OU Hoops Mount Rushmore

[KBaden145]

:clap

Very good post.

I will add, had the football program not had so much turmoil which led to Dr. Tom Hill's hiring, which led to the stars from the 89/90 team all leaving the University (Jackie Jones, McCovery, etc.) because they were going to be ineligible (Damon Patterson was also ineligible but stayed), Tubbs has another final 4 in 90/91 and I think the program would have rolled along another 4-5 seasons at least.

A lot of younger OU fans don't realize how crippled the program was when Hill was hired. Maybe it was done for the right reasons because players should be graduating. However, the other Big 8 programs weren't doing that to their athletic teams and neither were programs like UNLV, Michigan, and Kentucky, who were all big-time programs at the time.

This is a copy of a post I made on another thread about this exact topic.

I've always considered that 1990-91 team to be the 'lost' team of OU basketball. Think of the roster of players that could have been at Tubbs fingertips:

G Terry Evans, 6-1 SO
G Smokey McCovery, 6-2 SR
G Terrence Mullins, 6-3 SR
G Brent Price, 6-1 JR
F Kermit Holmes, 6-7 SR
F Jackie Jones, 6-8 SR
F Damon Patterson, 6-7 JR
C Bryan Sallier, 6-8 SO
F Jeff Webster, 6-8 rFR

We were really good in 1989-90 but this team might have been an all-time caliber team. I figure the starters would have been Price, McCovery, Jones, Webster, and Holmes.

 

[WTSooner]

Also, Tubbs inherited a much worse situation than did Kelvin.

I don't think you understand what the program was when Billy arrived or you wouldn't make the statement above.

Purely from an "on paper" analysis, I don't see that as being true.

The two years before Billy took over our records were 21-10 and 15-12. The 21-10 season we won the conference, won the conference tourney, and won a game in the NCAA's. It appears we missed postseason play 15-12 season.

The two years before Kelvin took over our records were 20-12 and 15-13. Both seasons we tied for 5th in the conference. Both seasons resulted in NIT play, I believe.

Tubbs inherited a team with Chucky Barnett, Bo Overton, and Raymond Whitley. Kelvin inherited a team with similar talent, plus Ryan Minor. So while I'd give the slight edge in talent to what Kelvin inherited, it certainly wasn't a huge difference. Both rosters needed upgrading.

I'd say they walked into two pretty similar situations.

 

[KBaden145]

Purely from an "on paper" analysis, I don't see that as being true.

The two years before Billy took over our records were 21-10 and 15-12. The 21-10 season we won the conference, won the conference tourney, and won a game in the NCAA's. It appears we missed postseason play 15-12 season.

The two years before Kelvin took over our records were 20-12 and 15-13. Both seasons we tied for 5th in the conference. Both seasons resulted in NIT play, I believe.

Tubbs inherited a team with Chucky Barnett, Bo Overton, and Raymond Whitley. Kelvin inherited a team with similar talent, plus Ryan Minor. So while I'd give the slight edge in talent to what Kelvin inherited, it certainly wasn't a huge difference. Both rosters needed upgrading.

I'd say they walked into two pretty similar situations.

9-18 is a world away from 23-9. Starting your career at a new school with the likes of Ryan Minor is a luxury Tubbs, Capel, and Kruger had to do without. Of our last 4 coaches, Sampson had a definite talent advantage to start his OU career with. Tubbs job at the start was much more difficult than Kelvins. I completely disagree with your comparison.

 

[WTSooner]

Tubbs' last four seasons at OU included three NIT's, and an NCAA appearance that resulted in a one-and-done loss to LA-Lafayette. You cannot leave out large chunks of seasons and say he was consistent. Billy was no consistent. He had a nice run in the middle there, but looking at his resume, I don't call that consistent.

As for strength of the conference, I know how good KU/Mizzou were back then. But Kelvin had to deal with the Big 12, which includes a UT program that was pretty solid as well. I don't see how anybody can suggest that college basketball wasn't tougher, and that there wasn't more parity during Kelvin's tenure.

You could make the same argument about football. Much tougher to win big now, than it was when Switzer was on campus. Makes what Saban is doing stand out even more. The rules have changed in both sports that make it tougher to get to the front of the pack and to stay there for long periods of time.

 

[WTSooner]

9-18 is a world away from 23-9. Starting your career at a new school with the likes of Ryan Minor is a luxury Tubbs, Capel, and Kruger had to do without. Of our last 4 coaches, Sampson had a definite talent advantage to start his OU career with. I completely disagree with your comparison.

You cannot use their first season on campus as an example of what they were left. Maybe Billy just wasn't as good of a coach back then. Maybe, in a way like Capel, he needed a stable full of stallions to win. Kelvin proved time and time again he did not. No way Billy's first team goes 9-18 with Kelvin as coach.

Some of that is coaching. Minor didn't look like the stud he was under Kelvin for Tubbs. Very good player, yes. But not a stud. At some point you have to give credit to Kelvin. Tubbs had Minor as a soph that averaged 16 points, and still lost 13 games and made the NIT. Kelvin took that same roster the following year, LESS JEFF WEBSTER, and made the NCAA Tournament. How telling is that?

 

[KBaden145]

Tubbs' last four seasons at OU included three NIT's, and an NCAA appearance that resulted in a one-and-done loss to LA-Lafayette. You cannot leave out large chunks of seasons and say he was consistent. Billy was no consistent. He had a nice run in the middle there, but looking at his resume, I don't call that consistent.

As for strength of the conference, I know how good KU/Mizzou were back then. But Kelvin had to deal with the Big 12, which includes a UT program that was pretty solid as well. I don't see how anybody can suggest that college basketball wasn't tougher, and that there wasn't more parity during Kelvin's tenure.

You could make the same argument about football. Much tougher to win big now, than it was when Switzer was on campus. Makes what Saban is doing stand out even more. The rules have changed in both sports that make it tougher to get to the front of the pack and to stay there for long periods of time.

Tubbs had a GREAT run in the 80's and Kelvin got 4 conference games against Baylor and A&M each year. It goes both ways. Kelvin was more consistent but we reached greater heights under Tubbs, a level we might not ever reach again.

 

[KBaden145]

You cannot use their first season on campus as an example of what they were left. Maybe Billy just wasn't as good of a coach back then. Maybe, in a way like Capel, he needed a stable full of stallions to win. Kelvin proved time and time again he did not. No way Billy's first team goes 9-18 with Kelvin as coach.

Some of that is coaching. Minor didn't look like the stud he was under Kelvin for Tubbs. Very good player, yes. But not a stud. At some point you have to give credit to Kelvin. Tubbs had Minor as a soph that averaged 16 points, and still lost 13 games and made the NIT. Kelvin took that same roster the following year, LESS JEFF WEBSTER, and made the NCAA Tournament. How telling is that?

I gave Sampson tons of credit but he got the better start, IMO. Again, I'm a huge Sampson fan but for this discussion, I choose Tubbs.

 

[KBaden145]

All that said, where does everyone put Minor? On the mountain, up for consideration, or no?

 

[Big Old Booger]

Purely from an "on paper" analysis, I don't see that as being true.

The two years before Billy took over our records were 21-10 and 15-12. The 21-10 season we won the conference, won the conference tourney, and won a game in the NCAA's. It appears we missed postseason play 15-12 season.

The two years before Kelvin took over our records were 20-12 and 15-13. Both seasons we tied for 5th in the conference. Both seasons resulted in NIT play, I believe.

Tubbs inherited a team with Chucky Barnett, Bo Overton, and Raymond Whitley. Kelvin inherited a team with similar talent, plus Ryan Minor. So while I'd give the slight edge in talent to what Kelvin inherited, it certainly wasn't a huge difference. Both rosters needed upgrading.

I'd say they walked into two pretty similar situations.

You can't just look at soonerstats and draw an accurate conclusion as things aren't always as they seem. The 78/79 team that won the conference was full of jr's and sr's. They were all gone, except Ray Whitley, after the 79/80 season and Dave Bliss did ZERO recruiting that year because he wanted out of Norman. When he accepted the job at SMU, OU started interviewing "pie in the sky" candidates like John Thompson and Lou Henson (maybe a few others), neither of which wanted the job. They then settled on Tubbs and by the time he arrived he had no time to recruit.

Tubbs did inherit Barnett, Overton and Whitley, but Whitley tore his ACL either at the end of the 79/80 season or before the start of the 80/81 season. So, he was unavailable in Tubbs first season or OU would have won at least 2-3 more games, maybe 4 or 5. He was THAT good before his injury.

Also, you have to realize, the little bit of talent Tubbs inherited was for the Bobby Knight system of which Bliss was a disciple. However, Tubbs wanted to play run 'n gun, which needed big men who could move and we didn't have any big men much less big men who could run.

Barnett was a good player but he was not even in the same galaxy as Minor. Overton was probably equal to Ontjes, though, as both were very similar players.

The point is, they didn't walk into similar situations. Tubbs inherited a program that had 1 good season in the previous 6-7 but Sampson inherited a program that was just 6 years removed from a final 4 and 4 years removed from a #1 overall seed. That alone makes the situations far different.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong and that's not just my opinion.

Also, as mentioned before, you won't find a bigger fan of Kelvin Sampson than me.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Tubbs' last four seasons at OU included three NIT's, and an NCAA appearance that resulted in a one-and-done loss to LA-Lafayette. You cannot leave out large chunks of seasons and say he was consistent. Billy was no consistent. He had a nice run in the middle there, but looking at his resume, I don't call that consistent.

As for strength of the conference, I know how good KU/Mizzou were back then. But Kelvin had to deal with the Big 12, which includes a UT program that was pretty solid as well. I don't see how anybody can suggest that college basketball wasn't tougher, and that there wasn't more parity during Kelvin's tenure.

You could make the same argument about football. Much tougher to win big now, than it was when Switzer was on campus. Makes what Saban is doing stand out even more. The rules have changed in both sports that make it tougher to get to the front of the pack and to stay there for long periods of time.

Texas sucked in basketball when the Big 12 was formed. In fact, until the 2003 season, when Texas had TJ Ford and advanced to the final 4, Texas was nothing more than a name on the jersey. Tubbs owned Tom Penders as did Kelvin. When the Big 12 was formed, the basketball league wasn't very good thanks to 4 craptacular programs from the SWC. They really watered down what had been a very good basketball conference. Once Texas hired Barnes they started improving but were very inconsistent until he got Ford and then started getting good recruits every year.

For the first 3-4 years of the Big 12, OU and OSU had 8 games against teams from Texas that were almost automatic wins. Tech was decent the first 2 years of the conference, aTm sucked moose balls as did Baylor, and Texas was very mediocre.

 

[Big Old Booger]

You cannot use their first season on campus as an example of what they were left. Maybe Billy just wasn't as good of a coach back then. Maybe, in a way like Capel, he needed a stable full of stallions to win. Kelvin proved time and time again he did not. No way Billy's first team goes 9-18 with Kelvin as coach.

Some of that is coaching. Minor didn't look like the stud he was under Kelvin for Tubbs. Very good player, yes. But not a stud. At some point you have to give credit to Kelvin. Tubbs had Minor as a soph that averaged 16 points, and still lost 13 games and made the NIT. Kelvin took that same roster the following year, LESS JEFF WEBSTER, and made the NCAA Tournament. How telling is that?

I agree, some of that is coaching but some isn't.

I believe in the old saying "all good things must come to an end". Tubbs had a great run in the 80s and when he's about to have a returning team that was good enough to win it all, the stars of that team are declared ineligible and, IMO, it took the wind out of Billy's sails. He seemed to lose the fervor he had for the job and so his career ended up on a somewhat sour note. The program was still competitive, but certainly not what it had been just a few seasons before.

I think the end of Sampson's career at OU was very similar to the end of Tubbs career. Once Hollis, Quannis, Ere, and those guys from the final 4 and elite 8 team were gone, Sampson's next few teams were somewhat mediocre. Sure, he shared a conference title in 2005, but that was mainly due to the fact we got to play KU in Norman and not Larryville. Then we lose in the 2nd round of the Big 12 tourney to Tech and then lose in the 2nd round of the NCAA to Utah. The next year we have what appears to be a good team on paper but grossly underachieved. Sampson's last 3 years had a 2nd round NIT loss, a 2nd round NCAA loss and a 1st round NCAA loss. Tubbs last 3 years were a 1st round NCAA loss, and 2 2nd round NIT losses. Not much different if you ask me.

So, I would say it seemed Kelvin had lost his fire for the OU job. Had Indiana not courted him, I think he would have turned it around but we never got the chance to see it.

Switzer was at a similar crossroads when he was fired and Stoops is at a similar crossroads now with the OU program. All 4 of them were so good for so long that other teams figure out what to do to win and then it's up to the coaches to figure out a way to get it back. Tubbs couldn't do it, Sampson didn't do it, and Switzer was fired before he could do it but he had done it once before. I have a feeling Stoops will get it back but that's for a football board.

 

[skyvue]

So, I would say it seemed Kelvin had lost his fire for the OU job.

Sampson had signed perhaps his best recruiting class before he left. Doesn't sound like a guy who was burned out to me.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Back to the original topic, I think it would be difficult to create a Mount Rushmore of OU Hoops but if I were limited to 4 people they would be:

Tisdale
King
Blaylock

Those 3 for sure and then 1 of the remaining:

Tubbs
Sampson
Minor
Price
Griffin
Adams
Sidle
Drake

 

[Big Old Booger]

Sampson had signed perhaps his best recruiting class before he left. Doesn't sound like a guy who was burned out to me.

Thats a good point and a very relevant point. Maybe he was getting it back and thats why I said I think he would have gotten it back. Just like Switzer got it back when he had the 81/82/83 seasons, maybe Sampson was on the verge with that recruiting class. We will never know, but you have to agree his last 3 seasons were very mediocre which points to losing some fire, IMO.

And, on EDIT, I will add Tubbs also had a very highly rated recruiting class when he was fired. Maybe he was on the verge of getting it back. WE will never know.

 

[WTSooner]

Sampson had signed perhaps his best recruiting class before he left. Doesn't sound like a guy who was burned out to me.

Exactly.

The reason for the slight downturn after Hollis and Crew was just that, it was a once in a career type roster. That team, regardless of no NBA players, was pretty darn talented. Sampson brought in good talent after that, it just never seemed to click. Guys like Lavander and LMac. Even Everett and Gray. But the class of Reynolds, James, Crocker, and Clark.....I think Kelvin would have done nice things with those guys.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Exactly.

The reason for the slight downturn after Hollis and Crew was just that, it was a once in a career type roster. That team, regardless of no NBA players, was pretty darn talented. Sampson brought in good talent after that, it just never seemed to click. Guys like Lavander and LMac. Even Everett and Gray. But the class of Reynolds, James, Crocker, and Clark.....I think Kelvin would have done nice things with those guys.

Maybe he would have and maybe not. He didn't do much with the Lavender class which was highly rated and the class before that with Alexander and Bookout. Not all of that was his fault, I agree, but the results on the court suggest he had lost his mojo at OU.

We could make the same assertion with Tubbs and his last recruiting class, which as mentioned previously was highly rated but like Sampson's last recruiting class (James and Reynolds) only a few of Tubbs recruits made it to Norman and they all left but Wiley who was prop 42 or 48, whichever meant he had to sit out and lose a year of eligibility.

 

[Big Old Booger]

All that said, where does everyone put Minor? On the mountain, up for consideration, or no?

Minor was Big 12 POY as a jr and should have won it as a sr but was screwed by the KU media mafia and their love for Jacque Vaughn.

I love Hollis but maybe Minor should be ahead of him in consideration for the 4th and final spot behind Wayman, King, and Mookie.

 

[WTSooner]

Not all of that was his fault, I agree, but the results on the court suggest he had lost his mojo at OU.

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Take out the Hollis years (especially JR/SR seasons), and take out the NIT season, and the rest of Kelvin's career, season by season, is nearly an identical image of each other. He had seasons after Hollis that were like almost every season he had before Hollis. That group was special, we all know that. I don't know of too many OU fans that thought Kelvin or OU were on the decline at the time of his departure.

 

[Big Old Booger]

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Take out the Hollis years (especially JR/SR seasons), and take out the NIT season, and the rest of Kelvin's career, season by season, is nearly an identical image of each other. He had seasons after Hollis that were like almost every season he had before Hollis. That group was special, we all know that. I don't know of too many OU fans that thought Kelvin or OU were on the decline at the time of his departure.

I think a lot of people on this message board (actually the OU Insider board) thought his OU career was on the decline. I can remember reading articles that suggested he had lost it and I think he even admitted it himself. I need to find the article, if possible where he said something like the Indiana job had "rejuvenated" him or something like this.

I don't know your age, but I would guess you didn't follow OU basketball much before the 90's. Would you say that is correct or incorrect?

 

[KBaden145]

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Take out the Hollis years (especially JR/SR seasons), and take out the NIT season, and the rest of Kelvin's career, season by season, is nearly an identical image of each other. He had seasons after Hollis that were like almost every season he had before Hollis. That group was special, we all know that. I don't know of too many OU fans that thought Kelvin or OU were on the decline at the time of his departure.

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.