Best Husker Team to Not Win a National Title Game 4: 1993 Nebraska vs. 1965 Nebraska

[Cdog923]

It's time for the final game of the First Round/Quarterfinals! In a recap of the last two games, 1982 Nebraska crushed 1984 Nebraska, 31-4, and in the closest result so far, 1996 Nebraska edged 1999 Nebraska 25-24. This weeks game pits the 1993 Nebraska Cornhuskers vs. the 1965 Nebraska Cornhuskers. Updated bracket is here: https://challonge.com/v1yter3q

 

 

#2: 1993 Nebraska: 

• Record: 11-1 
• Rank: 3rd (AP), 3rd (Coaches)
• Conference Record: 7-0
• Coach: Tom Osborne (11-1)
• Points For: 437
• Points/G: 36.4 (7th of 106)
• Points Against: 194
• Opp Pts/G: 16.2 (13th of 106)
• SRS: 20.31 (3rd of 106)
• SOS: 5.48 (23rd of 106)
• Bowl Game: Lost Orange Bowl 18-16 versus Florida State
• Notable Players: Tommie Frazier, Trev Alberts, Calvin Jones
• Notable Games: vs. #20 Colorado (W, 21-17), vs. #16 Oklahoma (W, 21-7)

 

#7: 1965 Nebraska

• Record: 10-1 
• Rank: 5th (AP), 3rd (Coaches)
• Conference Record: 7-0
• Coach: Bob Devaney (10-1)
• Points For: 349
• Points/G: 31.7 (1st of 120)
• Points Against: 129
• Opp Pts/G: 11.7 (23rd of 120)
• SRS: 17.55 (8th of 120)
• SOS: 2.55 (57th of 120)
• Bowl Game: Lost Orange Bowl 39-28 versus Alabama
• Notable Players: Fred Duda, Frank Solich, Wayne Meylan
• Notable Games: vs. #6* Missouri (W, 19-17), vs. Colorado (W, 38-13)

 

The dichotomy between these two teams is fascinating: their statistical measures are relatively even, save for '65's relatively low SOS. They both suffered their only losses in the Orange Bowl, and they both finished in the top 3 in the polls (AP in '65 notwithstanding). Also, take a peak at the PPG that the '65 team averaged: 31.7 PPG was the #1 ranked offense in '65. 

 

(A note on statistics: all stats are taken from sports-reference.com. SRS refers to a Simple Rating System, described here: https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/about/glossary.html#srs. SOS refers to Strength of Schedule, described here: https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/about/glossary.html#sos)

 

*Missouri's final AP ranking

[knapplc]

1993 should have Tom's first championship.

 

[Cdog923]

Another thing I found while researching: '65 was ranked #1 to begin the year. Is that the first Husker team to begin the season at #1?

[Street Novelist]

Nebraska got straight up f#&%ed on that late hit out of bounds call. That extended the drive for Florida State which lead to that field goal. It still pisses me off to this very day; should have been Tom's first natty.

[TGHusker]

As we all know the 93 team was deserving of the NC. They got out played by the refs wt all of those controversial calls and non-calls. They would be the forerunner for what was about to hit college football - a span of success rarely seen.  Tom should have had 3 NC in  a row and 4 out of 5.    

Hat's of to Devaney's team that really put us on the map in 1965.  I don't think they could have kept up with the 93 team however. 

[KCBuc]

The phantom call on the kick against free sneakers that went for a TD still chaps me. Win one for Bowden. 

[Huskers93-97]

I think what seperates 93 from all the other teams in this poll is the 93 team was in the national championship game and the refs stole the game from them. I think all the other teams have things you have to justify or explain or debate. Does the 93 team have anything to defend other than getting screwed by the refs? 

 

[MyBloodIsRed16]

From what I have been told Alabama got bailed out a few times in the '65 game 

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I think what seperates 93 from all the other teams in this poll is the 93 team was in the national championship game and the refs stole the game from them. I think all the other teams have things you have to justify or explain or debate. Does the 93 team have anything to defend other than getting screwed by the refs? 

 

 

The 1993 team wasn't as solid top-to-bottom as some of these others, and mostly that was a mental thing. They barely beat UCLA after a bunch of turnovers and they needed a tipped pass on a two-point conversion to beat Kansas (who was pretty good that year). It seemed like none of those games were easy that year.

 

 

And that's what's so interesting about 1994 - everything just felt different. I remember talking about how it seemed like that missed field goal, after outplaying Florida State, just kind of set the team free for the "Unfinished Business" season. Early on in 1994 the team just looked different walking out onto the field, how they approached the line of scrimmage, everything.

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

The 1993 team wasn't as solid top-to-bottom as some of these others, and mostly that was a mental thing. They barely beat UCLA after a bunch of turnovers and they needed a tipped pass on a two-point conversion to beat Kansas (who was pretty good that year). It seemed like none of those games were easy that year.

