Condolences.

[UCFhonors]

I was really hoping that Michigan was going to have a season that would put them in contention for the Playoffs. After careful review of the schedule, I saw that Michigan plays UCF AT HOME, which means will be an obvious loss for Michigan. The good news is that it's in week 2 which gives Michigan enough time to rebound for a playoff spot.

Here is to an exciting season!

 

[michnittlion]

UCF is 2-0 in their last 2 games vs. current B1G teams, when that game was played on the North American Continent.

So, sure, why not.

 

[michigangoblue999]

Wow, UCF smack talk, eh? I like it. Wasn't expecting it, either.

 

[ArrowheadBlue]

did UCF win a game last season? Will Scott Frost stop Lawrence Phillips from beating up his girlfriend? God, I'm so anxious to learn more.

 

[UCFhonors]

I know most you want to know who this awesome team is who you are about to face this weekend.

Well here is the
UCF official game RECAP: UCF 38 South Carolina state 0

 

[ArrowheadBlue]

Money talks; bullshit walks. How much?

 

[UCFhonors]

Money talks; bullshit walks. How much?

Sig bets are the currency of Rivals' betting.

 

[detroitjohn]

We want a piece of that Scott Frost, whine-your-way-to-championships, action. Thanks for the reminder of why we should hate UCF, I'm up for a beat down of that skirt-hiding, mamma's boy.

 

[michnittlion]

We want a piece of that Scott Frost, whine-your-way-to-championships, action. Thanks for the reminder of why we should hate UCF, I'm up for a beat down of that skirt-hiding, mamma's boy.

Heaven forbid that Scott Frost should say, when asked on CBS, that he thought Nebraska deserved "at least a share" of the National Championship.

(look up the video of the 1998 Orange Bowl --- Frost did use the phrase "at least a share." He also used the "share" verbiage in other comments in print)

I guess he was supposed to say "yeah, I know we're undefeated and all ourselves, we have a very good resume ourselves, we just whopped up on a very good Tennessee team, and we've competed hard and worked our own asses off on the field for 5 months now. Ignore all that. It's a certainty that Michigan would beat us if we played. Vote them #1, we're #2."

Michigan fans who still hate Frost and hold a 19-year grudge: I simply do not understand it. Get over it. Beating UCF 234-0 on Saturday won't "prove" anything as regards 1997 either.

 

[detroitjohn]

Heaven forbid that Scott Frost should say, when asked on CBS, that he thought Nebraska deserved "at least a share" of the National Championship.

(look up the video of the 1998 Orange Bowl --- Frost did use the phrase "at least a share")

Michigan fans hatred of Frost and the 19-year grudge that they have held: I simply do not understand it. Beating UCF 234-0 on Saturday won't "prove" anything as regards 1997 either.

That's rich, coming from a PSU fan, whose base remembers no-holding calls in 1999 like they "happened" yesterday and fantasizes about a referee cabal that was paid off to ensure PSU lost many, many B10 games (and apparently is still at work). Guaranteed, if PSU had been cut at the knees and lost half a title that they had done everything to earn (UM was #1 in both polls going into their bowl game and won the damn bowl) I'm sure the bitch-machine would be working overtime in Happy Valley. Now that I write that, maybe it is best to avoid looking like PSU's fans.

I actually hadn't thought about Frost until I saw this faux post by the UCF troll. It's fun to gin up a little hostility before an otherwise unimportant game.

 

[UCFhonors]

Heaven forbid that Scott Frost should say, when asked on CBS, that he thought Nebraska deserved "at least a share" of the National Championship.

(look up the video of the 1998 Orange Bowl --- Frost did use the phrase "at least a share." He also used the "share" verbiage in other comments in print)

I guess he was supposed to say "yeah, I know we're undefeated and all ourselves, we have a very good resume ourselves, we just whopped up on a very good Tennessee team, and we've competed hard and worked our own asses off on the field for 5 months now. Ignore all that. It's a certainty that Michigan would beat us if we played. Vote them #1, we're #2."

Michigan fans who still hate Frost and hold a 19-year grudge: I simply do not understand it. Get over it. Beating UCF 234-0 on Saturday won't "prove" anything as regards 1997 either.

Thanks for the explanation. I literally had no clue what Mr. Delusional was talking about.

 

[michnittlion]

That's rich, coming from a PSU fan, whose base remembers no-holding calls in 1999 like they "happened" yesterday and fantasizes about a referee cabal that was paid off to ensure PSU lost many, many B10 games (and apparently is still at work). Guaranteed, if PSU had been cut at the knees and lost half a title that they had done everything to earn (UM was #1 in both polls going into their bowl game and won the damn bowl) I'm sure the bitch-machine would be working overtime in Happy Valley. Now that I write that, maybe it is best to avoid looking like PSU's fans.

I actually hadn't thought about Frost until I saw this faux post by the UCF troll. It's fun to gin up a little hostility before an otherwise unimportant game.

I've posted here for a while, and if you've paid any attention --- I'm not a PSU fan who whines about calls.

So, with all due respect as a guest on this board, shut up with your whole first paragraph. It's irrelevant and a garbage post. Attack my argument, not me.

FWIW, Brian Griese is calling the game for ABC on Saturday afternoon. He was of course on the 1997 team. If anyone was to be upset at Frost, Griese has more of a right to be upset vs. the fans. I doubt Griese is upset.

 

[detroitjohn]

I've posted here for a while, and if you've paid any attention --- I'm not a PSU fan who whines about calls.

So, with all due respect as a guest on this board, shut up with your whole first paragraph. It's irrelevant and a garbage post. Attack my argument, not me.

FWIW, Brian Griese is calling the game for ABC on Saturday afternoon. He was of course on the 1997 team. If anyone was to be upset at Frost, Griese has more of a right to be upset vs. the fans. I doubt Griese is upset.

You're treated with courtesy here, including most of the time by me, otherwise I don't follow your posts assiduously. If you had an argument to "attack", I'd "attack" it, you really don't so I won't bother. So defend your new found UCF bff. I don't know how Griese feels, you let us know what you find out.

I do suspect you enjoy stirring up the pot and acting shocked when you get a backlash. Any fan of any school would be pissed at losing out on part of the glories of their most glorious season in memory. You're being disingenuous if you assert otherwise.

 

[michnittlion]

You're treated with courtesy here, including most of the time by me, otherwise I don't follow your posts assiduously. If you had an argument to "attack", I'd "attack" it, you really don't so I won't bother. So defend your new found UCF bff. I don't know how Griese feels, you let us know what you find out.

I do suspect you enjoy stirring up the pot and acting shocked when you get a backlash. Any fan of any school would be pissed at losing out on part of the glories of their most glorious season in memory. You're being disingenuous if you assert otherwise.

Wait a second. Isn't that ALSO what members of the 1997 Nebraska team (and their fans) would feel? Pissed about losing out on the glories of what was an excellent season on their part? They never lost a game and they definitely played a credible and challenging schedule.

Take a step back and be objective, see the world from Scott Frost's point-of-view on January 2, 1998. The system was screwed up, Nebraska and Michigan couldn't play in a Bowl. A bunch of sports writers were saying "we have decided that you guys are the #2 team in the nation."

Objectively, you can see why HE might be pissed, right?

Michigan --- deservedly --- still gets to call themselves National Champions in 1997. Nothing will ever change that.

But Nebraska gets to call themselves the same. It is what it is.

If you're going to hate anything, hate the dumb-ass system that was in place in 1997, a system that didn't allow that season's elite teams to settle things on the field.

 

[michigangoblue999]

Heaven forbid that Scott Frost should say, when asked on CBS, that he thought Nebraska deserved "at least a share" of the National Championship.

(look up the video of the 1998 Orange Bowl --- Frost did use the phrase "at least a share." He also used the "share" verbiage in other comments in print)

I guess he was supposed to say "yeah, I know we're undefeated and all ourselves, we have a very good resume ourselves, we just whopped up on a very good Tennessee team, and we've competed hard and worked our own asses off on the field for 5 months now. Ignore all that. It's a certainty that Michigan would beat us if we played. Vote them #1, we're #2."

Michigan fans who still hate Frost and hold a 19-year grudge: I simply do not understand it. Get over it. Beating UCF 234-0 on Saturday won't "prove" anything as regards 1997 either.

How many times has a player been given a platform like that to trash another school on national TV? I can't think of another instance. If they were going to allow that, then Michigan should have been given a chance to respond.

The fact is, Nebraska used an illegal play (admitted by their own player) to be a mediocre Missouri team.

