Hard to believe this was 30 years ago. I was a junior. If I tell some current junior about this team, it would be like some old fart telling me about the ‘64 team. 
The Biggest Snub in Sports History - video
- Thread starter Conewago
- Start date
The sole reason there was no split championship was to screw Paterno and Penn State once again.
Some turd voter even stated "Osborne has never won one, so let's give it to Nebraska".
The fart received a championship he knew he didn't deserve. To hell with him and Colonel Mooseturd and his hat.
Yup, I was 14 in 94 and did not yet fully understand such “political” motives. An all time screw job for sure. I think the 04 Auburn team was similarly screwed over, but at least they had the excuse that there were two other undefeated major teams and we were in the BCS era.
And we have people complaining about out the 12 team playoff!
Are there any PSU fans who believe Nebraska was correctly voted champions? I imagine almost every single Nebraska fan believes they were correctly voted champions. So who is correct?
Both teams played very similar schedules but Nebraska gave Colorado their only loss by a fairly wide margin as well as Miami one of their only two losses and it was in the Orange Bowl albeit a “neutral” game. It’s not Penn State’s fault, but their best wins are over 9-4 Ohio State, 9-4 Oregon, and 8-4 Michigan. USC was good too. For this reason, I’d have to vote for Nebraska. They actually beat the teams at the very top. Again, not PSU’s fault.
There were multiple times in the year where Penn State gained first place votes while Nebraska lost them, so I don’t buy the theory that writers wanted to stick it to Penn State. Nebraska was at the top of the final polls with 51.5 first place votes to 10.5 for PSU in the AP poll and 54 to 8 in the Coaches poll. So NU won the title by a significant margin of votes in both polls.
It’s a real shame that the two didn’t get to play. Bad luck for Penn State. Perhaps if Colorado and Miami had 1-3 more losses combined, PSU may have been voted #1.
I miss the days when everyone played more challenging schedules like the 90’s.
Both teams played very similar schedules but Nebraska gave Colorado their only loss by a fairly wide margin as well as Miami one of their only two losses and it was in the Orange Bowl albeit a “neutral” game. It’s not Penn State’s fault, but their best wins are over 9-4 Ohio State, 9-4 Oregon, and 8-4 Michigan. USC was good too. For this reason, I’d have to vote for Nebraska. They actually beat the teams at the very top. Again, not PSU’s fault.
There were multiple times in the year where Penn State gained first place votes while Nebraska lost them, so I don’t buy the theory that writers wanted to stick it to Penn State. Nebraska was at the top of the final polls with 51.5 first place votes to 10.5 for PSU in the AP poll and 54 to 8 in the Coaches poll. So NU won the title by a significant margin of votes in both polls.
It’s a real shame that the two didn’t get to play. Bad luck for Penn State. Perhaps if Colorado and Miami had 1-3 more losses combined, PSU may have been voted #1.
I miss the days when everyone played more challenging schedules like the 90’s.
No because the 94 Lions had one of the greatest offenses in college football up to that point. Studs everywhere on offense.
I think the 01 Miami Hurricanes had the greatest collection of NFL talent ever on one team, but that doesn’t necessarily make them the best ever college football team.
94 PSU was not losing to Nebraska or anyone.
It was Osbornes last year. And the B2G hated us for winning the league only our second season. We ‘didn’t pay our dues’ by getting whooped for five years first,
Tom retired after the 97 season. He won the natty in 95 with a dominant Huskers team and split in 97 with Michigan.
Michigan got the benefit of the doubt and won via a split vote in 97 while PSU of course did not. I wonder if any voters regretted completely hosing PSU in 94 when Nebraska won outright in 95 in an about as cut and dry championship that was possible in the poll era.
Yep and the pin heads running it all could not have stepped back and said we need to pair these two teams together for a winner takes it all bowl game? Of course not that would have made too much sense and actually been great for the sport. But nope the Rose Bowl who is still and forever will be stuck in 1970 would never let logic and sportsmanship get in the way of their short sighted, self centered, greedy, good old boy approach. And yes they should have also done it in 1997 for Michigan and Nebraska as well as 1990. I guess we can blame the Orange Bowl in 1990. These bowls were money grubbing frauds for years who never wanted to collaborate and do what was best for cfb.
Back to '94, I bet after that debacle screw job Joe regretted joining the B10 sad sack conference.
The fact that we will never know and are left having to debate "who should have been VOTED #1?" is the most ridiculous, Mickey Mouse clown show in the history of sports.
Absolutely. Issues like the Big 8 winner going to the Orange Bowl every year was outrageous. Oklahoma and Nebraska basically just had to beat one another to get to the Orange Bowl as no other program in the conference could consistently challenge them. The SWC was nearly as bad.
If one of the major independents weren’t in the mix in a given year, namely PSU, Miami or Notre Dame, the Big 8 winner was playing some conference also ran for a shot at the natty.
