OU Hoops Mount Rushmore

[WTSooner]

I also think length of time at OU plays a role.

To me, four years of Hollis was more important to OU than 2 years of Mookie, in regards to this award. That probably negatively affects Blake too. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that WT and probably AA belong in that top 4.

 

[KBaden145]

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that WT and probably AA belong in that top 4.

Yep...

 

[WaymanFan]

Me, I'd never consider a player's NBA accomplishments for this particular (imaginary) honor

We'll have to agree to disagree. These are the things I'm showing to prospective recruits...it's great when they can identify with someone. Coach Kruger may not have yet benefitted from Blake Griffin going to OU, but I'm about 99% sure he mentions Blake's name to every prospective recruit...and Blake's name will continue to be mentioned for the next decade or so.

Regardless, I can certainly understand someone else's point of view. Hollis Price is one of my 3-4 favorite OU players of all time...I'm certainly not going to argue with those who put him on their Mt. Rushmore list...or Stacey King for that matter. I'm also not foolish enough to argue with those who would pick guys way before my time such as Gerald Tucker, Lester Lane or Don Sidle. It's a great subjective debate.

As for coaches, what I said a few days back is proving true. We need a separate Mt. Rushmore for them since I'm seeing three different (and deserving) coaches to put on that list. All we need is a fourth coach to put there, and there isn't anyone deserving of that honor yet.

 

[vbdad]

Technically he was not fired. However, TCU called him to request permission to speak with Mike Mims. Tubbs went to Donnie Duncan to let him know TCU had called, as is protocol, and Duncan told Tubbs to see if TCU would want him (Tubbs) instead because he was about to be out of a job.

That's the story Al Eschbach told a few months after it happened on WWLS.

So, you are correct he was not fired, but he was about to be.

I always heard from great sources that Mims asked for a good recommendation from Billy for the job. Billy was fed up with Duncan and things hadn't been going as well at OU so he called TCU and said Mims would be great but I'm better. They hired Billy immediately.

Kelvin had a great run at OU but he started with a much better program than Billy. Also wonder what would have happened had Tubby not had a change of heart driving back to Tulsa. He was hired before Kelvin and then called Donnie and turned us down.

 

[skyvue]

Kelvin had a great run at OU but he started with a much better program than Billy.

I don't think the difference was nearly so vast as many keep claiming it was.

 

[KBaden145]

I don't think the difference was nearly so vast as many keep claiming it was.

The difference, for me is simply 2 things
1. 9-18 vs 23-9
2. No star vs Ryan Minor

Not huge but significant. The program Kelvin took over was in much better shape and at higher level than the one Billy took over.

 

[skyvue]

The difference, for me is simply 2 things
1. 9-18 vs 23-9
2. No star vs Ryan Minor

Not huge but significant. The program Kelvin took over was in much better shape and at higher level than the one Billy took over.

Sorry, but it's not nearly that cut and dried. Billy had a very specific system and he needed athletes that fit that system. Do you believe that the 1981 team would have gone 9-18 with Sampson coaching them? I don't.

As for the talent that was on hand when Sampson took over -- how often does a coach win national coach of the year by winning 23 games with a talented team?

Not very often.

 

[WaymanFan]

Sorry, but it's not nearly that cut and dried. Billy had a very specific system and he needed athletes that fit that system. Do you believe that the 1981 team would have gone 9-18 with Sampson coaching them? I don't.

As for the talent that was on hand when Sampson took over -- how often does a coach win national coach of the year by winning 23 games with a talented team?

Not very often. But Sampson did just that.

Kelvin deserved winning National Coach of the Year...but he definitely inherited a lot more talent that fit his system than Billy did. Everyone keeps talking about Ryan Minor, but Kelvin inherited what turned out to be his second best PG in John Ontjes, in his 12 years at OU.

Once Raymond Witley went down, Billy inherited NOTHING except a future building block in Chucky Barnett.

 

[WTSooner]

The difference, for me is simply 2 things
1. 9-18 vs 23-9
2. No star vs Ryan Minor

Not huge but significant. The program Kelvin took over was in much better shape and at higher level than the one Billy took over.

Some of that is coaching. The year before Kelvin took over, Billy had Jeff Webster as a senior, and Minor as a sophomore. We went to the NIT. The next year Kelvin took basically the same team minus Webster, and took them to the Dance. That 9-18 vs 23-9 doesn't mean squat. Do you think Kelvin would have been 9-18 with that team? No chance.

