Is the Pressure Going To Increase On Sherri?

[sybarite]

Sorry, Spock. But, you want to exclude any facts that don't agree with your premise. I just went over a few seasons as an example. This was occurring throughout the Big Eight. When the other teams are essentially beginning with an 0-2 record, a losing season on average would be expected. That's what makes the house rules of Vegas work. You start out knowing that you, on the average, will lose.

If you want to study the history of the Big Eight in the seventies, take a look at sports reference.com. Examine the schedules of the Big Eight teams. See how they did overall. If you look at the schedules of teams like Kansas, Missouri, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, or Kansas State, you don't find a bunch of Akrons. They played most of their non-conference schedules against power conference teams. It was interesting to see a team that was 2-5 in the Big Eight be 3-1 or 4-0 against teams from other power conferences. Missouri seemed to love to knock ranked teams off, except they had difficulty with OU or Nebraska.

If you look at those same teams now, we see teams losing to North Dakota State or South Dakota State every year. They aren't losing to the top teams in the country. They are losing to pushovers. Northern Iowa is now a real test for Iowa State. I think North Dakota State has won at least two in the past four or five years. The bottom feeders aren't 4-0 against Mississippi, Wisconsin, Oregon State, and Illinois any more. They are weak. Even the Big Seven didn't lose to North Dakota State or Northern Iowa.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Sorry, Spock. But, you want to exclude any facts that don't agree with your premise. I just went over a few seasons as an example. This was occurring throughout the Big Eight. When the other teams are essentially beginning with an 0-2 record, a losing season on average would be expected. That's what makes the house rules of Vegas work. You start out knowing that you, on the average, will lose.

If you want to study the history of the Big Eight in the seventies, take a look at sports reference.com. Examine the schedules of the Big Eight teams. See how they did overall. If you look at the schedules of teams like Kansas, Missouri, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, or Kansas State, you don't find a bunch of Akrons. They played most of their non-conference schedules against power conference teams. It was interesting to see a team that was 2-5 in the Big Eight be 3-1 or 4-0 against teams from other power conferences. Missouri seemed to love to knock ranked teams off, except they had difficulty with OU or Nebraska.

If you look at those same teams now, we see teams losing to North Dakota State or South Dakota State every year. They aren't losing to the top teams in the country. They are losing to pushovers. Northern Iowa is now a real test for Iowa State. I think North Dakota State has won at least two in the past four or five years. The bottom feeders aren't 4-0 against Mississippi, Wisconsin, Oregon State, and Illinois any more. They are weak. Even the Big Seven didn't lose to North Dakota State or Northern Iowa.

Typical diversion tactics attempting to make something appear to be what it is not. You want to dwell on a name in your reference but you fail to mention the failure to play the Akron's of the world in the '70 and '80 was because virtually all were like Akron and playing Division II football/UCO level or Boise State transitioning from Junior College, or ULL Division II/University of Central Oklahoma level. The list goes on and on and on.

The patsies then were the Power 5 conference schools like Oregon States that won 32 games in the Switzer 16 year era. A few others with a losing record for 16 years are Vandy 16 wins, Northwestern 31, KSU 41 wins, TCU 41 wins, Wake Forest 59 win, ISU 62 wins Oregon 64 wins, Indiana 70 wins, Stanford 74, WSU 75 wins, Cal 78, etc. Averaging less than 5 wins a year for 16 consecutive seasons is bad football. I am not talking about being bad for a short period of time but generally being bad for nearly a decade. There were plenty of Power 5 easy wins in the '70's and '80's.

You could minimize the weaker teams from a schedule and focus on Power 5 schools if you were still playing fewer games but no one wanting to compete for a national championship is going to play 11 Power 5 school games. But don't forget in the '70 and '80 you played 9 Power 5 schools plus a bowl game. Today all the Power 5 schools play 9, 10, 11 Power 5 schools depending on the conference championship and bowl games. Remember you cannot forget that extra data point that the Stoops' era plays.

 

[sybarite]

Crap, Spock. The SEC played DII teams all the time. There was no BCS, and they lived off of weak non-conference schedules, nowhere near as strong as Oregon State.

Apparently, you seem to think that we need to have the current Big Twelve recognized as valid in order to justify Stoops, although you recognize that Stoops is not Switzer or Wilkinson. But, the Big Twelve isn't even the Big Twelve. We lost four of the strongest members of the conference, while keeping some weak sisters. Yet, Stoops has only a 79% conference record, as opposed to 89% for Switzer (and Wilkinson, I think). Stoops feeds off of even weaker opposition. Is the current Big Twelve any stronger than the old Big Seven? If it is, it is downtrending rapidly.

