Last four years in Big 12 play

[BoulderSooner]

It appears our conference is not as strong as in years past thus being 5th this year doesn't have the same impact as in past years.

2nd best in conf rpi with the #1 conf SOS and 3rd place conf is closer to the 6th than they are to the Big12

big 12 is only a tiny bit behind #1

 

[Hollisp]

Now, beating KU to win the conference championship? Well, that’s another story.

I would enjoy this immensely

 

[BCSooners]

I think the NCAA tourney is more important to most of us. Conference games may demand more attention right now because they’re used as a benchmark for what we’re capable of later on. But I doubt if anyone would take a top half finish in the Big 12 over winning a game or two in the dance.

Now, beating KU to win the conference championship? Well, that’s another story.

This would be the only scenario I'd trade going 0'fer in non-con & not make the dance.

 

[hoopsaustin]

Sampson made the tournament 11 out of 12 years, 6 out of 11 years OU was bounced in the 1st round. So Sampson only had 5 successful seasons?

In some ways yes. It was softened by the fact that our teams played hard, blocked out, and got better usually and had strong conference seasons/tournaments nearly every year. I bet Sampson would say those years fell short of their goals.

That year we got bounced by UW-green bay or whatever still annoys me lol.

 

[WichitaSooner]

I feel the same way. IF we get them, they'll disappoint and/or transfer anyway. Like Mcgusty.

And Trae. And Brady. And Doo. And Buddy. And Cousins.

 

[MrAnderson]

Would you all rather rather be very good in the non-con and then mediocre in league play (as has been the case for a few years now), or would you prefer the reverse? Which scenario results in a better seed in the dance do you think?

Conference success isnt paramount in itself in so much as its directly related to positioning in march. That's why I harp on league records so much.

 

[daqman]

Would you all rather rather be very good in the non-con and then mediocre in league play (as has been the case for a few years now), or would you prefer the reverse? Which scenario results in a better seed in the dance do you think?

Conference success isnt paramount in itself in so much as its directly related to positioning in march. That's why I harp on league records so much.

Conference success usually relates to post season success. It's a good indicator of the quality of the team.
I'm pretty confident the current team has no shot at the sweet 16 this year. If we finished top 3 or 4, winning 2 games in the tournament is a realistic expectation. And that's where this program should be.

 

[MrAnderson]

Conference success usually relates to post season success. It's a good indicator of the quality of the team.
I'm pretty confident the current team has no shot at the sweet 16 this year. If we finished top 3 or 4, winning 2 games in the tournament is a realistic expectation. And that's where this program should be.

Agreed. That's what I was trying to say. Maybe I wasnt clear.

 

[NY Soonerfan]

I read all of the responses to this topic and most of them have brought up some very good and valid points, and I don't really have much to add, in their regard. Yes, conference play is not the end all, be all. And yes, we have made the tourney in six of LK's eight years, which is something not to be taken lightly. And the "careful what you wish for" mantra definitely comes into play here too, because dismissing a HOF coach and just whimsically expecting someone to come in and equal or do better than that coach is a lot more difficult that we think. I also agree we aren't firing LK, but that can also be worked around too, so it's on his terms, etc.

But, my overall view of the program over the past 2-3 years, in one word, is stagnation. We have not improved at all, we see the same things happening night in and night out that we have seen for the better part of three years. The players haven't made the improvement we have expected, the team, as a whole, hasn't improved as expected, and because of that, we're simply stuck in neutral. We seem to make too many mental mistakes on a night in, night out basis, that cost us games because we are a middle of the pack team and have zero margin for error.

Maybe we make the tournament, maybe we don't. We'll be on pins and needles Selection Sunday (at best), just like we have been the past two seasons. I'm not sitting here and saying we should be a second weekend team every year, but I think it's also fair to state we should't be on the edge of our seats come SS. The program, which actually has a relatively storied history in CBB, hen you compare it as a whole to the entire landscape, deserves more than "maybe we make it, maybe we don't."

The CURRENT situation reminds me of a 7-9 NFL team that has a competent starting QB, but one you know isn't going to win you anything (Tyrod Taylor with the Bills instantly comes to mind). Sure, maybe one year he excels and outkicks his coverage and the team goes 9-7 and sneaks into the playoffs, but you know maybe one win, at best, is the ceiling. So, the problem is, do you tear it all down, get rid of the QB, and risk going 3-13? It's possible it could happen. But, it's also possible you hit a home run, get the right guy, and turn the perennial 7-9 to 9-7 window into 11-5 and better and really set yourself up for an extended run. At this point in the program, and LK's tenure at OU, and the fact he's coming to an end to his incredible career, I'm OK with the risk-reward involved in tearing it all down and going a different direction because I think we can all agree that there's really no reason to think the "maybe we make it, maybe we don't" trend is going to disappear over the next 3-5 years with LK at the helm.

