ESPN Names Michigan as a 2018 Playoff Contender
Here's the (link). Unfortunately, it's accompanied by some silly talk on Harbaugh hype. Worth noting that the list intentionally excludes current CFP participants. Among others making an appearance: Auburn, Stanford, and both Ohio State and Penn State.
December 27th, 2017 at 9:41 AM ^
I think most of us expect (or at least strongly hope) that if Harbaugh coaches at M for another 10 or 15 years, then we will see our share of conference titles, major bowl wins, CFP appearances, and maybe even a national title. But to declare that any of those things must happen in a specific season or else we'll "have the conversation" seems kind of ignorant when we already have the best coach we could conceivably have.
Let's say we do go 8-4 again next year. What conversation should we have then? The one that involves the return of John Gruden to NCAA football? The one that asks what Les Miles is up to these days? The one that considers the pros & cons of an offensive savant toiling in obscurity at a distant lower-division program? The one that probes NFL hot seats?
We ought to do much better next season than 8-4. But if we don't, then our best bet will be to just try again in 2019.
December 27th, 2017 at 9:51 AM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 9:52 AM ^
we already have the best coach we could conceivably have." I understand what you are saying, but that statement removes any accountabilty from Harbaugh in terms of how his teams produce on the field. Coaches are defined by what they produce, and if he doesn't produce at or near competitive levels with other coaches of teams on similar footing, how is he "the best coach we could conceivably have?" You see what I am saying? I think that is a recipe for the program to settle back into the 9-3 model of "success" that we had under Lloyd Carr, (after 97 of course). It ultimately doesn't matter what we think, I get that. And I do think it is premature to really discuss it, but say we went 8-4 back to back in 2018 and 2019. Would he still be "the best coach we could conceivably have?" And how would you arrive at that conclusion?
December 27th, 2017 at 10:25 AM ^
Do you see that you're extrapolating, and by so doiing, reaching to get to that dramatic "discussion" debate you want to have? I'm not sure if you realize you're doing it. Further up you say "if we go 8-4 and 9-3 forever", and here you're saying 8-4 in 2018 and 2019. Do you see how that hypothetical ddoesnt make any sense and is melodramatic?
You know this: Harbaugh's been here three years, and the results have been excellent. First year 10 wins, should have had another but for the Smarty punt. Look at that MSU team - they were no better than Michigan but absolutely lucked into the playoff, for killed. If you just rabble "results!" you'd make a really silly assessment of the quality of coaching that year. Second year was outstanding but heartbreaking, where he beat both B1G division champions, but lost 3 games by 5 points. If the spot is different in Columbus, we're literally talking about one of the best turnarounds in M football history (or really any team). This year sucked because we lost two quarterbacks. If Peters plays against OSU we're 9-3 and it's fine.
Same looking backward needlessly. "We haven't won a B1G title since... While Sparty is xxxx... OSU is xxxx... And our record against rivals xxxx". All that nonsense is history, can't be undone. A lot of it was due to Carr, Richrod, and Hoke. Harbaugh's record against rivals were to be seen in context - he could easily have won four games that were losses.
December 27th, 2017 at 11:03 AM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 11:09 AM ^
This should have 1000 upvotes.
December 27th, 2017 at 11:44 AM ^
I mean...the results have not been excellent.
The results have been the borderline bottom of what one would expect with a coach of Harbaugh's caliber at the helm.
Some of that is bad luck, sure, but he's literally won only two things of any consequence if we're being generous: a bowl game against Florida and a win over 3-9 MSU.
December 27th, 2017 at 12:02 PM ^
you go back and think about some assumptions when he got here, he has exceeded expectations. 7-5 was the prevailing thought about the 2015 team, and Harbaugh turned around the culture really fast. It helped that he had much more talent then we realized at the time, and his development of those players was pretty damn impressive.
It is already something to behold that Michigan is a spotlight program again. Michigan was not a relevant program when he took it over, or if it was relevant it was only as kind of a running joke. Now, the number of night games, primetime Game of the Week type coverage, all of this speaks to a renewed relevance in the Michigan program, and much of that is attributable to him. There is no question that Michigan has received the benefit of the bargain to this point.
