Shaka Smart at UT

[Hollisp]

Game. Blouses.

 

[thebigabd]

I just can't stop researching this. I really am interested to see how the conference has improved.

During the relevant period, the six teams that were consistently (not always) at the bottom of the Big 8/Big 12 conference (Baylor, A&M, Nebraska, K-State, Colorado, and Texas Tech) received a total of 8 NCAA tournament berths in 66 seasons played (~12%). The bids break down as follows:

Baylor: 0
Texas A&M: 1 (12 seed in 2006)
Nebraska: 1 (11 seed in 1998)
Kansas St: 1 (10 seed in 1996)
Colorado: 2 (9 seed in 1997, 10 seed in 2003)
Texas Tech: 3 (6 seed in 2002, 8 seed in 2004, 6 seed in 2005)

That's 9 games which most seasons were against non tournament level teams, or at best, low to moderate seeds. More often than not many of those teams had losing overall records (literally). OU was expected to win those games, home or away. Doesn't mean it always happened, but that's what you'd expect. In other words, you basically started most seasons assuming you'd finish somewhere in the top half of the conference given how poor the bottom half was.

To his credit, Kelvin went 84-18 (~83%) during regular season conference play vs. those teams. Kelvin went 128-60 in conference play at OU. That means basically two thirds of his conference wins came vs. teams that were consistently not tournament level teams. This dynamic simply does not exist in the Big 12 anymore.

Nice research, Zim. So we are back to it then.... We weren't as good as we thought because Kelvin had 2/3 of his wins come against teams who didn't go to the NCAA Tournament. And now that we play in a tougher league OU is having trouble competing because they aren't able to feast on non-NCAA Tournament teams.

I know thats not the point you are trying to make. You are simply stating the difference in the league between then and now. I get it. You are simply making an observation that under Kelvin (and presumably Tubbs as well) that they were able to average top 4 finishes because 2/3 of the games they play are against bad teams. Or more accurately, just saying you can't compare what Lon has done in the league vs Sampson because the league is too different, it is no longer an applicable comparison.

I am taking your research, which I accept, and applying it to come to a POSSIBLE conclusion.

Is the conclusion that I am proposing possibly true?

 

[Zimwillett]

Nice research, Zim. So we are back to it then.... We weren't as good as we thought because Kelvin had 2/3 of his wins come against teams who didn't go to the NCAA Tournament. And now that we play in a tougher league OU is having trouble competing because they aren't able to feast on non-NCAA Tournament teams.

I know thats not the point you are trying to make. You are simply stating the difference in the league between then and now. I get it. You are simply making an observation that under Kelvin (and presumably Tubbs as well) that they were able to average top 4 finishes because 2/3 of the games they play are against bad teams. Or more accurately, just saying you can't compare what Lon has done in the league vs Sampson because the league is too different, it is no longer an applicable comparison.

I am taking your research, which I accept, and applying it to come to a POSSIBLE conclusion.

Is the conclusion that I am proposing possibly true?

I'm just not sure it's that simple or black and white. I will say that, outside for 3 notable runs (1999, 2002, and 2003), Kelvin's tournament performance was notably lackluster, and was the source of a lot of criticism at the time.

He got bounced in the first round in each of his first four seasons, including one pretty ugly upset (1995). Then he got the monkey off his back a little when he led an improbable run by a #13 seed to the Sweet 16. The next two seasons it was out in Round 2 as a #3 seed, and another first round upset as a #4 seed.

Then after the 2002-2003 magical run, it was NIT in 2004, second round loss as a #3 seed in 2005, and first round loss in 2006.

The point is Kelvin made the tournament 11 times in 12 seasons (which was fantastic), but 8 of those could be characterized as failures. Is that reflective of "not being as good as we thought"? I don't know.

What I do know is that his win total was buoyed by basically 4 wins every single season against A&M and Baylor. He went 39-1 against those teams in the regular season. That's about 30% of all of his conference wins (including the 2 Big 8 seasons), and little more than 35% of all of his Big 12 wins. Was that the source of inflated records/perception/seeding etc that, in turn, led to some of the well-documented NCAA tournament failures? I just don't think you can really say for sure one way or another.

