ADVERTISEMENT

Jim Harbaugh- as a coach

HuskerNorm

Walk On
Jan 28, 2004
237
294
63
Ignoring his sideline behavior from the other thread, I truly don't understand the love for the guy as a coach. He had ONE good year as a FBS head coach at Stanford and that was with Andrew Luck as his quarterback. Here is his career stats vs. some other notable coaches in the B1G.

Jim Harbaugh
FBS record as head coach: 30-22
54% winning percentage
1-1 in bowl games (1 win was a BCS game)
0 conference championships

Mike Riley
FBS record as head coach: 94-81
52% winning percentage
6-2 in bowl games (No BCS bowls)
0 conference championships

Jerry Kill
FBS record as head coach: 49-43
53% winning percentage
0-5 in bowl games
0 conference championships

Pat Fitzgerald
FBS record as a head coach: 62-53
54% winning percentage
1-4 in bowl games (No BCS bowls)
0 conference championships

Here is my favorite comparison to Jim Harbaugh:
Brady Hoke
FBS record as a head coach: 78-70
53% winning percentage
2-3 in bowl games (1 win was a BCS game)
1 conference championship

Can people please stop acting like Harbaugh is the second coming of Bear Bryant. It's not that I don't think Harbaugh can be successful, I am just really tired of people acting like his success at Michigan is a foregone conclusion. I think Riley, Kill, and Fitzgerald can be successful too under the right circumstances and none of them are viewed with the universal praise that has followed Harbaugh to Ann Arbor. I just don't get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: huskerbux
Nice breakdown thanks! I knew he didnt have a solid record at Stanford, but Stanford was pretty down before him, I think. However when you lay it out across the board with record comparisons that is crazy. I completely agree that most coaches given the right circumstances can be successful.
 
His record at the University of San Diego was 7-4, 11-1 and 11-1. His record at Stanford was 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, 12-1. So he improved every year he coached in college except for his final year at San Diego St., when he finished 11-1. I don't care for him personally, but you can't deny that he was a very successful in his previous two colleges head coaching jobs.
 
Last edited:
His record at San Diego St. was 7-4, 11-1 and 11-1. His record at Stanford was 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, 12-1. So he improved every year he coached in college except for his final year at San Diego St., when he finished 11-1. I don't care for him personally, but you can't deny that he was a very successful in his previous two colleges head coaching jobs.
Thanks for the sanity. I don't like him but he took three programs and turned them all around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackbones
His record at San Diego St. was 7-4, 11-1 and 11-1. His record at Stanford was 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, 12-1. So he improved every year he coached in college except for his final year at San Diego St., when he finished 11-1. I don't care for him personally, but you can't deny that he was a very successful in his previous two colleges head coaching jobs.

This. He has been very successful.
 
Just so we are clear Harbaugh never coached at San Diego State. He coached at the University of San Diego, which is an FCS school that was 8-2 in 2003 before he got there. He didn't turn anything around with that program.
 
Last edited:
I think it's pretty clear cut that Harbaugh is a very good coach to get you wins. But, no evidence in the world will change someone's mind if they are biased against him.

If you are talking about everything surrounding a program excluding wins, I think he's pretty questionable.
 
Just so we are clear Harbaugh never coached at San Diego State. He coached at the University of San Diego, which is an FCS school that was 8-2 in 2003 before he got there. He didn't "turn anything" around with that program.
That is correct, my mistake. But he did have very successful seasons there in 2 out of his 3 years there.
 
If Michigan goes 9-3 I would be very surprised and that would be a hell of a coaching job by Harbaugh. Credit where it is due if that happens.

Their over-under before the year was 7.5 wins and I have seen nothing to tell me they will get 9 wins. Especially considering they have one loss already and four ranked teams including the #1 and #4 team in the country left on the schedule. The under on 7.5 is actually looking pretty good right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDhusker12
The Mi coach and N coach have coached against each other? If so; did HCMR win more or draw?
 
Harbaugh appears to model himself after Bo Schembechler -- same intensity, same behavior on the sideline, same control freak behavior in practice as well as the game, same running game mentality (I'd rather run over you rather than go around you), even the same positioning of his hat on his head while on the sideline. "Second coming" well YES if he wins 75%+ of his games at Michigan.

.02

and, Go Cats !!
 
