1996-The year that gives me hope

Submitted by mGrowOld on
In 1996 Michigan was 7-3, unranked and had lost two straight games heading into OSU. The Buckeyes were 11-0 and ranked #1 in the country. Our embatled head coach was finishing his second straight year of underachievement and the fan base was unhappy. The team was unbalanced, strong defense but weak and ineffective offense. And few people gave Michigan any chance of being competitive...much less winning. And yet when the game was over the Wolverines emerged victorious 13-9. The "impossible" happened then and i believe it will happen again this Saturday. Go Blue!
MGoBoard
Football

Umich4Life

November 22nd, 2010 at 10:15 PM ^

Stranger stuff has happened.  We haven't seen our team play a "complete" game yet, let's hope it happens on Sat.  Those seniors really deserve the win, let's hope they get it!  GO BLUE!

Joined: 07/15/2010

MGoPoints: 552

louieelbel1898

November 22nd, 2010 at 10:37 PM ^

I clearly remember watching the 96' game...would have been 14 at the time.  It was a huge victory after such a tough season losing at N'western, home vs PSU, and at Purdue...Damn though we had one hell of a kicker, Mr. Hamilton back then, and a very solid D, but I like your parallel between 1996 and 2010.  We have the imbalance just on the other side of the ball...I would love another 13-9 victory!!!!!

Joined: 11/15/2010

MGoPoints: 102

Happy Jack

November 23rd, 2010 at 2:21 AM ^

when we finally win this game, be it this week or another, it will be the sweetest victory i've ever experienced, im sure of that.  i've never experienced a streak like this in my life, but when it ends, im going ape shit all over everybody.  4-0 while at school would be great but it is possible to take it for granted a bit.  i hope to god this week is it, because it would go down in michigan lore up with the 69 game.  

Joined: 10/31/2010

MGoPoints: 314

jmblue

November 23rd, 2010 at 2:33 AM ^

He wasn't under any serious threat of losing his job (it was only his second year), but he was not popular with the fanbase.  Many fans wanted him fired after the '94 season (when he was the DC), and were disappointed to see him get the interim job.  Even after beating OSU in his first two years, people were still upset with him over losing four games in each of the first two years.  There were lots of articles in the '97 preseason magazines talking about how we were losing our way (one even said "The M now stands for Mediocrity").  The national title really changed things for him.  After that he was pretty much bulletproof.

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102802

Bando Calrissian

November 23rd, 2010 at 3:04 AM ^

And the preseason outlook for '97 was really muddied by the fact that the year started against a tough Colorado team, the schedule didn't have any bye weeks, Notre Dame was expected to be good, Iowa, Ohio State, Penn State were all strong contenders, everything was completely wide open.  It was pretty reasonable to assume, looking at that one going into it, that there were pretty serious question marks.  Which just makes it all the more amazing when you look at what happened.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 68120

M-Wolverine

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:28 AM ^

http://books.google.com/books?id=eNThHqwUK7kC&pg=PA609&lpg=PA609&dq=Mic…

In the season preview magazine, The Sporting News ran a "What's wrong with Michigan?" story. The author, Michigan alum and free-lance writer Michael Bradley, called the Wolverines "a withering national power" and a school that looked "like a corporation that has just had a lucrative patient expire and is unprepared to handle the hungry competition banging on the market-place door." The answer to TSN's question was that nothing was wrong with Michigan, though the disparaged Wolverines were coming off four straight years in which they lost four games each season. Led by junior Charles Woodson's brilliant play in the defensive backfield and his touchdowns as a pun returner and an occasional wide receiver, Michigan (12-0) swept the Big 10 behind quarterback Brian Griese's sharp play and a truly superb defense. Michigan rallied to upend Cinderella Washington State (10-2) 21-16 in the Rose Bowl to earn the AP half of the national title. It was Michigan's first national championship since 1948. Perhaps, Mr. Bradley wished he has written his story earlier.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 42190

