[OC] The FCS Blue Bloods Chart

[u/Adamscottd]

[If you just want to look at the chart, it's down in the comments]

The "Blue Bloods Chart" is used in various college sports to determine who the sport's blue bloods are. What a blue blood is isn't officially defined, but it's usually teams who've been consistently among the best in a sport over a long period, while also having some championship level success. A blue bloods chart has a program's total weeks ranked in the top 25 on the X axis, and total weeks ranked in the top 5 on the Y axis.

The FBS version of this chart is found here. The FBS blue bloods are identified as Alabama, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC (though Nebraska has been seriously slipping the last 15 years).

I've created a spreadsheet which has every FCS media poll going back to the beginning of the subdivision in 1978, which has allowed me to find the data needed to create a similar chart. The catch is that because many FCS teams have either left the subdivision, or have joined the subdivision at some point over the years, not every program has the same number of seasons in the FCS. For that reason, merely charting total weeks ranked can misrepresent the quality of a program.

So the chart that I've created and posted in the comments instead uses a program's % of weeks in the 25 and % of weeks in the top 5. I think this rate based method is a better representation of who the best programs have been. Because it's a rate stat, it needs a minimum sample size, which I've set at 150 weeks of FCS competition (around 12 seasons). That means many newer programs are not present here.

To answer the question of who the FCS blue bloods are, it's a bit complicated. The fact is, North Dakota State has been so so dominant on a level matched by no one else that putting them in a category with the other blue bloods isn't really fair. They should really be called a purple blood, or something. But for the purposes of this post, we'll throw them in with the others. When you look at the chart, the other top programs seperate themselves from the rest of the subdivision, but while Nevada is in that blue blood area of the chart, I would argue that they are not a blue blood because they never won a championship. The other schools in that part of the chart all have at least two championships.

So with all that in mind, the FCS blue bloods based on the chart are App State, Georgia Southern, Marshall, Montana, North Dakota State, and South Dakota State.

Obviously this is not the objective answer (there isn't one) but it is a fun discussion to have.

To me, the most obvious schools not present are James Madison, who were pretty dominant for a period and won two championships, and Youngstown State, who won 4 championships in the 90s. You could certainly argue in favor of them being blue bloods as well. I'd argue against JMU because being a blue blood is usually defined by relatively sustained excellence, but JMU spent their first ~20-25 years in the FCS being a peripheral power at best. I'd argue against Youngstown State because their peak was relatively short, and they've been good but not great throughout most of their history.

Thanks for sticking with me and reading- this was a fun project that took a while. Once again, the chart(s) and data are posted in the comments.

[u/Vivid_Artichoke_9991]

In collge sports the term 'Blue Blood" is something that takes many decades. Nebraska is a blue blood. Oregon is not. Some did this analysis a month ago under the [correct] interpretation of the Blue Blood term. Even NDSU would not be considered a Blue Blood under the definition. https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/s/Znx1WfVGP4

Personally, I like your definition better as a way to define who the best programs are. There has been so much turnover in FCS football that the FBS definition of Blue Blood is not he best way to do it.

[u/Adamscottd → u/Vivid_Artichoke_9991]

Being a blue blood is something that is gained over long periods, no doubt- that's why JMU and Youngstown State are more questionable as FCS blue bloods. But I think if you want to include the FCS in the discussion, you have to tweak your definition of "long periods," because even beyond the fact that many teams have moved up more recently, the subdivision has only existed since 1978, while the FBS blue bloods chart goes back to 1936.

But even if you go based on the raw number of weeks, I still think NDSU is a blue blood even with so many fewer years of compeition.

NDSU is the dot at ~270, ~215. Even with only 22 seasons in the subdivision they still have the most weeks spent in the top five of anyone. I don't see how you can possibly argue against their inclusion even under the traditional definition. Otherwise, Montana would be the only blue blood, which I don't see as an accurate representation of FCS history.

[u/damnyoutuesday → u/Adamscottd]

Also the FBS blue bloods chart, that's the only place those teams have been. They've never had anywhere else to go. Most of the power FCS programs have moved up. The only real "blue blood" FCS team that's been around the entire FCS era is Montana

[u/Allcross9 → u/Vivid_Artichoke_9991]

You're right, but I just don't think the FBS definition of blue blood works for FCS. Teams that were dominant have pretty much always moved up after a relatively short time period. It is weird to me to see SDSU as a blue blood in this definition. It wasn't that long ago that I was in school and we were a decent to pretty good team, but couldn't get over the NDSU hump in the playoffs.

[u/SchuLace13 → u/Allcross9]

that NDSU hump was there for a lot of really good teams as well