Michigan 97 versus Nebraska 97

[Weasel]

I lurk at another site and they are discussing UM versus NU 97. Funny they quote an article in which UM gets credit for playing 7 ranked teams to our 4.

 

However do "any" research and you find out that this is bull. First, isn't it the end of the year results that count? I guess it just depends on what point you want to make and furthermore who you want to make appear better. But here is what I came up with:

 

NEBRASKA 13-0 AP 2 / C 1

 

Akron

Central Florida

@ Washington AP 18 / C 18

Kansas St. AP 8 / C 7

@ Baylor

Texas Tech.

@ Kansas

Oklahoma

@ Missouri AP 23 / C 23

Iowa St.

@ Colorado

(Neutral) Texas A&M AP 20 / C 21

(Bowl) Tennessee AP 7 / C 8

 

MICHIGAN 12-0 AP 1 / C 2

 

Colorado

Baylor

Notre Dame

@ Indiana

Northwestern

Iowa

@ Michigan St.

Minnesota

@ Penn St. AP 16 / C 17

@ Wisconsin

Ohio St. AP 12 / C 12

(Bowl) Washington St. AP 9 / C 9

 

AVG RANK: NU 15.0 (5 final ranked) AVG RANK: UM 13.0 (3 final ranked)

 

 

Lets see here: NU played 4 Ranked teams and 5 ended up ranked at the end of the season. UM played 7 ranked teams in which 3 ended up ranked in the final polls.

 

Average rankings of the teams that ended the season ranked:

 

NU's opponents: 15.0 (5 ranked) UM's opponents: 13.0 (3 ranked)

 

NU Played 2 ranked opponents away versus UM's one. NU played 2 more ranked teams at neutral sites compared to UM's one. NU also had to play one more game than UM and played the highest available opponents available in their bowl....in which UM did not.

 

Common opponents (Baylor & Colorado in which UM played both common opponents at their home stadium versus NU playing both away.

 

NU won by an average score of:

 

@Baylor & @ Colorado: 38-23 (average win margin of 15 points)

 

UM won by an average score of:

 

Baylor & Colorado: 33-3 (average win margin of 30 points)

 

 

Final Ranked opponents average score & win margins:

 

UM: 25-13 (win margin of: 12 points)

 

NU: 45-22 (win margin of: 23 points)

 

 

 

Just some points to think about and obviously I fully admit to our loyal UM fans this doesn't mean that NU would've beat Michigan. It is nothing more than something to take into consideration.

 

Also, I wish the Big Ten would've not been tied into the Rose bowl because at the very least it has cost Penn St. and Mich at the very least a shot at a outright title. However I can't help it that neither of those Big 10 teams faced the best competition out there during their undefeated runs in which NU did. Miami and Tenn.

 

 

Good luck Mich in the bowl game and hope we make it close and if possible squeak out a win over imo a seriously underachieving / talented UM team.

 

 

Weasel

[Weasel]

Another comparison that is brought up often:

 

 

NU 94 versus PSU 94

 

NU (AP 1 / C 1) Schedule:

 

(Neutral) W. Virginia

@ Tex.T.

UCLA

Pacific

Wyoming

Okie St.

@K. St. AP 19 / C 16

@Mizzou

CU AP 3 / C 3

Kansas

@Iowas St.

@OU

(Neutral) Miami AP 6 / C 6

 

 

PSU (AP 2 / C 2) Schedule:

 

@Minn

Southern Cal. AP 13 / C 15

Iowa

Rutgers

@Temple

@Mich AP 12 / C 12

Ohio St. AP 14 / C 9

@Indiana

@Illinois

Northwestern

@Mich St.

(Neutral) Oregon AP 11 / C 11

 

PSU played 4 final ranked opponents (1 away 2 at Home 1 Neutral) compared to NU’s 3 (1 away, 1 at home and 1 at a “so called” neutral site). The average ranking of these teams in the final polls were:

 

PSU opponents: 12.0

 

NU opponents: 9.0

 

Average score and margin of win:

 

PSU: 43-18 (margin of victory over final ranked opponents: 18 points)

 

NU: 22-10 (margin of victory over final ranked opponents: 12 points)

 

 

Again I'll end by saying I truly don't know who would win. However I do find it fun to compare and to see just what things are true and what things are not........since so many different angles are used to prove either sides point.

 

Point is.............fact is. Play the best available team in your bowl these types of discussions would be a mute point

 

 

 

Weasel

[Roy CO HSKR]

That's moot point!

[GoBlue]

One of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. You're seriously still bitter about 1997? Lets look at some of the teams that both of us played that year and see what the results were in 1997...shall we?

 

Michigan 27 Colorodo 3

Michigan 38 Baylor 3

 

Nebraska 27 Colorodo 24

Nebraska 49 Baylor 21

 

Still sticking with your guns? I'm still laughing at you!

 

GO BLUE!

[Huskrz65]

I'm not bitter. That was 8 years ago and what's done is done.

 

I look forward to a good game by two traditional teams on Wednesday.

 

Go Big Red!

 

And it's Colorado not Colorodo.

[Weasel]

One of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.  You're seriously still bitter about 1997?  Lets look at some of the teams that both of us played that year and see what the results were in 1997...shall we? 

 

Michigan 27  Colorodo 3

Michigan 38  Baylor 3

 

Nebraska 27  Colorodo 24

Nebraska 49  Baylor 21

 

Still sticking with your guns?  I'm still laughing at you!

 

GO BLUE!

"Stupidest arguments you've ever heard"

 

Hmm...and your only response is to post this:

 

"Michigan 27 Colorado 3

Michigan 38 Baylor 3

 

Nebraska 27 Colorado 24

Nebraska 49 Baylor 21"

 

 

I think I'll stick to my guns, considering we played more ranked opponents, beat them worse, didn't dodge playing the best available bowl team due to conference ties (not to mention the teams you compare you played them at Michigan and we played them away. But I am sure that doesn't matter.....lmao).

 

Other than that what was your point? Oh, I get it. Being objective is your strong suite

 

 

Weasel

 

PS: We won't even discuss how the Big 10 did in their bowl games.

[StuckinChicago]

We were up 42-3 agianst Baylor at halftime. Why should we have to apologize for having our fourth stringers in there when you had to play your starters the whole game because you offense was anemic.

[Roy CO HSKR]

GoBlue- Didn't you read Weasels's thread?

 

Also:

 

http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare1997.htm

[GoBlue]

All I know is you are all STILL bitter about that year....get over it because its going to be a LONG LONG LONG time before you get back to that type of football. Enjoy mediocrity...Michigan will continue that consecutive bowl streak that you FUMBLED last year. NICE JOB!

 

Oh, to the guy who found that "masseyratings" website...a 10 year old could put something like that together and make it look official. Get a life!

 

2004 5 wins 6 losses HA HA HA HA AH!!!

[Roy CO HSKR]

GoBlue:

 

From sonofa husker:

 

In 1997, Michigan beat three teams, not seven, that finished in the top 25: Penn State, Ohio State, and Washington State. Nebraska beat five teams that finished ranked in the top 25: Tennessee, Kansas State, Washington, A&M, and Missouri. Two of those teams (KSU and Tennessee) finished in the top 7 and ranked higher than Washington State, and Nebraska beat those two top 7 teams by an average score of 49-21.

 

GoBlue: I know that you are a vehement Michigan fan, just as are many NU fans. Obviously, what happened in '97 has nothing to do with Wed's game. You should be pleased as punch that your team is 2 TDs supeior by almost evey account. Your team is ranked 20th; NU is not ranked. It's difficult trying to make a case for the Huskers to even be close in this game, if UM shows up. Congratulations on a fine team that, if a few points were going the other way, would be in a BCS bowl.

 

Happy New year to all the Michigan Wolverine fans!!!

[Weasel]

All I know is you are all STILL bitter about that year....get over it because its going to be a LONG LONG LONG time before you get back to that type of football. Enjoy mediocrity...Michigan will continue that consecutive bowl streak that you FUMBLED last year. NICE JOB!

 

Oh, to the guy who found that "masseyratings" website...a 10 year old could put something like that together and make it look official. Get a life!

 

2004 5 wins 6 losses HA HA HA HA AH!!!

ROTFLMAO...........I think we all know who is ten years old here

 

 

Good luck in the bowl game,

 

 

Weasel

[Silent Commit]

GoBlue,

According to my research, the 1997 Michigan team had Colorada and Baylor as home games, and Nebraska had them as away games. That's like comparing apples to oranges. We'll never know for certain which 1997 team was better because they never played each other. All the more reason for a playoff system. Anyway, for the life of me, I don't understand this "my team was better than your team ten-years ago" mentality. Jeez...you would think that a team and their fans would be overjoyed just to share a national title. It's like two kids playing tug-o-war over a toy. All this comparision of strength of schedule and comparing like-opponents is a complete waste of time IMO. Can't we have something a little more interesting to talk about?

 

I have a lot of respect for the Michigan program and the Big Ten in general - being a native Minnesotan and fan of the Gophs (the yearly punching bag of Michigan...except for THIS year ). What I see is two classy programs bashing helmets in a battle for pride. I think it's a beautiful matchup and look forward to the game. It would be great if Nebraska had more games scheduled with teams like Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan. Now, I just pray that the players for Nebraska and Michigan put on a good show at the Alamo Bowl, and that these two storied programs bash heads more often!

 

Wishing you, Michigan fans, and Huskerboard patrons "Happy Holidays".