#21 OU vs #6 KU 3pm CST on ESPN

[SoonerBounce13]

Dude, **** like this is why I left the site.

We're talking about the increased competitiveness of the Big 12 and how that has affected OU's program. Right? OU isn't doing as well as we'd like, and "the Big 12 being tougher than it ever has" is often used as the excuse as to why. Period. That has happened. Frequently.

We don't even needs stats or numbers to have that discussion. If OU's place in the Big 12 has fallen because the Big 12 has gotten tougher, the question still remains, why has the Big 12 improved and OU has not? That's a valid question.

Lol you are free to stay away

Soft

 

[WTSooner]

Unclear why you are allergic to stats/rankings figures.

KP shows teams efficiency by the end of the year. You wanted to compare teams of the last 10-15 years. Rank is the best way to do that. I will not use your eyes as judgment, sorry, just won't.

Your statement was, " MANY in the Big 12 have improved more than OU has over the last 10-15 years." I showed that OU has been one of the most consistent schools of the last 12 years, that is proven by facts. YOU brought that up, I just gave you ranking data to show you that your statement was not correct. (as far as results, many more teams have improved facilities, that is for sure)

If you want to say OU has not kept up with the rest of the Big12 in the last 3 years, I 100% agree. That shows with us being just below the half-way mark of Big12 rankings per KP. If you want to say that fans think our conference has been tougher and has led to a tougher road bc of it, absolutely agree there. Fans, myself included, think the conference has been tougher and there is proof to show that. But you are also correct in that teams like Kansas, Baylor, Texas, and ISU have seemed to risen above the conference.

As far as the reasoning, it depends on what type of pariah you want to be. Do you want to blame Moser? LNC? NIL funding? Fans? Everyone seems to have their poison. I never tried to invalidate you asking the question why? But in a previous post I did say that it is tough to assign blame when the cycle of blame seems to go:

LNC sucks -> Need more fans -> Need to win more games (better coaching) -> Need more NIL for better roster -> Need more $$$ from fan support -> (repeat)

But to say OU has fallen off in the last 10-15 years just isn't true. They have been consistent in the league, not more not less. If you want to argue they should be more, that is fine and fair, but they should at least throw more money into the program to make that happen. There is a reason KU is consistently at the top and why they football programs is garbage.

You can never convince me to not show ratings/data in a discussion where your point is subjective.

I am one that thinks OU is a top-30ish maybe Top-40 program, no more no less. Until we start funding like a Top-15 program, we just won't be that. (That includes full staff support as well, you can only go so far)

It's really not that hard.

League finishes -

Kelvin:
3, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 7, 1, 3 (average of 3)

Capel:
8, 4, 2, 9, 10 (average of 6.6)

Kruger:
8, 4, 2, 2, 3, 9, 6, 7, 3, 6 (average of 5)

Moser:
7, 9, 8 (average of 8)

One of you that make the claim the Big 12 getting harder will have to let me know exactly when that happened. 2013? That's Kruger's second season.

I'll put it another way. In 12 seasons Kelvin had TWO where he finished outside the top 3. We've been third or better ONCE in the last 8 seasons. That's under two coaching staffs, once of which is a HOF'er with two FF's and the other is a guy with that literally hired because he made a FF.

I'm willing to concede that the conference is tougher over the last eight seasons, then it was during Kelvin's 12. I'm conceding that point for the sake of this argument. The league and the teams we play in this league have gotten tougher. The question that nobody wants to answer is why did OU sit still, or move backwards, and let these teams all pass us? Why didn't OU get better and hold our place a a top 3-4 team?

Capel was just a bad coach. There isn't much to discuss there. But we've had 13 seasons since he left, and just 4 top three finishes in those 12 seasons. Kelvin finished in the top 3 in ten of twelve seasons. AGAIN, I know the competition got better.....WHY DIDN'T OU GET BETTER?!?

If you want to be in the discussion that I am currently in, THOSE are the stats that matter. Not what you keep posting. Those are stats. I love stats/numbers. But the ones you are providing don't have anything to do with the argument/debate I'm having.

