OU Sooners top games #4-5

SoonerSports.com has released #'s 4 and 5 in their Top 10 Sooner football wins of the 2000's, and to me they're both shocking in that they're rated this low.

#5 is the 2000 A&M Game

OU trailed 24-10 before scoring 22 in the fourth quarter en route to a 35-31 victory in front of 87,000 plus at Kyle Field. The Aggies had only lost 6 times at home over the previous 12 years, but Torrence Marshall's INT return was the epitome of Sooner Magic.

#4 is the 2000 Nebraska game

This to me should've been 1 or 2. It was legitimately billed as the 'Game of the Century' part 2. Coming into the game, which followed a bye week for OU, the Sooners were ranked #2 in the BCS poll right behind the Huskers. Nebraska scored long TD's on each of its first two drives and things looked bleak for OU. But Josh Heupel and the Sooners dominated the Blackshirts in the second quarter with 24 points and taking a 10 point lead into the break. Derrick Strait opened the third quarter with an INT return for a TD to seal the win. I'll never forget seeing the oranges fly onto the field and fans tear down the goal post.

The reason I felt that was so awesome was because two years earlier, I was sitting in the sound endzone watching OU lose to Cal and had a conversation about how crappy the stadium was looking and how it would be amazing to see an upper deck on the east side of Memorial Stadium. Someone said, "I'm sure they'd get the money for that if they could come up and win a national title or two," to which I sarcastically replied, "yeah, I'll just sit right here and wait for that to happen."

The fall of 2000 was my senior year of high school, and that made it even more special. I'd been a lifelong Sooner fan, but let's be honest, it's really hard for a teenager to intently follow a crappy team game in and game out. The fact that OU was rarely televised made it even worse. But 2000 changed that. It was magical. The Nebraska game solidified the fact that OU football was really back. The wins over Texas and K-State were great, but had the Huskers gone on to beat OU, chances are the rest of that season wouldn't have really mattered.

Anyhoo, with three spots left, I'm not really sure what to expect. I'm guessing the 2001 Orange Bowl will be number one. 2002 OU-Alabama could be up there. So could 2004 OU-Texas A&M, 2002 OU-Texas, or the 2006 Big XII Title game against Nebraska. Stay tuned...

Oklahoma City Thunder?

Click on the link for the article.

Apparently, the NBA franchise formerly known as the Sonics will be the Oklahoma City Thunder, in a report from KOCO. 'The Thunder' won an online, fan voting contest conducted by The Oklahoman. If this is indeed going to be the new name of OUR basketball team in this great state, it's going to have to grow on me, and fast.

I don't so much like it, for a few reasons...

1) I don't like team names that don't end in 's.' Only six other professional teams (in the big 4 sports) do it. But the Jazz, the Lightning, the Heat, the Magic, the Wild, and the Avalanche to me are all pretty cheesy, with the possible exception of the Colorado Avalanche. Only two baseball teams fall in this category, sort of (both of the 'Sox' but at least their name sounds plural).

Shoot, of the 119 Div 1 college football teams (and I only count 1-A as 'Division 1'), only 12 have names that don't end in S, and some of them at least use a plural form of the name (Navy Midshipmen, Illinois Fighting Illini, Notre Dame Fighting Irish) a couple use a simple color as their name (Syracuse Orange, Stanford Cardinal), and a few use the collective name for a group of animals (NC State/Nevada Wolfpack, Marshall Thundering Herd). The ones that inexplicably use a non-S name are Alabama (Crimson Tide), Tulsa (Golden Hurricane), Tulane (Green Wave), and North Texas (Mean Green, which is a tribute to legendary alum 'Mean' Joe Green. They used to be called the Eagles.)

2) While 'the Thunder' is neat in that it depicts our well known stormy weather, I'd rather have had a name that some how relates to the heritage and history of Oklahoma, ala the 'Sooners.' The most obvious choice would be something relating to our Native American heritage, but that's apparently not kosher in this overly polically correct society of ours, especially considering that a state school just had to change its name from the classy and harmless 'Redmen' to the lame 'River Hawks.' Even though there isn't really even just one tribe that directly relates to Oklahoma (like Illinois Illini), the name of the state literally means Red People! Plus, there are still a handful of pro teams using Indian-related names (Cleveland Indians, Washington Redskins), and just because a team uses an Indian name doesn't mean that particular group of people have to be portrayed as savages. Even using a non-S name like 'The Tribe' would've been cool.

