This discussion can't even occur without a definition of what a 'blue blood' is, and this question makes it clear. But I can actually answer this one.....the acceptability of my answer by the board at large may be debated, of course.
For starters, Michigan was a BIG DEAL from the earliest days of college ball.....Nebraska wasn't.
Nebraska was a fifty-year comet that blasted across the sky of an ever-changing game. But let's be honest....how many Nebraska coaches BEFORE Bob Devaney can ANY of you name without looking them up? Seriously.....that answers the question. Michigan had legendary names like Fielding Yost, Bernie Oosterban, and Bump Elliott long before Bo Schembechler's name became synonymous with "loser of the Rose Bowl."
Nebraska's national titles are limited to two brief runs - Devaney's back-to-back in 1970-71 and Osborne's dynasty of 1994-97.
And to be fair, a lot of Michigan's status comes from the fact they went to a lot of Rose Bowls. Unfair but true. Oh, and they've won more games than any team in history helps.
The problem here is that now you're arguing like an Alabama fan who has zero appreciation for anything not in OUR worldview. I'm not trying to sound mean, but this is one of the things that drives me nuts on this board. Appreciation of a team in context is necessary. In fact, if we use this argument then ONLY Alabama is a blue blood.
Ohio State may have only won two national titles since then, but consider how many times they've been ranked number one week to week (meaning the perception AT THE TIME was that they were the nation's best team) and how many times did they PLAY for the national title or a game that helped another team win the national title? Just going from my memory in my lifetime (which is hardly complete since back in the day the game was so regional and you could go an entire season without even seeing them)...
1979 - lost the Rose Bowl, if they win they likely beat out an unbeaten Alabama team
1995 - top flight team that lost to Michigan and cost them a possible title; Eddie George won the Heisman
1996 - again lost to Michigan and was dependent upon other circumstances but DID beat Arizona State....without that,
Florida doesn't win the title
2006 - number one going into the BCS title game
2007 - again.....
2013 - loses the B1G game else Auburn isn't in the title game against FSU
2015 - loses the Mich St game that costs them a playoff berth
2016 - gets into playoff but gets killed by Clemson
So they've been "in the hunt" many times
The fact we had lousy coaches and made some godawful hires doesn't change the fact that virtually every team we played would have rather beaten us than any other team on their schedule. Furthermore, it was known at the time that once we got through the sanctions then we would be okay.
Well then let's look at it like this.......
NATIONAL TITLES
Michigan - won in the aughts, 20s, 30s, 40s, and 90s
Ohio State - 40s, 50s, 60s, 00s
OU - 50s, 70s, 80s, 00s
Notre Dame - teens, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s
Miami's national titles save for the 2001 were in a compressed period of time (1983-1991), suggesting perhaps a 'team of the era,' not a long-term champion; FSU won 2 of their 3 in a seven-season span.
Or look at it like this.....
Alabama was the team of the early 60s AND the team of the 70s AND the team of 2009-present.
Notre Dame was both the team of the early 20s AND the team of the 40s post-WW2.
Nebraska may have won 3 national titles in four years, but I'll guarantee you more people remember the longer term run of Florida State as more impressive, particularly when you remember that Nebraska never was able to beat FSU and save for the one impressive game in 1994, NEVER beat Miami, either.
Think about it.....FSU played for the title in 93-96-98-99-00......but that's still a compressed run and not a long-term happening.
But again you're ignoring context. USC also had some Heisman winners that garnered national attention before 2003, most notably Marcus Allen in 1981.
In short, you're arguing "if you're not the national champion then your program is no good," which is ludicrous.
Minnesota has more cfb national titles than Texas........how many people even know that?
Does anyone with a brain consider Minnesota a better all-time program than Texas?
."
