PDA

View Full Version : Tramel's Bedlam comparison blog (interesting....)



NMSooner'80
6/29/2009, 12:55 AM
Bedlam basketball debate
Posted by berrytramel on June 27, 2009 at 10:29 am

I got an interesting email this week from OU fan named Geoff. I thought it was very interesting, so I’m posting it separate from my usual email bag, which will come later.

“I am going to submit to you what I think is one of the biggest misconceptions in the Oklahoma sports world. It is the fact that many media members and fans of both schools feel as though OSU has a better basketball program and a better history than OU basketball. Keep in mind that I do believe that OSU has a really quality program and a lot of great tradition (Iba was an amazing coach and won them two championships), but please take a moment and read these stats, and tell me what you think. I think some of them may surprise you.

The Big Eight, as we knew it, came into being for the 1958-59 season. From the 1958-59 season to 2008-09:

OSU

Total win/loss record: 802-640, .554

NCAA tournament appearances: 16

Final 4 appearances: 2

Title game appearances: 0

NIT appearances: 5

Conference titles: 2 Big 8 (1 shared), 1 Big 12

Conference tournament titles: 2 Big 8, 2 Big 12

OU

Total win/loss record: 933-543, .630

NCAA tournament appearances: 24

Final 4 appearances: 2

Title game appearances: 1

NIT appearances: 7

Conference titles: 5 Big 8, 1 Big 12 (shared)

Conference tournament titles: 4 Big 8, 3 Big 12

Overall head to head since 58-59: OU 66, OSU 47

“In the 51 seasons since OSU joined the Big Eight, OU has a better conference record 36 times, OSU 11.

Since the inception of the Big 12 conference, OSU has only finished ahead of OU in the conferences standings one time.

So, you want to go back all-time?

Overall record: OU 1,468-936 (.611) OSU 1452-1018 (.588).

Bedlam Wins: OU 126, OSU 89

Winning coaches: OU 10, OSU 6

All-Americans: OU 22, OSU 17

Conference titles: OU 22, OSU 17

1,000-point scorers: OU 35, OSU 30

Draft selections: OU 42, OSU 32

NCAA appearances: OU 26, OSU 23

Home-court win streak: OU 51, OSU 46

“OU has spent more weeks in the AP poll than OSU. OU has had more winning seasons than OSU. OU has a better all time home winning percentage than OSU. OU has made it to 4 Final Fours (two championship games).

OSU has won two national championships (’45 and ‘46) in basketball. This is a stat that simply cannot be ignored, and really the main reason why the Cowboys are even in the ballpark with Oklahoma in terms of basketball program comparisons. I will not take anything away from their accomplishments but consider this:

1. These championships happened 62 and 63 years ago. Most of us on this board were not even born when the Cowboys won the championship. Before you bombard me with the 50’s football championships, at least we have won one in the new millennium (2000), and, this is about basketball, not football.

2. The road to winning the championship was a lot less meddlesome back in the old A&M days. The Aggies only had to win three (3) games to be crowned the champion unlike the grueling six games of the modern era. That is certainly not the Cowboy’s fault, but should at least be mentioned. Four of OSU’s six Final Fours were obtained via this three-game system. Two of Oklahoma’s 4 were also obtained this way. Eight of Oklahoma State’s 11 Elite 8 appearances were accomplished by only having to win two games in the tournament. Three of OU’s eight Elite 8 appearances were won in this fashion.

3. The good old NIT was still a major player during this time. It was an era in which the NCAA was battling for dominance. While it is debatable which tournament ran supreme during these championships, one thing is for sure, not all the good teams were playing in the NCAA tournament. Could that of impacted OSU’s two victories? Who knows? But again, worth mentioning.

4. All-American Bob Kurland was a game-changing center for the Pokes. There was no goal tending back then, so the big 7-footer could just sit back and guard the goal until the cows came home. It was certainly within the rules of the day, but it obviously gave the Cowboys a big advantage that they wouldn’t have had a few years later (because of Kurland).

If OSU fans really want to use all of that success from the Iba days as the main basis of claiming superiority over Oklahoma (despite all the facts that I have presented in this comparison), then I think they might be living in the past just a tad!”

Well, Geoff, I certainly thank you. That’s a lot of research, and while much of it has been done before, it remains very interesting.

The Bedlam basketball debate is long-standing and quite fascinating.

First off, I would disagree with the whole premise, that the Oklahoma media gives OSU basketball the edge. I think this whole argument stems from the Eddie Sutton era, in which fan support at OSU superseded fan support at OU.

Most people who give OSU an edge do so because of Gallagher-Iba Arena. Its attendance and its atmosphere. In the post-Eddie era, when the fan support withered, no one really argues that OSU has the better program.

As for which program is most successful, it’s entirely how you want to define success.

Head-to-head? OU, but if you count this, you have to swallow the OU-Texas head-to-head football rivalry, in which the Longhorns have had a 20-game lead over the Sooners for most of the last 70 years.

