Senior Night OU vs Cincinnati 7pm CST on ESPN+

[CoachTalk]

Go do your job. Those kids aren't going to teach themselves.

Someone is a tad behind in their stalking... Keep up.

 

[CoachTalk]

That's why I love the conference record. Those are the peer teams for the schools PM has coached at.

There is a reason he never sniffed a good job before making that run to the FF at Loyola. He didn't suddenly learn how to be a great coach that season.

You understand thats how guys get promoted right? Theyll be several that get promotions from small school this march/april.

 

[IndySooner]

That's why I love the conference record. Those are the peer teams for the schools PM has coached at.

There is a reason he never sniffed a good job before making that run to the FF at Loyola. He didn't suddenly learn how to be a great coach that season.

In this world, that's how people get promoted in general. Some work out, some don't. But to look at someone's records/stats from the outside without knowing the inner workings is not exactly looking at the full scope.

 

[TEvans4Three]

Not sure why @IndySooner is getting heat for saying something basic.

3 years is a small/standard sample size to see how they perform at their current school. It is not a LARGE sample size, that is a bit hyperbolic. (as it relates to the copious amounts of data that exist) I think @steverocks35 meant it as "we have 3 years of data and I have seen enough to make my judgment on that set of data I have seen. (3 full seasons)"

It is subjective, in relative basketball analysis 1-3 years is small, 4-5 years regular, 5+ is large. You get full recruitment cycles, NIL periods baked in. Now if you want to argue that NIL shortens the sample size bc you dont get 4 year players anymore, then we can discuss that as well.

The idea was you give a coach 4 years to see how they recruit and develop. That is very much changing.

We are arguing semantics to be angry at something, and it is silly.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

100 games and many thousands of possessions with three very different rosters isn't enough for an intelligent basketball fan to form a reasonable opinion on someone's coaching style/ability? How long does it take? Is Scott Drew still in his early days? Self? izzo?

I'm not sure you want to go down this road...not because 100 games sometimes isn't enough to judge someone but that many times it isn't enough time

Scott Drew won 21 total games his first 3 years at baylor
Izzo had a 60% winning % after 3 years
PM is @ 55%

There are numerous examples for both sides that could be thrown out there...from all sports.
SOmetimes, for whatever reason, it takes some coaches longer in certain situations to get going.
For PM, with his track record, I'd say that 55%-60% is what we can expect longterm.
BUT there is still hope that he is trying to figure out coaching in teh upper echelon of basketball for whatever reason

 

[steverocks35]

Not sure why @IndySooner is getting heat for saying something basic.

3 years is a small/standard sample size to see how they perform at their current school. It is not a LARGE sample size, that is a bit hyperbolic. (as it relates to the copious amounts of data that exist) I think @steverocks35 meant it as "we have 3 years of data and I have seen enough to make my judgment on that set of data I have seen. (3 full seasons)"

It is subjective, in relative basketball analysis 1-3 years is small, 4-5 years regular, 5+ is large. You get full recruitment cycles, NIL periods baked in. Now if you want to argue that NIL shortens the sample size bc you dont get 4 year players anymore, then we can discuss that as well.

The idea was you give a coach 4 years to see how they recruit and develop. That is very much changing.

We are arguing semantics to be angry at something, and it is silly.

Thanks for that. I'm not the least bit angry. My point is exactly what you said, "I've seen enough." YMMV.

Thanks for the comment.

 

[hoopsaustin]

Go do your job. Those kids aren't going to teach themselves.

You need a timeout. Must suck to be miserable 24/7

 

[Boom Soon]

Can we not argue more about Moser until we know if he’s going to gone or not?

 

[WTSooner]

You need a timeout. Must suck to be miserable 24/7

Nah, just don't need that clown poking his head into a thread where basketball was being discussed, even if differing opinions, with a comment directed at stirring the pot. His comments like that are what make this place toxic at times, not the actual disagreeing. Contribute to the conversation or move on. The pot shots get old. Heck, they got old 5 years ago.