Or they could've picked something that more accurately represents the culture and history of Oklahoma, like the Buffalo, which just so happens to be the state mammal (ok, so it's actually the 'American Bison,' but who's really keeping track anyway). I'd have even settled for the Sandbass or Bullfrogs (the state fish and amphibian, respectively). Or why not the Gamblers? I'm just saying...

That's partially why I wanted the Thunderbirds, because that was a great Native American symbol, and plus we could've have numerous "Grease" T-Bird comparisons.

Once again, ESPN sticks it to the Sooner tradition

For the second time this summer, ESPN has basically stuck it to the tradition and grandeur of the Oklahoma Sooners. First, Norman wasn't listed among the 20 finalists for 'TitleTown USA.' I don't necessarily think that Norman is TitleTown, but when 9 other college sports towns are listed, I think Norman at least needs to be mentioned in their same collective breath. It wasn't just Norman that was shafted either; South Bend, IN was also left out. In particular, Gainesville, FL and Lawrence, KS are finalists. Louisville was listed, mainly for being the home of the Kentucky Derby (which isn't a sport) and Mohamed Ali, but their SportsCenter feature definitely showed as much of their Cardinals as it did either of the other two.

Several other towns were mentioned, as much for their past and dominating big time sports such as crew and swimming, Ann Arbor (Michigan), Columbus (THE Ohio State), Palo Alto (Stanford), and Knoxville (Tennessee) among them. Of those, Michigan most definitely is falling on its past in other sports. While their football team usually wins 9 games a year, they have one national title in the past half decade (which should really be more credited to Nebraska in 97), and their basketball team has been a joke since the Fab 5 (who didn't win anything, I remind you). I guess hockey is keeping them going... At least Columbus can claim Jack Nicklaus, and Knoxville can claim Pat Summitt and the Lady Vols, but that's about it really. But, I digress...

The newest shafting comes in ESPN's 'Coolest College Football Helmet' tournament, which pits the alleged 16 'best' helmets against each other in a contest in which fans vote on each match up. And, in fairness to the contest, I didn't see anything where it rated them in terms of tradition. Anyway, the first round match ups are as follows: (click on the name of each school to see a real picture of their helmet)

Paterno Bracket
Georgia Bulldogs vs. Miami Hurricanes (Georgia has already won round one)

Oregon Ducks (and I'm assuming they're only referring to the green helmet) vs. Texas A&M Aggies

Penn State Nitany Lions vs. Clemson Tigers

Alabama Crimson Tide vs. Nevada Wolfpack

Bowden Bracket:

Michigan Wolverines vs. Arizona State Sun Devils

Texas Longhorns vs. Notre Dame Fighting Irish

Southern California Trojans vs. South Florida Bulls

THE Ohio State Buckeyes vs. Florida State Seminoles (This is classic match up of helmets that get less crappy as the season goes on.

Ok, now on to my thoughts (you knew this was coming...). When I think about cool helmets, I'm a stickler for those that have always been cool. Some of these are really cool helmets that have stood the test of time (Michigan, Notre Dame). Penn State's helmets are gorgeous. Sure, they're plain white, but when paired with the simple nitany blue jerseys and plain white pants, they're perfect. Here's my team-by-team critique.

