Lost to a better team. Clemson is the real deal and I have no problems with losing to a better team. Baker's back next year along with some other great players and a great recruiting class coming in. 2016 looks even better.

Tale of two games...

12005

Lost to a better team. Clemson is the real deal and I have no problems with losing to a better team. Baker's back next year along with some other great players and a great recruiting class coming in. 2016 looks even better.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/sports/12005d1451614433t-oklahoma-sooners-2015-16-football-season-image.jpeg

Texas was obviously the better team

I'm a bit disappointed how poorly the fans traveled though.

I thought about it and so did a bunch of my friends, but Flights were $1,000 round trip and It was on a weekday that most people don't have off. I can understand why more didn't travel to it. If people had to choose between spending a ton of money and taking off work to go to the orange bowl or saving it to go to Phoenix if OU won...most chose to save for Phoenix (phoenix was about half as expensive). Miami is extremely expensive for New Years, especially on short notice. Had OU been in the cotton bowl, it would've been a different story. It's pretty ridiculous to fault OU fans for not wanting to shell out for that. Many of us wanted to, but couldn't afford it.

I thought about it and so did a bunch of my friends, but Flights were $1,000 round trip and It was on a weekday that most people don't have off. I can understand why more didn't travel to it. If people had to choose between spending a ton of money and taking off work to go to the orange bowl or saving it to go to Phoenix if OU won...most chose to save for Phoenix (phoenix was about half as expensive). Miami is extremely expensive for New Years, especially on short notice. Had OU been in the cotton bowl, it would've been a different story. It's pretty ridiculous to fault OU fans for not wanting to shell out for that. Many of us wanted to, but couldn't afford it.

You're absolutely correct. The financial hardship presented to ordinary fans is one of the biggest problems with the playoff system and it will only get worse if they go to 8 teams.

It was dismal. OU fans are tired of having big expectations and losing the big games (or at least I am ) and I am a native Oklahoman an OU graduate and a fan,
I'm disapointed that you are a Sooner fan and have Sooner in your name. You need to find another school and team. Please change your name. You make real Sooner fans look and sound bad.

You're absolutely correct. The financial hardship presented to ordinary fans is one of the biggest problems with the playoff system and it will only get worse if they go to 8 teams.

Exactly. It isn't that we didn't want to go, we just couldn't afford to go to both the playoff and the championship. When the championship game is the cheaper option by a log shot and you can only afford to go to one or the other...why would anyone pay to the semi final game? Had it been in Arlington, people would've driven but Miami was outrageously expensive.

I'm disapointed that you are a Sooner fan and have Sooner in your name. You need to find another school and team. Please change your name. You make real Sooner fans look and sound bad.

dcsooner has a long tradition here of being anti almost anything and everything connected with Oklahoma and OU. This is no surprise.

All we can ask our University of Oklahoma Sooners to do is give it their best. Today, they were beat by a superior team; give it up to the Tigers.

Clemson played like champions today; good luck against the Crimson Tide of Alabama. Would rather we lose to the eventually winner of the NCAA championship.

There is no reason to be disappointed in the 2015 season that saw a huge improvement over the previous season and also a Big 12 conference title.

For 2016 OU should have around 18 of 22 starters back + a very good kicker.

OU will also have the benefit of new recruits and a number of very highly thought of redshirts.
We got pushed around tonight on the line of scrimmage….. Another year in the weight room will make OU bigger and stronger….

All indications are…..OU is recruiting better and being better coached due to the decisions Bob has made in recent years with staff changes.

With the help of these new coaches, the OU football culture around OU football has dramatically improved... But it was the players who changed most of it. They have fully bought into what this coaching staff is doing.

I believe all OU people can be proud of the improvement but also in the fight this team showed.
There is no reason not to be supportive about the direction of the program and understand how fans / boosters can help though increased donations and help improved facilities that without doubt aid OU recruiting greatly!

At OU the 2016 season starts today!

PS: 246 Days until kickoff!

I'm no OU fan, but I was disappointed in their loss yesterday. If anything, this just shows me how bad the Big 12 is. Baylor is the only team that has won their game, and it may finish that way too! Last year we went 2-5 in bowl games, and we could seriously be that bad again. We just don't recruit the players that these other conferences are getting, and it was never more apparent than last night.

Virtually every single Big XII team is playing someone higher ranked, Even Baylor was #18 vs. UNC at #10.

