Football question

[WichitaSooner]

Really? Why do you say that?
Have you listened to it in context?

He didn't say "I think we ARE the better team." That's how any reasonably intelligent person would phrase it if his point was, hey, I think we are better than Ole Miss but not on that day. Saying we WERE the better team sure seems to suggest what he meant. But also, his comment is stupid as hell either way. Like I said, our team has accomplished almost nothing of note, certainly not against our peers in the conference. Ole Miss beat us last year, and beat us on our home field this year. So just shut up, take the L like a man, and don't say you think we are the better team.

 

[daqman]

any thoughts to if we can win at Tennessee? Or any of the remaining games?

If i'm being optimistic I think we can win 3 out of the next 4.
If i'm being pessimistic/realistic we could very well lose all of our remaining games.
Most likely we will win 1, maybe 2 of the last 4 games. Would that be enough to warrant BV's termination? Since our AD is retiring I bet BV has at least 1 more year remaining in Norman, if the season doesn't end well.

if we lose to mizzo/lsu at home....bv should be fired

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I watched BV's statement about "being the best team", and I didn't take he meant what most of you and Lane are assuming to be true. I took his statement to mean he was saying he thought they (OU) was the better team -- going into the game, but it is a game of performance and we got out performed. In other words, he worded what he meant poorly. I think he was just saying that BEFORE OR GOING INTO THE GAME he thought that he had a better team than Lane, and that the game showed otherwise.

Who really knows though, and only BV could clarify what he meant to say. Wichita, if he meant what you guys seem to think he was saying, i.e. the better team didn't win, then I agree with you, he was clearly wrong. This being said, on a neutral and dry field, if the teams play 10 times I think OU wins 6 or more. Just an unprovable opinion. I was at the game and believe that if Mateer just plays average, and not horrible (my opinion and judgment) I think OU wins. Arbuckle had schemed guys running wide open all day and John never found them save and except for the Satenga touchdown. There was also the completely phantom roughing call, a silly line up offsides by RMT, and the fumble by Isaiah. But mostly, I just don't believe that Chambliss could make some of the insane throws he made (under extreme pressure) into tiny window on a regular basis. Normally, the team with the best quarterback wins, not necessarily the best team. OU was the beneficiary of that under Riley and we have suffered under that truth under Venables.

I think BV would be the first person to say that we weren't the better team on Saturday.
It is why context matters. Saying the better team didn't win is something I don't think BV would ever say

 

[SoonerBounce13]

He didn't say "I think we ARE the better team." That's how any reasonably intelligent person would phrase it if his point was, hey, I think we are better than Ole Miss but not on that day. Saying we WERE the better team sure seems to suggest what he meant.

LOL wow. You can't really believe half the crap you say can you? This is ass backwards to any reasonable person

Once again you are showing your inability to take your sensitive feelings towards a coach out of a discussion

 

[daqman]

I think BV would be the first person to say that we weren't the better team on Saturday.
It is why context matters. Saying the better team didn't win is something I don't think BV would ever say

because he would be admitting that he can't coach the better team to a win over a worse team?

 

[WichitaSooner]

I watched BV's statement about "being the best team", and I didn't take he meant what most of you and Lane are assuming to be true. I took his statement to mean he was saying he thought they (OU) was the better team -- going into the game, but it is a game of performance and we got out performed. In other words, he worded what he meant poorly. I think he was just saying that BEFORE OR GOING INTO THE GAME he thought that he had a better team than Lane, and that the game showed otherwise.

Who really knows though, and only BV could clarify what he meant to say. Wichita, if he meant what you guys seem to think he was saying, i.e. the better team didn't win, then I agree with you, he was clearly wrong. This being said, on a neutral and dry field, if the teams play 10 times I think OU wins 6 or more. Just an unprovable opinion. I was at the game and believe that if Mateer just plays average, and not horrible (my opinion and judgment) I think OU wins. Arbuckle had schemed guys running wide open all day and John never found them save and except for the Satenga touchdown. There was also the completely phantom roughing call, a silly line up offsides by RMT, and the fumble by Isaiah. But mostly, I just don't believe that Chambliss could make some of the insane throws he made (under extreme pressure) into tiny window on a regular basis. Normally, the team with the best quarterback wins, not necessarily the best team. OU was the beneficiary of that under Riley and we have suffered under that truth under Venables.

The reason I disagree is because all of the mistakes you mention are things we do on a regular basis. The precise details vary, but we always find a way to commit stupid penalties, turn it over at a crucial time, have one guy miss an assignment and get burned deep, etc. So if we play them 10 times on a neutral field, I think we would be very fortunate to win five times.

And I think Chambliss, like most QBs in the SEC, is better than Mateer. He balled out for three quarters at Georgia and has been really good all season. That speaks to me about how our roster stacks up to others. He was a tiny college transfer brought in late in the process to be a backup. Their starter gets hurt, and he steps in and they don't miss a beat. In fact, he has made them better. Our starter gets hurt, and our backup (who had SEC starting experience) looked awful against Kent State.

