What is the worst college football team to win/share a national title?

Except that Colorado was 5-7 and Baylor was 2-9 and Nebraska had beaten both of them.


And a "four-loss" Washington team was still better, much better, than SIX-LOSS Notre Dame team that Michigan beat. I know, I know NOTRE DAME has a big name - that was a dogshit version of the Irish.

In fact - that "four-loss" Washington team had three losses to teams with 10 wins or more and hung 51 points on the same Michigan State team that Michigan could only score 23 against.

It was bowl games like the Mich St.-Washington game, the Ohio State-FSU game, the Penn State-Florida game, the Wisconsin-Georgia game, the Arizona State-Iowa game - all of which the Big Ten lost that year -- that caused people to stop and say 'you know what, the Big Ten does suck that bad'

Hell the only team other than Michigan that won its bowl game was Purdue, who beat Oklahoma State (a Big 12 team that Nebraska did not play) but the Boilermakers were exposed as a fraud earlier in the year by Toledo.

So let's review - Michigan's non-conference schedule was not as good as Nebraska's and was negated by the fact that Nebraska beat two of the best three teams they played in said schedule.

Michigan didn't play anyone as good as Washington. They didn't play anyone as good as Kansas State, who was 11-1 and won a BCS Bowl and I don't know that they played anyone even as good as Tennessee that year, whose only other loss was at the swamp.

That Michigan team clearly is in the bottom 1/4th of all-time national champions and frankly, would have been a 7-point underdog to Nebraska, Florida State and even Florida that year.

And Nebraska crushed Kansas State and beat Washington by double digits.

 

The Tigers of Princeton were 1 and 1 in 1869 and shared the title with Rutgers. Neither team a huckleberry.

 

Good to see you've mastered Google and Wikipedia. ;D

 

Oh, please. Nebraska's non-conference schedule consisted of a 2-9 Akron team, a 5-6 Central Florida team and an 8-4 Washington team. Somehow I'm guessing that the two win MAC team (Akron) probably wasn't as good as the 2 win Big 12 team (Baylor), and the 5 win CFU team probably wasn't as good as the 5 win Colorado team. And, if not, what does state about the crappy state of the Big 12, Nebraska's conference, that year?

Indeed, doesn't it seem a bit odd that you've cited non-conf scheduling grounds to pump up your Nebraska over Michigan argument, despite the fact that Michigan's two weakest non-conf opponents were from Nebraska's own conference, Nebraska played both also, and Michigan beat both far more convincingly than Nebraska did? Seriously, you don't see anything just a bit off-center about your logic there?

And doesn't it also seem a bit odd that you're making this conference strength argument without noting the fact the Big 12 sucked as much or more than the Big 10 in 97? Have you forgotten that Oklahoma and Nebraska were both truly crappy 4 win teams in 97? The 97 Big 12 was basically Nebraska, Kansas State and a pile of mediocrity (one member of which, Missouri, still would've beaten Nebraska if not for the miracle foot deflection catch).

And your statement that Michigan didn't play anyone as good as 8-4 Washington that year is absolute horseshit nonsense. Umm, you know Washington didn't win the Pac 10 that year, in fact didn't even come kinda close. Washington State did--and fairly easily, losing only one regular season all year and kicking Washington's ass along the way. And who was it that beat WSU in the Rose Bowl?

97 Michigan beat a 10-2 Washington State team, a 10-3 Ohio State team, a 9-3 Penn State team, an 8-5 Wisconsin team, a 7-5 Iowa team, a 7-5 Mich. St. team, a 7-6 Notre Dame team and, oh yeah, they also kicked the shit out of those two Big 12 teams far worse then Nebraska was able to. That might not be the strongest schedule ever, but to suggest that it's not enough to make a legitimate champion is pure foolishness.

Your argument sucks on this one, and I think you know it. But, being Zag, you can't concede. 97 Michigan certainly wasn't one of the best ever champions, and it's highly debatable how they would've done against Nebraska, but to argue them as a worst ever champion is just plain silliness.

 

Really? Michigan beat Baylor by five touchdowns. Nebraska beat Baylor by four. Yeah, that sounds like a "far worse" beating.

