Best Husker Team to Not Win a National Title Game 2: 1999 Nebraska vs. 1996 Nebraska

[ColoradoHusk]

3 minutes ago, Hans Gruber said:

It's worth pointing out that the 1999 team struggled to beat a good but nothing special Southern Miss team in Lincoln 20-13. If Nebraska doesn't get two defensive touchdowns from a linebacker they maybe don't win that game.

NU also struggled at Kansas the week after the Texas loss, and won 24-17.  The defense really carried the team for much of the season.  There was a QB controversy until Crouch finally was named the #1 man

[Undone]

Despite the fact that the 'points against' is basically even between the two teams, the '96 defense was better in my opinion. I'd go with 1996 despite the two loss record.

[r06ue1]

This is such a close match-up, both teams were good, have changed my vote to the '96 team but could end up changing back.  

[TGHusker]

This is a hard one.  I have to go wt the 96 team.  While I do think the 99 team would have/ could have beaten either team playing for NC that year, I think overall the 96 team was more balanced and the offense was more consistent.  Both teams had great Ds.   I think the 96 team wins by a fumble recovery in the end zone (tip of the hat to Grant Wistrom and gang and the 99 fumbling offense).

[knapplc]

I'm really surprised at this result. I think it's obvious the team that was sandwiched between two National Champions, half of whom were on the greatest team in college football history, is the better of these two.

 

I'll be shocked if 1999 wins this.

 

Shocked, I tell you.

[TGHusker]

Knapp my initial reaction was to pull for the 99 team.  They were one fumble (they seemed to have 100s of fumbles that year) away from going to the NC game. They destroyed a good top 10 Tenn team in the bowl.  So I can understand the votes esp if one doesn't dig deeper.  But when you drill down and see the talent on the 96 team, how they played out the rest of the year after that lack luster loss to ASU one has to think they are much better than then a 2 loss team.  I think losing to ASU after what 26 wins in a row got into everyone mind in a very negative way.  Then losing to texas in the fever bowl really weighs on the memory of how talented the team really was.  I think from a talent perspective, the weapons we had on offense, plus a star studded D, I think the 96 team would beat 99 by a couple of TDs (even thought I said by a fumble recovery above). 

[Cdog923]

I hesitate to say anything as the Presiding Official, but look at who the HC is of each of the teams, too. 

[TGHusker]

3 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

I hesitate to say anything as the Presiding Official, but look at who the HC is of each of the teams, too. 

Noted!  That should be a clue as to who might win that game

[Ulty]

I voted for 99 at first, and I loved that team. But these last few posts are quite convincing. After considering the evidence, I switched my vote to 96.

 

And now the poll is tied.

[Mavric]

One team had Tom Osborne calling plays

 

The other had Frank Solich

 

[Apsu]

On 7/29/2019 at 12:03 AM, Landlord said:

 

 

VA Tech beat Virginia and Syracuse who were ranked at the time, and beat Miami (#19 at the time, #15 at the end of the season) the week they got to #2. They also played Boston College ranked #22 at the time. 

 

And they were undefeated. And we were never higher than #3 all season until after VT was #2 so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with your post.

 

AT THE TIME means nothing, it means they were overrated based on prediction rather than result.
We played a tougher schedule based on final rankings, and suffered one loss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_team

[Landlord]

19 minutes ago, Apsu said:

 

AT THE TIME means nothing, it means they were overrated based on prediction rather than result.
We played a tougher schedule based on final rankings, and suffered one loss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_team

 

 

AT THE TIME means a lot AT THE TIME, seeing how the factors that make up the rankings are not in the future looking back in hindsight, but are in present AT THE TIME.

[Apsu]

5 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

AT THE TIME means a lot AT THE TIME, seeing how the factors that make up the rankings are not in the future looking back in hindsight, but are in present AT THE TIME.

 

Yes, it means something then, like preseason polls mean something now. But end of season polls are a lot more accurate.

[Landlord]

6 minutes ago, Apsu said:

 

Yes, it means something then, like preseason polls mean something now. But end of season polls are a lot more accurate.

 

 

Right, but the point of me bringing up ranking at the time was to contextualize why Virginia Tech was rightfully, at the time, ranked higher than us with good reason.

[Apsu]

43 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Right, but the point of me bringing up ranking at the time was to contextualize why Virginia Tech was rightfully, at the time, ranked higher than us with good reason.

 

At the time of early games, yes. But not the final poll before the bowl games. No way was Va Tech the #2 in the country, but ESPiN relentlessly promoted them. Michael Vick was a media darling.