Pinkel is #11. No Stoops. Bahaha
http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3...best-head-coaches?campaign=Twitter_cfb_fisher
http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3...best-head-coaches?campaign=Twitter_cfb_fisher
College footballs top 15 coaches. Pinkel?
- Thread starter Duck_walk
- Start date
I think the better question is could Spurrier or Pinkel for that matter do what Stoops has done at OU?
Sooners had not had a winning record the previous 6 seasons before he arrived... and since then... a national championship, 8 conference championships, but Im sure a lot of folks would have done better...
OU is the winningest college football program since WW2. 3 other coaches have won 100+ games there. 6 national titles were won there before stoops.
So yeah, stoops isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before at OU. What GP and spurrier are doing at Mizzou and usc is unprecedented.
So yeah, stoops isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before at OU. What GP and spurrier are doing at Mizzou and usc is unprecedented.
Unprecedented... never been done before?... well, they have improved but not totally true. SC has won a conference title. Spurier was not the coach at the time. That was a long time ago, I admit.. but you want to bring up old history with OU to try to lessen Stoops accomplishments. Neither has a national championship or even a conference title for that matter. Clearly we will disagree on this no matter what, and that should not come as a surprise.... One thing I do agree on with you is Snyder.
Whether they've won conference or national titles is irrelevant to my argument. No coach has won more at mizzou or usc as pinkel and spurrier, two historically terrible programs. As for OU's history before stoops, it is neither old nor irrelevant. You can make the argument that OU is the most successful modern college football program, even before stoops. Stoops came to a place where coaches have won big before, bigger than stoops has won at OU. Pinkel built mizzou and spurrier built Florida and usc. Stoops is a fine coach, but he's certainly not great.
But of you are going only on wins instead of Championships... no coach has won more at OU than Stoops, either. Bud and Barry are all-time greats, but that does not mean Stoops is not in the conversation as well.
Last edited:
Of all time greats? Stoops, really? He's won one national title. Wilkinson won 3 national title and 14 big 8 championships. Switzer won 3 national titles and 12 big 8 championships. Stoops doesn't even come close to that.
But why would you use the same measuring stick with pinkel as you would with stoops when nobody has won a national title at mizzou and OU's won 10? Pinkel built mizzou from nearly nothing and stoops was handed arguably the best modern football program. What stoops has done is good, but nothing special when you look at the history of OU. What Pinkel has done at mizzou is something that hasn't been done ever.
You gave us 3 extra national titles.. THANKS. I would agree with you had Stoops taken over when OU was rolling. There were 14 years between titles and three coaches after Switzer before Stoops and the program was in horible shape when he took over. Was there history? yes Was there tradition? yes But it was not the same program that was there. He brought that all back. I used wins because that is what you used and if you look at it that way, Bob has won more games than Barry or Bud. I am not and have never said Pinkel was a bad coach. But under your guidelines its impossible for Stoops to be GREAT...because OU had so much success in the past... under that same line of thinking.. you cant be great at Ohio State or Alabama because dispite how great both programs are doing, they did this kind of stuff in the past so.....
Oklahoma was not that bad from 1989-94 Gary Gibbs went 44-23-2 even though his rosters were smaller than normal due to scholarship reductions. What did Gibbs did wrong is he went 2-15-1 against Texas, Nebraska and Colorado.
Schnellenberger went 5-5-1 in 95 his only year and Oklahoma's second losing season in I don't know how long. Then John Blake came in and he was on there from 96-98 and those were probable the worst years as they went 12-22 .
Now Missouri had Bob Stull from 89-93 he went 15-39-2 Worse than Blake.
Larry Smith came in in 94-00 and went 33-46-1 won two years and that was it.
So clearly even in what you consider Oklahoma's darkest days they were not that bad. Stoops and Oklahoma can still out recruit Missouri and most players and casual fans would still consider them more of a football school then Missouri right now.
It takes more than a few years to change perception. I think Pinkel does more with less, Stoops has a roster full of talent and seems to under achieve compared to what Pinkel does with less.
Bullit: you make some good points.
but, my point was Oklahoma was not Oklahoma in the years leading up to Stoops. Were they as bad as Mizzou? as you pointed out the answer is NO
It just seems hardly fair to say that someone can't be a great coach if they coach at a school that won a lot of games and championships before he got there. And, that is what Cow was saying about Stoops.
As far as the MORE WITH LESS line. I totally get where you are coming from. Pinkel seems to get the most out of his players. and maybe even at times gets his players to perform at a higher level than "experts" thought... but no way on earth he has done MORE than Stoops overall.
but, my point was Oklahoma was not Oklahoma in the years leading up to Stoops. Were they as bad as Mizzou? as you pointed out the answer is NO
It just seems hardly fair to say that someone can't be a great coach if they coach at a school that won a lot of games and championships before he got there. And, that is what Cow was saying about Stoops.
As far as the MORE WITH LESS line. I totally get where you are coming from. Pinkel seems to get the most out of his players. and maybe even at times gets his players to perform at a higher level than "experts" thought... but no way on earth he has done MORE than Stoops overall.
I am going to be honest I think Oklahoma and Stoop still out recruits Missouri for high profile athletes, I know some say stars don't matter but they do in a way because talent in the end matters. As a Missouri fan I would not mind having some of those high profile athletes from Okey playing on Saturdays at Mizzou.
So now you be honest. Would you rather switch coaches Pinkel for Stoops or the high profile athletes that Oklahoma recruits for those Mizzou recruited and you get to keep your coach? I don't think Stoops would have as much success as Pinkel does switching players.
He's certainly not done more than stoops, but he has done a better job in my opinion. And I never said that you can't be a great coach if you're at a school with great history. Saban is clearly great. Urban is great. But would you put stoops in the same category as those two? Stoops is at best the 3rd best coach in the history of OU, and again, what he's done at OU has been done in the past, multiple times. Stoops hasn't won multiple titles. Stoops hasn't built a program. In fact, OU has clearly slid in the past few years under stoops. Stoops has always had great support, all the money he could ever need, plus the tradition of OU. Pinkel built mizzou from the scrap heap.
Just look at what's been done at OU before stoops and you cannot come to the conclusion that he's done anything special.
Yeah Snyder has proven twice he can turn a program into a winner
only issue I have with snyder is his handling of the QB rapist at the Fiesta bowl years ago.
If Blakes players were so good, why did he not win with them? I wish I could give him more credit, our families grew up together. My dad coached him when he first started. He had losing records all three years and in many cases lost big. It took Stoops two years, including a big QB transfer among others.... He took over a program with tons of tradition and history but one that was in bad shape and going downhill. To not give him credit for that is crazy...... As far as speculation that Pinkel would have won a title and it being.."not even debatable".. certainly an arguement could be made for your case but is easily debatable....
Saying the OU football program was in trouble is like saying bama or usc or Texas is in trouble. You're never in trouble when you have money, facilities, play in warm weather and have unwavering fan support. OU just needed a coach that was competent, just like every other point in their history.
Gary has done a nice job at Mizzou, no doubt. But I'm not ready to put him at #11 until he actually wins something. Going 0-4 in CCGs and never making it to a BCS bowl are holding him back, IMO. Also, how can he be #11 overall when he's only had 2 teams finish #11 or higher in 23 years as a HC?
Actually he's had 3. And everyone and their mother knows mizzou should've gone to the Orange bowl in 07; that's not a valid criticism. Also, he's made 2 straight SEC championship games when everyone said mizzou would struggle to compete. That's one hell of an accomplishment.
That's where the high level recruiting hurts Miz...we're good enough to get to the big game game...but OU/Bama/AU recruiting advantages takes over. However vs AU we hold them to 100-150 fewer rushing yards I think we win that game. Our O scored enough to win.
One hell of an accomplishment, yes - agreed. But does almost making an Orange Bowl, going 0-4 in CCGs (yes, he made it to the last 2 when everyone thought Mizzou wouldn't be competitive, but he's still 0-4), and finishing #11 or higher 3 times in 23 years qualify him as the overall #11 coach?
He's definitely a good coach, but it's hard to rank him in the top tier until he wins a conference title or something greater at Mizzou.
The BCS is gone man. It was complete crap and everyone knows it..
UCONN , PURDUE, Pitt,Syracuse, northern illinois and kU* went to BCS games.
Defend that and tell me the BCS is a program definer.
When the BCS was the gold standard for quality bowl games, even those pathetic schools listed above qualified for at least one game, yet none of Gary's teams ever did, so you make a great point that he doesn't belong at #11 on a list of top coaches.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. He's a good, but not great, coach whose teams have finished, on average, between 25 & 30 in the final polls, so I would rank him somewhere in the top 30 as a coach. I'm not saying he's a bad coach; just saying there no way to justify him at #11.
I don't think this list is saying he is #11 all time or is better than Stoops all time. It is a snap shot. At this moment, which coaches are doing the best job. Pinkel is #11.
I think the point is that going to a BCS game is a highly arbitrary metric if you look at who's qualified for them in the past. I think we can all agree mizzou should've gone to the Orange bowl in 07 anyway.
Cru you hit the nail on the head and one of the points I was trying to make with Sooner. Pinkel does a good job of developing and winning with the talent he is able to recruit.
Which brings up an interesting point, why with all the success Mizzou has had in recent years why do we struggle to land top tier talent? Is it his recruiting Mizzou standards or still just reputation?
