Stanford =/= Michigan.
If you can win at Stanford, you can win anywhere. Just my opinion.
Stanford =/= Michigan.
If you can win at Stanford, you can win anywhere. Just my opinion.
That's what I thought about West Virginia too.
West Virginia plays in the Big East, Stanford plays in the Pac 10...
And Michigan plays in the Big 10 and so does Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan State, Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Wisconsin and Iowa. Next year Nebraska is joining the Big 10.
And Notre Dame...um...
The Hell with Notre Dame.
Maybe our beating them will no longer cause the press and coaches from launching us into (or higher in) the top-25 rankings only to later be called overrated when we look underwhelming against a team perceived to be weaker than (albeit in actuality equal to or better than) ND. *phew*
Well I didn't say I was right. I just thought if you could build that program to the type that is within a game of a NC, you could probably do it at Michigan. I do realize the other challenges such as admissions. There were also challenges at WVU, such as it is located in West fucking Virginia.
I have a belly button.
Stanford is one of the few schools in the country with academic requirements more strict than Michigan. West Virginia...not so much.
what he has done there is impressive.
dude what happened to you points? negative 113???
Seeing his success there has to make Notre Dame fans ill. It makes it harder for them to use their high admissions standards as an excuse. (It's an excuse I'm generally inclined to buy, for what it's worth.)
I think tht Stanford generates some national buzz. They're ranked in the Top 10. They played high profile matchups against Oregon and USC. Toby Gearhart was a Heisman Finalist last year. Andrew Luck is the potential # 1 pick in the NFL. Harbaugh gets mentioned for many potential coaching vacancies (college and NFL).
Stanford isn't flying under the radar these days.
That makes what Harbaugh has accomplished all the more impressive.
Stanford is, quite frankly, a dismal place for college football. I live near their campus, and it's one of the most boring campuses I've ever been to. You could be standing 10 yards outside of the stadium and not realize that there's a game going on.
The high admissions standard is a pretty piss poor excuse if you ask me. Air Force routinely does well and I am willing to bet they have higher standards than Notre Dame plus the added fact that an potential NFL candidate will have to wait 4 years after graduating before starting a career. Navy of late has been pretty good with the same standards and the same issue. Army has been well...you know. Granted the service academies get some highly motivated and disciplined folks but still on a pound for pound basis they aren't going to hang with the big boys but they do.
My wife's cousin played at the AFA (really bright kid) and was a starter at corner. Right after graduation he was sent to his new home on a base in England.
Unfortunately, his elgibilitiy is expired... I KEEEEED, I KEEEED!
You raise a valid point, but Air Force, Army, and Navy don't play in the Big Ten or Pac 10, or a schedule on par with ND's year-in, year-out. But you're right: when those teams play ND, they are very impressive. And, generally, they DO do a ton for the level of physical talent I presume their athletes possess.
I don't follow Air Force or Army (because I hate them...) but I do follow Navy and I will agree with you that Navy's schedule isn't as tough as Notre Dames but they do play a pretty tough schedule in their own right and they can hang with many of the top shelf feams. Just look at last year when Navy damn near pulled an upset against the evil ones. But my point is that just because you hold your football team to the same standards as everyone else, you can't hang with the elite. Granted, you may not have the raw talent but I'm willing to bet that you can field a more disciplined team. Navy doesn't generally beat itself.
had some very good seasons at WVU (including 11-1 in '93 or '94), he just fell off towards the end of his career. He was 149-93-4 in 20 years. Not great, but certainly better than any 20 year period of Stanford football. That gave Rodriguez a very solid footing for starting his program there in 2001.
the fact that to average a 71% win rate over a 20 year career, RRod will have to average 9 win seasons (including bowl games) for the next 17 years.
And to get to 77% it would have to be 12 win seasons.
The Pac-10 is stronger now than it was back then. Harbaugh is also recruiting unbelievably well, and has pulled in top 20 classes at a place that's ridiculously difficult to recruit to. Willingham was always a pretty horrible recruiter.
Considering Willingham was fired less than 2 years ago, you're saying that the Pac-10 is better than it was 2 years ago. That wasn't that long ago.
Willingham wasn't a terrible recruiter. In his last recruiting class (class of 2008), he pulled in the 14th ranked class in the nation, which is terrific for Washington considering they hadn't had a winning season since 2002.
His problems were that he was a terrible game coach, he ostracized a lot of his players, he was terrible interacting with boosters and fundraising, he was terrible with the media (he was quite condescending), and he spent way too much time on the golf course instead of in the film room.
The relevant Willingham era is Stanford 1995-2001, when he went 44-36-1. Nobody but you is talking about Willingham at Washington.
As erik_t points out, Willingham coached Stanford before he was hired at Notre Dame. His 1999 team made the Rose Bowl. I took the mention of Tyrone Willingham as referring to this period, not his post-ND tenure at Washington.
The reference to Tyrone Willingham impllies that Jim Harbaugh's success at Stanford is analogous to Tyrone Willingham's apparent success there and is therefore not indicative of Harbaugh's coaching acumen or his potential to turn around Michigan. That's a faulty analogy, since Tyrone Willingham's 1999 Stanford team was the strongest team in a historically bad year for the Pac-10. Stanford played 3 teams that finished the season with a winning record that year and only beat one of them. They also lost to a 3-7 San Jose State team. Willingham coached Stanford before the re-emergence of USC and Oregon as national powers.
While 'horrible' was perhaps an overstatement, Willingham wasn't anywhere near as good a recruiter as Harbaugh is. Willingham never managed to pull in a top 10 class at Notre Dame. This year, Harbaugh's recruiting class at Stanford is ranked #8. While that ranking probably won't hold through signing day, a place like Stanford has no business pulling in top 20 recruiting classes, not just because of its academics, but because it's a dismal place to play college football. They don't have much tradition, their facilities are sub-par, and their campus is boring. Considering those factors, the fact that Harbaugh has Stanford on the cusp of college football's elite is impressive. The guy can flat-out coach.
(of course, I don't mean to imply that I think Rich Rod should be fired, just that if we should find ourselves in the market for a coach anytime soon, Harbaugh would be the ideal candidate)
Fair enough, you're right, the Pac-10 has changed dramatically since his Stanford tenure. I agree with you on all accounts of your post. I was just remembering his UW days quite extensively, because I lived in Seattle and followed the program closely. As bad as he was at ND, he was even worst at Washington.
Stanford is the new ND with Harbaugh.
Also why were at it, can we stop looking at the Pac 10 as if it is so much better then the Big East. If im right, they have three consistents in that division and rest are pretty much a little over basura. USC, Oregon, Oregon St solid teams but lets not make it sound like its the SEC.
Have you watched much Pac-10 football? They're at least the second best conference (you could argue that they are tied with the Big-10 but a lot of people think they're better) this year. In fact in the Sagarin rankings, the Pac-10 is the No. 1 rated conference.
So who are you comparing the Pac-10 to? You start with the Big East and than end with the SEC.
The PAC-10 is far more competitive than the Big East. When UConn is predicted to win the Big East in the preseason, you're not playing in a strong conference. You couldn't reasonably say that the best team in the Big East would beat the best team in the PAC-10.