That being said, I don't think the team has been the same since that 2016 loss to Iowa. I am not sure what that signified, or what it did, etc., but since that game it does feel that we are back to "having our fingers crossed" in big games and having no more than a "punchers chance" against good, ranked opponents. Both the immediate ascension of Michigan under Harbaugh and a pretty abrupt regression (or possibly stagnancy) beginning toward the middle of 2016 have been unexpected. Even the aforementioned win against a 3-9 State team was relatively uninspiring. It has been a very unpredictable ride to be sure.
December 27th, 2017 at 12:14 PM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 4:02 PM ^
It is not a miracle that a great coach able to pick a highly compensated, experienced staff was able to win 10 games with a team returning loads of starters, many of which were highly rated recruits.
How on earth can people think this?
Also, this year should have been better. Michigan should have been 9-3. They should have beaten a mediocre MSU team at home. I'm tired of people like you (who should know better) pretending that isn't the case. Whose choice was it to have John O'Korn back up Wilton Speight? To start Ulizio?
December 27th, 2017 at 12:47 PM ^
If you dismiss reason, this is correct.
EDIT: I mean, you just posted this 4 days and 1 hour ago:
| QB away from being |
We are a QB away from being 5-1 against our rivals. Also, I like you, but joining the chorus of people who try to blame the 2015 loss on anything but Blake O'Neill fucking up the last play is a bad look. All he has to do is catch the ball and that game is over. The protection didn't matter. |
December 27th, 2017 at 6:38 PM ^
Yes, I did. These two things are not the same. It does not change the fact that the results have not been excellent. Also, plenty of teams win big games without having world-beaters at QB (see MSU this year).
If this is excellent, what would a Big Ten title be? A playoff appearance? A National Championship? Victories over Ohio State and Michigan State?
It's funny you talk about reason. Here is what you have to believe to think that Michigan has overachieved under Harbaugh so far:
1. Experience does not matter.
2. Coaching does not matter.
3. Recruiting rankings do not matter.
If you believe the above, then yes, 10-3 two years in a row, 1-5 in rivalry games (and some close losses!) and three straight bowl appearances would indeed surprise you and feel excellent.
But if you believe the following things:
1. Experience matters.
2. Coaching matters.
3. Recruiting rankings matter.
Then you see the last three years for what they really were: The bare minimum of achievement from an excellent coach. There was no reason to think that teams returning boat loads of highly ranked recruits under a vastly improved coaching staff would not win ten games...unless of course you lack all reason. In fact, its a bit disappointing that those highly experienced, talented teams coached by Jim Fucking Harbaugh were not able to win much of anything. And yes, this projected to be a down year, but: Given who Harbaugh is, its still a disappointment that he did not manage to win one game that mattered this year, despite there being valid reasons for that. But plenty of teams have those reasons and they still pull those type of games off.
December 27th, 2017 at 12:44 PM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 3:58 PM ^
Sorry, I just consider Michigan State and Ohio State to be the two big rivals. If you want to throw Penn State in there fine.
It doesn't change the fact that we are calling back to back third place finishes in the division "excellent".
December 27th, 2017 at 12:29 PM ^
But it see it a little differently.
2015; you're right. It was one of the best coaching jobs in Michigan history. Such a turn around, and if not for a fluke Michigan wins 10 regualr season games, and who knows what happens in a bowl game because they're not playing Florida.
2016; heartbreaking 3 losses by 5 points yes, but that year is chalked up as a disappoinment/blowing it. Speight getting hurt against Iowa sucks, but at the same time there were 11 NFL draft picks and a few other players who got chances on NFL teams. That was an insane amount of talent, and to lose those games is just poor managment/luck/coach/line play/etc. That will be a team that's talked about years down the road and we'll say "how did they not win the B10 and get to the playoffs?"
2017; this is a meh type of year. O-line not improving is what really was holding this team back. The fact that they got two QB's killed is not acceptable. The defense couldn't do anymore, and with how young they were it is just amaing what Don Brown has done (only bad part about having Don Brown is the idiot fans who want other coaches fired and say "well just go get the Don Brown of XXXX position"). 8-4 with all the qb's getting killed happens. Could have won a few more games, but this should basically be the floor for Harbaugh.
