Who Cares? We won.
But did Michigan deserve to win?
offense. As far as the final outcome is concerned, we won because we deserved it. Would have said the same thing if we had lost.
VTech plays a high risk/reward defense. And with the exception of the two Junior Hemingway touchdowns, their gamble paid off.
Michigan played a bend but don't break defense. And with the exception of many 3rd down conversions and a possible touchdown in overtime, our gamble paid off.
In my opinion, VTech was extrememly luckly that we didn't have more big plays, and they were extremely lucky on their 3rd/4th down conversions (penalty not called on 4th down conversion that led to a touchdown). We were also extremely luckly that the refs overturned an interception and touchdown that were correct based on rules, but borderline based on intent of the rule (I also thought that on the first interception the ball touched the ground).
In the end, it was definitely not a pretty win or a game to brag about, but this season is definitely worth bragging about after what we have been through.
There were 3 key factors that had a large impact on UM's ability to play to their potential. Namely the Molk injury, the RVB injury and the Heininger injury. Those foot injuries have a big impact on speed and strength. You can't get a full push off with the foot. I'm not surprised our run blocking was subpar between the tackles with Molk's injury. RVB not only is hurt which hampers his ability to get off the line and get penetration but then he and Martin have to play a lot of minutes without Heininger available to give people a rest. Not a shock they struggled. Of course that doesn't explain the issues with the passing game or the secondary but it doesn explain a significant portion of their issues.
I didn't deserve the free muffin I was given this morning. But damn was it delicious.
We were outplayed, but we won. So, like, yes? Happens all the time.
yup...not a very difficult concept
guys are lucky and some ain't.
"The ole" thrown the ball of the other team to the long snapper. That is good stuff. I am still not sure if that was a designed fake or not.
Did we deserve to win? No, not by looking purely at the stats. But we won and that's all that matters. I would rather win looking ugly than lose looking pretty.
but if any group of seniors deserved to finish their careers with a major bowl victory and a top ten finish it was these guys.
And in regards to the actual game: We were lucky, they made some huge mistakes and we made just enough plays to pull it out. I don't mind saying we were fortunate because we were, but that's football. I'd rather be on the side that won and didn't "deserve" it than the side that lost and did "deserve" a victory.
Ohio didn't deserve to get away without a LOIC charge, but they did. Shit happens. Sometimes it's good; sometimes not.
LSU still won. I don't feel great about the lack of style points, but I feel great for the team. They never gave up, both on offense and defense and took advantage of VT's mistakes. You have to win in all three phases, and we didn't lose in two - defense and special teams. Sometimes that's good enough, it was last night.
Just refreshing to see a Michigan team win on defense and kicking. Yeah we had some breaks go our way, but this year alone we did three things we haven't done in a long time: Beat Ohio, dominate a good team and win a big game because of the other two facets of the game. Great way to finish the season IMO
Virginia Tech made bad coaching decisions and executed poorly. Sometimes, if you play another team close, they'll make mistakes and the ball will bounce in your favor.
Michigan's been on both sides of this situation in the past. Last night, they were on the winning side.
Yes, they deserved to win.
Team 132 deserved to go out on a high note.
As for our performance, we did the best we could with Molk's mobility limited (which made us rely on the pass more) and the fact we were facing a NFL grade QB, outside WR, and RB. Also they have four 5th year seniors on that offensive line. We held that talent to 20 points. Yes they had some long drives and converted 3rd and long, but after all that they got to trot out the FG kicker.
If Molk's at 100%, we'd have a lot more options in the run game and I think we take the game by two scores in regulation.
Va Tech's defense played a great game. Their corners were the best I've seen in a couple years.
Good teams find a way to win, thats what I keep telling myself
the final score said as much.
Never been a fan of the 'deserving' to win meme. You can be the better team, out-coach your opponent, be a fan favorite, whatever....but all that matters is final score. How you get there is ultimately irrelevant.
liked the run game purely to setup a big passing play for the TDs. It was purely due to the talent we have that it often ended up that the run became the dominant force.
I think yesterday's win showed (a less than ideal version of) Borge's style going forward and why it's effective even when the offense isn't firing on all cylinders : It's efficient. A handful of effective, big plays to put up points - screw having a slow, trodging drive down the field.
Borges has spent his entire career working with the principles of the deep pass and the power run. It clearly works. He put Jason Campbell in the NFL (and Campbell is a decent NFL QB, not great, but there are much worse starters currently). At SDSU he had NFL hype for his RB and QB before he left (they've regressed without him so we'll see what is in their future). He also put two WRs from SDSU in the NFL.
At times he clearly struggles with Denard. You can see the Gulf Coast Offense Al Borges saying "Look at the defense this is the perfect time to throw it deep and rip their heart out. " Then the practical Al says "Look Denard is kind of short with some vision issues, has some accuracy issues, and we only have one true outside WR. Maybe we should....oh fuck Denard is throwing a jump ball anyway.".
I just remain serene because despite the best center in the country playing injured (and that injury happening in pregame, so no time to prepare), no run game due to that injury, and playing one of the best defenses in the country (and DCs), Al still got us 20 points in regulation. Next year we Stonum back and some true freshman WRs that are over 6 feet in height coming. We're clearly in offensive transistion, where Al is working with concepts of the run game he never really used before, while asking Denard also throw some passes that are new concepts to Denard.
We'll see where we are next year. If nothing else Gardner and Morris are closer to prototypical Borges QBs, so remain calm and carry on. Al at least got us an every down back this year.
Overall I liked what I saw from Borges this game, it seemed like:
- Whoa run game is bad.
- Man not even Denard can run with Molk's mobility limited.
- Alright so Molk has no lateral mobility, but we're bigger than these guys. MANBALL baby!
- Hmmm that didn't work, lets bring in Smith to block on all these edge blitzes and feed him the rock every so often to keep them honest.
While the offense didn't exactly come out covered glory, we did pretty well considering the entire offensive gameplay was fed into a paper shredder when Molk went down in warmups. Borges adjusted, Foster adjusted right back, but in the end Borges got enough points to win. Plus of course Foster is one of the best minds in defense, so playing him to a tie in scheme isn't bad.
(I'm just grumpy, because some of the morons at the bowl were calling for Al to be fired.)
Yes. The seniors definately deserved to win
Hoke deserved to win.
Gibbons deserved to win.
This fan base deserved a win.
VT made the mistakes, coughed up the ball, questionable coaching decisions, and missed the field goal--is that a team that sounds like they deserved to win? We won the game. That is all that matters. Plus if we stop one or two of the 3rd or 4th down and longs that they converted, it wouldn't have been as close.
At the same time, it took VT's third string kicker making four field goals in regulation for the game to even make it into overtime. They were lucky that kid was as clutch as he was.
The team that scores more points usually wins. We scored more points, so we won. To address the question more directly, there were some "lucky" plays, but VaTech also had some lucky plays as well. Probably their worst luck was that their 2 top kickers were out for stupid mistakes before the game.
because we made fewer mistakes, executed a shade better.
All the stats mean nothing. They had how many red zone possessions? And we weren't lucky that they roughed Wile: they hit him.
Luck is the nutty fake fg reception moving our fg closer. Luck is not Ryan sniffing out their fake punt - that's a good play.
Overall they played better than we did. We made the big plays though, when it mattered: stops, td's, fg.
Sugar Bowl Champs. End of.
Is to score more points than opposition. We did. We won. Bring on the 2012 season and let's see what team 133 looks like and how they do!
Oscar, the River Otter of Just WIn Baby says "Get over it!"
Were we outplayed? Yes. Have we outplayed the other team many times and lost? Yes. Any win in this game for these players, who won eleven freaking times this year when most of us would have been thrilled with nine, is awesome.
Here are my thoughts.
Tech sold out to stop the run and get to the quarterback much of the game. They are an aggressive defense and were doing what they do. It worked 99% of the time and accounted for our lackluster offensive stats. But it also left receivers 1 on 1. The first one was a bit up for grabs since there was safety help (although he really wasn't in good position to make a play on the ball), but the other one was Junior/Denard doing what they do when given that match-up.
Our defense on the other hand was the definition of bend but don't break. While they (frustratingly) let VT dink and dunk down the field the whole night, dominating time of possession and yardage, we only let them score one touchdown and forced their 3rd string kicker to make make 3 field goals and put the game on his foot in OT. Ultimately, we held a pretty good QB/RB tandem to 17 points.
VT didn't help their cause by the big roughing the kicker or the fake punt attempt, but these things aren't exactly luck based. Both our turn-overs were very much of the forced variety, so again, hard to say it was luck (i.e. it wasn't a Tommy Rees butterfingers variety). Ok, our fake FG was fluky as hell and the we were fortunate the refs decided to overturn the Coates catch/non-catch (the right call IMO). Still, we executed following that by taking care of the football and Gibbons put it through the uprights. Again, we probably dodged one by not getting the false start called against us, but I can think of several no calls both ways in pivotal momemts that game, it wasn't really abnormal for refs to miss stuff or let stuff go.
Bottom line, we stuck around and were opportunistic when it mattered. Not exactly a beat your chest satisfying win, but I think they deserved to win and the team I'm sure feels that way too.
They needed a kicker to miss an easy field goal.
Yes, but only after that guy - a third-stringer, mind you - unexpectedly went 4-4 in regulation.
Also, we led for like 25 of the 30 minutes in the second half. At no point in the second half or OT did we ever trail. You can point to yardage, but VT was also playing from behind while we were protecting a lead. Not that we weren't trying to score, but we didn't have the same urgency to do so after we went up 17-6.
Deserves got nothin' to do with it. Seriously. You could say VT deserved to win because of Coale's "shoulda-been-a-catch" in OT, or because of Myer's emergence from 3rd string to near-hero, or because so-and-so is such a good guy, or so-and-so has such a great hardship story, or because of the stats, or whatever. You could say the same about Michigan and what the 5th year seniors endured (3 HCs, losingest period in Michigan football history, etc), the hardship story of so-and-so, the play of all the true freshman, or whatever.
"Deserve" implies some sort of value judgement which, imo, just doesn't apply. Did both teams deserve to win? Sure they did. Did one team have far better stats? Absolutely. But what ultimately matters is what happened on the field. You might say that Michigan didn't deserve it because they needed a wacky fake FG pass tipped by the defense to the long snapper for a first and goal, 2 overturned catches which were both very very close, a roughing the kicker penalty, and a missed VT FG to ultimately win, but that's all part of the game. You can't take that out of the equation when making your determination.
Long story short, did they deserve it? Doesn't matter. One team had to win and one had to lose. In this case, Michigan came out on top.
Let's look at the stats. VT scored one TD and their RB, one of the best in the country was held to 3.4 yards per carry. That was also the team stat. It was a classic example of bend but don't break. Four FG's and one TD....we actually played some pretty good D.
VT had some bad decison making on the part of Beamer, made several mistakes, had TO's.
Did lady luck smile on us? Yup, particularly with the review on the TD in OT, but that was a make up for Iowa.
The fan base needs to stop feeling guilty about the win and just accept it.
VT scored one TD and their RB, one of the best in the country was held to 3.4 yards per carry.
Not only that, but 32 of his 82 yards came on one carry. So his other 23 carried netted just 50 yards. Our run defense was superb. That one long carry and a couple of scrambles were basically it for VT.
Total yards are not the only statistic that matters. We scored more touchdowns than they did. We made all of our field goal attempts. Sure, they moved the ball better on a down to down basis, but that doesn't win you a game on that alone.
Sure, we had plays go our way. But there were two times VT had 1st and goal where they came away with 3 points total. VT turned the ball over. VT gave up a couple big plays.
Total yardage is all well and good, but often times football games come down to three things: Big plays, turnovers and special teams. VT had no big plays, and we had a couple. VT had two turnovers to our one, and they had two big special teams gaffes - the roughing the kicker and then obviously the missed FG in OT.
Completely agree, but the forced fumble on the kick return fits in both turnovers and special teams gaffes.
No one was feeling sorry for us when we were on the other end of games like this. I'm looking forward to enjoying this win for the next few months, but when football season rolls back around, I'll remember all the haterz saying this team didn't deserve this and I'm sure Hoke will use it to light a fire under Team 133.
Beamer runs a fake punt so often it has become predicable. Everyone knew that was coming. I know there are always a number of plays you can point at in a close game - the reviewed catch obviously - but that fake punt was really a key play.
I'm sure Frank Beamer's socks know more about football than I do, but that one did leave me scratching my head. Why not just go for it with your offense? Michigan is obviously going to be looking for a fake in that situation.
WTF???? Ridiculous question. What are we trying to do? Make the Hokies feel better about their loss?
People are making it sound like the Hokies should have won this game? Our D, especially in the red zone, played lights out. Their offense did not play well. Their pass-D did not play well, considering they gave up two huge TDs. Yes they had a good rush-D, but I find it ridiculous for people to question the accomplishment of team 132 in the bowl game by posing idiotic questions like "Did we deserve to win?" Yes, yes we did. We put up more points and played our butts off. We made mistakes but so did they (int to Clark, fumble, missed field goal, etc.). Their rush-D played lights out and our red zone D played lights out. Enough with the "well, we won but not really sure we deserved to since they dominated us."
Did you read anything I wrote other than the title of the post?
from the appologists.....
It's sports fergodsakes! Deserves got nothing to do with it, period. I've been an athlete or coach seems like all of my life in a variety of sports on a number of different levels, and if I haven't learned anything else, deserves got nothing to do with it.
Each season, athletes and coaches of differing abilities get together to prepare and then compete, hopefully to attain their goals. Little separates the sides, but desire. In the end, desire, tenacity, dogged determination...some say will, makes the difference. The amazing difference between Team 131 and Team 132 is that lesson, determination trumps deserving. Those who deserve wait for others to give it to them, those who are determined find a way to take it or make it happen. Last night, Team 132 punctuated it's season with determination, and took the game, the win, and the Sugar Bowl Championship, because, well, that's what determined people do. Kudos Team 132, job well done.
Champions are determined by their response to adversity, deserving people just want the good times to roll, reality is where they meet.
Well, VT was much better than us and the refs helped us on more than one occasion. Based on solely the play in the game last night, VT should've won.
However, did Michigan deserve to win? Why not? This team has been through a lot of the last few years, came together this year under a new coaching staff (which did NOT happen 4 years ago), and worked their asses off to get to this point. Nobody expected us to be this competitive this year, let alone finish with 11 wins. So, credit goes to the players and coaching staff. They worked hard this last year and they showed that hard work does in fact pay off. So, under that perspective, yes, we did deserve to win.
Opponents' miscues are every bit as much part of the game as your own successes. So is luck. So is the occasional break (or not) from the refs.
So did Michigan deserve to win? Yes, abosolutely, 100% without question.
Why? Because even with all of the above, our players actually made the plays that resulted in 23 points being put on the board in our favor. And Junior Hemingway got a trophy for those very efforts.
First you ask:
Michigan won, that much is clear, but did they deserve to win?
Then you say:
We don't need to ask whether Michigan deserved to win.
So... what are we doing here?
Please note that I said that I had that doubt last night but don't today. I was also using the rethorical device of setting up a question (that seems to be on at least some people's minds) and then explaining that it's not the right question to be asking.
If we are blessed with a UFR of this game, I will be interested to know if Gibbons saved the day with a timely take-down of the guy about to stop Dileo on the "fire" kick, as Dinardo called it. Is Gibbons the long-lost twin of VanBergen?
There is only one factor here that counts. It is called a scoreboard. That is all.
Everything that happened in the game to both teams, happened within the parameters of the game. Michigan did not cheat. Virginia Tech did not cheat. Neither team was victimized. It was a hard hitting, hard fought, hard won, and hard lost game for each of the teams. This whole notion of "deserving" and being "dominated" by another squad is just, well, nebulous.
Did Sparty deserve to win? Did Wisky deserve to lose? Should Ohio have won since Florida only scored primarily thru special teams? This is how the game is played, these occurences are all apart of what can transpire in the course of a game. All that remains is a given teams' response to the stimulus at hand...our team responded in a manner which made them victorious.
We were bending, but we never broke. It's not any less of a win because we didn't dominate some statistical categories. We've been through the worst of the worst, and when you've been through that, you feel like you can stay in any game."
Were I a Tech fan, I'd definitely feel like one got away. Their 3rd down production was sick and Wilson was continuously pounding out five or eight yards where there were none. Their DL overwhlemed our offense much of the night.
Our defense, though, made it a winnable game in the first half by keeping VT out of the endzone. If we're down 21-10 at the half, we're toast on a night like that, when the offense is so clearly totally bottled up. Giving up six points on three deep drives made all the other things that happened meaningful, instead of just things that happened as we got stomped.
But even on a night like that, I think 20 points given up gives this offense a chance to win. It's also remarkable that it was defense and special teams that kept this a winnable game and then got us over the top.
is actually serious?! Last I knew it was a game of football! A win is a win = Just Win Baby!
As fans, it's easy to get greedy. We want to win but we also want to look great while we win. I was that fan for a while last night. And while I think this is no victory to brag about, I've decided I'm not going to feel "guilty," in victory either.
Do you know how many times we were in VaTech's position? Think of those early games against Woody Hayes in the 10 year war. Think of us getting 150 more yards of offense against OSU's national championship team in 2002 only to lose. Think of games against Lou Holtz's ND teams where we were dominated only to lose thanks to kickoff and punt returns. Think of holding Washington's offense to 2 field goals all day but losing thanks to a blocked field goal returned 80 yards for a TD and then a tipped pass picked off and returned 30 yards for a touchdown a minute later.
Sometimes the offense that dominates can still lose. And that was us so many times. Nothing has ever, EVER come easy for us in bowl games. And I doubt this ever happens to us in a bowl again. So I'll take the win, as ugly as it was, and be happy.
that game was the epitome of the gut punch. UM was controlling that game in just about every way. About to kick a FG to put UM up 2 scores, which the way the game had gone looked like that should give UM the win and then BAM - blocked FG for a TD and Int for a TD.
I think people forget (or are too young to know) how much heartbreak has been a part of being a Michigan fan over the years. It's very nice to be favored by the football gods for once.
michigan played poorly, sure, but a better team would have found a way to put us away. virginia tech failed to capitalize despite the countless ways we nearly gave the game away and they found the endzone once.
neither team deserved to win, really. but im convinced that nothing less than divine inspiration by the football gods brought our win last night.
VT was lucky in a lot of ways themselves:
1. The best center in the country is injured in pre-game warmups
2. Their third string kicker is somehow clutch (at least until overtime)
3. Their apparent gameplan of only playing offense on third downs of 10 plus yards works
4. Our fluky lineman catching a pass play only results in a closer field goal
I think it was just one of those strange games. Both teams really wanted to win. I'm glad ours did.
We're finally good enough to play poorly and still beat a very good team.
when the game was over we had more points
I always think that the team that scored more points deserves to win. VT had its chances, and UM had theirs, and one team was able to capitalize a bit more than the other. Yes, VT moved the ball well between the 20's, but when they got close to the endzone their failed to score TDs, a problem for them all year. That's on a defense that hung tough and made the stops when they needed them.
Yes, it was not a great game, but I will counter that you have two top-20 defenses statistically out there, and so there are going to be drives that don't end in scores and offenses that struggle at times. And while UM struggled more than VT, it also showed the ability to move the ball despite having a key injury to its AA center. If these were two SEC teams, people would be talking about how great the two defenses played and how UM just made plays to win.
Overall, I do expect the team to regress next year, probably topping out at 8-9 wins. It is a young team with some holes on both sides of the line, and to expect them to continue on with those loses is unlikely. But the trajectory is right.
These kids bust their asses year in and year out, sacrifice, and endured injuries. Some of them went through a torrential 3 three year shit storm, yet stayed the course and stayed hungry. They encouraged each other, and bought in to a new regime wholeheartedly. Last night, they did not give up, and made plays when they had to. Hell yeah they deserved this. Only a lame assed Spartan thinks they don't deserve this, but they can take their bloomin' onion and shove it up their ass.
Did VT "deserve" to convert 5 or 6 3rd/4th and longs? Sure, it was partially self-inflicted, but even an incompetent defense should be able to stop an offense like VT's on 3rd and long. They got lucky numerous times. Converting a 4th adn 11 on their TD drive was also lucky...especially given the missed hands-to-the-face penalty.
Did Michigan "deserve" to be winning by 4 after being dominated? Maybe. Maybe not. When the other team makes three trips to your redzone but only has 6 points to show for it, then maybe you do. Michigan made one big play in the first half, and got more points in that one play than VT did at all for the seemingly infinite number of times they had the ball. I mean, sure Michigan was lucky Wilson ran backwards for 30 yards, but then again, maybe VT doesn't deserve to be winning if your offense still makes boneheaded plays like that in your 14th game of the year.
Did VT "deserve" such competent FG kicking?
Did Michigan "deserve" to get its best oline All-America Rimington award winning center injured right before the game started?
Football doesn't care about "deserve". Most sports don't. It only cares about what happens on the field. And on the field, Michigan scored more points than VT. Was there luck involved? Hell yes. You'd be hard-pressed to find an evenly-matched game where luck isn't a significant factor. Just ask LSU. They beat bama because Bama's kicker couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Did LSU really "deserve" that win? Sure, why not! Their kicker was competent.
Lucky wins > Unlucky losses.
Scoreboard. Whoever has more points deserves to win. Tech can blame officials or their FG kicker or whatever they like. You can't turn the ball over in your own half of the field and you can't take all those penalties. Sometimes things go your way and I sure love when they do. 10 years from now the books will read Michigan won the Sugar Bowl. No asterisks apply. Go Blue!!!!
but I cannot think of a group of guys more deserving to win, than Team 132.
It was ugly. Virginia Tech played very tough defense and ball control offense. Our guys hung in there, and I am very glad they won.
No laurels to rest on though. Team 133 has their work cut out for them.
[Edit:] And that karma from the non-touchdown call at Iowa, and the reversal in the 4th Q against Ohio State - well it paid forward dividends last night.
I am happy UM won the game. However, Monday morning QB'ing I was extremely disapointed in how the game played out. Any small string of games can come down to lucky breaks and fate just working for you. However, long term there will be regression to the mean. Going into this game I thought UM was going to really take it to the Hokies. They had not really had any impessive victories and had a pedestrian offense. Their QB seemed steady and their RB ran hard. The Oline did not impress. Their defense appeared pretty good and aggresive. Plus this was a ACC team and the conference has been down recently. I expected our offense to generate big plays as their aggresive defense got RPS'ed. I expected us to play the run and our secondary could stay with their possesion receivers. I was expecting a ten point victory.
Part of the bowl game to me is measuring yourself. If this game is played nine more times, UM probably losses eight of them. A victory is nice, but when we measured up against a pretty good team we were massively deficient. Our offense could not sustain any drives and our scoring was due to high risk plays that are just crap shoots. It was nice to see our defense bend. However, they could not generate any pressure on the QB and their possesion receivers seemed to get open at will.
Now we can enjoy the win. But we have to know that if this is our best against this kind of competition were going to get obliterated. I am really fretting that we lost our best 3 linemen to graduation. What is going to happen when we play Alabama next year? If a limited ACC team can dominate us I don't even want to imagine the crater our football team will be left in after a premier SEC team has their way with us.
As a lifelong Meeeeeeeeeechigan fan, I've seen us outgain, shut down, and dominate several opponents over the years and still lose the game.
And after those games, I still gotta realize that it comes down to the scoreboard and not the stat sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.
VT put up a lot of yards but they only sniffed the endzone once or twice. They can spend all day passing between their endzone and our 30 but if you can't get past there then you were never really doing all that well in the first place. You just have pretty stats
mistakes (stuffed 4th down, fumble on KO return, roughing the punter) were huge and paved the way for an unlikely win. That's it in a nutshell.
I have been hearing UM fans say this same sort of thing about our bowl opponents forever, regardless of what conference they're in. I've been hearing since 1970 that "the PAC 10 is a soft conference with soft teams that don't play a physical brand of ball and that they can't match up with our size and strength" every time we play in the Rose Bowl. How's that worked out for us?
People were fooling themselves if they thought the ACC doesn't have plenty of talented players; what's hampering it as a conference is unsettled coaching situations at places like FSU, Maryland, NC, Miami, and BC.
Frank Beamer has been an extremely successful coach for most of his 25 years at VaTech, and he's coached 13 seasons with ten wins or more, including eight in a row through 2011. You don't do that with mirrors, regardless of what conference you're in.
We're rarely as good as many UM fans think we are, and our opponents are frequently much better than the fans think they are. Why in hell do you think our bowl record since January 1970 is 16 wins and 21 losses?
I thought Va Tech was the best team that Michigan played all year...As for Michigan's bowl record, as you touched on, there's been far too much crazy (or at least unexpected) sh*t that's happened to Michigan in bowl games not to be very, very happy with any bowl win of any kind.
Every team gets beat in games they should win and every team wins games they shouldn't win. A win is a win. Go blue!!!
that VaTech fans can recall more than a few Hokie games in the Beamer era in which they used stout red-zone defense, a few big plays on offense, and critical ST plays to manufacture victories.
I get the distinct impression that there are a number of commenters here who would be happier if we'd played very well but lost.
I've seen that script play out for Michigan in more bowl losses than I care to remember. Fuck that.
Actually the script I am most familiar with regards to Michigan's bowl performances are Michigan plays poorly and loses. Michigan playing poorly and winning is a welcome change.
1) Both defenses played well
2) Their offense played better than ours
3) Our special teams played better than theirs
We are back to bitching about how they played in wins. Even in a freaking BCS bowl game.
i'd rather win ugly than lose pretty in the sugar bowl any day. this game showed the team what they've got to work on for next year, and they have an entire offseason to get it right.
counting down the days to 'bama.
I think the Beamer blew that game for his team. That fake punt call was the stupidest call of the year. It was the only stupid call he could make on that play.