- Georgia - Would've been much cooler if they'd made their own G logo rather than copying one of the most legendary sports logos of all time, Green Bay Packers.
- Miami - One of the coolest since their inception in 1976. Respect the U!
- Oregon - I, for one, love their uniforms and they have cool helmets too, as long as they stick with green. However it should be noted that these helmets are just now entering their 10th year.
- Texas A&M - One of the first games I ever remember watching as a Texas A&M game just a few weeks after my brother was born, so I've always thought the big block T and small A M were cool. But if I were them, I'd ditch the A&M and just constantly go with a large T and refer to myself as 'Texas Aggies.' That would be the ultimate eff-you to the rest of the state.
- Penn State - The only time in their history to wear anything different was a 7 season span (68-74) where they added numbers on the side. Otherwise, these are awesome.
- Clemson - The first entry I really question. They're not really that neat, and do a big bold orange and purple really go well together? They get bonus points for the 'running down the hill' intro, but that's about it.
- Alabama - The only year these haven't been used was 1969 when the Tide (like many other teams) dawned a '100' logo in honor of college football's centennial. Even the white helmets the team wore in the 50's are cool.
- Nevada - Props for going with the small WAC school, but these are just plain ugly. If you're inviting a BCS spoiler to this party, at least pick a team that has actually been a BCS spoiler (Boise State or Hawaii... even their silver ones). They both have much cooler helmets and color schemes.
- Michigan - Probably the most iconic of helmet designs. Even their imitators look pretty good.
- Arizona State - They make maroon and mustard look pretty cool. The colors have always been the same, and the Sparky logo has stuck since 1980.
- Notre Dame - The only other school to make a plain helmet look good for years and years. And years.
- Texas - The Longhorn logo is perhaps the most arrogant logo on the planet. That's all I want to say.
- USC - They've used some variation of this helmet design since 1972, and they get bonus points for using the gray facemasks since 2001.
- South Florida - They get my vote for worst helmets on this list. Seriously, what makes them cool? They're the worst in their own conference!
- THE Ohio State - I really don't like them at all, but the Buckeye stickers are cool to an extent. A little overrated in my humblest of opinions.
- Florida State - Like their first round opponent, these look much better with the pride stickers attached, this time it's a tomahawk. Overall, though, I'd say these are cool but not among the best in college football.

If making this list were up to me (and it obviously wasn't), South Florida, Nevada, Florida State and maybe even THE Ohio State would've been left out. My rankings would've been as follows...

1) Michigan
2) Penn State
3) Notre Dame
4) Alabama
5) Texas A&M
6) Southern Cal
7) Oklahoma
8) Nebraska
9) Miami, FL
10) Tennessee
11) Texas
12) Boise State
13) Oregon
14) Arizona State
15) THE Ohio State
16) Florida

Sorry to sound like a Big 12 homer, but these four teams have all had cool lids for decades. Of the four schools and their respective current helmet designs, Nebraska was the last to adopt theirs... in 1970.

Anyway, thanks for reading a completely meaningless blog. I'll be back to post more meaninglessness about uniform related thoughts in due time. As always, if you're still reading this, you need a hobby.

I forgot to add...

One more thing about The Dark Knight...


One of the trailers they showed before TDK was for "Terminator: Salvation," which is the first of a new Terminator trilogy. I didn't realize they were that far along in making the three new movies. I'd read they were probably gonna be made, but I thought they weren't in the post-production phase just yet. Not only is the movie coming out in summer of '09, but Christian Bale will be playing John Connor.

The countdown hath commenced...

THE DARK KNIGHT!!!

*** SPOILERS WILL FOLLOW - If you've yet to see the movie and don't want me ruining it for you, don't ready this until later.***

"The Dark Knight," the sequel to the great "Batman Begins" by Christopher Nolan, is quite possibly the greatest movie I've seen when compared to the hype that preceded it. And that's not to say it's just better than other over-hyped movies. This movie simply blew away the hype that came along with it. I went to watch this movie at the midnight premiere, so it was totally worth not getting to bed until well after three am.

Typically, you get what you expect with a summer blockbuster, especially when it's an action and/or comic book styled flick. Even recently, I was entertained by Will Smith's "Hancock," but it's definitely not a movie I'll rave about. While I do think it was one of Smith's funnier movies, I wasn't really held to the edge of my seat, nor was I left wondering what would happen next. Even the big major plot twist in the film didn't totally catch me off guard. The special effects were overdone and the fight scenes looked way too unrealistic.

However, with TDK, special effects are only noticeable in one scene, and even there they look quite realistic. Most of the stunts, car crashes and explosions are actually stunts, car crashes and explosions, and the movie was filmed in Chicago, which gives it a realistic city feel. 

Now, on to the movie itself.

Batman Begins introduced us to a terrified, tormented, and vengeful protagonist named Bruce Wayne, who actually became Batman. By the end of the movie, it was clear that Batman was the real person and Bruce Wayne was actually the alter ego. (as a reflection of what he was inside). TDK takes this a step further, almost borrowing a sub-plot from Spider-Man 2, in that Bruce is constantly looking for an out to be Batman no more. This is partly because the people of Gotham hate him, and for various reasons; namely, the Joker constantly terrorizes the city and kills countless people because he wants Batman to reveal who he is under the mask. People blame Batman for the death of cops, including the commissioner, and also a judge. The other main reason Batman wants out is give Bruce Wayne a shot with the love of his life, Rachel Dawes, in is instead in love with new DA Harvey Dent. The movie keeps a constant running inner debate for Bruce.

Meanwhile, Heath Ledger's Joker completely lived up to the hype that he was receiving. I'd think the Joker would be one of the tougher roles to pull off in a movie because of the corny and cheesy versions that came before it. In the 60's Batman movies, Ceaser Romero played basically a practical joker; he had jack-in-the-box traps, an exploding octopus, and was known to use a shock-buzzer on his hand when shaking hands with someone else. He had pale skin and green hair and that was about it.

In 1989's Tim Burton Batman, Jack Nicholson took the character a step further. He was scared second-hand by Batman (he fired a gun at the Bat and Batman deflected it back through the cheeks of Jack), fell into a vat of chemicals which stained his skin white, and required surgery to fix his face, which left him with a permanent grin. But, still, Nicholson's Joker played on the campy, out-witting style that Romero did in the 60's. While Nicholson pulled this off to perfection, the character wasn't entirely unpredictable.

Ledger's Joker is an absolute maniacal freak. He does things that make no sense, even to himself sometimes. He tells everyone a different back story about his scars, and then uses clown makeup to cover them up. He has no plan other than to try and one-up himself with every crime he pulls. The scene were he confronts Harvey 'Two-Face' in the hospital was one of the best movies scenes in recent memory. He basically turns Harvey Dent into the murderous Two-Face by convincing him that when plans are made, people will always find a way to corrupt those plans and stab you in the back.

The Joker was a character I both loved and hated. I loved him because he was a hilarious person. He didn't walk around literally cracking jokes and trying to out-smart everyone, but rather he was the most socially backward and out-cast movie villain I can remember. He doesn't at all care what people think about him or his appearance. His makeup is nasty and caked on, his hair is greasy, and while sitting there watching the movie, you can almost imagine how horrible he'd smell. But I hate the man because he commits crimes for his own entertainment. He has no empathy for anyone else. He'll kill anyone for any reason, an he'll rob banks just for the sheer joy and thrill, not to get any money. And even in all his random so-called no plan of villainy, he does indeed have a grand plan.

As for other characters, I was left scratching my head a little about Harvey Dent/Two-Face. I thought Aaron Eckhart did a great job with the two roles, but I just wondered where Two-Face really fit in with this movie. After seeing the previews, I really felt like this movie would set up Two-Face to be the bad guy in New Batman 3, but that's obviously not going to happen after he dies at the end of this one (while the Joker wasn't necessarily killed off... we were left to wonder about that one). In the 25 or so minutes he's Two-Face, Harvey only takes out his rage on people that he felt double-crossed him and led to the death of Rachel. In reality, the Joker was directly responsible for her death, as he not only kidnapped both Rachel and Harvey, but in telling Batman where each of them was located, he intentionally swapped their locations, knowing that Batman would take off to save Rachel. When the caped crusader instead arrives to save Harvey (and Rachel was too far away for the police to reach in time), the Joker knows that this will drive Harvey insane.

As Two-Face, Harvey kills a couple cops and some related with the mob, deciding the fate of each one on a coin flip. I liked that the character didn't become a vicious mass murderer, because that really would've just been a copy of the Joker. And he really didn't even have that last-minute redemption that is so expected from most movie bad guys. But Batman and Commissioner Gordon decide that letting the public think that Harvey Dent died noble and with honor rather than as a psycho will preserve him as the hero they needed him to be.

My only complaint is that I was a little confused about Two-Face. I was pretty surprised with the choices of who died and didn't die (Two-Face and Rachel die while the Joker doesn't), but none of my complaints are strong enough this to not be one of my favorite movies of all-time, if not THE favorite. I've always been a huge Batman fan, and this movie certainly live up to my expectations. I don't normally throw these around, but it was one of the few I ranked a 10 on imdb.com. 

Batman takes the wrap for all the murders Harvey committed, telling Gordon that in order to make Dent in deed be the hero, Batman himself would once again become the vigilante. As Batman rides off on the Bat-Pod with police in tow, Godron tells his son "He'll forever be in the shadows, our Dark Knight." It basically sets up the movie to be a good finisher to a two-part series, but it also leaves unlimited room for additional sequels. Judging by the hype and expected box office dollars for this movie, I'm not willing to bet this will be the end. I certainly hope not, anyway.

