This Season vs. Harbaugh's Stanford Year One
Now that the regular season of Harbaugh Year One is over, I'm wondering if it may be useful to compare this season to his trajectory at Stanford. We only have one data point at Michigan so far, but this may be fun for pure idle speculation. So far we have:
| Year | Stanford | Michigan |
| Prior Season | 1-11 | 5-7 |
| Year 1 | 4-8 | 9-3 |
| Year 2 | 5-7 | ??? |
| Year 3 | 8-4 | ??? |
| Year 4 | 11-1 | ??? |
For the sake of disucssion, let's assume that this 9-3 season is not a fluke ala Hoke, and that Michigan won't be back-sliding, or at most if the record does suffer, we would go no lower than 8-4 in the regular season. Perhaps the choice isn't simply binary, but for discussion sake, does our 9-3 season represent:
A) Harbaugh is "ahead of schedule" compared to Stanford and thus will get Michigan to the point where we have 10-2, 11-1 or 12-0 regular seasons somewhat regularly within the next 2-4 years? i.e., "We will be reaching euphoric heights and in the playoff conversation late in the year more often than not."
OR
B) Does our 9-3 season mean that--thankfully--Harbaugh has quickly "raised the floor" of our program back to our "traditional floor" of 8-4 or 9-3, but (unfortunately) that's basically it, and that we'll be back where we were back in the Carr era being somewhat content with 10-2 or 9-3 seasons & semi-regular victories over our big rivals? i.e., "At least we are past our existential crisis but will only be in the playoff conversation late in the year just once every 6-7 years & thus view that as a special treat vs. expected outcome."
Or some alternative mixture of the two?
DISCUSS
**Edited to make the Scenario A vs. Scenario B differences more clear.
December 7th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^
December 7th, 2015 at 12:37 PM ^
Just a bit concerned about the schedule next season, vis-a-vis road games. From looking at the 2008 Stanford results, his team had a lot of road games that season as well, winning only one and losing all games to ranked teams.
THAT BEING SAID, this is certainly a different team in terms of talent, and we have a lot of seniors and (perhaps) a very talented QB in O'Korn. I'm too lazy to look up the quality of the Stanford roster for '08 but I can't imagine he would be helped by the sort of senior talent we'll have next year...perhaps even with a great HB in Walker.
December 7th, 2015 at 12:44 PM ^
Extrapolation + our next Michigan game isn't for another 3+ weeks = this thread.
December 7th, 2015 at 12:39 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2015 at 12:39 PM ^
December 7th, 2015 at 12:39 PM ^
Going from 1 wins to 4 at Stanford is much more impressive than going from 5 to 9 at Michigan, knowing the differences in the two rosters. We went 2-3 against the 5 best teams on the schedule, and of the 11 teams we could have beaten we beat 9.
Jim's first year was much better than most media predictions, but seeing the team progress really leaves the Utah and MSU losses as sore spots on the season. BUT if Jim has truly changed the culture, that is a larger feat and something that is not as easily identified right away, such as wins and losses are. So, Jim's first year was a success, but idk if we know of what magnitude yet.
That being said, Jim did this with Hoke's guys that Hoke chose not to develop (save for a couple DLmen). Jim is recruiting at an elite level (will finish with a top 5 class) and is establishing an incredible foundation. Given the schedules for the next two years, current roster, and recruiting levels, as soon as right now a 9-win season will be a disappointment here. Quarterback and line play will be of the highest priority and when we are competing at our historical level, recruits line up to play for us. I think this year's team just barely missed it's ceiling, but that this year's ceiling will be the lowest around here for quite some time.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:11 PM ^
December 7th, 2015 at 12:42 PM ^
After just reading Brian's attrition post I'm once again clear that the Recruiting-Development-Program/Game Management cycle is the key. I believe Harbaugh is here for at least several more years (as John Bacon has repeatedly opined). It is clear after this season that Harbaugh is a clear upgrade in the areas listed above. He has already changed the culture. All signs point to OP's scenario A, with the obviously huge caveat that predicting the future is always a fool's errand.
December 7th, 2015 at 12:44 PM ^
I would be very surprised if we ever lose more than 3-4 games per season under Harbaugh, even in reloading years.
I fully expect us to be the favorite to win the Big 10 next season and for The Game to decide the division title, as it almost was this year. I also expect us to make the playoffs next year. OSU has made it and won already, MSU is in this year, so next year we pretty much have to make it, or we'll never hear the end of it.
