It was a game full of missed opportunities. I can't justify it to myself anymore - TCU played a better game and deserved to win. There were some bad calls, but Michigan had the game in their hands more than once and failed to execute.

Entire program brain farted this one away!  So many mistakes by coaches and players.  Even little things were big in this game that should never be an issue.  A DE crashing hard to the inside when he was the contain defender and gave up a huge 3rd down conversion.  Made no sense.  

Not running JJ at all, not going play action, not doing both.  Maybe they were saving all of that for Georgia, idk but they saved everything for a game that wouldn't happen because of the massive overconfidence in this one.  

TCU, played a better game.  The biggest difference was our mistakes gave up td's and theirs somehow were bailed out by another mistake by our players or staff.  2 int's, 2 pick 6's.  2 Int's and we turn the ball right back over or what ever.  21-0 on points off turnovers I believe.  

How our DE's never went to Duggin to force the give on their read option, I'll never know.  NFL DC's have been doing this for years making the QB/RB meshpoint the aim for the de, turn to the qb if he pulls, turn down to the rb if he gives.  Jesse Minter knows this, so what our de's were doing and what our lbers were doing, idk.  Hard to fathom how bad they were exposed.  

Other massive mistakes were the missed tackles.  We had several for tfl's or short of the sticks to get the stop and simply missed or tackled high to give up the yac for a 1st down that should have ended drives.  Not one reason for this.  

We don't know.  The wheel flew off before the engine got a chance to warm up.

In any case he shouldn’t be starting over Dug and if Kobe’s back I’d prefer him to be the PG when Dug goes out over Llewelyn 

I believe it only seems like the Bo years where we go flat after the OSU game, I think this is different.... we were a hair away from beating TCU, and if you played that game ten times we'd win 7. This wasn't a bowl game blowout that Bo would see.   And we could have beaten Georgia.

The real point of the hit was that it was unnecessary. Loveland was going down and was a country mile away from a first down. There was no need for that. The theory behind targeting is to eliminate these types of dangerous hits. A penalty should have been called and the TCU player suspended for the first half of the game against Georgia. 

If the roles were reversed and a Michigan player delivered that hit, I would say the same thing. Quit being selfish, the play is going to be over, and you win the game. There is no need for that. 

I have no idea how you write a bright line rule about this but in my head “targeting” should include a couple things:

1) Intentional Action - the player took deliberate actions that either caused a dangerous hit or made a dangerous hit substantially more likely. They did not make an intentional effort to reduce the danger of the hit.

2) Unnecessary- it was possible to “make the play” with a substantially less dangerous hit

I would say if it meets both of these, it should be targeting whether or not it meets the minutiae of the targeting rule. And if it doesn’t, they should be more lenient. 

I feel like the hit on Loveland easily met both criteria. The way the TCU player launched, the crown of his helmet was highly likely to hit Loveland in his head or neck, even if it didn’t by a hair. And it wasn’t necessary to make the play - he was already tied up and going down, well behind the line to gain (he did flip the ball out, but that’s even more reason for the defender to not leave his feet and launch). 
 

The controversial hit on Harrison, meanwhile, I think the Georgia player made a last minute intentional effort to hit shoulder to shoulder rather than head on. And it was a high-leverage situation where a hard hit was needed to make the play. 

I have a good friend who is a lower-level college football referee -- does JCs, FCS, and practices/scrimmages for local FBS programs.

My friend says this is fairly textbook targeting. I don't know who made the video, but the argument in that posted video is that first contact is made by the side/logo of the TCU player's helmet before the crown makes contact with Loveland's back/neck, therefore it negates the "crown" part of the targeting rule. My friend says this is incorrect. Just because the TCU player's helmet happens to *glance* the back of Loveland's helmet on his way to hitting Loveland with the crown does NOT negate the fact that the TCU player "targeted an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet". Refs are trained to look for where the hitter's eyes are -- if they are looking straight down at the ground (which the TCU player is), then it is likely crown/targeting. The rule also states, "when in question, it is a foul", so to bronxblue's point, if you're trying to justify not calling targeting by looking at every still-frame and split-second of contact, you're looking at it incorrectly and that is NOT how the refs are trained.

