Who had more talent in 1997?
Many of you are familiar with the 1997 season and the "shared championship" controversy. In the years since, especially the recent ones, I've often thought about how much talent Michigan had that year. This is partly because several guys from the roster are still high-profile NFL players.
When 1997 has come up in my conversations with college football fans outside the Midwest, I've noticed that the majority of them assume that Nebraska would have beaten Michigan if (say) the BCS had existed that year. I could speculate as to why that's the case, but that's not my main point here.
We'll obviously never know how that game might have turned out, but I've long believed that Michigan had more talent that year than Nebraska. How could that be measured?
I decided to look at the '97 rosters for both teams and the NFL database (http://www.databasefootball.com/). Here are my findings (specifically, lists of the future pros from each team):
Michigan: https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AkEbjH02DNzxdDNsLU…
Nebraska: https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AkEbjH02DNzxdFY4ZU…
Michigan wins easily.
Notice:
* Michigan has more players, 33 to 24.
* Michigan has more "NFL" years, 200 to 152.
* Michigan's players appear to be distributed more evenly through the classes. Notice how many more 4th-/5th-year guys they have. So, more mature talent, right?
Comments:
* NFL careers (and length thereof) are obviously not a perfect measure of talent at the college level, but I'll bet the correlation is significantly positive.
* On the other side (so to speak) plenty of college stars, including some Michigan Men over the years, have never played a game in the NFL. That doesn't mean they weren't significant contributors at the NCAA level.
* On the database site, classes were clearly assigned based on years in the program. Tom Brady was a junior to them but a redshirt sophomore to Michigan.
* Data goes to only 2009. You'll see that number next to players who were still active that year.
* The presence of a future pro in a given year might not be important. For example, Michigan gets all of Tom Brady's years, but he made a minimal contribution to the '97 team (on the field, at least). I would have looked at that more closely and filtered the non-contributors, but I didn't have enough information for the task.
* Compare '97 to '08. So far, there are only seven guys from that team (Trent, Jamison, Graham, Mesko, Brown, and probably Schilling and Mouton). Martin and possibly others (Hemingway, Molk, RVB, Woolfolk, Koger, Omameh, Roundtree, and Stonum ... too early to tell for the rest, I think) should join them eventually.
This is overtated internet guy to the max. The guy had 12 fluke games to one of the best defense in NCAA history? Come on.
I think it might be more accurate to say that Herrmann was very effective at designing a defense around Charles Woodson's talents and found it harder to adjust after Woodson left, especially early on in 1998. Having said that, he really wasn't as bad a DC as people made him out to be at the time. I think we can see that in retrospect. There were a handful of very bad performances (Syracuse '98, Northwestern '00, Tennessee '01, Minnesota '03) under his watch, but also quite a few good ones.
Also, we had Jeremy Tuman and they didn't, case closed.
was a really strong team, and though basically one dimensional, that one dimension was pretty damn good. It was a different look than Michigan had seen that year, and I cannot say for certain if Michigan's defense would have been as dominant against an option attack as it was against the "standard" looks it had seen all year. Woodson was so dominant, and in a lot of ways Nebraska's style of play would have limited his impact.
This is not a criticism of the 97 team, but a really think that drawing WSU was a huge break. I think they played right into M's strengths. That was a very good year of college football, Florida State, Nebraska, Florida, all of those teams were very, very good. Impossible to say how Michigan would have stacked up with any or all of them.
Leave it as this. Michigan was a damn strong football team in 1997. Nothing else matters.
I agree that drawing Wasu was a huge break. That was the only Rose Bowl in my lifetime where, going into it, I had little doubt that Michigan was going to win. 17 points is about what I expected them to score, although I was a little surprised that our offense only put up 21.
Was the team that scared me. When Florida knocked them off, returning the favor we did them by knocking off OSU the previous year, I was glad, because that team deserved votes. They had a great defense too.
Baylor, and their players said Michigan was better.
That was good enough for me then and still now.
I believe Nebraska pulled out a 3 point victory over Colorado, even though Colorado scored a lot of their points late.
I seem to remember their players saying something to the same effect.
We kicked Colorado's ass.
Make no mistake, Michigan had a terrific team and deserved their NC trophy. But so did Nebraska.
Both undefeated playing tough schedules: Michigan opponents ranked in final AP polls - 3 - at #s 9,12,16 Nebraska opponents ranked in final AP polls - 5 - at #s 7, 8, 18, 20, 23
Both traded places in polls after close "style point" wins: Michigan slips by WSU in Rose Bowl on last possession Nebraska slips by Mizzou on last possession
The "sympathy vote" argument against Nebraska is vastly overblown. Dr. Tom had just won 2 NC's in 1994 & 1995 and almost won a 3rd in 1993.
The Big Ten's lack of a conference title game hurt Michigan. While the Wolverines sat on the sidelines, Nebraska blasted Texas A&M 54-15 in the title game.
