Selection Show - OU an 8 seed

[WTSooner]

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?

Yeah b/c Sampson's teams didn't play Maryland, Michigan State, Villanova, etc.

Lon's scheduling looks better b/c instead of playing as many DII type schools which was popular when Kelvin was here, Lon instead schedules teams like UTEP and North Texas. Tougher schedule, yes, but zero impact on W's and L's.

 

[BCSooners]

Yeah b/c Sampson's teams didn't play Maryland, Michigan State, Villanova, etc.

Lon's scheduling looks better b/c instead of playing as many DII type schools which was popular when Kelvin was here, Lon instead schedules teams like UTEP and North Texas. Tougher schedule, yes, but zero impact on W's and L's.

I’ve refuted this before & will again when I have my laptop. LK schedules much more top 25 teams, more solid teams & maybe 1 terrible team a year. KS schedule 1 elite team when he knew he’d be really good, 1-2 solid teams, & 5-6 cakewalks.

 

[WTSooner]

I’ve refuted this before & will again when I have my laptop. LK schedules much more top 25 teams, more solid teams & maybe 1 terrible team a year. KS schedule 1 elite team when he knew he’d be really good, 1-2 solid teams, & 5-6 cakewalks.

There is absolutely zero difference in scheduling cakewalks and scheduling teams like UTEP, Tulane, and Clemson. Those are all games OU wins 99% of the time. I disagree that you think overwise. But the top of the schedules is/was very similar. Like, number of teams that finish ranked, or that finish by making the Dance.

 

[thebigabd]

There is absolutely zero difference in scheduling cakewalks and scheduling teams like UTEP, Tulane, and Clemson. Those are all games OU wins 99% of the time. I disagree that you think overwise. But the top of the schedules is/was very similar. Like, number of teams that finish ranked, or that finish by making the Dance.

In 2003 OU played:
Alabama
Princeton
UC Irvine
UCONN
Michigan State
Coppin State
UNC Asheville
Hartford
Prairie View A&M

In 2002 OU played:
Central Connecticut State
Michigan State
Central Michigan
Arkansas
LA Tech (with that awesome player who STILL plays in the NBA)
Maryland
UCONN
Texas Southern
High Point

And honestly, I don't give a damn... Krugers job is to continue success, not get worse... If he is scheduling harder than he needs to, he shouldn't do that... If the league is tougher, he has to get better.

But at OU, you finish in the top 4 or 5 regularly... You compete for and win that league tournament... You get high seeds in the NCAA Tournament.

I don't care if Baylor got better than they used to... all that matters to me is that OU got worse. Or OU let Baylor, Texas, Tech, etc pass them.

You guys are acting like OU's capability is constant, while other programs in the league are variable.

 

[WTSooner]

In 2003 OU played:
Alabama
Princeton
UC Irvine
UCONN
Michigan State
Coppin State
UNC Asheville
Hartford
Prairie View A&M

In 2002 OU played:
Central Connecticut State
Michigan State
Central Michigan
Arkansas
LA Tech (with that awesome player who STILL plays in the NBA)
Maryland
UCONN
Texas Southern
High Point

And honestly, I don't give a damn... Krugers job is to continue success, not get worse... If he is scheduling harder than he needs to, he shouldn't do that... If the league is tougher, he has to get better.

But at OU, you finish in the top 4 or 5 regularly... You compete for and win that league tournament... You get high seeds in the NCAA Tournament.

I don't care if Baylor got better than they used to... all that matters to me is that OU got worse. Or OU let Baylor, Texas, Tech, etc pass them.

Agreed on that last part.

And when evaluating the OOC schedule, I only care about looking at it this way:

1. Games that should be L's, or tough, tough wins.
2. Games that are toss ups.
3. Games OU wins 99% of the time.

Lon and OU have gotten really good at playing teams from category 3 that are at the TOP of that list. But they are still on that list. That is NOT playing a tougher schedule. That is simply working the system. It's smart. I'm not knocking it. But that change has nothing to do with OU's W/L record.

 

[WTSooner]

I think Kelvin played a few series against Arkansas as well. And Cincy, back when they were good.