/please let O'Korn be a good QB, please let O'Korn be a good QB, please let O'Korn be a good QB
December 7th, 2015 at 7:36 PM ^
I understand the optimism for next year because of all our returning starters, but elite programs like MSU (yes, elite) and OSU reload and rarely take major steps back when replacing players. Their o-lines and d-lines are some of the best in the country and beat ours this year. If we can't run the ball on either, which we haven't done in years, I can see Michigan as "media" favorites but won't necessarily assume they'll beat MSU and OSU on the road just because both lose some starters. I think there's a lot of work to do on the lines to catch up.
December 7th, 2015 at 12:45 PM ^
December 7th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^
Harbaugh will have this team beating those they should. I do think, however, there will be an average of two losses per year:
> 1 loss to a team we should beat but don't, a la Carr era. However, the instances of this will be less.
> 1 loss to Ohio State. I unfortunately seeing us losing to them for the forseeable future more often than not. The only, only gripe I have against Harbaugh's system is I feel we're just optimizing a sub-optimal offense. That is, our best Harbaugh offense will be a step behind the best spread/dual-threat QB run offenses.
December 7th, 2015 at 12:57 PM ^
If OSU is running a spread, I would rather we ran a conventional offense so they won't go after the guys we're trying to recruit. And Stanford has had plenty of success running that sub-optimal offense with lower-ranked recruits than we should be able to attract here.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:05 PM ^
Not sure why you'd think that. Harbaugh's last 2 Stanford teams had the most efficient offenses in the country behind a punishing OL, a dominant running game, and Andrew Luck. Drives similar to MSU's clock-killing, 22 play drive were the norm for Harbaugh's Stanford teams once he really got things rolling. That's where we'll be soon enough. And those offenses are just as lethal as Urban's offense.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:29 PM ^
While Harbaugh's Stanford offenses were good, no doubt, I still feel like a decade or so worth of observation points to spread offenses being superior in college to more pro-style offenses. Well, to re-phrase: I think spread offenses raise the ceiling/floor of a team more than pro-style offenses.
The Alabamas of the world are good running pro-style offenses, sure. But is it possible Alabama could be even better if they recruited and ran a spread offense? My feeling is yes. Do I have data on the subject? No. Is it possible I'm wrong. Yes. But it's just my feeling after a decade worth of national observation.
Harbaugh coaching Stanford for a few years is a really small sample size to say his system is ideal. I think Harbaugh's 11-1 Standford team, even with a fortunate awesome NFL QB in Andrew Luck, would lose to an Urban Meyer OSU team 2 out of 3 times.
Of course, the argument about us running a pro offense and not having to go after the same spread recruits as OSU is a valid point, but I wouldn't want fear/competition to deter us from running the most ideal system. Plus, we'd pull spread recruits away from OSU. I think the top programs in the country ought to be running spreads. The next tear lower programs should be focusing on pro style to get the best players not geared towards spreads (and thus not being gobbled up by the top tier programs).
TL;DR - Harbaugh is awesome and will get us back to "very good" seasons, but I just don't think we'll be overtaking OSU's almost ideal spread offense/system unless there is some new scheme innnovation over this next decade that nerfs spreads.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:41 PM ^
Well there is data that shows that Harbaugh's offenses at Stanford, when he got his own recruits and had his system fully implemented, was just as good or better than pretty much all spread offenses. Yes, his offenses in 2009 and 2010 were better, on a per drive basis, than Urban's offenses at Florida. So I think your concern here is a bit unwarranted. I mean, when you have 2 Heisman contenders in Toby Gerhart and Andrew Luck working behind a dominant OL, there's no defense for that. It allows you to go on long drives that wears the opposing defense down and keeps your defense rested. When run at a high level, pro-style offenses are just as difficult to stop as the best spread offenses. And Harbaugh's pro-style offense is different than most and thus more difficult to gameplan for. It's certainly a lot different than the Hoke-Borges-Nussmeier offense.
Don't look at the result of this year's OSU game and project that into the future. OSU is well ahead of us in terms of talent and depth, and that comes from decades of running like a well-oiled machine without bumps that lasted more than 1 season. Urban inherited a supremely talented team recruited and developed by Jim Tressel. Harbaugh is working from well behind, but if he keeps pulling in top 5 or top 10 classes he will get us back on OSU's level within a few years, and OSU will be left wondering how to slow down our offense.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:36 PM ^
I like your thinking and, of course, I hope you're right.
