Houston game

[sooner8693]

I too consider Joe Castiglione's position on nepotism at a public university a major character flaw. However were Sherri one third the WBB coach that Joe C is an AD we would have 2-5 more conference championships in the books the last decade and a multitude more happy fans. It is also likely we would have a couple more thousand butt in LNC seats for every WBB game.

At this rate, family and friends will be the only people in the stands at home games. How long can JC put up with that?

 

[atlantasooner]

The problem right now if you are Joe C.
Last year was awful.
This year is not trending well. And there's no freshman star (yet) to indicate a
a future legit difference maker is on the roster.
No one was signed in November who has the recruiting ranking profile to be that difference maker.
Sherri has shown no inclination to use spring JUCO signees or grad transfers to rehab this bad roster.
So there's no definitive reason why 2020-2021 will be any better with the same roster.
If you holding out for the next HS recruiting class.
Those freshman won't enroll until 2021-2022, and you've lost Ana to graduation.
And what can Sherri really sign after back to back losing seasons?
So do you make a change after this year (again projecting things don't turn around)
and hope the coaching change/energy change jumpstarts the programs.
Or you realistically give Sherri 3 more bad years to "fix" recruiting.

 

[sybarite]

I am very different from most of you. My first concern about a university is whether it is doing its job, that of education and producing people capable of contributing. In that regard, I have the highest respect for Sherri Coale. It seems that she has been very effective at doing exactly that.

Somewhere, we got sports mixed up with universities, and we defined the role of coaches to be that of producing sports championships. I don't think that was in the minds of the people of Oklahoma when they created OU back in 91. If, as one local coach does, you produce national champions some of whose members are virtually incapable of reading, you are a failure.

I would like to see the winning that we did have with the program regenerated. I don't dwell on it that it hasn't. We are still doing our job. I wonder if we had retained a couple of people if we might have been better. Doubt it. They haven't exactly made the teams they transferred to any successful. I would like to see how Scott, Gregory, Bloom, Aspen, Lemon, and Nydia develop before getting too excited. Until this year, we have been getting some highly-ranked people the past few years, lost three. A lot of hat going around. How big is that transfer list?

Baylor didn't exactly dominate when they didn't have their ace last week. K-State just lost at home to Tex-Arlington. Not seeing stellar performances out of Austin so far.

I don't know exactly what to make of this team yet. I was disappointed in the last game and a half. I think we have too much talent to be losing because we are too (insert any term you think relevant) to get a rebound against Houston. I didn't see the game. It sounded horrible. Wasn't pleased with the SFA second half.

But, I'm not about throwing Sherri under the bus. In the first place, despite the claims of some, there was no bus before Sherri. I'm not sure there will be a bus after Sherri. I would like to see a little bit better play, especially since I think there is sufficient talent to make, at least, a run at the NCAAs this year. There is time to figure it out, if the girls want to. Ana is the one who has to slow down. Madi is the one who has to stop shuffling her feet. Whole bunch of people need to block out.

About the only thing I am in agreement on is that I don't want to see any more Coltan Coales, JT Gassos, DJ Gassos, or Mike Stoops. I have yet to find any value in those hires.

It doesn't take much to bring out the boo-birds. Vultures been waiting on the fences since before the season started. I don't think JC will grant your wish. Exactly how much have we improved our wrestling program? We won seven titles in that. What happened to that? Haven't made any headway in track, soccer, volleyball. Men's basketball was off on a great start until tonight, but we haven't won a title there either.

We are about softball, gymnastics, and football these days, and it has now been 19 years without a football title. I think JC has other things on his mind, more pressing matters. How long will OU fans keep the faith in football without a title?

Me. For now, I'm more concerned about how far our academic standing has fallen. This used to be considered a good undergraduate university that could at least teach grammar.

Bring on Abilene Christian.

 

[SoonerSpock]

I am very different from most of you. My first concern about a university is whether it is doing its job, that of education and producing people capable of contributing. In that regard, I have the highest respect for Sherri Coale. It seems that she has been very effective at doing exactly that.


Somewhere we got sports mixed up with universities, and we defined the role of coaches to be that of producing sports championships. I don't think that was in the minds of the people of Oklahoma when they created OU back in 91.