December 27th, 2017 at 12:55 PM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 1:12 PM ^
Michigan had the chance to win the game on offense and didn't. The results are the results no matter how bad some of the calls were.
December 27th, 2017 at 1:23 PM ^
December 28th, 2017 at 12:03 AM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 11:03 AM ^
"Accountability" might be my least favorite word that sports fans regularly use. "Oh, I'm not just bitching because the games didn't turn out the way I was hoping--I am just demanding accountability here." But really, it's bitching about the fact that the team lost. As if the head coach of the freaking team is perfectly okay with it himself, and doesn't mind losing 4 games.
If we are going to have a serious discussion of accountability, let's look at what the head coach actually has some reasonable control over:
1) Are the right players being targeted in recruiting?
2) Are the players being properly developed into contributors at a good pace?
3) Do the offensive and defensive schemes make sense given the program's aspirations and level of competition?
4) Are game plans consistently well-deisgned in light of the respective teams' strengths and weaknesses?
5) Do the players demonstrate consistent effort throughout off-season and in-season preparations and play their hardest in games?
6) Are academic and disciplinary issues handled in a fair, transparent, and reasonable manner?
7) Are assistant coaches skillfully hired and promoted, and replaced when necessary? .
These are just some factors I came up with off the top of my head. If you want to add some more or change them, feel free. But if you want to hold a coach accountable for something, focus on things like this. Saying that "he's 1-5 in rivalry games" or "he hasn't even won the B1G East" or "his recruits don't have enough starz" isn't really holding a coach accountable--that's just complaining about end results. What did the coach do wrong that caused those results to happen?
It's pretty difficult to isolate any real significant mistakes Harbaugh has made at M. Wasting offensive possessions on the Pepcat in 2016? Not using a better punt protection against MSU in 2015? Fiddling with zone running early in 2017? All of those are pretty understandable, and really were only revealed as mistakes in hindisght.
December 27th, 2017 at 12:17 PM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 1:20 PM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 6:43 PM ^
John O'Korn, back-up QB 2017, was an enormous error that likely cost this team at least the Michigan State game.
December 27th, 2017 at 12:34 PM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 9:02 AM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 10:28 AM ^
I don't think there is any Harbaugh must win "X" games in 2018 to stay off the hot seat. There is no arbitrary record hot seat for Jim Harbaugh - yes maybe if they go 4-8 you start to have "the discussion" but if ever that were to happen, you wouldn't need the record to tell you something is wrong inside the program. There are no better coaching options available to Michigan. Nick Saban or Urban Meyer or Bill Bellichek are not going to come walking through the door (thank God).
The best way to observe as a fan is watch for improved play and competitivenes on the field. From where we were at in 2014 I would say we have gotten that exponentially, and if that continues you will find Michigan competing for conf championships and playoff births by vertue of continuing to elevate their level of play. Michigan probably has the toughest schedule in the country next year. If they are competitive on the field and go 8-4, it does not mean Jim Harbaugh should be fired or put on a "hot seat". There are no better options available people. There are not many optoins better period.
December 27th, 2017 at 11:20 AM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 4:23 PM ^
was 8-4, but Michigan was also outright Big Ten Champs.
Over that 3 year span they were 4-2 against OSU and MSU and depending on which poll you look at finished in the Top 10 two of those years.
December 27th, 2017 at 11:36 AM ^
Anyone who refers to 2017 as a failure to raise the ceiling is dumb.
Anyone who doesn't see how Harbaugh failed in 2016 in similarly dumb. 2016 is his worst season as a Michigan head coach and it's not close.
December 28th, 2017 at 9:08 AM ^
Wait, what? 2016? 10-3, top ten ranking, averaged 40 points per game, relinquished an average of 14 points and it's his worst yet, not even close? I am unsure of what constitutes beyond dumb by you but how can your words not carry the trophy? I wish I noticed this. I'd have stopped replying to you. You are not able to be objective.
