(03-18-2021 03:01 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 12:09 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 10:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-18-2021 10:24 AM)johnintx Wrote:  I thought of UCF when Louisville was first discussed upthread. The Magic have been there a long time, but it's really the NBA and UCF for sports options in Orlando. UCF has built a large local fan base. It was inevitable due to the massive enrollment and subsequent amount of graduates. As the city and the school mature, the UCF program can only grow.

I lived in Orlando in 1993-94. That was an eternity ago...as in land lines and analog TV. At that time, UCF was playing I-AA football and played basketball in a small gym. Most of the locals were fans of UF or FSU. Those also happened to be glory days for UF and FSU, but the allegiances were set. As UCF grew, and even more people moved to the area, UCF claimed a much larger fanbase. There are a significant number of UCF fans now, as opposed to Gator and Seminole fans that happen to cheer for UCF.

There are still plenty of actual FSU and (especially) UF fans in the Orlando area, but UCF has done a good job of building their fan base anyway.

They have clearly done a better job in gaining ground against UF/FSU fans in Orlando than my USF has done in Tampa.

I've heard this from others and find the dynamic interesting. I wonder why it is the case.

Well, I think the main reason is that Tampa is a bigger area than Orlando so harder to dominate. IIRC, as cities, Tampa is about 33% larger than Orlando, and in terms of metro areas, greater Orlando has about 2.5 million people compared to 4 million for the Tampa Bay area. So it's just a lot bigger. Plus, Orlando has an identity focus that Tampa lacks. Orlando basically has one industry - the theme park/entertainment industry. Tampa is more cosmopolitan in an economic sense. So in one case you are zooming in on corporate support from one big target rather than a bunch of smaller ones.

Another reason is that UCF has done some better things to build their culture like having an OCS.

Still another is that Tampa is a Bucs town first, so we have NFL competition that Orlando doesn't have. That affects UF and FSU support as well, but its harder for us because UF and FSU fans were established before the Bucs arrived whereas we have had to build support in their shadow.

Finally, UCF has won more recently, which brings more support. In the past 14 seasons, UCF has won 10 games seven times. USF has only done that twice. Winning helps too.

The population differential is a huge factor, no doubt.

I visited both Tampa and Orlando in the mid-2000s and preferred Tampa overall (but not by much). I like all the water in Tampa. The USF and UCF campuses (as I may previously have noted) ... wow. Massive. Lots of buildings, people and acreage. Big league.

Yes, at one point USF was the largest campus in the country by acreage. Not sure if we still are but it is massive. UCF is too. Both will continue to grow.

I like Orlando to visit better than Tampa, because I am a Disney World freak, I could live at Disney World, LOL, and a visit over to the Universal parks every once and a while works for me too. But as a place to live, Tampa is better. It's a "bigger league" city and area than Orlando.

I agree with this:

It's a "bigger league" city and area than Orlando.

clt says you guys are very convincing!

go uva, bama, bucs, bayern, and dodgers!!

Getting back to the question in the OP, bluebloods in European society, which is where the term originates, don't really lose their status as bluebloods until their their status as nobility ends. They don't even lose it when they are reduced by their circumstances to having to open their estates to paying tourists to keep the wolf from the door.

They can give up their status voluntarily, by abdication, intermarrying with commoners and a few other choices. In sports, that could be the equivalent of schools like Harvard and Yale voluntarily opting out of competition at the highest level of football, which is akin to abdication. They can also lose their status involuntarily, should their titles and wealth be stripped from them by force or should their royal lineage die out like the Tudors. The sports equivalent might be relegation to a lower level of competition by the NCAA or a decision by a school's administration to stop sponsoring a scholarship sport.

But simply underperforming over some vague period of time is not grounds for losing blueblood status if, in fact, one had it in the first place. So the question of how a school could lose its blueblood status is inextricably linked to the question of whether they became hereditary nobility as opposed to merely awarded the temporary title of knighthood, like Sir Paul McCartney or Sir Elton John, which doesn't attach to their progeny.

