Cy Woods

I'm beginning to think that Nancy Mulkey must have run over skilledserv's dog. Or did it have something to do with the Senior Prom? :)

It's not that I necessarily disagree with every statement he posts. He's likely much more knowledgeable about women's hoops than I'll ever be. But it's obvious he is an avowed hater of both Nancy and OU basketball, since almost all of his posts are attacks on one or both. I wish he would re-examine his posting M.O., and if he's unwilling to do so, I wish the board would do the right thing and ban this troll from the board permanently.

He knows Nancy has a lot of work to do but he does have her ranked #5 in the country so I would say that's pretty high. I doubt if reasonable person on this board would say she should be ranked higher than that.
 
FYI- Skilledserv also has Llanusa ranked #8 in the country. He obviously is not as biased against OU as some of you think.
 
Last edited:
FYI- Skilledserv also has Llanusa ranked #8 in the country. Those of you who thinks he is biased against OU don't have a clue what you're talking about.

C'mon, Norm.

What's that old saying? You can kid a kidder, but you can't BS and old BS'er?
 
Has nothing to do with rankings. Try playing close attention to the guy's posts.

It has everything to do with rankings as they tell the story. He thinks both girls have high potential. If you will read what he says, he mentions problems with Baylor recruits and Texas recruits as well. Of course those comments do not get a response. Some on this board cannot stand to hear the truth about anything OU unless it's positive which is simply unrealistic when it comes to players. Some are really good but that doesn't mean they don't have shortcomings. When he talks about those shortcomings some immediately blow a fuse.

Now, find another website that ranks Ana and Nancy as high as Skilled does. I don't think they exists but, if so, I would love to see them.
 
What is your point? I've seen all these kids play and it was more than 2 games.

I thought the point was made quite clearly. From time to time, you have linked the opinions of others in order to support your position on a particular "recruit." In those links, the scout involved had gone on to discuss other prospects, including Mulkey. Not one of those links has had anything negative to say about Nancy Mulkey, and most offer considerable praise.

They are links that you provided, presumably as "experts" to support your position with reference to another argument.

Yet, your opening statement to this board was that we would be disappointed in Mulkey and Dungee. You have carried on in post after post with suggestions that I have never seen from any other source.

---Nancy doesn't like basketball
---Nancy doesn't get along with her teammates
---A recruit that we might want hates Nancy
---Nancy's team only won because of others, not Nancy
---The fans at games boo Nancy because she only takes shots from outside

Only you seem to have all of this inside information that is a constant flow of negativity about Nancy. Why is that? How is it that if you look at all of the reports available on the boards that there are only positive remarks, unless they happen to be associated with you?

The first reaction of this board's "only" active moderator was that you were a troll, a post that was later deleted. I notice that Tycat seems to think that you are a creation of one of the negative members of the board. I must admit that your appearance was well-received and heavily endorsed only by those who are most negative. I tend to think of you as simply a supercilious wanna-be, just as some of them are.

I notice that Norm claims that you have Nancy rated #5 in the nation. I can't wait to see all the negativity that you must have for someone rated #6.
 
It has everything to do with rankings as they tell the story. He thinks both girls have high potential. If you will read what he says, he mentions problems with Baylor recruits and Texas recruits as well. Of course those comments do not get a response. Some on this board cannot stand to hear the truth about anything OU unless it's positive which is simply unrealistic when it comes to players. Some are really good but that doesn't mean they don't have shortcomings. When he talks about those shortcomings some immediately blow a fuse.

Now, find another website that ranks Ana and Nancy as high as Skilled does. I don't think they exists but, if so, I would love to see them.

I guess that has to do with how that so-called truth is presented and how it's perceived by those who read it.

Look, most members of this board have no problem with anyone "critiquing" OU players. I know I certainly don't. And it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that teams like Baylor and possibly Texas have been recruiting/signing more highly rated players than OU.

But it's that constant belittling of the OU players and recruits that rubs many of us the wrong way. I don't know anyone who goes to the Baylor or Texas boards for the sole purpose of running down their players/recruits. Skilledserve does that here and his mission is obvious to anyone whose head isn't buried in the sand.

That's my rant and I'm done with the argument.
 
I can't figure out why anyone would continue to read posts by those they disagree with unless it's just because they want to argue.
 
Norm I'm a bit confused so Skilled runs a legitimate scouting service recognized by others...which one is that?
 
Bobby Burton and Max Empfinger ran scouting services for football for years, still do. Was Texas the #1 recruiting class every year?
 
I look at Nancy as a project, 6'9 with a world of potential...
Mulkey might never contribute, but then again, she could blossom into a force as well.
 
I look at Nancy as a project, 6'9 with a world of potential...
Mulkey might never contribute, but then again, she could blossom into a force as well.

I agree. It's up to her and how hard she is willing to work.
 
Back
Top