This is your future under Jim Harbaugh
Tired Harbaugh defensive players faking injuries to slow down better teams:
Ranked, one- to three-loss teams losing decisively to mobile QBs under more sophisticated offenses:
We are all frustrated with our won-loss record under Rich Rodriguez. But if we can get the defense fixed, we have a shot to be the next Oregon instead of the next Stanford. Kudos to Harbaugh for doing so much at Stanford, with their admissions standards et al. - not trying to downplay that achievement. But it is far from clear that he would have that record if he was playing our schedule every year. I have spent a lifetime as a Michigan fan rooting for 9-3 and 8-4 and the occasional 10-2 teams that almost always lost when it counted the most.
I, for one, am willing to go through this difficult period in order to take our program to a level where we are consistently contending for MNC titles, rather than winning Big Ten titles and losing bowl games. I am not nostalgic for that era of consistent disappointment, and I dread consigning another generation of Michigan fans to the same fate.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:42 AM ^
And how many times have you ridiculed a rival school for athletes majoring in general studies and kinesiology.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
>>Winning at Stanford means what exactly?<<
The only coaches who've had true success at Stanford have been really good coaches.
>>Booooo. Plus he is a drunk. Moeller got fired for something less than what this hothead did.<<
I don't DQ Harbaugh for this, though I also was for giving Moeller a second chance (I think me and Mitch Albom were alone on that count).
November 27th, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^
Here's what Mike Hart thinks of Harbaugh:
That’s a guy I have no respect for. When you graduate from the University of Michigan and you’re going to talk about your school like that, a great institution like that we have, to say we’re not true student athletes. It’s coming from a guy who, I don’t know, maybe wants to coach here, and is mad he didn’t get a job here. A guy like that I have no respect for. It’s funny to me, because we don’t let great student-athletes in, but he just accepted one of our transfers [Jason Forcier]. What kind of sense does that make? He obviously wants guys like us at his school and he’s mad he can’t get them. It’s nothing against Stanford. I just have no respect for that guy. I don’t know how you can say that. He’s not a Michigan man. I obviously wish he never played here before.
Personally, I am not that worked up about Harbaugh's trash-talking of Michigan. He is a trash-talker in general and that's just who he is. To me the only thing that matters is: can he win national championships at Michigan?
November 28th, 2010 at 6:57 AM ^
Harbaugh delivered on his guarantee to beat OSU, Hart didn't. I don't mind trash talking as long as you back it up.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:08 PM ^
We have hart to thank for little brother though!
November 30th, 2010 at 2:23 PM ^
We have LOSING to little brother to thank for little brother.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:06 AM ^
Andrew Shirvell and Ann Coulter are michigan alums too, and you can fuck right off if you're saying they deserve the same level of support I'm giving RR.
And you know god damn well that "Michigan Man" is some bullshit good-ol-boys club made up to make the members of it feel better about themselves.
November 27th, 2010 at 10:46 PM ^
November 27th, 2010 at 10:46 PM ^
I don't think that this will go over particularly well, but I agree with the premise. However, it's hard to argue against how well Stanford has improved under Harbaugh. For me personally, it's not that I don't want Harbaugh but I want Rodriguez to stay. I don't think that Harbaugh is necessarily the anointed messiah who will lead Michigan to the promised land, and I don't feel we've given Rodriguez a fair shake yet. I think there are some potential issues with Harbaugh's character though ("What's your deal?", ripping our academic standards, etc.)
November 27th, 2010 at 10:46 PM ^
This is the stupidest shit I've ever seen. Stanford has one loss, to the best team in the country. Did I mention this is STANFORD? Highest admission standards in Division I-A, historical joke of a program? It's absolutely amazing that in four years Harbaugh was able to recruit the talent that he did to that program -- they are going to finish a top four team this year, and you're using their one loss to the probably national champion to claim that their performance was UNACCEPTABLE?
And your complaint is with their DEFENSE? What in god's name makes you confident that Rodriguez will ever be able to field a better defense than Harbaugh? Why do you seem to think that because Rodriguez also runs a spread offense, his DEFENSE will be capable of slowing down the Oregon's of the world? It's not like Stanford wasn't able to put up the points they needed to compete with Oregon -- hell, Stanford has put up points a lot more consistently over the past two years than Michigan has. And Stanford has done something else in each of Harbaugh's four years there -- beaten a ranked team -- that Rodriguez has yet to accomplish once at Michigan.