(03-19-2021 08:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  Getting back to the question in the OP, bluebloods in European society, which is where the term originates, don't really lose their status as bluebloods until their their status as nobility ends. They don't even lose it when they are reduced by their circumstances to having to open their estates to paying tourists to keep the wolf from the door.

They can give up their status voluntarily, by abdication, intermarrying with commoners and a few other choices. In sports, that could be the equivalent of schools like Harvard and Yale voluntarily opting out of competition at the highest level of football, which is akin to abdication. They can also lose their status involuntarily, should their titles and wealth be stripped from them by force or should their royal lineage die out like the Tudors. The sports equivalent might be relegation to a lower level of competition by the NCAA or a decision by a school's administration to stop sponsoring a scholarship sport.

But simply underperforming over some vague period of time is not grounds for losing blueblood status if, in fact, one had it in the first place. So the question of how a school could lose its blueblood status is inextricably linked to the question of whether they became hereditary nobility as opposed to merely awarded the temporary title of knighthood, like Sir Paul McCartney or Sir Elton John, which doesn't attach to their progeny.

The great thing about sports is that reputations are earned...it’s the level of ongoing maintenance that we are debating. IMO it is a temporary title...and we debate whether the recent accomplishments / attributes merit the historical reputation. The challenge is that perspective on “temporary” differs...some define temporary a couple decades, while others believe temporary can be many generations.

(03-19-2021 10:15 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 08:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  Getting back to the question in the OP, bluebloods in European society, which is where the term originates, don't really lose their status as bluebloods until their their status as nobility ends. They don't even lose it when they are reduced by their circumstances to having to open their estates to paying tourists to keep the wolf from the door.

They can give up their status voluntarily, by abdication, intermarrying with commoners and a few other choices. In sports, that could be the equivalent of schools like Harvard and Yale voluntarily opting out of competition at the highest level of football, which is akin to abdication. They can also lose their status involuntarily, should their titles and wealth be stripped from them by force or should their royal lineage die out like the Tudors. The sports equivalent might be relegation to a lower level of competition by the NCAA or a decision by a school's administration to stop sponsoring a scholarship sport.

But simply underperforming over some vague period of time is not grounds for losing blueblood status if, in fact, one had it in the first place. So the question of how a school could lose its blueblood status is inextricably linked to the question of whether they became hereditary nobility as opposed to merely awarded the temporary title of knighthood, like Sir Paul McCartney or Sir Elton John, which doesn't attach to their progeny.

The great thing about sports is that reputations are earned...it’s the level of ongoing maintenance that we are debating. IMO it is a temporary title...and we debate whether the recent accomplishments / attributes merit the historical reputation. The challenge is that perspective on “temporary” differs...some define temporary a couple decades, while others believe temporary can be many generations.

If all reputations are earned, and temporary, then the entire concept of "blueblood" is irrelevant to sports entirely. I can't disagree with that. What you are essentially saying is that there are no bluebloods in sports, and that the entire premise of the thread makes no sense. If you can't become a blueblood, you can't stop being one.

(03-19-2021 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 10:15 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 08:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  Getting back to the question in the OP, bluebloods in European society, which is where the term originates, don't really lose their status as bluebloods until their their status as nobility ends. They don't even lose it when they are reduced by their circumstances to having to open their estates to paying tourists to keep the wolf from the door.

They can give up their status voluntarily, by abdication, intermarrying with commoners and a few other choices. In sports, that could be the equivalent of schools like Harvard and Yale voluntarily opting out of competition at the highest level of football, which is akin to abdication. They can also lose their status involuntarily, should their titles and wealth be stripped from them by force or should their royal lineage die out like the Tudors. The sports equivalent might be relegation to a lower level of competition by the NCAA or a decision by a school's administration to stop sponsoring a scholarship sport.

But simply underperforming over some vague period of time is not grounds for losing blueblood status if, in fact, one had it in the first place. So the question of how a school could lose its blueblood status is inextricably linked to the question of whether they became hereditary nobility as opposed to merely awarded the temporary title of knighthood, like Sir Paul McCartney or Sir Elton John, which doesn't attach to their progeny.

