Selection Show - OU an 8 seed

[NY Soonerfan]

I guess my overall thoughts on Kruger are he's done well, he righted the ship, it's time to move on. The program is stagnant, it's boring, and nothing is getting better in the near future, and judging by next year's roster, it's only going to get worse.

The thing I don't understand about all the people who want him to stay and are saying "be careful what you wish for" should he go, is why are you OK with the slightly above mediocrity level of the program? It's painfully clear that's what this program is now; we're an 7-11 seed on a year-in/year-out basis, which, when you're in a Power-5 conference, is slightly above mediocrity, and therefore enough to get you an at-large bid. It's a 68-team tournament now, you can comfortably lop off about 150-175 teams at the start of any give year, and therefore we're one of the ones fighting for at-large bids. We aren't squeaking in, like some people say, but we sure aren't coasting in either. With the exception of one elite, elite Final Four core group, Lon's OU teams have been 7-11 kind of seeds, no more, no less.

So, my point is, I don't understand why the Kruger fans would want this? Wouldn't tearing it down and going for more, with the admitted risk of not getting it, be a lot more fun and full of anticipation, than the run-of-the-mill 7-11 seed that has no chance of winning more than a game? To me, that's a no-brainer. That's my overall feeling on the state of the program; I'd be more than willing to regress slightly, if it comes with the chance of moving forward a lot more.
So, my point is, wouldn't it be

 

[thebigabd]

with a much easier conf and conf schedule ..

I really don't like this argument... Especially when the same guy you are talking about has a top 5 team at some random school now. It's clear that Sampson is a way better coach than Kruger.

In 2000 OSU was a 3 seed... ISU was a 2 seed... Kansas was an 8 seed... OU was a 3 seed... Texas was a 5 seed... Missouri was a 9 seed. That was an insanely good league.

Conferences and programs were different back then too.... Now the Big 12 gets 7 of 10 teams in, but that also has a lot to do with the entire landscape of the time, not just what's going on in the Big 12.

 

[WTSooner]

I really don't like this argument... Especially when the same guy you are talking about has a top 5 team at some random school now. It's clear that Sampson is a way better coach than Kruger.

In 2000 OSU was a 3 seed... ISU was a 2 seed... Kansas was an 8 seed... OU was a 3 seed... Texas was a 5 seed... Missouri was a 9 seed. That was an insanely good league.

Conferences and programs were different back then too.... Now the Big 12 gets 7 of 10 teams in, but that also has a lot to do with the entire landscape of the time, not just what's going on in the Big 12.

This.

I'll concede the conference is a little better most years than it was on average back then, but two things:

1. It's not so much better that our drop in success can be 100% attributable to it.

2. So all of these other schools got better over that time, why didn't OU?

Good point about Kelvin's success elsewhere. What Lon has done at OU is about what he's done elsewhere. Actually, he's done worse in some ways (the same in others). He just never stuck anywhere else long enough to go "stale" there.

 

[MichaelM]

I really don't like this argument... Especially when the same guy you are talking about has a top 5 team at some random school now. It's clear that Sampson is a way better coach than Kruger.

In 2000 OSU was a 3 seed... ISU was a 2 seed... Kansas was an 8 seed... OU was a 3 seed... Texas was a 5 seed... Missouri was a 9 seed. That was an insanely good league.

Conferences and programs were different back then too.... Now the Big 12 gets 7 of 10 teams in, but that also has a lot to do with the entire landscape of the time, not just what's going on in the Big 12.

That's 6 out of 12 teams making the dance in 2000 (two of them unranked), as opposed to 7 of 10 now (all ranked). And OU only played two of those teams twice, and the north teams once each. That's 7 games against tourney teams vs. 11 games this season.

Also, NY Soonerfan, you keep saying 7-11 seed. OU hasn't been an 11 seed since the Sampson days.

I'm not saying either of you have invalid arguments, but please get the facts right.

 

[BoulderSooner]

I really don't like this argument... Especially when the same guy you are talking about has a top 5 team at some random school now. It's clear that Sampson is a way better coach than Kruger.

In 2000 OSU was a 3 seed... ISU was a 2 seed... Kansas was an 8 seed... OU was a 3 seed... Texas was a 5 seed... Missouri was a 9 seed. That was an insanely good league.

Conferences and programs were different back then too.... Now the Big 12 gets 7 of 10 teams in, but that also has a lot to do with the entire landscape of the time, not just what's going on in the Big 12.

it is not clear at all that sampson is a "way better coach than kruger"


but fact that 1. the big 12 was not as good back then ..
and 2. OU only had to play 3 of the better bball schools (including the best one) once a year ...

is very relevant ..