 

[152219]

The bottom line, the Big 12, TOP TO BOTTOM, has been better during the Kruger era than the Sampson era.

 

[BoulderSooner]

I am taking your research, which I accept, and applying it to come to a POSSIBLE conclusion.

Is the conclusion that I am proposing possibly true?

it all depends on what your thoughts on OU as a national basketball program is

if you think OU is a top 25 program then it shouldn't change anything

if you thought OU was a top 10 program i would say you were fooling yourself

 

[WTSooner]

I'd argue Kelvin's conference tournament success pointed to his win totals not being bloated against just South teams.

And 30% of his conference wins against nearly 20% of non-OU Big 12 teams seems pretty reasonable. Of course you are going to beat up on the bottom of the conference if you are a good team. Everybody would. Doesn't it really matter than in Kelvin's era with was the same 2 teams, vs now when it "fluctuates"? I don't really see why or how that matters.

And another thing skewing the stats. My argument is that on average, Lon's OU teams aren't as good as Kelvin's OU teams. Lon losing to some of these other Big 12 teams is simply giving them wins that they wouldn't, and shouldn't, have. If Lon had a normal OU team that was winning those games, some of these conference stats would look difference. Sure we can argue about whether these teams have simply gotten better or if OU has gotten worse, but my tell me I already know the answer there. Lon losing Big 12 games at a rate of 18% more than Kelvin has created about 26 more wins for these other Big 12 teams during this time at OU. That's significant.

 

[Zimwillett]

I'd argue Kelvin's conference tournament success pointed to his win totals not being bloated against just South teams.

And 30% of his conference wins against nearly 20% of non-OU Big 12 teams seems pretty reasonable. Of course you are going to beat up on the bottom of the conference if you are a good team. Everybody would. Doesn't it really matter than in Kelvin's era with was the same 2 teams, vs now when it "fluctuates"? I don't really see why or how that matters.

And another thing skewing the stats. My argument is that on average, Lon's OU teams aren't as good as Kelvin's OU teams. Lon losing to some of these other Big 12 teams is simply giving them wins that they wouldn't, and shouldn't, have. If Lon had a normal OU team that was winning those games, some of these conference stats would look difference. Sure we can argue about whether these teams have simply gotten better or if OU has gotten worse, but my tell me I already know the answer there. Lon losing Big 12 games at a rate of 18% more than Kelvin has created about 26 more wins for these other Big 12 teams during this time at OU. That's significant.

OK. I'm about done. People have posted data and facts in every conceivable way to prove this---Sagrin ratings, conference RPI ratings, NCAA tournament bids, NBA draft picks, the records of the various teams at the bottom of the conference. And on and on and on.

The point is this:

-Baylor sucked 100% of the time they were in the same conference as Kelvin Sampson
-Texas A&M sucked 95% of the time they were in the same conference.
-K-State basically sucked or was not tournament level 95% of the time.
-Nebraska sucked or was not tournament level 95% of the time.
-Colorado sucked or was not tournament level 85% of the time.
-Texas Tech either sucked or was not tournament level 70% of the time.
-Iowa State, who you seem to want to hold up in high esteem, failed to make the tournament during 50% of Kelvin's tenure, including some seasons where they really sucked (12-19 in 1998, 15-15 in 1999, 12-19 in 2002)
-Mizzou failed to make the tournament 50% of the time.

That's 2/3rds of the conference who, during Kelvin's tenure either seriously sucked (as in worst programs in major conference basketball sucked...see A&M and Baylor), were mostly really really bad (see e.g. K-State, Nebraska, and Colorado), were bad the majority of the time, but hired a world class asshole and got better for a few years (see e.g. Texas Tech), or who were simply not as consistently good as you apparently remember (see e.g. Iowa State and Mizzou.)

IT WAS AN EASIER CONFERENCE. By every way of measuring it (beyond perhaps this bizarre WTSooner subjective standard). It just was. I am done. I can see that you will stubbornly hold onto your notions regardless of any evidence. Enjoy looking off into that flat earth horizon.

 

[WTSooner]

OK. I'm about done. People have posted data and facts in every conceivable way to prove this---Sagrin ratings, conference RPI ratings, NCAA tournament bids, NBA draft picks, the records of the various teams at the bottom of the conference. And on and on and on.

