ESPN rumors.....

[WTSooner]

I just don't think they were a top 5 team if we're talking about what OU teams would beat what OU teams. Accomplishment-wise? They are probably top 3-6. Who I think would win on the court? I just think I can find 5 OU teams that would beat them. Just my personal opinion.

 

[Big Old Booger]

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.

Agreed.

And, the 2009 team didn't win the conference or the conference tourney. A number of other teams won at least one and sometimes both (85 and 88).

 

[WaymanFan]

Again, it's all subjective as to the five best OU teams of all-time, or modern times. There were two reasons I put the 2009 team ahead of 2003 and 1985 teams. 1) The NIT tourney to start the season - it was the only time OU has won that since its inception in the mid-80s. 2) Their DOMINATION during the first three rounds of the NCAA Tournament. The game against Syracuse was one of their best-ever performances in March from start-to-finish (factoring the competition).

I can appreciate those who won't put it in their top 5 because they didn't win the conference title or tourney. I just prefer giving more weight to the NCAA Tournament. In 1985, OU struggled throughout the tournament. They actually played their best game against the team they lost to (Memphis), though that year will always be remembered for Wayman's shot to beat Louisiana Tech in OT. I'm a bit biased against the 2003 squad because I saw three of the games in person and we lost two of them (Alabama, Butler and Syracuse). We had about an easy a road to the Elite Eight that year as a team could possibly have.

 

[Krugerfan52]

This is impossible. Jeff Capel already has achieved great success as a head coach. Built VCU into an NCAA tournament team then came to Oklahoma and put together a 30 win elite 8 team, one of the 5 best teams in OU history. There is only one similarity to John Blake and sadly a good portion of the hatred directed to him is on that ignorant account.

This

 

[SilliSooner]

The insistence that Jeff Capel wasn't a good recruiter is bogus. Part of the Blake recruitment was based on Taylor's insistence that Capel was a good coach with a worthy staff who improved the games of Tony Crocker, Longar Longar and Austin Johnson. You don't get that kind of recommendation unless you're a good coach, and in Taylor's opinion, he was.

As far as recruiting, the 2009 success can be credited to Willie Warren as much as anyone, which was Capel's recruit.

In comparing teams, you need to factor in schedules, and Capel's teams played tough schedules. The 2008 overtime win at West Virginia may be one of the better road wins in recent history. And give some of the credit to Capel because Blake fouled out and still the team hung tough with Longar Longar and Moose playing exceptional games.

And no matter what is said, everyone on this board applauded the recruitment of TMG and Tiny. That put Capel at 4 McD AA's in 3 years. As far as I remember, I don't think OU ever pulled in that many McDs in such a short span.

That's why I'm a little worried about Capel taking the SMU job. If it happens, he may end up grabbing one or two players from the DFW area who might have otherwise been a Sooner. Between T A&M, Baylor and B12 newcomer TCU the DFW area is already pretty competitive. Add a tough recruiter at SMU and recruiting becomes a grind job.

 

[Big Old Booger]

The insistence that Jeff Capel wasn't a good recruiter is bogus. Part of the Blake recruitment was based on Taylor's insistence that Capel was a good coach with a worthy staff who improved the games of Tony Crocker, Longar Longar and Austin Johnson. You don't get that kind of recommendation unless you're a good coach, and in Taylor's opinion, he was.

As far as recruiting, the 2009 success can be credited to Willie Warren as much as anyone, which was Capel's recruit.

In comparing teams, you need to factor in schedules, and Capel's teams played tough schedules. The 2008 overtime win at West Virginia may be one of the better road wins in recent history. And give some of the credit to Capel because Blake fouled out and still the team hung tough with Longar Longar and Moose playing exceptional games.

And no matter what is said, everyone on this board applauded the recruitment of TMG and Tiny. That put Capel at 4 McD AA's in 3 years. As far as I remember, I don't think OU ever pulled in that many McDs in such a short span.

That's why I'm a little worried about Capel taking the SMU job. If it happens, he may end up grabbing one or two players from the DFW area who might have otherwise been a Sooner. Between T A&M, Baylor and B12 newcomer TCU the DFW area is already pretty competitive. Add a tough recruiter at SMU and recruiting becomes a grind job.

A poster on here who was connected to the AAU scene (campbest?) said Capel and the better AAU programs in DFW didn't get along. If this is true, he won't hurt us much if he is hired by SMU.

If nothing else, he will recruit the Nick Thompsons and Ahmed's so we won't waste a scholarship on them.

 

[WTSooner]

You don't get that kind of recommendation unless you're a good coach, and in Taylor's opinion, he was.

John Blake had players that swore by him as well. Here is some advice, if you want opinions on a coach, don't ask the current players. While they may "know" more about the man, they also have personal biases that go both directions.

 

[skyvue]

And no matter what is said, everyone on this board applauded the recruitment of TMG and Tiny.

Expecting fans to be aware of potential and/or actual character issues associated with recruits is asking a bit much. Most fans know what they're told about recruits and little, if anything, more.

But one might fairly expect a coach to be clued in about the character of the young men he recruits. And, as we've learned the hard way, character is every bit as important as talent.

 

[campbest]

A poster on here who was connected to the AAU scene (campbest?) said Capel and the better AAU programs in DFW didn't get along. If this is true, he won't hurt us much if he is hired by SMU.

If nothing else, he will recruit the Nick Thompsons and Ahmed's so we won't waste a scholarship on them.

Wish I was connected like that, but wasn't me. Do remember reading something about that on here.

 

[SilliSooner]

Wish I was connected like that, but wasn't me. Do remember reading something about that on here.

Maybe it was the poster DFW. I'd think we'd be in stronger in DFW than we are, due to Jeff Webster coaching in the area. Every time a great Webster coached kid comes along, whether it's Isaiah Austin or Julius Randel or the Mickey kid or whomever, I always think we should have a decent shot.

 

[Ham]

It's all about what the players want. And they want two things.
Playing time and 'face time'. And if you can supply that and SELL that, it doesn't matter if you are Jeff Capel or Lon Kruger or whomever.

Right now Kruger is having a hard time on both counts.
A top heavy roster with 8 of 9 rotation players returning.
And 8 players returning, some of whom are marginal 'BCS-level' talent.
And both issues relate back to Capel. He wasn't has bad as the haters say, but there is a lot of revisionist history going the other way as well.

 

[152219]

The Capel/Blake comparisons are beyond dumb

 

[Northbase]

Fixed that for you.

That squad was one of just five OU squads to reach 30 wins, but was it better than the 2003 squad that went 27-7 and lost in the Elite Eight in Syracuse's backyard?

No.

Was it better than the 1990 team that went 27-5, won the Big 8 and lost to UNC by two points in the second round? I don't think so.

Were they better than the 1984 squad that went 29-5 and had Wayman Tisdale, Choo Kennedy, and Tim McAllister, among others? Not for my money.

I'm not trying to talk down the 2009 team, but they're weren't Top 5 among Sooner teams, in my opinion.

Agree

 

[DenverSooner]

Reading you guys argue about this makes me think age has a lot to do with people perception. I suspect that those that are arguing Blake's team is absolutely, without a doubt one of the top 5 best are too young to have seen Wayman Tisdale's team or the 1990.

At the time of Blake's sophomore year, I never thought of that team as one of the top 5 all time. Looking back, I think you can make an argument for it to be one of the top 5 all time teams but I think it is debatable either way.

With that said, most on this board (and we may have been on OUinsider back then) expected Syracuse to beat OU. People were calling Crocker a bad player OU had lost four of its last 6 games going into the tournament.

 

[campbest]

Reading you guys argue about this makes me think age has a lot to do with people perception. I suspect that those that are arguing Blake's team is absolutely, without a doubt one of the top 5 best are too young to have seen Wayman Tisdale's team or the 1990.

From 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.

 

[WaymanFan]

I'm glad I have an ally in this debate, Campbest. You are correct in that one doesn't have to be "young" to have the 2009 squad in their top 5 of all time. However, it just comes down to some fans putting more stock into the regular season and some (like me) putting more emphasis in the month of March.

Skyvue mentioned the 1984 team being better than the 2009 team. That's a good apples-to-apples comparison since they were both #2 seeds and had to play a #10 seed in Round Two. To me, the 2009 team got the job done in winning that game, and the next. We also got some revenge on Syracuse that year. For those like me who were at that 2003 Elite Eight game, it was an especially gratifying win.

However, 1984 was one of my favorite regular season teams of all time because: 1) I was at the game we beat Syracuse to get into the top 20 (and stay there for the next few years), 2) We went 13-1 in conference play while starting three freshmen (albeit a much weaker conference back then), and 3) We celebrated winning the regular season title in Lawrence, KS. As a bonus, we had a nice win over a very good UNLV team that year.

As a result, I can really see both arguments, as I'm sure skyvue can as well. It just comes down to where one places their emphasis. There really is no right or wrong.

 

[Big Old Booger]

I'm glad I have an ally in this debate, Campbest. You are correct in that one doesn't have to be "young" to have the 2009 squad in their top 5 of all time. However, it just comes down to some fans putting more stock into the regular season and some (like me) putting more emphasis in the month of March.

Skyvue mentioned the 1984 team being better than the 2009 team. That's a good apples-to-apples comparison since they were both #2 seeds and had to play a #10 seed in Round Two. To me, the 2009 team got the job done in winning that game, and the next. We also got some revenge on Syracuse that year. For those like me who were at that 2003 Elite Eight game, it was an especially gratifying win.

