Will scUM even compete for an NC in the next decade?

[3yardsandacloud]

Well here's another view ...


1997 Cornhuskers (13-0-0)
Teams/Score.......................................H/A...........Record...............Rank (AP)....Bowls
Nebraska 59.....Akron (OH) 14............Home.......2-9-0 (.182).......NR...............No Bowl
Nebraska 38.....Central Florida 24......Home.......5-6-0 (.454).......NR...............No Bowl
Nebraska 27.....Washington 14...........Away.......8-4-0 (.667).......18...............Won Aloha Bowl (Michigan State)
Nebraska 56.....Kansas St. 26.............Home.......11-1-0 (.917)......8................Won Fiesta Bowl (Syracuse)
Nebraska 49.....Baylor (TX) 21.............Away.......2-9-0 (.182).......NR...............No Bowl
Nebraska 29.....Texas Tech 0..............Home.......6-5-0 (.545).......NR...............No Bowl
Nebraska 35.....Kansas 0....................Away.......5-6-0 (.454).......NR...............No Bowl
Nebraska 69.....Oklahoma 7................Home.......4-8-0 (.333).......NR...............No Bowl
Nebraska 45.....Missouri 38.................Away.......7-5-0 (.583).......23................Lost Holiday Bowl (Colorado State)
Nebraska 77.....Iowa St. 14.................Home......1-10-0 (.091).....NR................No Bowl
Nebraska 27.....Colorado 24................Away.......5-6-0 (.454).......NR................No Bowl

Big 12 Championship Game
Nebraska 54.....Texas A&M 15.............Neutral.....9-4-0 (.692).......20................Lost Cotton Bowl (UCLA)

Orange Bowl
Nebraska 42.....Tennessee 17.............Neutral.....11-2-0 (.846)......7.................Lost Orange Bowl (To Nebraska)

Totals - 607 to 214 (46.6 to 16.4)........6H / 5A.....76-75-0 (.503)....5 teams......5 Bowl Teams - 2 Winners



1997 Wolverines (12-0-0)
Teams/Score.......................................H/A...........Record...............Rank (AP)....Bowls
Michigan 27......Colorado 3..................Home.......5-6-0 (.454).......NR...............No Bowl
Michigan 38......Baylor (TX) 3...............Home.......2-9-0 (.181).......NR...............No Bowl
Michigan 21......Notre Dame (IN) 14....Home........7-6-0 (.538)......NR...............Lost Independence Bowl (LSU)
Michigan 37......Indiana 0....................Away........2-9-0 (.181)......NR...............No Bowl
Michigan 23......Northwestern (IL) 6....Home.......5-7-0 (.416).......NR...............No Bowl
Michigan 28......Iowa 24......................Home.......7-5-0 (.583).......NR...............Lost Sun Bowl (ASU)
Michigan 23......Michigan St. 7..............Away.......7-5-0 (.583).......NR...............Lost Aloha Bowl (Washington)
Michigan 24......Minnesota 3................Home.......3-9-0 (.250).......NR...............No Bowl
Michigan 34......Penn St. 8....................Away.......9-3-0 (.750).......16...............Lost Citrus Bowl (Florida)
Michigan 26......Wisconsin 16...............Away........8-5-0 (.615)......NR...............Lost Outback Bowl (Georgia)
Michigan 20......Ohio St. 14..................Home.......10-3-0 (.769).....12...............Lost Sugar Bowl (FSU)

Rose Bowl
Michigan 21......Washington St. 16......Neutral.....10-2-0 (.833)......9...............Lost Rose Bowl (To Mchigan)

Totals - 322 to 114 (26.8 to 9.5).........7H / 4A.....75-69-0 (.520)....3 teams.....7 Bowl Teams - 0 Winners



Summary:
Michigan played 3 teams ranked in the top 25, and only 1 finished in the top 10
Nebraska played 5 teams ranked in the top 25, and 2 finished in the top 10