The point is this:

-Baylor sucked 100% of the time they were in the same conference as Kelvin Sampson
-Texas A&M sucked 95% of the time they were in the same conference.
-K-State basically sucked or was not tournament level 95% of the time.
-Nebraska sucked or was not tournament level 95% of the time.
-Colorado sucked or was not tournament level 85% of the time.
-Texas Tech either sucked or was not tournament level 70% of the time.
-Iowa State, who you seem to want to hold up in high esteem, failed to make the tournament during 50% of Kelvin's tenure.
-Mizzou failed to make the tournament 50% of the time.

That's 2/3rds of the conference who, during Kelvin's tenure either seriously sucked (as in worst programs in major conference basketball sucked...see A&M and Baylor), were mostly really really bad (see e.g. K-State, Nebraska, and Colorado), were bad the majority of the time, but hired a world class asshole and got better for a few years (see e.g. Texas Tech), or who were simply not as consistently good as you apparently remember (see e.g. Iowa State and Mizzou.)

IT WAS AN EASIER CONFERENCE. By every way of measuring it (beyond perhaps this bizarre WTSooner subjective standard). It just was. I am done. I can see that you will stubbornly hold onto your notions regardless of any evidence. Enjoy looking off into that flat earth horizon.

You suck at debating. It doesn't matter that your list of teams sucked during Kelvin's tenure and not during Lon's.

What matters is that there were teams (usually the same) that sucked during Kelvin's tenure, and there are teams that suck during Lon's. Just b/c the teams that suck during Lon's CHANGE every couple of years or whatever, doesn't change anything.

This entire conversation started as a way to justify Lon's .500 record in the Big 12. So quantify it. The league is tougher? Cool. So what does that mean in terms of total wins/losses expected? There is ZERO chance you can support an 18% decrease in conference winning percentage being acceptable. Yet, that is EXACTLY what the difference between Kelvin and Lon currently is.

And one step further.....I think the difference in conference win % starting with say, the 5th or 6th season and going forward (gives them a chance to have a full roster of their own players) is a wider gap than that 18%. Actually, let me go calculate it.

Kelvin, starting in his 6th season at OU and going forward, won 72% of conference games.
Lon, starting in his 6th season at OU and going forward, won 37% of conference games.

So unless your point is that the league is 35% tougher these last three years, I really don't want to hear it. The league being tougher, true or not and to what degree, doesn't explain that. THAT was the entire point, regardless of the wormhole you and others decided to go down.

 

[WTSooner]

I'm guessing if you take Lon's winning % against teams that finish in the bottom two of the conference each season, he's accumulated a pretty significant number of wins against those teams as well. It doesn't matter that those teams may not have been the same two teams each season. That is a point that means NOTHING to this argument.

 

[WTSooner]

What I do know is that his win total was buoyed by basically 4 wins every single season against A&M and Baylor. He went 39-1 against those teams in the regular season. That's about 30% of all of his conference wins (including the 2 Big 8 seasons), and little more than 35% of all of his Big 12 wins. Was that the source of inflated records/perception/seeding etc that, in turn, led to some of the well-documented NCAA tournament failures? I just don't think you can really say for sure one way or another.

27% of Lon's conference wins are against OSU and WVU.

 

[152219]

27% of Lon's conference wins are against OSU and WVU.

Two teams that have made the tournament 8 out of combined 15 years in that timeframe.

 

[Zimwillett]

I'm guessing if you take Lon's winning % against teams that finish in the bottom two of the conference each season, he's accumulated a pretty significant number of wins against those teams as well. It doesn't matter that those teams may not have been the same two teams each season. That is a point that means NOTHING to this argument.

Here's the thing. You're making this about Kelvin vs. Lon. I really am not. In fact, I'd concede that Kelvin, on the whole, was been better than Lon has been so far. But I also think it's fair to point out that some of Kelvin's records in conference were inflated based on the level of competition.

The only point I'm making (and I've tried to make clear that it's not meant to be an excuse for Lon...he needs to be better soon or move on...happy?) is that the Big 12 as it exists today is more difficult than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It's measurable---metrics, NBA picks, tournament berths, etc. I'm not trying to insult Kelvin or defend Lon. All I'm trying to do is prove something that you consistently (for whatever reason) refuse to acknowledge despite all facts and data to the contrary.

