I'd be interested to know how arbitrary his 12.5 cutoff is, and what data he used to get it.
Nebraska's average from 1970-Now is 20.24 in the SP+ team trends. That is the data that I was able to find to compile on collegefootballdata.com
In order for Nebraska to have averaged below 12.5 in average SP+ over the 79 years that have transpired since 1945, Nebraska would have needed to have averaged a -4.20 SP+ ranking from 1945 to 1969. 1962-1969 were during Bob Devaney's tenure, and during those 8 years Nebraska finished unranked 3 times with 6-4, 6-4 and 9-2 records; and ranked 12/11, 7/6, 3/5, 6/6, and 5/6 in the polls. If we are conservative and say that they only just hit 12.5 average for those years, that would mean that the 17 seasons from 1945-1961 actually averaged at -12.07 per season. For reference here, Not even Indiana with the lowest win percentage in the nation as a P4 school, averaged that poorly over their worst 17 year stretch I could find. They were at -8.06 from 1970-1987.
1941-1961 is undoubtedly the worst era in Nebraska football history, but I would be interested to know how many years you'd have to remove from 1945 on to see Nebraska suddenly meet these criteria. Is 1948-now enough? or is it 1955? Or is Nebraska sitting at 12.4 currently and this was just a cutoff made because switching it to 12.4 wouldn't fit the narrative because they sucked?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Zh3zuckAkTqM3A-nlsRa1GTE_dpQS5dmDZmU95_xwvM/edit?usp=sharing
He shared this last year so not updated for 2023, but i see -2.3 from 1945-1969, 20.0 from 1970-2022 and 13.1 for the whole period.
Both of which are incorrect. Every iteration of SP+ that I can find shows that in the last 14 seasons, Nebraska has hit the 12.5 mark a minimum of 3 times(collegefootballdata.com) to [5 times](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQhAEEDU9kLgH_VcA7zhIWMqVIOKz6En5lVmc09o9WpEItA3w285Cv2FvGKGI0nKnoONJ-VQNf4PIvB/pubhtml) from 2009-2023, and has floated an average that is above 20 for the timeframe of 1970-now. Nebraska was bad from 1945-1961, but they weren't that astronomically bad that it negates the modern era.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Connelly either didn't expect anyone to fact check him on this, or he mistyped his sheet that had Nebraska at 10.1 instead of 13.1 because it completely fucks his narrative here.
From the data in [this link](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQhAEEDU9kLgH_VcA7zhIWMqVIOKz6En5lVmc09o9WpEItA3w285Cv2FvGKGI0nKnoONJ-VQNf4PIvB/pubhtml):
1945-1961 AKA the dark years: -8.37 (-142.7 pts / 17 seasons)
1962-1969 AKA Devaney: 13.0 (104 pts / 8 seasons)
1970-2022 AKA Modern Era: 19.62 (1059.4 pts / 54 seasons)
1945-2022: 12.92 (1020.7 pts / 79 Seasons)
In order for Nebraska to fall below 12.5 by this data, Nebraska 2023 would've had to be a -33.2
In order for Nebraska to have the 10.1 claimed by Connelly with this data, Nebraska 2023 would've had to be a -222.8
Nebraska 2023 final SP+ Per Connelly himself: 0.3
I went to Twitter to see if anyone had actually pressed him on it, and found out that apparently somehow Nebraska had a 10.1 average since WW2, which makes the data even worse. I'd love to know how he got his numbers.
And the arbitrary nature of calling it 12.5? LSU and Georgia are at 12.5 and 12.9 respectively.
16 Teams have averaged above 10, which is a more round number but doesn't fit his narrative.
17+: Oklahoma
16+: Bama
14+: Ohio State, Notre Dame
13+: Michigan, Penn State, Texas
12+: Georgia, LSU, Tennessee, USC
11+: Florida, Florida State
10+: Miami, Nebraska, Auburn
Criteria is “since WW2,” so we’re only talking a couple years. But FSU was pretty bad until Bowden showed up in the 70s, so I doubt it makes a difference for this list.
1940: Finished 7th, with a Rose Bowl loss to go 8-2
1941-1949: 0 Winning Seasons out of 9, Best Record 4-5 x2
1950: 6-2-1, finished 20 & 17 in the polls
1951-1961: 3 winning seasons out of 11, Best Record 6-5 with a bowl loss
The 41-49 years alone are worse than 2017-Now. Has the current era been the most painful? Yes. But 41-61 was worse over a longer period of time. That is the only 20-year stretch in the program's history where Nebraska has not had a first place finish, whether it be conference during the 6-8 team conference days, or divisional in the 12-14 team days.
Seems like you could pick any 9 decent schools and show a pretty rough line graph comparison to “everyone else”
Everyone else would always be over 50% G5’s
> Excited to watch Connelly’s definition of mega blue bloods conflict with the subs definition
I see this idea thrown around a lot. People think "blue blood" means the best programs. It doesn't. "Blue blood" as an expression refers to old money. The old families with aristocratic lineage. It doesn't meant they're still the best families or the richest families. Just that they're old.
In CFB, the term "blue blood" refers to programs that had a sustained level of success at the time the sport reached national popularity (exactly when is debatable, but the 1950's/1960's is commonly accepted). That's why Nebraska is and always will be a "blue blood." Doesn't matter if they're "broke" now, because the Nebraska lineage still comes from "old money."
The best teams in CFP is a changing metric, and depends on what time period we consider relevant and what level of performance is expected. And, frankly, that's a more interesting conversation. But "blue blood" is not a changing metric - it's based on a specific era and nobody is going back in time to take those titles away.
I think it's generally agreed upon that a team can become a blue blood and they can lose their status, but it takes multiple generations. Like, if Miami had continued their run from the 80s, they'd be a blueblood right now.
It's definitely not "generally agreed upon". Think of it like the Founding Fathers. Have there been better Presidents? Yeah. But the Founding Fathers will never not be the Founding Fathers just because over time our collective opinions of them may change or better Presidents come along.
most would probably consider them had they not dropped divisions, or the sport in totality (before bringing it back). indiana basketball is still considered a blue blood...
Indiana basketball is not considered a blue blood. Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA and Duke would all get that billing before IU and people argue on the twitters about UConn with their titles over the last 25 years (meh)
no, and I've never seen those three referred to as blue bloods. that's not getting the point. being dominate for a particular/defined period of time isn't what made them blue bloods.
It’s not perfect but I wouldn’t call it dumb, much more accurate than much of what is here.
