• 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.

Could Nebraska have more Championships under a Playoff?

wcbsas

All Big 10
15 Year Member
Not counting the 3 in '94, '95 and '97 I would argue that '82 and '83 are the other seasons where we'd win a NC.
 
Not counting the 3 in '94, '95 and '97 I would argue that '82 and '83 are the other seasons where we'd win a NC.
Agree on 82 and 83 being no doubters along with 94 and 95. That’s already +1 for titles if you give away 97. Get a couple more to go your way and you’ve doubled up what was actually won.
 

DuckTownHusker

Blackshirt Sith Lord
5 Year Member
Much of the old bowl system forced teams to rely on luck. Even in 1997, we got lucky to play - and beat - Peyton Manning's Tennessee team. Michigan got stuck playing Wazzu because of the forced Rose Bowl alignment. Had Michigan played a more highly ranked team, they might have won 1997 outright.

Even in the 1980s, I seem to recall a bunch of late season theatrics around the "national championships" that we lost. I say that in quotes because there of course wasn't an official game.

People criticize both the BCS-era and now the CFP-era, but the reality is that it's a far cry better than what we have now. 1984 BYU was the nightmare scenario that awarded a national title to a team in mid-December, with 2-3 weeks of bowls left afterwards.
 

huskermike

Cyber Traveler
10 Year Member
Much of the old bowl system forced teams to rely on luck. Even in 1997, we got lucky to play - and beat - Peyton Manning's Tennessee team. Michigan got stuck playing Wazzu because of the forced Rose Bowl alignment. Had Michigan played a more highly ranked team, they might have won 1997 outright.
People tend to forget that NU was ranked #1 when they won that game against Mizzou on Matt Davison's 4th quarter catch to go in to OT. The pollsters then dropped us to 3rd. :Thumbsdown:

I always felt that since we didn't lose that game we should not have dropped at all. We played catch-up to Michigan the rest of the season. I still think we should have finished #1 in both polls. JMO :Rockon:
 

DuckTownHusker

Blackshirt Sith Lord
5 Year Member
People tend to forget that NU was ranked #1 when they won that game against Mizzou on Matt Davison's 4th quarter catch to go in to OT. The pollsters then dropped us to 3rd. :Thumbsdown:

I always felt that since we didn't lose that game we should not have dropped at all. We played catch-up to Michigan the rest of the season. I still think we should have finished #1 in both polls. JMO :Rockon:
I would like to believe that, but Missouri pretty much beat us. I know championship seasons often come down to a magical play or two, but I can't fault the media for dropping us after an ugly win that required an absolute miracle play that will likely never happen in football again.

That being said, in a playoff environment I think we plaster 1997 Michigan. They had a very solid team, but Nebraska's winning margins (Mizzou notwithstanding) were just too good. Michigan beat a lot of really good teams that year, but we beat a lot of really good teams by a LOT MORE.
 
Last edited:

huskermike

Cyber Traveler
10 Year Member
I understand but, I don't think teams should drop just because they hava a close, game. A winner finds a way to win; even if it's relying on a miracle play happening. As long as they won they should hold their ranking.

Oh well, it's all in the past and is just something that has always kind of bothered me.
 

NUinID

Scout Team
2 Year Member
For me the interesting thing in 1983 is that Miami wouldn't even have made the playoffs.

It would have been NU vs Illinois and Texas vs Auburn in the Semi's.

I never understood how Miami moved from #5 to #1 after beating the #1 Team by 1 point. When Auburn won their game and was a higher ranked team. Auburn should have been #1.
 
Top