None of the arguments I've had in my head make sense. On the one hand, Ohio State looked like an amazing team during the course of the first half of the game and my worry was that Ohio State was going to go all 1968 on Michigan. On the other hand, they committed three turnovers in the second half and if Michigan is able to get a touchdown instead of a field goal or nothing off one of them, well, it's a whole new ball game. On the one hand, Michigan's defense got torched by big plays. (By the way, I hate to heap praise on the enemy here, but I will, the play calling by Tressel et al on both of those big plays was genius, in part because the plays worked. It was a shake your head moment, because you're like, "Damn, that was clever.") On the one hand, it was a three point game, on the other hand, it wasn't a close game (as MGoBlog points out, any time the final critical play of a game is an onside kick, it's not that close.) I genuinely don't know what to think. It's a great season, but it's not. It's an excellent turnaround, but it's not complete. It would have been perfect, if it weren't for those meddling kids in Columbus...
Which leads us to questions of a rematch in Glendale...
(Brief interlude: At the Michigan/Harvard basketball game, friend of the Hoover Street Rag and current Michigan 3L Joe asked me why "WOLVERINES" a la Red Dawn never became a thing at Michigan. I don't know, but I did posit it's probably because Michigan fans saw the title and were worried it was an OSU related documentary.)
On the one hand, I want a rematch, because Michigan may be the second best team in the country. On the other hand, I don't want a rematch because Michigan had a shot at #1 and lost. On the one hand, I do think if you gave Michigan another shot at OSU, they could beat them, especially on a neutral field (and, as HSR correspondent Dave pointed out, maybe just an actual field. OSU should be ashamed of the condition that the Ohio Stadium field was in for that game.), on the other hand, it would feel wrong, because Michigan would only be the national champion because they won last.
So, what did I learn from this weekend? Not a whole lot, save that even when things are finally over, a whole new set of questions begin....
2 comments:
I don't think the game hung on the condition of the field- I definitely saw Troy Smith slip once or twice, turning what would have been a completion into an incompletion. However, one wants to see #1 and #2 playing the best football possible, and that just wasn't possible on that field. It was a messy, ugly game- literally and figuratively.
What struck me is that with Michigan moving to FieldTurf this year and road games in the Big Ten at Indiana and Minnesota, Michigan had only twice played on grass this season, in September in South Bend (no problems there) and in October in Happy Valley (solid grass as well), so when you're not used to the way which grass gives, and the slips, well, yeah...
Post a Comment