Michigan was also really hurt by their bowl matchup. WSU was not a storied program, all they had was Ryan Leaf as far as star power, so beating them was expected by the media. The fact that the game was so close didn't help and really left it wide open for Nebraska after beating Texas A&M. Nebraska got a big break drawing a highly rated and traditional power like Tennessee for their bowl. Beating a Peyton Manning led team 42-17 sealed the deal.
It all makes for a good new rivalry in the B1G, especially with both teams fighting it out in the same division to get to the Conference Title game and get to a NC game.
Nebraska opponents ranked in final polls - 5 - at #s 7, 8, 18, 20, 23 (AP)
Nebraska opponents ranked in final polls - 5 - at #s 7, 8, 18, 20, 23 (AP)
Personally, I don't make much distinction between an "outright" or "shared" title. Either way you're talking about going undefeated and having it come down to a vote, which is silly when you really think about it. Both teams can justifiably claim winning the title that year.
PSU not getting a share in '94 was a greater injustice. Both NU and PSU had great teams that went undefeated, and they didn't play each other. It was pretty arbitrary that the voters in both polls gave it to NU. It probably should have been a split.
That's what I have always thought too. The fact that we shared a national championship has never bothered me, but Penn State probably should have shared one too.
You want consistency. If PSU had shared, I wouldn't have minded sharing. But since they didn't, Nebraska shouldn't have either. Nebraska shouldn't have benefited in BOTH situations.
When Frost was campaigning after the bowl game. And the fact that someone voted Michigan way down in the polls to get Nebraska up.
You point out one of the problems, in that people were remembering the previous Nebraska teams, particularly '95, which was one of the all time great teams. However, that was memory, because the '97 team wasn't nearly as good as those teams.
to a coach who had just won 2 NCs and almost won another? That really doesn't make a lot of sense. My point is that after downvoting the Huskers for an ugly win against Mizzou, the same thing happended to UM--they had a long layoff before their bowl, barely beat WSU, while NU finished strong against A&M and Tennessee.
The "Beloved" nature. The parting gift. It was all stuff that was talked about at the time. And Washington State was a far better team than any of the ones you mention. They just had the name "Washington State". The Big 12 was rancid in that era but for Nebraska. It wasn't until Texas and Oklahoma got their act back together than it mattered.
If we'd have played Nebraska that year, we'd have beaten them. Probably quite handily. I don't think our defense would have had any problem slowing down Nebraska's running game. I'm sure they'd have gotten some yards, but there is no doubt in my mind we could have forced them to throw more than they'd have liked to, and then it'd have been open season for Woodson.
I don't remember which Wolverine said it (Dhani Jones, maybe?) but...He was asked who was the real National champion. He said they give out 4 National Championship trophies, 3 of them are in Ann Arbor and we didn't have to cry for any of ours. That's all you need to know !!!!!!
Bamn! There it is, I'm sold.
Remember that ridiculous series of stories where ESPN was trying to determine if USC's team was the best ever (before they lost to texas?). One of the teams they compared them to, and I believe at least an "expert" or two had them losing to, was '97 Michigan. '97 Nebraska wasn't mentioned. I think knowledgable football people have figured out what we all knew, Michigan was the best team that year.
That said, as time moves on, it matters less and less. We were national champions that year, who cares if someone else can make a similar claim.
Why did you have to remind me?
First, the linesman in the Rose Bowl who pulled out and then mysteriously held on to his flag on a blatant offensive push off during WSU's last possession that ended up giving Leaf & Co. the ball at midfield. If he throws the flag, WSU is pinned deep and the game end's without that sense of uneasiness that occured.
Second and third are Sean McDonough and Terry Donhue's who performed a three-hour slobberfest on Osborne.
Are you looking at this from the perspective of the players who actually saw the field or all the players on the college rosters who played in the pros?
Brady never saw the field in 1997 but he's got 10+ years of nfl experience.
I've never been a huge fan of judging who would win by how much talent a team has or how many guys go onto to the nfl. This RR era excluded, if you look back over the last 10, 15, 20 years and line up UM's talent compared to the opposition, UM probably shouldn't have lost as many games as they did. That's why you play the games.
From my post:
"The presence of a future pro in a given year might not be important. For example, Michigan gets all of Tom Brady's years, but he made a minimal contribution to the '97 team (on the field, at least). I would have looked at that more closely and filtered the non-contributors, but I didn't have enough information for the task."
Washington State, and the Pac-10 in general, were very underrated that year. Pac-10 teams went 5-1 in their bowl games in '97, the Rose Bowl being the conference's only loss. I remember being puzzled that no one was really citing that stat. Nebraska fans would keep mentioning the Big Ten's subpar bowl record that year (I think it was 2-5 or something). But that doesn't matter because we beat the champion of the conference with the best bowl record. That's kind of a big deal.
