huskerfaninbuckeyehell
Starter
Well I think it is safe to say if that team from up North shows up like they did against the overrated Suckeyes it should be a fun day for Big Red at the Alamo.
'97 game
- Thread starter kramer
- Start date
Redman
All-Conference
A many strong defenses have said that in the past. "Nebraska, they only run. They can't pass. There is no way they will run the score up on us" Most were VERY wrong. You did have a good defense that year, this is very true. No one is saying otherwise. But Michigan could not outscore or keep from scoring, Washington State. You barely slipped by them. If you think that Michigan could have stopped the Nebraska running game you are nuts. Like I said most tried, most failed.
Last edited by a moderator:
StuckinChicago
Starter
Just to let you michigan guys know, we average 393 rushing yards per game, and 130 passing. We scored 47 points per game. For perspective, the offense that most people are saying is the greatest of all time, this year's USC team, average 50 points a game. The least amount of points we were held to was 27, which was in a road game, which, knowing how we travel, the mnc would have been much more of a home game for us, in which case our lowest scoring output was 38 points. We scored 54 at the only nuetrel site we played at. Saying that you guys were going to hold us to anything less than 30 is ludicris, so stop trying.
HANC
All-Conference
Since you are so into dropping NFL names:
Tennesse Offense: Mannning, Jamal Lewis, Pearless Price, Shaun Bryson, Chad Clifton, Cosey Coleman, Trey Teague, Horace Copeland, Eric Parker, Nash
= 10 starters....oh by the way 10 NFL guys, more than 1/2 are ALL-PRO
and yes, Nebraska shut them down ....HARD !!!!!
I am sure Greise and company were probably better
Tennesse Defense: Leonard Little, Shawn Ellis, Rynoch Thompson, Al Wilson, Johnathon Brown...... oh, that would be 4 LB and a DE that are all NFL guys, and yes, a few ALL PRO......
Your guys were good, but c'mon, these guys were just as good
Tennessee was 11-1 and in the top 5.....
NU DOMINATED them.....
Don't forget, NU 8 players on D...that are in NFL: Wiltz, Rucker, Wistrom, Swiney, Warfield, M. Brown, R. Brown..... and yes, a few ALL - PRO !!!!!
Once agian, I still say 35 points for NU...... Option at the time was almost impossible to stop when it began to roll !!!!
So much for "name dropping" :thumbs
Id bet that NU would have put up 30+ points against that Mich D. If I remember correctly, the strength of UMs D was the secondary which would have been cut-blocked to death by the tough NU wrs. I watched the UM/OSU game that year and it seemed like OSU had a pretty easy go at running up the gut against the UM D, and if not for Coopers incompetence, OSU could have won that game. UM never had to face an offense like NUs during that year. Im not sure what their offenses were rated but OSU and PSU were no where close to NU that year.
What I think we are missing here is that NUs D likely would have held UM to less than 10 points. Heck, they held a much, much, much better offense to 17, UM would have been lucky to score, period on NU that year. If I remember correctly, UM averaged something like 27 PPG that year, and their highest scoring game was in the 40s. NU averaged more than UMs highest scoring game.
Most likely would have been a 31-6 game, or something like that. NU would have routed.
HANC, you forgot to mention Terry Fair, he was a UT DB, I believe, who played in the NFL (1st round draft pick??).
HANC
All-Conference
Yep, you are correct FF..... Terry Fair was another NFL guy, and started DB for the volunteers..... my bad..
Just goes to show, how many NFL guys that the Vols had on that team.....
NU dominated them, and in all honesty, would have dominated Michigan that year..
That is not being "biased" as some have said, that is being football intelligent....
Just goes to show, how many NFL guys that the Vols had on that team.....
NU dominated them, and in all honesty, would have dominated Michigan that year..
That is not being "biased" as some have said, that is being football intelligent....
HANC
All-Conference
We are still waiting for a reply !!!!!
By the lack of replies, is one to consider the fact that the Point may be proven, in the 'hypothetical" world (that really means nothing), that NU was the better team..
I know that UM fans will never admit it, but since it seems that we have "out-facted" them, and their lack of arguement, that maybe this is no longer an issue.
NU = '97 National Champs by "Coaches" (guys who know football)
By the lack of replies, is one to consider the fact that the Point may be proven, in the 'hypothetical" world (that really means nothing), that NU was the better team..
I know that UM fans will never admit it, but since it seems that we have "out-facted" them, and their lack of arguement, that maybe this is no longer an issue.
NU = '97 National Champs by "Coaches" (guys who know football)
UnbiasedOne
Walk-on
I am not a Michigan fan, but how is this for facts?
Common opponents: Michigan and Nebraska had two common opponents, Colorado and Baylor. Michigan beat Colorado 27-3 and Baylor 38-3, a combined score of 65-6. Nebraska beat Colorado (barely) 27-24 and Baylor 49-21, a combined score of 76-45. If you take the time to dig down deeper and look at the stats from these games, you'd see this is even more impressively in Michigan's favor.
Schedule: Michigan's opponents' win percentage was 52.8%. Nebraska's opponents' win percentage was just 49.6%. Six opponents of Michigan went to to bowl games that year. Only three opponents of Nebraska attended bowl games in 1997.
Honestly, if you look at it objectively, Michigan was the better team. It should be extremely hard (for Husker fans) to ignore the results from the games against common opponents.
My prediction, if they had played: [SIZE=14pt]Michigan 27 - Nebraska 17[/SIZE]
huskerstag
Five-Star Recruit
In response to unbiased one's post, while common opponents cannot be discounted, that in itself doesn't point to a UofM win. However, the use of statistics and analysis is always welcomed, as opposed to mindless blather and I applaud and appreciate your research.
Looking at the entire season and using the AP POLL rankings, since the UofM fans probably like those better, in terms of games against ranked teams, according to rank at the end of the season,
UM beat:
#16 Penn State - 34-8
#12 Ohio State - 20-14
#9 Washington State - 21-16
Average Scoring against ranked teams = UM 25 - opponent - 12.667
Season's average = UM - 26.833 - opponent - 9.5
NU beat:
#18 Washington - 27-14
#8 Kansas State - 56-26
#23 Missouri - 45-38 (OT)
#20 Texas A&M - 54-15
#7 Tennessee - 42-17
Average Scoring against ranked teams = NU 44.8 - opponent 22
Season's average = NU 46.69 - opponent 16.46
NU played more ranked teams and two that ended the season with a higher ranking than UM's highest ranked opponent all season long. Against ranked teams NU's average margin of victory was higher than UM's was for the entire season.
As everyone is entitled to their own opinion, my prediction would be NU-35 UM-17, but that's just as random as anyone else's.
Looking at the entire season and using the AP POLL rankings, since the UofM fans probably like those better, in terms of games against ranked teams, according to rank at the end of the season,
UM beat:
#16 Penn State - 34-8
#12 Ohio State - 20-14
#9 Washington State - 21-16
Average Scoring against ranked teams = UM 25 - opponent - 12.667
Season's average = UM - 26.833 - opponent - 9.5
NU beat:
#18 Washington - 27-14
#8 Kansas State - 56-26
#23 Missouri - 45-38 (OT)
#20 Texas A&M - 54-15
#7 Tennessee - 42-17
Average Scoring against ranked teams = NU 44.8 - opponent 22
Season's average = NU 46.69 - opponent 16.46
NU played more ranked teams and two that ended the season with a higher ranking than UM's highest ranked opponent all season long. Against ranked teams NU's average margin of victory was higher than UM's was for the entire season.
As everyone is entitled to their own opinion, my prediction would be NU-35 UM-17, but that's just as random as anyone else's.
UnbiasedOne
Walk-on
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.
StuckinChicago
Starter
The best measure is never comparing common opponets. You cant say that Michigan lost to Wisconsin who lost to Northwestern, therefore Michigan is worse than Northwestern.... That makes absolutely no sense. Nebraska played more ranked teams, they crushed the number three team in the country, and they dominated 11 of the thirteen games they played. That team didnt just beat the 8th ranked Kansas State, they destroyed them. They didnt just beat the 3rd ranked Tennessee, they destroyed them. The highest ranked team you played was Wa state, in a game where you had everything to play for, against an inferior team, and you nearly lost. All teams slip during the year when they are overlooking teams or losing focus, except for the 95 Nebraska team, but when there was a big game, the comparisons between NU and UM clearly favor NU. That is why we would have been favored, and that is why we win that game 95 times out of 100
The problem is you are comparing a CU team that UM played at Ann Arbor in game 1 to a CU team that played in Boulder in game 11 - CU ONLY cares about beating Nebraska - Nebraska went out to a 27-3 lead in the 4Q - driving for another score when a Ahman Green fumble and some high mountain air allow CU back into the game - there is no doubt CU was a much better team on their home field, against their hated rival in game 11 than they were in game 1 on the road.
Baylor was beaten badly in the first half (Nebraska led 42-7 at half on the road) (Michigan led 21-3 at half at home) - Nebraska played reserves in a sleet storm the whole second half while Michigan played starters and scored 10 4Q points for the final margin (Baylor outscored NU reserves 14-0 in the 4Q - including a score on the last play of the game)
So no - Michigan did not beat Baylor worse than Nebraska -
Baylors head coach Dave Roberts said as much when asked to compare teams
Also, that overrated PSU team that Michigan beat - went on to get exposed weekly at the end of the season - they ended the season getting shellacked by a MSU team - the MSU team went on to get humilated by a Washington team that Nebraska beat handily (in Seattle when Washington was ranked #2) in the bowl game
Had the Orange bowl been on ABC - the talking heads at ESPN would not have been obligated to pump up the Michigan team - a team that just the previous year was getting beat in their bowl game by Texas A&M to cap a 4 loss season - to a Nebraska team that had gone 60-3 in the previous 5 years - Instead ABC/ESPN wanted a national champ game and got it by downgrading Nebraska and pumping Michigan - to top it off they also screwed Peyton Manning out of the Heisman in their greed -
Baylor was beaten badly in the first half (Nebraska led 42-7 at half on the road) (Michigan led 21-3 at half at home) - Nebraska played reserves in a sleet storm the whole second half while Michigan played starters and scored 10 4Q points for the final margin (Baylor outscored NU reserves 14-0 in the 4Q - including a score on the last play of the game)
So no - Michigan did not beat Baylor worse than Nebraska -
Baylors head coach Dave Roberts said as much when asked to compare teams
Also, that overrated PSU team that Michigan beat - went on to get exposed weekly at the end of the season - they ended the season getting shellacked by a MSU team - the MSU team went on to get humilated by a Washington team that Nebraska beat handily (in Seattle when Washington was ranked #2) in the bowl game
Had the Orange bowl been on ABC - the talking heads at ESPN would not have been obligated to pump up the Michigan team - a team that just the previous year was getting beat in their bowl game by Texas A&M to cap a 4 loss season - to a Nebraska team that had gone 60-3 in the previous 5 years - Instead ABC/ESPN wanted a national champ game and got it by downgrading Nebraska and pumping Michigan - to top it off they also screwed Peyton Manning out of the Heisman in their greed -
huskered17
All-Conference
Wow great stats. I know Vegas had the Huskers a 7 point favorite if the game could have been played.
Mich has a great tradition just like the Huskers. The thing I have always noticed about Mich is they come in highly rated most years and at the end of every season except 97 they lose 2,3,4 games. The Huskers on the other hand when rated high to start a season seem to be able prove those voters right. Losing 3 games in a season was a rare for them. {not counting bowl games.} For a state that has a much bigger talent pool to draw from, I would say the Huskers usually out preformed Mich teams. I look for a good game in the Alamo Bowl, the Huskers are pumped after their win at Col. I would like to think this team has turned the corner and if we can keep the mistakes down we should put on a good show for our fans.
GBR!!!
Mich has a great tradition just like the Huskers. The thing I have always noticed about Mich is they come in highly rated most years and at the end of every season except 97 they lose 2,3,4 games. The Huskers on the other hand when rated high to start a season seem to be able prove those voters right. Losing 3 games in a season was a rare for them. {not counting bowl games.} For a state that has a much bigger talent pool to draw from, I would say the Huskers usually out preformed Mich teams. I look for a good game in the Alamo Bowl, the Huskers are pumped after their win at Col. I would like to think this team has turned the corner and if we can keep the mistakes down we should put on a good show for our fans.
GBR!!!