Over 170,000 votes, % that view the program as a "Blue Blood"

Donate To GopherHole
Gophers1992 said:
View attachment 16698
Click to expand...
ah yes. the good ole AP poll that consistently puts numerous teams in the preseason poll who bottom out and finish unranked (ie Texas 6 times since 2010; oddly enough they've never gone from unranked to ranked and only once seen their end of year rank be higher than their preseason rank OR Nebraska who has seen their postseason rank be worse than their preseason rank EVERY SINGLE YEAR since 2010). Utilizing the AP poll, aka a poll made up by a bunch of people who don't watch teams across the country but recognize names and assume they might be good, is an asinine metric to decide "blue blood" status.

On the related note. No one says that Nebraska was not a blue blood at some point. The same as the Gophers were at one point. The same as some of these teams also won't be eventually. Nebraska hasn't finished a season with less than 3 losses since 2003, back when Solich was still coaching the team. They haven't finished a season ranked since 2012. Can they get back to blue blood status? Sure. They put enough money and attention on the program so they have a shot
 

upnorthkid said:
ah yes. the good ole AP poll that consistently puts numerous teams in the preseason poll who bottom out and finish unranked (ie Texas 6 times since 2010; oddly enough they've never gone from unranked to ranked and only once seen their end of year rank be higher than their preseason rank OR Nebraska who has seen their postseason rank be worse than their preseason rank EVERY SINGLE YEAR since 2010). Utilizing the AP poll, aka a poll made up by a bunch of people who don't watch teams across the country but recognize names and assume they might be good, is an asinine metric to decide "blue blood" status.

On the related note. No one says that Nebraska was not a blue blood at some point. The same as the Gophers were at one point. The same as some of these teams also won't be eventually. Nebraska hasn't finished a season with less than 3 losses since 2003, back when Solich was still coaching the team. They haven't finished a season ranked since 2012. Can they get back to blue blood status? Sure. They put enough money and attention on the program so they have a shot
Click to expand...
Again, you (and many others) are confusing blue blood with current, or even recent success. Blue blood is a historical determination, and as much as I don’t like it, Nebraska has an incredible history. That doesn’t get undone in this short a period of time. AP poll, wins, championships, first round picks, you name it, put the data together and 8 stand out above the rest. I don’t know why that’s so hard for people to accept. It’s a meaningless title, but it is what it is.
 

Gophers1992 said:
Again, you (and many others) are confusing blue blood with current, or even recent success. Blue blood is a historical determination, and as much as I don’t like it, Nebraska has an incredible history. That doesn’t get undone in this short a period of time. AP poll, wins, championships, first round picks, you name it, put the data together and 8 stand out above the rest. I don’t know why that’s so hard for people to accept. It’s a meaningless title, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
that you arbitrarily decided the date of and picked corroborating evidence that you liked to make your point. I don't know why that's so hard for you to accept. In reality, it's an argument not with you, but with the distinction of that we can't ever reassess what was previously thought. they are no longer a member of college football's royalty. If you moved your graph back the 20 years, they'd be very near the top in many categories. they've faded. it's ok. and if you're not ok with dropping them now, when would you? in another 5 years? 10 years? eventually you are mediocre enough you're no longer a blue blood, similar to what happened to MN
 

upnorthkid said:
that you arbitrarily decided the date of and picked corroborating evidence that you liked to make your point. I don't know why that's so hard for you to accept. In reality, it's an argument not with you, but with the distinction of that we can't ever reassess what was previously thought. they are no longer a member of college football's royalty. If you moved your graph back the 20 years, they'd be very near the top in many categories. they've faded. it's ok. and if you're not ok with dropping them now, when would you? in another 5 years? 10 years? eventually you are mediocre enough you're no longer a blue blood, similar to what happened to MN
Click to expand...
I didn't decide this, CFB historians have.
 









I guess I look at the body of work when I think of a label like a Blue Blood for Nebraska and others. Meanwhile, teams like Minnesota and others had certain eras of success, like dynasties.

Take Miami and Florida State, for example, I think the phrase dynasty fits better. Between the mid 80s and through the early 2000s, both programs were exceptional. However, they don't have the success when you look at their program history as a whole.

It's similar to where Clemson is at. They've had a dynasty over the last decade, but they're not considered a Blue Blood. Minnesota's status was also very dynasty-like. There were titles in 1904 and 1960, but the majority of the championships were won in a 10 year span.

The eight Blue Bloods listed in the article, meanwhile, had success on a much more sustained, consistent basis. Their body of work as a whole puts them up there. They lead in all of those categories I listed before, bowl games, win percentage, all time wins, national titles, conference titles.

Michigan, Texas, Nebraska and Oklahoma all won their most recent titles between 1997 and 2005, but they remain as relevant as ever because of their consistent historical status, which pretty much qualifies them as a Blue Blood.

The same can be said about Minnesota hockey. I'd say the Gophers are still a college hockey Blue Blood, even though the last title was in 2003. Same with Michigan, their last hockey title was 1998, but that program still has a Blue Blood status.
 

“““Football Historians””” isn’t an argument or even evidence. What tf does it mean? The media?

It’s easier to be elevated to supposed BB status when your local media are merely the lap dogs of your program. Just because the entire state of Nebraska huffs gas, huffs Scott frost’s ass, doesn’t mean you have to.
There has never been a more irrelevant team.
If they were blue blood, they’ve been stripped of that title. By me and every other football historian I know.
 

It’s like arguing whose empire was better: england vs Portugal. Shit mattered at one time, but no zoomer gives two shitz (except historians, etc). It’s some old foggie pearl clutching just like this big-brained blew blood discussion is. (Blew, because you’re smoking pole and don’t even know it).

To the old heads: the next generations will burn down everything you hold dear, and then some.

Your world views are toxic, your discourse obnoxious. Your generation ruined the planet for every future generation, and if you never pay for that individually, well, just rest assured that the concept of blue blood has one foot in the dust bin of history already. When we tear down more of your shitty statues, eventually that’ll get disposed of too.

you are clutching your old person pearls, essentially. Give it a fucking rest. Blue blood is dead. Rest in piss.
 
Last edited:

IceBoxGopher said:
I guess I look at the body of work when I think of a label like a Blue Blood for Nebraska and others. Meanwhile, teams like Minnesota and others had certain eras of success, like dynasties.

Take Miami and Florida State, for example, I think the phrase dynasty fits better. Between the mid 80s and through the early 2000s, both programs were exceptional. However, they don't have the success when you look at their program history as a whole.

It's similar to where Clemson is at. They've had a dynasty over the last decade, but they're not considered a Blue Blood. Minnesota's status was also very dynasty-like. There were titles in 1904 and 1960, but the majority of the championships were won in a 10 year span.

The eight Blue Bloods listed in the article, meanwhile, had success on a much more sustained, consistent basis. Their body of work as a whole puts them up there. They lead in all of those categories I listed before, bowl games, win percentage, all time wins, national titles, conference titles.

Michigan, Texas, Nebraska and Oklahoma all won their most recent titles between 1997 and 2005, but they remain as relevant as ever because of their consistent historical status, which pretty much qualifies them as a Blue Blood.

The same can be said about Minnesota hockey. I'd say the Gophers are still a college hockey Blue Blood, even though the last title was in 2003. Same with Michigan, their last hockey title was 1998, but that program still has a Blue Blood status.
Click to expand...
Well said. Though I hope you're not lumping gopher hockey in with Nebraska football. There is zero debate we are a college hockey blueblood.
 



IceBoxGopher said:
I guess I look at the body of work when I think of a label like a Blue Blood for Nebraska and others. Meanwhile, teams like Minnesota and others had certain eras of success, like dynasties.

Take Miami and Florida State, for example, I think the phrase dynasty fits better. Between the mid 80s and through the early 2000s, both programs were exceptional. However, they don't have the success when you look at their program history as a whole.

It's similar to where Clemson is at. They've had a dynasty over the last decade, but they're not considered a Blue Blood. Minnesota's status was also very dynasty-like. There were titles in 1904 and 1960, but the majority of the championships were won in a 10 year span.

The eight Blue Bloods listed in the article, meanwhile, had success on a much more sustained, consistent basis. Their body of work as a whole puts them up there. They lead in all of those categories I listed before, bowl games, win percentage, all time wins, national titles, conference titles.

Michigan, Texas, Nebraska and Oklahoma all won their most recent titles between 1997 and 2005, but they remain as relevant as ever because of their consistent historical status, which pretty much qualifies them as a Blue Blood.

The same can be said about Minnesota hockey. I'd say the Gophers are still a college hockey Blue Blood, even though the last title was in 2003. Same with Michigan, their last hockey title was 1998, but that program still has a Blue Blood status.
Click to expand...
If only our dynasty could’ve inflated our record in the Big 8 for forever and had minimal academic standards for admissions. So close to blue blood status. look at what happened since they moved to the B12. One early title (withOsborne) and 2 conference titles across the big 12 and big ten. They were a blue blood in a different era.
 

MaroonShaft said:
It’s like arguing whose empire was better: england vs Portugal. Shit mattered at one time, but no zoomer gives two shitz (except historians, etc). It’s some old foggie pearl clutching just like this big-brained blew blood discussion is. (Blew, because you’re smoking pole and don’t even know it).

To the old heads: the next generations will burn down everything you hold dear, and then some.

Your world views are toxic, your discourse obnoxious. Your generation ruined the planet for every future generation, and if you never pay for that individually, well, just rest assured that the concept of blue blood has one foot in the dust bin of history already. When we tear down more of your shitty statues, eventually that’ll get disposed of too.

you are clutching your old person pearls, essentially. Give it a fucking rest. Blue blood is dead. Rest in piss.
Click to expand...
I mean it's mostly just for fun discussions at the end of the day dude. Nothing super serious here.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom