Why did Michigan split the 1997 title?

[jaws]

 

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

 

Both were great teams in 97.

I don't think Michigan was as great as they like to think they were in 97

 

Just about any team/player thinks they are better than they really are. Some of that is going on in this thread.

[skersfan]

We got half, we never beat them, and they had no choice in the matter, neither did we. There was talk of game after New Years, but neither team could have played according to NCAA.

 

I don't blame them for being upset, just like Nebraska fan is upset about sharing it.

 

They would be far less a fan if they didn't think they would win, just like we feel we would win. Game never played, never will be played. We have what we have.

 

I truly believe, if Scott Frost had not made his plea, we would not have gotten the championship. Most of us were very surprised we shared at the time. We felt we deserved to be the NC, but Michigan did not lose either.

 

Calls went wrong, but Michigan beat WSU. As fairly as we beat a few teams through the years.

 

Remember the ball was kicked, totally illegal. Today's football we would have lost that call I think.

 

Forget about it.

 

We won the Championship, that is all that matters.

[GOAT]

Nebraska would have beaten Michigan, and it really wouldn't have been close. That's all there is to it.

[knapplc]

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/17599-douschebag-hall-of-fame/page-168&do=findComment&comment=1665869

[Count 'Bility]

One must not forget it was Michigan in 1995 that saved the best college football team ever from potentially splitting with Ohio st. Imagine that abomination.

[Guy Chamberlin]

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.

[skersfan]

We could have just as easily been setting here today whining about not getting a share. I will take the share and maybe not gladly, share the other with Michigan. I feel Nebraska would have won, but really no one knows the answer.

 

Opinions are like Aholes, we all have them.

[Blackshirt96]

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

 

Both were great teams in 97.

Its the offseason. Not a whole lot to talk about besides recruiting. If you don't want to read it, feel free to use the back button.

[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.

[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

[teachercd]

I love the playoffs and want it to expand to 8 teams but this is kind of cool that 20 years later stuff like this still comes up because it was never played on the field.

[Saunders]

Remember the ball was kicked, totally illegal. Today's football we would have lost that call I think.

 

This isn't entirely correct. They would have had to prove it was 100% intentional.

 

 

Frank Gaines, technical adviser to Big 12 football officials, said it's against the rules for a receiver to intentionally strike a loose ball with the knee, lower leg or foot.

Gaines said an incidental or accidental kick is not a penalty. He said when the play is questionable - as was the case for Wiggins's kick - the ruling is always that such a kick is accidental.

http://articles.philly.com/1997-11-13/sports/25541968_1_usa-today-public-league-world

 

 

I was listening to a podcast a couple years ago (I "think" it was Sports illustrated) and they talked about the game and the play. They couldn't find any time in recent memory where that penalty was even called.

[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.

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.

 

 

You could say all that, but in reality it appeared we were fading towards the end of the season while Michigan was getting stronger. I know everyone likes to have their conspiracy theories, but at the end of the day Michigan was playing better ball in November. They played and demolished Penn State who was ranked higher than they were. Next week, they played and beat a ranked Wisconsin team. Next week after that, they played and beat top five ranked Ohio State. Our November didn't look so great. We played unranked Mizzou and went into overtime with them. A couple weeks later, we squeak out a three point victory over unranked and non-bowl eligible CU.

 

Michigan did struggle at the beginning of the season while we dominated. However at the end of the season, Michigan was playing extremely well. Their last four games of the season were against ranked opponents with three of those four being ranked in the top 10 at the time they played. Again, we were very lucky getting the split title.

 

The reason we would have beat Michigan in a head to head is quite simple: they couldn't score enough points. Their season high point total was 38 while their average was somewhere around the mid-20's. Our average that year had to be in the 40's. Michigan might have had a great defense, but our defense was pretty darn stingy as well. We'll never know, but I'd guess we would have won by at least a couple of TDs.

[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.

[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.