 

[hoopsaustin]

if we lose to mizzo/lsu at home....bv should be fired

Mizzou with a backup QB too.....

 

[WichitaSooner]

Mizzou with a backup QB too.....

Mizzou with a backup QB and LSU with an interim coach. Lose either of those, plus both road game, and he clearly SHOULD be gone. Unfortunately, short of torching the stadium, he will likely luck into another year.

Someone the other day was talking about how it would be silly to spend the money on a buyout, and how tough it would be to find a coach in this year's market. Then I saw a quote from the LSU AD when asked about the massive buyout. His answer was a rare example of someone telling the truth in college sports instead of crying poor -- he said, you can always find the money.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Mizzou with a backup QB and LSU with an interim coach. Lose either of those, plus both road game, and he clearly SHOULD be gone. Unfortunately, short of torching the stadium, he will likely luck into another year.

Someone the other day was talking about how it would be silly to spend the money on a buyout, and how tough it would be to find a coach in this year's market. Then I saw a quote from the LSU AD when asked about the massive buyout. His answer was a rare example of someone telling the truth in college sports instead of crying poor -- he said, you can always find the money.

Find the money to buy better players, not another coach.

 

[WichitaSooner]

Find the money to buy better players, not another coach.

Nope, that's a false dichotomy. These universities can do both, which several of them have proven. Do you think LSU and Penn State and Florida, etc., are going to have a bunch of scrubs on their rosters next season because they had to pay a buyout? A&M paid the biggest buyout ever, hired a good coach, and is better than they have ever been.

Also, we spent money on players already. Got Brent two of the bigger offensive names in last year's portal. How's that working out?

Even if it were an either/or, I'd rather spend the money to bring in a good coach even if it meant missing on some big-money transfers for a year or two. Players come and go every year. Bad coaches are what set back programs longer term. Why did we dominate Texas for 20+ years? Because under Stoops and Riley, we always had the coaching edge on whichever guy was at the helm for them, no matter how many blue chip recruits they had. Then, they finally hit on a coach in Sark, and we missed on our hire, and look how quickly things have changed. Bad coaches rarely succeed no matter how much talent the roster has.

 

[notaburner]

Nope, that's a false dichotomy. These universities can do both, which several of them have proven. Do you think LSU and Penn State and Florida, etc., are going to have a bunch of scrubs on their rosters next season because they had to pay a buyout? A&M paid the biggest buyout ever, hired a good coach, and is better than they have ever been.

Also, we spent money on players already. Got Brent two of the bigger offensive names in last year's portal. How's that working out?

Even if it were an either/or, I'd rather spend the money to bring in a good coach even if it meant missing on some big-money transfers for a year or two. Players come and go every year. Bad coaches are what set back programs longer term. Why did we dominate Texas for 20+ years? Because under Stoops and Riley, we always had the coaching edge on whichever guy was at the helm for them, no matter how many blue chip recruits they had. Then, they finally hit on a coach in Sark, and we missed on our hire, and look how quickly things have changed. Bad coaches rarely succeed no matter how much talent the roster has.

I actually agree with most of your sentiment here. A&M has next level money and had a ton of talent on that roster that made the transition easier for Elko. Credit to Elko for turning that into wins. Florida will be a good stalking horse because I feel they have similar money pool as Oklahoma. And Florida has a worst administration as it stands right now. Only reason Stricklin isn't fired is because Todd Golden is a good coach and has avoided his allegations (for now).

I do think Penn State will be average or bad next year (7-5 or worse), that was going to happen if Franklin was there or not. Part of that reason they fired him this year, they were going to take a step back regardless of who is the coach.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Nope, that's a false dichotomy. These universities can do both, which several of them have proven. Do you think LSU and Penn State and Florida, etc., are going to have a bunch of scrubs on their rosters next season because they had to pay a buyout?

I never said you can only buy scrubs if you buyout a coach.

 

[daqman]

i said above bv needs to be fired if he loses to mizzou/lsu. i fully expect he will also lose to tenn/bama.
but i only say that because my money won't be paying his buyout.
if i actually had a say in things.....i would fire bv....and joe c....and i would hit bob up to pay part of bv's buyout since i believe bob was instrumental in bv's hiring
i could be wrong on that last point.
hopefully the next ad doesn't seek bob's advice when he hires a football coach.

 

[allday92]

i said above bv needs to be fired if he loses to mizzou/lsu. i fully expect he will also lose to tenn/bama.
but i only say that because my money won't be paying his buyout.
if i actually had a say in things.....i would fire bv....and joe c....and i would hit bob up to pay part of bv's buyout since i believe bob was instrumental in bv's hiring
i could be wrong on that last point.
hopefully the next ad doesn't seek bob's advice when he hires a football coach.

I hope the BV era succeeds. 8-4 will likely get him another year, but I agree. If it doesn't work out, they need to look far away from the Bob Stoops coaching tree, and the Mike Leach Air-Raid tree on the offensive side.

