Michigan football did not need an OC

First, it's the way Harbaugh has always done things. He actually has Pep Hamilton upstairs as a very involved caller. He also has Ed Warinner on the field with him at all times. And the responsibility is ultimately with Harbaugh, as has always been the case. It's his crime and anyone who calls or suggests plays does it as part of Harbaugh's scheme.

Second, the offensive found an excellent balance in eight games.

More: The two different and effective approaches of Michigan soccer coaching staff

Some argued that Michigan had to hire an offensive coordinator and let that person install his own system independently. This will probably never happen here because Harbaugh will always run what Harbaugh wants to run.

Others have suggested that it could be an organizational problem during a match. I can see it a bit more, maybe, it was a situation where five voices jostle each other in real time. I'm not sure that's the case. Yet, this is not for everyone. Some people prefer traditional roles. But these people do not work in Michigan.

This situation worked well for Harbaugh. Hamilton is from the Harbaugh tree. His coaching background and offensive philosophy are in tune with the head coach. But Warinner is a business that does not work in the trees, which means it brings a different perspective each week. Jim McElwain is also on the floor and he also has a different vision.

The introduction of different perspectives has, in my opinion, really helped this offense take off. Harbaugh is driving all of this, of course, and the credit goes to him for doing it.

This is not conventional, but it does not have to be. Football can often be a great game in the room. Harbaugh really does not belong in this room.

Devin Bush Jr., left, and Michael Dwumfour celebrate after a stopover against Nebraska in Michigan's 56-10 win on Saturday, September 22, 2018 at Michigan Stadium. (Photo: Kirthmon F. Dozier, Detroit Free Press)

Why will this year be different? It seems that every time the program is high, it is reduced to nothing. How is this year different? – @ 35robert16

I do not have a crystal ball, I can not guarantee that Michigan finishes the year 11-1 and qualifies for the Big Ten title.

But I am more inclined to believe that this group is capable of the previous years, because I do not believe that the confidence of this team is bogus. I've already seen that. This is not it.

The Michigan defense is very good and this will result in all the registered opponents. The offensive line has improved, as well as the faceoffs in Michigan and the presence of Shea Patterson allows this whole unit to play with a type of diversified gambling game that we have not yet seen from a Harbaugh team.

Saturday is more or less the last test "show me" for the first five Michigan attack. Penn State has the best Big Ten quick pass team. Michigan State had the best defense against the race and the Wolverines won this game on the field. If they slow down the Penn State race, they are real.

In 2016, the Michigan offensive line was inconsistent and the quarterback game was not as versatile. This year, until now, feels different.

What do you think of LSU's place above Notre Dame in the playoff standings? I'm worried about what it means for the Big Ten if LSU beats Alabama this weekend, but then Alabama is on the table. – @timpark

The committee released Tuesday pretty compelling statistics on victories against the teams with record wins. And LSU currently leads all teams with six of them. Michigan has five. Our Lady, although unconquered, has only three. The Irish were ahead on U-M thanks to their head-to-head victory, but below LSU due to the resumption of the final victory.

It seemed logical to me. And keep in mind that all this is very early. Many things can change in five weeks.

But Tim's question is interesting. Say LSU wins Saturday then wins. They are present. If Alabama finishes 11-1 without a division title or conference, would the Tide finish higher than a hypothetical Big Ten champion 12-1, Michigan?

To date, Alabama has two wins against teams with record wins. Michigan has five. Alabama may possibly take two other post-LSU units against Mississippi State and Auburn. Michigan, in this scenario, can pick up three more against Penn State, Ohio State and in the B1G title game. Discs may change elsewhere, of course, but if you put the CVs side by side and look only at those, Michigan probably has that advantage.

But the always subjective visual test is a factor that nobody can explain. No team would have a bad defeat, Michigan could have more quality wins, but will the committee consider Alabama a better option based on talent? No idea how that would dissipate. I do not know what would happen if Notre Dame lost and you compare the champion of Big Ten, Michigan, with a loss to Notre Dame, a loss, with a win over Michigan.

Most of these things will probably work out in the next few weeks.

How does this compare to 2016, 2006, 1997 in numbers? – @ kevmc21

In Michigan, the 12-game gold standard is the 1997 national title. This team finished the year with only 9.5 points per game and 222.8 yards per game. Opponents converted to 26.5% in the third test and recorded only an average of 11.8 conversions per third.

It's really hard to compare times like this because the game is so different from what it was over 20 years ago. But for statistical comparisons, here's how the Michigan unit in 2018 compares to that of 1997 in eight games.

Rush defense: 97.13 (2018), 78.4 (1997).

Defense Pass: 122.9 (2018), 158.5 (1997).

Total defense: 220 (2018), 202.5 (1997).

Rating Defense: 14.4 (2018), 7.5 (1997).

Bags: 24 (2018), 21 (1997).

Business figure: 9 (2018), 21 (1997).

So things are going very well for the 2018 team in defense. But this is another reminder of the ridiculous figure of the 1997 Michigan figures.