Illegal blocks on kick returns are almost never seen by the audience since the TV camera is on the guy running with the ball. My suspicion is that there probably was a little bit of contact but not enough to justify a flag being thrown.
It was just meant to be for FSU to win the national championship that year. They came so close and lost it by one game each of the previous 6 seasons, same for the next 5 seasons after '93.
Could someone please tell/show me the block in the back during the 70 yard punt return for a TD at 1:50.......I've watched 10 times and can't find it......had it not been called, NE would have won the game and thus the National Championship 4 out of 5 years......no "luck", no "fluke", just hard work and a head coach that knows what he's doing......by the way this was one of many teams playing a Florida team in Florida on a "neutral" field......
@drwinstonOboogi There was a PI penalty that wasn't called, that was costly, there was the William Floyd TD that was called off(he somehow scored on the next play when he fumbled)...There was the illegal substitution by Nebraska on the play where they tried to put Bennet into range that wasn't called. The game was sloppy by the refs..but you can't say it was all one-sided. FSU should have won this game going away, especially how they whipped NU the year before(this year they were better).
It was on NPR. There was a ref talking about being paid to blow calls, and how hard it is to stop once you started. It was some time with in this last year that I listened to it, but I can't tall you much more than that.
I used to think that I was crazy to think the ref got paid, but after hearing an interview about baseball umps and NFL refs getting paid to blow a call or two a game... I'm thinking we really got screwed on this one. 3 peat.
Where was the penalty? Where was the fucking penalty? How much money did the ref that threw that flag make for that crooked piece of shit? The ref should be beat up for doing that.
also tkcarr. the missouri 97 game was NOT an illegal kick or play. that's just you trying to find an excuse back at us for debating this game. we were 100% without a shadow of a doubt lucky to beat mizzou that day. they outplayed us and we were lucky. but we didn't need any BS referee mistakes to do it so we beat them fair and square.
It was about as illegal as the punt you keep whining about. Also, it shows that the '97 title was tainted and that you were not as dominant as you claim. So quit whining about '94.
tkcarr you are such a moron. go look up the rules of ncaafootball. there is nothin illegal about the play against mizzou. you just love to argue even if its arguing about nothin. the title was hardly tainted. we wanted to play MICH but the big ten had an agreement with the rose bowl. thats not our fault.
I think you might want to look the rules up as well. Whether it was your "fault" or not you did not have a unanimous title and so cannot claim one. Your title counts as a half when comparing to FSU. Both schools had two unanimous titles in the 90s. So, you have to look at other stats. Simple really.
if you didnt have your head up your own ass on basic knowledge and could admit the truth, you might be intelligent. but the fact is you are ignorant and will argue about what color the sky is just to argue. have fun with that bye and go grab yourself an education while your at it.
Travis, no need to be ugly just admit defeat. Calling people names just shows you have lost the argument. Time for you to go to bed and get ready for school tomorrow. You will learn these things better when you grow up!
those comments are moronic. first off you only played ND and USC a few times. you played in the weak ACC as well. so theres an argument on both sides. and how do you know tom osborne woulda done as bad as solich? thats another opinion not a fact. i will NOT argue who the better coach is because i believe bowden was overall more successful. but the point of this video is that NU was robbed of quite alotta points and in a close game a few points make a big difference of winning and losing.
Now you are using bad language again. Should I tell your mommy? Gladd you see the light about Bowden (tell Romey) now quit whining about '94. We won. PS the fact that TO won consistently in the Big 8 but lost bowls shows how weak that conference was most of the time he coached.
"Not really. Anyway, Bobby coached longer and TO would have had the losses that Solich and the other dude had if he had stayed. Did I mention 14 consecutive years in the top 4? Oh, and the first EVER wire-to-wire number one? 14 hours ago" "FSU's nonconference schedule during Bowden's heyday included Miami and Florida EVERY year in additon to the NDs and USCs. Nebraska played only played OK who was any good. FSU schedule >>>Nebraska's"
Bobby Bowden said at NU football clinic this weekend that FSU didnt deserve to win this game...I happen to agree but was very suprised that Bowden admitted that...
Nebraska was a powerhouse sinse the early 70s up till 2001. our worst record out of those 30 years was 9-4 in 1998. Osborne hadthe top team basically every year. played in the national championship 8 times in his 25 year career. appeared in the national championship 5 times in the 90s winning 3 in 4 years. from 1993-1997 osborne went 60-3. only coach to eve do it. btw osborne was voted best coach of all time and his 1995 team was voted best of all time
Nebraska was a powerhouse when Osborne took over. Bobby Bowden took a team that had never even been to a major bowl and took them to the very top of college football. So, is the better coach one who makes a lot out of nothing orone who takes soemthing good and maintains it (somewhat as Nebraska won no titles for Osbornes first 20)? Bobby Bowden has a national coaches trophy named for him. Does Tom? What about 14 consectutive top 4 years finishes? Has anyone done that?
Bowden: 75.6% win percentage, 2 National Titles, 1 undefeated season
Osborne: 83.5% win percentage, 3 National Titles, 3 undefeated seasons
Scoreboard
The argument about wins doesn't hold water. Osborne walked away at the pinnacle of his career instead of hanging around, wearing out his welcome. Oh yeah, Osborne never had any win taken away for NCAA violations.
Bowden took a team that had never been to a major bowl in it;s history and made it a powerhouse. Osborne took over a team fresh off two national titles and took 20 years to get another. I ask you what I asked your pal earlier; is the better coach one who does something with nothing or one who maintains an already great program? Who did more for their school? PS Osborne kept a criminal named Phillips who tried to murder his girlfriend on the team.
@tkcarr I happen to agree with you about Phillips. He is a piece of sh!t and shouldn't have been left back on the team BUT it wasn't an NCAA violation. Bowden had plenty of those and he had wins, including a bowl, taken away. Osborne knew the guy was trash but didn't think discarding him would help him out. It wasn't like Nebraska needed him to win, his back up was Ahman Green.
Answer to your argument
TO maintained 9+ win seasons for 20+ seasons. Bowden has had losing seasons.
Bowden had ONE losing season. His first at FSU which was a joke of a program then. As to the NCAA, it had nothing to do with the athletic department and the report said so. The teams suffered for a self-reported issue with the academic side. I am sure Lawrence Phillips NEVER cheated on a test? Haha!
Again you avoid my question, is the better coach one who does a lot with nothing or one who maintains an already good one?
@tkcarr I'm not avoiding your question. What came first, the chicken or the egg? There isn't an answer. You believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe. Osborne coached in a state that has 1.5 mil people, Bowden coached in a state that had 18.5 mil people. PS according to the record books he had a losing season in 2006 & 2007. Woulda, coulda, shoulda moment, without the call in the vid above, Bowden would have 1 NC and Osborne would have 4 and 4 perfect seasons
Yes you are avoiding the question. Population of the state has no bearing. Which coach did more with less? You know the answer already but don't like it. The facts are Bowden took a poor football program and made it a powerhouse. Osborne took an already great program (two titles) and took 20 years to win another. I think Bowden did more for FSU than Osborne did for Nebraska. Bowden had one losing season. As to coulda, shoulda, woulda, isn't that what YOU are doing re: 1993?
The woulda, coulda, shoulda I was talking about was this horribly officiated game. Even with all the blown calls, phantom block in the back, charlie ward fumbling before crossing the goal line, Nebraska still could have won the game on a 45 yard field goal. Second most wins as a head coach and only 2 national titles?? I also like how the florida state fan base was shoving your "coach who turned nothing into something" out the door as fast as they could.
It was William Floyd that fumbled but he had scored the previous play and the refs blew that call so it was a wash. The coach with the most wins in CFB; JoePa only has two titles, is he no good either? The fan base did not force Bobby out the school did, just like Nebraska forced out Devaney who just won two titles in 1973. Will you answer the question I posed or did I own you bad by showing that truth?
@tkcarr JoePa is no where near as good at TO. Deveney wasn't pushed out. He became the AD. National titles and winning % are the most impressive stats in my opinion so to answer your question you think I am avoiding, maintaining a program for 20+ is better.
Devaney was pushed out and "kicked upstairs" because he had a drinking problem. Osborne inherited a championship program and then took 20 years to win another title. So, you think that someone who is given much and maintains it is better than someone who starts with nothing and builds a champion? Interesting, you must worship Larry Coker then, undefeated title in his first year. I think someone objective would see it different than you do.
@tkcarr You just proved my point. Coker takes over a really good Miami team and couldn't maintain it. Find me another coach with 9+ wins for 10 year let alone 25.
But look at his winning % and the titles and how fast. Find another coach with 9 wins over 10 years? How about 14 years of 10 or more wins? Bobby Bowden 1987-2000. Remember it took TO 21 years to win a title after he took over. I thought with you titles were everything? BTW winning 9 games per year in the sorry Big 8 was not such a great feat either.
@tkcarr Only it took Bowden 17 years to win his first title and it took Osborne 21. We won't factor in that he was playing for a title 10 years into coaching. It took Bowden 23 years to win two titles, it took Osborne 22 years to win two titles, and then 24 years to win three titles. A title every 8 years it pretty bad huh. Especially when you consider Bowden won a title every 16 years, we won't count his time at West Virginia. Big 8 > ACC and FSU weak independent league schedule.
What you leave out is that Osborne had a great program from day ONE. Bowden had nothing and got the title quicker than Tom. Plus we only played ACC in '92. Before that we palyed the toughest Independent schedule in the country and I believe beat Nebraska in Lincoln? So to recap, Bobby took a program that was nothing, built it and won a title before and quicker than Osborne who had a great program to begin with. But Osborne is better? I think your logic er...is a little weak.
Oh BTW show me another coach who took a program that had won three games in three years to the very top of college football in ten years. Hell Bowden was in contention for one two years after he got there. Your stuff is weak but it is your opinion. Bobby did more than TO with less and consistently beat TO.
@ROMEYYOUROCK Kind of like a man who builds his own business vice one who inherits from his daddy. BTW JoePa is lights years ahead of Tom in wins and legacy. So is Bobby.
@ROMEYYOUROCK Think Osborne would have that record he had at Nebraska if he had taken over FSU in 1973? LOL. What you don't want to admit is that Osborne had that record because he had a ready made program when he started. He started his career on third base and you are claiming he hit a HR. If state population is so important why no NY teams in dominance? Does Nebraska only have Nebraska boys on their team? Weak stuff husker!
I like that you tell me I'm wrong but you dogmatically tell me Osborne would have been a failure at FSU. I'm done arguing about this. Facts are facts, win % + NC = best coach. And if you want to come back at me with total wins go ahead and include total loses.
Didn't say Osborne would have failed at FSU just that he would not have had the gaudy win % he had at Nebraska with a program someone else built. Good coaches win games, Great ones build programs. No coach in the history of CFB built so much with so little as Bobby Bowden. BTW Osborne had a losing bowl record.
Me: Coach takes poor program that can't win and makes it the greatest in CFB by playing the toughest schedule in the nation at other great schools home and beating them. Wins two titles, 14 straight years of top 4 finishes and has the greatest team of the 1990s.
You: Coach takes outstanding program with two titles that another coach built then takes 20 years to win another while choking in most of his bowl games and has a 6-2 record against the other coach
you: won't let facts get in the way of your argument. TO was on the coaching staff for 6 years under Bob Devaney. 12-13 bowl record. Without a doubt the best bowl game in terms of best teams playing in it year in and year out was the Orange Bowl before the BCS. TO took his team to 11 Orange bowls. 7 of the bowl games he coached in, the winner was the NC. Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, FSU, Florida and Tennessee. Playing the best of the best and coming out almost .500?? I'll take it
Apparently you only like the facts that make your case. First, Bob Devaney built Nebraska not TO. Second, TO had a losing Bowl record. Third, look who Bowden played in the bowls. All the same that Nebraska did but also Ohio State, Notre Dame, and others that Nebraska did not. Bowden won his bowls and TO mostly lost.
@tkcarr Facts I like, win %, # of national championships, both of which judge an entire body of work. You like bowl wins which really mean nothing unless its for the national championship and total wins and like to leave out total loses.
How many bowl games did Bowden play in where the winner won the national championship? 3 maybe? Also, check out the montle crew list of bowls FSU played in before joining the ACC. I would rather be .500 in bowl games that matter then .750 in bowls like that.
So is Frank Leahy a better coach than TO? How about Fielding Yost? Pete Carroll? Urban Meyer? By your numbers they are. The motley crew list of bowl opponents before "92? LIKE NEBRASKA! Who we beat twice? Auburn, A&M, Penn State? What I maintain about Bowden is not bowls or wins total (where he beat TO) but that he took a poor program and made it a powerhouse. TO didn't do that and Bowden is the better coach for it. I doubt TO could have done what Bowden did.
@tkcarr Very similar winning %, 83-84%, but each only has 2 NC, well by your math Pete Carroll only has 1 1/2. Now again, lets go back to one of my main points, area you coached in. Florida and California vs Nebraska. Next are you going to say Fielding Yost laid the ground work at Nebraska and Bob Devaney just maintained it? Your arguments are weak just like FSU non conference schedule.
TO has 2 1/2 NCs yes that's right. Won at the very end of his career. Devaney built Nebraska up in the '60s and handed TO the keys to a Corvette. Even with that it took Tom 21 years to win a championship while choking in most of his bowl games.FSU's nonconference schedule during Bowden's heyday included Miami and Florida EVERY year in additon to the NDs and USCs. Nebraska played only played OK who was any good. FSU schedule >>>Nebraska's
@tkcarr Show me another coach who took over a winning program and won 9+ games for 10 year, let alone 25 years. You act like maintaining greatness is so easy.
Jim Tressel, Joe Paterno, for starters. Pete Carroll, Urban Meyer will. Part of the joke in your statement is that coaches don't hang around that long anymore like Bowden and TO did. TO coached nowhere else as a HC other than Nebraska. You are cherry picking statistics to make your case. Again I say; good coaches win games, great ones build programs. Did you know FSU didn't even have a booster org until Bowden came?
@tkcarr I said coaches who took over a WINNING program. Ohio State was an average team before Tressel got there. Paterno is a dinasoar who has stretches of good and horrible years. "Pete Carroll, Urban Meyer will" You know Pete Carroll is with the Seahawks, right?!?! I will say this, Urban Meyer might be a coach that can maintain a very good program. But that remains to be seen. For now, lets just agree to disagree. I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine.
Ohio State was one win away from a title in 1998. It was still a VERY good program. I could name many other coaches as well. I think anyone who is objective knows it is easier to maintain a good program rather than build one from scratch. For that reason Bobby Bowden will always be ranked over the TOs, Jim McKay's, Woody Hayes, Bob Nehlens, Darell Royal, Barry Switzers etc because he built something great from nothing. I can look at that objectively. Can you?
@tkcarr Ohio State almost won a NC in 98 yet John Cooper was fired 2 years later after a 6-6 and 8-4 season. If 6-6 and 8-4 is VERY good in your opinion then yes your argument fits. I think you just won this argument. Lets put it to rest, 2 NC, one being won on a bogus call, 1 undefeated season, 74% win is far greater then 3 NC, one lost on a bogus call, 3 undefeated season, one being lost on a bogus call, and 84% win.
Two bad seasons does not make a bad program. Ohio State was a good program and TO had several four loss seasons as well. I am glad you admit the truth now. Bobby Bowden built a great team out of nothing. TO maintained and only won titles at the end of his career.
@tkcarr Believe what you want to believe guy. SCOREBOARD. And the reason he won them at the end of his career was because he has the sense of mind to leave when he did. I know you and your coach knows nothing about that.
No belief necessary. We beat you 18-16 in hte 1994 Orange Bowl and Bobby beat TO 6 times to TOs 2. SCOREBOARD. Since Bobby built the program (TO did not build Nebraska) he was entitled to stay as long as he choose. Is was too bad he left the way he did but he is STILL the greatest coach ever!
Not really. Anyway, Bobby coached longer and TO would have had the losses that Solich and the other dude had if he had stayed. Did I mention 14 consecutive years in the top 4? Oh, and the first EVER wire-to-wire number one?
Again, you are stating opinions, not facts. The top 4 finishes are impressive. Wire to wire #1 means nothing because preseason polls to week 7 mean nothing.
Both statements are factual. Your "opinion" is that the wire-to-wire is meaningless but only one other team (USC in 2004) has ever done it in the history of CFB. Only for BCS purposes do those polls not matter but even your vaunted '95 team didn't do that. How are 14 straight top 4 finishes an opinion? Did it happen or not? Name another program that ever did that.
@tkcarr Yes that is my opinion and the opinion of the majority of college football fans. You need to back away from what you are smoking. Preseason to midseason polls mean absolutely nothing. You are a moron if you really believe that. Again, like I stated in the last post, the top 4 finishes are impressive even if they got them playing in the ACC, one of the weakest football conferences in the nation.
Do you have proof that the "majority" of CFB fans believe as you do? I think you mean the majority of Nebraska fans. What wire-to-wire means is that FSU was consistently dominate throughout the year and impressed other voters (not Nebraska fans) that they were. You see there is no real CFB title, it is mythical and so the polls do mean a lot. I would be careful who I called a moron.
Let me help you out. The fact that something doesn't happen much makes it RARE and SPECIAL like a perfect game in baseball. The polls determine the title, nothing else, so they matter and the fact that only two teams in CFB HISTORY ever did it makes it very unique and special as in good. That clear it up?
It is rare and special to the idiot sports writers who have a vote in the AP poll. Congratulations sports writers, it the history of you morons voting, you got it right twice! Great job!
No it's just rare and special. Not to you cause your team didn't do it. Sport writers are just as objective as coaches and also subject to the same bias as well. See TO getting trophy over JoePa in '94 cause he hadn't won one yet.
Or the way Penn State utterly destroyed every single team it played in the Big 10 and PAC 10 champ. Joe took out his 1st string in the Illinois game because he was classy and they came back a bit. that allowed the biased sports writers to put TO in the driver's seat.
So you are saying he has no one to blame but himself?? Wait wait wait!! Are you saying sports writers vote based on something other then who they feel is the best team? That season run of #1 is looking better and better!!
No I am saying JoePa had the game won and saw no reason to run up the score. That's old school class. You must be a young guy :) Anyway, yes both coaches and writers are biased since they are human and since there is no true playoff champ then yes sentiment MAY sometimes enter in as it did with TO in '94. My point is that even that year you were not as dominant as you think and that PennSt had a very good claim to that title.
You call a 4 point win destroying?!?! WTF?! Did JoePa pull his starters in the first quarter? Illinois was up 21-0 in the first quarter and choked. Props for making a comeback but that is pathetic.
Same way you might try to explain Oklahoma or K-State or Wyoming who had you down 14 in the first quarter and were unranked. Did you read the article I sent you about Tom's gift?
