Emails dominated by OU-Chattanooga
Football season has arrived, which means the emails are heavy on the Sooners, and the joke of a game I wrote about in Sunday’s paper.
Craig wrote, “Matchups like that shouldn’t be allowed; 85,000 paying fans deserve better. OU would have a better scrimmage. I will say I was not pleased with the rushing production, off tackle. Off tackles, we should have been literally blowing them off the ball and gaining seven yards per. We actually only averaged four yards per carry, including DeMarco’s long run.”
Good point, but I think this is the truth about Chattanooga. The Mocs stacked the line and dared OU to throw deep. The Sooners, trying to be humane, did so sparingly. I’m not reading too much into anything about this game.Some wuss who didn’t even sign his name wrote, “I actually don’t know why I am wasting good time to e-mail you. I read your Bob Stoops editorial attack for OU’s opening game vs. Chattanooga. OU’s offense utilized their new no huddle offense to perfection, an offense they will need all season. They needed this first game to hone it to perfection. They are on the field to score TDs no matter the opponent. That is the purpose for playing the game. I have witnessed your Bob Stoops and OU Sooner Envy for many years with your trashy make-no-sense editorials, and Berry, it makes no Sooner mad, it just gives us an opportunity to laugh and to pity you. You must be tortured inside to watch OU’s many successes. Thanks for the great laugh, I appreciated it. Please don’t ever retire. You make our Sundays after great Sooner victories even more special.”
I don’t know why I am wasting good time to respond to your email, since this bozo wasn’t man enough to even sign his name. But congrats to him. He just became an honorary member of the Poor Aggies Club, the OSU people who always think the media is out to get them. This guy wrote that “they are on the field to score TDs no matter the opponent.” So explain Bob Stoops’ post-game quote: “You want to move the chains, and you don’t want to score points. That’s always a difficult situation.” This guy was rebuffed not by me, but by his own coach.Roy wrote, “Isn’t it sad that money is the only thing important to our universities. Not only OU but the rest of the Big 12? The only thing that can happen to you is to be embarrassed like Texas A&M. If money is the only thing important, why doesn’t OU play the Central State Bronchos? That way, they could keep all of the money in Oklahoma.”
It’s actually a decent question. Chattanooga is better than UCO, and the jump from Division II to Division I-A is quite a bit (30something scholarships compared to 63), but once you go so far down, it’s all pretty much the same.David wrote, “If in fact an entity such as the Almighty exists, I am quite certain that he/she/it cares nothing about OU football games, including the scheduling of overmatched teams as opponents. I tire of reading and hearing your thesis that big-time football schools are scheduling too many weak non-conference opponents. Many of us may wish for the return of the old days, but the world has moved on; it is time for you to do the same. The financialization and corporatization of big-time college football means that the current situation is here to stay, unless and until someone creates a different business model. It looks as if that won’t happen any time soon. And the most likely alternative would be an NFL style set-up, complete with full playoffs. As much as I hate the creeping big business culture, I would like college football to remain as different from the NFL as possible.”
Well then you should be happy, David. College football is as different from the NFL as possible. Virtually every NFL game is competitive. College football is loaded with non-competitive games.Max wrote, “What a travesty! That game was an affront to everything college athletics stand for. Sportsmanship? Next week we should just feed Christians to the lions. We seem to have needed a win and Rick Hart some money. A group of college players were beaten to a pulp in front of 85,000 fans that for their money deserved something better. I have been going to games since 1945. Have we become the bully? And will that get us ready for the likes of USC?”
Max couldn’t be more wrong. The OU-Chattanooga game was exactly what college athletics stands for. College athletics is about people protecting their status and position. OU is less guilty than most, but that doesn’t make a game like Chattanooga any easier to swallow.Manny wrote, “I paid $29.95 to watch OU and Tennessee-Chatttanooga, I am sure glad it wasn’t up to you to make the decision to stop the game or not. Chattanooga got paid plenty for playing OU. I haven’t had a response on an e-mail from you in a long time, so don’t expect one from you on this one.”
Actually, I respond to every email, including all of yours, Manny. This one, too. But it came back as undeliverable. Here’s what I wrote: I hope you enjoyed that second half, when Bob Stoops admitted the Sooners weren’t trying to score.PW wrote, “So, OU played Chattanooga because they ‘couldn’t find anyone else,’ just like BYU couldn’t find anyone else? Hey, guys, in these days of e-mail and phones and the net, I can’t believe someone somewhere couldn’t have figured out ‘Hey, why can’t we switch. OU will play BYU and Chattanooga can play Northern Iowa.’”
Actually, this is a superb question. It has an easy answer, but it’s a superb question. The reason is, because of economics. Who’s going to give up the home game, OU or BYU? Both have only six home games. Give one up, and that’s only five, which is a total budget killer. Of course, some of the teams that played a I-AA foe have seven home games. But they wouldn’t want to give up a home game, either.Not every college football email centered on the one-sided matchup. Roger wrote about the new 40-second clock rule. “Will we soon become used to a new football stat - S/OP (seconds per offensive play)? OU averaged 22.2 seconds per offensive play: 31.1 minutes of possession time = 1866 seconds; 1866/84 offensive plays = 22.2 seconds per offensive play (22.2 S/OP). Chattanooga averaged 32.7 seconds per offensive play.
