Did Capel Save His Job?

[Section31]

I'm sorry, did you not read my post? I refer specifically to the part where I said the following:

"we both could see it happening, though neither of us thought it would."

That pretty much establishes the fact that we didn't "truly think" we would go winless, does it not? But if you didn't think it was a possibility, given our non-conference performance, a stretch during which our most impressive win by far was over ORU, and the vast majority of our losses were by double-digits, then you were every bit as delusional as you're accusing us of being.

Clearly, we didn't go winless, but none of us knows how many we'll eventually win in conference. Tech is playing inexplicably badly (unlike us, they're more talented than their record would suggest) and CU is on something of a skid right now (though we played well and I'm proud of the team, we certainly didn't get the Buffaloes' "A" game), so these games were not sure things, by any measure, going in. And one would be hard-pressed to find a sure win among our remaining games. So it was not, entering conference play, that big a stretch to imagine we might be winless at this point in conference play, and looking ahead, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine us going winless the rest of the way.

Thankfully, we did pull off a couple of wins, so it's all moot, but insisting now that it was foolish to ever think we might go winless is, well, taking a stance that is very convenient in its timing.

I think colston said it best...ANYTHING is possible, but I'd think a NORMAL person would probabilities. If you saw how hard this team played during the non-conf, you would be more apt to believe they would win A game. In fact, if you watched the rest of the teams in the league play their non-conf games, you'd have thought they had a chance to win A game.

Look, I'm not saying this team is great, but if you thought they would go winless, then you are a glass-half-empty kind of person. There was more evidence to support that they would win at least one game in conference. Some times we're soooo close to our program that we don't consider the quality (or in this case, lack thereof) of our opponents.

sky, you are a good fan, but I think you tend to lean to the negative. That's not always a bad thing, but I think you've been beaten down and for that, I DO blame Capel. He has not done a ton to appease us fans. You (and some of those in your camp - not the moronic naysayers) appear to have taken the approach that someone is ALWAYS to blame for issues that occur, and while I usually take that approach for my own family (myself, kids, etc), I'm not sure I can apply that to one guy dealing with 15 or so individuals all coming from different backgrounds.

BTW, I don't necessarily blame you for your approach either.

 

[colston15]

Thankfully, we did pull off a couple of wins, so it's all moot, but insisting now that it was foolish to ever think we might go winless is, well, taking a stance that is very convenient in its timing.

I'm insisting now that it was foolish because the idea that we would go winless never crossed my mind until I read it here. And I promise, my reaction to the thought then, was much as it is now--you're nuts--I don't think people truly understood what it would take to go 0-16.

They were operating purely on emotion, or running with another agenda (Fire Capel), because our season got off to an awful start. It was understandable, but not neccesarily reasonable.

 

[luckyc1423]

I'm insisting now that it was foolish because the idea that we would go winless never crossed my mind until I read it here. And I promise, my reaction to the thought then, was much as it is now--you're nuts--I don't think people truly understood what it would take to go 0-16.

They were operating purely on emotion, or running with another agenda (Fire Capel), because our season got off to an awful start. It was understandable, but not neccesarily reasonable.

See, I just dont know what capel has prooven...there were only like 5 or 6 people on here that predicted 0 wins...most predicted anywere from 2-4
And the wins most people said we would have included T-Tech @ home and Colorado @ home

I am still not impressed by capel because he beat two teams most people predicted us to beat at the start of conference play....

If our three pointers arent falling we are still a terrible team, its that simple....we rely to much on the three

 

[colston15]

See, I just dont know what capel has prooven...there were only like 5 or 6 people on here that predicted 0 wins...most predicted anywere from 2-4
And the wins most people said we would have included T-Tech @ home and Colorado @ home

I am still not impressed by capel because he beat two teams most people predicted us to beat at the start of conference play....

If our three pointers arent falling we are still a terrible team, its that simple....we rely to much on the three

Did my post imply that he had proven something? I'll tell you that I think this team has improved and I think he's the reason for it.

But, to really prove something to me I need more than four conference wins. I've set my sights on five, if we win five I'll be 100% behind Capel returning.

As it stands now, i'm 80% in favor of him returning next year. That is to say, I think he should get another year, but I wouldn't go out screaming and yelling if we pulled the plug.

And just for reference, to get to five wins I think we beat OSU, Nebraska and Baylor, all at home of course. Winning at Tech or ISU could replace one of those home wins but they seem less likely.

 

[luckyc1423]

Did my post imply that he had proven something? I'll tell you that I think this team has improved and I think he's the reason for it.

But, to really prove something to me I need more than four conference wins. I've set my sights on five, if we win five I'll be 100% behind Capel returning.

As it stands now, i'm 80% in favor of him returning next year. That is to say, I think he should get another year, but I wouldn't go out screaming and yelling if we pulled the plug.

And just for reference, to get to five wins I think we beat OSU, Nebraska and Baylor, all at home of course. Winning at Tech or ISU could replace one of those home wins but they seem less likely.

I agree....5 wins with the group of talent we have would be a good showing...

I am not sold on capels coaching ability simply because I am not sure what offense we run...I feel we shoot way to many threes

But if we win 5 games capel would obviously be doing something right...I think we have improved because Mr. Blair has improved and also Cam...as those two go I think we go...

 

[Section31]

I agree with these last two posts. Both are very reasonable posts.:clap

 

[schoonerdriver]

Saying something is "possible" doesn't quantify how likely it is.

It's possible we'll win 7 or 8 conference games. See how it works?

We weren't going winless. That whole silly idea was started by some over dramatic Capel haters.

The odds of us winning 7 or 8 conference games was not even close to us going winless in conference.

 

[Section31]

The odds of us winning 7 or 8 conference games was not even close to us going winless in conference.

I believe both scenarios are/were highly unlikely. I'd say the odds are closer than YOU think and that's not to say I think/thought we'd win 7/8 games, but that going winless is pretty far-fetched. I'd say us winning 7/8 games was less likely to happen, but not by much.

 

[schoonerdriver]

Did my post imply that he had proven something? I'll tell you that I think this team has improved and I think he's the reason for it.

But, to really prove something to me I need more than four conference wins. I've set my sights on five, if we win five I'll be 100% behind Capel returning.

As it stands now, i'm 80% in favor of him returning next year. That is to say, I think he should get another year, but I wouldn't go out screaming and yelling if we pulled the plug.

And just for reference, to get to five wins I think we beat OSU, Nebraska and Baylor, all at home of course. Winning at Tech or ISU could replace one of those home wins but they seem less likely.

So if this team doesn't win one more conferance game, the zero win crowd will be closer to being right than the 5 win crowd. Will you still call the zero win crowd foolish?

 

[schoonerdriver]

I believe both scenarios are/were highly unlikely. I'd say the odds are closer than YOU think and that's not to say I think/thought we'd win 7/8 games, but that going winless is pretty far-fetched. I'd say us winning 7/8 games was less likely to happen, but not by much.

So if we lost to Tech, you are saying the odds of us winng 7 or 8 games would be close to us going winless?

 

[Section31]

So if this team doesn't win one more conferance game, the zero win crowd will be closer to being right than the 5 win crowd. Will you still call the zero win crowd foolish?

Maybe not foolish, but still WAAAY unreasonable. Winless was NOT going to happen. Let it go.

 

[Section31]

So if we lost to Tech, you are saying the odds of us winng 7 or 8 games would be close to us going winless?

WE DIDN'T LOSE TO TECH!!!

Obviously, for every loss we MIGHT have incurred, the odds would've swung that way, but it didn't happen and, IMO, it was NEVER going to happen.

You made an unreasonable prediction, it didn't come to fruition...so what. Just admit it was wrong and move on. The only reason it's even an issue is because you keep playing the "what if" game and since they've already won 2 games, it looks foolish.

 

[DenverSooner]

Saying something is "possible" doesn't quantify how likely it is.

It's possible we'll win 7 or 8 conference games. See how it works?

We weren't going winless. That whole silly idea was started by some over dramatic Capel haters.

I disagree. Tech is massively underachieving this season. CU clearly has a better backcourt.

 

[Big Old Booger]

A brief look at history shows us that only one team has gone winless in Big 12 play, the 2004 Texas Aggies.

So, basically, you thought we would be the second worst team--ever-- in the history of the Big 12? Really? I'm sorry, but if you truly thought we would go winless, well, you thought wrong. Waaaay wrong.

That aTm ballclub that went winless had more talent than this OU team. They had 2 NBA players in Antoine Wright and Acie Law IV. Because a team with good talent went winless, it was not far-fetched the 2011 sooners could go winless. I was one of the posters that actually predicted 1 conference win, but I wasn't sure where it would come from. I over-valued Tech because they have much better talent than us (IMO), though.

As I look at it now, I think we have a chance to win in Ames, to beat Nebraska, Baylor, and OSU at home. Realistically, I think we win 1 of those games, but maybe 0 because as somebody pointed out the last 2 games listed are our final games of the season and the team may be so beaten down by that point that we lose both. I think the ISU and Nebraska games we have a lesser chance to win because we always struggle at Ames and Nebraska is very much improved and they play tough defense which gives us fits.

 

[NickZepp]

Not sure why you quoted me and then replied this. I WAS a huge KS supporter. Didn't like his offense, but LOVED, and I mean LOVED the way his teams played D and brought it most every night.

JC's offense isn't even close to KS's offense.

 

[Section31]

JC's offense isn't even close to KS's offense.

Right. JC's offense doesn't ROUTINELY go on 8 minute scoring droughts...

 

[NickZepp]

Right. JC's offense doesn't ROUTINELY go on 8 minute scoring droughts...

Now we only go though 10 minute droughts.

Here's our offense under Jeff C. Pass the ball around the perimeter, try and get to to the post who is double teamed and misses. Or sometimes throw up a 3. That's basically it. Very little guard penetration, almost no screens being set, very little passing to help people get open inside the paint. We don't get any open shot. We shoot shots that are at best 40% makes. Even in the post because we don't have an absolute freak in the post. You basically need someone that can make 50% from 3, or have a freak inside like Blake Griffin for this offense to really work. If you don't have either, your team will look worse than it really is.

 

[coolm]

Here's our offense under Jeff C. Pass the ball around the perimeter, try and get to to the post who is double teamed and misses. Or sometimes throw up a 3. That's basically it. Very little guard penetration, almost no screens being set, very little passing to help people get open inside the paint. We don't get any open shot. We shoot shots that are at best 40% makes. Even in the post because we don't have an absolute freak in the post. You basically need someone that can make 50% from 3, or have a freak inside like Blake Griffin for this offense to really work. If you don't have either, your team will look worse than it really is.

uhm....do you know ANYTHING about basketball?

 

[NickZepp]

I'm just looking at what we do on offense. I don't see how it can work unless you have some freakish talent. It's got very little upside with average or even slightly above average talent.

 

[schoonerdriver]

WE DIDN'T LOSE TO TECH!!!

Obviously, for every loss we MIGHT have incurred, the odds would've swung that way, but it didn't happen and, IMO, it was NEVER going to happen.

You made an unreasonable prediction, it didn't come to fruition...so what. Just admit it was wrong and move on. The only reason it's even an issue is because you keep playing the "what if" game and since they've already won 2 games, it looks foolish.

Let me recap since you seem to have forgotten how this was all started and you will see later that I have made zero predictions. Stop using all caps please.

THIS TEAM has some talent. It's young, but has talent. In fact, I'd venture to say Fitz would take A TON of pressure off BG because of his ability to score in the post. Cam is VERY comparable to WW. Cade is much like Crock. Blair's game would go up a notch with a beast like Griffin on the floor. I don't think you're giving BG (and the other guys I listed) enough credit. They ALL were flat out, studs.

With that assesment, you wouldn't know that just 7 days ago that this team was staring at becoming only the 2nd team to go winless in Big 12 play.

My response creates a point of reference, the Tech game. And notice no prediction here. Just a statement.

I don't think ANY NORMAL PERSON thought they were going winless.

I post some evidence of people speaking of the posiblities of going winless.

I believe both scenarios are/were highly unlikely. I'd say the odds are closer than YOU think and that's not to say I think/thought we'd win 7/8 games, but that going winless is pretty far-fetched. I'd say us winning 7/8 games was less likely to happen, but not by much.

So if we lost to Tech, you are saying the odds of us winng 7 or 8 games would be close to us going winless?

OK, I am now referring back to my reference point and the last time we were winless in conference. But since you think I am playing "what if" games, I will reword it for YOU (please stop using all caps its very annoying and rude). Before the Tech game we were 8-9 overall, 0-3 in conference, losing by an average of 17 points, had not beaten anyone out of conference, lost to Chaminade, and you are trying to rationalize that the odds of us going winless were close to us winning 7 or 8 games?