 

[NickZepp]

Moser is getting more hate than Kelvin was in his early years. Didn't think that was possible.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

count me in the camp that doesn't view coach as toxic

 

[WichitaSooner]

I'm not sure you want to go down this road...not because 100 games sometimes isn't enough to judge someone but that many times it isn't enough time

Scott Drew won 21 total games his first 3 years at baylor
Izzo had a 60% winning % after 3 years
PM is @ 55%

There are numerous examples for both sides that could be thrown out there...from all sports.
SOmetimes, for whatever reason, it takes some coaches longer in certain situations to get going.
For PM, with his track record, I'd say that 55%-60% is what we can expect longterm.
BUT there is still hope that he is trying to figure out coaching in teh upper echelon of basketball for whatever reason

I understand your point, but as for Drew -- I probably would give Moser a longer leash if, say, Brady Manek had murdered a teammate and Lon Kruger had covered it up in his last season, and we didn't get to play any noncon games this season. (This post is mainly just a way of remembering what an insane situation that was.)

 

[WTSooner]

count me in the camp that doesn't view coach as toxic

If you think him showing up in a thread that had been civil all morning and making the post he did is good for the board, I can't help you.

I could have been the bigger person, but I'm sick of his crap. I literally stopped posting here for months, mostly because of him and one or two others that don't know how to have differing opinions without being aholes about it.

Some of us like Moser. Some of us want to give Moser more time. Some of us want Moser gone yesterday. There is a way for all to co-exist here, but it's not by making posts like that (coach).

 

[WTSooner]

Moser is getting more hate than Kelvin was in his early years. Didn't think that was possible.

I don't think it was that bad with Kelvin early on (like, the first 3-5 years).

You have to remember the stretch of basketball we were coming off of. One NCAA Tourney birth in the 4 years prior to Kelvin showing up, and we lost in the first round as a 4 seed that year. The bar was pretty low early on.

 

[CoachTalk]

If you think him showing up in a thread that had been civil all morning and making the post he did is good for the board, I can't help you.

I could have been the bigger person, but I'm sick of his crap. I literally stopped posting here for months, mostly because of him and one or two others that don't know how to have differing opinions without being aholes about it.

Some of us like Moser. Some of us want to give Moser more time. Some of us want Moser gone yesterday. There is a way for all to co-exist here, but it's not by making posts like that (coach).

It’s kind of civil. Same crap different thread. Many months ago I believe I said: it’s this year or heat is on..::

But I don’t say it every post or thread.

 

[NickZepp]

I don't think it was that bad with Kelvin early on (like, the first 3-5 years).

You have to remember the stretch of basketball we were coming off of. One NCAA Tourney birth in the 4 years prior to Kelvin showing up, and we lost in the first round as a 4 seed that year. The bar was pretty low early on.

I think a lot of people still expected more Billy Ball style and he wasn't that. Especially after all the scorers like Brewer, Erdmann, and Minor left.

 

[skyvue]

It was bad in the early years. The style of play was the polar opposite of Billy's style and we kept losing in the first round. The fan base as a whole loves Sampson much more now than it did in all but the peaks of his tenure in Norman. As someone who faithfully defended Kelvin until he cut and ran, I remember it quite clearly. He had some detractors throughout his time at OU. They might have gone quiet during two or three seasons, but they cropped right back up when the team again lost some first-round games. And then, many who had hated him all along jumped gleefully on his "cheating" to justify the opinions they'd held of him all along. They claimed it was the cheating but most of them had been dogging him from the jump.

 

[TINY]

It was bad in the early years. The style of play was the polar opposite of Billy's style and we kept losing in the first round. The fan base as a whole loves Sampson much more now than it did in all but the peaks of his tenure in Norman. As someone who faithfully defended Kelvin until he cut and ran, I remember it quite clearly. He had some detractors throughout his time at OU. They might have gone quiet during two or three seasons, but they cropped right back up when the team again lost some first-round games. And then, many who had hated him all along jumped gleefully on his "cheating" to justify the opinions they'd held of him all along. They claimed it was the cheating but most of them had been dogging him from the jump.

All of this

 

[BoulderSooner]

but guys like Buddy, were a lot more basketball player than athlete.

ummm NO

 

[IndySooner]

You think back to a lot of the OU greats.....I'm not saying they weren't athletic, but guys like Buddy, Ace, Hollis, Najera, Nolan Johnson, Erdmann (quick list, don't nit pick it) were a lot more basketball player than athlete.

When Buddy got to OU, he was all athlete. He had to work HARD to become a basketball player. And no one outworked him.

My guess, based on progression, is Oweh and Uzan are not working as hard...