Was reading
this article when I saw this comment at the end:
Comparing our 58-0 blowout of Rutgers with Michigan's 78-0 blowout of them means little to nothing. We had a TD by our second- and third-stringers on offense called back near the end of the game due to a tick-tack holding penalty (would've made it 65-0), and it was quite obvious that Meyer had the offense do everything but kneel down in the fourth quarter. Basically a wash between the two games.
Comparing our game against Wisconsin and Michigan's game with Wisconsin at face value would tend to imply Michigan is better, but look at stats and situations. While Michigan held Wisconsin to seven points and 159 yards of offense for the game, they weren't exactly an offensive juggernaut themselves, mustering 14 points and 349 yards on their home turf. Conversely, Ohio State faced Wisconsin at Camp Randall, at night, with Wisconsin coming off an extra week to prepare. And despite having problems stopping the Wisconsin offense between the 20s in the first half (and surrendering 16 points), they shut down the Badgers in the second half and held them to one scoring drive, while in turn scoring 17 points on three consecutive drives (and should've been 24 points on four drives, save the rain-induced IINT by JT). Ohio State scored more points on those three second-half drives--at Camp Randall--than Michigan could at home all game.
Let the media continue to make surface-value comparisons...we all know what lay beneath.