 

[KBaden145]

Some of that is coaching. The year before Kelvin took over, Billy had Jeff Webster as a senior, and Minor as a sophomore. We went to the NIT. The next year Kelvin took basically the same team minus Webster, and took them to the Dance. That 9-18 vs 23-9 doesn't mean squat. Do you think Kelvin would have been 9-18 with that team? No chance.

WT, do you believe Sampson was that better of a coach than Tubbs? Would you argue that Tubbs elevated the program so, that when Kelvin took over we were a more well known basketball program?

They each had very different systems and both needed a particular type of player to run each system. However you want to put it, regardless of what prism, regardless of who would win what with who, the fact of the matter is 2 coaches who were fairly equivalent and very good college coaches had vastly different 1st seasons at OU. I think it is clear the program was in different stages when each took over. Billy had the more difficult start because of where the program was when he took over and the talent available for his system. Maybe Sampson wins more with Billy had. Maybe that group fit his system better. I doubt he has a winning record. Maybe Billy doesn't win as many games as Kelvin did that first year. Keep speculating. The facts are what they are. Billy had to start his career with a team that was only capable of winning 9 games. Kelvin started with a team that was capable of winning 23 games. Facts say Kelvin had an easier start.

 

[KBaden145]

Kelvin deserved winning National Coach of the Year...but he definitely inherited a lot more talent that fit his system than Billy did. Everyone keeps talking about Ryan Minor, but Kelvin inherited what turned out to be his second best PG in John Ontjes, in his 12 years at OU.

Once Raymond Witley went down, Billy inherited NOTHING except a future building block in Chucky Barnett.

Thank you. This is becoming silly. I deal in what is or what was. Why guess and speculate? It's obvious. I'm not saying Billy or Sampson was the better coach. Who cares. Billy just had less to work with his first season and did not have to same level of program Kelvin had. Very different periods of time. It's clear.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Sorry, but it's not nearly that cut and dried. Billy had a very specific system and he needed athletes that fit that system. Do you believe that the 1981 team would have gone 9-18 with Sampson coaching them? I don't.

As for the talent that was on hand when Sampson took over -- how often does a coach win national coach of the year by winning 23 games with a talented team?

Not very often.

Yes, I do. They were awful. Bliss didn't recruit once he started looking for a new job and as WaymanFan said, once Whitley went down any chance at winning double-digit games went out the door. That was by far the worst collection of talent in the history of the Lloyd Noble Center.

 

[WTSooner]

WT, do you believe Sampson was that better of a coach than Tubbs? Would you argue that Tubbs elevated the program so, that when Kelvin took over we were a more well known basketball program?

In a way, I do. And that isn't me being a Kelvin Sampson homer. I like Billy. I just think he is a coach that needed really good talent, and that talent had to fit his system, for him to win games and have good seasons. I don't value coaches like that as much as I value coaches that can adjust to the talent on hand. Kelvin played faster/different those first couple of years b/c he had different talent. When he started recruiting his kids, we became more guard oriented, and developed that toughness his teams were known for. He took both styles to the Dance. He constantly adapted. Those Hollis teams didn't play the same style as the Kelvin teams before that.

That's how I see it. Others see if differently.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Kelvin deserved winning National Coach of the Year...but he definitely inherited a lot more talent that fit his system than Billy did. Everyone keeps talking about Ryan Minor, but Kelvin inherited what turned out to be his second best PG in John Ontjes, in his 12 years at OU.

Once Raymond Witley went down, Billy inherited NOTHING except a future building block in Chucky Barnett.

:clap

This is very accurate. Good post.

 

[Big Old Booger]

In a way, I do. And that isn't me being a Kelvin Sampson homer. I like Billy. I just think he is a coach that needed really good talent, and that talent had to fit his system, for him to win games and have good seasons. I don't value coaches like that as much as I value coaches that can adjust to the talent on hand. Kelvin played faster/different those first couple of years b/c he had different talent. When he started recruiting his kids, we became more guard oriented, and developed that toughness his teams were known for. He took both styles to the Dance. He constantly adapted. Those Hollis teams didn't play the same style as the Kelvin teams before that.

That's how I see it. Others see if differently.

The part I bolded is an ignorant statement (I don't think you are ignorant, I think you are speaking about something of which you don't really know). You need to go back and look at some of Tubbs rosters. Other than Tisdale, Blaylock, Grant and King, Tubbs didn't have any "really good talent". King wasn't even highly recruited so Tubbs and his staff developed him. It just so happened that 3 of those players were on the same team, which is still the best OU team of all time.

