Explain to me why for the last two years when Michigan kicked our ass the fact that we lost the turnover battle 12-1, snapped the ball over the QBs head, and generally looked terrible it was due to the fact that we suck, but when Michigan does the same it's all due to luck?

Some Michigan fans have a bad habit of deluding themselves into believing they never lose a game just because they get beat.

Michigan safety Steve Brown after the game:

"We don't have our heads down because we know who the better team was," defensive back Steve Brown said, referring to Michigan. "They beat us today. It happens, but in our hearts we know we're the better team."

You know what? If you want to make that claim after losing by 2 I might even give you a little credit. But not when you just got thrashed 35-17. If you even want to claim the game was closer than the score indicated, that's perfectly legit. I said the same thing after the 2006 ND-Michigan game, and I still believe that. But you don't get to say you're the better team after losing by 18!

Continually insane Brian Cook from MGoBlog.com:

I'll take a team that looks competent except for a few huge glaring errors over one that can't complete a pass.

Uh. Ok. Let's see:
1st Quarter: 4/7 63 yards, 2 Touchdowns
2nd Quarter: 4/6 73 yards

The second half I don't care about because, a) We had a big lead and didn't really need to pass, and b) It was a damn monsoon, and you'd have to be fucking stupid to pass when you don't need to in a monsoon.

Summing up: When the game mattered 8/13 for 136 yards and 2 touchdowns.

I'll take a team that "can't pass" for those stats over one that can't hang on the damn ball.