Emails in on Switzer, realignment, OU hoops

The new emails are in, and the talk is about Barry Switzer, conference realignment and the OU basketball mess.

Tony: “I’m sure others have told you this, but I hope you’re considering writing a book about the Switzer years. Your recent blog series was fantastic, yet something tells me it barely scratched the surface.”

By my last count, there were 34 books already about OU. Maybe there’s another Switzer book out there that can steer clear of Bootlegger’s Boy, but I’m hard-pressed to see it. Switzer’s got a story, literally, about every player who ever played for him, but that seems like a limited market on readership. Maybe I’m wrong.

Correna: “Just now getting back to you regarding your very touching story of Switzer’s Gang together again. I am a 73-year-old, two-time cancer survivor, trying to take care of my garden, praying all those nasty storms pass on by. You always try to bring out the good in other people’s lives. We all remember Barry Switzer when he fought his alcohol demons, but he was blessed with being a leader and inspiration for all the boys that needed a big chance in life.”

Well, I guess this offsets those letters that claim I never write anything positive. Like most everything, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Kent: “I’ve enjoyed the old Switzer stories, a lot of funny things that wouldn’t happen today. Do you think Bob Stoops knows how important it is to beat Texas? Think about this. Royal ran Bud out, Barry ran out Darrell. I thought Bob would run Mack out, but it may be the other way!”

I have to believe that Stoops knows exactly how important it is to beat Texas. And sure, Brown could run Stoops off, same as Stoops could have run off Brown. But I see Stoops and Brown more like Switzer and Osborne, or Royal and Broyles. Long-time rivals who push each other.

Bill: “Loved the Switzer stories. My family has many fond memories of the 1980s traveling to away games, staying at the team hotel. Barry, his coaching staff and his players were very engaging, willing to sit down and regale the fans with stories. And unfortunately, I think your comment on Bob Stoops in the blog post was directly on point. Bob’s not a bad guy, albeit nowhere near as personable as Switzer, but he treats interacting with the public — fans, media, I suspect everyone who doesn’t have a checkbook lined with zeros – like a prostate exam. It’s a shame, because his growing aloofness will taint what has been an era of football almost on a par with Switzer. I’d be curious to read your ruminations one of these days about the football program and its growing detachment from the public. Naïve fool that I am, I’ve always operated under the assumption that the program belonged to the public. One of these days, though, I’m growing more convinced King Robert will lock the public out of a game. It’s interesting to see this ‘Year of the Fan’ nonsense from the OU athletic department, on the heels of the Thunder’s success.

I’m not so sure it’s just a Switzer/Stoops deal. I think it’s just as much a then/now phenomenon. Times have changed. Coaches are distrustful of most everybody.

Michael: “You should write an article on expansion. The former writer for your paper who is now with ESPN thinks Texas to the SEC is a done deal. They would want to retain their rivals of OU and A&M. If the expansion happens and the SEC grows and decides to add from the Big 12 and not the ACC, do you think that they will go after Texas, Texas A&M, OU and OSU or Texas, Texas A&M, OU and Kansas? Kansas would be basically a mirror school to Kentucky (great basketball, adequate football) but with a better academic reputation. On the Kansas side, the SEC would add three American Association of Universities schools and then have a ratio of 5/16 AAU schools and not 2/12. Kansas would add the Kansas City and Wichita markets as well. They would have two major powers in basketball. OSU has a better football reputation and easier travel.”

Only trouble is, I don’t think OU can go without OSU. So if the SEC wants OU, it has to take OSU. You can certainly make the argument that Kansas is more valuable to a league than OSU would be, but you can’t make the argument that Kansas is more valuable than OU.

Roy: “True, in college football money talks loudest, but I think most commentators have missed something about Texas’ values. UT prides itself on being a great university and progressive and would not want to be associated with the ‘Old South’ in the west division of the SEC with the likes of Ole Miss and Mississippi State. They already don’t much like being in the semi-rural Big 12, I would say. So, I see the Horns headed to the Pac 10 (11), maybe or maybe not taking along A&M, OU, Kansas, Colorado to form an East division along with the Arizona schools. Texas would like to be thought of like Stanford in various ways, not like Tech and the “State” colleges of the Big 12. And they’re right. One of the things that made Notre Dame great and a national university (and rich), was and is their scheduling of games against great institutions in high-visibility venues, such as L.A., San Francisco (Berkley and Palo Alto), Seattle, Phoenix. And now Portland and Eugene are becoming ‘in’ places, more like Austin than, say, Ames. That’s why the Irish play Navy (Philadelphia or Baltimore or Washington), Rice (Houston), Boston College, Miami, and, oh yeah, USC, Stanford, Washington. OU had better play its cards right, or be left with the distinction of being the ‘Harvard’ of Hicksville.”