For some reason it's this argument again...

[Red_Alert]

Also of note is that many AP voters admitted to turning in their ballots immediately after Michigan beat Washington St 21-16 the Rose Bowl. They did not wait to see Nebraska beat #3 Tennessee 42-17 in the Orange Bowl.

 

[TexasExes98]

Weak arguement unless they played the same teams. Who cares what they did against lesser teams.

Awwww, how cute, Buckeye fan taking up for Michigan...........phucking pathetic

 

[outofyourmind]

Michigan's defense never gave up more than 16 points all year, despite playing seven ranked teams, four of which were in the top 10. The fact that Nebraska played in Waco is irrelevant. Michigan had a much better defense (and likely the best CFB defense of my lifetime). Nebraska had a much better offense. We don't know who would win.

I'm glad that you think it was clear as day, but remember, Nebraska started the year at #6. Michigan started the year at #14. And yet somehow, both polls had Michigan actually jump Nebraska (the coaches poll gave Nebraska the split only after the bowl games, and possibly not coincidentally, after Tom Osborne announced his retirement). So if any team was clearly better, it was Michigan. Your biased 17 year old musings don't change that.

Don't know where you got that. End of year AP rankings have Michigan playing only 3 ranked teams all year while Nebraska played 4.

Nebraska Beat:
#7 Tennessee 41-17
#8 Kansas St. 56-26
#20 aTm 54-20
#23 Missouri 45-38

Michigan Beat:
#9 Washington St 21-16
#12 Ohio State 20-14
#16 Penn State 34-8

Nebraska got so far up on teams that they had their 2nd/3rd/4th string in the middle of 3rd quarter.
It's good thing that Michigan had a great defense because they needed it, rarely did they pulled away from anyone.
Add to that, Nebraska played 1 more additional game, and yeah, there's not much question about it.

 

[Blackshirt]

Michigan's offense was garbage in 97, Nebraska would've won handily. Peyton and Tennessee's offense was 2 or 3 x as good as Michigan's offense that year, and they got destroyed. Michigan would've struggled to break the 10-14 point barrier vs Nebraska.

 

[HuskerinBig10]

Michigan's opponents in their bowl games, does not look like the Michigan opponents were offensive juggernauts. Michigan faced more bowl opponents though, so their SOS was probably better.

Not one of the Michigan's opponents won their bowl game. 0-6

Penn State lost 21-6 Florida
Wisconsin lost 33-6 Georgia
Iowa lost 17-7 Arizona State
Notre Dame lost 27-9 Louisiana State
Ohio State lost 33-14 Florida State
Michigan State lost 51-23 Washington


None of Michigan's opponents could score against the SEC or beat the SEC in a bowl game.

Nebraska's opponents in their bowl games
Washington won over Michigan State 51-23, Nebraska beat Washington in Seattle 27-14
Kansas State won over Syracuse 35-18
Missouri lost 35-24 Colorado State
Texas A&M lost 29-23 UCLA

The only SEC team to lose that year was Tennessee, the SEC champions. Nebraska put up 42 on the SEC champions. Tennessee scored a garbage TD in the final minute against the 3rd and 4th string.

The Big 10 was 28-16 against nonconference opponents in 1997, good for 4th place amongst conferences. The SEC, virtually ignored by ABC/ESPN all that season, went 37-5, the best record by any conference since World War 2! They went 5-1 in bowl games. The PAC 10, at 28-8, and the ACC, at 22-9, were also well ahead of the Big 10 in the end. The Big 10 did edge out the Big 12, who went 26-16, but the Big 12 did less poorly in their bowls (2-3) and were better against rated nonconference opponents (Big 12 was 5-8, Big 10 was 3-9). Not only was the Big Ten not the best conference in 1997, they were not even particularly good.

Nebraska would have dominated Michigan according to my Big Red glasses.

 

[HuskerinBig10]

Did I mention that Syracuse shutout Wisconsin in 1997? 34-0. But Wisconsin scored against Michigan.