Ranking The National Champions of the 1990s

TideEngineer08 said:

I think 1997 Nebraska would have beaten 1997 Michigan by 3 TDs.

Click to expand...

I think you're probably right.

Then again, I remember when folks said the same thing about Nebraska over Miami (1983) and Miami over Alabama (1992), too.

81usaf92 said:

I’ll put it this way. The day after we beat Notre Dame for the title there were numerous articles in Nebraska suggesting our dynasty was a fraud and needed luck and politics and we didn’t measure up since they had 3 undefeated seasons. So the 1997 title will always be a sore spot for me.

Click to expand...

I saw that - those were insane. And also the "but Nebraska went undefeated all 3 times" argument.

Not hard to do when:
a) you don't play anybody
b) you don't have to beat the other "best team" but can rely on votes

Although nobody else won "3 in 4" as Nebraska did, A LOT of teams have had 5-year runs about equal to Nebraska so long as you fudge on the "was voted the national champions" argument. Boise went 95-11 across an eight-year span with two unbeaten seasons. Sure, they didn't play anybody.

So what?

Alabama went 68-6-3 (1960-67) over seven seasons and won three national titles, but I'm sure the Cornfield Clan would have some excuse for that, too.

1997 MICHIGAN

THE CASE FOR

The 1997 Michigan Wolverines were the best team of the decade, and the argument isn't even particularly close. There's a reason Charles Woodson became the first (primarily) defensive player to win the Heisman, and it further validates the view of how great UM really was.

Pause for just a moment to consider this: when you think of GREAT defenses of the 1990s, what teams come to mind? Miami is admittedly overlooked, although their defense was the actual strength of those dynastic teams. The three teams everyone thinks of are: 1991 Washington, 1992 Alabama, and 1995 Nebraska, three all-world defenses that both dominated the game AND took their teams to undefeated seasons.

Simple analysis shows Michigan's 1997 defense was better than all three of those teams.

1991 Washington surrendered only 9.2 ppg, a phenomenal total although second in the NCAA that year to Miami's 9.1, an admittedly irrelevant difference. Alabama's 1992 defense also surrendered 9.1 and for all the hype were actually SECOND in points allowed to Arizona (8.9). Nebraska's supposed great 1995 team permitted twice as many touchdowns as 97 Michigan did, up to 13.6 ppg, not even really all that close to Woodson's defense. They gave up about 1/2 as many points as Florida did in 1996 - and that's the team that made Bob Stoops a household world (sorta like "toilet").

Michigan had the best defense of the 90s with the best dominant defensive player - and defense wins championships. The Lifetime Achievement Award that coaches opted to give Tom Osborne simply because he announced he was retiring was disgusting - and one surmises if they'd known he was going to Washington DC instead, maybe they wouldn't have been so generous. It is assumed, of course, that Nebraska would have made mince meat of Michigan had the two teams actually played. Yeah, we've heard that one before. We heard it when Nebraska set a record for points in a season in 1983 and went into the Orange Bowl as huge favorites - conveniently avoiding #2 Texas and their top-rated defense - and the Huskers lost. We heard it when the pollsters amazingly switched Nebraska and Oklahoma right before the 1987 game after the Sooners had been #1 all season long...and the Huskers lost again. We heard it again during the 1990 Nebraska-Colorado game - when UVA lost to Ga Tech, the announcers were raving about the new #1 Nebraska - and they collapsed, surrendering 27 points in the final 12 minutes and imploding the rest of the year. In 1994, Nebraska got to sidestep Penn State - and for reasons never clear to the rest of us, the coaches voters who LOVED Joe Paterno wouldn't drop Nebraska and give Penn State a share of the title. And the Huskers AGAIN collapsed needing only to scrape by a mediocre Texas team they couldn't beat in 1996.

For reasons never clear to UM fans, Nebraska's 1995 title somehow miraculously changed their history from being colossal chokers to being great. Never mind that Tom Osborne had more of a problem on his team with Lawrence Phillips than the stuff that got Urban Meyer suspended. Never mind that Florida was actually favored in that game, and most pundits chose them. Sure, it was a great performance, but I don't recall anyone thinking that Bill Snyder was an all-time great when he pole-axed "the greatest team ever" in the 2003 Big 12 title game by 28 points.

In a sense, 1997 Michigan is similar to 1966 Alabama. Both teams were ranked at #1 in the polls and dropped through doing nothing but winning. Both had phenomenal defenses. The only "real" difference is that Michigan did make away with a national title - partly because 1997 was the second year no ties were permitted.

Nebraska partisans and analysts without brain cells get all caught up in "but Nebraska had a great offense." Sure, they got 69 points against Oklahoma - but then again, Texas A/M got 51, so just how impressive is that REALLY? Sure, they got 77 points against Iowa State - but then again, 7-6 Wyoming got 56 and 7-5 Iowa got 63, so what is that REALLY worth? Nebraska's offensive numbers are the result of playing a bunch of lousy defenses that gave up a ton of points to other teams as well. Why is this somehow an argument in favor of Nebraska??? Sure, 77-6 looks more impressive on the newspaper heading than 51-3 but so what? It's still a blowout win, the only difference is the distance between the two numbers. The problem, of course, is that offense is always OVER-valued while defense is always UNDER-valued. Don't believe me? Consider this - although there's no substantial difference in the 77-6 blowout over the 51-3 blowout - neither game was close - the same is NOT true when a defense manages to hold a team - ANY team - to ZERO points. Even the best defenses of the modern era rarely record shutouts. Consider the 2011 Alabama team, the gold standard of modern era defenses. Despite having 16 players on defense that went to the NFL, they couldn't keep lowly Kent State from getting a meaningless touchdown. Even Penn State got one late that year to make the score look respectable. Shutouts are DIFFICULT even against the lousiest teams because once your first-stringers are pulled on both sides of the ball, mistakes are more frequent, and it only takes one to put a score on the board. Michigan only had ONE shutout on the year - but they had SIX other games where the opponent got a single digit final score, too. Defensive dominance is harder to see because you have to take your eyes off the dazzling and focus on something more mundane but just as effective.