 

[WTSooner]

The part I bolded is an ignorant statement (I don't think you are ignorant, I think you are speaking about something of which you don't really know). You need to go back and look at some of Tubbs rosters. Other than Tisdale, Blaylock, Grant and King, Tubbs didn't have any "really good talent". King wasn't even highly recruited so Tubbs and his staff developed him. It just so happened that 3 of those players were on the same team, which is still the best OU team of all time.

I don't feel like debating this with you, no reason for it. We both have our opinions. But I'll leave you with this.

I'm not saying this stat is perfect, but if you take out the 3 years with Tisdale, and the 2 years with King as an upperclassmen alongside Mookie (and Grace/Grant).....so take out those 5 seasons where they had great talent.....and they made the Dance 4 out of the other 9 seasons.

Kelvin's teams made the Dance 11 of his 12 seasons coaching at OU.

Not a perfect stat, but I do think it supports my stance.

 

[skyvue]

This is becoming silly. I deal in what is or what was. Why guess and speculate? It's obvious.

Sorry, but merely stating a single stat does not qualify as "dealing with what was." There are always other factors to be considered.

If Tubbs left Sampson with such great talent, why did Billy finish 15-13 with that talent his final season? And if the talent and the program overall were at such a high level when he took over, why did Sampson win national coach of the year by notching just 23 wins? Not 29 or 30, but 23.

Clearly, the national perception of our talent and our program at the time differed from the opinion you now hold.

And as long as we're tossing around the "silly" tag, it's silly to pretend that Tubbs' style of play didn't impact OU's record in his first season. Did he have the specific players he wanted and needed? No, but that was a limitation of his system: It required a very specific type of player.

I have no doubt that Sampson would have bettered that 9-18 record, had he coached that same bunch of players. And that's not intended as a knock on Tubbs.

 

[KBaden145]

9-18 vs 23-9. Given equal talent, I would pick Sampson as an in-game coach. Each coach has a system that requires a certain type of player.

All I've said is Tubbs had a more difficult start to his time at OU bc of a lack of talent available to his system. Once his did, he was 29-5 within his 1st 4 years as head coach and that is coaching, not just having players. I'm not knocking Sampson but I do think Tubbs deserves an immense amount of credit (more than Sampson) for elevating this basketball program. Lets say he elevated it and Sampson restored it.

Unlike some you guys, I'm not fan of a particular coach. I root objectively regardless of who the coach is. However, I can appreciate what our coaches have accomplished (or in other cases what they destroyed). I appreciate both Tubbs and Sampson. I identify with Sampson's style more but I identify Tubbs with OU basketball more and that was my original idea posting for this thread.

 

[KBaden145]

Sorry, but merely stating a single stat does not qualify as "dealing with what was." There are always other factors to be considered.

If Tubbs left Sampson with such great talent, why did Billy finish 15-13 with that talent his final season? And if the talent and the program overall were at such a high level when he took over, why did Sampson win national coach of the year by notching just 23 wins? Not 29 or 30, but 23.

Clearly, the national perception of our talent and our program at the time differed from the opinion you now hold.

And as long as we're tossing around the "silly" tag, it's silly to pretend that Tubbs' style of play didn't impact OU's record in his first season. Did he have the specific players he wanted and needed? No, but that was a limitation of his system: It required a very specific type of player.

I have no doubt that Sampson would have bettered that 9-18 record, had he coached that same bunch of players. And that's not intended as a knock on Tubbs.

BTW, who said Tubbs left great talent when he left? He did leave a budding superstar in Minor but not great talent. Sampson had a great first year and deserved COY but he had more to work with for his style of play than Tubbs. What did I say that is incorrect?

 

[skyvue]

What did I say that is incorrect?

You're overstating the level of the program when Tubbs departed. We had missed the tourney two years in a row (and three out of four seasons) when Tubbs left, and his last team went 15-13.

Saying Sampson deserved coach of the year actually goes against your own stance. Why, with just 23 wins, did Sampson deserve coach of the year if he had taken over such a successful program and a talented team?

Because, in fact, the team had been just so-so for some years and because the talent level was down, that's why.

Continuing to just repeat the inaugural records of the two coaches proves absolutely nothing if you don't view those records in context.