Interesting national champion facts

[UrbanaBuff]

Then you must admit that Penn State deserves a share of the '94 title. You may have played a tougher OOC slate, but the Big Ten was better than the Big 8 that year.

You can have '94 and '95, but everyone recognizes Charles Woodson's Michigan team as the Rose Bowl and National Champs of '97.

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?

 

[Unleash Hell]

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?

Hey pal, CU won the 1990 national title while playing the nations toughest schedule! Something Nebraska NEVER did in any of their titles. We beat the Pac 10 champs (91 national champs), we beat the SWC champs, we tied the SEC runner up, lost by a point to the Big 10 co champs, and beat a very talented Notre Dame team filled with NFL talent. Oh and we beat a Nebraska team that was undefeated and #2 in their own house after Nebraska knew that #1 Virginia had lost. The huskers knew if they beat CU they would be #1. They couldn't get it down, not even close in the 4th qtr. Now you tell me that Nebraska had more to play for against Georgia Tech than CU? Bull****! Nebraska didn't want any part of their bowl game. I bet Dr. Tom intentionally played like **** in that game.

Don't ever bring up schedule comparisions when talking about CU's national title, EVER! We own you there!

 

[Corn_Fan]

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.

Yes I think Georgia Tech was better but again, CU had a helluva team as well. I think they both deserved the title. I think 9 points is big it is common to only give about 3 points for home field advantage. Georgia Tech absolutely demolished us wheras we took a 12-0 lead into the 4th before collapsing against CU.

 

[Unleash Hell]

Hey corn fan, CU went 22-2-1 from 89-90. STFU!Tired of dumbasses talking **** about our title and not even giving CU any credit for even being good.

 

[The Guest]

Yes I think Georgia Tech was better but again, CU had a helluva team as well. I think they both deserved the title. I think 9 points is big it is common to only give about 3 points for home field advantage. Georgia Tech absolutely demolished us wheras we took a 12-0 lead into the 4th before collapsing against CU.

Okey dokey. Thanks for your response.

 

[Corn_Fan]

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.

The rivalry was pretty new in the early 90's as CU had not beaten NU that much until the end of the 80's/early 90's.

And it goes both ways, if CU thought of NU as a rival in 1990 they should have been up for the game just as much as Nebraska was. Georgia Tech simply dismantled NU in a way CU didn't.

 

[Unleash Hell]

If the 1990 Nebraska game had been played on a dry field, Colorado would have won by more. CU dominated that entire game. We were in scoring position 4 times in the first half. Eric Bieniemy fumbled 5 times. We were running up and down the field on that team.

 

[Corn_Fan]

Sorry, for some reason I thought I had read that bit about #4. Maybe not.

I have never heard that about #4 but it is possible. I really don't think TO would do that though. CU and Ga Tech were obviously the two best teams that season.

 

[Corn_Fan]

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 will give you that CU played a tougher opponent in their bowl than Georgia Tech did. CU also had the tougher overall schedule. But Georgia Tech also creamed their opponent in the bowl while CU scraped by theirs. I would say NU having the chance to take out the #2 team in their bowl and keep them from winning a national championship was more than enough motivation for the NU players to play well.

It is a tough call and I think both deserved the title. I can't fault Dr. Tom for his vote though because it was a toss up. CU was very good and you got a share of an NC to prove it.

 

[Corn_Fan]

Illinois won the Big Ten that year.

with an 8-4 record...

The Big Ten was pretty bad that year and I think Illinois tied for the title with 3 other teams.

 

[Corn_Fan]

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:

Lot's of things are said on the internets. That is all hearsay, sorry, and would be inadmissable in a court. I need a direct link. I doubt very much TO admitted to anything to Woody Paige. Can you see why I might doubt that?

 

[Corn_Fan]

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.

Sounds like urban legend to me. Devaney did this why? Contrary to popular belief, TO and Devaney had no animosity toward CU. TO simply thought Georgia Tech was better and he played both teams so he should know.

 

[Corn_Fan]

Then you must admit that Penn State deserves a share of the '94 title. You may have played a tougher OOC slate, but the Big Ten was better than the Big 8 that year.

You can have '94 and '95, but everyone recognizes Charles Woodson's Michigan team as the Rose Bowl and National Champs of '97.

I will admit nothing of the sort. Big 8 was 4-2 against the Big Ten in '94 so your argument holds no water. If anything, NU deserved the title over PSU for the jobbing NU got at Penn State in '82. Karma is a bitch.

