A Data-Driven Response to the “Fire Harbaugh” and “Unacceptable” Crowd: What Trade-Offs are You Willing to Make to Win?
Conclusion: Michigan will – in all likelihood (e.g., 90%+ probability) lose every year to Ohio State unless we recruit better (defined as being within 2 – 3 spots of OSU through the 247 Sports composite rankings) because we will never outcoach OSU by a margin that is wide enough to overcome the talent deficit (they have lots of money invested in football and can hire top-of-the-line coaches too). The key to recruiting better will be to do things that Michigan has traditionally condemned as unsavory in college football – yes, I am talking about viewing the sport not through the lens of amateurism and the student-athlete experience, but through the lens of a semi-professional enterprise complete with money and a “football-first” mentality. This is something that Harbaugh and the current administration is unwilling to do (at least at this time). As a fanbase, ultimately we need to decide what’s more important: A) amateurism and the student-athlete experience and 9-4 / 10-3 type seasons without B10 championships or the playoffs, or B) shifting to a semi-professional enterprise and competing for B10 championships or the playoffs.
Note that I am not trying to support A or B (my personal opinion is to lean towards B only the sense of unleashing player payments but nothing else, FWIW). I simply feel based on what I’ve been reading here on the blog that most people are not aware how binary A and B are as paths. The goal of this diary is to hopefully get people to understand – through data – that Harbaugh has basically done as well as anyone can possibly do (and has more than met Michigan’s historical standard) without going down path B. You all can obviously come to your own conclusion on what is “acceptable” to you, but I take issue with calling for Harbaugh’s head thinking that another coach can come in and do better while strictly adhering to path A. Not going to happen based on the data.
Context: Why am I writing this? Well, unlike many I am not all too upset at the outcome of yesterday’s game. Obviously, it sucks incredibly hard as a true, die-hard Michigan fan, but I am a firm believer in unhappiness generally coming from outcomes being worse than expectations. My expectations were exceptionally low – like Magnus’ prediction of 42 – 17 at TTB, I also thought that we would get blown out. I analyze data and predict outcomes for a living (I’m an equity investor) and would flatter myself in that I am more dispassionate and less emotional in coming to conclusions from data, even in things that I care deeply about. On Wednesday before the Thanksgiving break, one of my PMs – who is a Wisconsin grad and a huge fan so extremely familiar with the B10 – asked me how many points I’d have to spot OSU for a bet on who buys lunch. I told him three touchdowns, and two touchdowns if I was truly being a homer. The data from each teams’ respective seasons simply told that story fairly clearly.
I’m not writing this because I’m upset at what happened yesterday; I am writing this because I find it incredibly annoying that so many people shit on Harbaugh so hard with endless hot takes (fire him!) after losses like this that can easily be seen from a mile away due to structural gaps in programs – yes, I am talking about recruiting. Unless Michigan is willing to address these structural gaps, then we should be content with this outcome. (Side note – I do think some of the Don Brown criticism is justified, more from a fundamental perspective in DT recruitment philosophy). I think that Harbaugh is a good man who truly cares about his student-athletes and even yesterday absolutely refused to throw them under the bus to the media after being asked an obviously leading and asinine question on the talent gap. I think that Harbaugh is an exceptional competitor and that it’s absolutely foolish to question his desire to win The Game. I also think that Harbaugh is extremely focused on being clean and doing things the right way. Of course, my whole premise is that we are on an uneven playing field with top programs like OSU, Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, etc. (I was the guy who wrote this diary). Unless we as fans / as a school are willing to even that playing field, it’s very much unfair to criticize Harbaugh for what has been – objectively – an incredible turnaround and great job so far.
What the Data Says
Michigan and OSU Annual Record Since 1953 (Michigan Joining the Big Ten)
Conclusions:
Michigan has always been a good but not elite program – the average season across this 67-year dataset has a 69% win percentage (defined as wins over total games played, so ties back when ties were allowed do not count as wins). When broken down by coach:
Bennie Oosterbaan: 57%
Bump Elliot: 53%
Bo Schembechler: 79%
Gary Moeller: 73%
Lloyd Carr: 75%
Rich Rodriguez: 57%
Brady Hoke: 60%
Jim Harbaugh: 73%
So for example, the average Lloyd Carr season was a 75% win rate, or basically 9 – 3. Note that the average win percentage for all coaches other than Harbaugh is actually only 65% (note that this is different than the average across every season, since every coach’s average record is counted as just a single entry in this calculation). The key takeaway is that Harbaugh actually is performing better than our historical average, and basically on par with Moeller and Carr. This doesn’t even factor in the fact that he had no foundation and had to clean up after RR and Hokes’ messes. Only Bo is has a higher average winning percentage, and I would argue that Bo had advantages that Harbaugh doesn’t. These include: 1) higher scholarship limits, 2) a weaker rest of the B10, and 3) a significantly weaker OSU. Bo also had a much easier path to championships since you could tie… under the old rules, we would have tied for the B10 Championship with OSU last year so Harbaugh would have won a championship, something that is often overlooked.
Now, let’s turn to OSU. They have an average season win percentage of 77% across the 67-year dataset, which is notably higher than Michigan’s 69%. When broken down by coach (I’m skipping Fickell’s interim year):
Woody Hayes: 76%
Earle Bruce: 75%
John Cooper: 70%
Jim Tressel: 82%
Urban Meyer / Ryan Day: 92%
Meyer / Day’s success is simply astronomical and clearly above OSU’s previous trend line, though Tressel had already established it. Clearly, something changed with Tressel and then changed again with Meyer / Day. Note that the average win percentage for all coaches other than Meyer / Day is only 76%. Meyer / Day have an absurd 92% win percentage.
All of this is easily supported by Bill Connelly’s S&P+, by the way:
So, what changed in terms of OSU dominating Michigan? It’s extremely simple – recruiting.
Michigan and OSU Annual Recruiting Rank Since 2000 (247 Sports Composite)
A few notes here: 1) Obviously I would go back further, but the database only goes to 1999 and the data integrity looks weird that year. 2) I highlighted 2003 – 2007 for OSU’s class absolute rank because these are obviously incorrect – I looked into it and it seems that for whatever reason, the 247 database lists only a few OSU commits as hard commits and the rest are there but not included in the tally, so the number of recruits per class looks abnormally low which accounts for the low scores. Realistically, OSU’s classes were much better – I’m hoping that the average player scores are still correct but have my doubts since they probably only include the players counted as hard commits. Ultimately I decided to simply present the data as is without trying to manipulate it at all and just caveat what is obviously wrong. I don’t think it really affects my point too much – just keep in mind that OSU’s 2003 – 2007 classes were realistically still likely ranked in the top ten and probably on par or better with Michigan.
Conclusions:
OSU has always out-recruited us. Not a surprise, but look at how much the gap has increased since Meyer took over in 2012. Now look at the gap since Harbaugh took over in 2015 – it has actually widened, which is extremely troubling. Things have gotten worse. Since Meyer started, the average player score for Michigan has been 90.0 and for OSU has been 92.2. This is a gap of 2.2 on a 100 point scale, which seems small at first but then you realize that 247’s scale basically realistically goes from 80 – 100. Since Harbaugh took over, this gap has widened to 2.7 – Michigan is 89.7 and OSU is 92.4. This is a massive gap and basically the difference between a high 3-star average recruit and a mid-4-star average recruit on 247’s system… across every single recruit. We are getting dominated in terms of talent.
I think that’s fairly obvious to everyone. What’s more interesting to me is the uptick in OSU’s recruiting since Meyer started. From 2000 – 2011, OSU’s average player score was 87.2, or a mid-high 3-star. Since 2012, OSCU’s average player score has been 92.2, or a fairly solid 4-star. This is a massive, massive increase – at a difference of +5.0, it’s actually more than the gap between OSU and Michigan today that I just mentioned of 2.7. Again, there are some data integrity issues with 247 for some of the 2000’s years, but no matter what this is a tremendous increase in recruiting performance.
Here’s where I need to take a little detour and just state right now that if you insist on burying your head in the sand and don’t believe that paying recruits (etc. “cheating”) is 1) happening in college football despite the mountains of evidence, and 2) preventing Michigan from recruiting better, then the rest of this diary is not for you. Just don’t read it and please don’t bother commenting. Debates where both sides can’t agree on the facts don’t lead to anything, and I’m frankly not interested in wasting time. I’m not going to try to lay out evidence to convince you other than quickly summarizing the following:
- We know that much of the SEC is shady, from Saban on down, and is paying players
- We know that Hugh Freeze was doing shady things and paying players (Laquan Treadwell cash photo)
- We know that Clemson is paying players and funneling payments through religious venues (there is literally an article about this online)
- We know that Georgia is paying players (Isaiah Wilson)
- We know that Rashan Gary was offered ~$300K
- Interim AD Jim Hackett himself literally said publically that people were trying to pay Rashan
- John Bacon’s book elaborates on the Gary situation, discusses the issues more in detail (a Michigan coach is dejected because a recruit just got a brand new car in his driveway from another school, and he gives up on the recruitment knowing that kid wants money comes to mind), and literally has a quote from Harbaugh saying “it’s hard to beat the cheaters”
- Seth of MGoBlog– on the board on this very site – has stated what the going rate for a Georgia 4-star under the table is and has also mentioned that Isaiah Wilson was coming to Michigan until Georgia made an offer he couldn’t refuse last minute
- Andy Staples of The Athletic literally just wrote yesterday that “Harbaugh either doesn’t know what a team that can compete with Ohio State looks like or — more likely — knows and has elected not to try to wade into the same recruiting waters. Ohio State doesn’t compete with Michigan for players. It competes with Clemson, Alabama and Georgia for players. Only by signing multiple players that those schools want can a program join that club. But that’s difficult to do, and it requires a choice Harbaugh has thus far seemed unwilling to make.” Even the mainstream media is on to it.
Since it is a fact that Ole Miss was paying players during Hugh Freeze’s tenure and Georgia is currently paying players under Kirby Smart, I hypothesized that we would see a significant uptick in recruiting success during these coaches’ respective tenures. I was absolutely right, as the data shows:
Ole Miss and Georgia Annual Recruiting Rank Since 2000 (247 Sports Composite)
Using the same 247 dataset, I found an absurd increase of ~8 spots (due to rounding) in class rankings between Freeze’s Ole Miss tenure and non-Freeze coaches over the same time frame. The increase in average player score was 4.5 – this is the equivalent of going from a 3.5-star to a 4-star, or a 4-star to a 4.5-star on average. Georgia’s data is even more absurd – historically, the school already recruited really well. However, since Smart took over in 2016, Georgia’s average class rankings increased ~5 spots and the increase in average player score was an absolutely bonkers 5.2. The data would suggest that it is ludicrous to say that paying players doesn’t materially improve recruiting – both Ole Miss and Georgia have seen their star average essentially go up by half a star or more when they have been paying players.
Now, to bring it all back to Michigan and OSU and Meyer’s +5.0 improvement in average player score – based on this, is it really so crazy that OSU is paying players, at least on the margin? Yes, I understand that Meyer was a championship-winning coach at Florida, but can that fact alone draw countless 5-star, all-world recruits from Texas, California, and the Deep South? Columbus isn’t really that much warmer than Ann Arbor, and it’s not like it’s a more attractive destination than staying in the South or the West Coast. It’s likely not just Meyer and the excellent football that is attracting at least some of these recruits – there’s probably a little financial juice to get them over the line.
And it doesn’t have to be all financial – it can be other benefits. Less stringent academic standards, for example (Fields taking only online classes ring a bell?). Free cars, tattoos, meals, entertainment, etc., for example. My point here is that given what we know about Urban Meyer and his willingness to bend the rules to get an edge (I’m not going to list Meyer’s transgressions, as I’m sure everyone is aware), is it really so crazy to think that OSU might be utilizing unfair edges in recruiting that gets them that incremental 5-star and those several incremental 4-stars relative to Michigan?
I am certainly not arguing that every kid that goes to OSU, Georgia, Clemson, Alabama is going there for money – obviously they have excellent football programs. I’m just saying that maybe instead of three 5-stars, they can sign five 5-stars, or twelve 4-stars instead of eight. Over 4 or 5 years, these numbers add up a lot – there’s way more bullets in the chamber to hit on elite players, obviously.
It actually wasn’t even Meyer that started OSU down this path – they did that before with Tressel, who already had plenty of smoke for payments and impermissible benefits while at Youngstown State. You can go to Michigan’s 247 board where several members who have connections / played football in that area confirmed that Tressel was recruiting with cash even back in those days. I would contend that it is likely that OSU has shifted toward an SEC-style recruiting strategy while the rest of the Big 10 is still stuck with the traditional Big 10 “Midwestern” values strategy (and I’m from Iowa, I know what that means).
It’s been a long diary already, so let me wrap up by simply saying that the point of all this isn’t to point the finger at OSU or any other school. Frankly, I don’t give a fuck if these schools want to pay kids (many of whom are likely not super financially well-off) lots of money to play football for them. In fact, I can find no moral argument against it – isn’t this what American capitalism is all about, the ability to monetize your God-given skills without prejudice or penalty? All I have to say is good for OSU and these southern schools – not all of these kids are going to make it to the NFL, and at the very least they are getting some sort of compensation for their skills and unbelievably hard work in the meantime. There is no moral indictment of OSU going on here from me (at least in terms of money; Meyer sheltering a wife-abuser is a completely different story).
The point of all this is to try to show – with data – that Michigan is operating at a significant structural disadvantage unless we shed Path A (amateurism and the student-athlete experience) and pursue Path B (a semi-professional enterprise in which players are recruited with money). Again, we each need to decide individually whether we are fine with Michigan winning 9 – 10 games a year and losing to OSU and never playing for championships while keeping our “integrity,” or whether we want to really compete nationally in college football. It is absolutely, 100% a binary decision – you simply can’t have both. I’m sick of people shitting on Harbaugh’s inability to compete with the big boys when he has one hand tied behind his back – he quite literally, based on his record and on the S&P+ data, is doing as well as he possibly can. We as a school need to decide what we want – if that’s just to be a better version of (hopefully) Wisconsin, Iowa, Stanford, etc. and never compete for championships, that’s totally fine. Just please don’t be a hypocrite and shit on Harbaugh – or even worse, much, much worse – the players for only having a knife at a gun fight.