Conference supremacy? OU

NCAA championships? OSU, and any talk of how OSU’s 1945 and 1946 titles were won in inferior eras has to take us to OU football’s three national titles in the 1950s, which were won before any black player was on a roster south of the Mason-Dixon Line, including OU. To question Iba’s national titles because of the goal-tending rule is like saying Bud Wilkinson’s early great teams were a product of World War II veterans. It’s clear to me that OSU basketball with a goal-tending rule would have been much closer to its eventual success than OU football without all those 22-year-old veterans who showed up in 1946.

And since we’re talking history, I never pass up the chance to remind people of 1945. After OSU’s NCAA title, the Cowboys played a Red Cross benefit game against NIT champ DePaul, beating the Blue Demons at Madison Square Garden in what was one of the biggest games in college basketball history. A game that ranks with OU-Notre Dame 1957 football in terms of national impact.

Anyway, for me, college basketball is the easiest sport in which to debate programs, because of the NCAA Tournament. Just add up the wins. And in that regard, OSU is head of OU. The Cowboys are 38-22 in the NCAAs; OU is 35-26. That’s very close, by the way. OSU is 18th nationally, I think, while OU is 21st.

Geoff is right. More of those OSU victories came in a previous era, which adds weight to OU, in the same way football wins 50-60 years ago don’t count the same way as football wins in the last 20 years, else we’ll be forced to say Army and Navy still have great football programs.

A few years ago, I ranked the college basketball programs. I had OSU No. 19 and OU No. 20. I did it again several months ago and had OU slightly ahead of OSU.

I think they’re very close. In head-to-head matchups of all kinds of comparisons, yes, OU is ahead. In the categories that matter most, NCAA titles and NCAA victories, OSU is ahead.

MojoRisen
6/29/2009, 08:49 AM
Poor Poor Pokes, this one will really hurt there feelings. They will either get drunk on Jack and shag a sheep or go ahead and off themselves.

badger
6/29/2009, 09:09 AM
Wait... isn't at least one of OSU's bajillion championships in basketball?

TopDawg
6/29/2009, 09:46 AM
I think they’re very close. In head-to-head matchups of all kinds of comparisons, yes, OU is ahead. In the categories that matter most, NCAA titles and NCAA victories, OSU is ahead.

I disagree with Tramel's assessment of the categories that matter most.

NCAA titles is easily at the top of the list, but I'd say Final Four appearances and conference championships are more important than the sheer number of NCAA tournament wins. Over the span of 10 years, I'd rather have 2 conference championships and an NCAA record of 13-10 (with 2 Elite Eights, 2 Sweet 16s, 3 first round wins and 3 first round losses) than to have 1 conference championship and an NCAA record of 15-10 (with 5 Sweet 16s and 5 second round losses).

NMSooner'80
6/30/2009, 12:45 PM
I sometimes think he tries too hard to appease the "other" school's fans. He also wrote, during the series they did on the state's centennial (2007), that Henry Iba was a better coach that Bud Wilkinson because of his "coaching tree." I can see the point, but I also thought it was absurd. Wilkinson had maybe one bad year at the helm in Norman; Iba had several after his glory days with Kurland were over.

TopDawg
6/30/2009, 06:07 PM
Yeah...I don't always agree with his measures, but he usually does a good job of presenting his case.

If all other things were equal, I could see "coaching tree" as a decent tie-breaker. But it should hold relatively little weight. Your job as a coach isn't to make more coaches...it's to win games.

It really just comes down to how you define a good coach. Surrounding yourself with quality assistant coaches is definitely an important part of coaching at the college level, but I don't think it's an inherently good thing that a lot of them move on to other head-coaching jobs. Maybe they hated working with Iba and Bud's assistants liked working with Bud.

Anyway...whatev. We all know Bud's a better coach. :D

NMSooner'80
7/2/2009, 03:58 PM
If all other things were equal, I could see "coaching tree" as a decent tie-breaker. But it should hold relatively little weight. Your job as a coach isn't to make more coaches...it's to win games.



Good call!

I don't live in Oklahoma, but I do remember hearing about his reaction to the ESPN.com poll about best programs in collegiate basketball since the advent of the Field of 64/65. OU was #12, and OSU was #32. Someone posted on another board that B.T. objected, and also downplayed the criteria used.

OSUAggie
7/2/2009, 09:14 PM
NCAA titles is easily at the top of the list, but I'd say Final Four appearances and conference championships are more important than the sheer number of NCAA tournament wins. Over the span of 10 years, I'd rather have 2 conference championships and an NCAA record of 13-10 (with 2 Elite Eights, 2 Sweet 16s, 3 first round wins and 3 first round losses) than to have 1 conference championship and an NCAA record of 15-10 (with 5 Sweet 16s and 5 second round losses).

I'd say everything that happens in March supersedes any sort of regular season achievement - whether it be a conference title, POY, whatever.

My reasoning is based on the fact that nobody gives a flying **** who won conference x because each (major) conference will have at least 2 - perhaps more - legitimate contenders for a national championship, which is obviously the ultimate goal.

If college basketball were structured more like college football, regular season accomplishments would mean a hell of a lot more - at least to me. As it stands, the tournament is the ultimate judge of a team's season. Theoretically, a team has an avenue to win a national title without winning a single regular season contest. That illustrates the importance of the regular season in college hoops.

Regarding BT's dissection of the e-mail, I think he did a fair job. Oklahoma is clearly more successful than Oklahoma State in the regular season. Oklahoma State is more successful by any measurable statistic in the post-season. Both programs are really good, and both deserve more credit nationally than they get - especially Oklahoma's.

the_ouskull
7/2/2009, 10:10 PM
Technically, Oklahoma State doesn't have any national championships. Oklahoma A&M won their basketball titles. Yeah, it was THAT long ago. Aggots... don't claim those championships, AND try to not that you're not a farm school.

the_ouskull

TopDawg
7/6/2009, 12:00 PM
I'd say everything that happens in March supersedes any sort of regular season achievement - whether it be a conference title, POY, whatever.

So over the span of 10 years, which of these two resumes would you rather have:

A) 2 conference championships and an NCAA record of 13-10 (with 2 Elite Eights, 2 Sweet 16s, 3 first round wins and 3 first round losses)

B) 1 conference championship and an NCAA record of 15-10 (with 5 Sweet 16s and 5 second round losses)

TopDawg
7/6/2009, 01:34 PM
You can even throw the conference championship part out of the equation. My point is that a 1st round tourney win shouldn't hold as much weight as a 4th round tourney win.

Again, over the span of 10 years, a team could win 20 games by making it to the Sweet 16 every year, or by making it to the Final Four and Sweet 16 three times each, the 2nd round twice and losing in the first round twice. They'd both have a 20-10 tourney record during that time, but I'd rather fall short of the Sweet 16 four times and have 3 Final Four's than to have 10 straight Sweet 16 appearances.

Now I don't know how that affects the tourney numbers for these two teams...it may be that they've achieved their similar tourney win totals in similar fashion (i.e. similar #'s of Final Fours, Elite 8's, etc.)...I just reject the notion that taking tourney win totals at face value is a good measuring stick.

OSUAggie
7/6/2009, 06:03 PM
You can even throw the conference championship part out of the equation. My point is that a 1st round tourney win shouldn't hold as much weight as a 4th round tourney win.

Again, over the span of 10 years, a team could win 20 games by making it to the Sweet 16 every year, or by making it to the Final Four and Sweet 16 three times each, the 2nd round twice and losing in the first round twice. They'd both have a 20-10 tourney record during that time, but I'd rather fall short of the Sweet 16 four times and have 3 Final Four's than to have 10 straight Sweet 16 appearances.

Now I don't know how that affects the tourney numbers for these two teams...it may be that they've achieved their similar tourney win totals in similar fashion (i.e. similar #'s of Final Fours, Elite 8's, etc.)...I just reject the notion that taking tourney win totals at face value is a good measuring stick.

When you use time periods as part of the equation, things like tourney wins become less important.

Obviously, 3 Sweet 16's and 2 first round losses in 5 years beats the hell out of 1 SS and 4 second round losses in 5 years - even though they come out to identical 6-5 records.

Overall NCAA Tournament numbers show the member institutions that traditionally have success in March. But things such as SS's, EE's, FF's, Championships, etc., are certainly good markers.

I had another point that seemed unbelievably stimulating in my mind but I've got a bit of the 3.2 flu and it went away. Oh well.

TopDawg
7/6/2009, 06:39 PM
Yeah...I see what you're saying and you're right...it is all about the difference when looking at it on a per-year basis vs. an over-time basis. Tramel's looking at it on an over-time basis, so that's the analogy I used.

When you look at it just one year at a time, then tournament wins ARE weighted equally because if two teams each win 4 tournament games in one year, they advanced equally far. But spread those 4 tournament wins over 2 years and it's not so clear which is better.

That's why I have trouble with Tramel saying that OSU has the edge over OU in March because over the course of the history of the NCAA tournament, they have a whopping 3 more wins. As we've agreed, the timing of those wins certainly plays a factor. It may not make a difference in this particular instance, but with a difference of only 3 wins, it certainly could.

(On another note...his two football analogies [Texas head-to-head and Bud's championships] are flawed because they ignore that OU has won national titles in the modern and pre-modern eras.)

I still think it's pretty close between the two programs. OU does have the edge in most categories, national titles being the glaring exception. And while the road to the national title was much different back then, it's true that Oklahoma A&M's victory over Depaul was a huge turning point in college basketball...a big part of shifting popularity from the NIT to the NCAA tourney.