Why did Michigan split the 1997 title?

[B.B. Hemingway]

It was almost 20 years ago. Let it go.

 

 

What's the harm? Obviously, our newest member Redder, has a lot on his mind this morning!

[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.

[BigRedBuster]

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. They sell more advertizing and MI gear outside of their immediate demographic. They come in just bellow Notre Dame in this regard.

 

At the time, '97, everybody knew that NE would have steam rolled MI in a bowl natch up, just like we did Peyton's TN. But again, MI is a media darling, so they got the voters.

Of course they had a certain daddy lobbying for them in the booth of their bowl game.

[knapplc]

 

 

It was almost 20 years ago. Let it go.

SI just tweeted this a few moments ago. We need to tell them to let this go too, right?

 

 

Not even close to the same thing. I thought you were smarter than this, but I guess not. The thread topic did not happen "on this day", it was just randomly started for no apparent reason other than to whine about having to share the title. The tweet is simply stating a fact or two that happened on this date. It is not trying to rekindle a controversy that cannot possibly be resolved. I agree with the opinion that we would've rolled Michigan, but that does not make it a fact.

 

If you don't like the topic, don't read it and don't post in it.

[knapplc]

You guys sound like Michigan fans living in the past. Just let it go.

 

Both were great teams in 97.

At least we can beat Michigan State.

 

 

[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. They sell more advertizing and MI gear outside of their immediate demographic. They come in just bellow Notre Dame in this regard.

 

At the time, '97, everybody knew that NE would have steam rolled MI in a bowl natch up, just like we did Peyton's TN. But again, MI is a media darling, so they got the voters.

Of course they had a certain daddy lobbying for them in the booth of their bowl game.

 

Was Brian Griese their QB in '97? Yeah, I seem to recall all that. Pure political and marketing b.s. Look, CFB is a big biz and the powers that be come out from time to time and openly and categorically say they promote the big name brand teams that have the most advertizing market share: somewhat in the order of ND, USC, MI, TX, Bama, FSU/Miami, and tOSU. Cowherd was talking about this just last week. Heck, even when we were winning NCs under Bob and Tom, the CFB media only begrudgeonly acknowledged it, giving us only the minimal amount of air time.

 

These days, there is not much mention of the great NE teams when ESPN and what not wax nostalgic on the great teams and coaches of yore. The thing lately of Saban as the greatest of all time, well, there is no mention of Oz or Devaney(the guy that really built NE) in such discussions. Guess what? Oz was 2 plays--count 'em--from also winning 5 nattys: the 2 point play back in '83 and the wide left(?) FG vs FSU in '93. 2 plays, and I'd have to go back and check, but he nearly won at least 2 more over the decades. But no, all we hear in such discussions is Bear Bryant, Wilkinson, Ara P, Carroll, Joe Pa, Bobby Bowden, and now Nick. OZ did it with a recruiting disadvantage too, relative to those other hotbed programs.

 

So, the moral of the story is that NE will never get the national PR that we're due, when we're due, so we shouldn't worry about it and just keep on keepin' on and enjoy our team.

[Landlord]

We were easily the better team, but we were lucky to get a split at all.

 

 

Some coaches purposefully voted Michigan even lower than what was fair to barely give us the AP title, either as a favor to Tom Osborne, because they thought we were better, or both.

 

 

 

 

But make no mistake, we were easily the more deserving and better team. Michigan has a few flimsy arguments - common opponent results, for example - but if you look into it, they don't hold water.

[junior4949]

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.

[Landlord]

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.

 

 

Yep.

[CheeseHusker]

Didn't Osborne offer to play them on a neutral field?

[cornographic]

Didn't Osborne offer to play them on a neutral field?

Like a playoff. Oz, so far ahead of his time....

[knapplc]

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.

Eh. You could say Michigan's lackluster win vs. Notre Dame, a one-score game where they turned the ball over three times, at home, was squeaking out a win. The Irish finished 6-7 that year. Or you could say Michigan squeaked out a win against Washington State, where the refs clearly let the clock run out instead of giving Wazoo another play (like they should have). That was about as weak a Pac-10 champion as we've seen.

 

Or you could say Notre Dame is a rivalry game, and that's why they played Michigan so close - but then you'd have to give Nebraska that caveat with Missouri & Colorado, too.

[StPaulHusker]

 

Didn't Osborne offer to play them on a neutral field?

Like a playoff. Oz, so far ahead of his time....

 

Well not quite. He wanted Michigan to forego the Rose Bowl and play H2H for the NC.

[VA Husker Fan]

 

 

 

It was almost 20 years ago. Let it go.

SI just tweeted this a few moments ago. We need to tell them to let this go too, right?

 

 

Not even close to the same thing. I thought you were smarter than this, but I guess not. The thread topic did not happen "on this day", it was just randomly started for no apparent reason other than to whine about having to share the title. The tweet is simply stating a fact or two that happened on this date. It is not trying to rekindle a controversy that cannot possibly be resolved. I agree with the opinion that we would've rolled Michigan, but that does not make it a fact.

 

If you don't like the topic, don't read it and don't post in it.

 

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.

 

Someone posted elsewhere, I think it was the 10-15 year thread, that the fans deserve a championship in that time frame. The pathetic whining in this thread tells me otherwise.

 

Oh, and I love the revisionist history that Osborne wanted to play Michigan after the bowl games but they chickened out. Find me a link to that, or I call BS. Yes, he would've loved to have played them in the bowl, but knew the contractual obligation to the Rose Bowl made that impossible. There's no way the NCAA was going to allow an extra game after the bowls. Osborne never proposed or supported a post-bowl game against Michigan. It would've been fruitless to try. You people just look ignorant claiming he did, and that Michigan backed down.

[admo]

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.

In the back of my mind it felt that way to me as well.