From what I posted above, there is no doubt that OU is performing MUCH worse in the conference against our peers. I'm conceding that the conference has gotten tougher. What I will not concede is that the conference getting tougher automatically means OU can't continue fielding a top 3-4 team in the conference on average. We have the ability, the right, and should have the desire to continue improving just as those other teams did. Fact is, they made better coaching hires, better assistant coaching hires, and recruited kids that better fit into their schemes/rosters. Having tougher competition didn't do that. OU did that to themselves. We're not a better program if we move to the SEC next year and have slightly more success against slightly weaker competition. We're just playing weaker competition.

 

[BoulderSooner]

It's really not that hard.

League finishes -

Kelvin:
3, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 7, 1, 3 (average of 3)

Capel:
8, 4, 2, 9, 10 (average of 6.6)

Kruger:
8, 4, 2, 2, 3, 9, 6, 7, 3, 6 (average of 5)

Moser:
7, 9, 8 (average of 8)

One of you that make the claim the Big 12 getting harder will have to let me know exactly when that happened. 2013? That's Kruger's second season.

I'll put it another way. In 12 seasons Kelvin had TWO where he finished outside the top 3. We've been third or better ONCE in the last 8 seasons. That's under two coaching staffs, once of which is a HOF'er with two FF's and the other is a guy with that literally hired because he made a FF.

I'm willing to concede that the conference is tougher over the last eight seasons, then it was during Kelvin's 12. I'm conceding that point for the sake of this argument. The league and the teams we play in this league have gotten tougher. The question that nobody wants to answer is why did OU sit still, or move backwards, and let these teams all pass us? Why didn't OU get better and hold our place a a top 3-4 team?

Capel was just a bad coach. There isn't much to discuss there. But we've had 13 seasons since he left, and just 4 top three finishes in those 12 seasons. Kelvin finished in the top 3 in ten of twelve seasons. AGAIN, I know the competition got better.....WHY DIDN'T OU GET BETTER?!?

If you want to be in the discussion that I am currently in, THOSE are the stats that matter. Not what you keep posting. Those are stats. I love stats/numbers. But the ones you are providing don't have anything to do with the argument/debate I'm having.

From what I posted above, there is no doubt that OU is performing MUCH worse in the conference against our peers. I'm conceding that the conference has gotten tougher. What I will not concede is that the conference getting tougher automatically means OU can't continue fielding a top 3-4 team in the conference on average. We have the ability, the right, and should have the desire to continue improving just as those other teams did. Fact is, they made better coaching hires, better assistant coaching hires, and recruited kids that better fit into their schemes/rosters. Having tougher competition didn't do that. OU did that to themselves. We're not a better program if we move to the SEC next year and have slightly more success against slightly weaker competition. We're just playing weaker competition.

just comparing kelvin to the last 10-12 years ..

the big 12 was not a top 3 conf most of the time kelvin was at OU .. and being in the south he had a favorable schedule ..

in the last 12 years the big 12 has been the best conf almost every year (and i believe 2nd once or twice)

 

[WTSooner]

Texas, Houston and Baylor have all built new arenas. Iowa State will always have years where they're really good. TCU has a really good coach. K-State caught lightning in a bottle last year and has fallen back this year. Kansas is Kansas. BYU is having an UP year. WVU and OSU a DOWN year. UCF, eh. Tech is about where Tech should be.

Why has OU not improved? Well, for one, a complete rebuild starting AFTER the recruiting and transfer season three years ago. That put Porter behind the 8-ball from the start. Last year, we felt that the most, as two of our most talented players were freshmen. In his first real FULL recruiting cycle, Porter got better this year. But, we still don't have the NEW ARENA and facilities to make much noise with recruits. Couple that with the fact that we are NOT a basketball school like Iowa State - our fans just don't show up - and there's not much to sell outside of Porter Moser. Oh, and our NIL is non-existent.

So...that's why. Although, I'd argue we ARE much improved this season and should be again next season - unless we start all over again.

I'm pretty sure Baylor started producing much better teams before their new arena(s).

Houston hasn't out-recruited us. Their two starting big men consist of a 3* kid ranked 144 in the country and 3* kid ranked 225th. Shead and Sharp, two of the starting guards, were both 3* kids. That staff turned Sasser from a 3* unranked kid into an NBA player. That's coaching, not arenas or NIL. All this talk about how hard it is to rebuild.....UT has had 3 different coaches the last 4 seasons, and 4 different coaches the last 10 seasons.