Of the common opponents that year, Michigan beat Colorado 27-3 (Nebraska won 49-21) and Baylor 38-3 (Nebraska squeaked by 27-24).

The only reason Nebraska jumped Michigan in the final coaches poll was as a retirement gift to Osborne.

And beating Peyton Manning, who won maybe one big game in college, is supposed to impress everybody? Please.

Here are Frost's full comments. Yeah, why would Michigan fans possibly have a problem with him??? HAA!


"So, it's up to the coaches. I'm so proud of this team and Coach Osborne, I don't want to see him go out without a championship. I basically have two points for the coaches:

"One, if you can look yourself in the mirror and say if your job depended on playing either Michigan or Nebraska to keep your job, who would you rather play? You watched the Rose Bowl and the Orange Bowl. Michigan won with a controversial play at the end. We took apart the third-ranked team in the country.

"The second point I have is: I can't see how any coach outside the Big Ten or the Pac-10 would vote for Michigan. Because if somebody from North Carolina, Florida State, West Virginia, Notre Dame--wherever it might--if they were undefeated and won the Alliance bowl game, they would expect to share the national title.

"I don't know who would win the game if we played Michigan. I think I know. I think all you guys know. The thing I'd like to say is: Who would be favored?

"I'd like to see the line on that game, because I think it would be seven, 10, 14 points (in Nebraska's favor). Any time that it's that way and you vote the other way, you've got to be crazy."

 

[michigangoblue999]

Michigan --- deservedly --- still gets to call themselves National Champions in 1997. Nothing will ever change that.

The fact is, Nebraska would not have been undefeated if not for cheating against Missouri. And they even admitted to cheating. So why did they deserve to be given a trophy?

I think you need to address this point before we go on.

 

[michnittlion]

The fact is, Nebraska would not have been undefeated if not for cheating against Missouri. And they even admitted to cheating. So why did they deserve to be given a trophy?

I think you need to address this point before we go on.

Nebraska WON the game. That is an indisputable fact.

Besides, there are these 3 things:

(1) Frank Gaines, technical adviser to Big 12 football officials, was quoted in the aftermath of the game. He said it's against the rules for a receiver to intentionally strike a loose ball with the knee, lower leg or foot.

Gaines ALSO said that an incidental or accidental kick is not a penalty. He said when the play is questionable - as was the case for Wiggins's kick - the ruling is always that such a kick is accidental.

(2) Even if a penalty would have been called, the game would not have been over. Nebraska would have had another down from the Missouri 27. They could have still forced OT.

(3) As I've read here a number of times before in threads (threads that I tend not to participate in although do read) when PSU fans complain about bad calls and such ----- aren't good teams, if they are truly superior, supposed to be able to overcome bad calls? Doesn't the same standard hold to Missouri here? Missouri could have still won the game in overtime. They didn't. Nebraska did.

 

[michnittlion]

How many times has a player been given a platform like that to trash another school on national TV? I can't think of another instance. If they were going to allow that, then Michigan should have been given a chance to respond.

The fact is, Nebraska used an illegal play (admitted by their own player) to be a mediocre Missouri team.

Of the common opponents that year, Michigan beat Colorado 27-3 (Nebraska won 49-21) and Baylor 38-3 (Nebraska squeaked by 27-24).

The only reason Nebraska jumped Michigan in the final coaches poll was as a retirement gift to Osborne.

And beating Peyton Manning, who won maybe one big game in college, is supposed to impress everybody? Please.

Here are Frost's full comments. Yeah, why would Michigan fans possibly have a problem with him??? HAA!


"So, it's up to the coaches. I'm so proud of this team and Coach Osborne, I don't want to see him go out without a championship. I basically have two points for the coaches:

"One, if you can look yourself in the mirror and say if your job depended on playing either Michigan or Nebraska to keep your job, who would you rather play? You watched the Rose Bowl and the Orange Bowl. Michigan won with a controversial play at the end. We took apart the third-ranked team in the country.

"The second point I have is: I can't see how any coach outside the Big Ten or the Pac-10 would vote for Michigan. Because if somebody from North Carolina, Florida State, West Virginia, Notre Dame--wherever it might--if they were undefeated and won the Alliance bowl game, they would expect to share the national title.

"I don't know who would win the game if we played Michigan. I think I know. I think all you guys know. The thing I'd like to say is: Who would be favored?

