After the 2016 season, Brian Kelly had been at ND for 7 seasons. Harbaugh had been at UM for 2 seasons. They had the same number of seasons with 3 or fewer losses (2).
So they were "good losses"? Again, he had a loaded roster. Most picks in the entire country. Talent was not an excuse last year.
But Nd was in such a bigger hole, and Kelly is not known as a great coach. People rank harbaugh in the top 5, nobody ranks Kelly in the top 10.
I wasn’t comparing his situation to Bill Snyder at all, I even said I am not defending Harbaugh. I don’t really care for him. It is why I originally asked you for clarification on your “elite coaches are contending for NCs by year 3” comment. I asked if you meant at Michigan or anywhere. Because that was all I disagreed with. I think there are situations where you can have an elite coach and he won’t be contending for a national title in year three. To be clear as day - I was not, and am not, comparing Bill Snyder’s situation and Jim Harbaugh’s situation. I’m not even talking about Jim Harbaugh.
Gotcha. We're on the same page. Sorry for the confusion. I meant at elite level programs, not mid level that need years and years to build up the program.
And Nd was not successful for a while, pretty much the laughing stock. While Michigan was bad but also won a bcs bowl just a few years before. As far as roster goes, Nd had some talent. Probably more top talent than Michigan but michigan was deeper and harbaugh should’ve been able to recruit a team that challenges the top 10 right now. Regardless, harbaugh is a good coach but so far he is not doing a very good job at Michigan.
Football is a fickle sport. 2012 Notre Dame had three point home wins over Purdue (6-7) and BYU (8-5, lost to San Jose State), and overtime home wins against Stanford and Pittsburgh (6-7). Is Brian Kelly still employed at Notre Dame if they lose any of those games and thus don't make the title game? Are Notre Dame fans attributing the difference in the outcomes of those four games and the three games Michigan lost last year to coaching?
Kelly is going to lose his job soon, and all of what you just wrote will be part of the reason why he won’t coach Nd in the near futur.
No to the first question. yes to the second one, I am attributing my high blood pressure partly to Brian Kelly. And too much salt, and maybe a little bit too much alcohol.
2015: 10-3 was a resounding success after 5-7 in 2014. 2016: 10-3 was both a success and a disappointment. Michigan won 10 games and beat two top 10 teams. The three losses were by a combined 5 points. The outcomes sucked, but the team was close to being where we want it to be. Michigan had the talent to win 11-12 games. Michigan didn't have the QB/OL talent to be better than that. 2017: 8-4 is disappointing but not far from expected. 2017 was always going to be a rebuilding year. I predicted 9-3 with losses to Penn State, Wisconsin, and Ohio State. The Michigan State loss should not have happened. The Penn State loss should not have been as bad. Although having to start a back-up QB didn't help, Michigan was clearly outcoached in both games. The offensive coaching staff needs an overhaul. Harbaugh made some poor staffing decisions in the last offseason and must fix those. Tim Drevno must go. Pep Hamilton was a mistake. We need a WR coach with the 10th assistant. The defensive staff must learn from some of their mistakes but is otherwise great. Overall, I enjoy my Harbaugh purchasing decision. I don't give a shit about how much boosters are paying him or how much attention people pay to his offseason antics as long as we're not recruiting criminals. Only six P5 coaches -- Saban, Dabo, Urban, Chryst, Shaw, and Richt -- have a better winning percentage since Harbaugh took over. The program's is not yet where I want it to be. But the foundations have been laid for good teams in 2018 and 2019. I'm fine with being patient after 2007-2014.
Nd was 4-8 last year, losing by less than a td almost every game. But winning these games don’t matter. It will happen, struggling against a weaker team will and should happen. But if it happens every week something is wrong.
Dabo Swinney is an example of a coach who struggled early before turning a program into a national title contender/winner.
In the 7 years before Kelly got to ND, it went 46-39. It lost back-to-back BCS bowls in years 3 and 4 of that stretch against top 5 teams (OSU and LSU). In the last three recruiting classes before Kelly got to ND, ND ranked #5, #6 and #2 according to the 247 composite rankings In the 7 years before Harbaugh got to UM, it went 46-42 and went to a BCS bowl in year 4 of that stretch. It's BCS bowl win was in overtime against #17 VT. In the last three recruiting classes before Harbaugh got to UM, it ranked #6, #4 and #20 in the 247 composite rankings. I guess you win because I just spent the last 5 minutes looking that up, but go ahead and tell me again how the two situations are so different?
He took over midseason as interim HC after like 6 games in 2008. 2009 was his first full season as HC. He made a BCS bowl in his 3rd full season as HC.
Year 3 is *generally* the best indication of future success...or non-success. Many coaches had success in years 1 or 2, then totally fell off the map.
I am not afraid to say I was wrong my good man. But I also take solace in the fact that I was right when I was mocking Michigan back in 2011, you guys fucking sucked! ;)
James Franklin inherited a complete disaster of a roster riddled with sanctions level talent and had like 65 scholarship players and won the B1G in year 3. Whatever Harbaugh took over, I promise it wasn’t as bad as what JF walked into. Hoke recruited really well and had top 15 type classes.
Because if Franklin can go 11-3 and win the B1G in his third season that means there's no excuse for Harbaugh going 8-3 to start his third season? Yeah, I got that part. Doesn't make it a universal truth that applies moving forward.
There's an obvious point in that by year 3 you have a good idea of what your coach is capable of. There's a stupid point trying to be made, in that the year 3 (and only the year 3) record is what tells you what coach you have. And there is some weaselly *generally* caveating being thrown around, because the person making the stupid point knows that it's stupid to think that a team so bereft of upperclassmen talent and starting as many sophomores and freshman as Michigan is will be stuck in 8-4 land for perpetuity.
And proceeded to never win the conference. But again, Stanford isn't an elite blue blood level program so that doesn't apply to the discussion we are having.
Name a couple coaches that didn't win big in their first 3 years at an elite blue blood program and then proceeded to have elite level success after that. Keep it within the last 30ish years.
You obviously need to look case by case, hence the “generally” tag. That said, historically it’s actually one of the more accurate indicators when looking at college football. Every coach that won a NC at ND won one in year 3. None won one before then, or after, if they didn’t in year 3. Saban won his first at Bama in year 3. Meyer at Ohio St won his first in year 3 (though he won in year 2 at UF, then had a bad year 3...so exception there). The list goes on. On the flip side, the first two years can generally be very misleading, especially if they’re good. See Ty Willingham, Charlie Weis, Mark Helfrich, Larry Coker, etc. All saw success in their first two years, then fell off in year 3. The logic behind it is a coach is generally still working with both players and (more importantly) culture left behind from the previous regime in the first two years, whether that’s good or bad. By year three, the coach generally has his own roster in place and a culture totally built to show how he can actually coach in what is his own program at that point. As far as indicators go, it’s not perfect by any means. But it’s pretty damn accurate even when you go back decades.
What programs does it apply to? I'd say Bama/AU/LSU/UGA/UF/UT/FSU/USC/Texas/OU/UM/OSU/PSU are schools that the right couch can walk in and win big within 3 years. You don't need 10 years to build a program like at KSU. All the tools are there as soon as the coach steps on campus. I may be missing a few but that's a starter list.