Michigan blew Colorado right off the field; Nebraska needed overtime. Nebraska beat Baylor by 25; Michigan - with the supposed lesser offense - beat them by 35. Two opponents - and Michigan was better against both of them.

There's also the issue of two-faced Nebraska hypocrisy at play. It's amusing to hear them whine about "well, we shouldn't have dropped for the close call against Missouri." Really? Because in 1994 Penn State dropped from #1 after beating a Top 10 Ohio State team by a MERE 49 points. Then Nebraska moved up in the OTHER poll when Penn State beat Indiana by 6 when the Hoosiers scored two TDs in the final 2 minutes against the fourth-string after there were complaint about teams "running up the score." Nebraska moved up in both polls in 1994 - so they most certainly should be punished for the illegal play that won the Missouri game.

Nebraska whined and then smoked Tennessee. Too bad we didn't have Phil Fulmer's long career of choking in big games except for that one year......which come to think of it sounds like a certain Nebraska coach......

1997 MICHIGAN - THE CASE AGAINST

Look in the Hall of Dishonor, where the pennants of teams who won undeserved national titles fly. Right next to 1990 Colorado and 1984 BYU and 1966 Notre Dame will fly the banner of the 1997 Michigan Wolverines, the most overrated champions of the 90s and one of the most overrated of all-time. Indeed, so lucky are the UM partisans that they took their last hurrah in the final year prior to the BCS because if they'd waited just one year, UM would now be on 7 decades since their last national championship. Similar to BYU, a perfect storm paved the way for Michigan to win a championship they didn't deserve then and that will look worse decades from now when the people who saw the games are long gone and all that is left are the numbers.

The key when evaluating numbers - ANY numbers - is to remember two very important concepts:
1) the numbers do NOT mean everything
2) the numbers do NOT mean NOTHING AT ALL, either

Michigan's numbers when looked at simply as numbers look VERY good, but they are mitigated by some circumstances that call into question just what they mean. Furthermore, Michigan's case - as well as Nebraska's - is undercut by a serious circular argument when it comes to considering whether a team was the best team of the decade: in the case of 1997, there is substantial evidence that neither Michigan nor Nebraska was even the best team of that particular year. The partisans on both sides, however, make the argument about which team would have beaten the other one rather than the larger (historical) question of whether they even deserve to be in this conversation at all.

The two 1997 champions played the easiest schedules of any national champions of the 1990s. If you remove the bowl game to set the percentages as they would play one another, the opponents of BOTH Nebraska AND Michigan lost more than half their games. Looking over the schedule and not including the bowl games against top talent shows an unimpressive array of opponents for both teams:

Nebraska - a very good (11-1) Kansas State team and a pile of mediocrity

Michigan - a decent (9-3) Penn State, a good Ohio State (10-3) team.....and a pile of mediocrity

And then you have to ask "How good were they REALLY?"

There is no question whatsoever that if this occurred nowadays in the four-team playoff era, Florida State would likely wipe the floor with Michigan and most likely beat Nebraska as well. In a Final Four, FSU beats Michigan, Nebraska beats Tennessee (presumably - as they did), and then Florida State beats Nebraska and wins the national championship.

Of course, the argument gets a bit more squirrely when you look at FSU, whose pre-bowl schedule consisted of 11-1 North Carolina and the only game they lost, 10-2 Florida. But let's be realistic for a moment: the Noles' loss to the Gators was on the road and settled in the final three minutes of a rivalry game. Keep in mind that the Seminoles played their two toughest games ON THE ROAD against teams with a combined 21-3 record in a 3-game span. Naturally, Michigan boosters will (correctly) point out their two toughest games were on the same date as the FSU contests and, what's more, they WON. Yeah, they won at home against a decent Buckeyes team......that FSU blew off the field in the Sugar Bowl. The counter-argument to that - a debatable one - is to say that the bowl scenario is different because of the longer preparation time. But if Michigan wants to use THAT argument, shouldn't they have been able to at least match (and for that matter EXCEED) the 14-point win that 9-3 Arizona State got over Wazzu? I mean, you can't just use an argument when it works for you and then abandon it when it doesn't.

And besides, Florida State was in the same shoes as 2008 Alabama or 2012 Florida or other teams that had been on the brink and lost it all, so it's to their credit they rolled the Buckeyes as they did. Remember - the Ohio State teams of 1995-98 compiled a truly remarkable record of 43-7 (with 3 of those losses to Michigan).

When you look through the years, you can almost always find an outlier, but in most cases they are debatable outliers. MAYBE FSU was better than Alabama in 1992. MAYBE Auburn or Notre Dame was REALLY better than FSU in 1993. MAYBE Kansas State was better than Tennessee in 1998 and MAYBE Alabama was better than FSU in 1999. Those things happen. The problem for this decade is the reality that in both 1990 and 1997, the data is pretty clear that the best two teams that shared the title had no real business winning it. Georgia Tech's ascendancy is believed to be due to (wait for it) Tom Osborne's lowering Colorado to fourth in the coach's poll to split the title. In 1997, Michigan and Nebraska cruised along and got fortunate enough to not play a team as good as Florida - and the Gators took the Seminoles out with less than 3 minutes to play in the Swamp - and magically, the two unbeatens that couldn't play each other rose to the top.

To summarize the case against UM, though:

1) the schedule was lousy

The Wolverines DO get credit for their intent - they played then #8 Colorado in the rubber game of the Hail Mary series, Baylor, and the Notre Dame series went back years. It's too bad for Michigan that the Irish had a terrible year. Their INTENT was good, but they wound up with an unimpressive schedule. The Big Ten was Michigan, three 3-loss teams, and a pile of hot garbage.

