In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 297
Online now 388 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.
At the start of the 2009 season OU was coming off a NCG appearance and the best offense in history. That season was decimated by injury about as bad as I can ever remember any season for any team. That year's defense finished very high in most categories despite being in the Big 12 and was one of Stoops' 2 or 3 best defenses. OU had that great showing in the 2010 NFL draft and hauled in a great class in 2010. The 2010 team rebounded quite well from the 2009 struggles, won 12 games, beat Texass, and won the conference. There are no "signs of decay" in there anywhere as far as 2009 and 2010 are concerned. That OU came back from that brutal 2009 season with a 12 win season is pretty strong evidence that there was no complacency on Stoops' part.
Fast forward to 2011. At one point OU was 6-0, ranked #1, had beaten FSU on the road, demolished Texass, and was looking good. Then in the last half of 2011 the defense, particularly in the back seven, got exposed. So, changes were made. All it took was one half of a season to be bad for Martinez to get the axe and a new DC to be brought in. That's not the sign of a complacent head coach.
Fast forward to 2012 and the defense struggled again, this time with the front seven. More coaching changes. Also, the changes to the OL coaching two seasons ago did not get the running game to where it needs to be, so more coaching changes.
As far as Stoops having ever been complacent, I jsut don't see it. A coach is not "complacant" because he doesn't fire coaches after a 12 win season or the year after a NCG appearance.
The final rankings prove my point on just how complacent OU has become since after 2008 including a season we were left unranked. If you don't see the trend then so be it:
2009-NR in top 25
This post was edited by SoonerJuris 14 months ago
Well, since the topic is whether or not Bob Stoops ever became complacent, your data is barely relevent. That said, that 12 win season with a final ranking of #6 really does not help you much.
Your data does more to help me than it does you. In 2011 things did not go well the last half of the year, coaches were let go. 2012 it happened again and more coaches were let go. That's the opposite of a complacent head coach. Your position requires you to be arguing that Bob Stoops was showing signs of complacency because he did not fire any coaches after a 12 win season where OU finished #6. Good luck with that.
Between 2000 and 2008 our average ranking was 7th.
We were unranked by the AP for the first time in Stoop's reign in 2009, but for your sake lets say we were the 26th best team in the country.
Between 2009 and 2012 our average rank was 16th.
I am not a math genius (obviously neither are you), but it seems that in the last four years our ranking has dropped 9 spots (more than 100%) than what occurred in eight years prior to 2009.
This is called a downward trend. Now you may cite the reason as bad luck from injuries, but I call it complacency on a staff that failed to adjust and recognize issues on and off the field. The fact is we had injuries between 2000 and 2008 was well.
Now lets get going and start seeing what we became used to seeing between 2000-2008.
Juris you may need to check your understanding of the word "complacency".
To Matteons point, I'm thinking a "complacent" head coach would not have bothered to make changes after 2011 and again after this season. So the changes after 2011 didn't yield a higher rating.....that doesn't mean the effort wasn't made to improve. In fact, the changes made are evidence against Stoops being complacent.
You are trying to say final results are an indication of "level of complacency" without consideration of any other factors. That is simply not logical.
We're talking about Stoops here. Is it really that hard to follow?
That said, you cherry-picked the wrong years to divide Stoops' tenure. The only point that makes any sense in the context of this discussion is after the 2010 season, where OU was 12-2 and finished #6 (higher than that 2000-2008 average you mentioned btw). There is no credible argument to be made that complacency had anything to do with the 2009 season and more than the 2005 season. I suppose it might make sense for you to feel a desire to attribute 2009 to complacency out of necessity, but that doesn't make it true.
Adding in the #26 from 2009 and the #6 from 2010 to the 2000-2008 average (assuming the 2000-2008 average was precisely 7 and not rounded off) you get and average of 8.6 (rounded off). So, from 2000-2010 OU's average was 8.6. For 2011 and 2012 the ranking was well above that, and both of those seasons ended with coaches getting fired and, in the case of 2011, players who were cancers getting run off as well. The very opposite of how a "complacent" coach would behave.
Your reliance on such arbitrary divisions of Stoops' tenure and such a small carefully chosen set of statistics really kills any credibility your argument may have had. To draw a conclusion regarding whether or not the head coach has become complacent based on final rankings is all but meritless considering how many other factors are involved.