I would like to see the winning that we did have with the program regenerated. I don't dwell on it that it hasn't. We are still doing our job.

One can most definitely dispute whether Sherri is still doing her job. While there is no doubt that Sherri is doing an excellent job of educating and producing contributors we must also identify and accept that universities like our culture is dynamic with the only constant being change. That being said the role of sports in academia has made major changes

Sports is no longer is no an approach of providing just an academic exposure to the recognition, trials and tribulations of the real world. Now is serves as a primary interface to entice its graduates, friends and donors to become more closely tied to their schools with their presence on campus while securing from them moneys for both academia and athletics.

Consequently we don't pay Sherri $1,330K just to develop educated contributors to society. We also pay her to win basketball games, to create interest in OU and to draw fans, alumni and donors to campus. Those who are chartered with their primary function be educating and developing contributors are paid based on 2016-2017 numbers an average of $116K for a full professor and $82K for an associate professor. Quite a disparity.

Only the top administrators at OU and OUHSC plus the professional MD's on staff at OUHSC make similar salaries to athletic coaches. The top 20 wage earners at OU's Norman campus are all associated with the athletic department ($395K-$5,330K). Linked below are the top 20 wage earners at OU, OUHSC and OUHSC Professional Plan... With the highest paid professors and administrators paid about what the lowest paid assistant football coach makes.

Sherri Coale was the 4th highest paid person at OU making $1,330K. That is a million dollars plus above what a endowed professor makes and that incremental money is paid to win basketball games, create interest in the university, draw fans to games and generate revenue.

You may not like what has transpired with the integration of sports on the college campus but that is what has transpired through the dynamics of our cultural changes. And no one really cares what the founder had in mind when they started OU. We are not living in 1891. It is what it and unequivocally Sherri is not doing the job she is paid an incremental $1million to do.

https://oklahomawatchdata.org/university-salaries/760

https://oklahomawatchdata.org/university-salaries/770

https://oklahomawatchdata.org/university-salaries/771

https://www.okhighered.org/studies-reports/faculty-salary/2016-17.pdf

 

[sybarite]

So, when something gets screwed up, you simply change your purposes were? Explains the government, maybe.

First, I didn't really read through your stuff since I've seen it before. I'm not inclined to pay a coach more than a history professor in the first place. We get the same distorted ideals when we play rock stars and athletes more than farmers and teachers. You are indicating that we should accept this distorted value system as valid, when it is of no value to the growth of a nation or economy.

Just a thought: list of largest endowments in the US. Are all of those large endowments at Harvard, Yale, Smith, and Emory because they are so much better at football than OU?https://thebestschools.org/features/richest-universities-endowments-generosity-research/

I told my daughter to go to Wellesley if she wanted a good football team. Notice that Harvard's endowment is over twenty times that of OU, and they haven't been in the top twenty since the twenties.

They refer to the Texas and Texas A&M systems which includes all of their affiliates, UT Galveston, UTD, UTA, etc. A&M-Corpus Christi, etc.

 

[inoref]

OU getting hosed paying SC that amount..She must know something on someone

 

[SoonerSpock]

So, when something gets screwed up, you simply change your purposes were? Explains the government, maybe.

First, I didn't really read through your stuff since I've seen it before. I'm not inclined to pay a coach more than a history professor in the first place. We get the same distorted ideals when we play rock stars and athletes more than farmers and teachers. You are indicating that we should accept this distorted value system as valid, when it is of no value to the growth of a nation or economy.

Just a thought: list of largest endowments in the US. Are all of those large endowments at Harvard, Yale, Smith, and Emory because they are so much better at football than OU?https://thebestschools.org/features/richest-universities-endowments-generosity-research/

I told my daughter to go to Wellesley if she wanted a good football team. Notice that Harvard's endowment is over twenty times that of OU, and they haven't been in the top twenty since the twenties.

They refer to the Texas and Texas A&M systems which includes all of their affiliates, UT Galveston, UTD, UTA, etc. A&M-Corpus Christi, etc.

