Ahriman

June 9th, 2017 at 6:23 PM ^

suggest that UCLA & Michigan are somehow on the same footing. UCLA isn't even the best/most succesful college team in Los Angeles.

UCLA has 1 Heisman winner in its entire history (1967 Gary Beban), Michigan has 3 (http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/12/12/9884960/heisman-tro…).

UCLA has 1 National Championship in its entire history (1954), Michigan has a total of 9 with the most recent in 1997 according to the NCAA website, although up to 11 have been claimed (http://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs).

UCLA has 589 wins all-time with a .585 winning percentage (35th), Michigan has 935 wins all-time with a .730 winning percentage (1st) (http://www.winsipedia.com/ucla/vs/michigan).

UCLA has had 25 players drafted since 2013 (avg. of 5 per year), Coach Harbaugh has 14 drafted in 2 years, with 11 this year which set a school record (http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?abbr=U&collegeName=UCLA&abbr…).

Coach Mora has a .470 winning percentage in the NFL (1 NFC Championship game appearance), Coach Harbaugh is at .690 with a Super Bowl appearance & 3 NFC Championship appearances (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_L._Mora and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Harbaugh).

Coach Mora has won 41 games in 5 years, only 4 last year. Coach Harbaugh has won 20 games in 2 years after taking over for a program that finished 5-7 the year before.

Coach Mora has 4 assistants who have gone on to become NFL/NCAA head coaches, Coach Harbaugh has 7.

Good luck to Odogwu, UCLA has a nice campus, but if you want to make it to the NFL with the knowledge and work ethic to succeed, you either go to Alabama or Michigan, and if location is important, USC.

war-dawg69

June 9th, 2017 at 8:23 AM ^

Michigan is way way closer. By the wrong spot of the football. Clemson got the pure luck that Michigan did not, of course they smashed osu and for that I love em. This is not a loss, but I feel dtr was, but he will regret his decision. UCLA is going nowhere.

Bodogblog

June 9th, 2017 at 10:00 AM ^

Again. 

If the ball had been spotted a few inches the other way, you'd be saying "Michigan made all the plays when it counted and won."  It's a simplistic view. 

Michigan was very close to a CFP berth and B1G title opportunity last year.  That is elite.  Which is his overall point.  

1VaBlue1

June 9th, 2017 at 12:51 PM ^

"If the ball had been spotted a few inches the other way..."

Correct.  That spot happens 10-15 times a game - every time the chains come out for a measurement, that spot just happened.  The ball could be a few inches either way, and it will make a world of difference to both teams.  Get over the spot!  Put any blame on the inabililty to make a stop late in the 4th and in OT.

There is no shame in losing to a playoff team in thier house, in OT, on a walkoff score.  Shit just went wrong...

Rabbit21

June 9th, 2017 at 8:42 AM ^

Bummer.

But I can't say I'm surprised.  UCLA's O-Line situation is apocalyptic, whereas Michigan at least has warm bodies they can throw at Right Tackle.  I guarantee UCLA's staff could make playing time guarantee, whereas making guarantees isn't exactly Harbaugh's style.

Wolverine 73

June 9th, 2017 at 12:00 PM ^

Given the spirit of constant competition Harbaugh is engendering, I wouldn't want a guy who did not embrace that approach. If he needs a guarantee to start, UCLA can have him. I would rather see guys like Filiaga, Steuber, Runyon, et al. who embrace the competition fight it out for the spot. In the long run, that will pay off.

bluewave720

June 9th, 2017 at 1:14 PM ^

Meritocracy is probably the most important component of this staff's ideology.  Although more depth on the OL would have been great, I don't think you even flirt with disrupting team chemistry to provide a promise.

On the other hand, regardless of how "elite" UCLA is, they are notable enough that if he has a great season, his efforts will certainly be noticed by NFL scouts.  If he were my kid, I'd genuinely support either decision. 

Jamezz23

June 9th, 2017 at 8:07 AM ^

Sure it might have been nice to land him, but reading some of the Miami boards it seemed to be a consensus that he was a nice guy but a terrible lineman.

Guy Fawkes

June 9th, 2017 at 8:28 AM ^

Of course we'll be ok, but there is no denying that he would have been huge for depth concerns. Michigan is still 1 OL injury away from complete chaos.

war-dawg69

June 9th, 2017 at 10:03 AM ^

Chaos I doubt it, unless that injury is to Mason Cole and that is because of the newsome injury. If Cole who has never been injured stays healthy we are a lot deeper than you think. Are two deep is not that bad all along the line except left tackle where I don't want to see anyone but Cole.

EGD

June 9th, 2017 at 5:42 PM ^

M will be starting inexperienced players at C, RT, and one of the OG spots. I'd consider M to be very fortunate if all three of those new starters work out. I am confident in our coaches and hope this will happen, but it's an unknown and we must acknowledge there is a significant chance it won't. Maybe only two of those new starters will be effective, or just one, or none. But if you want to just assume all three starters, who we've never really seen before, will be good in 2017--fine. To then assert that M has depth beyond those new starters requires we blindly assume that a fourth new lineman will be ready to go, and maybe a fifth (you did say "a lot" of depth). Perhaps this is all true--if so, that'd sure be great. But there just isn't any evidence for it.