How about a new rivalry trophy game - the '97 national champion trophy

Submitted by fredsaysbtdabks on

How about this for a rivaly trophy (well, two actually):

Michigan and Nebraska play for the other's '97 trophy each year.  Who ever wins gets to hold on to both the AP and the Coaches' trophy for the year.  I love the idea personally...

ChicagoB1GRed

June 12th, 2010 at 5:38 PM ^

No, Nebraska fans aren't embarrassed or ashamed of winning the NC in 1997, we were undefeated and ended the season blasting #14 Texas AM (at TX) 54-15 and then wasting #3 Tennessee and Payton Manning 42-17.

Those strong season-ending performances were never matched by Michigan, and barely slipping by a lightly regarded Washington State team sealed the deal.

Nebraska didn't mind sharing with an undefeated team of Michigan's caliber and pedigree, but any objective observer would say it was the fairest outcome in a flawed system.

I know you guys take it a lot harder than we do, since it was your 1st title since the leather helmet era.

Good thing is, now that we're in the same conference, this incident and the Alamo Bowl should instantly juice up our games. And you still lead the all-time series 3-2-1.

Go Big Red!

 

 

M-Wolverine

June 12th, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^

But since you bit the hook anyway....

Yes, undefeated.  Only because of a ref too stupid to notice you cheated to win one of your games.  That wasn't right at the end of the season, so that doesn't count? And you're really quoting a Texas A&M team that went 9-4 and ended up #20?  Because if you're really going by where they were ranked when you played them, I give you Penn State #2, and OSU #9 (and Colorado and ND etc.).  Both still ended higher than A&M.  And I don't know how much more Tennessee was regarded than Washington St. seeing as they ended up 2 places apart in the polls.  Playing a choking Manning team that backed into the title after losing to Florida again wasn't really more impressive.  You were just lucky you didn't draw Florida State.  Now THEY were scary.

I don't disagree it would have been a fair outcome...if that's how it had always been handled.  So, I'm guessing you'd be willing to give up half the title to Penn State 1994, since that's the fairest way to do it?  It's the violation of precedent that has people upset.  Somehow, Nebraska benefited both ways. Mostly from crying and begging.

We take it harder, because we were the better team, were #1, didn't cheat in any games to win, didn't put on the retirement tour to get coaches with grudges to vote us ridiculously far down in the polls. But we'll be glad with our 1 title, vs. selling out our value system and turning ourselves into Oklahoma North just because we were losing too many bowl games to Florida teams.  We never had to reinstate anyone for our bowls that had thrown his girlfriend down any staircases.  I hope the long gone glory years were worth the soul of a once proud and righteous program.

And don't even get us started on 3 wins, 1 loss, 1 tie, and 1 Sun Belt Conference Referee victory....

Sommy

June 12th, 2010 at 6:49 PM ^

Lightly-regarded WZU team?  Hold the phone.

I'm not a fan of revisionist history.  Yes, that team was led by Ryan Leaf, the biggest bust in NFL history.  However, that WZU had the most prolific offense in the country that year -- even more so than UT.  Leaf may have flopped in the pros, but he was an incredible college player, and that team was far from "lightly regarded."

ChicagoB1GRed

June 12th, 2010 at 8:27 PM ^

Look,

Nebraska fans have no problem with Michigan's NC,  a fine team thatdeserved it. But the Huskers were an equally fine team and finished the season undefeated with two very strong wins.

The reality is WSU wasn't nearly as highly regarded as Tennessee in that or any year. Nebraska annililated the #3 in the nation, Michigan slipped by in a hard fought game against a much lower rated and less prestigous opponent. The beating Tennessee took lowered them in the final polls, the tussle WSU gave the #1 team brought them up.

Its pretty common for teams to lobby at the end of the season but it never works, certainly nobody's ever "lobbied" successfully for a NC. Nebraska got the bump up because of how they performed at the end.

M-Wolverine

June 13th, 2010 at 1:44 AM ^

It's a circular argument. Did Tenn drop far because they lost big, or did they lose big because they were over-rated? FSU was the team that should have been #3, not U-T. That Nebraska squad didn't scare me. FSU did. (Thanks Florida...payback for us beating OSU and giving U-F a shot at the title). Now the Nebraska team that wasted Florida? That may have been the greatest college team I've ever seen.

allansrule

June 12th, 2010 at 1:56 AM ^

but I still think is a very cool idea just for fun.  We all know the real deal, and I have to believe they realize it too, even if they don't admit it.  It would be cool to unify the championship retroactively, even though only in gesture and even though we don't really need it to feel better about the '97 season.

NOLA Blue

June 12th, 2010 at 2:35 AM ^

On Dec 15 I suggested the Big 10 might expand to 14 teams... I suggested that it would be in its best interest to stay within the Midwest (for marketing homogeneity) and that such was a part of its Midwestern Manifest Destiny... and I finished with the intrigue of the "1997 Trophies" game.  And by the way... I was promptly negged for all the "crazy talk."  :^)

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/12th-big-10-team  Post #11

tn wolverine

June 12th, 2010 at 12:42 AM ^

Don't  forget the other National Championship trophies. I don't rem.  which player said it but when 1 of Michigan's  players was asked about the Nat'l Championship he said there are 4 trophies ( AP, Coaches Poll, Sporting News and ? I don't recall the other) 3 of them are in Ann Arbor and we didn't have to cry and beg for ours. That said it all !!!!!!!

mgovictors23

June 12th, 2010 at 9:29 AM ^

I can see this definitely becoming a intense, rivalry type game. Will be fun to watch these games in the future and welcome to all the Husker fans on the board now.

jmblue

June 12th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^

Although it'd be amusing, I'm opposed to the proliferation of trophies.  The only cool ones are the ones that weren't originally intended to be trophies - like the Little Brown Jug.