2000's Oklahoma Sooners games #6-7

The number 6 OU Football game of the 2000's is the 2007 Big 12 Title game between the Sooners and Missouri Tigers. Billed as the rematch of a late October showdown in which the Sooners won 41-31 (after Mizzou 'let them off the hook' according to Chase "Chubs" Daniel), OU responded by whipping the #1 Tigers all over San Antonio in the second half en route to a 38-17 victory, after the score was tied at 14 at the half. With the win, the Sooners became the first team to ever repeat as Big 12 champions, and won the fifth conference title in eight seasons. It was the 41st conference title in school history.

At number seven was the 2001 OU-Texas game, which was a simple defensive slug fest that will forever be remembered by one play. After sophomore QB Jason White came in in relief for Nate Hybl (who left with a shoulder injury), the Sooners optioned their way down the field for the games only TD in the second quarter. After a mistake by Texas DB Nathan Vasher, the Longhorns started a possession on their own 2 yard line with just over two minutes left. On first down, Roy Williams leapt over a blocker and landed on the throwing arm of Chris Sims. The ball fluttered into the hands of Teddy Lehman who waltzed in for the clinching TD. On the very next play for Texas, 'Superman' picked off Sims and the Sooners won for the second year in a row over Texas, 14-3.

#8 - OU-Texas, 2004
#9 - OU-Kansas State, 2000
#10 - OU-Alabama, 2003

My predictions for the future... I'm trying to think of what the top five will be. In all honesty, I can't even remember the nominees or what I voted for. The voting for this category was held back in late spring...

Anyhoo, I'm guessing the top two will be the 2000 Nebraska game and the 2000 National Title game against Florida State, not necessarily in that order. Also in the top 5 will be the 2000 & 2004 games against Texas A&M, and possibly the 2006 Big 12 Title game.

In a truly objective poll, the 2007 Fiesta Bowl against Boise State should probably be in the top 2 or 3, but I'm not sure how fans will rank that one, or if the category includes losses. I can't think of any other games the Sooners lost that could be counted as "great games" in the true objective definition.

Every Hero Has His Obstacles

Click on the title to read a great article by ESPN's Peter Gammons.

Like most of you, I sat and watched the Home Run Derby last night and was blown away by Josh Hamilton. Just the show he put on itself was amazing, but when you throw in his story, it's like watching a movie that would be too corny if it weren't true.

There are a lot of yokels out there who don't want to give much credit or any second chances to drug users or people who throw away a great gift such as incredible athletic talent. I know, because I'm often one of those yokels. I hate seeing seeing someone that can do the remarkable care more about their next high than their next home run, next diving catch, next touchdown or slam dunk. But it's easy for me to sit back and point a finger, because I've never had the grasp of drug addiction hang on to me and not let go.

It's easy to not feel sorry for drug addicts. True, often times people are a product of their own environment, and it's true that some people feel they have no where else to go. But they are the ones who make the decision to start drugs. They, themselves, start the addiction. And then they, and only they, are the ones who have to make the decision to help themselves and stop the addiction.

I sat alone in an office and watched the Derby Monday night and found myself literally applauding and yelling in amazement at the long, majestic homers he launched into the Yankee Stadium night. I felt like a kid watching someone who's only a year older than me, and it reminded me that despite all the negatives and all the black clouds over the past 15 years, baseball is still the pure, American pasttime that can bring us together and root for the underdog.

I read through several negative comments to Gammons' article about glorifying addicts or convaluting the Hamilton story because he claims he has to take a buddy with him everywhere he goes for accountability (people claiming if he needs accountability, he hasn't truly beat his demons). I think it shows responsibility. For some people, temptation is their greatest fear.

But in the grand scope of things, I think Josh Hamilton can be considered a hero. He's the story of second chances, that people truly can change. Only time will tell if he turns out to be a true star and the five tool stud everyone thought he was in the late 90's, or if he'll flame out. I'm certainly rooting for the former. He's the one player that could play for my least favorite teams (cough, cough, Red Sox or Cubs) and I'd still root for him to do the impossible. Because, at least for one night, there were no fans of the Yankees or Red Sox or Rangers or Cardinals, just fans of the game.