ESPN rumors.....

[seniorsooner]

He is talking them down.

However anyone wants to spin it, they were a 30 win team that played without their best player for 3/4 at UT (loss) and at home against KU (loss) only to lose by the smallest margin to the eventual national champion of anyone in the tournament.

Blake healthy for those two games in the regular season, OU is a #1 seed in the dance.

And that cost us a final four appearance that year. If Blake's injury and that run of 3 losses doesn't happen (all we had to do is to win 1 of those 3 games), we are a #1 seed and not in the same bracket as UNC. I am confident that we would've advanced to the final 4 and given a favorable draw perhaps even the championship game.

 

[campbest]

I don't see how anyone can compare scores and use that to assume they were the 2nd or 3rd best team that year? If I remember right, UNC called off the dogs when they were way ahead and we scored some points late to cut the lead. We were out of it by halftime, that is for sure.

We know the 2009 team wasn't better than the 1988 or 2002 team. Personally, I think the 1990 team was probably better than the 2002 team but got a bad draw in the tourney and lost earlier than they should have.

Regardless, the 2009 team was very good but they had the best player on the planet on that team and he is the only OU player to win the Wooden award (to my knowledge). Wayman didn't win one, neither did Stacey, Mookie, Hollis Price, etc. I would say Blake had way more to do with the success of that team than anyone else, because he was that good.

1.) BG wasn't (and still isn't) the best player on the planet.
2.) Boca's statement was that 2009 was a top 5 OU team of all time, name three better.

 

[Sid]

Honestly, Boca's right. The comparisons between Capel and Blake are stupid.

I can't recall. Did you give Lon an A on his final exam?

When JB got fired the football program was in chaos. When JC got fired the basketball program was in chaos. John Blake did not have a system in place and neither did JC. Can you define JC's system for me? BG is not a system. With BG on the team, J.D. Barnett could have taken the Sooners to the Elite Eight. Under J.D., the Sooners would have played better defense. Just because Trent Dilfer led the Ravens to a SB does not mean he was a good QB. LOL


:capelspin

 

[WTSooner]

And that cost us a final four appearance that year. If Blake's injury and that run of 3 losses doesn't happen (all we had to do is to win 1 of those 3 games), we are a #1 seed and not in the same bracket as UNC. I am confident that we would've advanced to the final 4 and given a favorable draw perhaps even the championship game.

Injuries are part of the game. If that 2002 team isn't banged up (Q and Hollis), we win our first NC that year.

 

[WTSooner]

2.) Boca's statement was that 2009 was a top 5 OU team of all time, name three better.

'88 and '02 for sure. I'd probably take the 2003 team over them, if healthy.

'89 and '90 teams, I like both of them. Heck, even the 2000 and 2001 teams would have been close.

I'm not just judging this on wins and losses. If that is what you want to go by, then there probably weren't 5 better teams. But looking back at OU teams with solid records, that I think could have, and would have beaten that team, several off of the list above.

 

[Big Old Booger]

1.) BG wasn't (and still isn't) the best player on the planet.
2.) Boca's statement was that 2009 was a top 5 OU team of all time, name three better.

BG is pretty dang good and that year he was the best player in CB. Even better than any Jayhawker and I know that pains you.

Well, the school has 4 final 4 teams (1939, 1942, 1988, 2003) and at least 3 elite 8 teams (1985, 2003, 2009). At best it's the 5th best team of all time (after the 4 final 4 teams). Can you definitively tell me it was better than the 1985 or 2003 team? Remember the 2003 team also lost to the eventual NC and the 1985 team was very close to beating MSU. Of the 3 games to advance to the final 4, the 1985 was the only one that was close.

 

[campbest]

BG is pretty dang good and that year he was the best player in CB. Even better than any Jayhawker and I know that pains you.

You said best player on the planet, not college basketball. BG isn't close to being the best player on the planet, given he is still a liability on the defensive end (much as he was in college, I know the foul trouble argument, but he could have dominated that side of the floor if he wanted).

Well, the school has 4 final 4 teams (1939, 1942, 1988, 2003) and at least 3 elite 8 teams (1985, 2003, 2009). At best it's the 5th best team of all time (after the 4 final 4 teams). Can you definitively tell me it was better than the 1985 or 2003 team? Remember the 2003 team also lost to the eventual NC and the 1985 team was very close to beating MSU. Of the 3 games to advance to the final 4, the 1985 was the only one that was close.

Uh, I will take the 2009 team over anything in 1939 and 1942...not even a discussion. Men were fighting for their country then, not playing bball, not to mention the level of competition is leaps and bounds greater today. So 2009 is anywhere between 3rd and 5th.

 

[skyvue]

Uh, I will take the 2009 team over anything in 1939 and 1942...not even a discussion. Men were fighting for their country then, not playing bbalL

Men were fighting for their countries in 1939, yes, but not American men. You're off by two years.

 

[Big Old Booger]

You said best player on the planet, not college basketball. BG isn't close to being the best player on the planet, given he is still a liability on the defensive end (much as he was in college, I know the foul trouble argument, but he could have dominated that side of the floor if he wanted).