Michigan played 7 Bowl Teams, ALL lost their Bowl Games (.000%)
Nebraska played 5 Bowl Teams, 2 won their Bowl Games (.400%)

Michigan played 7 opponents with with .500 or above records (58.3 % of opponents)
Nebraska played 6 opponents with with .500 or above records (46.1 % of opponents)

Michigan's opponents combined for a 75-69-0 record, good for a .520 win percentage
Nebraska's opponents combined for a 76-75-0 record, good for a .503 win percentage

Michigan outscored their opponents 322 to 114 for an average score of 26.8 to 9.5 (17.3 point margin)
Nebraska outscored their opponents 607 to 214 for an average score of 46.6 to 16.4 (30.2 point margin)

Michigan played at home 63.6% of the time
Nebraska played at home 54.5% of the time

Michigan had 1 shutout
Nebraska had 2 shutouts


Michigan was Awarded the Title by these agencies (12):
1st-N-Goal
ARGH Power Ratings
Associated Press
Bob Kirlin
DKC Ratings
Football News
Football Writers Association of America
GACFF.com Computer Rankings
Harry Frye
National Championship Foundation
National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame
The Sporting News


Nebraska was Awarded the Title by these agencies (26):
1st-N-Goal
Alderson System
Billingsley Report
Century Football Index
Clyde Berryman
Congrove Computer Rankings
Darryl W. Perry
David Wilson
Dunkel System
Foundation for the Analysis of Competitions and Tournaments
Gupta Power Ratings
Harry DeVold
James Howell
Jeff Self
Loren Maxwell
Massy Ratings
Matthews Grid Ratings
National Championship Foundation
New York Times
Patrick Premo
Peter Wolfe
Sagarin Ratings
Seattle Times
Sparks Achievement Ratings
Steve Eck
USA Today/ESPN


Well, what can you say? Looks like Nebraska would be the winner on paper. They won more games, against more ranked opponents, by a larger margin, with an additional shutout. They did it while playing at home one less time, on the road one more time and at a neutral site one more time. Michigan's opponents DID have a slightly higher overall win percentage and had 2 more bowl worth opponents (although none won their bowls, while 2 of Nebraska's opponents did). Nebraska was awarded the title by more than double the amount of agencies that picked Michigan.

The only other factor to really consider is the common opponents (as has been mentioned). That comparison can be misleading though. Michigan beat both (Colorado and Baylor) by larger margins, but Michigan played both at home, while Nebraska played both on the road. Michigan also got both early in the season (games 1 and 2), while Nebraska faced them at mid-season and end of season.

It's a fun debate. I'd give Nebraska the nod on paper, but who knows what would have happened on the field? Miami certainly would have won the 2002 title on paper ... thank God we got to play the game.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Michigan and Nebraska had two common opponents in 1997, too. Michigan beat Colorado 27-3 and Baylor 38-3. Nebraska beat Colorado 27-24 and Baylor 49-21. Michigan's margin of victory in those games was 59 points and Nebraska's 31.

I knew you'd bring that up. The reason I didn't bring it up earlier was that common opponents mean absolute jack shit. Case in point from this year:

A. You beat Iowa 30-17 (and beat them worse than the final score indicates).
B. Iowa flat out kicked our ass 30-7.
C. We beat you pretty handily, 37-21.

You would figure that going by a common opponent (Iowa), that you should've flat out blasted us, but that clearly wasn't the case. Sorry, but Nebraska was clearly the dominant team in 1997...Michigan had no business getting even a split title. If you want talk about gifts, you guys are the ones that got it.

 

[TheMile]

That's a great post, 3yards. I especially agree with your conclusion.

I knew you'd bring that up. The reason I didn't bring it up earlier was that common opponents mean absolute jack shit. Case in point from this year:

So you're saying that it only takes a single counter-example to totally invalidate some statistics? I can play that game, too.

