Jamiemurt wrote: How in the world you guys leave out Miami, FSU and UF from the first tier of Blue Bloods?  They each have one multiple NC's since the last time, N Dame, Michigan and Nebraska has one National Championships..  This is totally based on ancient historyl...

getbucked wrote: I probably have a higher criteria for ELITES ( don't like blue bloods term ) in BB than many!

Basketball
-Kentucky
-Kansas
-North Carolina
-Duke
-Michigan State
-Florida

Florida having made it in to my elites with BTB G8s ( to follow up off B-T-B NCs a few years before and continued recruiting success by Billy D. having had 3 F4s in his first 11 yrs there ) and KY with the NC last year verifying their recruiting etc. being back under Cal.  MSU with Izzo's many FFs and a NC following Heathcote's success have had them in for a while IMO. 

-Syracuse (not enough sustained success in the tourney - 1 NC and only 3 F4s in 36 years ( 1 every 12 years is not anywhere near elite status ) under Boeheim is just not enuff for elitedom).  TM has 2 F4s in 8 years here by comparison and he needs a NC to make us elite IMO.  We are closer to it than SYR and their aging coach tho IMO.

-UCLA(tuff call but the last 3 years have produced a losing season and two other double-digit loss seasons that have Howland on shaky ground to keep his job even)  So despite the dominance of the Wooden years, I have to take them off the elite list until their current HC gets it back in gear.  On probation for now.  LOL

-Indiana(poor for many years now - have potential but did not sustain consistency an elite needs to show).  Crean will need a couple F4's before they sniff elite status again.  They haven't been one in over two decades IMO.  Their best NCAA seed since 1993 has been a 4 twice - not the stuff of elites!  TM has had three 2s and two 1s just in the last 7 years - by comparison.


Football
-Michigan
-Notre Dame
-Oklahoma
-Ohio State
-Texas
-Alabama
-USC

NorfolkVaTiger wrote:

wcbuckeye80 wrote: I don't know? Maybe they can recruit in the same places they did whe they were winning NC. Lol

---------------------------------------------
--- LilTunchei wrote:

Paleriderbuck wrote:

LilTunchei wrote: How much longer can we consider Nebraska a blue blood? I feel like they are going to fall off and will never get back to where they were. Just don't think they have a good area to recruit in. Which all the other blue bloods do.

Bo-Pa just sucks. They'll be good again some day.

Oh really and where exactly are they going to recruit?

---------------------------------------------

Article from Andy Staples, along the same lines as what I've been saying in this thread about Nebraska (and Tennessee for that matter):

Analyzing College Football Recruiting

The Nebraska coaches have little choice but to hit the road. Their state produced only 43 BCS-conference players in the past five years, and the annual output isn't likely to grow. If they don't get their players from Florida, then they must go to California, Texas, New Jersey or some other state rich in high school football talent. To land those players, Pelini will have to work harder now than former coach Tom Osborne did when the Cornhuskers dominated the sport for the better part of two decades. Back then, a winning program was enough to lure recruits, in part because only powerhouses such as Nebraska, Michigan and Notre Dame appeared on television regularly. Now, every BCS conference team plays most of its games on television, and 15 years of the 85-scholarship limit has slammed shut the gap between football's ruling class and the former pigskin proletariat.

In the process, the three most important factors in college football recruiting have become location, location and location. Now, the best players are more likely to stay close to home. That, combined with the U.S. population's shift to the south, has fundamentally changed the sport. Notre Dame and Nebraska have given way to programs such as LSU, the only BCS-conference team in a talent-rich state that borders equally talent-rich Texas and Mississippi.

 

An SI study of 2004-08 recruiting data for the 65 BCS-conference schools and Notre Dame revealed that programs which draw at least 50 percent of their players from within 200 miles or from within their home state stand a far better chance of winning consistently than those that did not. Of the nine schools that won 50 or more games from 2004-08, seven signed more than half their recruits during that span from within their state or from within 200 miles of campus: Texas (93.2% from in-state, 71.8 percent from within 200 miles), USC (72.0, 61.0), Georgia (63.6, 70.1), Florida (62.3, 47.9), Ohio State (55.8, 66.3), Virginia Tech (54.3, 44.0) and LSU (50.4, 56.5). Oklahoma barely missed the cut, with 49.1 percent from within 200 miles.

Of the 22 schools that won 40 or more games during that span, 16 attracted more than half their players from within 200 miles or from within their state. Of the 44 schools that won fewer than 40 games, only 13 met the homegrown recruiting criteria.

