I said this after the Creighton game ...

[stormspencer]

I'm right there with you, pnkranger. It's frustrating.

There are juniors on this team who continue to make some very low "Basketball IQ" plays offensively over and over.

And now we've got Spangler's newfound love for the jumper, and that's great that he makes some, but it also takes away his offensive rebounding prowess that is much needed when the other guys are chucking as many 3's as they do. I dunno what to think.

Like someone said about we've still got 2/3 of this season left to play, but the Big 12 is tougher top to bottom than it was last year. I find myself lowering expectations and just hoping to win one game rather than hoping for a Sweet 16 run.

Hope I'm wrong. I'd love to eat crow. I'm probably overreacting. Flame me up. LOL.

As the great Bill Parcels once said...."you are what you are". And what OU is right now is a good team (according to the metrics). We are right around a 6-7 seed right now. We will have plenty of opportunities to improve that, but we will also have the opportunity to play ourselves onto the bubble if things happen to go south.

I expect this team to continue to improve (with Lon's track record) but as several have mentioned on this thread, we have to become more consistent and stop playing awful for long stretches. There are a lot of aspects that go into this, but namely playing smart would be the best place to start.

 

[bocabull]

After watching this team up close & personal last night my suspicions were validated. We're just not that talented. Our guards are simply average. Thomas is nice but undersized and not that athletic. To be honest Spangler competes the best and is more athletic that people give him credit for. Lattin is nowhere near ready to play against legit completion. Walker is just ok.

I expected to be more impressed by Buddy. He's not an NBA caliber guard. There were quite a few NBA scouts sitting in the rows behind us and likely nobody on the floor last night will ever make an NBA roster.

 

[garyeb2]

After watching this team up close & personal last night my suspicions were validated. We're just not that talented. Our guards are simply average. Thomas is nice but undersized and not that athletic. To be honest Spangler competes the best and is more athletic that people give him credit for. Lattin is nowhere near ready to play against legit completion. Walker is just ok.

I expected to be more impressed by Buddy. He's not an NBA caliber guard. There were quite a few NBA scouts sitting in the rows behind us and likely nobody on the floor last night will ever make an NBA roster.

Are guards aren't just average. There are 347 Div1 teams. Any of our guards would start for well over 300 of them. They are well above average guards. You are mostly right about Thomas. Like most 6'8" guys his flaws are magnified when going up against mobile seven footers.

Lattin is close to being ready for top flight competition. But, not quite yet. I don't think Buddy will make an NBA roster either. He is a pretty darned good college player though. The big from Washington will make an NBA roster. He was who the 30+ scouts were there to see.

 

[bocabull]

Sure Gary they're not average for all the 347 teams. I'm ignoring 300 of them and focusing on the 40-50 legit programs. So we basically agree they are average for those programs.

Which Washington big are you referring to? I don't think any of the. Are NBA material. People underestimate what a freak stud it takes to play in the NBA.

 

[garyeb2]

Sure Gary they're not average for all the 347 teams. I'm ignoring 300 of them and focusing on the 40-50 legit programs. So we basically agree they are average for those programs.

Which Washington big are you referring to? I don't think any of the. Are NBA material. People underestimate what a freak stud it takes to play in the NBA.

The seven footer. No we are not agreeing our guards are average.

 

[KCRuf/Nek]

We're a better team this year than we were last year. Still, we're not going to challenge a Kentucky but I think we will continue to get better every game.

Very few teams will.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

...but as a program, we just cannot get over the hump yet. The transformation under Kruger is astounding, but every time we have a chance to make a statement that OU is back -- a top 15 type program that can compete in March, we fall just short.



This year we've had three opportunities: big early season game at Creighton, title game against Wisconsin, and again against top 15 Washington. We lose all three ... Now our resume is back to 7-8 seed range with wins over a 3 loss Butler team and a UCLA team that just got ruined by Kentucky. Add in a bad loss at Creighton, and we went from great opportunity to blah middle of the road resume.



I am NOT a negative nancy, and those who have been around long enough will back me up on that ... but I just want for us so bad to announce that we're back. In four seasons, we have lost every big game, with no post season victories and no regular season big wins to crow about.

Seems like you are ignoring our neutral court wins vs ucla and butler

Kind of the sentiment stoops gets too. Only big games when you lose them

 

[skyvue]

Only big games when you lose them

Ain't that the truth.

 

[stormspencer]

Seems like you are ignoring our neutral court wins vs ucla and butler

Kind of the sentiment stoops gets too. Only big games when you lose them

Butler was a nice win, but UCLA stinks...they are actually on the outside (bubble) looking in at the moment. But for the sake of argument, I will give you UCLA as a good win. We are still 2-3 in "big" games thus far....and in all but one of those games, I think it is fair to say that we were the "better team/equal to" and should have won. So, the OP has a point when he identifies this non-conference season as somewhat disappointing up to this point in time.

I think it is absolutely fair to be critical of this team's performances in "big games".....any other reasoning begins to encroach upon enabling and excuse-making.

