That list is a mile long! Call it trying to replace the "blue bloods" or whatever you want to call it but it is not unique to us. As I said-money, resources, fan base, facilities are all TOO subjective and would include Texas A&M in a landslide-not just now but over the past 30 years when compared to 90% of division 1 programs.Ģ) MANY schools are trying to be the best they can be in college football. Does that make them a blue blood? If so, then all of the teams on my list are also blue bloods. tu has one national championship since 1969(they claim 1970 which is a joke-Nebraska is the rightful owner of the 1970 Championship). My list of Blue Blood programs (except Minnesota) is accurate. I did make a mistake and should have said 40 years not 30. Some schools, like us, are trying to replace them.įair enough. Some of the blue bloods are blue b/c they're dead in the current era of college football. Your 2nd paragraph omits tu & lsu, and includes MInnesota? They won 4 of their 6 before 1940. That removes over 1/2 of the teams listed in your 1st paragraph. and this is coming from an old ag who was against yell leader 100 years ago when i was in A&M. Not all things must be repeated to perpetuity.
USC GAY CHAT SITE TV
Texas A&M image to the public via football TV broadcast is an anachronism that we need to get rid of.į, the tradition.
![usc gay chat site usc gay chat site](http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/spongebob/images/f/f1/Mermaid_Man_and_Barnacle_Boy_III_028.png)
Replace them with attractive female cheerleaders.
![usc gay chat site usc gay chat site](https://www.321chat.com/img/group-bottom-gay.png)
If we want to be a "liked" school, get rid of the eyesore that is a yell leader.
![usc gay chat site usc gay chat site](https://www.mdpi.com/sustainability/sustainability-13-01591/article_deploy/html/images/sustainability-13-01591-g008-550.jpg)
It's not the same list for everyone, but there is no denying some schools will appear more frequently on this list than others. Coming up with a list is a fool's errand - we're not talking about a binary "everyone likes this school, everyone hates this school" type of thing - we're talking about the same mindset that leads people to say things like "College football is better when is good". When the "wrong" schools are doing things that don't make sense to some, they look for a reason that justifies their lack of belief that those schools can accomplish that. These weren't unbiased reporters and folks doing due diligence and giving A&M a fair shake - these were people who didn't believe what A&M did and found a story, with no substance, that justified their disbelief. That's not BAS - look at how many idiots believed the $30MM story from an idiot on an OU board. The problem people have with A&M right now is that we just recruited a ridiculous class, which they don't understand, so they have to start assuming things are wildly different than before.Īs long as the teams recruiting at the highest clip are the ones that "make sense" to people that only look at the surface level (Bama, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio State, etc.) then nobody freaks out. Nobody was claiming that A&M was cheating when we were rolling at the end of 2012 because we were led by Manziel and Evans, neither of who were hyped players coming out of HS. People don't have a problem with teams that recruit like they believe they should, then end up getting to the title game by playing above that recruiting level. They didn't start their elite recruiting until they were performing as an elite team - they lost to Bama in the 2016 title game. I'm not an "everyone is out to get A&M" guy, but the point is recruiting.Ĭlemson won big because they landed the right QB. How in the hell is Clemson(for example) one of the "right" schools? This is just MASSIVE BAS. Here they are in no particular order: Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, USC, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Minnesota.ĭo you REALLY believe the college football world is okay with Clemson's domination over the past decade but will throw a fit if A&M has the same success. Any other criteria(such as resources, fan base, money) are all too subjective.(and would include Texas A&M by a landslide by the way). Who are the "blue bloods"? To me, it's got to be the programs that have the most national championships since 1940. You can add in Nebraska too(which has been irrelevant for 20 years) and is not exactly known as a wealthy school with donor money out the a**.
![usc gay chat site usc gay chat site](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/12/19/arts/19shoah1/19shoah1-facebookJumbo.jpg)
I am curious-are these the "right" programs. Over the past 30 years, the list of national champions include: Georgia, Clemson, Auburn, Florida St, Florida, Miami, Tennessee, Washington, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Penn St, Brigham Young and Pittsburgh. They swept it under the rug as long as it was a "blue blood"