Emotion Aside, Were We a Better Football Team than OSU Last Year?

I thought that was why teams played the games—to settle which was better.  OSU had everything going for it last year—home field, revenge motive—and we trounced them.  We were better.  Just because they had an offense that was designed to run up scores on weak teams doesn’t mean they were a better team.

Ahem.

"And indeed, unlike most of the posters here, I think a few key plays did make the difference in that game."

Translation:  If some things had gone differently, the game would have been different.  Uh, yeah.  So??

"I still can't believe they didn't connect on that early 4th down throw, which I think could have made a big difference"

Credit Jaylen Harrell's play on tOSU's TE for breaking up the pass.  Harrell is part of UM's team; it wasn't as if Stroud threw a bad pass. 

"and Sanristil's play in the endzone was an all-timer."

Absolutely.  And Sainristl is part of UM's team too.  But it looks as if you're somehow discounting the quality of the team because of Sainristl's brilliance on that play--huh, what??

Head-to-head, yes, we were better than them. You don't just go into another team's building and beat them by 22 points if you aren't the better team. There was a little turnover luck, we were +2 in the game, but yardage wise and on a play-by-play basis, we were better.

The question that you might be asking is, considering the mix of different styles in college football, would you consider Michigan better than Ohio State on a comprehensive basis? Meaning, not just head-to-head. For example, if you took the top 20 teams in the country and played a round-robin, home-and-away schedule, who would end up with the better record, Michigan or Ohio State? The TCU game and the way Ohio State played Georgia even suggests that the 2 teams were closer than a 22 point beatdown would suggest, but I still think we were the better team. We just screwed the pooch with 2 pick-6's against TCU. That's a 1 in 10,000 or worse type outcome. 

Considering mock drafts have close to the same amount of UM and OSU guys being drafted, I will say that both teams were evenly matched and people need to stop overvaluing the skill position players on offense and undervaluing the line play.

And honestly, anyone saying OSU is better than us right now, without Kyle McCord taking a snap as the official starter, is projecting based on what previous QBs have done. If we were playing OSU week 1, we should be at minimum a FG favorite based on having the best backfield in CFB, plus another Joe Moore contending OL. Oh, and don't forget Will Johnson might be the best CB in the B1G (and maybe country) as a sophomore.

I think two things can be true at the same time:

1) Michigan was better than OSU the day they played in Columbus.

2) OSU would have beaten Michigan if they had played like they played Georgia.

So were they a better team than us? That answer depends on the scope you're looking at. I mean heck, look at the undefeated Patriots vs the Giants. Were the Pats the better team? Obviously! Except they weren't that Super Bowl Sunday, so maybe obviously not.

The Buckeyes got outstrategized last year and we won. If we play that game multiple times they probably win a few of those, maybe even more than 50% of them. But we don't and that's why we play the game. Overall they probably had a personnel edge on us so by that definition probably were a "better" team, but if they were better they would've won the game. :-)

As for next year, same rules apply. At this point in time, I think we have a slight edge because of our returning folks, but they have a lot of potential because of their massive recent recruitment. So ask me again 3 or even 11 weeks into the season and I may have different answers each time.

I don't think there's a right answer other than Michigan beat them head to head so OBVIOUSLY yes.

That said, if you look at some of the raw stats from the game like first downs, total yards, you'd have guessed that it should have been a really close game.
And if Harrison hadn't gotten hurt in their CFP game, they probably would have knocked off Georgia (who didn't play poorly by any stretch). If OSU played like that against M I doubt 45-23 would have been the outcome.

They were both really good teams, sometimes those matchups come down to a final possession, sometimes they get out of hand at the end due to things going one way or another. I'm just glad they've gone Michigan's way the past two years.

45-23.

Michigan won by 22. In Columbus. On a clear, sunny day. 

On the 1 drive OSU decided to play it safe and not give up a big play, Michigan went on an 8 minute drive ending in a TD. OSU COULD NOT STOP US IN THE 2nd HALF. 

This was not a one score game determined by a play that was extremely unlikely to happen. This was not a game where Michigan hung around based on bad reffing or turnovers or dropped passes or lucky breaks. This was a game where Michigan DOMINATED the 2nd half - just like they did to everyone else on their schedule. 

Michigan was clearly the better team.

This is a  perfectly valid off-season intellectual exercise.  If you don't want to participate, DON'T.

Depends on how you define "better," to start.  By most objective metrics, no. M was not "better."

OSU generally had higher rated talent at more positions, were more experienced at some key positions and, at the most important position, had a superlative starter compared to M's starter who was more "potential" than "results."  That would make them appear as the "better" team to most objective observers.

Some would go deeper and say that "matchup" could factor into this definition of "better" as well, and that with M's current style of play on offense, along with a defense that has been geared toward stopping an OSU style attack, that this is a great equalizer.  In-game coaching, preparation... is that part of what makes a team "better" or are those outside of that?  Many would argue that these are points that are outside of the "better team/worse team" paradigm. 