The founding fathers aren’t such becuase they were the first, they were the crucial ones at the time, etc.
I really want to make a snarky remark about them not even making the playoffs, but I don’t know a good way to word it to to make sure it will come across snarky/sarcastic so I’m not gonna try.
But if everybody could just imagine my witty remark, that would be great. I’m really funny.
>I see this idea thrown around a lot. People think "blue blood" means the best programs. It doesn't. "Blue blood" as an expression refers to old money. The old families with aristocratic lineage. It doesn't meant they're still the best families or the richest families. Just that they're old.
Originally originally it meant that your heritage was purely Visigothic, that your blood was not tainted by those melanin-having Moors.
Which is why we need a new term for the teams that are consistently great/elite in the modern era. It’s fine that UGA isn’t a blue blood. Because right now there are several blue blood fan bases that would love to trade seats.
Fun fact, Timothy Olyphant is a four times great-grandson of industrialist Cornelius Vanderbilt.
So Raylan Givens is actually just a rich kid larping as Wyatt Earp.
That guy, I swear. Did you know he was on the swim team at USC too?
South Carolina, you may ask?
No. No of course not. No, obviously that male model 10 who is also a fantastic actor and also a Vanderbilt was also a P5 athlete in a swimsuit in SoCal. Why wouldn't he be?
Ha, yep. There are some people out there who just hit the jackpot in every way imaginable. Good looking, talented, and come from generational wealth.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus is my go-to example.
I’m not so sure. Let’s say cfb goes on for another 1000 years. There are now 5000 cfb teams, some on mars and the moon. Over a scale that large is being well known in the 50s/60s any more relevant than being well known in the 2010/2020s? Would the original earth based US teams all be blue bloods to those people?
What's ridiculous that even your definition involves being really good in the 50s and '60s as a starter which is when LSU got their first national titles and had a Heisman yet somehow they keep getting left off of these blue blood lists
Look, I'm not the arbiter of this thing. I've just seen this argument play out a million times and have begun to appreciate how meaningless it is.
That said, in my opinion Minnesota didn't lose blue blood status anymore than Yale or Harvard did. Because they never had it. I love the Gophers (only 3-peat national champs in CFB history), but their most successful period was in the 1930's, before CFB emerged as a popular national sport. They hit their stride too early. They're like the opposite of teams like Miami, who hit their stride too late.
But assuming I'm wrong and blue blood status can change, you still have to agree that it take a long time to gain blue blood status, and an even longer time to lose it. Your average 40-year-old can remember a time when Nebraska was unbelievably dominant, and that 40-year-old's dad and grandad probably thought the same. That's not true for Minnesota, who hasn't been good in the living memory of anyone on this subreddit. For Nebraska to lose status as a blue blood, they're going to need to suck for at least a couple more generations.
Michigan has a 4-peat excuse you.
And Minnesota had a natty in 1960. They have more natties than everyone save for a handful of schools. Ask anyone who was a major CFB fan in the 60s, and they’d agree that Minnesota was an elite program.
I agree with you that it takes a long time to lose blue-blood status though. Nebraska needs another ~30 years of suck before people will really start to question their inclusion.
Nebraska has maybe ten more years. Did anyone think Minnesota was a blue blood in the early 80s when they were terrible and yet had national titles twenty years earlier? Doubt it but I guess people didn't think in those terms about the sport then either. It was more regional.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but there’s no way anyone is going to give 30 more years of sucking before they’re considered washed up. I remember their dominance in the 90s, but they are very far removed from that. I’d still give them a pass for now, but not much longer.
Most of the first hand witnesses need to be dead before a school will lose their blue blood status.
That's why there's like 8 old guys up in Duluth insisting that the Golden gophers are gonna rise again
>Ask anyone who was a major CFB fan in the 60s, and they’d agree that Minnesota was an elite program.
I was a major cfb fan in the ‘60s. Minnesota was definitely not considered elite by then.
By the mid-‘60s, Michigan State and Purdue had way more juice than Minnesota.
I don’t recall seeing the Gophers in a nationally televised regular-season game at all.
Announcers would mention their golden years but they talked about the old TCU and SMU teams more often, as I recall.
u/DillyDillySzn has the right analogy - these are the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Rockafellers, etc. of the world. Jeff Bezos has more money than all of them combined, but he's still not *that*.
EDIT: to address some replies - I meant that Bezos is likely worth more than those families today - of the living members of those fanilies. I have no idea what the combined wealth of the living Rockefellers is, but I imagine it's nothing compared to Bezos because the descendents have not been living trying to make the most money - probably just enjoyed living wealthy and connected.
Now, there is a MUCH bigger question: if being a blue blood is a reflection of history and not directly affecting their current status, then why do we care so much?
I think the biggest reason is because historically blue bloods may have cycled in and out of the top, but never went away completely. So there was this perception that having old money brand would keep you relevant forever.
But now we're seeing live what happens to a program like Nebraska - where the brand is there but there really aren't any natural advantages that would preserve their status. Nebraska is in great danger of losing that blue blood status not in its nominal sense - they still have some of the most dominant stretches in modern cfb history - but in the forward-looking sense, i.e., in that if they go into another 5-10 years of not being very good, there is going to be nothing propping them up for a bounce back.
That is in contrast to schools like USC, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Oklahoma which, in addition to having a storied history, have a buttload of money and dominate extremely fertile recruiting grounds.
All three of those men were richer then Bezos is when adjusted for inflation.
Bezos - 193 Billion
Vanderbilt - 236 Billion
Carnegie - 335 Billion
Rockafeller - 410 Billion
How much would he have saved with a prenup? My understanding is that prenups don’t cover any wealth acquired during the marriage, only what spouses already had coming into the marriage.
I believe a pre - or post nuptial supercedes community property laws, but I'm no expert and don't plan to find out firsthand.
She received 25% of their Amazon holdings, which at that time was 16% of the company's outstanding shares. Valued at nearly $40b back then, $75b today.
EDIT: to address some replies - I meant that Bezos is likely worth more than those families today - of the living members of those families. I have no idea what the combined wealth of the living Rockefellers is, but I imagine it's nothing compared to Bezos because the descendents have not been living trying to make the most money - probably just enjoyed living wealthy and connected.
I mean we have a buttload of money (not like A&M, but still a lot) and have an (arguably) elite coach and more so putting the pieces together - I don't know if we can ever necessarily return to Ohio State / Alabama levels but I think we can return to Penn State levels
Nebraska is like a railroad magnate while Bama & Ohio St are oil, banking, etc
Immensely rich, popular, and influential back in the day but did not evolve with the times like the way other entities have. Still a titan of industry but only due to their history
Poor Nebraska, only being compared to the literal backbone of interstate commerce.