 

[NY Soonerfan]

Also, NY Soonerfan, you keep saying 7-11 seed. OU hasn't been an 11 seed since the Sampson days.

I'm not saying either of you have invalid arguments, but please get the facts right.

LOL, my bad!!! Guess I'll have to take away the 7 too and go 8-10. LOL

 

[WTSooner]

Just noticed that Ken Pom has Houston as the 8th most efficient offense, and only 16th on D. Crazy stat for a Kelvin team. I would never have guessed their offense that high. When they struggle to beat teams, it's generally been the offense that has hindered them. They've got some good guards though.

 

[MichaelM]

LOL, my bad!!! Guess I'll have to take away the 7 too and go 8-10. LOL

That's facts!

 

[BCSooners]

What is considered ‘competitive’? Is getting a high seed competitive (i’ve added the seeds to those OU teams above) if you choke out of the tournament early? The 20+ wins and higher seeds are are great but when you lose to a 6 seed or lower, 4 out of the 6 GREAT/competitive years you mention is that competitive? I’m just trying to figure out what that means to some of you? In those six years, OU was NO WORSE than a 6 seed and yet only made it to the 2nd weekend of the tournament twice which is what some of you seem to think is the only way to have a ‘successful’ season? In every one of those seasons OU lost to a team at least two seeds lower than they were. Four of those seasons they lost to a 6 seed or lower in the 1st or 2nd round, were those competitive/successful seasons?

IF OU beats Missouri and loses to Gonzaga by 10+ does that make it a worse season by far than losing to the 6, 13, 6 and 11 seeds in the first or second round because those teams had 20+ wins and this team didn’t?

Some here make it sound like OU was once chasing championships (NCAA) every year before sampson left and it just isnt true. OU also went on probation at that time for recruiting violations under that same regime.

I get that no one likes the ‘sneaking into the tournament’ collapses at the end of the season but making it sound like OU was beating down the door of an NCAA title every year before Kruger/Capel just because they were ‘competitive’ just isnt true.

I find it hard to believe that the group here would be satisfied with a 4 or 6 seed just to bow out in the first round to a 13 or an 11 seed?

NO ONE has brought up the savior to be from 2 or 3 seasons ago by so many, that is Buzz Williams this season and why not? For the fact that not only are his teams not competitive but arent making the tournament at all.

We can all sit here and hand pick the next great OU coach that is going to get OU back to the final 4 but when it doesnt happen in his first 3-4 seasons that same group will be ready to name the next great OU coach again.

No, the seeds haven’t been the best over the entire span, but making the tournament 7 out of the last 8 seasons is the definition of ‘competitive’ to me and to wish for that guy to retire for the next best thing is playing with fire in my opinion.

I hope when Kruger does retire, that the next coach realizes he needs a top 15 recruiting class, a top 3 conference finish, a final conference tourney run and a top 4 seed in the NCAA tourney every season or this group is going to come running with pitchforks ready to get the next guy that will!

Great post!

 

[lmg088]

I know this was a weird year and I believe you can't be just comparing the W-L records for the seeding this year, especially with the limited out of conference play. This is why I believe the 8 seed for OU is unfair espically when you compare our seed to Florda's 7 seed.

I don't see anything in Florida's schedule that would justify them being a higher seed than any of the 8 or even 9 seeds really. They only have 2 top 25 wins and one less loss than our record. Its like all our wins against then and current top 15 teams really didn't matter.

I know we haven't looked good at the end of the season, but as someone already pointed out that even our losses were competitive games against top teams in the NCAA.

I just wasn't expecting to be the bottom of the 8 seeds, with our season as a whole taken into account.

 

[thebigabd]

That's 6 out of 12 teams making the dance in 2000 (two of them unranked), as opposed to 7 of 10 now (all ranked). And OU only played two of those teams twice, and the north teams once each. That's 7 games against tourney teams vs. 11 games this season.

Also, NY Soonerfan, you keep saying 7-11 seed. OU hasn't been an 11 seed since the Sampson days.

I'm not saying either of you have invalid arguments, but please get the facts right.

And as I mentioned in my post.... the entire landscape of college basketball was different then... Ok, the Big 12 (which actually had 12 teams) got 6 teams in, and now they got 7. But the entire landscape was different... Teams have risen, teams have fallen... Coaches in the mid-major ranks like Rick Majerus, John Calipari, John Chaney, Tark the Shark, Bill Self at Tulsa, etc.. Those were all bids that went out.

