The Streak

  • Thread starter Thread starter RockyMtnSooner
  • Start date Start date
R

RockyMtnSooner

Guest
Blackshirt asked about the win streak and I thought all you historians might want to know a few facts (some which I just learned) about Bud's streak so I started this thread.

The streak started in 1953 and ended in 1957. The Sooners won 74 straight conference games and an all-time Division I-A record 47 overall wins in a row. They won the 1955 and 1956 National Championships. They tied Pittsburgh in 1953 prior to the streak which kept them from winning the 1954 NC and lost to Notre Dame (an 18 point dog) in 1957, 7-0.

*Here is the amazing stat: During the streak, Oklahoma averaged 34.5 points and its opponents 5.9.

That is dominating!

 
Wow that is impressive. And actually that was my question to you RMS so thanks for the reply!! Man the word parity didnt even exist back then did it. Amazing.

 
I didnt realize that. That is damn good. But you have to admit RMS that the Husker streak in the 90's was probably moreso considering the parity like Nu Era mentioned. Dynasties were a lot more prevalent in the "old" days b/c the teams were so lopsided. It was almost unfair. But still, that is great tradition. Good for you guys.

 
Yes, the Huskers of the 90's were very impressive in the parity era of sports. I for one hate the Yankees, BUT I'm glad they got A-Rod, because that gives the sport another dynasty type team that others can shoot for. I find sports much more exciting when there is a dynasty team. The Cowboys in the mid 90's, OU in the 50's, NU in the 90's, the Yankee's, the old Celtics and Lakers teams, the MJ Bulls, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams, Dale Earnhardt (I know the last three aren't teams). It makes it more fun when you are on the seemingly invincible side of the dynasty and when you are the underdog with a chance for a monumental victory.

Just my opinion.....Yours?

 
I agree RockyMtnSooner. I do like to see a good dynasty in sports. But I like a dynasty that has a challenger much better. It gives it a lot more pizazz. Thats why I loved it when it was the Celtics and Lakers every year. But watching Serena piss pound everyone got boring. She always even beat the crap out of Venus. Maybe I didn't like it because I am more of a Venus fan, but the point is I hope there is a team out there who can challenge the Yankees. I think the Red Sox wouldn't of been able to do that even if they had A-Rod. It will be interesting to watch.

 
The sox will compete with the yanx. and A-rod wudve helped them do that even more. but still, look at the past 3 world series champs. Angels, D-backs, marlins. all small to mid market teams.

sure dynasties are great for sports. I agree rms. they provide that important villian role. the emotions of love and hate are 2 of the strongest and result in increased interest no matter which is involved.

 
Yep, agreed. I too prefer the dynastic era over the parity era. man that sounded pretty intelligent huh?..

But seriously, I think its important for a team to set the bar like the Yanks, that way other teams have something to shoot for. And like Bob said, when that villain exists, it stimulates interest in the game from all corners.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top