In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 416
Online now 154 Record: 4487 (2/14/2012)
The place for the most trusted source for reliable, accurate information on OU Sports
Men's & women's basketball, baseball, softball and other OU sports
The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners
The place to buy, sell or trade tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
We won our last three bowl games prior to tonight.
Yeah, beating Stanford without their starting qb was amazing.
We won the fiesta bowl.
Beating Connecticut should be a highlight in the glorious OU history.
Don't forget our last bowl win
Iowa might be the only other team slower than OU.
I get that winning seasons are better than losing. No one is arguing that. I was at OU in the 90's. I remember what it was like. If all you care about is winning 9-10 games then go cheer for OSU. You're goals are very similar.
Would 100 other teams trade places with OU? I bet they would but those teams suck. OU deserves better. We're freaking OU, not Arizona, Missouri or some other pretender.
Sorry but 10 wins against crappy teams in a conference that doesn't know what defense is is not impressive.
Give me a coach and staff that is hungry, willing to make changes and doesn't take losing as acceptable. If that's Bob and co. then great. If not, then great. I've been saying for 9 years now that Bob isn't that guy anymore. Maybe he can get it back but I haven't seen anything to show me that.
And I haven't even brought up recruiting.
I honestly think that game just set us back a few years. The recruiting boom for aTm is really going to make it hard for OU, in our main area. OU will probably continue to look nationally and we all saw how that worked this year. If you think the coaches are excited about our recruiting I'll sell ya a bridge.
Yep. Sometimes thing just get tired. Doesn't mean Stoops is an idiot. Change is just good for both parties sometimes. I don't think Stoops likes losing like this so hopefully he'll either start kicking some ass or opt for a fresh start.
I wish we would go get a real OC who loves the power running game & an offensive line coach who could coach that line to run block. It would help us toughen up if we were to go against a power team everyday in practice. I agree with what LA said.
Heupel's OJT has caused OU dearly the last two years.
He never should have been promoted. He did improve this year but he should have never been the OC.
Stoops takes this job lightly at times. No other big name school would have put Josh in that role. It's a disgrace.
Not that I'm the biggest JH defender but a bad OL makes any OC look bad. Love to understand why we're in such a bad spot with both lines.
Actually it was. They were a very good team with a good coach, and we didn't have our starting QB either.
When you make a post claiming that 100 other teams all suck, it is hard to take you seriously.
So even though LJ started the majority of the games that year you didn't consider him the starter by the time the bowl game came around?
Correct. The only basis there is to refute that is that it interferes with people's capacity to be critical, and that notion constitutes no evidence.
That is completely disingenuous. Landry Jones had started 10 games and played more than half of two others by the time that game started. It had been more than two months since Bradford's final injury. We were far more prepared to play with Landry at the helm than Stanford was without Luck. It's funny how you accuse people of twisting facts to fit their argument because that is precisely what you are doing here.
LJ did not get the benefit of the first team reps that Bradford took for the entire off season as well as for the game week leading up to three of OU's regular season games. I suggest you do a bit more homework. How exactly were we more prepared with a RS Freshman replacing Bradford than Stanford was with a Senior QB replacing the injured Luck? Not only was Pritchard (Stanfords QB in the Sun Bowl) a senior with all of those years of development under his belt, but he had thrown 254 passes and and 194 passes in 2008 and 2007 respectively. He was a former starter. Both OU and Stanford had their best QB (Bradford and Luck) unavailable and while OU had a RS freshman on the field Stanford had an experienced senior backup on the field. Not only was my post not "disingenuous" (which is a term you appear to have misused anyways) it is dead on correct. Anyone trying to belittle or dismiss OU's Sun Bowl win on the basis that Luck was not playing while not affording the same consideration to OU is simply being unfair and, inthis case, seking to further a critical agenda.
OUinLA, I never like your posts. I've thought you were nothing but a negative doom and gloomer. But now, I have seen the light. I agree with everything you said. OU is in a very precarious spot with atm's emergence and domination last night, baylor's rise and even tcu. Bob has to make immediate changes, hire some young great recruiters in texas, NOW, or OU is in for a sustained decline due to lack of game changing talent. 10 wins a year is fantastic, and hard to accomplish, and a hell of a lot better than the 10 years prior to Bob, but getting blown out in a bowl game to one of your chief recruiting rivals in texas, amidst a recruiting year that already looks to suck, doesn't cut it. Don't whine about beaches. HIRE GREAT RECRUITERS BOB.
