Senior Day OU vs #22 TCU 2pm CST on ESPN+

[mict085]

I don’t think they’re getting an at large. I think winning 3 conference tournament games gives them a good chance.

Actually, that’s exactly what you said. You stated 3 wins in the conference tourney would get them in. That would be an at-large berth. No way that happens. NONE.

 

[mict085]

I would disagree. I think if OU wins 3 games in the tourney I think they’ll be in. Not gonna happen though.

See? That would be an at-large bid.

That’s not gonna happen. Only chance is to win the tourney and get the auto bid.

 

[Eielson]

Actually, that’s exactly what you said. You stated 3 wins in the conference tourney would get them in. That would be an at-large berth. No way that happens. NONE.

I think BC is saying that they think OU would likely get in with 3 more wins, but that the odds of them actually winning the next 3 is microscopic. If OU were to beat OSU, UT, and KSU, I think they'd at least make it interesting enough that I'd tune in on Selection Sunday. In the mentioned scenario where OU was winning those three games by 100, I don't think there is any way that the selection committee keeps them out.

Regardless, I'll be watching each game with hopes of winning, no matter the postseason implications.

 

[BCSooners]

See? That would be an at-large bid.

That’s not gonna happen. Only chance is to win the tourney and get the auto bid.

Do you see the words “I think they’ll be in”? Doesn’t that sound the same as “I think gives them a good chance”? But way to be a douche about it.

 

[BCSooners]

I think BC is saying that they think OU would likely get in with 3 more wins, but that the odds of them actually winning the next 3 is microscopic. If OU were to beat OSU, UT, and KSU, I think they'd at least make it interesting enough that I'd tune in on Selection Sunday. In the mentioned scenario where OU was winning those three games by 100, I don't think there is any way that the selection committee keeps them out.

Regardless, I'll be watching each game with hopes of winning, no matter the postseason implications.

Exactly

 

[opsooner]

When was the last time we even won 2 games in a row? I think mid Dec. We’ll be very fortunate to win 1 game in the tourney. 2 would be minuscule odds. 3 would be odds so microscopic they can’t be seen with the human eye. And no need to discuss 4.

I will still tune into watch any game we play because I love the Sooners. Not going to bother paying for a ticket though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MsProudSooner]

This was on ESPN+, so I believe a replay should be available on that platform.

I've looked there on my laptop. No luck. I'm not at home so that's all I have available right now.

 

[bearcreekfan]

I've looked there on my laptop. No luck. I'm not at home so that's all I have available right now.

It's on ESPN+. I just went to Watch, searched 'Oklahoma', scrolled down to On Demand and the full TCU vs. Oklahoma game is the third option listed for me.

 

[mict085]

Do you see the words “I think they’ll be in”? Doesn’t that sound the same as “I think gives them a good chance”? But way to be a douche about it.

Yes. Read your post. You said if OU wins 3 games in the tourney, they’ll be in.

Saying you don’t think they’ll win those 3 games and saying if they do they’re in, are 2 different points. You are correct in saying OU won’t win those 3 games. You are completely wrong saying if they do, they’re in.

You said they’d be in if they win 3 games. At least own it. I’m pointing out your own words. You are being the douche.

 

[Eielson]

You are being the douche.

This is reversed.

 

[BCSooners]

Yes. Read your post. You said if OU wins 3 games in the tourney, they’ll be in.

Saying you don’t think they’ll win those 3 games and saying if they do they’re in, are 2 different points. You are correct in saying OU won’t win those 3 games. You are completely wrong saying if they do, they’re in.

You said they’d be in if they win 3 games. At least own it. I’m pointing out your own words. You are being the douche.

You quoted it right above here. It literally says “I think they’ll get in”.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Save yourself the angst. There is no chance of an at large. If we win our first three games 100-0 each and then lose the title game by 1 in 10 OTs, we still won’t make it.

Lol clown

 

[WichitaSooner]

Lol clown

I think I’ve told you before, but I just can’t handle your witty retorts. You win.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

If ou wins 3 conference tourney games they are In
That would give us an 8-14 conference record with like 14 quad 1 wins and a winning overall record. Our rip, kenpom, and net would all likely be good enough to get In

And especially if we win them all 100-0

 

[skyvue]

I don't really care if he's putting up volume numbers in the Mountain West. OU lost 9 of the last 10 games he played in, and soon after he went down, OU went on a 4 game winning streak to almost make the tourney. I don't follow UNLV, but I'm confident that they have somebody who would be better off taking those 3s. This team has a lot of needs, but a Russell Westbrook without the elite athleticism isn't one of them.

Only two of the several stats I cited are related to Harkless' overall shooting/scoring and as another poster pointed out, I barely touched on his more-than-solid defense. All you've got is that he shoots too many threes considering his shooting percentage from deep (a point I didn't even argue). Do you judge every player by that stat alone, or just Harkless? It's an oddly tunnel-visioned approach to player evaluation, I must say. I think most observers also see value in points scored inside the arc, rebounds, assists, steals, getting to the free-throw line (thereby saddling opposing players with fouls), and scoring when you get to the free-throw line.

Also, Harkless doesn't outscore Sherfield based on volume shooting. He outscores him because a) he shoots better inside the arc (50% to 42%) and b) because he gets to the free throw line more than twice as often as Sherfield.

The only things, statistically, that Sherfield does better than Harkless is shoot threes and shoot free throws (86% to 78%). In every other area, they're either virtually even statistically or Harkless is better. And given that Sherfield gets to the free throw line less than half as often as Harkless, even that stat doesn't mean much.

 

[WichitaSooner]

If ou wins 3 conference tourney games they are In
That would give us an 8-14 conference record with like 14 quad 1 wins and a winning overall record. Our rip, kenpom, and net would all likely be good enough to get In

And especially if we win them all 100-0

We are currently 6-12 in Q-1 games. Six wins sounds impressive till you realize how many opportunities we have had. It’s an important metric, to be sure. But it’s not the only thing that matters. Houston has four such wins after today and they are a lock for a top seed and maybe the top overall.

Obviously the 100-0 part of my post was tongue in cheek, but I absolutely don’t think we get in if we lose in the tournament championship game. We would be 18-17, probably still well outside the top 40 NET, and our profile would be much worse than last year. I can’t think of a single example of a team that entered their conference tournament not even listed in any bubble discussions, then made the tournament as an at large. We dug ourselves way too big a hole.

I really didn’t intend to stir up a debate over a hypothetical that has virtually no chance of coming true. The poster asked a question about our at large chances and I responded in a silly way. I stand by my point but wish I’d have phrased it differently.

 

[Eielson]

The only things, statistically, that Sherfield does better than Harkless is shoot threes and shoot free throws (86% to 78%).

If you can't figure out the difference between playing in the MWC and Big 12, then I don't have enough time to catch you up to speed. It's not a coincidence that last year's season turned completely around soon after he went down.

 

[skyvue]

If you can't figure out the difference between playing in the MWC and Big 12, then I don't have enough time to catch you up to speed. It's not a coincidence that last year's season turned completely around soon after he went down.

I've already acknowledged that.

But here's the thing: Most of his stats weren't that much worse in Big 12 action. He averaged 10 points per game last year--that's significantly lower. But this year, that would have made him the third highest scorer, .1 points per game behind Tanner, .2 ppg ahead of Hill. I'd say we could have used those 10 points per game. We might be on the bubble right now or even solidly in the tourney.

Here's the downside and it's pretty mild: Harkless averaged 1 fewer assists and 1 fewer rebounds last year. His free throw percentage was worse, too (though that can hardly be attributed to the conference he played in).

The upside? His three-point shooting was 4 percentage points higher last year. In the Big 12. His overall shooting percentage was a tick higher last year, too. So I don't see solid evidence that the conference made a huge difference. Even if all he did was match last year's output, we're a better team with him.

Anything else? Do you have it in you to acknowledge Harkless might have made the team better this year? That, even settling for his 2022 stats, we could have used those 10 points, those four rebounds and most importantly his defense and hard-nosed play?

 

[Eielson]

We might be on the bubble right now or even solidly in the tourney.

:ez-roll:

 

[hoopsaustin]

I've already acknowledged that.

But here's the thing: Most of his stats weren't that much worse in Big 12 action. He averaged 10 points per game last year--that's significantly lower. But this year, that would have made him the third highest scorer, .1 points per game behind Tanner, .2 ppg ahead of Hill. I'd say we could have used those 10 points per game. We might be on the bubble right now or even solidly in the tourney.

Here's the downside and it's pretty mild: Harkless averaged 1 fewer assists and 1 fewer rebounds last year. His free throw percentage was worse, too (though that can hardly be attributed to the conference he played in).

The upside? His three-point shooting was 4 percentage points higher last year. In the Big 12. His overall shooting percentage was a tick higher last year, too. So I don't see solid evidence that the conference made a huge difference. Even if all he did was match last year's output, we're a better team with him.

Anything else? Do you have it in you to acknowledge Harkless might have made the team better this year? That, even settling for his 2022 stats, we could have used those 10 points, those four rebounds and most importantly his defense and hard-nosed play?

Why are we even debating this? He wouldnt accept the correct role for himself here.. 0% chance he stays unless we tank so that he can get his stats.

I think gibson is a much more likely keeper and a better player