No one is saying the PAC-10 is the SEC. But to not acknowledge that the PAC-10 is pretty deep and provide serious competition to any team they play is disrespectful to the conference.
If you can win at Stanford, you can win anywhere. Just my opinion.
-Notre Dame athletic director, December 31st, 2001
-University of Washington athletic director, December 13th, 2004
Ok, I don't know my history and briefly tried looking up what this referenced. Can someone enlighten me?
EDIT: nevermind, I figured it out. A little slow over here.
Ty Willingham disagrees.
Ty WIllingham strongly disagrees.
Rose Bowls for Stanford = / = success at The Second Most Winningest Program in History
Ty Willingham can't even win a college football argument anymore.
See my post above. Willingham cached Stanford during one of the lowest points in the Pac-10's history. The Pac-10 of the mid-to-late 90's was like the Big East or the ACC today (worse, actually). There's no comparison.
Stanford =/= Michigan.
If you can win at Stanford, you can win anywhere. Just my opinion.
THANK you. Agreed.
Wouldn't Stanford be easier to win at than Washington? You know, since Willingham coached at both schools.
I can appreciate the Ty Willingham evidence. The crucial word here is "can".
But, let's be honest, for all this Willingham talk, is someone implying that Harbaugh has not shown himself to be a better coach than Ty Willingham? Or is everyone using TW to utilize an availability heuristic argument.
still sucks because of TW..../s
Because Tyrone Willingham won everywhere else right?
ND fans would like to have a word with you(as would Washington fans)
The last two seasons have seen USC crumble as a power-house, weak Cal and Oregon State teams, Arizona as the second-strongest team in the conference, and the other four pitiful teams. Yes, Stanford beat Oregon at home last year, but they lost by 21 in Eugene this year. Their big wins this year? USC by two points (37-35) and #15 Arizona yesterday 42-17 (who, granted, beat Iowa by a TD at home in September).
All this is to say that winning in the Pac-10 these past two years isn't like winning in the Pac-10 from 2000-2008. I dare say it's more like winning in the Big East during that time.
Becaueeg 8-5 in his third year at Stanford is the exact same thing as being 8-5 in RR's third year at Michigan
I bet Stanford 2007 would have beaten Michigan 2008....suck on that
I can't even play devil's advocate. They had a senior QB his first year and his starting secondary last year was sophomore, sophomore, junior, senior. Oh, and Scott Shafer was DC the for them in 2007 before he came here.
I think the point is that expecting Harbaugh to come in here and sprinkle his magic Harbaugh pixie dust and for all the issues which have plagued MIchigan for the past few seasons (including Lloyd's last few) to simply go away is extremely naive.
To think that anyone who makes a serious case for Harbaugh actually thinks these things is also extremely naive.
I don't see why I am naive because i think (mostly hope) that Harbaugh will be our next head coach. He has said that it is his dream job on more than one occasion; i mean the kid grew up on the Michigan practice field. I know it will be a tough transition back into a pro-style offense but I think he will be able to whip the defense into shape a lot quicker than people think. Not to say that they will be dominant by any means but our defenses under Rich Rod have been laughable at best. There were a lot of playmakers on the 2008 team, but they still played terribly as a unit. That is a coaching problem.
I dont think you understood how my statement related to the statement I replied to. I agree with all of your sentiments. But I think that any arguments for Harbaugh have to recognize that the transition will be difficult. We can't deny that, and, as you stated, no one thinking clearly does deny that. RR supporters make up fantasy arguments for our side (e.g., we think the transition will be absolutely easy) that they then argue against - which is what the poster I responded to did. However, I agree with you that the transition would be not anywhere near as difficult as the one we have been a party to, and that they outcome will be a vastly better product.
First of all, I did not make up a fantasy argument and then argue against it. I said if you expect Harbaugh to come in here and everything to suddenly change you are naive. If you don't think that, then fine. Before you put words in my mouth please re-read what I wrote.
That being said, would be curious about your logic on this one:
"However, I agree with you that the transition would be not anywhere near as difficult as the one we have been a party to, and that they outcome will be a vastly better product."
Why? What are you relying on to say that the transition will be easier? What are you relying on to say that the product will be "vastly better"?
Because Harbaugh will sprinkle magic pixie du--
Also Harbaugh not HICK he MICHIGAN MAN played for BO understands the RIVLArY.
Also, also, w/r/t the logic you're looking for, there is no logic. People who want Harbaugh hope he would be better and have faith he will be better. People who want to stick with RichRod hope he will be better and have faith he will be better. Although both sides have hope and faith, only one side can point to results on the field at Michigan.
Which is what makes this so thorny--RichRod has produced mind-boggling offensive results on the field, particularly in a tempo-free sense, and particularly given the number of returning starters on offense we will have next year. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the defensive product has sucked about as much as it is possible to suck. Regression to the mean suggests that the D will better next year, but there is no evidence right now that it will be.
So for me it comes down to whether you put your hope and faith in RichRod or in Harbaugh. I choose the former, but I can certainly understand the latter position.
I said this when they hired Rich Rod and I'll say it again. I hope that whoever ends up coaching the team next year doesn't try to shoehorn the offense into his scheme but rather shoehorns his scheme to fit the players he's got. Rich Rod didn't do it in his first couple years and look at the results. Now that he pretty much has the players that fit his system it is reaping divedends on the offensive side of the ball.
So if the next coach is Harbaugh or whatever, I hope that he is smart enough to recognize that his system may not come immediately.
The funny thing is I actually like Harbaugh. If at some point he's the UM Football Coach he will get my full support (even if I was not pleased about things he said previously and think that there are some issues with him coming in as a knight in shining armor to "fix" them... but that's off topic). And I think he'd succeeed here.
But here's my problem: Michigan's offense is good, not great. It is young and has the potential to be great. Michigan's defense is atrocious, not bad.
A head coaching change is going to take the offense from good to average the next few years and maybe the defense from atrocious to bad or below average. And honestly, I think that's being generous with the defense.
This is not something that is going to get fixed overnight (I don't think a new defensive coordinator is going to magically solve the issue next year either), it will take a few years. But next year with a more experience QB (and offense) and some defensive improvement (and experience) you can go from losing a few games to winning a few more games.
Bring in a new HC now and you don't have that. You have an offense that is not nearly as close to covering for the defense.
The issue is the defense. And it will be.
Ok, I will use your same mode of argument to illustrate how ridiculous yours is. I said "To think that anyone who makes a serious case for Harbaugh actually thinks these things is also extremely naive." If you didn't think anyone actually makes a serious case that the transition will be easy, then fine, then you are not being naive. But if you do not think that anyone actually is naive in making that argument, then your post is nonsensical, referring to nothing. Obviously you think folks make that argument. I said that they do not, if making a serious case for Harbaugh. I am not sure why you cannot comprehend that line of argument.
As for the transition being easier, of course we cannot know for sure, but many think that the transition from a spread to a more pro-style is easier. Hiring a coach who can bridge the differences between the two offenses will make for an easier transition than the one RR implemented. And the simple fact of learning, especially here in the UM institution, from mistakes in transitioning will also make it easier.
