As a fan, what is the most important outcome for you?

[thebigabd]

So, which is better? To be one of the bell cows in a weaker league or middle of the pack (or worse) in a tougher league?

I'm not big on participation trophies. I want to win.

We should ask TU fans if they like achieving nothing in The American or if they liked being a player in the Missouri Valley and the WAC. Being a TU fan, I know how that will be answered.

 

[BoulderSooner]

So, which is better? To be one of the bell cows in a weaker league or middle of the pack (or worse) in a tougher league?

I'm not big on participation trophies. I want to win.

making the dance every year

 

[WichitaSooner]

Here is a radical concept. Perhaps those of us who point out the obvious and significant difference in the strength of the conference that Kelvin coached in and the one Lon coaches in aren't saying that we are satisfied with the conference record the last three seasons. Maybe we are just pointing out how facile and disingenuous it is to compare the two stats without acknowledging that it is not an apples to apples comparisons. There are mediocre NFL QBs in the current game who throw for more yardage and touchdowns than Hall of Famers threw for in the first several decades of the league. Does that mean the current guys are all better, or is it simply a reflection that things have changed? I want us to go 40-0 and win the national championship every year, so I'm not satisfied when we finish in sixth or seventh place. But I'm also not going to be silly enough to think you can compare winning percentage in a league that featured four or five horrid schools every year to the current landscape.

 

[coolm]

why are some of you so dead set against being happy? if you expect perfection then pick something to entertain yourself with besides sports. or at least pick the absolute top of the top programs to root for only. because human beings aren't perfect, they make mistakes, they often underperform yet we still need to care about them and feel happy ourselves. quit setting up these impossible standards - you can't make those so why expect them of others? if you're trying to punish someone then punish yourself and let the rest of us be happy with what we see.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Here is a radical concept. Perhaps those of us who point out the obvious and significant difference in the strength of the conference that Kelvin coached in and the one Lon coaches in aren't saying that we are satisfied with the conference record the last three seasons. Maybe we are just pointing out how facile and disingenuous it is to compare the two stats without acknowledging that it is not an apples to apples comparisons. There are mediocre NFL QBs in the current game who throw for more yardage and touchdowns than Hall of Famers threw for in the first several decades of the league. Does that mean the current guys are all better, or is it simply a reflection that things have changed? I want us to go 40-0 and win the national championship every year, so I'm not satisfied when we finish in sixth or seventh place. But I'm also not going to be silly enough to think you can compare winning percentage in a league that featured four or five horrid schools every year to the current landscape.

well said

 

[WaymanFan]

Overall Winning %:
Kelvin: 72%
Post-Kelvin: 60%
Kruger: 61%

Big 12 Winning %:
Kelvin: 68%
Post-Kelvin: 49%
Kruger: 50%

Kruger's numbers so far more closely resemble Capel's than Sampson's.

My post CLEARLY STATED NCAA Tournament success. It hasn't budged one iota since Kelvin Sampson left. We all know the overall record is better...nice to have, but would be far more impressed if the NCAA tournament wins accompanied the regular season success.

 

[WTSooner]

My post CLEARLY STATED NCAA Tournament success. It hasn't budged one iota since Kelvin Sampson left. We all know the overall record is better...nice to have, but would be far more impressed if the NCAA tournament wins accompanied the regular season success.

I care more about the regular season than the post season, unless we're talking championships. The postseason is a bit of a crap shoot for all non-elite teams. OU is a non-elite team most years. I'd rather evaluate our program on a 30 game regular season schedule year after year than a game or two in the Dance.

 

[thebigabd]

I care more about the regular season than the post season, unless we're talking championships. The postseason is a bit of a crap shoot for all non-elite teams. OU is a non-elite team most years. I'd rather evaluate our program on a 30 game regular season schedule year after year than a game or two in the Dance.

OU has some weird games in the NCAA Tournament as well...

Lost by 30 to Louisville in 2008
Lost by 45 to Villanova in 2016
Lost to North Dakota State in 2014
Lost to Rhode Island in 2018
Lost to Indiana State in 2001
Lost to Milwaukee in 2006

Of course, there has been great success... but OU has been upset a fair number of times, and I think that 45 point loss to Nova was record for margin of defeat.

 

[WTSooner]

Here is a radical concept. Perhaps those of us who point out the obvious and significant difference in the strength of the conference that Kelvin coached in and the one Lon coaches in aren't saying that we are satisfied with the conference record the last three seasons. Maybe we are just pointing out how facile and disingenuous it is to compare the two stats without acknowledging that it is not an apples to apples comparisons. There are mediocre NFL QBs in the current game who throw for more yardage and touchdowns than Hall of Famers threw for in the first several decades of the league. Does that mean the current guys are all better, or is it simply a reflection that things have changed? I want us to go 40-0 and win the national championship every year, so I'm not satisfied when we finish in sixth or seventh place. But I'm also not going to be silly enough to think you can compare winning percentage in a league that featured four or five horrid schools every year to the current landscape.

The fallacy in your example is that we aren't talking stats, we're talking game results. What you are saying is that the rest of the Big 12 got better, and OU didn't. IF that is true, and I'm not willing to say it is on any scale that would have a significant impact on OU's expected record, isn't that a problem? Isn't it a problem that our league in general, NINE other teams all got better, and OU didn't? That's a huge problem, IF true.

Not sure where the SOS argument is coming from either. OU routinely played top teams in the Kelvin era. Maryland. UCONN. Michigan State. Some good Arkansas teams. Cincy in the years they were good. Duke once. Villanova. Several years we played 2-3 games against teams on this list.

 

[thebigabd]

The fallacy in your example is that we aren't talking stats, we're talking game results. What you are saying is that the rest of the Big 12 got better, and OU didn't. IF that is true, and I'm not willing to say it is on any scale that would have a significant impact on OU's expected record, isn't that a problem? Isn't it a problem that our league in general, NINE other teams all got better, and OU didn't? That's a huge problem, IF true.

Not sure where the SOS argument is coming from either. OU routinely played top teams in the Kelvin era. Maryland. UCONN. Michigan State. Some good Arkansas teams. Cincy in the years they were good. Duke once. Villanova. Several years we played 2-3 games against teams on this list.

You are destroying this argument... In some weird attempt to defend Kruger, they are all but admitting that everyone else got better but OU didn't, and any reference to "the good old days" that people make is null and void because OU was never really that good, they just played in a crappy league.

 

[opsooner]

Would like to be consistently in top 2-5 of conf regular season. I’d trade a few places for a win at KU. Sweet 16s every 3 or so years would be good.

I like where we are headed now. My biggest disappointment right now is not in the team but in fan support.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WichitaSooner]

The fallacy in your example is that we aren't talking stats, we're talking game results. What you are saying is that the rest of the Big 12 got better, and OU didn't. IF that is true, and I'm not willing to say it is on any scale that would have a significant impact on OU's expected record, isn't that a problem? Isn't it a problem that our league in general, NINE other teams all got better, and OU didn't? That's a huge problem, IF true.

Not sure where the SOS argument is coming from either. OU routinely played top teams in the Kelvin era. Maryland. UCONN. Michigan State. Some good Arkansas teams. Cincy in the years they were good. Duke once. Villanova. Several years we played 2-3 games against teams on this list.

It's very easy to find strength of schedule metrics dating back many years. You can rely on anecdotes by pointing to a couple games per year against good teams, but I'll just look at the stats that calculate SOS based on every game.

The conference itself changed. Some awful programs left. A couple good teams joined. Some teams did get better. And we certainly got better, too, for Lon's first few years. Again, you act like we have been at the bottom of the league for his entire tenure. That's simply not true. And you continue to ignore the point I have conceded dozens of times...no, I'm not happy with how we've done in the league. I don't know how many more times I have to say it for it to sink in. All I'm saying is that simply comparing records (game results, to use your lingo) is way too simple a way to do this. I have no doubt that if Lon coached when Kelvin did, his record would be better than it is, and that if Kelvin coached now, his record would be worse. How much better and worse, respectively, is anyone's guess. But the gap between the two would be much smaller than the numbers you cite, and it baffles me that there are a couple of you that refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[WaymanFan]

I care more about the regular season than the post season, unless we're talking championships. The postseason is a bit of a crap shoot for all non-elite teams. OU is a non-elite team most years. I'd rather evaluate our program on a 30 game regular season schedule year after year than a game or two in the Dance.

Fair enough. You just need to understand that not everyone thinks that way. And because some don’t, they don’t see a huge difference between OU when Kelvin was the coach and the post-Kelvin era. For me, it’s a combination of the regular season and the postseason. Of course I’d rather go 20-12 and lose in Round One of the Dance than go 14-18. String a few of those along and u have a difference in the success of the eras. However, the fact that our NCAA victory count is identical would indicate the overall success rate isn’t so one-sided.

As for competition, the Big XII was very strong during most of the Kelvin Sampson era. The only noticeable difference is we no longer have coaches like Melvin Watkins who stick around for several years as a perennial doormat.

 

[Eielson]

The NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot -- ask Tony Bennett. It's tough to deny that Kelvin had an NCAA curse, but the idea that we haven't taken a step back as a program since KS left is so ludicrous it doesn't even warrant acknowledgment. And yes, I realize this is an acknowledgement, and I'm ashamed.