And thanks by the way for the good, well though out, reply. It's a refreshing change of pace from "Your'e wrong and stupid." that one hears all too often when posting unpopular opinions. :-p
December 7th, 2015 at 2:52 PM ^
It's cool. A lot of people love the spread. I know Brian is a big proponent of the spread. And for good reason, it's been highly successful for a lot of programs. But as the spread increases in popularity, so too does the focus of defenses on stopping the spread. Pretty soon the pro-style offense will be very unfamiliar to most defenses and thus more difficult to prepare for. It will be like the spread when the spread was first implemented. So Harbaugh going away from what's becoming the more popular offensive philosophy has another added incentive. His offense is already difficult to prepare for, it will be even more so when he's going up against teams designed to stop the spread.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:21 PM ^
among those who believe that the spread offense is inherenly better.
Saban, Harbaugh, and Dantonio disagree.
Either offensive approach (or the various blends that are emerging) can win the national championship with the right players and the right coaching.
Michigan now has the right coaching and soon will have the right players.
December 7th, 2015 at 12:46 PM ^
Based on the types of games we played Michigan's record could have been somewhere between 7-5 to 10-2. Finishing 9-3 is right in the middle of the range as the team's "luck" balanced out over the year. I wouldn't expect a backslide and see a 8-4 or 9-3 season again next year.
December 7th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^
Given the 2016 schedule and who we have to replace (QB, 2 FBs, C, 5 LBs, 1FS) I would be surprised if we do better than 9-3. As I see it @OSU and @MSU are losses, I'd love to call them toss ups but until proven otherwise they are losses. Then we have Wisconsin and @Iowa on top of our remaining B1G East schedule.
December 7th, 2015 at 12:54 PM ^
December 7th, 2015 at 1:22 PM ^
9 conference games and 2/3 crossover game are against the #1 and #3 Big Ten West teams this year. I have a lot of faith in Harbaugh but that is a brutual schedule.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:05 PM ^
December 7th, 2015 at 3:04 PM ^
What makes you think we can replicate our defensive performance this year when we lose everybody on the 2deep from BUCK to SAM save for Gedeon?
Maybe that is why Durkin left. Maybe he saw the massive holes at BUCK, WLB, MLB, and SAM and decided to bail. He was the LB coach as well as DC so he had first hand knowledge of the skill level we are returning at those positions.
December 7th, 2015 at 3:17 PM ^
Orrrrrr, he left because he got a head coaching job at a power 5 program and a significant increase in salary, and not because we lose all of 4 starters off the defense. Just a thought.
December 7th, 2015 at 3:50 PM ^
Obviously that is why.
I'm just saying that our depth and even starters at LB next season will be very thin and inexeperienced. That does not bode well. While everyone is focused on what MSU and OSU is losing nobody seems concerned about what we lose.
December 7th, 2015 at 10:39 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2015 at 12:54 PM ^
December 7th, 2015 at 12:58 PM ^
QB should be better. Hopefully we can plug and play at FB. Center and LBs will hurt and couldn't Thomas play SS?
I would say MSU and OSU are closer to toss-ups than not as they lose more value than we do. However, 2017 scares me as we lose like 60-70% of our team.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:13 PM ^
We've been saying that OSU/MSU are toss-ups for years now. Until we actually get a win I can't say that @OSU and @MSU are toss-ups. They are still likely losses.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:06 PM ^
We could very well go 9-3 or 8-4 in either scenario. I guess in the scenarios I had in the OP, Scenario A would call for a 9-3 or worst case 8-4 in the rare "rebuilding year", whereas a 9-3 season would be seen as possibly "par" in Scenario B.
So there is a bit of over lap in both scenarios. It's just that in Scenario A the range of outcomes is 8-4 to 12-0 with "par" being about 10-2 or 11-1, whereas Scenario B the range would be 7-5 to (unfortunately) 11-1 and "par" would be about 9-3 or occasionally 10-2 or in rare instances 11-1 or 12-0.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:19 PM ^
We'll be favored and IMO heavily in 9 games if O'Korn can even play Jake level.
The season will come down to @OSU, @Iowa, @MSU. I'd put 9-3 as the floor not the assumption. Losing any other game on the schedule next year would be disappointing and a considerable upset. We have 8 home games! Wisc is not great and PSU is led by Brady Hoke 2.0 and both at home.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:29 PM ^
Our chances of winning one of those games (@Iowa, @MSU, @OSU) is higher than losing all 3 but I still would be shocked it we win one. Teams will be feasting on our depleted linebacking core next year and I have no faith that Kalis, Braden, and Magnuson will produce a run game in their 4th year starting together. The pass game should do well if Butt comes back but now that he is "50/50" to the NFL that is something to worry about.
John O'Korn is talented but his career stats don't match Rudock. They have the same TD:INT ratio but Rudock has a 61.58% completion rate to O'Korn's 56.38% and Rudock averages 7.20 YPA to O'Korn's 6.57 YPA. Hopefully he can match Rudock's numbers from this year but I doubt O'Korn will surpass them.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:20 PM ^
ENOUGH WITH THE ENDLESS PESSIMISM.
This pessimism doesn't even make any sense.
You think 8 wins is our ceiling?!?!
The way I see it, 9 wins is our floor. We have three easy home non-conference games and play Illinois, Indiana and Maryland in the Big House. That gets you to 6 wins. Then we play at Rutgers. That gets you to 7 wins.
This year, in 2015, we are already a better team than both Wisconsin and Penn State, will be bringing in better freshman than them, lose no more than they do, AND are coached by a much, much better coaching staff. AND we play both in Ann Arbor, and at least one will be a night game. This are games we could lose, but Michigan will 100% be favored in both games and it would be a disappointment to lose either. The probability that we lose one of these is definitely not greater than the probability that we win at MSU or Iowa.
Therefore, there will be 9 games we should be clearly favored in, 8 of them are in the Big House and the other is in a tiny stadium in New Jersey that will be 40% Michigan Fans.
The difference between 9-3 and 12-0 will be decided in @Iowa, @MSU, and @OSU. I think that we are of similar ability to the first two teams this year, maybe a little behind, but they both lose more than we do (And will be bringing in worse freshman classes).
I would rate both Iowa and MSU as toss-ups, leaving @OSU as the only game we are clear underdogs in.
My expectation would be that we lose two of those three and win 1, with 2 wins more likely than 0 wins.
10-2 is my prediction, with 11-1 a little more likely than 9-3.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:38 PM ^
I think 9 wins is our ceiling hence the "I'd be surprised if we did better than 9-3".
I know we lost to MSU on a fluke play but they outgained us by 156 yards. The only reason we were in a position to win is because they went 0-4 on 4th downs.
MSU will reload next year. We've been waiting for them to "fall off" for 6 years now and they keep putting together 11+ win seasons year after year. I don't expect that to change in the near future.
Right now given the absolute question marks we have at WDE, MLB, WLB, and SAM I'd be shocked if we did better than 2-3 against Iowa, PSU, Wisconsin, MSU, and OSU next year. PSU and Wisconsin probably lean wins but Iowa, MSU, and OSU definitely lean losses.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:43 PM ^
If you actually watched the game and saw the special teams domination until the worst thing ever, hyou would know that Michigan save for a couple big plays controlled the game. Should they have finished better? Of course. But if you read Brian's column after that game the following Monday, a lot of their offensive yard advantage was due to field position and Michigan made up for that with special teams until the end.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:32 PM ^
So you are saying it is a positive that MSU continually flipped field position by marching down the field on our Secondary and we kept pinning them deep with punts? At the end of the day I'd rather be the team that is moving the football and taking risks by going for it on 4th down. If MSU had gotten 1 or 2 of their 4th down attempts they probably would have won the game without the fluke. MSU averaged 5.36 yards per play to our 3.97. So they beat us by almost 1.4 yards per play. They gained 8.41 yards per pass and we gained 6.72 yards per pass. The diffence there is almost 1.7 yards per pass. The reason we had such an advantage on special teams is because they went for it on 4th down four times. Literally to win that game we had to have everything go right. Multiple times pinning them inside the 20. Have MSU fail to convert their 4th down attempts. Have 0 turnovers. We played the perfect game until the last play, well minus the 75 yard TD pass to the fullback. If we played them 10 times we might win 3 times.
And yes I actually watched the game and read Brian's column so save your snark. It always felt like they were one play away from taking the lead and they finally got their one play.
December 7th, 2015 at 3:06 PM ^
The biggest argument I'd make against your point is the officiating. Think of Michigan's interception that was incorrectly called back, with an MSU touchdown at the end of that drive. Or the blatant Rudock facemask that wasn't called on the penultimate Michigan drive. Or the myriad others that went mostly against us. If that game is called well, I don't think MSU is in range to have the fluke. There are a lot of things that went right to have us in our position at the end, but a really unavoidable number of things that went wrong, too.
Plus, MSU played the way they did, and we played the way we did because of our respective special teams units. Although their kicker has redeemed himself this season, he was very shaky at the time--they went for 4th downs because they didn't feel like they had a better option. And they didn't make them in large part because Michigan has been consistently good at stopping people on 3rd and 4th downs. On the flipside, Michigan pinned them multiple times within the 20 because that's what we've done consistely all season.
That said, I had a similar feeling to what you had at the time--and I think the game felt that way because MSU had an offense that could break a big play without warning. Michigan's drives were much more slow and methodical, so it doesn't have the same "on the verge" feel. (Also, I think I hadn't gotten over the last few years emotionally and couldn't quite believe what I was seeing.)
December 7th, 2015 at 3:13 PM ^
MSU's 4th-down attempts were all very low-percentage tries. I believe the closest was 4th and 7, and the last one was 4th and 19. Those went how you would expect them to.
Regarding yards per play, MSU's 74-yard pass to the fullback is an extreme outlier that skews their totals upward. If we'd have played them again, they probably wouldn't have gotten that play. Conversely, if we'd played them in November, Rudock may well have connected on that deep ball to Chesson he overthrew. The MSU game this year was just a couple of weeks before Rudock and the WRs really clicked.
December 7th, 2015 at 3:47 PM ^
Fair point on the 4th downs. One was a fake punt too.
Still if Dantonio goes for points or punts on the first three 4th down situations I'd bet he is winning and doesn't have to go for the 4th and 19 at the end.
An 80 yard punt skews special teams stats as well.
We may have won special teams but MSU outplayed us on offense and defense. Harbaugh has to fix that.
December 7th, 2015 at 10:35 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2015 at 3:18 PM ^
I know we lost to MSU on a fluke play but they outgained us by 156 yards. The only reason we were in a position to win is because they went 0-4 on 4th downs.
I'm sorry, but this is lazy analysis. Take a closer look at where each team started its possessions. MSU had far more available yards than we did due to our massively superior special teams play (before the last snap, obviously). And none of their fourth downs was a high-percentage situation.
It's also worth noting that we played virtually the entire game with the lead, which is going to affect a team's playcalling, especially in the fourth quarter.
As for MSU never having a down season, actually they did in 2012, their last pre-Cook season. A new QB is always a bit of an unknown. We're very fortunate to have O'Korn around.
December 7th, 2015 at 5:29 PM ^
So you are saying it is a positive that MSU continually flipped field position by marching down the field on our Secondary and we kept pinning them deep with punts?
MSU averaged 5.36 yards per play to our 3.97. They were +1.4 yards per play against us. They gained 8.41 yards per pass and we gained 6.72 yards per pass. They were +1.7 yards per pass against us.
The reason we had such an advantage on special teams is because they went for it on 4th down four times and failed to convert each time. At the end of they day I'd rather have 156 more offensive yards than 200 hidden special teams yards. Let's say they go 1/2 on the 45 and 49 yard field goal that give them a 1 point lead instead of a 2 point deficit on the last series. Then if they punt instead of faking it I doubt Michigan scores a TD on the next possession, maybe we get a field goal.
I know it looks like we massively outplayed them on special teams but Dantonio was calling an aggressive game and it was backfiring on him. If he played more conservatively they likely would have won the game by about 4 points without the fluke at the end.
I mean we had 3 drives over 30 yards and only 5 drives over 20 yards. MSU had 5 drives over 30 yards and 8 drives over 20 yards. Sure our special teams made them drive field but they did it pretty effectively against us. They scored TDs on drives of 46, 77 and 75 yards. Not to mention a turnover on downs on a 72 yard drive that stalled on our 28 yardline. Our special teams kept us in the game but MSU was winning the other phases pretty handidly.
As for a down year for MSU. In 2012 they were 4-5 in one score games (7 points or less). Since then they are 9-2 in one score games. MSU is a program that knows how to win close football games. I mean this year they were 6-1 in once score games. To me that isn't a fluke. That is a team that expects to win when the game is on the line. Hence the 22 play 8 minute championship winning drive.
December 7th, 2015 at 10:33 PM ^
Dude: without that miracle, MSU does not have this season.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2015 at 10:29 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2015 at 2:30 PM ^
Didn't people see the front page post about how attrition in Hoke recruiting classes? Harbaugh did not walk into the sort of roster scenario Meyer found when he arrived in Columbus. Harbaugh got to 9 wins with a good but not near great roster.
9-3 is the floor in 2017.
Both OSU and MSU will be hit with big turnover due to graduation and draft.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:40 PM ^
"Both OSU and MSU will be hit with big turnover due to graduation and draft."
We've been saying this for the last 5 years while OSU and MSU have been reeling off double digit wins year after year. Heck OSU has had 10+ wins in 12 of the last 15 years and I'm not even including their vacated wins from 2010. And MSU is at 5 of the last 6 seasons at 11+ wins. I don't think that will stop in the near future.