The best way to have an unbiased take on someone is to look at their documented record whether in sports or some other discipline. Harbaugh's on that account is a proven successful coach. What he isn't as of yet is an overall championship coach. Success at Stanford and even an appearance in the Super Bowl doesn't mean that just stepping on the field with a potential elite program like Michigan automatically makes him the best coach in college football destined to dominate the conference and win multiple National Championships. Sorry Michigan fan.

As far as only winning at Stanford with Luck while a factor isn't a concern. All great coaches only become great coaches when they have great players.
 
Harbaugh will fail Michigan.

i-feel-like-im-taking-crazy-pills.gif
 
Ignoring his sideline behavior from the other thread, I truly don't understand the love for the guy as a coach. He had ONE good year as a FBS head coach at Stanford and that was with Andrew Luck as his quarterback. Here is his career stats vs. some other notable coaches in the B1G.

Jim Harbaugh
FBS record as head coach: 30-22
54% winning percentage
1-1 in bowl games (1 win was a BCS game)
0 conference championships

Mike Riley
FBS record as head coach: 94-81
52% winning percentage
6-2 in bowl games (No BCS bowls)
0 conference championships

Jerry Kill
FBS record as head coach: 49-43
53% winning percentage
0-5 in bowl games
0 conference championships

Pat Fitzgerald
FBS record as a head coach: 62-53
54% winning percentage
1-4 in bowl games (No BCS bowls)
0 conference championships

Here is my favorite comparison to Jim Harbaugh:
Brady Hoke
FBS record as a head coach: 78-70
53% winning percentage
2-3 in bowl games (1 win was a BCS game)
1 conference championship

Can people please stop acting like Harbaugh is the second coming of Bear Bryant. It's not that I don't think Harbaugh can be successful, I am just really tired of people acting like his success at Michigan is a foregone conclusion. I think Riley, Kill, and Fitzgerald can be successful too under the right circumstances and none of them are viewed with the universal praise that has followed Harbaugh to Ann Arbor. I just don't get it.
harbaugh took over a win 1 team. year 4 won 12 and left the team loaded for the next coach.
riley first time at Oregon state takes over a 2 win team. wins 3 and 5 games. 2nd time takes over a 12 win team that wins a bcs game. wins 10 games once in 12 years. doesn't leave next coach with much talent. brady hoke record before Michigan 47-50. 3 winning seasons in 8 years. hoke at Michigan worse every year
11-2, 8-5, 7-6, 5-7. left Michigan with no qb on the roster that can play.
 
I understand his team improved while he was at Stanford. I also never disputed that he could be successful at Michigan. However improving a team like Stanford and winning at a place like Michigan are two totally different things.

Brady Hoke's jobs before Michigan were San Diego State and Ball State. His records at Ball State were 4-8, 2-9, 4-7, 5-7, 7-6, 12-1. Improvement. Then he went to San Diego State, they were 2-10 the year before Hoke arrived. They hadn't had a winning season in a decade. They went 4-8 in Hoke's first year and 9-4 in his second year. Then he went to Michigan and was unsuccessful. My point is that improving a team isn't the same thing as winning at a place like Michigan. You might say Hoke's record of improvement is different because he wasn't at a power five school like Harbaugh. Well okay how about Rich Rodriguez.

Rich Rod at West Virginia went: 3-8, 9-4, 8-5, 8-4, 11-1, 11-2, 10-2. He won 4 conference championships and two bowl games including a BCS bowl. His team won a second BCS bowl in his final season but he left after the regular season finale. He then took over Michigan and promptly went 15-22 over three seasons. Including his terrible years at Michigan, he still has a 62% win percentage as an FBS coach.

Some people think Harbaugh is a Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, Pete Carroll level coach. I think he could be good. I just don't think it's a foregone conclusion like a lot of other people do. Athlon rated him as the number four head coach in America before the season started. Above guys like Bob Stoops, Bill Snyder, and Mark Dantonio. Don't you agree that that kind of love for a guy that has never won a conference championship and has an FBS winning percentage 8 points lower than Rich Rodriguez is a little asinine at this point?
 
Image is everything, but he will now have to live up to that image.

Now, let's see if he burns himself out and leaves after 4-5 years, or if the NFL comes calling again? He was extremely close to being a superbowl champion. Somehow I think his ego gets him back in the league.
 
In the case of Harbaugh (as with Riley), set aside the statistics argument for a moment and tell me what you've seen. Michigan football has an identity again, after 2 football games. They run the ball, use play action, and play solid basic defense. They tackle well. They will win. Harbaugh is a weird cat, but statistics are very spinnable. In this thread we have multiple examples that statistics can paint a different picture for (just about) any head coach.

From what I see, Michigan is going to be a solid winning team under Harbaugh. From what I see, Nebraska will be the same. Identity, fundamentals, and game planning.
 
Hard to make the eyeball argument after two games with Michigan or Nebraska. We've learned very little about either team at this point.
 
Ignoring his sideline behavior from the other thread, I truly don't understand the love for the guy as a coach. He had ONE good year as a FBS head coach at Stanford and that was with Andrew Luck as his quarterback. Here is his career stats vs. some other notable coaches in the B1G.

Jim Harbaugh
FBS record as head coach: 30-22
54% winning percentage
1-1 in bowl games (1 win was a BCS game)
0 conference championships

Mike Riley
FBS record as head coach: 94-81
52% winning percentage
6-2 in bowl games (No BCS bowls)
0 conference championships

Jerry Kill
FBS record as head coach: 49-43
53% winning percentage
0-5 in bowl games
0 conference championships

Pat Fitzgerald
FBS record as a head coach: 62-53
54% winning percentage
1-4 in bowl games (No BCS bowls)
0 conference championships

Here is my favorite comparison to Jim Harbaugh:
Brady Hoke
FBS record as a head coach: 78-70
53% winning percentage
2-3 in bowl games (1 win was a BCS game)
1 conference championship

Can people please stop acting like Harbaugh is the second coming of Bear Bryant. It's not that I don't think Harbaugh can be successful, I am just really tired of people acting like his success at Michigan is a foregone conclusion. I think Riley, Kill, and Fitzgerald can be successful too under the right circumstances and none of them are viewed with the universal praise that has followed Harbaugh to Ann Arbor. I just don't get it.

Nevermind his epic upset & then beatdown of USC and he did recruit Luck. Your post is absurd. Btw, I really don't like him either.
 
I understand his team improved while he was at Stanford. I also never disputed that he could be successful at Michigan. However improving a team like Stanford and winning at a place like Michigan are two totally different things.

Brady Hoke's jobs before Michigan were San Diego State and Ball State. His records at Ball State were 4-8, 2-9, 4-7, 5-7, 7-6, 12-1. Improvement. Then he went to San Diego State, they were 2-10 the year before Hoke arrived. They hadn't had a winning season in a decade. They went 4-8 in Hoke's first year and 9-4 in his second year. Then he went to Michigan and was unsuccessful. My point is that improving a team isn't the same thing as winning at a place like Michigan. You might say Hoke's record of improvement is different because he wasn't at a power five school like Harbaugh. Well okay how about Rich Rodriguez.

Rich Rod at West Virginia went: 3-8, 9-4, 8-5, 8-4, 11-1, 11-2, 10-2. He won 4 conference championships and two bowl games including a BCS bowl. His team won a second BCS bowl in his final season but he left after the regular season finale. He then took over Michigan and promptly went 15-22 over three seasons. Including his terrible years at Michigan, he still has a 62% win percentage as an FBS coach.

Some people think Harbaugh is a Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, Pete Carroll level coach. I think he could be good. I just don't think it's a foregone conclusion like a lot of other people do. Athlon rated him as the number four head coach in America before the season started. Above guys like Bob Stoops, Bill Snyder, and Mark Dantonio. Don't you agree that that kind of love for a guy that has never won a conference championship and has an FBS winning percentage 8 points lower than Rich Rodriguez is a little asinine at this point?


I think you need to take a look at how big of a dumpster fire Stanford was when he got there. The same goes for San Francisco. Stanford was 1-11 in the season before Harbaugh got there. The 49ers where 6-10 the season before he got there and was able to turn them around pretty fast. Now I will say this, I can't stand the dude, but I will give him some serious respect as a coach. If you look at all of the active coaches in the NFL, Harbaugh would actually have the highest regular season winning %. I know I won't convince you he is an elite coach and I don't know if I would say he is either, but you can't discount what he has done either.

Time will tell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leodisflowers
harbaugh took over a win 1 team. year 4 won 12 and left the team loaded for the next coach.
riley first time at Oregon state takes over a 2 win team. wins 3 and 5 games. 2nd time takes over a 12 win team that wins a bcs game. wins 10 games once in 12 years. doesn't leave next coach with much talent. brady hoke record before Michigan 47-50. 3 winning seasons in 8 years. hoke at Michigan worse every year
11-2, 8-5, 7-6, 5-7. left Michigan with no qb on the roster that can play.