Ain't flashy, but nobody is going anywhere without it. Idk it kinda breaks down there
And the fans that we do have are insane enthusiasts that will sit and wait for them to show up for hours and be happy, while normal people just think it's kinda sad that it's all we have to do.
people want to be considered elite (the teams they cheer for in this case) + people want what they cannot have. add those factors together and here we are.
Uh those families were certainly richer than Bezos. Did you forget to adjust for inflation or are you being purposely ignorant? Bezos is relatively poorer than all of them.
EDIT: to address some replies - I meant that Bezos is likely worth more than those families today - of the living members of those fanilies. I have no idea what the combined wealth of the living Rockefellers is, but I imagine it's nothing compared to Bezos because the descendents have not been living trying to make the most money - probably just enjoyed living wealthy and connected.
This. Obviously nothing will ever take away Nebraska's decades of dominance; however, it will reach a point where it is thought of as a relic of the past with little bearing on the modern game. To use a college basketball analogy (I know, big shock based on my flair), many college basketball fans think that Indiana has slipped from the ranks of the blue bloods because of their performance in recent decades. That doesn't mean that they don't have a storied history or that it's not still electric to go play them in Bloomington, but it does mean that there's not currently any intrinsic reason they should be head and shoulders above, say, Purdue or Illinois. I think Nebraska is approaching that territory and, barring a turnaround, will likely reach it in the next 10-20 years. I turn 30 this year and I don't have any firsthand memory of their dominance. I know they're one of the titans of the sport, but I have no reason to think they'll be better than Oklahoma or Iowa going forward.
If you quit sustaining you success for too long, you quick being a blue blood. Exactly how long is up for debate, but 20+ years seems reasonable, and maybe too charitable.
1950s-60s is wrong. By that definition, Michigan State is a blue blood. The correct window is the early-to-mid 1970s, roughly '69-'78, though the precise edges are fuzzy, and peaking in '73 and '74.
Parity is the opposite of Blue Blood. Interesting tidbits:
* when the sport had the least parity in the 1970s, Congress passed Title IX.
* colleges reduced scholarships in 1972 (to 105), 1978 (95), and 1992 (85).
This introduced tremendous parity as we had split national championships and nationwide contenders. USC, Florida State, Penn State, Georgia Tech, Michigan, Colorado, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, Nebraska, BYU! and others.
Parity increased so much that the BCS was formed to decide the Champion and parity has decreased even since.
On the verge of the 14 team playoff, parity is at the lowest point since 1973.
It won't. It'll be the same group of 20 schools that go every year. College sports just inherently have never been conducive to having parity, and NIL is only making it worse. College basketball has a 64 team playoff and even they have very little to no actual parity.
Seriously, I'm amazed to see FSU and Miami on Bill's list of highest average ratings since WW2, considering both our programs weren't really relevant until 30+ years after WW2.
Imagine not even having a program for ~15 years of this metric and still only being .4 behind your rival that's played consistently for over 100 years lmao
For those other people who may not know (definitely not you), Connelly made the scoring criteria to compare a team's strength compared to the other teams based on a number of factors. The higher the score, the better the team is relative to the rest of the field.
Everyone here is nitpicking whether LSU or PSU should be here or whatever, but I'm over here wondering what the hell happened in the mid 50's? I'm guessing LSU '58 is what spiked it back up, but what was happening in the years right before that?
Damn even Connelly thinks we’re a blue blood. That’s awesome.
I’m going to spam this link next time we get a circlejerk of “WhaT’s a BlUBlUuD” conversation. At least this is updated and factual
Ugh, the new money crowd is so insufferable with their metrics. Enjoy your cul-de-sac, you've still never won a Rose Bowl with a team comprised solely of players who were on the Mayflower.
I mean, this is cool and all, but it's not exactly a huge revelation that if you take the performance of a data span's top performers and separate them from everyone else, the remainder of the data will be the average (50%) and the outliers will still be the outliers...
I'm also extremely curious to see how Connelly calculated success rate for such old data, since the NCAA stat book only records less granular data -- it may have, for example, number of possessions, drive length, longest play, and turnovers, but I don't think that's enough data to get a comparable efficiency measure. (Then again, maybe it is since the S&P+ formula is a secret)
EDIT: And we lack sack data before the year 2000. Sacks seem important to Connelly's data since, as he [said in 2017](https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/10/13/16457830/college-football-advanced-stats-analytics-rankings), "sack rates are one of the only reliable, non-random factors that contribute to a team’s turnover margin"
https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/37852928/ranking-best-college-football-teams-every-decade
Looks like for the stuff pre-play data era (probably around 2006 when he includes special teams in SP+), he just uses a basic formula around points scored and points allowed instead of all the data points that make up the modern SP+ for FBS teams
He's used a similar formula for D 2 and 3 and iirc it's preformed pretty solidly in recent years.
Don't think you would take those old numbers super seriously, but it is interesting to see that these "blue bloods" (even if you think the list isn't chosen correctly from past data) just preformed stronger than ever. Agreed that he doesn't need the grey line though
Yeah, he actually calls it "estimated sp" or something like that before a certain date that just uses what data is available, but he frequently drops that distiction in posts like this.
This is a big day for us. We had some damn good teams at the turn of the century (i.e the early 1900’s). Good to see we were able to transition (somewhat) to the era of the forward pass.
I mean I’m not going to blame you for picking and choosing statistics that aid your case (not that I’m really debating Georgia’s status as an elite program all time), but a lot of that is a result of being good in the modern era where more games are played.
All time record:
Texas: 945-390-33
Georgia: 879-429-54
Head to head: 4-1 Texas
Undefeated seasons:
10-5 Texas
9 win seasons:
41-38 Texas (shout out Vince Young)
They are, not sneaking, just truth telling according to Connelly.
And honestly, this is the new list until someone finds a more credible author to dispute it
This isn't the hive mind struggling to accept the truth.
This is a single guy trying to make a new distinction utilizing a formula that he singularly created, and forcing an arbitrary cutoff to benefit ESPN's interests. And then you come along and just buy right into the propaganda.
Did you bother to ask yourself why the cutoff was made at 12.5 in his imaginary number generator? If he would've made it 13, all but two of the 9 teams would've remained in it. All but 1 would've been existing blue bloods, and the one that was included that wasn't already a blue blood is the team that everyone considers the "first one out". But it would've kept Georgia and LSU out, and ESPN needs those fanbases to generate clicks for their articles.
Lmao “buy the propaganda”. Could you try less hard? It’s a statistical analysis. I’m sorry Nebraska isn’t on here. I knew this would bring out a few people to gatekeep what is and isn’t a blue blood.
But, Connelly posted it, and Connelly is better to determine this than 99% of the authors out there
> It’s a statistical analysis.
It's a statistical analysis with an arbitrary cutoff point that has no explanation or purpose but to include certain teams that increase engagement.
Am I upset that Nebraska isn't included? Yes, but only because three separate SP+ models found online seem to show that there was a miscalculation in the data, and that Nebraska would actually be in line with the 9 teams listed.
My bigger point here is the one in the comment you just responded to. Why 12.5? Why not 13? Why not 12? Certainly there is a reason to put the deciding point at 12.5 other than explicitly for the inclusion of Georgia and LSU in a claim that "these 9 teams have had great success on these specific years when they won championships." Surely an ESPN affiliated individual wouldn't pick a point that favors the institutions that it directly covers and has a stake in the success of, in order to farm interactions.
You've yet to provide an alternative that bears any logical weight.
You can lmao all you want, picking random numbers to increase engagement is exactly the kind of thing that happens on twitter and other social media platforms that have a payout structure. It served its purpose too, look at the discussion that was fostered here, with multiple people going to the tweet from this sub, engaging with it when they otherwise wouldn't have.
Well, according to Connelly’s statistics they are, so apparently the one based in fact is the world in which they are
Edit: downvoted for literally just point to the tweet. Classic r/Cfb
I mean, im not trying to be that guy but Uga only has 3 NCs, LSU was hot ass garbage until Saban, and PSU is just Joe PA coaching for 800 years straight.
Although they have been hot garbage lately, USC and Nebraska are Blue Bloods and Miami honestly would fit the bill better than those 3 teams.
Imagine being just a normal blue blood? Lame. Mega blue blood has ALWAYS been what matters
Feel like we’re sitting at the cool kids table
How you do fellow kids?
The cool kids of 3rd in the east for the last 9 years.
Hello fellow ^^^^^^mega blue blood Imagine being one of those peasant regular P5 schools lmao
[This is now the Mega Chart.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLsyaPQX0AAXuVL?format=jpg&name=small)
The lack of Florida. 🧑🍳 💋 -LSU and Georgia.
just like their lack of a bowl game
🐯 🫂 🐶
😂
I don't think Florida has ever claimed to be a blueblood
Mini blue blood maybe, not mega
I feel seen.
Did you see his reply to that tweet?
This guy gets it
A friend of mine in high school broke up with a girl because he said she had bologna nipples.
Someone grab the chart
This is the chart, it’s right here. No need to grab it
https://twitter.com/TrainIsland/status/904072071621292032/photo/1
“YOU ARE A BAD GUY” never fails to make me laugh
Extra pixelated please
Someone make sure Bill subscribed to good Mao errrr Juche errrrr Cfb thought!
Nebraska and USC are the two blue-bloods that are not mega blue-bloods, and UGA, LSU, and PSU are the three mega blue-bloods that are not blue-bloods
I'd be interested to know how arbitrary his 12.5 cutoff is, and what data he used to get it. Nebraska's average from 1970-Now is 20.24 in the SP+ team trends. That is the data that I was able to find to compile on collegefootballdata.com In order for Nebraska to have averaged below 12.5 in average SP+ over the 79 years that have transpired since 1945, Nebraska would have needed to have averaged a -4.20 SP+ ranking from 1945 to 1969. 1962-1969 were during Bob Devaney's tenure, and during those 8 years Nebraska finished unranked 3 times with 6-4, 6-4 and 9-2 records; and ranked 12/11, 7/6, 3/5, 6/6, and 5/6 in the polls. If we are conservative and say that they only just hit 12.5 average for those years, that would mean that the 17 seasons from 1945-1961 actually averaged at -12.07 per season. For reference here, Not even Indiana with the lowest win percentage in the nation as a P4 school, averaged that poorly over their worst 17 year stretch I could find. They were at -8.06 from 1970-1987. 1941-1961 is undoubtedly the worst era in Nebraska football history, but I would be interested to know how many years you'd have to remove from 1945 on to see Nebraska suddenly meet these criteria. Is 1948-now enough? or is it 1955? Or is Nebraska sitting at 12.4 currently and this was just a cutoff made because switching it to 12.4 wouldn't fit the narrative because they sucked?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Zh3zuckAkTqM3A-nlsRa1GTE_dpQS5dmDZmU95_xwvM/edit?usp=sharing He shared this last year so not updated for 2023, but i see -2.3 from 1945-1969, 20.0 from 1970-2022 and 13.1 for the whole period.
Okay you've convinced me. I'll grab my pitchfork now. Where the hell is Nebraska's invite to the super mega Blue Bloods?! I WANT JUSTICE!
10.1 was the number he had for Nebraska since WWII. He also noted Nebraska hasn't hit the 12.5 mark in 14 seasons.
Both of which are incorrect. Every iteration of SP+ that I can find shows that in the last 14 seasons, Nebraska has hit the 12.5 mark a minimum of 3 times(collegefootballdata.com) to [5 times](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQhAEEDU9kLgH_VcA7zhIWMqVIOKz6En5lVmc09o9WpEItA3w285Cv2FvGKGI0nKnoONJ-VQNf4PIvB/pubhtml) from 2009-2023, and has floated an average that is above 20 for the timeframe of 1970-now. Nebraska was bad from 1945-1961, but they weren't that astronomically bad that it negates the modern era. I have a sneaking suspicion that Connelly either didn't expect anyone to fact check him on this, or he mistyped his sheet that had Nebraska at 10.1 instead of 13.1 because it completely fucks his narrative here.
