The Recency Bias College Blue Bloods from 2000-2024

College football’s “blue bloods” are those storied programs you expect to contend for conference titles, national championships, and produce NFL talent—year in, year out. From 2000 to 2024, a few schools have separated themselves statistically across four major metrics: overall wins, conference championships, national championships, and players drafted. Here’s a ranking of the six blue bloods in that period, with a discussion of whether a seventh is justified.

What Makes a Blue Blood

Before ranking, a few ground rules:

• Overall wins: Total record from 2000–2024 (regular season + bowls + playoffs).

• Conference championships: Titles won in major conferences (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Pac-12/Big 12/Pac-10) during those years.

• National championships: Consensus / BCS / CFP national titles from 2000 to 2024.

• Players drafted: Number of players from that program selected in the NFL Draft over that period.

The Elite Six (2000-2024)

Here are the six blue bloods ranked from top to bottom based on the four metrics above, with comments on each metric.

Why These Six

• Alabama clearly leads in recent national championships; they also dominate conference and draft metrics. If you ask most fans: the standard bearer.

• Ohio State is only a step behind, especially after Championship runs in 2002, 2014, and 2024.

• USC and Oklahoma both have strong histories and high peaks. USC’s mid-2000s BCS success and Oklahoma’s dominance in the Big 12 make them undeniable.

• Texas has the combination of national title, high win totals, and NFL players, though recent performance has been more inconsistent.

• Notre Dame’s case rests more on legacy and consistent production of NFL talent, less on championships in this period. Their independent status hurts their conference metrics, but they more than compensate elsewhere.

Is There a Close Seventh?

Many would argue that Georgia deserves consideration, especially given:

• Georgia’s recent national championships (2021, 2022) under Kirby Smart.

• Their rise in wins, recruiting, conference titles in the 2010s-2020s.

• Possibly also strong NFL draft numbers (they produce many NFL players in recent years).

However, when ranking purely from 2000-2024 across all four metrics, Georgia still trails the six above in either overall wins + consistency + breadth of championships + total draft output. So while Georgia is absolutely elite and perhaps the most “on the rise,” they don’t quite edge into the “top six blue bloods” category over that span. Thus, a seventh school isn’t justified by the strict metrics—but Georgia is very close and likely the most arguable next candidate.

Final Ranking

1. Alabama

2. Ohio State

3. USC

4. Oklahoma

5. Texas

6. Notre Dame

(Honorable mention: Georgia, very close but just short in historical metrics when considering the full 24-year span.)

What This Means & Changes to Watch

• Blue blood status is increasingly tied not just to history, but to recent excellence. Teams like Alabama and Ohio State have built sustained dominance.

• Draft output matters: programs that produce NFL talent year after year help recruit well, bolster prestige, and maintain performance.

• The changing landscape (playoffs, conference realignments, NIL, recruiting shifts) could alter who enters or exits that elite circle in the near future. Georgia may break in if their success holds, or other programs might surge.

The six above are the blue bloods of college football over the 2000-2024 period: the programs that combine history, recent titles, consistent wins, and NFL pathways.

Any “seventh” is trying very hard to dethrone someone in that group—but for now, those six remain the benchmark.

Have you subscribed to the email newsletter?

The Presidents Cup: Golf’s Other International Battle

Born in the shadow of the Ryder Cup, the Presidents Cup has spent three decades searching for identity — and occasionally finding brilliance along the way.

A Tournament in Search of a Rival

In 1994, the world of golf was booming — Tiger Woods was still an amateur, Greg Norman was at the height of his powers, and the PGA Tour was looking for a stage to showcase its growing global footprint. The Ryder Cup, once an obscure biennial contest, had become a cultural event, fueled by Europe’s rise and America’s newfound vulnerability. The PGA Tour, eager to replicate that magic, decided it needed a version of its own.

Thus, the Presidents Cup was born — a team competition pitting the United States against an International team made up of the best players from everywhere else in the world except Europe. On paper, it was brilliant: a global celebration of golf’s expansion. In practice, it has often been defined by the U.S. dominance that the Ryder Cup once cured.

The Early Years: Establishing the Format

The inaugural Presidents Cup took place in 1994 at Robert Trent Jones Golf Club in Virginia, a course just outside Washington, D.C., chosen for its stately proximity to the nation’s capital. Hale Irwin captained the American team, while Australian legend David Graham led the Internationals. The U.S. won handily, 20–12, with Fred Couples and Davis Love III setting the tone for the decades to come.

