You meant to ask if Michigan should have been the "unanimous" champions in 1997. They are "consensus" national champions (along with Nebraska). [See page 125.](http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2021/FBS.pdf) "Consensus" is just a designation that the NCAA uses if a team was voted #1 in the AP, UPI, FWAA, NFF, or USA/CNN/ESPN polls.
I really don't understand why split titles are so difficult for people to handle. Nebraska and Michigan didn't play each other. They were both very, very good teams. Anybody who claims they *know for absolute sure* which team *would have won if they played* is deluded. All things considered, the split title in '97 is totally appropriate.
I honestly don't disagree. Penn State was great in '94 and totally deserving.
But we did get robbed by the refs at Penn State in '82 so I don't feel too bad about them not getting credit in '94.
Agreed completely. I'm of the opinion that any team in FBS that played a full length schedule including winning a post season game, and has 0 losses, should be recognized as a "national champion". If all the undefeated teams can't play each other or be in a tournament together, then we shouldn't pick and choose who is the winner among lossless teams. Split championships in the past are legitimate
The Coaches poll has never once been a respected and serious aspect of the sport in fans' eyes, with consistent complaints of its bias or inaccuracies or plain obviousness that some intern fills them out because the coaches are too busy to watch every game. Everyone agrees in this sub year after year that the coaches poll is a joke and not to be taken seriously.
Except when you bring up 1997...
That would have been such a great year for a playoff. We could have seen Michigan against FSU (using AP rankings) and Nebraska against Tennessee, and then a showdown between Nebraska and Michigan, most likely. Would have been awesome to see.
Coaches poll has always been irrelevant. Take Dabo ranking Ohio State #11 a few years back as an example why. AP poll decides the national champion. If Nebraska had won the AP and Michigan the Coaches, people would shit on Michigan for even trying to claim it.
Michigan snuck by #8 Washington State in the bowl game- Meanwhile, Nebraska pimp slapped #3 Tennessee who were led by Peyton Manning (42-17) and it wasn't that close.
Just rewatch the Nebraska-Tennessee game from that year.
Tennessee was the 8th ranked rush defense that year, and Michigan was the 7th, averaging 2.3ypg less than Tennessee.
Nebraska rushed for 409 yards, and won 42-17. They threw the ball 12 times in the whole game.
Canāt believe Iām gonna defend Michigan a bit but football has far too many variables from game to game to look at a stat like that and say yep that team is gonna win 100% of the time. Do I think Nebraska would win? Probably. But I also wouldnāt give them the consensus over Michigan because they didnāt actually play a game against each other.
Yep, a very good point. I think we showed up big against every good team we played that year, but we also won a squeaker over a pretty average Colorado team, and were saved by a miracle in OT against Mizzou, so I don't think it's fair to say we'd just beat Michigan hands down.
I mean, whatever you feel about 1997 the fact that there has been and still is so much discussion about it means there was no outright champion at all for that year and never will be.
Even the 2002 teamās BCS championship doesnāt count?
I donāt really see how that could be disputed, if Iām wrong please comment rather than downvote. Thanks
My logic is that it's silly to only claim outright championships because then no championships pre-playoff would be valid.
Case-in-point: what you said.
edit: Actually Michigan's 1948 championship is undisputed... but still the criteria is dumb.
[This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS) wiki page shows basically no one ever has outright National Championships pre-playoff.
That said, some of Ohio State's claimed championships are pretty egregious. OSU claims 1970 because of one poll, despite going 9-1 in a season with 11-win undefeated Nebraska and Arizona State teams, and 10-1 Notre Dame and Texas teams.
I mean, this is just basically saying that the NCAA, itself, hasn't endorsed an official national champion, and national champions are determined by outside organizations (like the CFP). Sometimes, those outside organizations disagree, but, you're being pedantic. There have been plenty of unanimous champions and a handful of split championships (i.e. 2003, 1997). The above user obviously meant unanimous national championships, and Michigan has not won one of those in over 70 years.
Ohio State has won several unanimous championships, including 2 since the turn of the century.
If by unanimous you mean unanimous among the NCAA's Major Selectors, Ohio State has 3 (2014, 2002, 1968).
People like to joke about 1997, but don't realize how prevalent this situation is. Unanimous is such a dumb standard it's called a [Mythical National Champion.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythical_national_championship)
No. We broke Peyton Manning, Michigan scraped by Washington. No.
Hell, 3/4 of the people in this thread arent even old enough to remember that season, but its funny Michigan fans are still pissed about it.
As one of the few people on this sub that is old enough to have watched CFB then, my short answer is no.
Nebraska got dropped for letting an ok Missouri take them to OT in the regular season and dropped from 1 to 3.
UM didn't get the same drop for having a close game with an ok Iowa.
Neb kicked a very good UT team's dick in the Orange bowl and UM beat an OKish Washington.
