Michigan is Good, But Not Elite, and Won't be Elite Without Different (Worse) Institutional Standards

Submitted by jcorqian on November 26th, 2018 at 4:11 PM

Summary Points

  • We have severely overreacted as a fanbase after OSU instead of just admitting the truth
  • The truth is that we are likely a good, consistent 10-win team under Harbaugh which would be mostly in-line with history; we are not elite and we have never been elite in the modern era
  • To be elite would mean winning 85%+ of games like Meyer, Saban, and Swinney – my view is that the distinction between elite and non-elite programs is not scheme or player development but rather player talent being recruited
  • Michigan – as a university – has structural factors (not paying players, adhering to academic standards, caring about integrity, etc.) that prevent us from recruiting elite talent as consistently as Alabama, Clemson, and OSU
  • We as a university / fanbase would have to sacrifice some of those structural factors to truly be an elite team – the open question to ourselves is whether that’s worth it or not…  if it’s not worth it, we should be content with 10-win seasons and rarely beating OSU instead of constantly being in BPONE
    • I am not making a value judgment on this, as I’m not sure where I stand on this myself – I guess I personally lean towards being ok with just being good but not elite at football and having Michigan be a place of integrity

I. Our Overreactions

The short-term thinking and overreactions on this board and the broader fanbase consistently leaves me shaking my head.  Perhaps it should be unsurprising given that I work as an equity investor and so see short-termism and overreactions in the market constantly, but I guess the effect is even more dramatic in college sports.  

Before the season started, everyone had fairly reasonable takes as summed up by LSAClassof2000's diary post here.  The average prediction on this board was for 9.6 wins, and we achieved 10 wins which was right in line.  But man did we ride an absolute roller coaster of hot takes and overreactions along the way. 

After Notre Dame - a game that we lost by one touchdown against a veteran team on the road at night after several game-defining plays bizarrely went ND's way - the board was ready to throw in the towel.  We were severely drenched in BPONE and this includes Brian et. al., UMBig11, and even reasonable coach types I really respect like Magnus.  There were only a few dissenting opinions that the season wasn't lost and that we - in fact - were actually pretty good.  This was my thought as well, and I told several co-workers that I was actually fairly encouraged by our performance against a very good team for a first road start breaking in that offensive line.  Of course, today Notre Dame is a lock to be in the playoff.  You can argue that their schedule was really easy, but when they made that schedule they had no idea all the teams they would play this year would suck.  I would argue the same thing about our schedule - many of the teams we played and beat turned out to be not as good as advertised (e.g., Michigan State, Penn State, and especially Wisconsin which started the season #4).

Then came our string of 10 straight wins.  We paved weaker teams into the dust and rode an incredible wave of optimism through the Penn State game.  The Revenge Tour was in full swing, with merely one last foe to defeat.  Don't get me wrong, I wasn't immune to the optimism in any way and I really enjoyed that feeling.  It was strong enough that many ignored some cracks along the way.  Never mind that it became fairly obvious that many of these teams that we beat simply weren't as good as they were supposed to be.  Never mind the fact that we were somewhat exposed by Indiana, which ran a similar offense to OSU but with athletes only 90% as good (and that last 10% makes all the difference - imagine a 10% difference in the 40-yard dash, for example).  We here on the board were already going through every possible CFP scenario to see how Michigan would get in, who we'd play, etc.  That little obstacle in the way which was OSU was almost a foregone victory - after all, they got blown out by Purdue right?  They only narrowly beat teams that we pounded into the pavement right?  Michigan is going to be elite again and the conversation was already "bring on Alabama."

Then the OSU game happened.  Yes, it was a debacle, and yes we are probably better than 62 - 39.  The game proved that we are - in fact - not elite and not ready to compete with a truly elite team.  By this, I mean if the game were played 100 times, that we would win at least 40 of those times.  I don't think that's been the case for Harbaugh other than 2016, during which perhaps it was 60 / 100 towards us.  We just aren't at that level.  But our fanbase simply couldn't take this realization.  The asinine calls of fire Harbaugh, fire Pep (never mind that literally no one here knows how much of the offense is Pep vs. Harbaugh), fire Don Brown (never mind that we've fielded the #1 defense 3 years in a row), fire everybody are simply maddening and illogical.  Who does this element of the fanbase think we could get that's better?  It makes no sense.  What was really dumb to me were all the posters who turned on the players and on the Revenge Tour.  "Wow the Revenge Tour is the most juvenile thing ever, it's stupid, other teams don't need that motivation, let your actions do the talking, etc."  These were very likely the exact same people who were fully on board with it earlier and ready to buy Revenge Tour gear.  If we had beat OSU, how many posts on the Revenge Tour being stupid would there be?  I bet it would be literally zero.  This is ridiculous - either the Revenge Tour is awesome or it's juvenile and stupid.  The concept itself should not be affected by the outcome of the game.  Yet here we are.

II. Who We Are - Good, But Not Elite

Ultimately the point of this diary is to address our latest overreaction to the OSU game.  For my job, I attempt to recognize when human sentiment swings too far from the fundamentals in either direction and simply analyze what the data says.  What the data says is that we had a pretty good team that had a pretty good season, just not elite.  In fact, the data says that we have - at least in modern history - never been consistently an elite team (the definition here being one that is truly capable of winning a national championship). 

This seems to be the disconnect with the wild overreaction to the OSU game - a significant portion of our fanbase already thought of ourselves as elite.  This is simply not true and really has never been true in the modern era.  The takeaway for me is to simply reset my expectations - the playoff simply shouldn't be the expectation here at Michigan unless we change some long-term philosophical approaches as a university that are ultimately structural deficiencies (more on this later).

I was going to gather the data to prove this myself, but thankfully jmblue has beaten me to the punch and has done an excellent job of both providing the data and his own very well-reasoned conclusions.  I link to his diary post here.

The only things I would add to jmblue's work is to highlight a couple points.  From 1979 to 2007 (29 years pre-RR), we averaged 9.1 wins.  So Bo, Gary, and Lloyd together during this time averaged only 9.1 wins, and 1997 was a complete outlier.  9-3 and 9-4 seasons consistently results in a <75% win rate, obviously.  Harbaugh is actually averaging more in his four seasons.  Yes an extra game was added at some point compared to earlier eras, but it was also easier to win in the earlier years due to a bigger talent disparity (scholarships).  And again, as jmblue points out, we won many of those earlier Big Ten championships simply because you could tie - if that same methodology were used today, we would tie with OSU for Big Ten champions this year.

III. What Does Elite Actually Look Like?

So we've hopefully established that we are a pretty good team over the years - even great at times - but not really consistently elite.  So what does consistently elite look like?  Phrased another way, what would the team have to achieve to live up to the "fire Harbaugh" reactionary crowd's expectations?

Meyer is 81 - 9 (90%) at OSU in 7 seasons.  That is elite.  Saban is 144 - 20 (88%) at Alabama in 12 seasons, and 137 - 14 (91%) excluding his first 7 - 6 season.  That is elite.  Dabo Swinney is 113 - 30 (79%) at Clemson in 11 seasons, but 15 of those losses came during his first 3 seasons as he was building the program.  Excluding those, he is 94 - 15 (86%).  That is elite.

Since the college football playoff started, here are the teams and winners from every championship year (e.g., 2015 for the 2014 - 2015 season):

2015: Oregon, Florida State, Alabama, Ohio State | Winner: Ohio State over Oregon

2016: Clemson, Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan State (LOL) | Winner: Alabama over Clemson

2017: Clemson, Ohio State, Alabama, Washington | Winner: Clemson over Alabama

2018: Georgia, Oklahoma, Alabama, Clemson | Winner: Alabama over Georgia

2019 projected: Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, Oklahoma

There's a few conclusions that I draw from this:

+ Teams that make the CFP – and especially those that win – generally have the best players.  In my view there are two ways to win in football – have better schemes or have better players.  At the elite level, however, I think everyone has great coaches that run great schemes.  I don’t think we will ever have a massive schematic advantage over Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Oklahoma, or OSU – they care about football and can pay good coaches just as much as us (in fact, below I argue we have a schematic deficit as we refuse to embrace the spread).  Case in point – OSU already had counters to adjustments that Michigan made to its defense, as Space Coyote pointed out.  It’s not as if we would have magically won the game if we just played zone defense the whole time – OSU has the coaching and the athletes to run zone beaters, and Brandon Watson is still going to be slower than OSU’s 3rd, 4th, and 5th wide receivers (I hate writing that as Watson has stuck around to be a very good player – unfortunately he is simply athletically limited).  I don’t think anyone would dispute that OSU has better talent top to bottom than Michigan does and that it matters.  We need better players to compete at this level on a consistent basis.  Obviously player development matters a lot too, but it’s not like those elite teams don’t develop their players.

+ Teams that make the CFP typically run a spread offense.  I believe that the only team above that doesn’t run a spread basically at all is MSU (LOL).  Alabama used to be more pro-style (but incorporated spread elements) but has transitioned with the times to a spread.  Admittedly, I haven’t followed Georgia much to know whether they are clearly spread or pro-style under Kirby Smart.  Ultimately, however, the data would suggest fairly convincingly that at the college level at least the spread offense is simply better and harder to defend.

+ It’s much easier to for certain teams to make it to the CFP than others.  But just because you make the CFP doesn’t mean you are an elite top four team.  MSU (LOL), Washington, and even Oregon and Oklahoma are examples of this.  This is because college football is split into divisions, and some divisions are inherently easier than others.  The Pac12 and Big12 are simply weaker than the Big10 and SEC in this current era, meaning that the top-end teams in the Pac12 and Big12 are likely worse than the Big10 and SECs’ top-end teams.  Yet, the best teams from these weaker conferences can often sneak in over the 2nd or 3rd best team from the Big10 or SEC.  Oregon / Washington doesn’t have to go through Alabama or OSU to get in, nor does Oklahoma.  However, Michigan has to go through OSU and Georgia has to go through Alabama.  Not that this matters all that much in the end because of the point below.

+ Teams that don't belong in the playoffs are quickly exposed.  If you aren't actually a Top 4 team in the country but you make the playoffs anyway, you get pounded pretty hard.  MSU (LOL), Washington, and even Oregon are examples of this.  They each got destroyed by an actual elite team.  Had Michigan made it to the CFP to play Alabama or Clemson, I think we would have been absolutely wrecked.  I think Notre Dame – which is a pretty damn good team this year – is going to get wrecked by either of those teams.

IV. How Do We Become Elite?

If you made it this far, I appreciate it and I do finally get to the punchline.  I’m not just pointing out problems without offering potential solutions – unfortunately these solutions may not be well received by us as Michigan alumni and fans.  After all, Michigan is an institution that stands for integrity and we all need to make our own choices on what football means to us within that broader context.

Easy fixes – schematically.  As the data above would suggest, we should be running a spread offense.  We should force defenses to play 11v11 (on every play), use misdirection, and get the ball to our playmakers 1v1 in space.  We have the athletes now to do so but we still do not do this.  Instead, we line up in a mashing formation to run and then run obvious play actions on 3rd and 7 that fool no one (I don’t think we’ve really ever actually run on this down and distance, so why even fake it?).  We run to open up the pass when we could and likely should pass to open up the run.  Get the ball to DPJ and Chris Evans and let them beat guys 1v1, just like Indiana and OSU did to us.  Get the ball to playmakers as they are running in stride so they can pickup YAC instead of having players have to constantly look back, adjust, and then get tackled for YAC.  Let playmakers make plays with as few execution constraints as possible (e.g., everyone else needs to hit their blocks).  It’s always going to be harder to tackle someone running full speed when they get the ball. 

I don’t think these are novel concepts but for some reason seem to choose a more complicated scheme on purpose – Harbaugh has been fairly stubborn in this regard despite showing a history of tinkering and philosophy adjustments elsewhere.  Our offense does well against inferior defenses, but against OSU which has superior talent and just as importantly superior depth we have obviously not fared well.  The OSU game was really disappointing because it appeared we were on the path to incorporating all the above elements into our game – however, we seemed to prefer to play completely straight up and absolutely regressed.

On defense, I think changes to scheme are less necessary.  We simply didn’t have the athletes to matchup.  OSU’s top four receivers are all 4.4 speed players and excellent at getting open and they have literally the best throwing quarterback in the history of the Big 10 (by statistics at least).  Our defensive line simply was not good enough either – those that thought Michigan has the best defensive line in the country simply have not spent enough time watching other teams out there.  I don’t believe the outcome of the OSU game would have been any different had we altered our scheme, ran zone completely, etc.  We were simply out-talented more so than we were outcoached.

I think a better scheme will close the gap between us and OSU, and would have made this last game closer for us.  It wouldn't have won the game for us though.  We needed players as well.

Hard fixes – recruit better players.  Michigan pulls in a Rashan Gary, Jabrill Peppers, Daxton Hill, and hopefully Zach Harrison every once in a while, but it really isn’t to the consistency of Alabama, Clemson, and especially Ohio State.  Clemson (and I know it wasn’t always the case before) today starts four world-beaters at defensive line.  I think highly of Rashan as a player, teammate, and person but think that any of Clemson’s four is likely as good if not better at the college level than Rashan has been… and there are four of them.  Again, I don’t think this is going out on a limb here but we simply don’t have the athletes to consistently beat OSU.  And yes, I know that Purdue blew them out and Maryland almost beat them but they were just lucky rolls of the dice.  Do you really believe that Purdue / Maryland beats this year’s OSU team consistently, e.g., >60 games out of 100?

In my mind, there are several reasons why Michigan does not recruit at the level of Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State:

+ We do not cheat and pay players.  We all know that the entire SEC, from Saban on down, pay players to go to their school.  Our own players have implied as much during their recruitments – Denard, Rashan with Clemson, etc.  Look at Laquon Treadwell and Isaiah Wilson to Ole Miss and Georgia respectively.  We know beyond a doubt this is happening.  There are supremely talented players that would never consider us because we won’t buy their mother a new house or car or slip them a few thousand dollars.

+ We care about academics.  When you come to Michigan, it’s expected that you go to class and graduate with a Michigan degree.  It’s expected that you better yourself and expand your horizons – that’s why we have the overseas trips to Paris, Rome, etc.  There are talented players that do not care about academics or bettering themselves.  They won’t consider us because the just want to play football, party, and fuck girls without having to deal with homework.

+ We care about character.  We all know Urban Meyer is a piece of shit who played Aaron Hernandez and who protected a coach who beat his wife (and truthfully, I freely admit I don’t really care about Courtney Smith – I was only interested because it was OSU; otherwise, she is a completely random person to me and I don’t have any vested interest in her any more than I would have towards any other victim I don’t know – obviously domestic violence is horrible in general).  We know Urban doesn’t care about anything other than winning, and his own players have implied that it’s an all business, cutthroat environment as opposed to a closer, family environment at Michigan.  It just recently came out that Reuben Foster had a domestic violence incident (yes I realize that he isn’t on Saban’s current team).  We all know that other teams have played players who have done probably pretty bad things.  Yet our standard is higher.  There are talented players out there who won’t consider us because they want to get away with doing bad things.

+ These matter to a lesser extent, but geography works against us.  Michigan is not filled with recruiting talent unlike Ohio, California, Texas, and the South.  Furthermore, though I don’t believe Michigan is really colder than anywhere else of similar latitude (I’m from Iowa and used to live in NYC), the perception that Michigan winters are horrendous probably prevents some talented players from considering us.

So what do we do to counter these issues?  Well, the first question in my mind is should we even want to change these things? 

There is a clear trade-off between the quality of player and Michigan’s standards (when it comes to recruiting as a whole – obviously we have one-off case in Rashan and Jabrill etc.) – lower the standards and bring in higher quality players.  Hypothetically, if Michigan were to pay players I think our recruiting disadvantage goes away.  We have more resources than basically any other football school out there.  $50k for a top-20 recruit consistently is nothing.  I myself don’t even know where I sit on this issue – I’m not sure it’s a good thing to prioritize football over the integrity of Michigan.  But that’s essentially what we would have to do to be an elite program.  It’s up to each of us to determine how much that means individually.

Overall conclusion: Michigan is not on a level playing field with Alabama, Clemson, OSU, etc.  We could make it a level playing field if we 1) paid players, 2) lowered academic standards, and 3) lowered character standards.  If we as an institution are willing to make that tradeoff, then we can be an elite program.  If we are not willing to do so, then we should be content with 10-win seasons and rare victories vs. OSU and rare appearances in the CFP in which we are beaten by teams with superior talent.  We simply cannot have both high institutional standards as a program AND expect to consistently beat OSU and compete for championships.

Side note: I tried to think through hypothetically what would happen if Michigan successfully lobbied (together with other schools) for paying the players.  I don’t think that would work either because 1) not all the schools have enough money to pay players beyond scholarships (at least I don’t believe so since most athletic departments are loss-making), and 2) there is nothing to prevent Alabama from further paying the #1 recruit in the nation on top of what they are getting paid just to play in college.  We would just be back to where we are today.  The counter to that is that after a certain level of payment, money would matter less to players and so they might start valuing other things that other programs have to offer.  However, these are 17-year old kids often from less than fortunate backgrounds so I still imagine that – on the whole – more money is hard to turn down.

Comments

newtopos

November 26th, 2018 at 4:41 PM ^

Excellent post.  There are inherent, structural disadvantages that Michigan faces (based in part on the choices that it has made as an institution).  I would also put more weight on geography/location of talent.  If the state of Michigan had the level of high school talent as, say, Louisiana, that would alter the landscape.

Blue in PA

November 26th, 2018 at 4:44 PM ^

what if we paid recruits in bitcoin?  after all, it isn't really money... and in a month it might not even be anything..... but then again, it could be worth more than whatever Tua's mom got to move to Alabama.....

 

just a thought.  

 

 

skwogler

November 26th, 2018 at 4:44 PM ^

Thank you for the analysis.  I agree with much of what you had to say....maybe all of it.

I'd rather keep our integrity intact.  I'll settle for 10 win teams with shots at the National Title every 10 years or so.  Managing expectations is the key to being at peace with and enjoying the performance of the TEAM.

Go blue!

Red is Blue

November 26th, 2018 at 4:50 PM ^

This is picking out a small piece of what you said, but I heard this on the Spath show last week as well.  Along the lines of "sure, we beat Penn State, but they had three losses this year."  Last year, Penn State was viewed as very good and had two losses.  In 2017 PSU lost to OSU by 1, same thing happened in 2018.  They lost to close games to MSU in both years.  The difference is that this year they lost to Michigan and last year they beat Michigan.  So, it becomes a bit circular in that  because Mi beats PSU, the victory over PSU gets discounted because PSU had more losses this year.

Now, obviously the eye test shows that PSU is not as good this year, but the evidence given is the record.

rob f

November 26th, 2018 at 4:51 PM ^

Although you made numerous great observations, conclusions and arguments as to why being "elite" has and will continue to escape us, the fact remains that at Michigan,  standards will NOT be compromised and sacrificed in the chase for football wins.  

And while I will concede that missing the playoffs most years is a sacrifice that I may have to accept as a Michigan Football fan, I firmly believe that we can have an elite season or two every several years while still adhering to the standards of Michigan.  

In particular, OP, you bring up Dabo Swinney and Clemson and how long it took to get where that program now firmly stands.  Jim Harbaugh has our program close to that trajectory right now, despite adhering to the higher standards of our program.  Next year is year 5 for Harbaugh, and while I concede that we very likely won't be able to sustain an elite-level program year-in and year-out like Clemson and Bama, we are close enough that playoff success will likely happen very soon.

jcorqian

November 26th, 2018 at 5:30 PM ^

I totally agree with you.  I don't think we should compromise our standards either, ultimately.  I look forward to the occasional elite seasons as well.

On the Dabo / Clemson point, I would again remind us that yeah it took Dabo some time to build to an elite program but we also know that he is paying players (from Rashan and his mom who basically implied it).  

mgoblue74

November 26th, 2018 at 4:58 PM ^

I agree that we need better recruiting.

I personally didn't expect us to win. If we did, I thought we would just squeak by.

Yes, we did play well up unitl the game but the talent gap is still big against ohio.

There is recruiting ranking article looking at the ranking for the last 5 yrs.

ohio is 2nd....we are 22nd....

Here is the link...

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2018/2/8/16990550/college-football-recruiting-rankings-2018-class

Do we have to lower academic standards? pay players? to get better recruits year in year out? I have no idea...

But I don't think we can overcome this talent gap overnight....just have to be patient...

No matter what GOBLUE~!!!!!

Ghost of Fritz…

November 26th, 2018 at 5:15 PM ^

Talent gap is much smaller than that.  OSU no. 1 roster.   Michigan no. 8 roster.

See link: https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/

Based on that small talent gap, Michigan should be able to beat OSU at least 30% of the time, right?  No. 8 beating no. 1 roster is not that rare. 

Roster stars are very important, but not everything.

FSU and USC have the 4th and 5th best rosters (by stars).  Bad results on the field. 

At Oregon's best they never had a top 10 roster. 

Coaching, scheme, injuries, team chemistry, your 4 or 5 star QB lives up to the hype, etc., etc., have to work out too.

Academic standards are not the reason Michigan does not have a top 4 roster.

jcorqian

November 26th, 2018 at 5:36 PM ^

No. 8 beating No. 1 roster when coaching / scheme are equal is rare.  It's when No. 1 roster has inferior coaching that No. 8 can beat No. 1.  And I think OSU's staff is at least equal to Michigan's staff, if not better.

Again I never said that coaching, scheme, injuries, etc. don't matter at all and it's all about roster.  Rather, my argument is that any elite team is going to have relatively equivalent quality of coaching / scheme / player development that the other elite teams have.  I think we have a pretty good - maybe elite - coaching staff.  Assuming these things are equal, the quality of players are going to make the difference.  This was evidenced by our defense simply not being able to play with OSU's offense consistently.

FSU and USC are not currently elite teams, obviously.  This is precisely because they don't have the coaching / scheme / development.  Remember in my post I said there are two ways to win - need both scheme and players.

 

Ghost of Fritz…

November 26th, 2018 at 5:59 PM ^

But OSU absolutely is not the no. 1 team right now (even if by stars they have the no.1 roster).

OSU is about no. 5 or 6, and Michigan is about 8 or 9, on the field.

Anyway, the main point is that the roster talent deficit is real but small.  Roster talent disparity is not the top reason for the loss. 

You are over weighting the roster talent difference as a causal factor (at least between two top ten roster teams).  There are about a dozen factors that combine in complex ways.

jcorqian

November 26th, 2018 at 6:49 PM ^

I was replying to you so I meant no. 1 roster vs. no. 8 roster.

I agree with you that there are many factors that combine in complex ways.  I disagree that roster talent disparity is not the top reason for the loss to OSU.  My view is that our roster on defense was simply too inferior to their roster on offense.

We gave up 567 yards to their offense (and I don't think that includes penalty yards).  This screams talent deficiency to me.

Ghost of Fritz…

November 26th, 2018 at 7:17 PM ^

Bad scheme match up on D.   Press man single high safety against fast receiver mesh and crossing routes is not going to work.  Players don't play zone enough to be competent at it.

Body blow offensive approach can't win shootouts.

JH/Pep ran on almost all 1st and 2nd downs (more body blows!) until way later in the 3rd and too far behind to catch up

Meyer/Day studied the film and schemed mismatches.  JH/Pep did not.

JH/Pep just rolled out the Rutgers offensive game plan.  Result:  3rd and long all day and OSU is blitzing on another 7 second deep route tree Pep special, and various and sundry other predictable and avoidable disasters.

Plenty of bad player execution--Patterson short on some passes, Gentry allows strip on TD catch, Thomas kick fielding, etc.

D-line degraded by Solomon, Gary, Winovich injuries, plus not elite DTs this year.

IOW...not mostly talent gap.  Nothing to do with admission standards or not having bag men. 

 

jcorqian

November 26th, 2018 at 7:42 PM ^

Nowhere did I express that I thought our game plan for OSU was good.  It was not.  It was atrocious.  If we had a better plan, we would have been more competitive.  I even mentioned I didn't think the gap was 39 - 62.  I just think that even if we played as optimally as possible, we aren't winning this game 40 times out of 100 when OSU has game planned AND executed up to their players' talent level.

Your point on d-line being degraded is exactly it.  Solomon out, no elite DT's this year...  that's my point.  Meanwhile when Nick Bosa goes out for the year, Chase Young steps right in and crushes.

I'm with you that we didn't game plan well and we didn't play well.  I just don't think that even if we did, we would come out on top most years with the talent deficiency.  I have my opinion, you have yours, and we might not be able to change each others' mind which is fine.

Ghost of Fritz…

November 26th, 2018 at 8:16 PM ^

Yeah but until JH gets into the playoff recruiting is going to be like it is now--no. 8 stars roster. 

Until Jimmy get Michigan into the playoff with that one special year (not this year oh well!) you are not going to get better than that at Michigan.  And that is not because of the lack of bag men or academic standards. 

Notre Dame is in the playoff with the no. 10 stars roster. 

It can be done.  But not if JH shows up in Columbus with a banged up d-line, a defensive scheme that is not great against what Meyer/Day do, and the same offensive game plan he used at Rutgers. 

Except for the injury thing, that is on Harbaugh.

wOBA_chamberlain

November 26th, 2018 at 4:59 PM ^

Incredible set of blinders to percieve Michigan as somehow above it all and filled with 'character' and 'dignity' as opposed to simply not being as good at recruiting as other programs.

jcorqian

November 26th, 2018 at 5:41 PM ^

Two points:

First, I think it's an incredible set of blinders to think that we aren't at a significant disadvantage in terms of recruiting compared to Alabama, OSU, Georgia, Clemson, etc.  I don't see why it's that crazy to say that if you pay players, have lower academic standards, and are more relaxed about player behavior then you have a recruiting advantage.  Yeah it doesn't explain every single recruit, but it explains enough.

Second, recruiting is all a numbers game.  Let's say there's 10 players in a class that are 4-stars who are really good and want to go to Michigan.  They all go no matter what.  Let's say there's another 10 4-star players that would go to Michigan if they got payed, didn't have to "play school" (in Cardale Jone's words), and had more reign to do whatever they wanted.  They don't get these things, so they go elsewhere.  These spots are now filled with 10 3-star players who could still be really good but have a lower likelihood of panning out.  Your depth and chances at an All-Conference or All-American type player are diminished.

Why don't those 10 4-stars just get replaced by another 10 4-stars?  There aren't really that many of them to go around in the first place.

JFW

November 26th, 2018 at 4:59 PM ^

Good post. Just one point: 

"Furthermore, though I don’t believe Michigan is really colder than anywhere else of similar latitude (I’m from Iowa and used to live in NYC), the perception that Michigan winters are horrendous probably prevents some talented players from considering us."

I don't discount this. I just don't get it. Yes, Michigan can get somewhat chilly in the winter. But it also isn't regularly the sweat soaked oven of 100% humidity that is in the South. 

I went to Savannah a couple summers ago and every day it was 100% humidity and well over 100 degrees. I barley wanted to breath, let alone practice. 

Let me practice in cold weather any day of the week. 

Njia

November 27th, 2018 at 9:10 AM ^

Like anything, you get used to it. When my son, who goes to ASU, was here for Thanksgiving last weekend, he was talking about how much he didn't want to go back to Tempe because he missed his friends and the distance from home was very real to him. By the time he landed in Phoenix, in 80-degree weather and sunshine, he was reminded that, all things considered, cold weather can really suck a lot worse.

