Kim Mulkey nominated for HOF

[inoref]

If LL Cool J can get in the Hall Of Fame, why not Kim?

 

[sybarite]

And Mays was not banned from baseball. He took a PR job at a casino and Kuhn told him he could not be a coach or minor league instructor if he was employed by the casino. He could still show up at the hall of fame ceremonies and go to games.

I stand partially corrected. Kuhn did ban Mantle and Mays. At the time of the ban, there was no Hall of Fame policy. So, it was left in the wind by the Hall. They were reinstated by Uberroth which I did not know.

I repeat: Mark McGwire, the first to beat 60 in 154 games and remove the asterisk (only to result in another asterisk), is not in the Hall... Barry Bonds is not in the Hall. Pete Rose is not in the Hall.

Quit looking for evasions of the issue. The fact is that baseball has denied access to some of its biggest stars because of principle.

Academia can do no less.

 

[Speedy17]

I believe Roger Maris is also in the hall of fame

Roger Maris is NOT in the HOF. He had a couple of good years but not a sustained record to warrant the HOF. However, the bat he used to hit #61 is in the HOF.

 

[Speedy17]

As a quick note in baseball, Pete Rose was banned for life from baseball just like Shoeless Joe Jackson. For that reason, they are ineligible for the HOF.

You have two methods to get into the Baseball HOF. The first is to get voted in by the Baseball Writers and must get a 75% vote on ballots. The second is to get voted in by the Veterans Committee. They changed this committee to the Game ERA Committee in 2016.

Early Baseball (1871–1949)
Golden Days (1950–1969)
Modern Baseball (1970–1987)
Today's Game (1988 and later)

There is a schedule that rotates to evaluate each of these old eras for election.

My money is that eventually Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens will be voted into the HOF. they got 59% of the required 75% votes and came in #7 and #6 in the 2019 vote. Nobody knows what the Veterans Committee will do with the steroid era. Unlike Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson, they are all still eligible.

As for Barry Switzer, the College Football HOF is a popularity contest. He was always going in simply because of his record. I know because I get a ballot to vote because of membership to the National Football Foundation. I was surprised Rickey Dixon got enshrined a couple of weeks ago. This year, OU had Josh Heupel and Roy Williams on the ballot and O-State had Leslie O'Neal. There are different categories: BCS, FCS, and coaches in each division.


I believe Kim Mulkey will get in the HOF simply on her record. A recruiting violation such as the one mentioned would never keep her out of the HOF. It is inevitable.

 

[sybarite]

I suspect that Mulkey will make it into the Naismith Hall of Fame.

But, I doubt that she will make it into the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame. She is in as a player. I don't see her making it as a coach.

 

[SoonerSpock]

I suspect that Mulkey will make it into the Naismith Hall of Fame.

But, I doubt that she will make it into the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame. She is in as a player. I don't see her making it as a coach.

Maybe not this year but I see it as almost certain she makes both. Politicians fortunately die off.

 

[sybarite]

Maybe not this year but I see it as almost certain she makes both. Politicians fortunately die off.

Unfortunately, principles die before politicians. I think there are a lot of coaches who will blackball her.

 

[Speedy17]

I think she makes it this year in her first year of eligibility.

Lets see here, she:

1) won 585 Lost 100 for an .854 winning percentage

2) won 3× NCAA Division I Tournament (2005, 2012, 2019) only three coaches have won 3 or more with the other two being Geno Auriema and Pat Summitt

3) Advanced to 4 Final Fours, 9 Elite Eights, and 14 Sweet Sixteens in 19 years.

4) Won every Big 12 Regular Season title since 2011.

5) was 2× WBCA National Coach of the Year (2012, 2019) - I think these are the same folks that won't put her in the HOF

6) was 3× USBWA National Coach of the Year (2011, 2012, 2019) - this is the writers.

This is an overwhelming case for the HOF.

 

[inoref]

Unfortunately, principles die before politicians. I think there are a lot of coaches who will blackball her.

How would you vote?

 

[sybarite]

How would you vote?

I think it is very clear. Academia must be about more than just winning. There are too many reasons and examples to blackball Kim Mulkey, and only an inappropriate reason to accept her.

 

[Speedy17]

I think it is very clear. Academia must be about more than just winning. There are too many reasons and examples to blackball Kim Mulkey, and only an inappropriate reason to accept her.

Having been in higher education academia for 30+ years, I can promise you that if it was up to professors, there would not be college athletics at all. The truth is that college athletics is a financial drain on the academic resources at virtually every university in the country. OU is one of the about 20 universities where the athletic department actually contributes to academic side. That being said, millions of dollars are donated to the Sooner Club instead of the academic side of the university. Most universities are subsidizing their athletic departments through student fees.

All that being said, college athletics is about winning. It always has been and always will be.

 

[sybarite]

Having been in higher education academia for 30+ years, I can promise you that if it was up to professors, there would not be college athletics at all. The truth is that college athletics is a financial drain on the academic resources at virtually every university in the country. OU is one of the about 20 universities where the athletic department actually contributes to academic side. That being said, millions of dollars are donated to the Sooner Club instead of the academic side of the university. Most universities are subsidizing their athletic departments through student fees.

All that being said, college athletics is about winning. It always has been and always will be.

true. And,, unfortunately, we have allowed the NCAA to claim that it is concerned with the athlete as a student, when it began only to assure that the ringer that Yale used against Harvard would not be playing for Dartmouth next week when they played Yale.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Having been in higher education academia for 30+ years, I can promise you that if it was up to professors, there would not be college athletics at all. The truth is that college athletics is a financial drain on the academic resources at virtually every university in the country. OU is one of the about 20 universities where the athletic department actually contributes to academic side. That being said, millions of dollars are donated to the Sooner Club instead of the academic side of the university. Most universities are subsidizing their athletic departments through student fees.

All that being said, college athletics is about winning. It always has been and always will be.

I agree with everything you say but your statement regarding the Sooner Club does bring secondary questions. What if any of the moneys donated to the Sooner Club would be donated to academic if there were no athletics? Next at schools like OU how much more money is donated to academia that result from athletics drawing alumni and friends closer to the university and their academic solicitors?

I know as a 30+ year donor to both athletics and academia that it was athletics that kept me connected to OU for the first 15 years while living back east. It was also athletics that brought me back on campus and kept my awareness high as to the value of OU resulting in academic donations a full decade before joining the Sooner Club.

Not certain but I think the probability is high that without athletics to keep the OU tie I would have worked making my living and virtual forgotten OU was a part of my life. Resulting in no donations academic or athletic. I think my logic applies to thousands of OU donors. It appears that is the logic of some university administrators as they seek academic donations.

Your thoughts?

 

[Speedy17]

I agree with everything you say but your statement regarding the Sooner Club does bring secondary questions. What if any of the moneys donated to the Sooner Club would be donated to academic if there were no athletics? Next at schools like OU how much more money is donated to academia that result from athletics drawing alumni and friends closer to the university and their academic solicitors?

I know as a 30+ year donor to both athletics and academia that it was athletics that kept me connected to OU for the first 15 years while living back east. It was also athletics that brought me back on campus and kept my awareness high as to the value of OU resulting in academic donations a full decade before joining the Sooner Club.

Not certain but I think the probability is high that without athletics to keep the OU tie I would have worked making my living and virtual forgotten OU was a part of my life. Resulting in no donations academic or athletic. I think my logic applies to thousands of OU donors. It appears that is the logic of some university administrators as they seek academic donations.

Your thoughts?

Spock, I do not disagree with your statement. I do believe that athletics unquestionably connects the graduate to the university forever. I am a prime example. I donate to both academics and the Sooner Club.

I was trying to espouse what faculty think. Remember most faculty do not work for the university that they received their doctorate from. It is a rare situation for multiple reasons. First, academic inbreeding is normally discouraged to prevent everyone having the same perspective regarding research. Second, the thought is that the graduate will never be able to shake the perception of being a student by most faculty. Third, the reputation of the university's doctoral programs is enhanced by student faculty placements. For example, an OU Grad getting a job at a Big Ten School like Michigan or an private school like Stanford.

 

[womenssports]

Having been in higher education academia for 30+ years, I can promise you that if it was up to professors, there would not be college athletics at all. The truth is that college athletics is a financial drain on the academic resources at virtually every university in the country. OU is one of the about 20 universities where the athletic department actually contributes to academic side. That being said, millions of dollars are donated to the Sooner Club instead of the academic side of the university. Most universities are subsidizing their athletic departments through student fees.

All that being said, college athletics is about winning. It always has been and always will be.

I believe it was the Spring Semester of 1971 that my Political Science Professor came to class with a football. He was angry because of some large appropriation going to the O.U. football program. He spoke a few minutes about the situation and then let us out of class. An example of what you are saying, from probably a time even prior to your experience. And it has only gotten worse. I almost feel like the they were going to spend money on the stadium, but I truly don't remember.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Spock, I do not disagree with your statement. I do believe that athletics unquestionably connects the graduate to the university forever. I am a prime example. I donate to both academics and the Sooner Club.

I was trying to espouse what faculty think. Remember most faculty do not work for the university that they received their doctorate from. It is a rare situation for multiple reasons. First, academic inbreeding is normally discouraged to prevent everyone having the same perspective regarding research. Second, the thought is that the graduate will never be able to shake the perception of being a student by most faculty. Third, the reputation of the university's doctoral programs is enhanced by student faculty placements. For example, an OU Grad getting a job at a Big Ten School like Michigan or an private school like Stanford.

Speedy, with us being personally acquainted and being familiar with your academic standing I am fully aware that your knowledge of academia and the thought process of the faculties is far superior to mine. Hence my questions. First do faculty members in general perceive that all the money received by the athletic departments in donations would go to academia were not an athletic department? Second do they recognize that the athletic department keeps alumni and friends closely connected to the university and that academia financially benefits from those close relationships? Personally I tend to think the faculty members might have an idealistic perspective regarding those moneys rather than a pragmatic one.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Spock, I do not disagree with your statement. I do believe that athletics unquestionably connects the graduate to the university forever. I am a prime example. I donate to both academics and the Sooner Club.

