ESPN: Best CFB teams to not win a national title
Interesting list from Bill Connelly at ESPN (requires ESPN+ membership for full article). Michigan checks in at #1 (1947 team) and #18/19 (1973 team, spot shared with 1973 Ohio State.
Relevant Michigan blurbs are below:
"1. 1947 Michigan
Record: 10-0
AP rank: second
As the story goes, according to Jack Connor's book, "Leahy's Lads," Michigan coach Fritz Crisler told Notre Dame's Frank Leahy after the Irish's 35-12 destruction of the Wolverines in Ann Arbor, "This was the rottenest, dirtiest football game I have ever seen and if I have anything to say about it, Michigan will never play Notre Dame again." Is it corroborated by other sources? Not really. We have no real idea if it's true. But UM indeed didn't play the Irish again until 1978, and it ended up depriving both college football of an all-time classic, and Michigan of a national title shot, in 1947.
Beano Cook called the 1947 Notre Dame team the most talented team ever, but on the field Michigan appeared to be its equal. They played three common opponents (Pitt, Northwestern and USC), and while Notre Dame won by a combined 71 points, Michigan won by 146. A midseason hiccup -- wins by only 13-6 and 14-7 margins against Minnesota and No. 11 Illinois, respectively -- dropped them to No. 2 in the polls behind the Irish, and voters couldn't take an eventual 49-0 blowout of USC in the Rose Bowl into account. Michigan still claims the title thanks to support from plenty of computer ratings and a nod from the National Championship Foundation, but the Wolverines still qualify for a handsome spot on this list."
"19-18. 1973 Michigan and 1973 Ohio State
Records: 10-0-1 and 10-0-1
AP rank: sixth and second, respectively
Arguably Ohio State's three biggest wins over Michigan: 30-27 in 2016, 42-39 in 2006 ... and 10-10 in 1973. The No. 4 Wolverines missed two field goals in the final 30 seconds against top-ranked Ohio State in Ann Arbor, and the next day Big Ten athletic directors voted to send the Buckeyes to the Rose Bowl instead of the Wolverines despite the fact that OSU had been there the year before.
Most ADs publicly cited an injury to Michigan QB Dennis Franklin as the major reason for the vote. UM head coach Bo Schembechler cried conspiracy until his dying day. Regardless, both of these programs were at their outright peak in 1973. In the 20 games that weren't against each other, they outscored opponents 723-112. That includes OSU's 42-21 destruction of USC in the Rose Bowl. Michigan probably would have done something similar."
I was there in '73. It sucked, even for a freshman.
The 74 team was just as good, if not better, IMO. The difference was that year Lantry actually MADE the FG against OSU, the officials were just as crooked then as they are now when it comes to calling a game involving the Buckeyes against Michigan.
Yes, my sophomore year.
I was in Michigan Stadium for the 10-10 tie and still vividly remember watching the '74 game on the tube. The '74 game hurt more because, as you point out, we actually won the fucking game.
I know there's plenty to complain about Michigan football these days, but there's nothing quite like watching Michigan reel off seasons of 9-1, 10-1, 10-0-1, and 10-1 and not being able to play in a single bowl game because of the Big Ten's criminally stupid Rose Bowl-only rule.
Watch the crowd: they don't react until the official signal "no good." In a similar way, when TJ is stopped short in 2016, the OSU players initially dropped their helmets until they saw the spot.
I've watched and rewatched a shit-ton of Michigan football over the years and somehow avoided the Lantry replays. Much like 2016, I never want to watch this again.
Interestingly, that was the Big Ten's only Rose Bowl win of the '70s.
The Big Ten was pretty awful during that era when heading out west. The Big Ten won four Rose Bowls from 1970-1990. Four. Those USC teams were typically just light years ahead of anything Michigan or OSU were throwing out there.
Hell, even in the last 20 years the conference still has an awful track record of winning that game. I want to say four wins since 2000 as well. Granted, some years the Big Ten wasn't in the game to begin with, and several of the games just in the last few years were extremely close, that's still a bad track record if you want to boil it down to wins and losses.
The Big Ten was pretty good heading out that way in the 90s, looks like six to seven wins in that decade, but otherwise they've stunk up the place.
Older people could probably shed some light on the '70s performance of the Big Ten, but I can think of two reasons:
- African-American players from the south started to stay there instead of head north (a la Bubba Smith and George Webster at MSU).
- SoCal (and, to a lesser extent, NoCal) Baby Boomer kids came of age and that population boom surged through Pacific Coast schools. More people, more high-end players ...
People from the midwest, especially partisans of the Big Ten, particularly Michigan fans, continuously dismissed the talent in the PAC 8/10 all during the '70s. Every fucking time we were going out to Pasadena, the refrain in A2 leading up to the game was "the Big Ten is much more physical than the PAC, they're a sissy finesse conference that can't stand up to our battering rams."
The engine of the PAC was players from California, and California was leading the so-called "Sun Belt" in the postwar explosion of population. More people, especially young families, plus great year-round weather, was a huge demographic advantage for the west coast.
