Saban won the Sugar Bowl and finished 7th in year 2, NC by year 4. And to be fair, I shouldn't have listed pre-Saban LSU as one of those programs. LSU was not a good program before he got there. I'll give you Mack, but he was top 5 by year 4.
What does it say about Harbaugh that it only took him 3 years to build a team at Stanford that would win 36 games in its next three seasons?
What does it say about Mike Shula that he built Alabama to where the coach behind him was able to win 32 games and a NC in the 3 years after he left? Really makes you think.
Programs that have consistent high level success over very long stretches/decades. I mean, are you trying to find some arbitrary reason to add a team? If you want to add someone, go for it. That's the list that came off the top of my head. I think I left off ND though.
Agreed. It also makes no sense to give Harbaugh credit for games that David Shaw won. Harbuagh had an all-time CFB QB and had a great season at Stanford. He's yet to replicate that success without Andrew Luck. Really makes you think.
dblplay1212 before Harbaugh got to UM: "Michigan is overrated and irrelevant on the national level because it has no national titles in the modern era." dblplay1212 after Harbaugh got mentioned in the same breath as Saban when he got the Michigan job: "Michigan is a blue blood where anything less than competing for national championships is a failure"
The fact that you can't see that both of those statements are correct is funny. UM is traditionally overrated on a national level bc they haven't won much in decades. That doesn't change the fact that all the tools are there for an elite coach to win big. It's looking more and more like Harbaugh isn't going to be the guy either.
Your list of blue bloods included multiple teams that lack traditional success. They only have modern success. It’s weird.
I assume you're referring to the Florida schools? I mean all 3 have been really fucking good for the last 30 years. idk what the cuttoff is for someone to become a blueblood but I think being top 5-7 in the country over the last 30 years puts each of them in. To me it's really about the tools available. Brand recognition, recruiting grounds, money, etc. All of those schools have every tool an elite level coach would need to win right away.
In decades? Michigan’s best coach won one championship arguably. Maybe he is right, this is the best Michigan can do
Yea they get upset when you bring up arbitrary timelines that point out they have one national title in 69 years. Or that Nick Saban has more national titles than UM does since the Great Depression. So I won't bring those things up.
LSU's record the 7 years before Saban got there was 41-37-1. Michigan's record the 7 years before Harbaugh got there was 46-42. Saban's record at LSU his first three seasons was 26-12. Harbaugh's record at Michigan his first three seasons is 28-9.
Looks like Brady Hoke's first three seasons at Michigan were equal to Saban's first three seasons at LSU. This entire thread is people using arbitrary end points and making stupid comparisons to make arguments that tell the story they want to tell. Did you just notice this now?
Oh no, I am just having a little fun discussing these things. I mostly agree with you. I hope harbaugh bails because he is a damn good coach, he never seems to stick around though, maybe it will be different since Michigan is home to him. He is a weird guy, it’s tough to imagine him leading a program for 10+ years
Are the expectations/statements in this thread ridiculously exorbitant? Well yeah. We're talking about a guy that's getting paid $9m per year
I know some Michigan men who get awfully disgruntled when you remind them the rightful national champions in the year 1997, was the Nebraska cornhuskers.
5 minutes after that segment they brought Finebaum on and the header was something like "Has the Harbaugh experience failed?"