The event was modeled directly on the Ryder Cup’s structure: foursomes, four-ball, and singles over several days. But the key difference — and perhaps its greatest strength — was inclusivity. Players from Australia, South Africa, Japan, Canada, and beyond now had a platform for international match play, something previously reserved for Europe.

By the second edition in 1996 at Royal Melbourne, the Presidents Cup had already achieved one of its core goals: spreading the game’s prestige across continents. It was the first time a major PGA Tour team event was held outside the United States. Peter Thomson, the Australian five-time Open champion, captained the Internationals, while Arnold Palmer led the Americans. Once again, the U.S. won, but the matches began to show flashes of competitive balance — and a hint of rivalry.

1998: The International Breakthrough

If there’s one year that gave the Presidents Cup legitimacy, it was 1998, again at Royal Melbourne. The International team, led by Thomson and powered by Greg Norman, Nick Price, and a young Shigeki Maruyama, finally defeated the Americans — and did so convincingly. The final score: 20.5 to 11.5, a rout that electrified global golf fans.

It was the Cup’s high-water mark in terms of balance and energy. The matches showcased a sense of camaraderie that transcended national borders. Players from Argentina, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Japan, and Fiji rallied together under a single flag — a concept that was both novel and unifying.

Unfortunately, that success would prove fleeting.

2000s: U.S. Dominance and Fading Drama

The early 2000s coincided with the Tiger Woods era, and with him came American supremacy. The U.S. won in 2000, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, often by wide margins. Even when the Internationals fielded legends like Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, and Adam Scott, they couldn’t match the American depth.

One of the most memorable moments in Presidents Cup history came during the 2003 event in South Africa, when the two teams finished tied after a dramatic Sunday. With daylight fading, Tiger Woods and Ernie Els engaged in a sudden-death playoff that ended in a stalemate after three holes. Captains Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player — in a show of sportsmanship emblematic of the event’s ethos — agreed to call it a draw. It was a poetic conclusion, though it underscored one of the Cup’s persistent issues: its friendly tone.

Unlike the Ryder Cup’s fire and vitriol, the Presidents Cup has often lacked tension. Its participants are friends, business partners, and global tour colleagues. That makes for warm moments — but rarely the cutthroat intensity fans crave.

2010s: Searching for Identity

As golf became more international, the Presidents Cup sought to reinvent itself. The event began alternating between U.S. and International venues, visiting South Korea (2015), Australia (2019), and Canada (set for 2024). The PGA Tour promoted the event heavily as a showcase for global stars, but the competitive balance continued to tilt heavily toward the Americans.

Still, moments of drama persisted. In 2015, at Jack Nicklaus Golf Club Korea, the U.S. edged out a one-point victory after Sangmoon Bae, playing on home soil, duffed a chip on the final hole. The heartbreak was palpable — and proof that the event could still stir genuine emotion.

Then came 2019 at Royal Melbourne, where Ernie Els’s young International team, led by Adam Scott, Sungjae Im, and Abraham Ancer, pushed the heavily favored Americans to the brink. Tiger Woods, serving as playing captain, guided the U.S. to a comeback victory, but the week felt different — competitive, compelling, and full of character. The International squad’s unity, embodied by their yellow-and-black team colors and global camaraderie, hinted at a brighter future for the event.

The Modern Era: Hope for the Underdog

The Presidents Cup of the 2020s remains a paradox — professionally staged, globally inclusive, and well-intentioned, yet perpetually overshadowed by its European counterpart. The U.S. has won 12 of 15 editions, with just one International victory (1998) and one tie (2003).

Yet, optimism lingers. The growth of international stars — from Hideki Matsuyama to Tom Kim, Jason Day, and Im Sungjae — gives the team renewed depth. Younger fans are also drawn to its global flair, and the PGA Tour continues to use the Cup to expand into new markets like Montreal (2024) and Melbourne (2028).

More importantly, the Internationals have embraced an identity beyond the scoreboard: one of unity and spirit. Their diverse roster, representing six continents, stands as a reflection of golf’s worldwide reach.

Legacy and Future

In the grand theater of golf, the Presidents Cup has always played second fiddle to the Ryder Cup’s raw passion and national pride. But that doesn’t make it irrelevant. Its mission — to connect the sport’s best players from outside Europe and America — remains meaningful.

