Michigan vs Scott Frost

[jlb321]

Dude...do you think there is anyway I could possibly convince any of you huskers of anything (in regards to 97 and on this board) that is subjective? Damn, I could post video of the clear and blatant defensive pass interference on Woodson on a 4th down on the final drive (that wasn't called and would have ended the game) and people would still claim WSU got robbed...my only interest in this argument (as it concerns discussing it on a non-neutral board) is with things that can be statistically proven...such as Michigan had 50% more NFL players.

of course not which is why the only objective part of the argument is that the Big Ten and Michigan decided that if push came to shove they would rather play in the Rose Bowl than the national title game as determined by the bowl alliance. If you decide you aren't willing to participate in a system designed to have the national championship decided on the field then you should consider yourselves lucky to have received that little piece of wood that the media threw your way. You can display that proudly just as we will the crystal as awarded by the coaches.

This all could have been decided on the field except for the choices of the Big Ten

 

[ellobo]

of course not which is why the only objective part of the argument is that the Big Ten and Michigan decided that if push came to shove they would rather play in the Rose Bowl than the national title game as determined by the bowl alliance. If you decide you aren't willing to participate in a system designed to have the national championship decided on the field then you should consider yourselves lucky to have received that little piece of wood that the media threw your way. You can display that proudly just as we will the crystal as awarded by the coaches.

This all could have been decided on the field except for the choices of the Big Ten

Well that is not objective. It's actually a bit delusional. The Big Ten had already decided to join at that point. Yes a major original hangup was over the Rose Bowl but that go worked out leading to the BCS starting in 98. One could even argue if the original alliance had accepted those terms earlier then we would have played in 97. Whichever way you want to argue it (subjectively) the facts are that at that point the B10/P10 had actually agreed to what would become the BCS but there are these things like contracts, money and courts that would have prevented the B10 from just "deciding" to play in the Alliance MNC that year.

 

[jlb321]

Well that is not objective. It's actually a bit delusional. The Big Ten had already decided to join at that point. Yes a major original hangup was over the Rose Bowl but that go worked out leading to the BCS starting in 98. One could even argue if the original alliance had accepted those terms earlier then we would have played in 97. Whichever way you want to argue it (subjectively) the facts are that at that point the B10/P10 had actually agreed to what would become the BCS but there are these things like contracts, money and courts that would have prevented the B10 from just "deciding" to play in the Alliance MNC that year.

I realize that things had to worked out btwn the P10-B10-Rose Bowl
but not working them out prior to 98 put schools from those 2 conferences at risk for being locked out of the national championship game and thus being reduced to whining about how they would have won the national championship game rather than actually playing in it. The bottom line was that reason why Neb and Michigan didn't play that year rested solely with the B10s inability to extract itself from the P10-B10-Rose Bowl menage a trois that was so holey. The contracts, courts and money issue wasn't Nebraska's problem

 

[ellobo]

I realize that things had to worked out btwn the P10-B10-Rose Bowl
but not working them out prior to 98 put schools from those 2 conferences at risk for being locked out of the national championship game and thus being reduced to whining about how they would have won the national championship game rather than actually playing in it. The bottom line was that reason why Neb and Michigan didn't play that year rested solely with the B10s inability to extract itself from the P10-B10-Rose Bowl menage a trois that was so holey. The contracts, courts and money issue wasn't Nebraska's problem

So? Does that mean those things didn't exist?

 

[GBRhuskers]

Saying you guys lacked NFL talent is incorrect. Saying Michigan had more is correct. In fact, by the numbers Michigan had roughly 50% more (over 50% if you take out specialists). Here is the list:

Jeff Backus OT - 12 years in the NFL mostly as a starting LT
Tom Brady QB - Yes, his biggest contribution that year was holding kicks
Dave Brandt OC - 2 years
Mark Cambell TE - 10 years with about half of those as a starter
Jay Feely PK - 14 years
Chris Floyd FB - 3 years but worth noting our FB was a 3rd round pick
Ian Gold LB - 8 years, mostly as a starter and made a pro bowl (though I think on special teams)
Brian Griese QB - 10 years, started a bunch of games and made a pro bowl
James Hall DE - 10 years mostly as a starter, in his best year had 11.5 sacks
Tommy Hendricks SS - 4 years, listed him at his college position but he played LB in the NFL
Chris Howard RB - 3 years
Steve Hutchinson OG - 12 years, borderline Hall of Fame when his class is up
Ray Jackson RB - 1 year
John Jansen OT - 11 years, mostly as a starter, was 2nd team All Pro one year
Dhani Jones LB - 11 years, mostly as a starter
Marcus Knight WR - 2 years
DeWayne Patmon S - 2 years
William Peterson CB - 10 years a few of them as a starter
Marcus Ray FS - 1 year, many years annoying us on BTN
Aaron Shea HB/TE - 7 years, started a few games...listed at college position played TE in NFL
Glenn Steele DE - 6 years, started some games
Tai Streets WR - 6 years about half as a starter
Jerame Tuman TE - 10 years, started some
Anthony (A-train) Thomas RB - 7 years, NFL O Rookie of the Year
Clarence Williams RB (3rd down) - 1 year
Josh Williams DT - 6 years, think he started hear and there
Maurice Williams OT/OG - 9 years, mostly as a starting LT
Charles Woodson CB/WR/KR - I think 15 years, list I have has him still active which is not the case
Chris Ziemman OG - 1 year

"Take out specialist" but you list Tom Brady, a "specialist" on the 1997 Michigan team. Pure golf. I'd love to see Michigan with twice as many, here's our list.

Dan Alexander - 3 years in the NFL
Mike Brown - 10 years in the NFL
Ralph Brown - 10 years in the NFL
Correll Buckhalter - 10 years in the NFL
Eric Crouch - 4 years in the NFL
Clint Finley - 2 years in the NFL
Jay Foreman - 8 years in the NFL
Scott Frost - 6 years in the NFL
Ahman Green - 11 years in the NFL
Russ Hochstein - 12 years in the NFL
Sheldon Jackson - 3 years in the NFL
Eric Johnson - 8 years in the NFL
Chad Kelsay - drafted, not sure if he actually played in the NFL or not (?)
Joel Makovicka - 4 years in the NFL
Bobby Newcombe - drafted, don't believe he played in the NFL
Jason Peter - 4 years in the NFL
Carlos Polk - 8 years in the NFL
Dominic Railoa - 14 years in the NFL
Mike Rucker - 9 years in the NFL
Erwin Swiney - 3 years in the NFL
Aaron Taylor - drafted, don't believe he played in the NFL
Kyle Vanden Bosch - 12 years in the NFL
Eric Warfield - 8 years in the NFL
Steve Warren - 3 years in the NFL
Jason Wiltz - 2 years in the NFL
Grant Wistrom - 9 years in the NFL

There are others that were drafted and didn't play in the league and it's quite possible I'm missing guys.

 

[ellobo]

I'd love to see Michigan with twice as many, here's our list.



There are others that were drafted and didn't play in the league and it's quite possible I'm missing guys.

Same with Michigan...for example I didn't include our starting NT (Rob Renes) who was drafted by the Colts but broke his back during his first training camp and was not on the regular season roster...and I already noted guys like James Whitley who actually played (I kind of forgot about him) but as our dime back not all that much...and fyi...50% more does not equal twice as many...twice as many would be 100%...the original list I responded to had 21 names on it (if I counted correctly)...50% of that is 10.5 (21+10.5=31.5)...the list I gave had 31 thus roughly 50% more.

 

[GBRhuskers]

Same with Michigan...for example I didn't include our starting NT (Rob Renes) who was drafted by the Colts but broke his back during his first training camp and was not on the regular season roster...and I already noted guys like James Whitley who actually played (I kind of forgot about him) but as our dime back not all that much...and fyi...50% more does not equal twice as many...twice as many would be 100%...the original list I responded to had 21 names on it (if I counted correctly)...50% of that is 10.5 (21+10.5=31.5)...the list I gave had 31 thus roughly 50% more.