 

[BoulderSooner]

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.

or it is just stating a fact

 

[BoulderSooner]

the list of schools in more NCAA tourneys the last 9 years

Gonzaga, Kansas, Michigan State, North Carolina and Villanova

thats it

 

[MrAnderson]

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!

I may be in the minority but I think ncaa tournament results are a bit of a crapshoot. To me a successful season gets rewarded with a high seed in March. Making a deep run is just gravy.

So, yeah I would say being bounced in round 1 vs a 13 seed is a more successful season than being bounced in round 2 vs a 1 seed. At least we had a shot to do some damage as a 4 seed. 8/9 seeds have no shot, and that's what we have been since 2016.

 

[sheepdogs1]

the list of schools in more NCAA tourneys the last 9 years

Gonzaga, Kansas, Michigan State, North Carolina and Villanova

thats it

If the post season is the topic then the discussion should involve all games played. It is easier to get to the alter than the honeymoon (what took you so long?). Teams just don't go to the tournament just to say they were there as they are there to divide and conquer (it's the Khan in me. Like my stache?).

 

[BoulderSooner]

If the post season is the topic then the discussion should involve all games played. It is easier to get to the alter than the honeymoon (what took you so long?). Teams just don't go to the tournament just to say they were there as they are there to divide and conquer (it's the Khan in me. Like my stache?).

the #1 goal for just about every team is to make the tourney

 

[sheepdogs1]

the #1 goal for just about every team is to make the tourney

It's the goal of those who cannot proceed further, no doubt. Golfers don't get their qualifying card to become a member of the PGA tour just to play the game.

 

[TINY]

I may be in the minority but I think ncaa tournament results are a bit of a crapshoot. To me a successful season gets rewarded with a high seed in March. Making a deep run is just gravy.

So, yeah I would say being bounced in round 1 vs a 13 seed is a more successful season than being bounced in round 2 vs a 1 seed. At least we had a shot to do some damage as a 4 seed. 8/9 seeds have no shot, and that's what we have been since 2016.

Unless that regular season results in some type of conference title then you are definitely in minority. Getting upset in the first round is the worst.

 

[TINY]

the list of schools in more NCAA tourneys the last 9 years

Gonzaga, Kansas, Michigan State, North Carolina and Villanova

thats it

Michigan state very easily could have missed this year too. That is an elite group.

 

[WaymanFan]

Unless that regular season results in some type of conference title then you are definitely in minority. Getting upset in the first round is the worst.

I don't think he's in the minority. It really depends on how the season played out. Take the 1995 season for example. Kelvin won National Coach of the Year, we exceeded all expectations, realized Donnie Duncan nailed the hire, won every home game including a memorable one against Kansas (Abercrombie for three...YES!)...but put together an absolutely embarrassing performance as a #4 seed against #13 Manhattan. If this year's OU team beats Missouri and gets clobbered by Gonzaga, I wouldn't say this was a more successful season than 1995...and doubt I would be in the minority.

 

[WTSooner]

I may be in the minority but I think ncaa tournament results are a bit of a crapshoot. To me a successful season gets rewarded with a high seed in March. Making a deep run is just gravy.

So, yeah I would say being bounced in round 1 vs a 13 seed is a more successful season than being bounced in round 2 vs a 1 seed. At least we had a shot to do some damage as a 4 seed. 8/9 seeds have no shot, and that's what we have been since 2016.

I agree with you. I try not to get too high or too low based on a couple of years of NCAA Tourney results. I'd prefer to step back after 5, 7, or 10 years and look at it as a whole.

It's not like the OU program is used to winning a bunch of games in the Dance anyways. Starting with Dave Bliss in the 70's, we're 37-27. Take out the 3 Final Four runs, and we're 24-24. Dead even at .500.

My goal over a 10 year period for the Dance would be something like:
- Make it 9 times.
- Get seeded 6th or better 6-7 times.
- Get seeded 7th to 10th 2-3 times.
- Get knocked out of the first round no more than 2-3 times.
- Make it to the second round at least 5-6 times.
- Make 2 Sweet 16's or better.

That is off the top of my head, but I'd be content with something like that. You put a consistent program like that out there and you are going to luck your way into some Elite 8's and FF's.

I don't expect to realistically "compete" for NC's, b/c if we get a coach that is that good, he'll probably leave for a job at a basketball school. Our best hope at winning a NC is to get a coach in here that is consistent, and when things come together, we can make a run with a top 5 team (Kelvin with Hollis, Capel with Griffin, Kruger with Buddy).

 

[TINY]

I don't think he's in the minority. It really depends on how the season played out. Take the 1995 season for example. Kelvin won National Coach of the Year, we exceeded all expectations, realized Donnie Duncan nailed the hire, won every home game including a memorable one against Kansas (Abercrombie for three...YES!)...but put together an absolutely embarrassing performance as a #4 seed against #13 Manhattan. If this year's OU team beats Missouri and gets clobbered by Gonzaga, I wouldn't say this was a more successful season than 1995...and doubt I would be in the minority.

That’s fair. Most fans only remember getting humiliated by a joke of a team on the big stage though. The difference between that team’s regular season and an 8-9 seeded team is like 1-2 additional regular season wins. I’d rather have 1 ncaa win than 1-2 regular season wins personally.

 

[thebigabd]

I agree with you. I try not to get too high or too low based on a couple of years of NCAA Tourney results. I'd prefer to step back after 5, 7, or 10 years and look at it as a whole.

It's not like the OU program is used to winning a bunch of games in the Dance anyways. Starting with Dave Bliss in the 70's, we're 37-27. Take out the 3 Final Four runs, and we're 24-24. Dead even at .500.

My goal over a 10 year period for the Dance would be something like:
- Make it 9 times.
- Get seeded 6th or better 6-7 times.
- Get seeded 7th to 10th 2-3 times.
- Get knocked out of the first round no more than 2-3 times.
- Make it to the second round at least 5-6 times.
- Make 2 Sweet 16's or better.

That is off the top of my head, but I'd be content with something like that. You put a consistent program like that out there and you are going to luck your way into some Elite 8's and FF's.

I don't expect to realistically "compete" for NC's, b/c if we get a coach that is that good, he'll probably leave for a job at a basketball school. Our best hope at winning a NC is to get a coach in here that is consistent, and when things come together, we can make a run with a top 5 team (Kelvin with Hollis, Capel with Griffin, Kruger with Buddy).

I like your post... but I would say this is why I put so much additional emphasis on conference performance. OU can win this league. Regular season, tournament, whatever... That is an obtainable goal. And by doing that, you will take care of your seeding formula in March.

Too many fans put too many of their eggs in the March Madness basket... That's a fools errand. It's more likely that OU doesn't win a national title in the next 100 years than they do win one.

 

[WTSooner]

I like your post... but I would say this is why I put so much additional emphasis on conference performance. OU can win this league. Regular season, tournament, whatever... That is an obtainable goal. And by doing that, you will take care of your seeding formula in March.

Too many fans put too many of their eggs in the March Madness basket... That's a fools errand. It's more likely that OU doesn't win a national title in the next 100 years than they do win one.

Ohh, I agree. We're on the same page there as well. This was my NCAA "expectations", which I think are fairly reasonable.

My regular season goals are top 4 in the Big 12 most years. At least compete for a conference title a couple of those years. Win 20+ games every year. Perform to an OU standard in the Big 12 Tournament.

That said, the BIGGEST thing I want out of this program currently is just direction. A plan to success. A plan to recruiting and roster building. Upside. How many years now have we been chasing last minute recruits and transfers JUST to have a team that makes the Dance as an 8 seed, or finishes 7th or worst in conference? That is pathetic. I wouldn't be "as" upset with our recent results IF I saw a better plan and roadmap for the program. But I don't see it. And while we have some solid recruits, they aren't really the type of guys that are going to propel OU to the regular seasons that you and I want them to have.

 

[Eielson]

the list of schools in more NCAA tourneys the last 9 years

Gonzaga, Kansas, Michigan State, North Carolina and Villanova

thats it

How many have more NCAA wins?