Conference re-alignments also shook things up.

Some of those 2000's era Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska teams would have also kicked the hell out of today's TCU, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc.. It was NEVER an easy league.

 

[BCSooners]

I really don't like this argument... Especially when the same guy you are talking about has a top 5 team at some random school now. It's clear that Sampson is a way better coach than Kruger.

In 2000 OSU was a 3 seed... ISU was a 2 seed... Kansas was an 8 seed... OU was a 3 seed... Texas was a 5 seed... Missouri was a 9 seed. That was an insanely good league.

Conferences and programs were different back then too.... Now the Big 12 gets 7 of 10 teams in, but that also has a lot to do with the entire landscape of the time, not just what's going on in the Big 12.

I don’t think people are arguing for LK being better than Sampson. The argument is that LK is doing a much better job than given credit. He consistently gets OU into the tournament & does it by the rules.

Also we should remember Sampson is a much better offensive coach now than when he was in Norman. The time with the Rockets has pretty much shaped how he runs his offenses now. He’s more wide open, runs less sets, & changed how he runs P&R to how McHale ran it with the Rockets.

 

[BCSooners]

And as I mentioned in my post.... the entire landscape of college basketball was different then... Ok, the Big 12 (which actually had 12 teams) got 6 teams in, and now they got 7. But the entire landscape was different... Teams have risen, teams have fallen... Coaches in the mid-major ranks like Rick Majerus, John Calipari, John Chaney, Tark the Shark, Bill Self at Tulsa, etc.. Those were all bids that went out.

Conference re-alignments also shook things up.

Some of those 2000's era Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska teams would have also kicked the hell out of today's TCU, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc.. It was NEVER an easy league.

Lol ok

 

[thebigabd]

I don’t think people are arguing for LK being better than Sampson. The argument is that LK is doing a much better job than given credit. He consistently gets OU into the tournament & does it by the rules.

Also we should remember Sampson is a much better offensive coach now than when he was in Norman. The time with the Rockets has pretty much shaped how he runs his offenses now. He’s more wide open, runs less sets, & changed how he runs P&R to how McHale ran it with the Rockets.

That's not how I read it... By trashing the conference as it was back then, they are trying to say that Sampsons accomplishments were easier to obtain than it is for Kruger.

It's making an excuse for Kruger to be mediocre.

 

[WTSooner]

That's not how I read it... By trashing the conference as it was back then, they are trying to say that Sampsons accomplishments were easier to obtain than it is for Kruger.

It's making an excuse for Kruger to be mediocre.

Yep.

I think people truly don't remember how tough the Big 12 was during some of those years. There were some really good KU, OSU, Mizzou, and UT teams. ISU had some great teams.

 

[WTSooner]

Yep.

I think people truly don't remember how tough the Big 12 was during some of those years. There were some really good KU, OSU, Mizzou, and UT teams. ISU had some great teams.

I did an extensive research on this a few years back, and the end results were that based on NCAA performance, the two tenures were about equal. Sure wish I had saved that.

 

[BoulderSooner]

I did an extensive research on this a few years back, and the end results were that based on NCAA performance, the two tenures were about equal. Sure wish I had saved that.

i did as well ..

 

[BCSooners]

That's not how I read it... By trashing the conference as it was back then, they are trying to say that Sampsons accomplishments were easier to obtain than it is for Kruger.

It's making an excuse for Kruger to be mediocre.

It was easier to get more wins sure. But not only does LK have a tougher conference, he also schedules much tougher in the non-conference. Sampson was better imo, but people aren’t giving LK the credit he deserves.

I don’t see how being a top 40 team 9 out of 10 years is mediocre?

 

[WichitaSooner]

i did as well ..

The difference was, your research was correct.

 

[stormspencer]

Some of those on this thread who are resistant to change may want to pick up a copy of the book "Good to Great" by Jim Collins. It's more business-related than sports-related, however it really illustrates the mental hurdles you must overcome in order to be uncomfortable and make necessary changes in order to grow and be better. The enemy of "good" isn't "bad" in their research, the enemy of "good" is "great".

I'm not necessarily calling for a change at the moment, but I wouldn't be against bringing in new blood....I'm good either way. We've stagnated as a program after the post-2016 dip. And yes, the conference is more competitive now, but the answer to that is to get better where you can (recruiting and development) in order to take the next step. I'm not sure that I see this program doing that currently.