Potential lineup changes?? - Page 2

SoonerBounce13 · 01-20-2023, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoulderSooner

i don't know about an insult .. but yeah clearly i was talking about the kelvin that was the OU coach in a much much much weaker big 12

I don’t know about that. The big 12 was really tough back then too. Not nearly as deep but osu, Texas, Kansas, isu and OU were all really good

thebigabd · 01-20-2023, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerBounce13

I don’t know about that. The big 12 was really tough back then too. Not nearly as deep but osu, Texas, Kansas, isu and OU were all really good

Any talk of the "Big 12 wasn't as good" is pure hogwash and is just making excuses for Capel, Kruger, and now Moser unable to get the program at or above mediocre.

WichitaSooner · 01-20-2023, 11:55 AM

This is always such a silly debate. Two things can be true: Kelvin Sampson was and still is a fantastic coach, probably one of the two or three best in the country, AND the Big 12 over the past few years is unquestionably better than at any previous time. Acknowledging the latter reality doesn't diminish Kelvin. I'm quite sure that when Houston joins the league in a few months, he will be quick to say that the league is better than it's ever been.

Sooner Season · 01-20-2023, 12:01 PM

if the contention is that the Big 12 is better, then the rest of the league got better and we didn't? That doesn't make me feel any better.

Seymore Cox · 01-20-2023, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebigabd

Any talk of the "Big 12 wasn't as good" is pure hogwash and is just making excuses for Capel, Kruger, and now Moser unable to get the program at or above mediocre.

Carol went to an Elite 8, Kruger to a final four. I want that mediocracy.

BoulderSooner · 01-20-2023, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebigabd

Any talk of the "Big 12 wasn't as good" is pure hogwash and is just making excuses for Capel, Kruger, and now Moser unable to get the program at or above mediocre.

it is a fact .. and OU had an easier schedule as has been proven and shown out many many times ..

BoulderSooner · 01-20-2023, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WichitaSooner

This is always such a silly debate. Two things can be true: Kelvin Sampson was and still is a fantastic coach, probably one of the two or three best in the country, AND the Big 12 over the past few years is unquestionably better than at any previous time. Acknowledging the latter reality doesn't diminish Kelvin. I'm quite sure that when Houston joins the league in a few months, he will be quick to say that the league is better than it's ever been.

yep all of this ..

BoulderSooner · 01-20-2023, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerBounce13

I don’t know about that. The big 12 was really tough back then too. Not nearly as deep but osu, Texas, Kansas, isu and OU were all really good

the big 12 current run makes it basically the best conf in the modern era

AdaSooner · 01-20-2023, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WichitaSooner

This times a million. It’s a minor point in this post, but the loose ball point is something that drives me crazy, but as you say, it’s not effort, it’s the fact our opponents are longer and quicker and jump higher. Even if we have better position, we probably only come up with about 30 percent of 50/50 balls.

Tanner is just a frustrating player to watch. He does rebound well and he plays hard, but his basketball IQ isn’t where you’d expect from a fifth year player. And his shooting has dropped off so much. He doesn’t have a low post game, and if he can’t make more than 25 percent from distance, opposing bigs don’t have to worry much about him outside, so his offensive value becomes next to nothing.

I couldn’t agree more!

I think Tanner is a major part of our problem on offense and especially on defense. In what basketball universe is a player who shoots 28% from three thought to be a “good shooter?” Our opponents are thrilled to see him set up behind the arc and leave rebounding a miss to a light in the britches PF and an undersized Jalen Hill who at 6’ 6” is doing his best to get a rare offensive rebound.

I can’t be the only one who has noticed how their players just back off and dare Tanner to shoot. And, why not? There is a 72% chance he’ll miss and the odds of getting the rebound are in their favor. Besides, he’s our best chance to put back a miss, if he’s inside where he should be instead of being set up on the perimeter pretending to be a “good shooter.”

The silly fouls and the questionable decisions he makes are another matter entirely. Drives me crazy, but I’m exhausted just thinking about how much he could help the team if he would use his size as an advantage down low!

SoonerBounce13 · 01-20-2023, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoulderSooner

the big 12 current run makes it basically the best conf in the modern era

Top to bottom maybe

But Kansas was Kansas. Texas was better. Ou was better. Isu was better. Missouri was good. Osu was way better.

