New York Post

#26
#26
I don't think Oklahoma and Michigan were as big of flops. Both teams got off to shaky starts but started figuring some things out. The Sooners were pretty good competitors in the last few weeks of the season. Bomar is getting better.

Rest easy guys. We were not the biggest flops of the year. It HAD to be Syracuse.

And Purdue being a flop...? Everybody knew they were going to suck, everybody just tried to justify their picks by saying that had an easy schedule. Everybody knew, deep down, the BoilerMakers were gonna be a bad team.
 
#27
#27
Originally posted by hatvol96@Dec 8, 2005 5:09 PM
Oklahoma lost 4 games to teams who only lost 5 games combined. They were also starting a freshman QB and replacing a whole slew of guys now in the NFL. Not sure that's in the same class as UT's complete collapse.
[snapback]210870[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Exactly. We had everybody back.

Also, those 7-4 flops by Oklahoma could not be considered flops if you ask some people. 7 win seasons aren't bad, because I've heard a lot of, "Well, it's one bad season and you freak out." We've now had three seasons since 2000 with at least 4 losses.

Oklahoma was living off of reputation and Stoops, but they lost everything but Adrian Peterson.

Michigan always underachieves. Carr sucks.
 
#28
#28
Originally posted by hatvol96@Dec 8, 2005 6:09 PM
Oklahoma lost 4 games to teams who only lost 5 games combined. They were also starting a freshman QB and replacing a whole slew of guys now in the NFL. Not sure that's in the same class as UT's complete collapse.
[snapback]210870[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



Not to mention Stoops took them to the NC game 2 years in a row and then graduation took its toll. Fulmer hasn't been able to take UT 2 years in a row to the SEC champ game.
 
#30
#30
Originally posted by oklavol@Dec 9, 2005 1:39 AM
Fulmer hasn't been able to take UT 2 years in a row to the SEC champ game.
[snapback]211300[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


I guess I was just hallucinating when I went to the Georgia Dome in 1997 and again in 1998.
 
#31
#31
Originally posted by GAVol@Dec 9, 2005 6:45 AM
I guess I was just hallucinating when I went to the Georgia Dome in 1997 and again in 1998.
[snapback]211327[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



Had you been drinking, Georgie?

:biggrin2:
 
#32
#32
Good morning LiO...we've had an ice storm and all the teachers up this way are at home today.

At least it is Friday. Did you guys get any of this stuff we got?
 
#33
#33
Originally posted by oklavol@Dec 9, 2005 1:39 AM
Not to mention Stoops took them to the NC game 2 years in a row and then graduation took its toll.  Fulmer hasn't been able to take UT 2 years in a row to the SEC champ game.
[snapback]211300[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Stoops and OKLA won it in 2000 and played for it in 2003 and 2004. That's 3 of 5 years that they played for the NC. And that's inheriting a team that had 4 straight (?) losing records ending in 1998.

PF did take us to the SECCG in 97 and 98. However, Tennessee hasn't played in a BCS bowl since we got humiliated by NEB in 1999. Interesting.
 
#34
#34
Originally posted by Liper@Dec 9, 2005 9:16 AM
Stoops and OKLA won it in 2000 and played for it in 2003 and 2004.  That's 3 of 5 years that they played for the NC.  And that's inheriting a team that had 4 straight (?) losing records ending in 1998.

PF did take us to the SECCG in 97 and 98.  However, Tennessee hasn't played in a BCS bowl since we got humiliated by NEB in 1999.  Interesting.
[snapback]211339[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



This analogy doesn't quite work. OU has benefited from a weak division in the Big 12. KSU and Nebraska simply don't rank with Florida and Georgia of the mid-late 90's. In short, OU had an easier path to the Big 12 Championship and the BCS.

The larger point seems to be that Fulmer hasn't delivered the goods but Stoops has. We will need to wait about 5 - 7 more years to see. If OU wins the Big 12 a time or two in there and hits a BCS or two then they outperformed Fulmer & Co. OU has lost 5 of it's last 12 games including the total destruction in the BCS game last year (hmmm sounds like 1999 vs Nebraska). Fulmer & Co. never had a season with only 7 regular season wins (or less) until this year. Stoops got one the year after appearing in the BCS NC game. OU may not win the Big 12 in the next five years and may not see a BCS game either. If that's the case, then there is no difference between Fulmer and Stoops performance wise. To say that OU had "no one" back is a bit misleading as well. OU should be fully stocked with talent - just not talent with experience. Plus they played in a Big 12 that is probably the weakest it has ever been. Bottomline, the comparison is apples to oranges (hey the colors match as well!).

