So is This The Consensus???

[greenbug]

It seems as though most of the posters on this board want a coach who will ONLY recruit Texas and Oklahoma. A coach that walks the ball of the floor. A coach that preaches defense while not having any offensive rhythm or identity. Basically a team that is boring as hell to watch but they'll get to the NCAA.
I don't want what we had with Jeff but I don't want what we had with Kelvin either. How about a coach whose team gets after it on the defensive end and then uses turnovers to get into transition. One that has a sound half-court philosophy when the numbers are not there to run. A coach that recruits Okla, Tex, and anywhere in America(or the world) that has ball players that can get it done at this level.
Just because Jeff didn't preach defense and work ethic, and just because his players from the east didn't stay, doesn't mean that the next guy can't manage his program better. IMO going back to Kelvin ball is not the answer. What about something in between what we had with Jeff and Kelvin. A coach that plays faster than Sampson but more disciplined than Jeff's.

 

[Bk2X]

I'm not sure we've been reading the same board...

 

[greenbug]

I'm not sure we've been reading the same board...

All I keep reading is Texas recruits and defense. I don't disagree with either, but limiting ourselves to just a coach who only recruits Texas and preaches defense is a little near-sighted IMO.

 

[Max Power]

It seems as though most of the posters on this board want a coach who will ONLY recruit Texas and Oklahoma. A coach that walks the ball of the floor. A coach that preaches defense while not having any offensive rhythm or identity. Basically a team that is boring as hell to watch but they'll get to the NCAA.
I don't want what we had with Jeff but I don't want what we had with Kelvin either. How about a coach whose team gets after it on the defensive end and then uses turnovers to get into transition. One that has a sound half-court philosophy when the numbers are not there to run. A coach that recruits Okla, Tex, and anywhere in America(or the world) that has ball players that can get it done at this level.
Just because Jeff didn't preach defense and work ethic, and just because his players from the east didn't stay, doesn't mean that the next guy can't manage his program better. IMO going back to Kelvin ball is not the answer. What about something in between what we had with Jeff and Kelvin. A coach that plays faster than Sampson but more disciplined than Jeff's.

In other Words Billy Ball, like what Terry Evans would bring?

 

[coolm]

bug - you're entitled to whatever you desire...I am looking for the second coming of Kelvin.

all the rest of that crap may be exciting, but it doesn't travel. defense travels.

also, that other style may do great when the recruiting is going well...but sometime, when the team is up against it -- and the breaks are beating the boys .... you don't hafta have 13 McD AA's to have a winning season.

 

[152219]

bug - you're entitled to whatever you desire...I am looking for the second coming of Kelvin.

all the rest of that crap may be exciting, but it doesn't travel. defense travels.

also, that other style may do great when the recruiting is going well...but sometime, when the team is up against it -- and the breaks are beating the boys .... you don't hafta have 13 McD AA's to have a winning season.

No, but what was the last NCAA champ to not have a Burger Boy? And ultimately, isn't it about championships and not winning seasons. I know that sounds like putting the cart ahead of the horse considering the last 2 seasons, but it is about championships, is it not? Or at least it should be IMO. It is that way with the OU football team, so why not the basketball team, especially considering how many 1 and 2 seeds OU has had in the last 30 years.

 

[coolm]

no, it's not about championships. if it was then we wouldnt have had a successful season in OU's history.

 

[Big Old Booger]

It seems as though most of the posters on this board want a coach who will ONLY recruit Texas and Oklahoma. A coach that walks the ball of the floor. A coach that preaches defense while not having any offensive rhythm or identity. Basically a team that is boring as hell to watch but they'll get to the NCAA.
I don't want what we had with Jeff but I don't want what we had with Kelvin either. How about a coach whose team gets after it on the defensive end and then uses turnovers to get into transition. One that has a sound half-court philosophy when the numbers are not there to run. A coach that recruits Okla, Tex, and anywhere in America(or the world) that has ball players that can get it done at this level.
Just because Jeff didn't preach defense and work ethic, and just because his players from the east didn't stay, doesn't mean that the next guy can't manage his program better. IMO going back to Kelvin ball is not the answer. What about something in between what we had with Jeff and Kelvin. A coach that plays faster than Sampson but more disciplined than Jeff's.

You just described Kelvin ball to a T if you ask me.

