Harbaugh will surpass Saban in National Titles

[Voltaire26]

Nick Saban lost to LA Monroe his first year at Alabama.


I hate that I had to say that, and that's all I got to say about 1st year new coaches.

And while we weren't pulling in #1 recruiting classes before Saban, we weren't doing terrible either. We actually had a 10 win season with Shula.

Alabama has been the best team in the nation over the last 5 years (at least). This thread was started to agitate a very young overly enthusiastic Michigan fan. As Harbaugh said: "We're not even the biggest guy on the block, Michigan State's the biggest guy". We are going to have to win our way to respect, but I have to admit it is kinda nice to see Michigan being trolled!!!!

 

[4down20]

Alabama has been the best team in the nation over the last 5 years (at least). This thread was started to agitate a very young overly enthusiastic Michigan fan. As Harbaugh said: "We're not even the biggest guy on the block, Michigan State's the biggest guy". We are going to have to win our way to respect, but I have to admit it is kinda nice to see Michigan being trolled!!!!

Oh I know, I was talking about the other discussion on how Harbaugh will do his first year, not the OP.

Despite all the success Alabama has had in recent years, the 1st year was not great.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

It actually is entirely irrelevant. You didn't finish with top a 20 class, you finished where I listed. Having a small class with higher star guys doesn't mean you can just extrapolate the rest of the spots out that would have been required for you to have a higher class. Part of having a highly rated class is having a deep one and you didn't have that. You also didn't get much individual talent once they got to school and onto the field, so the end ranking doesn't mean anything.

When all is said and done, you have no proven, developed talent outside of maybe a couple of guys. Otherwise, your recruits have been either just average or busts. As I said, Harbaugh didn't turn Stanford around in year 1, and he won't do it for you either. Underachieving juniors and seniors aren't all of the sudden gonna become good just because you have a good coach in his first year.

That's just entirely wrong. There was absolutely no possible way for us to have a larger class as NCAA rules require a team to stay under 85 scholarships. We only had 16 and 14 spots to give out in those classes. That's it. We couldn't hand out more. There was no possible way we could hand out more scholarships without pulling an Alabama and cutting players in other aspects. The reason was no fault of that class, rather, we had very very deep and talented classes in '12 and '13.

There was no team with under 19 recruits in the top 50 outside of Michigan. In fact, we had the fourth lowest total class size of any team and the rest didn't even break the top 100. Michigan had 6 four star players in the class. The only reason we didn't jump into the top 20 is because we didn't tack on an additional 12 three star players and end up top 20 like Miss St. did. That's why average star ranking is important because it means we didn't just add numbers to make it into the top 20.

Harbaugh didn't turn Stanford around in one year, but there's no argument that Michigan has far more potential talent on the team than Stanford did when Harbaugh took over.

 

[Across The Field]

That's just entirely wrong. There was absolutely no possible way for us to have a larger class as NCAA rules require a team to stay under 85 scholarships. We only had 16 and 14 spots to give out in those classes. That's it. We couldn't hand out more. There was no possible way we could hand out more scholarships without pulling an Alabama and cutting players in other aspects. The reason was no fault of that class, rather, we had very very deep and talented classes in '12 and '13.

There was no team with under 19 recruits in the top 50 outside of Michigan. In fact, we had the fourth lowest total class size of any team and the rest didn't even break the top 100. Michigan had 6 four star players in the class. The only reason we didn't jump into the top 20 is because we didn't tack on an additional 12 three star players and end up top 20 like Miss St. did. That's why average star ranking is important because it means we didn't just add numbers to make it into the top 20.

Harbaugh didn't turn Stanford around in one year, but there's no argument that Michigan has far more potential talent on the team than Stanford did when Harbaugh took over.

You just told me I was entirely wrong and then completely agreed with my point. No matter how you play the "if" game, your class rankings were what they were. You are right, you couldn't take more guys. So that class lacked depth. Which is why it wasn't ranked high. I'm dealing in absolutes and you're dealing in hypotheticals. At the end of the day, you have some "highly rated" recruits from 2012 and 2013 who haven't panned out for the most part, and then you have a shallow 2014 and 2015 class.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You forgot about the Harbaugh factor.

Never forget the harbaugh Factor Harbaugh doesn't lose He's so skilled he wins games for other teams too. ESPN is predicting a 20 win season for Michigan

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

You just told me I was entirely wrong and then completely agreed with my point. No matter how you play the "if" game, your class rankings were what they were. You are right, you couldn't take more guys. So that class lacked depth. Which is why it wasn't ranked high. I'm dealing in absolutes and you're dealing in hypotheticals. At the end of the day, you have some "highly rated" recruits from 2012 and 2013 who haven't panned out for the most part, and then you have a shallow 2014 and 2015 class.

But what you fail to acknowledge is that the reason it lacked depth is because we had a billion guys in a couple of classes ranked in the top 10. So it all averages out. The overall talent, recruiting wise, is similar to any other major team that consistently ranks in the top 15. Yes, those recruits have yet to pan out but it's very likely that more than a few will given actual coaching.

 

[nddulac]

But what you fail to acknowledge is that the reason it lacked depth is because we had a billion guys in a couple of classes ranked in the top 10.

I'm not sure, but I think that might be an NCAA violation.

 

[7Samurai13]

I'm not sure, but I think that might be an NCAA violation.

No, it's all good. There was nearly a billion medical hardships.

 

[cwerph]

Maybe Harbaugh will someday surpass Nick (and Urban)... But for now, he's got his eyes on a lower prize:

"We know we're not the biggest guy on the block (right now)," Harbaugh said, per a live video stream recorded by The Wolverine. "Michigan State's the biggest guy on the block."

Harbaugh's comment was then met with a clap from someone in the back of the room. He acknowledged that clap, and followed it up by heaping praise on what Mark Dantonio and the Spartans have accomplished.

But also said Michigan has plans to do everything it can to reclaim its status "on the block."

"Rightfully so, rightfully so," he said. "They've done a tremendous job, and we respect the job that they've done. But we want that. We want it..."

Jim Harbaugh: 'We're not the biggest guy on the block, Michigan State's the biggest guy' | MLive.com

Nice little bit of reverse psychology? Or an honest appraisal?

 

[4down20]

Maybe Harbaugh will someday surpass Nick (and Urban)... But for now, he's got his eyes on a lower prize:

"We know we're not the biggest guy on the block (right now)," Harbaugh said, per a live video stream recorded by The Wolverine. "Michigan State's the biggest guy on the block."

Harbaugh's comment was then met with a clap from someone in the back of the room. He acknowledged that clap, and followed it up by heaping praise on what Mark Dantonio and the Spartans have accomplished.

But also said Michigan has plans to do everything it can to reclaim its status "on the block."

"Rightfully so, rightfully so," he said. "They've done a tremendous job, and we respect the job that they've done. But we want that. We want it..."

Jim Harbaugh: 'We're not the biggest guy on the block, Michigan State's the biggest guy' | MLive.com

Nice little bit of reverse psychology? Or an honest appraisal?

Smartest thing he's done so far. It's true either way.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Maybe Harbaugh will someday surpass Nick (and Urban)... But for now, he's got his eyes on a lower prize:

"We know we're not the biggest guy on the block (right now)," Harbaugh said, per a live video stream recorded by The Wolverine. "Michigan State's the biggest guy on the block."

Harbaugh's comment was then met with a clap from someone in the back of the room. He acknowledged that clap, and followed it up by heaping praise on what Mark Dantonio and the Spartans have accomplished.

But also said Michigan has plans to do everything it can to reclaim its status "on the block."

"Rightfully so, rightfully so," he said. "They've done a tremendous job, and we respect the job that they've done. But we want that. We want it..."

Jim Harbaugh: 'We're not the biggest guy on the block, Michigan State's the biggest guy' | MLive.com

Nice little bit of reverse psychology? Or an honest appraisal?

I'm perfectly fine with those comments, because they are true. We do need to get over that hump before we can get the program rolling. And Mark Dantonio does deserve respect for turning this:
Into a program wining Rose Bowls.

 

[Across The Field]

But what you fail to acknowledge is that the reason it lacked depth is because we had a billion guys in a couple of classes ranked in the top 10. So it all averages out. The overall talent, recruiting wise, is similar to any other major team that consistently ranks in the top 15. Yes, those recruits have yet to pan out but it's very likely that more than a few will given actual coaching.

I'm not failing to recognize anything.

The guys currently on the roster have absolutely nothing to do with a recruiting class.

Saying "our class would've been ranked higher if we had more room" doesn't make it a better class. At the end of the day, it's still a very shallow class.

The overall talent is similar but it's been horribly mismanaged. Sure, playing under Harbaugh may help a couple of them come around. Bottom line, though, is you are basically taking the best possible case scenario and acting as if it's what should be expected.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I'm not failing to recognize anything.

The guys currently on the roster have absolutely nothing to do with a recruiting class.

Saying "our class would've been ranked higher if we had more room" doesn't make it a better class. At the end of the day, it's still a very shallow class.

The overall talent is similar but it's been horribly mismanaged. Sure, playing under Harbaugh may help a couple of them come around. Bottom line, though, is you are basically taking the best possible case scenario and acting as if it's what should be expected.

They do over a four year span. They're all totally related.

I get what you're saying, I acknowledge it. I just don't agree with that take. Michigan was penalized in class rankings because they held onto players in their other top rated classes. That is a flawed system but that is what the system says (which is what you're saying). A team ranking SHOULD be based on the quality of recruits coming in, not the size of the class you have room for on any given year. So long as the average star ranking is relatively consistent, and you're filling all your scholarship spots, it doesn't matter when those recruits are coming in.

I'm not talking the best possible scenario at all. I'm not suggesting all of our players work out, I'm suggesting that just some of the 24+ four and five star kids we brought in, in two classes, will pan out in our favor. That's not an unreasonable belief, especially with good coaching.

 

[4down20]

But what you fail to acknowledge is that the reason it lacked depth is because we had a billion guys in a couple of classes ranked in the top 10. So it all averages out. The overall talent, recruiting wise, is similar to any other major team that consistently ranks in the top 15. Yes, those recruits have yet to pan out but it's very likely that more than a few will given actual coaching.

Your past 2 years have not been in the top20. Your 2 prior to that were good classes, but 1 ranked higher because you signed 28 players, and the one before that had 25 players, but only 20 enrolled(thus leading to the 28 class the following year).

Alabama in the years leading up to Nick Saban and our first year of going 7-6:

2007: 13th
2006: 15th
2005: 22nd
2004: 30th

And of course, when we started being good again under Saban:

2008: 3rd
2009: 2nd
2010: 5th
2011: 1st
2012: 1st
2013: 1st
2014: 1st

Takes multiple classes of the coach getting the type of guys he wants. Simply having decent recruiting classes the previous years doesn't mean very much. This isn't NCAA football on Xbox where you recruit the most stars and win.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Your past 2 years have not been in the top20. Your 2 prior to that were good classes, but 1 ranked higher because you signed 28 players, and the one before that had 25 players, but only 20 enrolled(thus leading to the 28 class the following year).

Alabama in the years leading up to Nick Saban and our first year of going 7-6:

2007: 13th
2006: 15th
2005: 22nd
2004: 30th

And of course, when we started being good again under Saban:

2008: 3rd
2009: 2nd
2010: 5th
2011: 1st
2012: 1st
2013: 1st
2014: 1st

Takes multiple classes of the coach getting the type of guys he wants. Simply having decent recruiting classes the previous years doesn't mean very much. This isn't NCAA football on Xbox where you recruit the most stars and win.

Oh sure, to win a national title it does take multiple years in a row getting top 10 finishes. But it doesn't take that to get a really good top 20 team; which I think Michigan has the talent to do.

What I was suggesting is that the past two years have been top 20 in terms of average star ranking. And the same statement applies to our 2012 and 2013 classes. 2012 was #9 in average star ranking and 2013 was #7. All together we have a team with a pretty high average star ranking of kids coming out of HS. That's my point. There's plenty of talent on this team, it's just a matter of coaching.

 

[Across The Field]

They do over a four year span. They're all totally related.

I get what you're saying, I acknowledge it. I just don't agree with that take. Michigan was penalized in class rankings because they held onto players in their other top rated classes. That is a flawed system but that is what the system says (which is what you're saying). A team ranking SHOULD be based on the quality of recruits coming in, not the size of the class you have room for on any given year. So long as the average star ranking is relatively consistent, and you're filling all your scholarship spots, it doesn't matter when those recruits are coming in.

I'm not talking the best possible scenario at all. I'm not suggesting all of our players work out, I'm suggesting that just some of the 24+ four and five star kids we brought in, in two classes, will pan out in our favor. That's not an unreasonable belief, especially with good coaching.

You're not being penalized in the class rankings. Your class was your class. If you want to try and spin it like this, there would be dozens of other programs who would try and come up with excuses themselves.

I understand what you're saying in regards to qualitative rankings. However, the reason depth matters is, for example, because of guys on Ohio State like Darren Lee, Bradley Roby, Jonathan Hankins, James Laurinaitis, AJ Hawk, etc. These are 3* "depth" guys who turn into stars. We can both look at our teams and run down a laundry list of 4/5* guys who didn't pan out.

Again, and nothing you can say will change this, the players on your team are not factored in to recruiting class rankings. You can't say "well if we had room we would've signed more 4/5* guys." It doesn't work like that. You have no idea what you would've pulled in. Fact is, your classes in 2014 and 2015 weren't highly ranked. No matter what players you have on your team, it doesn't change that fact. You brought in what you brought in. Period.

You also can't say "well this guy was a 4* in 2012, so now that we have a good coach he'll likely be good." Talented players don't take this long to become good. Unless he's changing positions with a bunch of guys, it's unlikely he's going to be turning a bunch of these guys around. Fact is, you guys don't have much proven talent at all. You're banking on guys' 3-4 year old star ranking from a recruiting service to turn your program around in year 1, and it isn't going to happen.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

You're not being penalized in the class rankings. Your class was your class. If you want to try and spin it like this, there would be dozens of other programs who would try and come up with excuses themselves.

I understand what you're saying in regards to qualitative rankings. However, the reason depth matters is, for example, because of guys on Ohio State like Darren Lee, Bradley Roby, Jonathan Hankins, James Laurinaitis, AJ Hawk, etc. These are 3* "depth" guys who turn into stars. We can both look at our teams and run down a laundry list of 4/5* guys who didn't pan out.

Again, and nothing you can say will change this, the players on your team are not factored in to recruiting class rankings. You can't say "well if we had room we would've signed more 4/5* guys." It doesn't work like that. You have no idea what you would've pulled in. Fact is, your classes in 2014 and 2015 weren't highly ranked. No matter what players you have on your team, it doesn't change that fact. You brought in what you brought in. Period.

You also can't say "well this guy was a 4* in 2012, so now that we have a good coach he'll likely be good." Talented players don't take this long to become good. Unless he's changing positions with a bunch of guys, it's unlikely he's going to be turning a bunch of these guys around. Fact is, you guys don't have much proven talent at all. You're banking on guys' 3-4 year old star ranking from a recruiting service to turn your program around in year 1, and it isn't going to happen.

It's not an excuse and, unlike those "other programs", my argument is based on average star ranking. IMO that matters more than class size -- with the qualification that you're filling the spots you have open.

 

[Across The Field]

It's not an excuse and, unlike those "other programs", my argument is based on average star ranking. IMO that matters more than class size -- with the qualification that you're filling the spots you have open.

But it doesn't. Go through the class rankings for any year. There are just as many 4* guys that don't pan out as 4/5* guys that do. Depth is extremely important. As I already illustrated, these 3* guys are important. There's a reason USC had down years even though they were bringing in highly rated guys - they had no depth. Without depth, you will fail.

 

[4down20]

Oh sure, to win a national title it does take multiple years in a row getting top 10 finishes. But it doesn't take that to get a really good top 20 team; which I think Michigan has the talent to do.

What I was suggesting is that the past two years have been top 20 in terms of average star ranking. And the same statement applies to our 2012 and 2013 classes. 2012 was #9 in average star ranking and 2013 was #7. All together we have a team with a pretty high average star ranking of kids coming out of HS. That's my point. There's plenty of talent on this team, it's just a matter of coaching.

7-6 and lost to LA Monroe with what is considered possibly one of the best coaches in the history of the game.

As I said, it doesn't fucking matter what star a player is if it's not the kind of player the coach needs. Florida has been bringing extremely high classes, but with all the coaching changes(especially at OC under Muschamp), the entire squad that was stocked with tons of NFL talent was a cluster fuck.

 

[Across The Field]

Oh sure, to win a national title it does take multiple years in a row getting top 10 finishes. But it doesn't take that to get a really good top 20 team; which I think Michigan has the talent to do.

What I was suggesting is that the past two years have been top 20 in terms of average star ranking. And the same statement applies to our 2012 and 2013 classes. 2012 was #9 in average star ranking and 2013 was #7. All together we have a team with a pretty high average star ranking of kids coming out of HS. That's my point. There's plenty of talent on this team, it's just a matter of coaching.

This is a fair argument if the star system was even somewhat a guarantee, but it's very much not. You can count on one hand the actual proven talented players on the michigan roster. At that point, stars mean nothing. What you actually prove on the field does.