Nebraska outscored their opponents 47-16 (+31 points)
Michigan only outscored their opponents 27-9 (+18 points)

In 2002, Miami outscored their opponents by an average of 25.6 points.
Ohio State only outscored their opponents by an average of 16.9 points.

Evidently, margin of victory means absolute jack shit.


In any case, you've totally missed my point. I'm not saying this happened (we'll likely never know one way or another), but let's assume the following for the purposes of my argument:

• Phillip Fulmer and Tom Osborne both believed Michigan was the second best team in the nation.
• Fulmer and Osborne both voted Nebraska #1 and Michigan #5.
• Nebraska won the coaches poll by a small amount of votes, such that honest voting by the previous two would've resulted in Michigan finishing first.

If this happened, I don't understand how you can say Michigan didn't get screwed.

In 1997, the national championship was officially a matter of the opinion of sportswriters and coaches. If in the honest opinion of the coaches, Michigan should have been ranked first, we were screwed. If in the honest opinion of the coaches, Nebraska should have been ranked first, then we got what we deserved.

 

[wadc45]

Is Lloyd Carr overrated?

instead of starting a new thread I thought I would just tack this on to this existing one...

http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2005/Ask_CFN/Ask_CFN.htm

By Pete Fiutak

I'm curious as to your thoughts about the Michigan defense this season. I'm hearing that they are going to switch back to the 4-3. Do you think they can turn it around and start playing some real Michigan defense? Nothing better than seeing the winged helmet crush a RB for a 3 yard loss. - Ryan (San Diego)

A: I’ve received a bunch of e-mails like this one from Michigan fans. Outside of being unable to stop Vince Young in the Rose Bowl and Ohio State’s Troy Smith, what was so horrible with the Wolverine run defense? It only allowed 133.33 yards per game last year and held Cedric Benson to 70 yards. It’ll be more than fine this year no matter what the alignment is and should hold teams to around 115 rushing yards per game. Will it be a killer? No, but it’ll be good enough to win with. The bigger key will be to figure out how to keep mobile quarterbacks contained. In case you're wondering when it's time for Big Blue fans to worry, it's October 1st at Michigan State against Drew Stanton.

There is a long, long running argument between me and my fellow Michigan alums. There are those around me that actually want Lloyd Carr fired. Their argument is not about the program's record in itself, but the team's lack of performance versus recruiting rank and/or members of NFL rosters. They say that because Michigan's relative rank is so high each year in the recruiting polls and have relatively so many alums on NFL rosters that Lloyd's lack of national championships is a failure. Do you think recruiting and NFL players are a good thermometer to judge a program's success? And, how would you rate Lloyd's job with what he has to work with? Help me end the insanity. – Brian, Chicago

A: Like the other Michigan question, I’ve received a ton of these questions as well from both sides of the Lloyd Carr argument. Simple answer: What the heck else do you want? First of all, take a stab at how many current coaches have won a national title at the D-I level. It’s a select group of ten. Carr, Bobby Bowden, Larry Coker, Jim Tressel, Joe Paterno, Bob Stoops, Pete Carroll, Bobby Ross, Steve Spurrier, and Phil Fulmer. Out of those ten, only three have more than one. Next, Michigan has gone to the Rose Bowl in each of the last two seasons, which is the measure all Big Ten coaches go by. Carr and his staff are wonderful at recruiting, and yeah, there have been some disappointing losses. But this is still one of the nation’s elite programs and Carr has been a major reason. To answer your question about recruiting and NFL players being a measure of success, that goes hand-in-hand with wins. If you have one, you have the other. All you can do is be in the mix each year and if all the chips fall your way, you're in the national title chase.

 

[BB73]

(A.) You're shittin' me, right? Nebraska outscored their opponents 47-16 (+31 points) and destroyed Tennessee (which coincidentally won the national title the following year) 42-17 in the Orange Bowl, while Michigan only outscored their opponents 27-9 (+18 points) and squeaked by Washington State 21-16 in the Rose Bowl.

(B.) Do you have the coach-by-coach breakdown of who voted how? Did Nebraska only win the title by the amount of points of the difference between Nebraska and Michigan on Osborne's ballot? I highly, highly doubt it.

If anyone got robbed of the consensus national title, it was Nebraska.

Sorry I'm so late in responding to this one, I've been out of town.

I can't believe folks are arguing about who got jobbed in the 1997 NC without mentioning the Nebraska-Missouri game that year. On the last play of regulation, Nebraska's pass went off a receiver on the goal line. He than intentionally kicked the ball to keep it from hitting the ground. A freshman WR for Nebraska then made a diving catch for the ball in the end zone to score the tying TD. There was no time on the clock after that play. If the referees had correctly seen and ruled that the ball was intentionally kicked, the game was over (games can end on an offensive penalty) and Nebraska would have lost. I remember this because I spotted the kick on live TV and was screaming at the ref, which amazingly didn't seem to help them get the call right. Without the kicked-ball TD and the win in OT, the coaches wouldn't have been able to give Osborne the going-away gift of another NC after QB Scott Frost whined about it so graciously.

Here's another interesting fact about that year's polls. In the last AP poll before the bowl games, scUM had 69 1st place votes, and Nebraska had only 1. It went to 51 1/2 for scUM, and 18 1/2 for Nebraska after the Bowls.

The only good thing was that the coaches poll cost scUM half of the NC, and not us!

But the Weasels were fortunate to get Wash St. as their Rose Bowl opponent that year, which was the last year before the BCS. Otherwise they would have played Nebraska and probably have lost. In a world with the BCS and a Nebraska loss to Missouri, the title game might have been scUM vs. Tennessee. Now it would have been fun seeing if Heisman runnner-up Peyton Manning could beat the pass defense led by Charles Woodson (may a diseased yak lay eggs in his crotch).

 

[bullsfan75]

I don't know, Bill. Seems to me the Bucks had quite a few weird/fortunate bounces come their way en route to their NC. Was Nebraska's lucky bounce that much more fortuitous than Cincinnati dropping easy TD passes against OSU?

It's not to say if the split title was fair or unfair, since the system at that time didn't allow a true #1 vs. #2 matchup, but I say Nebraska beats UM on the field. Nebraska's strengths played into Michigan's weaknesses, and vice versa. Nebraska's running game was stout and their pass D was very good, which would have given them a substantial advantage. Nebraska had better depth and would have been playing on pure emotion for Osborne's last game.

 

[Yertle]

It sure seems to me that Michigan is turning into the Buckeyes of the 90s. Blue chip abound, strong o-line, loads of hype, and what do you get? Two or three losses a year, with one usually being in THE GAME and the other coming in the bowl game. Throw in the similarities of coaches that look like whithered up rag dolls and sound like they just got a novacane shot in the mouth, and the similarities start to get almost scary!

In all seriousness, I think Michigan will continue to put together excellent teams. There's just too much upside for big time recruits to stay away (in the eyes of the recruits!!!). However, with that being said, I do think Michigan will be hurt more and more with the lack of talent coming out of their home state. I think JT will continue to further lock down Ohio, Meyer will make it tougher to get big time talent out of Florida, the ACC strength will keep east coast players out east more often, and Petey will keep west coast players out west (as we all know). Michigan's recruiting classes will decline in my oppinion.

Also, I do believe JT has Lloyd's number. Lloyd just has a sense about him that seems strangely similar to Coop. We all know Coop wouldn't have even been in Tempe in 2002 if he was still in charge, let alone ending Miami's 34 game streak. I honestly believe Llloyd will be Lllllyod before too long, and if he's around for the next decade, then your answer is no. Michigan will not win a NC before 2014.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

If this happened, I don't understand how you can say Michigan didn't get screwed.

In 1997, the national championship was officially a matter of the opinion of sportswriters and coaches. If in the honest opinion of the coaches, Michigan should have been ranked first, we were screwed. If in the honest opinion of the coaches, Nebraska should have been ranked first, then we got what we deserved.

Off topic, but you know who got screwed? The buzz saw that was 1994 PSU. So they tripped up and didn't gut Indiana... 97 Nebby bearly beat Mizzu (on that kicked ball TD play).
I think if 97 Mich and 97 Nebby played, Nebby wins. That's just my gut, and I'm no Nebby fan. I still maintain that OSU wins THE GAME in 1997 if Coop plays Germaine the whole game, but hey, he didn't.

great post, 3 yards (and you stole my next blog idea, was working on something very similar.)

 

[BB73]

I don't know, Bill. Seems to me the Bucks had quite a few weird/fortunate bounces come their way en route to their NC. Was Nebraska's lucky bounce that much more fortuitous than Cincinnati dropping easy TD passes against OSU?

It's not to say if the split title was fair or unfair, since the system at that time didn't allow a true #1 vs. #2 matchup, but I say Nebraska beats UM on the field. Nebraska's strengths played into Michigan's weaknesses, and vice versa. Nebraska's running game was stout and their pass D was very good, which would have given them a substantial advantage. Nebraska had better depth and would have been playing on pure emotion for Osborne's last game.

We got some breakas in our NC year in 2002, but that isn't part of this discussion. And Nebraska's TD wasn't just a lucky bounce, it was an illegally kicked ball that should have ended the game with a Husker loss.

And part of my point about scUM's fortune that year was that the pre-BCS system allowed them to play Wash St. instead of Nebraska. It wasn't any fault of their's, but they were lucky to not play Nebraska in the Bowl game, since I also believe they probably would have lost, as I stated in my prior post.

But if Nebraska deserved a split title that year, shouldn't they have had more than 1 freakin' first-place vote in the AP poll taken just before the bowl games!

But at least both of those teams in '97 can claim an NC; unlike Penn St. in '94, which would have been another great year for the BCS to be in place(pre-emptive hijack warning - this thread shouldn't get into a BCS vs. playoff discussion!)

 

[TheMile]

However, with that being said, I do think Michigan will be hurt more and more with the lack of talent coming out of their home state.

Why? Michigan has never been a great high school football state, due to climate, geography, and population. It's not like the state is declining; it's always been simply mediocre for football talent, and U of M has succeeded regardless of that.

I think JT will continue to further lock down Ohio

Recruits are too fickle and ohio is too good of a recruiting state to be locked up by anyone. States like California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Louisiana, Georgia, etc. have simply too much high school football strength to be "locked up" by any one school.

Meyer will make it tougher to get big time talent out of Florida, the ACC strength will keep east coast players out east more often, and Petey will keep west coast players out west (as we all know).

Michigan has never been particularly good at recruiting from Florida or California. We get about one recruit from Cal a year, and maybe one from Florida. <STRIKE>OSU is much better than us at recruiting in Cal.</STRIKE>

U of M's best state outside of Michigan is Pennsylvania, and we get most of the rest of our recruits evenly spread about the Midwest. In addition to Penn State, we've always had to compete with Boston College, Virginia, and Virginia Tech there, and we do well nonetheless. I fail to see what has changed in the ACC that will hurt us in Penn.

Michigan's recruiting classes will decline in my oppinion.

Also, I do believe JT has Lloyd's number. Lloyd just has a sense about him that seems strangely similar to Coop.

You're entitled to your opinions, beliefs, and senses, but I like to back up my opinions with facts. The home team is 3-1 since Tressel took over in a series dominated by the home team. Since 1982, the home team is 15-7-1. Source

if he's around for the next decade, then your answer is no. Michigan will not win a NC before 2014.

Like I illustrated earlier, statements like this are nonsensical in light of statistics. Look here, and at my further refined numbers below it. You might disagree with some of the specific probabilities, but it nonetheless still puts Michigan's chance of playing for the national championship next year at 1/15 or thereabout. If we assume Michigan's chances remain constant the next ten years (which I think is conservative), Michigan's chances of playing for at least one MNC are almost exactly 50%: 1-(1-1/15)^10~=0.5

I think if 97 Mich and 97 Nebby played, Nebby wins. That's just my gut, and I'm no Nebby fan.

I'm not about to argue which school was actually better that year, as this was before I entered college and I didn't follow Michigan football that closely. I don't have the facts nor experience to argue one side or the other.

I'm just focusing on the human aspects of the voting. My only assertion is that the coaches' half of the MNC should've gone to the team who they honestly believed was better.

 

[Taosman]

Michigan will always have a shot, the media loves their style of offense. They get great talent. But, they have lost maybe their best coaches in recent times and it shows. On defense mostly, they don't seem to be as good. Why are they rated so high this year? The defense that was just OK last year lost 3 starters in the secondary and have they addressed their D-line issues? Edwards bailed them out time after time last year, he's gone. Ranked higher than us? Say What?

 

[jwinslow]

One, we have to keep in mind that we were 7-4. Despite teh fact taht we think we turned things around, most do not understand that. Plus we still lost to an average purdue team with the new offense (tho we had no secondary).

Michigan is losing 3 in the secondary and 3 LB's (Reid is permanently injured, one guy graduated, and Woodley is moving to DE). Their DL should be pretty good, as Woodley had a lot of success at DE in the last two games once he was moved to that position (he started at LB in The Game, but later was getting to Smith... albeit once we went conservative).

However the lack of any consistency in the LB/DB and very few recruits to replace them means teams will throw on them all day long.

Don't worry, they'll have one loss to Iowa (maybe to MSU) going into The Game, which will only improve our stock and make the season that much sweeter. Who enjoys beating a 6-4 UM team. It's MUCH more satisfying to have them come in at 9-1 and have them finish up the season at 9-3 like always.

 

[stxbuck]

Why? Michigan has never been a great high school football state, due to climate, geography, and population. It's not like the state is declining; it's always been simply mediocre for football talent, and U of M has succeeded regardless of that.



Recruits are too fickle and ohio is too good of a recruiting state to be locked up by anyone. States like California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Louisiana, Georgia, etc. have simply too much high school football strength to be "locked up" by any one school.



Michigan has never been particularly good at recruiting from Florida or California. We get about one recruit from Cal a year, and maybe one from Florida. OSU is much better than us at recruiting in Cal.

U of M's best state outside of Michigan is Pennsylvania, and we get most of the rest of our recruits evenly spread about the Midwest. In addition to Penn State, we've always had to compete with Boston College, Virginia, and Virginia Tech there, and we do well nonetheless. I fail to see what has changed in the ACC that will hurt us in Penn.


.

Tressel will continue to "lockdown" Ohio. This year there is a very good chance that OSU will do a clean sweep of the Top 10 players for he first time in a while-and in a very good year to do that. Even so, OSU has regularly gotten 90% of the recruits they offered in Ohio, under Tressel's leadership. That is impressive for a state as rich in talent as Ohio. None of the Florida or Texas schools can claim as high of a success rate in signing the in-state recruits that they want/offer. Tressel controls Ohio about as much as is possible to, and much better than the other in-state schools in the recruiting goldmines.

 

[Naplesbuckeye]

The Mile....keep it comming nice to hear educated banter with stats. to back it up....BTW....you are WAY better recruiting California then us..

Michigan....Gonzales QB

Tumor WR

Brady QB

Forcier QB



We have had Sualua, Rambo, Jack Tucker (walk on), Priestly,Moherman, Williams, Ja Ja Riley etc...we can't get kids to work out here with few exceptions from California.

They are so spread out and rarely do we lure a kid out here from there. Hopefully Williams will work out!

 

[Cornerback6]

We have had Sualua, Rambo, Jack Tucker (walk on), Priestly,Moherman, Williams, Ja Ja Riley etc...we can't get kids to work out here with few exceptions from California.QUOTE]

Wasn't Na'il Diggs a CA guy? If so...that's a huge get afterall.