Nearly two weeks later...

[Snrinhouston]

#1 above is actually a very good trade-off. 8-10 seconds was far more important than 5 yards given the time left - but it carried all the risks to make it not worth it. But getting greedy and trying to get the time and the yards is what p.issed off the football gods and resulted in a harsh smiting.

I disagree about the impact on the OU brand. It's a tiny dent compared the impact of losing the 3 games to all the teams ahead of us in the conference standings. The major damage was already done. If that final insult overcomes some inertia of making some needed changes, it could well end up a net win in the long run. Note, I don't advocate the "scorched earth" view of hoping for losses to get change, but now it's happened, I will admit there may be some truth in it.

Sadly, I do believe in this approach now. I believe it's the only thing that will get Castiglione and Boren's attention because it will affect revenue.

I hate USC more than any other team, but grudgingly I respect how high it keeps its standards and how short a leash it puts on its coaches.

[KantoSooner]

I bet we're all still holding out hope in 2145.

Because Bob is stubborn and a dumb dumb and all the fans are sheeple sunshine pumpers.

There? Did that about cover it? Good; then we don't have to repeat it another six thousand times.

[FlatLander]

What really bugged me was:

1. How we lost the games. I don't mind getting beat when the other team is making great plays. But the tcu, kstate, and ostate games were given away.

2. The team as a whole did not improve over the course of the season. The same mistakes made at the start of the season were still being made at the end of the season.

3. Lack of depth.

[Snrinhouston]

What really bugged me was:

1. How we lost the games. I don't mind getting beat when the other team is making great plays. But the tcu, kstate, and ostate games were given away.

2. The team as a whole did not improve over the course of the season. The same mistakes made at the start of the season were still being made at the end of the season.

3. Lack of depth.

Everything you say is right. OU is simply not a premium football program anymore. But kick-it-again Bob will keep cashing those premium checks.

[olevetonahill]

Oh, you must have finished your NAMBLA speech. I am judging what kick-it-again Bob has done over the last 6 years...not a mere three year period. And over the past 6 years, he has not had OU in serious contention for a National Title. 6 years is not a small sample size.

Yer as funny as Obammy. **** off dip ****!

[8timechamps]

Sorry. That Bama win has no further cachet. Any momentum from that was lost on Baylor's first drive of the second half.

As for Bob's long leash. What, you don't consider 6 years a long leash? That's how long it's been since OU has seriously contended for a National Title.

Sadly, I think you still will be holding out hope in 2018 when OU has still not contended for a title.

You can't erase the Bama win because you're upset with Stoops. I agree that it lost it's luster after the way the season played out, but it still happened. I don't measure success by how many title games we get to, because that's quite an unrealistic expectation. Looking at Stoops last 5 years:

2014: 8-4 (with one game left)
2013: 11-2
2012: 10-3 Conference Co-Champ
2011: 10-3
2010: 12-2 Conference Champ

I just don't see a problem. Like I said, if we come out and put up a repeat performance next season, the heat will be turned up. I just don't panic when we have an 8-4 year after going 43-10 with two conference titles in the previous 4.

Stoops doesn't get a long leash just based on national title game appearances. He gets that leash based on the entire body of work. He's won, a lot. He's kept the program clean. He's won more conference titles than anyone in the conference. Those are the things I take into account.

[cvsooner]

Sadly, I do believe in this approach now. I believe it's the only thing that will get Castiglione and Boren's attention because it will affect revenue.

I hate USC more than any other team, but grudgingly I respect how high it keeps its standards and how short a leash it puts on its coaches.

It didn't before Haden became the AD.

[8timechamps]

What really bugged me was:

1. How we lost the games. I don't mind getting beat when the other team is making great plays. But the tcu, kstate, and ostate games were given away.

This doesn't make sense to me, are you saying KSU/TCU didn't make great plays, or play well? What about Baylor, they made a lot of great plays, did you mind that loss?

2. The team as a whole did not improve over the course of the season. The same mistakes made at the start of the season were still being made at the end of the season.

I won't argue this point, as the defense did take a step back. The offense played fine (contrary to popular belief).

3. Lack of depth.

Look no further than the 2011 recruiting class for the reason.

I don't think anyone was happy with this season. It was very disappointing. However, it's the exception under Stoops.

[8timechamps]

Sadly, I do believe in this approach now. I believe it's the only thing that will get Castiglione and Boren's attention because it will affect revenue.

I hate USC more than any other team, but grudgingly I respect how high it keeps its standards and how short a leash it puts on its coaches.

Now I'm really confused. You would rather have a coach on a short leash (which results in a revolving door of coaches more times than not), and have horrible seasons?

[BoulderSooner79]

You can't erase the Bama win because you're upset with Stoops. I agree that it lost it's luster after the way the season played out, but it still happened. I don't measure success by how many title games we get to, because that's quite an unrealistic expectation. Looking at Stoops last 5 years:

2014: 8-4 (with one game left)
2013: 11-2
2012: 10-3 Conference Co-Champ
2011: 10-3
2010: 12-2 Conference Champ

I just don't see a problem. Like I said, if we come out and put up a repeat performance next season, the heat will be turned up. I just don't panic when we have an 8-4 year after going 43-10 with two conference titles in the previous 4.

Stoops doesn't get a long leash just based on national title game appearances. He gets that leash based on the entire body of work. He's won, a lot. He's kept the program clean. He's won more conference titles than anyone in the conference. Those are the things I take into account.

Pretty much spot on. Look how things went for Mack Brown and I think it would take a similar timeline for Stoops if it came to that. Brown wasn't on the hot seat until he went 5-7 and even then he was allowed time to try a new staff before he "got retired". And the power brokers behind Texas are not known to be softies. I'm not saying this is good or bad - it just is.

[badger]

We were a middling unranked team (probably) win or lose and good can come from losses just like wins and sometimes losses are more beneficial than wins, especially when you're not competing for BCS (or upper tier rather) bowl berths or championships or playoff spots anyway.

Let Poke relish their once in a blue moon win over us. Let them rub it in our players and coaches faces. Let their fanbase deck out in even brighter orange and chow down on Eskimo Joe's cheese fries.

And let us use this as motivation to never be embarrassed at home again. NEVER! AGAIN!

[Snrinhouston]

This doesn't make sense to me, are you saying KSU/TCU didn't make great plays, or play well? What about Baylor, they made a lot of great plays, did you mind that loss?



I won't argue this point, as the defense did take a step back. The offense played fine (contrary to popular belief).



Look no further than the 2011 recruiting class for the reason.

I don't think anyone was happy with this season. It was very disappointing. However, it's the exception under Stoops.

2009 says hello.

[BoulderSooner79]

2009 says hello.

Comparing 2009 vs 2014 is like comparing apples to ducks. There was no reason to look at the coaching staff in '09 unless your knowledge of football is so shallow, all you understand is the W/L record. There are plenty of things to question the staff about this season, from scheme, to game planning, to in-game management.

[Snrinhouston]

Pretty much spot on. Look how things went for Mack Brown and I think it would take a similar timeline for Stoops if it came to that. Brown wasn't on the hot seat until he went 5-7 and even then he was allowed time to try a new staff before he "got retired". And the power brokers behind Texas are not known to be softies. I'm not saying this is good or bad - it just is.

If OU makes the same mistake as Texas, then shame on OU.

[Snrinhouston]

Comparing 2009 vs 2014 is like comparing apples to ducks. There was no reason to look at the coaching staff in '09 unless your knowledge of football is so shallow, all you understand is the W/L record. There are plenty of things to question the staff about this season, from scheme, to game planning, to in-game management.

2009 came unglued for the VERY reason Andre Ware (who many people mocked on this board for his 8-4 preseason prediction) said. Substandard offensive line play. Review the plays in the BYU game before Bradford ended up writhing on the turf.

So Stoops is now not responsible for having an effective offensive line?

[BoulderSooner79]

If OU makes the same mistake as Texas, then shame on OU.

Like I said, not passing judgement - just trying to take the 50K' dispassionate view of things. The folks in charge don't look at things the same way the fans do. But there are important differences between UT and OU. Mostly in the revenue area as UT football is the #1 revenue generator in the country, so I'm sure that played into how long Brown stuck around. And UT is a much bigger school than OU and the greater Austin area is more populated than what is around OU, so the revenue is probably more sticky. So I would guess Bob would have a bit shorter leach than Brown did, but he also hasn't produced a 5-7 seaon either.

[Snrinhouston]

Like I said, not passing judgement - just trying to take the 50K' dispassionate view of things. The folks in charge don't look at things the same way the fans do. But there are important differences between UT and OU. Mostly in the revenue area as UT football is the #1 revenue generator in the country, so I'm sure that played into how long Brown stuck around. And UT is a much bigger school than OU and the greater Austin area is more populated than what is around OU, so the revenue is probably more sticky. So I would guess Bob would have a bit shorter leach than Brown did, but he also hasn't produced a 5-7 seaon either.

If he does, I can't wait to hear what the Stoops apologists have to say.

[Curly Bill]

If he does, I can't wait to hear what the Stoops apologists have to say.

They're gonna say something how at least he's not John Blake, blah, blah, blah...

[BoulderSooner79]

2009 came unglued for the VERY reason Andre Ware (who many people mocked on this board for his 8-4 preseason prediction) said. Substandard offensive line play. Review the plays in the BYU game before Bradford ended up writhing on the turf.

So Stoops is now not responsible for having an effective offensive line?

'09 was a rebuilding year on offense and especially on the line. And then the line was injury riddled on top of that and was generally shuffled week to week. Combine that with losing Bradford and Gresham and the offensive capability was pretty predictable and I didn't see any magic coaching that was going to make it that much better. And on the defensive side, we were excellent. Overall, I thought the coaches did okay with hand they were dealt.

This year we had an extremely experienced O-line with minimal injuries - a great basis for results. We underachieved, IMO, and there were plenty of coaching decisions that I think contributed. And on defense, we were just awful at times and again I think coaching could have made us a lot better. Overall, I thought we underachieved on offense, defense and special teams.

[Snrinhouston]

'09 was a rebuilding year on offense and especially on the line. And then the line was injury riddled on top of that and was generally shuffled week to week. Combine that with losing Bradford and Gresham and the offensive capability was pretty predictable and I didn't see any magic coaching that was going to make it that much better. And on the defensive side, we were excellent. Overall, I thought the coaches did okay with hand they were dealt.

This year we had an extremely experienced O-line with minimal injuries - a great basis for results. We underachieved, IMO, and there were plenty of coaching decisions that I think contributed. And on defense, we were just awful at times and again I think coaching could have made us a lot better. Overall, I thought we underachieved on offense, defense and special teams.

Sorry, when you cash checks like Stoops does, you don't have the luxury of using "rebuilding" as an excuse. Heritage programs like Oklahoma are supposed to reload because of superior recruiting and talent development. If Stoops can't do that, then he's not earning his premium pay. It's really that simple. You willingly cash premium checks, then you best deliver the expected premium results.

Remember the USC line that allowed Leinart to make pbj sandwiches before he threw to a receiver in the Orange Bowl? That was a rebuilt offensive line from the year before.