Don’t fight it. Alabama fans use that metric because it’s the only way they can get to 13. That’s why everyone rolls their eyes at “13!!”
Why is that? For many years the B10 sent a team only to the Rose Bowl and had a no-repeat rule. The '66 Michigan State team didn’t go to the Rose Bowl because of that rule.
Notre Dame didn’t go to any bowl game from 1925 to 1968. That was in internal rule.
Forgot about that. And looking, I don’t see anything wrong with the '57 season. Same with '61 - OSU actually turned down the Rose Bowl bid (which wasn’t an automatic Big Ten bid). But in '70 they lost in the Rose Bowl, and Nebraska was left undefeated. That’s tough to argue for.
And Notre Dame only claims their outright titles (11). If they counted these minor titles that the kids are so excited about these days, they’d have 21 (22 if you count some bogus title some paper gave them last year, which I can’t imagine anyone defending).
I’ve always wondered where Alabama’s extra titles came from.
Michigan State’s stadium displays “5 national titles”. I looked up the past AP and Coaches polls and saw only 1952 and 1965. Turns out the rest was obscure media polls or retro-computer polls.
At least at Nebraska we claim our five titles using the AP and/or Coaches polls (1970, 1971, 1994, 1995, 1997). I look at some of the others here and they are ridiculous!
1980: Finished 10-2
1981: Finished 9-3, losing our bowl game to #1 Clemson
1982: Lost to eventual #1 Penn State
1983: Lost our bowl game to #1 Miami
1984: Finished 10-2
1993: Lost our bowl game to #1 Florida State
No Nebraska fan would possibly rationalize us as 11-time national champs based on those kind of polls!
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? I’ve been to Spartan Stadium many times and can’t recall any mention of 5 NC’s. 1952 is legit and 1965 was a split NC because they were awarded the NC by a poll before the bowl game and the Rose Bowl debacle. 1966 was the better team but got screwed by the polls after the 10-10 tie to ND. They couldn’t go to the Rose Bowl because of the no-repeat rule.
I hope that you are not confusing MSU with UofM. That is a huge sin if you claim to know anything about college sports. UofM’s titles were mostly awarded many years after the fact. Maybe they are making the claim in the “Big Hole” but don’t ever confuse the “Green and White” with “Go Blow”. In the modern day, UofM was awarded a split NC but their claims of superiority are highly questionable. Before there was real, objective competition in college football it was mostly a club sport. Go back and look at the schedules. College teams would play high school teams or anybody else they could get a game with.
Things have changed a whole lot. The claim to the number of NC’s is subject to a lot of interpretation.
R. P. McMurphy, how is this for a cite: I remember that on the Nebraska at Michigan State telecast last year. It was under the scoreboard as the team ran out. It prompted me enough to look it up at the time. A quick google image and youtube search proved fruitless now, so I guess I’ll have to retract my claim.
And, no, I would never, ever confuse the Spartans and Wolverines!
As a Nebraska fan, I am very aware of the controversial 1997 split.
Michigan’s arguments:
- The #1 team should not drop in the polls after a win
- NU had a close call against Missouri
- The voters wanted to give coach Osborne a retirement gift.
Nebraska’s arguments:
- We played a tougher schedule (5 ranked opponents vs 3)
- NU’s average score in 1997 was 47-16, Michigan was 27-10
- In our showcase bowl games, we beat #3 by 25, they beat #8 by 5.
The solution: split the title, which Michigan argued was unfair. :smack:
While I agree with the gist of your post. I have to say that Michigan’s #1 is, IMHO, correct. Frankly, I think NO team should drop after a win. I thought margin of victory was supposed to be deemphasized (although that may not have been true in 1997). This is just a back-door way of dealing with it. Michigan’s #3 is undoubtedly correct, but I don’t know how much influence it had. Ya’ll were pretty damn good that year, Osborne leaving not withstanding.
ETA: And you’re the nicest damn fans in football. Glad we played you guys in 1993. It was a class game on both sides.
Lane Kiffin still sucks, right?
That was a given. Has anyone in this thread offered up any defense of Lane? Seriously, this might be the first unanimous thread in SDMB history. And now he’s unemployed (and possibly homeless), what’s to discuss? So we moved on to fun stuff like discussing mythical national championships - of which FSU holds 29**.
** Hell, even Hitler gets a defender or two. Lane Kiffin is less popular than Hitler!
- Since I just invented the Zakalwe Poll and retroactively awarded them. The NCAA has been notified and I expect their website to be updated any day now.
I’ve noticed an extreme lack of empathy towards the boy. It’s probably just a rumor but I heard that his mother tortured him as a child.
I’ve never been to a Nebraska game, home or away, but I keep hearing this. What’s the matter with these Husker fans? I’ve heard that when you go their field it’s like being invited into their living rooms. What happened to the American tradition of getting drunk, violent and trying to kill the guy with the wrong colors while molesting his girlfriend? Geez.
Right.
Obviously, the board has gone to crap when some incompetent fool like Kiffin can’t scrape up a defender. Might as well shut the board down.
Don’t believe it. That’s his publicists working the press so he can land another job for which he will fail at. According to unnamed sources it was him torturing his mother.
Yea, the thread has been hijacked, but it a good way. If you can’t have a little fun why bother at all. Good work, fellow posters!
Yes. He does.
An aside: I nearly wet my pant a’laughin’ when CNN reported the other day that Congress approval rating was below head lice, at a mere 10%!
My first reaction was, “How does head lice break double digits?” 
That is completely illogical.
It assumes your knowledge during the preseason is superior to your knowledge at the end of the season.
The cynical part of me? Every game has been sold out since 1962. No one gives up their seat, so you have a lot of blue-hairs in the stands. They generally tend to be classier and quieter than the young’uns. The students (who get drunk and violent) are tucked into the corners.
Yeah, it sounds rather un-collegiate, but blue-hairs pay higher ticket prices than students.
The less cynical part of me: football is the state religion in Nebraska. There’s no pro team taking the attention, nor any other D-IA schools, like a “Nebraska State”. Plus, Nebraska’s never really had a rival. It was Oklahoma, but the Big XII arrangements ruined that. And we’re newbies in the Big Ten.
I am not complaining or anything, but this thread sure has taken an interesting turn.
Well, in this particular case, the drop happened well into the season. Nebraska started at #6 dropped to #7 in Week 3 (in spite of a win), moved up to #1 by Week 7, then dropped to #3 in Week 10 because of an OT win over Missouri. That was the same week that Michigan beat a previously #2 Penn State, so they catapulted from #4 to #1.
However, if that’s acceptable, then why doesn’t Nebraska’s dismantling of #3 Tennessee (42-17) outweigh UM’s squeaker over #8 Washington State (21-16). I think it’s the inconsistency that bothers NU fans.
At 10 weeks into the season, I think it’s fair to say “a win is a win” and move on. Frankly, I don’t think ANY polls should be conducted until Week 4 of a season for precisely that reason.
Because it still maintains a week-by-week incremental approach to voting, when the voters should be looking at the entire season as a whole. Sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn’t. That’s why I agree with you - we shouldn’t even have any polls until Week 7 at the earliest. There’s just so much reliance on momentum, it’s not fair to the teams that are quietly assembling a very impressive season.
I don’t understand this. No it doesn’t maintain a week-by-week incremental approach. Michigan jumped 2 teams ahead of them based on a win. Both of those teams also won, but got jumped (Nebraska by 2 teams!). Where’s the incremental approach?
Then later in the same season, there was NO jumping of teams in spite a great disparity in quality of win. So incremental approach only applies to the post-season?
Sorry for the double post, but different topic (since this seems to have devolved into a catch-all CFB thread.
Did the refs in Texas/Iowa State have a bet on Texas last night? That was some really bad officiating - all in UT’s favor. And, remember, I’m an FSU fan so I get to watch the ACC refs on a regular basis!
Davis should have been ejected from the game for that “block” in the end zone. It was: 1 - a chop block designed to injure and 2 - well after the other ref signaled touchdown. Horrible.
Then they miss not one but two fumbles inside the 5!
That was truly an incredible last series. Who gets the win? The officials or Texas?