Ya, the 50% is on me, I didn't save my second edit. I'll blame @Pennsyhusker for distracting me in a different thread. (j/k PH)

But you included Tom Brady, a specialist in 1997. Sorry if I can't take you serious based on that, with what you said. The list I shared is as close to accurate as it gets so far in this thread.

The point is, Nebraska was very, very talented in 1997. Just like Michigan. By looking at who played in the NFL from each team, neither had an advantage over the other. I'd still put my life savings on Nebraska in 1997, and I've never gambled a penny in my life.

 

[ellobo]

Ya, the 50% is on me, I didn't save my second edit. I'll blame @Pennsyhusker for distracting me in a different thread. (j/k PH)

But you included Tom Brady, a specialist in 1997. Sorry if I can't take you serious based on that, with what you said. The list I shared is as close to accurate as it gets so far in this thread.

The point is, Nebraska was very, very talented in 1997. Just like Michigan. By looking at who played in the NFL from each team, neither had an advantage over the other. I'd still put my life savings on Nebraska in 1997, and I've never gambled a penny in my life.

Yeah...I debated throwing Brady in there...but it's Brady so I put him in...but I very well could of also put guys in like Jauquin Feazell who started a couple games for us at DT, that year, made an NFL roster but never technically got into an NFL game.

One question when you say comparing NFL talent...which of the guys you listed are headed to the NFL HOF? We have possibly 3 with two being for certain.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

Michigan vs. Nebraska in 97 would have been a really, really good game. Both teams were excellent and loaded with talent.
Personally, I have zero issue with the split title. And given the quality of both teams I don't see how anyone, from either side, can lay claim to being the clearly better team. So splitting the title seems reasonable to me, in the absence of a playoff.
i obviously think Nebraska was the better team and would have beaten Michigan. But I am hardly objective.

 

[GBRhuskers]

Yeah...I debated throwing Brady in there...but it's Brady so I put him in...but I very well could of also put guys in like Jauquin Feazell who started a couple games for us at DT, that year, made an NFL roster but never technically got into an NFL game.

One question when you say comparing NFL talent...which of the guys you listed are headed to the NFL HOF? We have possibly 3 with two being for certain.

First off, I didn't say compare NFL talent.

So only NFL HOF'ers are the ones you want to compare? What someone accomplished 10-15 years after they played college ball has zero relevance to college.

Here's what I do know, both teams had 5 All Americans in 1997.

 

[bigboxes]

Yeah...I debated throwing Brady in there...but it's Brady so I put him in...but I very well could of also put guys in like Jauquin Feazell who started a couple games for us at DT, that year, made an NFL roster but never technically got into an NFL game.

One question when you say comparing NFL talent...which of the guys you listed are headed to the NFL HOF? We have possibly 3 with two being for certain.

LOL...stop arguing just to argue.

You are brutal. You like to argue when there is no argument to be made. You knew damn well I was listing Huskers NFL talent from the '97 squad. Hell, you could have just backed me up and put your comrade in his place. But no. You have to come to Michigan's defense all because the troll had to start this hit and run thread. This would have been rude on your board if had been one of us. But to do so for no reason other than you saw an opportunity? It's like you love this sort of conflict. Bottom line is that the two teams never played. You just have to have a dick measuring contest. Personally, I think that '97 NU would wipe '97 UM. Woodson was a great player, but really who would he have to guard? He'd be tired from getting pushed around all day.

And before you say it... my request to list Michigan's NFL talent was rhetorical. Of course, you knew that. None of that matters because NU was the best team that year in COLLEGE.

 

[Mr.Scary13]

Wow. Funniest thing I've read all morning. Thanks for the laugh. "Michigan could run and throw the ball." Yeah. So could TN, KSU, Washington, Texas A&M and others. Nebraska would've won by 3 scores.

Seriously would have been worse than three scores.

 

[ellobo]

You are brutal. You like to argue when there is no argument to be made. You knew damn well I was listing Huskers NFL talent from the '97 squad. Hell, you could have just backed me up and put your comrade in his place. But no. You have to come to Michigan's defense all because the troll had to start this hit and run thread. This would have been rude on your board if had been one of us. But to do so for no reason other than you saw an opportunity? It's like you love this sort of conflict. Bottom line is that the two teams never played. You just have to have a dick measuring contest. Personally, I think that '97 NU would wipe '97 UM. Woodson was a great player, but really who would he have to guard? He'd be tired from getting pushed around all day.