Texas Tech was not nearly as good as LSU, and everyone knew that going in. And now TCU's bonehead QB just was arrested / suspended so now their game with Oregon could not go well.

The matchups this year are extremely unfavorable to the conference and the results are likely to reflect that.

Baylor looked really good against North Carolina. Had half their team not been injured, Baylor might have won the conference.

Baylor looked really good against North Carolina. Had half their team not been injured, Baylor might have won the conference.

Same North Carolina who played Clemson though (45-37) losing to the Tigers in the ACC title game in Charlotte.

Does have merit...

Baylor has a wealth of backup talent in key positions. Losses to OU (44-34) & Texas (27-17) in Waco and TCU (28-21 2/OT) in Fort Worth took its toll on the Bears being in a major bowl.

Sure the SE conference wins a lot of bowl games; however, it's all about match ups.

Just not one of those fan-freaks who get into that loyalty chanting the S-E-C horn.

Baylors game showed superior talent ant a phenominal coaching job. I'm not sure I've ever seen a major game won without a true quarterback.

As far as OU, I see them being beaten by a team with deeper talent. OUs starting team could stand with Clemson, but once the fake punt worked and the OU linebacker got hurt, it took just enough out for Clemson to wear us down.

OU loses huge on defense next year but will be powerful on offense. Good but probably not the best in the big 12

Well, canceled my hotel reservation in Albuquerque for the stop over night and then the Scottsdale resort today. Sad day for my two OU students who were stoked to head to the CFB Championship. Might not have many car roadtrips left with a 21 year old and a 19 year old - so their mom is even more sad!

OU loses huge on defense next year but will be powerful on offense. Good but probably not the best in the big 12

Not sure what you mean about the defense.

What Oklahoma's loss in the CFP semis means for the Sooners in 2016 - CBSSports.com (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25433771/what-oklahomas-loss-in-the-cfp-semis-means-for-the-sooners-in-2016?FTAG=YHF7e3228e)


The Oklahoma defense only graduates two starters -- star linebacker Eric Striker and top defensive end Charles Tapper -- and will return seven to nine starters depending on what the likes of CB Zach Sanchez and other juniors do.

Even if Sanchez decides to leave for the NFL, the Sooners' defense will still have a good core group returning. Oklahoma has some talented freshmen in the secondary that will take on a larger role next season, and will fill in gaps on the defensive line and line-backing corps.

We've got to recruit some of those solid cornbread & buttermilk fed linemen to protect the quarterback and clear a path for the run game.

Never thought I'd see the day where Baylor, an addition to the Big 12 that people questioned at the time would be getting better recruits. Texas Governor Ann Richards (nicknamed Madame) used her influence to get Baylor into the conference.

Clemson totally replaced most of its line from a year ago.

Conclusion: We need to beef up the offensive & defensive lines...

There are many dynamics to OUs poor performance against national powers.
Poor coaching
Poor recruiting
Poor conference ( OU gets false sense of "goodness: playing weak conference foes ISU, Kansas, KST, OSU WV
Poor OOC schedule we play Tulsa, yea
Thee big 12 and OU will never be competitive Nationally as currently configured

Our level of intra conference competition is EXPOSED in bowl games

Year in and year out, OU plays one of the toughest non-conference schedules in the country.

We played at Tennessee this year and next year open at Houston (who will be very, very good) and then host Ohio State, who may be the best team in the country.

And, we tend to fare pretty well in those non-conference games, so I strongly dispute we "perform poorly against national powers".

Stoops is 8-9 in bowl games which almost always matches two team who are very close in ability. Often, we have been rated lower than our opponents.

OU has also won at a higher winning percentage during the Stoops era than any other school.


I understand the frustration but OU has a fantastic program and when you are as good as we have been, you are going to play very, very good teams in bowl games and can only expect to win about half those games.

Year in and year out, OU plays one of the toughest non-conference schedules in the country.

We played at Tennessee this year and next year open at Houston (who will be very, very good) and then host Ohio State, who may be the best team in the country.

And, we tend to fare pretty well in those non-conference games, so I strongly dispute we "perform poorly against national powers".

Stoops is 8-9 in bowl games which almost always matches two team who are very close in ability. Often, we have been rated lower than our opponents.

OU has also won at a higher winning percentage during the Stoops era than any other school.


I understand the frustration but OU has a fantastic program and when you are as good as we have been, you are going to play very, very good teams in bowl games and can only expect to win about half those games.

Pete, I really do respect and appreciate your view and some of what you mention is valid, but OU does not play a team of the caliber of Ohio State every year out of conference. Other elite programs play significantly more difficult in conference opponents simply because of the conference make up which prepares them for stiff competition in the post season. There simply is NO comparison when OU as a part of the conference plays historically bad football programs like Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma State (historically) Baylor (historically), West Virginia etc who have not consistently been top ranked teams. Big wins over weak teams to get a great record does not make you a great team when then having to take on a legitimate national program.

By comparison Ala routinely plays LSU, Aub, TN etc

PAC 12 routinely plays OR, USC, UCLA, CAL

Look at Neb now that they play in the Big 10.

B12 is and will remain a mediocre conference simply because of the overall makeup of the teams, and we want more historically mediocre teams like Louisville and BYU or CINN to join

One of us will be proven right I hope you are but I suspect I am

In the next several years OU plays: Ohio State, UCLA, Nebraska, Michigan and LSU... All home and away.

To be fair, the Big 12 enforcing that each team must play at least one Power 5 team will help things hopefully.

Pete, I really do respect and appreciate your view and some of what you mention is valid, but OU does not play a team of the caliber of Ohio State every year out of conference. Other elite programs play significantly more difficult in conference opponents simply because of the conference make up which prepares them for stiff competition in the post season. There simply is NO comparison when OU as a part of the conference plays historically bad football programs like Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma State (historically) Baylor (historically), West Virginia etc who have not consistently been top ranked teams. Big wins over weak teams to get a great record does not make you a great team when then having to take on a legitimate national program.

By comparison Ala routinely plays LSU, Aub, TN etc

PAC 12 routinely plays OR, USC, UCLA, CAL

Look at Neb now that they play in the Big 10.

B12 is and will remain a mediocre conference simply because of the overall makeup of the teams, and we want more historically mediocre teams like Louisville and BYU or CINN to join

One of us will be proven right I hope you are but I suspect I am

Your scheduling argument is very weak. OU year in and year out has one of the most difficult nonconference schedules in the country. In addition to the future matchups Pete mentioned, since 2001 OU has had home and home series with Alabama, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Miami, Florida State, Notre Dame and Tennessee all of which were high level programs at the time they were scheduled or when they were played. On a lower, but still respectable tier, OU also played TCU (prior to their entry into the big 12), BYU, Cincinnati, Air Force, Tulsa, North Carolina, and will play Houston next year. Like next year with Houston and Ohio St, OU has often faced multiple good nonconference teams during several seasons. Additionally, it's pretty funny that you mention TN as a legitimate national program when referring to who Alabama plays but completely discount OU beating them over the last two seasons.

Who cares if we play teams that are historically good vs currently good? At full strength, Baylor, TCU, and OSU could probably beat half if not most of the SEC, Big 10, and Pac 12 this season. OU had one of the most difficult schedules in the country this season and that is not up for debate.

Besides that, it isn't the lack of competition but lack of size up front and depth that lost this game. We could have played and beaten Alabama 4 times this year and it wouldn't have made a difference last week. For that matter, we played a very similar schedule in 2013 and handily beat Alabama, still considered a power house at the time, in the Sugar Bowl.

Several situations could've gone our way that would've given us a better chance to win, but the bottom line is that we took a 1 point lead into the half, then that same team took the field in the second half and didn't score another point for the rest of the game.We lost to a deeper, bigger, better Clemson team, no amount of planning, preparation or scheduling with this team would've prevented that.

Where to begin…

OU was clearly outmatched physically the entire game. They kept it competitive in the first half, but as is typically shown with teams who have the benches, conditioning, power and stamina advantages, Clemson was able to pull away in the second half and OU, as everyone witnessed, was completely gassed and gasping for air.

Additionally, Mike Stoops had no answer for Watson. None. The defensive line and few blitzes could never get to him fast enough.
We can only hope next season starts off and finishes well, but if they don't learn from this year, the team will be right back fighting these same teams, most likely with the same outcome.

It really stinks losing to Clemson twice, and both times by huge margins.

As for the state of the Big 12, I believe they finished 3-4, with TCU making a miracle comeback win, Baylor, and West Virginia winning their games. I did notice that the Big 12 was outranked in most of their games, so it could be argued one way or another that the Big 12 was playing better teams. But it truly was a sorry state to be in. OKST was probably the most disappointing loss, to be honest. Even over our beloved Sooners.

One last observation from me that other people have already said: the Big 12 lacks size in the trenches. It was the same way against Bama in the Sugar Bowl, but one thing I remember about that game was that OU was using their speed to their advantage on both sides of the ball. That was not done, or perhaps Clemson and the other teams were simply bigger AND faster this time around.

OU's already lost a couple prime starters after declaring, and more will do so over the coming days/weeks.
One bright spot I see is the offensive line being young and coming back. Hopefully they'll be bigger and they should be better after a year.

The talent level at OU is not and has not for several years been at a high enough level.

To help attract top athletes many major football powers have completed their own major football only facilities projects…

Football only facilities are an open book to recruits that don’t lie. They are a very clear indication to good recruits who have many other top choices of how important the sport of football is at that university.
OU has again let its own football only facilities fall behind many others. This has shown up in recruiting and in the win loss records.

The fact that OU did as well as they did this year is a testament to the great coaching job that was done this year to cover up the lack of talent in some areas and also to the players fully buying into the new coaches.

But the simple truth is that if OU’s leadership, boosters and fans want OU to win national titles, to go along with a great coaching staff, OU needs more talent and to recruit more great talent the OU leadership and all OU people need to give these coaches all the necessary tools and make the completion of all 3 phases of OU’s stadium projects the top priority!

It’s the landscape we face in today’s football world.
We are at a turning point in our history! Will we (the money) rise to meet the challenge or not?

There simply is NO comparison when OU as a part of the conference plays historically bad football programs like Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma State (historically) Baylor (historically), West Virginia etc who have not consistently been top ranked teams. Big wins over weak teams to get a great record does not make you a great team when then having to take on a legitimate national program.

By comparison Ala routinely plays LSU, Aub, TN etc

PAC 12 routinely plays OR, USC, UCLA, CAL

Look at Neb now that they play in the Big 10.

B12 is and will remain a mediocre conference simply because of the overall makeup of the teams, and we want more historically mediocre teams like Louisville and BYU or CINN to join

Sure, the SEC includes Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida--all historically strong football programs. It also includes Vanderbilt, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Mississippi State--all historically weak football programs.

In the same regard, the PAC 12 might have USC, UCLA, Stanford (a recent phenomena, mind you), Utah (also recent), and Washington, but it also has weak programs in Oregon State, Washington State, Colorado, and Arizona.

The Big Ten has Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Iowa, but it also has Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers.

The Big XII stacks up similarly. For every Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas State (a relatively recent phenomena), Texas Tech, or Oklahoma State (slightly less recent, but still recent), there's going to be a Kansas, Iowa State, or Baylor (until very recently, anyway).

If any of the Power 5 don't quite match up, it's the ACC. Aside from Florida State, Miami, and Pitt (which has had it rough the last 20 years), there's not a lot of powerfully strong football history in the conference (and of those three, FSU and Miami are relatively recent additions to the ACC). Ultimately that doesn't stop their schools from beating the best of the others when they're better (case in point: Clemson this year; Florida State a couple of years ago).

Sure, the SEC includes Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida--all historically strong football programs. It also includes Vanderbilt, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Mississippi State--all historically weak football programs.

In the same regard, the PAC 12 might have USC, UCLA, Stanford (a recent phenomena, mind you), Utah (also recent), and Washington, but it also has weak programs in Oregon State, Washington State, Colorado, and Arizona.

The Big Ten has Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Iowa, but it also has Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers.

The Big XII stacks up similarly. For every Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas State (a relatively recent phenomena), Texas Tech, or Oklahoma State (slightly less recent, but still recent), there's going to be a Kansas, Iowa State, or Baylor (until very recently, anyway).

If any of the Power 5 don't quite match up, it's the ACC. Aside from Florida State, Miami, and Pitt (which has had it rough the last 20 years), there's not a lot of powerfully strong football history in the conference (and of those three, FSU and Miami are relatively recent additions to the ACC). Ultimately that doesn't stop their schools from beating the best of the others when they're better (case in point: Clemson this year; Florida State a couple of years ago).

Good points, but don't forget Virginia Tech in the ACC. They've been more than solid for the last 2 decades...still doesn't make that conference much better this year, but I don't think it is too far off the Big 10 even with Miami being down. Clemson has also been pretty good for the last 2 decades or so, though they tend to underachieve. In the Big 10, Maryland is historically a good football program, though not so much lately.

