Selection Sunday with reactions

[steverocks35]

Players are just mercenaries now, and its understandable from their perspective. They don't care about the school, the program, the community, etc. Go to who is offering the better deal, both in terms of money and opportunity. It's a labor market, but it's lacking the negative consequences of one. For example, if I take a new job every year, I eventually become unemployable because future employers will see me as unreliable. That's not the case here, because the player his or herself is inherently a short term commodity, they only have a limited amount of eligibility. All that really matters is the next year. Coaches and programs need to be on board for that.

Back in the day guys like Hollis Price, Eduardo Najera, Kevin Bookout, etc were insanely proud to be at OU. There was never a question in 4-5 years if they were going to leave. They were here because they wanted to be here and were invested in the school, coaches, and program. They poured their guts into the program, their own development, etc. That system is dead and gone.

Sad but true

 

[sooner333]

Players are just mercenaries now, and its understandable from their perspective. They don't care about the school, the program, the community, etc. Go to who is offering the better deal, both in terms of money and opportunity. It's a labor market, but it's lacking the negative consequences of one. For example, if I take a new job every year, I eventually become unemployable because future employers will see me as unreliable. That's not the case here, because the player his or herself is inherently a short term commodity, they only have a limited amount of eligibility. All that really matters is the next year. Coaches and programs need to be on board for that.

Back in the day guys like Hollis Price, Eduardo Najera, Kevin Bookout, etc were insanely proud to be at OU. There was never a question in 4-5 years if they were going to leave. They were here because they wanted to be here and were invested in the school, coaches, and program. They poured their guts into the program, their own development, etc. That system is dead and gone.

I think you’ll definitely see far fewer 4-5 year guys than we did in the past. But let’s also not forget that in 2002 seven guys transferred into the program (including six who played 20 minutes per game). And our only scholarship freshman later transferred away (or quit basketball)

 

[WTSooner]

I was just at a semi-private event here in Tulsa where Ted Owens (former KU coach), Chianti Roberts (former osu player), & Russ Springmann (current ORU coach) all spoke. Joe Lunardi video'd in for about a 10-15 minute call as well.

Joe said our undoing was largely our Q1 record and how we played down the stretch (even if that isn't official criteria). Said if he was doing the bracket himself, he'd have had Indiana State in over UVA.

 

[steverocks35]

I was just at a semi-private event here in Tulsa where Ted Owens (former KU coach), Chianti Roberts (former osu player), & Russ Springmann (current ORU coach) all spoke. Joe Lunardi video'd in for about a 10-15 minute call as well.

Joe said our undoing was largely our Q1 record and how we played down the stretch (even if that isn't official criteria). Said if he was doing the bracket himself, he'd have had Indiana State in over UVA.

I suspected that limping down the home stretch didn't help us. We definitely didn't leave a good impression in the minds of the committee members or anyone else with how we finished the season.

 

[mict085]

I don’t want to hear any crap about turning down the NIT. The NIT is a joke tournament and with the portal and the ever changing environment, it’s simply not worth it. Our season is over and playing in the NIT is a pointless endeavor. The portal is open and we need to get to work on that. Period.

Tom cream can kiss my ass. Easy for him to spout that crap sitting in a studio as a failed coach. The NIT was once something. Today, it’s meaningless. No need to waste the money playing in that tourney as it would’ve cost us travel expenses. No thanks.

 

[allday92]

I don’t want to hear any crap about turning down the NIT. The NIT is a joke tournament and with the portal and the ever changing environment, it’s simply not worth it. Our season is over and playing in the NIT is a pointless endeavor. The portal is open and we need to get to work on that. Period.

Tom cream can kiss my ass. Easy for him to spout that crap sitting in a studio as a failed coach. The NIT was once something. Today, it’s meaningless. No need to waste the money playing in that tourney as it would’ve cost us travel expenses. No thanks.

