Why did Michigan split the 1997 title?

[junior4949]

Why? Pure CFB politics, that's why. It's MI, they are a bigger national brand than NE and the media, therefore, likes them better. There are more MI alum in high places than there are NE alum, just look at ESPN, for e.g. They've got "pull". They sell more advertizing and MI gear outside of their immediate demographic. They come in just bellow Notre Dame in that regard.

At the time, '97, everybody knew that NE would have steamrolled MI in a head to head match up, just like we did Peyton's TN. But again, MI is a media darling, so they got the voters. If not for Frost's impassioned post game plea re: the team and OZ, who knows, MI may have gotten it all.

Nebraska has received tons of respect from the national college football media over the years, far more than our tiny population would otherwise suggest.

In '97 the Huskers stumbled when they needed a miracle to beat unranked Missouri. That's all it took in a tight race of undefeated teams. Michigan may not have been better than Nebraska, but they had avoided that stumble and had just beaten the the #2 and #4 ranked teams.

So Michigan was ranked #1 when it won its bowl game. Normally you don't drop down in the rankings when you win your bowl game.

So both the sentiment and the football smarts broke Nebraska's way in the final UPI poll.

Nothing to complain about.

As to the bolded, I would disagree for the reasons I stated, so I won't review. But lately, OZ is rarely ever mentioned in the "greatest coaches ever" discussions even though he arguably was--even better than Saban.

As to the '97 "stumbles", well, champions find a way to win close games and we had a few that year. I don't care that we shared w MI, but we were clearly the better team, especially @ bowl time. We steamrolled a great TN team with Peyton("the best QB EVAR") Manning and MI barely got past Wazzou.

Is this just homer talk? Let's see who inherited what. Saban inherited a LSU team that won a whopping two games the year before he got there and only won four the year before that. He won a NC at LSU his fourth year. Saban inherited an Alabama team that was a mess. They had been riddled with probation and sanctions. Bama had to vacate all their win from the two seasons prior to Saban getting there. In his third year, he won a NC. He has won a total of five NCs.

TO inherited a nine win Nebraska team the year before he became head coach and a team that won back to back NCs the two years before. 22 years go by before he gets his first NC. He wins three NCs.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Why? Pure CFB politics, that's why. It's MI, they are a bigger national brand than NE and the media, therefore, likes them better. There are more MI alum in high places than there are NE alum, just look at ESPN, for e.g. They've got "pull". They sell more advertizing and MI gear outside of their immediate demographic. They come in just bellow Notre Dame in that regard.

At the time, '97, everybody knew that NE would have steamrolled MI in a head to head match up, just like we did Peyton's TN. But again, MI is a media darling, so they got the voters. If not for Frost's impassioned post game plea re: the team and OZ, who knows, MI may have gotten it all.

Nebraska has received tons of respect from the national college football media over the years, far more than our tiny population would otherwise suggest.

In '97 the Huskers stumbled when they needed a miracle to beat unranked Missouri. That's all it took in a tight race of undefeated teams. Michigan may not have been better than Nebraska, but they had avoided that stumble and had just beaten the the #2 and #4 ranked teams.

So Michigan was ranked #1 when it won its bowl game. Normally you don't drop down in the rankings when you win your bowl game.

So both the sentiment and the football smarts broke Nebraska's way in the final UPI poll.

Nothing to complain about.

As to the bolded, I would disagree for the reasons I stated, so I won't review. But lately, OZ is rarely ever mentioned in the "greatest coaches ever" discussions even though he arguably was--even better than Saban.

As to the '97 "stumbles", well, champions find a way to win close games and we had a few that year. I don't care that we shared w MI, but we were clearly the better team, especially @ bowl time. We steamrolled a great TN team with Peyton("the best QB EVAR") Manning and MI barely got past Wazzou.

Is this just homer talk? Let's see who inherited what. Saban inherited a LSU team that won a whopping two games the year before he got there and only won four the year before that. He won a NC at LSU his fourth year. Saban inherited an Alabama team that was a mess. They had been riddled with probation and sanctions. Bama had to vacate all their win from the two seasons prior to Saban getting there. In his third year, he won a NC. He has won a total of five NCs.

TO inherited a nine win Nebraska team the year before he became head coach and a team that won back to back NCs the two years before. 22 years go by before he gets his first NC. He wins three NCs.

Yeah, I agree here.

Obviously I didn't have the opportunity to see every coach in history but Saban is the greatest college coach I ever personally witnessed.

 

[Saunders]

You're not a mod, so don't tell me what to read and post. Besides, I can hear the crying from outside the thread.

Well actually.... He's not wrong.

If you don't like it, don't post. What you did was what we like to call threadshitting and it is frowned upon.

Thanks!

 

[Joe_5700]

We would have steamrolled Michigan back in 97'. However, let's not forget why there was a split title. The title was ours until we travelled to Columbia, MO. This game even though we won in OT dropped us from #1 to #3. Then a couple weeks later, we barely squeaked out a three point victory against unranked non-bowl eligible CU.

While most of us can agree we would have rolled Michigan back then, we were extremely lucky to get a share of the title. I'm guessing the only reason we received a share was because of TO's announcing his retirement and the lobbying by Scott Frost.

Don't forget Jason Peter's challenge for Michigan to play Nebraska at his home in NJ. I think he even gave the address.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I thought mods frowned on words like "pooping" but now that I see they go unbleeped I will be using them liberally!

 

[Saunders]

I thought mods frowned on words like "pooping" but now that I see they go unbleeped I will be using them liberally!

That's what we have a filter for! Honestly, I'm surprised it didn't get edited, I'll have to tell the admins.

This is kinda like when kids curse and say "well dad says it" and mom gets pissed.

 

[cornographic]

I thought mods frowned on words like "pooping" but now that I see they go unbleeped I will be using them liberally!

That's what we have a filter for! Honestly, I'm surprised it didn't get edited, I'll have to tell the admins.

This is kinda like when kids curse and say "well dad says it" and mom gets pissed.

You can't say "poop" here? I'm not sure I can cope w that...

Oh look, I said it

.

 

[cornographic]

Why? Pure CFB politics, that's why. It's MI, they are a bigger national brand than NE and the media, therefore, likes them better. There are more MI alum in high places than there are NE alum, just look at ESPN, for e.g. They've got "pull". They sell more advertizing and MI gear outside of their immediate demographic. They come in just bellow Notre Dame in that regard.

At the time, '97, everybody knew that NE would have steamrolled MI in a head to head match up, just like we did Peyton's TN. But again, MI is a media darling, so they got the voters. If not for Frost's impassioned post game plea re: the team and OZ, who knows, MI may have gotten it all.

Nebraska has received tons of respect from the national college football media over the years, far more than our tiny population would otherwise suggest.

In '97 the Huskers stumbled when they needed a miracle to beat unranked Missouri. That's all it took in a tight race of undefeated teams. Michigan may not have been better than Nebraska, but they had avoided that stumble and had just beaten the the #2 and #4 ranked teams.

So Michigan was ranked #1 when it won its bowl game. Normally you don't drop down in the rankings when you win your bowl game.

So both the sentiment and the football smarts broke Nebraska's way in the final UPI poll.

Nothing to complain about.

As to the bolded, I would disagree for the reasons I stated, so I won't review. But lately, OZ is rarely ever mentioned in the "greatest coaches ever" discussions even though he arguably was--even better than Saban.

As to the '97 "stumbles", well, champions find a way to win close games and we had a few that year. I don't care that we shared w MI, but we were clearly the better team, especially @ bowl time. We steamrolled a great TN team with Peyton("the best QB EVAR") Manning and MI barely got past Wazzou.

Sharing the title is certainly better than not having anything but not caring that we have to share vs getting the opportunity to play for it outright is just plain un-American. And it goes against TO's philosophy about winning. That's why he went for 2 against Miami

Well, playing for it outright--back then--is a moot point.

But not caring about sharing it isn't a moot point.

Bu I do, I do care about sharing, honest...

Why? Pure CFB politics, that's why. It's MI, they are a bigger national brand than NE and the media, therefore, likes them better. There are more MI alum in high places than there are NE alum, just look at ESPN, for e.g. They've got "pull". They sell more advertizing and MI gear outside of their immediate demographic. They come in just bellow Notre Dame in that regard.

At the time, '97, everybody knew that NE would have steamrolled MI in a head to head match up, just like we did Peyton's TN. But again, MI is a media darling, so they got the voters. If not for Frost's impassioned post game plea re: the team and OZ, who knows, MI may have gotten it all.

Nebraska has received tons of respect from the national college football media over the years, far more than our tiny population would otherwise suggest.

