Geno and Sherri

sybarite

New member
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
15,546
Reaction score
0
SoonerinNC posted this in the TT thread:

Sherri is supposed to be a protege of Geno but somehow her players do not improve like the UConn players. Or even like Amanda Thompson, Ny Stevenson, and Joanna McFarland did in the past.

I am concerned with the lack of improvement of key players the last few years.

I think Little has improved her mid range game quite a bit this year but her outside shooting has dropped from 34.4% to 31.9 % last year and 29.7 so far this year.

Maddie seems to get it more now and is playing better all around but still making too many turnovers.

LaNesha Williams seems to be doing a better job. I expect her to earn more time as the season moves along.

TT deserves a lot of credit. Seems like she has heard Geno all the way from UConn to Oklahoma when he tells his players to be better than the limits they place on themselves. She has improved each year and I admire her for it. Having said that, she had a long way to go and I am concerned that we are going into the Big 12 with her at point. She has too many turnovers and wild shots which are the same as turnovers and other player are charged with turnovers on very difficult passes from her.

Gabbi started every game as a freshman and started on a gold medal national team but is not starting in her junior year.

Carter started 26 games as a sophomore and averaged 9.9 points but is not starting as a senior as of the last game and didn't do enough to earn the start in the next game.

Campbell-Olds improved through her junior year and suddenly fell of as a senior.

Wyatt has provided some instant offense off the bench with her 3 point shooting in the past but is playing very little and hitting 26.1% of her treys.

Compare this with the improvement of:

Becky Samuelson 20.9 points and 47.4% beyond the arc vs 11.0 and 39.4% last season.
Naphreesa Collier 6.8 and 15.9% vs 19.6 and 37.5 behind the arc this season.
Kia Nurse 9.3 and 37% last year vs 13.5 and 43.4% this year.
Gabby Williams also very much improved.

To be somewhat fair they are getting more minutes this year.

Two juniors and two sophs are key players to a still undefeated team.
I can't disagree with much of your post. I would suggest that of all the players on the OU team, the only ones that Geno might want on his team might be Maddie, Chelsea, and Nancy. I doubt he would have taken a second look at Gioya, TT, LaNesia, Derica, Shaya, or McKenna. Had he had more of an opportunity to see them, he might have considered others. But, I don't think that's what I want to talk about.

I think these are the two best coaches in women's basketball, for very different reasons. Geno is, without doubt, the best coach in the nation at producing winning teams. He doesn't brag that you better get him now because he just recruited a great class. He simply teaches very talented athletes how to win on the floor when it counts. Connecticut has won eleven of the last twenty-two national championships. He doesn't care about a Big East or AA whatever title. He wins the national championship. He lost three really talented players this year, two who were among the best ever. They are still undefeated.

When you look at Geno's teams, you have to admit that they are the best at basketball in the game. They execute. They are good players, and they play at a winning level. It is rare to see an upset win over UConn. What seems so fascinating is that he seems to know who will fit into his system. Other coaches recruit superstars, but they often don't seem to fit together. I don't know if it is that Geno has the ability to recognize who will fit together, or he has the adaptability to change his system a bit to accommodate them. I'm still fascinated that a home-schooled kid from Glenn Heights was a four-year starter on a four-year national title team.

I haven't seen a lot of coaches express great affection for Geno, excluding Sherri. But, despite the fact that Pat and Muffit had some difficulties with him, I don't know that I have seen anyone who didn't respect Geno and watch to see what they could learn from him. Sherri has made it clear that she likes and respects Geno.

Geno has made it clear that he likes and respects Sherri. It was Geno who said that Sherri was what college basketball should be about. They are great coaches, with a different agenda. Their goals are a bit different. I think that each would like to become a bit more like the other.

Geno is the winner. After you win four or five national titles, you can talk to Geno about what it takes to win. Sherri is about women. She is first and foremost, a teacher. Geno is right. Sherri is what women's college basketball should be about. You want it to be about wins? Take it to pro basketball. College is about teaching and learning.

Sherri takes young women and helps mold them for a world. Along the way, she wants to win a lot of basketball games, and I'm sure she would love to win a national title. She's been at the doorstep. But, whereas other coaches might want their players to become pro basketball stars, I think Sherri would be most pleased if her players were to become Senators, Congressmen, professional women. Indeed, her support comes largely from the Stilettos, a group of professional women---not basketball stars.

Sherri lives in a real world in which women are not yet treated as equals, on the basketball court, in industry, or in the voting booth. Sherri is about preparing women for that world and the development of rising aspirations. It is interesting that we see so many fans at the games who are grandmothers or grandparents who bring their granddaughters to the game. Grandma may have played basketball as a girl, but the sport didn't exist at the college level when she went to school.

Along the way, Geno operated in a climate that has produced winning basketball teams for both women and men, whereas OU has never won a title with either. For basketball fans, a title is important. At OU, it is lumped in with other sports as football has its own board.

I think there are things about Sherri that Geno would like to be. There are things about Geno that Sherri would like to be. Given what they have as goals and values, they are the most successful coaches in the game. A lot who think they want to win as their goal will never even earn the right to be in Geno's shadow in that aspect.