The great thing about sports is that reputations are earned...it’s the level of ongoing maintenance that we are debating. IMO it is a temporary title...and we debate whether the recent accomplishments / attributes merit the historical reputation. The challenge is that perspective on “temporary” differs...some define temporary a couple decades, while others believe temporary can be many generations.

If all reputations are earned, and temporary, then the entire concept of "blueblood" is irrelevant to sports entirely. I can't disagree with that. What you are essentially saying is that there are no bluebloods in sports, and that the entire premise of the thread makes no sense. If you can't become a blueblood, you can't stop being one.

Ken the term blue blood was used to pump large circulation centers and keep them buying papers during poor years. You hyped the history when the present sucked. Newspapers learned how to pimp product years ago. Businessmen bought newspapers for an organized report on the stocks. Women bought newspapers for wedding announcements, obituaries, to follow a child's success in whatever 4H, Scouts, sports, or academics, and for the classified section. Men outside of business bought them for sports and the comics and for legal notices.

When we went to TV for news they took the same old newspaper tricks to jazz up their markets and increase their audience for the same reason, ad money based on market share instead of circulation.

It's why I found much of this debate objectionable. The people who push blue blood status are the ones who aren't currently on top. Their pride is in the past. Sports is, has been, and forever will be about who won it all last, and who is likely to win it all next year. Only the latter is another form of pimping for circulation and market. It's never over until it's over is still most appropriate. Polls, committees, and ESPN / FOX hype and weekly analysis is pure fantasy and carefully set up to drive interest. Recent winning keeps your name on the tube. Schools are overhyped to keep large fan bases hopeful. And the only reality is what happens on the field or court.

(03-19-2021 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 10:15 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 08:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  Getting back to the question in the OP, bluebloods in European society, which is where the term originates, don't really lose their status as bluebloods until their their status as nobility ends. They don't even lose it when they are reduced by their circumstances to having to open their estates to paying tourists to keep the wolf from the door.

They can give up their status voluntarily, by abdication, intermarrying with commoners and a few other choices. In sports, that could be the equivalent of schools like Harvard and Yale voluntarily opting out of competition at the highest level of football, which is akin to abdication. They can also lose their status involuntarily, should their titles and wealth be stripped from them by force or should their royal lineage die out like the Tudors. The sports equivalent might be relegation to a lower level of competition by the NCAA or a decision by a school's administration to stop sponsoring a scholarship sport.

But simply underperforming over some vague period of time is not grounds for losing blueblood status if, in fact, one had it in the first place. So the question of how a school could lose its blueblood status is inextricably linked to the question of whether they became hereditary nobility as opposed to merely awarded the temporary title of knighthood, like Sir Paul McCartney or Sir Elton John, which doesn't attach to their progeny.

The great thing about sports is that reputations are earned...it’s the level of ongoing maintenance that we are debating. IMO it is a temporary title...and we debate whether the recent accomplishments / attributes merit the historical reputation. The challenge is that perspective on “temporary” differs...some define temporary a couple decades, while others believe temporary can be many generations.

If all reputations are earned, and temporary, then the entire concept of "blueblood" is irrelevant to sports entirely. I can't disagree with that. What you are essentially saying is that there are no bluebloods in sports, and that the entire premise of the thread makes no sense. If you can't become a blueblood, you can't stop being one.

Ken the term blue blood was used to pump large circulation centers and keep them buying papers during poor years. You hyped the history when the present sucked. Newspapers learned how to pimp product years ago. Businessmen bought newspapers for an organized report on the stocks. Women bought newspapers for wedding announcements, obituaries, to follow a child's success in whatever 4H, Scouts, sports, or academics, and for the classified section. Men outside of business bought them for sports and the comics and for legal notices.

When we went to TV for news they took the same old newspaper tricks to jazz up their markets and increase their audience for the same reason, ad money based on market share instead of circulation.

