What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Interesting national champion facts

I still wanted the 2001 Buffs to get a shot at them. Playing Oregon was a bit of a letdown after being teased with a shot at the NC game, I think that's why the Buffs lost the Fiesta like they did. I'd like to think that they way the Buffs were rolling after beating NU and UT, we would have played the Canes alot closer than the Huskers did.


Most rational people consider the '95 NU team best of all time. Miami almost lost two games that year. '95 Nebraska, with a harder schedule, crushed everybody.
 
Colorado was the best team in 1994, the Buffs just had one bad day in a hostile environment.

I would not agree of course (NU beat CU handily) but NU's win over CU was a HELLUVA lot more impressive than anything PSU did that year. And don't give me their wooping over Ohio State. Ohio State ended up 9-4. CU ended up 11-1.
 
Georgia Tech has nothing to do with the PSU-NU '94 debate.

Apparently the nuance was lost, so I'll try to make myself more clear.

The arguments that you employ to justify your 94 team's superiority over PSU, are very similar to those that we use to show that CU was a better team than the co-national champions in 1990.

But your coach did not share that opinion--or at least he didn't vote as if he did--though he likely believed as you do regarding his 1994 team.

Does my post make more sense now?
 
Apparently the nuance was lost, so I'll try to make myself more clear.

The arguments that you employ to justify your 94 team's superiority over PSU, are very similar to those that we use to show that CU was a better team than the co-national champions in 1990.

But your coach did not share that opinion--or at least he didn't vote as if he did--though he likely believed as you do regarding his 1994 team.

Does my post make more sense now?

I suppose but we played both CU and Ga Tech that year and Ga Tech demolished us. Why shouldn't Osborne (who knew first hand) vote Georgia Tech ahead of CU? Ga Tech was better than CU that year. CU came from behind and beat us by 15. Georgia Tech beat us by 24. Why shouldn't Osborne's vote have reflected that? CU won the NC with a loss and a tie, you should be happy that you got any title at all. Georgia Tech did not lose a game, they only had a tie as a blemish on their record.

The similarities are not at all close between Ga Tech/CU and PSU/NU. For one thing, CU shared the title, NU did not. For a reason, most everyone with a vote knew NU was the better team. CU should just be grateful they got anything that year. You should have won all your games if you did not want to share a title.
 
I suppose but we played both CU and Ga Tech that year and Ga Tech demolished us. Why shouldn't Osborne (who knew first hand) vote Georgia Tech ahead of CU? Ga Tech was better than CU that year. CU came from behind and beat us by 15. Georgia Tech beat us by 24. Why shouldn't Osborne's vote have reflected that? CU won the NC with a loss and a tie, you should be happy that you got any title at all. Georgia Tech did not lose a game, they only had a tie as a blemish on their record.

The similarities are not at all close between Ga Tech/CU and PSU/NU. For one thing, CU shared the title, NU did not. For a reason, most everyone with a vote knew NU was the better team. CU should just be grateful they got anything that year. You should have won all your games if you did not want to share a title.

So what did the rest of the football-watching world know that Dr. Tom didn't?

Of course he played both teams. One team he played on his own field, while ranked number three in the nation with national championship hopes alive.

The other team he played at a neutral site, in a disappointing bowl selection, following a demoralizing loss to Oklahoma. nebraska looked lackluster in the bowl, and the starters didn't stay in too long. Go back and watch the Citrus Bowl and the 1990 CU game, and tell me those two nebraska teams were the same.

Your argument holds no water in that regard.

I do concur on winning all of the games--it would have been nice to be undefeated and indisputed. The early loss and tie should have doomed CU.

But we still played the toughest schedule in the nation and faced off against the eventual Pac 10 champion, the Big 10 champion, the SWC champion, the SEC champion and a very good Notre Dame team. I'd be surprised if nebraska has ever faced a schedule like that.
 
Go back and look at the schedule comparison in '90 between CU and GT. Remember, this was the ACC. VT and South Carolina weren't good yet. I think UNC and Clemson were decent then. Georgia was a solid OOC game. But they got to play UT-Chattanooga and Duke. CU didn't have any cake walks, especially OOC.
 
So what did the rest of the football-watching world know that Dr. Tom didn't?

Of course he played both teams. One team he played on his own field, while ranked number three in the nation with national championship hopes alive.

The other team he played at a neutral site, in a disappointing bowl selection, following a demoralizing loss to Oklahoma. nebraska looked lackluster in the bowl, and the starters didn't stay in too long. Go back and watch the Citrus Bowl and the 1990 CU game, and tell me those two nebraska teams were the same.

Your argument holds no water in that regard.

I do concur on winning all of the games--it would have been nice to be undefeated and indisputed. The early loss and tie should have doomed CU.

