Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I voted for '71 Oklahoma because I know it best.  A whisker worse than '71 Nebraska, which I think is one of the top-5 best teams ever.

My 2nd vote, if I had one, would be for '86 Miami.  They delivered the lone loss to one of Switzer's best OU teams.

So, yes, I voted like a homer.

The final '94 polls will forever be odd to me.  There had been finagling in both 1990 and 1991 to get split championships, with the Coaches Poll being the adaptive one, awarding the 'other' deserving team a NC. 
In 1990, CU was easily #1 in both polls until the last Coaches poll.  Look-a-here:
1990 AP Poll
Dec 4:
1 - Colorado (42 first place votes)
2 - GA Tech (16)
3 - Texas (2)
.
Jan 3:
1 - Colorado (39)
2 - GA Tech (20)
3 - Miami (1)
.
1990 Coaches Poll
Dec 4:
1 - Colorado (38)
2 - GA Tech (7)
3 - Texas
4 - Miami (2)
.
Jan 3:
1 - GA Tech (30)
2 - Colorado (27)
3 - Miami (2)
.
Colorado's bowl opponent was #5 ND.  GT's was #19 Nebraska.  Yet somehow, GT got a bunch more votes in the final poll.  No, the same number of coaches didn't vote week-to-week, but that was the case back then.  Each week throughout the season didn't add up to the same number, so it's not just that. 
.
Let's look at 1991.
1991 AP Poll:
Dec 2:
1 - Miami (37)
2 - Washington (23)
.
Jan 3:
Miami (32)
Washington (28)....Huskies gained some votes, but still #2.
.
1991 Coaches Poll (we have to go back another week to understand this one):
Nov 25:
1 - Miami (32)
2 - Washington (27)
.
Dec 2:
1 - Washington (29)
2 - Miami (30)
.
Jan 3:
1 - Washington (33.5)
2 - Miami (25.5)
.
This is sort of a crazy one.  The week before the Nov 25th poll, Miami had a close win vs BC and their big first-place vote lead shrunk.  But then, they beat a Marshall Faulk-led SDST team by 27 points to end their regular season while UW didn't play...and dropped to #2.  Not just dropped, but dropped while having more 1st place votes!  So some coaches were ranking the Canes 3rd or worse.  And then some jack-wagon couldn't pick one and split his vote.
.
Okay, so say what you want about either of those, they happened.  I think we all assumed it set a precedent .  In 1993, Auburn went undefeated, but finished 4th, but that was a probation thing, we all understood that.  So 1994 rolls around....
1994 AP Poll:
Dec 6:
1 - Nebraska (38)
2 - Penn State (24)
.
Jan 3:
1 - Nebraska (51.5)
2 - Penn State (10.5)
So Nebraska jumped to #1 after they blew out #2 CU in October, then maintained a consistent lead the rest of the year, which I'd label all of that as normal.  What's odd here, is after the bowls, Nebraska gains a lot more support. 
.
Moving on to the 1994 Coaches Poll:
Dec 5:
1 - Nebraska (44)
2 - Penn State (18)
Here is the same situation as 1990.  The higher-ranked team is playing a better opponent in the bowl.  We even get the same general results as 1990:  the higher-ranked team wins a close game vs the better opponent, the #2 team blows out the weaker opponent.  The logic that wasn't applied in 1990 was suddenly applied in 1994:
Jan 3:
1 - Nebraska (54)
2 - Penn State (8)
Instead of being pushed up to snag a share of the NC, like GA Tech was, Penn St loses support.  It WOULD make sense if 1990 never happened. 
.
Having looked at all that, we all know Penn St lost support due to their close game vs Indiana, in which the Hoosiers scored 2 late TDs.  Yes, that was the case in the Coaches Poll, they were punitive.  But what we see here, or at least what I shared here, is that the AP poll was not punitive against Penn State, it rewarded Nebraska for their big win vs CU.  The coaches downgraded Penn State the week after the media voters did AND they didn't stay consistent with what they had previously done in 1990 and 1991. 
.
My opinion is that in 1991, a lot of coaches didn't care for the way Miami did things, so they lifted UW up.  And they probably liked Bobby Ross, GT's coach, which is probably the only reason they lifted GT up.  Logically, if the #1 team beats the tougher opponent in the bowl game, there is no reason for them to be jumped.  And while ignoring that logic in 1991, they employed it in 1994.  That MIGHT make sense to me if 1994 Miami (Nebraska's bowl opponent) was some big, bad team, but they weren't.  Alabama embarrassed them the 2 years before, they weren't great in '93, and their QB had as many INTs as TDs - they were not a perceived colossus. 
Now, I don't know what, if anything, the coaches had against Penn State, but for that team to not get a share of the NC was odd, based on the precedent. 
.
What I hope it was not - was getting Osborne his first NC, because Paterno already had a couple.  That's the same asinine reasoning of not awarding the Heisman to an underclassman.  It's just stupid. 

