Michigan is facing structural issues versus OSU. Like Medina said, we are losing because we are the worse program, not because we can't handle the psychology of the game. Program inadequacy is the kind of thing that takes a minimum of 5-10 years to correct, up to a maximum of infinite years (if for example the 2000s were a watershed decade rather than just another ol' decade).
I don't care which years the next win or all the next wins arrive but if Michigan wins 40% of the time over the next 5-10 years after the recruiting and program advantage OSU built over the previous 20 years, then Harbaugh will rank somewhere between magician and "not entirely sure ... but certainly worth the money and absolutely insane to fire."
For now, I have no choice but to be pleased by the trajectory of the programs. That Michigan is on the cusp again in November. That, from 2016-2018, OSU week has been more up in the air than was normal from 2001-2015. Michigan is clearly improving as a program.
And then I'm hopeful that continuing this will close the gap when paired with OSU entering the afterstages of two decades of two legendary coaches and into a new unknown. Day starts with a fully built, highest end program, of course. But inheriting it isn't enough; he also has to maintain it like the legends did.
This is a very calm and rational way to look at it and it is difficult for most of us, as fans, to do that.
You make a very interesting point. Over the past few years Harbaugh appears to have made the same transition that Cooper successfully made in the early 1990's.
If you go back to Earle Bruce, he started out great with a Rose Bowl and nearly a NC in his first year of 1979. From then through his sixth season and second (and last) Rose Bowl in the 1984 season Ohio State, as a program, was on an equal footing with Michigan:
- Ohio State won as the better team in 1979
- Michigan won as the better team in 1980 (it was close as to which team was better)
- Ohio State won in 1981 and both teams finished 9-3
- Ohio State won as the better team in 1982 (it was close as to which team was better)
- Michigan won in 1983 and both teams finished 9-3
- Ohio State won as the better team in 1984 (in their defense, Michigan would have been better if not for some injuries)
So by my count Ohio State was 3-0 as the better team, 0-1 as the inferior team, and 1-1 as equals.
Then, starting in 1985 and continuing for Bruce's last three years and Cooper's first five years, Michigan was generally a better team for eight years:
- Michigan won as the better team in 1985
- Michigan won as the better team in 1986
- Ohio State pulled off an upset as an inferior team in 1987
- Michigan won as the better team in each of 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991
- Michigan was better in 1992 and the teams tied
Then Cooper accomplished the transition of catching or passing Michigan "as a program" but he just couldn't close the deal and beat the Wolverines "as a team":
- Ohio State lost as the better team in 1993
- Ohio State won as the inferior team in 1994
- Ohio State lost as the better team in 1995
- Ohio State lost as the better team in 1996
- Ohio State lost as the inferior team in 1997
- Ohio State won as the better team in 1998
- Ohio State lost as the inferior team in 1999
- Ohio State lost as the inferior team in 2000 (it was close as to which team was better)
So for Cooper's last eight years, by my count:
- Ohio State was the better team four years but only went 1-3
- Michigan was the better team four years and went 3-1
Ohio State had to change coaches to get over the hump and start actually beating Michigan but Cooper (whom I rarely defend) does deserve credit for setting the table for Tressel's success. Cooper got Ohio State "as a program" onto or arguably ahead of Michigan's level.
That really is the first step. Without that the best-case-scenario is simply to pull off an occasional upset. From Tressel's arrival up until the last few years, Ohio State was the better team and expected winner almost every year:
- 2001: Michigan was better but lost
- 2002: Ohio State was better and won
- 2003: The teams were about equal, Michigan won
- 2004: Michigan was better but lost
- 2005: Ohio State was better and won
- 2006: Ohio State was better and won
- 2007: Ohio State was better and won
- 2008: Ohio State was better and won
- 2009: Ohio State was better and won
- 2010: Ohio State was better and won (subsequently vacated)
- 2011: Michigan was better and won
- 2012: Ohio State was better and won
- 2013: Ohio State was better and won
- 2014: Ohio State was better and won
So by my count, for the 14 years prior to Harbaugh's arrival in Ann Arbor:
- Michigan was the better team three years, 1-2
- Michigan was about equal once, 1-0
- Michigan was the inferior team 10 times, 0-10
There are two separate problems here for Michigan. As I see it, the primary problem is simply being inferior most years. Even if the Wolverines had won in 2001, 2004, and 2011 when they had a better team as well as 2003 when the teams were about equal they still would only have been 4-10 against the Buckeyes simply because the Buckeyes were usually a better team.
Problem #2 is losing even when they are the better team. As I see it, this is a lesser problem. It is easier to correct. However, I should acknowledge here based on my 1993-1996 experience that this is the more annoying problem.
Harbaugh has arguably largely fixed problem #1:
- In 2015 Ohio State came into THE GAME 10-1, Michigan came in 9-2
- In 2016 Ohio State came into THE GAME 10-1, Michigan came in 10-1
- In 2017 Ohio State came into THE GAME 9-2, Michigan came in 8-3
- In 2018 Ohio State came into THE GAME 10-1, Michigan came in 10-1
So in his four years Harbaugh has entered the Ohio State game with a record either as good as or within one game of the Buckeyes. That is relatively equal. That part of the problem is largely fixed.