But we still played the toughest schedule in the nation and faced off against the eventual Pac 10 champion, the Big 10 champion, the SWC champion, the SEC champion and a very good Notre Dame team. I'd be surprised if nebraska has ever faced a schedule like that.

Colorado did play a very difficult schedule, but they by no means dominated. Tie to Tennessee (9-2-2). Beat unranked Stanford (5-6) on a 4th a goal TD with 12 seconds left. Lost to unranked Illinois (8-4). Beat MU (4-7) on a 5th down play. Beat Notre Dame when a punt return had to be called back on an iffy call. You can't do all that and think you deserve a title at all, much less a consensus title. Just be glad it was a down year in college football and you got a title.

Tom Osborne played both teams and had one of the most informed votes as to who was better. Georgia Tech beat NU more easily than CU did and TO gave the nod to Georgia Tech. It was his right as a voter. If CU playing NU in Lincoln is such a big deal vs. Georgia Tech beating NU on a nuetral field, then you have to admit NU had the harder path to an NC in '94 by playing Miami in the Orange Bowl but you don't, right?
 
Go back and look at the schedule comparison in '90 between CU and GT. Remember, this was the ACC. VT and South Carolina weren't good yet. I think UNC and Clemson were decent then. Georgia was a solid OOC game. But they got to play UT-Chattanooga and Duke. CU didn't have any cake walks, especially OOC.

Sure you had a tougher schedule, but you also had a loss to unranked Illinois. Plus you beat unranked Stanford on a 4th and goal TD with 12 seconds left, had the 5th down game, tied Tennessee and beat Notre Dame when a punt return was called back. Not exactly dominating.
 
Tommy thought GT and two other teams were better than CU because he voted CU 4th. Did he play those other two teams also?
 
If I recall correctly, NU was playing with some third string players at key positions due to injuries and were very demoralized by their beatings at the end of the season. Tom's vote and public lobbying was purely a result of what an *****hole he is/was. Try and dispute it all you want but it will always fall on deaf ears.

I was really pissed that McCartney didn't do something similar in '94 to help assure PSU a share of the title which they deserved. HE was a man of honor and upheld the belief that you stand up for your conference, something Tommy boy stated repeatedly over the years...which made his actions that much more deplorable.

You also stated that Miami was ranked third at the time? I don't know why I had it in my head that they were ranked about sixth at the time but you are probably right...regardless, I remember being pissed that NU wasn't playing someone better.

Definitely would say that hands down, nobody in the nation could compete with CU, NU or PSU that season. Those three were so far ahead of anyone else in terms of talent and the way they were playing that it was not even funny.
 
Last edited:
Colorado did play a very difficult schedule, but they by no means dominated. Tie to Tennessee (9-2-2). Beat unranked Stanford (5-6) on a 4th a goal TD with 12 seconds left. Lost to unranked Illinois (8-4). Beat MU (4-7) on a 5th down play. Beat Notre Dame when a punt return had to be called back on an iffy call. You can't do all that and think you deserve a title at all, much less a consensus title. Just be glad it was a down year in college football and you got a title.

Tom Osborne played both teams and had one of the most informed votes as to who was better. Georgia Tech beat NU more easily than CU did and TO gave the nod to Georgia Tech. It was his right as a voter. If CU playing NU in Lincoln is such a big deal vs. Georgia Tech beating NU on a nuetral field, then you have to admit NU had the harder path to an NC in '94 by playing Miami in the Orange Bowl but you don't, right?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the highlighted bit. Do you presume to know my opinion on a topic on which I haven't shared it?

Can you at least abandon your parochialism long enough to admit that an undefeated husker team with MNC hopes playing at home is a very different animal than a recently demolished nebraska team playing in a disappointing bowl selection? You failed to address the argument in its whole.

A couple of other questions for you:

1. Why do you believe that the returned punt was an iffy call? Lou Holtz doesn't.

2. Why do you hold the fifth down against CU's bid for a national co-championship? Didn't your team benefit from an (admitted) illegal, intentional kick against the same team (Missouri) to win a game on a bad call, and then go on to win a co-championship? Do you also hold that against your team, or just against CU, though they're very similar situations?
 
The thing I find ironic about corn fans is that they fail to mention their split championships, but are first to us remind of ours. What about that illegal play against Mizzou, the forward tipped catch? How does that factor in to the 97 "championship?"
 
Tommy thought GT and two other teams were better than CU because he voted CU 4th. Did he play those other two teams also?

Do you have a link? I am not doubting you but CU fans all seem to know how TO voted but I have never actually seen how they know this as fact.
 
The thing I find ironic about corn fans is that they fail to mention their split championships, but are first to us remind of ours. What about that illegal play against Mizzou, the forward tipped catch? How does that factor in to the 97 "championship?"

