Even going back 50 years to 1975 is a bit much. But anything before that is just noise. That is what always throws these discussions off, people have different scales of time when they look at college football. For me, who cares what people won in the 1940's. The sport is completely different now. If we just look at the most recent 50 years, what is that list? Because that is all that is actually relevant to modern college football. Going back to before television existed is just more of the endless need to debate things and generate clicks (not targeted at you, just the media in general). ** Edited by HokieAl at 2/4/2025, 2:58:22 PM

The relevant time period should be the lifetime of the average American. We can't really relate to things that happened before we were born.

After that many years, you have built in alumni advantages, fanbase size, wealth advantages, expectation advantages, decades of a head start and momentum. A blue blood can always recover quickly after a downstretch because of those advantages.

bowl alliance, 50 years, and all time, only about 3-6 programs fall off or are added. The blue bloods remain.

Who cares if you're a blue blood, but haven't done anything of note in 30 or 40 years? To extend on that premise, is anyone really impressed by Georgia Tech's 1990 national championship today? No. Nobody cares. Frankly, depending on what time of year you're asking the question, the only time period that really matters is this season or next season. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 2/4/2025, 5:21:16 PM

or not because of the perks that come with the tag. Once a program is tagged a "blue blood," I am not sure it ever really loses it within the media. It may go dormant while the program is going through a down spell, but it is quickly dusted off once the program appears to have righted the ship. That may be important because it could influence the time slots televised games are given each week. Also, it could increase a program's odds that a daily/weekly TV show spends time talking about the program to help generate/maintain any buzz. The same could apply to articles in the newspaper/magazines/websites.

It was when the professionalization of football really took off and the modern college model started to adapt by recruiting future NFL players and training them accordingly in a way that build winning programs. So before this time, teams from the likes of the Ivy League, the academies were big time. But after the early sixties, not so much. Also schools like Minnesota won national titles as late as the early sixties, but they have been an after thought ever since, even though they are in the P2 today. There aren't too many blue bloods today that weren't also big time in the late sixties. Miami and Florida State perhaps. Maybe Clemson. Maybe Penn State. And not sure about BYU. But the blue bloods of today are mostly programs that were in the radar in the first decade of the Super Bowl Era: Bama, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, LSU, etc. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 2/4/2025, 7:57:58 PM

the Rose Bowl in 1952. The The first ap ranking of college football teams was 1936. VT went to their first bowl game in 1946. Should more emphasis be put on the last 10 years than the first? I guess it all depends on the narrative, and how it fits what we think individually. "Blue Blood" status and "Brand" are as subjective as how we used to crown the national champion.

Are not - it's all perspective ** Edited by Big12 guy at 2/4/2025, 3:49:53 PM