CFB Blue Bloods

What are the most important programs in the history of college football?

It's a thorny, fun, fascinating question that we posed to 12 of our writers. We asked them to rate every current FBS program on a scale of 1-10, based on each school's overall impact on the history of college football.

The rankings below list the school, then their average score. The top five finished with unanimous 10 scores, and we rounded up from 9.5 for those that just missed a perfect score.

The end result? Eight schools qualify for what we're calling blue bloods -- the royalty of the game.

T18. Michigan State Spartans | 7.67

Some great coaches, including Alabama's Nick Saban, have passed through East Lansing since Duffy Daugherty won the school's second title in 1965 but none have been able to pull off the feat. The Spartans appeared in the College Football Playoff last season, where they lost to Alabama.

Michigan State Spartans
Blue blood ranking: T-18
AP national championships: 1 (1952)
Conference championships: 11
Most recent conference title: 2015

The irony: Michigan State has fueled its historic rise under Mark Dantonio on the common belief that the Spartans aren't college football royalty. Yet it's becoming harder for Michigan State to lie in the weeds, as Dantonio often says.

The Spartans have won two of the past three Big Ten titles. They're the only Big Ten team to beat Urban Meyer-coached Ohio State (twice). Dantonio is 7-2 against Michigan (the No. 6 blue blood), 3-3 against Ohio State (No. 2) and 4-2 against Penn State (No. 10). MSU has established itself not only as a regional force but as one that can compete nationally, notching a Rose Bowl win against Stanford, a Cotton Bowl win against Baylor, and bowl wins against Georgia and TCU.

By producing three consecutive elite teams, Dantonio chips away at the assumption that Michigan State can't sustain. Remember, MSU once was on its way to blue-blood status, recording 11 AP top-10 finishes between 1950 and 1966, including No. 1 in 1952. But the next four decades featured only flashes of success and much more heartache.

The biggest difference now is consistent and cohesive leadership. It's not just between Dantonio and athletic director Mark Hollis but also the school's most high-profile coach, men's basketball's Tom Izzo, a major champion of Spartans football.

"There has to be interaction and cooperation between football and basketball," Hollis told Insider. "We took what Tom was doing for many years and exponentially transitioned that over to a much bigger program, with 100 kids as opposed to 15. Tom was very influential in that thought process."

Izzo, who has coached at MSU since 1983, linked the football program's volatility to the revolving door at AD before Hollis. Michigan State always had the big stadium and the large alumni base thirsting for football success. But, as Hollis notes, "We needed to get Spartan donors to believe." Winning did it.

There have been facilities upgrades, including the Skandalaris Football Center and the north end zone expansion at Spartan Stadium, as well as smart recruiting decisions. After lingering just outside ESPN's Top 25, MSU signed the No. 21 class in February.

It's fair to question what Michigan State will be after Dantonio. But, like Izzo, Dantonio has created a remarkably stable culture. He has lost only five assistants from Michigan State, three of them to head-coaching positions.

"You can spend a lot of dollars doing wacky things, but human resources are No. 1," Hollis said. "It's trying to build a tradition, a program that has that reputation. You want to string decades together. Yes, we've had success, but how can that continuity of success continue?"

Robert J Sakimano wrote:ESPN sucks.

Fun discussion-prompting (((content))) for the last day before college football from ESPN. They give their formula and list of blue blood programs, coming up with a group 8 blue bloods and ranking the rest of the D1 programs behind them.

I think ESPN's eight (BAMA, ND, tOSU, OKLA, USC, MICH, TEX, NEB) is an accurate list, though I would not really rank them within the group of 8 as they have. You could make an argument for a few teams that missed the cut, like a Florida or LSU, but there really is a large drop off between their program's history and the history of those in the top 8.

My biggest grievance is listing us with TWO (!?!?!?!) National Titles. We claim 11 and most writers don't dispute this. I've seen some publications list us with having 7 or 9 before. All of these numbers are many-folds greater than 2. They also list MSU with having two national championships. TF ESPN?? Did you even give the minimal wikipedia-level effort here?

LooseGoose wrote:Another gem from MGoBlow....

ESPN Blue Blood Programs

Fun discussion-prompting (((content))) for the last day before college football from ESPN. They give their formula and list of blue blood programs, coming up with a group 8 blue bloods and ranking the rest of the D1 programs behind them.

I think ESPN's eight (BAMA, ND, tOSU, OKLA, USC, MICH, TEX, NEB) is an accurate list, though I would not really rank them within the group of 8 as they have. You could make an argument for a few teams that missed the cut, like a Florida or LSU, but there really is a large drop off between their program's history and the history of those in the top 8.

My biggest grievance is listing us with TWO (!?!?!?!) National Titles. We claim 11 and most writers don't dispute this. I've seen some publications list us with having 7 or 9 before. All of these numbers are many-folds greater than 2. They also list MSU with having two national championships. TF ESPN?? Did you even give the minimal wikipedia-level effort here?

He's quite upset that ESPN isn't counting all of their claimed titles.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Another gem from MGoBlow....

ESPN Blue Blood Programs



He's quite upset that ESPN isn't counting all of their claimed titles.

They'll never understand that people don't care about championships from 1896 - 1949.