Over the past thirty years, it has evolved from a marketing idea into a genuine, if uneven, tradition. Every few years, it delivers a reminder that international golf is alive and thriving — that the game’s future is not confined to the fairways of the U.S. and Europe, but to Seoul, Melbourne, Johannesburg, and beyond.

The Presidents Cup may never match the Ryder Cup’s emotional fury, but in its quiet way, it celebrates something just as important: the universality of golf. It’s not about rivalry; it’s about representation. And sometimes, that’s enough.

Have you subscribed to the email newsletter?

The Long Road Home: Italy’s Decade of Recovery After World War II

When the war ended in 1945, Italy was in ruins. Cities were heavily bombed, railroads, ports, factories and infrastructure damaged or destroyed. Agriculture had suffered; many were displaced, families torn apart; shortages of food, fuel, and basic goods were widespread. Reconstruction was urgent.

Politically, Italy was in flux. Mussolini’s Fascist regime had fallen; parts of the country (particularly in the north) had been under German occupation and Fascist control until very late. Resistance movements (partisans) had played a big role, but the divisions and violence of wartime still lingered.

The Transition: Monarchy to Republic; New Constitution

One of the key changes was the end of the monarchy. On 2 June 1946, Italians voted in a referendum: to remain a monarchy, or to become a republic. The vote favored a republic, ending the reign of the House of Savoy.

Simultaneously, elections were held for a Constituent Assembly, which was tasked with drafting a new constitution. This new constitution was adopted in December 1947 and came into effect on 1 January 1948. It set up the framework for a democratic parliamentary republic, with protection of civil rights, separation of powers, and guarantees against the return of totalitarian / Fascist rule.

Peace Treaties and Territorial Losses

Italy’s formal peace with the Allies came later, with treaties like the Treaty of Paris, 1947. Italy lost or ceded territories: its colonial possessions were revoked (Libya, Italian Somaliland, Eritrea), parts of the eastern Adriatic (Istria, Dodecanese Islands) were transferred, the Free Territory of Trieste was established, among other border adjustments.

These losses carried both symbolic and practical weight: many ethnic Italians were displaced; property issues; also, a sense among many Italians that the peace terms were harsh. Taxes, reparations payments, and adjusting to reduced empire also posed economic burdens.

Political Landscape and Parties

After the war, anti-Fascist parties (Christian Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Liberals) dominated political life. The Christian Democrats (DC) emerged as the dominant force, often forming coalitions. Figures like Alcide De Gasperi (DC) led multiple governments. The political climate was deeply influenced by the Cold War: pressures from the United States and Western powers to keep communism in check; internal ideological struggles between left and center-right.

There was also what’s known as the Togliatti Amnesty (1946): named for Palmiro Togliatti, then Minister of Justice (Communist). This law pardoned or reduced sentences for many people (both Fascists and partisans) for crimes committed during the war and civil conflict. It was controversial: many felt it let Fascist collaborators off too easy, or that the memory of wartime atrocities was suppressed in favor of social reconciliation.

Reconstruction, Marshall Plan, Economic Policies

Economically, one of the biggest threads of this decade was reconstruction and aid. Italy was a recipient of Marshall Plan funds (from the U.S.), which provided money, materials, and technical help starting in 1948. These were used to rebuild infrastructure (roads, rails, ports), repair industry, improve agriculture, and generally help stabilize the economy.

The Marshall Plan is now seen as having had a measurable positive effect: regions which got more reconstruction funds saw larger increases in agricultural output (especially perishable crops), more investments in industry and services, etc.

The government also pursued land reform in 1950, especially targeting large estates in southern and central Italy. These lands were expropriated, improved, and redistributed to peasants. This reform was intended to reduce rural inequality, modernize agriculture, but it had mixed results: not all land was available or suitable; many beneficiaries lacked resources; migration from south to north and from country to city continued.

Economic Revival & “Economic Miracle” (Late 1940s → 1950s)

By the early 1950s, the recovery was underway. Pre-war industrial output levels were reached or approached by 1948. Italy saw rising GDP, industrial growth, foreign trade revival. There was rising investment, both public and private.

From roughly 1950 to 1963 Italy entered a period later called the “economic miracle”. But already by the early to mid-1950s, the foundations were being laid: cheap labor, rural migrants moving to cities, increased production of consumer goods, cars, appliances. Infrastructure improvements helped with internal connectivity. State agencies and state-backed firms played a large role, along with a relatively lax regulatory / tax environment.

