Why did Michigan split the 1997 title?

[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.

 

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.

 

Play #1, '84, #1 NE 2 pt play vs #4 The U. We get that and that's 1 natty. Osborne continues to coach. Play #2, '94 Orange Bowl, #2 NE vs #1 FSU, game winning FG wide left, loss 16-18, make it we win 19-18 and the natty. Osborne continues to coach and wins 3 nattys.

 

2 plays from 2 more nattys, I don't see any confusion here. Hey, y'all can dis on Tom, but then you risk being labeled an "untrue fan".

[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.

 

Play #1, '84, #1 NE 2 pt play vs #4 The U. We get that and that's 1 natty. Osborne continues to coach. Play #2, '94 Orange Bowl, #2 NE vs #1 FSU, game winning FG wide left, loss 16-18, make it we win 19-18 and the natty. Osborne continues to coach and wins 3 nattys.

 

2 plays from 2 more nattys, I don't see any confusion here. Hey, y'all can dis on Tom, but then you risk being labeled an "untrue fan".

 

You don't know that he continues to coach past 93 if they beat FSU. That is what I am saying.

 

Perhaps he kept coaching in 94 because he didn't win in 93.

[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!

 

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.

 

The only other people who would care is Michigan fans, and they're stupid, so it doesn't matter.

[Saunders]

What?!

 

My "schitting" got changed to "pooping"

 

Why do mods get to have all the fun?

It's the sole perk we get for wading through all the "poop" in the reports.

[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.

 

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.

 

Play #1, '84, #1 NE 2 pt play vs #4 The U. We get that and that's 1 natty. Osborne continues to coach. Play #2, '94 Orange Bowl, #2 NE vs #1 FSU, game winning FG wide left, loss 16-18, make it we win 19-18 and the natty. Osborne continues to coach and wins 3 nattys.

 

2 plays from 2 more nattys, I don't see any confusion here. Hey, y'all can dis on Tom, but then you risk being labeled an "untrue fan".

 

You don't know that he continues to coach past 93 if they beat FSU. That is what I am saying.

 

Perhaps he kept coaching in 94 because he didn't win in 93.

 

Uh, ok.

[knapplc]

 

What?!

 

My "schitting" got changed to "pooping"

 

Why do mods get to have all the fun?

It's the sole perk we get for wading through all the "poop" in the reports.

 

 

Being a mod can be a shitty job.

[Saunders]

 

 

What?!

 

My "schitting" got changed to "pooping"

 

Why do mods get to have all the fun?

It's the sole perk we get for wading through all the "poop" in the reports.

 

 

Being a mod can be a shitty job.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

What?!

 

My "schitting" got changed to "pooping"

 

Why do mods get to have all the fun?

It's the sole perk we get for wading through all the "poop" in the reports.

 

 

Being a mod can be a shitty job.

 

 

So Knappl still commands the magic schit decoder?

[knapplc]

So Knappl still commands the magic schit decoder?

It's a BB Code trick, not a Mod trick. I could type any potty-mouth word I want and get it past the filter, but there's really no need. I've also been known to use French (merde) on occasion. That seems a little more fun, less blunt, than writing "shit."

[Guy Chamberlin]

You mods with your fancy coding tricks, strutting around HuskerBoard like demigods and tyrants.

 

You're not the king of me.

 

Someday the people will rise up and demand what's rightfully theirs:

 

Profanity.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

What?!

 

My "schitting" got changed to "pooping"

 

Why do mods get to have all the fun?

It's the sole perk we get for wading through all the "poop" in the reports.

 

 

Being a mod can be a shitty job.

 

 

So Knappl still commands the magic schit decoder?

 

[Saunders]

You mods with your fancy coding tricks, strutting around HuskerBoard like demigods and tyrants.

 

You're not the king of me.

 

Someday the people will rise up and demand what's rightfully theirs:

 

Profanity.

[Blackshirt96]

Sh!t. Close enough for me.

[VectorVictor]

Did see this brought up in the thread (sorry in advance if I missed it), but years ago (very early 00s), back in the HuskerPedia days, a poster had found minutes from a University of Michigan leadership meeting where the AD confirmed that FOX network had approached both Michigan and Nebraska about doing a one-off game to settle who the true champion is, as long as the NCAA would grant approval. Even mentioned something about $2-3 million/school, and that Nebraska was already on board with the idea, but that they (Michigan) had turned it down.

 

Last time I checked, a true champion is willing to prove it on the field. If I could find those notes I would...but the fact that Michigan rejected this hypothetical NC game, not to mention what was said earlier about Michigan, Delaney, and the then Big Ten hiding behind the skirt of the Rose Bowl, tells us Michigan was never a true champion that year.

[Redux]

^ There it is

 

Michigan players and staff from that '97 team can claim their share all they want, they can even say they were "willing" to settle it outright. But we all know the truth is simple, Nebraska WANTED to settle it because Nebraska COULD settle it. Michigan was happy with their wooden wall hanger.