The problem with this analysis, I believe, is that you are comparing apples to oranges. These are not the same set of ranked teams. How do you know that Michigan would not have performed better than Nebraska against #18 Washington, #8 Kansas State, etc., or that Nebraska would have faired worse against #16 Penn State, #12 Ohio State, etc.?
It seems a lot of Husker fans like to focus on the performances of Michigan against Washington St and Nebraska against Tennessee. True, Michigan's game was much closer than Nebraska's game. But, how do we know that Michigan would not have summarily beat Tennessee in much the same manor (or even more impressively than Nebraska did)? How do we know that Nebraska would not have narrowly beat Washington St. (afterall, they barely eked out wins against unranked Missouri and unranked Colorado, and those games were at the end of the season, when Nebraska supposedly "peaked")?
The answer to these two questions would be "we don't know".
Given this, the best measure (aside from a head-to-head matchup) would be to compare common opponents. Clearly, the facts show that Michigan was the better team in 1997.