I was trying to espouse what faculty think. Remember most faculty do not work for the university that they received their doctorate from. It is a rare situation for multiple reasons. First, academic inbreeding is normally discouraged to prevent everyone having the same perspective regarding research. Second, the thought is that the graduate will never be able to shake the perception of being a student by most faculty. Third, the reputation of the university's doctoral programs is enhanced by student faculty placements. For example, an OU Grad getting a job at a Big Ten School like Michigan or an private school like Stanford.

Speedy with us being personally acquainted and being familiar with your academic standing I am fully aware that your knowledge of academia and the thought process of the faculties is far superior to mine. Hence my questions. First do faculty members in general perceive that all the money received by the athletic departments in donations would go to academia were not an athletic department? Second do they recognize that the athletic department keeps alumni and friends closely connected to the university and that academia financially benefits from those close relationships? Personally I tend to think the faculty members might have an idealistic perspective regarding those moneys rather than a pragmatic one.

 

[Speedy17]

Speedy with us being personally acquainted and being familiar with your academic standing I am fully aware that your knowledge of academia and the thought process of the faculties is far superior to mine. Hence my questions. First do faculty members in general perceive that all the money received by the athletic departments in donations would go to academia were not an athletic department? Second do they recognize that the athletic department keeps alumni and friends closely connected to the university and that academia financially benefits from those close relationships? Personally I tend to think the faculty members might have an idealistic perspective regarding those moneys rather than a pragmatic one.

The truth is that most academics are so involved in their careers that they are hardly aware that the athletics are going on unless it is at a place like OU, Alabama, or even Kentucky. I am an unusual case. I think for me, I was aware early in my career but was way more focused on my academic endeavors. However, I publishing more now than ever.

The answer to the first question is "No", they do not believe that all the donations would go to academics instead of athletics. However, most are aware that the majority of athletic departments run at the expense of the university and the students. Virtually, no college athletic departments actually pay for themselves without donations, university subsidies, or student fees.

With the second question, unless it is a big donor, faculty are not going to see it. Faculty see things when donations are used to create endowments to support professor positions. That money is not spent but rather invested by the university with a normal throw off of about 5% a year. So a million dollar endowed professorship would kick in about 50K to support a professor's research. The same would be the case for named scholarships for students. If the money is donated for a building or a college, it gets lost under the control of the Dean or upper administration. Faculty will never see the small donations. The other funding component is grants which is mainly engineering, math, medical, and the sciences. Meteorology is unique to OU. Of course, the power there belongs to the faculty members but the university taxes the money with F&A on Federal Grants at an enormous rate (usually around 50%) and a lot lower (20%) on private or state grants. That means that you have to ask for about double the money to complete the project in the grant proposal. It has been going on this way for years. You take big donations like Gallogly to Engineering, Mewbourne to Geology, or Price to Business. I guarantee a lot of that money went for endowments for faculty. It is support money but those donors are few and far between. I know I just gave a long winded answer but truthfully faculty don't directly see that financial benefits from the alumni relationship.

I know that I donate to both athletics and academics at OU but it is heavily weighted towards the Sooner Club and all of those little team clubs.

 

[SoonerSpock]

The truth is that most academics are so involved in their careers that they are hardly aware that the athletics are going on unless it is at a place like OU, Alabama, or even Kentucky. I am an unusual case. I think for me, I was aware early in my career but was way more focused on my academic endeavors. However, I publishing more now than ever.

The answer to the first question is "No", they do not believe that all the donations would go to academics instead of athletics. However, most are aware that the majority of athletic departments run at the expense of the university and the students. Virtually, no college athletic departments actually pay for themselves without donations, university subsidies, or student fees.

With the second question, unless it is a big donor, faculty are not going to see it. Faculty see things when donations are used to create endowments to support professor positions. That money is not spent but rather invested by the university with a normal throw off of about 5% a year. So a million dollar endowed professorship would kick in about 50K to support a professor's research. The same would be the case for named scholarships for students. If the money is donated for a building or a college, it gets lost under the control of the Dean or upper administration. Faculty will never see the small donations. The other funding component is grants which is mainly engineering, math, medical, and the sciences. Meteorology is unique to OU. Of course, the power there belongs to the faculty members but the university taxes the money with F&A on Federal Grants at an enormous rate (usually around 50%) and a lot lower (20%) on private or state grants. That means that you have to ask for about double the money to complete the project in the grant proposal. It has been going on this way for years. You take big donations like Gallogly to Engineering, Mewbourne to Geology, or Price to Business. I guarantee a lot of that money went for endowments for faculty. It is support money but those donors are few and far between. I know I just gave a long winded answer but truthfully faculty don't directly see that financial benefits from the alumni relationship.

I know that I donate to both athletics and academics at OU but it is heavily weighted towards the Sooner Club and all of those little team clubs.

Thanks, I appreciate it.