[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/Friendly_Loss1961]

Montana State has only been nationally relevant since Vigen took over 6 years ago. They missed the playoffs for 18 straight years following the one season they made the playoffs and won the title in 1984. They didn't even make it to the semi's after that until 2019. They're an elite team this decade unquestionably. But the history is simply not there. That's like arguing that Indiana is an FBS Blue Blood.

[u/DeKam34 → u/Friendly_Loss1961]

Indiana is a dreadfully bad comparison. We're a lot closer to Oregon. One or two random moments of "oh they're winning" up until about 2010 when things start to shift. Oregon's early 2010s stretch of being good is '09-'14 where as ours is really just '10-'12 (with one bad playoff loss and two years running into an SHSU buzzsaw that was just better than us) but the short bad period after and the rise back up in '18 and '19 aligns really well.

Now I wouldn't call Oregon a blue blood either really. I don't think we are either yet. I think the whole concept is sorta too historically focused to be relevant. But let's not pretend that MSU had one incredible season and have been horrific otherwise for the last 15 years like Indiana has.

[u/Friendly_Loss1961 → u/DeKam34]

Fair enough. I was more saying that just because you're at the top now, similar to Indiana, doesn't mean you get the blue blood moniker. And i actually considered using Oregon but Oregon never actually won anything.

[u/damnyoutuesday → u/Friendly_Loss1961]

Relative to the charts, the best comp for MSU is probably Clemson?*

*Obviously there's not an exact match

[u/Friendly_Loss1961 → u/damnyoutuesday]

That's a good comp actually because Clemson did spend a while knocking on the door and they lost a natty before they finally got over the hump with Dabo and Watson. But for the 20 years or so before that they were just a middle of the pack team living in the shadow of FSU. And they never really had enough sustained success in their history to be considered a Blue Blood.

[u/damnyoutuesday → u/Friendly_Loss1961]

Both MSU and Clemson had a title in the 80s as well, before finally getting over the hump again in the 2010s/20s