Both Geno and Sherri share an aspect that is important. Both are respectful of their adversaries and the integrity of the game. Geno and Sherri don't fake injuries, start fights, or ridicule opponents. Rather than trying to put Marsha Sharp down, a primary adversary if you are trying to win in the original Big Twelve, Sherri was highly supportive of all things Marsha Sharp, as well and Judy Conradt. She honored them at their retirements. Despite his riffs with Pat and Muffit, I think Geno respects them and their accomplishments.

Sherri and Geno are at different universities with different histories relative to women's sports and different support systems. They see the world a bit differently, being of different genders. It has produced somewhat different perspectives, both being great in their own way.
 
I do want to address some of the "lack of growth" issues that you raise.

I think Peyton, for example, is graded based on expectations from highschool. Yet, we have a year of Peyton at A&M which tells us a different story. Peyton went to A&M as a potentially great scorer. She played in all thirty-five of A&M's games in 2012-2013.

But, she was 19 of 58 from the field in the first ten games. She was 23 of 52 in the next ten. Then, Peyton was hardly ever used. She finished the last 14 games, 11 of 45. She didn't even score in eight of the last ten games.

But, they thought she would be a three-point shooter. In those same games, she was 10-34, 13-37, 2-27. She just dropped out of sight, finishing 34.19% from two and 25.51% from three. She was only 69.44% from the line.

Which one of those has she not improved upon a lot at OU?
http://stats.ncaa.org/team/697/stats?game_sport_year_ctl_id=11240&id=11240

Carter shot 20% from three and 63.64% from the line as a freshman. She's at 35% and 70% as a senior.

TT scored 91 points total as a freshman and sophomore, has 80 this year in 12 games.

LaNesia's FG% is up this year.

Derica is off. But, competition is up.

Gabbi is down a bit. It's early.

I think they improve. But, they aren't Samuelson coming in.
 
I'm going to disagree with your thesis that suggests Sherri's way is the way to prepare women for a man's world. First, I think you have to show that Gino's players haven't done as well as Sherri's outside of pro basketball.I don't think you can. Second, Geno coaches his players similar to how men are coached, which I believe prepares them to compete in a man's world. By contrast, Sherri doesn't coach in a demanding way. A premium isn't placed on physical fitness and repeating mistakes has few negative consequences.

For Geno, winning provides the fun. For Sherri, having fun wins enough to get ithe dance, but not win it.

SoonerinNC posted this in the TT thread:

I can't disagree with much of your post. I would suggest that of all the players on the OU team, the only ones that Geno might want on his team might be Maddie, Chelsea, and Nancy. I doubt he would have taken a second look at Gioya, TT, LaNesia, Derica, Shaya, or McKenna. Had he had more of an opportunity to see them, he might have considered others. But, I don't think that's what I want to talk about.

I think these are the two best coaches in women's basketball, for very different reasons. Geno is, without doubt, the best coach in the nation at producing winning teams. He doesn't brag that you better get him now because he just recruited a great class. He simply teaches very talented athletes how to win on the floor when it counts. Connecticut has won eleven of the last twenty-two national championships. He doesn't care about a Big East or AA whatever title. He wins the national championship. He lost three really talented players this year, two who were among the best ever. They are still undefeated.

When you look at Geno's teams, you have to admit that they are the best at basketball in the game. They execute. They are good players, and they play at a winning level. It is rare to see an upset win over UConn. What seems so fascinating is that he seems to know who will fit into his system. Other coaches recruit superstars, but they often don't seem to fit together. I don't know if it is that Geno has the ability to recognize who will fit together, or he has the adaptability to change his system a bit to accommodate them. I'm still fascinated that a home-schooled kid from Glenn Heights was a four-year starter on a four-year national title team.

I haven't seen a lot of coaches express great affection for Geno, excluding Sherri. But, despite the fact that Pat and Muffit had some difficulties with him, I don't know that I have seen anyone who didn't respect Geno and watch to see what they could learn from him. Sherri has made it clear that she likes and respects Geno.

Geno has made it clear that he likes and respects Sherri. It was Geno who said that Sherri was what college basketball should be about. They are great coaches, with a different agenda. Their goals are a bit different. I think that each would like to become a bit more like the other.

Geno is the winner. After you win four or five national titles, you can talk to Geno about what it takes to win. Sherri is about women. She is first and foremost, a teacher. Geno is right. Sherri is what women's college basketball should be about. You want it to be about wins? Take it to pro basketball. College is about teaching and learning.

Sherri takes young women and helps mold them for a world. Along the way, she wants to win a lot of basketball games, and I'm sure she would love to win a national title. She's been at the doorstep. But, whereas other coaches might want their players to become pro basketball stars, I think Sherri would be most pleased if her players were to become Senators, Congressmen, professional women. Indeed, her support comes largely from the Stilettos, a group of professional women---not basketball stars.