And before you say it... my request to list Michigan's NFL talent was rhetorical. Of course, you knew that. None of that matters because NU was the best team that year in COLLEGE.

Tom Brady was on the 97 squad...was the backup QB (battled Griese all spring) and played a bit that year...he just wasn't a key factor...even played some in 96...and who was better is your opinion...mine differs...who had more NFL players is FACT...according to the numbers 50% more...even if you take off Brady it is still the same as now that I think of it I should add our dimeback and maybe a blocking TE we had that ended up starting some in the NFL

 

[michnittlion]

I love these debates.

(1) Nebraska and Michigan fans arguing about 1997 (19 years ago), Nebraska fans advocating for the split while Michigan fans don't think it should have been split.

(2) which was three years after Nebraska fans argue that Penn State didn't deserve a split in 1994 when we had the same sort of scenario.

(3) but that is fine with some Nebraska fans. It was "karma" and "revenge" due to some bad calls during a Nebraska/Penn State football game in Penn State's own National Championship season 12 years earlier in 1982.

We're all like a bunch of Sicilians! Grudges forever!

 

[Mr.Scary13]

I love these debates.

(1) Nebraska and Michigan fans arguing about 1997 (19 years ago), Nebraska fans advocating for the split while Michigan fans don't think it should have been split.

(2) which was three years after Nebraska fans argue that Penn State didn't deserve a split in 1994 when we had the same sort of scenario.

(3) but that is fine with some Nebraska fans. It was "karma" and "revenge" due to some bad calls during a Nebraska/Penn State football game in Penn State's own National Championship season 12 years earlier in 1982.

We're all like a bunch of Sicilians! Grudges forever!

Who advocates a split? Nebraska was heads and shoulders above Michigan. The only reason for the split was Michigan hid behind the Big and played in the Rose Bowl. They wanted no part of Nebraska.

 

[ellobo]

Who advocates a split? Nebraska was heads and shoulders above Michigan. The only reason for the split was Michigan hid behind the Big and played in the Rose Bowl. They wanted no part of Nebraska.

Just curious how you know Michigan wanted no part of Nebraska? I ask because I actually knew a bunch of those guys quite well.

 

[Charlie Marlow]

I never understood what was wrong with a split national championship. Both teams did what they could. No one actually knows who would have won in a head-to-head match up. I ran a simulation on my handheld mattel football game and Nebraska won, so there is that.

Same deal with Penn St in 1994. I don't think there should have been any shame in splitting a championship with the old setup.

Regarding 1994 and Penn St fan, I always loved how they bitched and moaned and cried and whined and cursed the heavens and couldn't stop going on and and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how badly they were wronged when how we leapfrogged them in the standings, while they apparently had no problem when they had leapfrogged us earlier in the season. Nope, nothing wrong with that!

 

[LRob]

Basically, some Michigan fans are still bitter about the 97 National Championship and more specifically, Scott Frost campaigning for Nebraska to win. I didn't read the whole thing, but found what I did read somewhat humorous and a bit delusional.

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/why-we-hate-scott-frost

C'mon you've been in the BIG for 5 years and you're just now realizing Michigan fans are delusional!

Being a MSU guy i'm biased against UM, but must admit they had a great team in 97. I have no idea who would've won a Michigan/Nebraska matchup, but do think some are selling UM short if you don't think that was a great team.

 

[bigboxes]

C'mon you've been in the BIG for 5 years and you're just now realizing Michigan fans are delusional!

Being a MSU guy i'm biased against UM, but must admit they had a great team in 97. I have no idea who would've won a Michigan/Nebraska matchup, but do think some are selling UM short if you don't think that was a great team.