Then, there is the idea that parity is limiting. That seems a bit absurd. Since Stoops won a title, Urban Meyer has won 3, and Saban has won five. Eight of the fifteen titles since he won were won by two coaches. Parity? When Wilkinson and Switzer won, who else of their era won three?
But, why are we even discussing this?

 

[SoonerSpock]

Crap, Spock. The SEC played DII teams all the time. There was no BCS, and they lived off of weak non-conference schedules, nowhere near as strong as Oregon State.

Apparently, you seem to think that we need to have the current Big Twelve recognized as valid in order to justify Stoops, although you recognize that Stoops is not Switzer or Wilkinson. But, the Big Twelve isn't even the Big Twelve. We lost four of the strongest members of the conference, while keeping some weak sisters. Yet, Stoops has only a 79% conference record, as opposed to 89% for Switzer (and Wilkinson, I think). Stoops feeds off of even weaker opposition. Is the current Big Twelve any stronger than the old Big Seven? If it is, it is downtrending rapidly.

Then, there is the idea that parity is limiting. That seems a bit absurd. Since Stoops won a title, Urban Meyer has won 3, and Saban has won five. Eight of the fifteen titles since he won were won by two coaches. Parity? When Wilkinson and Switzer won, who else of their era won three?
But, why are we even discussing this?

Yes several schools play a Division II on occasion but for everyone that does there are 5,6, and 7 that don't play Division II but even playing a Divison II opponent does not keep them from playing as many or more Power 5 schools per season as they did in Switzer's day. When playing a Division II school the data points are equal. When you don't play a Division II school the data points are +1 for the Bob era. Moreover for this discussion the only teams germane to this discussion that the SEC plays are B12 schools.

Are you a fool or are you just trying another of your diversion tactics discussing Switzer and Stoops confernece winning percentahe. I repeat again. The discussion is not how good Stoops was compared to Switzer and Wilkinson. I do not dispute that both were better coaches than Bob. But that is merely my opinion. Moreover, it is idiocy to quote Switzer's and Stoops winning percentage in conference play to support your argument. You see it could be argued that Switzer's winning percentage being higher support that Bob is playing the tougher schedule.

I have provided a multitude of documentation showing the winning percentage of Bob's conference opponents exceeding those of Barry and Bud. Your counter by providing a short list of big conference wins in the Barry era while omitting the big wins in the Bob era. But half truths make for a better argument if not caught with the smoke and mirrors.

You make a bogus attempt to down grade the play of the Akron's of the world today unlike yesteryear. When in fact the Akron's of the world did not play on the Division I level back then. They instead played junior college, college division and Division II/UCO level football. Syb again using diversion and avoiding the issue.

Furthermore the consensus of the media is that parity today is significantly higher today than in the past because of a multitude of reasons. Now I realize all the data substantiates this higher level of play by more teams from win/loss records, scholarship limitations, superior coaching, superior facilities, superior nutrition and seven on seven summer leagues to high school spring practice. Must have slipped your consideration.

But all of these factors are wrong because the Syb thinks otherwise and the Syb is never wrong. Only he knows. And incidentally I think the 1956 Sooners was the best all time OU team. But that is not germane to the conversation either.

 

[sybarite]

It is popular to say that parity has been achieved. It simply isn't true.

I pretty much stand by exactly what I said. You regard my facts as nonvalid. I regard yours as nonvalid. But, we tend to regard every idea that the other has in about every field of endeavor as nonvalid, and it isn't limited to football or women's basketball.

I think this discussion arose because I suggested that recruiting to Norman was somewhat difficult in some areas because of the current thoughts that racism is more likely to be encountered (SAE didn't help). You suggested that I didn't know what I was talking about. I indicated that I've been working in the area, and still do to some extent, since 68. And, so it goes, whether racism, sexism, football, basketball, or whatever. I tend to think it has a bearing. You remember the good old days---that never were.

 

[SoonerSpock]

It is good that you know so much. Geno, conradt, Sharp, and the Women's College Basketball coaches disagree with you,, and they don't think the press has over-rated her. I would pretty much say that this post disqualifies you from further participation in any discussion regarding Sherri Coale.

That sounds about right you think this is your board, you make the rules and opinions should only concur with yours. You opinion has for years has been the only thing your mind can grasp. For certain you are incapable of opening you ears, your eyes and you mind to grasp and comprehend positions you dispute.