Big 8 and SWC teams had an easy path to the natty each year, but credit to UT and Oklahoma for playing one another for decades.
In one of extremely few instances of my agreeing with Ohio State, I don't think Penn State should claim 1968. Our SoS stunk. Kansas was a very good team but that was really the only strong team we played.
1969 was a vastly different story.
However, I have to say it's pretty rich that Ohio State fans want to opine about this when AP voters from Ohio voted FOR Nebraska and against Penn State in 94 but FOR Michigan and against Nebraska in 97. Yeah, you Ohioans can piss off when it comes to this subject, frankly.
I appreciate your attempt to reduce the argument down to a mere case of biased fans arguing with one another but the facts of the case don't support that.
The problem with your theory is that cavalierly saying "9-4 Oregon" , for example, dismisses the fact that the Oregon of its last 8 or so games was very obviously one of the 10 or so best teams.
As another example, Illinois went 7-5. But all but one of those losses were by under a TD and all but one were to teams with winning records. Illinois had one of the 3 best defenses in the country loaded with NFL talent. Penn State's comeback in that game is an extraordinary feat.
To spot Illinois a 21-0 lead...the reality is that if Nebraska did that, they and their grinder offense could never dominate the rest of the game like Penn State did.
Ohio State is another good example. By most computer averages, Ohio State was actually a top 15 or even a top 10 team. Their only other not close-loss was by 14 to Illinois. Let me remind you that Penn State led 35-0 at the half and was playing third stringers by the end of the third. This to a team with Korey Stringer, Joey Galloway, Eddie George, Mike Vrabel, et al the core of which would share the Big Ten title the next year.
USC was also way better and more talented than Penn State's absolute demolition indicated.
Nebraska played 3 teams in the final AP top 25; Penn State played 5. Our schedules were not that comparable. Ours was better.
And don't get me started on Miami. What an overrated win. Don't get me wrong, Warren Sapp was unbelievable and should have won the Heisman. But the offense was dog puke and for Nebraska to not lead until the end of the 4th quarter is not impressive.
It is unfortunate that Michigan lost to Colorado on a BS Hail Mary. Michigan UTTERLY outplayed Colorado in that game. Having also watched the Colorado - Nebraska game, Nebraska was better but Colorado dug its own grave with early miscues.
If Nebraska struggled to slow Wyoming, you people think they could handle a Penn State offense that outscored Illinois 35-10 after the worst possible start? Delusional
Finally, the Big 8 was great in 95 but very bad in 94 outside of 3 teams.
There's a reason Bill Connelly's SP+ says 94 Penn State was the best team by a wide margin.
Last edited:
Don't forget Ohio State and Michigan basically going to the Rose Bowl every year in the 70's... and losing. They were challenged once all year when they played each other but clearly could not compete against the best of the Pac 8. It was an annual tradition, celebrate the New Year and watch Schmuckbechler or senile Hayes lose.
Ohio State has a great tradition but was pretty dang mediocre from about 1980 to 1995. They had some Big Ten titles but the reality is that the Big Ten was so mediocre itself in that era that winning it was rarely a big deal.
Ditto, Michigan, really. Most statistical metrics think 85 Michigan was Bo's best national championship shot and Michigan's best shot between 1974 and 1996. A team that lost to Iowa (12-10 and that score was not reflective of the gameplay because Iowa was robbed of a TD) and tied a terrible Illinois team by the sad score of 3-3.
And that was probably the best Michigan team until the 90s.
The Big Ten totally transformed after that era and was the best conference in the country in the late 90s. But for two decades before Penn State joined, there was very little with which to be impressed.
I've posted this many times. My mom's side of the family went to gramps and grannies to watch the big ten get the eff beat out of them. The kids were bored.
Ohio State fans didn't vote in those polls. I can assure you if they did they would not have voted for michigan. Sports writers are not known for being among the smartest people in the world.
To give you an idea of the type of people that sports writers were. There was a major sports writer for the Cleveland plain dealer who played at my father's golf course. One day he had a threesome and a single asked to join the group. The sports writer just dismissed the the single and said that his group already had a threesome. Looking back at it I am torn between laughing at it and having a low opinion of the sports writer.
Last edited:
All those teams were built for cold wet weather. Back before global warming and when we had nasty Novembers. When they saw a west coast team with speed they were cooked.
Then how comes Penn State easily beat Arizona State in 77 and blew the doors off Marcus Allen and USC?
Big Ten teams didn't struggle to win the Rose Bowl in the 50s or the 90s. Big Ten won 7/10 Rose Bowls in the 90s, 6/7 after we joined.
They struggled to win in the 70s and 80s because they weren't that good!!
Joining the Big Ten was good for Penn State but they will never admit how much our addition improved the quality of play. It was a huge wake up call for Michigan and Ohio State especially but really for everyone.
Correct. We honestly don't truly know who was the best team for the most seasons. They bowl system was awful. Writers and coaches voting was stupid.
Penn State seemed a step slow vs Bama in the '79 Sugar Bowl although obviously we could have definetly won that game.
In the 70's Michigan and Ohio State had strong teams but laid eggs in the Rose Bowl.
The '76 game OSU was #1 and lost by double digits to #11 UCLA.
'78 game #4 Michigan loses to 4 loss Washington.
'80 again OSU #1 and they lose.
I think either OSU or Michigan came into every game in that decade top 5 and a few times #1 yet incredibly they lose I think 9 out of 10 times.
The problem with those OSU and Michigan teams back then were outdated and over the hill HCs - Woody Hayes and Bo Schembecher.........neither had a clue about modern offenses (back then) and pretty much tried to run it down everyone's throat. They'd go out of conference ....many times the Rose Bowl.....and get smoked by teams with lesser talent. 3 yards and a cloud of dust is all they knew
Had already beaten UCLA in late September by about 20 points. OSU did lay an egg but we're driving in the 4th quarter and it's quarterback, Cornelius green, audibled into a pass and threw an interception when Ohio state was in UCLA territory late in the 4th quarter and had a chance to win the game.
Ohio State lost a lot of these games because their passing attack was terrible and they had no way to come from behind if another team got a lead on them. Woody was a great recruiter but a below average game coach. Bo was simply an overrated coach. His teams looked like toy soldiers and were terrible in bowl games.
Last edited:
Woody Hayes was a nut, but Bo Shambechler was a true megalomaniac.
Miami was not good that year….they played in a horrible conference that was really down that year. My good friend is a huge Miami fan and he says that was one of Miami’s weaker teams of that era.
Both overrated especially Schembechler. Hayes was old by the time the 70's rolled around to your point. Schembechler was younger than Joe so he had no excuse except simply being a lousy coach in their biggest games. You are right, their offenses had like 4 plays, tailback over tackle, fullback over center/guard, QB keeper and some kind of crossing route to a WR.
Agree. In fairness to Hayes, he did win a few NCs.......Schenbechler didn't win anything. Neither would survive in today's CF game. But I guess you could say that about all of those HCs back then. They were in control
Yeah Hayes did win a few but the talent back in the 50s and 60s was stockpiled for him. I certainly don't think of him as any kind of innovative football guy. He just had better players, bigger, stronger, faster and overpowered lesser talented teams. He did beat #2 USC in the '69 Rose Bowl for the NC so that is probably his pinnacle.
He was such a clown and the poster child for poor sportsmanship. After they luckily beat us in HV in 1976, the little weasel runs off the field not shaking Joe's hand. Joe was looking for him. Watch the YouTube video, sickening. Thankfully Joe kicked his weak a$$ in Columbus in 1978. Then of course the ridiculously embarrassing Gator Bowl meltdown in 1978. I think the guy had serious mental issues.
Schembechler was a farce, so inept in all those Rose Bowls. The capper is in the '90 Rose Bowl. He was retiring and his team is #3 in the country vs USC #12. He still finds a way to lose despite all the motivation to "win one for Bo" on his way out. Pathetic.
I have much more respect for Hayes than Bo. Woody was probably losing it at the end but Ive seen clips of him in his early days dealing with players in a tough but fair manner and being a leader of young men. He was not a schematic innovator but he didn’t have to be as he had better players 90% of the time. He won with running the ball and playing great defense, as was Joe’s core philosophy. We tend to forget that rules of the day did not favor the forward pass: DB’s could murder receivers and open hand blocking wasn’t allowed, which made pass protection difficult.
Bo on the other hand just seemed like an overrated ass with a napoleon complex.
Bo on the other hand just seemed like an overrated ass with a napoleon complex.
That 1976 cowardly post game stunt by Hayes was pathetic.
I started following CF in the mid to late 60s and that's the one game that stood out and I remember from that decade. That USC team was the one with OJ Simpson and the OSU team was absolutely stacked. I believe - without looking it up - OSU had 5 or 6 first round NFL picks off that team which was unreal in those days.
But - just like you said - that was the way Woody-OSU won in those days.....just out talent and overpowering the other team. He was not a very good Xs and Os coach
Last edited:
Hayes was an excellent in-game coach. I totally disagree with you there.
Iowa was probably the best program of the 50s and Woody beat several great Iowa teams. His win over Iowa in 58 was probably the best of his career. He said so at the time.
Additionally, allowing George Chaump to talk him into adapting the I was the mark of a great coach. He didn't want to do it. Hayes's generation of Ohio coaches, going back to Paul Brown, were fanatical T formation men.
I think Ohio State lost in the Rose Bowl in the 70s for a variety of reasons, but Hayes could coach. He tends to get forgotten now. Plus his reputation for impulsive violence colors his legacy.
