UPDATE: Brian clarified the two teams he was comparing in the comments, and instead of it being Notre Dame vs. Michigan, it was Michigan against Miami (OH) vs. Michigan against Notre Dame, a team that played a lot better on offense.  I'll keep the original post here if only because I still don't think the line would move, despite the gift-wrapped nature of that early lead, but apologies for a bit of an over-reaction.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

You can’t really say this because the “BUT” is enormous, but: Michigan significantly outplayed Notre Dame on a down by down basis but shot itself in the foot every two seconds. Yes, this is sort of like saying “these cookies are delicious except for the arsenic.”  Yes, Notre Dame was relieved of the need to outplay Michigan on a down-by-down basis because they were spotted a 21-0 lead and a second-half rainstorm and could be content to run some clock and punt. But I’ll take a team that looks competent except for a few huge glaring errors over one that can’t complete a pass, and if the teams played again next week the line would be further in Michigan’s favor. Massive negative events have a distorting effect on game results out of proportion to their usefulness as predictors.

I'm confused as to what Brian is talking about here.  Notre Dame didn't have to throw the ball in the second half because they'd done it so well in the first half, which was enhanced by Michigan's inability to defend Golden Tate and Michael Floyd.  Jimmy Clausen's throw to Tate for the touchdown was as perfect of a pass as you can have, and he forced pass interference calls on other solid reads in the first half.  There's no point in throwing the ball when you're up two or three scores, there's a monsoon, and your opponent seems content to drop the ball or throw up seriously wounded ducks that you or I could pick off every other play.  Notre Dame also showed that, going against a quality defensive line, they could both protect the quarterback and ground out enough yards to be mildly effective in balancing the offense.  They also weren't Fey-as-Palin hilarious on special teams.

Yes, Sam McGuffie is very good, but he alone would not put the line further in Michigan's favor.  That entire paragraph is utterly confusing to me, as I'm not sure we watched the same game.  If this game were played again it probably wouldn't be 35-17, I'd also feel comfortable in Notre Dame winning unless Michigan cleaned up their secondary and the Irish's offensive line took a considerable step back.

Much, much, much more on this game as the week goes on, but that just didn't make any sense to me.  So very wrong.