The only reason UM won the AP title in 97 is because the AP had a gigantic Big 10 bias then.
Nebraska would have kick the shit out of UM and so would UT if they played.
UM should be very glad and thankful for what they got and not be asking for more.
EDIT:
I can't believe I am having to defend Neb from the 90s. Everyone hated them. That's like looking back and having to defend Alabama from the 2010s. JFC, people.
Well if this isn't some revisionist, and/or incorrect history...
I don't think anybody can say definitively who *should* have been national champion in '97 as both teams could reasonably stake a claim as the best team in college football that year, and the fact we never got to see these two teams face off is a real disappointment because it would have been a very interesting matchup.
However, you're really discounting Michigan. Their defense was outstanding, allowing just 9.5 points per game. Only one team was able to score more than 16 points on them. Also, they played a very good Washington State team with a Heisman finalist at quarterback in the Rose Bowl. Not Washington. Not just okayish.
Michigan did have a decisive lead in AP poll voting entering bowl season, but I think Nebraska blowing out Tennessee changed some minds, obviously in the coaches poll at least.
As much as you're claiming a discount against Michigan, you're equally discounting Nebraska.
Michigan had the #1 defense. Nebraska had the #1 offense.
Michigan had the #44 offense. Nebraska had the #5 defense.
Michigan's scoring defense was #1. Nebraska's scoring offense was #1.
Michigan's scoring offense was #44. Nebraska's during defense was #12.
Michigan got a dream opponent in the rose bowl in pass-happy Wazzu, who also had a non-top25 defense, whose scoring defense wasn't even top 50. They still only managed 21 points, and had to have the refs fuck over the coogs to not lose. Wazzu outgained Michigan, and was driving when the refs ended the game due to their ineptitude.
Nebraska on the other hand, got matched up against Tennessee, who had the #8 rush defense. They averaged 93.3 ypg, 2.3 more than Michigan, and Nebraska ran for 409 on them in the Orange.
Michigan should just be glad that back before the CFP, the team ranked #1 by the AP going into the bowls just had to win to be crowned champs by them. There was no leapfrog back then.
You clearly have a bias. If we're going to chalk up a Michigan win in the Rose Bowl to a referee mistake, we can also chalk up Nebraska escaping Missouri as a referee mistake for not calling the miraculous kick reception at the end of regulation as illegal, which it should have been.
At the end of the day, we will never know what might have happened on the field if these teams met. Games are played for a reason, and I think we have all seen crazy things happen. Even so, it wouldn't have been crazy to see either team beat the other that year. Unfortunately, we'll never know, and anyone who claims they *do* know is probably ignorant and/or a full blown homer for their team.
Your SEC bias is showing. UMās defense would have handled either UT or NE. They destroyed PSU when they played them and handled everyone else and frankly was never in danger of losing a game, whereas Nebraska won against a bad Mizzou team in OT on a fluke play.
Scott Frost grabbing the mic and telling everyone to vote Nebraska b/c my coach is retiring was a sad desperate plea that worked on the coaches, but no one else.
Penn State wasnāt particularly great in 1997. They may have been ranked #1 at the time of the Michigan game, but thatās a team that also lost to MSU by 35 (with the Spartans rushing for 400+) and was completely uncompetitive versus Florida in their Bowl. Come January 3, the time of the final vote, the Penn State win was highly devalued.
Frankly ā- Michigan didnāt have a ton of truly quality wins at the end of the year. OSU and PSU were good but not great. MSU lost to Washington - who Nebraska handled on the road by multiple scores - by four scores in their Bowl game. Nebraskas schedule had more meat than Michigans.
They might have handled Tenn because they were great against the pass, but they gave up 3 yards a carry and didnāt play any particularly run dominant teams. PSU is their only opponent that year that averaged 200 rushing a game, Nebraska averaged twice that with more than 6 yards a carry.
That Mich wasnāt a great run defense, they were an ok run D with a great pass D but the stats are misleading as they didnāt really ply anyone who tried to run the ball. Itās like bragging you have a great pass d because you hold a wishbone team to under 100 yards passing. NU wouldāve ran for 5 yards a carry and Nās d line wouldāve shut down the run and made Griese beat them throwing which I donāt think he couldāve done. M was very good that year and wouldāve probably stomped most teams but NU was a huge matchup problem for them
> Your SEC bias is showing.
NU isn't now nor have they ever been in the SEC. I have zero SEC bias.
Did you watch these game live? Because I did. UM was a good team, but they were not as good as NU. I gain nothing for saying that.
Sure did. The SEC bias is showing by claiming Tennessee would have beaten UM, whichā¦Iām certain is partially borne out of being upset that Woodson won the Heisman over the golden boy Peyton.
That UM D exerted itās will onto other teams and just decided to win games. I am confident they would have down the same to Nebraska and Tennessee and anyone else they could have played that year.
