Harbaugh Coached Teams on the Road
After last Saturday, I wanted to look at how Harbaugh teams have done on the road against the spread. Here are the results from the last two years.
Nov 12, 2016 |
MICH |
13 |
IOWA |
14 |
L |
+24.0 |
L |
51.0 |
U |
Oct 29, 2016 |
MICH |
32 |
MICHST |
23 |
W |
+24.5 |
L |
51.0 |
O |
Oct 8, 2016 |
MICH |
78 |
RUTGER |
0 |
W |
+30.5 |
W |
52.5 |
O |
Nov 21, 2015 |
MICH |
28 |
PENNST |
16 |
W |
+3.5 |
W |
43.0 |
O |
Nov 14, 2015 |
MICH |
48 |
INDIAN |
41 |
W |
+12.0 |
L |
55.5 |
O |
Oct 31, 2015 |
MICH |
29 |
MINN |
26 |
W |
+11.0 |
L |
39.0 |
O |
Oct 3, 2015 |
MICH |
28 |
MARYL |
0 |
W |
+13.5 |
W |
46.5 |
U |
Sep 3, 2015 |
MICH |
17 |
UTAH |
24 |
L |
-5.0 |
L |
44.5 |
U |
Michigan is 6-2 on the road the past two years, but 3-5 against the spread. The data for Stanford was harder to find and not as neatly packaged as the more recent Michigan games, so here is a bullet point with the years.
· In 2010, Stanford had a 5-1 record on the road, but were 4-2 against the spread.
· In 2009, Stanford had a 2-3 record on the road and were 2-3 against the spread.
· In 2008, Stanford had a 1-6 record on the road, but were 2-5 against the spread
· In 2007, Stanford had a 2-2 record on the road and were 2-2 against the spread
His total record on the road in his last six seasons as a college coach is 16-14 and his record against the spread is 13-17. So, what does this tell us? It says that a Harbaugh coached team doesn’t perform that well on the road compared to expectations.
November 14th, 2016 at 6:42 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 14th, 2016 at 6:55 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 7:05 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 7:40 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 14th, 2016 at 10:08 PM ^
he drooled on it.
November 14th, 2016 at 10:22 PM ^
Yep, he walked it from San Diego to Ann Arbor. And should have kept walking.
November 14th, 2016 at 6:42 PM ^
Meh, who cares about the spread. Just win.
November 14th, 2016 at 6:47 PM ^
I don't buy it. That is only two games away from meeting expectations with only a 30 game sample. We also don't know the record of all coaches on the road against the spread (perhaps bettors have been poor at predicting the outcome of road games over the past few years and Harbaugh is even closer to average than you would think just looking at 13-17).
November 14th, 2016 at 9:57 PM ^
A difference of two games is pretty meaningless
November 14th, 2016 at 6:51 PM ^
This is not particularly useful information. Also, during his first year at Stanford, Harbaugh pulled off the largest point-spread upset in college football history, and he did it on the road (with a backup QB who had thrown just three passes prior to that game, no less).
November 14th, 2016 at 6:58 PM ^
Exactly, a better analysis would be to look at how many points below the aggregate spread you are (with maybe a cap on only being able to earn/lose 20-30 points per game) and compare that to the rest of CFB over the same period.
November 14th, 2016 at 6:52 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 6:55 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 6:57 PM ^
The spread only matters when it comes to my sanity (are we winning the game comfortably enough that I don't have to be stressed out). Beyond that, the thing that matters is winning.
November 14th, 2016 at 7:03 PM ^
November 15th, 2016 at 7:38 AM ^
Sorry but you are wrong. The spread is a betting line. It doesnt encompass any expectations other than how the money will flow.
November 14th, 2016 at 6:56 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 6:56 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 6:56 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 7:04 PM ^
The problem here is that the "Harbaugh Vs. The Spread" Excel file is actually tracking the number of times Harbaugh's sandwiches have Hellman's or Miracle Whip. According the the CFP, Hellman's is a quality win, so if a mjaority of the sandwiches employ Miracle Whip, we could fall out of playoff consideration even if we win out.
I think that's how it works anyway.
November 14th, 2016 at 6:57 PM ^
People make a lot of money setting spreads, while it's not valuable to me as a fan, it's at least something to consider when analyzing the strength of a team and coach.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 14th, 2016 at 6:58 PM ^
While I don't think the spread is relevant. I am also a little concerned about coming out flat on the road. We better figure it out fast because we go to Madison and Happy Valley next year.
November 14th, 2016 at 6:59 PM ^
If JH wins or loses a close one in C-bus I won't care about this stat. But if he gets owned again, then yeah- its reasonable to start asking about road game weakness.
November 14th, 2016 at 7:05 PM ^
because it doesn't provide any context with which to judge how often any team performs well against the spread on the road.
November 14th, 2016 at 7:06 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 7:07 PM ^
looking at the spread and covering can be useful, but just a record ATS does not tell the whoe story in terms of expectations.
If you are a road dog getting 3 and you lose 24-20, that is a hell of a lot different than being a road dog getting 7 and losing 42-10, or being a road fave laying 24 and losing outright.
I'd like to see more of a breakdown as road dog and road favorite.
November 14th, 2016 at 7:15 PM ^
This analysis would have been much better received if you had simply left out the final sentence (and formatted better of course).
November 14th, 2016 at 7:22 PM ^
After seeing the reaction of people here, I completely agree. If Harbaugh would have been great ATS, I'm sure the overall reaction would have been much different. Formatting on here can be quite the pain.
November 14th, 2016 at 7:21 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 7:21 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 7:33 PM ^
GTFO with this shit. You can't compare Stanford to Uof M and it's pretty obvious winning on the road is hard. Spreads are for betting and have nothing to do with expectation.
November 14th, 2016 at 7:35 PM ^
Compiling data and drawing conclusions without considering the quality, or type, of data is not the way it's done.
First year performance should be disregarded, quite simply, because you're putting a new system into place. Secondly, I would argue that Harbaugh's second year data at Stanford should also be disregarded due to the condition of the program and personnel he inherited.
Looking at Harbaugh when he coached in the NFL with talent at a similar level to that of his competitors I think he was like around 75% W-L ratio.
At the FBS level, the talent level that Harbaugh will get puts them in the OSU/Alabama peer group. Unlike the NFL, there is not a commonality of talent on collegiate teams.
That being said we see the same exact trends at Stanford, San Franciso and Michigan of rising performance. Unfortunately, the dataset always ends at 4-ish years but Harbaugh has a track record of winning at a .900+ level. Even playing against teams with similar talent levels he is .750.
This should make Michigan fans sleep well.
November 14th, 2016 at 7:35 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 14th, 2016 at 7:41 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 7:42 PM ^
If Michigan had won on Saturday; If Harbaugh was more than 0.500 ATS, then this table doesn't happen and people are not crabby either. However, if you pull stats which would make people edgy, you are better off leaving the controversial pieces.
Now that you have raised this issue, what's the average deviation from the expected value (as someone else had also mentioned)? How does that compare to the rest of the CFB? To the "elite" coaches of CFB?
November 14th, 2016 at 7:58 PM ^
my emails?
Not sure this is much different than most Big Ten coaches, for all the ridicule our conference gets over the years there are some universally tough places to play. Iowa, Wisconsin, Penn State, Nebraska and Ohio State. For Michigan I'd throw MSU in that lot. I'd like to think Michigan is a tough place for everyone else to play as well.
November 14th, 2016 at 8:08 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 8:18 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 8:19 PM ^
Michigan is 6-2 on the road the past two years, but 3-5 against the spreadSounds like someone's got a gambling problem...
November 14th, 2016 at 8:47 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 14th, 2016 at 8:53 PM ^
Two more wins and it would have have been 15-15, which is what one would expect.
No conclusion can be drawn from this. I suggest that you take an introductory course in statistics.
November 14th, 2016 at 9:36 PM ^
November 14th, 2016 at 9:40 PM ^
"So, what does this tell us? It says that a Harbaugh coached team doesn’t perform that well on the road compared to expectations."
So fire him, right?
What a crock of special snowflake bullshit. Fuck the fuck off with this bullshit, OP...
November 14th, 2016 at 10:17 PM ^
Seriously, our 2014 squad would've been in a dogfight with Rutgers.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 14th, 2016 at 10:19 PM ^
So you compiled a smidgen of data, found nothing really interesting, and decided to share it with us. Kewl.
November 14th, 2016 at 10:38 PM ^
Horrible analysis.
November 14th, 2016 at 11:31 PM ^
It's hard for anyone to win on the road.
November 14th, 2016 at 11:57 PM ^
November 15th, 2016 at 2:25 AM ^
November 15th, 2016 at 2:20 AM ^