But that's what the haters do.
When they are angry, they don't want to give Stoops or our players credit for anything.
When they are angry, everything is wrong with the program and nothing is right - so wins must be discredited.
Even great come from behind performances like against Nebraska - this game never happened in the Landry haters mind.
The big games are only big games until we win them - making them big games no longer because suddenly the opponent is no good - but of course when we lose it was a HUGE game.
How many passes had LJ thrown before the bowl game? I dare say it was a heck of a lot more than the QB stanford used for the game.
I have not gone to look, but are you areguing that LJ had thrown a heck of a lot more than 448 passes before the Sun Bowl or are you limiting it to the number of passes thrown only in 2009?
As a neutral observer I thought I'd mention a few things. I think you guys expect a heck of a lot and will end up disappointed more often than not. A ten win season is pretty solid by today's standards. You can look at schools like Bama and be jealous right now but as soon as Saban is gone they will return to earth with the rest of us. The fifteen years before Saban came along Bama wasn't doing anything. Your situation reminds me of the Lloyd Carr situation years back at Michigan. Lloyd won but lost big bowl games often just like Stoops. Everybody complained and lived and died with these wins and loses. Then Rich Rod came along and we found out what real losing was. Real losing is not making a bowl and being beaten by teams that in the old days we would roll by forty points. Everybody complained and wanted change and yes we got change. Not only was the longest bowl streak in the country snapped but the 2008 Michigan team might have been the worst Michigan team ever. Stoops brings stability to your program and has not only won but made it to three NC games. It's not like Oklahoma is bursting with instate talent the way Texas, California, Florida, and Ohio is. Winning the way Stoops has in the modern era of the college football nuclear arms race is impressive. In the old days it was just a few top schools going the extra mile. These days the little guys build good facilities, recruit well, and make it top priority to compete. Look at your instate buddy Okie St and how far they've come. For us it's MSU. There are a lot more players in this game which makes it unrealistic for anybody other than the few with the top instate talent to expect to be top 5 every year. I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about all of this. Your ten wins looks pretty good to me and awesome to the USC fans who just got whipped by Ga Tech. Some years you have to be happy with the fact that at least your uniforms look better than the other teams.
preach on bro........you have one amen
Its hard to take you seriously if you don't understand the intent of the post and it needs to be spelled out for you.
Or you understand and just want to argue. I've seen both from you.
I like how you speak of the importance for first team does for one QB and then throw it out the window for the other. If you want to think that Stanford was in a good soot losing their #1 QB I'll just remind you of game one, against BYU.
Feel free to continue your argument. We will never agree. I tend to agree with the vast majority of college football fans regarding this. You agree with people that just don't get it.
Both schools were without their #1 QB. Let's review. One of us you) took the position that winning a game against a team without their #1 QB was not impressive. THe other one of us (me) posited that OU was also without their #1 QB (Bradford, remember him?), and for that reason (among others) it was an impressive victory. OU was also without their AA TE (Gresham, remember him?). Now, between the two schools, one of them (OU) had a RS freshman come in who had been a back-up all offseason and who was the back-up for the game week for three of OU's regular season games (BYU, Baylor, UT) while the other school (Stanford) had a senior QB who had been a starter for two years, had benefitted from 4 years of development including at least one off season as the first team QB, and had far more actual game experience under his belt. While it is likely true that we will never agree, the fact remains that in the Sun Bowl both teams lost their #1 QB and Stanford had the much more experienced backup to put in, so your argument that OU's win is less impressive because Luck was hurt is a bad argument because Bradford (and Gresham) were also hurt.
When you go to such lengths to put any of OU's success in a negative light the intent of the post seems pretty clear. You've successfully re-organized OU's record to put any success in the unimpressive category and carefully select only games that OU lost as games that would have been impressive had OU won. That's awfully convenient.
OUinLA: Smartest guy in the room.
Thank you for the post. Of course you are correct, but it's hard to be humble when you are a SOONER. We, as fans, just see the consistent inconsistency game after game and it is obvious something is amiss. We just spin our wheels trying to figure out what that is. Unfortunately it appears the whole program is missing some beats, from the talent level, to the coaching decisions, to recruiting - just everything. The team, that is the performance on the field, is not what it should be.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports