Agreed.
It was also from before my time. I had always heard that Michigan was a shoe-in to win that vote, but it took a long time for someone to explain why it was so surprising that Ohio State won the vote. I think, as you said, Michigan had the votes, if their alumni was loyal. But, according to that documentary, they didn't know it would come down to a vote until the next day. One explanation I've heard is "We dominated that game." Yeah - to a 10-10 tie. Time of possession, total yards, nor any other stat matters the way score does. Otherwise, maybe we should claim victory in 1996?
About the ONLY reason I can remember hearing about why Michigan thought they should be going to the Rose Bowl was because, until maybe the year before, there was a rule that a team couldn't go to the Rose Bowl 2 years in a row. That rule was no longer in effect, so it wasn't going to keep Ohio State out. But, from what I understand, people thought Michigan might flip a couple of votes that might have gone Ohio State's way in honor of that recently abandoned rule.
I enjoy watching John Bacon (or whatever his name is) whine about wanting to see who voted for whom.