His teams got after it on defense and when they could get some transition points they did. Particularly when he had good talent like in 2002...I think we averaged high 70's PPG that year, which is high considering how much college basketball has changed from Billy ball.

I'm with coolm...in order to be a successful program year-in and out, you either have to (a) recruit and sign multiple MCD AA's every year so you out-athlete everybody you play, or you have to (b) play lockdown defense.

We don't fit into A, so we have to go with B.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

bug - you're entitled to whatever you desire...I am looking for the second coming of Kelvin.

all the rest of that crap may be exciting, but it doesn't travel. defense travels.

also, that other style may do great when the recruiting is going well...but sometime, when the team is up against it -- and the breaks are beating the boys .... you don't hafta have 13 McD AA's to have a winning season.

Where is it written in stone that you can't play an uptempo offense and solid defense. Guess I'm weird, I want both...and I also think there is a myth that Kelvin played "boring" basketball, ummm, when we were out-gunned damn straight, but he could pull wins out of those games by making them ugly.

 

[AdaSooner]

It seems as though most of the posters on this board want a coach who will ONLY recruit Texas and Oklahoma. A coach that walks the ball of the floor. A coach that preaches defense while not having any offensive rhythm or identity. Basically a team that is boring as hell to watch but they'll get to the NCAA.
I don't want what we had with Jeff but I don't want what we had with Kelvin either. How about a coach whose team gets after it on the defensive end and then uses turnovers to get into transition. One that has a sound half-court philosophy when the numbers are not there to run. A coach that recruits Okla, Tex, and anywhere in America(or the world) that has ball players that can get it done at this level.
Just because Jeff didn't preach defense and work ethic, and just because his players from the east didn't stay, doesn't mean that the next guy can't manage his program better. IMO going back to Kelvin ball is not the answer. What about something in between what we had with Jeff and Kelvin. A coach that plays faster than Sampson but more disciplined than Jeff's.

Where did you get that idea, grreenbug? Some of us have stressed the importance of recruiting Texas and Oklahoma, but nothing I've read has suggested that our new coach should stop there. It's not that OU couldn't put a competitive team on the floor every season by focusing on those two states. But it would be a mistake to ignore other areas where we have recruited successfully in the past.

As for the defense/offense debate, I would like to see a nice mix on both ends of the floor. Basketball is about scoring as many points as you can, while doing your best to limit the number on the opponent's side of the scoreboard. I happen to believe that defense should come first, because you can always rely on solid, hard-nosed D when your shots aren't falling. But I'm also a fan of exciting, up-tempo defense.

Give me a blend of Billy Ball and Kelvin Sampson defense and I'll be happy!

 

[Big Old Booger]

No, but what was the last NCAA champ to not have a Burger Boy? And ultimately, isn't it about championships and not winning seasons. I know that sounds like putting the cart ahead of the horse considering the last 2 seasons, but it is about championships, is it not? Or at least it should be IMO. It is that way with the OU football team, so why not the basketball team, especially considering how many 1 and 2 seeds OU has had in the last 30 years.

You have to advance to the NCAA tournament to even get to play for the NC. I'd rather have a program that consistently gets to the NCAA tournament so at least we have a chance once we get there. All it takes is a few upsets and you never know. Look at 2000...all we had to do was beat Purdue and we are headed to the final 4. The same for 1999...if we can get by Michigan State, which was more formidable than Purdue in 2000, then we are probably headed to the NC game.

Sure, it's about winning championships but in basketball you have to have a good season to even be considered for the tournament.

 

[152219]

no, it's not about championships. if it was then we wouldnt have had a successful season in OU's history.

So, the ultimate goal isn't a championship. Got it.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Where is it written in stone that you can't play an uptempo offense and solid defense. Guess I'm weird, I want both...and I also think there is a myth that Kelvin played "boring" basketball, ummm, when we were out-gunned damn straight, but he could pull wins out of those games by making them ugly.

Exactly.

Kelvin's teams were never out of the game unless they were down double-digits with a minute left and they still always cut that down to under 5 most nights.

Kelvin's teams scored points when he had the talent like in 2002, but the years the talent wasn't there he leaned on defense and toughness to get wins. I'd rather win with little talent than lose with good talent.

 

[greenbug]

No, but what was the last NCAA champ to not have a Burger Boy? And ultimately, isn't it about championships and not winning seasons. I know that sounds like putting the cart ahead of the horse considering the last 2 seasons, but it is about championships, is it not? Or at least it should be IMO. It is that way with the OU football team, so why not the basketball team, especially considering how many 1 and 2 seeds OU has had in the last 30 years.