 

[SoonerSpock]

It is popular to say that parity has been achieved. It simply isn't true.

I pretty much stand by exactly what I said. You regard my facts as nonvalid. I regard yours as nonvalid. But, we tend to regard every idea that the other has in about every field of endeavor as nonvalid, and it isn't limited to football or women's basketball.

I think this discussion arose because I suggested that recruiting to Norman was somewhat difficult in some areas because of the current thoughts that racism is more likely to be encountered (SAE didn't help). You suggested that I didn't know what I was talking about. I indicated that I've been working in the area, and still do to some extent, since 68. And, so it goes, whether racism, sexism, football, basketball, or whatever. I tend to think it has a bearing. You remember the good old days---that never were.

Nope, this discussion started when you said you thought I had not told the truth in a response to a Sweetest OU Girl post. I in turn called your hand.

With regard to racism. It started when I made a post regarding Sherri's performance as OU' coach and you stated with me being a Normanite and native Oklahoman I did not have perspective and know what I was taking about. I assume because you thought I was not worldly enough to meet your criterion for posting.

I then cited where I had lived and worked which ended your position on being my being just a local yokel. So you, in typical fashion, then diverted the subject to me not knowing anything about racism, that is until you learned I had coached baseball in Homewood, PA for eight years.

You later spoke in detail about your racism programs while in the military and both mutually moved on without further post on the subject.

Always difficult to have a discussion with you as you do not want to discuss the pros and con of the subject instead diverting the subject repeated and wanting to discuss the qualifications to be informed on the subject, race, award received or some other unrelated subject matter.

When you take the rare opportunity to provide some documentation you want to discuss isolated incidents and disregard the bulk of the data on the subject. It is interesting that rather than respond to rebuttal documentation you invariably ask a question to change the subject ignoring the presentation of any documentation.

 

[sybarite]

The fact that I don't think you grasp racism or sexism has nothing to do with where you have lived. It has everything to do with how you perceive the issues that are discussed.

We talk past each other because we do not respect the "facts" that each other present. All of the stats that you presented with respect to the strength of the Big Twelve, or the thoughts of parity simply don't jive with a diluted conference or the fact that two coaches have won over half the titles in the past fifteen years. That is parity?

 

[SoonerSpock]

The fact that I don't think you grasp racism or sexism has nothing to do with where you have lived. It has everything to do with how you perceive the issues that are discussed.

We talk past each other because we do not respect the "facts" that each other present. All of the stats that you presented with respect to the strength of the Big Twelve, or the thoughts of parity simply don't jive with a diluted conference or the fact that two coaches have won over half the titles in the past fifteen years. That is parity?

Bunk, you do not accept anything from anyone not named Syb. Perhaps the following may have some impact on your thinking. But probably not.

Team********Switzer wp*******Stoops wp***Comment

Colorado*******.434*************.435*****push between eras
KSU***********.249*************.591*****advantage Stoops era
ISU***********.439*************.401*****avan. Barry, Stoop +6 bowls
Kansas*********.249*************.591*****avantage Stoops era
Missouri********.500*************.571*****advantage Stoops era
Nebraska*******.814*************.684*****advantage Barry era
OSU***********.603*************.649*****advantage Bob era
WVU************X**************.510*****winning record for era
A&M************X**************.550*****winning record for era
Baylor***********X**************.444*****They don't win at this % now
Texas***********X***************.731****winning record for the era
Tech************X***************.609****winning record for the era

Advantage in record Stoops 3 and Switzer 2. Very close but Stoops had to play 5 additional opponents 4 with winning records. Big advantage Stoops.

In summary Barry played against only Nebraska and OSU that had winning records and 5 teams that did not have a winning record for the era. Bob on the otherhand played against WVU, TCU, A&M, Texas, Tech, KSU, Missouri, Nebraska and OSU that had a winning record for the period and only 4 teams with losing records for the era. That is 9 teams with winning records for the era.

The net of the situation is you determine how good a team is from how many games they win and how many games they lose. It is the only scorecard that counts. The count is Bob 9 and Barry 2 on the win side of the column and Bob 4 Barry 5 on the other side of the column. Advantage Bob on the win column. Advantage Bob on the lost column.

No reason to respond as we all know your response because it will be disregard the complete population data (all the games played) because it does not support your position. Instead you will take personally selected partial data that is not randomly selected and but in your eyes might distorts the evidence of the total data. How is part of the data better than all the data? Do you always have so much difficulty getting your foot out of your mouth? I'll answer that for you. Yep!!!