And none of that gobbledygook is germane to Power 5 conference athletic teams and how they pay their coaches. Typical Syb tactic comparing apples to oranges when your position is indefensible. Sherri Coale is being over paid for doing a terrible job coach the OU WBB team for the last 8-9 years.

 

[sybarite]

And none of that gobbledygook is germane to Power 5 conference athletic teams and how they pay their coaches. Typical Syb tactic comparing apples to oranges when your position is indefensible. Sherri Coale is being over paid for doing a terrible job coach the OU WBB team for the last 8-9 years.

I didn't say it was. Indeed, I'm not sure how much longer the current style of college sports will continue once we settle the payment issue. I said, essentially, 1) the power five structure violates the intent of the creation of educational institutions and must be questioned, and 2) the idea that they are necessary as fundraisers for the universities is absolute folly since the largest endowments have nothing to do with sports.

The only thing that the power five sports programs do is to provide fans with entertainment, which is not the function of a college. Set up a minor league sports system. But, don't talk to me of coach salaries as a part of a system that probably shouldn't exist in the first place.

I don't know that I would set myself up as a judge on a Hall of Fame Coach. Got a better one available? Sure?

 

[soonermike22]

sorry Syb but you are wrong again.
The academics comes in the classroom, and that is first priority of the universities mission. But all auxiliary parts need to also provide first class production, or face correction. Athletics is both advertisement and fundraising strengths of a University. Right now not only is our wbb teams competitive ability below acceptable levels, but is not a positive product in either the publicity it brings the University, or helping fundraising.
Make a change to improve the product. Riding the quality reputation of the WBB HC can only go so far. This board shows that more than just a majority are ready for a change. And many of us have shown that opinion both in less attendance and lower University (Sooner Club included) contributions.

 

[SoonerSpock]

I didn't say it was. Indeed, I'm not sure how much longer the current style of college sports will continue once we settle the payment issue. I said, essentially, 1) the power five structure violates the intent of the creation of educational institutions and must be questioned, and 2) the idea that they are necessary as fundraisers for the universities is absolute folly since the largest endowments have nothing to do with sports.

The only thing that the power five sports programs do is to provide fans with entertainment, which is not the function of a college. Set up a minor league sports system. But, don't talk to me of coach salaries as a part of a system that probably shouldn't exist in the first place.

I don't know that I would set myself up as a judge on a Hall of Fame Coach. Got a better one available? Sure?

Whether the power 5 sports programs should exist in your eyes or not has little or no practical relevance as it does exist and it will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Moreover it will continue to generate needed incremental millions of dollars in donations to their universities.

Like it or not Sherri's performance the last 8-9 years is not the reason Sherri became a Hall of Fame coach. Nor will she be the first coach to wither away resting on their laurels. JMHO which is probably just as worthless as yours.

 

[soonerstar]

Sherri's performance the last 8-9 years is not the reason Sherri became a Hall of Fame coach. Nor will she be the first coach to wither away resting on their laurels.

Sylvia Hatchell 2.0. She is the first one that comes to mind. However, Hatchell never had an 8-22 record in all her years.

 

[sybarite]

Whether the power 5 sports programs should exist in your eyes or not has little or no practical relevance as it does exist and it will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Moreover it will continue to generate needed incremental millions of dollars in donations to their universities.

Like it or not Sherri's performance the last 8-9 years is not the reason Sherri became a Hall of Fame coach. Nor will she be the first coach to wither away resting on their laurels. JMHO which is probably just as worthless as yours.

The recent laws about athlete payment is the first round of concern. The NCAA has been concerned about athlete unions, etc., for some time now. They will lose this battle.

Do they really raise revenues?

Let's go back and look at those endowments:

1. Harvard $38.3 billion
2. UT-System $30.8 billion
3. Yale $29.3 billion
4. Stanford $26.4 billion
5. Princeton $25.9 billion

6. MIT $16.5 billion
7. Penn 13.7 billion
8. A&M System $13.5 billion
9. Michigan $11.9 billion
10. Northwestern $11.08 billion

15. Chicago $7.59 billion
16. Washington, St. Louis $7.29 billion
17. Emory $7.23 billion
25. Johns Hopkins $4.266 billion
26. NYU $4.264 billion
36. Williams $2.623 billion
44. Amherst $2,273 billion
49. Swathmore $2.105 billion
50. Wellesley $2.091 billion

62. OKLAHOMA $1.723 billion

Every member of the Ivy League has more in endowments than OU, more than any Big Twelve school other than the UT-System, whatever part of that should be at UTAustin.