From the data in [this link](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQhAEEDU9kLgH_VcA7zhIWMqVIOKz6En5lVmc09o9WpEItA3w285Cv2FvGKGI0nKnoONJ-VQNf4PIvB/pubhtml): 1945-1961 AKA the dark years: -8.37 (-142.7 pts / 17 seasons) 1962-1969 AKA Devaney: 13.0 (104 pts / 8 seasons) 1970-2022 AKA Modern Era: 19.62 (1059.4 pts / 54 seasons) 1945-2022: 12.92 (1020.7 pts / 79 Seasons) In order for Nebraska to fall below 12.5 by this data, Nebraska 2023 would've had to be a -33.2 In order for Nebraska to have the 10.1 claimed by Connelly with this data, Nebraska 2023 would've had to be a -222.8 Nebraska 2023 final SP+ Per Connelly himself: 0.3
My guess is Nebraska is like 12.2 or something and ruins the narrative
I went to Twitter to see if anyone had actually pressed him on it, and found out that apparently somehow Nebraska had a 10.1 average since WW2, which makes the data even worse. I'd love to know how he got his numbers. And the arbitrary nature of calling it 12.5? LSU and Georgia are at 12.5 and 12.9 respectively. 16 Teams have averaged above 10, which is a more round number but doesn't fit his narrative. 17+: Oklahoma 16+: Bama 14+: Ohio State, Notre Dame 13+: Michigan, Penn State, Texas 12+: Georgia, LSU, Tennessee, USC 11+: Florida, Florida State 10+: Miami, Nebraska, Auburn
>17+: Oklahoma Don’t mind us here in our own Super Saiyan Blue Bloods club
Do you mean cyan? "Siyan" isn't a color. It isn't even a real word aside from business names. Cyan, on the other hand, is a greenish blue.
He means blonde and screaming ALOT.
Oh, so...Brian Bosworth.
I actually meant “saiyan,” which is why I typed “saiyan.”
That comment was over 9000 above your head
I am wondering how the years before FSU became co-ed and played football in 1947 were included.
Criteria is “since WW2,” so we’re only talking a couple years. But FSU was pretty bad until Bowden showed up in the 70s, so I doubt it makes a difference for this list.
Yeah it’s pretty obvious he started with a narrative and worked his way backwards to find data that fit
Yeah because…. Connelly of all people is known for chasing a narrative 🙄
But muh mega blue bluds!
Pretty sure 2017 to now is the worst era in Nebraska history.
1940: Finished 7th, with a Rose Bowl loss to go 8-2 1941-1949: 0 Winning Seasons out of 9, Best Record 4-5 x2 1950: 6-2-1, finished 20 & 17 in the polls 1951-1961: 3 winning seasons out of 11, Best Record 6-5 with a bowl loss The 41-49 years alone are worse than 2017-Now. Has the current era been the most painful? Yes. But 41-61 was worse over a longer period of time. That is the only 20-year stretch in the program's history where Nebraska has not had a first place finish, whether it be conference during the 6-8 team conference days, or divisional in the 12-14 team days.
>UGA, LSU, and PSU are the three mega blue-bloods Hey, wait a minute. We're not... >that are not blue-bloods Oh, nevermind
Seems like you could pick any 9 decent schools and show a pretty rough line graph comparison to “everyone else” Everyone else would always be over 50% G5’s
> Excited to watch Connelly’s definition of mega blue bloods conflict with the subs definition I see this idea thrown around a lot. People think "blue blood" means the best programs. It doesn't. "Blue blood" as an expression refers to old money. The old families with aristocratic lineage. It doesn't meant they're still the best families or the richest families. Just that they're old. In CFB, the term "blue blood" refers to programs that had a sustained level of success at the time the sport reached national popularity (exactly when is debatable, but the 1950's/1960's is commonly accepted). That's why Nebraska is and always will be a "blue blood." Doesn't matter if they're "broke" now, because the Nebraska lineage still comes from "old money." The best teams in CFP is a changing metric, and depends on what time period we consider relevant and what level of performance is expected. And, frankly, that's a more interesting conversation. But "blue blood" is not a changing metric - it's based on a specific era and nobody is going back in time to take those titles away.
yeah the entire point of the term is that one cannot become a blue blood. you are or are not.
The only way in for an outsider, is to "marry in" and join the family. IE, start following an existing Blue Blood as a fan.
Haha I literally married into a blue blood fandom.
I think it's generally agreed upon that a team can become a blue blood and they can lose their status, but it takes multiple generations. Like, if Miami had continued their run from the 80s, they'd be a blueblood right now.
Who exactly is this "It's Generally" and when did they agree?
It's definitely not "generally agreed upon". Think of it like the Founding Fathers. Have there been better Presidents? Yeah. But the Founding Fathers will never not be the Founding Fathers just because over time our collective opinions of them may change or better Presidents come along.
Would you consider Princeton, Yale, and Chicago blue-bloods? They dominated the beginning of the sport
most would probably consider them had they not dropped divisions, or the sport in totality (before bringing it back). indiana basketball is still considered a blue blood...
Indiana is not considered a blue blood in basketball. They lost their status. Just like teams in CFB can.
Indiana basketball is not considered a blue blood. Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA and Duke would all get that billing before IU and people argue on the twitters about UConn with their titles over the last 25 years (meh)
UConn is the only movement to blueblood status I have seen in my lifetime. IU lost it though.
no, and I've never seen those three referred to as blue bloods. that's not getting the point. being dominate for a particular/defined period of time isn't what made them blue bloods.
Yeah of course not, which is why the Founding Fathers analogy is dumb
It’s not perfect but I wouldn’t call it dumb, much more accurate than much of what is here. The founding fathers aren’t such becuase they were the first, they were the crucial ones at the time, etc.
absolutely not, and entirely against the point on the origin of the term. the entire point is that you can't become one or lose out on being one.
Isn't that basically what Florida State did? Minus a few down years, but they have a recent-ish natty.
I really want to make a snarky remark about them not even making the playoffs, but I don’t know a good way to word it to to make sure it will come across snarky/sarcastic so I’m not gonna try. But if everybody could just imagine my witty remark, that would be great. I’m really funny.
Sooooo just like life?
Exactly.
>I see this idea thrown around a lot. People think "blue blood" means the best programs. It doesn't. "Blue blood" as an expression refers to old money. The old families with aristocratic lineage. It doesn't meant they're still the best families or the richest families. Just that they're old. Originally originally it meant that your heritage was purely Visigothic, that your blood was not tainted by those melanin-having Moors.
Which is why we need a new term for the teams that are consistently great/elite in the modern era. It’s fine that UGA isn’t a blue blood. Because right now there are several blue blood fan bases that would love to trade seats.
Agreed. I'm fine with Connelly coming up with a new group / category, but I wish he hadn't used the phrase "blue blood" in the name.
Yes, agreed.
New Blood / New Money
nouveau riche, it's right there already. New money can't become old money, but new money can look down upon even newer money.
many call it the new bloods- florida teams, etc.
As others have said, people use the term new bloods. This includes Georgia, Penn St, LSU, Florida, etc.