By your rational Stoops was somehow complacant in 2005 as well, despite coming off of back-to-back NCG appearances.
No, I think I have the word choice just right. By the way, I am not the only one who has used "complacent", including several journalists, to describe the situation.
Just listen to a few 2012 press conferences and "complacent" is the word of choice especially when anyone asked if things needed to be changed.
Complacent: Contented to a fault; self-satisfied and unconcerned...I think this definition describes Stoops until the West Virginia game.
According to Matteon (who makes a good point, but one I don't agree with) replacing the backfield coach and the defensive coordinator with your brother is a sign that Stoops has been trying to fix the problem since 2010. If that is the case, then he hasn't done a very good job (since our rankings have dropped) and we should be concerned that the recent beheadings will also produce little results.
I think that more changes are on the way including how we recruit and game plan...that is the opposite of complacent.
Cherry pick...the years are sequential...how do you "cherry pick" what is a year-to-year ranking.
Yes...he had a 22 ranking with the freshman Bomar as QB in 2005 (a bad omen for 2013)...so what...the average is a top ten average versus a trending above 15...
Wow......some people will argue with the sun coming up in the east.
So you will consider outside factors when it suits your purposes but ignore the devastating injuries in 2009 and the obvious changes Stoops made after 2011.
The numbers are the numbers...but lets take into account 2009 and just throw it out.
But like a business...lets first take a look at the four year trending...
Consider the four year span (2000-2003)....Average ranking: 3.75
Consider 2004-2007 in which one year we had a 22 ranking-Average ranking 11 (a 7 point drop in four years);
Consider 2008-2011 of which we played with a Heisman QB (Bradford) and the record setting QB (Jones)-Average ranking 13 (a 2 point drop 2004-2007 and a 12 point drop from 2000-2003).
Now as you suggest you must throw out 2009 when we were unranked, (which there were injuries, but in 2006 we played with a wide receiver as QB and still ended up ranked as 11), the three year average ranking 2010-2012 is still an average of 12...WHICH IS STILL HIGHER than the average rankings of 2000-2003 and 2004-2007 which included years with a hurt QB (White), true freshman QB (Bomar) and a wide receiver who couldnt beat out Bomar (Thompson).
The 2010-2012 ranking is also a better idea of the state of the program today.
So there is a trend downward even without 2009, but because this is football and we shouldn't make excuses, IMHO, and it should be included...when included our average between 2008-2012, a five year trend, it is a whopping...wait for it...average rank of 14.
Consider, if the trending averages continued then we would end up with a ranking above 20...hardly Sooner football.
Now if you really want to see a negative trend...track the defensive stats year by year...or if you want to get depressed look at bowl wins against a ranked opponent....there are some nice trends as well.
But who cares about numbers right?
And no...firing Martinez...the only person who was not part of the "inner circle" and replacing him with your brother is not proof that Stoops was shaking things up before 2013, in my opinion...it shows a pattern of being "contented to a fault"...aka as "complacency".
You cherry pick by drawing a line between 2008 and 2009 instead of at some other point because itis more convenient for you instead of drawing that line between 2010 and 2011, which makes a lot more sense since 2011 is where any signs of problems in the program first arose.
Lat's step back a second and review your claim that the rankings, as you conveniently chose to group them, show complacency because the staff "failed to adjust and recognize issues on and off the field".
Which issues were they supposed to recognize in 2009 and 2010? After that 2009 season, which you included in your group of years where complacency had set in and there was a downward trend, OU brought in the 2010 class of 31 players that was by any measure a very good recruiting class. Was Stoops supposed to look at that 2010 class and feel a sense of alarm that recruiting was slipping? Seriously?
How about two months or so later when OU had 3 of the first 4 draft picks and 4 first round players? Was Stoops supposed to come in the next day after the draft thinking that his assistants just can't recruit or coach well enough? Seriously?
After that rough 2009 season OU came back and went 12-2 and finished #6, beating Texass along the way and winning the conference yet again. Was supposed to look at a top 6 finish on the heels of an unranked finish and think that his assistants were phoning it in and had lost their edge? Seriously?
A good debate...
My final point:
If Stoops was a CEO (and at $5 million he is paid like one) and his final rankings were yearly earnings, he would have fired by 2008...because no shareholders or board members would allow such a downward trend.
