|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [3968]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3228
Joined: 10/20/11
|
Are we a blue blood of CFB now?
Jan 9, 2019, 7:41 AM
|
|
Kinda surreal to think but we are now tied with the likes of FSU, Florida and LSU with 3 Natty's.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [10121]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4858
Joined: 12/11/12
|
Re: Are we a blue blood of CFB now?
Jan 9, 2019, 7:42 AM
|
|
I would say YES!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3968]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3228
Joined: 10/20/11
|
Re: Are we a blue blood of CFB now?
Jan 9, 2019, 7:42 AM
|
|
We also have 1 more than Georgia, Auburn and Penn State.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [881]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 2125
Joined: 2/3/12
|
2 more than Georgia
Jan 9, 2019, 7:51 AM
|
|
The des moine register or whatever their ‘42 “championship” is based on doesn’t count.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3571]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4500
Joined: 11/9/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93582]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95370
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Our seniors are 55-4.
Jan 9, 2019, 7:49 AM
|
|
If that doesn't do it nobody qualifies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Solid Orange Blood***
Jan 9, 2019, 7:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7219]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6986
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Are we a blue blood of CFB now?
Jan 9, 2019, 7:53 AM
|
|
It really depends on where you draw the line for blue blood. I’d like to be top 10 all time. We aren’t there yet. We are probably top 15. If we have 5 more years like the last, we are close if not there.
My completely unscientific top 10...
1. Bama
2. OSU
3. Notre Dame
4. Southern Cal
5. Michigan
6. Oklahoma
7. Nebraska
8. FSU
9. Texas
10. Miami
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
Oklahoma seems low.
Jan 9, 2019, 8:21 AM
|
|
2 Oklahoma 0.76440 7 NC, all post 1945
3 Ohio State 0.76127 8 NC, 7 post '45
4 Alabama 0.72575 17 claimed, probably 13 legit, 12 post '45
5 Penn State 0.72506 Just 2. Keeps them out of blue blood status for me.
6 Michigan 0.70648 11 NC, 3 post '45, two after 1948. Somehow they still get blue blood status from most.
7 Texas 0.70209 4 NC, all modern era
8 Notre Dame 0.69199 13, 8 modern era, last one: 1988
9 Southern Cal 0.68972 10, 7 modern era
10 Nebraska 0.68800 5, all modern
11 Florida State 0.67543 3, all since 1993
12 Georgia 0.67166 2, 1 modern era in 1980
13 Tennessee 0.66570 4, 3 modern era, two in the 50s and one in '98
14 Louisiana State 0.65731 . 4, 3 modern era
15 Florida 0.65029 3 since '96
16 Miami-Florida 0.64566 5 all between '83 and '91 save the 2001 outlier.
17t Auburn 0.64463 3, 2 modern era
17t Clemson 0.64463 3 since '81
19 Arizona State 0.63482 . Has not claimed a national title, but was voted #1 twice in modern era.
20 UCLA .60757 1 (1954)
Combining those, and skewing towards the modern era, I'd actually say
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma
4. Notre Dame
5. Southern Cal
6. Michigan
7. Nebraska
8. Texas
9. Penn State
10. Florida State
Those are the top 19 teams by winning percentage in the modern era, minus Boise State (because come on.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7219]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6986
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Oklahoma seems low.
Jan 9, 2019, 8:46 AM
|
|
Nice work, but I think it puts too much emphasis on winning percentage, not the best stat in my book. Michigan may be too high, but they were truly dominant pre 1940.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
Ehhh, how exclusive is the term?
Jan 9, 2019, 8:01 AM
|
|
Do we even want to be a blue blood?
As I understand it, the three teams you listed are not blue bloods. Texas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC...maybe Nebraska maaaaaaybe Penn State. That's the list. We aren't in that tier due to all time winning percentage (though it's climbing in a hurry). I'd say we're firmly in the second tier with the three you mentioned plus Miami. Georgia and Tennessee would be in this tier, but they don't have the titles to back up the wins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7219]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6986
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Ehhh, how exclusive is the term?
Jan 9, 2019, 8:10 AM
|
|
Penn State doesn’t have enough Championships to be included. Clemson has more. Tennessee CLAIMS 6 Championships, but lost the bowl game in 3 of those. The only real Championship Tennessee has in the past 60 years is ‘97 with Tee Martin. Miami has 5 championships since 1980. Hard to ignore that period of greatness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
One period of greatness doesn't make you a blue blood, IMO.
Jan 9, 2019, 8:26 AM
|
|
Sustained success, or success in a variety of time periods, is more impressive to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: Are we a blue blood of CFB now?
Jan 9, 2019, 8:11 AM
|
|
Blue bloods. Nope. Then again, you don't have to be "good" to be a Blue Blood.
We are the most successful "challenger" group. I prefer to be "little ol' Clemson" as Dabo put it.
Now if we have continued success, maybe... but compared to the SoCal, Ped. State, Texas, Bama, ND, Meechigan, 31-0hiostate, UT, Nebraska or OU, we are new money. You are a blue blood when the media fawns all over you when you are 5-7 and get prime TV spots when you are utter trainwreck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16643
Joined: 9/1/12
|
Of CFB? No. Of the CFP? Yes
Jan 9, 2019, 8:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13031]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22351
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Maybe? If we aren't, we are certainly getting close
Jan 9, 2019, 8:42 AM
|
|
I think the term "blue blood" is kind of open to interpretation. To me it's something you earn over the course of time. One run, no matter how dominant, doesn't make a program a blue blood. Blue bloods can certainly have down periods, but they typically have numerous dominant stretches and do it with multiple coaches.
We've had the Pell/Ford era where we were very good for about 14 years and won one national title. We now have the Dabo Swinney era where we've been excellent for about the last 7-8 years and have won 2 national titles. Two different coaches have won national titles so that's a check in one box.
The rest of our CFB history drags us down a bit because our program wasn't really even close to nationally relevant in the other ~95 years of it's existence. There really aren't any other stretches where we were even really good but just failed to win a title.
Still, at the moment it looks like we are either a blue blood or destined to become one before long.
I would also argue that blue blood status is definitely not permanent. It fades over time has to be reset by another period of dominance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [876]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 906
Joined: 9/9/13
|
Re: Are we a blue blood of CFB now?
Jan 9, 2019, 8:49 AM
|
|
Not yet. We need another 10 years of averaging 10+ wins and winning at least 5 conference championships and another national championship. That’s the fastest way.
OR another 20 years just avg 10+ wins with only 7 conf championships and no national title.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
