No, what's really lame is continuing to brag about those NCAA tourney titles, more than sixty years later (aggie fans pretending that the NIT wasn't the more prestigious tourney at the time is also lame).
OU went to the NCAA title game back then, but it rarely comes up in conversation. Why? Because very few people are still alive who remember that game. I mean, cool that we went that far in the tourney (and yes, even cooler if we'd won it), but honestly, at what point are those NCAA Tourney titles not worth bringing up anymore? Will your children's chldren's children still be citing those titles, even if the aggies haven't won it all in the ensuing seasons?
When a team wins consistently over the decades, it's different. OU fans can cite the football championships the Sooners won under Wilkinson because they also won some under Switzer and they've won one (and come close several other times) under Stoops. There's a consistency there. Heck, even before Bud, there was Benny Owen. We're the only program in the country to have four coaches who have won 100 games or more.
But when a program has had just one dominant coach, and his best days were in the 1940s and '50s, and another who did pretty well but never won a title (nor even came very close), then to continuously cite NCAA Tourney championships that occurred more than six decades ago is the very definition of lame.
Imagine if OU had been only fair to middlin' in the years after Wilkinson. Some good teams, a few bowl games, even a major or BCS bowl or two, but no titles -- not even any appearances in the title game. And a slew of sub-.500 seasons.
In other words, imagine if OU football was the equivalent of oswho basketball.
Under those circumstances, aggie fans would roundly mock OU fans if they kept citing those titles from the 1950s as if they meant much, and the Sooner fans would deserve it.
Just as Aggie hoops fans deserve every bit of razzing they get.