He is still around, as you point out, because he:
1. On average beats Texas;
2. On average beats OSU;
3. On average he wins the Big 12;
4. On average he wins at home;
5. He runs a clean program; and
6. Although it was a while ago...he had an elite program that won one national championship.
So for some people this is enough. What has saved him, IMHO, is that as the Big 12 is a very weak conference the last four years and he continues to compete for the conference title. However, when we go head-to-head with winning programs outside of conference in a bowl game (unless a weak sister like UConn, Iowa or Wash. State), we are not able to compete....USC, LSU, Boise State, Notre Dame, Florida, West Virginia and Texas A&M.
My final point.
If a "downward trend" in rankings equals a "complacent coach"....then there are a ton of excellent football coaches who have shown periods of complacency.
In fact, just about every one who has reached elite status and then kept on coaching for several years.
And before you say "Saban", OK that's one. But I guess when he doesn't win an NC for a couple of years then he will be in the "complacent club" too because if the glaring "downward trend".
I will assume that the 2008 is a typo.
That said, had Stoops been a CEO, I have this feeling that, speaking in comparative terms, OU's #6 finish in 2010 would have made those shareholders quite happy.
There's just no way to get around how badly that #6 finish and 12-2 record in 2010 hurts your claim of a 4 year trend.
There's no 4 year trend, the problems are from 2011 and 2012, and each year Stoops took clear and dramatic measures to correct those problems instead of riding things out. That is the opposite of how a complacent coach behaves.
Powevault you are probably right. Just FYI, i was up at the Switzer Center last week and one of the programs biggest donors personally flew in and was waiting to meet with Bob in his office. Met and flew out after an hour. So yes, pressure is coming from several different directions.
I have to ask.
Assuming this meeting happened, how do you know that the purpose was to "pressure" Bob?
Or is that more of an assumption on your part?
Point of clarification...
It is not a typo...shareholders and boards look at things in three, four and five year spans. Even though he did well in 2008, the drop in rankings for the four years cumulatively (if seen as earnings) would lead most, but not all, boards, to look for someone different. Imagine if you had a 7% drop in the value of your company...not good if you are shareholder.
While speaking of earnings, to Stoop's credit, he and Joe C are responsible for turning around an athletic department that was in the red and sinking fast. That is why I think many donors are not too upset, believe in Stoops and are willing to give him a chance. Claims that groups of donors are meeting with Stoops for the purpose of discussing the football program's direction is silly.
Like other donors I have spoken to, we still believe in him and wish him well in his changes. However, that does not mean he has not made some mistakes and perhaps did not move soon enough. Time will tell, but Switzer did it and so can Stoops.
I hope 2013 is the great turn around..but realistically it will be more like 2014 or 2015.
Ha Ha. Friend of mine went to the a basketball game with 2 Regents and he broached that too them and they laughed so hard he was almost embarrassed . They said one Joe C puts no pressure on Bob for any reason and the really important big donors are giving to the University football program not Bob Stoops.
The two best professional rookies in 2010 and both from Oklahoma City,Oklahoma.
That is true as they are raising money for the renovation of the west side before they announce it in the next year. Stoops is in no more pressure than Bill Gates at Microsoft.
I'm not sure if donors had much to do with it or not? I do know this though, a few pretty high level donors that I personally know were NOT happy about getting bent over by Texas A&M and watching our team lay down in the 2nd half. Then to have it followed up by Bob saying "Well, I guess winning the Big XII isn't good enough!" whether he was being facetious or not, rubbed some folks the wrong way. I know Old Man Boren got a few phone calls and/or letters. Sure, It may not have gone past that, but you never know. And yes there's a waiting list of folks a mile long, but would Joe or Dave show a $10,000 per seat donor the door to let in a $100 per seat donor? I do agree that Bob is showing some fight though, fight that some of us thought he lost a few years back. And really I don't care where it came from, I'm just glad to see it's back! Let's hope our team catches on!
So we are all clear, if you are not donating enough to bag a Seed-sower, you have ZERO pull within the University, including the athletic department. And to reiterate, these changes were all Bob.
At this point in time.
The reason I thought it was a typo is because you said he would be fired "by 2008", which to me, sounds like that would mean a different CEO would have been in place for 2009 and beyond.
I agree with Juris on this one. However, whoever is correct, it is apparent that changes are being made. Last year with players and this year with staff. Lets hope things improve in a big way and fast!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports