The Five Most Undeserved National Championships of the Past 25 Years

Submitted by Sommy on

Yeah, you guys are gonna love this one:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/41764-college-football-the-five-most…

In a year in which Michigan's Charles Woodson won a controversial Heisman vote over Tennessee's Peyton Manning, the Wolverines were voted No. 1 by the AP Poll over an undefeated Nebraska juggernaut, which won the ESPN/USA Today national title.

In the usually tough Big Ten, Michigan ended up being the only conference member to finish in the top 10 of the final AP rankings. Arguably, their best three wins were against Ohio State, Penn State, and Wisconsin, teams that got beaten handily by SEC teams in their bowl games.

Why does it matter that they got beat by opponents from the SEC?  Because co-national champion Nebraska steamrolled SEC champion Tennessee in the Orange Bowl, 42-17. Meanwhile, Michigan was scraping by outmatched Washington State in the Rose, 21-16.

Had Michigan and Nebraska played a game for all the marbles, it is likely that the Cornhuskers would've been favored and, as most experts agreed at the time, the Huskers probably would've won the game handily.

What stands out to me is the SEC thing.  Why would an SEC slappy argue against the legitimacy of Michigan's '97 title?  Nebraska isn't exactly in SEC country.  Not to mention that tUoOS played Florida State, not an SEC team, in their bowl.  But that's beside the point.

Do the math:

The Big Ten as a whole was 7-0 against the Big XII that years, with Michigan was 2-0 against Big XII opponents that year; two opponents they shared with Nebraska.  In comparing the scores from the games with those common opponents, it would appear that Michigan was pretty easily the more solid team.

The author actually says in the comments, "I don't believe in comparing the scores from games with common opponents."

Yet, it somehow makes more sense to him to say that because the SEC had three, er, uh, two teams that beat Big Ten teams in their bowl games, and Nebraska clownstomped an SEC team in their bowl game, and Michigan happens to be from the Big Ten, it must follow that Nebraska would have clownstomped Michigan.

Oh, and the author actually says something to the effect of "The Northern Media is always biased towards the Big Ten" in the comments.

ChipBleedingMaize

August 2nd, 2008 at 2:29 PM ^

Haven't done any research on this, but I'd like to see where the players off those two teams are now. Michigan would have held their own and I'm sure Charles would of made a play in that game to swing uncle mo in Michigan's favor!

chitownblue (not verified)

August 2nd, 2008 at 3:36 PM ^

His entire article is nonsense. He chooses to put more credence in the fact that the SEC beat the Big 10 up in Bowl Games that year while Nebraska beat the SEC champ, but chooses to ignore the fact that the Big 10 was 7-0 vs. the Big 12 that year. His thinking is too muddled to make any cogent sense.

kgh10

August 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 AM ^

Who the heck wrote that crap? Controversial Heisman? Woodson won every voting region in the country except for the SEC region, surprise, surprise. If a junior defensive player can win a sizable amount of #1 votes (150+, 272 total) over the most glamorous position in sports, that's hardly controversial...that's amazing. It's only controversial if you have 'Bama bangs and speak with a twang. UM played just as hard of a schedule as Nebraska did if not harder and beat nearly every team it played handily, unlike Nebraska. Also, I hate to use conference strength as an argument, but the B10 as a conference was much better than the B12 in '97, no contest. Furthermore, how is the AP national championship, pre-BCS, the more undeserved title? The AP consensus vote was the premier determinant for a MNC, not whatever voting system gave Nebraska the title. If you want proof, ask the '94 and '95 AP national champion Cornhuskers. Nebraska was obviously a great team, but to say Michigan did not deserve its title in 1997, especially given those weak arguments, is absurd.

hat

August 3rd, 2008 at 2:57 AM ^

A fan of Tennessee must have written this. No one else would have even thought about the Heisman vote 11 years after the fact.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

August 3rd, 2008 at 3:38 PM ^

lolerskates....it was only controversial in Tennessee. Woodson won the Heisman on a national groundswell opinion that a defensive player had never won the Heisman and if it wasn't gonna be Woodson then it wasn't gonna be anybody, ever. It wasn't even an especially close vote....Woodson was first in every region but, naturally, the South.

Tim Waymen

August 3rd, 2008 at 5:11 PM ^

Biased, amateur writing at its finest. Anyone wanna make a bet that the writer is a Nebraska fan, Tennessee fan, or just all out SEC-homer?  Oh wait, I just noticed above that he's a Georgia fan. In any case, he clearly isn't very smart and he probably isn't older than 12.

Some people should simply never be allowed to touch a keyboard, censorship be damned.