It's not that they weren't great. It's just that NU was better. It was the 90's and NU could arguably had a couple more MNCs in that time span. Can't blame us for being homers ON OUR BOARD, can you? But truthfully, Michigan has long been my 2nd favorite team. My mother roots for the Spartans. Since moving to the B1G I'm really not rooting for another team in the conference unless they are playing someone outside the conference. I'm NU all the way. My feelings are that '97 was Michigan's best team in 50 years and they were second best that year. Can't prove it wrong since we never played the game. Deep down ellobo knows we were more dominant. He'll never admit it. Fonzy can never say he's wr-wr-wr... you get the point.

Good to see you LRob!

 

[michnittlion]

Who advocates a split? Nebraska was heads and shoulders above Michigan. The only reason for the split was Michigan hid behind the Big and played in the Rose Bowl. They wanted no part of Nebraska.

It's not like Michigan had a choice. Their conference's champion was contractually obligated to go to the Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl would have literally SUED Michigan if Michigan didn't show up for the game! ABC, the Rose Bowl's broadcast partner, would have sued also. Of the last 20 Rose Bowls, the 1998 version is the 2nd highest in terms of TV ratings. Only one higher was the 2006 epic between USC and Texas.

No dis-respect would have been meant to Washington State, but I'm sure that if the Michigan players were polled in early December 1997: "do you choose Pasadena and WSU or Miami and Nebraska?", they would have chosen the Huskers.

The best generally want to play the best. Yes, the Big Ten presidents and commissioner were behind the times through the 80s and early 90s, it took them too long to move beyond a mindset of "The Rose Bowl is the only thing that matters." But they did get there eventually.

 

[Scott_SanDiego]

So I was searching for something college football related, though nothing to do with either of the topics in the title, and came across something related to my search on a website called MGoBlog. While on the website, I noticed under a section titled "Diaries" an article titled "Why We Hate Scott Frost". I had forgotten Michigan and UCF were playing this week, so I decided to take a quick glance at the article.

Basically, some Michigan fans are still bitter about the 97 National Championship and more specifically, Scott Frost campaigning for Nebraska to win. I didn't read the whole thing, but found what I did read somewhat humorous and a bit delusional. Thought some on here might like to give it a look.

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/why-we-hate-scott-frost

Well this is the only championship most Michigan fans have seen in their lifetimes and it was shared. I'd be pissed too if I had only been alive for 1/2 a Husker Natty.

 

[michnittlion]

I never understood what was wrong with a split national championship. Both teams did what they could. No one actually knows who would have won in a head-to-head match up. I ran a simulation on my handheld mattel football game and Nebraska won, so there is that.

Same deal with Penn St in 1994. I don't think there should have been any shame in splitting a championship with the old setup.

Regarding 1994 and Penn St fan, I always loved how they bitched and moaned and cried and whined and cursed the heavens and couldn't stop going on and and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how badly they were wronged when how we leapfrogged them in the standings, while they apparently had no problem when they had leapfrogged us earlier in the season. Nope, nothing wrong with that!

One of the interesting "what ifs" about 1994 --- what if Kordell Stewart doesn't hit Charles Johnson at the Big House to lift Colorado to a victory over Michigan?

On October 11, 1994, the AP poll was (1) Florida, (2) Nebraska, (3) Penn State, (4) Colorado, (5) Michigan. All undefeated, except Michigan. The 1st place votes were split among the top 4, 44-12-2-4.

On the following Saturday (October 16), Florida lost at home to Auburn, and Penn State won at Michigan. Colorado & Nebraska each had wins over ranked but non-elite Big 8 teams (Oklahoma & K-State).

Florida's 44 1st place votes had to go somewhere. Per the October 18 poll, they split 3 for Auburn (on-probation that year but still undefeated), 17 for PSU, 13 for Nebraska, and 11 for Colorado. In summary, 24 for Big 8 schools, 17 for Big 10 schools, 3 for SEC schools.

2 weeks later, Nebraska defeated Colorado, PSU beat a ranked but non-elite Big 10 team (Ohio State). Colorado lost their 1st place votes but those votes tended to go to the team they just lost to. The November 1 poll went 33 1st place votes for Nebraska, 28 for PSU, 1 for Auburn.

The key polls were the ones on October 11 and October 18. In each, Big 8 schools had more aggregate first place votes than Big Ten schools, and I'd say a large part of that was because of Colorado's win.