Tech was probably better. Baylor was worse

SoonerBounce13 · 01-20-2023, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdaSooner

[/b]
I couldn’t agree more!

I think Tanner is a major part of our problem on offense and especially on defense. In what basketball universe is a player who shoots 28% from three thought to be a “good shooter?” Our opponents are thrilled to see him set up behind the arc and leave rebounding a miss to a light in the britches PF and an undersized Jalen Hill who at 6’ 6” is doing his best to get a rare offensive rebound.

I can’t be the only one who has noticed how their players just back off and dare Tanner to shoot. And, why not? There is a 72% chance he’ll miss and the odds of getting the rebound are in their favor. Besides, he’s our best chance to put back a miss, if he’s inside where he should be instead of being set up on the perimeter pretending to be a “good shooter.”

The silly fouls and the questionable decisions he makes are another matter entirely. Drives me crazy, but I’m exhausted just thinking about how much he could help the team if he would use his size as an advantage down low!

I will say that this is the only year where tanner has shot close to this bad. He was 38% last year. Something’s off

WichitaSooner · 01-20-2023, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerBounce13

Top to bottom maybe

But Kansas was Kansas. Texas was better. Ou was better. Isu was better. Missouri was good. Osu was way better.

Tech was probably better. Baylor was worse

I'd agree on KU. Texas was probably comparable to now. ISU made the tourney 5 times and finished under .500 three times while Kelvin was at OU. OSU was definitely better. Tech was not even close to being better. They made the tourney 3 times while Kelvin was here, and finished under .500 five times. Baylor is a million times better. And you are leaving out Colorado and Nebraska and KSU and A&M. It is laughable to say the current league is "maybe" better top to bottom. And it makes no sense why anyone would even try to make such an argument. No one who coached, played, broadcast, or worked for the conference in any capacity would do so. It was a really good league back then. It's historically great now.

SoonerBounce13 · 01-20-2023, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WichitaSooner

I'd agree on KU. Texas was probably comparable to now. ISU made the tourney 5 times and finished under .500 three times while Kelvin was at OU. OSU was definitely better. Tech was not even close to being better. They made the tourney 3 times while Kelvin was here, and finished under .500 five times. Baylor is a million times better. And you are leaving out Colorado and Nebraska and KSU and A&M. It is laughable to say the current league is "maybe" better top to bottom. And it makes no sense why anyone would even try to make such an argument. No one who coached, played, broadcast, or worked for the conference in any capacity would do so. It was a really good league back then. It's historically great now.

Ok lol

WichitaSooner · 01-20-2023, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerBounce13

Ok lol

Damn, good one. You definitely refuted the facts in my post with your amazing and witty retort. Keep making it personal.

SoonerBounce13 · 01-20-2023, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WichitaSooner

Damn, good one. You definitely refuted the facts in my post with your amazing and witty retort. Keep making it personal.

I’m just done with you. You seem to be a miserable human being and not worth my time. You were the one that said my opinion was laughable.

WaymanFan · 01-20-2023, 04:26 PM

I hope no one is actually comparing the Big XII now to what it was 20-25 years ago. Back then, OU got to basically start out 4-0 against Texas A&M and Baylor. Throw in Nebraska, Kansas State, Colorado (who we played once a year), and Texas Tech, and most years we're looking at 7-2 or 8-1. That means we could go 1-2 against Kansas, Iowa State and Missouri (worst case), 2-2 against Texas and OSU (very seldom did worse), and finish 10-6 / 11-5 without breaking a sweat.

TINY · 01-20-2023, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WichitaSooner

I'd agree on KU. Texas was probably comparable to now. ISU made the tourney 5 times and finished under .500 three times while Kelvin was at OU. OSU was definitely better. Tech was not even close to being better. They made the tourney 3 times while Kelvin was here, and finished under .500 five times. Baylor is a million times better. And you are leaving out Colorado and Nebraska and KSU and A&M. It is laughable to say the current league is "maybe" better top to bottom. And it makes no sense why anyone would even try to make such an argument. No one who coached, played, broadcast, or worked for the conference in any capacity would do so. It was a really good league back then. It's historically great now.

Yep and it’s not even debatable. There is plenty of empirical data to support that the conference is significantly tougher today than when Kelvin coached ou.