December 27th, 2017 at 10:36 AM ^
This meme is tiring. Hear it from blogger here, mouthpieces on tv and radio, ignorant and jealous Sparties, Domers, etc. The reality is the expectations should be reflective of the reality. Here are a few facts:
Saban at MSU after three years: 19-16-1
Saban at LSU after three years: 26-12
Saban at Bama after 3: 33-8
Dantonio at MSU after 3: 22-17
Kelly at ND after 3: 28-11
Swinney at Clemson after 3.5 (hired midyear): 29-19
Coach Harbaugh at UM: 29-10 or 28-11
These are the coaches he's compared to, they all inherited a program. All at different places, of course. The reality is, Michigan was not in a better place than any of these programs when Coach was hired. I could make an argument that it was at least one of the bottom 2. Next year is another lithmus test. It isn't defining, IMO. He will win here. It will take the time he needs, whenever that is. I hope our fanbase shuts up, roots blindly for the team and pretends to be rational.
December 27th, 2017 at 11:38 AM ^
You can't compare him to Dantonio, Saban at MSU or Swinney. Harbaugh had a much better situation to walk into than all of those.
The most appropriate comparison is probably to Kelly, but I'd say that Saban at LSU/Bama are also fair comparisons.
Not sure if it's a good or bad thing that Harbaugh is the same as Kelly...
December 27th, 2017 at 12:02 PM ^
Clemson had a better record over the years og Hoke-RR, comparatively. Tommy Bowden recruited well. Not accurate to say that Michigan was in a better place than Clemson when Dabo started. Facts say worse than Clemson. I'd question what Harbaugh had, culturally, to walk inot in Michigan. Additionally, Hoke's recruits of his last two recruiting cycles were not helpful.
Point is, people are ignorant to start the Harbaugh needs .....to by..... talk. It's not Xbox.
December 27th, 2017 at 1:44 PM ^
I suppose you could compare Dabo to Harbaugh, I was wrong about that. But Dabo definitely did not have a better situation than Harbaugh. I'd still argue Dabo's situation was slightly worse.
Including the poor end to Hoke's recruiting, Michigan's 4 year recruiting average when Harbaugh joined was #17 after signing day in 2015; Clemson's 4 year average was #19 at the same point in Dabo's career (his best class at the time was #9, which were the freshman).
Harbaugh had two top ten recruiting classes to work with (#4 and #6), at essentially the perfect ages (Juniors and Sophomores; not old enough to lose them right away and not young enough to be ineffective).
Harbaugh was also at a blue blood program, with unparalleled fan support and (relatively) unlimited salaries to spend on coaching assistants while Dabo did not have nearly as many resources/tradition to rely on.
Dabo was also paid significantly less than Harbaugh, so he should be held to at least a slightly lower standard early in his career.
I am not one of those who thinks Harbaugh should be feeling any pressure yet. I just think it's clear he does not deserve to be in the top tier of coaches conversation yet (Saban, Meyer, Swinney, etc.), even though so many on here seem to think he should be and bristle at any suggestion he's not.
And, while he didn't walk into a great situation (i.e. Urban Meyer) it was very far from horrible. Above average in terms of recruiting talent for a rebuilding job, certainly.
HateSparty's ascertation that Harbaugh walked into "at least" a bottom two situation on his list is beyond dumb. Harbaugh had an infinitely superior position than both the MSU coaches on the list. Probably slightly better than Dabo, if not even, and about even with Kelly too.
December 27th, 2017 at 3:28 PM ^
Beyond dumb. K. Unless you can state a fact based statement as to how you would be able to demonstrate how it is inaccurate, is your opinion any less dumb? Aside from ignoring the win-loss comparisons, the relative trajectory over 8 years of a program and the reflective evaluation of any "ranking" of recruits, you offer...."ranking" without analysis. Got it.
December 27th, 2017 at 7:26 PM ^
I looked up the recruiting rankings you did not.
But if you want me to analyze it, I will.
Not sure why 8 seasons prior is your benchmark, that seems way too big. Not sure why 2008 has any effect on Harbaugh, or if it does, why it's significantly more than, say, 2006. That metric is cherrypicked specifically to paint Harbaugh in the best possible light.
Realistically, a far more fair range of records to judge a new coach's situation by is the last 4 years (i.e. when your oldest possible players as a coach were freshman).