2) the Big 10 was a lousy conference, too

I know this is often a cliché to make, but in 1997, it's pretty clear that the Big 10 was NOT the Big 10 it would be a few years later. Seven of the 11 teams went to a bowl game - and five lost - and the games weren't particularly close, either:

UGA 33 Wisky 6
FSU 31 Ohio State 14
Florida 21 Penn St 6
Ariz St 17 Iowa 7
Washington 51 Mich St 23

So four Big Ten teams - including the #2 and #3 teams in the conference - combined for a TOTAL of 33 points, which is what UGA scored all by themselves. Three of those teams - all on Michigan's schedule - scored in the single digits and Michigan held NONE of those teams lower than the scores above.

Michigan Held vs Bowl Game
Ohio State 14-14
Iowa 24-7
Wisconsin 16-6
Penn State 8-6

So four Michigan foes from the Big 10 - this is fully 1/3 of the schedule - and in every single case, the opposing (supposed "lesser") defense held the Big 10 team to fewer points than Michigan did. That's bad enough, but it gets worse.

LSU held Notre Dame to 9 points whereas Michigan surrendered 14. What happens here, of course, is the SEC defenses OBLITERATE the Big 10 (in 1997), which adds credence to the idea that two-loss Florida's win over FSU was a more evenly matched contest than if Michigan had played them.

Furthermore, Michigan is weakened by yet another fact: because of the scheduling rotation, Michigan didn't have to face the actual "best offense" in the Big 10....the one that won their bowl game.....Purdue. Again, maybe they win, and it's certainly not their fault - but the reality is that while Purdue while scoring fewer points than Iowa (a fluke to be explained in a moment).

The Big Ten was fourth among the P5 conferences in OOC record (27-16), and the conference record was nothing to write home about outside the games against the Big 12, which is actually a point in Michgan's favor in the Nebraska argument

vs SEC 0-3
vs Big 12 7-0
vs PAC 10 2-3
vs ACC 1-3

3) The proof of the lighter schedule contribution is found in the years surrounding 1997.

Although there was NO WAY to know this in 1997, that year sticks out like a skyscraper in how good Michigan was compared to other years surrounding it:

1993 - 8-4
1994 - 8-4
1995 - 9-4
1996 - 8-4
1997 - 12-0
1998 - 10-3
1999 - 10-2
2000 - 9-3
2001 - 8-4

Michigan NEVER CAME CLOSE to an unbeaten season in all the seasons surrounding 1997. From 1993 to 2005, Michigan had only ONE OTHER season where they didn't lose AT LEAST three games - and the only reason they didn't lose 3 that year is because a much better Alabama team folded in the 2000 Orange Bowl. What made 1997 different?

Yes, Michigan had some good players, but how different was the 1997 team from the 1996 team?

a) Lou Holtz retired at Notre Dame after the 1996 season
b) Northwestern's "Cinderella" team players - most notable Darnell Autry - let
c) Purdue wasn't on the schedule

Of course, Michigan fans will THEN point to Charles Woodson's Heisman Trophy as if that answers the question. But how much did he REALLY contribute to the overall team? Woodson was a very good player, but would you REALLY choose him over Peyton Manning even then? Woodson played a bunch of games on ABC (six, in fact) and that particular year saw ABC for the first time get inventive with labels like "Showdown Saturday" and "Judgment Day" and "Separation Saturday" and all that other Musberger reefer puffing hype. Woodson was on ABC every week with those labels being attached to him.

In the end, Michigan won the national championship. They were champions, but they were not even the best team of the year, and they were one of the softest champions of the decade.

1998 TENNESSEE - THE CASE FOR

Lost Peyton Manning, won a national title. Indeed, that's all that needs to be said about Tennessee's truly unbelievable run for the 1998 national championship, a year that saw the Vols rout the SEC, go 13-0, and wipe the floor with the team of the 90s, Florida St, in a game that wasn't close save for on the final scorebard cosmetically. The team didn't lose ONLY Manning, they lost several top flight guys to the NFL off of the defending SEC champs - Terry Fair, Leonard Little, and Marcus Nash among others.

The Vols lost one of the all-time greats after the Heisman highway robbery of 1997 and went on a tear, roaring through the 18th toughest schedule in the country while featuring a balanced attack that had the Vols as the #17 rushing team, #32 total offense (because they played those great SEC defenses), #17 scoring offense (with 34.0 ppg, 2nd in the SEC), and a VERY GOOD DEFENSE (#6 rushing, #17 passing, 17th overall, and 9th in scoring defense, givng up 14.4 ppg. The Vols played FIVE Top Ten teams, and beat them all, including two on the road and one at a neutral site. They even won the national championship game - the first GENUINE and REAL national championship game (not a damn poll) WITHOUT offensive coordinator David Cutcliffe, who had already gone on to Ole Miss to replace someday Senator Tuberville, whose pine box carting him to Opelika was apparently a gold embossed John Deere.

The Vols beat eight - I repeat, EIGHT - bowl teams in 1998 and four ranked teams away from home, this last better than recent champions like 2016 Clemson and 2017 Alabama, who only beat 3 ranked teams away from home (and oh yeah, actually LOST GAMES as well). The Big Orange held 10 opponents to less than 20 points in games that year, and even those numbers are skewed by the Vols pulling off early to not rub in defeats to outmatched teams. In NINE SEC games, the Vols first-team defense only surrendered 8 touchdowns. To give you some idea how great this was, 2011 Alabama (generally considered one of the all-time great defenses) gave up 5 and lost a game (in one less contest, an SEC titel game no less) while 1992 Alabama DID play nine SEC games, and the first team D gave up eight just like the Vols did. Given the calibre of competition both teams played, it's inconceivable the 98 Vols don't rank higher defensively in nostalgia arguments.

Further proof of how good the TEAM was is the fact the Vols lost Jamal Lewis for the season in the Auburn game, still having to face the meat of the schedule, including UGA the next week. The team responded like the champions they were and ran the table. Bear in mind that Tee Martin's passing was so unlike Peyton Manning's that the Vols dropped all the way to 73rd in passing offense, although Martin was obviously a better runner. This wasn't one talented player putting a team on his back and carrying it across the line like Cam Newton; this was a team, and a very good one at that.

