Kruger's home — and heart — firmly planted in Las Vegas

[OUHoops]

http://www.lvrj.com/sports/kruger-s-home-and-heart-firmly-anchored-in-las-vegas-152254275.html

 

[bocabull]

I cracked up at "the wanna be icon Bob Stoops" line. After all these years and the countless faceplants you have to say that's true.

Living in Scottsdale, Vegas does nothing for me. The nicest parts of Vegas pale in comparison.

 

[skyvue]

I cracked up at "the wanna be icon Bob Stoops" line. After all these years and the countless faceplants you have to say that's true.

No, you don't.

That was a ridiculous crack on the writer's part.

 

[Max Power]

No, you don't.

That was a ridiculous crack on the writer's part.

Boca prolly thinks John Blake was the best coach in OU history, just like he does with Jeff Caple

 

[bocabull]

Stoops is just OUs version of Phil Fulmer. He is a total wanna be icon whose only claim to fame is beating underachieving clone Mack Brown.

 

[WaymanFan]

Stoops is just OUs version of Phil Fulmer. He is a total wanna be icon whose only claim to fame is beating underachieving clone Mack Brown.

While the writer of that article may agree with you, I certainly don't. However, there is one thing about Mack Brown I wish Bob Stoops had in him - the sense to fire underperforming assistants and upgrade his staff. He at least did the latter by bringing back Mike Stoops.

 

[playmakr]

Stoops is just OUs version of Phil Fulmer. He is a total wanna be icon whose only claim to fame is beating underachieving clone Mack Brown.

Only claim?

 

[Escape Goat]

Stoops is just OUs version of Phil Fulmer. He is a total wanna be icon whose only claim to fame is beating underachieving clone Mack Brown.

Now I've read some stupid stuff before, but this is pretty close to the top of that list. :facepalm

 

[bocabull]

Only claim?

Yep. I guess you could include the 2000 title, but we all know the BCS formula was very primitive back then which allowed FSU to edge out the Miami juggernaut that would have beat us by 4 TDs.

I was at the 55-19 disaster in the Orange Bowl and have been off the Stoops bandwagon ever since. It's been the right side of the trade. I should have got off after the 2001 loss to that pathetic joke of a 4-7 Okie State team at home.

 

[playmakr]

Yep. I guess you could include the 2000 title

Yea, I guess

Are conference titles meaningless as well?

I was at the 55-19 disaster in the Orange Bowl and have been off the Stoops bandwagon ever since. It's been the right side of the trade. I should have got off after the 2001 loss to that pathetic joke of a 4-7 Okie State team at home.

Whose bandwagon are you on?

 

[WaymanFan]

Yep. I guess you could include the 2000 title, but we all know the BCS formula was very primitive back then which allowed FSU to edge out the Miami juggernaut that would have beat us by 4 TDs.

I was at the 55-19 disaster in the Orange Bowl and have been off the Stoops bandwagon ever since. It's been the right side of the trade. I should have got off after the 2001 loss to that pathetic joke of a 4-7 Okie State team at home.

Boca, I genuinely feel for any OU fan who shelled out money for that debacle against USC. With that said, there are 3 things which stand out regarding Bob Stoops being a great coach. 1) He's 8-5 against Texas; 2) 2000 National Champions (FSU was SUPPOSED to be that juggernaut who was going to beat us by 3 or 4 TDs); and 3) 7 Conference titles (no other coach has won more than two).

At the same time, I can certainly understand some of the frustration with him. By my definition of a "humiliating" defeat, I count 6 for Bob Stoops (2001 OSU, 2003 KSU, 2004 USC, 2007 Colorado, 2007 WVU and 2011 TTech), but only 3 for Barry Switzer (1975 Kansas, 1977 Arkansas and 1980 Stanford). I believe that's why that writer was so hard on him, but one more title for Bob (and he will get it) will shut the critics up.

 

[bocabull]

Well said Wayman. I'm judging Stoops in comparison to Switzer and Wilkinson and Stoops is not in their league so calling him a wanna be icon fits IMO.

Play I'm not on any college football bandwagon. I pull for OU but always expect to lose important games and a couple unexpected ones and that's what happens.