BCSooners · 01-20-2023, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WichitaSooner

I'd agree on KU. Texas was probably comparable to now. ISU made the tourney 5 times and finished under .500 three times while Kelvin was at OU. OSU was definitely better. Tech was not even close to being better. They made the tourney 3 times while Kelvin was here, and finished under .500 five times. Baylor is a million times better. And you are leaving out Colorado and Nebraska and KSU and A&M. It is laughable to say the current league is "maybe" better top to bottom. And it makes no sense why anyone would even try to make such an argument. No one who coached, played, broadcast, or worked for the conference in any capacity would do so. It was a really good league back then. It's historically great now.

100% correct

BoulderSooner · 01-20-2023, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaymanFan

I hope no one is actually comparing the Big XII now to what it was 20-25 years ago. Back then, OU got to basically start out 4-0 against Texas A&M and Baylor. Throw in Nebraska, Kansas State, Colorado (who we played once a year), and Texas Tech, and most years we're looking at 7-2 or 8-1. That means we could go 1-2 against Kansas, Iowa State and Missouri (worst case), 2-2 against Texas and OSU (very seldom did worse), and finish 10-6 / 11-5 without breaking a sweat.

yep

SoonerBounce13 · 01-20-2023, 11:17 PM

Y’all are crazy to think it isn’t at least close.
Top to bottom it’s better now. But the top teams were better then.

Part of the perception you guys have is because we had more teams then

paboomersooner · 01-21-2023, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WichitaSooner

I'd agree on KU. Texas was probably comparable to now. ISU made the tourney 5 times and finished under .500 three times while Kelvin was at OU. OSU was definitely better. Tech was not even close to being better. They made the tourney 3 times while Kelvin was here, and finished under .500 five times. Baylor is a million times better. And you are leaving out Colorado and Nebraska and KSU and A&M. It is laughable to say the current league is "maybe" better top to bottom. And it makes no sense why anyone would even try to make such an argument. No one who coached, played, broadcast, or worked for the conference in any capacity would do so. It was a really good league back then. It's historically great now.

I'm sure research and stats would solidify this point but that is not needed. The Big 12 is head and shoulders better now.

Sometimes people romantisize the past and raise their perception of their argument to a level higher than what it was and it clouds one's judgement. Perhaps this is what is happening with some of the members.

WichitaSooner · 01-21-2023, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerBounce13

Y’all are crazy to think it isn’t at least close.
Top to bottom it’s better now. But the top teams were better then.

Part of the perception you guys have is because we had more teams then

I guess that’s why back in the day, the league put its top teams in three straight title games and won two of them. And would have had the top overall seed and pre tournament favorite in another season if a global pandemic hadn’t wiped out the other tourney during that span. Oh, wait … that’s the current league, whereas the league never won a national title while Kelvin was here?

BoulderSooner · 01-21-2023, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerBounce13

Y’all are crazy to think it isn’t at least close.
Top to bottom it’s better now. But the top teams were better then.

Part of the perception you guys have is because we had more teams then

lol the big 12 has the last 2 national champions and tech finished 2nd 3 years ago ..

the top was not "better" then

allday92 · 01-21-2023, 02:04 PM

I know RPI isn't the best metric, but this was the only site where I could find college basketball conference rating by year. It uses RPI - the Big 12 hasn't been outside of the top 2 since 2012-2013, and for most of the last 10 years has been the #1 rated conference.

The site tracks back to 1997-1998. From 97-98 to 05-06 when Sampson left here were the Big 12 rankings -

97-98: 8th
98-99: 7th
99-00: 7th
00-01: 6th
01-02: 3rd
02-03: 1st
03-04: 8th
04-05: 3rd
05-06: 5th

The Big 12 is undoubtedly tougher now, at the top, at the bottom, and everywhere in between.

Source: https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-ba...ate=2004-04-06

jmizzy4ou · 01-21-2023, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allday92

I know RPI isn't the best metric, but this was the only site where I could find college basketball conference rating by year. It uses RPI - the Big 12 hasn't been outside of the top 2 since 2012-2013, and for most of the last 10 years has been the #1 rated conference.

The site tracks back to 1997-1998. From 97-98 to 05-06 when Sampson left here were the Big 12 rankings -

97-98: 8th
98-99: 7th
99-00: 7th
00-01: 6th
01-02: 3rd
02-03: 1st
03-04: 8th
04-05: 3rd
05-06: 5th

The Big 12 is undoubtedly tougher now, at the top, at the bottom, and everywhere in between.

Source: https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-ba...ate=2004-04-06