The second time around Oregon State won 5 and 8 games before Riley took over....where are you getting he took over a 12 win team? Also...I notice you left out that Riley left Erickson a team with talent capable of winning 12 games. I wonder why?
 
He was THE hot name that everybody wanted including me. Then I listened to his interview with Cowherd and have since seen him on the sideline...and I am glad we have Riley. I think the chances he succeeds at Michigan are pretty high though. Regardless of whether he wins 5 national titles, or none and totally flames out, he was the best hire anyone could have asked for and any AD looking for a coach would have hired him if they could. In short, he's a free pass for any school. Amazing hire that nobody can blame you for either way.

I think he's a douchebag.
 
I understand his team improved while he was at Stanford. I also never disputed that he could be successful at Michigan. However improving a team like Stanford and winning at a place like Michigan are two totally different things.

Brady Hoke's jobs before Michigan were San Diego State and Ball State. His records at Ball State were 4-8, 2-9, 4-7, 5-7, 7-6, 12-1. Improvement. Then he went to San Diego State, they were 2-10 the year before Hoke arrived. They hadn't had a winning season in a decade. They went 4-8 in Hoke's first year and 9-4 in his second year. Then he went to Michigan and was unsuccessful. My point is that improving a team isn't the same thing as winning at a place like Michigan. You might say Hoke's record of improvement is different because he wasn't at a power five school like Harbaugh. Well okay how about Rich Rodriguez.

Rich Rod at West Virginia went: 3-8, 9-4, 8-5, 8-4, 11-1, 11-2, 10-2. He won 4 conference championships and two bowl games including a BCS bowl. His team won a second BCS bowl in his final season but he left after the regular season finale. He then took over Michigan and promptly went 15-22 over three seasons. Including his terrible years at Michigan, he still has a 62% win percentage as an FBS coach.

Some people think Harbaugh is a Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, Pete Carroll level coach. I think he could be good. I just don't think it's a foregone conclusion like a lot of other people do. Athlon rated him as the number four head coach in America before the season started. Above guys like Bob Stoops, Bill Snyder, and Mark Dantonio. Don't you agree that that kind of love for a guy that has never won a conference championship and has an FBS winning percentage 8 points lower than Rich Rodriguez is a little asinine at this point?
difference with hoke is he didn't build those programs. ball state the won 1 game the after he left. they fired the coach and hired a new one. the new coach said it was going to be a rebuilding project because there was no talent on the team. that 12 win ball state team had an nfl qb on it. once he went to the nfl it had nothing. he won a san diego state with chuck longs players. he did same thing at Michigan won with rr players but could not develop is own. another problem hoke had was he brought in a mac coaching staff with him except for mattison. after he got fired his assistants took jobs at a division 2 school not fcs division 2, Wyoming, akron.

with rr it was all about his defense. his first year everybody knew the offense was going to be bad but the defense was suppose to be the best defense in 10 years. it turned out to be the worst defense in school history. he 2nd year that defense became worst in school history. his third year that became worst defense in school history. he would hire dc with a history of running a 4-3 defense and when the season started he would tell them they had to run a 3-3-5. never hired a dc at Michigan who had ever run a 3-3-5 defense. maybe if he would have just let the dc run the defense things would have turned out different. his final straw was when he threw his players under the bus. saying vince Lombardi couldn't win with these players on defense. the season after he was fired those same players had a top 20 defense.
 
Harbaugh appears to model himself after Bo Schembechler -- same intensity, same behavior on the sideline, same control freak behavior in practice as well as the game, same running game mentality (I'd rather run over you rather than go around you), even the same positioning of his hat on his head while on the sideline. "Second coming" well YES if he wins 75%+ of his games at Michigan.

.02

and, Go Cats !!

You mean the never won a national title, never went undefeated and had a 5-12 bowl record Bo Schlembecher?

One of the most overhyped, overrated coaches ever, Bo Schlembecher?

That's who he modeled himself after? Well than now I'm scared.
 
You mean the never won a national title, never went undefeated and had a 5-12 bowl record Bo Schlembecher?

One of the most overhyped, overrated coaches ever, Bo Schlembecher?

That's who he modeled himself after? Well than now I'm scared.

Best one yet. I might have to steal this when posting on Michigan's board. Or at least when talking to my friends who are Michigan fans.
 
By the way, from my interactions with NU 71 72 74, he's a good guy. Fair balanced and makes reasonable observations on the Northwestern Board.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT