Shaka Smart at UT

[steverocks35]

Manek, Freeman, & at times James & Calixte were soft. Odomes & Doolittle are tough players, bienemy & Reynolds aren’t soft. Last years team was soft, this team isn’t the toughest but isn’t soft.

You forgot McNeace, he makes Charmin seem like chainmail.

 

[BCSooners]

You forgot McNeace, he makes Charmin seem like chainmail.

Yes he is definitely the softest but hasn’t been playing so I didn’t include him.

 

[Hollisp]

This season, we exceeded the stated expectations of many on this board, but many of those same posters are now *****ing and moaning about the season we had and looking for ways to discount our tourney berth, as if they find it personally objectionable that we received an invite.

All of this.

If u thought we were a 2nd weekend team in the tournament please stand up to be counted! You madam/sir have the right to complain.

Everyone else, was comfortable with a getting in and MAYBE one win bc that’s what this team is: a team that is one of the best 68.

If the two previous options are not you and you are still angry/mad/upset/jaded I don’t understand why you are here other than to be negative.

Hell, we got people on here who are still upset we got in LAST year! Weird stuff.

 

[Hollisp]

I would agree this is realistic. Maybe a run at a conference championship & Final 4 with every group of 4 year players.

This is my expectations.

 

[BoulderSooner]

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.

it is a statistical fact

 

[thebigabd]

So all of you guys that are saying Kelvin Sampson feasted on a weaker league, are essentially saying OU isn't the quality of program we thought they were? That they have settled into their natural position, along with Oklahoma State, at the bottom half of a better league?

Even if the league is tougher now, which I don't believe is true, but assuming it is... you are essentially saying Sampson had some fools gold and now that we are in a tougher league this is the new expectation?

You can't say "OU won more games back then because the league was weaker", without also saying "this is really where OU belongs now in this tougher league".... Anything else is inconsistent. Either OU did really well because Kelvin and the program were great, or it was because the league was weak. And OU has done poorly in the league under Kruger because the league is tough and OU has settled into its natural position, or Kruger hasn't performed up to program standards.

I await responses.

 

[WichitaSooner]

So all of you guys that are saying Kelvin Sampson feasted on a weaker league, are essentially saying OU isn't the quality of program we thought they were? That they have settled into their natural position, along with Oklahoma State, at the bottom half of a better league?

Even if the league is tougher now, which I don't believe is true, but assuming it is... you are essentially saying Sampson had some fools gold and now that we are in a tougher league this is the new expectation?

You can't say "OU won more games back then because the league was weaker", without also saying "this is really where OU belongs now in this tougher league".... Anything else is inconsistent. Either OU did really well because Kelvin and the program were great, or it was because the league was weak. And OU has done poorly in the league under Kruger because the league is tough and OU has settled into its natural position, or Kruger hasn't performed up to program standards.

I await responses.

My response is that three years isn't nearly enough to conclude that we have settled into the bottom half. We certainly weren't near the bottom in the four previous years. Let's see how things play out now that KSU loses their best class in ages. Let's see what happens to Tech if Beard ever leaves and their short burst ends. Everyone is so quick to draw conclusions based on what is happening at exactly this moment.

 

[SoonerTraveler]

My response is that three years isn't nearly enough to conclude that we have settled into the bottom half. We certainly weren't near the bottom in the four previous years. Let's see how things play out now that KSU loses their best class in ages. Let's see what happens to Tech if Beard ever leaves and their short burst ends. Everyone is so quick to draw conclusions based on what is happening at exactly this moment.

72-72 (.500) is an eight year moment. It is not a quick judgement or conclusion.

But maybe .500 is good enough?

 

[Zimwillett]

So all of you guys that are saying Kelvin Sampson feasted on a weaker league, are essentially saying OU isn't the quality of program we thought they were? That they have settled into their natural position, along with Oklahoma State, at the bottom half of a better league?

Even if the league is tougher now, which I don't believe is true, but assuming it is... you are essentially saying Sampson had some fools gold and now that we are in a tougher league this is the new expectation?

You can't say "OU won more games back then because the league was weaker", without also saying "this is really where OU belongs now in this tougher league".... Anything else is inconsistent. Either OU did really well because Kelvin and the program were great, or it was because the league was weak. And OU has done poorly in the league under Kruger because the league is tough and OU has settled into its natural position, or Kruger hasn't performed up to program standards.

I await responses.

I don't accept this box you're inartfully trying to draw.

First, I don't know how many times I can repeat, comparing Lon's conference record to Kelvin's is not an apples to apples comparison. The league is literally different. It's 10 teams, not 12. There are no divisions. They now play home and home round robin. They did not when Kelvin was at OU.

Second, the relative strength or weakness of a league can be measured, at least in part, by the number of tournament teams. Well, when Kelvin was around the Big 12 (remember an actual 12 team league) were as follows:

1996-97: 5 bids (41.6% of the conference, only KU was higher than a 6 seed)

1998-99 4 bids (33.3% of the conference, only KU was higher than an 8 seed)

1999-00: 5 bids (best seed was KU as a 6 seed)

2000-01: 6 bids (50%)

2001-02: 6 bids (50%)

2002-03: 6 bids

2003-04: 4 bids

2004-05: 6 bids

2005-06: 4 bids

So never once did the Kelvin Sampson era Big 12 put more than 6 of its 12 teams into the tournament. In five of Kelvin's seasons, less than half of the league made the tournament. By contrast:

2011-12: 6 bids (60% of the conference)

2012-13: 5 bids (50%)

2013-14: 7 bids (70% of the conference)

2014-15: 7 bids (70%)

2015-16: 7 bids

2016-17: 6 bids

2017-18: 7 bids

2018-19: 6 bids

So in other words, in Lon's tenure over half the conference has made the tournament every year but one. Four of the seasons he's been in the conference, 70% of the conference has been in the tournament. And, most importantly, he has to go play every single one of those teams on the road every year, no matter what. It's a big difference.

No I am not saying that I accept that Lon is failing to win 50% of his games in this league. I am just pointing out that this league is factually more difficult today than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Edit: Got my years off

 

[thebigabd]

I don't accept this box you're inartfully trying to draw.

No I am not saying that I accept that Lon is failing to win 50% of his games in this league. I am just pointing out that this league is factually more difficult today than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Ok... so you are going with exactly what I said. The program wasn't as good as we thought because Sampson played in a weaker league and in a tougher league OU has settled into its natural position over an 8 year period of time as evidence.

How is that not what you are saying?

 

[skyvue]

First, I don't know how many times I can repeat, comparing Lon's conference record to Kelvin's is not an apples to apples comparison.

Wait, so you're saying that [fill in an extravagant misconstruance of what you're actually saying that I hope will serve as a "gotcha" and make my own comments seem more coherent and accurate]?

 

[SoonerTraveler]

Wait, so you're saying that [fill in an extravagant misconstruance of what you're actually saying that I hope will serve as a "gotcha" and make my own comments seem more coherent and accurate]?

Something that you have never done.

I think we may have all been guilty of this, whether it was intentional or not.

 

[WTSooner]

I don't accept this box you're inartfully trying to draw.

First, I don't know how many times I can repeat, comparing Lon's conference record to Kelvin's is not an apples to apples comparison. The league is literally different. It's 10 teams, not 12. There are no divisions. They now play home and home round robin. They did not when Kelvin was at OU.

Second, the relative strength or weakness of a league can be measured, at least in part, by the number of tournament teams. Well, when Kelvin was around the Big 12 (remember an actual 12 team league) were as follows:

1996-97: 5 bids (41.6% of the conference, only KU was higher than a 6 seed)

1998-99 4 bids (33.3% of the conference, only KU was higher than an 8 seed)

1999-00: 5 bids (best seed was KU as a 6 seed)

2000-01: 6 bids (50%)

2001-02: 6 bids (50%)

2002-03: 6 bids

2003-04: 4 bids

2004-05: 6 bids

2005-06: 4 bids

So never once did the Kelvin Sampson era Big 12 put more than 6 of its 12 teams into the tournament. In five of Kelvin's seasons, less than half of the league made the tournament. By contrast:

2011-12: 6 bids (60% of the conference)

2012-13: 5 bids (50%)

2013-14: 7 bids (70% of the conference)

2014-15: 7 bids (70%)

2015-16: 7 bids

2016-17: 6 bids

2017-18: 7 bids

2018-19: 6 bids

So in other words, in Lon's tenure over half the conference has made the tournament every year but one. Four of the seasons he's been in the conference, 70% of the conference has been in the tournament. And, most importantly, he has to go play every single one of those teams on the road every year, no matter what. It's a big difference.

No I am not saying that I accept that Lon is failing to win 50% of his games in this league. I am just pointing out that this league is factually more difficult today than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Edit: Got my years off

You accounting for the expanded tournament, or nah?

On average, all your data shows is that Lon's tenure had an average of 1 more team per year make the tournament. Trying to say that that stat means the Big 12 is tougher now seems like a stretch to me. Trying to say that it makes the Big 12 tougher in that it has significantly reduced OU's ability to win Big 12 games seems like even more of a stretch. It simply means they had one more tourney bound team.

To do this properly you are going to have to look at seeding and results. And probably accomplishments (Sweet 16's, FF's, NC's). And even then, it's probably going to be some minor difference.

1 bid a year more for the Big 12 ain't the reason Lon has the Big 12 record he does.

 

[WTSooner]

Guys, it sounds like we just need to wait for all the good teams to stop being good, then we can feel better about our program.

My goodness. smh

 

[Zimwillett]

Ok... so you are going with exactly what I said. The program wasn't as good as we thought because Sampson played in a weaker league and in a tougher league OU has settled into its natural position.

How is that not what you are saying?

I assume you are just being obtuse on purpose. These are really two different things.

First, I don't accept that OU is "naturally" anywhere in this league. For everyone except basically KU, it's entirely cyclical. Teams will have up years, down years, and in between years. I would prefer the up years. How is this that difficult.

Second, and of an entirely different part of this conversation, is that this league is just factually more difficult than it was when Kelvin Sampson was around. I think I proved that. So I'll say it again and again and again. It is not an apples to apples comparison to look at Lon Kruger's conference record vs. Kelvin Sampson's. They are literally different leagues in virtually every way possible.

 

[WichitaSooner]

You accounting for the expanded tournament, or nah?

On average, all your data shows is that Lon's tenure had an average of 1 more team per year make the tournament. Trying to say that that stat means the Big 12 is tougher now seems like a stretch to me. It simply means they had one more tourney bound team.

To do this properly you are going to have to look at seeding and results. And probably accomplishments (Sweet 16's, FF's, NC's). And even then, it's probably going to be some minor difference.

1 bid a year more for the Big 12 ain't the reason Lon has the Big 12 record he does.

I love how you have refused to acknowledge my post yesterday where I went in detail about several specific programs and how bad they were, and how seldom they made the tourney, for the majority of Kelvin's time. Take how bad West Virginia were this year, then add three more of those teams to the bottom of the league. Something tells me that impacts won-loss record. But again, so fun to rehash Kelvin vs. Lon, since we apparently can't expand our minds enough to realize the possibility that . . . gasp . . . they are both good coaches!

 

[Zimwillett]

1 bid a year more for the Big 12 ain't the reason Lon has the Big 12 record he does.

I feel terrible about this. I want to emphasize that I am not making excuses for Lon.

With that out of the way, I don't know how many more ways I can show that this league, top to bottom, is more difficult than it was back then.

There are fewer teams, yet more teams get in. You have to play all of those teams on the road. There are fewer (if any) truly awful programs like Baylor and Texas A&M were back then.

If you don't like that, go back and look at the metrics. Conference RPI:

2018-19: #1
2017-18: #1
2016-17: #2
2015-16: #1
2014-15: #1
2013-14: #1
2012-13: #5
2011-12: #4

2005-2006: #5
2004-2005: #3
2003-2004: #4
2002-2003: #2
2001-2002: #5
2000-2001: #6
1999-2000: #4
1998-1999: #7
1997-1998: #6
1996-1997: #2
1995-1996: #4 (Big 8)
1994-1995: #2 (Big 8)
1993-1994: #4 (Big 8)

You can dismiss these numbers if you like, but it is what it is.

 

[WichitaSooner]

72-72 (.500) is an eight year moment. It is not a quick judgement or conclusion.

But maybe .500 is good enough?

Just keep vomiting up this one stat.

Maybe I can add a signature to my profile that keeps a running tab on "tournament appearances for Lon Kruger without Buddy Hield."

 

[WTSooner]

You have to play all of those teams on the road. There are fewer (if any) truly awful programs like Baylor and Texas A&M were back then.

You know what this ALSO means? It means you get to play some teams at home that we didn't get to play at home back then. I sure am glad we got to play KU and WVU in Norman this year. Know what I mean?

 

[thebigabd]

Just keep vomiting up this one stat.

It's kind of a big stat... like, if my job on the team was to be a dead-eye 3pt shooter and I was 1-35 from the 3pt line... and the coach pointed that out, and I am like, "hey man, why you gotta keep bringing that stat up?".... Because its kind of a big stat.

I assume you are just being obtuse on purpose. These are really two different things.

I'm really not, but that word always reminds me of the Shawshank Redemption.

First, I don't accept that OU is "naturally" anywhere in this league.

3, 3, 6, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 7, 1, 3. Those are regular season positions under Sampson. Along with 4 tournament wins.

10 out of 12 seasons in the top 3. I expect a first round bye in the Big 12 Tournament. That is OU's natural position in this league. Joe C should expect that too, so should you. Happened 83% of the time under Sampson. Happens 37% of the time under Kruger.

I will add that Tubbs averaged 3rd place across 14 seasons as well... So Sampson and Tubbs both averaged around 3rd place.

Pretty good stretch of decades for a solid expectation of a top 4 finish.

Second, and of an entirely different part of this conversation, is that this league is just factually more difficult than it was when Kelvin Sampson was around. I think I proved that. So I'll say it again and again and again. It is not an apples to apples comparison to look at Lon Kruger's conference record vs. Kelvin Sampson's. They are literally different leagues in virtually every way possible.

Ok, what is your point? That my expectation above is not reasonable or that my expectation is based on something that no longer exists? I accept your research and findings, but I am trying to apply what you have found to our current discussion of evaluating Kruger.

You know what this ALSO means? It means you get to play some teams at home that we didn't get to back then. I sure am glad we got to play KU and WVU in Norman this year. Know what I mean?

God bless you, WT.