Oh yeah - and Washington State beating Washington by six points, that is a real ass kicking there. And my point about Washington is that Michigan didn't beat anyone even close to that good in the preseason. Nobody close.

Again, don't stretch the truth to try and make your point. W-State barely beat Washington.

The Big 12 finished the season with FIVE teams ranked in the top 25, the Big Ten had only four.

Washington was ranked No. 18, not one of Michigan's non-conference opponents were ranked.

Nebraska beat two teams in the final top 10 - and both Tennessee No. 7 and K-State No. 8 -- were ranked higher than the only top ten team Michigan beat, No. 9 Washington State.

So again, let's review -

Nebraska beat more teams ranked in the top ten.

Nebraska's conference had more teams ranked in the top 25 than Michigan's.

Nebraska's conference had a better bowl record than Michigan's.

Nebraska beat a ranked non-conference opponent, Michigan did not.

Nebraska beat two teams ranked in the top eight - Michigan beat ZERO teams ranked in the top eight.

Do you want me to continue or can we concede that Nebraska played a better schedule and beat better teams?

And again, please stop trying to compare scores between Michigan and Colorado - a non-conference game at the beginning of the season WHICH TOOK PLACE AT THE BIG HOUSE IN MICHIGAN and Nebraska and Colorado - a RIVALRY GAME LATE IN THE SEASON IN WHICH NEBRASKA WAS THE ROAD TEAM.

It is not even remotely the same thing and you know it.

 

http://www.phys.utk.edu/sorensen/cfr/cfr/output/1997/CF_1997_Ranking_Schedule.html

Sorry, but you're still wrong. You might sneak a peak at the above link showing the actual computerized strength of schedule rankings for that 97 season. You'll note Michigan's ranked 36th and Nebraska 42nd. Neither ranking is exceptional, and they're quite close, but last I checked 36th is a better ranking than 42nd.

You may now commence ranting and raving about how you know more than the computers.

 

Yes, because computer rankings really matter, especially since they are far more influenced by how shitty the shit teams are on your schedule than how good the best teams you beat are.

I think even you will concede that the shitty teams on your schedule are meaningless to your legitimate strength of schedule - what matters is the best teams you play and how many good ones did you play.

 

To further that point - it is like the RPI in basketball and why Missouri Valley Conference teams are almost always way overrated in the RPI - they never actually play anybody of substance and when they do they usually lose - but their shitty teams, teams they should beat, are specifically chosen so as to not be RPI killers.

Computer generated strength of schedule arguments are silly.

 

I agree with zagoshe in that respect. The good teams on your schedule are more important than the bad. Is there really a difference between kicking the shit out of the 89th best team and the 118th best team? You're supposed to beat the shit out of both.

However, there's a big difference between beating the eighth best and the 28th.

 

They may not be perfect, but the computer rankings' methodology, data and findings is quite a bit more comprehensive, objective and reliable than any of the other arguments Zag and I have been flinging in this discussion.

So, to summarize:

Strength of schedule: advantage, Michigan
Common Opponents: Colorado-Michigan 27-3, Nebraska 27-24
Baylor- Michigan 38-3, Nebraska 49-21

 

A great example is Florida State - which has played at Oklahoma and at Miami - but have the SOS of 69 because their shitty teams - teams they should beat - are really shitty.

Meanwhile Missouri - who has played nobody in the league of either Oklahoma or Miami, much less on the road -- Missouri's six wins are Illinois, McNeese State, San Diego St., Miami (Ohio), Colorado and Texas A&M - has a SOS of 47 because none of those shitty teams are as shitty as Virginia, Wake Forest or Samford.

It is ridiculous - FSU has played a tougher schedule than Missouri, and it isn't even arguable -- oh but wait, the computer said it so it must be so...... :

 

The score may have been 41-35, but the 1997 Apple Cup wasn't anywhere near that close. UW had a late gimme TD that made the score close, but in reality the Cougs kicked butt that day.
I'm sure someone has this info at the tip of the fingertips, but didn't Michigan's first string defense not give up a second half TD for most of the season?
Also, didn't Nebraska win one of its games in 1997 when a receiver scooped the ball up his feet and then catch it with his hands?