When the data is all inclusive, omitting not one game for 33 years it provides the complete picture.

 

[inoref]

Ah. So, the problem is that you think OU is a minor league sports team. Sherri is a faculty member of a university. Her job is to teach and represent the university and those standards which the university values. Coaching is a part of that. But, if it is all about sport, it is no longer about the university and has no reason to be affiliated with OU. Notice the name, The University of Oklahoma.

I didn't say OU was a minor league sports team..

 

[GoWarriors]

Bunk, you do not accept anything from anyone not named Syb. Perhaps the following may have some impact on your thinking. But probably not.

Team********Switzer wp*******Stoops wp***Comment

Colorado*******.434*************.435*****push between eras
KSU***********.249*************.591*****advantage Stoops era
ISU***********.439*************.401*****avan. Barry, Stoop +6 bowls
Kansas*********.249*************.591*****avantage Stoops era
Missouri********.500*************.571*****advantage Stoops era
Nebraska*******.814*************.684*****advantage Barry era
OSU***********.603*************.649*****advantage Bob era
WVU************X**************.510*****winning record for era
A&M************X**************.550*****winning record for era
Baylor***********X**************.444*****They don't win at this % now
Texas***********X***************.731****winning record for the era
Tech************X***************.609****winning record for the era

Advantage in record Stoops 3 and Switzer 2. Very close but Stoops had to play 5 additional opponents 4 with winning records. Big advantage Stoops.

In summary Barry played against only Nebraska and OSU that had winning records and 5 teams that did not have a winning record for the era. Bob on the otherhand played against WVU, TCU, A&M, Texas, Tech, KSU, Missouri, Nebraska and OSU that had a winning record for the period and only 4 teams with losing records for the era. That is 9 teams with winning records for the era.

The net of the situation is you determine how good a team is from how many games they win and how many games they lose. It is the only scorecard that counts. The count is Bob 9 and Barry 2 on the win side of the column and Bob 4 Barry 5 on the other side of the column. Advantage Bob on the win column. Advantage Bob on the lost column.

No reason to respond as we all know your response because it will be disregard the complete population data (all the games played) because it does not support your position. Instead you will take personally selected partial data that is not randomly selected and but in your eyes might distorts the evidence of the total data. How is part of the data better than all the data? Do you always have so much difficulty getting your foot out of your mouth? I'll answer that for you. Yep!!!

When the data is all inclusive, omitting not one game for 33 years it provides the complete picture.

Great Post! I was going to say the same thing without all the great research. Nebraska was really the only team to get past every year and maybe a Texas team in non conference. OSU was every once in a while.

 

[BanjoCharley]

Spock, just trying to keep up here. You have Switzer wp vs Kansas .249 and vs KSU .249. What do you mean by that? Is that KU and KSU winning percentage during Switzers tenure?

 

[sybarite]

Yes. Spock. I will completely ignore your "facts." You are comparing things that can't even be compared as though there were a standardized experiment with controls. Colorado, A&M, Missouri, and Nebraska, some of the stronger teams, aren't even a part of the conference any more. You keep trying to present data as though this were a scientific experiment with controls that allowed you to generate valid comparisons. The fact is that there has been fluidity that precludes such comparisons.

You are really left to the simplest of comparisons:

a) Switzer and Wilkinson won more titles than any other coach of their respective era.
b) Stoops has won one. Since then, Meyer and Saban have won eight of fifteen.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Yes. Spock. I will completely ignore your "facts." You are comparing things that can't even be compared as though there were a standardized experiment with controls. Colorado, A&M, Missouri, and Nebraska, some of the stronger teams, aren't even a part of the conference any more. You keep trying to present data as though this were a scientific experiment with controls that allowed you to generate valid comparisons. The fact is that there has been fluidity that precludes such comparisons.

You are really left to the simplest of comparisons:

a) Switzer and Wilkinson won more titles than any other coach of their respective era.
b) Stoops has won one. Since then, Meyer and Saban have won eight of fifteen.

Ah, I was right. You want to talk titles when we are talking about opponents for eras. You then try a second diversion about Myers and Saban when they were not involved in any Switzer game and combined were opponents of Bob Stoops 3 times. That is 3 games out of apporimately 340 games. Syb you cannot ignore the other 337 games they are about 112 times more important.

It is simple one win count one win for an opponent. One loss counts one loss for an opponent. And 41 wins counts as 41 wins while 133 losses counts for 133 losses for KSU. A win for Saban and a loss for Saban against Bob don't count anything as the discussion is regarding OU conferenceopponents wins and losses not any of OU's wins and losses.