In addition, PAC teams tended to have more balanced offenses that were equally adept at passing and running, and frankly Michigan's miserable offensive performances in the Rose Bowl showed that an option-oriented running attack was not that hard to defend, if you had the physical talent. USC, Washington, and Stanford did.
It was Bo's misfortune that our bowl game tie-in was with the PAC—if it had been with the SEC or old SWC or old Big 8, all of which were conferences dominated by triple option-oriented offenses like ours, Bo wouldn't have had to wait until the 1980 season to notch his first bowl win.
Also, let's remember the Rose Bowl is a virtual home game for either USC or UCLA.
You’d still like to think though that with how many alums Michigan has on the West Coast, people who are probably starving to have a game they don’t have to fly clear across the country for, that they’d make that as close 50/50 in the stands as possible
GO . . . BLUE was a whisper in 1977 (and 1978). I was stunned by the difference as it was my first non-home game. I don't think the great migration from the rust belt had yet begun. It seems louder for the Big 10 these days.
Correct, therefore the controversial vote to send OSU to the Rose. The Big Ten was desperate to avoid 5 straight years of embarrassing losses in Pasadena and it worked.
It's too bad that Bo had no idea what timeouts were for either.
Bo attempted that 2nd field goal on 3rd down with 28 seconds to go. I loved Bo as much as anyone, but he had a long string of time management disasters that led directly to losses - or in this case, a tie.
Bo made Harbaugh look like a clock management genius by comparison, and as we know, that's quite a feat.
both of these programs were at their outright peak in 1973.
This is clearly not true anymore. Ohio State is more dominant now than then.
Yeah, but if Ohio State does not lose a Big Ten game this season with Fields and Dobbins gone and their secondary a complete mess, when *are* they going to lose one?
When they show up to a game completely unprepared. That's it. If they do their work, they beat any other B1G team.
I agree but even though OSU's talent is light years ahead of the rest of the B1G, no team is unbeatable. Remember Iowa and - I believe Purdue - 3 or 4 years ago ? It happens but rare. Unfortunately, I think Day has even amassed more talent than Meyer had.
But it's not just OSU. The same - somewhat - can be said for Clemson in the ACC, Oklahoma in the Big 12, and Alabama in the SEC although Georgia has recruited at about the same level as Alabama. Smart is no Saban however. The telling story is look at all of the conference championships all of those teams have won in the last 5 to 7 years.
I think their skill positions - both QB and RB - will eventually be off the charts by the end of the season so if you're going to beat them, get them early, Stroud was very impressive during the Spring. And the freshman RB - Henderson (no' 1 in country last year) is explosive.
BUT, with that said, you hit on the key to their 2021 season - fixing that horrible DB from 2020. They could be in trouble
I decline to pay for ESPN+ so won't read the article, but I assume that the rest of it is:
2. Alabama 2019
3. Alabama 2018
4. Alabama 2016
5. Alabama 2014
6. Alabama 2013
7. Alabama 2010
....
Don't want to get off topic but I'm curious why you decline to pay for ESPN+? It's a ton of content for like $5 a month. I think it's well worth it by any measure. If it's some anti-ESPN or anti-Disney boycott thing, it's a strange stand to take, at least for me.
$5 per month to be told that you are a racist is a pretty good deal.
People here tell you that for free.
I won't speak for S.G. Rice, but I don't pay for it because I figure if there's anything on there that's truly important, it'll be out to the general public and made free before too long anyway. Anything worth knowing will be all over Twitter in a matter of minutes. I don't need to spend the money to find out the information before everyone else that badly. I don't need or want to pay to read hot takes by Mel Kiper and Todd McShay on draft prospects, as there is plenty of comparable, free info out on the web if you do a simple google search.
If someone else wants to spend their money on it, that's perfectly fine. I just figure I can take that $60/year and put it towards something I'd rather have more.
I already pay ESPN way too much money through my cable provider. They can kiss my ass for $5 a month. I pay for quality like the Athletic, F1, prominent newspapers, etc. Not the “worldwide leader.”
I pay the $5 pretty much for UFC only. Not sure if I am too old, but I can not get rid of the captions. And they scroll right across the heads of the fighters because of the fight info at the bottom. There is no damn interface for it!
I noticed during the pandemic that my consumption of ESPN (and particularly ESPN.com) has shrunk to near zero levels outside of viewing the occasional live sporting event. I can't stand most of their "personalities" and I feel like I get better analysis elsewhere. I get news via twitter. I have yet to identify anything that I'm missing out on by not giving the evil empire an additional five bucks a month.
I hate the idea of sending any money their way as long as they're paying personalities like Stephen Ahole Smith millions. The ESPN "personalities" do nothing for my viewing interest, I'd rather they invested in more six figure reporters and less seven figure personalities. Or the rights to broadcast less popular sports like volleyball and track.
Thread jack warning: the only time Pete Finebaum had ever been right about anything. Someone asked him what ONE thing could be done to improve the CFB playoff. He said, "convince Nick Saban to retire."
Best team NOT to win a CFB Natl Championship? Nebraska, 1997.
Beat me to it. +1
Nah, they basically lost to Missouri.
But the voters did vote Michigan #1 in 1947. It was the first AP poll conducted after the bowl games. So Michigan claims it because of the AP poll as well, ND claims it because they're wrong.
Yes that's right, the voters at the time did vote Michigan #1, but it was "unofficial" since in those days the last, official, determining poll was taken before the bowl games. And the unofficial one took place after the Rose Bowl, since Michigan stomped the same USC team ND stomped a few weeks prior
Also, I disagree with Beano when he says Michigan was #2 because of those close games. In the penultimate week of most everyone (but not ND's) regular season, and heading into the game with OSU, Michigan was already #1 in the AP poll. Michigan then beats a bad OSU (2-6-1) team 21-0, and the Irish beat a bad (2-5-1) Tulane team 59-6. This is when the Irish grabbed the #1 ranking from UM.
"That includes OSU's 42-21 destruction of USC in the Rose Bowl. Michigan probably would have done something similar."
LOL. In ten trips to the Rose Bowl, Bo's teams scored 3, 12, 6, 20, 10, 23, 14, 14, 22, and 10 pts. They would have stumbled and bumbled to another miserable offensive performance against USC, esp. with Franklin recovering from an injured collarbone.
In recent memory let's also mention '06 and '16.
2006 makes me mad to this day because of various committees and pollsters doing backflips to get two SEC teams into the Playoffs when one of them has lost a head to head.
2006 was bullshit, especially because the same situation arose 5 years later in 2011 but this time they allowed a rematch between LSU and Bama for the championship. Bama already lost the head-to-head so, given the precedent of 2006, they never should've been in championship game.
Granted, there was precedent from '06, but given Michigan got schooled by USC in the Rose Bowl and then OSU got pantsed by Florida in the title game, I think they ultimately got it right by not putting in a rematch. Neither OSU nor Michigan were the two best teams in the country that year.
Meanwhile, with LSU and Alabama in 2011, I truly believe that they found the two best teams that season to play for it all that year. Not saying I liked seeing an all-SEC title game. It sucked, but I'm not sure who else you would've put in that would've deserved to be in and passed the eye test. Everyone else had either at least two losses, which neither LSU nor Alabama had, or they had bad losses, neither of which LSU nor Alabama had, either.
Oklahoma State was #3 and had just lost to a lowly Iowa State team at the tail end of the season. Oregon was #4 and had already lost twice. Arkansas was #5 and had lost twice (presumably to LSU and Alabama). Everyone from that point on, minus Boise State, had already lost twice. The only team that had a case was Oklahoma State, but that loss to ISU hurt them badly.
I appreciate every point you made but I can't help myself. USC/Pete Carroll lost two games mid-season while missing all four starting line backers, all of whom were back for the Rose Bowl and they might have beaten either LSU or Alabama. Meanwhile Michigan was down several defensive backs for the Rose Bowl which showed up entirely in the second half of the game. Mid-season Michigan could have beaten anyone and everyone. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry Michigan post season.
Guess we'll just have to file that under the category of "we'll never know."
I do know that if Michigan went into the title game in '06 and Carr decided to finally open things up on offense a la the '08 Capital One Bowl, Carr's "ehh fuck it its my last game let's go for gusto" moment, they definitely would've given themselves a chance against Florida. Would they have won? Maybe. Maybe not. But they would've had a real shot.
Bo’s 1985 team finished #2 in both polls because of 12-10 loss to then #1 Iowa. They had an astounding defense. By the end of the year, they would have beaten anyone in the country.
It seems unfathomable that Bo never won at least one national title.
I'll go with '86 Miami. If Testaverde hadn't thrown 20 interceptions in the Fiesta Bowl then Joe Pedo doesn't get his 2nd Natty
Surely Nebraska in 1997 must be high on this list!
1948 and 1997 being our only "legitimate" national title years according to the unofficial NCAA record books (they only consider AP and Coaches' Poll titles) is still kinda surreal to me. 1947 team was way more elite offensively according to the statistics than 1948 and probably better coached considering how much Oosterbaan underperformed as a coach once Crisler's players all graduated and Woody at OSU sucked up his recruiting base. Kinda hope one day the AFCA can retroactively declared 1947 the "real" champions one day like they did with Oklahoma State with 1945 recently
Also think 1964 has a good argument for being on this list of greatest non-champions
Agreed. The one loss was heart-breakingly close, going for two points and a win, stopped just outside the end zone. They won big in the Rose Bowl too.
I can’t see the list but 2005 USC has to be on it right? I don’t see very many teams beating that 2005 USC squad. Even back then they put up 38 points in the title game.
I think the article is emphasizing teams that didn't get a fair shake. They got a fair shake, and, on the give day when it was all on the line, they failed against a better team. I don't think there's any way to argue that they should have been National Champions (i.e. the best team in college football). They weren't the best team.