The Blue Board

It's not my lack of reading, it's your lack of understanding what a blueblood is.. When people discuss bluebloods, it usually means they are discussing which programs have had the most success throughout history. Michigan is definitely one and it's not even debatable.

And there you go picking arbitrary timeframes, completely ignoring what happened before that.

Which proves right my second post ITT.

Rabid said...

It wouldn't matter. All you'd do is just discount the facts we present.

Who else in the last.. 50 years.. deserves it? Most big schools will make a run or two... Blue blood status doesn't happen in a decade.

Which brings us to the next point. Ohio State's last title before 2002 was 1968. That's almost 35 years. Did you just decide to forget about that time frame as well?

I'm not clinging. I'm just not ignoring.

Not really. We still have the most wins and highest winning % in college football, which has been consistent.

That alone gets us to blueblood status. And then you add NCs, and if nothing else that solidifies our position as a blueblood.

You got your ass handed to you in both title games, as did we...

I agree.

You have as many as Michigan in that time frame and you're the one that thinks Michigan should be on the fence?

Presenting facts is grasping for straws? Good lord, you're a dumbass.

Rabid said...

It wouldn't matter. All you'd do is just discount the facts we present.

Dude, even your Buckeye friends agree we're a blueblood. You know you're wrong when they agree with us. (or you should know, anyway)

lmao, he was talking sh!t to you and it went whooooooooooooooosh.

I lol at your ''appearances''. Newsflash there's only one thing blue bloods have in common and that's National Titles. As Michael Wilbon would put it...''Riiings baby''.

Michigan's last outright.. and one of the focusing points of OP. Poor comprehension skills will.. you know.