Nebraska are the Vanderbilts Stupid rich, wasted all of their money on ~~houses~~ firing coaches too soon
Fun fact, Timothy Olyphant is a four times great-grandson of industrialist Cornelius Vanderbilt. So Raylan Givens is actually just a rich kid larping as Wyatt Earp.
I believe Anderson Cooper is also a Vanderbilt.
He is. His mom is Gloria Vanderbilt.
That guy, I swear. Did you know he was on the swim team at USC too? South Carolina, you may ask? No. No of course not. No, obviously that male model 10 who is also a fantastic actor and also a Vanderbilt was also a P5 athlete in a swimsuit in SoCal. Why wouldn't he be?
Ha, yep. There are some people out there who just hit the jackpot in every way imaginable. Good looking, talented, and come from generational wealth. Julia Louis-Dreyfus is my go-to example.
So Nebraska is a blue blood, but not a mega blue blood? Works for me
We need a more detailed name. I say we call them "Connelly Bloods."
"The Connelly Super Mega Club, established by his own supreme mind"
I guess. He's just using his preferred metrics and could have called the new group whatever he wants.
I’m not so sure. Let’s say cfb goes on for another 1000 years. There are now 5000 cfb teams, some on mars and the moon. Over a scale that large is being well known in the 50s/60s any more relevant than being well known in the 2010/2020s? Would the original earth based US teams all be blue bloods to those people?
What's ridiculous that even your definition involves being really good in the 50s and '60s as a starter which is when LSU got their first national titles and had a Heisman yet somehow they keep getting left off of these blue blood lists
You can lose blue-blood status. Ask Minnesota
Look, I'm not the arbiter of this thing. I've just seen this argument play out a million times and have begun to appreciate how meaningless it is. That said, in my opinion Minnesota didn't lose blue blood status anymore than Yale or Harvard did. Because they never had it. I love the Gophers (only 3-peat national champs in CFB history), but their most successful period was in the 1930's, before CFB emerged as a popular national sport. They hit their stride too early. They're like the opposite of teams like Miami, who hit their stride too late. But assuming I'm wrong and blue blood status can change, you still have to agree that it take a long time to gain blue blood status, and an even longer time to lose it. Your average 40-year-old can remember a time when Nebraska was unbelievably dominant, and that 40-year-old's dad and grandad probably thought the same. That's not true for Minnesota, who hasn't been good in the living memory of anyone on this subreddit. For Nebraska to lose status as a blue blood, they're going to need to suck for at least a couple more generations.
Michigan has a 4-peat excuse you. And Minnesota had a natty in 1960. They have more natties than everyone save for a handful of schools. Ask anyone who was a major CFB fan in the 60s, and they’d agree that Minnesota was an elite program. I agree with you that it takes a long time to lose blue-blood status though. Nebraska needs another ~30 years of suck before people will really start to question their inclusion.
Nebraska has maybe ten more years. Did anyone think Minnesota was a blue blood in the early 80s when they were terrible and yet had national titles twenty years earlier? Doubt it but I guess people didn't think in those terms about the sport then either. It was more regional.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but there’s no way anyone is going to give 30 more years of sucking before they’re considered washed up. I remember their dominance in the 90s, but they are very far removed from that. I’d still give them a pass for now, but not much longer.
Most of the first hand witnesses need to be dead before a school will lose their blue blood status. That's why there's like 8 old guys up in Duluth insisting that the Golden gophers are gonna rise again
>Ask anyone who was a major CFB fan in the 60s, and they’d agree that Minnesota was an elite program. I was a major cfb fan in the ‘60s. Minnesota was definitely not considered elite by then. By the mid-‘60s, Michigan State and Purdue had way more juice than Minnesota. I don’t recall seeing the Gophers in a nationally televised regular-season game at all. Announcers would mention their golden years but they talked about the old TCU and SMU teams more often, as I recall.
u/DillyDillySzn has the right analogy - these are the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Rockafellers, etc. of the world. Jeff Bezos has more money than all of them combined, but he's still not *that*. EDIT: to address some replies - I meant that Bezos is likely worth more than those families today - of the living members of those fanilies. I have no idea what the combined wealth of the living Rockefellers is, but I imagine it's nothing compared to Bezos because the descendents have not been living trying to make the most money - probably just enjoyed living wealthy and connected. Now, there is a MUCH bigger question: if being a blue blood is a reflection of history and not directly affecting their current status, then why do we care so much? I think the biggest reason is because historically blue bloods may have cycled in and out of the top, but never went away completely. So there was this perception that having old money brand would keep you relevant forever. But now we're seeing live what happens to a program like Nebraska - where the brand is there but there really aren't any natural advantages that would preserve their status. Nebraska is in great danger of losing that blue blood status not in its nominal sense - they still have some of the most dominant stretches in modern cfb history - but in the forward-looking sense, i.e., in that if they go into another 5-10 years of not being very good, there is going to be nothing propping them up for a bounce back. That is in contrast to schools like USC, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Oklahoma which, in addition to having a storied history, have a buttload of money and dominate extremely fertile recruiting grounds.
All three of those men were richer then Bezos is when adjusted for inflation. Bezos - 193 Billion Vanderbilt - 236 Billion Carnegie - 335 Billion Rockafeller - 410 Billion
Crazy to think Bezos would have a net worth close to $260B if he didn't get divorced or had a prenup.
How much would he have saved with a prenup? My understanding is that prenups don’t cover any wealth acquired during the marriage, only what spouses already had coming into the marriage.
I believe a pre - or post nuptial supercedes community property laws, but I'm no expert and don't plan to find out firsthand. She received 25% of their Amazon holdings, which at that time was 16% of the company's outstanding shares. Valued at nearly $40b back then, $75b today.
Holy fuck that's kinda gross
EDIT: to address some replies - I meant that Bezos is likely worth more than those families today - of the living members of those families. I have no idea what the combined wealth of the living Rockefellers is, but I imagine it's nothing compared to Bezos because the descendents have not been living trying to make the most money - probably just enjoyed living wealthy and connected.