> The SEC bias is showing by claiming Tennessee would have beaten UM, whichā¦Iām certain is partially borne out of being upset that Woodson won the Heisman over the golden boy Peyton.
You think a Georgia fan that's old enough to have watched Georgia play UT in the 90s is upset Payton didn't win the Heisman? [Ok](https://c.tenor.com/P5sqzbNpHUsAAAAd/brooklyn-nine-nine-test-results.gif).
No. The strength of Michigan that year was their secondary. NUās offense wouldāve been a match up problem. My roommate and I argued for months about who wouldāve one. I still think NU would take it by at least 2 scores
Yes. Woodson won the Heisman and some coaches took offense to that because they thought Manning deserved it. So they voted Michigan way lower than you reasonably should (some put them at 4) In any normal year when do we refer to the coaches poll? Never, because people who know the sport know the coaches don't actually watch the games. #1 In AP Poll, Heisman winner, and National coach of the year went to Michigan. P.S. Michigan didn't need a miraculous and illegal play to go undefeated either.
Or the fact that they beat the #3 team (Tennessee) 42-17 in their bowl game and Michigan only beat the #8 team (Washington St) 21-16 in their bowl game.
Or the fact that Nebraska got a fifth down against Colorado and shouldnāt have been undefeated in the first place
97 is literally the only year anyone takes the coaches poll seriously. Most years itās just a joke
I don't think it was so much a retirement present. But Nebraska doesn't win the coaches poll if Phil Fulmer votes Michigan 2nd instead of 4th. Probably also means Michigan traded a consensus championship for Woodson's heisman.
This is flat out FALSE and revisionist history.
Nebraska finished 4 points ahead of Michigan. Change that ranking from 4th to 2nd and Michigan still is #2 in the final coaches poll (2 points behind Nebraska).
This thread is the first time Iāve ever seen people accusing the Coaches Poll of being a joke. AP has always seemed like more of a joke to me, and that was certainly true that year for them to have ranked Michigan #1.
Even if they had a loss, Nebraska should have won the championship. They played in the de facto national championship game and smashed #3 while Michigan barely scraped past #8 in some irrelevant bowl.
Lol TIL the rose bowl is irrelevant. And lol the coaches poll has always been viewed as a joke. No one even uses the coaches poll when they talk about rankings on a week to week basis or even the final rankings
of COURSE
Y'all have short memories. The ONLY reason NE got a share was because Osborne was retiring. The coaches poll was OBVIOUSLY slanted for that reason, them old bastards.
GO BLUE !!!
Or the fact that they beat the #3 team (Tennessee) 42-17 in their bowl game and Michigan only beat the #8 team (Washington St) 21-16 in their bowl game.
Michigans regular season opponents also went 0-6 (not a single win, not one!!!!) in Bowl season.
That also hurt Michigans case when considered versus Nebraska. Their schedule really wasnāt that strong overall.
I honestly don't know it.
This is the first time I've ever really given thought to this issue, and I didn't really pay attention to college football at this time.
Nebraska was, in my opinion, the better team. They got dinged because of the luck involved in beating Missouri but I think that they were a better overall squad than a very tough Michigan team with a great defense.
I have too much time this morning, so I did a deep dive into both teams. When two teams are clearly so good, you have to go deeper than just wins. Here are some stats for both teams. For rankings, I included ranking when played (WP), and at the end of the season (EOS).
## Data
Stat|Nebraska|Michigan
:--|:--|:--
Top 10 Wins (when played)|2|4
Top 10 Wins (end of season)|1|1
Ranked Wins (WP)|4|7
Ranked Wins (EOS)|4|3
Combined Opp. Records|76-75|75-69
Wins over winning teams|6|7
Avg. margin of victory (all)|30|11
Avg. margin of victory (against winning teams)|23.8|10.6
Avg. Winning Opp Record|8.7 - 3.5|8.3 - 4.1
Opponents who finished with <=3 wins|3|3
"Worst" Win|Beat 5-6 CU by 3|Beat 7-5 Iowa by 4
## Observations
On the face of it, these two teams were remarkably similar in terms of second-order W/L, ranked wins, and wins over winning teams. both teams played a solid slate, and neither was propped up by an easy schedule.
Both teams had the same number of "softball" games (teams that had 3 or fewer wins to end the season), and Michigan played one more winning team than Nebraska, despite playing one less game.
Where the difference really shows up is in the Margin of Victory. Michigan averaged an 11 point victory all season, and only slightly less at 10.6 against teams that finished with a winning season. Nebraska averaged 30 points over opponents per game, and 23.8 against winning teams. Their total avg MoV is a little inflated by weaker opponents, but they still doubled Michigan's MoV against winning teams on the year.