The new arena stuff is crap. Kids don't care about that stuff if the rest of the program is in place. If the coaching staff is good and developing guys. If the program is winning. Pretty sure Gonzaga's arena is about 20 years old. How's that affecting them? Blue bloods are different, but how up to date is Allen Fieldhouse? Don't like that example? There are plenty of other schools having success without having brand new, custom-designed arenas.

Tired of the excuses.

 

[WTSooner]

just comparing kelvin to the last 10-12 years ..

the big 12 was not a top 3 conf most of the time kelvin was at OU .. and being in the south he had a favorable schedule ..

in the last 12 years the big 12 has been the best conf almost every year (and i believe 2nd once or twice)

Did you read anything I wrote?

Cool, the conference and our opponents got better. Why didn't OU? Why didn't OU keep up? Why didn't OU hire a coach that can develop the talent we're recruiting? UH doesn't have tons better talent than OU, on paper. Not going back to HS recruiting they don't. But they know how to coach. That isn't an old arena or lack of NIL problem.

 

[IndySooner]

I'm pretty sure Baylor started producing much better teams before their new arena(s).

Houston hasn't out-recruited us. Their two starting big men consist of a 3* kid ranked 144 in the country and 3* kid ranked 225th. Shead and Sharp, two of the starting guards, were both 3* kids. That staff turned Sasser from a 3* unranked kid into an NBA player. That's coaching, not arenas or NIL. All this talk about how hard it is to rebuild.....UT has had 3 different coaches the last 4 seasons, and 4 different coaches the last 10 seasons.

The new arena stuff is crap. Kids don't care about that stuff if the rest of the program is in place. If the coaching staff is good and developing guys. If the program is winning. Pretty sure Gonzaga's arena is about 20 years old. How's that affecting them? Blue bloods are different, but how up to date is Allen Fieldhouse? Don't like that example? There are plenty of other schools having success without having brand new, custom-designed arenas.

Tired of the excuses.

Kansas and Gonzaga don't play in 70's era arenas not designed for basketball. If you don't think arenas matter, well...

And Baylor got good through NIL before NIL was legal. Oh, and if you're asking me if I'd trade Porter for Kelvin, the answer is ABSOLUTELY YES. But we moved on from Kelvin and he moved on from us.

And as for the lack of NIL at OU, that's going to become a bigger and bigger deal.

 

[WichitaSooner]

It's really not that hard.

League finishes -

Kelvin:
3, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 7, 1, 3 (average of 3)

Capel:
8, 4, 2, 9, 10 (average of 6.6)

Kruger:
8, 4, 2, 2, 3, 9, 6, 7, 3, 6 (average of 5)

Moser:
7, 9, 8 (average of 8)

One of you that make the claim the Big 12 getting harder will have to let me know exactly when that happened. 2013? That's Kruger's second season.

I'll put it another way. In 12 seasons Kelvin had TWO where he finished outside the top 3. We've been third or better ONCE in the last 8 seasons. That's under two coaching staffs, once of which is a HOF'er with two FF's and the other is a guy with that literally hired because he made a FF.

I'm willing to concede that the conference is tougher over the last eight seasons, then it was during Kelvin's 12. I'm conceding that point for the sake of this argument. The league and the teams we play in this league have gotten tougher. The question that nobody wants to answer is why did OU sit still, or move backwards, and let these teams all pass us? Why didn't OU get better and hold our place a a top 3-4 team?

Capel was just a bad coach. There isn't much to discuss there. But we've had 13 seasons since he left, and just 4 top three finishes in those 12 seasons. Kelvin finished in the top 3 in ten of twelve seasons. AGAIN, I know the competition got better.....WHY DIDN'T OU GET BETTER?!?

If you want to be in the discussion that I am currently in, THOSE are the stats that matter. Not what you keep posting. Those are stats. I love stats/numbers. But the ones you are providing don't have anything to do with the argument/debate I'm having.