Sparty Doesn't Know

November 26th, 2018 at 5:18 PM ^

Wow.  So basically all high-end players are dumb, lack character, and accept bribes that would grenade their college careers and possibly NFL ambitions?  Otherwise they would all flock to Ann Arbor?

Yeah, that must be it.  I feel better now.

Moonlight Graham

November 26th, 2018 at 5:33 PM ^

This is a great and thorough post. What I would simply add as a layer on top of all that good information is that the National Championship Game is the finalists' 15th game. That, of course, is basically an NFL season. Any team that does not load up with 5-star-projected-draft-picks cannot possibly compete all the way to the end. You get the shit beat out of you. You need size, strength, and most importantly depth. Michigan State and Washington were playing their 14th game against Alabama(!!!) those two years. The first season when Oregon made the final game, the brackets were such that they were seeded #1 and played #4 Florida State, and Ohio State knocked out Alabama in the 2 vs. 3 game. 

There have been three national champions since the playoff began four years ago: Ohio State, Clemson, and Alabama twice. That is probably not going to change for a long, long time. Clemson may slide back a bit after their entire DL gets drafted this year, maybe Georgia elevates. Maybe Urban retires and OSU backslides too ... maybe that's our chance to at least make the semifinals. I wouldn't be surprised to see Herman get Texas to that level, too. But for now the majority of national championships are going to be won by 3, at best 5, different teams well into the 2020's. There are only so many 5 stars, not enough to go around, and there are a few monopolies on them. 

throckman

November 26th, 2018 at 5:49 PM ^

Great post, OP. Appreciate reading sentiments that align so closely with my own! :P

"Perhaps it should be unsurprising given that I work as an equity investor and so see short-termism and overreactions in the market constantly, but I guess the effect is even more dramatic in college sports."

It's more socially acceptable to publicly bask in the reflected glory of your alma's football team than it is to bask in the glory of your degree-derived wealth.  Case in point: consider how many people hang diplomas in their offices compared to how many people tack up a bank statement.

Search4Meaning

December 31st, 2018 at 2:35 PM ^

Bank statements can show your income and expenditures but are not good indicators of a person's real wealth. 

A Balance Sheet would be preferable. 

As an RIA, I see many of the same reactions to market fluctuations as I do as an Alumnus with our fan base.

I believe the the OP's  points are valid, but to various degrees unique to each recruit.  Of course there are other influences as well that are outside of his Diary, but as a catalyst for discussion - an excellent starting point.

Go Blue.

jcorqian

November 26th, 2018 at 6:56 PM ^

I didn't say paying players was the only thing that mattered.  It's in combination with lower academic and lower character requirements.

Obviously there is not any single shred of public evidence this is happening, as that would force an actual investigation (I would think).

We know Clemson attempted to pay Rashan (he and his mom basically said that).

We know Isaiah Wilson was paid by Georgia (staff thought they had him in the bag, mysterious last moment flip, Sam Webb basically confirmed payment without saying exact words, UMBig11 implied the same thing I believe).

We know Ole Miss paid Laquon Treadwell to go there instead of Michigan.  He literally took a picture of himself with stacks of hundreds while in Ole Miss gear.

The above was just the instances related to Michigan targets that I can recall off the top of my head.  I obviously don't know other instances for every recruit for other teams I don't follow.

I don't have direct inklings of Bama / OSU but plenty of pics of players with brand new luxury cars out there.

Not really sure if you are being purposely dense.  There is plenty of pretty reasonably obvious evidence out there.  Obviously there is no hard proof that I personally would have access to.

Ghost of Fritz…

November 26th, 2018 at 7:40 PM ^

Yes, there is lots of bag men type cheating.

Probably small time stuff happens everywhere, even Michigan.

At other places it is bigger and more institutionalized (see Ole Miss, to name one that is known).

I'd like to think Michigan does not actively look the other way, tries to stay clean (or as clean as is reasonably possible), and that it does not go beyond $500 handshakes from boosters (which are impossible to completely stamp out).

ND is probably similar to Michigan in that regard.  ND is not going to be Alabama if they stay (relatively) clean.  But they are going to the playoff.

It can be done. 

charblue.

November 27th, 2018 at 12:54 PM ^

All of this is good and reasonable and explains well what situation Michigan is in today as a program, and how the tide of elitism has changed over time based on population changes, integration, migration, education, technology and economic conditions all affecting play and the evolution of college football and the performance and elevation of certain programs through that evolutionary transition. 

If 1997 is the last time Michigan was most elite in the game, and it was, both in terms of recruitment and performance, it was also a turning point in many ways to what this program is experiencing today.

Because that team culminated years of fabulous recruiting and player development into one incredible season led by an all-time great who practically willed that team to greatness based on his play. Think about the talent on that team and the guys who couldn't crack the starting lineup on both sides of the ball and who Michigan was recruiting to play for them then and didn't get.

And it's practically a Who's Who in the game of college and pro football. Many fans would be shocked at the players Michigan might have had on their roster had those recruits made different choices. Alas they didn't, and this along with all the vagaries of recruiting choices and misses and coaching issues and random turn of events, have left us where we are today.

But let's be clear about something, Michigan is a Midwest school with national appeal. Always has and always will. And it never stops looking nationally for players even if it's own bread basket of players isn't as plentiful as their arch rival and southern neighbor which also has to deal with certain recruiting disadvantages that Michigan faces compared to Sunbelt schools. 

Winning consistently and emphatically always comes down to having the best players who are coached well to perform at their highest level and make smart decisions to overcome adversarial moments.

I think Ohio State has proven this time and again against our team. And there was a stretch during the period of our pinnacle season that was also the case for Michigan in regularly beating Ohio State even when it wasn't as talented.

The Buckeyes have also had the great random fortune of playing our best teams at home in the years when they were just as highly rated and with equal or better talent except in 1997.

Nick Saban recognized his recruiting dilemma and writing on the wall in the late 90's and knew he couldn't consistently compete for talent against Michigan and Ohio State, and actually confessed as much, before leaving Michigan State to carve out his greatest coaching success and build his deathstar program at Alabama.

I like to point out to many SEC supporters who claim they have a stranglehold on the game that their best coaches are all Midwestern born and raised guys. All of the coaching greats started at MAC schools and that lineage goes beyond Woody and Bo to the present-day giants, Saban and Meyer, who attended Kent State and Bowling Green, Jack Harbaugh's school.

Whatever makes for elitism today, the ingredients are still the same recruitment of great athletes who are well-coached and developed. Winning itself is still the greatest breeder of success, even when it's helped along by suspected illegal practices given a wink and nod by NCAA oversight.

And compromising integrity or values to succeed never stands any endurance test or level of scrutiny. There is always a reckoning at some point.

The point is, elitism is only what you want to achieve and are capable of producing as a regular goal while striving to get better. And Michigan has always striven to be the best and a national leader, not necessarily a national champion every year. There is nothing wrong with the Michigan brand or its aims with the program. We know who we are, what we stand for, and what we want and what we're capable of achieving.

And we're immeasurably disappointed when our perceptions reach higher than our grasp of that achievement, especially when we collectively feel so good about it. So we are challenged and tested again, to rise up and get stronger and better, and make our name in the world just as it is. 

And whether that means we are regular playoff contenders or not, that is what we strive for. I don't know that winning the way Alabama and Clemson do is very much entertaining regardless of their elitism.

Michigan games are more highly rated on television than virtually any other team. So, in that regard, we are elite in a way some schools and conferences only wish they could compare.

 

 

Search4Meaning

December 31st, 2018 at 2:59 PM ^

Your request to "Provide a single shred of evidence of payments" is absurd.  It really is.

But let's try this:  "The most common non-cash gifts to recruits are cars. In every major city inside the Southeastern Conference's footprint is a tangle of auto dealerships with varying ties to particular schools."

"Hey, how'd he get that ride? His uncle bought it. How did his uncle buy it? Paid cash. Paid cash, how'd he do that? Shit, we don't know, but here's the receipt where he paid cash, and now y'all ain't got shit."

"We can only get away with whatever's considered reasonable by the majority of the folks in our society. That's why it's different in the SEC. Maybe that's why we're able to be more active in what we do. Because no one ever looks at the car or the jewelry and says, 'How did you get that, poor football player?' They say, 'How did they get you that and not get caught, poor football player?'"

"There might not be a cultural mandate, but describing an October Saturday in the South as a culture accepting of this behavior would be a raging understatement."

Source:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview

Read the entire article.  While it does not mention any of your schools by name, it only mentions the SEC Conference.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Go Blue!

mtzlblk

November 26th, 2018 at 6:26 PM ^

I agree with the basic premise that we are, and have only been, a good team and are not currently nor have we really ever been elite in the modern era. 

I even agree, to some extent, that the level at which we recruit is a significant part of why we are not elite. I definitely do not agree on your reasons we don't recruit as well. 

There are many others reasons why elite recruits would choose elite schools over Michigan....the main one being that...Michigan is not an elite program. That and that alone accounts for the vast majority of recruits that choose those schools. An elite player is already on track to get NFL money and these programs offer the best path toward that goal. Elite coaching, elite competition, elite-level exposure and other elite level athletes so that I am not the target of a double-team every time I step onto the field (sorry Rashan). If Clemson has 4 world destroying defensive lineman, opposing teams can't focus on and neutralize me. 

I have said this before and will say it again....I am not entirely sure Saban even needs to pay players anymore. Perhaps early on he did while building the program, but as it stands he has elite recruits that covet an offer from Alabama and I am not sure he would even bother to risk everything he has built to have any form of organized payola for recruits. It may happen, but I think it is far less rampant than many on here assume it is. 

As for the whole notion that M recruits are somehow way different in terms of character and academics, please. They are likely the better end of a spectrum, but to intimate that a whole ton of top recruits are choosing elite schools b/c they want to get away with bad things is absurd. 

Luke15

November 26th, 2018 at 6:44 PM ^

I absolutely agree with the OP's assertion that UM football is not elite, and never has been in the modern era.

I disagree that we cannot become elite due to "institutional limitations." 

The reality is both Urban Meyer and Brian Kelly would have jumped at the chance of coaching Michigan if an offer would have come their way. Meyer had a UM clause in his contract and Kelly was coaching Cincinnati (yet interviewed with MSU) when we passed him over for RichRod in 2007. With Kelly making the "finals" again this year, both coaches will have now taken their teams to the championship or playoffs multiple times. Notre Dame is no more hog tied than UM when it comes to achieving elite status, yet they have shown with two undefeated regular seasons in the past 6 years that it can be done.

We have top-notch facilities, the draw of a great education, an unsurpassed alumni and donor community, and all the resources necessary to form a powerhouse. When RichRod was here, he showed that a modern offensive scheme could produce big numbers at Michigan (yes, we stunk in other facets and didn't usually play well against superior opponents but the potential was still there).

We are stuck in a conservative offensive mindset that began with Bo and has been carried on by Lloyd, Hoke and now Harbaugh. Predictable and uncreative, which simply no longer cuts it. Denard Robinson, Brandon Graham, Frank Clark, Jabril Peppers, Jake Butt, Shea Patterson, Rashan Gary, Devin Bush, DPJ, Tarik Black, Dylan McCaffrey are elite NFL caliber players that would fit and excel on any roster in America and they came to Michigan. (I would even say that Devin Gardner was comparable to Dwayne Haskins in terms of talent). Each year there are 105 roster spots to work with. You need about 40-50 of those spots to be filled with elite players at any given time. There is plenty of talent out there in the world to fill up that small number.

What we have lacked -- and by no means can we not get it or get there -- is a coaching staff who can get with the times and run and defend modern offenses and defenses, as well as top-notch QB play (run + pass) and top-notch running back play. Until Patterson and McCaffrey arrived, we have not had it at the QB position since Brady and Henson. IMO, we also have not had an elite running back since Wheatley (maybe Biakabutuka too) and that includes Mike Hart and everyone else. Harbaugh had Andrew Luck and Toby Gerhart when he made his run at Stanford. DPJ, Black, Nico Collins and Gentry have commensurate talent to Baldwin and Fleener. Richard Sherman was a special CB but Long, Hill and Thomas aren't that far off. And Harbaugh has shown with Gary, he can bring in elite defensive talent.

I believe Harbaugh can get it done here with Patterson/McCaffrey and a TBD running back. Hopefully it's Charbonnet b/c no one else on our current roster looks the part and Eric Gray probably is not coming. Assuming Charbonnet becomes a Dude, and assuming Harbaugh isn't perceived by his players as some kind of crazy guy that has lost some of his marbles (e.g. referring to Alex Boone's "clinically insane" assertion), then Harbaugh and Brown would merely need to adjust their offensive and defensive approaches to give Michigan the chance at being elite. College football was played differently in 2010-2011 so even with all the right player pieces, Harbaugh (Pep?) and Brown probably still need to adjust their schemes.

Just because our coaches may not choose to do that -- just because they may show they are incapable of adjusting and changing -- does not mean we are incapable of it, or that our institution is structured in such a way that our football team cannot ever be elite. This understanding and belief is probably what makes it so grating for many UM fans. Most non-delusional UM fans accept we have never been elite in the modern era. But we do not accept that it is impossible to get there. We just have not played our cards right and by and large have not been able to emerge from the cloud of dust that was perfect for the times in 1969, but does not hold up 50 years later.

I would also argue that Michigan football might not even need to achieve Alabama or Ohio State-like winning percentages to make the fan base happy. An occasional trip to the promise land might be enough. John Beilein has taken us to the championship game twice in 5 years and we are all tickled pink. He is selling the same institutional package to recruits and competing against the same programs as Harbaugh. What makes him different is that he utilizes a modern offense (emphasis on 3 point shooting) and made critical adjustments like what he did with his defense in the last couple of years. We can all appreciate the product he puts out on the floor. Michigan has played for 5 National Championships in basketball since 1989. We have shown that Michigan can attract both the talent and great coaching to make it that far.

Back to football. When watching a Michigan football game, we are often left feeling like our coaches just don't get it and maybe never will. Save the two years when Denard was a freshman and sophomore, I have never watched a Michigan offense and thought to myself, "now this is going to be fun and exciting." Fun and exciting does not win games alone but assuming all things are equal on defense, being unpredictable is a necessity in today's game. Belichick understands this with the Patriots and has used tactical advantage (vs. personnel) to stay on top of the parity laden NFL for two decades.

In sum, Harbaugh needs to adjust his offensive playbook considerably and get a stud RB to go along with Patterson/McCaffrey next year. Brown needs to figure out how to coach and implement zone defense for teams like OSU and Indiana that killed us with slants, speedy receivers and running QB's. We cannot have opposing QB's giving post-game quotes like, "after watching the game film on Michigan, I was licking my chops..." If Harbaugh/Brown make those adjustments, I think we can at least start playing for all of the marbles on a periodic basis like Notre Dame. And unlike the OP, I believe we can even become elite like OSU or Alabama.

If next year we look like we did this year, IMO we'll never get over the hump with Harbaugh. Even with all of the talent in the world. It should only take a game or two next year to see which direction this goes. If no B10 titles and going 0-4 against OSU, with a tremendously uncompetitive result in Year 4, was not a catalyst for significant adjustments during the offseason, then its highly unlikely Harbaugh will be the first coach at Michigan to lead the program to achieving its' full potential in the modern era. At that point, I would wish him well on a move back to the NFL, perhaps where his overall schemes and approaches work better than in today's college game. Michigan fans probably should not lose hope that we could never find someone better. Coaches like Sean McVay, Kyle Shanahan, Lincoln Riley and Scott Frost prove that young talented coaches, who are not set in their ways and have a better feel for modern strategies, still find their way onto the scene. Hell, maybe Tom Brady will want to come back to Michigan and take his alma mater to new heights.

Go Blue!

jcorqian

November 26th, 2018 at 7:12 PM ^

I like your post a lot and respect the differences of opinion.  Well thought out and argued and made me consider some stuff.  There's a couple points I would make:

Notre Dame plays an easier schedule than Michigan.  I'm not saying anything about intentions - they put some traditionally good teams on there - but those teams haven't been very good for most of Notre Dame's run under Kelly.  And I posted Kelly's record in another post here - it's really not very good.  They have made it to the championship twice, yes, but they got blown out by Bama and probably will get blown out again.  They also do not have to play OSU which is at an all time best in its history every year to make it there.  In my opinion, ND is not an elite team.  It is capable of occasional flashes - similar to Michigan.  The difference is Michigan has to play OSU every year which has been absolutely elite under Meyer.

Harbaugh's run at Stanford has been over glorified in my opinion.  He did not come all that close to making it to the championship and neither did Shaw (though I do remember they were only off by one game one year, I think).  But the program as a whole has never been anywhere close to a current Bama / OSU / Clemson level.

I like your Beilein example.  For me though, the difference is Beilein is the guy winning by innovating and out-scheming his opponents even with inferior talent (e.g., emphasis on the 3-point shooting).  In football terms, it's like he invented the spread / RPOs / etc. and was the first to do it while everyone else was playing boring manball.  Our football team is doing the opposite, as you point out.  Furthermore, unlike Beilein and basketball it seems that all the elite teams are already running the innovative and superior schemes (e.g., the spread) and so its not as if we can get a schematic advantage that outweighs our talent deficiency.

Great post though, and I sincerely hope that I'm wrong in that we cannot become elite due to institutional limitations.  Nothing would make me happier.

Ghost of Fritz…

November 26th, 2018 at 8:29 PM ^

O.k, in this post I can find something we agree on--Beilein.  He is getting more from less because he is a brilliant offensive scheme guy.

And that is a model Harbaugh should emulate.  He needs an OC that can take the no. 8 stars roster and get past OSU and into the playoff. 

Whoever was calling the plays and/or doing the game plans this year, and especially against OSU, (JH? Pep? JH/Pep? they won't ever really say), it was not close to Beilein level of offensive scheme genius that can maximize and even over achieve with the talent on hand. 

charblue.

November 27th, 2018 at 2:01 PM ^

Yes, but in spite of Michigan's recent success in reaching the Final Four and winning two consecutive conference tournaments and achieving a 33-8 record last season, the school's most wins ever, the college basketball world doesn't consider Michigan an elite program.

In fact, most pundits put Michigan behind Michigan State in their preseason poll and penciled in the Spartans as the best team in the Big Ten and likely to win the conference even when Michigan twice beat their more elite roster twice last year, including once on their home floor, en route to a 30-5 year. Sparty only lost to Michigan at Breslin and once on the road in conference play.

Elitism is a matter of achievement and perception conferred by consensus. It is whatever you believe it to be. Everybody wants to win every game and reach the championship game on the last day of the season. Michigan has reached that game twice under Beilein and he is regarded as a great coach but not of an elite program.

You are what people think you are, not necessarily what you know yourself to be, which, to me, is more important because it means you don't let recruiting override your sense of self-worth as a program and dictate your morality in how you run it. But recruiting dictates perception of reality in college basketball.

You must win the big game to be considered elite, which is why Duke, North Carolina, Kansas and Kentucky are regarded as the four most elite teams in college basketball. This is, of course, a function of both traditional success, coaching stability and recognition with recent achievement.

They all have burnished reputations and annually recruit a parade of America's best talent to their programs which is why the media fawns all over them. And that is why others like Michigan, which doesn't usually attract the same talent, aren't viewed as such until they present themselves in that category at tournament time.

 

You Only Live Twice

November 26th, 2018 at 6:45 PM ^

Can I make a friendly suggestion? About half the word count would have made this stronger.

Also.  Another way for us to be elite:  8 team playoff.  

Hotel Putingrad

November 26th, 2018 at 7:08 PM ^

Michigan was elite in the first quarter of the 20th century and hasn't been since. You always have a shot at a magical season like 1997, just like most programs. But, yes, we're not equipped to be elite in a modern sense, where you're in CFP contention year in, year out.

Though it will be interesting to see who fills the void left by Saban's retirement 

Ghost of Fritz…

November 26th, 2018 at 8:41 PM ^

Michigan was elite in the 40s. Man don't forget my Mad Magicians!

Also elite during certain stretches of the Schembechler era (though fell just short of the MNC 3 or 4 times).

Michigan has the most wins and also the highest winning percentage because...

...it has been elite at several points in different eras, and also its bad patches have not been that bad (except for the RRod/Hoke time of tears and sorrows).

And even the RRod/Hoke period was above .500

 

Hail2Victors

November 26th, 2018 at 7:17 PM ^

This "diary" entry is a bad joke.   Winning creates an environment in which to notch recruits want to play.   You can't tell me that every player on the current roster is a fantastic student.

Michigan came out of totally flat against OSU, the fans at OSU were fired up like I have never seen them and OSU played very well.   I don't know the percentages but I am guessing that 75% of the teams (or higher) that give up a blocked punt for a TD on their opponents field are going to lose by a lot.   That series of plays -- Thomas mishandling the kickoff, Gentry dropping a great throw for a first down and then blocked punt stoked the fans and their team.   

I also don't understand why Shea didn't pull the ball on what looked like several zone read plays where it appeared he had a huge amount of green space on the left side of the field.

The team played poorly and seemed mentally out of it.   Chase Winovich had to be hurt.   Everytime I saw a shot of him, he didn't have his normal game face on.  He always seemed to have a sense of joy when he played.  I never saw that Saturday (or in the Indiana game for that matter).   The coaching staff seemed to have no answers on defense.   There is plenty of issues with the team in this game.   Just seems that they peaked in the Penn State game.   

 

This game was a step backward.   Just need to keep building.   

 

 

klctlc

November 26th, 2018 at 7:50 PM ^

Agree. Good post for thoughts. We can all argue here and there with your post, but overall I think it is correct.

I am friends and coworkers with a lot of SEC guys. Ole miss, GA, Al, LSU etc..  Inlcluding some very big alums.  They all know the payola happens but do not think it is a big deal.  I disagree. While the geography and grades issue we can't really change the money cannon is something M and a few others would love to use.

My thought is why don't Michigan, ND. NW, Stanford and whoever else just band together and say publicly "we are paying our football and basketball recruits" $25,000 - $ 100,000 each plus a scholarship".  The NCAA sanctions them and they go to court. You know the NCAA does not want to go to court.  I am no lawyer and I know this could take years but honestly the current system is a joke. Ole miss blatantly cheated and got 3 years probation? 

I know other schools may not be able to afford as much, but too bad.  

This will not immediately make M "elite" but who does not believe M, ND, Stanford, NW and a few others would not benefit?

MGoStrength

November 26th, 2018 at 7:57 PM ^

Teams that make the CFP – and especially those that win – generally have the best players.  I don’t think anyone would dispute that OSU has better talent top to bottom than Michigan does and that it matters.  We need better players to compete at this level on a consistent basis.  

While they do have better players the talent gap is not the only problem or even the biggest one IMO.  I will reference this a number of times, but I am going off roster talent based on the entire roster of recruiting rankings from 247.  OSU is #1 and UM is #8.  Clearly OSU has more talent.  However, FSU is #5, Clemson is #6, and LSU is #7.  FSU is clearly way worse than Clemson and Clemson is clearly way better than UM.  So, I think there's more to it than just talent.  

https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/

As the data above would suggest, we should be running a spread offense. 

Agreed, but as long as JH is at the helm we will run a pro style.  He will add things to keep teams guessing and mix in spread concepts, but it will all be out of our pro style base offense.  He wants to run the ball with the tailback first which requires an elite o-line.  So you have to ask yourself are we better of with another coach?  Would a better coach come to UM?  Is it worth going through another coaching change like with RR that may not work out?  I think the answer is no.  So, until JH decides to hand the playcalling reigns off to someone else, this is who we are.

Hard fixes – recruit better players.  Michigan pulls in a Rashan Gary, Jabrill Peppers, Daxton Hill, and hopefully Zach Harrison every once in a while, but it really isn’t to the consistency of Alabama, Clemson, and especially Ohio State.  Clemson (and I know it wasn’t always the case before) today starts four world-beaters at defensive line.  I think highly of Rashan as a player, teammate, and person but think that any of Clemson’s four is likely as good if not better at the college level than Rashan has been… and there are four of them.

Going back to reference the team talent rankings we are not far behind any of those teams.  We are close enough to win more than we have and to fare better than last Saturday.  Gary was the consensus overall #1.  Brian Mone was 4-star (#118).  Solomon was a 5-star (#23) that unfortunately was not healthy to play much of this year.  Luiji Vilain (#57) is top 100 level recruit that has not been healthy enough to play.  If you average those 4 guys that a #50 overall, just outside of a 5-star.  To compare that to Clemson's d-line Ferrell (115), Wilkins (24), Lawrence (2), and Bryant (#200) makes for an average of #85 overall.  So, if healthy we could put out a d-line of higher recruiting profile than Clemson, who probably has the best line in the nation.

And, we keep harping on Brandon Watson, who had a really great year, but sitting on the bench was Ambry Thomas who was a high level recruit with 4.4 speed.  And, the coaches chose to play Devon Gill over guys like Josh Ross, Jordan Anthony, and the now departed Drew Singleton whom were all high level recruits.  Safety has been a trouble spot, but we Dax Hill coming in.  I think recruiting is doing well and if the coaches continue to recruit a top 10 class every year it will be fine.

Overall conclusion: Michigan is not on a level playing field with Alabama, Clemson, OSU, etc.  We could make it a level playing field if we 1) paid players, 2) lowered academic standards, and 3) lowered character standards.  If we as an institution are willing to make that tradeoff, then we can be an elite program.  If we are not willing to do so, then we should be content with 10-win seasons and rare victories vs. OSU and rare appearances in the CFP in which we are beaten by teams with superior talent.  We simply cannot have both high institutional standards as a program AND expect to consistently beat OSU and compete for championships.

I agree with a bunch of that, but I'm not sure that changes unless the NCAA changes it's stance on amateurism.  I think our geographic location combined with another Power 5 program in the state is also a challenge.  Moving forward I don't think we can consistently out recruit OSU.  They will likely have top 5-ish classes.  I think OSU as a football program is on another level than UM and has many built in advantages that you have mentioned.  But, if we can maintain top 10-ish classes we should do better.  I think this one game was an outlier.  But, I don't think we will ever see another version of the Cooper era success against them.  I think we should hope for beating them more like 25-30% of the time, which coincindentaly what JH should be if not for some unlucky officiating.  And, we also seem to have the bad luck to be on the schedule of playing in Columbus on year's we have the stronger teams ('16 & '18).

taistreetsmyhero

November 26th, 2018 at 8:00 PM ^

The admission standards may be slightly higher at Michigan, but you're kidding yourself if you think it is appreciably harder for a top notch athlete to pass by here compared to OSU or Bama.

footballguy

November 26th, 2018 at 9:31 PM ^

This is the biggest myth about Michigan football. I have friends that actually believe these football players are getting into Michigan based on academic merit.

I just think it's funny how we can recruit a kid looking at OSU, Bama, Clemson, etc. and then when they commit to one of those schools, they're now a bad student. Like, if we are recruiting those kids deciding between those schools, either those schools have just as high of academic admission standards for the football players, or we have just as low standards as them. 

We lose out on recruits because Michigan is a miserable state. Look at all of the northern schools to have success - it's pretty much OSU. And even when they win it all, it's a miracle. Notre Dame every once in a while has a good year, but that's usually due to them having a horrible schedule, not that they're a truly great team.