Muttley

November 22nd, 2010 at 11:05 PM ^

and as it was, beat both end-of-year Top 5 tOSU & Colorado on the road. The 97 defense didn't just appear out of thin air, the 96 defense was pretty darn good too. Did you notice the score was 13-9 ? Losses that year: 17-16 to NW: The only game the defense let us down, surrendering 17 4th qtr points 9-3 to PU: 5 turnovers, including both the Dreisbach fumble at the Mich ~30 that led to the Boilermaker go-ahead TD & the William "Fridge" Carr fumble at the goalline. 29-17 PSU: A blocked punt for a TD and 5 TOs kept this from being anybody's game Plus we followed up with another headscratcher in the bowl 17-14 to Alabama. Despite outgaining 'Bama 360 yds to 180, Griese through the game deciding WTF jump ball pick six on 3rd and goal as we were about to go up 9-3. Instead, it became 10-6 'Bama. I'll be expecting a win this Saturday, but I don't think the 1996 game is the template.

Joined: 07/07/2009

MGoPoints: -73245

mGrowOld

November 22nd, 2010 at 11:07 PM ^

I disagree. The big difference IMO was in 96 we had a strong D and meh O. And i believe our O next year wont "appear out of thin air" either. We are watching the genesis of what will be an epic 2011 scoring machine just like the 97 D was amazing on that side of the ball Either way i think we win Saturday. Just like we did in 96.

Joined: 10/04/2010

MGoPoints: 212941

Muttley

November 22nd, 2010 at 11:18 PM ^

But I still stick to my point that the 96 game wasn't that much of an upset.

Also, I think it's more likely for a strong D meh O to pull an upset than the other way around.

But as you say, we win on Saturday.  Just Because. And also because I think Wiscy was a worse matchup for us.  tOSU's running game, while good, isn't as good as the Badger road-grinders.

Joined: 07/07/2009

MGoPoints: -73245

Bando Calrissian

November 22nd, 2010 at 11:28 PM ^

The offense wasn't terrible by any stretch, just had a relatively weak quarterback (as much as I liked Scott Dreisbach).  And let's also remember the OSU game was a crapshoot with Dreisbach unable to start and Griese, who had been pretty meh in '95 injury relief, stepping in for his first-ever start.

 

That season was such a roller-coaster, between a tough Northwestern loss, Will Carr fumbling away a win at Purdue (worst experiment ever), and getting relatively throttled at home to Penn State.  I'll never forget how hard it rained during the BC game.  Standing on the bench watching about 3 inches of water flow like Niagara Falls underneath us...

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 68120

jmblue

November 23rd, 2010 at 2:26 AM ^

QB wasn't the only issue.  The skill positions in general were weaker than usual.  There was a major dropoff in rushing production from Biakabutuka to Chris Howard/Clarence Williams, and at WR we replaced Toomer and Hayes with a young Tai Streets and not much else (hence Woodson's dabbling at WR).  The one thing we had was a good OL.  It took over in the second half of the OSU game. 

Griese did not start the OSU game.  Dreisbach played in the first half, and then either got hurt or was simply benched (we trailed 9-0 at the half), and then Griese played the second half.  In any event, that game was not a crapshoot - we were a huge, huge underdog coming in. 

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102802

bronxblue

November 22nd, 2010 at 11:07 PM ^

Anything can happen.  The defense obviously will have a tough go of it, but we also don't know how the OSU faithful would handle UM taking a lead into the 4th quarter and if Pryor would be able to respond.  Should be a great game.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171627

ATLWolverine

November 22nd, 2010 at 11:12 PM ^

there's a distinction between having an awesome/putrid defense/offense as opposed to offense/defense. Forcing the other guy to execute perfectly is usually far easier than being forced to execute perfectly.

That being said, I agree growold,  let's add an offensive bookend to that improbable '96 defensive win. GO BLUE!

Joined: 02/16/2009

MGoPoints: 1658

WolverineHistorian

November 23rd, 2010 at 12:01 AM ^

That 1996 team underachieved and had a bipolar like personality.  Beat a top 5 Colorado team on the road but could only muster 3 points against a 9 loss Purdue team in a 9-3 loss.  They blow a 16 point lead in the 4th quarter against Northwestern but beat #2 Ohio State in Columbus.  It was crazy.

That was a great game.  Even though it was 9-0 at halftime, I still had a good feeling that we would come back and win.  That was back in the days when I had hope.  I've forgotten what that feels like. 