Not taking anything away from UNL in 1994, they were a fine team. But much like Michigan in 1997 did benefit from a result they had no control over (imagine if Florida State beat Florida in the 1997 season finale. Then it's undefeated UNL vs. undefeated FSU in the Orange Bowl and the winner has a considerably stronger case to being an undisputed #1), UNL did benefit in 1994 from Kordell's improbable Hail Mary.

 

[jlb321]

So? Does that mean those things didn't exist?

Of course they existed. But the fact of the matter was that Michigan was contractually obligated to play in the Rose Bowl. These discussions took place way back in 1992. If the Rose, B10, P10 wanted to be included they could have figured out a way. Instead they wanted to keep this arrangement together as long as possible for traditional and financial reasons. Understandable but the risk is that you might not get to play the highest ranked team if you are in position to win a NC. It was a choice and it either cost you being a unanimous NC or it allowed you to at least split a NC.

Again Nebraska was able to play in that game which allowed them to play a higher ranked team. Michigan was #1 in BOTH polls but was ho-hum playing a lower ranked team in the RB while Nebraska smoked the #3 ranked team in the nation. Michigan left the door open by not looking like the best team in the nation when those 2 games are compared.

Would have loved to see it played on the field
but Michigan's affiliations kept that from happening. If you are the stumbling block then you shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ellobo]

Of course they existed. But the fact of the matter was that Michigan was contractually obligated to play in the Rose Bowl. These discussions took place way back in 1992. If the Rose, B10, P10 wanted to be included they could have figured out a way. Instead they wanted to keep this arrangement together as long as possible for traditional and financial reasons. Understandable but the risk is that you might not get to play the highest ranked team if you are in position to win a NC. It was a choice and it either cost you being a unanimous NC or it allowed you to at least split a NC.

Again Nebraska was able to play in that game which allowed them to play a higher ranked team. Michigan was #1 in BOTH polls but was ho-hum playing a lower ranked team in the RB while Nebraska smoked the #3 ranked team in the nation. Michigan left the door open by not looking like the best team in the nation when those 2 games are compared.

Would have loved to see it played on the field
but Michigan's affiliations kept that from happening. If you are the stumbling block then you shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt.

You don't get it. Instead of being a bunch of wimps (like most of you guys were in the B12 before other conferences gave you an out to leave your overlord Texas) the B10/P10 stood by their demands and got what they wanted. I laugh at the irony of the situation because it took balls to do what the B10/P10 did...we didn't need the alliance...the alliance needed us...it was proven when the alliance caved in to our demands. Welcome to a conference that has a sack.

 

[jlb321]

You don't get it. Instead of being a bunch of wimps (like most of you guys were in the B12 before other conferences gave you an out to leave your overlord Texas) the B10/P10 stood by their demands and got what they wanted. I laugh at the irony of the situation because it took balls to do what the B10/P10 did...we didn't need the alliance...the alliance needed us...it was proven when the alliance caved in to our demands. Welcome to a conference that has a sack.

You should engrave that on the handsome wooden plaque the writers gave you in 1997. We will keep the crystal the football professionals awarded to who they feel would have won that game.

 

[Bugeater]

You don't get it. Instead of being a bunch of wimps (like most of you guys were in the B12 before other conferences gave you an out to leave your overlord Texas) the B10/P10 stood by their demands and got what they wanted. I laugh at the irony of the situation because it took balls to do what the B10/P10 did...we didn't need the alliance...the alliance needed us...it was proven when the alliance caved in to our demands. Welcome to a conference that has a sack.

Wow, now you can go back to your Michigan board and pound your chest with more drivel. Too funny.

 

[ellobo]

You should engrave that on the handsome wooden plaque the writers gave you in 1997. We will keep the crystal the football professionals awarded to who they feel would have won that game.

You still don't get it...do you know how the BTN happened? During negotiations for the new TV contract, ESPN tried to lowball the B10. Delany said no way and the head of programming at ESPN laughed and said you need us its not like you can start your own network. So Jim did just that, got the last laugh and now we are set up to be the richest conference for the foreseeable future...while your old conference is a shell of its former self and might not make it out of the next decade.