 

[stoops4pres]

Yep. I guess you could include the 2000 title, but we all know the BCS formula was very primitive back then which allowed FSU to edge out the Miami juggernaut that would have beat us by 4 TDs.

I was at the 55-19 disaster in the Orange Bowl and have been off the Stoops bandwagon ever since. It's been the right side of the trade. I should have got off after the 2001 loss to that pathetic joke of a 4-7 Okie State team at home.

Your other points you've made on this thread I've countered before, so I won't go over those again. But for this part in the bold, you do realize that Miami lost to an 11-1 Washington team that season, right? So if we're determining who should've been the one-loss team to play in the title game with the logic of believing Miami should've surpassed FSU, then Washington actually should've superseded Miami and be the team to challenge OU in the Orange Bowl.

Miami could've handily defeated OU in 2000; however, that's irrelevant because that type of opinion is relying completely on conjecture. What we all do know is this: OU beat a lot of formidable opponents leading up to the National Title (e.g. "Red October", KSU in the Big 12 title game), and shut-out FSU's offense that nearly defeated this apparently-invincible Miami team earlier in the season. That 2000 team proved its mettle again that season with their win against FSU, and was the only undefeated BCS team. Not sure how anyone can attempt to taint that title, but to each his own.

 

[skyvue]

I pull for OU but always expect to lose important games and a couple unexpected ones and that's what happens.

Sorry, but that's crap. You're just spewing the same nonsense the national press has been shoveling for years.

Sure, we can name some disappointing losses during the Stoops era, but guess what -- you can do the same for the Switzer era and, to a lesser degree, Wilkinson's tenure.

The college game is entirely different today than it was during Switzer's era, not to mention the Wilkinson years, and I feel confident in suggesting Switzer would tell you that's so, too. We've reached a level of parity today that was unimaginable twenty or twenty-five years ago.

We've won seven conference titles -- that's seven important wins. We've won one national title. That's another very important win. We've beaten texas eight times. That's 16 important wins, and I'm just getting started.

As for the USC loss, anyone who thinks Switzer's loss to Arkansas in the Orange Bowl wasn't every bit as mortifying is either very young or has a very poor memory (or an agenda to advance).

Stoops can't win with some observers. They discount his big wins and often inflate the importance his losses. The most ridiculous example of this is the importance many national commentators place on BCS bowl games. A bowl game is a bowl game is a bowl game, if you're not in the title game. A conference title game or a regular season game against a powerful rival or a highly ranked opponent is much more important than an exhibition game a month after the season has ended.

 

[stoops4pres]

Boca, I genuinely feel for any OU fan who shelled out money for that debacle against USC. With that said, there are 3 things which stand out regarding Bob Stoops being a great coach. 1) He's 8-5 against Texas; 2) 2000 National Champions (FSU was SUPPOSED to be that juggernaut who was going to beat us by 3 or 4 TDs); and 3) 7 Conference titles (no other coach has won more than two).

At the same time, I can certainly understand some of the frustration with him. By my definition of a "humiliating" defeat, I count 6 for Bob Stoops (2001 OSU, 2003 KSU, 2004 USC, 2007 Colorado, 2007 WVU and 2011 TTech), but only 3 for Barry Switzer (1975 Kansas, 1977 Arkansas and 1980 Stanford). I believe that's why that writer was so hard on him, but one more title for Bob (and he will get it) will shut the critics up.

I think the loss to Colorado in 2007 was "frustrating", but I wouldn't label it a humiliating one. That loss was on the road, the game went down to the wire, and Colorado was a bowl team. Due to those circumstances, I don't think that is a humiliating loss. Upsets happen on the road in college football, even with the highly-ranked teams.

 

[MsProudSooner]

Some of the posts in this thread are the reason that I've become less enamored with most internet message board posters over the past few years.

Humiliated is Charles Thompson on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

Humiliated should be Baylor basketball fans after a former player murdered a current player.

Humiliated should be Penn State fans over the Sandusky scandal.

Humiliated should be Ohio State fans after the Sweater Vest's debacle this year.

Humiliated should be USC fans after their AD & coach stonewalled the NCAA for 2 years.

Nothing in connection with our football program over the past 12 years has come even close to being humiliating. If you think otherwise, you really need to re-think your priorities.

 

[skyvue]

At the same time, I can certainly understand some of the frustration with him. By my definition of a "humiliating" defeat, I count 6 for Bob Stoops (2001 OSU, 2003 KSU, 2004 USC, 2007 Colorado, 2007 WVU and 2011 TTech), but only 3 for Barry Switzer (1975 Kansas, 1977 Arkansas and 1980 Stanford). I believe that's why that writer was so hard on him, but one more title for Bob (and he will get it) will shut the critics up.

Ms. Proud, as she usually does, hits it right on the head and renders this discussion moot.

But I'll throw out the following:

Losing to Mizzou, 10-0, in 1983 counts as the kind of loss Stoops gets more blame for today than Switzer does; we were #11 in the country and they were unranked. Losing to KU in 1983 certainly counts, and the loss to Washington in the Orange Bowl following that season is as bad as our LSU and UF title-game losses. With a win in that one, we'd have been national champs.

Losing 27-14 to Miami counts, too. We were #3 in the country, and they were unranked. Yes, they quickly climbed the ranks and the national title was theirs for the taking entering their bowl game, but we were a top 5 team and were playing at home. No matter how good the opponent was, certain of our fans and the national press certainly would not give Stoops a pass for a similar loss today.

And if the 2000 national title is supposedly a lesser accomplishment, given the fact that UM was a good team that year and might have beaten us, had they been given the chance, how about the '85 national title, when Miami had the same record we did and HAD beaten us, handily and in Norman?

And losing to Miami again in 1986 and once again, with a national title on the line, in the Orange Bowl following the 1987 season. Seems we forgive Switzer for those losses now, but Stoops gets cut no such slack for ANY of his losses. They are all held against him in certain circles.

And the 23-7 loss to USC in 1988 -- again, the national media and the likes of Boca would insist Stoops had lost his mojo after such a loss, but the passage of time has rendered such a loss relatively painless all these years later.

Well, guess what -- 25 years from now, Stoops' losses will be smoothed over too.

 

[WaymanFan]

Some of the posts in this thread are the reason that I've become less enamored with most internet message board posters over the past few years.

Humiliated is Charles Thompson on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

Humiliated should be Baylor basketball fans after a former player murdered a current player.

Humiliated should be Penn State fans over the Sandusky scandal.

Humiliated should be Ohio State fans after the Sweater Vest's debacle this year.

Humiliated should be USC fans after their AD & coach stonewalled the NCAA for 2 years.

Nothing in connection with our football program over the past 12 years has come even close to being humiliating. If you think otherwise, you really need to re-think your priorities.

Yes, that is putting things into perspective. "Humiliating" is subjective, but I was simply identifying the word in its context to football games, not real life.

Also, stoopsforprez is correct. The 2007 Colorado game should not count. I stand corrected on that one. The other 5, though, I'm keeping.

Skyvue, you mentioned the 1983 Kansas game. I'm assuming you meant 1984, and I certainly thought about that one. However, that 1984 team with all those freshmen had to slip up somewhere. And with a 17 year old quarterback no one ever heard from again (I jest) starting in place of Danny Bradley, I wouldn't call that embarassing...just frustrating like the 2007 Colorado game.

 

[skyvue]

I wouldn't call that embarassing...just frustrating like the 2007 Colorado game.

My primary point is not that all those losses are embarrassing, but that similar losses under Stoops are cited incessantly by certain of our fans and many members of the media, mitigating circumstances be damned.

If a #2-ranked, Stoops-coached team lost 28-11 to a 5-6 KU squad, do you think fans like boca and the clowns on ESPN would accept the type of excuses and explanations you're offering for that 1984 (as you correctly pointed out, thanks) defeat?

Not a chance.

 

[Max Power]

My primary point is not that all those losses are embarrassing, but that similar losses under Stoops are cited incessantly by certain of our fans and many members of the media, mitigating circumstances be damned.

If a #2-ranked, Stoops-coached team lost 28-11 to a 5-6 KU squad, do you think fans like boca and the clowns on ESPN would accept the type of excuses and explanations you're offering for that 1984 (as you correctly pointed out, thanks) defeat?

Not a chance.

Another thing lost in all this is that the rules for National Champions were different for Switzer and Wilkenson. Based on those rules, Stoops would have 4. Bowl Games didn't matter, there were no conference championship games, it was an arbitrary system.