As for teams not meeting expectations this year - I fully agree that the Vols flopped. However, relative to preseason rankings and expectations OU, Purdue, Iowa, and Michigan also did not come close to their preseason positions. Probably not as disappointing as the Vols but disappointing none-the-less.
 
#35
#35
I don't disagree with your post; and I wasn't making an analogy.

The only point I tried to make was that some people call this CPF's first bad year, and at the same time equate it to CBS's first bad year -- which included 4 losses.

This is actually the 4th major underachieving disappointment in the last 7 years for CPF going back to 1999 (1999, 2000, 2002, and 2005).

Oklahoma's had a bad year, I don't dispute that. But these things happen. If it starts happening every other year, then he's got a problem. As it stands, 2005 OKLA is an anomally.
 
#36
#36
Remember also, Stoops took over a program in total disarray after the Schnellenberger/Blake fiascos. I give Stoops more slack for that reason. While OU dominated them for 5 years, Texas didn't lose to many other people. They were better than late '90s UGA and probably as good as most UF teams of that period. Stoops previous 5 years are simply better than any 5 year period Fulmer has put together. This isn't meant as a knock on Fulmer, more as a compliment to Stoops.
 
#37
#37
Those Texas teams from the past 5 years remind me a lot of us in the mid 90s. We'll see if they break through like we did in '98.
 
#38
#38
Originally posted by GAVol@Dec 9, 2005 11:47 AM
Those Texas teams from the past 5 years remind me a lot of us in the mid 90s.  We'll see if they break through like we did in '98.
[snapback]211389[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Very astute comparison.
 
#39
#39
Originally posted by Liper@Dec 9, 2005 11:52 AM
I don't disagree with your post; and I wasn't making an analogy.

The only point I tried to make was that some people call this CPF's first bad year, and at the same time equate it to CBS's first bad year -- which included 4 losses.

This is actually the 4th major underachieving disappointment in the last 7 years for CPF going back to 1999 (1999, 2000, 2002, and 2005).

Oklahoma's had a bad year, I don't dispute that.  But these things happen.  If it starts happening every other year, then he's got a problem.  As it stands, 2005 OKLA is an anomally.
[snapback]211364[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I understand your line of thinking here, but disappointing based on pre season expectations or what we would consider under acheiving doesn't necessarily translate in to bad seasons. i guess it depends on the individual's definition of bad season.

For me, while it may be disappointing or even considered underacheiving, the years you mentioned above i would not consider "bad". Last season, that's bad.

Oklahoma, there a different animal...they are in rebuilding mode, and i think we agree on that...

and i completely agree wiht GAVol about the TX/TN comparison....they got knocked over the past 5-6 years just like we did in the mid 90's. Now this is their year, and we'll find out if they can cash in like we did in 98...

But comparing us to to any big 12 school is kind of useless...especially current day to mid 90's SEC...the SEC today is hands down much more difficult a conference to navigate than the big 12, north or south.
 
#40
#40
I too think Stoops has done a great job. However, OU had fewer hurdles opponents-wise to win the Big 12 than we have had in Fulmer's first 5 - 7 years. Between 1993 and 1998, Fulmer won 2 conference championships and the first ever BCS championship. UF kept us from the SECCG in 95 (11-1)and 96 (10-2) and represented our only loss in conference. Winning the conf. champ in either of those years would have put us in a NC game.

Stoops had Mack Brown's number the way Spurrier had Fulmer's and the way Fulmer had UGA's until Richt got there. Other than Texas, no other team has been a real contender during Stoops time - KSU was probably the most consistent and don't forget, they pounded the crap of OU in the Big 12 championship game but OU still got to go (questionable appearance in the BCS champ game). Traditional power Nebraska and sometimes good Colorado were down most of the time. Texas A&M has been down during that time as well. Kansas, Texas Tech, Iowa St., Baylor, Missouri, Okla. St. - This line-up during the Stoops era doesn't match the quality of the SEC during the first 5 or 6 years of the Fulmer era when Bama was still good and won an NC in 92, UF was great and won an NC in 96, Georgia was good (but couldn't beat us), Auburn was solid, MSU was better than they are now, Arkansas was better than the were now, etc.