1998 TENNESSEE - THE CASE AGAINST

There's a reason why it's so much easier to make the case against than the case for - it's because they weren't that damned good in the first place. Indeed, there may never have been a luckier #1 - not just in 1998 but in the entire history of CFB - than the 1998 Vols. Being asked to argue in favor of the greatness of that team is like being asked to be Timothy McVeigh's attorney not only with the evidence that existed but a video tape actually showing him planting the bomb. And this team was not only the most undeserving champions of the 90s (yes, worse than Michigan), they were the luckiest as well.

Let's deal with the diversionary nonsense - so David Cutcliffe left before the bowl game. Big deal. Gerry DiNardo did the same thing and Colorado won a national title thanks to a clipping call. And unlike whoever replacd Cutcliffe (because nobody rememers), Colorado actually had to face the other team's STARTING QUARTERBACK unlike the Vols, who backed into a national title when Chris Weinke missed the bowl.

So they beat eight bowl teams? La de fricking da! No that difficult when 1998 saw an increase to TWENTY-TWO bowl games and SEC teams padded their schedule with four easy cupcakes so they only had to go 2-6 to make a bowl. That's not to say the Vols didn't play a tough schedule - they DID, in fact, play a very tough one by 1998 standards - but arguing 8 bowl teams you beat meant a whole lot more when 1989 Notre Dame beat 8 ot of 9 against a much tougher schedule when there were only 18 bowl games. And oh yeah, four of those were away from home, and that Irish team would have knocked the orange off of the Vols had they ever played.

But I also said LUCKY. Let's look at LUCKY.

1) They got a freer gift on the pass interference call when they had a sure loss to Syracuse on fourth down than the so-called controversial one against Miami against Ohio State in 2003. What's truly bizarre is Fulmer actually - I'm not making this up - sent the referee that made that call an autographed national champions football. (I know Bill McCartney wishes he'd done this for the Fifth Down guys. AND the Orange Bowl crew, too). It was a judgment call but throwing in a flag after you've had time to calculate what's necessary to keep the Vols unbeaten on the road was highway robbery.

2) They got another free gift against Florida, winning at home in overtime. Terrible.

3) They got yet ANOTHER one when Brandon Burlsworth stepped on Clint Stoerner's foot, and Clint decided "hell, here's a football for you" when he tried to steady himself, setting it on the ground for a fumble. The Vols recovered and scored.

4) They got ANOTHER break when Weinke - a future Heisman winner mind you - missed the Fiesta Bowl.

5) They got ANOTHER break when Michigan State took advantage of one bad Ohio State quarter and knocked the Buckeyes out. Because I'm still convinced the Bucks would have tied them in concrete blocks and tossed them into the ocean.

Go look at the scores for 1998 Ohio State - they look like Urban Meyer era results. Literally. As in a bunch of blowouts, a closer game against Michigan than probably warranted, and an inexplicable loss to - of all teams - Nick Saban's Sparty crew. OSU had a 24-9 lead in the third quarter after a pick six by Damon Moore. Moore managed to light a fire under the Green and White by hot dogging it into the end zone with a dive that ticked off the Spartans and saw them come back to take a 28-24 lead. Even then, Ohio St probably should have won the game, getting to the MSU 15 and throwing two passes into the end zone that didn't go OSU's way.

That one loss cost Ohio St a shot at the Vols, and given the fact the Big Ten WAS without question the toughest conference in football that year (5-0 in the bowls, 30-12 against the OOC, best in CFB while the SEC in 1998 was so poor they were fourth in the Big Six conferences).

Thanks to the advent of conference title games, Tennessee managed to avoid contests with Kansas State, Ohio St, and potentially (due to a rescheduled game) UCLA, all of whom were probably better overall teams than the Vols in 1998. Instead, they got a crippled FSU team without a QB. Yeah, they won, and they will always be the champions, but let's not go coronating these guys as all-time greats, either.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Tennessee WAS without question the best team of 1998. Ask yourself an obvious question? How good was the quality of play overall? Look at the rankings. The cluster of unbeatens and one-loss teams at the top is smaller than most years, certainly most GOOD years. So maybe we CAN say the Vols are the best team of 1998, but it's still nothing to write home about, either.

1999 FLORIDA STATE SEMINOLES - THE CASE FOR

The 99 Noles were good, so good in fact, they lost the best player in the country for three games while playing the 2nd toughest schedule in the nation and became the first-ever wire-to-wire #1 in the AP poll, starting and finishing and putting an exclamation point on both the season AND the Team of the Decade with a 46-point outburst against a solid Virginia Tech team, led by the exciting Michael Vick. (Here's hoping Ron Dayne sends a Christmas card to Peter Warrick every year). With a 425-yard per game high-powered offense (#12) averaging 37.5 ppg (#4), and a defense that gave up only 15.6 ppg (#10) despite playing the nation's 2nd most difficult schedule, FSU was a very good, well-balanced all-around TEAM. And as a reminder - those are regular season only stats and diminished due to Peter Warrick's three games missed due to the Dillard's debacle. The Noles beat 8 bowl teams, three Top 10 teams, five overall top 25 teams, including four ranked in the Final Top 20.

How good was the offense? They scored 46 points against the nation's best scoring defense, Virginia Tech, which was 35 1/2 more points than the Hokies averaged surrendering over the course of the regular season. And just to show this was no fluke, the Noles also drilled in 31 points against Miami's average surrender of 17.3 ppg. Wake Forest averaged giving up 19, the Noles scored 33. Florida averaged surrendering 19, the Noles nabbed 30. This is a key point in assessing the greatness of teams - do they dominate the opposition well above the average performance of that opposition. Great defenses hold great offenses 10 points or more below their average while great offenses go 10-14 minimum ABOVE the average defensive performnace. In the case of FSU 1999, you had a future Heisman winner at QB and a shoulda been Heisman winner at WR. But just to show this was no fluke, TWENTY-FOUR members (not all starters obviously) on the 1999 FSU Seminoles were drafted into the NFL, everyone from Warrick to Weinke to Lavernaeus Coles to the kicker, Sebastian Janikowski. Imagine that - all of the Noles' problems with kicking game-winning field goals, and the kicker of the unbeaten FSU national champions is drafted in the first round and goes on to become one of the best kickers in NFL history. Anquan Boldin was a freshman on that team and has a ring.

