ESPN rumors.....

[skyvue]

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).

Thanks for the correction -- that's what I get for relying on my feeble memory.

 

[campbest]

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?

Teams in the 80's are very comparable today, so many advances in the way people train and take care of their bodies had already been implemented by then. There are players over the course of time who could compete in today's game, but as my Dad always says, the breadth of talent is leaps and bounds above when he played D-I in the 70's. That's where the team aspect comes in. You may have a stud, but the overall team is going to be better. However, when you start to go back into the 30's or 40's that is a much weaker stance.

 

[campbest]

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.

My man.

 

[61sooner]

Of course the players are more athletic than in the late 30s or early 40s and the game was not integrated either.
But you have to give those early OU teams their due that they played and excelled against the best of those times.
I'm sure it wouldn't have been fun to play against Bob Kurland, George Mikan and other stars of that era. They were as dominating then as Jerry Lucas, Lew Alcindor(in his UCLA days), Bill Walton, The Big O, etc were in their college primes.
Why knock guys because they played in a different time span.
Imagine playing guard against John Wooden at Indiana in the 30s or Bob Cousey at Holy Cross in the later 40s. Some of today's hotdogs would grilled by guys like that.

 

[campbest]

Of course the players are more athletic than in the late 30s or early 40s and the game was integrated either.
But you have to give those early OU teams their due that they played and excelled against the best of those times.
I'm sure it wouldn't have bben fun to play against Bob Kurland, George Mikan and other stars of that era. They were as dominating then as Jerry Lucas, Lew Alcindor(in his UCLA days), Bill Walton, The Big O, etc were in their college primes.
Why knock guys because they played in a different time span.
Imagine playing guard against John Wooden at Indiana in the 30s or Bob Cousey at Holy Cross in the later 40s. Some of today's hotdogs would grilled by guys like that.

No one is doubting them, they earned their keep. In comparison, if you're going to pit the two teams together on the hardwood, you think an OU team from the 40's is going to beat the 2009 version with Blake Griffin? No way.

 

[61sooner]

Don't really argue with your premise(above reply).
Makes this board relevant when we get into these discussions.

 

[skyvue]

But the dividing lines are arbitrary. Teams from the '80s could play against teams from this decade, but not teams from the '70s? Says you, but who really knows?

I've seen footage of old basketball games -- it was a very different game in the first half of the 20th century, no doubt about it. But that's just it -- it was a different game, played a different way. There's no telling what some of those guys might do if time travel were possible and they were given a month or a year or two to get up to speed. All a player can do is be good in his era. And being dismissive of those who excelled more than three decades ago is lame, I'm sorry. Jesse Owens doesn't hold any speed records any more, not by a long shot, but anyone who thinks he wasn't all that in his day is a fool.

 

[Ham]

Let's please not compare Capel to Blake.

Remember how Blake behaved on the way out. Capel, as far as I'm aware or concerned, was pretty much a class act in departure.

Also, 2009 is certainly in the argument for top 5 all time.

 

[NickZepp]

The only Blake comparison is that Capel was the worst OU coach since the 60s just like Blake was the worst OU coach since the 60s in football. That's where teh comparison's stop. Blake was good at some things like recruiting. Capel really didn't recruit that well at least not on paper. Blake didn't know the first thing about really managing a program. While Capel had issues here with an assistant in particular. He had issues with the system he wanted put in. It never looked like a system of any kind. This could have been because of his recruiting being bad. In the previous 30 years you pretty much knew what our two coaches were trying to do. Capel never developed that.

 

[NickZepp]

I'm not sure if I put the 09 team in the top 5. I think you take out one player that team isn't near as good. Where in 02/03 you take out Hollis those teams still kick some ass. Same with anyone from the late 80s teams. Now you can argue that taking out Wayman hurts the early 80s teams but they were really good by his final year. I have to agree with sky. Probably not a top 5 for that 09 team. Definitely top 10 though. Not an insult toward that team. We've had a lot of great teams over the last couple decades. I think if you put the top 10 OU teams of all time 84-90 and then 00-03 would basically take up the list. 09 would be somewhere in there.

 

[campbest]

But the dividing lines are arbitrary. Teams from the '80s could play against teams from this decade, but not teams from the '70s? Says you, but who really knows?

I've seen footage of old basketball games -- it was a very different game in the first half of the 20th century, no doubt about it. But that's just it -- it was a different game, played a different way. There's no telling what some of those guys might do if time travel were possible and they were given a month or a year or two to get up to speed. All a player can do is be good in his era. And being dismissive of those who excelled more than three decades ago is lame, I'm sorry. Jesse Owens doesn't hold any speed records any more, not by a long shot, but anyone who thinks he wasn't all that in his day is a fool.

Agree the dividing lines are arbitrary, evolution of the game and modern athlete didn't happen at a set date...and I never said a team from the 70's couldn't comepete, the liklihood is less because the amount of talent on a team is not as great as it is now. The overall depth is a huge issue.

Secondly, as you said the game is different...however any direction you go in time travel favors the current generation. Basketball today is a much more physical game than it was in the early half of the century, cutters are bumped, there is more contact off the ball, etc. Could you imagine the athletes today playing in an environment where there is almost no physical contact, which was the case in the earlier generations? They would have a field day. On the other hand, there is no way a team from the 30s, 40s, 50s, could match the physicality of today, the athletes are just too superior at almost every position.

