Split Poll (See below for a response)

First, let me say that I am very pleased with the split poll. As a fan, I think it would be a shame to deny either Michigan or Nebraska the national championship, because both teams did everything that could be asked of them, including beating excellent opponents in the bowl game. I think of all the years there have been split championships, this was the first time both champions played quality opponents in the bowls (though I readily agree with John that Florida State was a more worthy orange bowl opponent for Nebraska).

I was so much in favor of the split poll, in fact, that I nearly pulled the big waffle, as did one AP pollster. The big waffle being a tie for number 1 in my own rankings. I was sure of a waffle up until late yesterday afternoon, when I decided that it was no good doing my own rankings unless I stuck my neck out and made a choice.

So, the 1997-1998 SJS national champion is the Nebraska Cornhuskers. Several factors motivated my decision, some based on a careful analysis of the teams, some based on peevishness: I didn't like the way the media tried to shove Michigan down our throats. I also don't like the way that the coaches' Nebraska vote was ascribed to Tom Osborne sentimentality, as if Nebraska's 13-0 record and absolute thrashing of two top 10 teams (Kansas State and Tennessee) weren't justification for the vote. My choice of number 1 is based on these factors: 1) a disagreement with the media of the two most often given reasons in support of the vote for Michigan and 2) my feeling as to which team would win a hypothetical Nebraska vs. Michigan game. First, my disagreement with the media:

Strength of Schedule

I'm also pleased that many people have already realized the error of this. Michigan did indeed have what appeared to be a tremendous schedule, but at the end of the season we are left wondering just how great those vanquished opponents really were. Here it is, with the numbers in parentheses representing the preseason SJS rank for each team.

Michigan	Nebraska
vs. Colorado (7)	vs. Akron
vs. Baylor	vs. Central Florida
vs. Notre Dame (13)	at Washington (4)
at Indiana	vs. Kansas State
vs. Northwestern	at Baylor
vs. Iowa (23)	vs. Texas Tech
at Michigan State	at Kansas
vs. Minnesota	vs. Oklahoma
at Penn State (5)	at Missouri
at Wisconsin	vs. Iowa State
vs. Ohio State (9)	at Colorado (7)
vs. Washington State (11)	vs. Texas A&M (20)
	vs. Tennessee (3)

Clearly, Michigan played and beat a host of highly rated teams. But a closer look shows that a number of those teams weren't all that. Neither Notre Dame nor Colorado were the non-conference tests that was expected. And in conference, how good was the big ten? The only big ten team besides Michigan that won their bowl game was Purdue, and Michigan never played Purdue during the season. Iowa was beat badly by an undermanned Arizona State team, and Washington, a team that lost decisively to Nebraska, absolutely throttled Michigan State. Ohio State and Penn State were torn apart by Florida State and Florida, teams that Nebraska has shown in recent years that they can play with. Wisconsin also had a terrible bowl game. In contrast, Kansas State proved its mettle by destroying Syracuse, and Texas A&M gave highly rated UCLA all it could handle in the Cotton Bowl. Although much of Nebraska's schedule was cushy, they had huge wins over two legitimate top 10 teams, and other huge wins over a Texas A&M team that stood up against UCLA and a Washington squad that murdered Michigan State.

In conference games, as my own Gators found out, do not always go by the rankings. The Big Ten was a better conference than the Big Twelve top to bottom, and for Michigan to win 8 conference games in a row in the Big Ten is a tremendous accomplishment. But when it comes down to deciding a national champ, the conference's bowl performance really destroyed Strength of Schedule as an argument in Michigan's favor.

The Lucky Game

Nebraska had a bad game last year: Arizona State beat them 19-0. This year they had a bad game, but they won against Missouri. If there was a point in the season where I decided that Nebraska really might be as good as in year's past (the 1995 team won the CBS Sports Line poll as all-time best in a landslide), it was in the final two minutes of the game against Missouri, and the ensuing overtime. Scott Frost was amazing, picking apart the Tigers secondary in marching down for the final score. The defense was outstanding in getting the ball back with a minute and a half to go when a first down or two would have iced it for Missouri. The overtime was an equally impressive display on both sides of the ball.

Journalists have used the argument that Nebraska required luck to win won of their games, whereas Michigan never did. This argument is only partially correct in one of its two assertions, and dead wrong in the other. To the stipulation that the Nebraska win involved luck, it is only partially correct. Yes, the kick on the final play, if intentional, was illegal, and so it was "lucky" that the ref chose to allow the catch to stand. But the refs are trained to disallow that catch only if the kick was clearly intentional, which I don't think anyone could argue was the case. Nebraska was a good enough team to come back and win that game.

And Michigan did require luck to beat Washington State. The Rose Bowl lasted 59:59; the final second was never played. Michigan likely rushes three or four guys, and State uses a spread formation for a one shot crack at the end zone from the 26. Can Leaf pull it off? We'll never know because of a horribly blown call. Lucky for Michigan, they'll never have to find out.

But Michigan Was Great

But Michigan was great. They won every regular season game in workmanlike fashion, and in my opinion, played a better bowl opponent than did Nebraska. I picked Washington State to win the Rose Bowl, because I reasoned that the Cougars were just too good on offense not to crack the Wolverines excellent defense, and Michigan's offense was too one dimensional to compete. You can't match a high-powered offense with runs up the middle and short outs to the tight end. What I didn't count on was Brian Griese throwing two perfect deep balls to Ty Streets; and what was even more unexpected was that the Michigan offensive coordinator actually called those plays. That performance steals an argument from the Nebraska camp: namely that while Michigan and Nebraska were both in the top five in total defense, only Nebraska was in the top five in total offense while Michigan was 44th. But in the one game where Michigan needed to open it up to win, they did so in perfect fashion. Griese wasn't 2 for 10 on bombs, he was 2 for 2. And when Michigan needed a long time consuming drive in the 4th quarter, they went out and did that too.

In a potential Michigan-Nebraska game, I pick Nebraska for the same reason I picked Washington State. The difference being Nebraska's pass rush would make the deep ball much harder for Griese to complete than against the Cougars. But they surprised me once, they could do it again. Unfortunately, the game remains hypothetical, and with apologies to the Wolverines (and Kelly!), I rank Nebraska number one.

A Dissenting Opinion (K. Ciombor)

Okay, here goes...My rational for making Michigan number 1 is simple...schedule. I know people will argue that the Big 10 is not all it's cracked up to be simply by looking at their bowl record this season but Michigan played one hell of a schedule against ranked teams. Take a look at how many Big 10 teams are ranked in the final polls and compare that to the Big 12. There is no comparison. Nebraska had a rather close call (7 pts, I think) against UCF for heaven's sake in their first year playing division I and then SHOULD have lost to Missou except they cheated to preserve they're undefeated season. That should have cost them points in the polls right there but that kind of thing doesn't seem to matter when talking about the almighty cornhuskers. Now this definitely takes a lot to admit but FSU is probably as good as both Michigan and Nebraska, maybe even better. If they hadn't screwed up the UF game the Criminals would have a piece of a second MNC. I don't really mind them not accomplishing this, however, as the Hurricanes are still the only school in Florida to hold SEVERAL (ie more than 2) MNC's. Now I know they beloved Canes had a tough year but they'll be back and ready to contend for a national championship by the year 2000. I'm also very impressed with Washington St. and UCLA. Both teams finished strong but luckily Wassou ran out of time to guarantee Nebraska full rights to the MNC. I very reluctantly put Syracuse in the top 25 over Oklahoma St. The Big East was terrible this year and I agree with John (although I'm not sure if he stated this above) that the Big East should be disbanded. Their failure to sign Notre Lame to Big East football is just one sign of their total and complete ignorance that the conference is in trouble. Basketball also seems to be having trouble this year so maybe that will fuel the fire. The split MNC just strengthens the debate of a true championship game and I'm not sure the new alliance will really help but definitely has the potential to make things worse. I guess will just have to wait until next year. Besides, what would we have left to argue about if there was a true national champ?

Believe It Or Not, Another Dissenting Opinion! (D. Wine)

your commentary was wrong, all wrong.

i had michigan no. 1 since early october, i believe, and nothing that happened over the last several weeks inspired me to change my mind. yes, nebraska was very impressive in a couple of games. they were also terribly unimpressive in a couple of games (central florida, missouri). texas A&M is not a very good football team, so i do not consider that an impressive win. texas A&M had zero quality wins. ditto washington, which lost to nebraska by 13 points without brock huard at QB and which also turned out to be merely an above-average team at 8-4. so credit the cornhuskers with two big wins (kansas state, tennessee).

i don't buy your argument that the media shoved michigan down our throats. i would argue, in fact, that the TV coverage REALLY helped nebraska's case. ESPN, i think, ran a side-by-side comparison of the teams that made nebraska look good, based primarily on margin of victory. i also think sentimentality by the coaches in favor of osborne played an important role in nebraska winning the coaches' poll. i applaud osborne for not making a huge pitch for his team. i expected him to do so, but it seemed he left the lobbying to his players. smooth move. at any rate, how else do you explain the HUGE turnover in votes in the final coaches' poll? michigan held a significant advantage in both polls before the bowl games. i think the media, far from being rah-rah michigan, played a large role in bringing about the split vote.

i place little emphasis on the fact that the big ten fared poorly in its bowl games. does losing a bowl game mean you're no good? of course not. what nobody seems to realize is that the big ten teams were serious underdogs in three of the bowl games they lost. let's examine:

georgia over wisconsin
florida over penn state
florida state over ohio state

in all three of the above games, the higher-ranked team won. in all three of the above games, the line was 9 points or higher. the big ten was SUPPOSED to lose those bowl games. sure, an upset would have helped the conference look better, but there's no shame in losing to FSU, florida and a damn good georgia team in a bowl. as for the other 4 big ten bowl teams, they went 2-2 (Ws for michigan, purdue; Ls for iowa, michigan state). and while michigan's opponents fared poorly in the postseason, the bottom line is that michigan played two more bowl teams than nebraska did.

as for who would win a head-to-head matchup, nebraska probably would win 8 out of 10. but then again, i think florida state would have beaten nebraska had they played in a bowl.

Steve rebuts: Thanks, e.e. cummings. The shift key is on your left. How can you say the media was pro-Nebraska when it was the media (i.e., the sports writers, the AP Poll) that voted Michigan #1, and the coaches that voted Nebraska?