Anyone listening to the Animal?

[campbest]

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).

As Sawyer said, it's great fan banter, but to the people who have the largest impact on the program's going forward...it really doesn't matter that much outside of a decade or maybe two.

 

[seniorsooner]

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Convenient of you to cut off the historical references at 1922, though.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).

I thought I was pretty clear about my point, that Missouri hasn't won at the level they won at in the 1910-20s and since Stewart arrived for all eternity. Nothing more, nothing less. And again I pointed out that OU has had dark periods as well.

Where in this thread have I argued that OU's history is "superior"? Answer: I haven't. Read carefully, all I have said is that there is no evidence that Missouri is superior to OU.

As for it being "obvious" that Missouri is better "right now", I guess if you want to look at only the past two seasons (including this one) as being "right now" and nothing else, sure. But let's not forget that one needs to only go back to the 07-08 season to find Missouri with a 16-16 record. I'm not sure what looking at a two year period in time really proves, but hey have at it.

 

[colston15]

Lemme get this straight. An old aggie football coach, a washed up baseball player, and a fat guy think Missouri has a better basketball program than Oklahoma, is that right?

Consider the source!

 

[InExile]

I'd define "right now" to be this year. Arguing whether it is 2 or 3 years ago is silly.

 

[qwertyqaz]

Lemme get this straight. An old aggie football coach, a washed up baseball player, and a fat guy think Missouri has a better basketball program than Oklahoma, is that right?

Consider the source!

:ez-roll::ez-roll::ez-roll:

 

[seniorsooner]

I'd define "right now" to be this year. Arguing whether it is 2 or 3 years ago is silly.

I guess I just don't understand what worth "right now" has when determining who has the best program. We have really become a short term memory only society.

 

[stoops4pres]

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).

Well no offense to Norm, but if he truly valued conference titles over NCAA tournament results, than his philosophy was sorely misplaced.

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).

I wasn't talking about foretelling what is going to happen. You along with other posters were bringing up both programs' histories, which was what I was responding towards.

And though it doesn't matter going forward for both programs, for your statements' sake OU has been the better program not only over the past 10 years, but overall as well, no matter the extent one might try to downplay the greater number of Final Fours OU has.

Now if you want to presage what is going to happen in the future, then sure Missouri's future looks brighter. But everyone knows how volatile college basketball is, and how quickly programs can get turned around. So no one knows what is going to happen. Debating about what is going to happen in the future is about as pointless as debating over which program has been better and how relevant that is moving forward.

 

[seniorsooner]

Now if you want to presage what is going to happen in the future, then sure Missouri's future looks brighter. But everyone knows how volatile college basketball is, and how quickly programs can get turned around. So no one knows what is going to happen. Debating about what is going to happen in the future is about as pointless as debating over which program has been better and how relevant that is moving forward.

Excellence in posting. :clap:clap:clap

 

[StoopsBros]

So...this is what we've decided?

OU vs Mizz

Past - OU
Current - Opinionated
Future - We'll never know?

Well then, I guess we're all right.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Now if you want to presage what is going to happen in the future, then sure Missouri's future looks brighter. But everyone knows how volatile college basketball is, and how quickly programs can get turned around. So no one knows what is going to happen. Debating about what is going to happen in the future is about as pointless as debating over which program has been better and how relevant that is moving forward.

I'm not sure Mike Anderson is all that enamored with Mizzou's program because he is rumored to be interviewing for different jobs after every season. Part of me believes he won't be in Columbia for very long, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[StoopsBros]

Norman vs. Columbia...I'd easily take residence in Norman.

 

[campbest]

So...this is what we've decided?

OU vs Mizz

Past - OU
Current - Opinionated
Future - We'll never know?

Well then, I guess we're all right.

Everyone gets a trophy...welcome to 2011!

 

[campbest]

Norman vs. Columbia...I'd easily take residence in Norman.

Bar scene in Columbia is greater than Norman, only has 747 and O'Connells (so, basically just 747).

 

[Big Old Booger]

Bar scene in Columbia is greater than Norman, only has 747 and O'Connells (so, basically just 747).

I love Norman, but Columbia is a very cool town. I'd put it close to the top of Big 12 campus towns/cities.

Austin is clearly #1, but after that it would be any of the 3 of Norman, Lawrence or Columbia.

 

[Edmond_Sooner]

If i'm a top 50 recruit....

I choose Mizzou...

Better Gym...seen a game in there and i really liked the atmosphere...

Cities...Toss up...only thing that might be better is Norman proximity to OKC...

Coaches...Mizzou

Style...Mizzou

Tradition...OU

Chance to play in the Tournament my whole career...Mizzou



So only positive is Tradition...and Tradition doesnt do anything for me as a recruit (unless you are a winner AND have tradition)...i wanna win now and i wanna play big games...OU cant guarantee that to me right now...

only thing OU can guarantee is playing time, sure i could come in and change that culture, but if i am a Top 50 i wouldnt be scared of the competition and earn my immediate playing time at Mizzou and maybe push them over the top...so upside at Mizzou is better than OU

 

[stoops4pres]

I'm not sure Mike Anderson is all that enamored with Mizzou's program because he is rumored to be interviewing for different jobs after every season. Part of me believes he won't be in Columbia for very long, but maybe I'm wrong.

That's interesting, I haven't heard that before. I guess I need to get more in the loop.

 

[campbest]

I love Norman, but Columbia is a very cool town. I'd put it close to the top of Big 12 campus towns/cities.

Austin is clearly #1, but after that it would be any of the 3 of Norman, Lawrence or Columbia.

Love me some Lawrence, Columbia and Boulder.

Austin is in a league of its own, though.

 

[stoops4pres]

only has 747 and O'Connells (so, basically just 747).

This.

 

[HoHum]

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).

This can't possibly be true. How is your 'priority' not to win the championship when you're at a major college?

Sounds like to me that might just have been his excuse for whatever reasons Mizzou didn't do well in the tournament during his tenure.

 

[campbest]

only thing OU can guarantee is playing time, sure i could come in and change that culture, but if i am a Top 50 i wouldnt be scared of the competition and earn my immediate playing time at Mizzou and maybe push them over the top...so upside at Mizzou is better than OU

If I'm top 50, I'm thinking about going League, so give me the big games to showcase.

Ask stoops4pres, think he was like #73 or something coming out of HS.