 

[TEvans4Three]

Not sure how 2009 team cannot be in the top 5? 30 win season with Blake, guy was a beast.

No, not the best "team play" like in 2003 with HP and QW (one of my favorite squads of all time at OU). I am not sure how you can discount 2009 from a top 5? I think some may be arguing just to argue.

You can't count 30s or 40s because we were not there. If you were, please shed some light. But competition in those day was WAY less than nowadays. Considering the lack of black players being allowed to play at major programs and integration not starting in post-season tournaments til the late 40s. Not sure how you count those.

'85, '88, '89, '02, '03, '09 ('90, '00 on the cusp)

So is it fair to say Top 6? Not sure it makes that much of a difference.

 

[campbest]

No, not the best "team play" like in 2003 with HP and QW (one of my favorite squads of all time at OU). I am not sure how you can discount 2009 from a top 5? I think some may be arguing just to argue.

It's because Capel was the coach, only reason it's an issue.

 

[skyvue]

It's because Capel was the coach, only reason it's an issue.

No, it isn't -- not in my case, at least. I can't speak for anyone else.

Nor can you, but that's doesn't seem to be stopping you from trying.

 

[skyvue]

Regarding the 30-win season -- the 2009 team played 31 games prior to Big 12 and NCAA tourney action. The 1990 and 2003 teams each played 27. Think those four extra games might have made a difference in reaching the hallowed total of 30 wins? I do.

Winning percentage is arguably a better way to judge a team's success than number of wins, given that preseason tourneys like the Great Alaska Shootout, the Maui Classic, and the Preseason NIT can pad a good team's win total.

Since 1981, the 2009 team is tied for sixth in winning percentage on the season.

All-time, the 2009 squad is in a three-way tie for 13th place in winning percentage.

 

[campbest]

Regarding the 30-win season -- the 2009 team played 31 games prior to Big 12 and NCAA tourney action. The 1990 and 2003 teams each played 27. Think those four extra games might have made a difference in reaching the hallowed total of 30 wins? I do.

Winning percentage is arguably a better way to judge a team's success than number of wins, given that preseason tourneys like the Great Alaska Shootout, the Maui Classic, and the Preseason NIT can pad a good team's win total.

Since 1981, the 2009 team is tied for sixth in winning percentage on the season.

All-time, the 2009 squad is in a three-way tie for 13th place in winning percentage.

Those tournaments don't "pad" stats (term generally used for fluff or easy wins). OU won the Preseason NIT in 2009...beating Davidson (with Stephen Curry), UAB (finished 25-9, bubble team) and Purdue (Sweet Sixteen).

Those are hardly easy games.

Something further to think about...what was the schedule like for those teams in history? Today, it's not uncommon to play an elite team across the country in the middle of the week. Back then, you're playing regional-state schools, not nearly the same competition.

 

[WTSooner]

Regarding the 30-win season -- the 2009 team played 31 games prior to Big 12 and NCAA tourney action. The 1990 and 2003 teams each played 27. Think those four extra games might have made a difference in reaching the hallowed total of 30 wins? I do.

Winning percentage is arguably a better way to judge a team's success than number of wins, given that preseason tourneys like the Great Alaska Shootout, the Maui Classic, and the Preseason NIT can pad a good team's win total.

Since 1981, the 2009 team is tied for sixth in winning percentage on the season.

All-time, the 2009 squad is in a three-way tie for 13th place in winning percentage.

Agree 100%. :clap

 

[skyvue]

Those tournaments don't "pad" stats (term generally used for fluff or easy wins).

Now who's arguing for the sake of arguing? There's nothing in my post that suggests the idea of getting easy wins -- I was speaking purely of mathematics. The greatest team in the history of college basketball couldn't win 30 games if it played only 29.

When we're comparing very strong teams, which is what we're doing, I think winning percentage is a better comparison point than total number of wins. If one talented team plays 27 regular season games and the other talented team plays 31, the latter team has a better shot of reaching the 30-win mark. Period.

 

[campbest]

Now who's arguing for the sake of arguing? There's nothing in my post that suggests the idea of getting easy wins -- I was speaking purely of mathematics. The greatest team in the history of college basketball couldn't win 30 games if it played only 29.

When we're comparing very strong teams, which is what we're doing, I think winning percentage is a better comparison point than total number of wins. If one talented team plays 27 regular season games and the other talented team plays 31, the latter team has a better shot of reaching the 30-win mark. Period.

30 wins has never been my main sticking point, it's a cool figure, but not a selling point. Winning percentage sounds cool, but if it is so great, why don't we just use it to determine seeding in the NCAA tournament? Murray St is 30-1, they should get a #1 seed, right? Well, because schedules are not created equal. It's why teams like Gonzaga play a gauntlet of a non-conference and Iona doesn't play a home game for over a month (12 games), yet still make the tournament.

The parody in CBB is so much greater than it was for earlier generations, mainly due to the amount of players with high skill levels.

 

[Big Old Booger]

It's because Capel was the coach, only reason it's an issue.

No, not from my side.

My reasons are the 2009 team never won a championship. No big 12 conference regular season, no tournament championship, no national championship. They were also never ranked #1 and they weren't a #1 seed in the conference tourney or the NCAA tourney. After Blake, most of the other starters wouldn't have sniffed the starting lineup for better OU teams (79, 88, 89, 90, 02, 03 and maybe 85; in no particular order) in my lifetime.