 

[campbest]

Guess I'm confused...did everyone expect us to beat all comers except Wisconsin? Because if that's the case, the team isn't the problem, it's everyone's expectations.

Lot of good basketball left, a Big XII title is a very real possibility.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Butler was a nice win, but UCLA stinks...they are actually on the outside (bubble) looking in at the moment. But for the sake of argument, I will give you UCLA as a good win. We are still 2-3 in "big" games thus far....and in all but one of those games, I think it is fair to say that we were the "better team/equal to" and should have won. So, the OP has a point when he identifies this non-conference season as somewhat disappointing up to this point in time.

I think it is absolutely fair to be critical of this team's performances in "big games".....any other reasoning begins to encroach upon enabling and excuse-making.

So in order for it to be a big game, the opponent has to be good too i suppose?

So why are we couting Creighton as a big game loss?

IMO UCLA is a huge game. Butler is a huge game. Sure, the teams not be who they were in the past but they are still big name opponents.

 

[stormspencer]

Guess I'm confused...did everyone expect us to beat all comers except Wisconsin? Because if that's the case, the team isn't the problem, it's everyone's expectations.

Lot of good basketball left, a Big XII title is a very real possibility.

You bring up expectations, but your two statements seem contradictory. Our expectations were too high to expect an 11-1 non-conference record, yet the Big 12 title is a real possibility?...huh? I guess I'm confused because if we can only go 2-3 against Creighton, UCLA, Butler, Wisconsin, and Washington.....then how are we going to fare against a more difficult sleight of games in the Big 12. You can't have it both ways. We either underachieved during the non-con and we still have a legitimate shot at the Big 12 or our expectations were too high during the non-con and thus....the Big 12 is NOT a real possibility. Just trying to get some clarification.

 

[stormspencer]

So in order for it to be a big game, the opponent has to be good too i suppose?

So why are we couting Creighton as a big game loss?

IMO UCLA is a huge game. Butler is a huge game. Sure, the teams not be who they were in the past but they are still big name opponents.

Umm...yes. That is pretty much the textbook definition of a big game (when the other opponent is good). I think you could make the argument that certain games at various points in the season are big games as well (e.g postseason ramifications, seeding, winning record in conference etc.)

As for your Creighton question....would you consider them good? I think they are ok, but if not, then that even speaks further to my point.....and we have absolutely no business losing to them....no matter where the game is played.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Umm...yes. That is pretty much the textbook definition of a big game (when the other opponent is good). I think you could make the argument that certain games at various points in the season are big games as well (e.g postseason ramifications, seeding, winning record in conference etc.)



As for your Creighton question....would you consider them good? I think they are ok, but if not, then that even speaks further to my point.....and we have absolutely no business losing to them....no matter where the game is played.

It actually goes against your point but whatever

 

[campbest]

You bring up expectations, but your two statements seem contradictory. Our expectations were too high to expect an 11-1 non-conference record, yet the Big 12 title is a real possibility?...huh? I guess I'm confused because if we can only go 2-3 against Creighton, UCLA, Butler, Wisconsin, and Washington.....then how are we going to fare against a more difficult sleight of games in the Big 12. You can't have it both ways. We either underachieved during the non-con and we still have a legitimate shot at the Big 12 or our expectations were too high during the non-con and thus....the Big 12 is NOT a real possibility. Just trying to get some clarification.

No problem.

This isn't a year where someone runs through 16-2 and wins the title. Very plausible this year's champion finishes with five losses due to the depth, as much of the conference beats each other up. OU is one of fives teams which can win a title and the formula for conference success never changes...hold court at home and steal some games on the road. If that happens, worst case OU is 13-5 which is a lock for a top 3 finish, at worst 1-2 games out of first. We've looked pretty solid at home, lost an early game on the road (which they should have won) while putting in some new pieces (i.e. Thomas). So, yes, a conference title is definitely in play.

Bottom line is some people are clamoring over a pair of two point losses, one of which is at a neutral site, another was a true road game. Please. We are a top 20 team this year (which is good enough to win this conference)...was anyone really expecting more than that? If so, how? Because someone on a message board told you Buddy was going to the NBA or Thomas averaged a 16 and 8 for a below .500 American team? OU doesn't have the top tier talent to just run through their schedule, the Buddy to the NBA talk was ludicrous back in Aug/Sept/Oct and we are all seeing it now. There are going to be off nights...and guess what? Other teams play well too and game plan accordingly. Given the state of the program (i.e. talent) it is reasonable to expect some up and downs, off nights, etc.

That doesn't mean a conference title is out of the question.

 

[garyeb2]

No problem.

This isn't a year where someone runs through 16-2 and wins the title. Very plausible this year's champion finishes with five losses due to the depth, as much of the conference beats each other up. OU is one of fives teams which can win a title and the formula for conference success never changes...hold court at home and steal some games on the road. If that happens, worst case OU is 13-5 which is a lock for a top 3 finish, at worst 1-2 games out of first. We've looked pretty solid at home, lost an early game on the road (which they should have won) while putting in some new pieces (i.e. Thomas). So, yes, a conference title is definitely in play.