However, 1984 was one of my favorite regular season teams of all time because: 1) I was at the game we beat Syracuse to get into the top 20 (and stay there for the next few years), 2) We went 13-1 in conference play while starting three freshmen (albeit a much weaker conference back then), and 3) We celebrated winning the regular season title in Lawrence, KS. As a bonus, we had a nice win over a very good UNLV team that year.

As a result, I can really see both arguments, as I'm sure skyvue can as well. It just comes down to where one places their emphasis. There really is no right or wrong.

That 84 team was riding high until the Big 12 conference tournament final loss to KU. After that, they played Dayton in the 2nd round (after a 1st round by; tourney had 48 teams then) and looked really bad.

 

[skyvue]

I can really see both arguments, as I'm sure skyvue can as well. It just comes down to where one places their emphasis. There really is no right or wrong.

Oh, I can definitely see both arguments, but undeniably, I am a regular season guy. I think a team is more fairly judged by what it does over the course of four months than over a couple of weekends (and sometimes just one).

March Madness is great, but it's called that for a reason. Lesser teams prevail all the time. In that sense, it's kind of like the bowl season in college football -- the Twilight Zone. You just never know what's going to happen (see: Mizzou in this year's first round), and I refuse to let an off game in the tourney negate an otherwise terrific season (not do I tend to allow an exciting postseason run outweigh a pedestrian regular season -- I just see it as a lucky hot streak).

The 2009 squad's tourney success felt a bit like a fluke to me; in any case, the Syracuse game did. I wasn't counting them out, by any means -- I try never to do that with any Sooner team -- but I was worried about that game. And we won it in uncharacteristic fashion, with Tony Crocker getting absolutely can't-miss red-hot. I was thrilled it happened that way, of course, but there was a certain amount of luck involved in that win, I have to admit. If Crocker had been consistently that good all season, that'd be one thing, but he wasn't. We caught lightning in a bottle, and lightning definitely did not strike twice in the next game.

Not that we didn't have a terrific regular season that year -- we obviously did. 26-5 definitely ain't hay. But I don't think the talent we had surrounding BG justifies a Top 5 all-time ranking. As I posted before, our 2009 comprised many of the same guys so many posters have insisted amounted to a "bare cupboard" in 2007 when Capel arrived in Norman. I didn't buy that argument, but neither can I award them Top 5 status. Somewhere at the high end of the broad area in between seems right.

 

[stoops4pres]

Oh, I can definitely see both arguments, but undeniably, I am a regular season guy. I think a team is more fairly judged by what it does over the course of four months than over a couple of weekends (and sometimes just one).

March Madness is great, but it's called that for a reason. Lesser teams prevail all the time. In that sense, it's kind of like the bowl season in college football -- the Twilight Zone. You just never know what's going to happen (see: Mizzou in this year's first round), and I refuse to let an off game in the tourney negate an otherwise terrific season (not do I tend to allow an exciting postseason run outweigh a pedestrian regular season -- I just see it as a lucky hot streak).

The 2009 squad's tourney success felt a bit like a fluke to me; in any case, the Syracuse game did. I wasn't counting them out, by any means -- I try never to do that with any Sooner team -- but I was worried about that game. And we won it in uncharacteristic fashion, with Tony Crocker getting absolutely can't-miss red-hot. I was thrilled it happened that way, of course, but there was a certain amount of luck involved in that win, I have to admit. If Crocker had been consistently that good all season, that'd be one thing, but he wasn't. We caught lightning in a bottle, and lightning definitely did not strike twice in the next game.

Not that we didn't have a terrific regular season that year -- we obviously did. 26-5 definitely ain't hay. But I don't think the talent we had surrounding BG justifies a Top 5 all-time ranking. As I posted before, our 2009 comprised many of the same guys so many posters have insisted amounted to a "bare cupboard" in 2007 when Capel arrived in Norman. I didn't buy that argument, but neither can I award them Top 5 status. Somewhere at the high end of the broad area in between seems right.

Good post. I agree with a lot you are saying, except the bold... Look at the 2002 team, for example. That team, from a talent standpoint, wasn't one of the Top 5 teams OU has ever had (none of the players even got drafted). But all things considered (performances, accolades, etc) I don't think there's any debate that they were, at worst, a Top 5 team in OU history.

I definitely think the '09 team should be in it. While there was some luck involved when they played over their heads vs. Syracuse, I think at the same time they experienced some misfortunes as well. As others have noted in this thread, Kansas and Texas were lucky enough to not have to face Blake during that two-game stretch he missed, and OU had a very unfortunate draw getting paired in the same region as UNC (which displayed one of the most dominating performances in March Madness history). It's all conjecture, but I would've loved OU's chances making the Final 4 in any other region. Regardless, going to the Elite 8 and winning over 30 games are a couple of facts that make the 2009 team worthy of a Top 5 spot, IMO.

 

[stoops4pres]

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.

Very true.