Further evidence the season boils down to the o-line and rushing ability

Yep. For the super bowl winner historically has been the best run game/run D combo. There were exceptions, but not many

If any other school lost its two best players from an awful OL, would you be saying they might improve significantly? Of course the OL is going to be a weakness again. The run game question for me instead is: How much will the coaches run Gardner? It's quite the dilemma. Nussmeier has said that the QB is going to run less; he surely realizes that it's imperative that Gardner stays healthy. But Gardner may be the only way we can run. Sacks removed, he averaged 5.78 per carry last year, despite how bad the line was. Granted, a portion of that is scrambles off pass plays, but it's been true for a few years now that Mich can run the QB far better than it can the RBs. It's conceivable that Mich could cobble together a decent running game this fall by keeping opponents off balance with Gardner running and with run/pass selection. It is not conceivable that Mich is suddenly going to be able to hand off on 1st and 10 and get 5 yards.

This article like a lot of sports writing tries to find a single or small set of answers for a complex problem. Scapegoats are hunted after a bad loss. Geniuses and saints are annoited after a great win. The notion of the "one key idea" is appealing but doesn't seem correct. These are fun articles to read and argue about. Most sports especially team sports can't be answered that simply. It would be great if it were true.

Look at some other field like business - how do you measure the key parts of why some businesses do well and others not so well - let's use the metric of how profitable they are. Some businesses do well on sheer volume. Others push high quality, deliver on that promise and develop a customer base. Other latch onto popularity riding every fad and trend. Others depend on a core base of loyal customers and gain their allegiance with great after sales support and service. Others have a super efficient manufacturing process or lower their costs by outsourcing or negotiating cooperative ventures with their subcomponent manufacturers. Some companies don't put all of their eggs in one basket and diversify. Others focus solely on a very narrow niche and dominate that tightly focused field. Finally some take advantage of favorable tax codes and rulings.

So we see everything like that in college football. Some win by outscoring. Others win by great defense and their own 14-21  points is more than enough to win most of their games. Others win by great recruitment - stockpiling great talent. Others by innovative coaching - being ahead of others in developments in offense, defense, and training. Others by great game time management - they adjust and fix and repair in real time. Others by copying and adapting whatever "hot" thing is in - wishbone, veer, pro-I, spread on offense; 5-2 defense, then 4-3, then back to the 3-4, and so on. Some try to do it all. It is possible to find a successful example for nearly every on these "key ideas" among recent CFB teams.

Go Blue!

 

about a coach so anal in his approach to OL play that he micro-managed every detail to the point that he actually used a yard stick - a rather stiff one I was told - to measure the gaps he had assigned to each lineman, but for a very logical reason. It was his belief that if the play did not start exactly as it was designed there was a much greater chance for failure. He would actually have his offense line up for a play and with this measuring stick walk behind his OL, measuring the distance, starting with the center to guard and so forth. The OL had no worries other than not being the exact distance as drawn up in the play book.  If, however, they were so much as a 1/2 inch off, he would quickly and with great aim deliver a blow to their ass,covered by no more than football pants and a jock strap - we all know how much protection this gives to the ass end - and provide the proof necessary they were out of alignment by showing them on his measuring stick using his thumb and index finger. This, of course, resulted in more than a few red whelts on the asses of his offensive linemen.  Surprisingly though, by the second week of practice, whether using all ones or mixing the ones with the twos and so on, every member of the OL lined up exactly where they belonged in order to gain maximum advantage as soon as the ball was snapped.

By the time I read this story in SI this man was already a hero of mine.  I believe Jerry Hanlon was his OL coach, but he felt this such an important lesson that it ought to be delivered from the mountain top, and it was.  His point was obvious. We won't start any play until every member of the OL is on the same page, no questions asked and no time for excuses after the game starts. The fact that Bo gave the same amount of attention to every position on the field is probably the major reason his teams were never in a position to qualify as "coming back from the largest deficit ever" in Michigan history. 

I might not whole-heartedly agree this season boils down to OL play and rushing ability, but I think Bo's endorsement to your claim gives you far greater support than I ever could.