B.B. Hemingway
All-American
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!
It was almost 20 years ago. Let it go.
Of course they had a certain daddy lobbying for them in the booth of their bowl game.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.
If you don't like the topic, don't read it and don't post in it.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.SI just tweeted this a few moments ago. We need to tell them to let this go too, right?It was almost 20 years ago. Let it go.
At least we can beat Michigan State.You guys sound like Michigan fans living in the past. Just let it go.
Both were great teams in 97.
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.Of course they had a certain daddy lobbying for them in the booth of their bowl game.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.
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.
Like a playoff. Oz, so far ahead of his time....Didn't Osborne offer to play them on a neutral field?
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.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.
Well not quite. He wanted Michigan to forego the Rose Bowl and play H2H for the NC.Like a playoff. Oz, so far ahead of his time....Didn't Osborne offer to play them on a neutral field?
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.If you don't like the topic, don't read it and don't post in it.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.SI just tweeted this a few moments ago. We need to tell them to let this go too, right?It was almost 20 years ago. Let it go.
In the back of my mind it felt that way to me as well.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.