 

[hoopsaustin]

Mizzou with a backup QB and LSU with an interim coach. Lose either of those, plus both road game, and he clearly SHOULD be gone. Unfortunately, short of torching the stadium, he will likely luck into another year.

Someone the other day was talking about how it would be silly to spend the money on a buyout, and how tough it would be to find a coach in this year's market. Then I saw a quote from the LSU AD when asked about the massive buyout. His answer was a rare example of someone telling the truth in college sports instead of crying poor -- he said, you can always find the money.

That was me. I just disagree. We dont have endless money and we're not massive school.

Its like an addiction now, cue that Chappelle meme "do you have more or those.. BLANKS?". I've heard some of our donors are getting tired of this new system already.. imagine you give significant money to OU and then immediately, sometimes even in the same season, you get hit up again for more, as if you didn't just stroke them a check (plus we got terrible early returns bc Arnold sucked and BV's terrible offensive hires)... it used to be you donate to build a facility you get to enjoy that for some time, but thats over.

I've heard we haven't been attempting to even target some untapped donors that we should be talking to but hopefully that all is changing.

 

[hoopsaustin]

I hope the BV era succeeds. 8-4 will likely get him another year, but I agree. If it doesn't work out, they need to look far away from the Bob Stoops coaching tree, and the Mike Leach Air-Raid tree on the offensive side.

6-7 even gets BV another year likely imo..

 

[hoopsaustin]

Nope, that's a false dichotomy. These universities can do both, which several of them have proven. Do you think LSU and Penn State and Florida, etc., are going to have a bunch of scrubs on their rosters next season because they had to pay a buyout? A&M paid the biggest buyout ever, hired a good coach, and is better than they have ever been.

Also, we spent money on players already. Got Brent two of the bigger offensive names in last year's portal. How's that working out?

Even if it were an either/or, I'd rather spend the money to bring in a good coach even if it meant missing on some big-money transfers for a year or two. Players come and go every year. Bad coaches are what set back programs longer term. Why did we dominate Texas for 20+ years? Because under Stoops and Riley, we always had the coaching edge on whichever guy was at the helm for them, no matter how many blue chip recruits they had. Then, they finally hit on a coach in Sark, and we missed on our hire, and look how quickly things have changed. Bad coaches rarely succeed no matter how much talent the roster has.

We simply aren't A&M.... not even close.

If you could convince me that we could get cignetti id say go for it. But we wont land a top candidate like that anymore. Its not a given anymore.

 

[WichitaSooner]

We simply aren't A&M.... not even close.

If you could convince me that we could get cignetti id say go for it. But we wont land a top candidate like that anymore. Its not a given anymore.

We aren't A&M, but we aren't poor. Heck, one of the main reasons we moved to the SEC, in addition to thinking our football program belonged in the best league, was because of the money that would come with the move. We don't have unlimited money, of course, but moving on from a failed hire needs to be the biggest priority in deciding how to spend it. I would much rather spend money on getting the right coach than on a couple players who will be here for a year or two, may or may not pan out (see: Ott and Mateer), and then move on.

As far as who to hire, this is where you need to hope your AD/committee are smart enough to identify the right man for the job. I've read a lot about the Tulane coach this week and he intrigues me. Elko wasn't exactly a guy with experience as a head coach at blueblood football programs. Our two most recent coaches before Brent were young coaches without head coaching experience. There isn't one formula for hiring a successful coach, which is part of the reason it is so tough to get it right. But there are definitely guys out there. And with money being such a huge part of what attracts recruits these days, I think it is more important than ever to find an excellent Xs and Os coach. Recruiting still matters to a degree, obviously. And maybe there are a handful of players who care about the SOUL mission (makes me laugh just typing it), but players want to get paid, win, and go to the next level. Brent isn't winning, in large part because he isn't a good game coach and makes bad personnel decisions. He hasn't been putting guys in the NFL since he became a head coach. I don't care if the next coach "wins the press conference." Give me someone who can give us a tactical edge on Saturdays, who will pay attention to all three phases of the game, and who will put together a good staff from day one.

 

[daqman]

We simply aren't A&M.... not even close.

If you could convince me that we could get cignetti id say go for it. But we wont land a top candidate like that anymore. Its not a given anymore.

cignetti is an old guy who iu was dumb enough to pay over $90mil. bad plan/model imo.

 

[snydrosooner]

That was me. I just disagree. We dont have endless money and we're not massive school.

Its like an addiction now, cue that Chappelle meme "do you have more or those.. BLANKS?". I've heard some of our donors are getting tired of this new system already.. imagine you give significant money to OU and then immediately, sometimes even in the same season, you get hit up again for more, as if you didn't just stroke them a check (plus we got terrible early returns bc Arnold sucked and BV's terrible offensive hires)... it used to be you donate to build a facility you get to enjoy that for some time, but thats over.

I've heard we haven't been attempting to even target some untapped donors that we should be talking to but hopefully that all is changing.

I think BV will be around next year. With so many high profile jobs open, it will turn into a bidding war for coaches. OU will most likely not end up with tier one or tier 2 coach. Next year would have a better shot at an established coach.