To be clear -- I'm not agitating for Rodriguez's firing. I'm staying silent on this crap until after the bowl game. But for you to suggest that Michigan is destined to fail under Harbaugh, a coach who is about to complete a season more impressive than Rodriguez's best year at WVU -- at a school where it is very tough to succeed -- is so fucking stupid that its making the vein in my head throb.
November 27th, 2010 at 10:52 PM ^
Stanford got fucking spanked by Oregon if you look at the game big-picture style. Just so you know.
Did we not beat a ranked Notre Dame last year?
Did we not beat a ranked Wisconsin in 2008?
Please refrain from calling something "fucking stupid shit" when all you're going to do is spout stupider shit.
The point of the OP is to argue that Harbaugh is not the Jesus of coaching so many of the Michigan faithful (and MGoUsers) believe.
November 27th, 2010 at 10:53 PM ^
Not to be a dick, but what did both nd and wisci finish in the years you mentioned? And losing to the #1 team in the country after being up by 18 to them isn't fucking spanked. What happened to us today, or last week, or msu?
November 27th, 2010 at 10:56 PM ^
1. Ranked = teams that finished the season ranked, not overrated teams that were ranked when we played them and then finished at .500. Stanford's wins over "ranked" teams were the real deal.
2. They got blown out by Oregon. No shit. So did almost everyone this year -- Oregon is the best team in the country. If Stanford wins their bowl game they still finish top 4, better than Rodriguez ever has. And you're going to use this to suggest Harbaugh can't succeed? It's mind-numbingly idiotic.
November 27th, 2010 at 10:56 PM ^
No team RR has beaten at Michigan has ever finished the season ranked in the top 25. Those September polls can be a tad misleading. 2008 Wisconsin finished 7-6 and 2009 ND finished 6-6.
As for Stanford, yeah they ended up losing decisively to Oregon - but they've won every other game and will be ranked #5 in the country tomorrow. And that's a school.with more stringent entry requirements than us.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^
UCONN might be going to a BCS game... haha
November 27th, 2010 at 10:58 PM ^
at this point I'm interested in beating Big Ten teams, you know like the ones in our conference, not Oregon.
November 27th, 2010 at 10:54 PM ^
Michigan under Harbaugh will be just like Michigan under Bo: Lots of 10-2 and 9-3 seasons but no national championships.
It's very impressive what Harbaugh has done at Stanford -- full marks for that. But the Pac-10 is weaker than the Big Ten. Not obvious that he is going to go 11-1 at Michigan every year, playing ND, MSU, Nebraska, and OSU, just because he has done so one year at Stanford.
November 27th, 2010 at 10:57 PM ^
Go get 'em. This is not the NFL, this is a program and its too soon to drop Rich.
November 28th, 2010 at 5:02 AM ^
I completely disagree with you and Communist. I've waited to make my judgment on RR and was going to wait until Monday but I don't see this team, even with another year under their belt, beating Notre Dame, Northwestern, Michigan State, Iowa, Nebraska, or Ohio State. I'll gladly eat my words if Michigan does beat them but I don't see it happening under Rich.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:18 AM ^
That we've beat Notre Dame the past two years, right?
November 28th, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
Nebraska and OSU are one thing -- but the other games are winnable. Iowa graduates Stanzi. ND, NU, and MSU will all be good teams but those games are more like tossups.
November 27th, 2010 at 10:58 PM ^
And what makes you think Rodriguez will win a national championship? His years in the Big East in which losses to South Florida and Pitt knocked them out of the running?
November 27th, 2010 at 11:06 PM ^
Because you can tell from every game they have played this year with the exception of Purdue flashes of brilliance. The play calling is there, the offensive players are there, RR is right when he says this team lacks execution. These players, for whatever reason, either have tremendous bad luck or need to grow up still.
I guess it is all opinion, but I can foresee a dynasty similar to what OSU was in the new millenium under RR in the new decade.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:12 PM ^
This is utterly insane. Some of the people on these boards make me want to gouge my eyes out.
There is an argument for keeping Rodriguez. I am not anti-Rodriguez.
But for people to say that they believe Rodriguez gives us a better shot at a national championship based on the respective performances of this years' Michigan and Stanford teams is utterly ridiculous. Anyone saying this is delusional. Anyone saying this has no ability to evaluate football. This is beyond opinion on which people can reasonably disagree -- this is insane.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:17 PM ^
"There is an argument for keeping Rodriguez."
There is? Story, please.
No disrespect intended, but your tone suggests otherwise.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:32 PM ^
My tone shouldn't be read as an attack on Rodriguez. I am refuting what I believe to be amazingly idiotic and infuriating arguments against Harbaugh. I do think Harbaugh is a great coach and would eventually succeed at Michigan. At the same time, I'm frustrated by the possibility of another rebuild, and I hope that Rodriguez can turn things around next year. So I'm agnostic on the issue of a coaching change, and will hope for the best however Brandon chooses.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:39 PM ^
I agree that comparing Stanford pre-Harbaugh to Michigan pre-Rodriguez is unreasonable. Stanford has made a much bigger climb over the past few years than Michigan. (Aside: I still don't think Rodriguez inherited a luxury liner. Maybe the cupboard wasn't bare, but I think the shelf with the QBs was the worst it has been in the modern era.)
Good points on Stanford's academic standards, too ... their recruiting pool is smaller than everyone else's.
To the main point again, what would be your argument for keeping Rodriguez?
November 27th, 2010 at 11:46 PM ^
Argument for keeping Rodriguez is progress on the offense, he's recruited talented players who are a fit for his system and there is the hope (not certainty) that the team will take a leap next year, versus the risk that we will have to rebuild if we bring in a coach to install a new system. Pretty self-explanatory.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:46 PM ^
Argument for keeping Rodriguez is progress on the offense, he's recruited talented players who are a fit for his system and there is the hope (not certainty) that the team will take a leap next year, versus the risk that we will have to rebuild if we bring in a coach to install a new system. Pretty self-explanatory.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^
Out there today.
November 27th, 2010 at 10:58 PM ^
You are actually complaining about Bo as our coach!!!!! You are not a true u of m fan period if I am understanding this right.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:05 PM ^
But I don't love the fact that we have won one national championship in the last 60 years. Do you?
November 27th, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^
first of all where is your proof? RR has never one a championship and Carr did win one in a similar style to Bo
November 27th, 2010 at 11:46 PM ^
Was destined to win more MNCs at Michigan, then you weren't paying attention for the last ten years. He was consistently being outcoached by his betters.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:56 PM ^
And again, if you're so sure that Harbaugh can never win a national championship (based on who knows what), where is your evidence that RODRIGUEZ can win one?
November 28th, 2010 at 12:11 AM ^
He was closer to his second than Rich ever was to one. Maybe you weren't playing attention.
November 28th, 2010 at 1:37 AM ^
You may recall that UM got destroyed by USC in the runner up game in 2006, after being edged by a clearly superior OSU team in the regular season. Does that count as close?
WVU was a lot closer when they lost to Pitt in 2007.
November 28th, 2010 at 1:52 AM ^
And Harbaugh could beat them!!! Oh, wait, you're using the same team to prove two opposite points. The fact is we were to be #2, sent to play for one against an OSU team that just edges us at their place ("clearly superior"? Laughable), but for some poll shenanigans. West Virginia had no chance to play for it after they lost to their rival their final game, just like us, a crappy Pitt team...not the #1 team in the country. So we were closer to playing for it. And the bowl results can never determine anything, because you can't know how a team that was unhappy to play where they were at after getting screwed by the BCS compares to a team that was out trying to prove they didn't need their coach who you're promoting who didn't even coach the game. Maybe they lose if Rich coaches, because they're not up for it. Besides, if you want to compare level of competition, see what happened when USC played Oklahoma in a bowl just before those bowls.
November 28th, 2010 at 8:13 AM ^
WVU was closer when they lost to Pitt in 2007? You realize that they had also lost to South Florida earlier in the year, and it was through a wild confluence of events that they even had an (apparently undeserved) opportunity to get into the national championship despite that loss?
So to sum up - your argument that Rodriguez can clearly win a championship is a year when his team lost to far less talented teams from South Florida and Pitt, yet Carr's losses to MORE talented teams from Ohio State and USC proves that a pro-style system can never work.
Do you realize how stupid the things you're saying are? Stop digging yourself a deeper hole.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:50 PM ^
I was responding to a specific point: that Lloyd was closer in 2006 to an MNC than WVU was in 2007.
