This article on the 2001 team...

[MiamiVice7]

Miami Hurricanes' pursuit of perfection in 2001: an oral history | FOX Sports

Most of us probably read this at some point (it's a 2014 article), but I came across it yesterday and man, what a stroll down memory lane. This stuff is awesome.

It's the offseason so I'd say give it a read, you'll enjoy it. Still get caught up thinking about that three-year stretch (2000-2002) and how close we were to winning three in a row. Those teams were so good.

Here's the intro:

It happens every year.

A college football team jumps to a 7-0 or 8-0 start, and the whispers begin. That same team makes it through the regular season with an unblemished record, and those whispers grow louder. A few weeks later it goes on to win a championship, and regardless of who they are, the college football world unites:

"Fill-in-the-blank school is the greatest college football team since the 2001 Miami Hurricanes."

No, they're not. Sorry, it's not even close.

The 2001 Miami Hurricanes were the most unique of teams: Born under NCAA sanctions, and hardened by a BCS controversy, which kept them out of the title game a year before. By the time the 'Canes took the field in 2001, no one was going to stop them, and ultimately no one did: Miami averaged almost 43 points a game that season, at a time when it wasn't vogue for college football teams to routinely score 40.

The Hurricanes gave up 9.75 points per game on defense, against a schedule that featured five Top 15 teams. Not to mention, they also set an FBS record by beating back-to-back ranked opponents by a combined score of 124-7, and their 26-point victory at Penn State, tied for the worst home loss of Joe Paterno's 46-year career at the school. Their 37-14 victory over Nebraska was more one-sided than it appears on paper; Miami was up 34-0 at halftime, before pulling its starters.

 

[ThomasM]

Disgusting that we only won one.

 

[cflacane2]

Disgusting that we only won one.

Butchs fault.

 

[ben]

Disgusting that we only won one.

Butchs fault.

if Butch had let Randy do more of the talent evaluating, no way we lose to Ohio State.

 

[RickyDaKing]

Ref's fault. Glenn Sharpe was robbed. Miami was robbed. Period.

 

[Fightinibis]

Ref's fault. Glenn Sharpe was robbed. Miami was robbed. Period.

2000 was equally a travesty never even getting to the game to be robbed by an official. OU v. F$U was like watching the replacements after the strike was over.

 

[NY Shyne]

Raise 3 banners & put 3 trophies in the case. ***** the NCAA & BCS.

 

[MiamiVice7]

It's crazy to think how close we were to winning three in a row, or at least playing for three. Obviously 2002 is literally one play...a single moment...from back-to-back titles. And not only was it that close, but a terrible call stole that moment.

And in 2000, it's crazy how close we were to getting in. The article speculates, for example, that a slight difference in one or two outcomes in games not involving us (e.g. outcome of Virginia Tech-Georgia Tech) might have bumped our BCS points up enough to be No. 2 in the final rankings. In any case, it's hard to argue that we weren't one of the best two teams that year, if not the best.

Yeah, to only win one in that stretch is criminal. We at least should've had back-to-back (01-02). That's tough to swallow. Two in a row at least would feel like it properly represents our dominance at that time and the amazing teams we had.

 

[ThomasM]

Ask Bobby Bowden who deserved to be in that Orange Bowl. He knew before, and he said so openly afterwards. Steve Spurrier also said that Miami should have been in the Orange Bowl after we whooped them in the Sugar.

FSU came out so terribly flat in that Orange Bowl. All game long, dropped pass after dropped pass. They drop HALF as many passes and they probably win that game. Seems like I remember they dropped something like 13 passes. And I mean clear drops, not tough catches. We win a title that day if FSU doesn't drop so many passes. (

It's crazy to think how close we were to winning three in a row, or at least playing for three. Obviously 2002 is literally one play...a single moment...from back-to-back titles. And not only was it that close, but a terrible call stole that moment.

And in 2000, it's crazy how close we were to getting in. The article speculates, for example, that a slight difference in one or two outcomes in games not involving us (e.g. outcome of Virginia Tech-Georgia Tech) might have bumped our BCS points up enough to be No. 2 in the final rankings. In any case, it's hard to argue that we weren't one of the best two teams that year, if not the best.

Yeah, to only win one in that stretch is criminal. We at least should've had back-to-back (01-02). That's tough to swallow. Two in a row at least would feel like it properly represents our dominance at that time and the amazing teams we had.

 

[jkaz1]

A nice read, but it's ancient history....We're well overdue to create a new era with a new history - which is memorable for good reasons...

 

[ThomasM]

Yep. We're all starving for real Cane football again. Thanks to a cheap administration we slipped into what amounts to the dark ages in our history.

A nice read, but it's ancient history....We're well overdue to create a new era with a new history - which is memorable for good reasons...

 

[Rellyrell]

I've said it b4, from 2000-2002, we completely dominated the college football scene. For sure, we should have 7 titles instead of 5. BCS gate in 2000 robbed us, and Terry Porter (who was from Ohio and rumored to be a Suckeye fan) jobbed us.

Yet everyone's confused why Canes fans are so salty as to the product that's been shoved down our throats lately. It's b/c, conceivably, in a 20 year span, we should've had at least 8 titles if it wasn't for the ref jobbing us against ND in 88, and the BCS robbing us in 00, and of course 03. ****, throw in VT's throw away game in 86 and Erickson's poor coaching adjustment in 94, we would have 10.

It's not about the "what ifs" per say, it's about the product we were given back then, the commitment to winning, vs what was given to us. I hate when sports outlets say we're the worst fans...no, we're just fans who know what Canes football is supposed to look like, and don't accept anything else. And it looks like that message was finally received and we're on our way back to that.

 

[sebastiansbill]

It's crazy to think how close we were to winning three in a row, or at least playing for three. Obviously 2002 is literally one play...a single moment...from back-to-back titles. And not only was it that close, but a terrible call stole that moment.

And in 2000, it's crazy how close we were to getting in. The article speculates, for example, that a slight difference in one or two outcomes in games not involving us (e.g. outcome of Virginia Tech-Georgia Tech) might have bumped our BCS points up enough to be No. 2 in the final rankings. In any case, it's hard to argue that we weren't one of the best two teams that year, if not the best.

Yeah, to only win one in that stretch is criminal. We at least should've had back-to-back (01-02). That's tough to swallow. Two in a row at least would feel like it properly represents our dominance at that time and the amazing teams we had.

Va Tech and Ga Tech did not play in 2000. I have no idea why this article cites a fictional game that never happened. Va Tech was 11-1 only losing to us.

 

[sebastiansbill]

Actually va tech and Ga Tech were supposed to play in the opener but that game that cancelled due to lightning. Take that back- I didn't realize that.

 

[sebastiansbill]

I've said it b4, from 2000-2002, we completely dominated the college football scene. For sure, we should have 7 titles instead of 5. BCS gate in 2000 robbed us, and Terry Porter (who was from Ohio and rumored to be a Suckeye fan) jobbed us.

Yet everyone's confused why Canes fans are so salty as to the product that's been shoved down our throats lately. It's b/c, conceivably, in a 20 year span, we should've had at least 8 titles if it wasn't for the ref jobbing us against ND in 88, and the BCS robbing us in 00, and of course 03. ****, throw in VT's throw away game in 86 and Erickson's poor coaching adjustment in 94, we would have 10.

It's not about the "what ifs" per say, it's about the product we were given back then, the commitment to winning, vs what was given to us. I hate when sports outlets say we're the worst fans...no, we're just fans who know what Canes football is supposed to look like, and don't accept anything else. And it looks like that message was finally received and we're on our way back to that.

Eh but we could just as easily have less national titles if some things were slightly different. Not sure if I really want to go there.

What if Osborne just decided to settle for an extra point in January 1984 and the 31-31 tie? What if FSU's kicker didn't have such an awful day in 1987 where he kept missing extra points? Do you realize we yielded 5 points off of 2 pointers and missed PATs against FSU, and in every other respect we lost that game 28-24? What if the AP voters hated us just as much as the coach's poll voters in 1991 and voted us #2 even though everybody knew we'd kill Washington? Now we're down to 1989 and 2001. And as comical as this sounds, some ND fans inexplicably think they should have been voted #1 in 1989 despite our 17 point head to head win.

 

[UMFarArcher]

Disgusting that we only won one.

Butchs fault.

UM's fault for cheaping out on the contract.

 

[Rellyrell]

I've said it b4, from 2000-2002, we completely dominated the college football scene. For sure, we should have 7 titles instead of 5. BCS gate in 2000 robbed us, and Terry Porter (who was from Ohio and rumored to be a Suckeye fan) jobbed us.

Yet everyone's confused why Canes fans are so salty as to the product that's been shoved down our throats lately. It's b/c, conceivably, in a 20 year span, we should've had at least 8 titles if it wasn't for the ref jobbing us against ND in 88, and the BCS robbing us in 00, and of course 03. ****, throw in VT's throw away game in 86 and Erickson's poor coaching adjustment in 94, we would have 10.

It's not about the "what ifs" per say, it's about the product we were given back then, the commitment to winning, vs what was given to us. I hate when sports outlets say we're the worst fans...no, we're just fans who know what Canes football is supposed to look like, and don't accept anything else. And it looks like that message was finally received and we're on our way back to that.

Eh but we could just as easily have less national titles if some things were slightly different. Not sure if I really want to go there.

What if Osborne just decided to settle for an extra point in January 1984 and the 31-31 tie? What if FSU's kicker didn't have such an awful day in 1987 where he kept missing extra points? Do you realize we yielded 5 points off of 2 pointers and missed PATs against FSU, and in every other respect we lost that game 28-24? What if the AP voters hated us just as much as the coach's poll voters in 1991 and voted us #2 even though everybody knew we'd kill Washington? Now we're down to 1989 and 2001. And as comical as this sounds, some ND fans inexplicably think they should have been voted #1 in 1989 despite our 17 point head to head win.

What??

 

[ncncanes]

2002 Championship was lost for many reasons but main problem was the combination of a really strong OSU pash rush and no back up running back
- We underestimated how great their DL was and we couldn't protect Kenny..... at all
- However we were just figuring out the run game and then when WM got hurt we had to turn to Payton
- Love the guys heart however we had better back up running backs on last years team then 2002

2002 is one of those games were you could pick 12 different plays and if just one of them would have gone our way, we win however none did

 

[sebastiansbill]

I've said it b4, from 2000-2002, we completely dominated the college football scene. For sure, we should have 7 titles instead of 5. BCS gate in 2000 robbed us, and Terry Porter (who was from Ohio and rumored to be a Suckeye fan) jobbed us.

Yet everyone's confused why Canes fans are so salty as to the product that's been shoved down our throats lately. It's b/c, conceivably, in a 20 year span, we should've had at least 8 titles if it wasn't for the ref jobbing us against ND in 88, and the BCS robbing us in 00, and of course 03. ****, throw in VT's throw away game in 86 and Erickson's poor coaching adjustment in 94, we would have 10.

It's not about the "what ifs" per say, it's about the product we were given back then, the commitment to winning, vs what was given to us. I hate when sports outlets say we're the worst fans...no, we're just fans who know what Canes football is supposed to look like, and don't accept anything else. And it looks like that message was finally received and we're on our way back to that.

Eh but we could just as easily have less national titles if some things were slightly different. Not sure if I really want to go there.

What if Osborne just decided to settle for an extra point in January 1984 and the 31-31 tie? What if FSU's kicker didn't have such an awful day in 1987 where he kept missing extra points? Do you realize we yielded 5 points off of 2 pointers and missed PATs against FSU, and in every other respect we lost that game 28-24? What if the AP voters hated us just as much as the coach's poll voters in 1991 and voted us #2 even though everybody knew we'd kill Washington? Now we're down to 1989 and 2001. And as comical as this sounds, some ND fans inexplicably think they should have been voted #1 in 1989 despite our 17 point head to head win.

What??

I said that we likely wouldn't have won the 1983 national title if Osborne doesn't go for 2 and probably wouldn't have won the 1987 title if FSU didn't have the worst kicker ever. He argued that we could have 10 national titles with a few extra bounces, which is true. I was pointing out we also could have something more like 3 national titles without some bounces going our way.

 

[Rellyrell]

I've said it b4, from 2000-2002, we completely dominated the college football scene. For sure, we should have 7 titles instead of 5. BCS gate in 2000 robbed us, and Terry Porter (who was from Ohio and rumored to be a Suckeye fan) jobbed us.

Yet everyone's confused why Canes fans are so salty as to the product that's been shoved down our throats lately. It's b/c, conceivably, in a 20 year span, we should've had at least 8 titles if it wasn't for the ref jobbing us against ND in 88, and the BCS robbing us in 00, and of course 03. ****, throw in VT's throw away game in 86 and Erickson's poor coaching adjustment in 94, we would have 10.

It's not about the "what ifs" per say, it's about the product we were given back then, the commitment to winning, vs what was given to us. I hate when sports outlets say we're the worst fans...no, we're just fans who know what Canes football is supposed to look like, and don't accept anything else. And it looks like that message was finally received and we're on our way back to that.

Eh but we could just as easily have less national titles if some things were slightly different. Not sure if I really want to go there.

What if Osborne just decided to settle for an extra point in January 1984 and the 31-31 tie? What if FSU's kicker didn't have such an awful day in 1987 where he kept missing extra points? Do you realize we yielded 5 points off of 2 pointers and missed PATs against FSU, and in every other respect we lost that game 28-24? What if the AP voters hated us just as much as the coach's poll voters in 1991 and voted us #2 even though everybody knew we'd kill Washington? Now we're down to 1989 and 2001. And as comical as this sounds, some ND fans inexplicably think they should have been voted #1 in 1989 despite our 17 point head to head win.

What??

I said that we likely wouldn't have won the 1983 national title if Osborne doesn't go for 2 and probably wouldn't have won the 1987 title if FSU didn't have the worst kicker ever. He argued that we could have 10 national titles with a few extra bounces, which is true. I was pointing out we also could have something more like 3 national titles without some bounces going our way.

He is me, first off, and did you not read the very essence of the whole post?? The latter part states "IT'S NOT ABOUT THE WHAT IF'S, PER SAY". My whole point was why we, as fans, have been complaining about the crappy product that's been given to us over the last 10 years, b/c of what we had, a team that COULD'VE had 10 titles in a 20 year span. Not sure why you felt the need to talk about a few bounces that could've went against us....the fact remains the same, the product before was the creme de la creme, the product we've endured recently have been horse ish.