Florida State probably suffers perception-wise by comparison with 1995 Nebraska because the Noles lost the title game in 1996, 1998, and 2000, and also had their only loss of the season set the table for Nebraska's 1997 split with Michigan. Maybe if the Noles had won in either 98 or 2000, they'd be viewed differently. But their week-to-week ranking shows they were thought to be the best that year, their performance proves they were the best, and their combined performance during the year plus future accomplishments of players demonstrate this was Bobby Bowden's best team and one of the all-time greats. Bowden's swan song was his best team.

FSU - THE CASE AGAINST
What do 1995 Nebraska and 1999 FSU have in common? Both teams are hoisted up by their blindest partisans as all-time great teams and those loud mouths never fail to mention that their team was so good that they were able to win without their best player, who in both cases ran afoul of the criminal justice system due to character flaws even alleged great motivators of men Bowden and Osborne couldn't cure. There is obviously NO comparison between a discount at Dillard's and dragging a female athlete by her hair down three flights of stairs, but the fact your best player thinks the rules of life doesn't apply to him is probably not something fans should be willing to sound like they're defending, either. Too bad Lavernaeus Coles (who people forget was with Warrick) didn't have Warrick's pedigree and was instead kicked off the team for the same incident (and some others).

First, the schedule. OK, it was not that bad, but it wasn't nearly as good as FSU folks want to say, either. Eight bowl teams? Meaningless when there are 23 bowl games (meaning 45 other teams besides you go). This "second toughest schedule" nonsense is based upon the overall winning pct of the teams they played, and those numbers are skewed hard by geography (FSU plays Miami and Florida EVERY year) and the bowl game with Va Tech. Take those three games away and FSU played a pile of mediocrity that won 5, 6, and 7 games plus Georgia Tech. (I'll handle the opener against La Tech in a moment). It was not the kind of schedule where they could be accused of doding quality foes, but it was also not the meat grinder of the modern SEC or the Big Ten of the mid-80s or the Notre Dame schedules in the Lou Holtz era. Noles partisans don't mention that although they played 8 bowl teams, those teams went 2-6 in bowls and one of those wins was loser to FSU Miami beating loser to FSU Ga Tech. Wake Forest and La Tech not only lost their bowls, they got blown off the field in routs.

Secondly, the Noles had THREE close calls that they easily could have lost, and Peter Warrick was on the field for two of them. And although the Noles deserve credit for rising to the occasion, the fact is that the Sugar Bowl game against an overrated Virginia Tech team (go look at their schedule), FSU was trailing entering the 4th quarter. Yes, they won out, they should have - Va Tech had "only" 16 guys go into the NFL from that team, and HALF of those were freshmen who barely played in 1999. Other than QB Michael Vick himself, not one of the others was anything resembling and NFL star.

Thirdly, let's discuss La Tech since it will be such a sticking point in evaluating the year. La Tech had one of their best teams in history led by a pass happy QB named Tim Rattay. FSU blew them off the field while the Bulldogs edged Alabama with a backup throwing a TD on fourth down to win by one. Florida State fans use this to dismiss claims Alabama was in a class with FSU. But Alabama played Florida not once but TWICE. They scored more points both times in regulation (34) than FSU's high-powered offense that included Warrick did. So in context, how impressive REALLY was FSU?

As far as the wire to wire, well, Alabama would have done that in both 1966 and 1979 if the voters hadn't screwed them.

To be fair, this is NOT 1998 Tennessee or 1997 Michigan we're talking about. There's a solid case that 1999 FSU was a very good team; there's very little reason to argue they were somehow the team of the 90s.

So where do we go from here to do some rankings of the 1990s national champions? Trust me when I tell you this is NOT an easy thing to do, and a number of people no doubt are convinced that this is an already settled issue since they hold to the "1995 Nebraska was one of the greatest teams of all-time." Allow me to explain the method I will attempt to use to come to something of an objective answer or at least as much objective as I possibly can. Bear this in mind - when I laid out the cases "for" and "against," I used FACTS as arguments. The statements that "X beat 8 bowl teams" are FACTUAL. What has to be determined in making a conclusion, of course, is whether those facts mandate the interpretation on them that is insinuated in presenting them. To give an example - it's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE OJ Simpson was practicing his golf swing the night he killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman; he just wasn't doing it at that exact moment.

One place these articles can often go I'm trying to avoid - crazy things like those articles that come out and say that Ohio State or Oklahoma are the best programs of all-time and using criteria that while generally good kicks out insane results. Make no mistake - Ohio State and OU ARE two of the very best programs EVER. But they slant numbers in favor of those two teams with things like Heisman winners and weekly rankings, which are hardly fair. Nebraska gets a bunch of points for being #1 every single week of 1983 and a Heisman winner despite the fact that at the end of the day, they were just another decent team. But teams with reputations can inflate those numbers. There is ZERO question - none whatsoever now - that Alabama is THE number one program in CFB history. I would probably rate Ohio State second primarily due to the fact they've won a bunch of national titles ACROSS THE YEARS in different decades. OU had that going, but they've won exactly ONE title in the last 35 years, which is as many as Washington, Auburn, Colorado, and Georgia Tech. Notre Dame, once the heavy, hasn't won a national title since the Gipper left the White House.