With that said, the only reason I was irritated at the non-targeting call was because of the egregious call to take away Roman Wilson's TD earlier in the game. While it wouldn't make up for it, I felt like the replay official owed us one.

My ref friend said the reversal of Roman Wilson's TD was especially bad because the replay official completely "over" officiated. On replay, he felt they could have justified saying the TD was "confirmed" because Wilson did not have possession until he was in the end zone, but was expecting the call to "stand" because there was certainly not "irrefutable video evidence" to justify reversing the call on the field.

I agree 100%. But to be honest, there was only one call in this game that mattered. And it was the difference in the game. I might get negged for saying it. It baffles me how many people don't want to talk about the elephant in the room. 

Thirded.....I think I would act the same way and be ecstatic to meet them. I'd probably want to hat about MGoStuff and people would have to remind me there's a big game going on....

Rock on, MGoStaff, y'all are the best!

I think it's just who Harbaugh is and it's a weakness of his. He stares at loaded boxes where we are minus one and believes in wearing them down or believes we will inevitably win and he wasted a half of football doing it. If our game plan came in heavier with JJ run game and JJ passing, we probably win that game by 2+ possessions. So, so frustrating to see an offense that featured more passing and JJs runs absolutely shred TCU's defense in the 2nd half.

You are spot on. We had the players, we were just let down by the coaches coaching like the opponent didn't have a whole month to prepare too.

I don't know if we would have beat Georgia. We could have, sure. But if we had the same coaching malpractice against them this year that we did against TCU, no way. (And think about Georgia last year, that wasn't exactly the most innovative game plan either).

I agree with you and Carpetbagger, below.

While at the game, my first thought was "this is the dumbest game I've attended" since the 2000 Northwestern game (when A Thomas fumbled, untouched, in the open field with less than 2 minutes to go, to give NW a short field to score and win 54-51.  By the way, NW wears purple.  Jinx?)

Later, I thought I might have mistakenly attended an adaptation of Bill S' "The Comedy of Errors"; produced and directed by J Harbaugh; starring S Moore, M Weiss, and J Minter; with JJ McCarthy playing the role of all four twins.

This game is entirely on the coaches, in my mind.  McCarthy's two picks are on him and the screwed up calls are (sadly) to be expected.  Still, those mistakes could have been easily overcome with a competent coaching job.

The Philly Special was insane.  Kick it or use McCarthy's legs - like you did at OSU.

The Wilson call was horrible, but it was still a 1st down inside the one.  Go under center, sneak it, and try to push him in.  Otherwise, start running your best 2pt plays from the gun.  Going under center to try to execute a quick hand off to a brand new running back?  Dumb.

Beyond that, running Cover Zero and blitzing are OSU-level mistakes (see 45-23).  Not activating McCarthy runs until late Q3?  Foolish.  Inside zone into crashing LBs and Safeties?  Dumb.  Etc., etc.

This game was there to be taken - but TCU took advantage of some of the worst bowl preparation I've seen since 1970 - and that's saying something.  It's a sad, sad thing because these opportunities don't come around very often.

Should have been 13 in the first half, but for replay officials. Point still stands, but that removed touchdown will always piss me off, especially since it was immediately followed by a fumble. If Replay gets that right, the game would most likely be different from there on. 

Exactly why a part of me won’t be sad if Harbaugh leaves. His quirks, NFL-flirting and stubbornness are becoming problems for the program. 

They need to run McCarthy more but I assume some of it had to go with a concern that there was no backup behind him.  Bowman wasn't a realistic option, Warren's a walk-on, and everyone else is a freshman with clear limitations.  

I will also add that while McCarthy played fine in this game those 2 pick-sixes were on him, and he missed a couple of easy throws in that first half that would have probably gotten the offense going.  Those are all reasonable issues for a first-year starter and I do expect improvements from him but I am not quite ready to read a ton into that 3rd quarter when insanity broke out and WRs were open by 10 yards half the time.  

I do agree that Harbaugh likes to run his style of offense but also that netted them something like 40 points per game, a second conference title, and a playoff berth where basically anything gone right for them they'd have won and gone to the national title game.  There are strengths and weaknesses to every approach and thinking one will be better in one circumstance might not work in another and in college in particular you can't roll out bespoke offensive gameplans for everyone and be effective at it.