I would add Texas to your top tier and drop the other three in the bottom tier altogether. I would rate those other schools alongside, oh, Auburn and Nebraska.
I'd like to add Army and Navy, only because of their rich tradition which we all enjoy celebrating when its their day. But of course, they are no longer steeped in football talent and among the elite teams.
Not Impressed after that ?
don't disagree with most of the post but would you throw Army and Navy n there? They had some pretty elite teams and heisman winners back in the mid 1900's.
As a Clemson fan I love that you included them, but i put them with GA and Miami. I just don't understand the true definition of a blue blood, I agree with teams like Alabama, OSU, USCw, ND, Oklahoma, etc who have had success over multiple time periods, but teams like Clemson who was semi relevant in the 80's and in the last 7-8 years I wouldn't consider a BB, and GA or Michigan who have just 1 Championship in their history.
Michigan has more wins than any other program so I would definitely consider them as a Blue Blood, lack of NC's notwithstanding.
Agree with you, except for one.....as much as I hate to admit it, Meatchigan is a blue-blood. They have a a sustained high-level success over many generations. And I believe they still have the most wins in college football history. They may not have won a lot of championships, but they almost always were in the discussion.
Yeah I agree with you and Harvard, i was looking more at championships, but as far as sustained success UM is right there at the top.
To me, "blueblood" describes a school that historically recruits what we today call "blue chips" simply by itself; like others have said I don't think there ARE ten. I don't see the academies, Clemson, Miami, or FSU as bluebloods.
I agree. I wouldn't put Clemson, Georgia, or Texas in 'blue-blood' status. (I do think Florida is closer than those three). I guess I'm calling them 'best of the rest'.
Texas is a no-brainer....they have an historical winning percentage of over 70% and 924 wins....plus multiple NCs.
see a lot for GA on here but what justification would you use to have them in the top? Serious question as i have not googled the wins or anything just playing historical significance off the top of my head. I get what you are saying, "recruits" by name alone but i think alot of that has to do more with current success.
Thought about them and Minnesota. Prior to the 1980s, I think both would be in the discussion. To me they are more on the next tier level with LSU, UGA, Clemson, etc...
Just going from my (questionable) memory, the only time I really remember Pitt being really good was during the Marino years.
What makes a program blue-blood? Total wins? National Championships?
I consider a blue-blood as one who has had a sustained long term success at a high level. Basically a historical winning percentage of at least 70%. Can have a decade off here or there, but not too many.
Serious question. Are you too young to remember Tony Dorsett, Hugh Green, Mark May , Russ Grimm.
Think most of us are way too young to really remember there glory years.....prior to the 1960s. They took the 60s off, did very well in the 1970s and early 80s. Dumbest thing they did was tear down Pitt Stadium.
Yeah, I know. Recognized all those names. I think many are in the Hall of Fame.
Correct. And they will probably get back to national relevance at some point. But they’ve been pretty average since the early years of Mack Brown. I didn’t want to include them as a blue blood because of who they have been the past 15-20 years.
clemson comes before Miami as much as it pains me to say it. For that matter so does FSU. They had a national championship in 2013. They're a sleeping giant, waiting for the right person to return the brand to its former glory.