Yup, it sucks. For college football and basketball, the portal should start after the national championship game. Today should be about filling out your brackets, but 95% of the tweets about the sport are about portal entries.

 

[thebigabd]

This is a few years in a row now where the committee seems to be focusing on wins and records more than the metrics... Pitino did a good job of saying those metrics are crap and shouldn't be talked about anymore because they aren't used. NET and all that stuff.

Virginia won 23 games and got in.
Colorado State won 24 games and got in.
Colorado won 24 games and got in.
Boise State won 22 games and got in.
Florida Atlantic won 25 games and got in.

19-13, 18-14, 20-12, etc teams with better schedules, NET rankings, etc aren't being as rewarded lately, again, high level observation. I think that's actually a good thing. OU was likely 1 game off from making it. 21-11 by beating UCF or 22-10 beating UCF and Tech and OU is likely a 7 or 8 seed.

 

[mict085]

Players are just mercenaries now, and its understandable from their perspective. They don't care about the school, the program, the community, etc. Go to who is offering the better deal, both in terms of money and opportunity. It's a labor market, but it's lacking the negative consequences of one. For example, if I take a new job every year, I eventually become unemployable because future employers will see me as unreliable. That's not the case here, because the player his or herself is inherently a short term commodity, they only have a limited amount of eligibility. All that really matters is the next year. Coaches and programs need to be on board for that.

Back in the day guys like Hollis Price, Eduardo Najera, Kevin Bookout, etc were insanely proud to be at OU. There was never a question in 4-5 years if they were going to leave. They were here because they wanted to be here and were invested in the school, coaches, and program. They poured their guts into the program, their own development, etc. That system is dead and gone.

This isn’t the 1950’s old man. I’ve had several jobs and been recruited many times. I’m still employable because I’m good at what I do and my job is in demand. Nobody works for the same company for 50 years anymore. This idea that anyone is unemployable because they move around is outdated. That example doesn’t apply here. The players aren’t getting fired. They’re marketing their skills and fielding offers. Corporate America doesn’t give a **** about the worker so why should the worker show loyalty when they don’t get it in return? Do you think any of your employers give a **** if you work there? As long as there’s a body doing your job, they don’t care. They don’t care about you. It’s the same in college athletics. The players have to look out for their own interests because nobody else will.

Nobody can blame the players. If anyone’s to blame, it’s the adults. The coaches have bailed on their players for far longer than the players have been able to leave. Before the portal, coaches chased jobs and left their players high and dry all the time, even lied to them. That’s ok but once the players start leaving for better deals, it’s bad?

All of these problems stem from greed, from the adults running the sports and their greed. The players are just reacting and finally taking what’s rightfully theirs. College sports are ruined because the men leading the sport have failed and everyone’s greed has influenced the changes that have come. To blame the players and excuse the last 50 years of coaches, tv execs, university admin making money and chasing their own interests at the expense of the players is just wrong.

 

[AnotherSoonerInTX]

I was just at a semi-private event here in Tulsa where Ted Owens (former KU coach), Chianti Roberts (former osu player), & Russ Springmann (current ORU coach) all spoke. Joe Lunardi video'd in for about a 10-15 minute call as well.

Joe said our undoing was largely our Q1 record and how we played down the stretch (even if that isn't official criteria). Said if he was doing the bracket himself, he'd have had Indiana State in over UVA.

I think this is true. 2-8 over the last 10 games. We didn't look like a tournament team at the end of the season.

We see relatively few people that think we got screwed. More are upset at the coach.

 

[WTSooner]

This is a few years in a row now where the committee seems to be focusing on wins and records more than the metrics... Pitino did a good job of saying those metrics are crap and shouldn't be talked about anymore because they aren't used. NET and all that stuff.

Virginia won 23 games and got in.
Colorado State won 24 games and got in.
Colorado won 24 games and got in.
Boise State won 22 games and got in.
Florida Atlantic won 25 games and got in.