In '97 the Huskers stumbled when they needed a miracle to beat unranked Missouri. That's all it took in a tight race of undefeated teams. Michigan may not have been better than Nebraska, but they had avoided that stumble and had just beaten the the #2 and #4 ranked teams.

So Michigan was ranked #1 when it won its bowl game. Normally you don't drop down in the rankings when you win your bowl game.

So both the sentiment and the football smarts broke Nebraska's way in the final UPI poll.

Nothing to complain about.

As to the bolded, I would disagree for the reasons I stated, so I won't review. But lately, OZ is rarely ever mentioned in the "greatest coaches ever" discussions even though he arguably was--even better than Saban.

As to the '97 "stumbles", well, champions find a way to win close games and we had a few that year. I don't care that we shared w MI, but we were clearly the better team, especially @ bowl time. We steamrolled a great TN team with Peyton("the best QB EVAR") Manning and MI barely got past Wazzou.

Is this just homer talk? Let's see who inherited what. Saban inherited a LSU team that won a whopping two games the year before he got there and only won four the year before that. He won a NC at LSU his fourth year. Saban inherited an Alabama team that was a mess. They had been riddled with probation and sanctions. Bama had to vacate all their win from the two seasons prior to Saban getting there. In his third year, he won a NC. He has won a total of five NCs.

TO inherited a nine win Nebraska team the year before he became head coach and a team that won back to back NCs the two years before. 22 years go by before he gets his first NC. He wins three NCs.

TO was 2 plays from 2 more Nattys--2 plays. That makes 5 as 3 + 2 = 5. And he was pretty damn close to at least 2 more, that makes 7. Oz's teams, like now, were mostly made up of 3* players over the decades, Saban has a plethora of 4-5* guys, 2 and 3 deep. You could say that Saban is the best recruiter of all time and not get much push back. OZ was an offensive genius on the same level or superior to Saban's defensive genius. Oz maintained 70+% winning over 3 decades, Saban may be gone in a year or 2. '95 Huskers arguably the best CFB team ever fielded and I would agree that it was. Like I said, OZ is arguably the best coach of all time.

 

[junior4949]

Or, you could look at the facts that both LSU and Bama were in pretty bad shape when Saban got there yet won NCs anyway. You could look at the fact that TO basically inherited a NC caliber team. I don't think there's an argument there at all. Bob Devaney would be a lot better argument in terms of being up there with Saban than TO ever will. TO inherited a team that only lost two games the three seasons before he became HC. Saban is accustomed to inheriting teams that only won about that many

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

What?!

My "schitting" got changed to "pooping"

Why do mods get to have all the fun?

 

[knapplc]

What is the world coming to when we can't even talk about bodily functions 'n such.

 

[cornographic]

Is "pee" off limits too?

 

[VA Husker Fan]

You're not a mod, so don't tell me what to read and post. Besides, I can hear the crying from outside the thread.

Well actually.... He's not wrong.

If you don't like it, don't post. What you did was what we like to call threadshitting and it is frowned upon.

Thanks!

Fine. But it's not just that I don't like the thread. I think the topic makes us look really bad as a fan base. I hate to see that.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

TO was 2 plays from 2 more Nattys--2 plays. That makes 5 as 3 + 2 = 5. And he was pretty damn close to at least 2 more, that makes 7. Oz's teams, like now, were mostly made up of 3* players over the decades, Saban has a plethora of 4-5* guys, 2 and 3 deep. You could say that Saban is the best recruiter of all time and not get much push back. OZ was an offensive genius on the same level or superior to Saban's defensive genius. Oz maintained 70+% winning over 3 decades, Saban may be gone in a year or 2. '95 Huskers arguably the best CFB team ever fielded and I would agree that it was. Like I said, OZ is arguably the best coach of all time.

Your math is off.

If a coach has 3 titles, and almost wins 4 more (not sure where the last 2 "pretty damn close" come from, but whatever), how many titles does he have?

Answer: 3

 

[StPaulHusker]

Why? Pure CFB politics, that's why. It's MI, they are a bigger national brand than NE and the media, therefore, likes them better. There are more MI alum in high places than there are NE alum, just look at ESPN, for e.g. They've got "pull". They sell more advertizing and MI gear outside of their immediate demographic. They come in just bellow Notre Dame in that regard.

At the time, '97, everybody knew that NE would have steamrolled MI in a head to head match up, just like we did Peyton's TN. But again, MI is a media darling, so they got the voters. If not for Frost's impassioned post game plea re: the team and OZ, who knows, MI may have gotten it all.

