SEC was afraid of WVU

[Max Power]

My bad on that. Also forgot that Nebraska has won a national title in the Big 12 era.

Point doesn't really change.

Over the course of the Big 12's history, very little separates OU, UT and NU.

Except for wining the conference 7 out of 15 years you're right, not much sperates the three :facepalm

 

[stoops4pres]

Each team has played for at least one national title in that span. Texas and Oklahoma both won one. Texas is the only team to play in two.

OU has played in 4 National Title Games. You're struggling badly in this argument.

Sorry to offend by suggesting someone else might have an argument as the best footbsll program over the course of the Big 12's existance. Seems like some of you forgot about the Blake years. Those records still count.

No offense taken, I'm just simply telling you that you're entirely wrong on this debate.

OU has been the best Big 12 program since the conference's existence, period. They have an overwhelming advantage in conference championships and BCS appearances, and has a far better showing against Top 25 teams.

Bottom line, over a decade of dominance in the Stoops Era more than outweighs the 4 down seasons beforehand. That's why, cumulatively, OU isn't "among" the best programs since the Big 12's existence. They are unquestionably the best. End of discussion.

 

[stoops4pres]

Except for wining the conference 7 out of 15 years you're right, not much sperates the three :facepalm

Haha, no kidding. What an inept statement.

OU: 7 Conference Titles

Texas: 3 Conference Titles

Nebraska: 2 Conference Titles

:facepalm

 

[Sawyer]

over a decade of dominance in the Stoops Era more than outweighs the 4 down seasons beforehand.

That is hardly an objective truth.

The difference between OU and UT is a few head to head matchups (8-5 edge in OU's favor since stoops took over). 2004, for example, was a pretty close game (12-0). OU played for a title that year. If UT wins that game, they end up playing USC in OU's place. In 2008 you again played for a title, this time in a year when UT did beat you. You won a three-way tie breaker in the South by BCS ranking, if I remember right. Hardly a year I'd say you were clearly better than UT, but you played for the national championship that year thanks to computers.

But I really don't care about any of that. OU is clearly the better program today and is clearly the better program over their entire histories. Comparing them over a relatively arbitrary timeframe is pointless. Likewise with Missouri and West Virginia. Over their entire histories, the two programs are about the same in wins, bowl appearances, bowl wins, All-Americans, etc. Historically, they're virtually the same. And over the past five seasons (about what is relevant in the lives of high school recruits), the two programs have also been pretty much the same. Suggesting they are some sort of elite program and Mizzou is garbage because they were good in the 80s and 90s when Mizzou mostly sucked is akin to suggesting UT or NU have been better than OU because of John Blake.

 

[stoops4pres]

That is hardly an objective truth.

It isn't? I think, judging by the fact that OU is second-to-none in almost every tangible aspect one can think of, that the statement you're attempting to counter is certainly an objective one.

I guarantee every (or almost every) neutral article you stumble upon pertaining to this matter will have OU as the best Big 12 program since 1996, not "among" the best. That's because, again, OU isn't trailing in basically any category (and they are dominant compared to their counterparts in a number of categories).

The difference between OU and UT is a few head to head matchups (8-5 edge in OU's favor since stoops took over).

Well, that, and an overwhelming advantage in conference championships, BCS appearances, Top 25 win percentage, etc.

And by the way, you're showing some denial saying "your point doesn't really change" when acknowledging that OU has 4 National Title Appearances... Actually, the fact that OU also leads in that category over any other Big 12 team further diminishes your stance.

2004, for example, was a pretty close game (12-0). OU played for a title that year. If UT wins that game, they end up playing USC in OU's place. In 2008 you again played for a title, this time in a year when UT did beat you. You won a three-way tie breaker in the South by BCS ranking, if I remember right. Hardly a year I'd say you were clearly better than UT, but you played for the national championship that year thanks to computers.

Well since we're playing the "what if" game, then "if" OU had defeated LSU and Florida in 2003 and 2008 (two title games that went down to the wire), then Stoops would have 3 National Championships and would be widely-regarded as the greatest coach in the game today.

Now back to reality, if you look objectively you'd see this shouldn't have ever even been up for debate. Pretty hard for Texas and Nebraska to claim superiority when they trail/had trailed (in Nebraska's case) OU in a litany of aspects. Plain and simple.

But I really don't care about any of that.

I don't know, I think the multitude of posts you've placed on this thread would suggest otherwise.

 

[skyvue]

Rarely has a poster exhibited such cluelessness as that to which Sawyer has subjected us in this thread. I've got a crick in my neck from shaking my head in disbelief.

As I've said before, every opposing fan reveals his true nature eventually. And Sawyer, who's done a decent job of fooling us up to now, has blatantly and shamelessly exposed his ignorance here.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

My bad on that. Also forgot that Nebraska has won a national title in the Big 12 era.

Point doesn't really change.

Over the course of the Big 12's history, very little separates OU, UT and NU.

My god u are dense

 

[Sawyer]

I think the multitude of posts you've placed on this thread would suggest otherwise.

You really think I care whether OU is the best Big 12 football program or among the 2-3 best? OU's success or failure in football has never mattered to me and never will.

You picked at every word I said about Oklahoma and ignored the actual point.

 

[jmizzy4ou]

Come on Sawyer..... I can understand defending your school to the end, but you are reaching very far in this thread.... :facepalm:facepalm

 

[WaymansFadeaway]

You really think I care whether OU is the best Big 12 football program or among the 2-3 best? OU's success or failure in football has never mattered to me and never will.

You picked at every word I said about Oklahoma and ignored the actual point.

Yes.... OU means nothing to you, which explains your existence on an OU message board.

You dont really suck at arguing, you just pretty much suck at knowledge.

 

[Max Power]

Yes.... OU means nothing to you, which explains your existence on an OU message board.

You dont really suck at arguing, you just pretty much suck at knowledge.

Next year he will be on the Kentucky board saying they are just an alright program :facepalm

 

[bocabull]

Next year he will be on the Kentucky board saying they are just an alright program :facepalm

You know Kentucky & Missouri are pretty equal over time if you ignore those 14 final 4s by Kentucky which are outliers. Other than those lucky years the programs are virtually even.

 

[stoops4pres]

You really think I care whether OU is the best Big 12 football program or among the 2-3 best? OU's success or failure in football has never mattered to me and never will.

Dude, you've been discussing OU football since the inception of this thread. That sure seems like you care about the topic.

You picked at every word I said about Oklahoma and ignored the actual point.

No, I didn't ignore your point. Actually, I told you that your point is entirely incorrect.

I've agreed with you on some topics relating to football before. But all due respect, this is an epic fail on your part.