Michigan beat wazzu, ohio st faced fsu who imo was the 1 team that could have beat that 97 team, only difference was michigan had a more clutch qb and better oline, otherwise the defenses stacked for both teams..... pennst lost their qb, rb and star wr for the bowl game against florida and still gave florida a good run... iowa lost their starting qb the rest of the season after the michigan game and wasn't the same team again after that game...and for that same matter neither was msu...
Michigan's defense put 5 qb's out of a game or multiple games that season for either a few plays or more.. they were devastating......
I disagree about that FSU team. Michigan would have absolutely eaten that offense for breakfast. And Michigan's offense, to pull one of Brian's favorite phrases, was largely competition-invariant.
The Big Ten got screwed in an absolutely epic way with bowls that year. That had to be the toughest bowl schedule a conference has ever had. Our #2 (OSU) played Florida State. Our #3 (Penn State) played Florida without their 1st string tailback, 2nd string tailback, and star wide receiver. Our fourth place team (8-4 Wisky) played 9-2 Georgia. Our fifth place team played the Big 12 #4 and won handily. Our sixth place team played 8-3 Arizona State, who was ranked in the Top 25. Our seventh place team (Michigan State) played Washington.
Half the '97 Michigan team was still playing in the Pros a decade later. There is no question that Michigan had more talent.
That is not a guarantee that Michigan would have won a game against Nebraska. Nebraska played a system that Michigan did not see much and played it very well. But yes, Michigan had more talent.
They dont give the NC for best pro players, see Chad Henne senior year Squad.
Michigan and Nebraska had two common opponents that year, Colorado and Baylor.
Michigan beat Colorado 27-3 at home and Baylor 38-3 at home.
Nebraska beat Colorado 27-24 away and Baylor 49-21 away.
Nebraska beat Missouri away in OT 45-38. Nebraska tied the score on the last play of the game from Missouri's 12 yard line on an illegal pass play. The ball was kicked into the air by one receiver and was caught by another receiver for a touchdown.
Tennessee was the #3 team in the country despite losing to Florida 33-20. Peyton Manning had a shoulder injury prior to the bowl game against Nebraska which prevented him from throwing any deep passes and also affected his zip on the ball. Nebraska blitzed Manning all day and easily defeated Tennesee 42-17.
For you Hermann haters out there, Washington State was the first passing spread team. Washington State should have never gotten down to the Michigan 20 before time ran out on their final drive. On a forth and long on their last drive with Washington State deep in their own territory, Woodson was blatantly pushed down from behind by the receiver he was covering on a pass play resulting in the receiver making the catch with no offensive pass interference penalty being called. The referee reached for the flag but did not throw it. This has to be one of the most blantant noncalls I have ever seen.
Michigan had the toughest schedule and the best defense in the country. We beat 7 top-25 ranked teams that year. Here are the rankings of the ranked teams we beat at the time we beat them and their final ranking( ): Colorado 8, Iowa 15, MSU 15, Penn State 2 (16), Wisconsin 23, Ohio State 4 (12), Washington State 8 (9).
In comparison, Nebraska only beat 4 top-25 ranked teams that year: Washington 2 (18), Kansas State 17 (8), Texas A&M 14 (20), and Tennesee 3 (7).
We blew out Penn State on the road 31-8 on Nov. 10, when PSU was rated #2 in the country. Michigan was rated #4 at the time. Michigan leaped passed Nebraska to #1 in the polls due to our decisive victory.
As stated previously it was the only time a the current #1 rated team going into the bowl games dropped in the final poll when winning its bowl game. And the reason for that was Phil Fulmer dropping Michigan in his final poll ballot because Woodson won the Heismann over Peyton Manning.
That proves the case as to why the coaches poll (UPI) is worthless relative to the sportswriters' poll (AP).
they actually beat 5 rated teams (final AP) not 4, you forgot Mizzou who finished 23rd, compared to the 3 on UM's schedule that finished in the poll. And NU's 2 top-rated wins ended up rated higher than anyone UM beat per the AP poll you base your case on.
Yes, Michigan leapfrogged NU after an impressive victory over Penn State. Nebraska did the same thing after a blow out 42-17 win over number 3 Tennessee while UM struggled to beat WSU.
Your best argument is the common foe, but you're only looking at margin of victory, not a W vs a L. And Nebraska playing conference foes on the road vs UM playing non conference at home isn't the best comparison. But if you want to hang your argument on that, Nebraska outscored all its opponents by 30 points per game; Michigan outscored its opponents by 17 points per game. Nebraska outscored its opponents with winning records by 23. Michigan outscored its opponents with winning records by 10.
Hats off to the '97 Wolverines, but give the '97 Huskers their due.
Is actually a case backing up his "Michigan had the tougher schedule" point.
And the difference is, people leapfrog teams during the regular season all the time. It had not happened after a bowl in the modern era.
And of course, Michigan never had to cheat in one game to get their win. But for the grace of bad referees...
And we'll gladly stop complaining about you jumping up when you are willing to give one of your previous trophies to Penn State.