Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

That's a very interesting chart.  We're near the nominal, which seems to mean we usually end up around where we're expected to pre-season.

A&M is surprising.  I assume that' Tulane lapping the field?  I'm laughing at Auburn and USCe.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
9 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

Interesting that we are the 6th least overrated of the 7 True Blues.

 

7 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I think you mean 6th most or 2nd least overrated of the 7 True Blues.

There are 8. Ohio State bests the pack and y’all do not appear to be counting them. 

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

6 of 8. Blue Bloods don't change

They do.  It just takes a while.  

Or are Nebraska and Minnesota back?  Because that's a lot of old and currently irrelevant championships.

Edited by wablty
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, wablty said:

They do.  It just takes a while.  

Or are Nebraska and Minnesota back?  Because that's a lot of old and currently irrelevant championships.

Nebraska is still in the crew for now (the chart messed up our points total, obviously, the author apologized but didn't fix it). But they're getting their heels nipped by the Penn State / LSU / Florida / Georgia tier.

It'll take decades to lose the title though.

 

GupREsb.jpeg

Edited by texifornia
  • Like 2
Posted

we do this every couple of years....

the trueblue chart heading in to '25:

1        Michigan      1012        0.733
2        Ohio State    978        0.735
3        Alabama       974        0.733
4        Notre Dame 962        0.732
5        Texas             961        0.704
6        Oklahoma     950        0.723
7        Penn State     943        0.691
8        Nebraska       924        0.677
9        Georgia         892        0.667
10      USC               882        0.694
11      Tennessee      875        0.67


12      LSU                815        0.645

 

if there are only 8 then is it the 900-win mark, or that they are 30 games ahead of georgia?

parcells: until disproven the current trend is georgia is good for 12 wins this year, corn is good for 7

georgia breaks the 900 line and gains 5 on corn this year and catches them this decade

usc can get their 900th win next year, tennessee can notch 900 in 2028

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

we do this every couple of years....

the trueblue chart heading in to '25:

1        Michigan      1012        0.733
2        Ohio State    978        0.735
3        Alabama       974        0.733
4        Notre Dame 962        0.732
5        Texas             961        0.704
6        Oklahoma     950        0.723
7        Penn State     943        0.691
8        Nebraska       924        0.677
9        Georgia         892        0.667
10      USC               882        0.694
11      Tennessee      875        0.67


12      LSU                815        0.645

Pretty hard to argue with the top 6, not that they're necessarily in the right order (and yes, I understand they're ranked by games won).  After that it gets contested.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Posted
2 hours ago, texifornia said:

Nebraska is still in the crew for now (the chart messed up our points total, obviously, the author apologized but didn't fix it). But they're getting their heels nipped by the Penn State / LSU / Florida / Georgia tier.

It'll take decades to lose the title though.

 

GupREsb.jpeg

Got you.  I think Nebraska, unless they catch lightning in a bottle, are done as a powerhouse.   There will be good years, but they don't have a natural recruiting base.  If anything, Minnesota's more likely to have some strange resurgence... But they're both relics as far as I'm concerned.  There were advantages that don't exist anymore.  Maybe CHS or Cargill decide they wanna roll with the Gophers I guess?  I dunno.  This TD brought to you by Target?

I don't think you gotta wait for the data to catch up.  Once the reason it's over is apparent, it's pretty much over.

Posted
2 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

georgia breaks the 900 line and gains 5 on corn this year and catches them this decade

usc can get their 900th win next year, tennessee can notch 900 in 2028

But, the top teams also keep piling on the wins. By 2030, there may be 5 over the 1000 win mark. 

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

we do this every couple of years....

the trueblue chart heading in to '25:

1        Michigan      1012        0.733
2        Ohio State    978        0.735
3        Alabama       974        0.733
4        Notre Dame 962        0.732
5        Texas             961        0.704
6        Oklahoma     950        0.723
7        Penn State     943        0.691
8        Nebraska       924        0.677
9        Georgia         892        0.667
10      USC               882        0.694
11      Tennessee      875        0.67


12      LSU                815        0.645

 

if there are only 8 then is it the 900-win mark, or that they are 30 games ahead of georgia?

parcells: until disproven the current trend is georgia is good for 12 wins this year, corn is good for 7

georgia breaks the 900 line and gains 5 on corn this year and catches them this decade

usc can get their 900th win next year, tennessee can notch 900 in 2028

 

Is this just number of wins and winning percentage? The problem with raw wins is that you can end up with G5 powerhouses like Boise State for example rapidly catching up to P5 schools without ever sniffing the top 5.

Edited by texifornia
Posted

Nebraska has a joke of a schedule this year.  They likely will only lose two and then get absolutely wrecked in the playoffs.  I do like that Kentucky WR they signed.  Wished we would have gone after him.  

