Anyone listening to the Animal?

[thebigabd]

Times change, and Mizzou has a better present and future. Therefore, better program than OU.

1.) Primary basketball school in the state
2.) New arena and facilities
3.) Better fan support
4.) One of the top coaches in the nation
5.) Higher rated academic institution per the US News rankings of 2011

 

[Big Old Booger]

Okay answer this very hypothetical question....

Let's say the Mizzou job and the OU job opened up tomorrow...Everyone's (on this board, not mine) favorite unemployed coach, Billy Clyde, is the frontrunner for both gigs...

Which one does he choose?

I think he would choose Oklahoma, but part of my opinion may be a little homer.

 

[seniorsooner]

I think he would choose Oklahoma, but part of my opinion may be a little homer.

It's not a slam dunk either way. There are pros and cons to each program.

 

[Sooner04]

Also perhaps worth noting: probably Norm's best overall team and best shot at a final four was the year he went down with cancer. Kinda changes things.

Don't know if this is the year you're referring to, but that '94 team was a bunch of BAD dudes. They were awesome.

Elite 8, right? Arizona? My memory can't quite dial in the specifics.

 

[OUhoops11]

Times change, and Mizzou has a better present and future. Therefore, better program than OU.

1.) Primary basketball school in the state
2.) New arena and facilities
3.) Better fan support
4.) One of the top coaches in the nation
5.) Higher rated academic institution per the US News rankings of 2011

Not sure how you can measure which program has the better future. Short term, Mizzou has better players, and thus, a better future. Long term, none of us have any idea.

 

[Big Old Booger]

It's not a slam dunk either way. There are pros and cons to each program.

Are you using my words against me? :ez-laugh:

I agree, but as an OU fan, I would hope he would choose us if we were trying to hire him. Personally, I'd rather have a few other guys before him based on his personal problems.

I think one of the pros for Mizzou is going away next year when the conference plays a round robin format. Gone are the days of Mizzou getting to play CU and NU twice while the south teams all beat each other up.

 

[Sooner04]

What does bode well for Missouri is they have a program and system firmly in place. Anderson knows what he wants to do and has had success getting players to fit that system. Support for the program is very solid.

Now, if he ever runs out of family members to recruit (McCarroll, Pressey) then things may change. But right now I really admire what he's building up there. I like system guys, especially those who can really get the dudes to fit their respective style.

 

[stoops4pres]

The only real edge OU can claim is a final four, and your last one game over two decades ago.

That's much better than a program that has never reached one, like say, Missouri.

Nothing epitomizes an underachiever more than a program that has always had these "resources", yet has never reached a Final 4.

And by the way, 2002 wasn't two decades ago.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Don't know if this is the year you're referring to, but that '94 team was a bunch of BAD dudes. They were awesome.

Elite 8, right? Arizona? My memory can't quite dial in the specifics.

Wasn't it 89 when he went down with cancer? He got really sick on the way to Norman, so Daly the asst. coach was named interim and he coached them that night, and I thought the remainder of the season.

That's the night Billy grabbed the mic and did his "regardless of how bad the officiating is, please don't throw anything on the floor".

Mizzou won the Big 8 tourney and I think they advanced to the elite 8 that year and lost to either Michigan or Purdue.

 

[Sooner04]

'89: Missouri lost to Syracuse in the Sweet 16, 83-80.
'94: Missouri lost to Arizona in the Elite 8, 92-72.

Thank you, Wikipedia.

 

[stoops4pres]

I think this argument is kind of skewed. Some think we're arguing historically and some are in the here and now. Right now, Mizzou is the better program. It's amazing what one bad hire can do for a program. Historically, OU has more wins and more wins in the tourney. I think we're all winners here, it just depends on what you're arguing. If I had two job offers on the table, MU or OU, I'd probably take the MU job. It would be close though.

Exactly my thoughts. It just depends what the debate is.

If you're arguing better program historically, its OU. End of discussion.

However, judging by the current state, the better "job" I think would be Missouri, but it is definitely splitting hairs; its not some unquestionable conclusion that Pat Jones was apparently making it out to be. And the thought of him contending that K-State was a better job than OU is laughable.

 

[OUhoops11]

Thank you, Wikipedia.

Greatest invention ever, other than DVR.

 

[Sawyer]

Even in the "golden era" of Missouri basketball the program is at best even with OU over the same period.

I wouldn't call that the "golden era" of Missouri basketball. Aside from a few short stints under bad coaches (Bond in the 20s, Vanatta in the 60s, Quin in the 2000s), Mizzou's pretty much always been a solid program. Just never been to a final four.

Also, for anyone interested, OU vs. MU for the complete history:

OU: 1518-966 (61%)
MU: 1492-1030 (59%)

Historically pretty much the exact same, aside from an extra win in March in a couple seasons for OU.

I'll let you guys decide whether one head to head win almost a decade ago makes one program superior, or whether recent success is more important.

 

[Big Old Booger]

'89: Missouri lost to Syracuse in the Sweet 16, 83-80.
'94: Missouri lost to Arizona in the Elite 8, 92-72.

Thank you, Wikipedia.

Well, I was wrong there. I know they lost to Purdue one of those years back when Purdue had Big Dog or whatever he was called.

EDIT: I can't find where they ever played Purdue. Maybe I'm getting Purdue mixed up with Illinois or Michigan.

 

[seniorsooner]

I wouldn't call that the "golden era" of Missouri basketball. Aside from a few short stints under bad coaches (Bond in the 20s, Vanatta in the 60s, Quin in the 2000s), Mizzou's pretty much always been a solid program. Just never been to a final four.

I'll let you guys decide whether one head to head win almost a decade ago makes one program superior, or whether recent success is more important.

Sorry, but there's some revisionist history going on here. To say Missouri has "always" been a solid program is a bit of a stretch. From 1922-1967 Missouri had 4 head coaches. The higest winning percentage any of them achieved was .521. Cumulatively they were 452-469. That's a solid 45 years of pretty mediocre basketball. Am I saying the OU program hasn't gone through dark periods? Absolutely not. But it's not like Missouri has been a model of consistent winning throughout history.

As for your "recent success" statement, let me get this straight so I'll know what you're trying to say: are you saying that Missouri is definitively a better program than OU because of "recent success"?

 

[Sawyer]

Norm was diagnosed with cancer during the '89/90 season, so the year after losing to Syracuse. Daly coached the final 14 games (the entire conference season). Mizzou finished 26-6 with a 12-2 Big 8 record (1st place), but lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament.

That year's team led by Anthony Peeler (so) and Doug Smith (jr), along with several other very talented players (including a freshman Travis Ford). Without the cancer, that team could've gone all the way.

 

[stoops4pres]

Historically pretty much the exact same, aside from an extra win in March in a couple seasons for OU.

Isn't that a pretty important barometer for how programs are defined though? How they do in the tournament?

I'll let you guys decide whether one head to head win almost a decade ago makes one program superior, or whether recent success is more important.

If you're in the now, sure, Missouri is superior.

But I don't think judging a program by a couple seasons' stint is the absolute way to measure a program's superiority.

And it wasn't just "one win" almost a decade ago that I would argue OU has been the better program from that time until now. I might be wrong as I would have to delve further to consider everything, but from a short glance I would say over the past 10 years OU has been the better program (definitely a close call given these past two seasons).

Missouri has been better lately (i.e. the past couple of seasons). OU has been the better program overall. That pretty much sums it up.

 

[OUsky]

But right now I really admire what he's building up there. I like system guys, especially those who can really get the dudes to fit their respective style.

This I can agree with.

However, OU>MU

 

[Sawyer]

Sorry, but there's some revisionist history going on here. To say Missouri has "always" been a solid program is a bit of a stretch. From 1922-1967 Missouri had 4 head coaches. The higest winning percentage any of them achieved was .521. Cumulatively they were 452-469. That's a solid 45 years of pretty mediocre basketball. Am I saying the OU program hasn't gone through dark periods? Absolutely not. But it's not like Missouri has been a model of consistent winning throughout history.

As for your "recent success" statement, let me get this straight so I'll know what you're trying to say: are you saying that Missouri is definitively a better program than OU because of "recent success"?

And over those same 45 years OU also had a losing overall record. What's your point?

I didn't say Missouri was outstanding during those years. I said that outside of a couple of horrendous stretches by a couple of coaches, Missouri was solid. I do consider a .500+ record over 40 years (Stalcup and Edwards) to be solid. Fine if you don't. Just don't try to argue your history is superior, because yours is the exact same.

Convenient of you to cut off the historical references at 1922, though. While anything beyond a couple of decades is entirely irrelevant, in the late teens/early 20s Missouri had one of the best programs in the nation.



As for the recent success stuff, I thought it was pretty clear that I didn't take a stance (other than suggesting that Missouri is better right now, which I think is obvious).

 

[Sawyer]

Isn't that a pretty important barometer for how programs are defined though? How they do in the tournament?

Depends on who you ask. I know it was never Norm's priority. He was for some reason concerned more with winning conference titles than doing well in the NCAA tournament (perhaps because when he was playing and getting his start in coaching the tournament was so different).

If you're in the now, sure, Missouri is superior.

But I don't think judging a program by a couple seasons' stint is the absolute way to measure a program's superiority.

And it wasn't just "one win" almost a decade ago that I would argue OU has been the better program from that time until now. I might be wrong as I would have to delve further to consider everything, but from a short glance I would say over the past 10 years OU has been the better program (definitely a close call given these past two seasons).

Missouri has been better lately (i.e. the past couple of seasons). OU has been the better program overall. That pretty much sums it up.

It all depends on how far back you want to go to define "overall." Over the past 10 years? OU's been better. But that also spans Quin's demise and Anderson's rebuilding years. Nothing Sampson did for you before Capel or Quin did at Mizzou are relevant going forward. It's great for the fans to appreciate their histories, but for coaches, players and recruits, it makes little difference (especially if you're not among the elite, which neither program is).