From what I posted above, there is no doubt that OU is performing MUCH worse in the conference against our peers. I'm conceding that the conference has gotten tougher. What I will not concede is that the conference getting tougher automatically means OU can't continue fielding a top 3-4 team in the conference on average. We have the ability, the right, and should have the desire to continue improving just as those other teams did. Fact is, they made better coaching hires, better assistant coaching hires, and recruited kids that better fit into their schemes/rosters. Having tougher competition didn't do that. OU did that to themselves. We're not a better program if we move to the SEC next year and have slightly more success against slightly weaker competition. We're just playing weaker competition.

My thoughts: Capel was a debacle and left us in a really bad spot. I think we were around 150 in KenPom his last year. I clearly recall articles being written when Lon was hired saying that it realistically would take at least three years for him to get us back on the map. He exceeded all expectations and got us in the tourney in year two, and his first five years were very, very good. His last five years, he didn’t build off that as well as any of us would prefer. 2017 was kind of a perfect storm. We graduated Buddy and Cousins, Woodard was in and out, and things went south. Trae’s year was a unique season, to say the least. Looking back, it’s fair to say we probably didn’t win as much as we should have with the players we had his last couple seasons. I do sometimes wonder how 2021 plays out if Reaves, Manek, and Alondes hadn’t all missed time with Covid, but then again, every team had to contend with Covid.

Lon didn’t leave a situation where you could say the next coach should have been expected to immediately come in and compete for conference titles, but he left a situation that was MUCH better than what the current coaches at ISU, KSU, Tech, and others inherited. Moser clearly put a ton of faith in Tanner and Jacob, and while they each had their moments, it’s clear that neither of them should have been looked upon as building blocks for a Big 12 roster. That was a mistake, and one that falls at Moser’s feet. He basically wasted two years before he figured out the level of athleticism needed to compete in the Big 12, and IMHO, that’s unforgivable. Any college basketball fan, let alone coach, should know that.

This year has the potential to be the most disappointing yet if it falls apart and we end up, say, 7-11 and outside the cut line. 7-11 would in many ways be worse than the 5-13 last year, given the upgrade in talent and the fact that we don’t have to play Houston and Baylor twice.

Tomorrow is arguably the biggest game in Moser’s tenure. If we win, we are still in very good shape to make the tournament, even if it doesn’t solve many of our big picture issues. Lose, however, and I think there is maybe about a 1 in 3 chance we end up making it. It would require at least one upset win, plus taking care of business against Cincy.

The numbers and stats posted in this thread should at the very least give pause to those who like to pretend that the current coach doesn’t really have a fair chance because our program is so far behind others in the conference. We see time and again in college basketball that coaches make a huge difference, good or bad. It’s time for our guy to put up or shut up over the next two weeks.

 

[WTSooner]

And as for the lack of NIL at OU, that's going to become a bigger and bigger deal.

Why? We recruited two 4* kids last year and got the transfers we wanted. Uzan and Oweh are both top 100 kids. Everybody loves Moore. Hugley was a 4* coming out of HS. Everybody around here loved getting him. You all loved getting McCollum. You don't get to LOVE all of the kids then say they aren't good enough when the season doesn't go as planned. That's not how it works.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

You don't get to LOVE all of the kids then say they aren't good enough when the season doesn't go as planned. That's not how it works.

Yes it is. It is exactly how it works. It is perfectly reasonable to think a player is going to be a good get before seeing them in person. And it’s perfectly reasonable to change that opinion once you see them

To think that isn’t ok is unreasonable and how you get posters that are so biased they ignore stats.

On the same token, I suppose if you think an incoming player is not a good pickup but are proven wrong you can’t change your opinion? That’s retarded

 

[TEvans4Three]

It's really not that hard.

League finishes -

Kelvin:
3, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 7, 1, 3 (average of 3)

Capel:
8, 4, 2, 9, 10 (average of 6.6)

Kruger:
8, 4, 2, 2, 3, 9, 6, 7, 3, 6 (average of 5)

Moser:
7, 9, 8 (average of 8)

One of you that make the claim the Big 12 getting harder will have to let me know exactly when that happened. 2013? That's Kruger's second season.

I'll put it another way. In 12 seasons Kelvin had TWO where he finished outside the top 3. We've been third or better ONCE in the last 8 seasons. That's under two coaching staffs, once of which is a HOF'er with two FF's and the other is a guy with that literally hired because he made a FF.

I'm willing to concede that the conference is tougher over the last eight seasons, then it was during Kelvin's 12. I'm conceding that point for the sake of this argument. The league and the teams we play in this league have gotten tougher. The question that nobody wants to answer is why did OU sit still, or move backwards, and let these teams all pass us? Why didn't OU get better and hold our place a a top 3-4 team?

Capel was just a bad coach. There isn't much to discuss there. But we've had 13 seasons since he left, and just 4 top three finishes in those 12 seasons. Kelvin finished in the top 3 in ten of twelve seasons. AGAIN, I know the competition got better.....WHY DIDN'T OU GET BETTER?!?

If you want to be in the discussion that I am currently in, THOSE are the stats that matter. Not what you keep posting. Those are stats. I love stats/numbers. But the ones you are providing don't have anything to do with the argument/debate I'm having.

From what I posted above, there is no doubt that OU is performing MUCH worse in the conference against our peers. I'm conceding that the conference has gotten tougher. What I will not concede is that the conference getting tougher automatically means OU can't continue fielding a top 3-4 team in the conference on average. We have the ability, the right, and should have the desire to continue improving just as those other teams did. Fact is, they made better coaching hires, better assistant coaching hires, and recruited kids that better fit into their schemes/rosters. Having tougher competition didn't do that. OU did that to themselves. We're not a better program if we move to the SEC next year and have slightly more success against slightly weaker competition. We're just playing weaker competition.

It really isn't that hard to understand, but you keep chosing not to. So you just care about conference finishes and not the team's season as a whole.

That is fine, we just can't have a proper conversation about the team's improvement or not. Bc OU has been a consistent team across the last 12 years, I showed you that and you keep ignoring the facts.

If OU finished 3rd the big12 but was ranked 150th, you would feel better than OU finished top 25 but 7th in big12.

You realize how silly that is?

Some teams have had better seasons and worse seasons that OU in the last 12 years. Most actually have had worse. Until we can agree that conf finishing really isn't indicative of a teams success, but only a fraction of their conf strength, then we can't logically discuss it.

I wish you the best, hopefully we can sweep the pokes tomorrow.

 

[skyvue]

Also, most of the players that departed had not declared they were transferring when he took the job and were still on campus. I'm not saying it's easy in that situation to convince players to stay, but he at least had a crack at it. Coach Baranczyk managed to pull it off.

 

[CMSOONER]

Do unathletic guys ever become good athletes? Because that’s what Luke needs to have happen.

Yah if only Hunter Dickinson were more athletic.

 

[CMSOONER]

Well I’m sure Majerus lite is just the guy to develop him!

Hopefully better than Krutwig

 

[WichitaSooner]

Yah if only Hunter Dickinson were more athletic.

You’re comparing him to a guy who, when he was Luke’s age, averaged 18.6 per game? Great take. Because all tall guys are the same. I guess by that logic, I may become Steph Curry. Same height, after all.

Dickinson is a very skilled player. Not a great athlete and that’s what will keep him from being a legit NBA prospect no matter what his college stats are. But he is an elite college player because of his skill. He showed that immediately in a P5 conference as a freshman. Luke has been in college for two years and can’t make an impact on a roster desperate for bigs.

 

[WichitaSooner]

Hopefully better than Krutwig

He would probably be a solid Mo Valley player. That’s a league that doesn’t have much size.

 

[WTSooner]

Yes it is. It is exactly how it works. It is perfectly reasonable to think a player is going to be a good get before seeing them in person. And it’s perfectly reasonable to change that opinion once you see them

To think that isn’t ok is unreasonable and how you get posters that are so biased they ignore stats.

On the same token, I suppose if you think an incoming player is not a good pickup but are proven wrong you can’t change your opinion? That’s retarded

We aren't talking about one player. Or two players. We aren't talking about one team/roster. It's been an ongoing problem in that most of our roster has underperformed expectations under Moser. That's a coaching issue. Not a talent issue.

