Emails in on Thunder & Sooners

The emails are in, mostly on OU football and the Thunder. Let’s get right to it.

Gerald wrote, “I have been reading with interest the complaints about Bob Stoops and the calls for him to be replaced. Be careful what you wish for, you might get that wish. That is what I was always told and that is what some of these people need to remember. Maybe these people would rather have Pete Carroll from USC, there are people out there who are really not satisfied with him either. This is especially true the last three or four days. His snubbing of Mark Sanchez’s press conference has really stirred the pot. The feeling is that he should at least cover the young man’s back even if he didn’t like Sanchez’s decision to leave. Sanchez graduates in May even though he still has a year of eligibility remaining. Carroll fell out of favor, too, because he hasn’t produced a national champion in the last two years. Sound familiar? How about the mess at Auburn? How about the Georgia players going early to the draft. At least Stoops kept our key underclassmen. Maybe, just maybe, we aren’t as bad off as we could be.”

I have to admit, I don’t troll the Internet. But is anyone serious about wanting Stoops gone?

Don wrote, “Since a toothache is coming between me and studying for my Sunday School lesson, I thought I would email you instead. I’m pleased you recently showed the 1949 Sooners some love. Those guys were nearer to the modern athlete — and they were very very good, dominant against an excellent schedule. You can’t compare 1955 and 1956 against a modern club because they were so young — no redshirtng meant 21-year-old seniors, not the 22- and 23-year-old men you see today. But in 1949, 22- and 23-year-olds were all over the roster, many were combat veterans. Some had played for other colleges or for powerful military clubs. Stan West was 26. Darrell Royal was 25. West, Royal, Wade Walker, Dee Andros, Jim Owens, Leon Heath, Lindy Pearson, Junior Thomas. No one in the Big Seven could touch them. I have often thought that the 1956 unit was the best in OU history, but they played only one decent team, Colorado, and had to come from behind to beat the Buffs in Boulder. Texas and Notre Dame were terrible (1-9 and 2-8 respectively), so OU’s 45- and 40-point victories didn’t mean much.”

My tooth’s not hurting, but I’ll respond back. Interesting discussion about age. And I think Don’s right on about 1949 and 1956. But not necessarily about today. I think maybe elite college football teams are younger than in the past. With players leaving early for the NFL – the current Sooners an exception, of course – you see a lot of 20- and 21-year-old stars who are in the their last season of college.

Chuck is upset with the status of the Cotton Bowl stadium for OU-Texas: “The $50 million plus put into it to improve the lady for us fans? True they built new seating, restrooms and concession stands into the end zones to have another 12,000 people come and enjoy themselves as well as provide an additional $15 million to the city of Dallas in revenue. And they replaced the single chair seating in most areas with new steel bench seating to add even more people. However, no changes were made to the existing facilities in some areas. Try the area below the press high rise, sections 101-111. It’s great seating, however the thousands of Sooner/Texas fans sitting in these areas have the same problems we have had for at least the last five years. Concession stands that do not support 500 people, let alone the thousands trying to find something to eat while a quarter of football goes by unseen trying to get a hotdog and a coke. True, you can proceed to the lower level and stand in line and still miss a quarter of football, or just sneak in a steak sandwich through security. Restrooms in that area have had problems for the last five years with half the toilets and urinals not working and overflowing. And do not try to wash your hands, the one wash basin in the mens room has had no water for the last few years. The water fountains for that area have not had water for the same period of time and remain covered with year after year of bird droppings that the Cotton Bowl does not even bother to clean up. But why clean the water faucets and turn on the water when fans can pay up to $5 for a bottle of warm water, if you can get to a concession stand. Yes, improvements were made to the stadium, but only to add new seating, concession stands and restrooms for the end zone areas. We probably will not attend another OU/Texas game at the Cotton Bowl. Move the game to the new Dallas Cowboy arena and we shall attend, and even be able to find something to eat and see the game as well as have clean usable restrooms that actually work.”

Interesting. Frankly, I haven’t heard much complaining since the Cotton Bowl renovation. How do the rest of you feel?

Henry wrote, “I believe that there are two reasons for Oklahoma’s streak of BCS bowl game losses. The first: the Big 12 is not that good. Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas A&M are down, and most of the rest of the conference lacks the recruiting base or tradition to be very good consistently. That means that the Big 12 is basically just Oklahoma and Texas, and as Mack Brown is often into the habit of using his staff of assistants as a jobs program for his golfing buddies, Texas is usually not that big of a barrier to overcome even in the years that they beat Oklahoma. It also hurts that the BCS draw has been unkind to Oklahoma. Where USC gets a Big 10 team (often the #2 team in the Big 10 at that!) and the SEC or Big East have frequently drawn ACC opponents, Oklahoma usually gets a top-five foe even when they aren’t playing for the national title. The second reason: the offense. I recall your comment in your column comparing Tim Tebow (whom I believe to be very good but overrated) to Sam Bradford in which you stated ‘running quarterbacks need not apply.’ Not only was that a bizarre comment to make at the school of Jamelle Holieway and J.C. Watts, but that is precisely the problem with Oklahoma’s offense; the lack of a dual threat QB. A spread offense with a dropback passer is simply too easy to defend on the college level. Replace Sam Bradford with a running QB that is a superior passer, and that changes a lot. Instead of sitting back and trying to keep the WRs and RBs in front of you, the defense will have to assign a LB or safety to spy the QB. Also, my tendency is to think that were Oklahoma to start recruiting dual threat QBs, they’d get the best. Dual threat QBs want to be NFL QBs just like the dropback passers, but Oklahoma would be the only school recruiting guys like that promising to let them throw 45 times a game.”

At first, I was going to give Henry his first point. But on second thought, no. The top teams in each conference are all elite teams. But it’s heck no on the second point. There are all kinds of ways to win, and USC has won huge with pocket passers who have limited mobility. LSU has won with QBs who aren’t great runners or throwers.

Shannon wrote, “You know what has been overlooked in all the Tim Tebow stuff? The simple fact that Tim had that profound of an impact on that many people. That is God working through Tim. The presence of the Lord and the way it can change a person is amazing and all too rare in our world. At least that is how I see it.”

I guess so. The whole thing seems over the top to me.

Ed wrote about my Caddo County basketball column. “Enjoyed it. It has long been a pet peeve of mine that when they do commercials on TV, they routinely and obviously strive for diversity — males, females, whites, blacks, Asians — but never Indians. Last one I can remember was the one with the guy on the nickel shown with a tear going down his face because of the way the land was and is being treated. So I thought about the Indians yesterday during the inauguration and then got up today, and there was your column. It struck a chord.”