The Blue Board

Copied wrong post before. None of that matters though. In theory you could never play any other blue blood school and still win national championships under the current system. The playoff may help that but we will see. All of the teams on that
List could have 10 straight losing seasons, and they still would be blue bloods. Their ability to go from the bottom to the top in a few years is what sets them apart from other schools.

OSU?

They obviously have a good history, but I wouldn't consider them a blue blood.. the other 7 I agree with

Sorry but Ohio State is in fact a blue blood. MSU shouldn't even be ITT.

Ohio State is easily a blue blood. Sparty trying to talk about stuff like this is cute.

Just when I thought you had maxed out on dumbass posts, you go and prove me wrong. Congrats.

USC over the last 50 years (1963-2012)
vs
Alabama 2-3
Michigan 6-1
Nebraska 3-0-1
Notre Dame 25-22-3
Oklahoma 6-2-1
Texas 2-1
Ohio St 9-3
=============
53-32-3 (62%)
28-10-2 (73%) (no ND, just games vs the other 6)

Sorry, but the logic I'm talking about is over the last 50 years USC has been the best,
against the best.

True, all-time USC does have a losing record to ND, but SC is still is about 7/8 games over.500
vs the 7 other blue bloods with around 60 wins.

A little shorter time frame
The last 20 years
(1993-2012)
===========
19-8-1 (70%)
7-1 vs blue bloods other than ND

They were relevant, just not the best.

We all know what happened when Bear Bryant's best when up against
USC's best in 1978.

USC boarded the plane back to LA with a double digit win in Bama's own crib and the National Championship.

And by the way, the first ranked Pac 12 team after USC is Washington at #20. That's pathetic.

Pac 12 - 2 top 20 teams all time
Big 12 - 2
Big 10 - 5 (and that's if you are willing to give them Minnesota)
SEC - 7 (with Arkansas at #21 which would make 8)

So basically your conference plays among the worst collection of all time teams, your only big time rival owns you all-time, etc.

Doesn't make SC look so tough (especially for you Assassin, since you're all about schedule strength). Looks like the SC schedule strength is the weakest.

Don't play dumb.. Princeton is a d2 school. Totally different scenario.

Wow, great post, They play in an historically weak conference for sure. Alabama is on top for sure today but things can change quickly. Once Saban is forced to play with the same amount of players as everyone else they will come back to earth. I think tOSU has a chance to be very dominate in the next five years.

BUT THEY HAVE THE MOST CHAMPIONSHIP SONS!!!!

Assassin strikes again

Still not sure how you twist it that way. Texas and ND are our two worst records against that group. Texas may as well be the south. ND is Midwest. The best team on the West Coast (SC) has a 2-5 disadvantage against Alabama. I know your response will be "1978", but that's only one game. Even though it was a big game, it doesn't give you the all time trump card, just as our '09 NC doesn't give us an all time trump card over Texas.

Alabama, ND, and USC are often the most hotly debated for the top spot all time. You have a losing record against both of the others, and it isn't particularly close in either case. You play in the weakest all time conference. I may as well give up on that note, because I know you will twist it with some new time period, some new set of teams, some neutral/road alignment of games.... blah, blah, blah. Fact is that your team plays the weakest schedules of the blue bloods, and has losing records against the two other most elite schools. I don't know how else to put it to you in any simpler terms.