clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Daily Brews: Michigan’s stability ranked compared to rest of college football world

The Wolverines unsurprisingly come in towards the middle.

By Anthony Broome
2021 Big Ten Football Media Day Photo by Michael Hickey/Getty Images

Jim Harbaugh is entering his seventh season at the helm of the Michigan Wolverines, which already makes his time in Ann Arbor the longest tenure since Lloyd Carr was in charge of the program. Both sides hope that his stretch as the head man continues well into the future, but things might not be as stable as a contract extension might have suggested.

Michigan inked Harbaugh to a five-year extension back in January, but his base salary was cut in half and replaced with incentives to earn money back, as well as lowering the buyout number that would make it easier for both to move on. Michigan’s stability is currently on paper only and a recent exercise from ESPN helps paint that picture.

Bill Connelly attempted to quantify the stability of each college football program across the country based on coaching (on a scale of 20), the roster makeup (on a scale of 20) and recent performance (on a scale of 10). Wyoming, Clemson, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin and Army made up the top five here, but Michigan came in much lower than that.

The Wolverines are ranked 60th in this exercise.

Here’s the cluster of teams that Michigan finds itself in:

56. UTSA: 28.4 (7.5 coach stability, 18.1 roster stability, 2.8 performance stability)

57. Rice: 28.2 (9.5 coach stability, 15.8 roster stability, 2.9 performance stability)

58. Ohio State: 28.1 (11.0 coach stability, 9.2 roster stability, 7.9 performance stability)

59. Boise State: 28.0 (4.0 coach stability, 16.2 roster stability, 7.8 performance stability)

60. Michigan: 27.9 (14.5 coach stability, 6.5 roster stability, 6.9 performance stability)

61. New Mexico State: 27.8 (18.0 coach stability, 6.7 roster stability, 3.0 performance stability)

62. Kent State: 27.8 (12.0 coach stability, 12.6 roster stability, 3.2 performance stability)

63. San Diego State: 27.7 (10.0 coach stability, 10.7 roster stability, 7.1 performance stability)

64. Arizona State: 27.2 (10.8 coach stability, 11.2 roster stability, 5.2 performance stability)

Ohio State’s explanation here is pretty simple, as they changed coaches more recently than Michigan did and turn over their roster at a huge rate every season by sending players to the NFL Draft. Otherwise, Michigan currently finds itself packed in the middle, which feels about right.

ICYMI on MnB

State of Michigan Sports

Next Up In Michigan Football