I feel like there are already a few of those. Perhaps Paul Bunyan's 1997 vote.
landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
I feel like there are already a few of those. Perhaps Paul Bunyan's 1997 vote.
No matter who wins Scott Frost gets punched.
I like those options but lets be fair, no one wants Tim Brewster's soul if he even has one.
The "Remember the Alamo" Trophy.
Good game aside it's just so frustrating to think of.
LATERAL THE FUCKING BALL ECKER!!!!
Whoops, sorry about that...
That was such a crappy season, the other day I caught a classic game on BTN, UM-Wisky, when I realized it was 2005 I turned it off.
Some things still suck 5+ years later.
There's no need. The best trophies just start organically, like the Little Brown Jug. We left our water jug at Minneapolis by accident and they kept it as the spoils of, uh, a tie. Compare that with the Paul Bunyan Trophy, where the governor said in the '50s: "Hey guys, play for this now." Not the same.
Tell that to Paul. He's been stuck in E.L. the past few years and needs some rescuin' this fall.
MGoGold from past years.
Which brings me to my other point. I wouldn't wish the pain that poor little wooden man suffers in EL on any trophy.
I think it should be for the cleat of the Missouri player (Wiggins?) that kicked that ball back up in the air. That's the only thing that kept Nebraska relatively close to us.
That ball was kicked (illegally) by a Nebraska player.
The second I read the thread title, I thought of this:
"Each other's 1997 Nat'l championship trophy (the winner gets to keep the loser's trophy for the year)"
You could have ended your own thread right there. Imagine if they seriously did that? How awesome, and how instantly-heated, would that rivalry become?
a perfect idea
Whoever wins the game on any given year gets to promote themselves as the unanimous champion of the 1997 season... at least until the following year, where the claim to bragging rights go up for the taking again.
I just don't see Lloyd ever willing to let the real trophy leave Shembechler.
The REAL trophy...
Why the fcuk would Michigan want to even provide any legitimacy to Tom Osoborne and Nebraska's pathetic "victory lap" NC trophy from 1997.
We know who won the National Championship in 1997. Lloyd Carr won it on the field and not because of the sympathetic votes of fellow coaches.
This should not be:
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during the meeting that led to the creation of the Land Grant Trophy.
"So, what are we going to make this out of?"
"Larry in supplies can get us some solid oak cheap."
"All right then. Now what do we put on it?"
"What we need is score plaques. Lots of 'em."
"How about a symbol of each campus?"
"Just one symbol? I really feel like we need two."
"Even better! And lets make sure one of the symbols is a little statue - like a trophy in a trophy!"
"Okay. But what goes on top? We need something that says 'This is what we laid it all out on the field for.' "
"I'm thinking . . . a plastic football player. I mean, that's pure tradition. That's what my Pee Wee trophies always had."
"Dynamite! Pure dynamite!"
It has to be one of the best trophies in all of college football, if only for the fact that it was made to create tradition, it's hideous, and it exemplifies MSU perfectly.
It's a shame that so many of those plaques will go unused for so long now that MSU and PSU will face each other infrequently. More importantly, will they even continue playing for this trophy, or will it end up in a dusty closet somewhere? Maybe it already is?
As such, this priceless work of art should be taken over by the new forced UM-Nebraska rivalry. Just replace the lion with a wolverine and the Spartan with... whatever the hell that creepy Nebraska mascot is supposed to be, and we're good to go.
the guy responsible for bringing this to the game must absolutely hate it. For one, it must weigh a ton, and two, the plastic on top makes it fragile to boot. I like the ideas the OP had though about the masking of the championship for a year. Forced trophies turn out like the Land Grant, and the masking of the MNC every year would be unique and would actually mean something.
Their equipment guy would have a heart attack...
I don't think of UM-Nebraska as a forced rivalry. Making PSU play MSU every year the last week of the season, on the incredibly lame grounds that they were the first two land grant schools in the country - that's forced. I think the Nebraska game will very quickly become important to us in the division race.
As for the Land Grant Trophy, now that the two schools are only going to play 40% of the time, it might be a good time for it to quietly be retired (or better yet, "lost").
Honest to God, in all the years that I have heard about "The Land-Grant Trophy," I have never seen it.
In my humble opinion (and really, what would I know about any Land-Grant Trophy) the gold figurine on the top needs a bowling ball in his right hand.
The trophy should be called the Tom Osborne Retirement Gift, although that would piss off the Nebraskans.
Oh wait, Nebraska isn't worthy enough to hold it.
The 2005 alamo bowl. Im still upset over that
A car that runs on corn
But the Car should be more corny.
Or the trophy could just be made out of corn.
That looks like Gary Moeller driving that corn-buggy.
Or anything related to 1997.
The Coaches' Poll vote in '97 was one of the most embarrassing moments of the Bowl Alliance Era, and the prima facie evidence offered to Big Ten fans in justifying going to the BCS system the following year (the decision had already been made, but it was a big part of the marketing).
We should not let 1997 in any way be part of the Nebraska-Michigan rivalry. Michigan won the National Championship by nature of having the stronger football season, whereas Nebraska's claim is based entirely on Osborne's colleagues in the coaching ranks giving him a retirement gift, each thinking enough others would vote Michigan that their vote wouldn't affect the outcome.
Imagine, then, if we were to lose to Nebraska -- we would be covering or sending away the record of that '97 team's accomplishments. What happens when Woodson comes to visit, and there's no trophy because Nebraska beat Michigan in some sloppy, turnover-infested game during a down year?
Fuck this idea.
I'd be fine creating a new trophy for us, or just playing the game and seeing if something develops. But as Michigan, we should never ever ever assent to anything that further legitimizes the scandal of the '97 Coaches' Poll, or diminishes the accomplishments of the undisputed best college football team in the land that year.
"... based entirely on Osborne's colleagues in the coaching ranks giving him a retirement gift..."
Is it not also true that Phil Fulmer was angry that *his* boy didn't get the Heisman?
... proves it is the perfect trophy. Nothing will ever engender this type of anger and near-hatred. It is not forced at all. It is real. We were f%cked nationally and this is a perfect way to remind everyone annually. It also will make the players on both sides take the game very seriously. No one is going to want to have to explain to Charles Woodson what happened to his trophy.
If the two teams don't want to send trophies back and forth, at least the loser should be required to remove their trophy from the display case and leave an empty spot or substitute a plaque explaining the missing trophy. The players will walk by the empty case all year long and broadcasters and media types will hype the hell out of the missing trophy thing leading up to the game.
Bo's win over Woody in '69 is what really took the UM-OSU rivalry to its current level largely because it may have been Woody's best team ever and the loss almost certainly cost them the national championship. You can't manufacture this stuff if you try. It is what rivalries are made of baby!
Let's just play the game. No need to add artificial sweeteners. Michigan-Nebraska alone should be motivation enough. .
No. A perfect trophy is something that is deserved equally by either team but only one can have. The jug didn't mean anything to Michigan until Minnesota said "come win it back." It sucks just as much for us when they have it as it sucks for them when we have it.
With the '97 title, not so much. When Michigan has the combined '97 title in our case, Nebraskans won't exactly like it, but they can find consolation in the fact that it shouldn't have been theirs anyway, and there's other more memorable and deserved trophies next to it that they care more about. They were frankly shocked to get the Coaches' vote when it came, and most (because they are seriously and honestly one of the cool fanbases out there) will admit they probably didn't deserve it.
For us, however, it would complete the slap in the face.
It would be like a rapist and a rape victim playing for the rights to say whether or not it was consensual. Not only would the crime be re-lived every year, but on some years, the perpetrator of the crime would get to celebrate getting away with it.
The '97 split championship was a debacle, an embarrassment for college football and most especially the Coaches' poll, whose integrity was shattered by it. That this might generate hate and strong feelings on either side is unquestionable, but not all things that generate hate are good for football.
Michigan and Michigan State wouldn't play for a Clock, would we?
What rivalries are made of is meeting on the field and playing harder and better and with more will because beating THOSE GUYS is more important than beating other guys. It's not just about hating each other. Hate itself is an effect, not a causus belli, of a rivalry. Rivalries are made in the differences and similarities between the USes and THEMs, the competition that makes us both better, the greater stakes of our meetings. The reason for Michigan and Nebraska to care more about that game than another is because we have two hugely successful programs, one with the most intellectual fanbase among major programs, and the other with the most loyal fanbase among major programs.
There's more than enough to make the Nebraska-Michigan game a good rivalry without resorting to digging up old embarrassments. We don't need to bring Maurice Clarret's handcuffs to The Game to raise the stakes. I don't need to keep my brother's hairspray bottle that I peed in on the bench to keep the blood boiling when my brother and I are put on different softball teams. Some shit in the past is best left to the past. Some things that pissed people off are not worth re-hashing regulalry just to make people more upset. Our deserved championship trophy should stay in our glass of a reminder of the victorious '97 team; theirs should stay in theirs as a quiet but ever-present reminder of what happens when those given the honor of participating in a major poll don't take their duty seriously.
On the other hand, no matter how long it took to get it, we deserve that god damned trophy! Beat them every year and we get what we always deserved.
I agree with those that say this would not be a rivalry fabricated out of nothing. Two of the more memorable bitter moments in M history in the past two decades have related directly to Nebraska.
Every time we win, we get their '97 Championship trophy. And every time they win, we get their '97 Championship trophy.
See the post above yours.
I think it would be cool if they created trophy that resembles the 1997 National Championship trophies that both schools have. But again, the debate begins, do we really need another trophy game???
Maybe we can have the "Maize... no it's Corn... no it's Maize" trophy?
It would have a statue of a Native American fighting a "settler" in the Midwest.
It might say "We may disagree about what you call it, but neither of us is yellow."
1997 NC Trophy:
That's a great idea; of course we'd keep the original at all times, and if Nebraska were to ever beat us, they could take home a nice Replica Trophy.
It would be made of Spam®.
1000 shares of Berkshire Hathway.
Interesting ideas from the original poster and others, but does every rivalry have to have a trophy associated with it? I agree with the poster above who said that we don't want to make this into something like the Land Grant Trophy. Why force it? A rivalry can develop and grow without it being fabricated by introducing some made-up trophy.
The thing that's cool about The Jug is that it wasn't born by someone saying, "hey, we need a trophy to compete for." It came about because we left our jug behind after a game and they said, "come and play us for it," and the trophy rivalry was born. Why not just start up our series with Nebraska and see what develops?
a win in the big ten
Crowing rights as the TRUE "Champions of the West."
Football (Win the shirt off their backs!):
Basketball (where Jerry West becomes a hip-hop thug):
make a speciial trophy from the shoe that kicked the ball in '97
They will play for bragging rights and the chance to win the division. I think that is more then enough. However, if the powers that be decide on a trophy or something to play for then I am all for it.
as in, at least we re not in....
The losers get dunked in a large vat of creamed corn. The winning team does the dunking (something akin to that carnival game where you hit the target to put someone in the water).
Yeah - creamed corn. Delicious.
.......must.....not.......take......the bait........clench teeth......'97........'05...........
We'll regularly be at each other for the division, which means the Conference Title Game, which means a BCS or NC game.
I'm thinking that'll top everything else besides OSU most seasons.