 

[MrAnderson]

Great post, NY Soonerfan

 

[WTSooner]

Sampson made the tournament 11 out of 12 years, 6 out of 11 years OU was bounced in the 1st round. So Sampson only had 5 successful seasons?

I've said it numerous times, here is my goal going into each season. Or what our goal should be going into each season.

1. Top 3-5 finish in the Big 12. Preferably top 3-4.
2. Comfortably making the Dance. What is comfortable? I'd say getting a seed that makes you the favorite to win your first game. So an 8/9 seed or better. IMO, when you start talking about 10/11 seeds, you are literally a game or two from possibly missing the Dance. That is bubble in my book. I don't like the bubble.

That is it. Other than things like preferring a team that plays hard all the time, fights, and is tough, if those first two things happen pretty regularly, I won't complain. I don't even care about the results of the Dance, because upsets happen. Be nice to go on a few nice runs every couple of years, and we typically do that. If we're doing 1 and 2 above, we're also consistent which is probably my biggest gripe about the program. Too much and down season to season. Too many seasons where the goal going into the season isn't even to do 1 and 2 above. That is bad.

 

[WTSooner]

Conference success usually relates to post season success. It's a good indicator of the quality of the team.
I'm pretty confident the current team has no shot at the sweet 16 this year. If we finished top 3 or 4, winning 2 games in the tournament is a realistic expectation. And that's where this program should be.

Conference games mean more because those are our peers, and it's the best measure of how good we are or are not. Like you said, it almost ties into the postseason for that reason. Sure, there are good and bad Big 12 teams, but they are still more capable of beating us than some teams we play OOC that have a better record.

 

[WTSooner]

2nd best in conf rpi with the #1 conf SOS and 3rd place conf is closer to the 6th than they are to the Big12

big 12 is only a tiny bit behind #1

That's because it's top heavy with KU, WVU, and Baylor. Those three teams are propping up a VERY MEDIOCRE middle in OU, UT, TCU, and TT, and a terrible KSU, ISU, and OSU.

The RPI I just saw had KU and WVU 1 and 2, and Baylor 7. That offsets a lot of mediocrity.

 

[opsooner]

OP.....from the game threads, you and I agree on virtually every topic and stance....however, I keep seeing this narrative about fan support and its effect on a program. I'm in the minority on this, but I believe fan support is fairly overrated. I'm not saying that it is not a component, but it is somewhat insignificant. I can list countless programs that have experienced poor fan support for years and have built a winner despite poor attendance. Let's start with the school in Waco....#1 team in the country and Drew has continued to build and build without any noticeably better fan support. They have it now....because they are atop the polls, but before their attendance/support was in the same category as ours.



Other programs that have come about with little support:

• Rutgers: haven't made the tournament in 30 years, but slowly they've improved over the last 3 years.
  
• Seton Hall
  
• Colorado
  
• Texas Tech
  
• Houston: they haven't had fan support since Phi Slamma Jamma
  
• Auburn: they are a football school
  
• And I could list 10 more....those were off the top of my head.
  

My point is.....coaching (in all aspects) matters more than we think.



Understand....I'm not picking on you, but I hear this narrative that fan support is poor and we would be better if more fans showed up.....I think it's a lot of nonsense. Not so much from a recruiting standpoint, but more from a performance standpoint. If you win....they will come.

Partially agree with you. I went on to say we have been terrible on the road. But I was in college during the Tubbs’ years and I saw it. He got the team playing better but then brought in the fans. We then became almost unbeatable at home and started winning more road games as well. We, like every team, still had ups and downs on the road, but won enough. And I am certain that our fans had an impact on recruiting.

I am NOT blaming everything on fan base. We have decent players but also lack toughness and discipline to win more road games. I don’t like our style for the talent we are currently getting. Manek and Doo are very good but they are not Tisdale. Playing one-on-one basketball at crunch time on the road with our talent does not work well enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steverocks35]

I read all of the responses to this topic and most of them have brought up some very good and valid points, and I don't really have much to add, in their regard. Yes, conference play is not the end all, be all. And yes, we have made the tourney in six of LK's eight years, which is something not to be taken lightly. And the "careful what you wish for" mantra definitely comes into play here too, because dismissing a HOF coach and just whimsically expecting someone to come in and equal or do better than that coach is a lot more difficult that we think. I also agree we aren't firing LK, but that can also be worked around too, so it's on his terms, etc.

But, my overall view of the program over the past 2-3 years, in one word, is stagnation. We have not improved at all, we see the same things happening night in and night out that we have seen for the better part of three years. The players haven't made the improvement we have expected, the team, as a whole, hasn't improved as expected, and because of that, we're simply stuck in neutral. We seem to make too many mental mistakes on a night in, night out basis, that cost us games because we are a middle of the pack team and have zero margin for error.

Maybe we make the tournament, maybe we don't. We'll be on pins and needles Selection Sunday (at best), just like we have been the past two seasons. I'm not sitting here and saying we should be a second weekend team every year, but I think it's also fair to state we should't be on the edge of our seats come SS. The program, which actually has a relatively storied history in CBB, hen you compare it as a whole to the entire landscape, deserves more than "maybe we make it, maybe we don't."

The CURRENT situation reminds me of a 7-9 NFL team that has a competent starting QB, but one you know isn't going to win you anything (Tyrod Taylor with the Bills instantly comes to mind). Sure, maybe one year he excels and outkicks his coverage and the team goes 9-7 and sneaks into the playoffs, but you know maybe one win, at best, is the ceiling. So, the problem is, do you tear it all down, get rid of the QB, and risk going 3-13? It's possible it could happen. But, it's also possible you hit a home run, get the right guy, and turn the perennial 7-9 to 9-7 window into 11-5 and better and really set yourself up for an extended run. At this point in the program, and LK's tenure at OU, and the fact he's coming to an end to his incredible career, I'm OK with the risk-reward involved in tearing it all down and going a different direction because I think we can all agree that there's really no reason to think the "maybe we make it, maybe we don't" trend is going to disappear over the next 3-5 years with LK at the helm.

I can't disagree with any of this. I always think about us in terms of the NBA. There are those teams stuck at the bottom of the playoffs every year who aren't bad enough to get any good draft picks and not good enough to make a deep run in the playoffs or attract transcendent free agents. Do you blow it up and start over and endure the pain of some bad seasons while you rebuild or do you sit on what you have, mired in mediocrity, and hope some of your young players and second round draft picks exceed expectations? It's a tough call but that is kind of where we are and there's no guarantee that if you blow it up, you will get better in the long run. How many times have teams like Sacramento and Atlanta been "rebuilt" over the years?

This is all complicated by the fact that we are a football school playing in a below-average venue with tepid (at best) fan support. I don't have the answers but we do seem to be stuck in neutral since the final four run.

 

[sheepdogs1]

2nd best in conf rpi with the #1 conf SOS and 3rd place conf is closer to the 6th than they are to the Big12

big 12 is only a tiny bit behind #1

I understand that, but most would agree that from the prism of the league itself that it does not measure up to previous years. Now it's entirely possible that other conferences are down as well, so the relative performance can stay the very same.

 

[BCSooners]

I've said it numerous times, here is my goal going into each season. Or what our goal should be going into each season.

1. Top 3-5 finish in the Big 12. Preferably top 3-4.
2. Comfortably making the Dance. What is comfortable? I'd say getting a seed that makes you the favorite to win your first game. So an 8/9 seed or better. IMO, when you start talking about 10/11 seeds, you are literally a game or two from possibly missing the Dance. That is bubble in my book. I don't like the bubble.

That is it. Other than things like preferring a team that plays hard all the time, fights, and is tough, if those first two things happen pretty regularly, I won't complain. I don't even care about the results of the Dance, because upsets happen. Be nice to go on a few nice runs every couple of years, and we typically do that. If we're doing 1 and 2 above, we're also consistent which is probably my biggest gripe about the program. Too much and down season to season. Too many seasons where the goal going into the season isn't even to do 1 and 2 above. That is bad.

I wasn't quoting you, so I don't understand the whole spill. I know your stance, I don't agree with it but who cares.

 

[BCSooners]

That's because it's top heavy with KU, WVU, and Baylor. Those three teams are propping up a VERY MEDIOCRE middle in OU, UT, TCU, and TT, and a terrible KSU, ISU, and OSU.

The RPI I just saw had KU and WVU 1 and 2, and Baylor 7. That offsets a lot of mediocrity.

Haven't you, or someone, been arguing the past few years that the ACC is better than the Big12 because they're better at the top? So now that it's reversed OU shouldn't even be top 2?

 

[MrAnderson]

Since the beginning of the 2016-17 season:

1. Kansas: 49-14

2. Baylor: 39-24

3. Texas Tech: 36-27

4. Kansas State: 34-29

5. West Virginia: 33-30

6. Iowa State: 27-36

7. TCU: 26-37

T8. OU: 24-39

T8. Texas: 24-39

10. OSU: 23-40

 

[BoulderSooner]

Since the beginning of the 2016-17 season:

1. Kansas: 49-14

2. Baylor: 39-24

3. Texas Tech: 36-27

4. Kansas State: 34-29

5. West Virginia: 33-30

6. Iowa State: 27-36

7. TCU: 26-37

T8. OU: 24-39

T8. Texas: 24-39

10. OSU: 23-40

of course randomly add 1 more year

and you have
1. KU 64-17
2. Baylor 49-32
3. WVU 46-35
4. Tech 45-36
5. KSU 39-42
6. ISU 37-44
7. OU 36-45
8. Texas 35-46
9. TCU 28-53
10. osu 26-55