 

[WTSooner]

It really isn't that hard to understand, but you keep chosing not to. So you just care about conference finishes and not the team's season as a whole.

That is fine, we just can't have a proper conversation about the team's improvement or not. Bc OU has been a consistent team across the last 12 years, I showed you that and you keep ignoring the facts.

If OU finished 3rd the big12 but was ranked 150th, you would feel better than OU finished top 25 but 7th in big12.

You realize how silly that is?

Some teams have had better seasons and worse seasons that OU in the last 12 years. Most actually have had worse. Until we can agree that conf finishing really isn't indicative of a teams success, but only a fraction of their conf strength, then we can't logically discuss it.

I wish you the best, hopefully we can sweep the pokes tomorrow.

Still missing the point. I'll try one more time, then I'm going to walk away and assume you are either too biased to have an honest discussion about this, or simply not intelligent enough.

Let's say KP ranks OU 50th EVERY season for 10 years. Let's say at the beginning of that 10 seasons, that is good enough basketball for us to be in the top 3-4 of the Big 12 conference most every season. Let's also say by the end of that 10 years that that same level of basketball is only good for 6th, 7th, or maybe 8th in the Big 12 most seasons.

Why did our conference finish get worse with the same play? Because other Big 12 teams improved and passed us by. MY QUESTION, FOR THE ONE MILLIONTH TIME, IS WHY WAS OU NOT ALSO ABLE TO IMPROVE DURING THAT TIME? WHY DID OU HAVE TO STAY THE 50TH BEST TEAM IN THE COUNTRY? WHY COULDN'T OU ALSO IMPROVE LIKE SEVERAL OF THE OTHER BIG 12 TEAMS DID DURING THAT PERIOD? HAD WE IMPROVED, LIKE OUR PEERS, THEN OUR FINISHES IN THE BIG 12 WOULD HAVE REMAINED CONSISTENT.

*I'm 100% not willing to conceded that our play is as strong as it was when we were finishing higher. It's debatable, probably not black and white, but I want to be clear that I'm not conceding that, but for the sake of this argument, I will.

 

[CMSOONER]

You’re comparing him to a guy who, when he was Luke’s age, averaged 18.6 per game? Great take. Because all tall guys are the same. I guess by that logic, I may become Steph Curry. Same height, after all.

Dickinson is a very skilled player. Not a great athlete and that’s what will keep him from being a legit NBA prospect no matter what his college stats are. But he is an elite college player because of his skill. He showed that immediately in a P5 conference as a freshman. Luke has been in college for two years and can’t make an impact on a roster desperate for bigs.

This completely supports my point. You can teach and develop skills. Players can grow their skills. So why quit on a kid who has potential? You're always so hyper focused on your arguments and making your point and stating to look at the facts and to think logically, but you often throw logic straight out the window.

 

[CMSOONER]

He would probably be a solid Mo Valley player. That’s a league that doesn’t have much size.

And those kids that show out well in the Mo valley conference transfer to p5 schools.

 

[WichitaSooner]

This completely supports my point. You can teach and develop skills. Players can grow their skills. So why quit on a kid who has potential? You're always so hyper focused on your arguments and making your point and stating to look at the facts and to think logically, but you often throw logic straight out the window.

You can somewhat improve a player’s skills. You can’t give them skill they will never have. For instance, could you turn Sam Godwin into a point guard? Could you make Shaq a great shooter? What skills do you actually see in Luke? Again, I could care less what they claim he can do in practice, or what he did against high school competition. His shooting is allegedly his best skill set, and it is below average for this level. Everything else is far below average. He is not an example of a raw player with all kinds of natural talent and skill just waiting to be brought out.

It’s honestly baffling to me that people can watch him play and think, hey, this guy can really help us in the Big 12/SEC. If our goal is to compete near the top of those conferences, ask yourself this: do you see a guy like Luke being part of the core for KU, UK, Baylor, Houston, Bama, etc? Parker Braun is a more useful player and he is nothing but a warm body for KU who is playing because they had a couple bigs transfer when Dickinson signed.

He will undoubtedly make a couple shots for us the next few games if he keeps getting minutes. And I’m sure folks will throw it in my face every time he does. But he can’t be a significant part of our future.