P.S. – yes, Wisconsin beat us this year, yes Iowa beat us in 2016 – teams with more talent occasionally drop games. We all know it happens to OSU too. The point is the trend line, not small blips in data. Also, I know that we made a lot of mistakes yesterday and we could have played a better game. But we got beat by 29 points. Michigan fixing its errors isn’t going to erase a >4 touchdown deficit. OSU was just better, because they had better talent.
December 2nd, 2019 at 7:51 AM ^
As a not so accomplished data analyst I love the overall premise and conclusion of your article. I do disagree on 1 point however. I take extreme umbrage that these programs are cheating. I believe the only fair way to run these programs is as true semi-pro endeavours where the athletes play for unversity sponsored teams, are paid, and can go to school or not, their choice.
I was disappointed by the severity of the loss, but like you was prepared for a loss.
December 2nd, 2019 at 8:27 AM ^
This was a fantastic diary OP. Saturday after the game, I stated that Michigan needs to start paying players. I did not attack OSU or judge them in anyway, however it triggered some OSU fans, which led to a heated argument. It was hard to defend my stance on that matter, without cold hard facts, in the chamber. This is good stuff.
December 2nd, 2019 at 9:08 AM ^
A big part of the widening gap is harbaugh's affinity for the diamond in the rough, I found this guy at a camp and offering them. That's fine for a couple final offers that didn't have a p5 offer but you really think he an fill out the class if you lose your top A and B choice. It's horrible when they are 6 or 10 of your first 15 commits! Harbaugh came in with the Cache to do much better in recruiting than he did and the consecutive losses in big games has hurt that cache and ability to land those big recruits.
Right now we are top 10-20 program with enough talent to beat Osu and any team on the schedule. But Harbaugh is fighting himself and making it harder on himself. Taking lower rated recruits, not having roster balance at first on Oline through no fault of his own but now at DT in a big way that can't get fixed this off season as there is to little depth and all of us hoping Hinton and Smith are all bigten dt's! Possibly Kemp or Dwumfor return and are rotational not the starters playing 90% of snaps. He's not held his Oc's accountable till it was obvious they had to go and he hasn't held Don Brown accountable for his roster and his scheme's that have allowed the same issues to be exposed continually since he arrived.
When Harbaugh gets his head out of his butt, holds the coaches accountable, holds players accountable, ie you can't block, you can't tackle, you can't do your job or you don't play. You don't fix what's getting exposed in your scheme, game plan and players you put on the field, you go elsewhere... Until he holds every last person accountable including himself he isn't beating Osu! At every level from competition to recruiting the type of players that can and will beat osu. Instills a program that doesn't flinch when bad plays, calls and other bs happens and doesn't freak out over a bad spot and give up an entire game. Doesn't not have control of the situation and know when to call a time out and get the team on board and back in line to win a game. Until all of this happens he won't win.
December 2nd, 2019 at 9:25 AM ^
Frustrating to watch that OSU just continues to pump out talent and it is too obvious that the talent level between Michigan and Ohio is way too big especially head to head. And, when Tressel leaves, Meyer comes in and no down time. Same with Ryan Day- Luckiest guy to come in and coach all Meyer's players and have no issues whatsoever. Then Michigan- still trying to get things right.
Last year I hoped was only an overconfidence thing with the Ohio game- everyone talked up Michigan and favored them to win. In the Shoe. Ohio had so much bulletin board material for that game they came out pissed off. This year I hoped a lot had changed- nobody gave Michigan a chance. The motivation for us was there. Revenge. Home game. Team peaking. Still, they got avalanched. Just don't get it other than not only did they play a flawless game (they made some mistakes, but they still weren't devastating like Michigan's always are in these games), it was obvious the talent and the game scheme was superior to Michigan's. Like they have our number.
I'm sticking with Harbaugh. He's done fine. One day, we will beat Ohio. Until then, just win every other game and give ourselves a fighting chance. Maybe Ryan Day fumbles the recruiting thing and the level evens out. That's it. My expectation is to win every other game and just give in to the fact that Ohio is better and we will not win that game for a while still. Trend is going the wrong way.
Go Blue! Bring on Hoops!
December 2nd, 2019 at 10:31 AM ^
The talent lock at the top of college football is destroying the game. The issue is money. Follow the money and you will discover the issue. I am shocked the IRS thru the Justice department isn't also investigating college football. The money funneled to players without someone paying taxes - either (1) on income by the players or (2) as gift tax on the payee - is a federal crime. And laundering the money thru a church or other non-profit is a huge felony implicating not only the non-profit, but also it's bank and anyone with knowledge of the payments.
These are felonies and people go to jail for tax evasion and money laundering.
I would never advocate that Michigan participate in this underworld activity that is committing federal crimes. This isn't just about integrity. This about stupid criminal activity. Someone is soon to get caught if the undeclared payments are reaching $300k per big recruit. The IRS has agents out looking for this kind of shit.
The Justice investigation of college basketball should have been a warning to all teams that cheat ... you are playing with Fire.
Edit - we can only hope the IRS targets OSU. If I was an IRS agent I would start with Zach Smith, he has all the dirt and was likely Urban's bagman coordinator at both Florida and OSU.
December 2nd, 2019 at 11:14 AM ^
In my opinion it looks like becoming a "semi-professional enterprise in which players are recruited with money" is becoming more and more prevalent up and down the rankings. Might be time for UM to join the fun. i'd also argue that if the administrative bodies (NCAA, conferences, etc) don't seem to care that players are getting $$$$ we're really not maintaining "integrity" by not jumping in.
December 2nd, 2019 at 11:39 AM ^
Data and chart, data and charts.
I forget now--is it that THEY cheat, or THEIR students do not go to class, or THE REFEREES cheat or what?
How about we just do not get it done?
How about Michigan fans do not try to begin arguments with false and unproven claims? They try to justify them? OK I guess Justin Fields does take online courses...
To begin your analysis with the assumption that THEY ARE ALL CHEATERZZ--and NO ONE knows what goes on there, OR here--just a silly belief system to assuage the anxiety over rooting for a team that, in every season since 1948, has either conked out early or suffered cataclysmic defeats or embarrassments because they just do not know how to get it done, and lack even the ability to pull magic our of their asses like EVERYBODY else seems to be able to do at times?
The equivocating is beyond ridiculous. The surrender is totally weak, and the accusations flying around, without proof--then used for justification--is INSUFFERABLE.
Harbaugh was thought to be The One. Every staff member he has hired has been crowned as The Assistant to End All Assistants. And all have proven to be little more than pedestrian.
And that is not because we are busy trying to tell the world how much better than everyone else we all are.
Its because they go out and get it done.
December 2nd, 2019 at 12:34 PM ^
Both can be true at the same time. Does not have to be an 'either, or' situation.
OSU recruits on par with Alabama and Clemson. Therefore, they are doing the same stuff as Alabama and Clemson.