Look at the list. Swathmore and Wellesley have more than OU? Are sports really that effective at raising money? Harvard has what, 20 times our endowment? Yale? Emory?

 

[sooner8693]

The recent laws about athlete payment is the first round of concern. The NCAA has been concerned about athlete unions, etc., for some time now. They will lose this battle.

Do they really raise revenues?

Let's go back and look at those endowments:

1. Harvard $38.3 billion
2. UT-System $30.8 billion
3. Yale $29.3 billion
4. Stanford $26.4 billion
5. Princeton $25.9 billion

6. MIT $16.5 billion
7. Penn 13.7 billion
8. A&M System $13.5 billion
9. Michigan $11.9 billion
10. Northwestern $11.08 billion

15. Chicago $7.59 billion
16. Washington, St. Louis $7.29 billion
17. Emory $7.23 billion
25. Johns Hopkins $4.266 billion
26. NYU $4.264 billion
36. Williams $2.623 billion
44. Amherst $2,273 billion
49. Swathmore $2.105 billion
50. Wellesley $2.091 billion

62. OKLAHOMA $1.723 billion

Every member of the Ivy League has more in endowments than OU, more than any Big Twelve school other than the UT-System, whatever part of that should be at UTAustin.

Look at the list. Swathmore and Wellesley have more than OU? Are sports really that effective at raising money? Harvard has what, 20 times our endowment? Yale? Emory?

You are working very hard to divert this thread away from the pathetic performance of Sherri Coale and her little boy. Kudos to you.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

Those universities are academically well above OU. Additionally, the probably have more millionaires per 100 students than OU could ever dream about giving back to the university.

It is not an Apple-to-apple comparison on any level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CavalryRoadie]

The recent laws about athlete payment is the first round of concern. The NCAA has been concerned about athlete unions, etc., for some time now. They will lose this battle.

Do they really raise revenues?

Let's go back and look at those endowments:

1. Harvard $38.3 billion
2. UT-System $30.8 billion
3. Yale $29.3 billion
4. Stanford $26.4 billion
5. Princeton $25.9 billion

6. MIT $16.5 billion
7. Penn 13.7 billion
8. A&M System $13.5 billion
9. Michigan $11.9 billion
10. Northwestern $11.08 billion

15. Chicago $7.59 billion
16. Washington, St. Louis $7.29 billion
17. Emory $7.23 billion
25. Johns Hopkins $4.266 billion
26. NYU $4.264 billion
36. Williams $2.623 billion
44. Amherst $2,273 billion
49. Swathmore $2.105 billion
50. Wellesley $2.091 billion

62. OKLAHOMA $1.723 billion

Every member of the Ivy League has more in endowments than OU, more than any Big Twelve school other than the UT-System, whatever part of that should be at UTAustin.

Look at the list. Swathmore and Wellesley have more than OU? Are sports really that effective at raising money? Harvard has what, 20 times our endowment? Yale? Emory?

Since you brought it up...How much of the annual gains (profit) on these endowments is taxable?

 

[sybarite]

Since you brought it up...How much of the annual gains (profit) on these endowments is taxable?

They weren't. They are:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/01/us-provides-some-clarity-about-tax-endowments

 

[SoonerSpock]

You are working very hard to divert this thread away from the pathetic performance of Sherri Coale and her little boy. Kudos to you.

Another apples to oranges comparison. That is the Syb M.O. What the Havards of the academic community does to acquire their academic endowments has no bearing what OU has to do to enhance their endowment funding.

The last number I received in the Oklahoma Athletic Department annual budget indicated OU athletic department was funding about $8 million annuallly on academic support most which goes either the endowment and the OU library. Assuming a $6 million addition to the endowment fund and an average scholarship of $5,000 their endowment contributions could fund 60 scholarships annually or 2 $300,000 endowed professors and over a decade that is 240 scholarships and/or 20 endowed professors funded annually.

