BTN Big Ten Elite to Showcase 1997 Nebraska

It seems to me that the BIG executives see the value of a powerful Husker football team. Their job is to bring in cash, and Nebraska football does that. I expect them to use this to hype the Husker brand in line with hyping the BIG brand. I would expect a storyline along the lines of "the BIG is so great we had two undefeated teams, and their is still an argument about who was better, but obviously no team outside the BIG could even be considered in the discussion."

 
Michigan is lucky they didn't have to play Nebraska in 1997.  The Huskers would have beaten the Wolverines by 50 at least.  NU crushed a Tennessee team that was head and shoulders better than Michigan.  

 
Making Chimichangas said:
Michigan is lucky they didn't have to play Nebraska in 1997.  The Huskers would have beaten the Wolverines by 50 at least.  NU crushed a Tennessee team that was head and shoulders better than Michigan.  
Click to expand...


I think so too, and I was further convinced of this the next season when Michigan with Tom Brady played Syracuse with McNabb, running a very similar style of offense as us, and got the snot beat out of them at their own place.

 
giphy.gif


 
Hans Gruber said:
I don't think anyone at BTN cares about that kind of stuff.

They did one on the 1994 Nebraska team that beat out Penn State for the national title.
Click to expand...
I wondered why they didn’t do one in 97 or 95 yet. Waiting in 95. Probably best team ever surprised they didn’t do it yet. Or maybe they can’t stomach saying that out loud 

 
VectorVictor said:
So what you're really saying is we're getting a 40-minute BTN series on Shevin Wiggins' foot, and a 5 minute series on the 1997 NC team?

Cause some of the B1G folks still have a problem with us claiming that NC...
Click to expand...


To the bolded...maybe if they're from Michigan they do, but the Big 10 as a conference (I think anyway--could be wrong) doesn't really care.  It just adds another championship to the list.

 
Making Chimichangas said:
Michigan is lucky they didn't have to play Nebraska in 1997.  The Huskers would have beaten the Wolverines by 50 at least.  NU crushed a Tennessee team that was head and shoulders better than Michigan.  
Click to expand...


Sure, Green, Makovica, and Frost were Top 20 rushers, but Michigan's 1997 D gave up more than 16 points to one team all season. The 97 Shirts would have held Griese and Co* to 17, and much likely less. The Skers would have gotten lose for at least 4 scores, maybe 5 or 6. I don't see 50 but 35 sounds reasonable.

* "Griese and Co" is a joke, Michigan's 3 best O players were QB Griese, guard Steve Hutchinson (almost as good as Aaron Taylor), and DB Charles Woodson. 3 fieldgoals is probably more like it.

 
Gage County said:
Sure, Green, Makovica, and Frost were Top 20 rushers, but Michigan's 1997 D gave up more than 16 points to one team all season. The 97 Shirts would have held Griese and Co* to 17, and much likely less. The Skers would have gotten lose for at least 4 scores, maybe 5 or 6. I don't see 50 but 35 sounds reasonable.

* "Griese and Co" is a joke, Michigan's 3 best O players were QB Griese, guard Steve Hutchinson (almost as good as Aaron Taylor), and DB Charles Woodson. 3 fieldgoals is probably more like it.
Click to expand...


My memory is kinda hazy, but as I recollect...Michigan's defensive strength was pass defense.  I seem to remember teams being able to run pretty much at will against that defense.  Ohio State, when they ran the ball, ran it for like 6-7 yards a pop, but really didn't stick with it.  Hell, even Washington State in the Rose Bowl was running pretty well against Michigan's defense--until their #1 RB got hurt and left the game.

 
Michigan was 1st in total D, in scoring D, and in passing D, 7th in rushing D. Skers were 1st in total O, scoring O, and rushing O. It pretty much would have been the best offense against the best defense. We would have have made them cry.

 
Huskers93-97 said:
I wondered why they didn’t do one in 97 or 95 yet. Waiting in 95. Probably best team ever surprised they didn’t do it yet. Or maybe they can’t stomach saying that out loud 
Click to expand...


To be fair, I think they're looking at it from a story perspective. While 95 was certainly a better team, 94 had the better story. Better story than 97 also. Obviously they're doing 97 now because of the connection with Frost.

 
And in regards to 97 Nebraska vs. 97 Michigan, I feel quite comfortable saying Nebraska would win. Probably not by 50 like someone said, but by 17 or so in a not-as-close-as-the-score-looks kind of game.

I think Nebraska would win in a similar fashion to the way Alabama beat LSU in the national title game or how Alabama beat Clemson in the semifinals last year. Michigan had a mediocre-at-best offense and would struggle to score unless Nebraska turned it over a bunch.

 
Making Chimichangas said:
My memory is kinda hazy, but as I recollect...Michigan's defensive strength was pass defense.  I seem to remember teams being able to run pretty much at will against that defense.
Click to expand...


Their pass defense was certainly the biggest strength, but their run defense was still ranked 7th, allowing 89 yards a game and 2.7ypc

If there was a weakness on that team, Nebraska was the team designed to exploit it, that's for sure.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top