Uh, I will take the 2009 team over anything in 1939 and 1942...not even a discussion. Men were fighting for their country then, not playing bball, not to mention the level of competition is leaps and bounds greater today. So 2009 is anywhere between 3rd and 5th.

Well, I'm not willing to place an elite 8 team over any final 4 team, sorry. Neither you nor I were alive back then so we can't say without a doubt a team from our generation was better than one from that one.

The 1942 team had 2 players on the roster who were first team All-Americans (Gerald Tucker and Allie Paine). That's one more than the 2009 team.

The 1939 team had one All-American, Jimmy McNatt, who was a very good basketball player my dad tells me.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I don't see how anyone can compare scores and use that to assume they were the 2nd or 3rd best team that year? If I remember right, UNC called off the dogs when they were way ahead and we scored some points late to cut the lead. We were out of it by halftime, that is for sure.

They didn't call off the dogs...it might have been over by half time though

 

[campbest]

Well, I'm not willing to place an elite 8 team over any final 4 team, sorry. Neither you nor I were alive back then so we can't say without a doubt a team from our generation was better than one from that one.

The 1942 team had 2 players on the roster who were first team All-Americans (Gerald Tucker and Allie Paine). That's one more than the 2009 team.

If you want to believe that in 1942 basketball players were superior to the athletes now, go right ahead.

 

[campbest]

Men were fighting for their countries in 1939, yes, but not American men. You're off by two years.

+1 for skyvue, point still remains on the level of competition between 1939 and 2009.

 

[Big Old Booger]

If you want to believe that in 1942 basketball players were superior to the athletes now, go right ahead.

I'm more of a results person than a statistics or potential person.

Richard Dumas had tons of potential, probably more than some players who have long NBA careers but he never realized his potential.

Give me results any day.

 

[campbest]

I'm more of a results person than a statistics or potential person.

Richard Dumas had tons of potential, probably more than some players who have long NBA careers but he never realized his potential.

Give me results any day.

This has nothing to do with potential.

 

[skyvue]

If you want to believe that in 1942 basketball players were superior to the athletes now, go right ahead.

I don't disagree, but that's a slippery slope. Plenty of young-ish fans (I have no idea how old you are) would be tempted to say roughly the same thing about Tisdale and Tubbs' 1980s teams. They have no idea how good those teams were, and why should they?

And who knows, maybe basketball players are much better today than they were 25 or 30 years ago. I'm not inclined to think so, but the argument could be made.

All a team can do is compete in its era. The 1939 squad went to the championship game of the NCAA tourney. Only one other OU squad has done that. Are you going to begrudge them receiving due credit for that?

 

[Mr.B!!!]

And who knows, maybe basketball players are much better today than they were 25 or 30 years ago. I'm not inclined to think so, but the argument could be made.

I'm agreeing with you, but I don't think that basketball players are that much better today than they were 20 or even 30 years ago. Going to take some slack for this, but basketball and soccer are two sports that technology has almost no influence over in the course of that time.

Training advancements have helped, but Dr. J was doing the same dunk from the free-throw line 30 years ago that guys emulate today. Pistol Pete was still doing crazy stuff [without the three-point line] and Wilt Chamberlain was still 7'1" and could move like he was 6'1" when he wasn't busy sleeping with every woman on the planet.

Is there any player in the league right now dunking like Jordan was in his prime athletically? No. Any 6'9" dudes running the point or playing Center if need be like Magic did? No. Is Blake dropping down dunks that much better than Wilkins in his prime? Debatable [but I'm a homer].

I do think that the end of an NBA or college bench is better today than thirty years ago, but the best then would compete with the best now, I have no doubt about it.

 

[bocabull]

I appreciate that people have opposing opinions regarding coach Capel, but John Blake was a total disaster.

The debate over Capel is who gets credit for what success was achieved during his tenure. With Blake, there was no credit to debate.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

I appreciate that people have opposing opinions regarding coach Capel, but John Blake was a total disaster.

The debate over Capel is who gets credit for what success was achieved during his tenure. With Blake, there was no credit to debate.

I think you mean success.

 

[DenverSooner]

I am surprised Capel is already getting consideration. Personally, I think he needs a couple of years with Coach K and then should get another chance. Regardless, I suspect Capel will be a head coach again and he will probably be a much better head coach based on his experience at OU.

 

[WaymanFan]

As for the best all-time OU teams, it's obviously all subjective. The only certainty is the '88 team was the best of all time. I've been following OU hoops since the mid 1970s, so my top 5 are: 1) 1988, 2) 2002, 3) 2009, 4) 1985, 5) 2003. If you were to ask me the five best "coaching jobs" from that same era, then my #3 - #5 get replaced by 3) 1990, 4) 1995, 5) 2000. We didn't go far in the Dance those three years, but those three, along with the 1984 team, had regular seasons that were far more successful than any reasonable person could foresee.

Just for clarification, OU was in the first Final Four in 1939, but did not play for the title. They played for the title, though in 1947 (not 1942).

Finally, these Jeff Capel to John Blake comparisons really need to stop. Since there is clearly nothing to compare, it just makes those appear bitter and angry. Also, forget even making a comparison if Blake Griffin never stepped foot on OU's campus. Coach Capel had a winning record his first year with the school, something Blake never achieved in three years. Please, stop with all this nonsense.