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...
I like it. I could see this being a thing.
Only if Señor Woodson is able to have another year of eligibility
I see it didn't take long for the Cornhusker fans to find, in the least, the mgoblog board.
I've been stalking this board for about a year, Football got soo much more interesting for me livin' in Nebraska and bein a UM fan.
'97 trophy game, it's got a ring to it.
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!
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....
Have a hunch you're one of those people that will pay top dollar plus firstborn whatever it takes for tickets to the first UM-UNL conference game.
I appreciate the welcome!
It won't be a problem. And welcome. Play nice in someone else's house and your stay will be long and fruitful. (That doesn't mean bending over, either. See: Irish, for the way it's done).
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."
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.
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.
The only thing Nebraska won im 1997 was the Tom Osborne memorial trophy.
why would Michigan want a fake national championship? Michigan is already the 1997 National Champion.
Every Nebraska fan knows they were the number 2 team in 1997.
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.
on the real National Champions. Thanks to the Wolverine Historian for online preservation.
Odd that that exact rivalry name was mentioned in another thread by another person.
I did not see this post, or he did not see mine.
In honor of 1997, lets resolve this by splitting the post.
Then 13 years from now we can still argue over who had the better post and the right to be voted the true OP.
I'll have to look for your post! I put a similar comment in a another thread but it got buried, so I started my own.
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." :^)
Phil Fulmer have a vote?
It could be a replica of Tom "Sympathy vote" Osborne's retirement rocking chair.
plus one to you.
In reading the updated comments, it's sad to see that Nebraska apologist is about as insightful on college football as SEC apologist.
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 !!!!!!!
maybe we could make the trophy a belt?
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.
Trying living married to a Nebraska fan......i can guarantee it will be intense in 2011 for me...
It should be for Tom Osborne's retirement watch...oh that is the trophy Nebraska got.
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.