There WILL be a level of subjectivity to this, but the following will be taken into account:

Strength of Schedule - always an iffy proposition
Eye Test
Performance Against other Good Teams - a sub component of SoS
NFL Draft Picks
Relative Strength of Conference (if a member)
If The Team Beat A Champion of Another Conference
Quality of Loss (If Any)

Let me state up front it is MY PERSONAL OPINION that JUST BECAUSE a team is undefeated DOES NOT mean that team will necessarily rank higher than a team with a loss in my final analysis. This is VERY easy to prove - who do you think would actually win a football game between 1982 Penn State and 1984 BYU? Hell, nobody believes 1984 BYU would have beaten 1984 Oklahoma or Washington or Florida. In fact, The Sporting News rated BYU number TEN in their final poll, which gave Florida the TSN national title. Nebraska would also likely have beaten BYU in 1984.

Another note - if a team wound up with a soft schedule but TRIED to schedule aggressiely, I don't hold it against them. I can hold some things against 1997 Michigan, but it's not their fault they scheduled a series with Colorado when the Buffs were good and then CU was bad when they met. (Let's be honest - that series was probably scheduled by former Michigan assistant Bill McCartney when he was at Colorado and building them).

Rankings? Well.....you'll have to wait.

81usaf92 said:

Ive always felt the two best teams that year played in the Orange Bowl. But incompetent coaching by both allowed Virginia Tech to get the chance vs FSU.

Click to expand...

Some days I agree with you on that.
Some days I don't.

I will always agree regarding the incompetent coaching part.

One pass play difference in the La Tech game......and we have a BCS controversy when Alabama goes over Va Tech to play FSU. But we would have been spotted the Tennessee loss since the Vols were 9-2, Alexander got hurt in the game, it was a quality loss, and we had that powerful schedule with all those wins.

And since Samuels plays in a national title game, I'm not 100% convinced we lose to FSU, either. On the other hand, it would have been harder to fire Dubious the next year if we did win it.

Btw - I've made a couple of addenda to the FSU 99 post.

Btw, let me bring up another problem when evaluating teams: bowl games and out of conference competition.

I'm a FIRM believer that the BEST WAY to determine conference strength is by out of conference games against one another. Of course, that comes with a caveat, too: does anyone REALLY believe that you can tell the conference strength of the Big Ten vs the SEC if you have the SEC go 2-0 against the B1G, and the wins are Vandy over NWestern and Kentucky over Indiana? I mean, really. The only REAL and AUTHENTIC way to do this is to match up the best vs the best, 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, and the only time that ever happens in the real world is the bowl games, which brings up another problem.

Bowl games are used to assess conference strength. Whether they should be or HOW they should be is another discussion altogether. The problems with using bowl games are numerous, including the following:

1) sometimes you wind up with a 10-1 team against a 7-4 team
2) sometimes one team is playing most of its players from the next year while the other is playing its entire starting lineup
3) it doesn't have the same meaning as when you face a team with only 7 days to get ready when both teams are in peak shape in late October or early November
4) sometimes one team is taking the field reluctantly and the other is taking the field with a chance to nab a big win for their program (2006 Boise State-OU, 2008 Alabama-Utah, 2012 Florida-Louisville)
5) Nowadays - hell, Chris Samuels - players will refuse to take the field for bowl games that have no bearing on championships due to NFL considerations (the Melvin Bratton effect)

What got me to thinking on this was an interview I saw with Lee Corso that aired after the 1991 bowl games were played. There was the whole stink about Colorado and Georgia Tech. Corso flippantly dismissed Tech, saying that they hadn't played the same schedule as Colorado. When the interviewer brought up that Tech had blown out the Nebraska team that Colorado struggled to beat, Corso dismissed that with the fact that Nebraska was missing several players who were suspended AND that Tech had had a whole lot more time to prepare for their big game against Nebraska than Colorado, who beat them in Lincoln the week after beating ranked Oklahoma as well. Corso made a persuasive and (by his standards) eloquent case for Colorado.

The bowl games are both important AND problematic in assessing teams.

And you also have to remember that conference expansion has diminished the number of OOC games a team can play.

In 1990, Colorado played seven conference games plus FIVE OOC foes - Tennessee (SEC champs), Texas (SWC champs), Illinois, Washington (Pac 10 champs), and Stanford. By 1999, top five Alabama had played eight conference games, a conference title game, and three OOC foes (Houston, La Tech, USM), none of them really powerful teams on paper at scheduling time. As conferences have expanded, OOC games contracted commensurately save for when an additional game was added in 2002. But most of those are little more than SEC teams feasting on cucpakes from the FCS and with good reason - why ruin your chances in the meat grinder conference where Auburn can blow UGA out in one game and then get blown out four weeks later in a bigger game?

The reduction of OOC games has made it much more difficult to assess cross-conference strength. It was not as bad in the 90s as today, but expansions such as the SWC plus the Big Eight equals the Big 12 and the rise of the Big East didn't help.

Overall Evaluations

1990 Colorado
Bowl teams – Tennessee, Illinois, Texas, Washington, Nebraska (1-4)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .587 (1)
Opp post-bowl winning pct. - .600 (1)
Number of bowl games in year - 19
Conference overall - .578 (3rd)
Conference bowl record (1-1)
NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts – 18

Special circumstances – Colorado beat the Pac 10 and SWC champs and tied the SEC champions. They played the toughest schedule of any championship team of the 1990s. Two special circumstances: 1) the loss of Bienemy probably cost them the Tennessee game; 2) the Fifth Down win against Missouri gives rise to a tainted title perception.

1990 Ga Tech
Bowl teams – NC State, Clemson, UVA (2-1)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .530
Opp post-bowl winning pct. - .569
Number of bowl games in year - 19
Conference overall – .712 (1st, 4-1 vs SEC, only loss by one point in Sugar Bowl)
Conference bowl record: 3-1-1
NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts - 11

Special circumstances – Tech was the nation’s only undefeated team albeit with a tie. The ACC was a good conference in 1990, and Tech did beat Clemson who rolled the same Illinois team that beat Colorado. That’s not a very good argument, but Tech rolling Nebraska while Colorado struggled is a stronger one. A one-year wonder as opposed to Colorado’s sustained excellence 1989-96.

