Harbaugh: the good, the bad, and the ugly?
I've stated my opinions as to why RichRod deserves another year. But I would like to know more about Harbaugh. What I really want to know: is he an a**hole?
Obviously, that's a provocative way of putting it. But I believe--media and haters aside--that both Lloyd and RichRod are pretty great people. (In fact, I sometimes wondered whether people hated Lloyd because he WASN'T an a**hole. Obviously, people venerated Bo, and Bo loved his boys, but he was indeed--and often--an a**hole, something I happen to know first hand. A lovable one, but often an irascible person and quite hard to work with.)
I know that Harbaugh brings the bloodline; I know that that and winning are what most people care about. I'm not asking people to gossip about Harbaugh so much as--those who know more than I--to sift through some of the crap that's out there and point us toward the truth--links, personal anecdotes, whatever. Because the stories of toilets, womanizing, screaming fits, ratting out our academics--to me--don't go down too well.
Maybe a lot of that is lies, or overblown. A lot of people think RichRod is some kind of ogre, while I've come to believe he's a good guy who really cares about the kids. (In fact, in some ways I've long thought he was almost the quintessential Michigan guy--good person, great football mind, and I believe a lot of people could be saying that a year from now.) What's really up with Harbaugh--anybody know?
November 29th, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^
We're still talking about a guy with a .416 winning percentage (.250 in Big Ten play). No one who wins at that pace, at this school, is going to be safe.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:24 PM ^
Named Bill Parcells always says:
"You are what your record says you are."
Not sure he knows much about football though.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:38 PM ^
didn't do much without belichick. just sayin'.
November 29th, 2010 at 11:04 PM ^
Who's record says he was 36-44 at Cleveland. Just sayin'.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:28 PM ^
This whole Harbaugh thing has been blown up. He never disrespected the program at all. What he said was true: Stanford does have more difficult standards for player qualification. This was not a knock on Michigan at all. Mike Hart blew the statement completely out of proportion. If you're gunna knock the guy, don't base it off him not being loyal, or for disrespecting the program, becuase he did nothing of that sort.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^
the kind of thing I was looking for.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^
November 29th, 2010 at 7:51 PM ^
... but the way he did it was by criticizing Michigan's academics and doing it shortly after Bo died -- I don't think you can say he didn't disrespect the program.
I'm honestly undecided whether Harbaugh or Rodriguez would be better for the future, but those comments still irk me just a bit.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:27 PM ^
Maybe he was just being honest, and maybe it suggests that he would hold the program to higher standards. Problem?
November 29th, 2010 at 9:09 PM ^
I don't have a problem with him holding the program to higher standards. But, does he have to air it out in public. Does he have to embarass the AD? The AD is part of the University. Do it behind closed doors, he certainly has the connections to facilitate change.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:20 PM ^
What Harbaugh said about Michigan is not verifiably untrue. It is also a practice that regularly occurs at most other big time football schools.
It is fair to say that JH probably didn't need to specifically cite Michigan and make these statements in public. However, I don't think his statements indicate any particular hatred for Michigan on his part.
I am aware of Hart's follow up comments, but I am not sure if JH has publicly responded to those. If he has made a strong response to Hart's comments that may be a decent indicator of Harbaugh's recent/current feelings toward Michigan.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:24 PM ^
You are right, I don't think it indicated hatred. Hasn't he been on record that he loves Michigan and Bo was like a second father. Why would you hurt or embarass the ones you love in public and not clarify or apologize.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:15 PM ^
with most of what he said, but it when he mentioned [paraphrasing here] that the same people that heap all the adulation on football players won't hire them when they graduate, it struck me as petty, unsubstantiated, and dickish. The rest of it wasn't anything I didn't already know.
I wish both Mike Hart and Jim Harbaugh had kept their thoughts to themselves in front of the media over the years, but I'm not going to hang either of them. I still like them both. Probably no coincedence they were both so successful at Michigan. Two of the programs biggest and more firey competitors, neither going to back down from anything.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:28 PM ^
Obviously, each individual has a different perspective on this issue, but for me....I don't give a tiny rat's a** about the personal pecadillos of UM's head coach so long as he is able to keep them out of the public eye.
If Harbaugh (or Rodriguez) likes to dress up in women's underwear, slather himself in baby oil and prance around his house while rocking out to Kenny G that is entirely his affair...so long as he wins football games and runs a clean program.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:09 PM ^
You don't care what the coach does, so long as it's out of the public eye?
What if he does your mom?
November 29th, 2010 at 9:13 PM ^
Of course, my parents are divorced...so there's that.
November 29th, 2010 at 11:11 PM ^
I think it'd be awesome if my Mom were banging the head coach at Michigan. It'd be a hell of a lot easier getting tickets.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:28 PM ^
everyone says he said things about our academics but no one really points out what exactly what was said...does anybody know?
November 29th, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^
He basically said that Bo and Staff directed him to take an easier academic program/major than he wanted to and that this sort of thing would never happen at Stanford where academics are for serious.
He didn't just say "Stanford has better academics" but rather took what many perceived as a shot at a beloved coach who no longer was around to defend himself.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:53 PM ^
no link? I'm just guessing 3/4 of the people who say "he talked bad about our academics" don't know anything about what was said.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:56 PM ^
http://genuinelysarcastic.blogspot.com/2010/11/attention-to-detail.html
Interesting read. Harbaugh talk is in the 2nd half of the article.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:05 PM ^
This quote of Harbaugh's is very mature and by itself makes him appealing as the Michigan coach:
"Most avid college football fans, unfortunately, just think about how exciting it is to watch college players play and not think about what happens when the football comes to a screeching halt. They need to get a degree - a quality degree - and develop a skill set that helps you for the next 60-70 years."
I'd like to see him come and win, and as time goes along, win with better and better students. That's what all of us should want.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:14 PM ^
Hey Thanks a lot! I think if most michigan fans actually read what was said they would actually support him more. The thinking process of "we are michigan and nobody can talk shit about us" hasn't really been helping.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:39 PM ^
summary of the RR and JH situation I have read. After reading it, I do not know how Brandon can do anything but to fire RR and hire JH if he is available.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:54 PM ^
Wow, interesting indeed. Before reading that I was squarely in the "it would be crazy to fire RR" camp, but now I'm wondering. This was the first time I've seen someone say RR had turnover problems before UM...I'd like to see the evidence to back that up. It's tough to prove whether our turnover issues are due to young/inexperienced players all over the field vs. institutional lack of attention to detail as the writer suggests. If it's the former we need to keep RR, if the latter I guess Jim is the man. Tough decision for Mr. Brandon.
November 29th, 2010 at 11:20 PM ^
Wow!
That article is thorough and well-argued. It completely swayed me from the "keep RR" camp.
November 30th, 2010 at 12:01 AM ^
Tomcat originally asked in this sub-thread, "Everyone says he said things about our academics but no one really points out what exactly what was said...does anybody know?"
This is what he said:
"Michigan is a good school and I got a good education there, but the athletic department has ways to get borderline guys in, and when they're in, they steer them to courses in sports communications. They're adulated when they're playing, but when they get out, the people who adulated them won't hire them."
To me, that's a swipe at Michigan. I don't know why he did it. It probably shouldn't disqualify him from coaching at Michigan. But, to me, he intended to harm the reputation of Michigan. I don't know why. His only defense is that he was being honest. I don't think that helps.
The fact is, if he's the next coach, I'm going to support him.
(Here's the link: http://thewizardofodds.blogspot.com/2007/08/they-arent-about-to-forget-jim-harbaugh.html)
November 29th, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^
Searched for "Jim Harbaugh comments on Michigan academics" and this came up first. I searched no further.
http://thosewhostaywillbechampions.blogspot.com/2007/05/jim-harbaughs-c…
Harbaugh claimed he was directed into an easier academic program by a coaching staff that wanted him to focus on football, despite the fact that plenty of guys on his team were excelling academically as well as athletically. It was a bullshit move to prop up Stanford and a (quite possibly/likely untrue) cheap shot at Bo.
November 29th, 2010 at 11:32 PM ^
I was there during the Harbaugh era and not for a minute do I doubt the veracity of what he said. It was well known, back then at least, that the min ACT score to get into Michigan was 15, and that athletes were the only members of the student body who could score that low and get in. It was also common knowledge that there were "football majors" which were not particularly, um, challenging.
<br>
<br>So I don't quibble with the accuracy of what JH said, however I do wonder what he hoped to gain by saying it out loud. Seems like a very impulsive decision on his part.
December 1st, 2010 at 2:28 AM ^
Go back on the board and this has been debated 1,000 times.
Guess what? There are 'football majors' at Stanford also, a friend of mine played at Penn and he was in the same major as about 75% of the other players and it was not the most rigorous one offered, to say the least. Notre Dame? Has 'football majors'. Take a look at the majors of a very good portion of the athletes starting on any major revenue generating sports team....anywhere. Find me a school that doesn't have them...
D1 Football is like having a very involved, full-time job while you are in school, very few players can handle the load of both playing on the team and carrying the load a highly rigorous curriculum. Take whatever you majored in in school and then subtract about 30-40 usable hours out of your week and ask yourself if you would have done as well, or had any fun in college whatsoever.
Furthermore.... I DID go to Michigan around the time of Harbaugh, John Kolesar was a pledge brother of mine, so I was was well aware of the demands on a player's time outside of just practice and film watching. The players I knew then, had they signed up for the more intensive majors would have had no life outside of football and school.
If Harbaugh was SUCH a bad-ass, I think he certainly would have been capable of standing up for himself and sticking with a History major if he really felt that adamant about it. He doesn't strike me as someone who takes being forced into things very easily.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:34 PM ^
I hope I didn't give the impression that I didn't think you were an alum, I was just trying to get the era right. Huh, cool that you knew Kolesar, he had so many great moments for Michigan.
<br>
<br>Good points made here, I had a friend on the team (who was a pre-med) who said the same things you mention about it being all-consuming to be a player. And no, I can't imagine handling my major plus 40 hours/week in workouts, meetings, film sessions, etc.
<br>
<br>But nothing you've said seems to indicate that you doubt what Harbaugh said either, but are rather giving a rationale as to why it might not be such a bad thing.
December 1st, 2010 at 1:59 AM ^
At least on this here blog.
Everything about Harbaugh's comments were debated, dissected, analyzed and argued about here for a week after he made them.
Anyone who has been on the blog for any length of time would be more than familiar with what he said. Newbies, perhaps not.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^
He basically said that Stanford is a more impressive program than Michigan because they don't have two separate admissions standards: one for students, and one for football players. Some people took it to mean that he was simply stating the facts, some people took it to mean he thinks every program but Stanford is sleazy. He has a reputation from his days in Ann Arbor, supposedly he's not nice to women, he's been caught drunk driving, and he said those things about Michigan. He's not nearly as PR-friendly as the Rodriguez family.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:43 PM ^
I'm from Ann Arbor, and more or less his vintage, but never knew much about him. My brother (who still lives in A2) has said some of those things and for me they do make him less appealing as a candidate. That doesn't mean he hasn't grown up or wouldn't succeed, but you want to know the facts.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^
i spoke with him once outside of ricks, albeit very briefly. he was on the bears at the time during the strike. he came of as a bit of an a-hole.
that said, i want my coach to be a bit of an a-hole, except i want that on the field and during practice. i think RR is probably that way.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:31 PM ^
Since we're telling Harbaugh stories...
I was reffing an intramural basketball game in which Harbaugh's team was playing. His team was mostly offensive linemen and tight ends. One of the tight ends crushed some other kid into the wall, and the tight end laughed and taunted the guy as he laid on the ground.
Harbaugh went over, helped the kid up, made sure he was okay, and then laid into the tight end, who was a senior (Harbaugh was a freshman). I gained a ton of respect for him.
My point - these stories will fly all over the place over the next month...I'm guessing Brandon won't pick him based on anecdotal stories that are hearsay and rumor...
November 29th, 2010 at 8:53 PM ^
appreciate it. . .
November 29th, 2010 at 8:52 PM ^
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I don't think Jim Harbaugh recruits Demar Dorsey.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:31 PM ^
Well, I agre with you if we're taking Jim Harbaugh, coach of Stanford. I don't know what Jim Harbaugh, coach of Michigan would do. He'd probably do anything he could within the NCAA rules and university admissions standards to be as competitive as possible. Isn't that what you'd want him to do? I don't think Stanford recruiting academically-motivated players is because of Harbaugh so much as it is because of Stanford. They have a deep football tradition, but not one of winning. We don't require our coach to follow those same guidelines because winning is more important to us than fielding 4.0 students. Ideally, we could do both. Harbaugh has accomplished something similar at Stanford but I'm not sure it's possible year-in year-out. I'd like him to stay there so we can find out. Also, I like RR. Sorry for the long response, I'm stoned.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:59 PM ^
no disrespect to san diego, but i would like to see all of the rhodes scholars harbaugh saw through his football program while there.
December 1st, 2010 at 2:01 AM ^
what if everyone Harbaugh spoke to at Dorsey's school indicated that he was eligible to pass the NCAA clearinghouse and that he was a good kid in general, only to have Jim find out later that he perhaps is only eligible by the letter of the clearinghouse rules and that perhaps the academic standing that was being related to him doesn't actually stand up to the scrutiny of an admissions board.
That happens to any and every coach...everywhere. They go in a talk to the high school coach who of course is going to paint a rosy picture of a kid's character and his academic standing, and at first glance everything might seem to be in order, so the college coaching staff makes the offer, only to find out later that perhaps they didn't get the full story.
I think certainly think JH would take a shot on him given his athletic talents. He would be crazy not to based on the same information RR at the time the offer was made.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:29 PM ^
This will not end well.
Public speculation on a college coach's personality is, to say the least, a difficult thing to ascertain.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:31 PM ^
if there's real debunking to do. Obviously if he is gonna get hired I would like to believe in the guy.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:31 PM ^
What exactly makes people think Jim Harbaugh is a great hire? Is it all the PAC Ten titles he's won (0)? Is it all the BCS bowl games he's won (0)? Is it all the NFL draft picks he's sent along?
The only thing I can see that makes Harbaugh such a popular call is the fact that he is a "true Michigan man" which is one of the silliest things I have heard, a term that only joined the popular lexicon after Michigan began its inexorable slide into mediocrity. Its like the waning days of a nation, wishing for the days that once were for a common identity that will restore former glory. I would dive into my Indian nationalist history now, but I will avoid that analogy.
The thing is, Harbaugh could be a great coach but if the reason people want to hire him is because he went to UM then I find this a pretty sad rationale. There are a dozen coaches out there with as good or better coaching resumes that aren't getting traction because they aren't from the Schembechler tree. Was Schembechler from the Bump Elliott tree or even the Bennie Oosterbaan tree? No, and it shouldn't matter.
Look, if Michigan hires Harbaugh any shot at 9 or 10 wins goes out the window and the team goes through a reboot 2007 style. If Harbaugh doesn't work a miracle, Michigan starts to become Notre Dame. Michigan won't win simply by having a "Michigan Man" in charge- they will win when their team is deep, experienced, and, frankly, talented. They aren't right now, but they are getting there. They won't get there any faster with Harbaugh now than with Rich Rod for another year. In fact, it will take a heck of a lot longer if M has to go through yet another coaching change.
(Look Ma, my first rant!)
November 29th, 2010 at 7:34 PM ^
He also took a terrible Stanford team to #4 in the BCS after only four years...
November 29th, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^
I am more thinking about what separates Harbaugh 2010 from Rich Rod 2007 from a pure coaching success standpoint on that one.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:03 PM ^
RR wasn't a bad candidate three years ago. The fact that he's been a disappointment here doesn't mean that it was a terrible decision to hire him. It just didn't work out.
But if you really want to know the difference, I'd say this: this is a big, physical conference, and that's exactly the way JH likes his teams. RR's calling card is to win with smallish, quick guys. This has not worked well against the conference elite - especially on defense.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:11 PM ^
Rich Rod also coached in the Big East. Big East coaches don't don't have success at big time programs (look at what Kely's done this year at ND surrounded by 4 and 5 stars). We need to play Big Ten football, and that's what Harbaugfh brings. RR's system just doesn't work in the Big Ten
November 29th, 2010 at 8:36 PM ^
November 29th, 2010 at 8:58 PM ^
The #2 rushing and #3 offense in the country. Denard, the Big Ten Offensive POY will go over 4000 yards combined rushing and passing in the bowl game. 700+ yards against Illinois' #12 (at the time) defense. But this system doesn't work in the Big Ten.
/s