...doing “more with more” has gotten Mack Brown ahead of both of them. If we’re taking out the “they had more or less” argument, Mangino’s only claim against Pinkel is the three straight wins against Brad Smith…and there’s definitely something to that. But seriously, last year was the first year that Pinkel didn’t finish with a better conference record than Mangino-they only tied, with Pinkel outcoaching Mangino in their biggest matchup ever to win the tie-breaker-and that needs to be accounted for too. There’s no question that Pinkel is still viewed skeptically because of that 2004 season, but still…that was four years ago now…

I’ve shared in the past that I’m a pretty sensitive “show Pinkel respect” guy, so I admit this is one of my pet causes that others probably don’t care much about. :-)

I guess I should clarify. I don’t think OU is 38-17 better than Mizzou, or even 41-31 better than Mizzou. But sometimes you are what your record says you are.

And I completely agree that Mizzou could have won both and probably should have won at least the Big 12 Championship. Had Mizzou been better in the red zone in the first half, then maybe the OU running game wasn’t as much of a beast in the second half. Plus I still say that if Chase doens’t take those two sacks in the first drive of the third quarter and Mizzou goes in to score (even a field goal), then that’s a completely different ballgame the rest of that game. But if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a Merry Christmas, you know?

With the exception of poor red zone offense in the first half, I’m not sure where Pinkel really messed up. I feel like Mizzou got out-athleted a few times. Sure, that’s Pinkel’s responsibility to get the best caliber athletes and have them coached up, but damn, he was going against OU. It’s going to be hard to out-recruit OU. And, quite frankly, it’s hard to outcoach Stoops (unless you catch him in the Fiesta Bowl).

The last sentence of your post is brilliant. I’ve thought a similar thought before, but I’ve never been able to put it in those terms. But you’re exactly right. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Mangino is certainly kissing Pinkel’s behind.

I start with those who haven’t coached a Big 12 game yet…

12. Pelini – for the same reasons Griffin used.

11. Sherman – until he proves otherwise.

10. Briles – until he proves otherwise.

And then for those who have…

9. Prince – for the same reasons Griffin used.

8. Gundy – has shown potential, but still has a lot of learning-on-the-job to do. Could easily be below Prince.

7. Chizik – I do think he coached very well down the stretch last year…

6. Hawkins – I’m far from sold on him, but I think he’s proven more than Chizik/Gundy/Prince.

5. Leach – this seems about right.

4. Mangino – I’m perfectly willing to admit he’s done a helluva job there so far.

3. Pinkel – a much better program builder than game coach, but…he’s one helluva program builder!

2. Brown – not that it’s hard to recruit to UT, but he’s obviously done well there.

1. Stoops – obviously still #1.

Pinkel’s been caught in a bit of a quandary in the past-he’s been great at developing 2-star players into 3 (or 4-) star talent. And then when that talent doesn’t produce as high as people think, he catches crap…and justifiably so. But the whole “Pinkel Factor” thing ignores the first part of that. The only reason they were disappointing in ‘04 (and somewhat ‘05-’06) was that he coached them up and raised their potential in the first place. Does that make any sense? His strengths played into his weaknesses, and I’m perfectly willing to accept that he has/had some major faults. Game-coaching isn’t his biggest strength, but he’s a tremendous leader of a program.

At some point he has to get his due for what he’s built, and ranking him below two coaches (Leach, Mangino) against whom he’s gone 4-0 in the last two years (only one of those four games was even remotely close…and that one wasn’t even close for the first 50+ minutes) isn’t anywhere close to “his due”.