My thoughts exactly

 

[coolm]

Where is it written in stone that you can't play an uptempo offense and solid defense. Guess I'm weird, I want both...and I also think there is a myth that Kelvin played "boring" basketball, ummm, when we were out-gunned damn straight, but he could pull wins out of those games by making them ugly.

because practice time is finite and, empirically, if you work on D then O suffers and vice-versa.

you don't hafta believe it, but ask Kelvin, Chaney, Huggy and literally hundreds of coaches and they will tell you the same.

if you're a defensive minded scheme coach then it's D from day one and maybe come december you'll work on some offense.

 

[152219]

You have to advance to the NCAA tournament to even get to play for the NC. I'd rather have a program that consistently gets to the NCAA tournament so at least we have a chance once we get there. All it takes is a few upsets and you never know. Look at 2000...all we had to do was beat Purdue and we are headed to the final 4. The same for 1999...if we can get by Michigan State, which was more formidable than Purdue in 2000, then we are probably headed to the NC game.

Sure, it's about winning championships but in basketball you have to have a good season to even be considered for the tournament.

Well of course, you have to get to the tournament first. That is a given. But as you said, "it's about winning championships". That should be the #1 goal of every team, especially a program in one of the power conferences and one with as much tradition as OU's. The football team is held to the same standard. Doesn't mean the team had a bad season if they don't win a championship, just that their ultimate goal wasn't reached. What I don't understand are the people who speak proudly of the NIT berths....if you go 17-15 and get in the NIT, is that a better season than if the next year you go 18-14 and don't go to the NIT? The NIT is basically a worthless tournament, except for one facet, it allows a possible young team to improve. For a team with a lot of upperclassmen, it is somewhat a failure.

 

[JBaker]

People are just getting stupid about this now.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Well of course, you have to get to the tournament first. That is a given. But as you said, "it's about winning championships". That should be the #1 goal of every team, especially a program in one of the power conferences and one with as much tradition as OU's. The football team is held to the same standard. Doesn't mean the team had a bad season if they don't win a championship, just that their ultimate goal wasn't reached. What I don't understand are the people who speak proudly of the NIT berths....if you go 17-15 and get in the NIT, is that a better season than if the next year you go 18-14 and don't go to the NIT? The NIT is basically a worthless tournament, except for one facet, it allows a possible young team to improve. For a team with a lot of upperclassmen, it is somewhat a failure.

Is 17-15 with an NIT better than 12-18 or 14-18?

Nobody here was happy with NIT berths except in 82 because back then we had hardly ever played in postseason play and in 2004 because we had a young injury-riddled team.

If I have to choose between NIT and a losing season, I'd take an NIT any day and hope it helps the next team to be better with the extra practice.

 

[coolm]

saying "it's all about championships" in basketball is the most idiotic position on the planet.

if that is actually the case then 300 teams should just give up the sport. in fact, it's the "all about championships" mentality that some have that hurts the sport.

it's about playing the game and playing it well. you don't have to win the NCAA's to play it and play it well.

it's about getting better. it's about using the opportunities given to make yourself better in the sport and personally.

it's about providing entertainment even aside from the NC game. it's about MANY things other than winning the ncaa's.

 

[greenbug]

Where did you get that idea, grreenbug? Some of us have stressed the importance of recruiting Texas and Oklahoma, but nothing I've read has suggested that our new coach should stop there. It's not that OU couldn't put a competitive team on the floor every season by focusing on those two states. But it would be a mistake to ignore other areas where we have recruited successfully in the past.

As for the defense/offense debate, I would like to see a nice mix on both ends of the floor. Basketball is about scoring as many points as you can, while doing your best to limit the number on the opponent's side of the scoreboard. I happen to believe that defense should come first, because you can always rely on solid, hard-nosed D when your shots aren't falling. But I'm also a fan of exciting, up-tempo defense.

Give me a blend of Billy Ball and Kelvin Sampson defense and I'll be happy!

Ada you made my point in that it needs to be a combo of tough-nosed D and then get your ass up the floor to score. This does not mean jacking up bad and undisplined shots. However, playing fast puts pressure on the other team's D. It forces them to get back on transition. It makes it difficult for them to set up thier D.