The Huskers were a big underdog simply because they had failed 7 straight times in bowls vs southern teams.  It didn't have to do with how good Miami was, it had to do with the fact that it was Miami.
Bowl Opp, Year
L to FSU in '87
L to Miami in '88
L to FSU in '89
L to GT in '90
L to Miami in '91
L to FSU in '92
L to FSU in '93

Yeah, these are all legit, national championship-quality choices.  I could have chosen more, but then I doubt any one team would get a ton of votes.
.
It would be interesting for everyone to give their all-time top 10 teams that didn't win a share of the NC.

The Huskers were a big underdog simply because they had failed 7 straight times in bowls vs southern teams.  It didn't have to do with how good Miami was, it had to do with the fact that it was Miami.
Bowl Opp, Year
L to FSU in '87
L to Miami in '88
L to FSU in '89
L to GT in '90
L to Miami in '91
L to FSU in '92
L to FSU in '93

ed Zachery

Tim Biakabutuka just scored again...

At least '95 OSU got into the end zone themselves.

IMO, OSU was better in 1995 than 1996

Tim Biakabutuka just scored again...

At least '95 OSU got into the end zone themselves.

FWIW, I am of the opinion that Ohio State's 1998 team was better than both of those but all three (1995, 1996, 1998) were great teams that came up just a little short.  

1995:
The Buckeyes started out #12 and climbed all the way to 11-0 and #2 (behind Nebraska) before losing 31-23 to #18 Michigan then 20-14 to #4 Tennessee to finish #6. Even with the two losses, Ohio State outscored their opponents 475-220.  The schedule looked great on paper with BC, Washington, Pitt, and ND OOC but of those only ND was good (finished 9-3 and #11).  Washington finished over .500 but not by much (7-4-1) and unranked while BC and Pitt were flat awful (4-8 and 2-9 respectively).  

Of note, despite giving up basically everything he wanted to Tshimanga Biakabutuka (313 yards), the Buckeyes were still in the game almost to the very end.  

1996:
The Buckeyes started out #9, dropped to #10 on September 2 (they got passed by Syracuse despite neither team having played a game yet) then climbed all the way to 10-0 and #2 (behind Florida) before losing 13-9 to Michigan (again).  The end of the season was pretty wild at the top of the poll.  Here is the top of the poll as of 11/18/96 and what each team did from there:

• 10-0 Florida.  DNP on 11/23, stayed #1.  Lost 24-21 to #2 FSU on 11/30, dropped to #4.  Beat Auburn in the SECCG on 12/7, rose to #3.  Beat #1 FSU 52-20 in the Sugar Bowl on 1/2, finished #1.  
• 10-0 Ohio State.  Lost 13-9 to #21 Michigan on 11/23, dropped to #6.  DNP on 11/30, climbed to #5 (Colorado lose to UNL), DNP on 12/7, climbed to #4 (UNL lost to UT), beat #2 ASU 20-17 1/1, finished #2.  
• 9-0 Florida State.  Beat Maryland 48-10 on 11/23, climbed to #2.  Beat #1 Florida 24-21 on 11/30, climbed to #1.  DNP on 12/7, stayed #1, lost 52-20 to #3 Florida in the Sugar Bowl on 1/2, finished #3.  
• 10-0 Arizona State.  Beat Arizona 56-14 on 11/23, climbed to #3.  DNP on 11/30 or 12/7, climbed to #2 and stayed there.  Lost to #4 Ohio State 20-17 on 1/1 in the Rose Bowl, finished #4.  
• 9-1 Nebraska DNP on 11/23, climbed to #4.  Beat #5 Colorado 17-12 on 11/29, climbed to #3.  Lost 37-27 to UT in the B12CG on 12/7, dropped to #6.  Beat #10 VaTech 41-21 in the Orange Bowl on 12/31, finished #6.  

I've always found it interesting because the top-4 were the exact same in the final poll as they had been on 11/18 but they jumped around a bunch to get there.  

1998:
The Buckeyes started out #1, and stayed there through the 11/2 poll at which point they were 8-0.  Then the lost 28-24 to unranked MSU (coached by some guy named Saban), dropped to #7, climbed back to #3 in the last regular season poll (barely missed the very first BCSNCG), and finished #2.  That loss to MSU is one of the most inexplicable losses in Ohio State history.  The Spartans were a mediocre team that finished 6-6 but they came into Ohio Stadium on November 7 and put together a comback win for the ages.  

The thing about that season that will always annoy Ohio State fans is that the Buckeyes were thisclose to the BCSNCG.  The rankings in the 11/30 poll (last before CG's) were:

• 11-0 Tennessee (v MissSt in SECCG)
• 11-0 Kansas State (v aTm in B12CG)
• 10-0 UCLA (@Miami, FL to make up for a game posponed due to a hurricane)
• 11-1 Florida State (no CG)
• 10-1 Ohio State (no CG)
• 11-1 Arizona (no CG)
• 9-2 Florida (no CG)
• 10-1 Wisconsin (no CG)

Ohio State needed a LOT of help, but they got most of it:

• #2 KSU lost 36-33 to aTm dropping them out of the running (and all the way down to the Alamo Bowl which they lost to Purdue)
• #3 UCLA lost 49-45 to Miami dropping them out of the running (they lost the Rose Bowl to Wisconsin)

That moved FSU into the BCSNCG and if MissSt had defeated Tennessee it would have been tOSU v FSU.  Mississippi State took a 14-10 lead in the fourth quarter but lost when Tennesse scored two TD's in 32 seconds after that.  After the first of Tennessee's fourth quarter TD's MissSt got the ball back with about six minutes remaining.  I was obviously a VERY interested MissSt fan but they fumbled on the next play and on the play after that Tennessee scored again to extend their lead to 24-14 and that was how the game ended.  

The 1998 Buckeyes outscored their opponents 430-144.  

Those three teams compared:

• 1995:  Outscored opponents 475-220 with a great on paper, decent in reality SoS.  Lost their last two games, 31-23 to M and 20-14 to TN.  
• 1996:  Outscored opponents 455-131 with a decent SoS (ND OOC).  Lost 13-9 to M, beat ASU in RB.  
• 1998:  Outscored opponents 430-144 with a decent SoS (WVU, Mizzou OOC), lost 28-24 to MSU, beat aTm in SugarBowl.  

I think 1998 was the best of the bunch and, IMHO, it is between that and 1996 with 1995 being a step back from those two.  The biggest reason I think 1998 and 1996 were better is that if you replayed the 1996 tOSU/M game nine more times I'm confident that tOSU would easily win at least six of the ten and probably closer to 8 or 9.  If you replayed the 1998 tOSU/MSU game nine more times I'm confident that tOSU would win all nine.  If you replayed the 1995 tOSU/M game nine more times I think Biakabtuka would probably run for 2,500 more yards.