That is different from the overall point I made in the original post: that the Bo-Harbaugh approach of having a simple offensive scheme and "out-executing" the other team works against teams where you have more talent. It doesn't work against teams that have equal talent but more sophisticated coaching.
If Harbaugh comes here, that will be M's fate: losing to teams with equal-to-better talent and more sophisticated offenses / better coaching, beating teams with lesser talent.
The best argument I've seen on this thread has been that Harbaugh is not Lloyd: Harbaugh is more aggressive, he has more attitude, etc. Kind of a Bo-descended version of Dantonio. Could be.
But are you going to risk the certainty of 2-3 years of more rebuilding for the possibility of Harbaugh being Lloyd on steroids? I guess many of you are. I say, give RR more time first. If Michigan is indeed Harbaugh's dream job, he'll still want it in the future.
November 28th, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^
...unfortunately Jim knows, as does everyone else, that it simply isn't possible to keep Stanford at a high level consistently. So the offers he's getting coming off this season are probably the best he's ever going to get while at Stanford. The man is going to make a move. So if we don't get him now it'll be at least 5 more years before we have a shot at him again.
And Rodriquez has already damaged the program enough that, among top level candidates, its pretty much Harbaugh or no one. Another year of damage? And we're Tennessee hiring Vince Dooley middling son because not a single real coach would take the job because of the damage done to the program over the years.
Hell, as much as people talk about us becoming the next Notre Dame, the reason Notre Dame became what they are now is because they kept Bob Davie around too long (the team would be much improved if they'd have fired him after his third year as they should have, but instead they listened to the people that were apologists, like much of this forum, and allowed him to do nearly irreprable damage to the program over the next 2 seasons).
November 28th, 2010 at 2:51 PM ^
"Nearly irreparable damage?" I just don't buy it.
Notre Dame's problems stem from some of the tarnishing of their image at the tail end of the Holtz years and a series of mediocre coaches hired after Holtz. Davie was far from the only mediocre coach they hired. Remember Willingham and Weis?
The George O'Leary fiasco didn't help, either.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:56 PM ^
Pitt was a 28 point underdog going into the game (fwiw, the night that the game was played, the weather was crappy)
November 28th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^
We should've one one, y haven't we one one?
November 27th, 2010 at 10:59 PM ^
Michigan under Harbaugh will be just like Michigan under Bo: Lots of 10-2 and 9-3 seasons but no national championships.
Right now I'd take that in a heartbeat.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^
Those of you who are nostalgic for that, that's fine -- just want to make sure we are clear on where we are disagreeing and where our aspirations for Michigan football differ.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:33 PM ^
The flaw in your thinking is that you seem to assume that any program that runs Oregon's offense is destined for greatness. What you're missing is that Oregon is a complete team, capable in all three phases (just like Stanford). We are not, and it's not clear that RR will ever really figure out two of the three phases of the game. Unless he does, we'll never sniff Oregon-like results.
Besides, who's to say that Harbaugh wouldn't keep this offense going? He ran a spread when he coached USD. It was only when he came to Palo Alto that he went pro-style. (Adapting your offense to personnel - imagine that!)
November 27th, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^
I think the programs that run Oregon's offense have the possibility for greatness, with greater frequency than those with a pro-style offense.
Pro-style teams will always have difficulty defending against option teams, because they don't see it in practice. Also, pro-style teams have a tendency to lose one or two games a year because of bad breaks (turnovers, injuries, big plays, missed FGs, etc) because the games are lower-scoring and randomness can play a bigger role.
We've had 40 years with the Bo-style approach, and the results are there for all to see. Surely the RR approach deserves one-tenth that?
November 27th, 2010 at 11:59 PM ^
Pro-style teams will always have difficulty defending against option teams, because they don't see it in practice.
Then would you also argue that spread teams will always have difficulty defending pro-style teams, because they don't see it in practice? If so, not much hope for us against Wisconsin going forward.
Also, pro-style teams have a tendency to lose one or two games a year because of bad breaks (turnovers, injuries, big plays, missed FGs, etc) because the games are lower-scoring and randomness can play a bigger role.
Utterly moronic. There is less possibility of turnovers, injuries, missed field goals with a spread team? Exhibit A against that argument is this year's Michigan team.