The line between winning the conference and hitting a BCS game is very fine. UF kept us from one maybe two SEC crowns. We did the same to Georgia.

At this point I would consider the accomplishments of Stoops and Fulmer to be more similar than different. They both are separated from the majority of coaches in D-1, but the separation between them is very narrow and difficult to fully assess at this point since their time as coaches with their teams is quite different.
 
#41
#41
Another point where Stoops and Fulmer are more similar than different is the role of the OC.

Fulmer's performance trends down after the loss of Cutcliffe, Stoops' trends down after the loss of Leach (to Texas Tech). Perhaps Stoops is in for years of underachieving if he doesn't address the OC position :question:
 
#42
#42
Originally posted by volinbham@Dec 9, 2005 2:22 PM
I too think Stoops has done a great job.  However, OU had fewer hurdles opponents-wise to win the Big 12 than we have had in Fulmer's first 5 - 7 years.  Between 1993 and 1998, Fulmer won 2 conference championships and the first ever BCS championship.  UF kept us from the SECCG in 95 (11-1)and 96 (10-2) and represented our only loss in conference.  Winning the conf. champ in either of those years would have put us in a NC game.

Stoops had Mack Brown's number the way Spurrier had Fulmer's and the way Fulmer had UGA's until Richt got there.  Other than Texas, no other team has been a real contender during Stoops time - KSU was probably the most consistent and don't forget, they pounded the crap of OU in the Big 12 championship game but OU still got to go (questionable appearance in the BCS champ game).  Traditional power Nebraska and sometimes good Colorado were down most of the time.  Texas A&M has been down during that time as well.  Kansas, Texas Tech, Iowa St., Baylor, Missouri, Okla. St. - This line-up during the Stoops era doesn't match the quality of the SEC during the first 5 or 6 years of the Fulmer era when Bama was still good and won an NC in 92, UF was great and won an NC in 96, Georgia was good (but couldn't beat us), Auburn was solid, MSU was better than they are now, Arkansas was better than the were now, etc.

The line between winning the conference and hitting a BCS game is very fine.  UF kept us from one maybe two SEC crowns.  We did the same to Georgia. 

At this point I would consider the accomplishments of Stoops and Fulmer to be more similar than different.  They both are separated from the majority of coaches in D-1, but the separation between them is very narrow and difficult to fully assess at this point since their time as coaches with their teams is quite different.
[snapback]211447[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: you da man.
 
#43
#43
Originally posted by volinbham@Dec 9, 2005 2:26 PM
Another point where Stoops and Fulmer are more similar than different is the role of the OC.

Fulmer's performance trends down after the loss of Cutcliffe, Stoops' trends down after the loss of Leach (to Texas Tech).  Perhaps Stoops is in for years of underachieving if he doesn't address the OC position  :question:
[snapback]211456[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I think Bobby misses his brother and mr. pelini on defense as well....
 
#44
#44
Originally posted by GAVol@Dec 9, 2005 11:47 AM
Those Texas teams from the past 5 years remind me a lot of us in the mid 90s.  We'll see if they break through like we did in '98.
[snapback]211389[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


That's been a running joke for me and some buddies. The TEX/OKL rivalry is TN/FL all over again...more or less.

Texas would easily as talented as OKL in all of those years, but they still managed to get their butts handed to them. They played tight, mistake-ridden, and generally got thoroughly outcoached. They lost every way imaginable.

The next problem is this: Once we broke through, we haven't really been heard from since. We were FAR better leading up to the breakthrough than we have been since.
 
#45
#45
Originally posted by Liper@Dec 9, 2005 3:25 PM
That's been a running joke for me and some buddies.  The TEX/OKL rivalry is TN/FL all over again...more or less.

