1997 Football Season
Since we are headed to the Bdubs Bowl and excitements at a low i thought id post the good old days of every game from the 1997 season. Michigan was at the top of college football. We won the big ten won the rose bowl gained another Heisman Trophy winner. Im sure many believed we would win at least 1 more NC within the next 10 years and a few more Heisman winner. 16 years later and we seem far from these goals. My question, was 97 just a one hit wonder or can Michigan get back to this level of football again and prove they are a national program?? Enjoy the videos.
December 9th, 2013 at 10:44 AM ^
Washington, UCLA and Boston College as well for solid non-conference opponents that UM played in the late 90's/early 2000's.
December 9th, 2013 at 12:16 AM ^
Since 1997? We had two in fifty four years going into 1997.
December 9th, 2013 at 12:42 AM ^
The people whining about this stuff are the same people who were trying to run Lloyd out the door when he was winning Big Ten championships and running a squeaky-clean program. No matter how much he won, it was never good enough. They'll even rag on 2006, when we were Bo lasting another 36 hours and a Shawn Crable boneheaded decision away from playing for a national championship.
Remember those firelloyd.com (or whatever it was) people that used to picket on the corner near the stadium on gamedays? I wonder where they are now.
December 9th, 2013 at 12:54 AM ^
Yeah because 4 big ten titles in 10 years when you could share them back then was really great. Having 3 losses every year we won it was really great. There's a reason every other fanbase in the country wondered why we couldn't accomplish more.
December 9th, 2013 at 8:13 AM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 10:46 AM ^
'97, '98, '00, '03 and '04.
December 9th, 2013 at 1:01 AM ^
They'll even rag on 2006, when we were Bo lasting another 36 hours and a Shawn Crable boneheaded decision away from playing for a national championship.
Logic is flimsy on the second point and I can't even begin to comprehend a serious argument saying that Bo Schembechler being alive means we would have won that game.
You know UM had a 3-0 turnover advantage in that game, right? Every piece of turnover data at any level of football tells you that It is very difficult to lose a game when that is the case. The coaches were badly outschemed and outprepared in that game, as they were in the Rose Bowl against USC.
December 9th, 2013 at 2:23 AM ^
I don't remember much about that game. I don't think I've ever rewatched the whole thing. The only plays that stick out in my mind are 1. Mike Hart scoring on the first possession 2. The Shawn Crable hit 3. Antonio Pittman gashing us for 60 yard touchdowns twice
December 9th, 2013 at 6:50 AM ^
OSU lines up extremely quick on a 3rd and inches and Michigan D isn't ready (kind of like the shit that goes on with our D now under Mattison). I remember saying to the rest of the people watching in the room they're going deep here and BAM, Troy Smith hits Ted Ginn on a play action for 6. We were out coached and outschemed. FWIW saying that Shawn Crables hit woud have won us the game is moronic. 1. If the penalty doesn't happen OSU would have kicked a field goal, or gone for it on 4th down (probably the ladder because our d couldnt stop anyone that night), 2. Who knows if we would have scored the touchdown after that because OSU would have schemed differently on defense with a 1 score lead vs a 2 score lead like they had 95 percent of the game.
December 9th, 2013 at 1:15 PM ^
"a 2 score lead like they had 95 percent of the game."
The people who consider this game an all-time classic are either OSU fans or folks who look at the records of both teams going in and the final score and assume the game MUST have been close, but this post is absolutely correct; Michigan was on their heels for most of the game and only the score on their final possession made the result seem as close as it was.
The game this year was SO much closer. Can't really assign "classic" status when one of the teams was 7-4 going in, I guess.
December 9th, 2013 at 7:38 AM ^
is too bad that during the spring of 2006, when Carr spoke to Bill Martin about that being his last season, BM talked him into staying for yet another. Who knows, if Carr knows that 2006 is his last season maybe there is an added emphasis at the end of the season. For sure there wouldn't have had to be the coach search fiasco following the 2007 season and just as importantly, with a new HC in place, The Horror likely never happens.
December 9th, 2013 at 11:13 AM ^
I'm not sure our problem was a lack of emphasis at the end of the season - we did play an undefeated OSU and then USC in the Rose Bowl, after all.
December 9th, 2013 at 3:12 PM ^
Interesting that Carr wanted to retire at the end of the 2006 season when (we thought) a national title contender was revving up for '07. To me, it speaks to how much he wanted to manipulate that search. The chances that they would have promoted one of his boys (DeBord or English) for continuity sake to not screw up a potentially great season would have been much higher.
December 9th, 2013 at 7:32 PM ^
Or maybe he just wanted to retire. Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?
December 9th, 2013 at 7:06 PM ^
This is a complete list of more than two Heisman winners within sixteen years.
ND- 5 (1943-59)
OSU- 3 (1950-62)
Army- 3 (1945-58)
USC- 3 (1968-81)
USC- 3 (2002-05)
W all know how things were with the media and ND back in the day, Ohio State won three titles during that run, Army having two in 1945 and 46 isn't exactly devoid of historical meaning, and USC is, well, USC. Those were elite programs in their era, in addition to being lucky enough to have a transcendent skill position player to point to. Not knocking Michigan tradition, but it has been a long time since Michigan has had a run like the bookending dates posted here, and even so those programs needed a good bit of luck to get that Heisman love.
December 9th, 2013 at 12:45 AM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 1:02 AM ^
Following that 97 season we had two WR"s that were drafted 3rd and 5th overall when they entered the draft... Drew Henson who ended up cutting his football career short to play for the yankees and with the defensive players we were developing every year I thought we were bound for another Heisman... Call me crazy but Mattison is the type of coach that will develop a Heisman winner and lets not forget Derrick Green will be running behind a very strong line a year or two from now... Our expectations never changed after the 97 season and they shouldn't... We've had some disappointing seasons since, but looking at who we've recruited I truly believe we could see another Heisman winner within the next 5 years.
December 9th, 2013 at 12:41 AM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 1:04 AM ^
Hell, even ND
December 9th, 2013 at 1:04 AM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 2:26 AM ^
I only saw clips of the Woodson interception in the MSU game a year or so ago. But until 2008, this was the only season I missed in its entirety since I was 4 or so, since my family was in England, where my dad had been temporarily transferred, the whole year.
But even in 2008 and 2009, when I was in Amsterdam, I managed to watch some games online. So I think we know what I need to do next year.
December 9th, 2013 at 3:28 AM ^
great memories. love seeing hoke giving lloyd a big bear hug at the end of the ohio state game
December 9th, 2013 at 6:28 AM ^
1997 was my sophomore year at Michigan and it still is perhaps the one of the best sports years in my life to date. As for the football team, I believe that we had 3 All-American selections and 10 players on the all-conference team, which was great praise for that season and how special that was. Went to every home game plus Michigan State that year - I ended up with some pretty good seats at Spartan Stadium through some connections and had a great view of a certain beautiful one-handed grab by one Charles Woodson.
December 9th, 2013 at 6:51 AM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 8:10 AM ^
You hit it on the head man. "Got better each week". That's something we need to see a lot more of. I hate to bring up State but look at them this year. They got better each week. Shit, we looked so bad against Akron and UConn after looking pretty decent against CMU and ND.
December 9th, 2013 at 8:14 AM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 9:51 AM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 9:55 AM ^
Complaining about B1G titles is fair, complaining about 3-4 loss seasons, and being out of national contention is fair. But complaining about a lack of regular national titles is holding us to a standard that really only USC, Alabama and Oklahoma have met since WWII (and even then - fifteen years is a normal stretch between titles). Do we want to be there? Sure. But Bo Schembechler didn't have us there, and he seems to be a pretty popular guy around these parts.
December 9th, 2013 at 8:36 AM ^
Stop living in the past.
December 9th, 2013 at 9:22 AM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 9:26 AM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 10:31 AM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 10:01 AM ^
I saw my first ever live UM football game in 1997, which was a 38-3 annihilation of Baylor. Ahhh, good times.
December 9th, 2013 at 10:08 AM ^
The biggest thing to me is that the game has changed so much since 1997. Not only was there no BCS, but only the SEC and Big 12 had conference title games. Going forward, for a B1G team to have a shot at a playoff bid, chances are they will have to at least play in the CCG and this is something UM has no experience with.
I am not at all saying it is impossible but in terms of progress and measuring where the program is, a few things have to happen before there is any MNC talk:
1. Win the division
2. Win the B1G
1997 was an 11 game regular season and the Rose Bowl. Now there are 12 regular season games, plus the CCG, and then possibly 2 playoff games. That is 3 more must-win games for a title. Teams from the SEC have over 20 years of experience playing an extra game (and practicing for it) while the B1G has only had 3 conference title games, none of which involved UM.
I think it is entirely possible, but it is important to keep in mind that not winning the conference in 10 years and no conference title game experience means that UM's path to a B1G title, let alone a MNC, is uncharted territory.
December 9th, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 3:15 PM ^
It probably should. We've reached a point where reminiscing about 1997 is pure good oldism days and born out of recent failures. The fact that so many posters here say they were little kids or didn't even follow football yet tells you something - it was a long fucking time ago.
December 9th, 2013 at 10:38 AM ^
In terms of college football history, 16 years is actually pretty recent (and in the interim we've also gone to three more Rose Bowls, an Orange Bowl and a Sugar Bowl, and won 4 more B1G titles). There are 120 teams in D1-A, and only 11 teams have won more recently than we have; that means ~90% of football fans have won a "national title" less recently than Michigan.
I think a lot of Michigan fan angst is coming from two things right now: (1) the fact that it's OSU and Sparty who are doing well right now while we are slightly down, and (2) a lack of perspective and unrealistic expectations. Read the above paragraph and remember that MSU is heading to its first Rose Bowl since the 1987 season (and first BCS game...ever).
When I read "Im sure many believed we would win at least 1 more NC within the next 10 years and a few more Heisman winner" my reaction is purely "you are an uninformed idiot." You do realize that Michigan's two Heisman winners in a decade (and 3rd overall) came before ALABAMA had ever had ONE, right? Again: 120 teams. Do the math. We've been extraordinarily blessed as fans with 42 B1G titles, 11 NCs and 3 Heismans, and had a run of a bunch of that all at once in the 1990s; you cannot remain at a historical peak forever (see: Alabama pre-Saban).
If you define your happiness as a fan by winning national championships in a sport with 120 teams, you're always going to be miserable and there's nothing the world can do for you. If you define it by enjoying your team and winning big/rivalry games and conference titles, you'll still have rough patches, but be much, much more content in life. If you reply to this with "lowered standards grumble grumble" then I have one word for you: Bo.
December 9th, 2013 at 10:39 AM ^
Also: 1997 was our first NC in 49 years. You reasonably expected more to follow in quick succession, and the lack thereof has you upset? Come on.
December 9th, 2013 at 10:54 AM ^
"There are 120 teams in D1-A, and only 11 teams have won more recently than we have; that means ~90% of football fans have won a "national title" less recently than Michigan."
Yes - but realistically, only about 30-40 of those 120 teams are in Michigan's peer group.
December 9th, 2013 at 11:17 AM ^
If we focus on Northern schools as our true peer group, I only count one school (OSU) that has won more recently.
December 9th, 2013 at 1:51 PM ^
If we define "Northern" as:
East of Mississippi - north of Mason-Dixon line
West of Mississippi - north of "Missouri Compromise" line
Oklahoma, Ohio State, USC.
In reality - our peer group is the members of the "Big Six" conferences.
December 9th, 2013 at 3:22 PM ^
We've been extraordinarily blessed as fans with 42 B1G titles, 11 NCs and 3 Heismans
What the hell, man? Most people's PARENTS weren't even born for any of Michigan's "national championships" save one. Yes, quotation marks due to the very sketchy nature of what could be claimed a national title in the old days.
Your type of fan is a dying breed because angst about Michigan football is no longer a piece of hasty "What Have You Done For Me Lately?" culture. There is plenty of data that overwhelmingly suggests Michigan football post-1997 has massively underachieved. Most of what you are celebrating really IS ancient history at this point.
December 10th, 2013 at 10:53 AM ^
Underachieved assumes something that was expected; what I'm arguing is that the "expectation" in 1997 was sky-high and impossible for any program, ever, to achieve. We've been to five BCS games in the 16 seasons since (winning two of them).
You could similarly say LSU has "underachieved" since 2007, but you'd be insane to do so, given that at that point in time they'd won 2 NCs in 5 years. IN 1997, Michigan's previous decade included two Heisman winners, a NC, and four Rose Bowl appearances. You're drawing too small of a sample size, IMHO. Measure the program from the last 25 years and we're still crushing it (post-Bo, by the way).
December 9th, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^
All I know is that I am sick and tired of watching inferior programs put up 11- and 12-win seasons and win conference championships while Michigan has been dominated by both of its main rivals for most of the past 6 years and hasn't won ANY kind of championship for 9+ years. I can understand being surpassed by the likes of Alabama and Ohio State, but Michigan State? Stanford? Missouri? Baylor? An Auburn team that went 3-9 last year? Duke has come closer to winning a conference championship than we have in the past 6 years. DUKE. Let's face it: Michigan has been badly underachieving for a very long time now.
No more excuses. There is no good reason why Stanford can play in four consecutive BCS bowls and Michigan can't. I want to win.
/endrant
December 9th, 2013 at 1:41 PM ^
Good medicine.
The breakup of my first marriage after the birth of my first child coinciding with the first experience I had with long-term unemployment (six months) made 1997 a bitch of a year for me to deal with. Michigan running the table did a lot toward getting me through all of that.
With age comes wisdom, and I've come to appreciate Bo's a lot more now than I did then. I don't expect Michigan to compete for a national championship every year, but I do expect them to compete for the B1G and let the chips fall where they may once that goal is (hopefully) realized. Looking at 10 years between conference championships isn't something I ever expected Michigan Football to do, but I will admit that discovering the game and becoming a Michigan fan during the closing years of the Ten Year War has probably colored my expectations differently than some. It may be good for the conference that more teams other than Michigan and Ohio are capable of winning year-in and year-out, but it sure hasn't affected Ohio's odds of winning it as it has ours. I'd like to see that change like, YESTERDAY.
December 9th, 2013 at 2:00 PM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 3:24 PM ^
What does UM caliber suggest? What the line play was in the late '90s? It's a worthy query to ask at what point is this not "the new normal." It's an even more worthy question to ask why the fat cats let this happen to UM despite being neck-high in money.
December 9th, 2013 at 8:55 PM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 2:06 PM ^
December 9th, 2013 at 10:23 PM ^