It's why I found much of this debate objectionable. The people who push blue blood status are the ones who aren't currently on top. Their pride is in the past. Sports is, has been, and forever will be about who won it all last, and who is likely to win it all next year. Only the latter is another form of pimping for circulation and market. It's never over until it's over is still most appropriate. Polls, committees, and ESPN / FOX hype and weekly analysis is pure fantasy and carefully set up to drive interest. Recent winning keeps your name on the tube. Schools are overhyped to keep large fan bases hopeful. And the only reality is what happens on the field or court.

Largely agree.

Discussions on sports’ blue bloods can be entertaining banter. It helps make sense of why Indiana is able to afford a $10m buyout of Archie Miller; or why the UCLA basketball head coaching role is no longer a prized role; or what Nebraska football fans are experiencing. I wouldn’t mind if UVA is eventually categorized as a blue blood...it means that our program was at one point phenomenal.

(03-19-2021 12:29 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 10:15 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 08:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  Getting back to the question in the OP, bluebloods in European society, which is where the term originates, don't really lose their status as bluebloods until their their status as nobility ends. They don't even lose it when they are reduced by their circumstances to having to open their estates to paying tourists to keep the wolf from the door.

They can give up their status voluntarily, by abdication, intermarrying with commoners and a few other choices. In sports, that could be the equivalent of schools like Harvard and Yale voluntarily opting out of competition at the highest level of football, which is akin to abdication. They can also lose their status involuntarily, should their titles and wealth be stripped from them by force or should their royal lineage die out like the Tudors. The sports equivalent might be relegation to a lower level of competition by the NCAA or a decision by a school's administration to stop sponsoring a scholarship sport.

But simply underperforming over some vague period of time is not grounds for losing blueblood status if, in fact, one had it in the first place. So the question of how a school could lose its blueblood status is inextricably linked to the question of whether they became hereditary nobility as opposed to merely awarded the temporary title of knighthood, like Sir Paul McCartney or Sir Elton John, which doesn't attach to their progeny.

The great thing about sports is that reputations are earned...it’s the level of ongoing maintenance that we are debating. IMO it is a temporary title...and we debate whether the recent accomplishments / attributes merit the historical reputation. The challenge is that perspective on “temporary” differs...some define temporary a couple decades, while others believe temporary can be many generations.

If all reputations are earned, and temporary, then the entire concept of "blueblood" is irrelevant to sports entirely. I can't disagree with that. What you are essentially saying is that there are no bluebloods in sports, and that the entire premise of the thread makes no sense. If you can't become a blueblood, you can't stop being one.

Ken the term blue blood was used to pump large circulation centers and keep them buying papers during poor years. You hyped the history when the present sucked. Newspapers learned how to pimp product years ago. Businessmen bought newspapers for an organized report on the stocks. Women bought newspapers for wedding announcements, obituaries, to follow a child's success in whatever 4H, Scouts, sports, or academics, and for the classified section. Men outside of business bought them for sports and the comics and for legal notices.

When we went to TV for news they took the same old newspaper tricks to jazz up their markets and increase their audience for the same reason, ad money based on market share instead of circulation.

It's why I found much of this debate objectionable. The people who push blue blood status are the ones who aren't currently on top. Their pride is in the past. Sports is, has been, and forever will be about who won it all last, and who is likely to win it all next year. Only the latter is another form of pimping for circulation and market. It's never over until it's over is still most appropriate. Polls, committees, and ESPN / FOX hype and weekly analysis is pure fantasy and carefully set up to drive interest. Recent winning keeps your name on the tube. Schools are overhyped to keep large fan bases hopeful. And the only reality is what happens on the field or court.

Largely agree.

Discussions on sports’ blue bloods can be entertaining banter. It helps make sense of why Indiana is able to afford a $10m buyout of Archie Miller; or why the UCLA basketball head coaching role is no longer a prized role; or what Nebraska football fans are experiencing. I wouldn’t mind if UVA is eventually categorized as a blue blood...it means that our program was at one point phenomenal.

