Online Now 3104

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2327
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3129
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Michigan is the only blueblood......

  • All these Blue Blood debates are un-American imo. Possibly racist.

    That said, Michigan is in the Princeton category now.

    brem22

  • FortWorthTide said...

    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.

    Actually Oklahoma is considered the greatest program of all time according to formula calculating all relevant factors. Wins, tiop 25 poll finishes etc etc.

    signature image signature image signature image

    LegalAlien

  • LegalAlien said...

    Actually Oklahoma is considered the greatest program of all time according to formula calculating all relevant factors. Wins, tiop 25 poll finishes etc etc.

    I'd like to see the numbers on all that. I use CFB Data Warehouse - it obviously isn't perfect, but it seems to do a decent job. They use win %, schedule (this is the trickiest to quantify), NCs, and Big 4 Bowls. I would think that top 25 poll finishes would line up and keep the same teams at the top. I'm sure there are many metrics that can be used to determine who is the top program, and I have heard OU mentioned before. If I had to do it personally, I'd say:

    1) Alabama
    2) ND
    3) USC

    (gap)

    4) OU

    (gap)

    5) Michigan
    6) Texas
    7) OSU
    8) Nebraska

    FortWorthTide

  • FortWorthTide said...

    I'd like to see the numbers on all that. I use CFB Data Warehouse - it obviously isn't perfect, but it seems to do a decent job. They use win %, schedule (this is the trickiest to quantify), NCs, and Big 4 Bowls. I would think that top 25 poll finishes would line up and keep the same teams at the top. I'm sure there are many metrics that can be used to determine who is the top program, and I have heard OU mentioned before. If I had to do it personally, I'd say:

    1) Alabama 2) ND 3) USC

    (gap)

    4) OU

    (gap)

    5) Michigan 6) Texas 7) OSU 8) Nebraska

    Its really hard to say but here is my list.

    1) Ok
    2) tOSU
    3) ND
    4) Mich
    5) Bama
    6) Texas
    7) Nebraska
    8) USC

    signature image signature image signature image

    LegalAlien

  • copemoney0 said...

    Simply saying, it seems, like UM to an extent, the multi decade stretch of Woody is basically the only thing OSU had that would describe them of a blue blood.. 1 NT since 1970, the JT era, at least in my eyes, lessens OSU with the cheating that took place

    I dunno.. that was my first reaction to reading the list.. they all seemed to belong and I thought OSU was the outlier as it was the Woody era, before that was 1 NT, since Woody left, it's been 1 NT, and that was with JT and let's fact it, cheaters... the multi NC's don't mean anything- MSU has multiple NC's..

    I motion only blue bloods being allowed to post ITT, this dude is a clown.

    signature image signature image signature image

    azvalleybuckeye

  • copemoney0 said...

    OSU?

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

    I wouldn't leave the best program from one of the historic conferences out, IMO.

    tOSU is the B1G, IMO.

    BetterOff

  • LegalAlien said...

    Its really hard to say but here is my list.

    1) Ok 2) tOSU 3) ND 4) Mich 5) Bama 6) Texas 7) Nebraska 8) USC

    roflmao

    brem22

  • brem22 said...

    AP poll since 1936

    Oklahoma #1
    Mich #2
    tOSU #3
    Oregon # SUCKS
    I think my list is solid

    signature image signature image signature image

    LegalAlien

  • BetterOff said...

    There are 8....but obviously you can't play yourself.

    Alabama Michigan Nebraska Notre Dame Oklahoma Texas USC Ohio St

    Including Texas and not Tennessee? Clown show.

    fsufsu

  • My feeling is when I'm about 65 I will see UofM get passed on the all time wins list. That will be a great day that I'm looking forward too.

    signature image

    steveschneider

  • fsufsu said...

    Including Texas and not Tennessee? Clown show.

    Tennessee and Penn st just miss the cut. They are just not as good.

    signature image signature image signature image

    LegalAlien

  • LegalAlien said...

    Its really hard to say but here is my list.

    1) Ok
    2) tOSU
    3) ND
    4) Mich
    5) Bama
    6) Texas
    7) Nebraska
    8) USC

    I was with you if you were just going to argue OU #1 (even though I disagree), but now I'm just lost.... USC 8th? Alabama 5th? Obviously as an Alabama guy I'd like to see that one explained.

    FortWorthTide

  • LegalAlien said...

    AP poll since 1936

    Oklahoma #1 Mich #2 tOSU #3 Oregon # SUCKS I think my list is solid

    lol

    Way to go nuclear ya bastard

    brem22

  • FortWorthTide said...

    I was with you if you were just going to argue OU #1 (even though I disagree), but now I'm just lost.... USC 8th? Alabama 5th? Obviously as an Alabama guy I'd like to see that one explained.

    Its all subjective, this article doesn't even have Bama in the top 5. My list was just my opinion.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3849468

    signature image signature image signature image

    LegalAlien

  • LegalAlien said...

    Its all subjective, this article doesn't even have Bama in the top 5. My list was just my opinion.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3849468

    Well that ranking was done in 2009. The main negatives that the article cites for Alabama are "lack of success in the BCS era" and "no major bowl wins since '92". Four years and a modern dynasty later, I think they'd view it differently.

    That article aside, I know your list was just your opinion. I was just curious to see why you thought certain teams should be placed where they were.

    FortWorthTide

  • My top 5 in no particular order would have to be:

    Oklahoma
    Alabama
    USC
    Notre Dame
    Ohio State

    This post was edited by steveschneider on 3/20/2013 at 1:01 PM

    signature image

    steveschneider

  • FortWorthTide said...

    Well that ranking was done in 2009. The main negatives that the article cites for Alabama are "lack of success in the BCS era" and "no major bowl wins since '92". Four years and a modern dynasty later, I think they'd view it differently.

    That article aside, I know your list was just your opinion. I was just curious to see why you thought certain teams should be placed where they were.

    You raise a good point. I can not explain why I don't respect USC as much as the other 7. the reason I don't have bama higher is the oversigning really really bugs me. Still I can see why others would rank them so high. Oklahoma #1 is pretty obvious with the longest winning streak College football history. (47)

    signature image signature image signature image

    LegalAlien

  • brem22 said...

    Way to go nuclear ya bastard

    You have a good sense of humor

    signature image signature image signature image

    LegalAlien

  • NcaaAssassinG13 said...

    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

    Must be nice playing big ten teams at home to win championships. Wish we were that fortunate.
    I'm sure you know what happened in the last game before the big 10 PAC 10 bowl tie in.
    Our record sux against Texas. We were usually sec runner up vs swc champs. All close games...Texas wouldn't have an advantage in tHe cotton bowl would they?

    hubcitytider

  • FortWorthTide said...

    You play in the weakest all time conference.

    Fact is that your team plays the weakest schedules of the blue bloods


    Wow, how badly overrated is the SEC then, if the 4 greatest teams in the history of the SEC
    (Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, & Georgia) going by all-time winning percentage, which is what you just
    used to try and demonstrate how much tougher Alabama's schedule is than SC's,
    if those 4 alleged powerhouse SEC teams have a losing record against 4 schools from California
    that play in that weakest of all-time conference as you say / lulz.

    Yup, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, and USC have a winning record all-time when playing
    against Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, and Georgia in nearly 50 games total.

    Hey, how did those 4 teams from the weakest conference win more games
    than the awesome SEC teams?

    Is it magic? Is it a miracle? Nope, it's just a ton of hype for the terribly overrated SEC teams.
    Playing LSU, Tenn, & Georgia is no different than playing UCLA, Cal, and Stanford etc, etc.

    The nearly 50 games they have played against each other proves that. And the worst all-time conference
    wins !!! Endless laughter at the vaunted SEC and at your expense
    for your comments above- the all-time LULZ.

    roflmao

    roflmao

    NcaaAssassinG13

  • NcaaAssassinG13 said...

    Wow, how badly overrated is the SEC then, if the 4 greatest teams in the history of the SEC
    (Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, & Georgia) going by all-time winning percentage, which is what you just
    used to try and demonstrate how much tougher Alabama's schedule is than SC's,
    if those 4 alleged powerhouse SEC teams have a losing record against 4 schools from California
    that play in that weakest of all-time conference as you say / lulz.

    Yup, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, and USC have a winning record all-time when playing
    against Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, and Georgia in nearly 50 games total.

    Hey, how did those 4 teams from the weakest conference win more games
    than the awesome SEC teams?

    Is it magic? Is it a miracle? Nope, it's just a ton of hype for the terribly overrated SEC teams.
    Playing LSU, Tenn, & Georgia is no different than playing UCLA, Cal, and Stanford etc, etc.

    The nearly 50 games they have played against each other proves that. And the worst all-time conference
    wins !!! Endless laughter at the vaunted SEC and at your expense
    for your comments above- the all-time LULZ.

    roflmao

    roflmao

    Again, you deflect from the point being made to skew things in your favor. I said that the SEC has 6 top 20 teams to the PACs 2, and therefore they have a tougher road historically. Now you're leaving out Florida and Auburn for an arbitrarily selected group head to head argument, and bringing in teams that don't even sniff the top 20 from the PAC. USC is still a blue blood (just not the best one), so you can be happy with that. Just give up trying to twist things around with selective data points to suit your argument because everyone sees through it.

    FortWorthTide

  • LegalAlien said...

    You raise a good point. I can not explain why I don't respect USC as much as the other 7. the reason I don't have bama higher is the oversigning really really bugs me. Still I can see why others would rank them so high. Oklahoma #1 is pretty obvious with the longest winning streak College football history. (47)

    Well I'm glad you at least have a reason. As far as the oversigning goes, it's kind of exaggerated. There were a higher than normal number of medicals scholarships used in Saban's first 1.5-2 years here. Who knows - maybe they couldn't handle the pace physically, maybe it was roster trimming, we'll never know. What we do know is after that, the rate has been normal or even lower than the national average. He's been here 6 years now, so I think it's hard to argue that that first year of medicals is still a factor.

    Reasons for people leaving:

    Medical scholarship - the most questionable one. I already addressed it and it doesn't go on anymore.

    Transfer - when you have a stacked roster like Alabama's, kids leave for playing time. Perfect example is Marvin Shinn. He contributed this year - even in the NC game. He transferred to Tech because we had so many good receivers and they run a pass happy offense there. He certainly wasn't pushed out. There are many other examples of situations like this (Philip sims, Corey grant, etc)

    Discipline - Saban's teams don't have many issues with this. The four guys this year were the first major issues of the title run. How could you argue that those guys should've remained on the team?

    Kids who don't qualify - this one is dumb, Saban can't make kids' high schools fail them. If they don't make the grades to get in, we can't take them.

    Grey shirts - has to be consensual (unlike medicals). Bradley Bozeman took one this year willingly to rehab his knee and has been interviewed extensively on the subject and has expressed his happiness with his situation.

    My point is that oversigning is grossly exaggerated. The only one of the above reasons that could be considered questionable is the medical schollys, and those are a thing of the past (not to mention it was only 7 or 8 to begin with).

    FortWorthTide

  • FortWorthTide said...

    Well I'm glad you at least have a reason. As far as the oversigning goes, it's kind of exaggerated. There were a higher than normal number of medicals scholarships used in Saban's first 1.5-2 years here. Who knows - maybe they couldn't handle the pace physically, maybe it was roster trimming, we'll never know. What we do know is after that, the rate has been normal or even lower than the national average. He's been here 6 years now, so I think it's hard to argue that that first year of medicals is still a factor.

    Reasons for people leaving:

    Medical scholarship - the most questionable one. I already addressed it and it doesn't go on anymore.

    Transfer - when you have a stacked roster like Alabama's, kids leave for playing time. Perfect example is Marvin Shinn. He contributed this year - even in the NC game. He transferred to Tech because we had so many good receivers and they run a pass happy offense there. He certainly wasn't pushed out. There are many other examples of situations like this (Philip sims, Corey grant, etc)

    Discipline - Saban's teams don't have many issues with this. The four guys this year were the first major issues of the title run. How could you argue that those guys should've remained on the team?

    Kids who don't qualify - this one is dumb, Saban can't make kids' high schools fail them. If they don't make the grades to get in, we can't take them.

    Grey shirts - has to be consensual (unlike medicals). Bradley Bozeman took one this year willingly to rehab his knee and has been interviewed extensively on the subject and has expressed his happiness with his situation.

    My point is that oversigning is grossly exaggerated. The only one of the above reasons that could be considered questionable is the medical schollys, and those are a thing of the past (not to mention it was only 7 or 8 to begin with).

    Your post is well thought out and rationale but then Bama takes 12 more kids this year than they had scholarship spots for. 12! Texas Am took 34 kids this year. The Sec west reminds me of the steroid era in BB. everyone knew they were juicing but it was a lot of fun watching all the Homeruns so people really didn't talk about it.

    signature image signature image signature image

    LegalAlien

  • Don't get me wrong - I understand how certain people see it. Although I would say it's nowhere near the level of steroids in baseball lol. That's a pretty extreme example. At the end of the day everyone has to hit the field with 85.

    As far as the 12 number you presented, I don't track the numbers as closely as some others do, so I'm not the expert. Although, based on what I've read, that number would surely have to include spots vacated by juniors leaving early.

    FortWorthTide

  • BetterOff said...

    That has lost to each of the other 7 bluebloods in their last head to head meeting.

    and

    That has only 1 National Championship in the last 65 years (which was split with a more deserving Nebraska team).

    When does membership get pulled?

    I love the jerseys, esp. the ones with the big M on them.

    MacGruber