Tennessee was Michigan with an actual offence. Huskers still score 42. Wolverines would be hard pressed to reach double digits.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
25 years later, 1997 Tennessee, Michigan, and Nebraska….
- Thread starter Husker In Oklahoma
- Start date
Nebraska could have scored more than 42 if it had wanted to. Just sayin. Lol
Yes, good comparison. Tennesseee would have beaten Michigan.
Last edited:
Lived in Michigan at the time. They said that the coaches gave it to NU as a gift to a retiring TO. Said we were lucky to be in the position we were because of the Mizzou game (Wiggin's kick was illegal). Frost whined to get votes for TO.
I said, politely, to my Michigan friends: There are lots of individual plays that might be questionable throughout a season that can impact the outcome of a game, including some that Michigan benefited from. That the Rose Bowl had its own controversy with the clock at the end. That you could argue that the writers gave it as a gift to Michigan because they hadn't won a NC in fifty years. That our win vs UT was a total domination. And if I remember right, when the president invited both squads to the white house and someone brought up the idea of having a championship playoff, it was the NU players that said "bring it." (Do I have that right?)
I said, politely, to my Michigan friends: There are lots of individual plays that might be questionable throughout a season that can impact the outcome of a game, including some that Michigan benefited from. That the Rose Bowl had its own controversy with the clock at the end. That you could argue that the writers gave it as a gift to Michigan because they hadn't won a NC in fifty years. That our win vs UT was a total domination. And if I remember right, when the president invited both squads to the white house and someone brought up the idea of having a championship playoff, it was the NU players that said "bring it." (Do I have that right?)
Interesting article on the Heisman, and national championship. Lots of Nebraska stuff in here, so I put it here. I’ll say it again, like I did back then, the only reason Michigan has even a piece of a NC, is because they didn’t have to play Nebraska. Nebraska would have gutted them, easier than they did Tennessee, who I personally thought was better than Michigan. Again, had the BIG, just got on board with the CFA agreement reached with all other conferences, except the BIG and PAC, Michigan and Nebraska would have played. The precious BS rose bowl was bigger for them. Nebraska rolls that team, badly.
The 'Heistman,' a split national title and 1997's dueling, enduring conspiracies
Why Tennessee fans think Charles Woodson stole the Heisman from Peyton Manning and why Michigan fans blame Tennessee for a shared title with Nebraska.www.espn.com
I honestly never heard the Tennessee/Manning -v- Michigan/Woodson piece of the split MNC.
I guess I was under a rock. All I'd ever heard was TO voted Michigan 4th or 5th and that made the difference.
I never heard he voted them 4th or 5th, but if he did, I have no problem with it. About where they belonged.
Think about it this way: For Carr, that National Title means everything for his legacy. Without it, he is just another Michigan coach who posted a lot of wins and never won a title. Take away that title from TO and he still has two championships and one of the most dominant runs in college football history.
Plus, TO is just a class guy.
Living in Tennessee, people STILL bring up Manning not getting the Heisman and how unfair that was. I guess it depends on if you have any Tennessee fans in your life, how aware you'd be about that drama.
Doesn’t matter to me what his silly legacy is. Schembechler never won a title, and he’s revered way more than Carr. He shouldn’t have half that title. Subjective or not, 1997 Michigan and Nebraska both show up to play, and they both play well, it’s a 28 point win. I’m being kind. Harbaugh is probably the most complete coach they’ve ever had imo, at least in my 55 years. He might win a title, at some point.
I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out why they are so defensive about that title.
I've always been fine with split national titles for teams with identical records that weren't able to play each other. Everything else is speculation.
Sure, I think '97 Nebraska was better than '97 Michigan. I also think '94 Nebraska was better than '94 Penn State. Both should have been split national titles, however. It's not like I personally think of the '97 title as tainted or lesser just because we split it with Michigan.
Sure, I think '97 Nebraska was better than '97 Michigan. I also think '94 Nebraska was better than '94 Penn State. Both should have been split national titles, however. It's not like I personally think of the '97 title as tainted or lesser just because we split it with Michigan.
Last edited:
I feel the same way you do. Interestingly enough, pretty much all of the Michigan fans with whom I have discussed this issue do not feel the same way we do about split titles. In fact, they tend to be a bit overbearing about it. I think their local media fed that quite a bit at the time.
As far as Penn State goes, I think we would have beaten them in ‘94. They had an outstanding offense, but really weren’t that good on defense. We’d have been able to score regularly and generally keep their offense off the field.
Last edited:
My Michigan fans brought up the same thing to me - they forget they were down to Iowa until last two minutes of that game and were lucky to win. I just always thought it was funny Michigan gets a Natty and they are pissed - Nebr. fans for the most part thought a split title was simply "fair" given not being able to play it out on the field. Tells you all you need to know about the Michigan fan
We got the cool trophy. They got someone's 7th grade shop project