Posted
10 hours ago, texifornia said:

Aha, finally found a high res version of the better Y axis chart (top 5 instead of points)

 

XOJOmEu.jpeg

 

10 hours ago, satyanash said:

http://cfbcomparer.com/ap-poll-leaders

we passed Nebraska a while back in AP poll appearances, and we're nipping at USC's heels

with AP top 5 appearances it's the reverse

I think your chart is some years out of date @texifornia. We obviously added quite a few top 5 appearances in '23 and '24.

Pulling from this:

10 hours ago, satyanash said:

http://cfbcomparer.com/ap-poll-leaders

we passed Nebraska a while back in AP poll appearances, and we're nipping at USC's heels

with AP top 5 appearances it's the reverse

We are ahead of corn in total weeks and ahead of SC in weeks in top 5.

Posted
10 hours ago, texifornia said:

Nebraska is still in the crew for now (the chart messed up our points total, obviously, the author apologized but didn't fix it). But they're getting their heels nipped by the Penn State / LSU / Florida / Georgia tier.

It'll take decades to lose the title though.

 

GupREsb.jpeg

It’s weird to me that Rutgers is so bad at the game they helped invent.

Posted
1 hour ago, Frank Drebin said:

Nebraska has a joke of a schedule this year.  They likely will only lose two and then get absolutely wrecked in the playoffs.  I do like that Kentucky WR they signed.  Wished we would have gone after him.  

Key, I think. I was hoping Texas would talk to him. 

Pundits have been harping on “Matt Rhule in Year 3s” as a thing. I assume he went to double digits or close at Temple and Baylor and they expect it at Nebraska. Fine by me. I would absolutely love to meet Nebraska in the playoffs. 

Posted
1 minute ago, closetojumping said:

Key, I think. I was hoping Texas would talk to him. 

Pundits have been harping on “Matt Rhule in Year 3s” as a thing. I assume he went to double digits or close at Temple and Baylor and they expect it at Nebraska. Fine by me. I would absolutely love to meet Nebraska in the playoffs. 

2-10, 6-6, 10-4 at Temple

1-11, 7-6, 11-3 at Baylor

5-7, 7-6, ?? At Nebraska 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, closetojumping said:

Key, I think. I was hoping Texas would talk to him. 

Pundits have been harping on “Matt Rhule in Year 3s” as a thing. I assume he went to double digits or close at Temple and Baylor and they expect it at Nebraska. Fine by me. I would absolutely love to meet Nebraska in the playoffs. 

Yes, Key.  Everyone was talking about their other WR.  I wanted Key.  Playing with shit quarterbacks in an antiquated system, he has 126 career catches for 1900 yards at 15 per catch.  And 14 TDs.  I liked him a lot better than Barrion Brown as a WR, who transferred to LSU.  (Brown is a stud kickoff returner though).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

2-10, 6-6, 10-4 at Temple

1-11, 7-6, 11-3 at Baylor

5-7, 7-6, ?? At Nebraska 

They have the schedule for 10+ wins.  Joke of a nonconference schedule (Akron, Houston Christian, Cincinnati).  No Ohio State.  No Oregon.  No Indiana.  No Illinois.  Only ranked teams are #14 Michigan at home and #2 Penn State on road.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 8/11/2025 at 2:18 PM, Dbeasy said:

Someone explain to me how USC football is still screwed up. They have several billionaire alumni who could help their NIL program, they have a coach who at one time was producing Heisman QB’s, Southern California is not a bad place to live, and the school itself is high quality. What the heck are they doing?

Texas has more than several billionaire alums who refuse to help our NIL program. I don't think this is a factor for why they're fucked up, or at least not in the top 5. Maybe top 10. USC has fucking spent on NIL. 

There's been a ton of articles elsewhere about how fucked up USC is athletically and academically. Like hundreds and hundreds of million dollars in debt fucked up. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

GA is not a fucking blue blood. They're a state flagship school. There's a difference. They've been generally run of the bill save the the last 10 years. Stop it. 

Based on satya's AP tracker tool, they absolutely have some work to do to even catch Penn State

image.thumb.png.30a79b3631347df02f1c49704d944c90.png

Posted
57 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

They have the schedule for 10+ wins.  Joke of a nonconference schedule (Akron, Houston Christian, Cincinnati).  No Ohio State.  No Oregon.  No Indiana.  No Illinois.  Only ranked teams are #14 Michigan at home and #2 Penn State on road.

It feels so fucking wrong to me that were suddenly pointing out that teams are lucky to avoid Indiana and Illinois. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, heso said:

It feels so fucking wrong to me that were suddenly pointing out that teams are lucky to avoid Indiana and Illinois. 