Texas would easily as talented as OKL in all of those years, but they still managed to get their butts handed to them.  They played tight, mistake-ridden, and generally got thoroughly outcoached.  They lost every way imaginable.

The next problem is this: Once we broke through, we haven't really been heard from since.  We were FAR better leading up to the breakthrough than we have been since.
[snapback]211525[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

yeah, you're right, but as we were going thru that...and as 99 wound up, it wasn't all terrible, though getting killed by Neb won't do anyone's ego anygood....

And in 01, we all thought we were pretty good, and everyone i talk to has always said we'd of given Miami a much better game than Neb did that year...we just didn't take care of LSU...we know that song and dance...

It's really only after 7 years and a terrible season can we all go back and see it for what it was...at the time, no one thought it was in jeopardy of falling off as much as it has to this point.

you know what i mean....
 
#46
#46
Originally posted by jakez4ut@Dec 9, 2005 2:31 PM
yeah, you're right, but as we were going thru that...and as 99 wound up, it wasn't all terrible, though getting killed by Neb won't do anyone's ego anygood....

And in 01, we all thought we were pretty good, and everyone i talk to has always said we'd of given Miami a much better game than Neb did that year...we just didn't take care of LSU...we know that song and dance...

It's really only after 7 years and a terrible season can we all go back and see it for what it was...at the time, no one thought it was in jeopardy of falling off as much as it has to this point.

you know what i mean....
[snapback]211532[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Actually, I have thought we have been in jeopardy since the 2002 season -- right smack dab in the middle of jeopardy.

You're right; some of those years weren't terrible. It's just that when decent years become your rallying cry, you have, by definition, become reduced to an also-ran.

In other words, our 1999 and 2001 seasons were the closest we've come to being in the mix. Largely, in both of those years, we were for some time (especially 2001).

But the elite programs, years like 2003 should be our down year. Not 5-6, 8-5, and 8-4...getting blown out Peach Bowls, etc.

Essentially we've just moved our parameters way down. Our best years are top 15, out decent years are top 25, and our bad years are unranked.
 
#47
#47
i don't think anyone is rallying around 8-4 or 8-5 seasons, or using that as something to thump thier chest about, o/t to say, up until this year, that's the worst it could get at ut, and that's pretty good. and yeah, 99 and 01 were the last time we were in contention late in the season. but i would say that 04 was a good year, from w/l stand point.

I also don't think that the parameters have shifted...i think the goals for this program are still the same both with in and for the fans....win the East, play for the SEC CG and go to the BCS. that is and should be the goal any year for us. Will we do that every year? no. but the goal is still the same.

And as to your assessment about being in jeopady since 02, yeah, you can look back and defnitely see that. and i would agree. As i've said many, many times before, it's only now, after a losing season, that all the little things we've noticed over the past few seasons are finally being addressed: Discipline, offensive production, player development etc....

And before it even comes up, i will concede, that if we had beaten Bama and USC and Vandy, none of the major changes that have come and the issues that needed to be addressed would not have happened...

but that goes back to the reactionary style this program has taken on....but either way, it's happening, and the goals for next year shouldn't change one bit. the only change is we won't be on the radar screen come August......
 
#48
#48
You and I probably agree on the expectations of the program. So I didn't mean that you specifically were holding 8-4 seasons -- but a lot of sheep do.

The parameters of our EXPECTATIONS are the same as the have always been. Be consistently in the mix of teams that compete for championships.

The parameters of our PERFORMANCE has clearly been reduced. This area is an objective, verifiable fact. For instance, CPF has only produced 1 top ten team in the last 7 seasons.
 
#49
#49
i guess it's the old arguement of where we should be vs where we really are...and to that, you are correct, about where we are.
 
#50
#50
I know I come off hard on Fulmer sometimes, but even I think where we are is understandable. We've fallen somewhat and other teams have come up. That happens.

My beef is usually three-fold if you'll notice:

1. Fulmer is delusional and won't ackowledge or fix things that are broke until a 2 year old could do the same
2. Too many people rationalize, apologize, and make excuses for mediocre results
3. We have an uncanny ability to lay large eggs in big games against big teams

Other than that, I take the good with the bad and hope we do well. Going 5-6 and losing to a team without an athletic department kinds of rubs me though.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top