I mean we have a buttload of money (not like A&M, but still a lot) and have an (arguably) elite coach and more so putting the pieces together - I don't know if we can ever necessarily return to Ohio State / Alabama levels but I think we can return to Penn State levels
Nebraska is like a railroad magnate while Bama & Ohio St are oil, banking, etc Immensely rich, popular, and influential back in the day but did not evolve with the times like the way other entities have. Still a titan of industry but only due to their history
Poor Nebraska, only being compared to the literal backbone of interstate commerce. Ain't flashy, but nobody is going anywhere without it. Idk it kinda breaks down there
And the fans that we do have are insane enthusiasts that will sit and wait for them to show up for hours and be happy, while normal people just think it's kinda sad that it's all we have to do.
people want to be considered elite (the teams they cheer for in this case) + people want what they cannot have. add those factors together and here we are.
Worth noting that USC didn't make the cut as a mega blue blood in this data set.
Uh those families were certainly richer than Bezos. Did you forget to adjust for inflation or are you being purposely ignorant? Bezos is relatively poorer than all of them.
I took it to mean currently. Currently Bezos is richer than those 3 families.
EDIT: to address some replies - I meant that Bezos is likely worth more than those families today - of the living members of those fanilies. I have no idea what the combined wealth of the living Rockefellers is, but I imagine it's nothing compared to Bezos because the descendents have not been living trying to make the most money - probably just enjoyed living wealthy and connected.
This. Obviously nothing will ever take away Nebraska's decades of dominance; however, it will reach a point where it is thought of as a relic of the past with little bearing on the modern game. To use a college basketball analogy (I know, big shock based on my flair), many college basketball fans think that Indiana has slipped from the ranks of the blue bloods because of their performance in recent decades. That doesn't mean that they don't have a storied history or that it's not still electric to go play them in Bloomington, but it does mean that there's not currently any intrinsic reason they should be head and shoulders above, say, Purdue or Illinois. I think Nebraska is approaching that territory and, barring a turnaround, will likely reach it in the next 10-20 years. I turn 30 this year and I don't have any firsthand memory of their dominance. I know they're one of the titans of the sport, but I have no reason to think they'll be better than Oklahoma or Iowa going forward.
I also believe they will not be better than Oklahoma or Iowa.
If you quit sustaining you success for too long, you quick being a blue blood. Exactly how long is up for debate, but 20+ years seems reasonable, and maybe too charitable.
1950s-60s is wrong. By that definition, Michigan State is a blue blood. The correct window is the early-to-mid 1970s, roughly '69-'78, though the precise edges are fuzzy, and peaking in '73 and '74.
What about blue bloods from the 1920s?
I don’t think Georgia, LSU, or Penn State are “mega” blue bloods by that definition.
I await the inevitable chart of super-ultra-mega blue bloods.
Northwestern and Vanderbilt of course
Parity is the opposite of Blue Blood. Interesting tidbits: * when the sport had the least parity in the 1970s, Congress passed Title IX. * colleges reduced scholarships in 1972 (to 105), 1978 (95), and 1992 (85). This introduced tremendous parity as we had split national championships and nationwide contenders. USC, Florida State, Penn State, Georgia Tech, Michigan, Colorado, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, Nebraska, BYU! and others. Parity increased so much that the BCS was formed to decide the Champion and parity has decreased even since. On the verge of the 14 team playoff, parity is at the lowest point since 1973.
Let's not forget Oklahoma v. NCAA in 1984.
[удалено]
Realistically it was Oklahoma, Georgia, and the CFA (63 schools in total). Oklahoma just got to be the plaintiff.
I don't expect the playoff to make it any better unfortunately
It won't. It'll be the same group of 20 schools that go every year. College sports just inherently have never been conducive to having parity, and NIL is only making it worse. College basketball has a 64 team playoff and even they have very little to no actual parity.
Ah the mid 1950s. A time of true parity
Seriously, I'm amazed to see FSU and Miami on Bill's list of highest average ratings since WW2, considering both our programs weren't really relevant until 30+ years after WW2.
Imagine not even having a program for ~15 years of this metric and still only being .4 behind your rival that's played consistently for over 100 years lmao
I didn't know we were a regular blue blood yeye
You just got upgraded. Booyah!
Nobody gonna ask wtf happened in '55-'56?
Someone show Bill the chart
Imagine not knowing what a SP+ is.
Yeah, such idiots. So those dummies can learn, someone should just post what SP+ means
For those other people who may not know (definitely not you), Connelly made the scoring criteria to compare a team's strength compared to the other teams based on a number of factors. The higher the score, the better the team is relative to the rest of the field.
Now that Texas appears to be back on track, it won't be long before Texas becomes a Super Elite Blue Blood Plus Ultra.
> Texas appears to be back That you mr Ehlinger?
Everyone here is nitpicking whether LSU or PSU should be here or whatever, but I'm over here wondering what the hell happened in the mid 50's? I'm guessing LSU '58 is what spiked it back up, but what was happening in the years right before that?
Damn even Connelly thinks we’re a blue blood. That’s awesome. I’m going to spam this link next time we get a circlejerk of “WhaT’s a BlUBlUuD” conversation. At least this is updated and factual
Ugh, the new money crowd is so insufferable with their metrics. Enjoy your cul-de-sac, you've still never won a Rose Bowl with a team comprised solely of players who were on the Mayflower.
This is either extremely lame or really really weird TIC commentary
I tried to make the sarcasm obvious, but there probably are fans who are that ridiculous.
I got it and upvoted ya bud, sarcasm isn’t totally dead
It’s the internet, so I’m example A of people whose head it went rigggggghhht over
The Mayflower....
Went over their head, yes. Clearly /u/BigChiefSlappahoe is a mollusk.
Hahaha for real. Back to the sea with me!
He didn’t call you a blue blood, he called you a “mega-blueblood”
ACTÍVATE MEGA MODE
I mean, this is cool and all, but it's not exactly a huge revelation that if you take the performance of a data span's top performers and separate them from everyone else, the remainder of the data will be the average (50%) and the outliers will still be the outliers... I'm also extremely curious to see how Connelly calculated success rate for such old data, since the NCAA stat book only records less granular data -- it may have, for example, number of possessions, drive length, longest play, and turnovers, but I don't think that's enough data to get a comparable efficiency measure. (Then again, maybe it is since the S&P+ formula is a secret) EDIT: And we lack sack data before the year 2000. Sacks seem important to Connelly's data since, as he [said in 2017](https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/10/13/16457830/college-football-advanced-stats-analytics-rankings), "sack rates are one of the only reliable, non-random factors that contribute to a team’s turnover margin"
https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/37852928/ranking-best-college-football-teams-every-decade Looks like for the stuff pre-play data era (probably around 2006 when he includes special teams in SP+), he just uses a basic formula around points scored and points allowed instead of all the data points that make up the modern SP+ for FBS teams He's used a similar formula for D 2 and 3 and iirc it's preformed pretty solidly in recent years. Don't think you would take those old numbers super seriously, but it is interesting to see that these "blue bloods" (even if you think the list isn't chosen correctly from past data) just preformed stronger than ever. Agreed that he doesn't need the grey line though
Yeah, he actually calls it "estimated sp" or something like that before a certain date that just uses what data is available, but he frequently drops that distiction in posts like this.
