WTSooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2011
- Messages
- 12,024
- Reaction score
- 1,138
You are right and you kind of prove my point. I think Kruger can get us back to competing at the level we were under Sampson, for the most part, year to year but not to level we were under Tubbs for that 8 season run from 1982-90.
I think you are misrepresenting two things. The length of any run Billy had, and how much he accomplished during that run.
'82 was an NIT season.
'83 was a 2nd place Big 8 season, and one win in the Dance
'84 despite winning the Big 8, we didn't even win a single NCAA game.
I just don't think Billy accomplished THAT much more than Kelvin when you put it on paper. The biggest difference would be regular season conference titles. And again, we aren't comparing apples to apples, b/c Kelvin dealt with an unbalanced schedule for years. Billy's NCAA Tourney record is better, but only by about 10%. One in ten games more Billy won. That doesn't take into account that Kelvin took us Dancing all but one season. One-and-done in the Dance is better than an NIT season, yet those stats don't reflect that.
I'm not saying Kelvin wins this battle. Not at all. I'm just saying it's pretty much a wash. Too many OU fans remember the Billy days like they remember the Switzer days. All positive, no negative, and in some cases, and over-inflated sense of what was actually accomplished. Billy was also on campus two more seasons than Kelvin.
I know I'm a Kelvin fan, but I'm capable of looking at this objectively. I just think emotions are clouding the judgement of some folks. Because side by side, the things that actually matter, their accomplishments were pretty darn similar. Kelvin might not have had the notoriety that Billy had for style of play or whatever, but that doesn't go in the record book. And all that notoriety that Billy had, still left our program to hire a relatively unknown coach was Washington State to follow him at OU.