OK I have to ask you why Oklahoma, who is on almost everybody's short list of greatest all time programs, shouldn't be able to recruit like a team such as Alabama. I get the SEC brand thing but they developed that brand, what is it that makes it metaphysically impossible for the Big 12 to develop that type brand?.
Just my opinion. The big 12 may be able to develop that brand, but it's going the wrong direction at the moment and won't turn around on a dime. I certainly don't think it will change that drastically during what is likely to be the remainder of the Stoops' watch. And players generally play close to home and the SE chunk of the country produces more players. We used to make up for that by great recruiting in Texas, but not as much any more. Folks more in tune with recruiting here say that the quality of players out of Texas has gone downhill. I don't understand why that would be true, but I'm not interested enough to go research it. I don't think we can recruit a depth of players from the west and east coasts - just a few gems. And Oklahoma being on the short list of greatest all time programs doesn't mean squat if it's not on the short list of the 17 and 18 year old players we're trying to recruit. I just don't think Norman+OU has the kind of pull that older fans believe. It's still very good pull and certainly good enough to produce elite teams when combined with top notch coaching. And I'll repeat - just my opinion.
I didn't really read very many comments on this thread, but I enjoyed yours. Here is my opinion. Coaching scheme is hurting recruiting. I remember watching us play Baylor and saying (I'm a huge OU fan) if I was a highly recruited cornerback there is no way I'm going to OU. The constant playing off wr's which allows short passes to be completed on you all day long makes the corner look bad when in reality its the coaches telling them to play off. Its the scheme. If you watch the SEC or if you want to use the excuse that offenses in the SEC, for the most part, aren't any good (which I agree with) then look at the NFL and pay attention to their corners...they don't really play off...they do some but its rare. It doesn't matter who they're playing. And don't say we don't have the athletes to play up, because we do. We don't put our athletes in the best position to win. We don't give them the opportunity to use their athletic ability.
Bob needs to clean house on the defensive side of the ball. I'd keep Montgomery and that is it. Everyone else can hit the road. Especially Mike.
not being an a$$...lol, really not, but I don't think our punters hang time is 8-10 secs. Especially from where the LOS was. I'll give ya 4-5 secs...by the time the ball is hiked/kicked to being called dead in the endzone...but I understand your point, just don't agree with it.
How do you know if you get there, if you don't know where you are going?..oh and I had 1,713 post on the "other board"..I hate being a rookie again!
Oh yeah, tcu and ksu did play well, I just felt in both of those our lack of play cost us, not them really beating us.
In the tcu game, if I remember correctly, the defense gave us the ball back twice on turnovers late in the game and we came up empty. We coulda/shoulda won.
In the ksu game, bad decisions and missed opportunities cost us. We coulda/shoulda won.
The Baylor game definitely bummed me out, but in that one they capitalized on a couple of our mistakes, unlike us in the tcu game and then totally exploited us. We got thumped.
Yes, probably more like 7-8 seconds total time counting snap, catch, approach and kick+hang-time. Where the LOS is doesn't matter because the time is only determined by how high the ball is kicked, not the distance. But the exact time doesn't matter. The other way to look at it is that it would cost OSU at least 1 play and they only have a minute and thus a few plays to work with. And 4 yards is highly unlikely to make a difference (the first kick was actually to the 16 as I recall). But that one extra play could be the difference of having time for a hail mary. So if there was no risk involved, taking away a play for 4-5 yards is an excellent tradeoff. I guarantee if they didn't run it back, our defense would have happily given them all the 5 yard plays they wanted.
snrinhouston don't waste your time with this clown. He never brings anything to a discussion that is relevant. All he does is try to be funny in a grade school way. He knows so little about football he still cannot figure out how or why if you gan yards back from an offensive penalty they are counted in your offensive yardage totals
Yeah, I know. Then after you verbally light him up (which as you've inferred really isn't sport) he runs to his ****buddy, Turd Ferguson (hence the name Turd), who'll give you about 20-40 negspeks with the note "db".
Get the two of them together for a reality show and it would make Swamp People look like sophisticated socialites.
Between the two of them, what do you think the over/under is on the combined years since both have been to a dentist? I'd set it at 15.
Smack board Ya Morans
I have NEVER ran to Turd. you mistake me for an Idiot like you. Nuff said
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
There are a ton of coaches out there that could be the next great one. There are far more that aren't that guy. There's a long list of programs that lost a coach (whether he was fired or retired) and either hasn't been able to regain those standards or it's taken multiple hires to get to that point. Look at Tennessee, they're a great example. Even Texas thinks they have the right guy, but I'm not convinced and I think Texas will be mediocre for a while. The point is that great coaches are few and far between.
I realize Stoops isn't going to be the head coach forever. And at some point, a new guy will take over. I just think it's a shot in the dark to get a coach that can do what Stoops has done.
The truth is no school/program measures success solely on the number and frequency of title game appearances. It's simply unrealistic to hold someone to that standard. However, conference titles/winning/running a clean program are things that need to be accounted for, and Stoops has been pretty damn good in all three categories.
This all boils down to a terribly disappointing season. Some are quick to want a leadership change, and some are more patient. I am of the opinion that this season is pretty easily accounted for, and looking back, it's not hard to understand why things went they way they did. That said, I fully expect a better year next year. If things continue to stay on the same course, then it may be time to start looking around. But, one 8 win season every 5 years doesn't make Stoops a "bad" coach, nor is it an indication that the program has gone off the rails.
Stoops has earned my trust, and I trust that he will fix what needs to be fixed.
I don't care what Stoops makes. It doesn't affect me one way, or another. So, that point doesn't resonate with me.
Bama didn't recruit all that great when they had Shula and Fran. USC is not the power that is was under Carroll and they weren't all that great before Carroll. Notre Dame had a good season under Kelly and that is it. Michigan, Penn State, Miami, etc. are shells of there former selves.
To 17 y.o. kids fashion, flash and winning means more than history. Kids don't appreciate history for the most part until they are older. If Bama wasn't winning consistently then they wouldn't be getting the level of recruits necessary, history already proved that.