"I'd like to see the line on that game, because I think it would be seven, 10, 14 points (in Nebraska's favor). Any time that it's that way and you vote the other way, you've got to be crazy."

I'm not sure if it was intentional --- but I've noticed that you have excluded a portion of Scott Frost's quotes:

"It's been split before. Colorado and Georgia Tech split it. Washington and Miami split it. It's OK to split it. It should be split and it's up to the coaches."

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2012/10/5_memories_from_michigan_and_n.html

Also, the tape of the Orange Bowl, Frost's interview. It begins at the 2:16:15 mark, Once again, he's advocating for a split. There is no "trashing of Michigan" in this interview.



Frost was advocating for his own team, which is perfectly fine IMO. But the "Scott Frost trashed Michigan narrative" isn't really supported by the evidence.

One other note: Michigan's regular season opponents went 0-6 in their Bowl games in 1997. Worse, all of those losses were by double-digits. Fair or not, those data points were used by some voters in terms of their final vote: the "common opponents" measure may have been in Michigan's favor vs Nebraska but the strength-of-schedule measure was definitely not in Michigan's favor. For instance, Michigan got a lot of mileage out of the decisive win at Penn State, but by season's end, it was apparent that Penn State (lost to MSU by 35 points) was not very good, definitely worse than Tennessee.

 

[detroitjohn]

Wait a second. Isn't that ALSO what members of the 1997 Nebraska team (and their fans) would feel? Pissed about losing out on the glories of what was an excellent season on their part? They never lost a game and they definitely played a credible and challenging schedule.

Take a step back and be objective, see the world from Scott Frost's point-of-view on January 2, 1998. The system was screwed up, Nebraska and Michigan couldn't play in a Bowl. A bunch of sports writers were saying "we have decided that you guys are the #2 team in the nation."

Objectively, you can see why HE might be pissed, right?

Michigan --- deservedly --- still gets to call themselves National Champions in 1997. Nothing will ever change that.

But Nebraska gets to call themselves the same. It is what it is.

If you're going to hate anything, hate the dumb-ass system that was in place in 1997, a system that didn't allow that season's elite teams to settle things on the field.

UM was #1 in both polls, won their bowl game, should have been national champions. They did nothing but beat the shit out of your Nittany Lions in one of the glorious, apocalyptic beat downs in our history. Humbled your HF coach, your top 5 program, your fans, and took over the stadium when all the chips were down on the table. Nebraska was #2 in polls at season's end, won their bowl game (had some additional style points vs. TN, but UM had style points in said beat down of PSU and a legendary, retiring coach) and should have been at #2. UM had done nothing to be downgraded to #2 (i.e. lose, play poorly, etc.). And my clincher, and for this argumentative shift you'll need to read carefully and slowly, Frost is an ass and I'm looking forward to handing him it on Saturday, twenty years later. He's a bitch who whined his way along with his retiring coach into a shared championship. I hope he leaves with a 56-3 reminder of our displeasure with him.

I'm also looking forward to handing PSU their asses in a few weeks. You may count yourself above the Nittany Lion fan fray, I don't follow your posts, but I find your fellow fans to generally be whiny and petulant and I have taken immense pleasure in beating them again and again over the years. Last year was a foretaste of how I anticipate that series going for years to come unless you all find a coach.

Here's to a pound of flesh on Saturday!

 

[michnittlion]

UM was #1 in both polls, won their bowl game, should have been national champions. They did nothing but beat the shit out of your Nittany Lions in one of the glorious, apocalyptic beat downs in our history. Humbled your HF coach, your top 5 program, your fans, and took over the stadium when all the chips were down on the table. Nebraska was #2 in polls at season's end, won their bowl game (had some additional style points vs. TN, but UM had style points in said beat down of PSU and a legendary, retiring coach) and should have been at #2. UM had done nothing to be downgraded to #2 (i.e. lose, play poorly, etc.). And my clincher, and for this argumentative shift you'll need to read carefully and slowly, Frost is an ass and I'm looking forward to handing him it on Saturday, twenty years later. He's a bitch who whined his way along with his retiring coach into a shared championship. I hope he leaves with a 56-3 reminder of our displeasure with him.

I'm also looking forward to handing PSU their asses in a few weeks. You may count yourself above the Nittany Lion fan fray, I don't follow your posts, but I find your fellow fans to generally be whiny and petulant and I have taken immense pleasure in beating them again and again over the years. Last year was a foretaste of how I anticipate that series going for years to come unless you all find a coach.

Here's to a pound of flesh on Saturday!

Fair enough. Obviously, Saturday's game is personal to you.

I think things have become personal with me also. Fair enough. Although that's counter to, if you recall, you forming a "safe space" for me here last November.

Not that I necessarily need a "safe space", I'm a grown-up. But I guess my argument here didn't meet your standards for "rational critique." Bummer.

https://michigan.forums.rivals.com/...ming-a-safe-space-for-you-on-our-board.85955/

 

[michigangoblue999]

I'm not sure if it was intentional --- but I've noticed that you have excluded a portion of Scott Frost's quotes:

"It's been split before. Colorado and Georgia Tech split it. Washington and Miami split it. It's OK to split it. It should be split and it's up to the coaches."

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2012/10/5_memories_from_michigan_and_n.html

Also, the tape of the Orange Bowl, Frost's interview. It begins at the 2:16:15 mark, Once again, he's advocating for a split. There is no "trashing of Michigan" in this interview.

View embedded media

Frost was advocating for his own team, which is perfectly fine IMO. But the "Scott Frost trashed Michigan narrative" isn't really supported by the evidence.

One other note: Michigan's regular season opponents went 0-6 in their Bowl games in 1997. Worse, all of those losses were by double-digits. Fair or not, those data points were used by some voters in terms of their final vote: the "common opponents" measure may have been in Michigan's favor vs Nebraska but the strength-of-schedule measure was definitely not in Michigan's favor. For instance, Michigan got a lot of mileage out of the decisive win at Penn State, but by season's end, it was apparent that Penn State (lost to MSU by 35 points) was not very good, definitely worse than Tennessee.

When has a player ever been given a stage like that to advocate for his team? I think it was BS that he was allowed to do that.

Who from Michigan was given the same opportunity on live national TV? Are you really saying that Frost's speech had no effect on the coaches poll? Really?

Of course, he was advocating a split. He was appealing emotionally to the coaches to give Osborne a going away present.

He did trash Michigan. He was laughing at the idea that Michigan was a good team at all. Nebraska would have been favored by 14? HAAA!!!! What a jackass.

 

[anon_sg4bgyiuileo1]

Sig bets are the currency of Rivals' betting.

This isn't soundoff. If you lose you'll have to get a new sig for this board? You know, the one you'll probably never visit again?

Sounds rough.

 

[detroitjohn]

Fair enough. Obviously, Saturday's game is personal to you.

I think things have become personal with me also. Fair enough. Although that's counter to, if you recall, you forming a "safe space" for me here last November.

Not that I necessarily need a "safe space", I'm a grown-up. But I guess my argument here didn't meet your standards for "rational critique." Bummer.

https://michigan.forums.rivals.com/...ming-a-safe-space-for-you-on-our-board.85955/

You seem a decent fellow, however this presses a tender issue for some of us who are long-in-tooth around the board and UM football. Glad to have you in the conversation generally, you're a sane Nitt and there seem precious few out there from my many years of reading BWI. May your tribe increase!

 

[BlooHusker]

I like this UCFhonors guy.

 

[michnittlion]

When has a player ever been given a stage like that to advocate for his team? I think it was BS that he was allowed to do that.

Who from Michigan was given the same opportunity on live national TV? Are you really saying that Frost's speech had no effect on the coaches poll? Really?

Of course, he was advocating a split. He was appealing emotionally to the coaches to give Osborne a going away present.

He did trash Michigan. He was laughing at the idea that Michigan was a good team at all. Nebraska would have been favored by 14? HAAA!!!! What a jackass.

The 1998 Rose Bowl --- ABC interviewed Brian Griese and Charles Woodson on the ABC broadcast immediately post-game. They had a platform.

3 years prior: undefeated #1 Nebraska played in the Orange Bowl on January 1, 1995. Undefeated #2 Penn State played in the Rose Bowl on January 2, 1995. Same sort of scenario as the 1997 season. ABC interviewed Joe Paterno immediately post-game. He had a platform.

So, I think that answers your first 2 questions for me. There were multiple precedents for giving a player/coach a platform. 3 years prior and one day prior!

