EagleGrowl3 wrote: I'd still be pissed, but it wouldn't be nearly the disaster as giving the whole OL to him.

TARUANU1 wrote: Possibility 1:  In OU's perception, MM did nothing at KU that OU administration would have a problem with during 2nd stop at OU.  If Stoops is really having to "lobby" to get MM back, it sounds like somebody(s) needs convincing or reassuring.   

Possibility 2:  Things Mangino reportedly did at KU (or even while at OU) OU doesn't want him doing here.
a)  He's learned his lesson and will be different at OU.  What Stoops is selling?
b)  A leopard can't change his spots (or it's not worth the risk).  What administration is thinking? 

Is it possible that administration would say no to MM as OL coach, but go along with MM at some other position coach?  That seems unlikely.

Regardless of what Mangino really is today, he will be negative recruiting fodder--guaranteed.  I am less concerned with smears about past reports than with what he's doing today.  E.g., on recruiting visits, if he were OL coach, OL recruits get an earful from current linemen and it makes it harder to land a position which takes up almost half the offense in terms of numbers (5 of 11).  That ship has sailed.  So is the recruiting risk less if he's not involved with the entire OL?  I don't think you can isolate such a problem and it can become a contagion.  I don't know if it's workable for the administration (or Bob) to lay out special ground rules but two might be no physical contact with players and no personal/family attacks or taunts.  If Mangino does things right then the negative recruiting will be neutralized by first hand reports from current players.  It doesn't have to be that Mangino is really a big teddy bear (which you wouldn't want in an OL coach anyway) but just that he is not psycho.  Can he do that?  You would think so given that it's in his interest but some people just can't help themselves and are who they are.

p23570 wrote:

TARUANU1 wrote: Possibility 1:  In OU's perception, MM did nothing at KU that OU administration would have a problem with during 2nd stop at OU.  If Stoops is really having to "lobby" to get MM back, it sounds like somebody(s) needs convincing or reassuring.   

Possibility 2:  Things Mangino reportedly did at KU (or even while at OU) OU doesn't want him doing here.
a)  He's learned his lesson and will be different at OU.  What Stoops is selling?
b)  A leopard can't change his spots (or it's not worth the risk).  What administration is thinking? 

Is it possible that administration would say no to MM as OL coach, but go along with MM at some other position coach?  That seems unlikely.

Regardless of what Mangino really is today, he will be negative recruiting fodder--guaranteed.  I am less concerned with smears about past reports than with what he's doing today.  E.g., on recruiting visits, if he were OL coach, OL recruits get an earful from current linemen and it makes it harder to land a position which takes up almost half the offense in terms of numbers (5 of 11).  That ship has sailed.  So is the recruiting risk less if he's not involved with the entire OL?  I don't think you can isolate such a problem and it can become a contagion.  I don't know if it's workable for the administration (or Bob) to lay out special ground rules but two might be no physical contact with players and no personal/family attacks or taunts.  If Mangino does things right then the negative recruiting will be neutralized by first hand reports from current players.  It doesn't have to be that Mangino is really a big teddy bear (which you wouldn't want in an OL coach anyway) but just that he is not psycho.  Can he do that?  You would think so given that it's in his interest but some people just can't help themselves and are who they are.

would kittle's "coaching background" have been something other teams could use to negatively recruit against ou?

ZachGivens wrote: "One of the themes running through the offseason has been Stoops’ reported persistence in lobbying to bring his good friend and Broyles Award winner back to Norman. According to multiple members of the media, Stoops wanted Mangino for the offensive line position that went Bill Bedenbaugh. Now, word has come from SoonerScoop.com’s Carey Murdock that Stoops is still pushing for Mangino to fill the tight ends coach spot vacated by Bruce Kittle."





http://www.blatanthomerism.com/2013-articles/febru ary/bob-stoops-endgame-mark-mangino-oklahoma-soone rs.html

p23570 wrote:

TARUANU1 wrote: Possibility 1:  In OU's perception, MM did nothing at KU that OU administration would have a problem with during 2nd stop at OU.  If Stoops is really having to "lobby" to get MM back, it sounds like somebody(s) needs convincing or reassuring.   

Possibility 2:  Things Mangino reportedly did at KU (or even while at OU) OU doesn't want him doing here.
a)  He's learned his lesson and will be different at OU.  What Stoops is selling?
b)  A leopard can't change his spots (or it's not worth the risk).  What administration is thinking? 

Is it possible that administration would say no to MM as OL coach, but go along with MM at some other position coach?  That seems unlikely.

Regardless of what Mangino really is today, he will be negative recruiting fodder--guaranteed.  I am less concerned with smears about past reports than with what he's doing today.  E.g., on recruiting visits, if he were OL coach, OL recruits get an earful from current linemen and it makes it harder to land a position which takes up almost half the offense in terms of numbers (5 of 11).  That ship has sailed.  So is the recruiting risk less if he's not involved with the entire OL?  I don't think you can isolate such a problem and it can become a contagion.  I don't know if it's workable for the administration (or Bob) to lay out special ground rules but two might be no physical contact with players and no personal/family attacks or taunts.  If Mangino does things right then the negative recruiting will be neutralized by first hand reports from current players.  It doesn't have to be that Mangino is really a big teddy bear (which you wouldn't want in an OL coach anyway) but just that he is not psycho.  Can he do that?  You would think so given that it's in his interest but some people just can't help themselves and are who they are.

would kittle's "coaching background" have been something other teams could use to negatively recruit against ou?

CushCreekmont wrote: Please, please NO. I've said it along with many others - the PR problems would offset any coaching positives, AND re-treads are not a good policy.

bluespringsSooner wrote: He could run the corny dog concession!

CushCreekmont wrote: Please, please NO. I've said it along with many others - the PR problems would offset any coaching positives, AND re-treads are not a good policy.

BleedingCrimson4Life wrote: We could make an event out of it.  Sorta like the Nathan's hot dog eating contest.  Instead if would be the Mangino corny dog eating contest.

We need a mangino eating a corny dog emoticon!

bluespringsSooner wrote: He could run the corny dog concession!

CushCreekmont wrote: Please, please NO. I've said it along with many others - the PR problems would offset any coaching positives, AND re-treads are not a good policy.

CushCreekmont wrote:

BleedingCrimson4Life wrote: We could make an event out of it.  Sorta like the Nathan's hot dog eating contest.  Instead if would be the Mangino corny dog eating contest.

We need a mangino eating a corny dog emoticon!

bluespringsSooner wrote: He could run the corny dog concession!

CushCreekmont wrote: Please, please NO. I've said it along with many others - the PR problems would offset any coaching positives, AND re-treads are not a good policy.

Don't start that Bleeding - his emoticon would eat all the others and we'd have none left.