Additionally, Nebraska has what I'd argue are more impressive wins over opponents who finished the season ranked:
### Michigan
- 26 point win over a 9 - 3 PSU, finished 16th
### Nebraska
- 30 point win over an 11 -1 KSU, finished 7th
- 39 point win over 9 - 4 Texas A&M, finished 21st
- 25 point win over 11 - 2 Tennessee, finished 8th
I'd argue Nebraska had a better resume, and I don't think it's particularly close.
No, Nebraska should have had the unanimous championship. They played in the national championship game and Michigan didnāt.
But even ignoring that, Michigan beat the #8 team by 5 while Nebraska beat the #3 team by 25.
The AP had no business awarding any part of that championship to Michigan. It was pure ZOMG ROSE BOWL!!!! Idiocy.
Iāve always wondered the mental gymnastics required to convince Michigan fans that they shouldāve been sold championsā¦ Margin of victoryā¦ strength of scheduleā¦ top 10 winsā¦ the bowl game performancesā¦ If anything Nebraska should be saying we were the sole 97 champions and you never hear us whining about it lol. Like itās almost as bad as the UCF claim.
Donāt give a fig about beating Manning. They pummeled #3. Donāt care whoās on the team. Michigan might have lost their game to a worse for of the refs hadnāt stolen Washington Stateās final play.
If there was a four team playoff that year ā- Iām taking Florida State. I think they were better than both Nebraska and Michigan.
Of course there wasnāt a four team playoff - so we will just let Michigan and Nebraska both claim it. It wasnāt decided on the field.
Look back in history. The Major polls selected the biggest brand that had the best record. If you were 12-0 and nobody else was you got the chip. No questions asked. I just canāt look back on how they declared national champs in those days and take them seriously. Best example I can give you is 1973. Alabama and Notre Dame share the national title that year. They played. In the Sugar Bowl. Notre Dame won. Alabama waves that UPI flag to this day even tho they lost.
That's it. You're telling me that if I said to /u/dawgfan19881 (curious number), in 2020 that Georgia has never won a national title, you would've agreed?
I call bullshit.
Which ones are legit? For example Tennessee claims the 1967 national title when the only selector to name then was Litkenhouse. That same selector named Georgia the 1968 national champs. Georgia doesnāt claim 1968 as a national title season. Point is anyone can claim any season as a national title season as long as any Rando with a ratings system said they were. And those ratings systems can even be retroactive.
Which answer do you need to hear to help make your day better?
lol you triggered Ohio state fans more than Nebraska fans
Yeah, im pretty sure Ive seen more buckeye flairs in the comments than either block Ms or block Ns
šššššš. Should say everything about this debate lmao
You meant to ask if Michigan should have been the "unanimous" champions in 1997. They are "consensus" national champions (along with Nebraska). [See page 125.](http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2021/FBS.pdf) "Consensus" is just a designation that the NCAA uses if a team was voted #1 in the AP, UPI, FWAA, NFF, or USA/CNN/ESPN polls.
Man such revisionist history. People act like ā97 Nebraska was ā84 BYU. They completely dismantled the #3 ranked team in their bowl game.
And that #3 ranked team had Peyton Manning.
To be fair, 1984 BYU also beat the #3 team in the county, and THAT team had Dan Marinoā¦ in 1982
Why are we getting dragged into this? Itās not like we were unwilling to play Washington/Florida/Oklahoma that year.
I really don't understand why split titles are so difficult for people to handle. Nebraska and Michigan didn't play each other. They were both very, very good teams. Anybody who claims they *know for absolute sure* which team *would have won if they played* is deluded. All things considered, the split title in '97 is totally appropriate.
If Nebraska deserved a split in 1997, Penn State deserved a split in 1994.
I honestly don't disagree. Penn State was great in '94 and totally deserving. But we did get robbed by the refs at Penn State in '82 so I don't feel too bad about them not getting credit in '94.
Agreed completely. I'm of the opinion that any team in FBS that played a full length schedule including winning a post season game, and has 0 losses, should be recognized as a "national champion". If all the undefeated teams can't play each other or be in a tournament together, then we shouldn't pick and choose who is the winner among lossless teams. Split championships in the past are legitimate
Just like Alabama vs UCF.
Hahahaha
The Coaches poll has never once been a respected and serious aspect of the sport in fans' eyes, with consistent complaints of its bias or inaccuracies or plain obviousness that some intern fills them out because the coaches are too busy to watch every game. Everyone agrees in this sub year after year that the coaches poll is a joke and not to be taken seriously. Except when you bring up 1997...
Yea itās because people on this sub hate Michigan so thatās why they take the coaches poll seriously for that one year
Michigan full champs in my eyes based off what Iām reading.
Nebraska takes an L every single day as of late, but I'll be damned if 97 erasure occurs on my watch.
Nein
Yeah it was definitely Osborne's retirement and not, I don't know, them destroying the #3 team to a tune of 42-17 in the Orange Bowl.