That 1996 team also got inspired while watching former OSU coach Earl Bruce speak at a pep rally that was televised.  It was never printed what he said but he apparently ticked off our players and they played inspired football the next day because of it. 

Joined: 08/10/2009

MGoPoints: 55466

Urban Warfare

November 23rd, 2010 at 12:35 AM ^

OSU was #1 going into The Game in 1996.  Despite losing to Michigan, they still went to the Rose Bowl, won and finished second in both polls. 

If you want to pick a game that really hurt OSU, go with '93.  Michigan was 6-4 coming into the Game.  OSU was 9-0-1.  OSU probably would have gone to the Rose Bowl if they'd won, but ended up going to the Holiday Bowl after Michigan won 28-0.

Joined: 09/28/2010

MGoPoints: 1691

M-Wolverine

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:39 AM ^

But they later lost to FSU....but then got to play FSU again to win the National Championship.  In 1997, I was at the bar and a reporter from one of the local Detroit News stations was there getting reaction from the M win, and we were watching Florida upset FSU to knock them from the unbeatens, and he pointed out that he went to Florida, and we were nice enough to beat OSU so Florida could win the Title the year before (an undefeated OSU team would have obviously been ranked ahead of a one loss Florida team), so they were returning the favor by beating FSU.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 42190

WolverineHistorian

November 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 PM ^

I've had several Buckeye fans admit to me that you guys were not as good as your 9-0-1 record indicated in 93 before the Michigan game and you were a bit exposed.  Likewise, we were not as bad as our 6-4 record.  Those mid-90's Michigan teams seemed to have excellent records against top 10 teams but put up 4 straight 4 loss seasons with very fluke like plays - the hail mary against Colorado, the fluke fumble return against Illinois after it seemed the game was one, etc.  It was a strange time.  Lloyd Carr was actaully feeling the heat his first two seasons and it is generally believed that those upset wins over OSU in 95 and 96 saved his job. 

Back to the 93 game, it also didn't hurt that Buckeye players claimed that "Michigan is dead," before the game within ear shot of our players.  That was another great thing about the 90's.  Buckeye players would always open their big mouths before the game and never be able to back it up on the field.  OSU was the classic evil villain that always ended up vanguished in the end.  

I want that back like you wouldn't believe. 

Joined: 08/10/2009

MGoPoints: 55466

M-Wolverine

November 23rd, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^

We were still favored by the spread in '93. Everyone thought it was crazy, but it turned out to be right.  That's what happens when you've gone 4-0-1 in your previous 5 games against a team.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 42190

vegasjeff

November 23rd, 2010 at 7:17 AM ^

It's amazing that any coach who recruited as well as Cooper did, and who had an overall record as good as he did at OSU did so poorly against Michigan. He didn't have a strong bowl record either. I always thought he was a horrible game tactician who lost most of the tough, important games but beat almost all of the bad teams with ease.

His era was great for Michigan. It's too bad his successor seems to be a pretty darn good game tactician. Maybe he doesn't always get all he can from his players, but Tressel is a pretty savvy tactician and doesn't make many horrible decisions. He's a God to Ohio high school coaches and has perfected his earnest recruiting persona.

Although he's been tough for Michigan to beat, if the Wolverines can return to their normal place at the top in college football we may get a few years (maybe even a decade) of classic Bo-Woody-type battles with the Buckeyes. Like FSU-Miami in the '80s and FSU-Florida in the '90s. THAT would be great for The Game and the rivalry.

Joined: 06/13/2010

MGoPoints: 569

Don

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:27 AM ^

My hope for this game is solely rooted in the fact that college football history is filled with ridiculously improbable upsets. They happen virtually every year, sometimes on the road, and they always involve measurables that appear to be just as daunting to the underdog's chances as ours do this year.

I'm also not saying that the 1996 wasn't a big upset; I'm just saying that the odds are even more stacked against us this year. But there is always a chance...

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 148337

Hardware Sushi

November 23rd, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^

It's really amazing that during that era, 31-23 is "basically outscoring them." I don't disagree, but 31-23 would be an average, possibly even low scoring Michigan game this year.

I agree, 31 against this Buckeye D would be a great start, though. And if we hold them to 23, I feel confident we can at least get 24...

Joined: 03/08/2010

MGoPoints: 6543