As for the state of the Big 12, I believe they finished 3-4, with TCU making a miracle comeback win, Baylor, and West Virginia winning their games. I did notice that the Big 12 was outranked in most of their games, so it could be argued one way or another that the Big 12 was playing better teams. But it truly was a sorry state to be in. OKST was probably the most disappointing loss, to be honest. Even over our beloved Sooners.

I'm not going to be too hard on the Big 12 bowl season this year. It probably should've been Baylor playing Ole Miss in the Sugar Bowl which would've been a much better match up, as OSU vs. UNC would have been. Had Baylor not had to try every skill player on the offense at QB against Texas after the 1st Quarter, they would've won that game by a touchdown or two. As you could see in their bowl game, the guy behind Jarrett Stidham was pretty good and would've been a major help in the second half of the Baylor-Texas game.

On the TCU game, if Boykin doesn't decide to go superthug a few nights before Alamo Bowl, they probably beat Oregon by a TD or two in regulation.

Tech was way overmatched which everyone knew would be the case, but hung with a much better LSU team for most of the game.

The Kansas State loss was pretty bad, though they still looked pretty overmatched. Their wins came against Kansas, Iowa State, South Dakota, UTSA, Louisiana Tech, and West Virginia. Comparatively, Arkansas had a winning record and beat Ole Miss, Tennessee, LSU, and Missouri.

OU's loss was disappointing, though I don't think getting a team into the playoff is that disappointing for the conference.

The talent level at OU is not and has not for several years been at a high enough level.

To help attract top athletes many major football powers have completed their own major football only facilities projects…

OU has again let its own football only facilities fall behind many others. This has shown up in recruiting and in the win loss records.

We are at a turning point in our history! Will we (the money) rise to meet the challenge or not?

To be fair, OU made major facilities upgrades in the early 2000s and jumped out ahead of everyone else. Other schools have caught up over the last few years, but Headington Hall opened in 2013 and the stadium and football facility renovation has been in the works for the last few years.

To be fair, OU made major facilities upgrades in the early 2000s and jumped out ahead of everyone else. Other schools have caught up over the last few years, but Headington Hall opened in 2013 and the stadium and football facility renovation has been in the works for the last few years.
In the minds of most 15 to 18 year old recruits what happened in 2003 with our football facilities is ancient history. But even then… those early 2000 projects left huge parts of the stadium untouched.

When it comes to buildings, Headington Hall is an asset but many football recruits seem to indicate that it’s the football only facilities are what impresses them the most.

OU is still using restrooms, concessions and other untouched parts of the stadium that are about 90 years old. The press box is an eye sore. The stadium lighting was done on the cheap.

Many, many millions of dollars’ worth of modern building space built in the last 20 years has now been destroyed…. There has been a serious failure on OU’s part for long term planning.

The closure of parking on rail road right of way is now causing more than a few fans to walk well over a mile. Thousands of fans leave competitive games early because of parking and traffic congestion issues. This leaves a lasting negative impact with recruits and their (extended) families who in at least a few cases have complained.

This problem is only compounded by a growing number of people who have no intentions of ever attending the game, but only come for the party. This number has been estimated as high as 20,000 by the Norman / OU PD…. but its several thousand for each game

Baker being Baker again. Can you imagine Jason White doing this? LOL


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLHrSS1tD8U

So with Cody Thomas leaving the program, we are one injury away from starting a true freshman. Coaches better tell Baker to start sliding more.

So with Cody Thomas leaving the program, we are one injury away from starting a true freshman. Coaches better tell Baker to start sliding more.

Yep. And two injuries away from not having a scholarship QB. That's not good. What happened to Baylor this season should be a warning to any teams. They had three scholarship QBs go down. OU won't even have that luxury. Although it seems that Stoops is keeping the door open for Thomas to return in the summer/fall if he chooses.

Thought going to the playoff would bolster OU's recruiting to be better than the 20th best class. What's the deal?

Thought going to the playoff would bolster OU's recruiting to be better than the 20th best class. What's the deal?

I'll stop short of saying they don't matter. But the strength of a recruiting class, in terms of these rankings anyway, is a pretty weak correlation of success, either past (i.e. the year or two before) or future....See Texas, UGA, Auburn, USC, many more.

Thought going to the playoff would bolster OU's recruiting to be better than the 20th best class. What's the deal?

You won't see the effects of making this year's playoff until the 2016-17 season recruits.

Baker being Baker again. Can you imagine Jason White doing this? LOL


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLHrSS1tD8U

Jason invested in a partnership for Air Comfort Solutions; that was his backup.

So the guy's a drag queen in his spare time--needs to shave & pad those breasts :wink: . Very few players make it to the NFL & the CFL, so you better have something on the side to back up that college degree.

I'll stop short of saying they don't matter. But the strength of a recruiting class, in terms of these rankings anyway, is a pretty weak correlation of success, either past (i.e. the year or two before) or future....See Texas, UGA, Auburn, USC, many more.

Actually, I think overall the correlation between recruiting rankings and success is pretty high overall.

Thought going to the playoff would bolster OU's recruiting to be better than the 20th best class. What's the deal?

Most of the guys OU recruited in this class had already narrowed down their decisions well before OU's 2015 success started to show. Schools started recruiting guys in this class long before August. While OU could have received more of a bump in this years class, next years class is off to a very strong start.

Recruiting rankings are not everything and there are other important factors to consider (like retention), but there is a correlation between stars/rankings and success for players/programs. OU lost out on a lot of players to other schools this class that they wanted. OU regularly gets beat out by Texas, Baylor, TCU, and the latter two never used to happen. I think this was Stoops lowest ranked recruiting class since his first year, and it follows a trend of lower ranked classes in recent years. During the early to mid 2000s OU regularly finished in or near the top 10 and they have quietly slipped in the last 5-6 years. Here's OU's class rankings according to Rivals:

2016: 19
2015: 14
2014: 15
2013: 15
2012: 11
2011: 14
2010: 7
2009: 13
2008: 6
2007: 14
2006: 9
2005: 3
2004: 11
2003: 4
2002: 7

Most of the guys OU recruited in this class had already narrowed down their decisions well before OU's 2015 success started to show. Schools started recruiting guys in this class long before August. While OU could have received more of a bump in this years class, next years class is off to a very strong start.

Recruiting rankings are not everything and there are other important factors to consider (like retention), but there is a correlation between stars/rankings and success for players/programs. OU lost out on a lot of players to other schools this class that they wanted. OU regularly gets beat out by Texas, Baylor, TCU, and the latter two never used to happen. I think this was Stoops lowest ranked recruiting class since his first year, and it follows a trend of lower ranked classes in recent years. During the early to mid 2000s OU regularly finished in or near the top 10 and they have quietly slipped in the last 5-6 years. Here's OU's class rankings according to Rivals:

2016: 19
2015: 14
2014: 15
2013: 15
2012: 11
2011: 14
2010: 7
2009: 13
2008: 6
2007: 14
2006: 9
2005: 3
2004: 11
2003: 4
2002: 7

What Dan wrote is absolutely true. OU went very heavy on the JC route to try to compensate for the lack of HS recruiting. It wasn't a bad class by any stretch, we got some great players, but these numbers Dan posted do tell a story. So much is different these days in recruiting these kids and so many things need changing - especially in the commitment process.

Just an aside, I think OU landed a very good recruit in Erik Swenson at the last minute due to incompetence at Michigan. (A reminder that commitments go both ways.)

What Dan wrote is absolutely true. OU went very heavy on the JC route to try to compensate for the lack of HS recruiting. It wasn't a bad class by any stretch, we got some great players, but these numbers Dan posted do tell a story. So much is different these days in recruiting these kids and so many things need changing - especially in the commitment process.

Just an aside, I think OU landed a very good recruit in Erik Swenson at the last minute due to incompetence at Michigan. (A reminder that commitments go both ways.)

Also, 5 star transfer Kyler Murray is not included in those rankings. If he was, it would be a much higher class.

I'm glad Mia Molitor has been strong enough to move on with her life and now tell her story, but I've been so embarrassed by the way the OU program and community treated her.

http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/5037598290001

I'm glad Mia Molitor has been strong enough to move on with her life and now tell her story, but I've been so embarrassed by the way the OU program and community treated her.

http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/5037598290001
Dead horse. Time to move on. If she really wanted to put this all behind her, she would not have contacted the Jokelahoman and BT to do the article.

Dead horse. Time to move on. If she really wanted to put this all behind her, she would not have contacted the Jokelahoman and BT to do the article.

Well, the point of the article is that it's not a deadhorse. It's her life. And silencing victims isn't a good way to move forward. I'm disappointed she seems to have received so little support from the university.

^

What should OU have done for her that they didn't?

