You're looking in the wrong place.  The receivers did what we thought they'd do.

Their O-line was getting PWND in pass pro by linemen inferior Gary, Winovich, or Uche.  Then suddenly they're perfect against the #1 havoc rate defense in the country.  We didn't get the OSU O-line we'd seen all year, and it was a forgone conclusion that their QB is a different guy if he has time in the pocket.

I agree, but the context I'd like to draw attention to is that their program had so much more "want to" to give in the first place.  It's not that Michigan came into the game with inadequate emotion or preparation.  It's that MGoBlog's previews were based on an opponent that was farting around at well under their full potential, to the point of giving their HC panic attacks, especially their offensive line.  What do you get when a team that scores 40+ points a game in a stupor of apathy and dysfunction puts it all together for one week, vs. what you get when a team that (with some tactical exceptions) always goes 100% tries to discover a 110%?  What do we realistically expect from the Michigan side, here?

It's not that Michigan didn't give enough; it's that the difference between what they give against a Penn State and Ohio State is insignificant because they play all-out against both. Michigan's coaches repeatedly emphasize this in pressers -- that if you play for Michigan, you play with maximum effort, every play.  In fact Michigan tried to hold stuff back, but Indiana was too much trouble.  So the difference when it came to The Game would've been. . . what?

TBH Michigan's struggles against Indiana got me nervous about The Game for this reason -- because I didn't doubt their effort, so I could tell that what I was seeing wasn't going to be enough against a galvanized OSU.  I swallowed those doubts because it looked like OSU might fail to pull it together, but compare M's run-up to '16.  It's a different story.  78-0 against Rutgers, barely trying even.  They looked bored & frustrated against Illinois.  They got a frenzied MSU AND crappy officiating in East Lansing and made it not matter.  Maryland was a romp.  Then the wheels fell off in Iowa, but the '16 team -- that basically beat OSU if not for the worst officiating since the Bolton ejection -- so overmatched its opponents it was bored, and so bored it was frustrated.  This year's team might be one of my favorites because they mostly took care of business week in and week out, but in large part because they couldn't afford complacency.  They consistently pulled away in the 4th quarter, but it was more a decisive victory by attrition than shows of overwhelming force.  I mean that as a credit -- the team played hard every game.  But for their efforts we weren't seeing opponents crumple in the 2nd quarter like they'd do against an Alabama, and OSU is that good when they're not farting around.

The way I see it, this Michigan team wins with some talent, but mostly by consistently playing at a high level.  It won games decisively, but not overwhelmingly.  It was an 8-4 team that got to 10-2 not by luck but by sheer effort and diligence.  That's a credit to them, I mean that, but asking them to give more is disingenuous.  What's needed to beat OSU is a team so dominating that they literally run out of things to do against lesser opponents.  It's not out of reach.  The '16 team was close to that.  They ran out of ways to waste game clock against Rutgers and looked bored for much of their schedule (until Iowa, arrgghh).  And, they pretty much beat OSU in Columbus.

However, I'm a tad concerned for the future because I don't see any up-and-comers on the D-line that can replicate the embarrassment of riches we had back in '16.  To beat OSU you need a dominant D-line, and the well's mostly run dry in the short term unless somebody blows up next year.  As Brian said, this is a problem Brown has genuinely good answers for, but I'd add that they only go so far against an elite team in a rivalry game.

Indiana says the same thing about us.

And we always win in the end because we have better athletes that step up when needed.

We will beat Ohio State when we improve our recruiting and combine it with schemes that take advantage of the better athletes.

The jury is out as to whether we are willing and able to do both of those.