People used to worry about Oklahoma State. There's always shuffling of middle management. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
46 minutes ago, texifornia said:

Based on satya's AP tracker tool, they absolutely have some work to do to even catch Penn State

I missed this -- what is the significance of the size of each circle?

Posted

Nothing like logging into Surly from my AOL 300 baud modem account to see the annual Who’s a True Blue Blood argument in full swing. Next we should discuss whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. 

Posted
25 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Nothing like logging into Surly from my AOL 300 baud modem account to see the annual Who’s a True Blue Blood argument in full swing. Next we should discuss whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. 

Oh Bitch GIFs | Tenor

We talk about non-football stuff, people complain.  We talk about football, people complain. 

 

Posted
5 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

GA is not a fucking blue blood. They're a state flagship school. There's a difference. They've been generally run of the bill save the the last 10 years. Stop it. 

i'm not for them, but their data insists upon itself

within this decade if georgia continues to win double digits and if corn continues to suck....

then georgia's position on the ap rankings chart is going to move their bubble ahead of corn then they will be in the top 8 in all 4 categories

ctj says there are 8 trueblues

if there are only 8 trueblues what is the formula?

ap charts?

total wins?

winning percentage?

what about ap titles?

usc are #6 in the ap rankings bubbles, #5 in AP titles and #7 in win %

are they out?

all of the ties and number of games played distorts a lot of this data

example: Texas has played 65 more games than usc even though usc started playing in 1888 and we started in 1893

wins and win % starting in 1936 would be interesting to see........

here's the chart listed by wins but with the other metrics added

                              wins        win%     ap bubbles    ap titles

1        Michigan      1012      0.733          top 8             3
2        Ohio State    978        0.735          top 8             9
3        Alabama       974        0.733          top 8             12
4        Notre Dame 962        0.732          top 8             8
5        Texas             961        0.704          top 8             3
6        Oklahoma     950        0.723          top 8             7


7        Penn State     943        0.691     NOT TOP 8        2
8        Nebraska       924        0.677      last top 8          4


9        Georgia         892        0.667     NOT TOP 8         3 
10      USC               882        0.694          top 8             5


11      Tennessee      875        0.67      NOT TOP 12       2

12      LSU                815        0.645

 

postulate: the number of trueblues, at this time, is either 6 or 10

 

Posted

Penn State had (at least) 4 undefeated seasons w/o being awarded even a share of the national title.

Now, their coaches raped or facilitated the rape of multiple players, so fuck 'em, but this "blue blood" argument hinging on titles gets a little wonky.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

i'm not for them, but their data insists upon itself

within this decade if georgia continues to win double digits and if corn continues to suck....

then georgia's position on the ap rankings chart is going to move their bubble ahead of corn then they will be in the top 8 in all 4 categories

ctj says there are 8 trueblues

if there are only 8 trueblues what is the formula?

ap charts?

total wins?

winning percentage?

what about ap titles?

usc are #6 in the ap rankings bubbles, #5 in AP titles and #7 in win %

are they out?

all of the ties and number of games played distorts a lot of this data

example: Texas has played 65 more games than usc even though usc started playing in 1888 and we started in 1893

wins and win % starting in 1936 would be interesting to see........

here's the chart listed by wins but with the other metrics added

                              wins        win%     ap bubbles    ap titles

1        Michigan      1012      0.733          top 8             3
2        Ohio State    978        0.735          top 8             9
3        Alabama       974        0.733          top 8             12
4        Notre Dame 962        0.732          top 8             8
5        Texas             961        0.704          top 8             3
6        Oklahoma     950        0.723          top 8             7


7        Penn State     943        0.691     NOT TOP 8        2
8        Nebraska       924        0.677      last top 8          4


9        Georgia         892        0.667     NOT TOP 8         3 
10      USC               882        0.694          top 8             5


11      Tennessee      875        0.67      NOT TOP 12       2

12      LSU                815        0.645

 

postulate: the number of trueblues, at this time, is either 6 or 10

 

Common sense. You demand some mathematical criteria for who is and who is not a blue blood, as if you'll only accept the results based on some fucking algorithm. You're falsely framing the argument from the outset, and it's horseshit. What's the criteria? It's fucking common sense and a general knowledge of the sport. 

Texas, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska, USC, Michigan. 

If Nebraska disappears for another fucking 15 years, maybe they fall the way of the dodo like Minnesota. Honestly, that'll probably happen. Georgia wins at the rate they're winning, maybe in 15 more years they can take that spot. There's a reason Miami isn't on that list, a 10 year elite level run of elite-ness and 20 damn good years, and five national titles didn't get it done, but people here stanning Georgia. Georgia has had a great decade. Hell, LSU has a pretty good run for 20 years, they're not on the list either. 

