The more losses by other teams in our division will give Michigan a better chance at winning the division! I wish there was a way both NE and WI could both lose! However, I would prefer to have NE lose this game! It will be an interesting match up between the WI OL and NE DL. I think WI will win since NE offense probably will not be able to score enough points.
Wisconsin vs Nebraska Game: The Michigan Perspective
for better or worse. It's a no brainer for Michigan fans to root for Wisconsin, OSU, and PSU to beat NU, just like you should root for any Leaders team to beat any Legends team if your goal is to get to the Rose Bowl or NC game. No more 4-way-or whatever Big Ten Co Champions, that's gone with the wind.
I previously posted on this board that this means Michigan will end up eventually adding a major rival (whoever is your main regular obstacle to winning the division) and/or lessen your rivalry with one of your big three, most likely Notre Dame since OSU in sacrosanct and MSU is both a divisional and instate rival.
I'm NOT being disrepectful to UM traditions, just stating the obvious having lived thru the Big XII and seeing first hand what happens when you go from a conference round robin to divisional play, and losing a high profile rivalry(NU-OU) in the process.
If its any consolation, the old B1G setup was a factor in the co-NC in 1997, not only UM being out of sight, out of mind with no conference championship game, but the B1G not being part of the BCS. That will never happen again when Michigan wins the B1G in the new setup.
This post will probably bring down a rain of negs (hi Cigarro Cubano) but its the truth as this lifelong CFB fan sees it.
OT: got tickets to the NU-Wisconsin game, just shows what a year of constant whining to a Wisconsin brother-in-law can accomplish. Nebraska fans are thrilled to join the B1G and it will be an honor to compete with the Champions of the West every year.
I pretty much agree. Michigan-Nebraska is going to develop into a major rivalry. 10-15 years from now, you'll have undergrads who've been following the series their entire fandom. They won't regard it much differently than the other rivalries. In a sense this is what happened with the ND series. Although it began over a century ago, it went through a monster hiatus (only two meetings from 1910-1977), so it was practically a new rivalry when it resumed in 1978. Within a few years it was considered a traditional September matchup. A lot of people are surprised to learn that we've only played ND around 35-40 times altogether.
First off, Nebraska won the FIRST EVER 'ESPN/USA TODAY COACHES POLL' and the BigTen not having a title game in 1997 was no factor whatsoever in the 'shared title' that really only people in Lincoln & Columbus recognize, because to that point the AP Winner was the accepted National Title ....all apologies to the Ramblin' Wreck at Georgia Tech who shared the title with Colorado having won the UPI poll that year.
Second, Colorado came damn close to beating NU in 97 and opened the season at UM, not crossing midfield until the 2nd Half. CU TE Tennyson McCarty who obviously started in both games told me in person he'd NEVER played against a defense like MICHIGAN's and that, in his opinion, Michigan would have beaten NU.
Fine, all 'he said/she said' but in the end thre are two reasons why NU won the ESPN/USA TODAY COACHES POLL ..... First, Fat Phil Fulmer was miffed Woodson won the Heisman over Manning and voted MICHIGAN 4th. Second, Dr Tom 'let me hide the gun' Osborne was known to be retiring and was given a nice going away gift by fellow coaches, based on his career body of work.
I love the fact that NU is in the B10 and can't get away with playing Iowa State, K-State, KU and the rest of the Little 12, only after a line-up of cupcakes in out of conference.
I think the Badgers will do just fine welcoming the Bugeaters to the conference, as we all know, they throw quite a party at night in Madison.
on this board. My point isn't who should be the 1997 NC, but that the new setup will help "prevent" such atrocities from recurring, even if it changes some of your traditional rivalries :)
Even B1G people like Joe Paterno acknowledged the lack of a conference title game hurt, as the conference champion disappeared from the national spotlight until the bowl game. It wasn't just extra TV money that drove the decision to go the divisional route.
I'm not old enough to remember anything about polls in 1997, but the better example on this board would probably be 2006. M/OSU would have faced off during conference championship week, again with a MNC berth on the line. Instead we got to watch from the sidelines and hope for a miracle that came tantalizingly close to coming true but didn't. With the new setup, things could have/ would have happened very differently.
And have had this discussion before, many times. I guess the better example for you is UM/OSU 2006 but there are a lot of examples to draw on. Hell, had M beaten Ohio* in 06 and USC held serve against lowly UCLA, the Fiesta Bowl would have been UM/USC instead of UF/Ohio*
I don't know how conference championships had anything to do with 1997. Michigan was ranked number one in the AP poll from the Monday after PSU, and had the top spot in the Coaches Poll after OSU. How would a conference championship have helped Michigan in 1997? It came down to Michigan being ranked third on one ballot in the coaches poll after bowl season.
In 2006 I can certainly understand where a conference title game would help, because we needed a rematch and a #3 beating #1 would definitely mean a spot in the BCS title game, but I don't see how it could have helped in 1997, as we were already ranked number one in the AP and Coaches Polls going into the Rose Bowl.
And that's why the wandering premise in the OP is so off-base. 1997 was only the second B12 title game, sponsored by Dr Pepper, and the B10 not having one was completely irrelevant to the final polls.
Of how and why 'Conf Champ games' are irrelevant and in contrast to the OP.
... 62-36 COLORADO beats #1 Nebraska and hunky Heisman candidate Eric Crouch in the final game of the season.
CU goes on to beat Texas and Chris Simms (had Applewhite played, different story) and winds up playing Joey Harrington and the Ducks in the Fiesta Bowl.
Meanwhile, Nebraska .... A team that didn't win its Conference Division, much less the actual Conference, goes on to get smoked by Miami (FL) and Clinton Portis in the BCS Title game Rose Bowl.
Talk about an injustice -- Nebraska wasn't the Little 12 Champ, wasn't the Little 12 North Champ and yet played for the 'National Title' after getting whomped by CU a full 6+ weeks beforehand as huge favorites.
That would be like your 2006 example if UM losing to Ohio* is followed by Ohio beating whomever in a fictional B10 Title game, and having Michigan then play for the national title .....only in 06 at least UM was #2 in the nation and CU wasn't even supposed to be competitive vs NU that year.
USC lost to UCLA. And still got screwed.
We got the one, thought it would happen, and didn't get the other with Florida getting in over us. Had Arkansas held that 14-7 halftime lead, there would have been no question.
When you're ranked ahead of someone, you don't need a miracle to stay in front of them, or even for them to lose. You just don't need 6 hours of campaigning between CBS and certain coaches. So I don't see how we needed a miracle to stay in front of Florida. We did need one for USC to lose to a greatly inferior team. So Florida got a miracle (though a minor one).
Not in 1997. If Ryan Leaf hadn't gone psycho in he NFL, people wouldn't wrongly assert that Wash State was an inferior opponent. The ESPN/USA TODAY COACHES POLL was new that year and pre-BCS-You-Need-a-Title game mindset.
I work with an O-Lineman from all those NU teams and we've talked about this for 10yrs now. You're making assumptions and assertions that simply aren't true about 97 and what's going on now ...relative to then is irrelevant. The BCS and teams like Auburn and USC getting screwed have far more relevance than Phil Fulmer voting UM 4th, giving NU the Coaches Poll Title.
ps ... No over-signing in the B10 either, though that's a gentleman's agreement and not LAW. Don't make the B10 go all Texas and begin to call the program out!