As for whether or not I suck at debating, I'll leave that for the audience. After all, debating is about persuasion.

 

[WTSooner]

Here's the thing. You're making this about Kelvin vs. Lon. I really am not. In fact, I'd concede that Kelvin, on the whole, was been better than Lon has been so far. But I also think it's fair to point out that some of Kelvin's records in conference were inflated based on the level of competition.

The only point I'm making (and I've tried to make clear that it's not meant to be an excuse for Lon...he needs to be better soon or move on...happy?) is that the Big 12 as it exists today is more difficult than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It's measurable---metrics, NBA picks, tournament berths, etc. I'm not trying to insult Kelvin or defend Lon. All I'm trying to do is prove something that you consistently (for whatever reason) refuse to acknowledge despite all facts and data to the contrary.

As for whether or not I suck at debating, I'll leave that for the audience. After all, debating is about persuasion.

And I'm just trying to show that regardless of what you think of the Big 12 Conference and how tough it is, Lon has underachieved. Being in a tougher conference doesn't explain his conference results. Being in a tougher conference doesn't explain the last three years. Regardless of the Big 12 Conference and how tough it is, Lon's results, both for his entire tenure and the last 3 years, is unacceptable. Or at least, it should be.

 

[thebigabd]

You suck at debating. It doesn't matter that your list of teams sucked during Kelvin's tenure and not during Lon's.

What matters is that there were teams (usually the same) that sucked during Kelvin's tenure, and there are teams that suck during Lon's. Just b/c the teams that suck during Lon's CHANGE every couple of years or whatever, doesn't change anything.

This entire conversation started as a way to justify Lon's .500 record in the Big 12. So quantify it. The league is tougher? Cool. So what does that mean in terms of total wins/losses expected? There is ZERO chance you can support an 18% decrease in conference winning percentage being acceptable. Yet, that is EXACTLY what the difference between Kelvin and Lon currently is.

And one step further.....I think the difference in conference win % starting with say, the 5th or 6th season and going forward (gives them a chance to have a full roster of their own players) is a wider gap than that 18%. Actually, let me go calculate it.

Kelvin, starting in his 6th season at OU and going forward, won 72% of conference games.
Lon, starting in his 6th season at OU and going forward, won 37% of conference games.

So unless your point is that the league is 35% tougher these last three years, I really don't want to hear it. The league being tougher, true or not and to what degree, doesn't explain that. THAT was the entire point, regardless of the wormhole you and others decided to go down.

This was my problem with what Zim was saying.... surely his point wasn't just to make a case for conference difficulty, and that it was a justification for Lon. He claims that wasn't his point, but I had a hard time with that. So I kept going to "so you are saying OU wasn't actually a good program under Kelvin", to which he said "no I am just saying its harder now than it was"... Etc.

Either OU can compete in a tough league, or they can't. Thats all I care about.

 

[WichitaSooner]

If this were an official debate, Zim would have won by knockout long ago. WT would be crawling around on the ground looking for his mouthpiece like Mike Tyson in Tokyo.

 

[WTSooner]

This was my problem with what Zim was saying.... surely his point wasn't just to make a case for conference difficulty, and that it was a justification for Lon. He claims that wasn't his point, but I had a hard time with that. So I kept going to "so you are saying OU wasn't actually a good program under Kelvin", to which he said "no I am just saying its harder now than it was"... Etc.

Either OU can compete in a tough league, or they can't. Thats all I care about.

Agreed.

This has changed into 2-3 different (at least) items being debated now, and some of the facts are getting cross-applied.

At the end of the day, is the Big 12 tougher in a way that would affect the expected number of wins if we were still putting a good product on the court? I say no. I say the manner in which we might get to that same win total might be different, but I think we'd be posting a very similar win total. Maybe we end up with 1 less win or something on average, but we'd probably finish in the same spot(s) in the standings. I just don't think it would affect our overall record much.

The problem is, we're not consistently putting that level of product on the court under Lon, so it's dang hard to gauge. Sure seems like when he puts a decent team on the floor though, we win at our typical levels. Maybe he should try doing that more frequently?