Well, the point of the article is that it's not a deadhorse. It's her life. And silencing victims isn't a good way to move forward. I'm disappointed she seems to have received so little support from the university.
Oh I agree, it is admirable that she went on a got a degree, etc. However, the real point of the article is to paint Mixon and OU in a continued negative light. BT might as well have bestowed Sainthood on her. She was far from innocent in this situation. If you have followed BT for anytime, and I'm sure you have, you know he has an anti-OU agenda just under the surface in everything that he writes. And to reiterate what Pete said, what did you want the university to do for her?

She was treated like the criminal by the fans, the university, the police, the restaurant, the students, etc..... Mr Mixon should have been released from the team, but once again we are reminded that football is more important than domestic violence which caused severe harm to a woman.

We seen an entire fraternity get removed from campus for singing a vulgar song about lynching someone and we seen the football team stand together and March for solidarity, yet where were these guys at or their coach when we had a man breaking a woman's jaw?

It's always one sided anymore these days, nothing makes since anymore.

First, I disagree that Berry is anti-OU. I think a lot of OU fans want propaganda, not journalism. He's written more than enough feel-good OU stories for a lifetime. I've always thought Berry is the best sports journalist in the state because he's a unique thinker. I don't always agree with him, but I respect him.

First, I've heard almost no mention of how Boren, Stoops, or anyone else reached out to Molitor to apologize and connect her with support services like counseling. And I can't even tell you how many insults and blaming the victim I've heard from OU fans. I've consistently heard OU fans even say she deserved to be hit. We obviously have a long way to go in respect to sexism (blaming the victim, shaming of Molitor), rape culture (see Stanford, Baylor cases), and violence against women (see OU's Justin Chaisson, DGB, Mixon, etc.).

I just think the OU community should have bent over backward to support her. From everything I've heard, she was kind of just on her own. If that's incorrect on the university-side then please let me know. I know the university bent over backwards to make things work for Mixon (which they should once they decided to not expel him) and she deserves even better support. I know our fans have been embarrassing.

I think OU has made major mistakes in handling Mixon too, but that's been talked about plenty so I won't rehash that here.

First, I disagree that Berry is anti-OU. I think a lot of OU fans want propaganda, not journalism. He's written more than enough feel-good OU stories for a lifetime. I've always thought Berry is the best sports journalist because he's a unique thinker. I don't always agree with him, but I respect him.

First, I've heard almost no mention of how Boren, Stoops, or anyone else reached out to Molitor to provide her support, counceling, etc. And I can't even tell you how many insults and blaming the victim I've heard from OU fans. I've consistently heard OU fans even say she deserved to be hit. I wish we'd heard from her, "You know the incident was terrible and I'm still dealing with it, but OU's support has been overwhelming." This does not seem to be the case. We obviously have a long way to go in respect to sexism (blaming the victim, shaming of Molitor), rape culture (see Stanford, Baylor cases), and violence against women (see OU's Justin Chaisson, DGB, Mixon, etc.).

I just think the OU community should have bent over backward to support her. From everything I've heard, she was kind of just on her own. If that's incorrect on the university-side then please let me know. I know the university bent over backwards to make things work for Mixon (which they should once they decided to not expel him) and she deserves even better support. I know our fans have been embarrassing.

I think OU has made major mistakes in handling Mixon too, but that's been talked about plenty so I won't rehash that here.

^

That article was written completely from Molitor's perspective and she is clearly angry and bitter. Perhaps justifiably so, but still completely from her point of view.

We have no idea what Boren and anyone else from OU did for her. I seriously doubt they just 'left her on her own'.

There is also a bunch of legal matters surrounding this that may have caused the school to keep a certain distance.


I agree a lot of fans were very harsh on her, but that's fans... Not the university.

I'm not sure "angry and bitter" are fair adjectives. It makes it seem like she's just emotional. She was very seriously physically assaulted. That leaves both physical and mental scars that can run very deep.

You may be right that OU has provided her support, but (a) there's no report of that I've seen anywhere and (b) universities' nation-wide have failed to support assaulted women. It happened repeatedly all over the country so I don't think it's safe to assume OU has done it well. And Molitor is the only source and she has not indicated she's received significant support.

Like a lot of cases, we're working from an information deficit, but OU could have handled this entire case -- from Mixon's side to Molitor's -- way better. Even in spite of potential civil suits, it's important to current and future female students that they understand OU is not Baylor. That they support victims.

She and her family were lifelong and huge OU supporters and are now saying they will no longer support the university or send their family to school there.

I think that's pretty much the definition of angry and bitter.

Again, perhaps she's entitled but forming opinions from this article is risky business considering her point of view.

She and her family were lifelong and huge OU supporters and are now saying they will no longer support the university or send their family to school there.

I think that's pretty much the definition of angry and bitter.

Again, perhaps she's entitled but forming opinions from this article is risky business considering her point of view.

I'm sure she is angry and bitter for no reason. You are trying to portray even handedness, but then do everything you can to discredit the victim.

I'm not trying to discredit anyone.

I am merely stating that i wouldn't draw a lot of conclusions about what the university did and didn't do from this article.

She and her family were lifelong and huge OU supporters and are now saying they will no longer support the university or send their family to school there.

I think that's pretty much the definition of angry and bitter.

Again, perhaps she's entitled but forming opinions from this article is risky business considering her point of view.

First, I think you're misreading Molitor's views of OU. First, instead of fleeing OU, she returned to finish her degree. I can't imagine how difficult that must be. That doesn't seem like the "definition of angry and bitter." Furthermore, throughout the article she talks about her complicated emotions about OU. She even says she still is an OU fan, but she can't watch games with the guy who punched her in the face so hard that it required surgery and recovery. And if I was her dad or brother, I promise you that I would not be able to watch OU games either. I don't think that would make me angry or bitter, but human.

Regardless of your intention, it is dismissive to call her "angry and bitter." Would you do the same for women seeking justice in court? Can you imagine a lawyer in court saying, I'm not sure we should listen to this assault victim because she seems "angry and bitter"? Doing this also supports the very sexist narrative that is popular online that we can dismiss Molitor personally by destroying her character and the long-held narrative that women are emotional and their perspectives can be dismissed. I've seen her called a slut, whore, feminist (used as an insult), criminal (because of one weed conviction during college), and much more. Dismissing the point of view of a victim of a serious physical assault without any evidence that anything she's said is incorrect just supports the sexism online that only cares about Mixon's status and not hers. I am not saying you're sexist or buying into those narratives, but they are the primary ones online, which makes it important how we discuss this case.

Second, the reason Molitor's perspective is so important is because OU has created a total void of information by mishandling this case. And I'm not talking about Mixon's punishment, which is another discussion. Since the incident, Mixon has shown no remorse or humility on any level. Everyone keeps vouching for him, but all we've heard from him is that he's going to "silence his haters" on social media as if he's the victim somehow. OU should have brought him out to talk to the media shortly after. There are many things that could have been said without incriminating himself for a civil suit. For example, even just having Mixon release a statement or say something like, "I would like to apologize to the OU community for the distraction I have caused for my team. And I hope to one day speak on the case at hand, but I cannot due to potential pending litigation. I am working to become a better person in the meantime and grow as a student-athlete." Instead, OU just said almost nothing. Instead, he doesn't talk to the media until the Orange Bowl and when asked about it Mixon defiantly and coldly response, "talk to my lawyer." This is also accompanied by the lack of communication from OU's leaders on the issue.

Any assumption that OU has helped her is just an assumption because there is no evidence they've supported her. And we've seen cases across the country where victims of physical and emotional violence do not receive support and end up leaving the school (which is often what the university wants). So, yes, her voice is important and also corresponds with everything else I've heard.

As you hopefully know, I respect you a lot Pete so none of this is meant as an attack on you.

Spare me the 'blaming the victim' stuff.

I never, ever said we shouldn't listen to her ONLY that her statements in this article and the piece in general provides zero reason to draw the assumptions YOU are making, such as what OU should have done differently, and what they did and didn't do.

I'm not trying to discredit anyone.

I am merely stating that i wouldn't draw a lot of conclusions about what the university did and didn't do from this article.

Except the conclusion that she is angry and bitter?

I just think in this case you are all kinds of in the wrong, regardless of who is at fault and who did or didn't do what.

Except the conclusion that she is angry and bitter?

I just think in this case you are all kinds of in the wrong, regardless of who is at fault and who did or didn't do what.

There are people who are hateful / jealous fans of other teams and others who disagree with the decision to keep Mixon on the team and it seems to me they are trying to use this piece to to grind their ax, even though there is absolutely nothing new here other than hearing her voice, which is expectedly negative in some respects.

That is my issue.