 

[Corn_Fan]

Hey pal, CU won the 1990 national title while playing the nations toughest schedule! Something Nebraska NEVER did in any of their titles. We beat the Pac 10 champs (91 national champs), we beat the SWC champs, we tied the SEC runner up, lost by a point to the Big 10 co champs, and beat a very talented Notre Dame team filled with NFL talent. Oh and we beat a Nebraska team that was undefeated and #2 in their own house after Nebraska knew that #1 Virginia had lost. The huskers knew if they beat CU they would be #1. They couldn't get it down, not even close in the 4th qtr. Now you tell me that Nebraska had more to play for against Georgia Tech than CU? Bull****! Nebraska didn't want any part of their bowl game. I bet Dr. Tom intentionally played like **** in that game.

Don't ever bring up schedule comparisions when talking about CU's national title, EVER! We own you there!

CU also lost a game and tied a game in '90 which is one more loss and the same number of ties as Nebraska had in ALL FIVE of our national titles COMBINED. Simple fact, if you want to be the undisputed champ you should win all your games. Otherwise there will be question marks about your team. CUs schedule might have been difficult in '90 and you have a loss and a tie to prove it. I could care less if NU's schedule was harder in our NC years ('95s was pretty difficult go look it up) we won all our games.

 

[The Guest]

I will admit nothing of the sort. Big 8 was 4-2 against the Big Ten in '94 so your argument holds no water. If anything, NU deserved the title over PSU for the jobbing NU got at Penn State in '82. Karma is a bitch.

I think Urbana's point was that the 1994 PSU team went undefeated.

He was responding to your point that the 97 huskers deserved the MNC because they went undefeated. Similarly, PSU went undefeated in 94.

 

[Corn_Fan]

Hey corn fan, CU went 22-2-1 from 89-90. STFU!Tired of dumbasses talking **** about our title and not even giving CU any credit for even being good.

Go back and read my posts. I already said CU was a helluva team in '90 (also had a great team in '89)

You should be proud of those teams. CU and Georgia Tech both deserved the title in '90. You should have beaten Tennessee and Illinois and not had squeakers against Stanford and Missouri in '90 if you wanted to be the consensus champ.

 

[Corn_Fan]

If the 1990 Nebraska game had been played on a dry field, Colorado would have won by more. CU dominated that entire game. We were in scoring position 4 times in the first half. Eric Bieniemy fumbled 5 times. We were running up and down the field on that team.

This might be true but it was not played on a dry field so we will never know for sure. Nebraska also played on the same wet field.

 

[DeNiro]

The rivalry was pretty new in the early 90's as CU had not beaten NU that much until the end of the 80's/early 90's.

And it goes both ways, if CU thought of NU as a rival in 1990 they should have been up for the game just as much as Nebraska was. Georgia Tech simply dismantled NU in a way CU didn't.

You just went the exact opposite direction... Rivalries are typically closer due to both teams gettting up for each other. You guys would be playing with the chip on your shoulders from us beating you the previous year and wanting to put "little brother" in his place.

 

[BuffNut99]

Yes I think Georgia Tech was better but again, CU had a helluva team as well. I think they both deserved the title. I think 9 points is big it is common to only give about 3 points for home field advantage. Georgia Tech absolutely demolished us wheras we took a 12-0 lead into the 4th before collapsing against CU.

Nebraska laid down for the bowl game against GA Tech. Nebraska got beat at home by Colorado when #1 was on the line.

Also, GA Tech "demolished" a pre-Beamer VA Tech team at home 6-3; Clemson at home 21-19; NC State at home 21-13. Georgia Tech was never ranked in a final poll for the rest of the decade, while Colorado was regularly Top 5/Top 10.

Georgia Tech also didn't have anyone drafted until the 7th round of the 1991 NFL draft, and only two players overall. Colorado had their entire team drafted.

 

[Corn_Fan]

I think Urbana's point was that the 1994 PSU team went undefeated.

He was responding to your point that the 97 huskers deserved the MNC because they went undefeated. Similarly, PSU went undefeated in 94.

He also said the Big Ten was better than the Big 8 in '94 which can be disputed by the 4-2 record the Big 8 had over the Big Ten that year.

I never said Michigan did not deserve the title for going undefeated. They deserved it and they got a share. Same as NU. Michigan squeaked by #11 Washington State (Ryan Leaf) while NU dismantled #3 Tennessee (Peyton Manning) 42-17 in their respective bowl games.

 

[Corn_Fan]

You just went the exact opposite direction... Rivalries are typically closer due to both teams gettting up for each other. You guys would be playing with the chip on your shoulders from us beating you the previous year and wanting to put "little brother" in his place.

My point was that CU might have been more 'up' for the game as well it being a rivalry and all if you want to call it that at the time. Georgia Tech was not particularly 'up' for the game in a rivalry sense.

 

[Corn_Fan]

Nebraska laid down for the bowl game against GA Tech. Nebraska got beat at home by Colorado when #1 was on the line.

Also, GA Tech "demolished" a pre-Beamer VA Tech team at home 6-3; Clemson at home 21-19; NC State at home 21-13. Georgia Tech was never ranked in a final poll for the rest of the decade, while Colorado was regularly Top 5/Top 10.

Georgia Tech also didn't have anyone drafted until the 7th round of the 1991 NFL draft, and only two players overall. Colorado had their entire team drafted.

Fair points but we will never really know if Nebraska 'laid down' for Georgia Tech. That is merely your opinion. It could also be that Georgia Tech was simply better than CU.

 

[Ruckus]

My point was that CU might have been more 'up' for the game as well it being a rivalry and all if you want to call it that at the time. Georgia Tech was not particularly 'up' for the game in a rivalry sense.

You don't think GT was 'up' to end the season undefeated?

 

[Corn_Fan]

You don't think GT was 'up' to end the season undefeated?

No more so than CU was when we played them. The facts are that Georgia Tech beat us by 9 more points than CU, which is a lot in my opinion.

We will never know who was up for the game more, but we do know who beat NU worse than the other.

 

[Unleash Hell]

No more so than CU was when we played them. The facts are that Georgia Tech beat us by 9 more points than CU, which is a lot in my opinion.

We will never know who was up for the game more, but we do know who beat NU worse than the other.

Again,

CU dominated a undefeated Nebraska team in NU's own house when the top spot in the nation was on the line.

GT dominated a deflated Nebraska team at a neutral site after being blown out by Colorado and Oklahoma to end the season. NU had nothing to play for in the bowl. They had everything to play for at home against Colorado.

 

[Corn_Fan]

Again,

CU dominated a undefeated Nebraska team in NU's own house when the top spot in the nation was on the line.

GT dominated a deflated Nebraska team at a neutral site after being blown out by Colorado and Oklahoma to end the season. NU had nothing to play for in the bowl. They had everything to play for at home against Colorado.

Also again, NU had a chance to keep a team from winning a National Championship when they played Georgia Tech. How is there not motivation to do so? I have never heard of a Tom Osborne coached team to lay down for anyone. We may have had our asses wooped a few times under TO, but not for lack of trying. I don't get why you think NU had no motivation.

 

[Unleash Hell]

CU also lost a game and tied a game in '90 which is one more loss and the same number of ties as Nebraska had in ALL FIVE of our national titles COMBINED. Simple fact, if you want to be the undisputed champ you should win all your games. Otherwise there will be question marks about your team. CUs schedule might have been difficult in '90 and you have a loss and a tie to prove it. I could care less if NU's schedule was harder in our NC years ('95s was pretty difficult go look it up) we won all our games.

CU would have gone undefeated if we had played St. Mary's for the blind too.

 

[Unleash Hell]

Also again, NU had a chance to keep a team from winning a National Championship when they played Georgia Tech. How is there not motivation to do so? I have never heard of a Tom Osborne coached team to lay down for anyone. We may have had our asses wooped a few times under TO, but not for lack of trying. I don't get why you think NU had no motivation.

Your logic makes no sense when Osborne knew that CU had a chance at a title, but GT could possibly keep CU from winning one. Osborne hated CU, Osborne was a devil that hid guns to keep his kids out of the negative headlines, I could esily see that scum bag letting GT win to try and keep CU from winning it.

 

[DesertDawg526]

In my mind, the 2001 Hurricanes were the best team in the history of college football. Remember what they did to a ranked Washington team toward the end of the season (sorry DD)?

Sorry?:lol: No need to be. It was a horrible loss for UW, but it was not a good UW team. We were at the start of our downward spiral into oblivion by that point... That Miami team was definitely loaded with NFL talent.

Anyway, cool thread with some interesiting MNC factoids. I'd still put my '90-'91 'Dawgs against anybody though. They had the most dominating defense I've ever seen in CFB.:nod:

 

[Corn_Fan]

CU would have gone undefeated if we had played St. Mary's for the blind too.

Please tell me what NC year we played St. Mary's.