Ah but there's the proof. Indiana can only afford a large buyout because they have a donor, or donors, willing to do it. Newspapers, networks and schools love the monicker because it means that size and wealth can be rallied as long as their people are sold the myth of their past, and that is why the term is used, why it is coveted, and why it still is used, it rallies money.

I would not mind being called "Blueblood Bill" as it suggests a "Bill the Butcher" (of Gangs of New York) feel.

(03-19-2021 12:57 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would not mind being called "Blueblood Bill" as it suggests a "Bill the Butcher" (of Gangs of New York) feel.

More like Sweeney Todd I should think. You come across more like a barber, than another mad Daniel Day Lewis type.

(03-19-2021 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 12:57 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would not mind being called "Blueblood Bill" as it suggests a "Bill the Butcher" (of Gangs of New York) feel.

More like Sweeney Todd I should think. You come across more like a barber, than another mad Daniel Day Lewis type.

I could definitely see Bill cast as Sweeney Todd. I'd pay to see that.

(03-15-2021 11:48 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 11:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  In football, if all your national titles occurred before 1936, you’re no longer a blueblood.

Where exactly did 1936 come from? That seems like a random year out of the blue. You're not that old are you?

First year of the AP Poll

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...h-madness/

Good article on basketball blue bloods...or as the author states the 2021 Tournament should be termed “Requiem for the Blue Bloods”. He concedes the traditional six blue bloods (UK,KU,UNC,Duke,Indiana&UCLA), rejoices in their struggles and praises the new order.

(03-19-2021 02:41 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...h-madness/

Good article on basketball blue bloods...or as the author states the 2021 Tournament should be termed “Requiem for the Blue Bloods”. He concedes the traditional six blue bloods (UK,KU,UNC,Duke,Indiana&UCLA), rejoices in their struggles and praises the new order.

Sic transit gloria.

(03-19-2021 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 12:57 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would not mind being called "Blueblood Bill" as it suggests a "Bill the Butcher" (of Gangs of New York) feel.

More like Sweeney Todd I should think. You come across more like a barber, than another mad Daniel Day Lewis type.

If so, I shall asked to called. Sweeney Bill: The Demon Barber of Dazzle Street.

On a serious note ... D.D. Lewis is a monster talent.

(03-19-2021 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 12:57 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would not mind being called "Blueblood Bill" as it suggests a "Bill the Butcher" (of Gangs of New York) feel.

More like Sweeney Todd I should think. You come across more like a barber, than another mad Daniel Day Lewis type.

I could definitely see Bill cast as Sweeney Todd. I'd pay to see that.

clt says too bad UNC CHeat t shirt fans. And least you have “nice unis” and good ol roy. Hahahaha

It's an interesting question, although I certainly agree that the term "blue bloods" is sometimes seen as a proxy for "best programs" rather than the more traditional usage of equating to "old money". In that sense, Indiana certainly qualifies - even with the recent slip, and even with two coaches being responsible for the titles, they still have 5 spread across four decades, and have Final Four appearances in two of the decades since their last title. There's a lot of tradition and success there, although the recent record is not strong.

How long it takes to fade from being an "elite" program is an interesting question. Titles alone can't keep you in the discussion forever. The Ivys and Army may have intentionally withdrawn from the highest level of competition, but Minnesota is never mentioned as a blue blood or elite in football despite having 5 titles across 3 decades. But the most recent was in 1960. Aside from 1997 Michigan's championship drought is similar, although football is a much bigger part of their campus culture, even in today's changing world.

It was also easier to stay among the elite when TV appearances were more scarce with bigger name programs having MUCH more exposure. Now even KU's current dumpster fire of a football program has most of its games televised. Not so long ago that wasn't the case.

(03-19-2021 03:44 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2021 12:57 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would not mind being called "Blueblood Bill" as it suggests a "Bill the Butcher" (of Gangs of New York) feel.

More like Sweeney Todd I should think. You come across more like a barber, than another mad Daniel Day Lewis type.

I could definitely see Bill cast as Sweeney Todd. I'd pay to see that.

Is there a person on this site who wouldn’t buy this guy a beer. Or better, whiskey.