Sure the MU game was a bad one for NU in 1997 but we admit that. Our play vs. Mizzou in '97 was not a blown call by the ref like the 5th down. No way for the ref to know if the kick was intentional or not. It only took the game into OT as well and we won in OT. Not like the immaculate reception in and of itself won the game. Plus MU was 7-5 in 1997 and 4-7 in 1990. Just something to take into consideration. In 1997 we won most all of our games easily (sans MU) unlike CU in 1990. We killed #3 Tennessee in the Orange Bowl (Peyton Manning anyone?) 42-17 how did CU do in their bowl game again?

We also won ALL our games in 1997. No loss or tie on our record. It was a more difficult year to win an NC apparently and we are just glad to get a share of the title since we had a difficult schedule and won all our games. We deserved a share of the title since we won ALL our games. We also split the title in 1970 with Texas. Texas got voted #1 before their bowl game, which they lost, but I am sure you think Texas deserved the split?
 
Last edited:
I don't. Someone else might, I'm not sure. Irregardless :)smile2:) how about you respond to the other posts?
 
Sure the MU game was a bad one for NU in 1997 but we admit that. Our play vs. Mizzou in '97 was not a blown call by the ref like the 5th down. No way for the ref to know if the kick was intentional or not. It only took the game into OT as well and we won in OT. Not like the immaculate reception in and of itself won the game.

We also won ALL our games in 1997. No loss or tie on our record. It was a more difficult year to win an NC apparently and we are just glad to get a share of the title since we had a difficult schedule and won all our games. We deserved a share of the title since we won ALL our games. We also split the title in 1970 with Texas. Texas got voted #1 before their bowl game, which they lost, but I am sure you think Texas deserved the split?

It was a blown call. I'm glad you see it differently--it tells me what I need to know. T.O. admitted to voting GT above CU. There's a link somewhere, I'll look for it if you're unable to for some reason.

EDIT:

The husker who kicked the ball admitted to kicking it. It looked like a kicked ball to anyone watching. It was a blown call.

IRT the CU/Mizzou game: What did CU do on the play that actually should have been the 4th down? Do you remember? CJ spiked the ball. Are those the actions of a team that believes it's 4th down?

Just like nebraska had to go win in overtime after the blown call by the refs, Colorado still had to score a touchdown. Both teams got second chances at Faurot Field.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was a blown call. I'm glad you see it differently--it tells me what I need to know. T.O. admitted to voting GT above CU. There's a link somewhere, I'll look for it if you're unable to for some reason.

Yes please I would like to see the link that says TO voted CU #4. By blown call are you talking about CU-MU '90 or NU-MU '97? The ref was not omnicient enough in '97 to know if Wiggens kicked the ball intentionally or not, apparently.
 
Yes please I would like to see the link that says TO voted CU #4. By blown call are you talking about CU-MU '90 or NU-MU '97? The ref was not omnicient enough in '97 to know if Wiggens kicked the ball intentionally or not, apparently.

I never said he voted CU #4. Not sure if someone else made that claim. He stated that he voted GT over CU. I never claimed anything more.
 
I never said he voted CU #4. Not sure if someone else made that claim. He stated that he voted GT over CU. I never claimed anything more.

Rugged claimed that above, and that is the link I requested. I don't doubt TO voted Georgia Tech #1 over CU since Georgia Tech beat NU by 9 more points than CU did. Seems fair to me. I just don't know how CU fans know for sure TO voted CU #4.

By the way, I think CU had a helluva team in 1990 and am not trying to take anything away from that. It is just that any team who loses a game and ties a game should feel lucky they got any part of an NC. Our 1983 team was awesome and did not get squat. They only had one loss by one point to Miami in Miami. Our 1982 team only had one loss by 3 points on the road to the National Champions Penn State (on a couple of bad calls to boot.) 1982 NU did not get squat. Our 1993 team only had one loss and it was to the National Champs FSU by 2 points in the Orange Bowl. The 1993 team did not get squat. CU should feel lucky they got an NC in 1990 that is all.
 
Rugged claimed that above, and that is the link I requested. I don't doubt TO voted Georgia Tech #1 over CU since Georgia Tech beat NU by 9 more points than CU did. Seems fair to me. I just don't know how CU fans know for sure TO voted CU #4.

By the way, I think CU had a helluva team in 1990 and am not trying to take anything away from that. It is just that any team who loses a game and ties a game should feel lucky they got any part of an NC. Our 1983 team was awesome and did not get squat. They only had one loss by one point to Miami in Miami. Our 1982 team only had one loss by 3 points on the road to the National Champions Penn State (on a couple of bad calls to boot.) 1982 NU did not get squat. Our 1993 team only had one loss and it was to the National Champs FSU by 2 points in the Orange Bowl. The 1993 team did not get squat. CU should feel lucky they got an NC in 1990 that is all.