19-13, 18-14, 20-12, etc teams with better schedules, NET rankings, etc aren't being as rewarded lately, again, high level observation. I think that's actually a good thing. OU was likely 1 game off from making it. 21-11 by beating UCF or 22-10 beating UCF and Tech and OU is likely a 7 or 8 seed.

Who you beat should matter a lot more than who you lost to. We're trying to crown a champion. If Team A clearly can't beat a top 25 team at a neutral/road site, and Team B is up and down but their up is pretty good, and I'm over-simplifying this, but all other things relatively equal, Team B should be in the Tournament.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Who you beat should matter a lot more than who you lost to. We're trying to crown a champion. If Team A clearly can't beat a top 25 team at a neutral/road site, and Team B is up and down but their up is pretty good, and I'm over-simplifying this, but all other things relatively equal, Team B should be in the Tournament.

That’s really odd reasoning.

Who you beat should matter a lot more than who you lost to. We're trying to crown a champion. If Team A clearly can't beat a top 25 team at a neutral/road site, and Team B is up and down but their up is pretty good, and I'm over-simplifying this, but all other things relatively equal, Team B should be in the Tournament.

hogwash. Half the teams lose each round. Losing to shitty teams throughout the year is just as important to beating good teams.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

And to add to that, OU should have been in because we didn’t have losses to bad teams and showed we could beat the top teams.

 

[WichitaSooner]

And to add to that, OU should have been in because we didn’t have losses to bad teams and showed we could beat the top teams.

We beat the "top teams" 15 percent of the time.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

We beat the "top teams" 15 percent of the time.

So? We showed that we could do it. And we showed we don’t lose to bad teams. That was exactly your point lol. That being able to beat top teams is more imprtant than who you lose to

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I understand better what you are saying now. I still completely disagree.

If OU had finished the job vs Texas and Houston but also lost to osu and cincy are you saying that you wouldn’t have held those losses against OU? Can you honestly say that with a straight face?

 

[WichitaSooner]

So? We showed that we could do it. And we showed we don’t lose to bad teams. That was exactly your point lol. That being able to beat top teams is more imprtant than who you lose to

First, I didn't post that. Second, what team is there in any power conference that wouldn't be in by that standard? KSU had way more quality wins than OU. Same for UCF. Every team can beat the good teams once in a blue moon. Something more than once every six or seven attempts is necessary or else the field would need to expand to about 150 teams.

 

[WichitaSooner]

I understand better what you are saying now. I still completely disagree.

If OU had finished the job vs Texas and Houston but also lost to osu and cincy are you saying that you wouldn’t have held those losses against OU? Can you honestly say that with a straight face?

That exact scenario would have greatly increased our chances of making it. Would have added two Q1 wins, including a Q1A win. Cincy had a high enough NET that a loss to them wouldn't have been a killer.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

That exact scenario would have greatly increased our chances of making it. Would have added two Q1 wins, including a Q1A win. Cincy had a high enough NET that a loss to them wouldn't have been a killer.

The narrative would have been that the Houston game was a fluke and that any team that loses to OSU shouldn’t be in.

I know it’s a hypothetical but anyone saying they ignore losses aren’t being truthful

 

[thebigabd]

Colorado State lost to:
Boise State
Utah State
Nevada
Wyoming
San Diego State
New Mexico
Nevada again
New mexico again

They were 10-8 in the mountain west and had the 7 seed. Got an at large bid.

Why?

Because they went 24-10 and beat Colorado, Creighton, Washington, and Boston College in their non-con.

They are prioritizing winning games, overall records, etc. Been a trend for a few years.

 

[WTSooner]

And to add to that, OU should have been in because we didn’t have losses to bad teams and showed we could beat the top teams.

We didn't even come close to beating a top team away from home. And by top team, I mean a Tournament worthy team.

I said it matters. You fools said it didn't. The Committee said it did. You don't have to like it, but you do have to concede that it mattered.