As always talk about something else when you don't know how to talk about the subject at hand. Shame your education taught you so little. I am through talking with the fence post. Going to email Norm where I can have an intelligent conversation. Now that I think about joining Norm on the sidelines sounds better I won't run into ignoramuses there.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Yes. Spock. I will completely ignore your "facts." You are comparing things that can't even be compared as though there were a standardized experiment with controls. Colorado, A&M, Missouri, and Nebraska, some of the stronger teams, aren't even a part of the conference any more. You keep trying to present data as though this were a scientific experiment with controls that allowed you to generate valid comparisons. The fact is that there has been fluidity that precludes such comparisons.

You are really left to the simplest of comparisons:

a) Switzer and Wilkinson won more titles than any other coach of their respective era.
b) Stoops has won one. Since then, Meyer and Saban have won eight of fifteen.

Ah, I was right. You want to talk titles when we are talking about opponents for eras. You then try a second diversion about Myers and Saban when they were not involved in any Switzer game and combined were opponents of Bob Stoops 3 times. That is 3 games out of apporimately 340 games. Syb you cannot ignore the other 337 games they are about 112 times more important.

It is simple one win count one win for an opponent. One loss counts one loss for an opponent. And 41 wins counts as 41 wins while 133 losses counts for 133 losses for KSU. A win for Saban and a loss for Saban against Bob don't count anything as the discussion is regarding OU conferenceopponents wins and losses not any of OU's wins and losses.

As always talk about something else when you don't know how to talk about the subject at hand. Shame your education taught you so little. I am through talking with the fence post. Going to email Norm where I can have an intelligent conversation. Now that I think about joining Norm on the sidelines sounds better I won't run into ignoramuses there. I'm out.

 

[sybarite]

I think I have made it quite clear that I reject your "statistics." You want to use some statistics as proof. You ignore statistics that counter it. You want to discuss only your selected statistics. I'm sorry. You don't define the subject.

I have also made it quite clear that your statistics are more like polls than anything factual. You want to treat them as though they had some validity, like a scientific method. But, you present numbers surrounding fluid situations as though they were statistics that proved something. At best, they are observational for discussion.

You don't like it when I point out where and why your choice of statistics lack significance or don't prove what you think they prove. You do NOT have the type of information that proves your point. You don't have the type of statistics that come from a control group and an experimental group, with the difference between them statistically significant at some specified level. You have numbers.

This discussion won't lead to anything because we don't even pay any attention to what each other is saying. You are OK when it comes to presenting facts that you have gleaned about what coaches earned or something. But, you try to present numbers to prove points, and there just aren't any numbers that will back you up.

Now, this all began because of yet more attacks upon Sherri. I will always respond to such negativity. You can count on it. I will respond to negativity about our coaches and our players. No, I don't think they are perfect. I have rather significant differences in background and religion from Sherri and Patty. But, I respect their abilities and accomplishments, and I reject the "expertise" of those who criticize our coaches or players.

Some of you bowed down to the "expertise" of a poster whose first post ridiculed our two most recent recruits. It is stunning that you do that. It should be stunning that you think you can do better than a Hall of Fame coach. But, then, that is what I have come to expect from some of you. You will not be regarded with respect on this type of issue. Curiously, you are OK on the softball thread. But, your background and beliefs come out with regards to Sherri.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

Boy, I sure can start a thread, can't I?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sybarite]

Boy, I sure can start a thread, can't I?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any time you start a thread that criticizes or questions anything about Sherri, there will be a crowd jump into the frenzy, and there will be those who oppose them. Sure way to have a long thread that is exactly like a hundred other long threads.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

WTF are you talking about? I did not start a thread criticizing Sherri.

What's the matter with you?

You just make stuff up. You are one of the most miserable assholes I have ever seen on a message board of any kind.

I cannot fathom the torture it must be for everyone who knows you to put up with your smug, self-righteous sense of absolute invalidity.

You are not always right, Syb. In fact
You rarely are. You don't know crap about sports -- at least you don't seem to.

I'm really beginning to belief you are unbalanced and possibly dangerous to yourself and others.

Delusional
Sense of always being only truthful person.

You need mental health treatment, Syb. Badly. Seriously, your idiosyncrasies are about to give you a dangerous breakdown from
Which you would likely end up imprisoned.

See
A
Doctor

Now!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sybarite]

I also don't believe in god, and my hair gets all greasy if I don't wash it every day.