Why did Michigan split the 1997 title?

^ There it is

Michigan players and staff from that '97 team can claim their share all they want, they can even say they were "willing" to settle it outright. But we all know the truth is simple, Nebraska WANTED to settle it because Nebraska COULD settle it. Michigan was happy with their wooden wall hanger.

 
I think everyone on every side of the issue knew that it was contractually impossible for Michigan and Nebraska to play each other at the expense of the Rose Bowl.

Not to mention an uncharted logistical headache.

It would be like telling the Super Bowl that people didn't really want to see Carolina vs. Denver, and scheduling a Carolina vs. New England game instead.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I think everyone on every side of the issue knew that it was contractually impossible for Michigan and Nebraska to play each other at the expense of the Rose Bowl.

Not to mention an uncharted logistical headache.

It would be like telling the Super Bowl that people didn't really want to see Carolina vs. Denver, and scheduling a Carolina vs. New England game instead.
Click to expand...
The offer was for AFTER the bowl games were played.

 
I have a hard time believing anyone from either Nebraska or Michigan made a serious offer to play the other school after the bowls were done. SO MANY logistical issues with such a game:

  1. Picking a venue (you could spend a year dickering over that one)
  2. The game would be unsanctioned and possibly result in NCAA penalties
  3. It would violate about a dozen rules pertaining to coaches having contact with players
  4. Those players eligible for the NFL Draft would (should) sit such a game out rather than risk injury
  5. It would likely be untelevised, so no TV revenue
  6. Who's going to pay for it in the first place?
  7. Who's going to attend, since both schools' fanbases blew their wad on "vacations" to the Rose & Orange bowls?

That's just off the top of my head. Player eligibility and those guys hoping to get drafted would scuttle it all by itself. Lloyd Carr, Tom Osborne, both schools' Athletic Departments, both schools' conferences, they all know these are insurmountable obstacles, and wouldn't ever propose such a game in reality.

I can believe that Carr or Osborne may have dropped a quote along the lines of "We'd like to play them," but that's as far as it would ever have gotten. Just an idle statement, nothing more.

 
StPaulHusker said:
Guy Chamberlin said:
I think everyone on every side of the issue knew that it was contractually impossible for Michigan and Nebraska to play each other at the expense of the Rose Bowl.

Not to mention an uncharted logistical headache.

It would be like telling the Super Bowl that people didn't really want to see Carolina vs. Denver, and scheduling a Carolina vs. New England game instead.
Click to expand...
The offer was for AFTER the bowl games were played.
Click to expand...

That's even worse.

For the reasons Knappl just stated.

And if established as a precedent, it would totally cut the balls of the Rose Bowl and all the other bowls.

Which ended up happening, now that I think about it.

It was just a fun bit of bluster that involved absolutely no risk of follow through.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
StPaulHusker said:
Guy Chamberlin said:
I think everyone on every side of the issue knew that it was contractually impossible for Michigan and Nebraska to play each other at the expense of the Rose Bowl.

Not to mention an uncharted logistical headache.

It would be like telling the Super Bowl that people didn't really want to see Carolina vs. Denver, and scheduling a Carolina vs. New England game instead.
Click to expand...
The offer was for AFTER the bowl games were played.
Click to expand...

That's even worse.

For the reasons Knappl just stated.

And if established as a precedent, it would totally cut the balls of the Rose Bowl and all the other bowls.

Which ended up happening, now that I think about it.

It was just a fun bit of bluster that involved absolutely no risk of follow through.
Click to expand...
There wouldn't have been a precedent because the next year is when the BCS came into play ensuring 1 vs 2.

But whatever. I know Nebraska would have kicked the sh#t out of Michigan that year. That's good enough for me.

 
Frost's lobbying after the game, and the Huskers steamrolling in the 2nd half was what got them 1/2 the NC. That NC was won in two quarters and one interview. I remember it well. After the game we were like holy hell, NU deserves to be #1! But it wasnt until Scott Frost stood there all presidential like and made his case that everyone nationwide believed it. I think most of the writers felt that way too but when you've got a body of work out there you really cant go back on it at the last minute. And personal biases run deep enough to numb any pangs of guilt for voting for a team they knew didnt deserve it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Frost lobbying" was not even 30 seconds of Frost saying Osborne deserved at least a share of that title. It was no more and no less than what Michigan was doing all year. Not once did anyone from Michigan say "Give it all to Nebraska, they're undefeated."

I don't know why this revisionist history of "Frost lobbying" has come into the story. It's a red herring. Nebraska went undefeated, played a schedule more difficult than Michigan (Sagarin ranked Michigan's schedule 4th that year, behind Nebraska, Florida & FSU), played a FAR better team in their "national championship game" and trounced them, while Michigan eked out a win against a weak Washington State team.

 
Back
Top