1991 Washington
Bowl teams – Stanford, Nebraska, Cal (1-2)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .491
Opp post-bowl winning pct. - .522
Number of bowl games in year - 18
Conference overall – - .576 (3rd)
Conference bowl record – 3-1
NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts – 23

Special circumstances – Washington played four ranked opponents and had only one close game. In the entire history of college football, only two teams have done that – 91 Washington, 2013 FSU, and 95 Nebraska, the latter generally regarded (in part for that reason) as being one of the greatest teams ever. Even the great teams in recent years – 2001 Miami, 2004 USC, 2005 Texas, 2018 Clemson, 2019 LSU, and 2020 Alabama – had at least two close games. That accomplishment alone – being in the same breath with the 95 Huskers – shows Washington was better than a lot of people remember.

1991 Miami
Bowl teams – Arkansas, Tulsa, Penn St, Florida St, San Diego St (3-2)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .523
Opp post-bowl winning pct. - .542
Number of bowl games in year - 18
Conference overall - .630 (2nd)
Conference bowl record – 2-0
NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts – 22

Special circumstances – how many points do we take off of Miami’s total evaluation when the reality is they ducked a bowl game with Florida to take a for sure home national title shot against Nebraska, particularly in light of the fact Florida was much better against FSU, and Miami even during their dynasty years had a losing record in bowl games away from home. Their NFL draft pick numbers are also slightly inflated because BOTH their former head coaches were NFL coaches in the 1992-1995 time frame. That doesn’t mean those players wouldn’t have been drafted – but despite that advantage, they actually had one fewer player drafted than Washington did. But it seems to me intentionally ducking an opponent – as there is no doubt Miami did – is far worse than Colorado getting a break from the officials.

1992 Alabama
Bowl teams – Tennessee, Ole Miss, MSU, Florida (3-1)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .496
Opp post-bowl winning pct. - .536
Total number of bowl games - 18
Conference overall - .750 (1st), but nothing to really boast about
Conference bowl record: 5-1
NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts – 22

Special circumstances – Alabama became only the 2nd team in history (after 1986 Oklahoma) to finish the year ranked first in five defensive categories. The fact Alabama equaled the number of Miami Hurricanes drafted would stun nearly anyone given the Tide hardly had the advantages the Hurricanes had.

1993 FSU
Bowl teams – UNC, Miami, UVA, Notre Dame, NC State, Florida (2-3)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .570
Opp post-bowl winning pct. - .597
Bowl games played in year - 19
Conference overall - .567, 6th
Conference bowl record: 2-3
NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts – 27

Special circumstances – Florida State’s seemingly high winning pct SoS argument (3rd toughest in the 90s) loses it’s luster when you look at their performances against good teams. They lost to Notre Dame, and sure, they beat North Carolina, who won 10 games in the ACC, but what exactly did that prove? North Carolina lost by fourteen points to an Alabama team with a backup quarterback in the Gator Bowl (a fact seemingly lost on UNC coach Mack Brown in 2010), and okay, they beat Florida. They also beat Nebraska in one of the most rigged seeming games in history practically at home. Their high value comes from their attempt to mimic the 1983 Huskers – score a truckload of points against also-rans and then beat a few decent teams. Sure, they beat 9-3 Clemson by 57 points…but Clemson lost to 2-9 Wake Forest, too, and barely scraped out a 14-13 win over Kentucky in the Peach Bowl. Three of the four bowl teams the Noles beat lost their bowl games by 14, 29, and 35 points. On top of all that, the Noles had no business even being in the game in the first place. Notre Dame losing to Boston College simply did not miraculously mean Florida State had beaten the Irish.

1994 Nebraska
Bowl teams – WVA, Texas Tech, K State, Colorado, OU (1-4)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .496
Opp post-bowl winning pct. - .523
Total number of bowl games - 19
Conference overall - .635 (3rd)
Conference bowl record: 2-2
NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts – 27

Special circumstances – though not their fault, Nebraska did not meet the nation’s other unbeaten team, Penn St, in their bowl game. Nebraska attempted to schedule hard (WVA and UCLA), but neither of those foes was very good in 1994. The only team Nebraska beat that won a bowl, Colorado, lucked into a game for Bill McCartney’s retirement against 6-4-1 Notre Dame, who had no business in the game. Had the much anticipated Alabama-Colorado bowl game happened, it is likely that Nebraska would not have beaten a single team that won a bowl game. The Huskers did not have a close game until the finale against Miami, and it should be noted that they played much of the season led by their second-string QB (Brook Berringer) and their narrow win over ranked Kansas State was quarterbacked by third stringer Matt Turman. A significant argument can be made that Nebraska’s 1994 team was actually better than their 1995 team.

1995 Nebraska
Bowl teams – Michigan St, K State, Colorado, Kansas (3-1)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .508
Opp post-bowl winning pct. - .553
Total number of bowl games - 18
Conference overall - .792 (1st)
Conference bowl record: 4-0
NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts – 27

Special circumstances – despite having won 24 games in a row entering the Fiesta Bowl, the Huskers were actually underdogs to Florida. Sixty-two points later, historical revisionism took over, and the Huskers suddenly became the greatest team ever. Again, Nebraska did attempt to have a strong schedule out of conference as Michigan State, Arizona State, and Washington St were all considered decent enough opponents. That makes the scheduling of Pacific far more tolerable.

1996 Florida
Bowl teams – Tennessee, LSU, Auburn, FSU, Alabama (4-1, the loss was to Florida themselves)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .585
Opp post-bowl winning pct. - .614
Total bowls played: 18
Conference overall - .769 (1st)
Conference bowl record: 5-0
NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts - 22

Special circumstances - two games against the same 11-win team (Florida State) are what push this schedule over the top, but it can't be said the Gators did not face a powerful schedule. The SEC went 5-0 in bowl games and took down Michigan (the only team to beat Big 10 champ Ohio State), Florida State, and #11 Northwestern. The early OOC leaves a bit to be desired but can hardly be considered worse than some in conference games for other champions.