Bottom line is some people are clamoring over a pair of two point losses, one of which is at a neutral site, another was a true road game. Please. We are a top 20 team this year (which is good enough to win this conference)...was anyone really expecting more than that? If so, how? Because someone on a message board told you Buddy was going to the NBA or Thomas averaged a 16 and 8 for a below .500 American team? OU doesn't have the top tier talent to just run through their schedule, the Buddy to the NBA talk was ludicrous back in Aug/Sept/Oct and we are all seeing it now. There are going to be off nights...and guess what? Other teams play well too and game plan accordingly. Given the state of the program (i.e. talent) it is reasonable to expect some up and downs, off nights, etc.

That doesn't mean a conference title is out of the question.

Ah, a voice of reason.

 

[usedtobe1]

..... was anyone really expecting more than that? If so, how? ..... Thomas averaged 16 and 8 for a below .500 American team?

U of Houston was actually above .500 overall last year, but was only 9-11 in the American Athletic conference (including post-season) ...... which was maybe as tough a conference as the Big 12..... certainly their top 5 was. Their members included the NCAA champion Uconn team and #5 Louisville. SMU (#5 in conference) was the NIT runner-up. Their top 4 teams averaged 29 wins and 8 losses on the season and fared better than the Big 12 did in the post-season.

Thomas averaged 16 and 8 against quality competition, but was only 14 and 7 in conference games which made him the 15th leading scorer and 5th leading rebounder in conference games only. Those are very respectable numbers.

 

[opsooner]

Like always it will come down to close wins or losses (especially on the road) on whether we are able to challenge for a conference title. We'll have to figure out a way to get better execution down the stretch and it is difficult without a strong inside-out offense but that's not anyone's fault. We still have the talent to do it but we have to erase the silly mistakes because we don't have wiggle room for them.

 

[stormspencer]

No problem.

This isn't a year where someone runs through 16-2 and wins the title. Very plausible this year's champion finishes with five losses due to the depth, as much of the conference beats each other up. OU is one of fives teams which can win a title and the formula for conference success never changes...hold court at home and steal some games on the road. If that happens, worst case OU is 13-5 which is a lock for a top 3 finish, at worst 1-2 games out of first. We've looked pretty solid at home, lost an early game on the road (which they should have won) while putting in some new pieces (i.e. Thomas). So, yes, a conference title is definitely in play.

Bottom line is some people are clamoring over a pair of two point losses, one of which is at a neutral site, another was a true road game. Please. We are a top 20 team this year (which is good enough to win this conference)...was anyone really expecting more than that? If so, how? Because someone on a message board told you Buddy was going to the NBA or Thomas averaged a 16 and 8 for a below .500 American team? OU doesn't have the top tier talent to just run through their schedule, the Buddy to the NBA talk was ludicrous back in Aug/Sept/Oct and we are all seeing it now. There are going to be off nights...and guess what? Other teams play well too and game plan accordingly. Given the state of the program (i.e. talent) it is reasonable to expect some up and downs, off nights, etc.

That doesn't mean a conference title is out of the question.

Fair enough...you bring up some reasonable points. Having said that, I was still disappointed to lose a couple of games to teams that our fans feel we are better than. I would have been ok with a 10-2 non-conference record. And I think it's perfectly acceptable for a fan to be disappointed that we are going to end up no better than 9-3 in OOC. It's not the end of the world, but it could be the difference between a 3/4 seed or a 5/6 depending upon how we perform in conference....and yes I'd rather be a 3 or 6 over a 4/5.

I don't pay attention to individual player talent (or lack of) so much as I give more credence to the "sum of the parts" theory. I don't believe you have to have "top tier" talent to make it to the Final Four....but it obviously helps your case if you do. There are plenty of examples in recent years of teams who didn't have an abundance of top tier talent and still made the Final Four.....now winning a championship....that changes the conversation with regard to needing top tier talent.

And I do think we can compete for a Big 12 title this year. The reason being is the computers and metrics tell us that we are a top-20, even a Top 15 team in some cases. Also this is a team that is top 10 in defensive efficiency and when your offense takes a night off, defense can win you games. But they don't need to drop any more games against inferior competition by taking halves off and not being focused....it's a problem that occurred too often for comfort this season.

 

[campbest]

Fair enough...you bring up some reasonable points. Having said that, I was still disappointed to lose a couple of games to teams that our fans feel we are better than. I would have been ok with a 10-2 non-conference record. And I think it's perfectly acceptable for a fan to be disappointed that we are going to end up no better than 9-3 in OOC. It's not the end of the world, but it could be the difference between a 3/4 seed or a 5/6 depending upon how we perform in conference....and yes I'd rather be a 3 or 6 over a 4/5.

Our seed comes down to how we do in conference...that's pretty much it. The committee isn't going to ding us to a six seed because we lost to Washington by 2 on a neutral floor. Non-conference is great, but the committee just wants to make sure you're playing someone. A good win trumps a "bad" loss any day and we have PLENTY of opportunities for good wins coming up.