Shaka Smart at UT

[soonertravis]

That may be your opinion, but my expectations aren't to limp into the tournament with 9 and 10 seeds. And that is what he has done 3 of the 6 years he has made the tournament. He also had a 5 seed lose to a team from the Summit Conference, and then the two good years with Buddy.

Neither Kelvin nor Billy had anything resembling 9/10 seeds this far in to their tenures at OU.

So after 8 years:

Kelvin had 8 tourney appearances, 5 1st round losses, 4 double digit seeds, 2 losses as a 4 seed, 1 sweet 16 and 1 Final Four. He took over a team that had been to the NIT 3 of the prior 4 years, but had Ryan Minor as a Junior. We made the Final Four in year 8.

Lon has 6 tourney appearances, 3 1st round losses, 2 double digit seeds, 1 loss as a 5 seed, 1 Sweet 16, and 1 Final Four(with this year pending). He took over a team that was on probation and coming off 2 losing seasons in a row. We were in the Final Four in year 5.

Clearly we were in worse shape when Lon took over. He built up the success much quicker. He has struggled to find sustained success off the Final Four.

Year 8 and 9 were the pinnacle for Kelvin. He too struggled to find sustained success after the Final Four. We went to the Elite 8 the next year and then missed the tournament. We lost in the 2nd round as 3 seed and we lost in the 1st round as a 6 seed in his last two years in Norman. He left with us headed to probation.

At the conclusion of his 12 year run, Kelvin had:
11 tourney appearances
6 1st round losses and a second round loss as a 3 seed
1 Sweet Sixteen
1 Elite 8
1 Final Four

There are a lot of similarities between Kelvin and Lon. Each had tremendous all-time great players come from being unheralded recruits to being National Player of the Year caliber who led us to the Final Four and elite success. Then the recruiting classes with really good players who played a role on those teams struggled when they became the leaders. Many transferred, etc.

With the small exception of the 8 year period in the 80s with Tubbs at the helm, this is OU basketball. It is a very good program. I would guess a Top 20-25 program nationally with no empirical data to back that up. But we are not UNC, Duke, or Kansas.


And to the poster using Freeman and Polla as evidence of bad recruiting, remember that all coaches have them. Kelvin had Oleg, Alex Spaulding, Michael Cotton, Blake Johnston, and many others. It happens.

We have the 15th ranked recruiting class with the #36 player and 3 Top 125 per Rivals. Let's see what the next 2-3 years holds and reassess.

 

[Zimwillett]

That may be your opinion, but my expectations aren't to limp into the tournament with 9 and 10 seeds. And that is what he has done 3 of the 6 years he has made the tournament. He also had a 5 seed lose to a team from the Summit Conference, and then the two good years with Buddy.

Neither Kelvin nor Billy had anything resembling 9/10 seeds this far in to their tenures at OU.

Yeah. You probably should have researched that one a little more. Others have pointed out the various NIT seasons late in Kelvin and Billy's careers.

More to the point, if your problem is Lon getting bounced early from the tournament, Kelvin probably isn't the example you should include. Kelvin took OU to the NCAA tournament 11 times and lost in the first round in 6 of them. In two others, he went in as a #3 seed and was upset in the second round by a #6 seed. So something like 73% of all of Kelvin's NCAA tournament appearances at OU could be characterized as a failure. In the same way you are dismissing Lon's run with Buddy, I suppose we could dismiss Kelvin's run with Hollis.

Look, I have my criticisms of Lon as well, but I don't think I can stand for this re-writing of Kelvin Sampson's tournament record at OU.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Tourney wise I think you showed pretty clearly that Lon and Calvin have had pretty similar resumes @ OU. I think a lot of the angst is stemming from Kruger's Conference record which even for guys that have had his back is pretty poor.

And as has also been showed. This is a much much more difficult conf schedule and more difficult conf

 

[SoonerTraveler]

It's sad that this has turned into a Lon vs. Kelvin debate. I think Sampson is one of the great coaches in America. I also have no earthly idea how that has any bearing on the quality of Lon's coaching. It's like some posters think it's a zero sum game, and if Lon doesn't equal ot better Kelvin, he MUST be a bad coach deserving of a pink slip.