As to your latter 2 questions --- sure, it's possible that some voters were swayed by Frost's appeal. Some voters may have also been swayed by other stuff. Such as Nebraska's decisive victory over a very good Tennessee team. Such as the fact that Michigan's regular-season opponents went 0-6 in their Bowl games, losing every single one of them by double digits. Such as the fact that Nebraska had 2 victories over end-of-season Top 10 teams versus 1 victory for Michigan. It's not like there were absolutely zero logical reasons to consider Nebraska equally strong, or better than, Michigan.

As I've stated, though, I think the most fair, objective and unemotional decision was to vote 2 teams National Champions. FWIW, 8 coaches did split their #1 vote on the final ballot.

 

[michnittlion]

You seem a decent fellow, however this presses a tender issue for some of us who are long-in-tooth around the board and UM football. Glad to have you in the conversation generally, you're a sane Nitt and there seem precious few out there from my many years of reading BWI. May your tribe increase!

No worries. I get having co-national Champions isn't perfectly ideal, but lost to history is that there was a non-zero chance at a much much much worse fate for Michigan.

In the Nebraska/U-M debate, most folks have forgotten about one other game at the end of that 1997 season. Going into Michigan/OSU week, Michigan was #1 (44 first place votes), FSU was #2 (24 first place votes), Nebraska #3 (2 first place votes).

What if #2 Florida State had defeated Florida in the Swamp in the 1997 season finale, played at 3:30 on the same day of the Michigan/OSU game? FSU was up 1 with 2:30 left and at the Gator 2 yard line. Bobby Bowden kicked the field goal. Florida then drives down the field and wins.

If Florida State wins, they may have gained some 1st place votes --- a win at the Swamp is pretty impressive. Then, it's #2 FSU vs. #3 Nebraska, both undefeated, in the Orange Bowl instead of #2 Nebraska vs. #3 (but 1-loss) Tennessee in the Orange Bowl.

It's not completely inconceivable that in this "what if scenario" --- the FSU/Nebraska winner gets voted #1 in both polls, particularly in the case of a decisive winner in that Orange Bowl.

 

[cocoabeachjason]

As a UCF fan I was going to apologize in advance for UCFhonors but he already posted here. So I will apologize after the fact.

 

[anon_sg4bgyiuileo1]

As a UCF fan I was going to apologize in advance for UCFhonors but he already posted here. So I will apologize after the fact.

Well, at least you got here before he called us all "tshirt fans".

 

[PharmD Blue]

No worries. I get having co-national Champions isn't perfectly ideal, but lost to history is that there was a non-zero chance at a much much much worse fate for Michigan.

In the Nebraska/U-M debate, most folks have forgotten about one other game at the end of that 1997 season. Going into Michigan/OSU week, Michigan was #1 (44 first place votes), FSU was #2 (24 first place votes), Nebraska #3 (2 first place votes).

What if #2 Florida State had defeated Florida in the Swamp in the 1997 season finale, played at 3:30 on the same day of the Michigan/OSU game? FSU was up 1 with 2:30 left and at the Gator 2 yard line. Bobby Bowden kicked the field goal. Florida then drives down the field and wins.

If Florida State wins, they may have gained some 1st place votes --- a win at the Swamp is pretty impressive. Then, it's #2 FSU vs. #3 Nebraska, both undefeated, in the Orange Bowl instead of #2 Nebraska vs. #3 (but 1-loss) Tennessee in the Orange Bowl.

It's not completely inconceivable that in this "what if scenario" --- the FSU/Nebraska winner gets voted #1 in both polls, particularly in the case of a decisive winner in that Orange Bowl.

Very inconceivable.

 

[michnittlion]

Very inconceivable.

No it's not. Just go look at 2004 and 1994.

----------

First, 2004:

Auburn was ranked #2 in the AP Poll the week of November 14. USC #1, Auburn #2, Oklahoma #3, all undefeated.

Auburn won at Alabama the next week. Alabama wasn't elite then, but they had a 6-4 record at the time, and it was a road game against an arch-rival.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma won at home against a Baylor team that was in dead-last in the Big XII. Not a surprising result, considering that up to that point, Baylor, despite being in the Big XII for nearly 9 years, had never won a single conference road game.

Yet, despite Auburn's win definitely being better than Oklahoma's win, Oklahoma was #2 and Auburn was #3 in the next AP Poll. And that's the way it remained.

