The SEC Forum at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

On a serious note about that, I'm trying to see where LSU is, but I'm lacking a quick source for data.  Anyone who knows where to quick reference some of these stats or knows it off the top of your head, tell me.

LSU made its 20th CWS appearance.  They're the only team to achieve 20 CWS berths in the last 40 seasons.  They claim to be the 7th school in NCAA history to make 20 CWS appearances.  I know of five teams ahead of them.....Texas (37), Miami (25), FSU (23), ASU (22), and USC (21).  I don't know who that sixth team is.  So other than UT, LSU is on a similar level of appearances to the top 2-5.  

LSU's all-time CWS record is 49-29 (.682).  Texas has won 85 CWS games and USC has won 74, but I where I'm getting that info doesn't list losses or %, so I'm not sure where LSU ranks there.  

They appear to be tied with USC for 10th all time tournament appearances at 37, but I don't know who the top 9 are.  

LSU has the second highest all-time tournament win % at 185-75 (.712), but I don't know who is #1 (Texas?) and who rounds out a top 5-10. 

I have some other info about their records and win % in regionals and Supers, but that's a complete vacuum as I don't have those stats for any other schools, and I'm not sure people factor that in as much.   

fwiw, they're the sole team to win multiple NC's in three separate decades, and they made at least a CWS Finals appearance in the decade they didn't.  

The number of NC's should count, though ymmv.  USC has more (12), then LSU, then Texas (6), and I think ASU has 5, not sure.  Not sure about the rest of that list.  

A little more digging.  Some of this data is from the NCAA, some is from Wikipedia, insert grain of salt disclaimer here. 

CWS Titles:
USC - 12
LSU -  8
UT  -  6
ASU - 5
AZ  - 4
Da U - 4
CS-F - 4
Minnesota - 3
Or. St. - 3
Several others with 2, multiple schools with 1

Most CWS appearances:
UT  -  38 (previous data must've been old, it said 37)
DaU - 25
FSU - 24
ASU - 22
USC - 21
LSU - 20
OkSt -20
AZ  - 19
STAN -19
CS-F - 18

Most CWS Wins:
UT  -  88
USC - 74
ASU - 61
LSU - 51
DaU - 48
AZ  - 43
Furd - 41
OkSt- 40
CS-F- 34
USCe-32

CWS Win %^*:
Pepperdine - .778
Coastal Carolina - .750
USC - .740
Minnesota - .708
Vanderbilt - .667
Santa Clara - .667
Wake Forest - .643
LSU - .638
Oregon St. - .625
Mizzouri - .621


* As I transcribed the CWS win % I realized how much I don't like that stat.  The inertia of "average" is a gravitational force, pulling on teams like a black hole down to the mean, and teams like Texas with a .583 win % in 38 appearances is more impressive than Pepperdine's .778 in only two appearances, for example.  The more you're there, the more chances you have to lose, and the more you're going to lose.  I can't bring myself to compare apples and oranges.  So I'll note that on the top ten list there, only USC and LSU have at least 20 appearances, or are even close.  The next closest is Oregon State with 8.  So of that top ten, I'm much more impressed with USC and LSU than the others.  And I'll note that just outside the arbitrary top ten, at #11, is ASU with a .616 win % in 22 appearances.  Texas is at #19 at .583, but as I said, not being in the top ten in their case is just punishing them for being so good in a lot of years, which is ridiculous.  This stat is not nothing, but it's not great either. 

Most NCAA tournament appearances:
UT  - 64
FSU - 61
DaU - 50
OkSt -50
Clemson - 47
ASU - 41
CS-F -41
OU  - 41
AZ  - 40
UF  - 40

LSU is not in the top ten there, they're tied with UNC at #16 with 37 appearances.  Incidentally, USC is in a 4-way tie (along with Texas A&M) at #12 with 38 appearances. 

Tournament wins and win% is a lot harder to come by and I don't have the time to track that down, as it looks like something I'd have to be digging through school media guides for. 

Well, blueblood quite directly implies OLD money, that's the entire point of the term, so that's Slick's argument all these long years.  And with schools like Texas and USC winning their first titles in the 50s, and LSU not until the 90s, it's not an unreasonable take.

So you just have to decide if it's really all that important to be a "blueblood?"  LSU is clearly an extremely successful college baseball program.  The second most NCs.  Many of them far more recent than the bulk of Texas' or USC's.  Plus lots of CWS appearances, lots of tournament appearances.

If LSU isn't termed a "blueblood" does it matter? 

College baseball isn't like football, I don't think there are that many college baseball bluebloods.  It might just be Texas and USC, honestly.  

But yeah, it has to be "old" or "original" otherwise the term has no meaning.   You can't just redefine it based on a modern interpretation.

I'm not trying to. 

I'm asking for a non-arbitrary definition of "old."  It can't just be whatever you (or I) say it is, otherwise the term has no meaning. 

And I'm asking for clarification on how long does "blue-blood" status last?  If USC hasn't done jack squat in 25 years, how long do they get to suck and still be a blue-blood? 

Without clear delineations, all the term really means is "the teams who did well at first."  Which does not seem like the ethos the term "blue-blood" is trying to capture. 

That's exactly what blueblood is trying to capture.  Historically it's a term to delineate royalty and nobility, and even if those nobles had fallen out of power, they were still considered special because of their "sacred bloodlines."  I mean, that's EXACTLY what the term is intended to convey.

If USC only had 2 or 3 titles from way back when, then they most likely wouldn't be a blueblood anyway, and even if they were, 25 years since a CWS appearance would probably be enough to knock down their status.

But they have TWELVE titles.  That's the kind of royalty that you get to live on for quite a while, IMO.

But, do I fear or envy them as a program now?  Not at all, of course. 

And, would I rather have LSU's past 20 years over Texas'?  For sure.

So you see, despite what ol' Slick might have intended to convey, being a blueblood isn't necessarily all that great, or important.  Especially in baseball.

One advantage to being a blueblood, in football at least, and historically at least, was that it typically meant that when you did fall on hard times, you had a better shot at recovering, both more quickly and to previous heights, than a non-blueblood.  This was a result of many things, but I think mostly, it boiled down to resources, and brand recognition.  Most of the football bluebloods attained their status in the first place, because they had more resources than their peers.  Either rich donors, or large alumni bases, or a combination of the two.  And the brand recognition meant that even during hard times, recruits still knew your school, associated it with historical achievement, and had a predisposition toward liking it.

I think TV started changing that some starting in the 80s, which is one reason football blueblood status is locked into the leather helmet days.  The Miamis and FSUs came along after that, and had a lot of success, but nobody considers them bluebloods.  But would you rather have had Miami's 1983-2001 or Texas'?  I know my answer to that.

And now I think NIL is changing that even more.  Oregon is absolutely not a blueblood, but they could also very well be poised to make a tremendous multi-year championship run.  SMU and a handful of others might do the same.