Chattanooga used 48 percent more time per offensive play. This seems to be a big difference in a stat I never studied before. With such a lop-sided difference in scored (57-2), there was not much difference in time of possession. Is time of possession still an important factor in determining the winner — or is there now some value in completing more plays per minute of possession time? What other strategy changes should we expect under the new rules? Maybe the 40-second clock makes it harder to keep down the score when the teams are badly mismatched.
This is what makes my readers so great. Some of them think about stuff that the rest of us don’t. I don’t know the answers to Roger’s questions, other than overmatched teams generally will use more of the clock and try to shorten the game. But they are great questions.Dennis wrote, “I read with interest you comparison of Chattanooga and OU. I must, however, disagree on the date OU was established. The Oklahoma Territorial legislature in 1890 passed the organic act which established the University of Oklahoma, but OU didn’t enroll students until 1892, the date that is on my class ring from 1967. My question is that if OU played before 1892 were they Sooners and why didn’t they investigate the use of ineligible players. Shouldn’t those games be forfeited or did you just buy into OU’s misinformation that older is better. You are not a university until you have students, so I would correct everything to 1892.”
Let me get this straight. Your own email says OU was “established” in 1890, which is what we wrote. So what exactly is the problem? OU’s first team came in 1895, so I guess we can cancel the phone call to NCAA investigators.Jim wrote, “Let’s hope your article has some strength to it and the colleges stop playing high schools teams. Not just OU but all top 25 teams. It’s an insult to the season ticket holder and to the players to have to play in such a game. Maybe it is just me, but watching the OSU game, I came away with a dissatisfied feeling. The offensive line needs much improvement, they can not run the ball very well with that line. The defensive backfield got lucky that passes were dropped. Many times people ran by them. And the play-calling leaves much to be desired. How does a team come out of a timeout and then still looks back at the bench for many seconds to call a play while the defense gets settled? Then they can’t score from the 5-yard line.”
I don’t know how OSU could ask for much more than a 26-point road victory over a Pac-10 team. Seems to me a whole lot of good stuff happened for the Cowboys.Richard wrote, “My day isn’t complete until I check out your column and blog, but today’s story about Baylor sucked the life-force right out of me. I grew up in Norman, and I came back to get a masters in the J-school and hung around long enough for a national championship (thanks ‘85 Sooners!). But in between I went to Baylor for my undergrad. Staunch Baptist parents and all of that. When I went there the Bears won the SWC in ‘74, and in my four years there we had an overall winning record. I still have season tickets in both Waco and Norman. I hate it when I hear Baylor people say OU is just a bunch of uncouth rednecks, and I hate it when Sooner fans say Baylor should leave the Big 12. I was at the (Baylor) game last night and you are absolutely correct in saying there is precious little talent on the field. My take is that while Guy Morriss was a good coach, some alums didn’t like him because 1) he wasn’t Mike Singletary and 2) he was more of a beer drinking bubba than they were happy with. As a result, he didn’t get a contract extension the year he went 5-6 and barely lost to A&M and OU. The program seemed to deflate after that — assistants left and recruiting and performance reverted back toward the Kevin Steele (shudder) low point. It seems to me they have to stay with Briles, provide better facilities — the new on-campus practice facility will help, but I realize it is no match for what OSU has done, much less OU, UT and A&M — and recruit as best they can and get lucky with some people others don’t want. Leaving the conference would help in football, but it would be a slap in the face to our other programs who compete fairly well.”
I once was one of those kick-Baylor-out-of-the-Big 12 people. Not anymore. Somebody has to finish last. Might as well be Baylor.Jason took issue with our short story about Rhett Bomar leading Sam Houston State past East Central the other night. “Do you really think Bomar updates are warranted anymore? He is not even from the state, he was a starter for just one season and never was really connected to the state. Why do you need his name in the paper anymore? Just curious what the Oklahoman’s thoughts were on this? This isn’t coming from a sour grapes perspective. This is coming from someone who used to be in the journalism world and curious to know why the paper is still reporting on him when I believe he is no longer a story.”
Rhett Bomar will be a story 40 years from now. He became a Sooner villain, a status that is hard to lose. Bomar’s exploits - succeed or fail - are of interest to Oklahomans.Derek wrote, “I was watching the 2008 Sooner Preview last night, and I was struck by the demeanor of Bob Stoops during the show. This is the most congenial TV format I can conceive for him, yet he came off awkward, stiff and far from dynamic. (Dean Blevins wasn’t on top of his game, either, for that matter.) I must assume that Stoops is so uncomfortable on camera that the TV Stoops and the off-camera, coaching and recruiting Stoops are in essence two different people. Is this the answer? Or am I being unfair? My touchstone, of course, is Switzer, who, in his prime, came off on TV as knowledgeable and charismatic. It was easy to see why recruits would go to OU because he seemed to make everything so fun.”
I would say you’re right on, Derek. Stoops can no more be comfortable with the media than Switzer could be uncomfortable. Switzer couldn’t even get worked up at the Dallas media that was always on his case.And we had the usual solid array of NBA nickname suggestions. Ed, a KU fan, wrote, “Aside from the Oklahoma City Jayhawks, the only name that is really perfect is the Oklahoma City Indians. Do you have the courage to write about that one?”
I’ve already written about it, several times over the years. It’s a name that leads to offensive imagery. Outside of something indefensible like Redskins or Savages, the problem with American Indian names is not the name, but the imagery that comes with it.Paul wrote about the NBA name, “What about the Drillers?”
That certainly would be a shot across the bow of Tulsa.Rod wrote, “OK, I understand we are in the Bible belt, but why wouldn’t Diablos work? It sounds better than anything that has come to the table yet! Tell me our Spanish community wouldn’t love that.”
OK. The Spanish community wouldn’t love a Devils nickname.Hal wrote, “It seems to me the name of the basketball team should obviously be the Oklahoma Wind.”
Out of the hundreds of suggestions I’ve received, Wind is easily in the bottom five percent.Mary wrote, “I really enjoyed your column this morning. Hope Clay Bennett reads it. I like the Oaks better than Thunder, but they would probably wind up being the Okies.”
You’d be surprised how many people endorse Okies. I’m not one of them.Mickey wrote, “Really enjoyed your article several days past regarding team names. If the team is called Thunder, as it looks like, they’re in for it. I can hear it now: “You know why they called themselves the Thunder? They’re loud, make a lot of noise, but they’re not going to do any damage to us.” They should have gone with Thunderbirds.”
My hope is that in five years or so, Clay Bennett sees the error of his ways and adds “birds” to the end of his name.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
The problem is, a lot of teams won’t play home and homes. Nebraska is very selective in whom they will play home and home.
BYU will play anyone, anytime, home and home, with the exception of Notre Dame’s 2 for 1 deals.
Oklahoma-BYU home and home, let’s do it , right now.
Nebraska won’t come to Provo, ever, in a home and home. The invitation has been out to them for 30 years.
Even though BYU can and will match any payout Nebraska offers. If you won’t give a home and home to quality programs like BYU, Utah, etc. then you are stuck with D-2 schools and even they are getting smart and demanding huge payouts to be somebody’s whipping boy.
Miami, Penn State, Texas, Texas A& M, etc. have all come to Provo, and left defeated. Nobody want’s to risk it anymore, thank you BCS for completely screwing up college football.
Great intersectional games will be fewer and fewer because nobody wants to risk defeat, nothing but a bunch of pansies, all of them.
Bring back the old system, 2 polls, fewer bowls, and arguments as to who is really number 1. It was more pure than it is now. And not in violation of anti-trust laws.
And more enjoyable!
ajarizona
After the good folks of Utah named a sewage treatment plant for Barry Switzer, I never thought I’d agree with a BYU fan — but I love your comments, ajarizona. I’ll even make one of them into a battle cry:
TWO POLLS, FEWER BOWLS! Has a great ring to it…
Hey Berry, Fellow OU fans!
College football is back and so am I. That means there is at least one good thing in there to be found.
All kidding aside, Not liking these cupcake games early. They aren’t good for anyone (This looked like a one-sided Little League game….I am surprised someones mother didn’t appear and yell at a coach) .
OU put up big points in the first 4 games last year, then we fell asleep in two games in the regular season. Seems to happen each year, this pattern. I believe these easy games contribute. The players are not truly tested (starters exit at some point and don’t play enough under adverse enough conditions), they get a false sense of who they are as players and as a team and then it happens, someone plays them tough and they get that deer-in-the-headlights look. You will know it when you see it and say there, Jeff In VT is right! Then OU will be a casualty to the next Colorado or in this years case, watch out the week before Texas and the 4 weeks after. It is going to happen in there if it does. I believe we can run the table and get to the final. Then all bets are off……I would love to play that plodding big 11, scarlet and grey/gray team who pads their schedule with the likes of Kent State, Ohio, and Youngstown State, along with Our Lady of the Lake Nursing home for women.
I say, strengthen the schedule a bit more early on so that the players get tested a bit more.
Berry, please don’t get too excited about the NBA……yeah, its professional sports….but it is the NBA.
Hats off to those teams (Ala- Clemson, UCLA-Tenn etc) that went for it early on. Yeah, someone is out….but are they really, in this system, these days? Lose early, I am always told, and you have a better chance then if you lose late.
Well, I have to go. I vow to be back each week as I love what all of you folks write. Berry, you most of all!
Go Sooners!
I believe the Sooners need a better punter or in close games they will have a harder time defending the opposition.