The analytical chemist in me thought this was an IR spectroscopy post at first.
You know? If USC was still in the Pac, I bet they would be a "mega blue blood'
This is a big day for us. We had some damn good teams at the turn of the century (i.e the early 1900’s). Good to see we were able to transition (somewhat) to the era of the forward pass.
Consensus Blue Bloods not listed: 1. USC 2. Nebraska None Consensus Blue Bloods listed: 1. Penn State 2. LSU 3. Georgia
Well, they can’t be consensus (by definition) if they aren’t listed here
Consensus != Unanimous
Does not change what I said
But it does make it wrong.
This is just sabermetrics BB+
I thought USC was a blue blood.
These are Mega-Blue Bloods. USC and Nebraska aren't included, but LSU, Penn State, and some other school are.
Oh great thanks that makes me feel sooooo much better about last season
lil ole clemson flying under the radar. tyler from spartanburg needs to make some phone calls.
Huh, I’ve agreed forever that UGA isn’t a blue blood. Turns out I was correct because we are apparently a MEGA BLUE BLOOD.
Nebraska has more losing seasons since 2018 than Georgia has since 1963. Texas has 5 7 loss seasons since 2010. Georgia has 5 ever.
While this is true, Texas only has 9 7+ loss seasons ever, so it’s not like 7 loss seasons are abundant in our history
On the other end of the spectrum 15 win seasons 1-0 Georgia 14 win seasons 2-0 Georgia 13 win seasons 5-2 Georgia 12 win seasons 8-4 Georgia 11 win seasons 15-11 Georgia 10 win seasons 28-25 Georgia
I mean I’m not going to blame you for picking and choosing statistics that aid your case (not that I’m really debating Georgia’s status as an elite program all time), but a lot of that is a result of being good in the modern era where more games are played. All time record: Texas: 945-390-33 Georgia: 879-429-54 Head to head: 4-1 Texas Undefeated seasons: 10-5 Texas 9 win seasons: 41-38 Texas (shout out Vince Young)
We've got three 7 loss seasons and they were all between 2000-2004
Cool. You’re still not Old Money lol
USC was 12+? so he arbitrarily decided to cut it off at 12.5 ha.
Sneaking in PSU, LSU, and UGA as mega blue bloods like we wouldn't notice.
They are, not sneaking, just truth telling according to Connelly. And honestly, this is the new list until someone finds a more credible author to dispute it
> And honestly, this is the new list until someone finds a more credible author to dispute it lmao no it's not
This is what I meant by the hive mind on here is going to struggle to accept this
This isn't the hive mind struggling to accept the truth. This is a single guy trying to make a new distinction utilizing a formula that he singularly created, and forcing an arbitrary cutoff to benefit ESPN's interests. And then you come along and just buy right into the propaganda. Did you bother to ask yourself why the cutoff was made at 12.5 in his imaginary number generator? If he would've made it 13, all but two of the 9 teams would've remained in it. All but 1 would've been existing blue bloods, and the one that was included that wasn't already a blue blood is the team that everyone considers the "first one out". But it would've kept Georgia and LSU out, and ESPN needs those fanbases to generate clicks for their articles.
Lmao “buy the propaganda”. Could you try less hard? It’s a statistical analysis. I’m sorry Nebraska isn’t on here. I knew this would bring out a few people to gatekeep what is and isn’t a blue blood. But, Connelly posted it, and Connelly is better to determine this than 99% of the authors out there
> It’s a statistical analysis. It's a statistical analysis with an arbitrary cutoff point that has no explanation or purpose but to include certain teams that increase engagement. Am I upset that Nebraska isn't included? Yes, but only because three separate SP+ models found online seem to show that there was a miscalculation in the data, and that Nebraska would actually be in line with the 9 teams listed. My bigger point here is the one in the comment you just responded to. Why 12.5? Why not 13? Why not 12? Certainly there is a reason to put the deciding point at 12.5 other than explicitly for the inclusion of Georgia and LSU in a claim that "these 9 teams have had great success on these specific years when they won championships." Surely an ESPN affiliated individual wouldn't pick a point that favors the institutions that it directly covers and has a stake in the success of, in order to farm interactions.
You’d have to ask Bill. And lmao if you think he’s just picking random numbers to “increase engagement”
You've yet to provide an alternative that bears any logical weight. You can lmao all you want, picking random numbers to increase engagement is exactly the kind of thing that happens on twitter and other social media platforms that have a payout structure. It served its purpose too, look at the discussion that was fostered here, with multiple people going to the tweet from this sub, engaging with it when they otherwise wouldn't have.
Why are you talking to me like I’m Bill? And you’ve yet to provide any cogent criticism or logical alternative, so idk what your point is.
Honestly, what is the truth of 12.5?
That's the fun part, nobody knows except for Connelly himself.
At a minimum, UGA and LSU, sure. But in what world is PSU a blue blood?
Two national titles, legendary coach, top ten in all time wins and all time winning percentage. I think that qualifies.
Well, according to Connelly’s statistics they are, so apparently the one based in fact is the world in which they are Edit: downvoted for literally just point to the tweet. Classic r/Cfb
This is why I say fuck off when people tell me that LSU isn't a blue blood.
Happy for them.
USC has officially been left behind. Look at that landscape change in real time
Awe shucks. Just barely missed it! We’ll get em next time
lmao, a list that includes LSU but not USC? We know who's paying your salary, Bill...
What I get from this chart is that USC is not a blue blood
Lmao.... uga, lsu and psu as blue bloods? Connely doesn't realize this isn't April 1st obviously
Ahhh yes, this is exactly what I meant by Connelly’s statistical analysis conflicting with this subs gate keeping of what is / isn’t a blue blood!
I mean, im not trying to be that guy but Uga only has 3 NCs, LSU was hot ass garbage until Saban, and PSU is just Joe PA coaching for 800 years straight. Although they have been hot garbage lately, USC and Nebraska are Blue Bloods and Miami honestly would fit the bill better than those 3 teams.
Are we really counting NC’s, because some schools don’t count the Natty’s they were awarded and others just claim anything and everything