Those data complement the findings of a trio of economists who, in 2005, designed a model to predict the college choices of sought-after recruits. The model created by Mike DuMond, Allen Lynch and Jennifer Platania -- rabid college football fans who met while Ph D. candidates at Florida State -- found that among heavily recruited players choosing from among only BCS-conference schools, distance from home is the most important factor in a recruit's choice. The model was published in the February 2008 issue of The Journal of Sports Economics.

The model found that a school's academic standing -- whether it's in the top 50 of the US News and World Report rankings -- provides a miniscule bump. So does the final poll ranking of the school the previous season. What didn't matter to players shocked the economists more. According to the data, the players weren't, on the whole, worried about the depth chart, how many national titles schools had won or how many players the school put in the NFL.

"Recruits tend to have short memories," said DuMond, who works for a private economics firm in Tallahassee, Fla. In general, DuMond says, the top recruits are looking for "a place that is in a BCS conference with a big stadium that is close enough that they can be seen by family and friends."

 

Vermonter wrote:

steubenville05 wrote: IMO....the historical creme de la creme programs (in Football):

Ohio State
Michigan
Notre Dame
Alabama
Texas
USC
Oklahoma
Nebraska

Next Tier:
Florida
Florida State
Miami
Penn State
Georgia
LSU
Tennessee
Auburn

Others worth mentioning: Pitt, WVU, UCLA, Syracuse, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech

Nailed it! I would add Clemson to the honorable mention list, as well as possibly BYU.

macdadbama wrote: I might remove Texas and add penn state.

---------------------------------------------
--- andmichiganstillsucks wrote:

Football
-Michigan
-Notre Dame
-Oklahoma
-Ohio State
-Texas
-Alabama
-USC
-Nebraska

Basketball
-Kentucky
-Kansas
-North Carolina
-Duke
-Syracuse
-UCLA
-Indiana

---------------------------------------------

andmichiganstillsucks wrote: Football
-Michigan
-Notre Dame
-Oklahoma
-Ohio State
-Texas
-Alabama
-USC
-Nebraska

Basketball
-Kentucky
-Kansas
-North Carolina
-Duke
-Syracuse
-UCLA
-Indiana

cincydawg4 wrote: Nebraska is doing "OK" now, having decent seasons, but it's not clear that they will ever return to those mid-90's kinds of teams that destroyed everyone they played.

BuckeyeDaJuiceMan wrote: I didnt read the whole thread...but for those saying Neb cant recruit, they currently have the #10 recruiting class in the country

Jamiemurt wrote: How in the world you guys leave out Miami, FSU and UF from the first tier of Blue Bloods?  They each have one multiple NC's since the last time, N Dame, Michigan and Nebraska has one National Championships..  This is totally based on ancient historyl...

When selecting “Blue Bloods” you just don’t say, well they have the best win % or won the most NC’s or have won a NC since so & so did. Thats fen’ bull ****!! It goes a little deeper than that. At least that’s how I see it.

Or maybe I’m looking at blue bloods a little different;

I know National Championships mean a lot, but that’s not everything and since Div.1A doesn’t have a play-off, who really can say, they would have ended up #1?  I’m looking at a team’s whole history / or traditions if you will, of a program (not so much as what pollsters think). I look at all time winning % , undefeated seasons, than at number and how often a team has losing seasons and even worse, back to back losing seasons. True blue bloods don’t have many losing seasons, maybe some mediocre years but that’s about it. One other thing I look at and that is win % away (not neutral) games, only 17 major teams have a winning percent when going into someone else’s back yard and beating them, that puts those 17 at least in contention to be a "Blue Blood". Compared to only five teams having losing records at home and only one, Wake Forest is a major team. 

Some people get blue bloods and elite mixed up as well, some teams are elite for certain periods of time but that don’t necessary make them a blue blood or even better than say someone who over the years has more winning seasons or less back to back losing seasons.

Maybe Nebraska is not in a place filled with those fen’ fast southern boys. However, as of now, they are still a “Blue Blood” by my calculations #8 and last, as I can only come up with 8. These eight are the only teams who have won over 70% of their games have more undefeated seasons, best win percent when playing away and any where from 10-15% less losing seasons than the other teams and way less back to back losing seasons.

I’m not ready to show my list yet, only have 13 of 25 done. When I do, I’ll back my picks with fen’ facts not just because I think they belong with the “Blue blood’s”, when in fact, some are just plain fen’ wanna bees.