Also true...JH maybe took too long to start basing his offense on getting that ball to athletes in space. DT recruiting could have been better. WRs should not have dropped so any balls. Etc., etc.
December 2nd, 2019 at 12:11 PM ^
Adding to what I wrote above- I keep thinking that our football program is in the right place at this moment, with some tweaking needed on the defense again. You look at Nebraska- still really struggling. Look at MSU- in big trouble. Michigan is staying ahead of the curve, just not in the huge games- and even the little ones, because Michigan is that team that every other team wants to take down- the granddaddy, so everyone schemes to beat us- it is what it is, so it is hard to sneak up on anyone- WE ARE MICHIGAN WE DO NOT SNEAK UP ON ANYONE.
Again, I am glad our program is in better shape than some others right now. Does it hurt like hell to lose to Ohio like we are? Hell yes it does. But all in all, the football program is in good shape. Amen to that. Let's keep it like this. Keep Harbaugh- don't want to start over again.
Go Blue
December 2nd, 2019 at 12:27 PM ^
Thank you for putting this diary post together. I appreciate the effort you went through to compile all this data. I made several of the same points in discussion with some fans in a couple of different settings, and it shocks me how many intelligent people refuse to see what the data suggest, and continue to be clouded by 'fire so-and-so', or 'coach can't win'.
For this season's team, I think a couple of observations are very relevant - 1) the defense was not expected to perform as well as last years and in my mind, save for a couple of games, performed far beyond my expectations. The defense was also just a couple of injuries away from being abysmal - DL/LB, specifically. 2) New OC/system - took PSU 6 games to gel, and it started to show for us in week 7. 3) This team seemed to be easier than most to not bounce back from adversity. Not a typical characteristic for Michigan teams, but one that seemed to permeate the season and was especially present later in the first half and through the second of The Game.
To my eye, this years squad performed better than I expected, especially after the Wiscy game. I also think next season will be worth watching as this will be the first HS recruited QB to start for Coach since he arrived. As long as Gattis doesn't leave, I think we will enjoy the offense all season long. Gio Blue!
December 2nd, 2019 at 1:21 PM ^
Thank you for such a thought-provoking and well-informed post. I honestly do not know where I stand in terms of choosing between Path A and Path B, but this post has motivated me to at least consider Path B as a viable option. Excellent work.
December 2nd, 2019 at 2:14 PM ^
Interesting stat from an ESPN article...
Average SP+ rating, 2014-present:
1. Alabama (32.5)
2. Ohio State (28.5)
3. Clemson (27.5)
4. Oklahoma (25.0)
5. LSU (24.3)
6. Georgia (22.8)
7. Michigan (21.4)
8. Auburn (20.0)
9. Penn State (19.7)
10. Notre Dame (19.4)
11. Washington (19.3)
12. Wisconsin (19.0)
13. Florida (17.2)
14. USC (16.4)
15. Utah (15.0)
If they played in the Pac 12 UM would have been in the playoffs every year under JH...ugh. They aren't in the elite group of OSU, Bama, Clemson, etc., but they are about as close as you can be without being in it.
December 2nd, 2019 at 2:21 PM ^
If the Big Ten wants to have a competitive league, and has a majority of schools that believe in playing by the rules, the NCAA should not be the arbitrator of what is or isn’t a violation. The Big Ten should be, and the enforcement should be strict, including player suspensions, coaching suspensions/bans, etc.
No Big Ten school is likely to leave the conference, regardless of how heavily enforced these punishments are, because of the negative consequences to their greater revenue-producing league academic consortiums. In a previous post, I mentioned the CIC helps Michigan produce its 1.5 Billion in grants, a sum that dwarfs football TV money.
I don’t care at all about the bullshit Playoff system. Let the Rose Bowl or some other bowl accommodate a Big Ten and PAC 12 champion game, and that’s sufficient.
Winning the playoffs is entirely irrelevant to my happiness. Obviously, I speak only for myself. If a properly policed Big Ten produces a national champion, great. If not, fine.
I’m proud of Michigan because my degree (and my wife and kids’ degrees) actually means something more than being a graduate of a football school. I’m proud of the school’s reputation for academic excellence, much more than I am of football excellence. I’m glad we play by the rules, and would rather have it that way.
December 2nd, 2019 at 4:17 PM ^
Thanks for the insight, and the work.
December 2nd, 2019 at 4:17 PM ^
Thanks for the insight, and the work.
December 2nd, 2019 at 4:50 PM ^
This is likely the best diary I've read - appreciate you drafting up. Nice work.
December 2nd, 2019 at 5:11 PM ^
I'm really curious to know how open the players are to the coaches about all this. For example, Rashan telling Harbaugh about how much schools were willing to pay him to go there, but not just that. I recall reading something where a recruit told a coach what another school was offering and the coach not offering anything said, "I understand, go there if you need that." I think the recruits would be pretty open about it because 1) they really do build strong relationships with the coaches and 2) the coaches can't say anything about it. NCAA regs are endorsing silence and allowing the wrongdoers to continue to flourish without any repercussions. When OSU was beating the shit out of M on Saturday, I had to explain to my children why it was happening. Their program is set up like others to be a "Murder, Death, Kill" (Demolition Man) team based on the players they get. The NCAA doesn't care one bit if they get their cut.
December 2nd, 2019 at 5:49 PM ^
The former academic in me thinks your case is still pretty circumstantial. The post-academic in me thinks 99% chance you are right.
On the ethics, I think paying student athletes a stipend, like graduate students, would be the right way to go. My beef with the schools that circumvent the rules is that they are (a) breaking established rules for an edge, rather than trying to change the rules, and (b) are only paying their top recruits, not everyone equally.
December 2nd, 2019 at 7:29 PM ^
A couple of comments:
First, as for benefits, I would just like the add that we all know how these young recruits are also heavily influenced by their families. A lot of these players come from economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, broken families and single parent households. There's a lot of poor judgement in these households across the board, and very susceptible. Low income, high debts, sometimes low to middle class, etc. My point is, you don't have to pay the college football recruit one red cent to get him "over the line and signed". Huge benefit to these recruits also take the form of expunging the debts of adults in their family, of interest free loans, andof just bags of cash that no one needs to say a single word about ever again. And the donors of these funds? Who are they? This is an absurd question. These individuals are a silent fart in the wind.
Second, while I agree that it is highly likely that college football boosters are contributing funds to help the university football program land the most talented recruits to the SEC and/or to Ohio State, what we also know is that the fan contributors and donors of these funds expect results. They are individuals. There is no consortium or centralized control to keep everyone in line.
The shocking thing is not that the malfeasance exists, but that the stench doesn't bubble up to the surface and overwhelm everyone sooner than it does.
It is though just a matter of time. The payoffs and benefits and quid pro quos eventually see the light of day either via human error, investigative journalism revelation or by some fed up and jaded booster deciding "eff it I'm spilling the beans" for my own aggrandizement.