If that could happen, imagine if the team behind you actually had a better quality win.

-----

Secondly, 1994:

In the October 25, 1994 AP Poll, Penn State was ranked #1, Colorado #2, Nebraska #3. All 3 teams were undefeated.

Penn State beat #21 Ohio State by 49 points the next Saturday. Colorado and Nebraska played, and Nebraska won by 17 points.

Despite the decisive PSU win over a good team, Nebraska moved to #1 in the next AP Poll, and remained there until the end (Nebraska & PSU both ended 1994 undefeated).

It's fairly easy to see some similarities between that and my "what if" --- in my "what if" #1 U-M plays #8 WSU and #2 and #3 are undefeated and playing each other. The winner of the latter could have easily moved to #1, especially if it was a decisive victory.

------------

Point being --- be happy for what is. Even a shared 1997 MNC beats none at all.

 

[PharmD Blue]

Pretty darn inconceivable. Simple as that

 

[michnittlion]

Pretty darn inconceivable. Simple as that

Your mind's made up. Fair enough.

 

[PharmD Blue]

Your mind's made up. Fair enough.

It definitely is. And two examples in 20+ years (not the strongest examples either) will not change that it is very inconceivable.

 

[michnittlion]

It definitely is. And two examples in 20+ years (not the strongest examples either) will not change that it is very inconceivable.

Since you said it ... what is "not strong" about the examples?

 

[ChicagoBlueFan]

Wait a second. Isn't that ALSO what members of the 1997 Nebraska team (and their fans) would feel? Pissed about losing out on the glories of what was an excellent season on their part? They never lost a game and they definitely played a credible and challenging schedule.

Take a step back and be objective, see the world from Scott Frost's point-of-view on January 2, 1998. The system was screwed up, Nebraska and Michigan couldn't play in a Bowl. A bunch of sports writers were saying "we have decided that you guys are the #2 team in the nation."

Objectively, you can see why HE might be pissed, right?

Michigan --- deservedly --- still gets to call themselves National Champions in 1997. Nothing will ever change that.

But Nebraska gets to call themselves the same. It is what it is.

If you're going to hate anything, hate the dumb-ass system that was in place in 1997, a system that didn't allow that season's elite teams to settle things on the field.

UM #1 before the bowls (rightly so). UM defeats 10 win, PAC 10 champion WSU. They somehow don't get to remain #1? That makes less sense than Penn St fans usually do.

 

[ChicagoBlueFan]

How many times has a player been given a platform like that to trash another school on national TV? I can't think of another instance. If they were going to allow that, then Michigan should have been given a chance to respond.

The fact is, Nebraska used an illegal play (admitted by their own player) to be a mediocre Missouri team.

Of the common opponents that year, Michigan beat Colorado 27-3 (Nebraska won 49-21) and Baylor 38-3 (Nebraska squeaked by 27-24).

The only reason Nebraska jumped Michigan in the final coaches poll was as a retirement gift to Osborne.

And beating Peyton Manning, who won maybe one big game in college, is supposed to impress everybody? Please.

Here are Frost's full comments. Yeah, why would Michigan fans possibly have a problem with him??? HAA!


"So, it's up to the coaches. I'm so proud of this team and Coach Osborne, I don't want to see him go out without a championship. I basically have two points for the coaches:

"One, if you can look yourself in the mirror and say if your job depended on playing either Michigan or Nebraska to keep your job, who would you rather play? You watched the Rose Bowl and the Orange Bowl. Michigan won with a controversial play at the end. We took apart the third-ranked team in the country.

"The second point I have is: I can't see how any coach outside the Big Ten or the Pac-10 would vote for Michigan. Because if somebody from North Carolina, Florida State, West Virginia, Notre Dame--wherever it might--if they were undefeated and won the Alliance bowl game, they would expect to share the national title.

"I don't know who would win the game if we played Michigan. I think I know. I think all you guys know. The thing I'd like to say is: Who would be favored?

"I'd like to see the line on that game, because I think it would be seven, 10, 14 points (in Nebraska's favor). Any time that it's that way and you vote the other way, you've got to be crazy."