The point being is that saying it was a weak move by Michigan not to play NU is ridiculous. First off, we had no choice that specific year. There were contracts in place. Second, it was because of a power move (that worked btw) that the B10 didn't play in the alliance in 1997. It was a move that eventually saved NU's butt from being stuck in the dying B12....show some appreciation.

 

[ellobo]

Wow, now you can go back to your Michigan board and pound your chest with more drivel. Too funny.

When people ask me questions it means my input is wanted.

 

[saluno22]

Looks to me like at the end of the 1997 season, Nebraska was the holder of the College Football Belt...
http://collegefootballbelt.com/Seasons.htm

Sorry, I just stumbled across that website and had to share it somewhere. Interesting concept. Oct 10, 1998, is the last day DONU held the Belt when they lost to at Texas A&M after 15 defenses.

Michigan held it in 2003 before losing in the Rose Bowl to USC after successfully defending it 3 times, and in 1972 (8 defenses), 1981 (twice: 0 and 2 defenses, respectively), 1983 (0 defenses), and 1984 (0 defenses).

Sadly, Nebraska did not hold the belt at the end of the 1994 and 1995 seasons. The belt belonged to Wyoming and Arizona, respectively. Lots of turnover during that time for the Belt.

The Belt has resided in the Big 12 every since West Virginia brought it with them to the conference in 2012.

The linked page lists starting after Nebraska's 1971 national title and has no prior data, but the "Belt Description" page says they tracked it back to both the 1936 Minnesota national title team and the original Princeton-Rugters game and everything eventually converges to the Orange Bowl on Jan. 1, 1972, where Nebraska claimed the Belt from Alabama. The unification date is on Oct. 31, 1942, where Alabama (champion of the Princeton-Rutgers lineage) claimed the Belt with a 21-10 win over Georgia (champion of the 1936 Minnesota lineage).

EDIT: In other words...

 

[planored]

I do know that 5 mich fans got their asses kicked by 2 guys after a stars game after trying to jump us about this split title! Know for sure 2 of them boys don't remember that night real well after being in fetal position for about 10 min. GBR

 

[ellobo]

I do know that 5 mich fans got their asses kicked by 2 guys after a stars game after trying to jump us about this split title! Know for sure 2 of them boys don't remember that night real well after being in fetal position for about 10 min. GBR

So your story is you got into an actual fight over this...kicked the crap out of them (let me guess, they were in ninja gear when they attacked you) and you stuck around for 10 minutes to watch them on the ground...cool story bro

 

[michnittlion]

Looks to me like at the end of the 1997 season, Nebraska was the holder of the College Football Belt...
http://collegefootballbelt.com/Seasons.htm

Sorry, I just stumbled across that website and had to share it somewhere. Interesting concept. Oct 10, 1998, is the last day DONU held the Belt when they lost to at Texas A&M after 15 defenses.

Michigan held it in 2003 before losing in the Rose Bowl to USC after successfully defending it 3 times, and in 1972 (8 defenses), 1981 (twice: 0 and 2 defenses, respectively), 1983 (0 defenses), and 1984 (0 defenses).

Sadly, Nebraska did not hold the belt at the end of the 1994 and 1995 seasons. The belt belonged to Wyoming and Arizona, respectively. Lots of turnover during that time for the Belt.

The Belt has resided in the Big 12 every since West Virginia brought it with them to the conference in 2012.

The linked page lists starting after Nebraska's 1971 national title and has no prior data, but the "Belt Description" page says they tracked it back to both the 1936 Minnesota national title team and the original Princeton-Rugters game and everything eventually converges to the Orange Bowl on Jan. 1, 1972, where Nebraska claimed the Belt from Alabama. The unification date is on Oct. 31, 1942, where Alabama (champion of the Princeton-Rutgers lineage) claimed the Belt with a 21-10 win over Georgia (champion of the 1936 Minnesota lineage).

EDIT: In other words...

View embedded media

The "college football Belt" is an interesting concept. But I don't take it too seriously, as it's too highly dependent in the short-term on who starts with it.

