This will anger some colleagues here, and be agreed with by some. I'm not posting this to start any campaign. Nor will I consistently try to add fuel to a fire we all know is smoldering. But here are my conclusions that I had hoped I would never have to write.
Football is an important element of the public persona of our University and certainly the financial driver of our entire program of intercollegiate athletics. Football needs to be as elite as our other academic and athletic programs, engendering the pride we all have in the University. It has not been anywhere near elite, now going into a second decade. The administration is faced with a decision of what role football should play in the accomplishment of the overall mission of the University and it's effect on both alumni and the public.
I have been a big Jim Harbaugh defender, until the last couple of years when changes in his demeanor have become obvious. There are things he has accomplished that I would not want to lose. Graduating all the players who complete their eligibility and haven't transferred or gone pro, half the team earning academic all-Big Ten recognition, almost no instances of illegal misbehavior. Those are huge accomplishments unmatched by all but a few programs.
Jim seems to recruit well, not an an elite level but good enough to have his recruiting classes consistently ranked in the top twenty and occasionally top ten. His recruits are of high character and can compete academically. But he has not established any kind of identity for the program, or enhanced the loyalty of his players to the program, to Michigan, or to each other. Clearly players are developed, based on the number who are drafted and play in the NFL. But too many players transfer or leave Michigan with eligibility remaining. The program is robbed of talent just when maximum contribution should be expected and Harbaugh seems to support or be neutral to player's decisions to leave. Whatever happened to "Those who stay will be champions" or the meritocracy that was purported to be a fundamental? He has created a program populated by players too often not good enough to contribute as freshmen, but then are "1-2 and done" when they have been developed and should be expected to contribute.
Little evidence exists that Michigan won't be a consistent also-ran in the Big Ten East. Now that other teams in the division have new leadership and are improving, maybe worse. Despite the talented recruits we sign, he has not developed a team who can beat our rivals or any of the better opponents on our schedule. Our record of wins is only against opponents that we should beat. He has demonstrated flaws in game day coaching, clock management, situational preparation, and active oversight of the coaching staff. We look at our present team's weaknesses and cannot realistically project much of a change in the next couple of years. There should be little confidence that another wave of new assistant coaches would be the answer.
I'm sincerely saddened to have concluded that Jim Harbaugh should be replaced as Michigan's coach. I know that means a period of "rebuilding". At my age that will not likely be completed in my lifetime, but the necessity is as clear as it was with the coaches who preceeded him who were found inadequate. In the short term Michigan has a reasonable chance to win our next couple of games, but Ohio State has pledged to "hang a hundred" on Michigan because of Harbaugh's criticism of their program. If that happens in a few weeks, will that be the final straw, will there be any alternative? Will the administration have to replace a good man, a great father, someone who we all would want to remain in our community? Or will we continue to let the fire smolder, ignore the "elephant in the room", and extend our relationship with a man who has not proven to be a very good football coach? I have sadly and reluctantly concluded that Jim Harbaugh should be replaced.
I realize that my opinion doesn't count for much. It will be up to the Regents, Dr. Schlissel and Warde Manuel to decide the role that they want football to play in the overall mission of the University. And major donors, of course. Like me, they may have an opinion. You won't read it here, but their influence will be heard. Will the effective de-emphasis of the importance of the football program so evident in the recent 10-15 years be continued? In due time we'll all find out.
Football is an important element of the public persona of our University and certainly the financial driver of our entire program of intercollegiate athletics. Football needs to be as elite as our other academic and athletic programs, engendering the pride we all have in the University. It has not been anywhere near elite, now going into a second decade. The administration is faced with a decision of what role football should play in the accomplishment of the overall mission of the University and it's effect on both alumni and the public.
I have been a big Jim Harbaugh defender, until the last couple of years when changes in his demeanor have become obvious. There are things he has accomplished that I would not want to lose. Graduating all the players who complete their eligibility and haven't transferred or gone pro, half the team earning academic all-Big Ten recognition, almost no instances of illegal misbehavior. Those are huge accomplishments unmatched by all but a few programs.
Jim seems to recruit well, not an an elite level but good enough to have his recruiting classes consistently ranked in the top twenty and occasionally top ten. His recruits are of high character and can compete academically. But he has not established any kind of identity for the program, or enhanced the loyalty of his players to the program, to Michigan, or to each other. Clearly players are developed, based on the number who are drafted and play in the NFL. But too many players transfer or leave Michigan with eligibility remaining. The program is robbed of talent just when maximum contribution should be expected and Harbaugh seems to support or be neutral to player's decisions to leave. Whatever happened to "Those who stay will be champions" or the meritocracy that was purported to be a fundamental? He has created a program populated by players too often not good enough to contribute as freshmen, but then are "1-2 and done" when they have been developed and should be expected to contribute.
Little evidence exists that Michigan won't be a consistent also-ran in the Big Ten East. Now that other teams in the division have new leadership and are improving, maybe worse. Despite the talented recruits we sign, he has not developed a team who can beat our rivals or any of the better opponents on our schedule. Our record of wins is only against opponents that we should beat. He has demonstrated flaws in game day coaching, clock management, situational preparation, and active oversight of the coaching staff. We look at our present team's weaknesses and cannot realistically project much of a change in the next couple of years. There should be little confidence that another wave of new assistant coaches would be the answer.
I'm sincerely saddened to have concluded that Jim Harbaugh should be replaced as Michigan's coach. I know that means a period of "rebuilding". At my age that will not likely be completed in my lifetime, but the necessity is as clear as it was with the coaches who preceeded him who were found inadequate. In the short term Michigan has a reasonable chance to win our next couple of games, but Ohio State has pledged to "hang a hundred" on Michigan because of Harbaugh's criticism of their program. If that happens in a few weeks, will that be the final straw, will there be any alternative? Will the administration have to replace a good man, a great father, someone who we all would want to remain in our community? Or will we continue to let the fire smolder, ignore the "elephant in the room", and extend our relationship with a man who has not proven to be a very good football coach? I have sadly and reluctantly concluded that Jim Harbaugh should be replaced.
I realize that my opinion doesn't count for much. It will be up to the Regents, Dr. Schlissel and Warde Manuel to decide the role that they want football to play in the overall mission of the University. And major donors, of course. Like me, they may have an opinion. You won't read it here, but their influence will be heard. Will the effective de-emphasis of the importance of the football program so evident in the recent 10-15 years be continued? In due time we'll all find out.
Last edited:
