Nebraska vs. Michigan ..... in 1997

[Landlord]

I think Nebraska would have won but Nebraska fans ignore these facts:

Michigan played the toughest schedule and played 6 top 25 teams.

Michigan beat Colorado 30 to 3 that year, we beat them 27 to 24 

We all talk about how we played a far superior team in the bowl game (which we did) yet we ignore that we had a common opponent in which Michigan beat them by 4 scores while we only beat them by 1.  

If a Michigan fan were to bring up these points then what would your rebuttal be besides the one bowl game?  

Others have already covered this more or less, but to reiterate:

The only bits of argument that Michigan has are the Missouri game (the kick should have been illegal, but it wasn't, and we won), and the Colorado game (week 1 home non-rivalry opponent vs week 12 away rivalry opponent playing for bowl eligibility who made the score closer than it seemed late). 

The arguments that Nebraska has are plentiful. They had an all-time great defense with a mediocre offense - we had an elite offense with a still really great defense. Going by end of season rankings, we played a tougher schedule, we beat more ranked teams than them, and we beat those teams by a MUCH larger margin of victory than they did. We ended the season much stronger than them with a dominant victory over a better opponent. We were ranked higher than them all season until the Missouri game when they leapfrogged us, which means it's totally fair for us to leapfrog them back. Their biggest strength was their pass defense, which wouldn't have meant much in playing us. 

 

[Undertow]

Back in 1997, you have to remember that ESPN was building up the Big Ten Conference, making it seem  that it was the best conference in the country. In reality it wasn't, and it wasn't even close. For all those that say that Michigan played a tougher schedule, that is also wrong. See the link below describing why the AP got it wrong in 1997. Just a caution. It goes into all 25 team rankings in 1997 so the article is somewhat long, but it clearly delineates why Nebraska should have been voted No. 1. 

http://tiptop25.com/fixing1997.html

The author is not a Husker Fan, he just objectively lays out why Nebraska should have been voted number 1. I'm curious if anybody who reads the article can come back and argue logically that Michigan had claim to the title (aside from the fact it wasn't decided on the field). 

 

[Making Chimichangas]

I'm not sure your "facts" are as factual as you'd like to believe.

Michigan maybe played a slightly tougher but by a pretty thin margin.  Florida looks to have played the toughest schedule.

Michigan beat 3 teams that finished the year ranked (#16 Penn State - 9-3; #12 Ohio State - 10-3; #9 Washington State - 10-2)

Nebraska beat 5 teams that finished the year ranked (#18 Washington - 8-4; #8 Kansas State - 11-1; #23 Missouri - 7-5; #20 Texas A&M - 9-4; #7 Tennessee - 11-2)

Your claim about Michigan beating six Top 25 teams is deceptive.  Michigan played Colorado, Notre Dame, Iowa, Michigan State and Wisconsin who were ranked earlier in the year.  They finished 5-6, 7-6, 7-5, 7-5 and 8-5 respectively so they weren't nearly as good as those initial rankings suggest and all finished the year unranked.

Michigan beat Colorado at home the first game of the year.  The Huskers played at Colorado the last game of the year.  On the road.  What had become a rivalry game.  And Nebraska was up 27-10 until Colorado scored two late TDs to get closer.  Also, Michigan beat Colorado by 24 which I believe is a three-score game.

Also, every computer ranking that I could find - Sagarin, SRS, Congrove, Howell - has Nebraska as the better team.

That would be my rebuttal if a Michigan fan were to bring up those points, which I think you just did.

I always say that if Nebraska and Michigan had played in 1997, the Huskers would have won by 50.  And @Mavric's post would be the response I would ideally like to have.  Now winning by 50 might be a bit of homerism, but there is no question in my mind NU beats MU handily--minimum of 3 TDs.  Michigan's offense would have been stifled by our defense, and our offense would have ran roughshod over Michigan's defense.

 

[Hans Gruber]

Besides the bowl game what do we have over Michigan? They beat more ranked teams, whooped a common opponent, tougher conference, etc.  The only thing we bring up is the bowl game.

Never mind. I see I'm the third person to bring up that half of Michigan's ranked wins weren't ranked by the end of the season.

Brought to you by the Redundant School of Redundancy.

 

[knapplc]

in 96, #11 Michigan went out to Boulder and avenged the Hail Mary, Colorado was 5th in the nation. 97 was the rubber match between McCartney and his former d-backs coach. Are you sure it was just another game?

Colorado had been circling our game in red on their schedule every year for fifteen years. After some success where they won three out of five games, they hadn't beaten Nebraska in six years and they were determined to win. Beating Nebraska also meant bowl eligibility, since they were sitting at five wins heading into the game.

I don't care how much lipstick you put on that pig, the Michigan game didn't mean anything to Colorado like the Nebraska game meant. 

 

[Mavric]

[No message]

 

[GSG]

[No message]

 

[Mavric]

I've always loved the "Michigan was #1 and didn't lose so they should have stayed #1" argument.

Exactly how did Michigan take over the #1 spot from Nebraska in the first place?

 

[GSG]

[No message]

 

[BigRedBuster]

[No message]

 

[Huskers93-97]

Colorado had been circling our game in red on their schedule every year for fifteen years. After some success where they won three out of five games, they hadn't beaten Nebraska in six years and they were determined to win. Beating Nebraska also meant bowl eligibility, since they were sitting at five wins heading into the game.

I don't care how much lipstick you put on that pig, the Michigan game didn't mean anything to Colorado like the Nebraska game meant. 

This and comparing a common opponent when the games happened 2.5 months apart is stupid. Michigan played the 2nd game of the year in early sept. Nebraska played them end of november. Not even the same team on the field.

 

[BigRedBuster]

[No message]

 

[TGHusker]

Back in 1997, you have to remember that ESPN was building up the Big Ten Conference, making it seem  that it was the best conference in the country. In reality it wasn't, and it wasn't even close. For all those that say that Michigan played a tougher schedule, that is also wrong. See the link below describing why the AP got it wrong in 1997. Just a caution. It goes into all 25 team rankings in 1997 so the article is somewhat long, but it clearly delineates why Nebraska should have been voted No. 1. 

http://tiptop25.com/fixing1997.html

The author is not a Husker Fan, he just objectively lays out why Nebraska should have been voted number 1. I'm curious if anybody who reads the article can come back and argue logically that Michigan had claim to the title (aside from the fact it wasn't decided on the field). 

Read the article in that link.  Close the book, the case is settled.  NU should have been voted #1 in both polls without question.    

The Eye Test also needs to be stated:  Watch the Big 12 championship game -  We looked like the 95 Huskers in that game. Texas A&M looked like a HS and not a 20th ranked college team in comparison to NU.   Take the Eye test: Bowl games - No comparison of what we did to Tenn vs their 'lucky the game stopped when it did' win over WSU.

As the article noted, The Big 10 and Mich were the Media darling that year.  Think of how ESPN fawns over Bama and the SEC now - there was the same bias towards the Big 10 then- esp after PSU got frozen out of sharing the NC in 94 and since Mich had no NC since 1948 - NU was having a long run and the media wanted someone new on top. The media seemed to be all too happy to drop us from # 1 to # 3 after the Missouri miracle fleakicker as we had been #1 for much of the season.

 

[Huskers93-97]

Read the article in that link.  Close the book, the case is settled.  NU should have been voted #1 in both polls without question.    

The Eye Test also needs to be stated:  Watch the Big 12 championship game -  We looked like the 95 Huskers in that game. Texas A&M looked like a HS and not a 20th ranked college team in comparison to NU.   Take the Eye test: Bowl games - No comparison of what we did to Tenn vs their 'lucky the game stopped when it did' win over WSU.

As the article noted, The Big 10 and Mich were the Media darling that year.  Think of how ESPN fawns over Bama and the SEC now - there was the same bias towards the Big 10 then- esp after PSU got frozen out of sharing the NC in 94 and since Mich had no NC since 1948 - NU was having a long run and the media wanted someone new on top. The media seemed to be all too happy to drop us from # 1 to # 3 after the Missouri miracle fleakicker as we had been #1 for much of the season.

True. Its funny how times change- many other teams in the 2000s have had similiar close wins and nobody punishes them by dropping in the polls. Its like oh man they did a great job finding away to overcome an off day and still win. 

 

[TGHusker]

True. Its funny how times change- many other teams in the 2000s have had similiar close wins and nobody punishes them by dropping in the polls. Its like oh man they did a great job finding away to overcome an off day and still win. 

Winners find a way to win.   How many of us were frustrated with Bama's out of the blue winning TD pass in last year's championship game?  I would bet most of us were pulling for the "anyone but Bama' team which happened to be Georgia.  Back in 97, we were the Bama (or should I say, Bama became the new Nebraska) and if Tom had not retired, who knows how long it would have continued. But the 97 team found a way.  It wasn't just the fleakicker - it was the whole last drive - I believe without timeouts wt little time on the clock. We were winners, we expected to win and we found a way.

Frost's new challenge is to make this current team believers - in themselves and in winning.  Once they start believing, they will start winning and winning will become not just a habit that builds confidence but an expectation despite the challenge before them.