1997 Michigan
Bowl teams – Notre Dame, Iowa, Michigan St, Penn St, Wisky, Ohio St (0-6)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .492
Opp post-bowl winning pct. - .521
Total bowl games: 20
Conference overall - .628 (4th)
Conference bowl record 2-5
NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts - 20

Special circumstances - while Michigan's 20 NFL draft picks seems rather low, bear in mind they already have TWO Pro Football Hall of Famers out of those players (Charles Woodson and Steve Hutchinson) and they will undoubtedly have a third (Tom Brady) when he retires. The fact remains UM did not beat a single team that won a bowl game in 1997 despite having perhaps the nation's best defense.

1997 Nebraska
Bowl teams – Washington, K State, Mizzou, ATM (2-2)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .471
Opp post-bowl winning pct. - .503
Total bowl games played: 20
Conference overall - .610 (5th)
Conference bowl record: 2-3
NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts -23

Special circumstances - Nebraska played the weakest schedule of any national champion of the decade and despite that needed an illegal play to stay alive and win it. I fail to see how I can possibly punish Colorado for an officials' gaffe while giving NU a free pass. On top of that, it's probable they only won the title in a sympathy vote with Tom Osborne retiring as well. Much like Miam in 1991 and FSU in 1993, Nebraska's 1997 title is largely built of prior reputation.

1998 Tennessee
Bowl teams – Syracuse, Florida, UGA, Alabama, Arkansas, UK, MSU (2-5)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .540
Opp post-bowl winning pct. – .564
Total bowl games played: 22
Conference overall - .667 (4th)
Conference bowl record: 4-4
NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts – 30 (11 in the 5th round or below)

Special circumstances - lucky is as lucky does, but the Vols actually produced more NFL players in the four immediate drafts than did any other team. Of course, the Vols teams of 1995-2001 were very good teams, they just had trouble with Nebraska. But that 2-5 bowl record of their opponents is also marred by the fact that three of those teams - Miss St, Alabama, and Arkansas - were absolutely manhandled in the bowls, losing by scores of 38-11, 38-7, and 45-31. SEC defenses weren't very good that year.

1999 FSU
Bowl teams – Ga Tech, NC State, Miami, Wake Forest, Clemson, UVA, Florida (2-5)
Opp pre-bowl winning pct. - .546
Opp post-bowl winning pct. - .577
Total bowl games played: 23
Conference overall - .655 (4th)
Conference bowl record: 2-3

NFL draft picks in next 4 drafts - 24

Special circumstances - probably lucky they drew Virginia Tech rather than Alabama, Nebraska, or Michigan in the bowl game. Not too much should be given to their wire to wire act; pollsters can be less fickle when the team actually has to play a BCS title game as the Noles were going to do anyway.


And now.....it's time to rank them.

13. 1997 Nebraska

You'll find that (with one exception) the teams I felt were the most undeserving champions will be on the lower part of this list. 1997 Nebraska was the most undeserving of all, winning with an illegal play based primarily on the reputation of a team two seasons earlier, an outsized and somewhat undeserved lionizing of a head coach who was given a gold trophy as opposed to a watch by folks still hung up on his pre-Lawrence Phillips handling reputation. Combine this with a soft schedule and a mid-level conference of underachievers, and this one is a no-brainer.

12. 1997 Michigan

Sure they played six bowl teams, seven if you include Wazzu in the Rose Bowl. Those teams went 0-7 in the bowls, too. Absolutely a talented team. Would they have beaten Nebraska? Well, I don't know. They couldn't beat Nebraska's reputation else they'd have won the same consensus title the Huskers did in 1994. The Big Ten was an awful 1-5 in the non-Michigan bowls, and it's difficult to see this as anything other than the "other best" team in a mediocre year for college ball all the way around.

11. 1990 Georgia Tech

Because my late grandfather had a scholarship offer to play football at Tech back in the late 20s - he never finished high school else he'd have been there when Roy Riegels ran the wrong way - this one is painful to write. But Georgia Tech had no damn business winning the national title even though I was pulling for them all the way. I seriously doubt that in a head-to-head football game in 1990 that they could have beaten Miami, Notre Dame or Colorado and that's just for starters. The only reason they don't rank lower is that the ACC was a pretty good conference overall in 1990, and they did blow out Nebraska and their pre-dynasty inflated reputations as well. There were only 11 NFL draft picks on that team, none of them a star. Ken Swilling looked like he was going to be a star - but only because he was making those films against ACC-level competition which regressed to historic norms after an above average year of 1990.

Look at Tech's records:

1988 - 3-8
1989 - 7-4
1990 - 11-0-1
1991 - 8-5
1992 - 5-6
1993 - 5-6
1994 - 1-10

Which one of these doesn't belong? "One of these things is not like the others...."

They rose on the basis of other teams losing and beating an overrated #1 UVA on national TV. Without it, Tech likely finishes about 8th on the year even undefeated.

10. 1998 Tennessee

Champions of a down conference in a down year who had more luck than they deserved and a head coach who by his own evaluation of them prior to the season said they were 8-4 at best. In all honesty - had a few miracles not happened along the way combined with the schedule - they would have been an 8-4 team. Phil knows 8-4 teams.

9. 1993 Florida State

Again showing the easy obsession writers have with offense, you have yet another team that was little more than a favorite of the media winning a title in a game they had no damned business playing in in the first place.

8. 1999 Florida State

See 1993 except at least they did deserve to be in the big game.

7. 1991 Miami

Another team whose national title basically can be summarized as:
a) based on past reputation
b) and a schedule erroneously perceived as tough
c) and a dominating final game win against an overrated Nebraska team because
d) they had enough of point a to be able to dodge Florida and get away with it with the writers though not the coaches.

Miami was a pretty normal team away from the Orange Bowl in the post-season.