Identical talent... who wins best of 10 between Sampson and Kruger?

It's a tough call. Let's look at what each has done at OU. In Kelvin's 12 seasons, there were 3 years his teams played better than expectations (1995, 2000 and 2002), 8 years which they basically achieved expectations, and 1 year which they underachieved expectations (2006). That's a pretty darn good OU coaching resume. In Lon's 5 years, he's achieved expectations 3 times and exceeded them twice (2014 and 2016). That's an equally great OU resume.

I'll go with a traditional best-of-seven series. It will be 4-3, but I'll go with Lon. If it's s best-of-nine, Lon wins 5. Like WTSooner pointed out, there is no such thing as a best-of-ten.
 
Sampson 6-4 maybe 7-3

Defense wins series . Krugers Oklahoma squads( so far ) are not defensive teams. He has in the past been a defensive coach but at Oklahoma it hasn't show up .

I still say kelvin is the best game day coach that Oklahoma has EVER had . His wining percentage in close games ( 5 point games ) is off the charts .

Not saying he's the best guy or even a program builder but I do think he's the best coach , even better then tubbs.

I also could change my mind in 4 years . If Kruger makes another run ( like elite 8 ) he could pass him
 
Last edited:
Sampson i think would have pushed last year's team to the natty..



Couldn't disagree more. Maybe they play Nova closer in the national semifinal but the 2 best teams in the country played for the title...
 
Couldn't disagree more. Maybe they play Nova closer in the national semifinal but the 2 best teams in the country played for the title...

The hottest two definitely did.

It may sound ridiculous given the margin we lost by, but I'm not convinced Nova was better than us. They were that day (boy, were they!) but they were on a hot streak and on that particular day they simply couldn't miss (and we couldn't hit).

I posted this at the time, but if we'd shot our average for the tourney and Nova had shot theirs and both of us had taken the same number of shots, we'd have won. Obviously, we shot much worse and they shot much better than those respective averages and they won decisively (to say the least), but one nightmare of a game didn't change my mind about our team. It wasn't a fluke that we routed them in Hawaii; we were red-hot that day, and they were ice cold. The roles switched in the Final Four. It happens. If we'd played Nova once a month over the course of the season, we'd have done no worse than 2-3, in my opinion, and we might well have won three of five.
 
The hottest two definitely did.

It may sound ridiculous given the margin we lost by, but I'm not convinced Nova was better than us. They were that day (boy, were they!) but they were on a hot streak and on that particular day they simply couldn't miss (and we couldn't hit).

I posted this at the time, but if we'd shot our average for the tourney and Nova had shot theirs and both of us had taken the same number of shots, we'd have won. Obviously, we shot much worse and they shot much better than those respective averages and they won decisively (to say the least), but one nightmare of a game didn't change my mind about our team. It wasn't a fluke that we routed them in Hawaii; we were red-hot that day, and they were ice cold. The roles switched in the Final Four. It happens. If we'd played Nova once a month over the course of the season, we'd have done no worse than 2-3, in my opinion, and we might well have won three of five.

What if we played them in a 10 game series?
 
The hottest two definitely did.



It may sound ridiculous given the margin we lost by, but I'm not convinced Nova was better than us. They were that day (boy, were they!) but they were on a hot streak and on that particular day they simply couldn't miss (and we couldn't hit).



I posted this at the time, but if we'd shot our average for the tourney and Nova had shot theirs and both of us had taken the same number of shots, we'd have won. Obviously, we shot much worse and they shot much better than those respective averages and they won decisively (to say the least), but one nightmare of a game didn't change my mind about our team. It wasn't a fluke that we routed them in Hawaii; we were red-hot that day, and they were ice cold. The roles switched in the Final Four. It happens. If we'd played Nova once a month over the course of the season, we'd have done no worse than 2-3, in my opinion, and we might well have won three of five.



Don't get me wrong. We deserved to be in the final four and were a top 5 team, IMO. I just think it's silly to suggest a different coach or approach changes any outcomes for this group. Sampson and Kruger are pretty comparable coaches but I don't think Sampson's style changes anything about how this team's season went or finished. They weren't built like a Sampson team. In fact, I'd reckon we wouldn't have made it to the final four with Sampson as the coach of this team.
 
I just think it's silly to suggest a different coach or approach changes any outcomes for this group. Sampson and Kruger are pretty comparable coaches but I don't think Sampson's style changes anything about how this team's season went or finished. They weren't built like a Sampson team.

