Michigan vs Scott Frost

[ellobo]

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

You remind me of the of the guys that planored pretends jumped him in a parking lot

 

[planored]

You funny, I don't bs don't need to. Do I need to take the trash out again. Pretty much bet those guys wish it was a dream

 

[ellobo]

You funny, I don't bs don't need to. Do I need to take the trash out again. Pretty much bet those guys wish it was a dream

You're awesome...I get it

 

[GBRhuskers]

 

[planored]

Not as awesome as you being on another board being a monster. You have made me laugh tonight though so appreciate it. Come to Lincoln I will buy you a beer

 

[redwine65]

There was a great write up at the time that clearly showed NU was better than michigan in 97, but I can't find it right now. but this one is pretty good.

http://www.tiptop25.com/fixing1997.html

if I remember right a texas radio station did a broadcast of a made up 97 game between the two

 

[Hoosker Du]

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.

33 players played professional football off of the '97 Nebraska team. 27 in the NFL and 6 in the Canadian league or overseas.

 

[huskerfan1414]

I don't know how any objective person can say NU wasn't better and didn't deserve total NC that season. We killed the #3 team with the best QB in the nation, Mich barely beat the #12 team. NU had a dominant offense and defense while Mich only had the defense. We also had a much, much higher average margin of victory over opponents.
NU would have steamrolled Michigan, and I have nothing against Michigan-they had a good team.

 

[saluno22]

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!

I was mostly just posting it to create a diversion in a thread that had gotten way too heated, but I do appreciate you going through the pre-season rankings and applying the "Belt" concept to the 1994 and 1997 seasons. Very interesting to see.

 

[Bugeater]

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

Nobody asked you to come around in the first place. Pound sand, idiot.

 

[jlb321]

if you really want to piss off Michigan fan start a discussion about the greatest coaches of all time and then kindly remind them that Glenn Schembechler never won a national title and perhaps there is another discussion somewhere else debating the merits of those coaches who time and time again came up lacking

 

[michnittlion]

I was mostly just posting it to create a diversion in a thread that had gotten way too heated, but I do appreciate you going through the pre-season rankings and applying the "Belt" concept to the 1994 and 1997 seasons. Very interesting to see.

I did it mostly for my own fun (I have an Excel file with all the historical college football scores, so it was little work and easy to automate). The TCU result was particularly amusing, I thought!

The results probably do mean something in the aggregate. FWIW, of all the teams that played college football in 1997 --- Nebraska ends with the Belt with 36 teams as the starting point. Michigan is next at 19, Florida 12, Louisiana Tech 12, Georgia 9, Arizona 7, K-State 6, Colorado State 5, TCU 5, Ball State 2 and UCLA 1.

 

[LRob]

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!

Thanks bigboxes. MSU had the misfortune of playing you guys in 95 and 96...both 40 point beat downs so I definitely respect the Big Red and know how dominant you were in the 90s. I agree Nebraska was more dominant, just saying UM was 12-0 for a reason.

Being the anti-UM guy that I am...here's a little nugget to use in future debates. In 97 UM played 5 teams that made it to bowls (OSU, PSU, MSU, Iowa and Wisky) while Neb played 4 teams (Wash, KSU, Mizzou and A&M). The 5 teams UM beat were 0-5 in bowls with an avg margin of defeat of 19pts...albeit each team played higher/much higher ranked opponents. The 4 teams Nebraska beat were 2-2 in their bowl games.

BTW...I always rooted for Nebraska in big games whether it was Oklahoma BITD or Miami in the 80s. Johnny Rodgers won me over with his big game vs. OK in the early 70s.....Man, Woman and Child...did that put em in the aisles

Oh yeah...Your mom has very good taste! And I love that Happy Days episode!

 

[bigboxes]

Thanks bigboxes. MSU had the misfortune of playing you guys in 95 and 96...both 40 point beat downs so I definitely respect the Big Red and know how dominant you were in the 90s. I agree Nebraska was more dominant, just saying UM was 12-0 for a reason.

Being the anti-UM guy that I am...here's a little nugget to use in future debates. In 97 UM played 5 teams that made it to bowls (OSU, PSU, MSU, Iowa and Wisky) while Neb played 4 teams (Wash, KSU, Mizzou and A&M). The 5 teams UM beat were 0-5 in bowls with an avg margin of defeat of 19pts...albeit each team played higher/much higher ranked opponents. The 4 teams Nebraska beat were 2-2 in their bowl games.

BTW...I always rooted for Nebraska in big games whether it was Oklahoma BITD or Miami in the 80s. Johnny Rodgers won me over with his big game vs. OK in the early 70s.....Man, Woman and Child...did that put em in the aisles

Oh yeah...Your mom has very good taste! And I love that Happy Days episode!

In the late 70's/early 80's we lived in NE Indiana bordering Michigan and Ohio. My mother worked in Coldwater. I've been to both E. Lansing and Ann Arbor. I used to listen to the Michigan games on the radio. I wish we had lived in Michigan instead of Indiana. It's like a different world. But my love was still with Nebraska. Wish I had never moved, but things happen for a reason. I love meeting people and moving around helped me see the different cultures and people. It's what makes us who we are.