Mike > Bob

Perhaps.

After reading some of the Pac-10 media day quotes, we stopped for a moment at this one from Arizona coach Mike Stoops-

"There are very innovated offenses," he said of the Pac-10. "The quarterback play was shocking to me. The ability to throw the ball down the field ... I never saw that really until we came here."

A couple of thoughts here.

First off, this reinforces our thoughts about style of play.  As the article notes, Stoops "grew up on Big Ten football and then came up through the coaching ranks in the Big 12 at Kansas State and Oklahoma".  In that time, he'd been exposed to the styles of play of two significant conferences, then moved to a third one in the Pac-10.  He's faced a good struggle so far in the Pac-10, surrendering 30 points a game in-conference (third worst mark in the conference last year), and contributed only 16.3 points a game in-conference (second-worst mark).  Some of Arizona's struggles must strongly be credited to experiencing inherent post-Mackovic lumps.  But the numbers also indicate Mike Stoops' current style of play will not overwhelm the Pac-10 the way it has the Big Twelve.

However, we do think, given Mike Stoops' quote above, and others we've noticed in the past year, praising the conference and its styles of play (remarking about tight end play, etc.) that he "gets it".  In this, he is much unlike his brother Bob, who after last year's Orange Bowl did not even hint at his opponents' superior style of play.  Instead, he blamed his players and really didn't come up with a coherent answer beyond coach speak.  This was telling.

Yes, Bob Stoops has won a national championship, is 67-12 in his career, has appeared in three BCS title games overall and owns the University of Texas Longhorns.  Yes, he runs a pretty good defense and owns his conference.  But something's amiss.  Those two bad BCS game appearances and a handful of other odd losses and close calls gives CFR the impression that Bob Stoops may not get it.

Instead, he's a fine defensive coach who has figured out the Big Twelve conference and when given a shot against a lesser opponent out of conference, will come through.  Good stuff, but there's a ceiling to his performance, and we've witnessed it the last two seasons.

His apparent incoherence after last year's Orange Bowl loss is evidence to us that Bob Stoops is either unwilling or unequipped to confront the next level of opponent he will face from time to time.

On the other hand, given the above quote and others similar to that, it appears brother Mike Stoops may, in fact, "get it".  He has a solid track record as a very good defensive coach, and has now been exposed to the styles of play of three conferences over three decades (80's, 90's, 2000's) of playing and coaching.  He has a lot of experience and exposure to draw from, and he appears to be willing and cognizant to confront the challenge.

Last year Arizona finished 2-6 in the Pac-10, knocking off Washington and rival Arizona State, both late in the season.  This is indicative to us of a first-year coach who inherited a mess and was able to coax two late-season wins in the most competitive top-to-bottom in America.  Stoops could have performed far worse last year (think 0-8 conference mark, failure to distinguish 2004 team from 2003 Mackovic team), and the late wins give us a hint at an improving coach.  It has long been Resource's opinion that good coaches and good teams tend to win their fair share of late season games, because good teams take a bit longer than most to get going early in the season in exchange for strong late finishes.  That may have happened last year for Arizona and Mike Stoops.

Just so we're clear, this entry wasn't about praising the Pac-10, although its significance in this example is tangential and significant.  Resource feels that given some of the evidence presented, Arizona coach Mike Stoops may be better equipped to be a better football coach than his brother.

Unfortunately, his head coaching career is nascent and we don't have a lot to draw from, while his brother's is universally considered a success.  It's a tough case to make, but one that may be worth making.  Arizona is not Oklahoma, and in starting his career there, Mike Stoops is going up against (arguably) a more competitive conference, with a school with far less tradition than Oklahoma, one of the all-time elite programs in college football history.  Already he's handicapped in comparison to his brother.  But maybe he will soon be hired at some other elite program, or maybe he resurrects Arizona the way former boss Bill Snyder did at Kansas State.  Or maybe he uses Arizona as a springboard the way Urban Meyer parlayed a solid Utah performance into the Florida gig.  If not, he's still at Arizona doing what he can to win ball games.  We feel his open mind, one that has a good degree of accuracy and honesty in assessing his peers, can take him far.  Perhaps farther than his brother, who appears stalled right where he is, incapable of recognizing the style of play differences that leave him no longer able to reach the game's greatest height.

Another way of saying all of the above, is that Mike Stoops has a bigger hill to climb than his brother, Bob.  But given some evidence presented, and his approach to assessing the game, we believe he may in fact have a higher ceiling than his brother.  His challenge lies in gathering the resources at his disposal (coaching background, recruiting assets at Arizona) to reach the national stage his brother has often played on and then prove to us that he is in fact superior to his brother if given the same high level games against superior foes.

We shall see.

Comments

[I'm a Realist]

That's a fair assessment.

There's one thing I want to mention. Oklahoma had no business in the Orange Bowl. They proved that fact by their play. Sure, they were number 2 all year and went undefeated and won their conference. That is the point Auburn fans have tried to make. Those things should not guarantee a BCS championship spot. You should take into account how they played all year. They were behind far too often. They gave up way too many points to mid-level teams. It was no surprise to me that they gave up 50+ to an outstanding USC offense. Would Auburn have beaten USC? Probably not. Would Auburn have beaten Oklahoma? There is no doubt in my mind.

[Dude]

I just think Mike is making excuses. He's trying to build up his new conference for when his team has another bad year. Much like Ed Orgeron at Ole Miss who recently said that the SEC is the toughest conference in America without even playing one game.

[Dawgy1]

N E W S F L A S H ....Shortly after inventing college football, the Pac 10 invents the forward pass. Goodness, what could come next? Oh, maybe something called a defense?

[Blogsy McBlog]

Uh, I'm new to your site, but have you ever seen Oklahoma's record in the mid-late nineties? nfrom 94-98, the team didn't have a record above .500 (they did have a .500 season). The team B. Stoops took over lost 69-7 to Nebraska previous to his arrival. To discount the miraculous resuscitation that Oklahoma has experienced is silly. As for your Pac-Ten, put the bowl games in cold weather and that style wouldn't fly. USC would lose in Ann Arbor and Columbus 9 times out of 10. If the wind was bad, 10 out of ten. Yeah, Boise State can beat a team or two in chilly weather, but not with any consistancy.

[TorBear]

Blogsy McBlog wrote: "As for your Pac-Ten, put the bowl games in cold weather and that style wouldn't fly. USC would lose in Ann Arbor and Columbus 9 times out of 10."

Maybe, maybe not. What's the point, though? The reason all the major bowls are played at warm weather sites is that it enables both teams to use ALL of their weapons. The forward pass has been a part of football for well nigh a century, now; I thought you Big 10 types had finally learned that after getting your clocks cleaned regularly in the Rose Bowl during the 70's and 80's. Maybe I was wrong.

[Paxil]

interestingly enough, last time USC was in Columbus in "Big10 type weather" USC gave the bucks a pretty good beatin.

[CFR]

I didn't discount the miraculous revival at Oklahoma.

The point was that Arizona is not Oklahoma. Oklahoma has a lot of built-in things to create a great team in a hurry. It's a traditional power, its near Texas for recruiting, its name carries a ton of weight with voters with any kind of memory.

What does Arizona have? Excessive heat and hot co-eds. Its a little more difficult to build a winner there.

John Blake failed at Oklahoma, so its not a given you can build a winner there. Same thing with Paul Hackett at USC. Yet a good coach comes along like Carroll or Bob Stoops and the magic of the place begins again.

But... there is no magic at Arizona, just hard work.

[CFR]

What's the issue with weather?

I could be wrong here, but a good majority of CFB games are played in very fair weather, even in the northern climes. Who truly designs a team for weather conditions that likely won't even affect more than 2-3 games a season?

Odd point.

Any point about weather works both ways, for what its worth.

Suggesting USC would lose 9/10 in Ann Arbor or Columbus is insane.

[TagTeam]

Wow, you are a true football genius.

You took one throw-away quote a coach made and managed to use it to support your whole baseless argument that the Pac-10 is the toughest top-to-bottom conference in the nation.
Ever think of going into politics? Dubya could sure your a spin artist like you; I'm sure he has plenty of dirt mounds that he needs to convince the nation are former sites of WMD production labs; you're just the man to help him make that stretch.
If the Pac-10 is the best conference in the nation, can you tell me why a second-tier team in the Big 12 South (#4 Texas Tech) beat the everliving hell out of the #2 team in the Pac-10? If the offensive play in the Pac-10 is so innovative, why hadn't Cal's defensive staff ever seen a spread offense before? Why were they absolutely clueless as to how to stop Tech's offense?
Right now the Pac-10 has one good team, USC, and a bunch of scrubs. If USC had to play in the SEC or Big 12, they wouldn't go undefeated, b/c they'd be facing better competition every single week, and wouldn't be able to coast on the feast of scrubs that is their current conference schedule.
You say that Bob Stoops refuses to acknowledge a superior brand of play, instead blaming his players. Well, his secondary was atrocious last season, a weakness USC exploited; what do you want Stoops to say, it wasn't the players, when it was clear they WERE the problem?
As for your "superior" brand of football remark, Bob Stoops coached at Florida, so it isn't like he's never seen a good passing game before. His 2000 national champion team won early with their spread offense, and late in the season with their defense. I tihnk he knows a little osmething about coaching at a high level.
You also try to compare the 2003 MNC and 2004 MNC games, which is idiotic. LSU won not b/c they colud pass the ball, but b/c they could run the ball, and keep it away from OU's offense. They also had a defense capable of shutting down OU's offense. Still, LSU only held on at the end to win by a TD.
Other than attempting to use poor logic to prop up an argument based on one quote, I'm really not sure what your point is here. You say this entry isn't about praising the Pac-10, when in actuality, that appears to be the only reason you wrote this entry.

[CFR]

Are you sure its a throwaway quote?

I've seen Messr. Stoops say something similar, in person. I've also read similar quotes in the papers during the course of last season. He knows he has his hands full matchup up against Pac-10 offenses, period.

My argument isn't that the Pac-10 is the best top to bottom conference, although that would be a fun discussion.

My argument is that Mike Stoops recognizes the difficulties of playing in the Pac-10 and because his head is on a swivel, he has a chance to be better than his brother Bob, who is basically stuck in his career. Bob can continue to reach championship games (maybe) but unless he draws someone like FSU or LSU (a game that could have gone either way) again, he simply won't win. There are teams out there who can outclass him and his behavior indicates that he has no intention of adjusting how he operates to compete with these teams like USC.

And yes he should have blamed himself. His secondary was alright, and had its bad moments last year. But you can have superb corners and still be completely ineffective against these elite offenses because what they do offensively is not a matter of talent but design. Oklahoma had no idea what USC was doing, they completely embarrassed themselves on national TV. As noted before, there was a series where USC put the game away, first going for a quick read jump ball to Jarrett before lining up in an empty backfield the next play. As the USC back went in motion, the Oklahoma defenders were frozen, and late in adjusting to the back, remaining in run defense despite there not being a single back in the backfield! oklahoma then called a corner blitz as USC properly read and went to Jarrett for a wide open touchdown down the sidelines. There were many more plays like that for Oklahoma. It wasn't that their secondary was bad, it was that they have not been coached on how to play against that kind of offense. Their scheme is simply decrepit when faced with that kind of opponent.

USC didn't exploit a bad secondary, it exploited a bad scheme. Don't forget the USC backs were running right through the middle of the Oklahoma defense all night.

As far as Stoops and Florida---he practiced against a gimmicky spread offense and thus grew somewhat familiar with how to defense it. But what he really did was figure out SEC offenses. To this day he can still stop 'em (14 offensive points by LSU in the Sugar Bowl, 7 on that first drive on a nicely designed run by LSU that got them to the 10 and was the only real burst of offense for them all night).

But the Florida offense is still not compatible with the Big Six and other offenses, and some Pac-10 offenses and even some ACC offenses. It was this 1-dimensional scheme perfected over time (althought it was showing signs of age late in the Spurrier era).

So yes, Bob Stoops is somewhat familiar with elements of a spread and gimmicky pass offense, but not the the extent that he can stop it.

[Young Jeeves-y]

Now you are just over the top. Bob Stoops is "stuck" in his career? Yeah, so is Bill Belichek. He can win championships, but only if his team is matched up against teams like the Eagles or Panthers. Are you actually arguing that the offense that Florida used for 12 years to dominate the (more competitive) SEC just doesn't measure up to the offense that Bobby Petrino has sucessfully used for two years? As for the weather, the bowl games aren't in nice climates to facilitate the style of football; they are there to facilitate tourism. Learn a little about the history of the game. The main problem with midwest fall weather isn't necessarily the cold, it's the wind and rain. Granted, the weather in the first month is usually wonderful. However, the rest of the season sees a lot of 45 degree, rainy days. A sloppy field makes precision passing almost impossible, and the wind plays havoc with all but the strongest arms. I realize that as long as we have a bowl system (which I do prefer), we will continue to play the season culminating games primarily in warm climates, many of which are essentially home games for the Pac Ten. I'm not complaining; I have no desire to be in Ann Arbor shovelling snow on January 1. However, if we ever have playoffs, the Pac-10 will enjoy the privilege of playing in the big house and the horseshoe many years in January/Decemeber. If that happens, watch for the Pac-Ten style to get snuffed out. You'll see scores like 19-7, with the big-ten team on top.

[Blogsy McBlog]

The last time (and only time)USC came to Michigan, it lost. The last two times UCLA came to Michigan, it lost. The last three times Oregon came to Michigan, it lost. The last three times Oregon State came to Michigan, it lost. The last time Washington came to Michigan, it lost. The last three times Washington St. came to Michigan, it lost. The last time Cal came to Michigan, it lost. The last two times Arizona came to Michigan, it lost. ASU has never played at Michigan.

[TorBear]

Is Michigan the only team in the Big 10 now? As a Cal fan I can tell you that the Bears are 2-0 on the road (and overall) vs. the Big 10 in the Jeff Teford era.

And how has Michigan done when it's gone on the road to play Pac 10 teams? We know their Rose Bowl record isn't great the last few decades. (And I don't think you'll mind going back a few decades, since that is how far you had to go to tell us Michigan beat Cal the last time they played in in Ann Arbor.) You could argue that the Rose Bowl is a home game for the the Pac 10 team---except that every Pac 10 team but UCLA and USC is based at least 350 miles from Pasadena. How has Michigan done on the road in the regular seaon against Pac 10 teams? I don't know their overall record, but I do remember how they did the last time they played in Eugene against a mediocre Oregon squad. And, BTW, Eugene is not exactly a warm weather location.

[CFR]

Bill Bellicheck ain't stuck. He's more like Pete Carroll, staying on top, not just a one year wonder, the beneficiary of being in the right place/right time/right schedule as Stoops, Tressel, Fullmer have been.

Bob Stoops is stuck. He's more like the NBA's Jerry Sloan.

[Blogsy McBlog]

It must suck to be stuck like Bob Stoops; two BCS championship games in a row, three in five years (maybe he's a five year wonder?), a Rose Bowl blowout vicotry over another wonderful PAC TEN team (Washington St.) and a Cotton Bowl victory. That must be awful; what a terrible coach. As for Sweatervest, his style flies in the face of everything you advocate about the Big Six, so I can see why you dislike him. However, in his championship season, OSU did hold Texas Tech to 21 points, and Washington State to 7, so it looks like Jeff Tedford could learn a thing or two from him. To call him "stuck" is awfully premature. All he's done is win a national championship over a heavily favoured UMiami team, win a Fiesta Bowl, and annihlate Oklahoma State in the Alamo Bowl; and beat Michigan three of the past four years. Must suck to be him, too. Philip Fulmer? Look, when Pete Carrol has kept USC at the top for ten+ years, start talking about other coaches who are "stuck." He's winning because he has won some major recruiting battles lately. That's cyclical, and he's bound to eventually be on the losing end of some of those. Yes, the Rose Bowl is a home game in every sense of the word for the two LA teams. However, for almost everyone else in the conference, it is a quasi-home game.

[JohnV8r]

You raise an interesting question about Mike vs Bob. Only time will tell.

I will tell you this from the Arizona fan's perspective: We wouldn't trade Mike for Bob. We love Mike Stoops and hope he stays at Arizona for his entire career. His passion - check that - his fire is exactly what Arizona fans wanted. Nothing warmed the hearts of Arizona fans more last year than seeing Mike Stoops having to be restrained from getting in the face of officials who blew calls. Mike Stoops does "get it"...he's a head coach that cares about Arizona Football as much as those of us who bleed red and blue. His passion has energized an Arizona Football community reeling from the nuclear winter of the Mackovic era.

Let me add one other comment to one of the issues you raised regarding where Mike Stoops may or may be headed. Arizona athletic director Jim Livengood knows the importance of keeping Mike Stoops in Tucson. While many may point out the comparitive lack of football history on a national level compared to Oklahoma or Michigan, Arizona IS rich in football tradition. I believe Mike Stoops recognized that when accepting the head coach position at Arizona. Mike Stoops stated during his first press conference that he believed Arizona was a place he could come and win National Championships. Certainly, Arizona's history in other sports makes that a credible assumption.

Arizona was nobody in NCAA basketball until Lute arrived. Two decades later, Arizona is one of the most recognizeable basketball powers in the country. Most of us believe that Mike Stoops will stay at Arizona and when it's all said and done, Mike Stoops will be to Arizona Football what Lute Olson has been to Arizona Basketball.

When that achievement is realized, a large part of the credit will go squarely to Arizona athletic director Jim Livengood. Jim Livengood is a man who has worked tirelessly to make Arizona a nationally prominent school in all sports.

[HuH]

Mike Stoops never saw the ability to throw the ball until he went to the Pac-10??? I don't understand how he can say that as in his last year at OU, the team compiled over 4100 passing yards. They would have done it again the next year, but they ran the ball alot more with Peterson. I do have to agree, though, that Bob Stoops has become a lot more conventional. Back in the day when he had Leach and Mangino, they ran alot of exciting plays, but these days it just sees like he just relies on his talent to win games. When they meet someone just as talented (i.e. USC) and they use the same boring routine that they have all season, they get beat because the other team knows just what they are going to do.

[TorBear]

Between the tens of thousands of Big 10 alumni who live in California and the tens of thousands who usually accompany their team to the Rose Bowl, I can tell you that it sure doesn't LOOK like a home game from the Pac 10's perspective. And just what is a "quasi-home game'? Stanford and Cal are each 350-400 miles from Pasadena (and Cal hasn't been to game since 1959, so it really doesn't figure into this). The Arizona schools are 400-500 miles away. The Oregon schools are 1000 miles away. And the Washington schools are 1300 miles away. Some home game!

[Soonerhubler]

You're kidding me! Okay so Bob Stoops is stuck? He can't stop spread offenses? I suppose these statements have credence if you only use ONE game, to give them that. Get serious! Mike Leach isn't an offensive moron people! Just ask the California Bears. Right? Who stopped Leach's offense the last few years? That's correct, Bob Stoops and his defense.
Did Bob prepare as well as he should've against Norm Chow's brilliant schemes? Obviously not. And he said himself that he was to do some soul searching. Obviously he learned more than we'd know after January 4th.
Remember Stoops won a National Championship, where is Jerry Sloan's?
Bo Pelini isn't Mike Stoops, no kidding... Do you think that maybe Pelini may be the source of the struggle on January 4th? Just a thought...

[LosAngelesSooner]

Yeah...the Pac-10 offenses are SO far advanced...that's why the second best team in the Pac-10, Cal, beat the crap out of the 5th best team in the Big-12, Texas Tech...


wait a minute...