Also, energy expansion: the petroleum company AGIP (later part of ENI) discovered natural gas in the Po Valley; energy inputs were critical for industrial growth.

Social Change, Migration, Inequality

Alongside economic growth, Italy saw large internal migrations. Many people from the poorer southern regions (the Mezzogiorno) moved northward or to cities in order to find work in industry; agricultural jobs declined. This put stress on urban infrastructure, housing, social services.

The standard of living rose, slowly but perceptibly. More homes got electricity, running water; consumer goods became more available (radios, refrigerators, etc.). Education expanded. Health measures improved life expectancy. But inequality remained a big issue: the divide between North and South, between urban and rural, was stark. Many in the south missed out on the early gains.

Tensions, Cold War Pressure, and Political Instability

Italy in the post-war decade was not a calm, stable democracy by any means. Governments were fragile—coalitions formed and dissolved frequently. The influence of the Communist Party was strong (especially among workers and in certain regions), and that was worrying to Western powers in the Cold War context. The U.S., for example, was keen to ensure Italy did not slide into Communist control; that shaped aid, politics, elections.

There were moments of crisis and violence—for example strikes, political protests, sometimes considerable lawlessness, especially in war-torn or rural areas. The rebuilding of civil institutions, law enforcement, reconciliation over war crimes and collaboration were all ongoing challenges.

Outcomes by ~1955: What Italy Had Become

By about 1955, roughly ten years after WWII, Italy had changed dramatically from 1945:

• It was a republic with a written constitution, democratic institutions.

• Its economy had largely recovered from wartime destruction; many industrial sectors were functioning; domestic markets reopening; exports increasing.

• Infrastructure was being rebuilt; new roads, repair of railways; electricity more widespread.

• Agriculture was changing via land reform; but many rural areas still lagged.

• Internal migration from south to north, rural to urban was reshaping demographics and urban centers.

• Standard of living was improving, though unevenly; many people still lived in poverty, especially in certain regions.

• Italy was increasingly integrated into Western Europe: economically, via aid; politically, via alignment in Cold War alliances; culturally, via modernization.

Constraints & Persistent Problems

Despite the progress, there were also sticking problems in those ten years:

• Regional inequality remained a big issue. The Mezzogiorno remained poor, less industrialized, less infrastructure, less investment. The gap with the industrial north was large.

• Institutions were weak in many places; corruption, patronage, political maneuvering often undermined efficiency.

• Many wartime collaborators / Fascists were not fully purged; the Togliatti amnesty, for example, meant many ex-Fascists were rehabilitated or at least escaped harsh punishment. That sometimes caused resentment.

• Social welfare systems and housing for the massive numbers of displaced and urban migrants often lagged behind need.

• Italy depended heavily on foreign aid (Marshall Plan etc.) and on imports of energy and raw materials; this made it vulnerable to external shocks.

Legacy: How Those Ten Years Set the Shape of Modern Italy

What went on between 1945-1955 laid the foundation for Italy’s later boom (late 1950s-1960s), its modern political system, its regional divides, its social welfare state, its economic structure with strong small‐ and medium-sized enterprises, a powerful industrial north, a weaker periphery in the south.

Also, how Italy handled the memory of Fascism, how it integrated wartime resistants and former collaborators, set much of its political culture: instability, importance of coalition, antagonism between left and right, the role of the Church, etc.

Have you subscribed to the email newsletter?

Quarter Zip Investigates

July 30 - Why Did Stockton Rush Insist on Using Carbon Fiber for the Titan Sub

July 31 Artistic Liberties in Black Mass, the 2015 Whitey Bulger film

August 1 Life for the Camera Crew on Deadliest Catch

August 4 Life on a Commercial Fishing Boat for the Fishermen

August 11 Whitey Bulger’s Final Chapter: Murder in a West Virginia Prison

August 14 Whitey Bulger’s Unique Sports Betting Scheme

August 18 Whitey Bulger and CIA Mind Control Experiments

August 20 Whitey Bulger vs. The Italians

September 10 The Rise and Fall of German U-Boats in WWII

September 16 Why Don’t We See More WWII Naval Battle Movies?

October 6 How Organized Crime Shaped Modern Sicily

Have you subscribed to the email newsletter?