I agree.
 
Don't get me wrong. We deserved to be in the final four and were a top 5 team, IMO. I just think it's silly to suggest a different coach or approach changes any outcomes for this group. Sampson and Kruger are pretty comparable coaches but I don't think Sampson's style changes anything about how this team's season went or finished. They weren't built like a Sampson team. In fact, I'd reckon we wouldn't have made it to the final four with Sampson as the coach of this team.

You're posting in a thread theorizing outcomes of a 10 Game series.. yes, 10 games lol that's "silly"

I stand by my opinion. I really liked sampsons toughness and emphasis on rebounding. Dont really like the guy tho. Kruger is night and day there.

But Sampson was an outstanding coach for us. Very undervalued particularily by our own fan base
 
But Sampson was an outstanding coach for us. Very undervalued particularily by our own fan base

He certainly was an outstanding head coach for us...and I believe he'll have Houston in the NCAA Tournament this year. It wouldn't surprise me if we played them in an 8/9 matchup. With only one exception, I thought he always brought the best out of each team he had at OU. That said, he won 11 NCAA Tournament games in his 11 tourneys at OU. While I'm not complaining, it's a tough sell to say that it screams "undervalued".
 
You're posting in a thread theorizing outcomes of a 10 Game series.. yes, 10 games lol that's "silly"



I stand by my opinion. I really liked sampsons toughness and emphasis on rebounding. Dont really like the guy tho. Kruger is night and day there.



But Sampson was an outstanding coach for us. Very undervalued particularily by our own fan base



I'm not slighting Sampson and he was very good for us in his time here. I would never undersell or undervalue his coaching ability. I think it's silly to say he'd have a positive effect on a team he did not put together to play for his style. I also believe that line of thinking devalues Kruger's efforts in constructing and coaching this team. Just my opinion. Honestly, I doubt you meant to suggest that.

One could suggest Kruger's first 5 years have surpassed what Sampson accomplished despite a much more difficult mess to clean up and a much more difficult conference schedule to navigate over that span. All things considered at the time, I never would have guessed that could be accomplished when he was hired.
 
You're posting in a thread theorizing outcomes of a 10 Game series.. yes, 10 games lol that's "silly"



We're posting on an OU men's basketball message board in May. There is plenty of assumed silliness.
 
Last edited:
just wow man.

big has been around sports long enough he should know better. I've literally never heard a single person offer up a best of <insert even number here> series. It's absurd. And his follow up post wasn't much better.
 
big has been around sports long enough he should know better. I've literally never heard a single person offer up a best of <insert even number here> series. It's absurd. And his follow up post wasn't much better.

You're right. That was the most nonsensical post ever seen on this board, and it absolutely behooves you to keep complaining about it until that point has been made perfectly clear.

I would think another week or two, with, say, 3-5 posts per day, ought to do it.

Then perhaps we can get back to your post about how OU would never stand a chance of beating Duke in the NCAA tourney. We haven't had a good laugh over that one in a while.
 
big has been around sports long enough he should know better. I've literally never heard a single person offer up a best of <insert even number here> series. It's absurd. And his follow up post wasn't much better.

my wow was directed at you.

You hear all the time,xxx team wins 9 out of 10,etc. All the time. It was quite obvious what the op was getting at. And leaving it at 10 leaves the possibility for someone that thinks both coaches are equal.

There is nothing wrong with the OP.

But of course, you always have to say something to the negative.
 
Kelvin certainly was able to figure out ways to win games when his team looked terrible. He also had many games with the best talent and barely was able to win.

If the talent is equal and bad I would take Kelvin. If the talent actually was talented then I would take LK.
 
The greatest measurement of Kelvin and his importance to OU Basketball to me was that during a time when the entirety of the Oklahoma media and even our own "fans" were doing everything they possibly could to pump up oSu at the expense of OU he was the human equivalent of a "middle finger" for all of us OU basketball fans that felt we deserved better treatment. For that reason I'll go with Kelvin by the slightest of margins, he's just a mentally tough dude that had his players playing the same way.
 
You hear all the time,xxx team wins 9 out of 10,etc. All the time. It was quite obvious what the op was getting at. And leaving it at 10 leaves the possibility for someone that thinks both coaches are equal.

That is not what he was getting at. He said so himself.
 
Back
Top