So when Urban Meyer says after years of coaching at Florida and Ohio State that he has head aches and stress, I do believe him. College football history is replete with recruiting scandals, cheating football coaches and insolent athletic department heads. Barry Switzer at Oklahoma. Ron Meyer at SMU. Jim Wacker at TCU. Don James at Washington. Bobby Bowden at FSU. Pete Carroll at USC. Jim Tressel at Ohio State. Jimmy Johnson/Nevin Shapiro at Miami FL, Paterno/Sandusky at Ohio State, Art Briles at Baylor, Mark Dantonio at Michigan State. Nothing new at all. Breaking rules flagrantly and with impunity.
Just read about the absolute mess Bret Bielema had to try and clean up at Arkansas from Bobby Petrino and John L. Smith. 30+ players with GPAs under 2.0 with other multiple players getting arrested every 30 days.
My point is, whatever it is that Urban Meyer, Kirby Smart, Dabo Swinney, Mark Dantonio and Nick Saban have been up to over their careers, the truth will come out eventually.
It always does.
There isn't enough money and power and influence to keep all of these dirtbags behind the scenes quiet over the long term.
December 2nd, 2019 at 10:25 PM ^
I'd like to believe that the truth will come out, eventually.
But...is that what history shows?
It sometimes comes out. More often it is just whispers from those who know, but not enough solid proof for legit media to publish (even if they were inclined to go against State U.) or for the NCAA to be left with no choice but to actually bring meaningful sanctions.
December 4th, 2019 at 3:08 AM ^
I think the issue is that even if it does come out and the programs participating in this get in trouble, it will be a momentary blip for them and it won't solve the root of the problem. It will just transfer power for a few years or a decade max.
I actually think the best path forward is some form of the NLI rules that are being discussed. Allowing players to benefit from their likeness will see programs with lots of influence and prestige (like Michigan) setup programs designed to maximize returns for their players. Michigan would likely be uniquely advantaged here and close the gap with Ohio State. In some ways, it will even further concentrate talent with the traditional blue blood programs, but at least Michigan would be similarly advantaged (if not moreso than others).
As a side note - I don't think we will ever be able to enforce true parity in college football, like is done in the NFL. Simply too many teams and too many subjective ways to compensate players (value of eduction, location, social life, etc.). And if we did go the stipend route, Bag Men would simply pay more on top of the stipend to attract players.
NLI done right would basically be bringing the Bag Men model above board.
December 2nd, 2019 at 7:51 PM ^
Growing up there were really only a handful of consistently good college football teams. Everyone else was pretty much irrelevant.
Alabama, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, Nebraska, Penn State, Notre Dame and probably Texas.
By 1977, when they implemented new pass protection rules - allowing for more wide-open, NFL-esque passing offenses that fans loved, and more yardage and scoring per game, plus scholarship limitations per team, the shift toward greater parity among programs was well under way. Nothing would be the same.
The best example of this in the Big Ten was Iowa. In 1978, Iowa had been a perennial BIG10 dormat. But Kinnick Stadium was always full regardless. Those Hawkeye teams absolutely sucked.
By 1981 the Iowa game at Wisconsin would decide who goes to the Rose Bowl.
College football has never been the same.
In a few short years we witnessed incredible Phoenix-like programs rise out of nowhere and become consistently good programs: Iowa, Miami (FL), Washington, UCLA - the 1980s.
Schembechler coached through both of these eras.
Even Michigan's best coach in the modern college football era, Bo Schembechler, was only 11-9-1 versus Ohio State over 21 games.
Today who is "consistently good"?
Few.
Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State. Maybe Oklahoma?
December 3rd, 2019 at 2:32 AM ^
Day stepped into absolutely the best scenario a coach could step into. We will see how good he actually is in 3 to 5 years. Even next year he should still be doing well but I doubt he can keep this ship sailing full steam ahead.
Appreciate the time you put into this.
December 3rd, 2019 at 10:32 AM ^
Awesome analysis. I read so much garbage in the media and so many ignorant takes on message boards. This is refreshing.
In terms of why there is a recruiting edge for OSU.....
1) Ohio is a very good high school football state. OSU could just about fill their roster with 4 star recruits just from their own state. And OSU is really the only big time program in the state of Ohio. It does not have to compete against in-state rivals for this talent base. Michigan is a good high school football state, but is not at the same level and additionally has to compete with Sparty. Further, we used to get a lot of OSU castoffs from Ohio. These kids go to other B1G schools now.
2) OSU has a proven national brand. You may say that Michigan does too, but in the minds of RECRUITS (where it really matters) Michigan has not really done anything in the last 15 years. 40 to 60 year olds who point to Michigan Tradition are clueless. The kids only know what they have seen.
Taken together......this is problematic for UM. Firing coaches does not remedy this.
December 3rd, 2019 at 10:42 AM ^
Clemson was never a national brand...until they bought their way into the top level. Now they are a national brand (at least for college football).
Look, there are several reasons that Clemson, Alabama, and OSU have recruited at such a high level. And getting to the playoffs/winning it all it a huge part of it. But...so are the '5 star' bag men. Not 'either, or.' It is both.
December 3rd, 2019 at 10:56 AM ^
These arguments about how "they cheat and we don't" have to stop. People betray. If you make a habit of paying people, it WILL eventually come out. A few programs have been caught, but not so many that it creates the scenario that many UM fans believe...."everyone is cheating but us."
Success snowballs. We might..... 1) Get a transcendent player. 2) Who pushes us over the top to win a league championship 3) Which creates a national brand 4) And then brings in TWO more transcendent players.
December 4th, 2019 at 4:31 PM ^
Read my other posts. I do not claim that Michigan is completely clean.
I do, however, claim that Clemson is cheating big time. Google around and you can read about it. It is an open secret.
I also do not think that OSU (or really any school) could recruit at the same level as Alabama and Clemson without doing the same stuff that Clemson and Alabama do.
December 3rd, 2019 at 10:34 AM ^
This is an incredible post and I appreciate the work that this took to compile. I’m curious what the winning percentages were historically excluding games against OSU? Based on my memories of past games and seasons I think we likely came into the game with a worse record more often than not, but pulled off a victory more often than not. I wonder how much of the difference in the current performance of the two programs can be explained by the reversal of that. In other words, it’s sort of an theoretical way of looking at what the numbers would have been if we had one more loss and they had one more victory in years when they had a better record.
December 3rd, 2019 at 12:05 PM ^
Data issue: RichRod was 3-9 his first year, not 9-3.
December 3rd, 2019 at 1:25 PM ^
Great post with a lot of quality work put into it; I appreciate it.
I tried to read through the comments and there's another point missing in both the OP and the comments linked to structural changes in football: talent is going to be concentrated with those teams most likely to make the playoff.
When I attended Michigan ('89-'93) there were ~25 bowl games and for the most part, ~50 teams were happy to be in them. By the time the BCS era started, everything changed. If you weren't in the top 2, and therefore the national championship game, your season was "a failure." Things are slightly different now with four teams making the playoff, but the result is the same: if you're not in, you "failed." All the hype, marketing, advertising, and a mindset that only championships matter among many fanbases means that PLAYERS want to play for teams that can contend for the championships.
I think contending is what Harbaugh is selling -- he is trying to lead the team to a path where they can compete for those top four spots each year. Some of that is coaching, a BUNCH of it is luck and surviving volatility, but MOST of it is players. And the best players just aren't ALL going to come until coaching and luck get you over the hump indicating you're a contender.
(As an aside, note that it isn't every player who believes this way. Regardless of outcomes, guys like Jabrill Peppers, Rashan Gary, Donovan Peoples-Jones, and Daxton Hill are top, top, top tier guys who believed what Michigan had to offer was more important than getting the cash up front. The problem is more of a systematic one where, as the OP points out, OSU's average player has been approximately a full star better than Michigan's average player.)
For the time being, the majority of talent is going to (smartly, in my opinion) flock to the 5-6 schools that are clearly most likely to grab one of the top four spots. So... maybe it happens purely because they're getting paid. Maybe it happens because when you offer to pay, you can be selective about exactly which talent you want for each position*. And maybe it is just because of inertia and the fact that OSU has been there makes it more likely that recruits think they will be there again.
(* Supporting this point is the fact that another part of Michigan's problems have been uneven distribution of where talent has been concentrated on the team. To wit, having four top-tier defensive ends with less currently ready talent at defensive tackle can be viewed two ways: one is that DL recruiting for the last decade has been excellent, another is that the DL recruiting hasn't been "managed" well enough. When you have less overall total talent, precisely where it is located matters more; for OSU, there is so much talent everywhere, they can just cherry pick for each position.)
December 3rd, 2019 at 1:28 PM ^
Michigan will – in all likelihood (e.g., 90%+ probability) lose every year to Ohio State unless we recruit better (defined as being within 2 – 3 spots of OSU through the 247 Sports composite rankings)
I appreciate the analysis that went into this, but my question is whether Auburn has been consistently within 2-3 spots of Alabama in the 247 Sports composite rankings since 2013, when they beat Alabama 3 out of 7 times. Or whether Stanford was consistently within 2-3 spots of USC in those recruiting rankings from 2007-2010, when they (under Harbaugh) beat USC 3 out of 4 times. Or whether Michigan State was consistently within 2-3 spots of Michigan in those recruiting rankings from 2008-2015, when they won 7 out of 8.
If you were to conduct an analysis of recruiting rankings over time, is it really true that teams 2-3 spots higher in those rankings will win 90% of the time?
December 3rd, 2019 at 5:02 PM ^
The Auburn vs. Bama example has been discussed to death in this very thread - it's mainly just luck. We beat OSU twice more since 2011 if we get two lucky events (2016 - correct spot, 2013, Gardner 2 point conversion works). Again, these would still just be blips. Just like Stanford USC.
I'm not interested in blips. I'm talking about reaching parity, e.g., having a 50-50 chance to beat OSU, not a 10-90. Blips happen, but the trend is the only thing that really matters.
The 2 - 3 spots thing was just something I eyeballed - it's not like a hard and fast rule or anything. But I think it's painfully obvious that if our star average for recruiting is over a half-star lower than OSU's, we can't win.
December 3rd, 2019 at 5:49 PM ^
Your claim wasn't that we needed to be within 2-3 recruiting spots of Ohio State to be 50-50, your claim was that being more than 2-3 spots lower than Ohio State would result in 10-90.
If the recruiting difference between Michigan vs Ohio State truly results in a win probability of 10%, then the probability of an 0-5 record is about 59%. OK - Michigan is doing what's expected. However, that also implies, by your same standard, that the probability of MSU beating Michigan 7 out of 8 times is something like 0.0000009%.
By contrast, if recruiting rankings are not so powerful in determining the outcome of games, but are only an influence (say, 30% win probability instead of only 10%), the probability of going 0-5 against OSU is only 16.8% (and the probability of MSU winning 7 of 8 is still only 0.015%).
Football is notorious for having small sample sizes, but that works both ways in your argument. You make an implicit statistical argument - we shouldn't expect anything better than 0-5 because the probability of beating a team with more than 2-3 spots higher recruiting rankings is only 10%. Then you reject contrary evidence (Auburn, MSU, Stanford) as statistical outliers ("lucky events"). But if those are outliers, then Michigan's 0-5 performance is also an outlier - it shouldn't be happening. It shouldn't be expected.
December 4th, 2019 at 10:14 AM ^
I think you are over-complicating it. Michigan would be on par with Auburn / Bama in terms of Auburn wins had we had a few lucky events go our way, as I already stated. That is quite literally the difference in the games (Auburn's kick-six, and then last weekend's like 6% win probability vs. Michigan's 2016 spot, 2017 O'Korn, and 2013 Gardner 2-pt conversion). Other posters like bronxblue have pointed this out a lot already.
How are you getting MSU winning 7 / 8? Harbaugh is 3 - 2 against MSU, with one of the losses literally one of the most purely lucky things for MSU ever.
If you are talking about MSU pre-Harbaugh, then it's not really apples-to-apples because coaching wasn't equated. My premise is that the gap between Michigan and OSU assumes both teams' coaching is at 10 / 10 (or like 9.5 / 10) - basically there's parity in coaching and so the talent gap is what matters (this is literally in my first paragraph). This doesn't apply to MSU pre-Harbaugh - Dantonio vastly out-coached Michigan. In fact, everyone did which is why RR and Hoke had the records they had despite having better talent than most opponents.
December 4th, 2019 at 11:15 AM ^
I agree with your latest point - that coaching does matter. In fact, I would argue that coaching and program building matter at least as much as raw talent, if not more. Furthermore, I would argue that in no reasonable comparison of Power 5 conference football teams, would talent dictate wins in the way you suggest.
I like to use the example of Stanford vs USC when Harbaugh was at Stanford, because it negates a lot of the preconceptions that criticism of an 0-5 record vs OSU is automatically an unfair criticism of Harbaugh.
Stanford under Harbaugh went 3-1 against USC under Pete Carroll. I think it's reasonable to suggest that Pete Carroll is not a significantly worse coach than Jim Harbaugh. Yet Stanford, with more stringent academic requirements, significantly lower rated recruits than USC, and a backup QB in the 2007 game, won 3 out of 4. In that situation, Harbaugh and his staff built a better program and coached the players more successfully than Carroll and his staff.
To now suggest that an 0-5 record against OSU is a reasonable expectation for Michigan flies in the face of actual evidence, including evidence of Harbaugh's own excellent work in the past. Harbaugh wasn't hired to recruit several spots lower than OSU and lose the Game every year. Harbaugh was hired because he had a demonstrated track record of winning against other top coaches and against more talented teams - even with stringent academic requirements and a clean program.
We have to accept that while Harbaugh has proven to be a good coach in the past and even in the present, he and his staff need to do better now and in the future. The lack of effective DT players is partially Harbaugh's responsibility, the lack of discipline and execution is partially Harbaugh's responsibility, and the 0-5 record is partially Harbaugh's responsibility. He has to own it, and we have to expect him to own it. Talking about a talent discrepancy as if it defines football destiny is simply not valid, statistically or otherwise.
December 4th, 2019 at 11:23 AM ^
Yeah but it's possible that Stanford winning 3 / 4 vs. USC was also just really lucky. It's not necessarily the expected out come - I don't know how many of those games Stanford wins if each game is played 100 times. Maybe it's the case that Stanford rolled double-6's each time, just like Iowa did against OSU and then Purdue did against OSU - doesn't necessarily mean that they are the better team (though they certainly were that day). I'm not saying that it is for sure that Stanford was lucky - there's lots of other variables - but at least consider that maybe that's the anomaly and not the trend.
I'm not arguing that what Harbaugh did in the past against USC isn't impressive, I'm simply saying that it's not all that common for big underdogs in terms of talent to consistently win. Just because he has done it before doesn't mean that it's the likely outcome. I'm not thrilled going into the OSU game with a 10, or 20, or 30% chance to win every year and then banking on that chance to win it.
And that's the main point about trends vs. blips - everyone keeps saying well in the past "X team that was less talented beat Y juggernaut." Yes, it happens. It happens every year, and that's why college football is so fun and exciting. But wake me up when Purdue and Iowa are able to go 50 - 50 with OSU over a 10-year period... It's not about the blips.
December 4th, 2019 at 3:51 PM ^
0-5 is the blip
We shouldn't expect that and we shouldn't settle for that.
You created a post claiming to provide a "Data-Driven" approach, and then you use horrible statistical assumptions and methods in your approach. I've shown you how your calculations are faulty, and you continue to dismiss data that doesn't agree with your predefined conclusion as "blips" or "lucky" or outliers.
That's horrible "Data-Driven" methodology, and I won't apologize for calling it out on a post with "Data-Driven" in the title.
The reality is that 0-5 is the statistical outlier, not the expected trend. We should expect better.
I'd also point out that Stanford and USC have been 50-50 since Harbaugh left, despite USC consistently having higher rated recruiting classes. There's your trend.
December 4th, 2019 at 7:34 PM ^
Well obviously I'm the one full of shit here and my approach isn't data-driven enough for you.
Despite you claiming "how does MSU go 7 / 8" when Michigan is 3 - 2 against them with Harbaugh and should be 4 -1 except for a one infinitely lucky play. Isn't that exactly what you expect, if coaching is equated and one team has vastly superior talent?
Is it so crazy that Stanford vs. USC 3 - 1 is an outlier in a general trend of more talented teams dominating lesser talented teams? Is it really so crazy that we should not expect that to be the norm everywhere Harbaugh goes? Also, USC has had trash coaching since Carroll - just like other programs like Texas, Tennesee, etc.
0 - 5 is just so obviously the blip despite M winning only 2 - 19 in this century. Give me a fucking break. 10% chance to win in five games means that OSU only has a ~60% chance to go undefeated all those games. Guess what - they got the spot in 2016 and O'Korn in 2017. 60% chance to go 5 - 0 is NOT A BLIP. You know what a blip is? It's Auburn winning last weekend despite Alabama's win percentage being 94%, as a previous poster brought up.
Don't insult me with my "lack of understanding" of statistics when you don't have your own facts straight.
December 5th, 2019 at 12:04 AM ^
Edit: I'd like to de-escalate the tone.
Look, my objection has always been the claim that equivalent coaching with a talent differential translates to a 10% win expectancy.
I may not be explaining my point well, but the calculation of the probabilities is straight-forward. For Stanford to go 3-1 against USC given a 10% win expectancy, is to claim that what Harbaugh did at Stanford was a 1 in 270+ event, or something that would happen only once in 1100+ years.
The formula is (n choose k) * p^k * (1-p)^(n-k) where n is the total number of games, k is the number of wins, and p is the win expectancy. 0-5 at 10% win expectancy is (5 choose 0) * .1^0 * .9^5 = 59%. However, 3-1 at that same win expectancy is (4 choose 3) * .1^3 * .9^1 = 0.36%.
To me, it's much more reasonable to say that equivalent coaching and talent differential has something like a 20-35% win probability. At the low end of 20%, Stanford going 3-1 against USC would be about a 1 in 40 event (once every 160 years), and Michigan going 0-5 against OSU would be about a 1 in 3 event (once every 15 years). At the high end of 35%, both situations would be about a 1 in 9 event (once in 36 years for Stanford, once in 45 years for Michigan).
Why would I use a range of win exoectancies? Because I expect significant variance based on many factors, not just talent alone. What you call luck, or some might call bad officiating, or a lack of execution, or a lack of discipline, or weather, or any other factor that would influence winning a football game - all of that would translate into significant variance in win expectancy - even assuming equivalent coaching. However, if you choose to collapse every factor into a single number, 10% does not appear to be a reasonable assumption in that it would imply Harbaugh had god-like powers at Stanford. I don't think that's reasonable.
What I do think would be a reasonable statistical claim is that a more talented team is more likely to win in any given year, but a less talented team is still unlikely to go 0-5 against it's more talented opponent, assuming equivalent coaching.
Can we agree on that?
December 5th, 2019 at 11:19 AM ^
I didn't appreciate your challenge to my intelligence when I felt that some of your examples were off but agreed to de-escalate the tone.
You are making my claim of 90% win probability for OSU vs. Michigan's talent differential seem like it's the centerpiece and main point of everything I wrote, when really it's just me eyeballing what's happening and arbitrarily assigning a probability to it that I think is reasonable. I have no idea if it's really 10% or not, but I think 10% is reasonable given just how objectively wide the talent gap between the two programs is (as I've laid out).
Even taking your probabilities at the low end of 20% (which I don't think is crazy), USC-Stanford (3-1) was a very unlikely event at once every 140 years and Michigan-OSU (0-5) is a somewhat unlikely event at 33%. Like I have kept saying, I do think that it's unlucky that M has lost as many games against OSU as it has given that 2013, 2016, and 2017 could have been victories with a tiny bit of additional luck which Auburn has certainly had against Alabama. Statistically, maybe there should be 1 or 2 victories over the last 10 years, and we've been unlucky not to pick up at least 1 victory (I think we all agree that 2011 was a super weird year, so set that aside for now).
Let's assume that I agree with your low-end probability of 20% (again, I don't think it's crazy) - this still means that Harbaugh has a 33% chance to go 0 - 5 against OSU over five years. The bigger picture point I'm trying to make is, are we satisfied with that? Because whether the probability to go 0-5 against OSU in five years is 33% or 60% (based on a 10 - 20% chance to win each game), that's still not very good. Is that all we are settling for?
If we don't want to make the necessary changes to recruit on their level, then we should be resigned to just a 10 - 20% chance to win each single game. Therefore, we should expect to not be competitive with them. If that's what the school is ok with, then we should stop criticizing Harbaugh / the coaches / the players because we have intentionally chosen to not compete on a level playing field. If we want to take that chance up to 50%, then we need to become a semi-professional football enterprise similar to the OSU, Alabama, Clemsons, etc. of the world. That's really the main point, not the 10% vs. 20% win probability, which I would argue doesn't really change my conclusion very much.