Records in the 4 seasons prior to a coach's arrival:
- Harbaugh/Michigan: 31-20 (0.608)
- Kelly/Notre Dame: 26-24 (0.520)
- Dantonio/MSU: 22-26 (0.458)
- Saban/MSU: 14-31 (0.311)
- Swinney/Clemson: 31-18 (0.633)
- Saban/LSU: 26-20 (0.565)
- Saban/Bama: 26-24 (0.520)
Harbaugh walked into the second BEST recent record of the coaches you listed (0.608), only a hair behind Dabo/Clemson (0.633), but again Dabo's recruiting talent was slightly worse and he had less money/resources.
So yes, I stand by my statement and have now offered much more analysis than you have. It seems Harbaugh may have walked into perhaps the best situation of those coaches and was definitely paid the most.
Both the MSU coaches you listed walked into teams with sub .500 records over 4 years. It is beyond dumb to insinuate that Harbaugh's situation was even close to as bad as Dantonio's or Saban at MSU.
December 28th, 2017 at 12:24 AM ^
a year makes.
If we look at just the previous 3 years before each became head coach (3.5 for Swinney) and 3 years after (3.5 for Swinney) we see the following:
Pri3 % - win% the three years before each became head coach
Fir3 % - win % the first three years as head coach
Pri3 L - number of losses by the team for the 3 years before each became head coach
Fir3 L - number of losses the first three years as head coach
Improv - The improvement of each stat
| Coach | Team | Pri3 % | Fir3 % | Improv | Pri3 L | Fir3 L | Improv |
| Saban | MSU | 0.471 | 0.543 | 0.072 | 18 | 16 | 2 |
| Saban | LSU | 0.471 | 0.684 | 0.214 | 18 | 12 | 6 |
| Saban | Ala | 0.595 | 0.805 | 0.210 | 15 | 8 | 7 |
| Kelly | ND | 0.432 | 0.718 | 0.286 | 21 | 11 | 10 |
| Swinney | Cle | 0.636 | 0.604 | -0.032 | 16 | 19 | -3 |
| Dantonio | MSU | 0.400 | 0.564 | 0.164 | 21 | 17 | 4 |
| Harbaugh | UM | 0.526 | 0.718 | 0.192 | 18 | 11 | 7 |
(I am assuming UM losses the bowl game).
Harbaugh is close to the middle in improvement of winning % (4th best) and above average in reducing the number of losses (tied for 2nd best).
And, as you can see above, Harbaugh is in the discussion with Saban and Swinney (two great coaches, IMO), not as good as Kelly (at best a very good coach, IMO) and better than Dantonio (a very good but not great coach, IMO).
Seems like Harbaugh is at a minimum a very good coach and very possibly a great coach.
December 28th, 2017 at 8:57 AM ^
Recruiting rankings are not the most accurate data to use. The rankings are based upon the kids in high school. It does not consider how they panned out, how many are actually contributing and to what degree. I'd suggest that your data is fact, cannot argue with fact. I'd also say that anecdotally, 99% of all colleges in the nation would clamor for Harbaugh. Using the four years prior, in Harbaugh's case, are merging the recruits of RichRod and Hoke. If you are honest with yourself, Harbaugh had a cupboard that wasn't all that stocked. There is lots of evidence to support that. It's the reason that he is playing so many young players. How many seniors contributed this past year? Those are the leftovers of the Hoke regime. Hoke had one decent group and Harbaugh was a couple inches from the playoff with many of those guys. Hoke was far less successful with those same guys three and four years into their college careers. That isn't disputable. RichRod and Hoke didn't help him. Harbaugh has a record of taking less teams and making them better. That happened at Michigan too. I used 8 years (not random) to represent the ending and completion of the three regimes at Michigan prior. Three regimes in 8 years. That is not a culture to walk into and expect it to be groovy. There were internal issues that impact the ability to intially be successful. Yet, Harbaugh was. You want to disregard that. Your perrogative. I am satisfied with Harbaugh and am personally confident that he will succeed. You are not. Not sure what it would take to be satisfied. You have to determine that.
What is beyond dumb, though? Is there a word that is used as a descriptor of intellect that is next in line? Can you give me the next three or so, in succession? I'd like to self-assess where i fall in that sequence here.
