Hot for Harbaugh? Read this
Harbaugh's records at Stanford:
| 2007 | Jim Harbaugh | 4–8 | .333 |
| 2008 | 5–7 | .417 | |
| 2009 | 8–5 | .615 | |
| 2010 | 7–1 | .875 |
Hey guess what? If Michigan can find a way to beat Illinois and Purdue, and then win a bowl game, they'll be 8-5 in RR's 3rd year.
Mind=blown
November 4th, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^
gets far better recruits on the whole than UM.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^
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?
November 4th, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^
but in hindsight, maybe that is something that should have been taken into account when making the coaching hire.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
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.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:16 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:51 AM ^
Stanford prior to Harbaugh:
2002: 2-9
2003: 4-7
2004: 4-7
2005: 5-6
2006: 1-11
Michigan, also from 2002 until new coach:
2002: 10-3
2003: 10-3
2004: 9-3
2005: 7-5
2006: 11-2
2007: 9-4
It's almost like you purposefully omitted essential information to make your case look good. While you can make an argument that RR should stay, or maybe that Harbaugh isn't the guy, the way you went about it really kills any credibility. If you want to compare apples to apples after 3 years, perhaps consider improvement in games won:
Harbaugh year 3: won 7 games more than the year before he arrived
RichRod year 3: won (2?) games less than the year before he arrived
"Mind = Blown"
November 4th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^
That were a game away from the national championship game the previous year and returned EVERYONE is extremely similar to our current roster situation.
<br>
<br>Crex go back to the old Crex cuz this one sucks.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:57 AM ^
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?
<br>
<br>Can you go back to the old Bouje, because.....nevermind.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^
Michigan's win/loss record is insane because I remember the deafening uproar about that 7-5 season. It seems like a dream.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
C'mon now...The OP (especially since he chose the dates for his cut 'n paste) left out the years prior to Harbaugh because taking a team from 1-11 to 8-5 in three years is great. Three years into the RR experiment and he probably won't win 8 games. i know...I know...bare cupboard, people hate him, the sun was in his eyes, whatever...RR took over a 9-4 Michigan and and made it worse. Harbaugh took over a 1-11 Stanford and now beats USC, recruits in the top ten and plays in bowl games.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:26 AM ^
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?
November 4th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^
Strength of Schedule: Michigan 2008 - 37th Stanford 2007 - 18th
http://www.solecismic.com/frontier/sos9-2007.php
Stanford Media Guide Roster from December 1st 2007:
http://www.gostanford.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/stan/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/07-depth-chart
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).
http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fbteam/2008fbt.htm
November 4th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
Enough of the excuses! No matter what excuses you toss out (and no matter what facts you ignore), you can't escape the fact that 1-11 Stanford was a much worse team than the 9-4 Michigan that RR took over. Period. End of story. If the state of the team that both coaches took over is "irrelevant" to you, why even bother with any analysis? Oh, wait...it does matter for "bare cupboard" excuses, but not for things that make other coaches look good.
Toby Gerhart??? Was Toby Gerhart a senior when Harbaugh took over Stanford? Oh, I see, you kinda confused 4 years there. Oops. That's almost like how RR inherited a top-ten NFL QB in Mallet. I could say he was a senior, but he wasn't...and I try not to mix up facts like that.
As I said, there are arguments to be made both ways, but you're butchering logic to your own argument's detriment.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
Again, there are arguments for RR, but using excuses to equate 9-4 to 1-11 just isn't right. The fact is that RR did inherit Ryan Mallet, Justin Boren, Adrian Arrington, Mario Manningham and a good defense. The fact that none of those guys wanted to stick around for RR doesn't change the fact that they were Wolverines upon his arrival. It also might raise a red flag to the fact that players continue to quit the team (even when they can get PT) in RR's third year.
Like I said, there's an argument to be made for either coach (or any coach, actually), but clearly Harbaugh has turned around an historically bad team and RR has yet to field a team as good as it was before he got here.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
Don't know what you are thinking, but Manningham, Arrington, boren and mallet were not sticking around regardless..
November 4th, 2010 at 1:08 PM ^
Do you know them personally? Is that how you know? I've heard that argument for Mallet (although I don't totally buy it), but never for Manningham, Arrington and certainly not Boren (he briefly stuck around for RR).
November 4th, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
Manningham was gone, that's true. Mallett and Arrington are debateable. But Boren definitely wasn't thinking of transferring before the coaching change.
November 4th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
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.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:19 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^
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?
November 5th, 2010 at 12:33 AM ^
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.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:42 AM ^
Wow. You're cool with .500 in conference next year and a blazing in-conference record of 5-3 in 2012??? So, five years into the RR experiment, you're pleased with a 3 or 4 loss team? We had that on a nearly annual basis for ages with the occasional WTF dip. Maybe it's not even worth debating the issue with someone who sets the bar that low.
RR was hired to take us from "almost there" to "national titles"...not from "almost there" to "close to almost there".
November 4th, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
See Saban, Meyer, and Tressell's 2nd year.He'll, check Dantonio's 2nd year.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:02 PM ^
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...
November 4th, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
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?
November 4th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
Why Dan Mullen?
November 4th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
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
November 4th, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^
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"
November 4th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
wow, harbaugh and RR's first 3 years look almost identical, pending the next 4 games.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
Wait...where does Harbaugh coach at again?
November 4th, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:50 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
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).
November 4th, 2010 at 1:14 PM ^
I knew his USD qb had like 40 tds, but was that out of the spread? Like a Mike Leach or Brian Kelly thing?
November 4th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
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
November 4th, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:50 PM ^
I'm prepared to give Harbaugh a chance.
November 4th, 2010 at 1:17 PM ^
Records are not telling. You have to look at who they beat and who they lost to. Jim has "quality" wins......At Stanford no less. You also have to do the "eye ball' test. When watching them play did they get better as a team each year?
But I like the spread and I like RRod. At this point though, I wouldn't mind hearing Tressel say "What's your deal?" either.
November 4th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
I hate this argument for keeping Rich Rod, just like the lame Ferentz/Alvarez parallels. What were these schools' records prior to their respective coaches coming in? Were they 9-4 coming off a bowl victory over Florida?
Rich Rod has decimated this program. He took a perennial conference contender and made it into a laughingstock. How anyone can ignore this and still be "ALL IN" for Rodriguez is beyond me.