Reading the blog leaves me with the impression that a good many people have the lingering doubt that I did last night: Michigan won, that much is clear, but did they deserve to win? They were badly out-gained. They needed Tech to rough their punter. They needed a number of close calls, including the Coale play, to go their way. They needed a kicker to miss an easy field goal. They needed Drew Dileo to execute the ol' pass-the-ball-off-the-other-team-to-the-long-snapper play. It was a wild chain of events.
I don't see the game like I did last night, though. Michigan did what it probably wouldn't have in the last couple of years - Michigan hung in. The defense in particular took punch after punch to the mouth but kept the team in the game. A lot of units would have wilted under that pressure, but not Michigan's 132nd defense. And that - with a bit of offense and some good special teams - was enough.
Sometimes a team doesn't win convincingly. Sometimes you're Micky Ward and you get your ass kicked for ten rounds before you knock the other guy out. Sometimes you hang in just enough for luck to go your way. Is Michigan obviously better than Tech? No, but you don't get a Sugar Bowl trophy for style points. You get a Sugar Bowl trophy for out-scoring the other team, and there is a harsh and brilliant simplicity to that.
We don't need to ask whether Michigan deserved to win. They did win - and they didn't cheat or (presumably) play ineligible players. That's enough. That's sports. To mix my movie quotes, sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you, and deserve's got nothing to do with it.