 

[BoulderSooner]

And I'm just trying to show that regardless of what you think of the Big 12 Conference and how tough it is .

it is not what he or any one else thinks ...


it is a FACT

 

[152219]

Again, it is a fact that the Big 12 is tougher now than it was during the Sampson era. This is supported by a plethora of data that has already been presented. If one denies this they are either obtuse, dumb, a blind homer trying to pump up Sampson for some strange reason, or all of above.

As for what would the records be if you flip flopped the teams? That is pure speculation. Would Sampson’s teams be 2-4 games worse in conference in the current setting? Would Lon’s teams be 2-4 games better in the prior setting? I don’t know what the exact number is. Obviously, one could make an algorithm for expected results, and compare the two but that has a bit of hand waving in it. But, the bottom line is that the OU teams in the past 8 years have played much tougher overall competition in conference than they did in the late ‘90s/early to mid 2000s. That doesn’t justify OU not having a better record in conference recently, but it is one explanation.

 

[WTSooner]

Again, it is a fact that the Big 12 is tougher now than it was during the Sampson era. This is supported by a plethora of data that has already been presented. If one denies this they are either obtuse, dumb, a blind homer trying to pump up Sampson for some strange reason, or all of above.

As for what would the records be if you flip flopped the teams? That is pure speculation. Would Sampson’s teams be 2-4 games worse in conference in the current setting? Would Lon’s teams be 2-4 games better in the prior setting? I don’t know and no one could logically make an argument one way or the other. But, the bottom line is that the OU teams in the past 8 years have played much tougher overall competition in conference than they did in the late ‘90s/early to mid 2000s. That doesn’t justify OU not having a better record in conference recently, but it is one explanation.

LMAO

Thank you for proving my point. Check out the bolded part. That is EXACTLY what I've been saying. Maybe the league is tougher. Cool. But it really shouldn't have an affect on the W/L record for OU. You just acknowledged that even though you believe the Big 12 to be tougher, you aren't sure if it would affect their record at all. That's what I've been saying.

Some of you are still missing the point of this entire conversation. Is the league being tougher the reason for so many of Lon's struggles? The answer can be that the league is tougher, but that it also is not the reason, at all, for Lon's struggles. Same as it was not the reason for Capel's struggles. It's funny, b/c as the Big 12 was getting tougher later in Kelvin's tenure, his results were getting better too.

 

[Zimwillett]

And I'm just trying to show that regardless of what you think of the Big 12 Conference and how tough it is, Lon has underachieved. Being in a tougher conference doesn't explain his conference results. Being in a tougher conference doesn't explain the last three years. Regardless of the Big 12 Conference and how tough it is, Lon's results, both for his entire tenure and the last 3 years, is unacceptable. Or at least, it should be.

I agree that he has underachieved. I'm not sure I'd go with you on "Being in a tougher conference doesn't explain his conference results." The proof? Conference title winners in the Big 12. The team that wins the conference usually (not always) has more losses today than it did back in the 1990s and early 2000s. Champions losses by year:

2019: 4
2018: 5
2017: 2
2016: 3
2015: 5
2014: 4
2013: 4
2012: 2

2006: 3
2005: 4
2004: 2
2003: 2
2002: 0
2001: 3
2000: 2
1999: 3
1998: 1
1997: 1


The point is even the teams at the top of the conference today are consistently losing more games than they were then. In the 1990s and early 2000s, you basically couldn't lose more than 3 games in conference and hope to win it. More often than not, the winner had two or fewer losses. There only one instance where the winner(s) had 4 losses (also happens to be the year Kelvin shared his only regular season title), and there was never a year where they had more than 4.

By contrast, in 5 of the 8 seasons since Lon took over, the winner has had 4 or more losses. Twice the Big 12 champ has had 5 losses. There has never been an undefeated or one loss champion during Lon's tenure. So what accounts for that? I think the answer is pretty clear. It's just harder to win in this conference than it was back then.

Does that excuse Lon's finishing sub .500? Absolutely not. I do not accept that. But I also think it's a little unfair to hold up what Kelvin did in the Big 12 vs. what Lon is doing. It's just not the same.