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 10:22 AM ^
Stanford =/= Michigan.
If you can win at Stanford, you can win anywhere. Just my opinion.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
That's what I thought about West Virginia too.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^
West Virginia plays in the Big East, Stanford plays in the Pac 10...
November 4th, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
And Notre Dame...um...
November 4th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
The Hell with Notre Dame.
November 7th, 2010 at 5:53 AM ^
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*
November 4th, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^
I have a belly button.
November 4th, 2010 at 5:49 PM ^
Rumplestiltskin?
November 4th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^
Stanford is one of the few schools in the country with academic requirements more strict than Michigan. West Virginia...not so much.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^
what he has done there is impressive.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
dude what happened to you points? negative 113???
November 4th, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^
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.)
November 4th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
Not to mention that Stanford has a tiny fan base and generates little to no buzz locally, much less nationally.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 2:06 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
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!
November 4th, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
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.
Blergh.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
The relevant Willingham era is Stanford 1995-2001, when he went 44-36-1. Nobody but you is talking about Willingham at Washington.
November 4th, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^
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)
November 4th, 2010 at 4:44 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
Stanford is the new ND with Harbaugh.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^
HALLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEELUJAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
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
November 4th, 2010 at 1:30 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:59 AM ^
Ty Willingham disagrees.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
Ty WIllingham strongly disagrees.
Rose Bowls for Stanford = / = success at The Second Most Winningest Program in History
November 4th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
Ty Willingham can't even win a college football argument anymore.
November 4th, 2010 at 1:49 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
Stanford =/= Michigan.
If you can win at Stanford, you can win anywhere. Just my opinion.
THANK you. Agreed.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
Wouldn't Stanford be easier to win at than Washington? You know, since Willingham coached at both schools.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
still sucks because of TW..../s
November 4th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
Because Tyrone Willingham won everywhere else right?
November 4th, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^
ND fans would like to have a word with you(as would Washington fans)
November 7th, 2010 at 6:06 AM ^
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.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^
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
November 4th, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^
I bet Stanford 2007 would have beaten Michigan 2008....suck on that