Everyone realizes that what happened this past Saturday was terrible.

What I'm not sure people understand is how preposterously, appallingly awful the game was from the moment it landed on the schedule.

If the idea is to open with an easy win, why pick the national champions of anything? Appalachian State hadn't lost a game since its 2006 season opener, which means that nobody really knew exactly how good they were. They hadn't lost in 14 games, and quarterback Armanti Edwards hadn't lost one college game, meaning tape showing how to stop an offense that scored more than 40 points in eight of last year's contests was scarce.

This Appalachian State team definitely wasn't a bad team. And it certainly wasn't worse than the squads that comprise the bottom rungs in Division I-A. So why schedule the Mountaineers at all?

Schedule Buffalo or Temple, Utah State or Baylor - known opponents that lose 10 to 12 games every season and that past opponents have provided numerous blueprints for beating.

If the goal is to get some respect from the voters for scheduling a tougher opponent, then plan a couple years in advance, work hard and diligently, and get an Oklahoma or a Miami.

But this game with Appalachian State was halfway in between - and was therefore a lose-lose situation from the beginning. Even a win probably would have hurt a Wolverine bid to get to the National Championship game. The Wolverines would have beaten a Football Championship Subdivision team. I don't know that any voters would have much respect for a win like that, certainly not more respect than for a win over an inferior Division I-A team.

Yes, hindsight is 20-20.

Before this game, everyone was complaining about the opponent and that it wasn't even a Division I-A team, especially because people thought the quality of Michigan's competition is part of what kept it from a championship rematch with Ohio State last season.

But a little foresight should have set off some serious alarms.

Appalachian State matched up excellently with the Wolverines. It has a mobile quarterback and runs the spread offense. The last time Michigan's defense faced the spread offense, it allowed 42 points to Ohio State.

Secondly, the Mountaineers knew that. According to the Winston-Salem Journal, the Mountaineers "practically begged U-M athletic director Bill Martin for the matchup."

When Martin commented on the matchup for the Journal, he compared ASU to Utah, a Michigan opponent next season. The difference is that if the Wolverines lose to Utah, that's a loss to a respected Division I-A program that has recently won a BCS bowl (the 2005 Fiesta Bowl).

The idea to present Appalachian State as the two-time national champions they are and to portray the game as a difficult test was laughable, no matter how true it was. Nobody would have bought that, and by the end of the year, a win over the Mountaineers would have barely registered with voters.

But a Michigan loss to the two-time defending Division I-AA champions is unforgivable. If the Wolverines win every game for the rest of the season by a score of 50-3, the most memorable part of their season will still be that first loss.

The great Michigan Wolverines lost to the (not so) lowly Appalachian State Mountaineers.

And the University paid ASU about $400,000 - a fee bigger schools often pay smaller ones to play in games like this - for the right to lose to ASU.

The fans lost a chance to watch their team either roll over an inferior opponent or compete with a legitimate BCS contender.

And the players may have lost the opportunity to play in the National Championship game.

- Contact Daniel Bromwich at dabromwi@umich.edu.