So let me get this straight:
The transition will be difficult. Any Harbaugh supporter who doesn't acknowledge this is naive.
But the transition will be easier because Spread=>Pro Style, Habraugh "can bridge the differences" (?), we've had a transition before.
Yeah.... about our defense....
It's easier to transition to a pro-style offense using players recruited to run the spread than vice versa.
I agree that a coaching change won't magically cure everything overnight. But if it turns out at the end of the season that a coaching change is in the long term best interests of the program, then there's no one better than Harbaugh.
Speaking as a fan of Eastern Michigan (yes yes, they have fans...), they ran the spread offense forever and Mr. English is trying to transition them to the pro offense. They seem to run it fairly well but then again offense has never really been their problem.
What's different about hiring a new DC and position coaches with or without hiring a new HC that allows the defense to get into better shape faster? I mean, if you think that Stanford's DC is going to get us to be a top defense, why don't we just try to hire him away from Stanford? If you think that Harbaugh would bring in a different DC, why not just hire a new DC?
BTW, the terrible plays were made by the secondary. Scott Shafer was in charge of CBs that year. The previous year, he was DC at Stanford under Harbaugh. So, either you think the players had problems, or you think that Harbaugh makes just as bad choices about coaches as RR does.
I think hiring a new DC is a move of desperation, more so than moving on to a new head coach. I know that seems counterintuitive, prima facie preposterous, but I think hiring a new DC is more a move to save this head coach and his potent offense than a move to save the program itself. We would be hiring our 3rd DC in 4 years. That itself speaks to institutional-level mismanagement. Couple that to all the other issues, and we see that the transition has been mismanaged terribly. I do not think this is all RR's fault, rather I think the fault lies between RR and the Michigan institutions, culture, establishment. The relationships have been mismanaged, perhaps on both sides, but most saliently, most obviously to us, on RR's side. An example is perhaps the most obvious answer to the Shafer question - that he was mismanaged here at UM, not at Stanford or at Syracuse. Hiring a new DC and staff would be a band aid for much broader, much more systemic problems. It is a band aid for the surface-level manifestations, but the more systemic, underlying issues will still be there.
But we can move from the issues with the transition to the more stable years to come under RR, thinking in terms of how the transition impacts years to come. We know that in most organizations and institutions, transitions set the stage for subsequent performance due to positive feedback cycles (think recruiting as the most obvious feedback cycle). There is a reason that if you look to successful transitions at other programs, none look like what we have seen here at UM. There is a reason that if you look at unsuccessful transitions at other programs, they do look like what we have seen here at UM, or actually they do not look as bad.
We would be hiring our 3rd DC in 4 years.
We'll be doing that either way.
An example is perhaps the most obvious answer to the Shafer question - that he was mismanaged here at UM, not at Stanford or at Syracuse.
Maybe he was mismanaged because we didn't get immediate results for RR and someone's head had to roll. What's to say that wouldn't happen when Harbaugh comes in and we get 5-6 wins his first year?
There is a reason that if you look to successful transitions at other programs, none look like what we have seen here at UM.
Hypothetical. Let's say that Harbaugh came to coach for us in 2008 and he brought Scott Shafer with him. How would anything have played out any differently? The only thing that I see is that Threet is our starting QB this year instead of Denard. Scott Shafer inherits the same defense and likely gets fired. There is no way that that team gets 6 wins in 2008.
To be fair, Mallett probably would have stayed had Harbaugh became Michigan's coach in 2008. Or maybe not, since Harbaugh had no definitive HC record at that point... at least not one to get any 5-star QB excited.
Why can't people fucking understand this.
Order of events:
Mallett comes to Michigan
Hes a douche his teammates hate him Lloyd throws transfer papers at him
Mitch mustain transfers to USC from Arkansas (his #2 school).
It's cold in Michigan he doesn't like cold and is homesick
New head coach gets hired.
He was gone no matter who was the coach. Period end of story.
Your argument is just as bad as those who say he definitely would have stayed. The only thing we can be certain of is that we cannot be certain. Your argument using your timeline is mostly teleological, and, thus, less than convincing.
Nothing can be said with 100% certainty, but I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that Mallet was likely gone whoever was coming in. Maybe Harbaugh comes in and talks him out of it. Who knows, that'a a giant hypothetical. But i have been told by a few people either on the team at the time and on the staff/assistants that Mallet didn't fit in here. Most of them didn't use as kind of words.
Well, when defending RR, everyone said that Mallett was on his way out no matter what because he was homesick. I think there's a reason he's at Arkansas and not another school.
Okay, that's certainly possible. I don't know all of the particulars about how Mallett felt when Carr was HC. All I knew is he transferred after Rodriguez was hired.
To me, Mallett transferring isn't an indictment on RR, anyway. Clearly, both are better in the systems they're comfortable with.
Harbaugh was able to get Luck, the top pro style QB in the country excited to play for him.....
Saying we'd still be hiring the 3rd DC in 4 years a bit of sophistry. Yes we would, but to leave a new head coach out of that equation is ignoring the fact of the interrelationship between the HC and the DC. Which is a big issue here now. Its easy to pretend things exist in isolation, but its only pretend - the DC doesn't exist in isolation of the HC, and the HC doesn't exist in isolation of the DC. Yes, we would change DCs no matter what, but the change is nothing, nowhere near the same thing as just changing the DC. We can not know what the difference would be given we have no idea how it would play out, but we can be certain the two are not the same.
The argument that Harbaugh might also be mismanaged is logical, but I would hope that parties on both sides learned something about managing transitions. My argument is based on a simple fact that people learn, but that is an assumption in this case. I can only hope.
As for the hypothetical, Harbaugh and Shafer would have had 2 years together. I dont see his getting fired as very likely - you have to take out the interference with his defense he saw from RR, and add in the working relationships Shafer and Harbaugh developed, and would continue to develop. We have to just agree to disagree - I think it is very likely that Harbaugh gets at least 6 wins in that scenario.
Hire the 3rd DC in 4 years
Hire the 3rd HC in 5 years which comes with the 3rd DC in 4 years and a completely new staff across the board.
No need to fix what ain't broke.
So who hires the DC? The same guy who screwed up the first two DC hires?
And why do you assume that a new HC would fire every one of RR's assistants? Just because RR did that when he came here doesn't mean that every other coach would. In fact, I'd hope that the disastrous experience we've gone through might prompt the next coach, if there is one, to retain RR's offensive guys.
I blame Martin -- where's my pitchfork?
There are many reasons the transition has been less than ideal. One of them, however, has to laid at the feet of our former AD. Based on some accounts, including RR's interview with Album (one of the few freep pieces I've read in the past year), it appears little was done after the RR hire to bring him up to speed on Michigan's culture, traditions, etc., which inevitably caused some of the bumps along the way. I'm not saying that all our tales of woe in the past three years can be traced back to Martin, but given what a high profile hire it was, you'd think the department would have done everything and more to make sure the transition went smoothly. I know, coulda shoulda woulda.
go back and take a look at the stats...it took Harbaugh until this year (3 full years) before he put together an even "competent" defense. RR has beaten his defense every year until this year on most statistics.
We all know Jim harbaugh makes defenses amazing just by arriving on campus. Look what he did with Stanford. Everyone says his defenses are really good because he likes smashmouth football and I will believe them without looking at any data. Wait, what?
We need to teach RichRod how to use it.
That's a valuable idea in the Midwest. Look at how much mileage Dantonio has gotten out of it. His little BSDM partner Drew Sharp truly believes that Dantonio's defense wants to HIT YOU IN THE MOUTH.
Rich Rod = offensive super genius
Harbaugh = defensive super genius
I vote Harbaugh for new DC!
...only in a fantasy world
...does a huge number of people around here insist there were program damaging issues in Lloyd's last few years? The man AVERAGED 10 wins in his last two seasons (I would hate to have that kind of program) and left future NFL players such as Mallett, Manningham, Boren, Brown, Graham, Mesko, Trent for the next guy. Not to mention excellent college players like Arrington, Taylor, Warren, etc.
RR created the mess he's in by running good players out of town and scrambling to replace them instead of focus on true needs. This catastrophe did not need to happen. Smart football coaches like Urban Meyer don't run first round draft picks out of town just because they aren't identical to their last QBs. The great ones adapt and win. Like going with Chris Leak and playing a passing spread, even with a Heisman Trophy winning QB perfect for his system sitting on the bench learning the offense. Transitions do not have to be this difficult. What would have been wrong with playing a Kelly-style passing spread for three years with a red-shirt sophomore Denard winning a Heisman in 2011, a la Tebow?
Because there were?
Recruiting had declined Rodriguez was not the only one with player retention issues. There were issues recruiting the defensive side of the ball.
I'm a bit blown away by people looking back on the later Carr years like they were this amazing time. People were calling for his head after 2005. Take a look at the start of 2007 and you could see MIchigan was having issues. Defensive issues even, which would become more apparent in the future years.
You can choose to believe Mallet was going to stay at Michigan and that RichRod "ran him off" you want. I don't believe that's the case from everything I've been told.
Frankly, Carr was a solid coach but not without his flaws. I think its a bit of revisionist history to think that there weren't issues in the later Carr years, especially in recruiting.
Here's the problem with just looking at national rankings: you don't get the entire picture.
If you want to assert that Carr didn't have recruiting issues in the later part you can't simply do that by looking at national rankings.
Take a look at the classes:
2005 and 2006 are notable because the QBs who came in are Jason Forcier and David Cone. You need to get a contributing QB in one of these classes.
Of course, 2005 and 2006 are notable for their lack of LB recruitment/retention.
2005 and 2006 are also notable for a significant number of departures.
2007 has been gone over a lot, but, there's a few things you notice:
I tried to do this quickly, so I'm sure I missed some. Carr can't be blamed for guys like Zirbel, Bass, etc. suffering injuries, but you do have to recruit to set yourself up in case something like that does happen. You need a backup plan.
Again, I don't think Carr was awful in recruiting, but I think there were serious holes in his last few years recruiting (I don't think I'm the only one).
And yes, it's no appropriate here, but there have been MAJOR gaffes in RichRod's recruiting as well. Just wasn't really the topic of discussion.
Wait, it's revisionist history to suggest that the program was in decent shape in December 2007? Literally no one would have predicted then that the next three years would be as disastrous as they've been. The general consensus was that 2008 would be a rebuilding year (by traditional Michigan standards) and then we'd be fine.
I have a hard time faulting Carr given that 1) he coached here for many recruiting cycles and never had a serious downturn and 2) his entire staff (save Jackson) was shown the door when RR arrived. I don't think anyone can plausibly argue that our defensive coaching, in particular, since then has been anywhere near as competent as what we had under Carr.
I remember Lloyd coaching 7 different freshmen and sophomores in the defenisive backfield two deep. I also remember him coaching 4 (maybe 5) walkons on the defensive two deep like RichRod did last year. I know, RichRod ran off all of the amazing defensive talent.
Please stop using logic, reasoning, and facts.
I'm somewhat confused. Are you suggesting that "logic, reasoning, and facts" indicate that the job that Rich Rod has done at Michigan is equivalent to what Harbaugh has done at Stanford? Because while I suppose the records indicate that, I'm not really seeing the "logic" or "reasoning" to support that contention.
I think RR had just as big a challange when you consider what he walked into. Lets be honest, looked what RR inherited when he took over at UM. He completely changed the system from what it was previously and did it with very little talent that fit that system at his disposal. Couple that with the state of the defense and you get those records.
I am not saying what Harbaugh has done isn't impressive, nor am I saying I am particulalry thrilled at the fact that my favorite sports team is where it currently is. I am not saying I think that RR hasn't made a few blunders since he took over either. What I am saying is I don't think Harbaugh had any more difficult a task than RR has had given the circumstances.
This is just my e-pinion and many won't agree, but those are my thoughts on it.
He completely changed the system from what it was previously and did it with very little talent that fit that system at his disposal.
But of course, that was his choice. He did not have to do that. Nor did he have to fire all of Carr's assistants other than Jackson. He basically set out to reconstruct the program from the ground up, when it may not have needed that. In doing so, he probably made his job more difficult than it needed to be.
These stats are incredibly relevant, because when it comes to football programs, Stanford and Michigan are the exact same thing.
Pretty bad when we start comparing Michigan football to Stanford and the fact that some people on this board are ok with the fact that we should lose to Illinois. I mean seriously how bad is it when we do not know if we can beat a Zook coached team for 3 years. My mind will be officially blown if we lose to Purdue. Although a 6-6 record is still terrible after being 5-0.
I expect a lot more no matter how young the players are.
is the term that best describes our collective mindset.
I have been lurking on this blog for three years and never felt the need to post. Stockholm Syndrome hits the nail right on the head. I was using that term last night to describe how I thought the serious RichRod supporters still find strength to come up with such passionate arguments supporting him as HC. I understand both sides of the argument and probably find myself supporting RichRod....unless you can gaurantee me Harbaugh. I can't, however, understand how serious RR supporters can't have SERIOUS doubts at this point. Stockholm Syndrome is the answer!
To expand on this, it seems like in order to believe this coaching staff is doing a good job, you have believe that a whole bunch of people, from the media to Lloyd Carr to our admissions department to some of the players RR himself recruited (who transferred), all have it in for us for whatever reason. Now, I do think that the Free Press has behaved incredibly irresponsibly, and I won't read them. But not everyone else who is less than supportive has an ax to grind.
I expect a lot more no matter how young the players are.
If you expect "a lot more" despite age, I wonder what your reaction would be if Michigan's fourth-year starting senior QB and RB lost to a team like, say... App St.?
Very disappointed and upset with that team also. A lot of talent that was wasted in a 9-4 season which should have been probably 10/11 and 2. Were you ok with that result or something?
I'm simply pointing out your stated expectations of "a lot more no matter how young the players are" may be a little quixotic since Michigan has had embarrassing losses with senior talent before Rodriguez ever came here.
speaking of "hot for harbaugh," i got an email this week from a (female) friend from UM who called harbaugh "super hot... one of the hottest guys on the planet."
i'm not sure why i'm sharing this, but i'm pretty sure that it got lodged in the "this is confusing - return to it later" part of my brain, and maybe someone here can help me with that.
And what does she think about RR?
It's the Silverfox she's hunting.
I don't want to really get into this debate, however, I feel like this must be said. Harbaugh has beaten a ranked USC team multiple times - and once a major upset. He's also taken out a top ten Oregon team and is much better in conference. Not to bash RR but if we're talking purely statistics here even with two more big ten wins he's still got a terrible big ten record and the vast majority of his wins have come over weak OOC opponents. His 1 quality win IMO is the win over Wisconsin 2 years ago.
Harbaugh has also taken a team from bottom to top where as RR has taken us from top to bottom (which may or may not be because of other factors just stating facts here).
The word of the day is PERSONNEL, the team with the better personnel wins and Butch Davis approves this message.
Their "personnel" comes into Iowa city ranked significantly lower than the "personnel" of Ohio State, Michigan State, and Michigan. They will likely beat all three this year. Now, if you're arguing that their personnel is better "at this point", well then that just means their coaches did a better job than ours which blows up your whole argument that talent=wins.
The point is that a coaching change doesn't give you automatic wins, Kelly to ND comes to mind.
The point about Butch was that the most important thing he did for that blue team was hire a recruiting guy( someone to get the best players in the nation ), Right, that worked out well.
I don't think anyone takes inferior players and wins with them, if they did then good coaches wouldn't recruit, they would just pick their players from the students on campus.
That's not to say an inferior player can't become a good player but that takes time.
Coaches make a difference, just not night and day kind of difference.
Rich has no quality wins. Wisconsin was 7-6 that year, 3-5 in the BigTen and lost the Champs Sports Bowl by 29 points.
what is the metric for "Michigan Manliness?"
Stanford won 16 games in the 5 seasons before Harbaugh arrived. Michigan won 46 in the 5 seasons before Rodriguez. That's the difference here.
I'm not clamoring for Rodriguez to be fired and Harbaugh to come in and take his place. But let's not pretend like someone's record at Stanford is analogous to someone's at Michigan. Rodriguez won 48 games in the 5 seasons before leaving West Virginia. How's that working out for him now?
dear lord glad someone finally said it. the single most important factor ignored by the OP.
also worth mentioning (and others here have) - harbaugh is a recruiting MONSTER.
my mind is completely and utterly blown.
exept, you know, before harbaugh came stanford went 1-11 and had a total of 2 winning seasons since 1997.
but other than that. still blown away.
Assuming that Michigan beats Illinois and Purdue and then wins its bowl game, Rich Rod will almost certainly not be fired. Then, if Rodriguez leads Michigan to a 7-1 start next year, as Harbaugh has led Stanford this year, he will almost certanly be around for the 2012 season, as well. Thus, I am not really sure what your point is. The problem lies in the very real possibility that Michigan is looking at 7-6 or worse. If that happens, your point is null
We're going to lose to Illinois unless we have a TOM of +2-+3. Purdue is a toss-up. We no longer have JT Floyd. I'll believe we win a big ten game when I see it.
Tell us what does the future hold!!
to the story where IU got booted from the Big 10?
You realize they still have to play the game right? Crazier things have happened in college football.
Right, this is exactly what I was thinking. If we win 8 games a new coach discussion isn't necessary. Since we probably won't, Harbaugh will have done better in 3 years at Stanford than RR has at UM. No doubt Harbaugh's cupboard was pretty bare as well.
Harbaugh is 1-2 vs. Cal so far.
This year's game?
Like Michigan, Stanford has 4 games to play against some tough opposition: Arizona (7-1), ASU (4-4, ok, not so tough), Oregon State (4-3) and Cal (4-4).
Before we fire that guy over there and hire this guy, let's exercise some patience, heh?
No doubt about it. I bet Stanford wins out, and I'd be shocked if they lose more than one. They're a top 10 team. I'd kill for M to look like Stanford right now.
Even if Harbaugh were to come here, it doesn't solve the problems on defense. Harbaugh doesn't give the players experience with a snap of his fingers.
I think everyone realizes that Stanford != Michigan in football, but the point is that sometimes teams take a couple of years to grow into the personality and strengths of its coaching staff. The defense probably won't improve immensely in the next couple of years, but the offense has definitely made some strides.
And for the record, let's not act like RR took over a juggernaut. Look at the depth chart the past couple of years under Carr, and consider how virtually none of those upperclassmen are playing well right now. The fact that RR came in right when the wheels were beginning to come off the UM wagon shouldn't be discounted - if Carr had stuck around and muddled through some 5-7, 6-6, 7-5, 8-4 seasons, the "rebuilding program" meme wouldn't have been so easy to dismiss initially. I'm not saying that I am supremely satisfied with the performance by RR so far, but it is not as crazy to compare the rebuilding jobs both coaches inherited.
Do you think the upperclassmen you speak of would be playing well? I actually don't know the answer to this and I don't think anyone does. But I think its unfair to Lloyd to just assume b/c RR couldn't get Lloyd's recruits to play well that Lloyd couldn't have also.
Especially when Lloyd had a decade+ long track record of doing so.
I would imagine that if you looked at the track records for most established coaches, they would, on balance, show an ability to get the most out of their upperclassmen - you don't stick around in football if you can't. RR certainly showed an ability to WVU, and so far can point to guys like Brandon Graham, Mike Martin, Zoltan, Stevie Brown, large portions of the offensive line, and Brandon Minor and Carlos Brown (both when healthy) as upperclassmen who play/ed well under RR. Sure, Ezeh and Mouton have not been great, but on the balance RR has done a moderately good job with the upperclassmen he inherited.
I'm not knocking Carr, but player development is a fickle creature and, especially when you look at a small sample size, you might see one coach struggle because of what his predecessor left behind.
that Lloyd wasn't struggling to develop players over his tenure. It is unfair, IMO, to say x or y would have happened if Lloyd was still the coach (whether x or y be positive or negative). RR has been coaching these guys for 3 years, their development in that time is on him for better (Molk, Ommameh, etc.) or worse (Ezeh, Mouton, etc.).
everything you've said, RR's ability to field an above average defense with anybody not named Jeff Casteel is still my biggest question mark.
Harbaugh was able to "use" Shafer correctly. As far as that tune goes, how would Michigan have fared this year with a 68th ranked defense?
and Harbaugh won at the LA Coliseum in both 2007 and 2009. In 2007 his team was a 40 point underdog. Last year the beating was so severe that he had the great Pete Carroll whimpering about it after the game.
Rich has beaten the following quality big ten teams on the road:
Not denying the stats you bring up. However, marginalizing Harbaugh's job performance or even equating him with what Rich has done at Michigan makes the hard core "Rich must stay" crowd look desperate.
Rich's argument is continued improvement from a very rudimentary starting point offensively. That has been impressive overall. Continuity is also a huge part of it. What he lacks is a legit skin or two on the wall in the conference. I am hoping Illinois is like a spike horned trophy and Wisconsin will be the 14 point buck. Leaving no doubt.
In 2007 USC's starting QB was injured. Last year USC went 8-4, so it's not like they were the juggernaut of years past. Oh, and last year Stanford lost to a Wake Forest team that went 5-7 on the year. Maybe that equates this this year's PSU???
What about our win over Wisconsin in the first year? What if we beat Wisconsin again this year?
The whole point isn't that they are completely equal, but that everyone expects that Harbaugh is going to turn things around in a year, when really, the defense is going to take a few years to grow. That's going to happen under any coach.
If you're going to downgrade Stanford's wins against USC for whatever reason, then you'd better do the same for our win over Wisconsin in 2008. They finished that season something like 7-6. They weren't particularly good.
than anyone Richrod. Beating USC at SC with Stanford's then poor talent was an significant achievement no matter who started at QB for SC. Knocking that win us the tactic of a person who does not have the facts to make a good argument.
Comparing a 6-6 Wisconsin team to a 11 win SC team makes your argument look even weaker. Plus, UM won that game @ home.
You may be right about some fans wanting a quick fix, but it also might be true that the fans just want to feel like the guy in charge of the situation is taking this places.
On USC in 07, check my facts but I think they set a record in the 08 and 09 NFL drafts for most players taken from one school over a two year period. One of the years they had 12 guys on defense drafted. They were so deep and good defensively that non-starters were getting drafted.
Last year, wasn't that the USC that beat our conference champion in Columbus with a freshman quarterback.?
It was a very impressive win, both years. Rich has done himself no favors by A. Not really coming close to anything as impressive in conference. B. Not building off of the good wins he has had.
Beat Notre Dame on the road, struggle with an FCS school the next week etc. I hate admitting this, but this year looks exactly like 09 to date. This is on Rich and his w/l accomplishments and this ever extending timetable for the rebuild. At least from me, it is no witch hunt and I doubt from anyone else on this board.
It is about accountability and tangible win/loss results. He still has the opportunity to do enough to stay. I am pulling for him.
Expect to see a'lot of these
It actually looks like he's giving head to Taco Pants.
Speculate all you want. The fact is Jim Harbaugh is not our coach , Rich Rod is. Can we stop all this until and if the reality changes.
...the speculative Harbaugh threads are a collective subconscious attempt at creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quack, Quack, Quack
Likely a lot better than our team would right now.
How do we do against in conference teams not named Indiana...?
um, not really fair dont ya think?
how does everybody do against oregon in 2010, numero uno team in america?
...quack quack quack
what other spread offenses have beat him this year?
Have you seen the teams he has shut out? And Harbaugh has a huge disadvantage recruiting-wise vs the rest of the Pac10, for many recruits dont want to deal with the academic rigors at Stanford. Harbaugh > Rodriguez.
than 4 victories in the Pac 10
Why do people even want him? He hasn't taken Stanford anywhere. Last time everyone wanted Les Miles, now would poop there pants if he was even considered. A hot coaching name doesn't equal wins. If you want Harbaugh we have another 4 years of rebuilding to a pro style offense.
Maybe I am in the minority, but look at what hes done at LSU. Sure, we'd have a few heart attacks, but I'm relatively sure he'd have more than 4 b10 wins if we had hired him in 2007.
I liked how earlier on in the early Miles was declared a poisoned stock. Yet he's 7-1 with his only loss to Auburn. He might be crazy, but he has "lucky" to offset that.
7-1 with your only loss to Auburn is pretty good even if you are nutty.
gets far better recruits on the whole than UM.
wins because he would have inherited his own system. Rich Rod wouldn’t have recruited any of those players he inherited because they didn’t fit his system. If Les came here now he wouldn’t be successful until he got his type of players. What do you think?
but in hindsight, maybe that is something that should have been taken into account when making the coaching hire.
Yeah, we'd have maybe 10 Big Ten wins thus far, still would've lost at least once to Sparty, would've lost to OSU at least once and would still be pissed about 8-4 regular seasons. No one was coming into this situation and turning them into instant 10 win teams.
And for those who wouldn't mind those 8-4 teams again, think back to 2005. That sucked. We were 7-5 that regular season and could've easily been 5-7 if we lost to MSU and Iowa in OT. Oh, and the miracle against PSU. This was a distaster waiting to happen and the folks who wanted Lloyd gone seem to forget that now as they as for the glory years.
So we could have gone 5-7, Eh? Well, since we lost by 7 (fumbling on the goalline), 3 on the road, 3 in a game that should have went to OT, 4, and 4 in the worst officiated game of all time, can I say we really could have gone 12-0? How about at least 10-2? Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. I could bring up losing star players to the NFL (Braylon), and positions decimated by injury (O-Line) as excuses, the same ones used to defend Rich...but no one cared then, and they don't remember now. Just like no one will remember "Decimated Defenses" and the like...just the records in the record book. And the real ones, not the imaginary "what if" ones.
The pitchforks were out for Lloyd after 7-5. I remember that season all to well, but now we're saying if RR hits 7-5 he keeps his job for sure. Times change.
That were a game away from the national championship game the previous year and returned EVERYONE is extremely similar to our current roster situation.
Crex go back to the old Crex cuz this one sucks.
In 2004?? The year USC didn't even play in the Rose Bowl to play for the Title? Weren't there TOO many good teams that year? How you figure we were being considered with our freshman quarterback and running back? Oh, you meant the 2007 season? Too busy trying to be a dick to even read the post you were being dickish to?
Can you go back to the old Bouje, because.....nevermind.
Michigan's win/loss record is insane because I remember the deafening uproar about that 7-5 season. It seems like a dream.
Harbaugh has done a good job at Stanford.
I'm not so sure excluding those stats destroy the OP's credibility. I viewed the initial post as saying something along the lines of "if you think Harbaugh is going to come in here and suddenly we're going to be 9-3 or 10-2 think again".
I believe that if Harbaugh were here 3-4 years from now Michigan will be competing for Big 10 titles again. Then again, I believe with a defensive overhaul and a few more years the same can be said about RichRod. So... I think the point was that 2011 might not be any prettier than 2009 or 2010 if Harbaugh were to be HC.
Because... coaching transitions take time.
Oh, so you know exactly what I was thinking do you?
If you must know, I didn't include anything before 2007 for Stanford or Michigan because in my mind it is irrelevant. There are too many variables. I did it because I wanted to see how the record projections are looking for the two coaches taking over terrible teams. If you don't think 2008 Michigan was a terrible team under anyone, I can't help you. Standford 2007 was even, if not superior to 2008 Michigan in talent, experience and especially experienced depth.
I did it to get some perspective.
One example of a variable: What if Michigan had a senior Doak Walker Award Winning Running Back on the team this year....think we would have a better record? Did Harbaugh recruit Toby Gerhart?
Standford 2007 was even, if not superior to 2008 Michigan in talent, experience and especially experienced depth
I don't know about that. This whole meme of RR inheriting nothing is way overblown. We've had many more draft picks than Stanford since 2007. And I'd just assume that our non-draftable talent was superior as well. You are probably correct on the experience part. Your Toby Gerhart example can be countered with BG. Would we have gotten to 5 wins last year without him? Also, the fact that Stanford's offense got better without Gerhart this year shows that they didn't necessarily need him to be solid (I'm sure he helped though) more that they used the talents they had to succeed. I'm not sure its a coincidence that our defense gets worse as we lose Lloyd's recruits.
Strength of Schedule: Michigan 2008 - 37th Stanford 2007 - 18th
Stanford Media Guide Roster from December 1st 2007:
Starters for Stanford:
RS Sr's - 7 SR's - 0 RS JR's - 6 JR's - RS SO's - 5
So 18 out of 22 starters were upperclassmen academically.
Starters for Michigan:
RS Sr - 5 (Massey, Johnson, Jamison, Thomson, Trent) SR - 2 (Taylor, Harrison) RS Jr - 2 (McAvoy, Ortman) JR - 2 (Greg Matthews, BG, Brown) RS So - 2 (Moosman, Shilling @ Tackle)
13 out of 22 Starters were upperclassmen academically. Exactly 2 of those guys are playing int he NFL right now (Trent and BG).
How many practices did RichRod have with Mallett? Zero RichRod did not inherit a starting skill position player outside of Greg Mathews and he was the 3rd receiver. Our returning tailbacks were injury-prone guys. Once Mallett, Arrington and Manningham left, what did you have left? Jake Long? Nope. Boren? Gone. So our offense might as well have been considered equals at best with what Stanford had that year. We weren't blowing the doors off of people in previous years, so it's not like we had a lot of people returning on offense with experience.
Look at the defensive side. We were starting a younger version of Obi Ezeh. If you think Obi 4.0 is a mess, how do you think the 2.0 version was? Morgan Trent? Ugh. The defense was ahead of the offense, but not to the point where you'd say it was a top 25 defense.
I see what you're saying and I think what may have helped his argument would be to look at what Stanford already had when Harbaugh started. If you go 1-11 with young guys and put the older guys out to pasture, then that might have something to do with the record. My point is when you take over a program with not much returning experience and talent, you are not inheriting the previous team's record. The previous record is irrelevant.
Don't know what you are thinking, but Manningham, Arrington, boren and mallet were not sticking around regardless..
Manningham was gone, that's true. Mallett and Arrington are debateable. But Boren definitely wasn't thinking of transferring before the coaching change.
And no one can equate 9-4 to 1-11 regardless of which side you're arguing. When you lose proven guys, such as Henne, Hart and Long from your offense, you're in trouble. And for the ones who left immediately after the season, you're stating facts, but no reasons behind the facts. Mallet was homesick all season already. Arrington was in and out of trouble for three years and both him and Manningham were flight risks since they were draft eligible. Who knows why they left but the real fact is that RR was left with a shell of an offense and an average defense at best.
I will say that this young offense is as impressive as any that we've had in the last 15 years. Usually coaches who stink or get fired do not have that going for them.
Here's the problem with blaming Carr: he coached here for many recruiting cycles. He regularly graduated proven talents. It's not like Henne, Hart and Long were here 10 years. Carr knew what the program's needs were and recruited to fill them. When he retired, in December 2007, the general consensus was that the program was in good shape and that even if 2008 would be something of a rebuilding year (meaning something like 7-5), the future was exceedingly bright.
It is not Carr's fault that RR decided to fire his entire staff (save Jackson). That decision very likely contributed to some of the transfers, and may have damaged local recruiting ties. Nor is it Carr's fault that RR installed different offensive and defensive systems. Carr had no way of knowing that the guy who would replace him would favor a spread offense and 3-3-5 defense. Blaming him for not recruiting players for those systems is patently unfair.
You can debate all the recruiting, transfer stuff until you're maize-n-blue in the face. You just can't look at that team, even with Mallet and Boren and say it's a 9-4 team. That's all I'm debating.
No, that's not all I'm saying. Most of your 7-5 teams and typically just barely good to get that record. Look at the 2005 team. PSU, MSU and Iowa were games we could have lost. That could have easily been a 6-6 team, or 5-7 team. You could make the counter argument that they could have turned a couple of those close L's to W's. But you know what? Good teams will do that. We just weren't that good that year for four whole quarters.
I didn't like the recruiting in Carr's last year before he left. We had no QBs in the class. Mallett = Henson and Threet = Navarre. I didn't like how that played out in 2001, 2002 and most of 2003. We were headed to that same problem again since Mallet was homesick and a coaching change was possible. Carr knew he may be done before Mallet was gone.
And in terms of local recruiting ties, we still have our pipelines to Cass Tech and King in Detroit and the outstate kids still like us. I wasn't holding my breath on Gohlston or Bullough coming here, even if Carr or some his staff was still here. Even Ronald Johnson committed to USC when we were still running a pro-style offense.
Also, I don't know who made the assumption that Carr should recruit kids for a 3-3-5 defense or spread offense. Maybe someone else said that because that sounds ignorant.
Perhaps offensive coordinators whose unit is seeing success do not get fired. Coaches who cannot produce a winning record in conference do. How many years do you think it will take RR to have a winning record in the Big Ten? How many years do you think it will take him to have a respectable winning record in the Big Ten? How many years do you think it will take him to have a Michigan-esque (pre-RR that is) record in the Big Ten? Are you satisfied with the answers?
I think they'll be at least .500 in conference next year if he's allowed to stay. Yes, I know Nebraska is on the schedule.
A respectable winning record in the Big Ten? Dude, that's gonna take a few years. Anyone who can read and understand numbers knows that it takes awhile to catch up to the number of losses piled up the first few years. It's like he started going for 2 point conversions early in a game and failed. Then he had to start chasing points to get back in the game late. When I can at least see progress, and I think it's been very significant offensively, I am willing to see if a healthy, more experienced defense can catch up.
And if a Michigan-esque record in the Big Ten is 5-3 or 6-2, I guess I'm thinking next year could be the year if I can see at least a .500 conference record. Definitely 2012.
i know...I know...bare cupboard, people hate him, the sun was in his eyes
have YOU tried coaching with the sun in your eyes??? its not as easy at it looks.
See Saban, Meyer, and Tressell's 2nd year.He'll, check Dantonio's 2nd year.
Yes, there are exceptions to everything. Especially on teams that have been underperforming or have a good amount of talent that wasn't being coached properly...
Something I have found interesting since the last 3 games have taken place. The people that want Rich Rod extended up until this year have always made the claim "bring in another coach and we'll have another 3 year rebuilding process". Now all of a sudden after this season has gone south it has become "bring in another coach and we'll have another 4 year rebuilding process". Will this "rebuilding" phase change to 5 years next year?
I've said it about 14 times already since the "FIRE RICH RODREEGIZZ" clan came out after the Penn State game but if it does happen, Dan Mullen for HC NOT Harbaugh. Book it.
Why Dan Mullen?
1.) Took over a program at Mississppi State from Florida, where he coached with Urban Meyer at Bowling Green, Utah then Florida (OC/QB's)
2.) He's young, 38 years old
3.) Great recruiter; top 25 recruiting classes at Mississippi State
4.) Started at 5-7 in 2009; now has his team at 7-2, with a win over Florida in Gainsville under his belt
5.) Possesses a young staff
6.) Obviously runs the spread, playbook similiar to Florida
7.) Has molded Alex Smith (recruited Brian Johnson), Josh Harris, Chris Leak, Tim Tebow
Bottom line with all this is that if you are convinced you want RR gone and Harbaugh in, then you have to be prepared for a difficult transition period, where kids transfer out, recruiting suffers and players have to learn new systems and new coaches have to learn the players.
These RR-out/Harbaugh-now people will have to be patient enough to accept that difficult (read, losing/embarassing) period so that it can grow into something great in a few years, when systems are installed and understood, recruiting comes back and all that. The problem, obviously, is that the RR-Out/Harbaugh-now people are presently demonstrating a distinct inability to have that patience. This is what Notre Dame has done since 97.
Losing sucks, I get it. And I don't doubt that Harbaugh would eventually be a fine HC at Michigan. But don't think that Harbaugh won't have to go through what RR is now going through on his way there. If we fire RR and hire Harbaugh it'll be the same people on here three years from now calling for Harbaugh's head. Let's not be ND.
If Harbaugh truly is a Michigan Man, he would do what's best for Michigan and drop whatever team he is currently coaching and take the HC job at Michigan whenever he is asked to do so, be it this year, next year, or sometime in the future. We cannot have the mentality that we need to fire RR now just so that we can get Harbaugh before he goes to the NFL or signs with another program with more opportunity than Stanford.
Give RR another year, force him to clean house on the defensive side of the ball, pull in an entire defensive staff that is proven in big conferences, i.e., Big Ten, Big 12, or SEC (no matter what the $$ cost), and then, if that doesn't work, pick up Harbaugh.
While RR's performance is truly sub par, his potential is really high. Hitting restart now would be throwing away that potential and subject us to at least 2 more years of "readjusting"
wow, harbaugh and RR's first 3 years look almost identical, pending the next 4 games.
I humbly offer this. It seems to me that Harbaugh can flat out coach! Stanford people. Stanford! He is winning at STANFORD!
Defense is playing tough. Offensively, he coached the spread at San Diego and was successful at that level. He has spread elements in the offense at Stanford. He has shown evidence to coach to the talent he has.
He can recruit. He is not afraid (read: he is cocky enough) to put successful people around him. He would have no problem building a Big Ten staff.
I mean, people, he is having success at STANFORD!!! All evidence points to that being tougher than winning at Michigan. STANFORD! Don't give me this West Virginia / Big East vs. Pac-12 stuff. Moot points. It is more simple than that. Please, just think for a minute. STANFORD! They are like Northwestern. STANFORD!
There is a reason that he is the most sought after coach in the country.
Wait...where does Harbaugh coach at again?
In the last 40 years, 6 different Stanford coaches have had seasons better than Harbaugh's best full season so far (Ralston, Christiansen, Walsh in two different tenures, Elway, Green, and Willingham). They all had good seasons within their first three years on campus.
In terms of Rose Bowl appearances/wins, only Washington and USC are better historically among Pac 10 schools. Northwestern on the other hand is only better than Indiana when it comes to Big 10 schools.
Harbaugh has done a very good job there but your impression of Stanford's football program doesn't jive with their actual history.
I think that Minnesota or Purdue would be better comparisons than NW. While they have had good success in the past, recent history has been very dreary.
Purdue and Minnesota have just as bad a Rose Bowl track record as Northwestern (two appearances, one win). Neither have had the consistent string of quality coaches putting up 8+ win seasons. What Harbaugh has done so far at Stanford has been more likely to happen than not for their last dozen or so coaches. Don't think you can say the same at Purdue (a couple good seasons and consistently mediocre only under Tiller after 13 straight years without making a bowl game) or Minnesota (got up to consistently mediocre only under Mason but no other coach who took over in the last 40 years had a winning record).
Stanford really just had a bad 5 year run with Teevens and Harris. Other than that stretch they've been about as good as they've been under Harbaugh for most of the last half century (though if he stays he may be able to have more sustained success than his recent predecessors who all left for other jobs).
I knew his USD qb had like 40 tds, but was that out of the spread? Like a Mike Leach or Brian Kelly thing?
So, if there was no Jihad, how much better would RR recruiting have been? Could we have gotten 2, 4, or more good players. Could that have helped?
Oh and by the way, the fact that RR had a buyout from his WVU contract and UM tried to get around it, and let RR twist while they tried to save money, was not RRs fault. UM knew what his contract was, they have pretty good lawyers. They could have just paid it up front and that would have been totally acceptable.
I assume the Harbaugh crowd would be OK to spend any amount to get the Meechigan man and would not blame him from having signed a good contract with Stanfod
I was under the impression that the buyout was RR's responsibility. UM boosters eventually stepped in to pay it. Is this the wrong impression? The picture you paint is that RR and WVU were happy after the split until Michigan forced him to not follow his contract.
My point is that UM surely read the contract before they cut a deal. UM would have made RR some dollar offer that would have been based on how much money he would get, both guaranteed and incentive. They would have calculated a net amount including any buyout affect.
If that is true, and Bill Martin is a good enough businessman that they must have had all the facts, than they must have felt they had a good chance to negate the buyout.
I am just saying, that this is not a negative reflection on RRs character, it is just part of contract negotiations. Some posters seem to think the buyout negative publicity is a reason to fire RR. I am guessing they would not feel the same way about "newcoach" and any buyout that could be involved.
If RR demands the DC run a 3-3-5 base defense regardless of the DC or staff, there will be failure to a point. One improvement RR must make is to hire a competent, aggressive college DC and LET HIM COACH THE DEFENSE!
This BS of RR deciding what the base defense has to be and picking assistants for the DC is ludicrous. Hire the DC, let him bring in his pos. coaches and come up witht e defensive scheme. If RR can't do that, then bring Harbaugh, Meyer, whoeva.
Haubaugh vs ranked opponent (AP rank)
We should note that USC is ineligble for the rankings because of its NCAA sanctions. Otherwise they'd have been ranked when Stanford played them. Also, given that Stanford was in terrible shape when Harbaugh took them over, that he managed to beat a top 25 opponent in each of his first two years is impressive.
That he is supposed to beat to achieve respectable conference records. For some reason that sounds incredibly unfamiliar.
It's possible that Stanford has been a team that has been overlooked coming into this season by their opponents so far. With their obvious success this year, next year they will have a target on their back and their record next season may come back down to reality in the PAC-10 (maybe 3, maybe 4, or 5 losses next season). Anything can happen.
Anyone that follows college football know that this happens a lot. For example, Kansas a few years ago. They had a great season, but couldn't repeat their success with Todd Reecing coming back as their starting qb. I think teams that year were more prepared for them.
If RR does manage to go 8-5 this year, he'll keep his job. I don't think that's really in doubt. The question is more about what happens if he finishes the regular season 5-7 or 6-6. I think it's tough to justify retaining him in those cases.
Regarding Harbaugh, it's important to note that he inherited a 1-11 team. So every year he's been there, they've improved. Just to go from one win to eight wins is pretty remarkable, but he's managed to raise their level of play further still this season. The guy's got some issues as a person, but there's not much you can fault with his coaching performance.