Here's the link on TO's vote (near the bottom). Not number 4...in fact as far as I know, he never stated where he placed Colorado. But somewhere below GT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_season

Okay, let's try this one more time, and I'll try to make it an easy "yes" or "no" question to facilitate your response.

Do you think that an undefeated #3 nebraska, playing at home with national championship hopes alive, is worth at least 9 points better than a recently demolished nebraska playing in a bowl game they didn't want to be in at a neutral site?

Yes or no. It's easy.

And since we're on the "yes" or "no" kick, tell me if you think Colorado was a better team than Georgia Tech at the end of the 1990 season.
 
One thing no one is taking into account is rivalry games. Teams get up more for rivalry games. CU NU in the 90's was a rivalry game, if you want to admit it or not and that will be played TOUGHER by both sides.
 
Sorry, for some reason I thought I had read that bit about #4. Maybe not.
 
I know that the details of Tom's vote was posted here years ago - expect that someone will be able to dig this up at some point. You can see his vote had a direct influence on the final of the coaches poll - the final tally was 847 to 846 - 1 vote.

Your point above about us being lucky to get a piece of the championship with a loss and a tie, but that is totally relevant based upon the year. Do you argue LSU doesn't get the title with 2 losses? CU was not lucky to get a share of it - they earned it by playing the toughest schedule and beating (or tying) so many conference champions that season...something that would be very hard to find other examples of historically.

While you still keep clinging to the fact that GT beat the fuskers by more points, can you go back and do some research on the lineup that played against GT? I remember that there were quite a few starters that didn't even play in that bowl game either to injury or suspension. That has to be documented somewhere in the annals of husker lore that exists out there on some of the sites you have access to. GT's schedule was not impressive - someone referenced a quality win over Georgia at the end - but Georgia had 7 losses that season and was 7th in the SEC...

Also, you have to admit as a rational person that the mindset of an NU team playing for absolutely nothing in a meaningless bowl game vs. a team at home with an opportunity to be moved up to number one in the rankings is just a tad bit different beat, no?

You also point out in 1994 playing Miami - a tougher team than Oregon - counts for something. Do you not recognize that CU beating #2 ND does not? That is an ND team that was at it's peak. GT played a depleted Nub team that was in free-fall and ended the season ranked 24.
 
I always have heard it was 4 but I was like 10 years old so I cant remember. You cant compare playing CU at home and GT in a nuetral site. If I remember correctly, we scored 27 in the fourth quarter. Iffy calls? That 94 game had plenty of them all in your favor but, no excuses, Nebraska was the better team that day. Please dont come to a CU board and bitch about officiating. Nebraska has always got calls so saying that is laughable. However, youve been posting here awhile and are probably just defending your squad. Id do the same im sure, have a good one.
 
Do you have a link? I am not doubting you but CU fans all seem to know how TO voted but I have never actually seen how they know this as fact.
Coaches votes were not published in 1990 (or even until recently), so you won't find a link anywhere. But he mentioned it to the media after the fact, I've had Woody Paige and Jim Armstrong confirm to me that TO told them he voted CU FOURTH in 1990 after he was asked directly about it. GA Tech won the Coaches Poll by 1 point; CU actually had more first place votes. TO's vote was the difference.

Here's Jim Armstrong's response to me a few years ago:

yes, theoretically its a private vote, but in instances like that the media invariably asks coaches how they voted. ossie fessed up at some point. trust me, its been verified on several fronts that he stiffed the buffs. ja
Jim-

I know that you have written before that Tom Osborne voted Colorado fourth in the 1990 UPI poll, thereby allowing Georgia Tech to finish first in the UPI poll (even though CU had more first place votes in UPI, if I remember correctly?).

Yet I have always thought that the coaches voting was kept private. So how it is known that Osborne voted this way? Do you have any documentation/source material on this subject (how did you become aware)?

Thanks Much,
 
Coaches votes were not published in 1990 (or even until recently), so you won't find a link anywhere. But he mentioned it to the media after the fact, I've had Woody Paige and Jim Armstrong confirm to me that TO told them he voted CU FOURTH in 1990 after he was asked directly about it. GA Tech won the Coaches Poll by 1 point; CU actually had more first place votes. TO's vote was the difference.

Here's Jim Armstrong's response to me a few years ago:

Also, didn't Devaney, in his role as athletic director at nebraska, implore other schools to support the Big 8 in the coach's poll? I remember that as an element which, in my mind, highlighted the ill-will with Coach Osborne placed his vote.
 
Illinois won the Big Ten that year.

Sure you had a tougher schedule, but you also had a loss to unranked Illinois. Plus you beat unranked Stanford on a 4th and goal TD with 12 seconds left, had the 5th down game, tied Tennessee and beat Notre Dame when a punt return was called back. Not exactly dominating.
 
Back
Top