 

 

And that's what's so interesting about 1994 - everything just felt different. I remember talking about how it seemed like that missed field goal, after outplaying Florida State, just kind of set the team free for the "Unfinished Business" season. Early on in 1994 the team just looked different walking out onto the field, how they approached the line of scrimmage, everything.

Yes, the Orange Bowl game was marred with bad calls against NU, but I think Osborne could have tried harder to score a TD late in the game before settling for go-ahead FG.  The D was not great in that last FSU drive, as they moved easily down the field for the winning FG.  The Nebraska late hit was the proper call on that drive.  It was Bowden's terrible clock management which enabled NU to even have a chance for a game-winning FG at the end of the game.

 

The most important thing to come out from the loss to Florida State was that the game and '93 season set the tone for the '94 and '95 seasons.  NU was an 18-point underdog and showed everyone in the nation they could play with Florida State.  More importantly, the team showed themselves they could compete at the top level, and that carried NU for the rest of the 90s.

[JJ Husker]

4 hours ago, knapplc said:

1993 should have Tom's first championship.

 

 

Actually should’ve been Tom’s 2nd one but yeah....

 

 

[Sker fer life]

4 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I think what seperates 93 from all the other teams in this poll is the 93 team was in the national championship game and the refs stole the game from them. I think all the other teams have things you have to justify or explain or debate. Does the 93 team have anything to defend other than getting screwed by the refs? 

 

I've never liked blaming the refs for the outcome of games.  Were there some bad calls ?, yes there were some bad calls that might of changed what happened,  there have been plenty over the years.  Some have gone our way some havent,  remember the NU-MSU game where our receiver went out of bounds, came back in and caught the touchdown pass from Armstrong ? Personally I thought that was the wrong call. Hate to say it, but he didn't look forced out to me.  Bad calls, or non-calls are just part of this game,  in the end though the plays have to be made on both sides of the ball to come out on top.  GBR.

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, Sker fer life said:

I've never liked blaming the refs for the outcome of games.  Were there some bad calls ?, yes there were some bad calls that might of changed what happened,  there have been plenty over the years.  Some have gone our way some havent,  remember the NU-MSU game where our receiver went out of bounds, came back in and caught the touchdown pass from Armstrong ? Personally I thought that was the wrong call. Hate to say it, but he didn't look forced out to me.  Bad calls, or non-calls are just part of this game,  in the end though the plays have to be made on both sides of the ball to come out on top.  GBR.

 

 

I don't disagree with your overall point, but the example you're using isn't cut and dried, whereas the examples people are talking about above are. The FSU guy clearly fumbled before the goal line, the PSU guy was clearly out of bounds. With the MSU example, the rule talks about being forced out of bounds, and it looks to me like the MSU defender touches him. Even watching the replay 10 times it's still muddy. We aren't talking about muddy calls here, we're talking about clear ones.

 

We also aren't talking about MSU losing a national championship due to the call.

[JJ Husker]

43 minutes ago, Sker fer life said:

I've never liked blaming the refs for the outcome of games.  Were there some bad calls ?, yes there were some bad calls that might of changed what happened,  there have been plenty over the years.  Some have gone our way some havent,  remember the NU-MSU game where our receiver went out of bounds, came back in and caught the touchdown pass from Armstrong ? Personally I thought that was the wrong call. Hate to say it, but he didn't look forced out to me.  Bad calls, or non-calls are just part of this game,  in the end though the plays have to be made on both sides of the ball to come out on top.  GBR.

 

I like to think there is a difference between “judgement” calls and blatantly wrong and getting screwed calls. It was a judgement call that the receiver was forced out of bounds in that MSU game. I’ve watched the same footage you have and I can see where they felt he was forced out and therefore eligible to come back in. You can feel it was wrong and I can feel it was right, because it was a judgement call. But a couple calls in that 93 Florida State game, like the sideline catch in the 82 PSU game were just plain wrong and very costly. Yes it’s always preferable to do enough to overcome questionable calls but there is also nothing wrong with stating those calls very likely cost us wins. And it’s not a good argument to say some calls have gone our way so those offset the ones that went against us. Unless it was equally as bad in the same game or same season, one really has nothing to do with the other.

[Moiraine]

16 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Yes it’s always preferable to do enough to overcome questionable calls but there is also nothing wrong with stating those calls very likely cost us wins.

 

 

Especially when we're talking about a close game for a championship. If the teams are even a bad penalty can be a legit reason one wins over the other.

 

If we're going down to the wire with a bad team that has played much worse than us so far in the season, and they beat us because a couple penalties went their way, then it's stupid to blame it on penalties because we shouldn't have sucked bad enough for it to be a close game.