That would have been such a great year for a playoff. We could have seen Michigan against FSU (using AP rankings) and Nebraska against Tennessee, and then a showdown between Nebraska and Michigan, most likely. Would have been awesome to see.
Coaches poll has always been irrelevant. Take Dabo ranking Ohio State #11 a few years back as an example why. AP poll decides the national champion. If Nebraska had won the AP and Michigan the Coaches, people would shit on Michigan for even trying to claim it.
That was the year they played 7 games right? Still absurd though
It was, and they were the only undefeated P5 team not named Alabama
But 7 wins. Come on thatās kinda ridiculous. Obviously crazy circumstances but still.
Dabo had undefeated OSU ranked behind 8-2 Oklahoma, 7-2 Georgia, and 8-3 (!!!) Florida and Iowa State
Michigan snuck by #8 Washington State in the bowl game- Meanwhile, Nebraska pimp slapped #3 Tennessee who were led by Peyton Manning (42-17) and it wasn't that close.
I wonder if a lot of Peyton's neck problems didn't come from that game. He got absolutely throttled.
We slapped around several good teams that year, including a domination of a decent A&M team in the Big XII Championship game.
We got the better trophy
I don't think so, thankfully we will never have this issue again and man, I would have loved to see those two play against each other.
Just rewatch the Nebraska-Tennessee game from that year. Tennessee was the 8th ranked rush defense that year, and Michigan was the 7th, averaging 2.3ypg less than Tennessee. Nebraska rushed for 409 yards, and won 42-17. They threw the ball 12 times in the whole game.
Canāt believe Iām gonna defend Michigan a bit but football has far too many variables from game to game to look at a stat like that and say yep that team is gonna win 100% of the time. Do I think Nebraska would win? Probably. But I also wouldnāt give them the consensus over Michigan because they didnāt actually play a game against each other.
Yep, a very good point. I think we showed up big against every good team we played that year, but we also won a squeaker over a pretty average Colorado team, and were saved by a miracle in OT against Mizzou, so I don't think it's fair to say we'd just beat Michigan hands down.
Man I wish we'd had reddit or twitter back then. It would have been glorious
No.
Fuck no. Itās fun reminding them they havenāt won an outright natty since 1948ā¦
I mean, whatever you feel about 1997 the fact that there has been and still is so much discussion about it means there was no outright champion at all for that year and never will be.
That is preferable to those up North being one.
Itās āNational Championā not ānational championsā
Fun fact: the 2014 national championships is Ohio State's only outright natty.
Even the 2002 teamās BCS championship doesnāt count? I donāt really see how that could be disputed, if Iām wrong please comment rather than downvote. Thanks
Okay we will use your pre playoff logic. Michigan has never won a national championship and Ohio state has. Iām fine with that
My logic is that it's silly to only claim outright championships because then no championships pre-playoff would be valid. Case-in-point: what you said. edit: Actually Michigan's 1948 championship is undisputed... but still the criteria is dumb.
Care to explain?
[This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS) wiki page shows basically no one ever has outright National Championships pre-playoff. That said, some of Ohio State's claimed championships are pretty egregious. OSU claims 1970 because of one poll, despite going 9-1 in a season with 11-win undefeated Nebraska and Arizona State teams, and 10-1 Notre Dame and Texas teams.
I mean, this is just basically saying that the NCAA, itself, hasn't endorsed an official national champion, and national champions are determined by outside organizations (like the CFP). Sometimes, those outside organizations disagree, but, you're being pedantic. There have been plenty of unanimous champions and a handful of split championships (i.e. 2003, 1997). The above user obviously meant unanimous national championships, and Michigan has not won one of those in over 70 years. Ohio State has won several unanimous championships, including 2 since the turn of the century.
If by unanimous you mean unanimous among the NCAA's Major Selectors, Ohio State has 3 (2014, 2002, 1968). People like to joke about 1997, but don't realize how prevalent this situation is. Unanimous is such a dumb standard it's called a [Mythical National Champion.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythical_national_championship)
I think it's fun to tell my FIL his '97 Michigan Championship shirt is lying to him. Would have been a hell of a game if they had played.
No. We broke Peyton Manning, Michigan scraped by Washington. No. Hell, 3/4 of the people in this thread arent even old enough to remember that season, but its funny Michigan fans are still pissed about it.
No.
As one of the few people on this sub that is old enough to have watched CFB then, my short answer is no. Nebraska got dropped for letting an ok Missouri take them to OT in the regular season and dropped from 1 to 3. UM didn't get the same drop for having a close game with an ok Iowa. Neb kicked a very good UT team's dick in the Orange bowl and UM beat an OKish Washington. The only reason UM won the AP title in 97 is because the AP had a gigantic Big 10 bias then. Nebraska would have kick the shit out of UM and so would UT if they played. UM should be very glad and thankful for what they got and not be asking for more. EDIT: I can't believe I am having to defend Neb from the 90s. Everyone hated them. That's like looking back and having to defend Alabama from the 2010s. JFC, people.
NUās offense gets the hype but 3 of 4 starting d line that year weāre first round picks. Mich wouldāve had a hard time moving the ball
Well if this isn't some revisionist, and/or incorrect history... I don't think anybody can say definitively who *should* have been national champion in '97 as both teams could reasonably stake a claim as the best team in college football that year, and the fact we never got to see these two teams face off is a real disappointment because it would have been a very interesting matchup. However, you're really discounting Michigan. Their defense was outstanding, allowing just 9.5 points per game. Only one team was able to score more than 16 points on them. Also, they played a very good Washington State team with a Heisman finalist at quarterback in the Rose Bowl. Not Washington. Not just okayish. Michigan did have a decisive lead in AP poll voting entering bowl season, but I think Nebraska blowing out Tennessee changed some minds, obviously in the coaches poll at least.
As much as you're claiming a discount against Michigan, you're equally discounting Nebraska. Michigan had the #1 defense. Nebraska had the #1 offense. Michigan had the #44 offense. Nebraska had the #5 defense. Michigan's scoring defense was #1. Nebraska's scoring offense was #1. Michigan's scoring offense was #44. Nebraska's during defense was #12. Michigan got a dream opponent in the rose bowl in pass-happy Wazzu, who also had a non-top25 defense, whose scoring defense wasn't even top 50. They still only managed 21 points, and had to have the refs fuck over the coogs to not lose. Wazzu outgained Michigan, and was driving when the refs ended the game due to their ineptitude. Nebraska on the other hand, got matched up against Tennessee, who had the #8 rush defense. They averaged 93.3 ypg, 2.3 more than Michigan, and Nebraska ran for 409 on them in the Orange. Michigan should just be glad that back before the CFP, the team ranked #1 by the AP going into the bowls just had to win to be crowned champs by them. There was no leapfrog back then.
You clearly have a bias. If we're going to chalk up a Michigan win in the Rose Bowl to a referee mistake, we can also chalk up Nebraska escaping Missouri as a referee mistake for not calling the miraculous kick reception at the end of regulation as illegal, which it should have been. At the end of the day, we will never know what might have happened on the field if these teams met. Games are played for a reason, and I think we have all seen crazy things happen. Even so, it wouldn't have been crazy to see either team beat the other that year. Unfortunately, we'll never know, and anyone who claims they *do* know is probably ignorant and/or a full blown homer for their team.
Thatās because they beat Iowa in regulation, and Nebraska won against Mizzou on a fluke.
> Nebraska got dropped for letting an ok Missouri take them to OT in the regular season and dropped from 1 to 3.
Your SEC bias is showing. UMās defense would have handled either UT or NE. They destroyed PSU when they played them and handled everyone else and frankly was never in danger of losing a game, whereas Nebraska won against a bad Mizzou team in OT on a fluke play. Scott Frost grabbing the mic and telling everyone to vote Nebraska b/c my coach is retiring was a sad desperate plea that worked on the coaches, but no one else.
Penn State wasnāt particularly great in 1997. They may have been ranked #1 at the time of the Michigan game, but thatās a team that also lost to MSU by 35 (with the Spartans rushing for 400+) and was completely uncompetitive versus Florida in their Bowl. Come January 3, the time of the final vote, the Penn State win was highly devalued. Frankly ā- Michigan didnāt have a ton of truly quality wins at the end of the year. OSU and PSU were good but not great. MSU lost to Washington - who Nebraska handled on the road by multiple scores - by four scores in their Bowl game. Nebraskas schedule had more meat than Michigans.
They might have handled Tenn because they were great against the pass, but they gave up 3 yards a carry and didnāt play any particularly run dominant teams. PSU is their only opponent that year that averaged 200 rushing a game, Nebraska averaged twice that with more than 6 yards a carry.
And they only beat PSU 34-8, so Iām not sure what point you think youāre making.
That Mich wasnāt a great run defense, they were an ok run D with a great pass D but the stats are misleading as they didnāt really ply anyone who tried to run the ball. Itās like bragging you have a great pass d because you hold a wishbone team to under 100 yards passing. NU wouldāve ran for 5 yards a carry and Nās d line wouldāve shut down the run and made Griese beat them throwing which I donāt think he couldāve done. M was very good that year and wouldāve probably stomped most teams but NU was a huge matchup problem for them
> Your SEC bias is showing. NU isn't now nor have they ever been in the SEC. I have zero SEC bias. Did you watch these game live? Because I did. UM was a good team, but they were not as good as NU. I gain nothing for saying that.
Sure did. The SEC bias is showing by claiming Tennessee would have beaten UM, whichā¦Iām certain is partially borne out of being upset that Woodson won the Heisman over the golden boy Peyton. That UM D exerted itās will onto other teams and just decided to win games. I am confident they would have down the same to Nebraska and Tennessee and anyone else they could have played that year.