Actually its not the same way I will explain those games. First, they never trailed OU or KState. And the reason those three games were close was because we were playing a 2nd string QB. Glad you did some research. Was Kerry Collins hurt for the Illinois game?!?!
Was your defense hurt and all 2nd team against Wyoming too? They hung 32 points on you and had you 21-14 at the half and held you scoreless 1st qtr. How does Illinois away in '94 compare to Wyoming in Lincoln? I always do the research that is why I am owning you in this discussion! :) It's fun.
Yes, Tommie Frazier didn't play vs Wyoming. I might do your research but you don't pay attention to the details. Tell me again about that Illinois game.
Yeah I changed that comment. But you didn't answer about your defense. So tell me about Wyoming. Second string QB doesn't cut it. 6-6 WAC team compared to a 7-5 Big 10 bowl team? C'mon you can do better than that. Tell me again about Wyoming? Tired of getting owned?
Both finished 4-4 in conference. Illinois finished 7-5 with a bowl win over W Carolina. Wyoming finishes 6-6. Both are horrible teams. Wyoming obviously had a tougher non conference schedule Nebraska.
Nebraska down 14, won by 10, took the lead in the beginning of the 2nd half
Penn State down 21, won by 4, took the lead with less then a minute left in the game.
2nd and 4th place finishers in the heisman and you sweek by Illinois? Wow.
Both 4-4 in their conference? You are comparing the WAC to the Big Ten in 1994? LOL who's smoking something now? Check the defensive stats for Illinois that year, and tell me what you find. You are really reaching now this is funny. Did you read the article I sent you about TO getting the sympahty vote in '94? See, it's not just a FSU/Nebraska thing. Please keep posting you are making my day funny :)
There defense is so good that they gave up a 21 point lead and they finished 4-4 in the conference. That article is the end all be all of college football supremacy. I take it all as truth and it isn't bias at all. Again, bad day with a backup QB winning by 10 vs a team with 2 players who finish in the top 4 in the Heisman winning by 4.
They gave up a 21 point lead to one of the best offenses in CFB history. Are you seriously going still going to compare Wyoming who you should have beat 50-0 to Illinois, a Big Ten Bowl team who had the top ranked D in the country at that game? ROFL! That article just shows what I pointed out earlier, Nebraska was not as dominant in '94 as you propose. I'll give you '95 but that's it.
You are right. Nebraska wasn't dominate at all. They only beat the teams that finished #3 (Colorado, their only loss) and #6 (Miami, lost to Washington). What was Penn State's best win?? <--this answer should be good for a laugh. It is the Big 10 fault for being in the Rose Bowl contract. If they played there would be no doubt who the best team was. Time for you to do a little more research. Maybe you could even find an article stating why 94 Penn St is the best team ever.
I see you gave up on Wyoming. LOL I think you are the one who needs to do some research as you keep me in stiches with your missteps. Dominate teams don't let Wyoming put 32 points on them. Go look at the stats for the Penn State offense and get back to me. Penn State deserved half of that trophy and TO got it because the media felt sorry for him.
I already responded to Wyoming but you must not like the answer cause you keep b!tching about it. They were a bad team, Nebraska had a bad day, 2nd string QB, still won by 10 point. What will offensive stats prove? Your logic is laughable at best. Is Timmy Chang the best QB in college football history? Again, who were the quality wins Penn St had? Penn St deserved what they got, played in the Rose Bowl and finishing 2nd because of it. SCOREBOARD
What I laugh about is your comparing Wyoming to Illinois. Ilinois had the top rated D in the country at that time and PSU still hung 35 on them. PSU won the Big Ten and hung 63 points on Ohio State for one. But let's get back to the thread and you know the score is STILL 18-16? SCOREBOARD
What does the ranking when you played them matter? Where did the teams they beat finish? Every game that year was a two possession win. Penn St had two games within a TD. What were you saying about dominance? TO>Bowden, Me>you
News flash: Beating a ranked (then or later makes no difference) bowl team is a quality win. Dominant teams do not let unranked WAC teams hang 32 points on them and have to come from behind to beat them. BTW, Miami was not very good that year and you had to come from behind to beat them as well. Penn State would have blown you out. Bowden>TO and You: Owned by me :)
Nebraska won the poll battle as I showed because the media felt bad for TO choking before. Miami was nothing like they had been before and the NCAA was looming. That's why they were dropped to 6th. You had trouble with them too. BTW what is the score of the 1994 Orange Bowl?
If Miami was so good (after being beaten by a very mediocre Washington) do you think if they had beat Nebraska in the Orange Bowl that Miami would have been unanimous champions over Penn State? Of course not. Why? Because they weren't that good. Hell, they beat us that year and we finished higher than them in the final polls.
1 loss team vs 0 loss team, I sure as hell hope they wouldn't have won the title. Bottom line, it was Nebraska's to lose, they took care of business, end of discussion. You yourself are bragging on how good the sports writers are when it comes to voting, they made their choice, deal with it. You counterdict yourself on nearly every post you make. And your argument about losing the #1 rank after a win, Nebraska dropped from 1 to 2 after beating tech by 26 so I don't want to hear it
Which shows they weren't as good as rated. No bragging on sports writers just the fact that FSU was able to maintain the ranking throughout the year. I am bragging on FSU not the writers. No contradictions just owning your poor arguments. TO got the sympathy vote and I have shown that.
Nebraska had a bad day and that team by double digits. Nebraska beat every team by at least 10 points. Penn State had to claw and scratch their way to beat two bad big 11 teams. PWNED!
Penn State had trouble with Illinois, best D in the nation and a ranked bowl team. Indiana has been explained the game was never close. The Big 8 sucked that year and wasn't close to the Big Ten. Penn State put up more points against better teams than Nebraska even saw overall. Don't make me laugh!
Type in Penn State Illinois 1994 the drive on YouTube and hear it for yourself. That is how good Penn State's offense was and why they would have obiliterated Nebraska. But the pollsters felt sorry for TO since he choked so many times before and gave him the title. Penn State deserved a piece of that one.
What a great drive by an average team to be a mediocre team. Keep thinking what you want to think. Nebraska blew out Penn State in both polls. It wasn't even close. That is what happens when you have two win vs team who finish in the top 10.
As shown before TO got the sympathy vote and Penn State deserved half that title. While Penn State beat a mediocre team The Nebraska "black shirts" had a POOR team hang 32 points on them and had to come from behind to beat a POOR team. Or are you still arguing Wyoming=Illinois?
You are a moron. Writers got it right when they are for FSU and they get it wrong when they are for Nebraska. You are very bias. I'm tired of pwning you over and over and over. This will be my last post on this video. Nebraska > FSU, Osborne > Bowden, Me > You, GOODNIGHT!
You are a teenager. I knew after owning you on these matters you would get silly and start calling names. Never said anything about the writers one way or the other. Just showed that FSU made them happy the entire year and Nebraska couldn't do it. You can't deal with the logic. FSU; the team of the 90's, Bowden owned Tom and you lose the argument and give up. But I knew you would :)
@tkcarr dude Miami would have beaten Penn State in 1994. Nebraska would have ripped PSU into pieces in '94. I wish NU and FSU would have met up for the title in 1999. would have been a better game then FSU and VT.
Miami wasn't very good in '94 and Nebraska still had a hard time with them. They lost to WA. PSU would have hung a lot of points on Nebraska and deserved half that title that year but the media felt bad for Osborne. I would have liked to play Nebraska in '99 and it would have been 4-0 for hte '90s, but do not underestimate Vick in college, he was a monster.
@tkcarrdoubt that PSU in '94 could barley hang on and beat a weak ass Illinois team. Miami had the best defense in the country in 1994 .Plus Tommy Frazier didnt show up untill the 4th quarter in the orangle bowl. I agree it should have been PSU and NU for the title but everyone knows who would have won that game but whatever NU got the tile
Illinois actually had the number one defense when they played PSU and were a bowl team. Miami was not that good and lost to a poor Washington team earlier in the year. Miami wouldn't have been champs if they had beat Nebraska because they weren't very good that year.
Doubt it. Penn State was undefeated. When Miami won is '83 no one else was undefeated and they beat the number one team. Penn State deserved half that title. So by math you REALLY only had two titles in the '90s :)
@herbie9495 Neverteless they were not the Miami most people think of then. They wer being hard hit with probation and the next year they were very bad. Penn State deserved half that title.
As to bogus calls, all I can say is: scoreboard!. How about the bogus call that gave Nebraska an undefeated season when your player kicked the ball up in the air for a last second score. I guess that takes away one of your titles so now TO has 1 1/2?
2 things, if the ball hit the ground there was still 2 second left on the clock for another play. That play was only 3rd down. Second, the refs didn't throw a flag and there is nothing in the rule book saying a flag should have been thrown.
Players cannot kick the football like that. It was bogus and you fellas lucked out. My point is that your team benefitted from luck to get Titles so quit whining when somebody else does as well. Just because the camera didn't show all angles does not mean that the penalty didn't happen, just that the TV audience didn't see it.
Again I ask; Is it easier to maintain greatness already built by another or build it from nothing alone? If you take off your cornhusker glasses you know the truth.
Bobby Bowden MADE FSU. Tom Osborne did not make Nebraska, Bob Devaney did. No college football coach has done more for any school than Robert Cleckler Bowden. No one! Football at FSu was pretty much a joke before he got there. You are probably too young to remember that.
Second of all, the "publications" you are reading are questionable in my eyes. I have read many articles and stories from the time, including articles posted every year that go through and debate the greatest college teams and greatest decades for individual teams. 9/10 articles I read have Nebraska as the team of the 90's, bolstering over FSU because of the championships and the 95 dominance. Perhaps we should compare sources.
Bring 'em on. These are major college pubs. Nebraska had 2 and a half titles and a very dominant team in '95. Hwever I keep telling the Husker Homers that '95 is ONE YEAR. Look at ALL of the years. Here are your AP finishes in the 90's reposted: LOL here were your AP finishes in the '90s: 24, 15, 14, 3, 1, 1, 6, 2, 19, 3. Here are FSUs 4, 4, 2, 1, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 1. Get the picture?
I understand your viewpoint, but I'm looking at overall post-season success here. Your finishes are nice, but I'd take three championships over your season ending finishes any day.
Two of your other points also have fallacies. 1) You say FSU played Florida and Miami every year, well we did too for the most part. We played Miami, Florida, VaTech, FSU, Tennessee, etc. all within the 90's 2) The Big 8's strength debatable? We had 4 teams finish in the top 10 in 95..debatable my ass
You have two and one half titles. '97 was split. It is not just the finishes but the SEASONS we had. You were ranked 24th in 1990 and 19th in '98! LOL You played Miami and TN in bowl games once or twice not every year.. Heck, if you want to measure bowls then we get even better. Beating you back-to-back. Again, you post ONE YEAR for the BIg 12. NO other champions except Nebraska AND in '98 we beat your champ in "98 to boot DURING THE SEASON not a bowl game.
Who cares what "people say". Nebraska was the team of the 90s. 3 titles, played for another, ended up #2 in 99, and nearly got to the title game in 96. Not to mention beat Miami on their home field in 94 (reason being so they could sell tickets to the home field crowd, real fair, won anyway). Facts speak louder than what people say. FSU won 2, not to mention, in 93 they lose and a week later they're #1 again, that is just wrong, writers obviously in love with them. FSU #2 team of the 90s.
You were number 3 in '99. BCS rules. You had two and a half titles. '97 was split. FSU got back #1 in '93 because ND got beat by an unranked team at home. Therefore they did not deserve to be #1. WVA cried but Florida exposed them in the Sugar Bowl. Facts are what I am using and clearly FSU was the program of the '90s. Everyone knows that. How many times did Nebraska beat FSU in the '90s? Answer: ZERO. We beat you back-to-back! Better head-to-head.
Every sports publication I have read says FSU was the team of the '90s. Every one.
You had to share the title in '97. You had a great team in '95 and we had just as good a one in '99. Wire-to-wire #1. We also beat you two years straight in postseason. We had your number. Only Nebraska, Florida or Miami fans would argue that FSU was not the team of the '90s. We beat your Big 12 champion in '98 AND you lost four games and didn't win your division. A decade is ten years.
you clearly finished stronger than us in 2000. there's no doubt about that. but you had said oklahoma destroyed us when that clearly wasn't true, just like some of your other moronic comments. i love how when you argue, you completely stick up for your team, like any true fan would do, but at the same time you take a blind eye to the truth. i love my huskers, and ill stand up for them any day of the week but i'm intelligent and truthful enough to admit when i'm wrong or somethin is wrong,
But you don't research your facts. Oklahoma beat you in 2000 31-14 and held you scoreless for 3 quarters and put up 31 points. That is a pretty good beat down. They held us too but not near as bad and had great problems moving the ball and scoring on us. Not so that year with you. I look at facts and so should you. I am not a blind homer either.
you need to knock it off with this moronic split title 97 crap. it wasn't our fault michigan had to play in the rose bowl that year. we wanted to play them. tom osborne wanted to play them. but because of the big10's agreement to the rosebowl they didn't play us. in all fairness you guys could've easily split the national title with notredame in 93 the team who beat u and also only had 1 loss. you lucked out, but we didn't. so thats an invalid. there were lots of splits at that time
What it means is that is was questionable that Nebraska was the dominate team that year. The title is done with polls and those that decide weren't so sure. Therefore, you hanging your hat on THAT title to show superiority over FSU for the decade is weak. There was no such doubt in '93 except for Domer fans.
Also, I give you 1995, no question. '94 I would question with Penn State but the voters saw different (felt sorry for Tom?) Anyway, you have two unanimous titles and so do we. But that is not the only measure of the decade and we beat you in every other category. WE are the team of the '90s!
or even when FSU was better, because its clearly true. i don't take a blind eye to it like you and argue the most moronic stuff.
the ACC had only 5 top ten finishes by other teams besides FSU the entire decade of the 90's. CU and KSU had 8 just between the 2 of them. CU and KSU also had 14 top 20 finishes between them while the ACC conference has a WHOLE only had 14 between 9 teams. even oklahoma had 3 kansas had 1 and they both were down.
I don't take a blind eye to Nebraska either. They had a fantastic team in '95 BUT, that is one year. The argument is team of the decade. BTW GA Tech was National Champ in '90. Who is the Big 12 even came close to winning it other than Nebraska? No one. FSU had a tougher schedule during the '90s period and you know it.
@tkcarr the ACC never came even close to that. your conference was a cake walk.
you can even say the polls are BS. and its true, at times they are, but the ACC never challenged anyone the entire 90's. it was FSU and everybody else. we actually had competition in our conference. so for you to say the big8/12 was weak is yet ANOTHER moronic statement coming from a fan of a team in the ACC.
ohh and by the way, USC and LSU were awful in the 90's just thought i'd throw that out there.
GA Tech was National Champ in 1990 and it should have been unanimous. Again, name another Big 12 team that came close. You keep forgetting FSUs nonconference schedule because that negates your argument. I think USC and LSU were better than most of the Big 12. Clearly FSU had the tougher SCHEDULE than Nebraska throughout the '90s.
Oklahoma was right there with USC as well. Not to mention pathetic Kansas, Mizzou, Iowa and Iowa State. So? Our SOS for that decade was far tougher than yours.
Yes bobby bowden did. bobby bowden admitted nebraska shud have won and was the better team in the 1993 national championship. he said it in tom osbornes documentry about the 1994, 95, and 97 national championships. he said even tho we won nebraska was the better team. and NOOO nebraska was te best team of the 90s. shuda been 93 but oh well...94, 95, 97 national champs. and never went under a 9-3 record...... in the 25 years with osborne
Illegal blocks on kick returns are almost never seen by the audience since the TV camera is on the guy running with the ball. My suspicion is that there probably was a little bit of contact but not enough to justify a flag being thrown.
GeorgiaKev 2 months ago
It was just meant to be for FSU to win the national championship that year. They came so close and lost it by one game each of the previous 6 seasons, same for the next 5 seasons after '93.
check4128 2 months ago
the block in the back is at 1:38
Gunnz287 6 months ago
@Gunnz287 different angle at 1:58 and there was no block in the back.
ROMEYYOUROCK 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Could someone please tell/show me the block in the back during the 70 yard punt return for a TD at 1:50.......I've watched 10 times and can't find it......had it not been called, NE would have won the game and thus the National Championship 4 out of 5 years......no "luck", no "fluke", just hard work and a head coach that knows what he's doing......by the way this was one of many teams playing a Florida team in Florida on a "neutral" field......
sendittobryce 8 months ago
Comment removed
stever411 11 months ago
I think it's the hit you can see at the :13 second mark (at the 35 yard line). Still a really iffy call though.
weirdal27 1 year ago
I remember this game. Nebraska was soundly defeated by the O.B. officials that night.
drwinstonOboogi 1 year ago 2
@drwinstonOboogi There was a PI penalty that wasn't called, that was costly, there was the William Floyd TD that was called off(he somehow scored on the next play when he fumbled)...There was the illegal substitution by Nebraska on the play where they tried to put Bennet into range that wasn't called. The game was sloppy by the refs..but you can't say it was all one-sided. FSU should have won this game going away, especially how they whipped NU the year before(this year they were better).
Jagnole101 1 year ago
this was the first of many bad ref calls in this game, the last FSU drive was terrible as well.
stevenshelton 1 year ago
It was on NPR. There was a ref talking about being paid to blow calls, and how hard it is to stop once you started. It was some time with in this last year that I listened to it, but I can't tall you much more than that.
mrdonigan 1 year ago
I used to think that I was crazy to think the ref got paid, but after hearing an interview about baseball umps and NFL refs getting paid to blow a call or two a game... I'm thinking we really got screwed on this one. 3 peat.
mrdonigan 1 year ago
@mrdonigan what interview?
sickoicko12 1 year ago
we got screwed!!! shoulda been a 3 peat and with berringer a 5 peat!
qwest4eight 1 year ago 4
tmb
Llama38 1 year ago
Pelini would have had none of this
outcast0201 1 year ago
Where was the penalty? Where was the fucking penalty? How much money did the ref that threw that flag make for that crooked piece of shit? The ref should be beat up for doing that.
BluntFella 1 year ago 2
thats my dad (: corey dorrel dixon and i love watching this video with hime it makes me proud
ohdangsuzanne 1 year ago 10
wow
quiksix25 1 year ago
also tkcarr. the missouri 97 game was NOT an illegal kick or play. that's just you trying to find an excuse back at us for debating this game. we were 100% without a shadow of a doubt lucky to beat mizzou that day. they outplayed us and we were lucky. but we didn't need any BS referee mistakes to do it so we beat them fair and square.
travis2x 1 year ago
@travis2x
It was about as illegal as the punt you keep whining about. Also, it shows that the '97 title was tainted and that you were not as dominant as you claim. So quit whining about '94.
tkcarr 1 year ago
tkcarr you are such a moron. go look up the rules of ncaafootball. there is nothin illegal about the play against mizzou. you just love to argue even if its arguing about nothin. the title was hardly tainted. we wanted to play MICH but the big ten had an agreement with the rose bowl. thats not our fault.
travis2x 1 year ago
@travis2x
I think you might want to look the rules up as well. Whether it was your "fault" or not you did not have a unanimous title and so cannot claim one. Your title counts as a half when comparing to FSU. Both schools had two unanimous titles in the 90s. So, you have to look at other stats. Simple really.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
if you didnt have your head up your own ass on basic knowledge and could admit the truth, you might be intelligent. but the fact is you are ignorant and will argue about what color the sky is just to argue. have fun with that bye and go grab yourself an education while your at it.
travis2x 1 year ago
@travis2x
Travis, no need to be ugly just admit defeat. Calling people names just shows you have lost the argument. Time for you to go to bed and get ready for school tomorrow. You will learn these things better when you grow up!
tkcarr 1 year ago
those comments are moronic. first off you only played ND and USC a few times. you played in the weak ACC as well. so theres an argument on both sides. and how do you know tom osborne woulda done as bad as solich? thats another opinion not a fact. i will NOT argue who the better coach is because i believe bowden was overall more successful. but the point of this video is that NU was robbed of quite alotta points and in a close game a few points make a big difference of winning and losing.
travis2x 1 year ago
@travis2x
Now you are using bad language again. Should I tell your mommy? Gladd you see the light about Bowden (tell Romey) now quit whining about '94. We won. PS the fact that TO won consistently in the Big 8 but lost bowls shows how weak that conference was most of the time he coached.
tkcarr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tkcarr
"Not really. Anyway, Bobby coached longer and TO would have had the losses that Solich and the other dude had if he had stayed. Did I mention 14 consecutive years in the top 4? Oh, and the first EVER wire-to-wire number one? 14 hours ago" "FSU's nonconference schedule during Bowden's heyday included Miami and Florida EVERY year in additon to the NDs and USCs. Nebraska played only played OK who was any good. FSU schedule >>>Nebraska's"
travis2x 1 year ago
Bobby Bowden said at NU football clinic this weekend that FSU didnt deserve to win this game...I happen to agree but was very suprised that Bowden admitted that...
nichron 1 year ago
@nichron
Coachspeak. He didn't offer the trophy back did he? Bowden is old school. Bear Bryant used to say the same stuff all the time.
tkcarr 1 year ago
Nebraska was a powerhouse sinse the early 70s up till 2001. our worst record out of those 30 years was 9-4 in 1998. Osborne hadthe top team basically every year. played in the national championship 8 times in his 25 year career. appeared in the national championship 5 times in the 90s winning 3 in 4 years. from 1993-1997 osborne went 60-3. only coach to eve do it. btw osborne was voted best coach of all time and his 1995 team was voted best of all time
666jewkid 1 year ago
@666jewkid
Nebraska was a powerhouse when Osborne took over. Bobby Bowden took a team that had never even been to a major bowl and took them to the very top of college football. So, is the better coach one who makes a lot out of nothing orone who takes soemthing good and maintains it (somewhat as Nebraska won no titles for Osbornes first 20)? Bobby Bowden has a national coaches trophy named for him. Does Tom? What about 14 consectutive top 4 years finishes? Has anyone done that?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Bowden: 75.6% win percentage, 2 National Titles, 1 undefeated season
Osborne: 83.5% win percentage, 3 National Titles, 3 undefeated seasons
Scoreboard
The argument about wins doesn't hold water. Osborne walked away at the pinnacle of his career instead of hanging around, wearing out his welcome. Oh yeah, Osborne never had any win taken away for NCAA violations.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Bowden took a team that had never been to a major bowl in it;s history and made it a powerhouse. Osborne took over a team fresh off two national titles and took 20 years to get another. I ask you what I asked your pal earlier; is the better coach one who does something with nothing or one who maintains an already great program? Who did more for their school? PS Osborne kept a criminal named Phillips who tried to murder his girlfriend on the team.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr I happen to agree with you about Phillips. He is a piece of sh!t and shouldn't have been left back on the team BUT it wasn't an NCAA violation. Bowden had plenty of those and he had wins, including a bowl, taken away. Osborne knew the guy was trash but didn't think discarding him would help him out. It wasn't like Nebraska needed him to win, his back up was Ahman Green.
Answer to your argument
TO maintained 9+ win seasons for 20+ seasons. Bowden has had losing seasons.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Bowden had ONE losing season. His first at FSU which was a joke of a program then. As to the NCAA, it had nothing to do with the athletic department and the report said so. The teams suffered for a self-reported issue with the academic side. I am sure Lawrence Phillips NEVER cheated on a test? Haha!
Again you avoid my question, is the better coach one who does a lot with nothing or one who maintains an already good one?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Oh yeah and those wins taken away had nothing to do with Bowden. Also, how was Tom's record against Bobby? 6-2. Scoreboard
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr I'm not avoiding your question. What came first, the chicken or the egg? There isn't an answer. You believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe. Osborne coached in a state that has 1.5 mil people, Bowden coached in a state that had 18.5 mil people. PS according to the record books he had a losing season in 2006 & 2007. Woulda, coulda, shoulda moment, without the call in the vid above, Bowden would have 1 NC and Osborne would have 4 and 4 perfect seasons
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Yes you are avoiding the question. Population of the state has no bearing. Which coach did more with less? You know the answer already but don't like it. The facts are Bowden took a poor football program and made it a powerhouse. Osborne took an already great program (two titles) and took 20 years to win another. I think Bowden did more for FSU than Osborne did for Nebraska. Bowden had one losing season. As to coulda, shoulda, woulda, isn't that what YOU are doing re: 1993?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
The woulda, coulda, shoulda I was talking about was this horribly officiated game. Even with all the blown calls, phantom block in the back, charlie ward fumbling before crossing the goal line, Nebraska still could have won the game on a 45 yard field goal. Second most wins as a head coach and only 2 national titles?? I also like how the florida state fan base was shoving your "coach who turned nothing into something" out the door as fast as they could.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
It was William Floyd that fumbled but he had scored the previous play and the refs blew that call so it was a wash. The coach with the most wins in CFB; JoePa only has two titles, is he no good either? The fan base did not force Bobby out the school did, just like Nebraska forced out Devaney who just won two titles in 1973. Will you answer the question I posed or did I own you bad by showing that truth?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr JoePa is no where near as good at TO. Deveney wasn't pushed out. He became the AD. National titles and winning % are the most impressive stats in my opinion so to answer your question you think I am avoiding, maintaining a program for 20+ is better.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Devaney was pushed out and "kicked upstairs" because he had a drinking problem. Osborne inherited a championship program and then took 20 years to win another title. So, you think that someone who is given much and maintains it is better than someone who starts with nothing and builds a champion? Interesting, you must worship Larry Coker then, undefeated title in his first year. I think someone objective would see it different than you do.
tkcarr 1 year ago
Comment removed
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
Comment removed
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tkcarr You just proved my point. Coker takes over a really good Miami team and couldn't maintain it. Find me another coach with 9+ wins for 10 year let alone 25.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
But look at his winning % and the titles and how fast. Find another coach with 9 wins over 10 years? How about 14 years of 10 or more wins? Bobby Bowden 1987-2000. Remember it took TO 21 years to win a title after he took over. I thought with you titles were everything? BTW winning 9 games per year in the sorry Big 8 was not such a great feat either.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Only it took Bowden 17 years to win his first title and it took Osborne 21. We won't factor in that he was playing for a title 10 years into coaching. It took Bowden 23 years to win two titles, it took Osborne 22 years to win two titles, and then 24 years to win three titles. A title every 8 years it pretty bad huh. Especially when you consider Bowden won a title every 16 years, we won't count his time at West Virginia. Big 8 > ACC and FSU weak independent league schedule.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
What you leave out is that Osborne had a great program from day ONE. Bowden had nothing and got the title quicker than Tom. Plus we only played ACC in '92. Before that we palyed the toughest Independent schedule in the country and I believe beat Nebraska in Lincoln? So to recap, Bobby took a program that was nothing, built it and won a title before and quicker than Osborne who had a great program to begin with. But Osborne is better? I think your logic er...is a little weak.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Oh BTW show me another coach who took a program that had won three games in three years to the very top of college football in ten years. Hell Bowden was in contention for one two years after he got there. Your stuff is weak but it is your opinion. Bobby did more than TO with less and consistently beat TO.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK Kind of like a man who builds his own business vice one who inherits from his daddy. BTW JoePa is lights years ahead of Tom in wins and legacy. So is Bobby.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Wins by %
Bowden 73%, Paterno win 74%, Osborne win 83%
Titles
Bowden 2, Paterno 2, Osborne 3
Years coaching
Bowden 39, Paterno 44, Osborne 25
Population of state coached
Bowden 18.5 mil, Paterno 12.6 mil, Osborne 1.8 mil
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Bowden Bowl Record 21-10-1
Osborne Bowl Record 12-13
Bowden Wins 377
Osborne Wins 255
Bowden vs Osborne Head to Head 6-2 (won at Lincoln)
Three year record BEFORE Bowden took over 4-29
Three Year record BEFORE Osborne took over: 33-2-2
State population: Irrelevant. Nebraska recruits out of state like everyone else.
Bowden did more for his school than Osborne. The true mark of a better coach
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Years Coached
Bowden 39, Osborne 25
Total Bowl games
Bowden 32, Osborne 25
Maintaining is so easy to do. Just look how well Solich did once TO left.
As much as you don't want to admit it state size is important.
TO > Bowden
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK Think Osborne would have that record he had at Nebraska if he had taken over FSU in 1973? LOL. What you don't want to admit is that Osborne had that record because he had a ready made program when he started. He started his career on third base and you are claiming he hit a HR. If state population is so important why no NY teams in dominance? Does Nebraska only have Nebraska boys on their team? Weak stuff husker!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
I like that you tell me I'm wrong but you dogmatically tell me Osborne would have been a failure at FSU. I'm done arguing about this. Facts are facts, win % + NC = best coach. And if you want to come back at me with total wins go ahead and include total loses.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Didn't say Osborne would have failed at FSU just that he would not have had the gaudy win % he had at Nebraska with a program someone else built. Good coaches win games, Great ones build programs. No coach in the history of CFB built so much with so little as Bobby Bowden. BTW Osborne had a losing bowl record.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr I know he had a losing record in bowl games.
Me: win % + # of NC = greatness
You: total wins regardless of total loses + bowl wins vs weak opponents = greatness
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Me: Coach takes poor program that can't win and makes it the greatest in CFB by playing the toughest schedule in the nation at other great schools home and beating them. Wins two titles, 14 straight years of top 4 finishes and has the greatest team of the 1990s.
You: Coach takes outstanding program with two titles that another coach built then takes 20 years to win another while choking in most of his bowl games and has a 6-2 record against the other coach
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
you: won't let facts get in the way of your argument. TO was on the coaching staff for 6 years under Bob Devaney. 12-13 bowl record. Without a doubt the best bowl game in terms of best teams playing in it year in and year out was the Orange Bowl before the BCS. TO took his team to 11 Orange bowls. 7 of the bowl games he coached in, the winner was the NC. Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, FSU, Florida and Tennessee. Playing the best of the best and coming out almost .500?? I'll take it
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Apparently you only like the facts that make your case. First, Bob Devaney built Nebraska not TO. Second, TO had a losing Bowl record. Third, look who Bowden played in the bowls. All the same that Nebraska did but also Ohio State, Notre Dame, and others that Nebraska did not. Bowden won his bowls and TO mostly lost.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Facts I like, win %, # of national championships, both of which judge an entire body of work. You like bowl wins which really mean nothing unless its for the national championship and total wins and like to leave out total loses.
How many bowl games did Bowden play in where the winner won the national championship? 3 maybe? Also, check out the montle crew list of bowls FSU played in before joining the ACC. I would rather be .500 in bowl games that matter then .750 in bowls like that.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
So is Frank Leahy a better coach than TO? How about Fielding Yost? Pete Carroll? Urban Meyer? By your numbers they are. The motley crew list of bowl opponents before "92? LIKE NEBRASKA! Who we beat twice? Auburn, A&M, Penn State? What I maintain about Bowden is not bowls or wins total (where he beat TO) but that he took a poor program and made it a powerhouse. TO didn't do that and Bowden is the better coach for it. I doubt TO could have done what Bowden did.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Very similar winning %, 83-84%, but each only has 2 NC, well by your math Pete Carroll only has 1 1/2. Now again, lets go back to one of my main points, area you coached in. Florida and California vs Nebraska. Next are you going to say Fielding Yost laid the ground work at Nebraska and Bob Devaney just maintained it? Your arguments are weak just like FSU non conference schedule.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
TO has 2 1/2 NCs yes that's right. Won at the very end of his career. Devaney built Nebraska up in the '60s and handed TO the keys to a Corvette. Even with that it took Tom 21 years to win a championship while choking in most of his bowl games.FSU's nonconference schedule during Bowden's heyday included Miami and Florida EVERY year in additon to the NDs and USCs. Nebraska played only played OK who was any good. FSU schedule >>>Nebraska's
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Show me another coach who took over a winning program and won 9+ games for 10 year, let alone 25 years. You act like maintaining greatness is so easy.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Jim Tressel, Joe Paterno, for starters. Pete Carroll, Urban Meyer will. Part of the joke in your statement is that coaches don't hang around that long anymore like Bowden and TO did. TO coached nowhere else as a HC other than Nebraska. You are cherry picking statistics to make your case. Again I say; good coaches win games, great ones build programs. Did you know FSU didn't even have a booster org until Bowden came?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr I said coaches who took over a WINNING program. Ohio State was an average team before Tressel got there. Paterno is a dinasoar who has stretches of good and horrible years. "Pete Carroll, Urban Meyer will" You know Pete Carroll is with the Seahawks, right?!?! I will say this, Urban Meyer might be a coach that can maintain a very good program. But that remains to be seen. For now, lets just agree to disagree. I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Ohio State was one win away from a title in 1998. It was still a VERY good program. I could name many other coaches as well. I think anyone who is objective knows it is easier to maintain a good program rather than build one from scratch. For that reason Bobby Bowden will always be ranked over the TOs, Jim McKay's, Woody Hayes, Bob Nehlens, Darell Royal, Barry Switzers etc because he built something great from nothing. I can look at that objectively. Can you?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Ohio State almost won a NC in 98 yet John Cooper was fired 2 years later after a 6-6 and 8-4 season. If 6-6 and 8-4 is VERY good in your opinion then yes your argument fits. I think you just won this argument. Lets put it to rest, 2 NC, one being won on a bogus call, 1 undefeated season, 74% win is far greater then 3 NC, one lost on a bogus call, 3 undefeated season, one being lost on a bogus call, and 84% win.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Two bad seasons does not make a bad program. Ohio State was a good program and TO had several four loss seasons as well. I am glad you admit the truth now. Bobby Bowden built a great team out of nothing. TO maintained and only won titles at the end of his career.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Believe what you want to believe guy. SCOREBOARD. And the reason he won them at the end of his career was because he has the sense of mind to leave when he did. I know you and your coach knows nothing about that.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
No belief necessary. We beat you 18-16 in hte 1994 Orange Bowl and Bobby beat TO 6 times to TOs 2. SCOREBOARD. Since Bobby built the program (TO did not build Nebraska) he was entitled to stay as long as he choose. Is was too bad he left the way he did but he is STILL the greatest coach ever!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Head to Head, Bowden, Career to Career, TO.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Head to Head: Bowden, Wins to wins: Bowden, Bowls to Bowls: Bowden
Win% to win%: TO, Coaching Legacy: Bowden.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
You forgot Loses to loses: Bowden blows TO out of the water!
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Not really. Anyway, Bobby coached longer and TO would have had the losses that Solich and the other dude had if he had stayed. Did I mention 14 consecutive years in the top 4? Oh, and the first EVER wire-to-wire number one?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Again, you are stating opinions, not facts. The top 4 finishes are impressive. Wire to wire #1 means nothing because preseason polls to week 7 mean nothing.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Both statements are factual. Your "opinion" is that the wire-to-wire is meaningless but only one other team (USC in 2004) has ever done it in the history of CFB. Only for BCS purposes do those polls not matter but even your vaunted '95 team didn't do that. How are 14 straight top 4 finishes an opinion? Did it happen or not? Name another program that ever did that.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Yes that is my opinion and the opinion of the majority of college football fans. You need to back away from what you are smoking. Preseason to midseason polls mean absolutely nothing. You are a moron if you really believe that. Again, like I stated in the last post, the top 4 finishes are impressive even if they got them playing in the ACC, one of the weakest football conferences in the nation.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Do you have proof that the "majority" of CFB fans believe as you do? I think you mean the majority of Nebraska fans. What wire-to-wire means is that FSU was consistently dominate throughout the year and impressed other voters (not Nebraska fans) that they were. You see there is no real CFB title, it is mythical and so the polls do mean a lot. I would be careful who I called a moron.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr The fact that it has only happened twice shows you that the preseason polls mean nothing. Here are some examples so you can understand.
2005 Preseason Tennessee #3, Final Poll Not even in the other receiving votes 2008 Preseason Utah Others receiving votes, Final Poll #2
Preseason polls are based on previous year results. Problem is 1/4 of the team is gone and usually 1/2 of last years starters.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Let me help you out. The fact that something doesn't happen much makes it RARE and SPECIAL like a perfect game in baseball. The polls determine the title, nothing else, so they matter and the fact that only two teams in CFB HISTORY ever did it makes it very unique and special as in good. That clear it up?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
It is rare and special to the idiot sports writers who have a vote in the AP poll. Congratulations sports writers, it the history of you morons voting, you got it right twice! Great job!
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
No it's just rare and special. Not to you cause your team didn't do it. Sport writers are just as objective as coaches and also subject to the same bias as well. See TO getting trophy over JoePa in '94 cause he hadn't won one yet.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
True, it had nothing to do with beating #24 W Virginia, #13 UCLA, #16 Kansas State, #2 Colorado, and #3 Miami.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Or the way Penn State utterly destroyed every single team it played in the Big 10 and PAC 10 champ. Joe took out his 1st string in the Illinois game because he was classy and they came back a bit. that allowed the biased sports writers to put TO in the driver's seat.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
So you are saying he has no one to blame but himself?? Wait wait wait!! Are you saying sports writers vote based on something other then who they feel is the best team? That season run of #1 is looking better and better!!
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
No I am saying JoePa had the game won and saw no reason to run up the score. That's old school class. You must be a young guy :) Anyway, yes both coaches and writers are biased since they are human and since there is no true playoff champ then yes sentiment MAY sometimes enter in as it did with TO in '94. My point is that even that year you were not as dominant as you think and that PennSt had a very good claim to that title.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
You call a 4 point win destroying?!?! WTF?! Did JoePa pull his starters in the first quarter? Illinois was up 21-0 in the first quarter and choked. Props for making a comeback but that is pathetic.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Typo, it was Indiana. Must be an I-thing. JoePa was up three TDs in the 4th and pulled his starters. That dropped them behind Nebraska.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Okay, how do you explain Illinois?
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Same way you might try to explain Oklahoma or K-State or Wyoming who had you down 14 in the first quarter and were unranked. Did you read the article I sent you about Tom's gift?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Actually its not the same way I will explain those games. First, they never trailed OU or KState. And the reason those three games were close was because we were playing a 2nd string QB. Glad you did some research. Was Kerry Collins hurt for the Illinois game?!?!
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
Comment removed
tkcarr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Was your defense hurt and all 2nd team against Wyoming too? They hung 32 points on you and had you 21-14 at the half and held you scoreless 1st qtr. How does Illinois away in '94 compare to Wyoming in Lincoln? I always do the research that is why I am owning you in this discussion! :) It's fun.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Yes, Tommie Frazier didn't play vs Wyoming. I might do your research but you don't pay attention to the details. Tell me again about that Illinois game.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Yeah I changed that comment. But you didn't answer about your defense. So tell me about Wyoming. Second string QB doesn't cut it. 6-6 WAC team compared to a 7-5 Big 10 bowl team? C'mon you can do better than that. Tell me again about Wyoming? Tired of getting owned?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Both finished 4-4 in conference. Illinois finished 7-5 with a bowl win over W Carolina. Wyoming finishes 6-6. Both are horrible teams. Wyoming obviously had a tougher non conference schedule Nebraska.
Nebraska down 14, won by 10, took the lead in the beginning of the 2nd half
Penn State down 21, won by 4, took the lead with less then a minute left in the game.
2nd and 4th place finishers in the heisman and you sweek by Illinois? Wow.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Both 4-4 in their conference? You are comparing the WAC to the Big Ten in 1994? LOL who's smoking something now? Check the defensive stats for Illinois that year, and tell me what you find. You are really reaching now this is funny. Did you read the article I sent you about TO getting the sympahty vote in '94? See, it's not just a FSU/Nebraska thing. Please keep posting you are making my day funny :)
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
There defense is so good that they gave up a 21 point lead and they finished 4-4 in the conference. That article is the end all be all of college football supremacy. I take it all as truth and it isn't bias at all. Again, bad day with a backup QB winning by 10 vs a team with 2 players who finish in the top 4 in the Heisman winning by 4.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
They gave up a 21 point lead to one of the best offenses in CFB history. Are you seriously going still going to compare Wyoming who you should have beat 50-0 to Illinois, a Big Ten Bowl team who had the top ranked D in the country at that game? ROFL! That article just shows what I pointed out earlier, Nebraska was not as dominant in '94 as you propose. I'll give you '95 but that's it.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
You are right. Nebraska wasn't dominate at all. They only beat the teams that finished #3 (Colorado, their only loss) and #6 (Miami, lost to Washington). What was Penn State's best win?? <--this answer should be good for a laugh. It is the Big 10 fault for being in the Rose Bowl contract. If they played there would be no doubt who the best team was. Time for you to do a little more research. Maybe you could even find an article stating why 94 Penn St is the best team ever.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
I see you gave up on Wyoming. LOL I think you are the one who needs to do some research as you keep me in stiches with your missteps. Dominate teams don't let Wyoming put 32 points on them. Go look at the stats for the Penn State offense and get back to me. Penn State deserved half of that trophy and TO got it because the media felt sorry for him.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
I already responded to Wyoming but you must not like the answer cause you keep b!tching about it. They were a bad team, Nebraska had a bad day, 2nd string QB, still won by 10 point. What will offensive stats prove? Your logic is laughable at best. Is Timmy Chang the best QB in college football history? Again, who were the quality wins Penn St had? Penn St deserved what they got, played in the Rose Bowl and finishing 2nd because of it. SCOREBOARD
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
What I laugh about is your comparing Wyoming to Illinois. Ilinois had the top rated D in the country at that time and PSU still hung 35 on them. PSU won the Big Ten and hung 63 points on Ohio State for one. But let's get back to the thread and you know the score is STILL 18-16? SCOREBOARD
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Knew you wouldn't have a response. They had no quality wins. TO>Bobby Bowden
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
OK, Ohio State; ranked bowl team, Ilinois: ranked bowl team; Michigan ranked #5 when they played bowl team, USC ranked bowl team, Oregon; ranked conference champion.
Big Ten > Big 8 Bobby Bowden 6-2 over TO. Bobby owned him.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
What does the ranking when you played them matter? Where did the teams they beat finish? Every game that year was a two possession win. Penn St had two games within a TD. What were you saying about dominance? TO>Bowden, Me>you
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
News flash: Beating a ranked (then or later makes no difference) bowl team is a quality win. Dominant teams do not let unranked WAC teams hang 32 points on them and have to come from behind to beat them. BTW, Miami was not very good that year and you had to come from behind to beat them as well. Penn State would have blown you out. Bowden>TO and You: Owned by me :)
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Spin it however you want. Nebraska was the better team. "Miami was not very good that year" sealed the deal for me. You must be special needs.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Nebraska won the poll battle as I showed because the media felt bad for TO choking before. Miami was nothing like they had been before and the NCAA was looming. That's why they were dropped to 6th. You had trouble with them too. BTW what is the score of the 1994 Orange Bowl?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
If Miami was so good (after being beaten by a very mediocre Washington) do you think if they had beat Nebraska in the Orange Bowl that Miami would have been unanimous champions over Penn State? Of course not. Why? Because they weren't that good. Hell, they beat us that year and we finished higher than them in the final polls.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
1 loss team vs 0 loss team, I sure as hell hope they wouldn't have won the title. Bottom line, it was Nebraska's to lose, they took care of business, end of discussion. You yourself are bragging on how good the sports writers are when it comes to voting, they made their choice, deal with it. You counterdict yourself on nearly every post you make. And your argument about losing the #1 rank after a win, Nebraska dropped from 1 to 2 after beating tech by 26 so I don't want to hear it
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Which shows they weren't as good as rated. No bragging on sports writers just the fact that FSU was able to maintain the ranking throughout the year. I am bragging on FSU not the writers. No contradictions just owning your poor arguments. TO got the sympathy vote and I have shown that.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
"They were a bad team, Nebraska had a bad day," Doesn't sound like a dominant champion to me.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Nebraska had a bad day and that team by double digits. Nebraska beat every team by at least 10 points. Penn State had to claw and scratch their way to beat two bad big 11 teams. PWNED!
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Penn State had trouble with Illinois, best D in the nation and a ranked bowl team. Indiana has been explained the game was never close. The Big 8 sucked that year and wasn't close to the Big Ten. Penn State put up more points against better teams than Nebraska even saw overall. Don't make me laugh!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Best D in the nation yet they lose a game they are up by 21. My stomach is hurting from laughing so hard.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Type in Penn State Illinois 1994 the drive on YouTube and hear it for yourself. That is how good Penn State's offense was and why they would have obiliterated Nebraska. But the pollsters felt sorry for TO since he choked so many times before and gave him the title. Penn State deserved a piece of that one.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
What a great drive by an average team to be a mediocre team. Keep thinking what you want to think. Nebraska blew out Penn State in both polls. It wasn't even close. That is what happens when you have two win vs team who finish in the top 10.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
As shown before TO got the sympathy vote and Penn State deserved half that title. While Penn State beat a mediocre team The Nebraska "black shirts" had a POOR team hang 32 points on them and had to come from behind to beat a POOR team. Or are you still arguing Wyoming=Illinois?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
You are a moron. Writers got it right when they are for FSU and they get it wrong when they are for Nebraska. You are very bias. I'm tired of pwning you over and over and over. This will be my last post on this video. Nebraska > FSU, Osborne > Bowden, Me > You, GOODNIGHT!
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
You are a teenager. I knew after owning you on these matters you would get silly and start calling names. Never said anything about the writers one way or the other. Just showed that FSU made them happy the entire year and Nebraska couldn't do it. You can't deal with the logic. FSU; the team of the 90's, Bowden owned Tom and you lose the argument and give up. But I knew you would :)
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr dude Miami would have beaten Penn State in 1994. Nebraska would have ripped PSU into pieces in '94. I wish NU and FSU would have met up for the title in 1999. would have been a better game then FSU and VT.
666jewkid 1 year ago 2
@666jewkid
Miami wasn't very good in '94 and Nebraska still had a hard time with them. They lost to WA. PSU would have hung a lot of points on Nebraska and deserved half that title that year but the media felt bad for Osborne. I would have liked to play Nebraska in '99 and it would have been 4-0 for hte '90s, but do not underestimate Vick in college, he was a monster.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarrdoubt that PSU in '94 could barley hang on and beat a weak ass Illinois team. Miami had the best defense in the country in 1994 .Plus Tommy Frazier didnt show up untill the 4th quarter in the orangle bowl. I agree it should have been PSU and NU for the title but everyone knows who would have won that game but whatever NU got the tile
666jewkid 1 year ago
@666jewkid
Illinois actually had the number one defense when they played PSU and were a bowl team. Miami was not that good and lost to a poor Washington team earlier in the year. Miami wouldn't have been champs if they had beat Nebraska because they weren't very good that year.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr if miami won they would have been national champs. just like in 1983. miami had a loss in 83 and won the championship
666jewkid 1 year ago
@666jewkid
Doubt it. Penn State was undefeated. When Miami won is '83 no one else was undefeated and they beat the number one team. Penn State deserved half that title. So by math you REALLY only had two titles in the '90s :)
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr Nebraska still had to play the game at Miami's home field in a bowl game. Not exactly easy.
herbie9495 1 year ago
@herbie9495 Neverteless they were not the Miami most people think of then. They wer being hard hit with probation and the next year they were very bad. Penn State deserved half that title.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
What really makes me laugh is that WYOMING put 32 points on the "black shirts". Now THAT is funny.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Also I sent you an article about how the media pulled the deal for TO in '94
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
BTW FSU had the a much tougher schedule then Nebraska during that run and beat the Huskers FOUR times during that era.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Oh one more thing about the '90s. I was mistaken! We beat you THREE times in that decade. The 1990 Fiesta Bowl was the first. Real beatdown too.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
You do realize you are bragging about beating Tom Osbornes team, right? Thanks for helping to prove my point.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
No, I am showing that FSU was the team of the 1990s not Nebraska. Also, I am pointing out how much better Bobby was than TO. You are owned!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
Look at it this way, Bowden gave TO 8% of his losses. That is something I would be proud of if I was you.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
I AM proud. Bobby Bowden owned Tom Osborne. And was the greater coach. You are seeing the light now?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
As to bogus calls, all I can say is: scoreboard!. How about the bogus call that gave Nebraska an undefeated season when your player kicked the ball up in the air for a last second score. I guess that takes away one of your titles so now TO has 1 1/2?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
2 things, if the ball hit the ground there was still 2 second left on the clock for another play. That play was only 3rd down. Second, the refs didn't throw a flag and there is nothing in the rule book saying a flag should have been thrown.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Players cannot kick the football like that. It was bogus and you fellas lucked out. My point is that your team benefitted from luck to get Titles so quit whining when somebody else does as well. Just because the camera didn't show all angles does not mean that the penalty didn't happen, just that the TV audience didn't see it.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ROMEYYOUROCK
Again I ask; Is it easier to maintain greatness already built by another or build it from nothing alone? If you take off your cornhusker glasses you know the truth.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@666jewkid
Bobby Bowden MADE FSU. Tom Osborne did not make Nebraska, Bob Devaney did. No college football coach has done more for any school than Robert Cleckler Bowden. No one! Football at FSu was pretty much a joke before he got there. You are probably too young to remember that.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ tkcarr
Second of all, the "publications" you are reading are questionable in my eyes. I have read many articles and stories from the time, including articles posted every year that go through and debate the greatest college teams and greatest decades for individual teams. 9/10 articles I read have Nebraska as the team of the 90's, bolstering over FSU because of the championships and the 95 dominance. Perhaps we should compare sources.
quixtar101 1 year ago
@quixtar101
Bring 'em on. These are major college pubs. Nebraska had 2 and a half titles and a very dominant team in '95. Hwever I keep telling the Husker Homers that '95 is ONE YEAR. Look at ALL of the years. Here are your AP finishes in the 90's reposted: LOL here were your AP finishes in the '90s: 24, 15, 14, 3, 1, 1, 6, 2, 19, 3. Here are FSUs 4, 4, 2, 1, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 1. Get the picture?
tkcarr 1 year ago
@ tkcarr
I understand your viewpoint, but I'm looking at overall post-season success here. Your finishes are nice, but I'd take three championships over your season ending finishes any day.
Two of your other points also have fallacies. 1) You say FSU played Florida and Miami every year, well we did too for the most part. We played Miami, Florida, VaTech, FSU, Tennessee, etc. all within the 90's 2) The Big 8's strength debatable? We had 4 teams finish in the top 10 in 95..debatable my ass
quixtar101 1 year ago
@quixtar101
You have two and one half titles. '97 was split. It is not just the finishes but the SEASONS we had. You were ranked 24th in 1990 and 19th in '98! LOL You played Miami and TN in bowl games once or twice not every year.. Heck, if you want to measure bowls then we get even better. Beating you back-to-back. Again, you post ONE YEAR for the BIg 12. NO other champions except Nebraska AND in '98 we beat your champ in "98 to boot DURING THE SEASON not a bowl game.
tkcarr 1 year ago
Who cares what "people say". Nebraska was the team of the 90s. 3 titles, played for another, ended up #2 in 99, and nearly got to the title game in 96. Not to mention beat Miami on their home field in 94 (reason being so they could sell tickets to the home field crowd, real fair, won anyway). Facts speak louder than what people say. FSU won 2, not to mention, in 93 they lose and a week later they're #1 again, that is just wrong, writers obviously in love with them. FSU #2 team of the 90s.
shanemc68 1 year ago
@shanemc68
You were number 3 in '99. BCS rules. You had two and a half titles. '97 was split. FSU got back #1 in '93 because ND got beat by an unranked team at home. Therefore they did not deserve to be #1. WVA cried but Florida exposed them in the Sugar Bowl. Facts are what I am using and clearly FSU was the program of the '90s. Everyone knows that. How many times did Nebraska beat FSU in the '90s? Answer: ZERO. We beat you back-to-back! Better head-to-head.
tkcarr 1 year ago
to quixar
Every sports publication I have read says FSU was the team of the '90s. Every one.
You had to share the title in '97. You had a great team in '95 and we had just as good a one in '99. Wire-to-wire #1. We also beat you two years straight in postseason. We had your number. Only Nebraska, Florida or Miami fans would argue that FSU was not the team of the '90s. We beat your Big 12 champion in '98 AND you lost four games and didn't win your division. A decade is ten years.
tkcarr 1 year ago
you clearly finished stronger than us in 2000. there's no doubt about that. but you had said oklahoma destroyed us when that clearly wasn't true, just like some of your other moronic comments. i love how when you argue, you completely stick up for your team, like any true fan would do, but at the same time you take a blind eye to the truth. i love my huskers, and ill stand up for them any day of the week but i'm intelligent and truthful enough to admit when i'm wrong or somethin is wrong,
travis2x 1 year ago
@travis2x
But you don't research your facts. Oklahoma beat you in 2000 31-14 and held you scoreless for 3 quarters and put up 31 points. That is a pretty good beat down. They held us too but not near as bad and had great problems moving the ball and scoring on us. Not so that year with you. I look at facts and so should you. I am not a blind homer either.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
you need to knock it off with this moronic split title 97 crap. it wasn't our fault michigan had to play in the rose bowl that year. we wanted to play them. tom osborne wanted to play them. but because of the big10's agreement to the rosebowl they didn't play us. in all fairness you guys could've easily split the national title with notredame in 93 the team who beat u and also only had 1 loss. you lucked out, but we didn't. so thats an invalid. there were lots of splits at that time
travis2x 1 year ago
@travis2x
What it means is that is was questionable that Nebraska was the dominate team that year. The title is done with polls and those that decide weren't so sure. Therefore, you hanging your hat on THAT title to show superiority over FSU for the decade is weak. There was no such doubt in '93 except for Domer fans.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@travis2x
Also, I give you 1995, no question. '94 I would question with Penn State but the voters saw different (felt sorry for Tom?) Anyway, you have two unanimous titles and so do we. But that is not the only measure of the decade and we beat you in every other category. WE are the team of the '90s!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
your right it was 31-14 i for some reason thought it was 27-14 my mistake
travis2x 1 year ago
@travis2x
See you should check your facts before you call someone a moron!
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
or even when FSU was better, because its clearly true. i don't take a blind eye to it like you and argue the most moronic stuff.
the ACC had only 5 top ten finishes by other teams besides FSU the entire decade of the 90's. CU and KSU had 8 just between the 2 of them. CU and KSU also had 14 top 20 finishes between them while the ACC conference has a WHOLE only had 14 between 9 teams. even oklahoma had 3 kansas had 1 and they both were down.
travis2x 1 year ago
@travis2x
I don't take a blind eye to Nebraska either. They had a fantastic team in '95 BUT, that is one year. The argument is team of the decade. BTW GA Tech was National Champ in '90. Who is the Big 12 even came close to winning it other than Nebraska? No one. FSU had a tougher schedule during the '90s period and you know it.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr the ACC never came even close to that. your conference was a cake walk.
you can even say the polls are BS. and its true, at times they are, but the ACC never challenged anyone the entire 90's. it was FSU and everybody else. we actually had competition in our conference. so for you to say the big8/12 was weak is yet ANOTHER moronic statement coming from a fan of a team in the ACC.
ohh and by the way, USC and LSU were awful in the 90's just thought i'd throw that out there.
travis2x 1 year ago
Comment removed
travis2x 1 year ago
@travis2x
GA Tech was National Champ in 1990 and it should have been unanimous. Again, name another Big 12 team that came close. You keep forgetting FSUs nonconference schedule because that negates your argument. I think USC and LSU were better than most of the Big 12. Clearly FSU had the tougher SCHEDULE than Nebraska throughout the '90s.
tkcarr 1 year ago
@tkcarr
usc was 6-5 through most of the 90s just like the year you beat them. lsu was right around that average too.
travis2x 1 year ago
@travis2x
Oklahoma was right there with USC as well. Not to mention pathetic Kansas, Mizzou, Iowa and Iowa State. So? Our SOS for that decade was far tougher than yours.
tkcarr 1 year ago
They were 8-5 we when played them in '98. About the same as Nebraska?
tkcarr 1 year ago
Yes bobby bowden did. bobby bowden admitted nebraska shud have won and was the better team in the 1993 national championship. he said it in tom osbornes documentry about the 1994, 95, and 97 national championships. he said even tho we won nebraska was the better team. and NOOO nebraska was te best team of the 90s. shuda been 93 but oh well...94, 95, 97 national champs. and never went under a 9-3 record...... in the 25 years with osborne
666jewkid 1 year ago