Originally published at: https://pistolsfiringblog.com/25-for-25-ranking-oklahoma-states-top-teams-since-2000/
We made it 25 years through the century so to celebrate PFB took on the enormous task of ranking the top 25 Oklahoma State teams to compete across all sports since the year 2000. The following list touches on nine different sports and includes numerous national championships bookended by national titles won in both 2000 and 2025. Notes: In a few select cases multiple seasons were combined into a single entry. This was done to include championship teams with significant overlap. The top 20 of this list was done through an internal vote. We get into rational for our selections in this roundtable discussion. (LINK) Spots 21-25 were done through a vote in our forum, which you can sign up for here. 25. Womenâs Tennis 2016 Record: 29-5 (9-0) National Finish: Runner-up The Cowgirls fell one point short of a national championship against Stanford in the programâs only national championship appearance and the deciding point was extremely competitive. Oklahoma Stateâs path to championship required them to beat No. 1 California which entered the day with only one prior loss. Former Cowgirl Katarina Adamovic dominated the postseason in both doubles and singles play, recording victories over the No. 5, 7 andâŚ
That was 5 minutes Iâll never get back. I donât care if theyâre minor sports: your teams with a Natty season should always be ranked ahead of teams in sports that donât win Nattyâs.
#20 for '25 menâs golf is WAY TOO LOW!
I agree. I appreciate the thought that went into this, but it was definitely overthought. National title teams have to be ranked above non-championship teams.
How dumb. Third best finish in the country, but itâs the schoolâs best team in a quarter century?!
Thereâs one revenue sport in college sports (unless youâre like Duke or Kentucky). It is the most competitive sport by far. Yes, missing the national title game by a hairâs breadth is more impressive than a wrestling title of which there are fewer teams competing and even fewer competitive ones.
Congratulations on your third place finish.
I have to agree as well. National title winning teams should be at the top of the list then those who came close.
Revenue wasnât listed as a factor. I could add more to my comment, but wonât.
Iâm talking about revenue because revenue makes it the focus of every athletics department. Itâs more competitive. How many schools are really putting resources into wrestling and golf? A dozen? Less?
I understand that football generates the revenue for the other sports. But football hasnât been as great as baseball in the past 25 years. Hasnât been as good as softball in the past 5 years. Hasnât been as good as menâs golf or wrestling ever. In terms of ranking the top 25 Ok State teams, natty teams should go first, even if they are minor sports. The list was based upon team success, not revenue generated.
Success in the revenue sports is a higher level of competition. Winning a bronze in the Olympics is a bigger achievement than winning your intramural flag football title.
I think youâre not hearing what Iâm actually saying. Iâm not saying making the most money is a bigger achievement. Iâm saying that the bulk of resources of all universities are focused on revenue sports, ergo, it is the highest level of competition.
Thatâs the reason they sell so many foam fingers saying âWeâre number 3â.
Whole lot of teams on this list that didnât win a thing. Not a natty. Not even a conference title. Are we, as a school, really this unserious about winning?
2nd question: Based on the items selected, why is '21 football ranked 7th, but '23 football, which also ended in a conference title game appearance, not even worthy of âhonorable mentionâ. Your ranking mechanisms seem very inconsistent.
Theyâre all D1 in their respective sports. That IS the highest level of competition for that sport, regardless of revenue.
The intramural comparison doesnât hold and is insulting to all sports but football.
Revenue generated and level of competition are not correlated
If a school took their football budget, in any era, and put it into any non-revenue sport, you would catapult that program into a blueblood dynasty. In fact, this is what we essentially did with golf. There arenât that many schools with a full 18 hole golf course, let alone one as nice as Karsten Creek that gets to regularly host the NCAA championship.
Every school is putting the most resources and their best effort into football. This is the definition of competitive. When we finished 3rd (and arguably shouldâve finished better) in football, I can guarantee we werenât 3rd in resources.
The field is smaller in wrestling. Many schools and conferences donât even have programs. Thatâs by definition less competitive because fewer people are competing. The NBA that attracts the best talent from all over the world is more competitive than the MLS whose best talent would go to Europe if they were good enough.
Agree to disagree, I guess.