Well, the funny thing is, any ardent supporter of 02 Ohio State's greatness (a la they had a bunch of close games, but could beat anybody) MUST be a proponent of 97 Michigan's case.
The trump card UM has are their game results. Some might say "HA, what else matters?", but most of us know other things also matter. If you go down the line of resume-builders, 97 UM fails to impress in many of them.
Greise wasn't even that efficient a QB, the best thing you could say about him is that he didn't go out and actively lose games for them.
No great RB, and the backups didn't even have better YPC averages, which is the standard.
Their top WR was only third on the team in receptions. That's A LOT of dinking and duunking.
Yes, the defense was all-time great. And during the season, I guess because announcers harped on it so much, much was made about their great run D. It was great - not all-time great, but great for an individual season. But the truly all-time great aspect was the pass D. It wasn't just Woodson, it was more than just him. That pass D (pass rush + comp % allowed + INTs) was perhaps the best ever (I haven't done a real study on it).
So besides all that, what UM did to ranked opponents in 97 was crazy. Wins vs 7 ranked teams at the time they played, including a blowout win AT #2. Closed the year wtih 3 close wins over 3 ranked teams. It wasn't too hard to beat UM's resume, but it was hard to beat them.
The problem with the fictional Nebraska matchup is that that all-time best pass D would be ignored because Nebraska wouldn't need to throw. That's a big deal - it negates the #1 item on their resume. If you could switch UM's defensive quality between pass and run, and the run D was perhaps the best ever, THEN you'd have A LOT more people picking the Wolverines.