Nebraska has received tons of respect from the national college football media over the years, far more than our tiny population would otherwise suggest.

In '97 the Huskers stumbled when they needed a miracle to beat unranked Missouri. That's all it took in a tight race of undefeated teams. Michigan may not have been better than Nebraska, but they had avoided that stumble and had just beaten the the #2 and #4 ranked teams.

So Michigan was ranked #1 when it won its bowl game. Normally you don't drop down in the rankings when you win your bowl game.

So both the sentiment and the football smarts broke Nebraska's way in the final UPI poll.

Nothing to complain about.

As to the bolded, I would disagree for the reasons I stated, so I won't review. But lately, OZ is rarely ever mentioned in the "greatest coaches ever" discussions even though he arguably was--even better than Saban.

As to the '97 "stumbles", well, champions find a way to win close games and we had a few that year. I don't care that we shared w MI, but we were clearly the better team, especially @ bowl time. We steamrolled a great TN team with Peyton("the best QB EVAR") Manning and MI barely got past Wazzou.

Sharing the title is certainly better than not having anything but not caring that we have to share vs getting the opportunity to play for it outright is just plain un-American. And it goes against TO's philosophy about winning. That's why he went for 2 against Miami

Well, playing for it outright--back then--is a moot point.

But not caring about sharing it isn't a moot point.

Bu I do, I do care about sharing, honest...

Why? Pure CFB politics, that's why. It's MI, they are a bigger national brand than NE and the media, therefore, likes them better. There are more MI alum in high places than there are NE alum, just look at ESPN, for e.g. They've got "pull". They sell more advertizing and MI gear outside of their immediate demographic. They come in just bellow Notre Dame in that regard.

At the time, '97, everybody knew that NE would have steamrolled MI in a head to head match up, just like we did Peyton's TN. But again, MI is a media darling, so they got the voters. If not for Frost's impassioned post game plea re: the team and OZ, who knows, MI may have gotten it all.

Nebraska has received tons of respect from the national college football media over the years, far more than our tiny population would otherwise suggest.

In '97 the Huskers stumbled when they needed a miracle to beat unranked Missouri. That's all it took in a tight race of undefeated teams. Michigan may not have been better than Nebraska, but they had avoided that stumble and had just beaten the the #2 and #4 ranked teams.

So Michigan was ranked #1 when it won its bowl game. Normally you don't drop down in the rankings when you win your bowl game.

So both the sentiment and the football smarts broke Nebraska's way in the final UPI poll.

Nothing to complain about.

As to the bolded, I would disagree for the reasons I stated, so I won't review. But lately, OZ is rarely ever mentioned in the "greatest coaches ever" discussions even though he arguably was--even better than Saban.

As to the '97 "stumbles", well, champions find a way to win close games and we had a few that year. I don't care that we shared w MI, but we were clearly the better team, especially @ bowl time. We steamrolled a great TN team with Peyton("the best QB EVAR") Manning and MI barely got past Wazzou.

Is this just homer talk? Let's see who inherited what. Saban inherited a LSU team that won a whopping two games the year before he got there and only won four the year before that. He won a NC at LSU his fourth year. Saban inherited an Alabama team that was a mess. They had been riddled with probation and sanctions. Bama had to vacate all their win from the two seasons prior to Saban getting there. In his third year, he won a NC. He has won a total of five NCs.

TO inherited a nine win Nebraska team the year before he became head coach and a team that won back to back NCs the two years before. 22 years go by before he gets his first NC. He wins three NCs.

TO was 2 plays from 2 more Nattys--2 plays. That makes 5 as 3 + 2 = 5. And he was pretty damn close to at least 2 more, that makes 7. Oz's teams, like now, were mostly made up of 3* players over the decades, Saban has a plethora of 4-5* guys, 2 and 3 deep. You could say that Saban is the best recruiter of all time and not get much push back. OZ was an offensive genius on the same level or superior to Saban's defensive genius. Oz maintained 70+% winning over 3 decades, Saban may be gone in a year or 2. '95 Huskers arguably the best CFB team ever fielded and I would agree that it was. Like I said, OZ is arguably the best coach of all time.

You don't know if Osborne would have continued to coach past winning the first 2 hypothetical NC's so you can't say that he was 2 plays from winning 5 or 7 or anything else.