I agree with you on this point.

It is also sad to continuously read the "Lon exceeded expectations" mantra. Each time I read this, I am reminded that expectations have been LOWERED for Oklahoma Basketball since Coach Kruger has been here 8 years.

Our expectations have been lowered. Averaging .500 in the conference is the new norm .. the acceptable expectation. It is sad.

Expectations. Hopefully, the team can go .500 in the conference next season, and Lon can once again exceed expectations.

 

[WTSooner]

Yeah. You probably should have researched that one a little more. Others have pointed out the various NIT seasons late in Kelvin and Billy's careers.

I can ensure you I was plenty aware. It was late, I didn't take the time to be super detailed in my post, and the focus of what I was saying got lost. We all know Billy was dealing with a bunch of stuff at the end of his tenure. Some of that tied to our issues with football at the time. Coolio. I was mostly talking about all the years before that of sustained success.

Same with Kelvin. Yes, he had a year where everything went wrong health-wise, and he had a team miss the Dance by a game. That was with Bookout missing nearly the entire season, and JB getting booted late. They still had a better record (I think) than this year's team, and a better Big 12 record. That season was an abnomonally, IMO. Rebounded the very next year and won the Big 12 (tie with KU). I still see a difference between that and what Lon is doing. If you don't, fine.

 

[WichitaSooner]

I can ensure you I was plenty aware. It was late, I didn't take the time to be super detailed in my post, and the focus of what I was saying got lost. We all know Billy was dealing with a bunch of stuff at the end of his tenure. Some of that tied to our issues with football at the time. Coolio. I was mostly talking about all the years before that of sustained success.

Same with Kelvin. Yes, he had a year where everything went wrong health-wise, and he had a team miss the Dance by a game. That was with Bookout missing nearly the entire season, and JB getting booted late. They still had a better record (I think) than this year's team, and a better Big 12 record. That season was an abnomonally, IMO. Rebounded the very next year and won the Big 12 (tie with KU). I still see a difference between that and what Lon is doing. If you don't, fine.

Another example of the self-proclaimed king of facts ignoring facts he doesn't like. And to think, he immediately jumped Sky for making one mistake, which was obviously accidental, on Saturday night.

Also interesting how quick you are to find excuses for Billy (dealing with "stuff") and Kelvin (injuries and pot smokers). Heck, Lon not only doesn't get that benefit of the doubt, he actually gets blamed for injuries by people who act like he is at fault for Muni's prolonged issue.

 

[Zimwillett]

I can ensure you I was plenty aware. It was late, I didn't take the time to be super detailed in my post, and the focus of what I was saying got lost. We all know Billy was dealing with a bunch of stuff at the end of his tenure. Some of that tied to our issues with football at the time. Coolio. I was mostly talking about all the years before that of sustained success.

Same with Kelvin. Yes, he had a year where everything went wrong health-wise, and he had a team miss the Dance by a game. That was with Bookout missing nearly the entire season, and JB getting booted late. They still had a better record (I think) than this year's team, and a better Big 12 record. That season was an abnomonally, IMO. Rebounded the very next year and won the Big 12 (tie with KU). I still see a difference between that and what Lon is doing. If you don't, fine.

Again, I'm with you to a degree. I do not enjoy this level of sub mediocrity in conference.

That said, I think it is a little unfair to compare the conference today with what it was when Kelvin was around. I think the round robin thing definitely makes a big difference. Kelvin only had to go to Lawrence, Ames, and Columbia every other year and only played the North teams once (the North was consistently the better half of the conference back then).

Plus, when Kelvin was around, Texas A&M, Baylor, and Texas Tech were varying degrees of awful. Kansas State didn't make the tournament one time during Kelvin's tenure (edit...I was wrong...K-State got in as a 10 seed in 1996 and lost in the first round...still not exactly a power program during Kelvin's tenure). Throw in pretty weak programs like Nebraska and Colorado, and Kelvin basically had 9 or 10 built in conference wins.

All that said, I still agree. Lon's inability to compete at a higher level in the conference is really not good. But I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison when you are looking at the history of this conference.

 

[WTSooner]

And to the poster using Freeman and Polla as evidence of bad recruiting, remember that all coaches have them. Kelvin had Oleg, Alex Spaulding, Michael Cotton, Blake Johnston, and many others. It happens.

He is the difference, those guys, for the most part, weren't playing meaningful minutes for Kelvin, and weren't on the same teams. Kelvin did always have a cluncker or two at the end of the bench. But he never tried to sell them as anything more than they were. This year's roster had Freeman, Polla, Lazenby, Kuath (project), and Reaves (known redshirt due to transfer). That is a lot of wasted spots.

Next year may even be worse. I know we're expected to have somebody leave, but next year's roster is currently projected to have Freeman, Polla, Kuath, Merritt, Garang, and a guy in Iwuakor that will need a year or two of development. Kruger is already handcuffing himself with options. Kelvin didn't make it a habit of having that much waste/project on singular rosters. This is Oklahoma. We should be able to recruit 10+ non-project type players for our roster at any given time.

 

[152219]

Again, I'm with you to a degree. I do not enjoy this level of sub mediocrity in conference.

That said, I think it is a little unfair to compare the conference today with what it was when Kelvin was around. I think the round robin thing definitely makes a big difference. Kelvin only had to go to Lawrence, Ames, and Columbia every other year and only played the North teams once (the North was consistently the better half of the conference back then).

Plus, when Kelvin was around, Texas A&M, Baylor, and Texas Tech were varying degrees of awful. Kansas State didn't make the tournament one time during Kelvin's tenure (edit...I was wrong...K-State got in as a 10 seed in 1996 and lost in the first round...still not exactly a power program during Kelvin's tenure). Throw in pretty weak programs like Nebraska and Colorado, and Kelvin basically had 9 or 10 built in conference wins.

All that said, I still agree. Lon's inability to compete at a higher level in the conference is really not good. But I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison when you are looking at the history of this conference.

I've presented this exact same argument multiple times on the board. It will fall on deaf ears of the Sampson homers.

 

[thebigabd]

I've presented this exact same argument multiple times on the board. It will fall on deaf ears of the Sampson homers.

But Oklahoma State was always pretty darn good under Eddie Sutton... Missouri was always pretty solid during the Kelvin Years...

Nebraska back in those days was usually pretty decent. Certainly not an easy win. I think Sampson was 5-5 in his last 10 against them.

I'd have to do some more research on this.

 

[WTSooner]

But Oklahoma State was always pretty darn good under Eddie Sutton... Missouri was always pretty solid during the Kelvin Years...

Nebraska back in those days was usually pretty decent. Certainly not an easy win. I think Sampson was 5-5 in his last 10 against them.

I'd have to do some more research on this.

Yep, it goes back to the argument I've been making about the Big 12. Is the league tougher then, when the top teams were better? Or is it tougher now with the top teams not being as good, but maybe there being more solid teams in the middle? I'd argue KU and OSU were better then. Mizzou had some good teams. aTm had a solid program. I'm guessing at the end of the day it was comparable, the league then vs the league now.

 

[thebigabd]

Yep, it goes back to the argument I've been making about the Big 12. Is the league tougher then, when the top teams were better? Or is it tougher now with the top teams not being as good, but maybe there being more solid teams in the middle? I'd argue KU and OSU were better then. Mizzou had some good teams. aTm had a solid program. I'm guessing at the end of the day it was comparable, the league then vs the league now.

Yea I don't think I am buying that Sampson had an easier league to play in than Kruger... OSU was tough, Missouri was tough, Kansas was better back then, ISU had some very good teams with Marcus Fizer, Jamal Tinsley, etc for years... Texas was better back then too under Rick Barnes.

The Royal Ivey, Brian Boddicker, Chris Mihm, etc Texas teams for 4 years were really good... so was the James Thomas, TJ Ford, etc teams for another few years. Even before that they were good. Then of course you had random stars at Texas throughout the Sampson years, but they are a shell of that now and have been for awhile.

 

[WTSooner]

Yea I don't think I am buying that Sampson had an easier league to play in than Kruger... OSU was tough, Missouri was tough, Kansas was better back then, ISU had some very good teams with Marcus Fizer, Jamal Tinsley, etc for years... Texas was better back then too under Rick Barnes.

The Royal Ivey, Brian Boddicker, Chris Mihm, etc Texas teams for 4 years were really good... so was the James Thomas, TJ Ford, etc teams for another few years. Even before that they were good. Then of course you had random stars at Texas throughout the Sampson years, but they are a shell of that now and have been for awhile.

Forgot about UT, absolutely they were better then.

Like I said, it probably all evens out, but I certainly don't see it being tougher now.

 

[WichitaSooner]

Yea I don't think I am buying that Sampson had an easier league to play in than Kruger... OSU was tough, Missouri was tough, Kansas was better back then, ISU had some very good teams with Marcus Fizer, Jamal Tinsley, etc for years... Texas was better back then too under Rick Barnes.

The Royal Ivey, Brian Boddicker, Chris Mihm, etc Texas teams for 4 years were really good... so was the James Thomas, TJ Ford, etc teams for another few years. Even before that they were good. Then of course you had random stars at Texas throughout the Sampson years, but they are a shell of that now and have been for awhile.

KU definitely wasn't better back then. They have always been great over the past 30 years, but the Self era has been quite a bit better than the Williams era in terms of winning percentage, not to mention conference dominance. ISU had two great years (2000 and 2001) but also missed the tourney in 5 of Kelvin's 12 seasons. Colorado made the tourney twice. Nebraska made it once. A&M made it once and was beyond terrible the vast majority of Kelvin's tenure. They got good after he left. Tech never sniffed the tourney till Knight got there, then made it 3 of 5 years. KSU made one tourney and never finished above .500 in the league. Texas and OSU were clearly better and more consistent back then, you are right about that. But with CU, A&M, Nebraska, KSU, and often ISU all bad in the same seasons, it was much easier to pick up a handful of easy wins each year. Imagine if in addition to OSU and West Virginia this season, there were two or three other 12-20-ish teams in the league right now.

 

[Zimwillett]

Yep, it goes back to the argument I've been making about the Big 12. Is the league tougher then, when the top teams were better? Or is it tougher now with the top teams not being as good, but maybe there being more solid teams in the middle? I'd argue KU and OSU were better then. Mizzou had some good teams. aTm had a solid program. I'm guessing at the end of the day it was comparable, the league then vs the league now.

BS. In the first 9 seasons Kelvin was at OU, A&M was:

14-16
11-16
9-18
7-20
12-15
8-20
10-20
14-14
7-21

Gillispie took over in 2004/05 and they went 21-10 and made the NIT. A&M was 22-9 in Kelvin's last year (4th in the Big 12). It wasn't until after Kelvin was gone that A&M kind of took off.

Someone else called Nebraska a "solid program" in that era. Again, while better than the A&M dumpster fire, no, they weren't. Nebraska made one NCAA tournament appearance (1997-1998). During Kelvin's tenure and were sub .500 in about 5 of the 11 seasons.

Someone mentioned Mizzou, but I think you're getting confused with Norm Stewart's really good teams from before Kelvin. During Kelvin's tenure, Mizzou was:

20-9
18-15
16-17
17-15
20-9
18-13
20-13
24-11
22-11
16-14
16-17
12-16

So a few decent years sprinkled in with a whole heaping spoonful of mediocrity, but far from some power program.

 

[sheepdogs1]

KU definitely wasn't better back then. They have always been great over the past 30 years, but the Self era has been quite a bit better than the Williams era in terms of winning percentage, not to mention conference dominance. ISU had two great years (2000 and 2001) but also missed the tourney in 5 of Kelvin's 12 seasons. Colorado made the tourney twice. Nebraska made it once. A&M made it once and was beyond terrible the vast majority of Kelvin's tenure. They got good after he left. Tech never sniffed the tourney till Knight got there, then made it 3 of 5 years. KSU made one tourney and never finished above .500 in the league. Texas and OSU were clearly better and more consistent back then, you are right about that. But with CU, A&M, Nebraska, KSU, and often ISU all bad in the same seasons, it was much easier to pick up a handful of easy wins each year. Imagine if in addition to OSU and West Virginia this season, there were two or three other 12-20-ish teams in the league right now.

Perhaps some Big East, ACC bias might have played a role in this.

 

[thebigabd]

BS. In the first 9 seasons Kelvin was at OU, A&M was:

14-16
11-16
9-18
7-20
12-15
8-20
10-20
14-14
7-21

Gillispie took over in 2004/05 and they went 21-10 and made the NIT. A&M was 22-9 in Kelvin's last year (4th in the Big 12). It wasn't until after Kelvin was gone that A&M kind of took off.

Someone else called Nebraska a "solid program" in that era. Again, while better than the A&M dumpster fire, no, they weren't. Nebraska made one NCAA tournament appearance (1997-1998). During Kelvin's tenure and were sub .500 in about 5 of the 11 seasons.

Someone mentioned Mizzou, but I think you're getting confused with Norm Stewart's really good teams from before Kelvin. During Kelvin's tenure, Mizzou was:

20-9
18-15
16-17
17-15
20-9
18-13
20-13
24-11
22-11
16-14
16-17
12-16

So some a few decent years sprinkled in with a whole heaping spoonful of mediocrity, but far from some power program.

A&M got a lot better under Gillispie, and I will go ahead and defend the Nebraska remark.

From 94-06 (Kelvin era) they went to the NIT or NCAA Tournament 7 times. Mostly NIT's, with just the one NCAA appearance in that frame. But I was just stating they weren't some kind of dumpster fire, easy win like A&M and Baylor were for a long time.

Games in Lincoln were especially tough... They were always just good enough to give you a game or beat you. We lost to them in 95, 98, 99, 06, 06 again, 08, 10, and 11.

In 2004 OU beat them by 2... the Final Four Sampson team beat them by like 7... 96 played them twice, each going to overtime (one was triple OT)... 97 was a 6 point game.

A few blowouts, but I don't think any old Big 8 or Big 12 fan from the early 90's and on would say they were an easy game.

 

[Zimwillett]

KU definitely wasn't better back then. They have always been great over the past 30 years, but the Self era has been quite a bit better than the Williams era in terms of winning percentage, not to mention conference dominance. ISU had two great years (2000 and 2001) but also missed the tourney in 5 of Kelvin's 12 seasons. Colorado made the tourney twice. Nebraska made it once. A&M made it once and was beyond terrible the vast majority of Kelvin's tenure. They got good after he left. Tech never sniffed the tourney till Knight got there, then made it 3 of 5 years. KSU made one tourney and never finished above .500 in the league. Texas and OSU were clearly better and more consistent back then, you are right about that. But with CU, A&M, Nebraska, KSU, and often ISU all bad in the same seasons, it was much easier to pick up a handful of easy wins each year. Imagine if in addition to OSU and West Virginia this season, there were two or three other 12-20-ish teams in the league right now.

Exactly. From 1996 until about 2004, if you played in the Big 12 South, you could basically book 4 conference wins (A&M and Baylor). Those were a couple of the worst programs in all of college basketball.

And you are right about ISU. They were extremely up and down. In 1996/97 they were 12-18, 10-15 in 97/98, then they went on their run from 99-2001. From there they were:

12-19
17-14
9-20
19-12
16-14

Again, people seem to only remember those great teams with Fizer and Tinsley, but the rest was pretty garbage.

 

[steverocks35]

This thread is full of macro arguments, let’s look at a micro argument. Does anyone remember a single Kelvin Sampson coached team that wasn’t tough and had mental lapses with players that moped and pouted? Right now we are seeing a bunch of guys come into the program who aren’t tough and leaving the program without developing any toughness. That’s my single biggest issue. We are soft and I don’t see any reason to believe coach LK will develop any toughness in this team in the coming years. I hope I’m wrong.

 

[WTSooner]

OSU? UT? Mizzou?

It's only a 10-12 team conference. If you leave out 3-4 teams, that is 1/3 of the conference.