Sherri lives in a real world in which women are not yet treated as equals, on the basketball court, in industry, or in the voting booth. Sherri is about preparing women for that world and the development of rising aspirations. It is interesting that we see so many fans at the games who are grandmothers or grandparents who bring their granddaughters to the game. Grandma may have played basketball as a girl, but the sport didn't exist at the college level when she went to school.

Along the way, Geno operated in a climate that has produced winning basketball teams for both women and men, whereas OU has never won a title with either. For basketball fans, a title is important. At OU, it is lumped in with other sports as football has its own board.

I think there are things about Sherri that Geno would like to be. There are things about Geno that Sherri would like to be. Given what they have as goals and values, they are the most successful coaches in the game. A lot who think they want to win as their goal will never even earn the right to be in Geno's shadow in that aspect.

Both Geno and Sherri share an aspect that is important. Both are respectful of their adversaries and the integrity of the game. Geno and Sherri don't fake injuries, start fights, or ridicule opponents. Rather than trying to put Marsha Sharp down, a primary adversary if you are trying to win in the original Big Twelve, Sherri was highly supportive of all things Marsha Sharp, as well and Judy Conradt. She honored them at their retirements. Despite his riffs with Pat and Muffit, I think Geno respects them and their accomplishments.

Sherri and Geno are at different universities with different histories relative to women's sports and different support systems. They see the world a bit differently, being of different genders. It has produced somewhat different perspectives, both being great in their own way.
 
I'm going to disagree with your thesis that suggests Sherri's way is the way to prepare women for a man's world. First, I think you have to show that Gino's players haven't done as well as Sherri's outside of pro basketball.I don't think you can. Second, Geno coaches his players similar to how men are coached, which I believe prepares them to compete in a man's world. By contrast, Sherri doesn't coach in a demanding way. A premium isn't placed on physical fitness and repeating mistakes has few negative consequences.

For Geno, winning provides the fun. For Sherri, having fun wins enough to get ithe dance, but not win it.

So true.
 
And, a part of what Sherri is teaching is that the future must not be a man's world.
 
And, a part of what Sherri is teaching is that the future must not be a man's world.

Maybe, I do not know. I see that that could be said that she teaches that by
example as she works and her husband stays home and takes care of other things. Also, that she is a head coach who makes as much as men who coach women's basketball. Do not know other than those things what she is doing to regarding statement, but not saying she isn't doing more.

I doubt that I would want someone that I loved playing for Geno but I would have to meet him, see a bunch of practices, talk to people around the program, present and past players; before I would know. I feel the same about Sherri.
I would be looking at two different aspects:
FIRST and number one would be how they are treated, how they are taught to treat others, and all the things regarding character, their future, etc.

SECOND would be would they become better players? Would they have the opportunity playing on that team to make the elite 8 or ff or win the championship? And really unless the young woman wanted to play in the pros, then I probably wouldn't worry so much about how far the team went? Of course, her wants would come into that equation. Also, maybe she would not be recruited by a school with those probabilities.

I do know that I like some things that I have heard that Sherri does some things that I appreciate regarding my first issue. However, I am still not sure that I would choose her because I just do not know enough. I have followed her players some on twitter, both during their time with her and afterwards, and I am just not sure. With that said, you can only do so much in trying to shape their character, their values, their emotional iq's so again, I am just not sure.

As far as developing their games, I do not believe she does. But from Chelsi Welch's class forward, which was when I paid attention to that, I just did not see much development. I have seen a few players improve but I believe they wanted to do so. NOW, of course, that is part of the equation but also I believe improvement should be part of a Coach's program and if the players aren't doing what they should to get better they sit. However you have to teach them the things they need to do to improve. You also have to inspire them. I just have not seen improvement. However, maybe Sherri did all she could. I doubt it though.

ALSO, the biggest issue I have had about Sherri for 9 years or so is that she does not hire someone who complements her. That someone would need to be someone who develops players among other things. I do not dislike Sherri. Harbor no ill will and do not know her nor am I involved with the program and do not know people who are, thus these are just my observations which I know may be wrong.

Finally, I do not believe she is one of the best coaches in the country. I believe you can do the good things she does with the players, but still with the players she has, have a better basketball team. I believe as the head coach it is up to her realize her limitations and hire someone who will complement her. I feel there are probably many candidates out there who could fulfill that position and would be happy to come to Oklahoma.

Finally, regarding improvement, if we do not have great recruits then the recruits we have have more room for improvement than Geno's recruits.

Syb, know you do not agree and am not attempting to be hateful about Sherri nor start anything with anyone. It is just my opinion and I could be wrong or maybe wrong on some things. And it is not that important to me, but I do follow the team and so I like to understand the game, the players, why they are successful or not; so I do think about it when I watch them. I do not think just watching a game without attempting to understand what is taking place in the game is much fun. However, I do not spend the time that many of you do following ouwbb, wbb in general, the game of basketball; so do not pretend to have much of the knowledge that many of you have. One of the things at which I have some skill is analyzing people even from afar. So feel there is some justification to my even having an opinion based on that. But is just that an opinion which I admit may not be correct and it really doesn't matter if I am or not. Not to me and it shouldn't to anyone else. Because I am not hating on anyone in the program or on the board.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top