But that is not the big impact athletics has on the endowment fund. Those moneys come from university friends, alumni and existing donor who are attracted back to the campus by athletics where they create new relationships and build stronger relationships with academia and in turn make greater contributions to the university. Those dollars could easily be 10,20 or 50 fold the meager $8 million annual athletic department contribution.

So in theory with friends, alumni and donor beginning or expanding their donation they could possibly endow as many as 200 endowed professors in the next decade.

Yep, the athletic departments financial commitment and financial impact to academia is very significant. P.S. which students and endowed professors would want to surrender they endowment were the AD funding and related funding not available?

 

[sybarite]

The only relevance is from the history.

The better schools get their endowment size because they do produce students who generate income. But, they also generate grant money from industry because of the expertise.

When OU got the opportunity, they allowed the huge (and I mean huge) donors to give money to the football program. Since OU did have a very dominant petroleum engineering and geology department, it did have a lot of very rich alums in the oil industry. Back in the forties and fifties, the most influential club in Dallas was the Petroleum Club. Been there a couple of times, after its heyday, and it was still plush. Finest food in DFW.

But, they really didn't give much to the university per se. They finally made a rule that half of the contributions had to go to OURI, not just football. I don't know if there was a lot going into the buildings. But, there weren't a lot of new buildings for a university that had received huge contributions. The endowment was less than a billion, I think less than a hundred million at the time.

If you want long-term success, you put the money into the growth of an academic program, which is the real reason that when you look at the endowments, it becomes obvious that a lot of small schools ended up with huge endowments, and very fine academic reputations. Now, shall we discuss those of OU in comparison?

 

[SoonerSpock]

Perhaps rather than looking at the OU endowment from the perspective of comparing with the top 10 endowment schools which is another Syb apples to oranges approach it would be more appropriate to compare the OU endowment with the other public universities.

Overall OU's endowment ranks a #62 per the attached. By my count only 21 public universities have a larger endowment. This listing identifies the OU endowment as being $1.723 billion. Other public schools endowments are:

University of Kansas $1.735, University of Toronto $1.875, University of California, Berkeley $1.886, Virginia Commonwealth $1.944, Georgia Tech $1.991, University of Indiana $2.385, University of California, Los Angeles, Purdue University $2.522, University of Illinois $2.523, University of Washington $2.749 and Michigan State $2.879 just to name 10 similar schools.

It should be noted that Texas Tech, OSU, KSU, ISU, WVU, Arkansas, Nebraska, Florida, Missouri, Alabama, Kentucky, Colorado, Tennessee, Maryland, Georgia, and LSU's endowments are all smaller than OU's endowment. Moreover OSU is not actually listed by endowment dollar amount because they are not a top 100 school and their endowment is less than $1 billion.

Just another Syb attempt to use irrelevant data to distort reality. Apples compare best against apples.

https://thebestschools.org/features/richest-universities-endowments-generosity-research/

 

[sybarite]

This last post was so inaccurate that you shouldn't have posted until you read it. I provided a list of 100, not ten. You almost made my point for me by listing our competition among public universities. Which of those would you feel were outstanding colleges to which you might want to send your children?

A local highschool, Allen, Tx, provided an illustration of misplaced values. As a newly-emerging suburb of Dallas, it built a $60 million football stadium for its highschool. How many of the schools on that list of large endowments would have a $60 million stadium?

Read through that entire list of top 100 endowments. If memory serves, the largest in Iowa is Grinnell. Emory ranks above Georgia. Johns Hopkins ranks above Maryland. Case Western tops Ohio schools. The Charles River (and nearby) schools like Harvard, MIT, Boston, Boston College, Tufts, Wellesley, do pretty well. The only football stadium I remember was at BC, and it wouldn't have been as large as you see in most small towns. It is a matter of value system.

You brought up the idea of money in Coale's salary. My point is that it is misplaced value, and the entire thing may have been distorted. The schools that are on top academically don't seem to have emphasized sports at all.

Figure out another approach to getting rid of Sherri.