largely sucks for the first five years they are in the SEC. A decade and a half of irrelevance? They too would be Nebraskaed.

Tier I
ND
tOSU
Alabama
USC
Michigan
Nebraska
Florida State
Miami
UCLA
Oklahoma

Tier II
Penn State
Stanford
Florida
Oregon
Tennessee
Clemson
Georgia
LSU
Washington
BYU

UCLA?

Yeah, should probably swap Penn State and UCLA.

BMX Bandit said:

---

UCLA?

---

My sentiments exactly, for basketball I can see but football? Also Miami, the U was a brand at one time but no longer.

Just going by which teams I've seen on tv the most back when I watched college football. UCLA got a lot of air time for playing USC and tv used to love the left coast.

wbt5845 said:

---

There is nothing more overrated than the concept of "blue bloods". It's just a beauty pageant.

---

Exactly. Has to do with wealth and power. Success really not relevant.

Texas will always be a blue blood.

CFB getting ready to erase history.

Stanford? I don't think so

Interesting question! I'm gonna give this a try, caveated as "Past Blue Bloods" who currently still have the capability of being "Future Blue Bloods," then "Obviously Potential Future Blue Bloods" if not listed above:

Past Blue Bloods still capable of retaining that status
USC
Texas
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Michigan
Notre Dame
Penn State
Florida
Florida State
Miami
Georgia
Clemson
Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Tennessee

Breakdown by conference (after sip/OU move over):
SEC: 8
Big 10: 3
ACC: 3
PAC 12: 1
Ind.: 1


Obvious (to me) Future Potential Blue Bloods
Texas A&M (best chance, looks like to me, of this group, kind of a no-brainer)
Arkansas (high revenue, geography)
South Carolina (higher Athletic Budget Revenue than Clemson, what if Dabo were there instead?)
Oregon (high revenue whenever Knight wants to write a check)

Past Blue Bloods which (to me) are no longer likely to reachieve that status
Harvard
Princeton
Yale
Georgia Tech
Nebraska
Cal-Berkley
Cornell
Pittsburgh
Minnesota
Army

I agree there are only about 20 potential blue bloods which is why I wonder why there is all this talk of four 16-team super conferences leaving the rest of the teams behind. It seems like there would only be a need for a much smaller number than 64 teams. maybe 32 like the NFL.

Danny Reagan
Erin Reagan
Jamie Reagan
Henry Reagan
Frank Reagan
Sean Reagan
Nicky Reagan-Boyle
Jack Reagan

What's your point?

HECUBUS said:

---

Tier I
ND
tOSU
Alabama
USC
Michigan
Nebraska
Florida State
Miami
UCLA
Oklahoma

Tier II
Penn State
Stanford
Florida
Oregon
Tennessee
Clemson
Georgia
LSU
Washington
BYU

When I think about the true blue bloods of college football I look at those teams have been consistent big winners over the last six or seved decades. So, my opinion is that your Tier 1 is pretty good with the exception of Miami and UCLA. Miami had a few years of great teams, but their great years were over a relatively short time.

On your Tier 2 teams I would move Penn State up to Tier 1. Florida, Tennessee, Georgia and LSU belong on the Tier 2 for sure. I am not sure the rest have really earned to be on the Tier 2 list. Clemson and Florida are close, Oregon and Wasshington and BYU just don't cut it for me.

---

1 The University of Texas at Austin $171,109,116.67
2 Ohio State University-Main Campus $141,167,559.33
3 Florida State University $138,537,510.33
4 The University of Alabama $129,196,189.33
5 University of Notre Dame $128,475,853.00
6 University of Georgia $124,531,618.33
7 University of Oklahoma-Norman Campus $123,273,830.33
8 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor $115,489,175.00
9 University of Louisville $107,089,717.00
10 Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College $105,048,354.00
11 Auburn University $104,163,063.67
12 Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus $102,973,199.67
13 Texas A & M University-College Station $102,838,432.33
14 University of Florida $102,804,803.67
15 Stanford University $99,132,163.00
16 University of Washington-Seattle Campus $96,152,397.00
17 The University of Tennessee-Knoxville $94,388,117.00
18 University of South Carolina-Columbia $93,804,218.00
19 University of Wisconsin-Madison $90,728,527.00
20 University of Arkansas $89,741,097.00

So does a super conference completely wipe woke out in no time? Super league only has revenue sports?

Idk but not us

Blue bloods originally referred to Duke, Carolina, Kansas, and Kentucky. The term is loose with football.

Alabama
Michigan
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Texas
USC

I would re-read the article Clay Travis put up:

" Huddling with his lead advisors, Sankey sought a guarantee from ESPN that if the conference expanded in the future, he'd have the ability to pay the new teams the same amount of money, pro rata, that his 14 current teams were already guaranteed. But why would ESPN sign a deal that gave Sankey and the SEC equal money for all expansion candidates, regardless of their quality? The SEC and ESPN needed to define the field of potential expansion candidates in a way that made both sides comfortable with the expanded version of their deal.

