Michigan football teams with 11+ wins

I don't care what anyone says, the University should claim the 1973 National Championship out of respect for that team and Bo Schembechler.

They got absolutely screwed by a bunch of rotten Big Ten athletic directors.

The National Championship Foundation recognizes them as national champions, so the university should claim it.

Hell, USC went back to 1939 to claim that title....in 2004!

It wasn't just ESPN though. Hoke and the players were saying it repeatedly as well after the game.  Strange.  They must not be counting the Yost teams for some reason.

Up until recently there were only 11 regular season games and a bowl game. 1 extra games helps.

OSU trounced USC 42-17 in the Rose Bowl.

The ADs were unsure whether Michigan would have beat the Toejams with Pat Haden, Lynn Swann and Anthony Davis without Dennis Franklin at QB. I understand that was the ADs main reasoning for voting for and sending OSU (again).  The Buckeyes had Cornelius Greene at QB that year, plus TB Griffin, etc.

Michigan had a sick defense that year too.

I could be wrong, but I believe at least once the announcer said "in the modern football era."  That would eliminate the 1901, 02, 03, and 05 teams, leaving on 5 times.  I don't know if it is that disrespectful to those teams.  It was clearly a different game and different era.  Mich only allow 20 total points in those first 4 years.  Obviously, no one will ever outscore their opponents by 550-0 again and scoring 644 points in 11 games is insane.  No disrespect, but there was exactly zero competition on those days.

I'm still so surprised that Team 132's defense allowed only about 1.7 points per game more than 2006's dominating defense. All hail Mattison.

Who the leaders are in 11+ win seasons since ww2? My wife laughed when hoke said it was the fifth time because it sounded like a small number - I shut her down by asking her who had more which of course she couldn't answer, but I couldn't either

The powers that be may not recognize the teams of the early 1900's, but that doesn't mean their accomplishments should be discounted.  I recognize 9 teams with 11wins

teams to play in bowl games unless they won the bigten title and go to the rosebowl.  Not it was odd to see how few teams won 11 games but given most of the 70's it was bigten title or go home, I get it.  Some of those 10 win teams would have had some bowl victories. 

10 win seasons were the bench mark of success for a long time, not to mention everyone always saying Michigan scheduled themselves out of the mnc game by having 2 top ooc games one always being nd and the other someone else...back in the day of nd being a dominant program. 

i'm not sure why they don't count what isn't considered "the modern era".

I never like the whole "modern era" thing. It's like hearing TSIO fans claiming that since 1950-something they have a better record against us, or that Michigan's stuff happened so long ago and doesn't matter. Uh don't people realize that by the year 2111 people will be saying the same things about the football we're playing now? Bottom line, the only thing that matters is overall record, and the current results

I agree that it's unfair to the earlier teams to break stuff down into the "modern era" and "the old fashioned era."

As a little kid, I saw 1942 "pre-modern era" Elroy Hirsch play NFL ball against the Lions in the 50s. There were a number of late 30s and early 40s college players still competing in the NFL at the time.

They did just fine in the "modern era." They were real deal football players. 

I think what happens is that people look at the leather helmets and the grainy black and white photos, consider the Wing formations, and think, "ancient history." But put Bennie Friedman into a time machine, let him work out with modern equipment, let him play, and he's still going to be a hell of a quarterback, because he had the tools.

While the game of course evolves, and while conditioning also improves over the years, the fact is that these guys were the best athletes of their day, but not genetically different from us! Give them the same tools, and they're still going to be fine athletes.

When now you play an extra MACrifice or a Delaware State a year. A lot of ten win teams on an 11 game schedule would have an 11 win season if you added that. Add that before '75 you weren't guaranteed a bowl and it's not that surprising.
<br>
<br>Just since Bo the '72, '73, '74, '76, '77, '78, '80, '85, '89, '91, '99 teams would all be 11 win teams with a 13 game schedule. And the earliest one's may have had an additional shot at it with a bowl game.

Thank you for this post. I was having a hard time understanding why people have been saying this was the fifth eleven win team in history. I knew for a fact that we have had more.

I agree it's apples to oranges overall, comparing now to yester-year (1900's-1944, or whatever cutoff some asshat wants to use).  But to ignore what happened is ludicrous.  Because Michigan was a school that was able to get it done and others weren't, Michigan is "punished"?  Garbage in my mind.  Sorry Penn State, sorry Ohio State, sorry Illinois, sorry USC, sorry Florida, sorry Oregon, sorry Nebraska, sorry Miami, and sorry Texas, but just because you weren't relevant back then should not mean it "doesn't count" for those who were; the Leaders and the Best.