One other thing I'd say is that maybe the coaching wasn't actually equated at USC - Stanford - maybe Harbaugh actually outcoached Carroll during those days because he exploited an arbitrage in using a smashmouth power offense at a time when Pac-12 spreads were smaller / lighter. So it's possible that coaching was a plus for Harbaugh and that helped overcome the talent disadvantage. However, I don't think I can argue that Michigan has any coaching advantage of OSU these days - I assumed parity but one could easily make an argument that OSU's coaching is actually better. So maybe it's not ALL talent, but it wouldn't change my view of the 10 - 20% win probability for Michigan. I haven't done any work to see if this is true for USC-Stanford, but just hypothesizing a bit.
December 5th, 2019 at 2:49 PM ^
Thank you. I, too, was frustrated with what I perceived as cherry-picking data, and I'm glad we can find some common ground.
I think in broad terms, we have some agreement. A win expectancy of 20% isn't crazy, and if it matters (at least in terms of pregame perceptions), Vegas odds put Michigan at around a 22% chance of beating OSU this year.
I also agree with the general premise that Michigan will struggle to beat OSU with the differences in recruiting, and I do think Harbaugh is a good coach, but I also feel that we should expect better than an 0-5 record. All of those things can be true.
Finally, just as Stanford and USC may not have had completely equivalent coaching during Harbaugh's run, I'm not sure that the entire Michigan staff has been completely equivalent to the entire Ohio State staff over the past 5 years. Just as football talent isn't all about the star ratings, coaching isn't all about the head coach. In the end, though, Harbaugh has to own the whole program and the overall results.
December 5th, 2019 at 3:13 PM ^
Yes, I think we are mostly on the same page conceptually, if not on the specific numbers. I would never say that coaching doesn't matter - it does, and perhaps OSU also has had a material advantage there.
One thing I'd say here is also that Vegas has been quite wrong about the Michigan - OSU spread for some time now, which is why I generally eyeball Michigan's win probability as being lower than what Vegas believes.
December 4th, 2019 at 4:35 PM ^
Auburn pays for players. A lot. Cam Newton. Therefore, the Auburn-Alabama comparison to Michigan-OSU is invalid.
December 3rd, 2019 at 1:34 PM ^
Wow, this diary was amazing. Brian and team should think about posting on main page for all to read. Thank you for sharing
December 3rd, 2019 at 1:46 PM ^
From someone who is in a data driven career, I absolutely love what you did here. Thank you for putting it together and some great points. I have been a proponent for either a choice of Plan B or a call to stop complaining.
December 3rd, 2019 at 2:52 PM ^
Great article! A few points to add to your great analysis...
1) I think its pretty clear that Michigan has changed its recruiting philosophy since the Aubrey Solomon Class of 2017. Harbaugh has clearly decided to stop going head to head with those programs for kids and started focusing more on recruiting an "Athletic and Cultural Profile" and also kids from under mined areas like New England or more none southern producers like New Jersey/Maryland. We are also currently recruiting a lot more program and development types than the likely early entry types since 2018.
2) Bill Connolly himself has stated that the only model that can consistently beat the powers is yes... The MSU Model - Developed,deep, and veteran squads that are heavily 5th, 4th, and 3rd year laden teams. They had strong assistants that could develop the majority of their young talent over time to create an internal talent pipeline. Dantonio had this rolling until he changed his model and other variables chipped away and destroyed that. Clemson also employed this model for 6 years under Dabo. It was only until recently where they really turned on the extra juice in recruiting and catapulted the programs recruiting into the top tier.
3) Since Harbaugh came here there has been a lot of attrition through injuries, transfers, and early defections. A rebuilding program (Which it was when Harbaugh took over) would have a really hard time laying a high level foundation to build upon. This has ultimately lead to talent and performance gaps (I.e. the oline play pre-Warriner). 2019 is the first year Harbaugh would have had a chance to coach a team that had 5th and 4th year players on it that he so desperately needs to A) Level the playing field and B) Create leadership. Do you know how many 5th years we had playing this year in the 2 deep? 3 Jon Runyan, Jordan Glasgow (Walkon) and Mike Danna (Grad Transfer). Do you know how many 4th year seniors played in our 2 deep? Offense (5): Patterson, Bredesen, Eubanks (Coming Back), McKeon, and Onwenu; On Defense (6): Carlo Kemp (Could come back), Dwumfor (5th Eligible); Josh Uche, Josh Mettelus, Khaleke Hudson, Lavert Hill. That is 14 total out of 44 Potential 2 Deep Spots (Roughly 32%). That is just not enough developed and mature talent in the two deep to give the upper echelon a consistent run for their money. Further, in an ideal world Bredeson, Onwenu, McKeon, Kemp, Uche, and Metellus were all perfect fits to redshirt but and lead the 2020 team but most had to play because of lack of depth when they got on campus. Can you imagine a team that had those guys next year?
4) This is only the third cycle of my suspected shift in recruiting philosophy. This is just going to take time but next year I expect our level to continue to increase because it should be more veteran and deep than this years (Outside of corner, which is a big concern for me).
5) Finally, Harbaugh has showed a willingness to tinker and make changes with his philosophies and coaching staffs. Sometimes it takes a few tries to get it right.
December 8th, 2019 at 2:50 PM ^
One of the best thought out opines I've read. I agree 100% with everything you wrote. Looking forward to future posts.
December 3rd, 2019 at 3:34 PM ^
Michigan and OSU Annual Record Since 1953 (Michigan Joining the Big Ten)
You mean Michigan State joining.
December 3rd, 2019 at 6:56 PM ^
Tl:dr
December 3rd, 2019 at 7:56 PM ^
I'm sorry. I really hate to troll. I really try to be fair, but this is just stupid.
I've been a Browns fan my whole life. During the past 20 years, the Browns have been one of the worst franchises in pro sports, and the Steelers have beaten them time and time again simply because the Browns stunk. They were badly coached and drafted even worse. Never once did I turn into sports' version of the Deep State and start blaming every possible baseless conspiracy theory. The Browns lost to their rival over and over because they weren't as good.
With you guys, it just can't possibly be as simple as, "We got our asses kicked and our coach isn't as good as their coach."
First, it's because the officials want Ohio State to win (Do you know any actual officials? Tell them that theory and see what they say.) Or, even worse, there's some larger Big Ten conspiracy where they apparently force the referees to make calls in OSU's direction. If it's not that, then it's an arrogant, holier-than-thou narrative that you're academically Yale with the morality of Mother Theresa ("The reason we will never win is because we are Michigan and we refuse to cheat and plunder like those lowly Ohioans.") It's all unsubstantiated myths about bags of money and boosters stroking their long, curvy mustaches. All this coming from the program that's hiring 5* recruits' dads (not to mention your team of classy 'Michigan Men' is being penalized for pulling off an opponent's shoe after the play.) And, by the way, I'll bet none of you knew that Ohio State's average freshman ACT score is within ONE point of Michigan's.
If it's none of that nonsense, the new narrative is that you never even wanted championships to begin with because your standards aren't that high. Five years ago, all any Michigan fan would talk about was National Championships and turning the tide against OSU. Now suddenly, all you're after is with 3rd-place in the East.
Why can't it just be that your program is badly run? That your coach is overrated? That your players aren't as good? No, if Mighty Michigan doesn't reign supreme, it must be because everyone else is cheating... or, well, maybe you never wanted it in the first place.
Comments