You got the Nebraska scores reversed. UM dismantled Colorado, and Nebraska escaped with a 27-24 win. Colorado was moving it at the end and ran out of time.
One other point-Nebraska fans who think they could move the ball on the nation's #1 run defense are deluding themselves. There would have been a lot of 3rd and longs, and li'l Scottie shot putting a lot of INTs.

 

[UCFhonors]

Ah Oh. Scott said it again this morning.

He thought there should have been split champions. The system was flawed by not having the best two teams playing each other. He thinks Nebraska would have won. And is sure that Brian Greasy thinks Michigan would win.

And you know what? Scott is Right. Any reasonable person would acknowledge that.

And that has nothing to do with how UCF is going to mudhole Michigan this Saturday.

 

[PharmD Blue]

Since you said it ... what is "not strong" about the examples?

Unless I'm reading this wrong, you may want to re-check the rankings. Oklahoma started the season ranked number 2 in the AP poll and at NO point during the regular season did they ever drop to 3. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing you are looking at a wiki page which has incorrect info. So that season has no validity.

For 1994, a little bit of a better argument here. However, I will argue that Michigan beating #4 OSU and #8 Washington state to end the year is far more impressive and would have never resulted in a drop in the polls

 

[michigangoblue999]

The 1998 Rose Bowl --- ABC interviewed Brian Griese and Charles Woodson on the ABC broadcast immediately post-game. They had a platform.

3 years prior: undefeated #1 Nebraska played in the Orange Bowl on January 1, 1995. Undefeated #2 Penn State played in the Rose Bowl on January 2, 1995. Same sort of scenario as the 1997 season. ABC interviewed Joe Paterno immediately post-game. He had a platform.

So, I think that answers your first 2 questions for me. There were multiple precedents for giving a player/coach a platform. 3 years prior and one day prior!

As to your latter 2 questions --- sure, it's possible that some voters were swayed by Frost's appeal. Some voters may have also been swayed by other stuff. Such as Nebraska's decisive victory over a very good Tennessee team. Such as the fact that Michigan's regular-season opponents went 0-6 in their Bowl games, losing every single one of them by double digits. Such as the fact that Nebraska had 2 victories over end-of-season Top 10 teams versus 1 victory for Michigan. It's not like there were absolutely zero logical reasons to consider Nebraska equally strong, or better than, Michigan.

As I've stated, though, I think the most fair, objective and unemotional decision was to vote 2 teams National Champions. FWIW, 8 coaches did split their #1 vote on the final ballot.

View embedded media

View embedded media

That year Michigan beat 7 top 25 teams, and 4 top 10 teams.

Nebraska beat 4 top 25 teams, and 2 top 10 teams.

And I misspoke about the common Colorado game. Michigan won 27-3, while Nebraska squeaked by 27-24. Both teams blew out Baylor.

The only way you give it to Nebraska is if you ignore the rest of the season and only look at bowl games. Congrats on beating Peyton Manning in a big game. That never happened before.

You have turned college football into March Madness, where only the last game matters. Forget the whole rest of the season.

Oh, and either one coach votes Michigan 4th that year, or two voted them 3rd. Since the coaches don't have any transparency, we don't know for sure. What a fraud.

 

[UCFhonors]

I'm not sure if it was intentional --- but I've noticed that you have excluded a portion of Scott Frost's quotes:

"It's been split before. Colorado and Georgia Tech split it. Washington and Miami split it. It's OK to split it. It should be split and it's up to the coaches."

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2012/10/5_memories_from_michigan_and_n.html

Also, the tape of the Orange Bowl, Frost's interview. It begins at the 2:16:15 mark, Once again, he's advocating for a split. There is no "trashing of Michigan" in this interview.

View embedded media

Frost was advocating for his own team, which is perfectly fine IMO. But the "Scott Frost trashed Michigan narrative" isn't really supported by the evidence.

One other note: Michigan's regular season opponents went 0-6 in their Bowl games in 1997. Worse, all of those losses were by double-digits. Fair or not, those data points were used by some voters in terms of their final vote: the "common opponents" measure may have been in Michigan's favor vs Nebraska but the strength-of-schedule measure was definitely not in Michigan's favor. For instance, Michigan got a lot of mileage out of the decisive win at Penn State, but by season's end, it was apparent that Penn State (lost to MSU by 35 points) was not very good, definitely worse than Tennessee.

You have the patience of a Saint.

Any objective thinker would realize that you have been 100% correct in this thread.