“A&M is very much in blue blood territory”
You are a fool. I won’t even read anything past that. It’s a joke. No one, on any forum, any college football site/station/personality/analyst would even come close to putting TEXAS A&M in blueblood discussion. It’s laughable.
Yeah, the root of “ignorance” is “ignore”.
The fact that you question Tennessee being labeled a big boy…….yet have A&M in blueblood discussion is next level dumbassery 
Ok, A&M is top 2 in athletics budget. Some years they exceed Texas. Some years Texas exceeds them. They both have waaaay more money than Tennessee, despite Tennessee being just inside the top ten. Blueblood means privilege. Yes, they don’t have the titles. That’s it.
A&M & blueblood do not go together. Like I said……ITS LAUGHABLE. I remember you saying something along the lines of “all they lack is a history of winning”. Yeah no 
!! That’s a pretty big one.
Topic: Which school is most likely to obtain blueblood status?
Me: The richest athletic department with the #1 recruiting class who pulled in a multiple national championship winning coach.
Ketchupsicle: (downing a Coors Lite in his 2000 OU National Championship shirt, threadbare and faded to a dull pink) Haha! %$#@ you! Rocky tooooop!
Good argument, bro.
“All A&M lacks to become a blueblood is a history of winning!!” I cannot come up with any material better or more comical than that. You win!!
By the way…….Jimbo Fisher has won 1 Nat title as a HC. Not “multiple”.
Oh yeah, I was going to check that before I posted. I had the get the exact nature of the 2000 NC shirt you’re wearing and forgot. Thought it was two. Ok… one nat, one NY6 bowl, and 3 conference titles. Still a guy with a lot of prestige and accomplishment.
Point being, there are bluebloods that haven’t really done anything in a while like Texas… and Tennessee? A&M has the same number of national championships in the last decade as OU, Tennessee, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame… with a lot more money and better recruiting classes which are the things that legacy generally afford you…
Hey, your story brotha. Your definition of blueblood is different than mine……& everyone else who knows an ounce about college football. Go Aggies!!
One note on Gunnar, he definitely has the better arm, but uses it to put the ball much too high on some throws. I was glad to get to see him in significant game action, just like seeing Rangel last week. Both have some potential, but need some serious work on techniques and mechanics.
My hat is off to Spencer. He is more of a difference maker than I have ever given him credit. Please, Mr Sanders… no critical turnovers at the most inopertune of times in Bedlam!! 
People have been holding Sanders’s early rough edges against him. He’s a much better QB now. Lots of QBs, especially athletic dual-threat QBs have long adjustment periods and Sanders didn’t exactly have ideal conditions. Vince Young, Trevone Boykin, Max Duggan, they all took some time to mature.
What you actually said was “I’d say Georgia and Michigan are kind of fringe bluebloods with Florida State, Florida, LSU, Penn State, and maaaaaybe Texas A&M” The problem is that since WWII, 4 of those 5 have won multiple Nat Titles. A&M won their last Conf title in 1998 and their last Nat title in 1939.
Ok. I stand by that. What’s your point?
Texas A&M as a “fringe blue-blood” is ignorant. No other way to put it
Ok, well, I explained why. They have more money than any blueblood, they get overrated by pollsters, they get better recruiting classes than most bluebloods, the coaching job there is highly desirable like their coach didn’t leave to go to USC, he left FSU to come there. They’re privileged and advantaged. You think it’s titles and nothing else, so whatever, I guess. I’m just repeating myself.
No, I don’t think it’s “titles and nothing else”. However……titles absolutely matter & if you haven’t won a Nat title since 1939 or a Conf title since 1998…….it matters. Jimbo Fisher was a coup of a hire. Agreed. But you’re skipping over basically all the other coaches prior to that. Jackie Sherrill left to go to Miss St in the late 80’s. Hell Bear Bryant averaged 3 losses a year there. Gene Stallings got fired before leaving for Bama and winning a title. They arguably had 1 coach who ever sustained much of anything & that was RC Slocum. The rest of their coaching tree is littered with guys who had far more success at other places than they did in College Station. Another resume of being a BlueBlood……winning in multiple decades, with multiple different coaches. A&M hasn’t SNIFFED that. Your memory of college football, A&M specifically, is extremely short
I really think its down to what you call a bb.
I think everyone calls. Alabama, Ohio state, Oklahoma, texas, notter dame, Michigan, usc and maybe lsu.
But. If for what every reason a team gets the number one recruit class they are up there, not a laughing stock.
Are you saying that if you pull in a number 1 ranked recruiting class……that puts you in blueblood status? Please tell me I’m misunderstanding
And I don’t care what someone’s definition of blueblood is…….if A&M falls into that category……then they’re doing it wrong. If A&M is in it, then there are faaaaaar more bluebloods than the ones you mentioned
So teams like Nebraska , notter dame and oklahoma are " doing" the rite thing in the last 20 years.
If your pulling number 1 class and over 100k at games may not fit your blue blood. Then i got to ask is it important to be a bb. Whats the point being a bb.
There are guys on here that dnt think georgia or Clemson are bb. Which do you want to be them or Michigan and texas.
Notre Dame: Yes. They’re still up there. They have more name recognition than almost anyone. They have history. Tradition. Have done it over different decades. They have made the playoff and played for Nat Titles on multiple occasions within the last 40 years. Including this decade.
Nebraska: Of course they’re on hard times right now. But they win National Titles in multiple decades. Played for one in 01. You don’t get better tradition and fam support than what you do at Nebraska. Now it’s dangerously close to falling off the discussion (if they haven’t already). But if someone thinks Nebraska has underachieved……then what the hell do they think A&M has done?
OU: They have made multiple playoffs. Played for multiple Nat titles. Won multiple Conf titles. They haven’t won a Nat title since 2000……but for someone to act as though that program hasn’t been a model of consistency since 1999 would be foolish.
I still don’t have any clue what correlation a single recruiting ranking of HS kids has anything to do with your status as a football program over history. No clue. Hell rankings of classes didn’t even start being a thing until the 90’s? You people argue that recruiting rankings don’t matter when people criticize Gundys annual ranking……then also argue that somehow those rankings would put a program into blueblood territory? I don’t get it .
100k seat stadium: That’s impressive. But again….what does your stadium size matter to long term success? It hasn’t translated to success on the field in any way, shape or form. A&M doesn’t lack in facilities. I’ve seen it first hand. Zero argument there. But almost all of these big time schools have posh facilities.
No one is comparing who is currently having more success. That’s obviously Georgia. Obviously Clemson. But fellas……have a little wider lens than 5-7 years. You guys wanna talk everything except what matters, which is winning. Long term? A&M hasn’t done it. Short term? A&Mhasn’t done it. Pick a 5-7 yr consecutive window of A&M’s BEST span…….& let’s see it. It doesn’t compare either.