If you take 1994's pre-season Top 10 --- and simulate each of those Top 10 teams having the Belt to begin --- we get:

1. Nebraska ends with it 6 times,
2. PSU ends with it 2 times,
3. FSU ends with it 1 time and
4. the bizarre one (thanks to Arizona losing to a WAC school), Wyoming 1 time.

If you take 1997's pre-season Top 10 --- and simulate each of those Top 10 teams having the Belt to begin --- we get:

1. Nebraska ends with it 3 times
2. U-M ends with it 3 times,
3. Florida ends with it 2 times,
4. another strange one, Louisiana Tech ends with it 2 times. (these chains start with Tennessee and Florida --- Tennessee lost to Florida in mid-September, whose first loss was in mid-October to LSU, who loses to Ole Miss, who loses to Alabama, who loses to Louisiana Tech, who wins out. LT then drops it to Nebraska in their 1998 opener).

FWIW, TCU went 1-10 in 1997. But the lowly Horned Frogs would have held the belt at the end of 1997 if pre-season #13 Miami FLA or Arizona State (darn near won the MNC in 1996) started the year with the Belt!

 

[planored]

So your story is you got into an actual fight over this...kicked the crap out of them (let me guess, they were in ninja gear when they attacked you) and you stuck around for 10 minutes to watch them on the ground...cool story bro

Dude they f'n jumped us in the parking lot after they found out I was a Husker fan. Didn't do a damn thing to them. The cops came out and so we had to stay as they were carted off in police cars. So take your shit somewhere else. Oh yeah they apologized 3 days later to us at another Stars game, story gets better if you need to know it. Hope you get the point.

 

[ellobo]

Dude they f'n jumped us in the parking lot after they found out I was a Husker fan. Didn't do a damn thing to them. The cops came out and so we had to stay as they were carted off in police cars. So take your shit somewhere else. Oh yeah they apologized 3 days later to us at another Stars game, story gets better if you need to know it. Hope you get the point.

I believe bro...a gang of michigan fans attacked you and you fought them off...you're awesome dude...btw, when you say stars do you mean Dallas Stars? If so, was one of them Marty Turco...I can tell you first hand he's gets a bit wild when drunk

 

[planored]

I believe bro...a gang of michigan fans attacked you and you fought them off...you're awesome dude...btw, when you say stars do you mean Dallas Stars? If so, was one of them Marty Turco...I can tell you first hand he's gets a bit wild when drunk

I know Turco and yeah like most of the Stars we partied with they have a good time. But this was when we had a Stanley Cup goalie, I did like Turco though. Only fight I have been in, a bunch of 23-25 yr olds got their asses kicked by a couple 40 yr olds. Move on

 

[bigboxes]

I believe bro...a gang of michigan fans attacked you and you fought them off...you're awesome dude...btw, when you say stars do you mean Dallas Stars? If so, was one of them Marty Turco...I can tell you first hand he's gets a bit wild when drunk

Seriously. Do you want to be able to come over to our board and interact with us? Cuz I'm not sensing peaceful intentions here. You want to control the situation and while that may go over well on the Wolverine board it won't on here. You are a visitor and should remain respectful. I know Planored personally and can vouch for him. So, if you want to start smack with every board member over here I will gladly show you the exit door. Are you here for discussion or dominance? You won't get the latter on our board.

 

[ellobo]

Seriously. Do you want to be able to come over to our board and interact with us? Cuz I'm not sensing peaceful intentions here. You want to control the situation and while that may go over well on the Wolverine board it won't on here. You are a visitor and should remain respectful. I know Planored personally and can vouch for him. So, if you want to start smack with every board member over here I will gladly show you the exit door. Are you here for discussion or dominance? You won't get the latter on our board.

Honest question...are you a mod on this board?

 

[planored]

It's all good boxes he reminds me of the punk asses laying in the parking lot that night.

 

[bigboxes]

It's all good boxes he reminds me of the punk asses laying in the parking lot that night.

I want him to say something and see where this goes. You know I got your back.

 

[planored]

Sure mommy told him to turn out the lights and go downstairs to bed