December 27th, 2017 at 12:43 PM ^
Reading this thread I initially found myself agreeing with ijohnb. After all, Harbaugh himself would agree with him on the basis of meritocracy.
But this post by HateSparty illustrates that Harbaugh is NOT underperforming. He is meeting expectations based on historical precedent.
I was then thinking "But what about Meyer? He started off great!" Then I realized that Meyer was the only coach of the bunch who was hired not because of his predecessor's ON the field issues, but OFF the field issues. Thus, it isn't a valid comparisoh. Harbaugh should be compared with Saban, Dantonio, Kelly, and Swinney's hiring situations, not Meyer's hiring situation.
December 27th, 2017 at 1:19 PM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 1:29 PM ^
Here are those numbers by percentage:
Saban MSU: 52.8%
Saban LSU: 68.4%
Saban Bama: 82.2%
Dantonio MSU: 56.4%
Kelly ND: 71.8%
Swinney Clem: 60.4%
Harbaugh UM: 71.8% - 74.4%
Even if Michigan were to lose the Bowl game, his win percentage would still be good enough for 2nd (tie) on that list. If that's not improvement over RichRod (40.5%) and Hoke (60.8%), I don't know what is.
December 27th, 2017 at 11:47 AM ^
Dabo didn't win in year 3 or 4. I just don't see the logic in trying to run Harbaugh off if he is literally the best we can get, and NFL teams are lining up at the door to try and lure him back into the big leagues. At some point, and I hate to say this, maybe Harbaugh is winning all he can win with the state of Michigan Football. I know, I know, Michigan should be a top tier program, and in some ways it is. But I live in a state(Nebraska) where they still think their program is at its heights(70s, mid 90s), and they fired a perennial 9 win football coach again because he couldn't get over the hump from good to contender.
Believe me when I say it gets worse than having a bunch of hype surrounding the program for the first 7 weeks, than fading into a random top 20-25 team.
I personally think we gotta ride things out as long as Harbaugh wants to drive. Because the feeling in Ann Arbor when Rich Rod was close to his end there, or the last year of Hoke was desolation, and desperation. Where we are with Harbaugh is good, and it can get worse, much worse.
INHARBAUGHWETRUST
December 27th, 2017 at 4:40 PM ^
Clemson was in the ACC title game in Dabo's 3rd year and played in a BCS Bowl, Orange Bowl. In year 4 they went 11-2.
December 28th, 2017 at 12:29 AM ^
after going 15 - 12 his first two full years as head coach.
December 27th, 2017 at 12:24 PM ^
December 27th, 2017 at 1:06 PM ^
he hasn't raised the ceiling? how many 8+ win seasons did we have in the richrod/hoke dark years? 2 out of 7! Harbaugh is 3/3 with two 10 win seasons ya moran
December 28th, 2017 at 12:31 AM ^
Agree completely!!
December 27th, 2017 at 9:13 AM ^
Thanks for inviting Mr Concern, IjohnB...
December 27th, 2017 at 9:21 AM ^
don't get this, and I don't really understand what your problem is with me. I can understand why people take issue with others who are all "this is UNACCEPTABLE" and that kind of thing, but that is not what I am doing. I was initially responding to a post that said that next year is a big year for the program, and I agree, I think it is a big year for the program and for Harbaugh. How is the concern trolling? Seriously, how does that fit into the definition of "trolling" to you?
December 27th, 2017 at 10:53 AM ^
This is the only conversion you have. You never say anything different. Everytime someone says anything about the future, you're here to say how 'important' it is that Harbaugh 'step it up' because 'he's been underachieving' when he 'makes so much money'. Its like a metronome constantly repeating. You want to have this conversation Every. Single. Time.
We get it, already! The program is stagnate because 8-4 isn't good enough. No matter that the 10 years before JMFH arrived was a constant battle with Indiana and Minnesota for middle place, and we're now talking about playoffs (both 2016 and 2018). Your concern is the only thing that matters, and is the only conversation you want.
Feel free to be concerned all you want, just don't expect everyone to like it or want to be involved in it. Personally, I'm tired of your concern and don't care to hear it anymore. Change the subject, already...