Most of us recognize a blowjob when we see and feel it, but you'd sit around arguing if it qualifies as one because of the ratio of mouth versus hand technique before zipping up your pants in frustration and scratching your head as you pondered what you were actually receiving. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
25 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Penn State had (at least) 4 undefeated seasons w/o being awarded even a share of the national title.

Now, their coaches raped or facilitated the rape of multiple players, so fuck 'em, but this "blue blood" argument hinging on titles gets a little wonky.

That's why the usual charts just say weeks in poll and Top 5. Gets you an idea of sustained excellence without arguing about applying Sagarin ratings to 1940s games against West Kansas School of Aeronautics 

Posted
33 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

i'm not for them, but their data insists upon itself

within this decade if georgia continues to win double digits and if corn continues to suck....

then georgia's position on the ap rankings chart is going to move their bubble ahead of corn then they will be in the top 8 in all 4 categories

ctj says there are 8 trueblues

if there are only 8 trueblues what is the formula?

ap charts?

total wins?

winning percentage?

what about ap titles?

usc are #6 in the ap rankings bubbles, #5 in AP titles and #7 in win %

are they out?

all of the ties and number of games played distorts a lot of this data

example: Texas has played 65 more games than usc even though usc started playing in 1888 and we started in 1893

wins and win % starting in 1936 would be interesting to see........

here's the chart listed by wins but with the other metrics added

                              wins        win%     ap bubbles    ap titles

1        Michigan      1012      0.733          top 8             3
2        Ohio State    978        0.735          top 8             9
3        Alabama       974        0.733          top 8             12
4        Notre Dame 962        0.732          top 8             8
5        Texas             961        0.704          top 8             3
6        Oklahoma     950        0.723          top 8             7


7        Penn State     943        0.691     NOT TOP 8        2
8        Nebraska       924        0.677      last top 8          4


9        Georgia         892        0.667     NOT TOP 8         3 
10      USC               882        0.694          top 8             5


11      Tennessee      875        0.67      NOT TOP 12       2

12      LSU                815        0.645

 

postulate: the number of trueblues, at this time, is either 6 or 10

 

I am just lazily going off of the generally accepted list of 8 blue bloods that someone wrote about in a defining book in its time. Hell, I don’t even remember the book but I am sure Google or Wikipedia would tell you. 

This list is generally who is being referenced from that original notion:

(in no particular order)

-Texas

-OU

-Nebraska

-Alabama

-Ohio State

-Michigan

-Notre Dame

-USC

I don’t remember the methodology or criteria and I am not convicted about this list changing or not. It just kind of exists for me. It’s no different than public Ivy designation. I don’t care if people want to move Miami of Ohio or William & Mary out or not, just tell me why and don’t remove Texas. Please and thanks. 

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Penn State had (at least) 4 undefeated seasons w/o being awarded even a share of the national title.

Now, their coaches raped or facilitated the rape of multiple players, so fuck 'em, but this "blue blood" argument hinging on titles gets a little wonky.

I haven’t bothered to research it myself, but my father, who is as big a CFB fan as any of us and played at Rice, has gone on at least 100 rants in my lifetime about the lack of merit in Penn State’s history. Most of those rants predate Sandusky and Paterno’s pedophile factory. The claim is that Paterno was a scheduling coward as an independent constantly set up his schedule for outcomes that he then didn’t get credit for from the voters, which then led to him perpetually whining in front of mics and cameras. 

Apparently, that pedo enabler threw a hissy fit in 1969 that Nixon awarded Texas the title live on tv after the Arkansas game. Texas responded by getting PSU invited to the Cotton Bowl. Paterno then called that a UT home game, declined, went to Miami and played in the Orange Bowl where he continued to bawl about Texas. 

Maybe the blue blood lable-ers are from the same era. 

17 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Common sense. You demand some mathematical criteria for who is and who is not a blue blood, as if you'll only accept the results based on some fucking algorithm. You're falsely framing the argument from the outset, and it's horseshit. What's the criteria? It's fucking common sense and a general knowledge of the sport. 

Texas, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska, USC, Michigan. 

If Nebraska disappears for another fucking 15 years, maybe they fall the way of the dodo like Minnesota. Honestly, that'll probably happen. Georgia wins at the rate they're winning, maybe in 15 more years they can take that spot. There's a reason Miami isn't on that list, a 10 year elite level run of elite-ness and 20 damn good years, and five national titles didn't get it done, but people here stanning Georgia. Georgia has had a great decade. Hell, LSU has a pretty good run for 20 years, they're not on the list either. 

Most of us recognize a blowjob when we see and feel it, but you'd sit around arguing if it qualifies as one because of the ratio of mouth versus hand technique before zipping up your pants in frustration and scratching your head as you pondered what you were actually receiving. 

The last paragraph. What in the fuck. I laughed. Absurd. 

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...