That's when the SEC's negotiating team came up with a plan. What if they wrote into the contract that any A-list addition was automatically covered by the existing contract? But that raised another question: how to define an A list team? The crew bandied about the idea of labeling Texas as an A list school, but the concern was that limited the SEC to schools like Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan and USC, bona fide top brands without any question at all.

Everyone already knew Texas was an A list school.

They needed a school with a bit more broad appeal, an A-lister that gave them options to dip down closer to the B list if it made sense. Who knew what the future held? The SEC wanted a broad pool of candidates, an expansive list of targets that would eliminate doubt in the event of future expansion.

That's when they hit on Oklahoma.

Who would the SEC and ESPN define as an A list school in their contract? The Sooners. That way, you got the big name schools like Texas, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan and USC, but you could also have a strong argument for other schools a bit below Oklahoma, the UCLAs of the world, even.

Now as the SEC prepares to add Texas and Oklahoma to the conference, OutKick can report that the conference has a mandate that no other conference does, the biggest and most lucrative television deal in all of college sports is portable. The SEC can guarantee potential expansion candidates that they will enter as full share equals the moment they begin play in future years, a guaranteed opportunity no other conference has at the present moment."

It's analysis with maybe some sources. But makes sense.

https://www.outkick.com/the-secs-master-negotiating-stroke-that-paved-the-way-for-texas-and-oklahoma/

A Real Blue Blood.....

Quote:

---

Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College

---

LSUAMC? Louisiana A&M? Cajun Aggies?

Quote:

---

The crew bandied about the idea of labeling Texas as an A list school, but the concern was that limited the SEC to schools like Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan and USC, bona fide top brands without any question at all.

Everyone already knew Texas was an A list school.

They needed a school with a bit more broad appeal, an A-lister that gave them options to dip down closer to the B list if it made sense. Who knew what the future held? The SEC wanted a broad pool of candidates, an expansive list of targets that would eliminate doubt in the event of future expansion.

That's when they hit on Oklahoma.

---

TEXAS not included! They are not an A-list school for anyone. ESPN had to pay (or say they would pay) the SEC to take tu an ou..
The problem here is that ESPN lied on whether either team brings that much value to the SEC. No other P5 league wants either of them. Turned both of them down, either solo or as package since 2010.

Why do sips and sooners pretend like the last ten years never happened?

I can't vouch for what Clay wrote. He has had speculation that was meaningful like the in-footprint numbers for the SECN that was decent analysis and his numbers matched as far as we have data to compare.

If his premise is true, then we should see more efforts to expand the SEC. if not then it is pure guesswork.

So do blue bloods get dominated by tcu and Okie lite for 10 years and lose to the turtles 2 years in a row?

To answer your question it helps to look at what happened in basketball this year or at Bama after Bear was gone. Figuring out how down years affect so-called Blue Bloods and how they recover is part of why they are fawned over. But pretending Texas isn't one is interesting. We modeled our approach after theirs.

We need them to work with us to address funding shortfalls they dumped on us in the Lege as well. We have more in common than not. Which does not suggest the two schools lack distinctions.

Stone44 said:

---

So do blue bloods get dominated by tcu and Okie lite for 10 years and lose to the turtles 2 years in a row?

---

Sips had a coaching drought for over ten years when Royal hang it up.* Sips should have hired Mike Campbell then but they didn't. Akers was not a bad coach but he was the guy that followed THE GUY. Of course he was fired.

*Bad hires with the first two 'Mac's" Made it with the third hire. He recruited in a far different manner. Seldom on the right side of NCAA but NCAA didn't care.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The crew bandied about the idea of labeling Texas as an A list school, but the concern was that limited the SEC to schools like Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan and USC, bona fide top brands without any question at all.

Everyone already knew Texas was an A list school.

They needed a school with a bit more broad appeal, an A-lister that gave them options to dip down closer to the B list if it made sense. Who knew what the future held? The SEC wanted a broad pool of candidates, an expansive list of targets that would eliminate doubt in the event of future expansion.

That's when they hit on Oklahoma.

---

TEXAS not included! They are not an A-list school for anyone. ESPN had to pay (or say they would pay) the SEC to take tu an ou..
The problem here is that ESPN lied on whether either team brings that much value to the SEC. No other P5 league wants either of them. Turned both of them down, either solo or as package since 2010.

Why do sips and sooners pretend like the last ten years never happened?

---

Because they were fast tracked into the SEC within a week of the news breaking, and even Vandy voted yes rather than abstain this go round?

What do the last ten years have to do with the schools' fanbases and revenue generation? It takes a strong will to warp reality to envision that no one wanted either school.

At least there's only one unanimous conference vote to add them to discount, albeit the best one.

SECTAMU#1 said:

---

Alabama
Michigan
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Texas
USC

---

Great list I would include Clemson
Before FSU joined Clemson was the by far best program in the ACC and that plus their current success and they probably belong.