Regardless, sports is awesome because being the "better" team is only part of what determines the outcome.  Sometimes a team is so much "better" that it can erase bad matchups, emotional disparity, etc. by just overwhelming an opponent.  But, an opponent really only needs to be in the ball park talent wise to compete, and can then take advantage of all of the other factors; tangibles like scheme, preparation, and in-game coaching, along with intangibles like emotion, "creating opportunities" (if that's even a thing), making the most of the bounces that go your way, and so forth.  Hit those other things well and even if you don't catch an inordinate amount of breaks, you can still win convincingly.  Happens every day in every sport.

I think M maximized it's opportunities against OSU in a similar way that TCU did against M.  Not exactly the same, but when OSU was wrong M made them pay HARD.  Is that luck?  Is that prep?  Is that individual "focus"?  Whose to say.  M was certainly more dialed in than OSU was, and OSU wasn't resilient enough to overcome the early big plays, and given that the talent gap wasn't that much to overcome, M prevailed.  But I wouldn't consider that "winning despite not being the better team."  And I also can't sit here with a straight face and say "Michigan had the better team..." not if you're defining "better" in the "on-paper" way.

If only there was some way to find out…

Why rely on flimsy on-field results when you can rely on a convoluted version of the transitive property? 

Better Culture, having a chip on shoulder/hunger, not as many prima donnas (5 stars/Alphas) so captaincy buy-in and team orientation may be stronger and lastly practicing against physicality both ways all the time while no longer being plodding come post season.

The defense for the Buckeyes didn't play against an offense all the time as pounding and attritted over the course of the game. Sending everybody all the time in the first half masked this but once JJ's passing and using his legs softened them up they relaxed and UM's strength reappeared. Win/win and controlling the clock as a bonus helped UM defense.

I think now UM has these things and a better strength staff and coaches. The attraction and movement of good coaches has been an issue that is starting to turn to a strength in that being talented enough to be next level desirable can be sold and admitted to like in Harbaugh sit down candor to Jadyn Davis.

Nil direction also is likely going to help attract the top tier type of recruit that the program wants and not just mercenaries as some are finding. UM is favored this year and should be so overall I do think this is a program finally with an edge on the 'Nuts.

Bill Conelly's 83.8% post-game win expectancy suggests it was no fluke. 

The fucking Michigan difference.

Gotta be the only fanbase that would have someone taking a road blowout and turn it into a "do you really think we were the better team?" post.

Michigan was the better team...period.  Results matter, as does the eyeball test.  OSU is is a collection of high-level talent best suited to playing in ideal conditions (as in their GA game).  Michigan was and still is the better team in every way that matters.

They were the runner on third that took too many steps toward home and got picked off by a kick ass pitcher.

Its funny but people (usually not Michigan fans) put a lot more faith in the way OSU played Georgia (A team we didnt play) than the actual UM vs Osu game. Its like what happens on the field is secondary to what might happen against a team that hung with Georgia. Strange times. 

Our loss against TCU was a much bigger fluke than our win over OSU

We lost by a TD to TCU despite basically everything going wrong all at once, while we destroyed OSU

I didn't believe UM would house OSU by 20 but people are reading WAY too much into what happened between OSU and UGa and UM and TCU.  Those games were played about a month after the season ended and featured some absolutely unexpected performances - McCarthy throwing 2 pick-sixes and UM fumbling away scoring drives/getting screwed by the refs while UGa seemingly couldn't tackle in the secondary and Stroud suddenly was running around and making plays off-schedule in a way he hadn't all year - that were likely not reproducible.  

Amongst common opponents OSU outscored them 295-115 while UM was 214-92.  When OSU got up on someone they tended to score more in bunches but they were also in a lot more rock fights than UM - they went deep into competitive games against the likes of NW and Maryland (UM's "close" game with Maryland was more cosmetic since UM was up 34-19 with ~2:30 minutes to play while OSU was only up 3 until basically the end of the game) and their PSU game was arguably closer and required more dumb stuff to go their way for them to pull it out - multiple TOs and defensive TDs late made that closer than it was. 

They looked as one-dimensional throwing the ball as UM was running but their defensive line was worse and their offensive line just couldn't grind teams down late.  Their secondary wasn't great and looked very athletic but somewhat poor schematically.  They had all-world talent at WR and that made them scary but UM clearly had a gameplan for that and once they did that was it.  Did some plays go UM's way to make the score bigger?  Sure.  But "guys who are mediocre in coverage falling down because a WR did a move on him" isn't "luck".  Not being able to tackle a guy once he's past the line because you are sending the house each time isn't "luck" - it's knowing the other team is going to grind you down the field and you having to sell out for negative plays.  And OSU's passing game had those random plays where great coverage was beaten by an elite WR, much like in 2021.  

OSU was the worse team last year - they had a better passing offense but were worse in basically every other facet of the game.  And that was with UM missing probably the 2nd-best RB in the country (Robinson is a very good back even though I think playing in the Big 12 likely inflated some of his yardage totals).  If OSU was the better team they wouldn't have lost as convincingly as they did at home.