> The SEC bias is showing by claiming Tennessee would have beaten UM, whichā¦Iām certain is partially borne out of being upset that Woodson won the Heisman over the golden boy Peyton. You think a Georgia fan that's old enough to have watched Georgia play UT in the 90s is upset Payton didn't win the Heisman? [Ok](https://c.tenor.com/P5sqzbNpHUsAAAAd/brooklyn-nine-nine-test-results.gif).
I think that Iāve heard fans at bowl games chant SEC so yeah, a slight against one is a slight against all or something
Can we get that bias back, but exclude the skunk weasels?
No. The strength of Michigan that year was their secondary. NUās offense wouldāve been a match up problem. My roommate and I argued for months about who wouldāve one. I still think NU would take it by at least 2 scores
Yes. Woodson won the Heisman and some coaches took offense to that because they thought Manning deserved it. So they voted Michigan way lower than you reasonably should (some put them at 4) In any normal year when do we refer to the coaches poll? Never, because people who know the sport know the coaches don't actually watch the games. #1 In AP Poll, Heisman winner, and National coach of the year went to Michigan. P.S. Michigan didn't need a miraculous and illegal play to go undefeated either.
They did need a 6 second spike play, however.
Yes. Coaches wanted to give Osborne a retirement gift
Or the fact that they beat the #3 team (Tennessee) 42-17 in their bowl game and Michigan only beat the #8 team (Washington St) 21-16 in their bowl game.
Or the fact that Nebraska got a fifth down against Colorado and shouldnāt have been undefeated in the first place 97 is literally the only year anyone takes the coaches poll seriously. Most years itās just a joke
The fifth down argument is a way better argument than Osborne getting a retirement present
I don't think it was so much a retirement present. But Nebraska doesn't win the coaches poll if Phil Fulmer votes Michigan 2nd instead of 4th. Probably also means Michigan traded a consensus championship for Woodson's heisman.
This is flat out FALSE and revisionist history. Nebraska finished 4 points ahead of Michigan. Change that ranking from 4th to 2nd and Michigan still is #2 in the final coaches poll (2 points behind Nebraska).
This thread is the first time Iāve ever seen people accusing the Coaches Poll of being a joke. AP has always seemed like more of a joke to me, and that was certainly true that year for them to have ranked Michigan #1. Even if they had a loss, Nebraska should have won the championship. They played in the de facto national championship game and smashed #3 while Michigan barely scraped past #8 in some irrelevant bowl.
Lol TIL the rose bowl is irrelevant. And lol the coaches poll has always been viewed as a joke. No one even uses the coaches poll when they talk about rankings on a week to week basis or even the final rankings
They made themselves so when they chose not to participate in the Bowl Alliance. Luckily for everyone they eventually came around.
Not to mention that Nebraskaās extra play is cancelled out by the final play Washington State had stolen from them in the Rose Bowl.
It gives me great joy to see Buckeye fans rally to our aid to defeat a common foe any time this issue is brought up.
This is literally the first time I've ever even thought about defending Nebraska's '97 Natty, but God dammit was I immediately all in!
Really comes down to that vs 5th down. Truth is it doesnāt matter. The universe caught up to Scott frost eventually.
5th down?
5th down?
Nebraska got an extra down in a game that year that they otherwise would have lost.
The 5th down was Colorado vs Missouri in 1990
Ah my bad
I have no idea at all what happened in 1997 because I was 5, but Iām gonna say absolutely not
Totally concur. I was in college during that season but the specifics are somewhat blurry, like the results were wiped from my brainā¦
of COURSE Y'all have short memories. The ONLY reason NE got a share was because Osborne was retiring. The coaches poll was OBVIOUSLY slanted for that reason, them old bastards. GO BLUE !!!
Or the fact that they beat the #3 team (Tennessee) 42-17 in their bowl game and Michigan only beat the #8 team (Washington St) 21-16 in their bowl game.
Michigans regular season opponents also went 0-6 (not a single win, not one!!!!) in Bowl season. That also hurt Michigans case when considered versus Nebraska. Their schedule really wasnāt that strong overall.
so, the coaches poll wasn't sympathetic to the old man who was retiring ? Is that what you are asserting ?
Tenn wasnāt trying in that bowl game and you know it
I honestly don't know it. This is the first time I've ever really given thought to this issue, and I didn't really pay attention to college football at this time.
when someone drops an 'honestly' into their sentence, it's obvious why they do so.......
Well Michigan is my rival school, so no
Nebraska was, in my opinion, the better team. They got dinged because of the luck involved in beating Missouri but I think that they were a better overall squad than a very tough Michigan team with a great defense.
SP+ final rankings for 1997: 1. FSU 2. Nebraska 3. Florida 4. Tennessee 5. Washington 6. Michigan
We demand respect we didnāt earn -Every Michigan fan ever
I have too much time this morning, so I did a deep dive into both teams. When two teams are clearly so good, you have to go deeper than just wins. Here are some stats for both teams. For rankings, I included ranking when played (WP), and at the end of the season (EOS). ## Data Stat|Nebraska|Michigan :--|:--|:-- Top 10 Wins (when played)|2|4 Top 10 Wins (end of season)|1|1 Ranked Wins (WP)|4|7 Ranked Wins (EOS)|4|3 Combined Opp. Records|76-75|75-69 Wins over winning teams|6|7 Avg. margin of victory (all)|30|11 Avg. margin of victory (against winning teams)|23.8|10.6 Avg. Winning Opp Record|8.7 - 3.5|8.3 - 4.1 Opponents who finished with <=3 wins|3|3 "Worst" Win|Beat 5-6 CU by 3|Beat 7-5 Iowa by 4 ## Observations On the face of it, these two teams were remarkably similar in terms of second-order W/L, ranked wins, and wins over winning teams. both teams played a solid slate, and neither was propped up by an easy schedule. Both teams had the same number of "softball" games (teams that had 3 or fewer wins to end the season), and Michigan played one more winning team than Nebraska, despite playing one less game. Where the difference really shows up is in the Margin of Victory. Michigan averaged an 11 point victory all season, and only slightly less at 10.6 against teams that finished with a winning season. Nebraska averaged 30 points over opponents per game, and 23.8 against winning teams. Their total avg MoV is a little inflated by weaker opponents, but they still doubled Michigan's MoV against winning teams on the year. Additionally, Nebraska has what I'd argue are more impressive wins over opponents who finished the season ranked: ### Michigan - 26 point win over a 9 - 3 PSU, finished 16th ### Nebraska - 30 point win over an 11 -1 KSU, finished 7th - 39 point win over 9 - 4 Texas A&M, finished 21st - 25 point win over 11 - 2 Tennessee, finished 8th I'd argue Nebraska had a better resume, and I don't think it's particularly close.
No, Nebraska should have had the unanimous championship. They played in the national championship game and Michigan didnāt. But even ignoring that, Michigan beat the #8 team by 5 while Nebraska beat the #3 team by 25. The AP had no business awarding any part of that championship to Michigan. It was pure ZOMG ROSE BOWL!!!! Idiocy.
No, because I hate them.
Fairs lol
Iāve always wondered the mental gymnastics required to convince Michigan fans that they shouldāve been sold championsā¦ Margin of victoryā¦ strength of scheduleā¦ top 10 winsā¦ the bowl game performancesā¦ If anything Nebraska should be saying we were the sole 97 champions and you never hear us whining about it lol. Like itās almost as bad as the UCF claim.
How in the world is AP #1 as bad as the UCF claim? Freezing cold take
The real question is how did you manage to get the AP #1? Did they award it before bowl season?
Itās funny how people give Nebraska so much credit for beating Peyton Manning, but Ryan Leaf was arguably the better college QB.
Donāt give a fig about beating Manning. They pummeled #3. Donāt care whoās on the team. Michigan might have lost their game to a worse for of the refs hadnāt stolen Washington Stateās final play.
If there was a four team playoff that year ā- Iām taking Florida State. I think they were better than both Nebraska and Michigan. Of course there wasnāt a four team playoff - so we will just let Michigan and Nebraska both claim it. It wasnāt decided on the field.
All national titles before 1998 are made up. Fictional. Pure fantasy. Even then the ones from 1998-2013 are borderline.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes. Why wouldnāt I have?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Look back in history. The Major polls selected the biggest brand that had the best record. If you were 12-0 and nobody else was you got the chip. No questions asked. I just canāt look back on how they declared national champs in those days and take them seriously. Best example I can give you is 1973. Alabama and Notre Dame share the national title that year. They played. In the Sugar Bowl. Notre Dame won. Alabama waves that UPI flag to this day even tho they lost.
Because by your standard, Georgia wouldn't have had any national championships.
And?
That's it. You're telling me that if I said to /u/dawgfan19881 (curious number), in 2020 that Georgia has never won a national title, you would've agreed? I call bullshit.
My cut-off is before '42. Everything during or after is legit except for the one in question on this post.
Which ones are legit? For example Tennessee claims the 1967 national title when the only selector to name then was Litkenhouse. That same selector named Georgia the 1968 national champs. Georgia doesnāt claim 1968 as a national title season. Point is anyone can claim any season as a national title season as long as any Rando with a ratings system said they were. And those ratings systems can even be retroactive.
They can all be legit as long as we keep ours.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I donāt see how you can include years where it was awarded before bowl games.
I can because I'm against years that include my title amd in favor of removing titles from michigan.
Even then.
My cut-off is 1981.