SoonerSpock
New member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 4,941
- Reaction score
- 0
Mulkey. Enjoy!!!
- Thread starter SoonerSpock
- Start date
SoonerNorm
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 19,033
- Reaction score
- 1
Great article! I know most on here will hate her to the bitter end of time. I don't. I just can't. She isn't a fake. What you see is what you get. I certainly could do without the antics but, to me, that is greatly offset by her intensity and passion to win. I know that she and Sherri were close friends at one point and may still be for all I know. That tells me she ain't a bad person.
Someone brought up that it was horrible because she sat with parents at games when she wasn't supposed to. Really? Any other coach in America could spend as much time recruiting those same players as they wanted to so what advantage did that give her? And no, I don't really give a damn what some writers said about her from ESPN. Someone on here professed there would be a rule passed in the rule book just for Kim Mulkey. BTW, where is that rule? All of that was a lot of BS about nothing. Kinda like the text messages that Kelvin got hung with that is no longer a problem. AND, I really could not care less what Griner said in a book designed to pad her bank account.
The bottom line is, she is one of the top 5 best coaches in the country. She is having huge success in WACO, TX, of all places. Not an easy place in the country to recruit to. Not sure which is worse, Stillwater or Waco.
Like I said, I don't expect others to agree with me but I love her passion to win at the highest level.
Someone brought up that it was horrible because she sat with parents at games when she wasn't supposed to. Really? Any other coach in America could spend as much time recruiting those same players as they wanted to so what advantage did that give her? And no, I don't really give a damn what some writers said about her from ESPN. Someone on here professed there would be a rule passed in the rule book just for Kim Mulkey. BTW, where is that rule? All of that was a lot of BS about nothing. Kinda like the text messages that Kelvin got hung with that is no longer a problem. AND, I really could not care less what Griner said in a book designed to pad her bank account.
The bottom line is, she is one of the top 5 best coaches in the country. She is having huge success in WACO, TX, of all places. Not an easy place in the country to recruit to. Not sure which is worse, Stillwater or Waco.
Like I said, I don't expect others to agree with me but I love her passion to win at the highest level.
Last edited:
I'm with you Norm. She isn't exactly my kind of gal. But, she is an original and is one of the best at what she does. I have some appreciation for that.
BlackwellSooner
New member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,450
- Reaction score
- 0
I detest Mulkey the person that I see on TV, her antics, her rhinestone and cowboy boots attire - -[ in general, the whole outlandish, sometimes out-of-control persona.
At the same time, I will concede that her intensity, her passion to succeed, her driven nature, have been key in allowing her to become extremely successful.
I disagree with Norm in his pooh-poohing the whole sitting-with-the-parents deal during the recruitment of Griner. Really, Norm? You think that Kim did not KNOW that she was bending if not breaking the rules? Face it, Mulkey will do ANYthing to gain an advantage - anything! Fair or not. Not my idea of setting an example to young people.
And perhaps - - I don't think so, but perhaps I would find Mulkey less unsavory if she were OU's coach. I remember that a whole lot of non-OU fans hated Billy Tubbs. Sometimes his antics caused a bit of a blush on Sooner faces. He was brash and a maverick, but I don't ever remember Tubbs cheating like Mulkey did. And no Sooner fan ever had to worry about Billy doing a strip-tease in front of God and everybody...
Not that I really wanted a Griner on the OU women's team, but the successful recruitment of Griner definitely allowed Mulkey added momentum in the recruitment of other star athletes.
A good article, though. And it's not wrong: most people not named Norm detest Kim Mulkey.
At the same time, I will concede that her intensity, her passion to succeed, her driven nature, have been key in allowing her to become extremely successful.
I disagree with Norm in his pooh-poohing the whole sitting-with-the-parents deal during the recruitment of Griner. Really, Norm? You think that Kim did not KNOW that she was bending if not breaking the rules? Face it, Mulkey will do ANYthing to gain an advantage - anything! Fair or not. Not my idea of setting an example to young people.
And perhaps - - I don't think so, but perhaps I would find Mulkey less unsavory if she were OU's coach. I remember that a whole lot of non-OU fans hated Billy Tubbs. Sometimes his antics caused a bit of a blush on Sooner faces. He was brash and a maverick, but I don't ever remember Tubbs cheating like Mulkey did. And no Sooner fan ever had to worry about Billy doing a strip-tease in front of God and everybody...
Not that I really wanted a Griner on the OU women's team, but the successful recruitment of Griner definitely allowed Mulkey added momentum in the recruitment of other star athletes.
A good article, though. And it's not wrong: most people not named Norm detest Kim Mulkey.
Last edited:
There is no evidence that she would do ANYthing to gain an advantage. She set with recruits parents while watching her daughter play. That is what she is willing to do.
But, like all good Sooner fans. We all love Switzer.
I'll say Mulkey has the south locked down right now... And her 4 players from Florida will all have been McDonalds all americans... she works her butt off recruiting.
Let's see. She instructed her players to foul Courtney Paris while she was out of bounds, knowing that an intentional foul would not be called. Exactly what would make anyone think there is any limit on what she would do to gain an advantage, legal or illegal? She thinks people hate her because she wins. Nonsense. Geno wins more, and only Notre Dame seems to hate him. Other coaches win and gain respect. She gets contempt because she is contemptible.
There is no justification for Kim Mulkey, and nobody should seek to emulate anything to do with dishonor.
There is no justification for Kim Mulkey, and nobody should seek to emulate anything to do with dishonor.
SOONERGRAD
New member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 430
- Reaction score
- 0
Geez Syb it's part of the game!! Relax a little. You can't tell me there is not s coach in America who would do ANYTHING! To win. So what Mulkey used to hack a shaq method to get Paris to the free throw line. I would of did the same thing.
I would hope that you have limits. Mulkey doesn't. She knowingly has taken the way that got her what she wanted, regardless of the rules, knowing that you wouldn't force her to adhere to the rules. Exactly what do you think her limits are? Is that what you want taught to university students?
If you want that, go start a pro league. She can coach in that for all I care. She shouldn't be permitted around a college.
If you want that, go start a pro league. She can coach in that for all I care. She shouldn't be permitted around a college.
womenssports
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,509
- Reaction score
- 28
Really, why didn't you want Griner?
35TangoTango
New member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,873
- Reaction score
- 0
"hack-a-shaq" is within the rules. Mulkey's recruiting of the players around Griner was definitely NOT within the rules, and Baylor was penalized by the NCAA. There are lots of coaches in America who would not have done those things, and I'm proud to say our coach is one of them.
It was up to the officials to call the intentional foul, but it's not like they were calling fouls...intentional or otherwise...on Baylor players the last few minutes of that game. Watch the game in the link below...especially from 1:22:20 through the end of the game. You can't coach or teach what took place. CParis has an innate ability and desire to win. If there is anyway within her control/ball in her hand...she will win. Seems like she does it in life as well. How many WNBA players have survived 4 years in the league between three teams, then with the fourth team, after never playing more than a few minutes here and there start every game nearly averaging a double-double and become the WNBA Peak Performer Award winner for rebounds? When given the opportunity, she gets it done. Chemistry is another key. Notice AParis in her ear during the timeouts. OU just needs to figure out how to recruit more CParis type players...innate winners with basketball skills.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcTBdCZcwUM
Sweetest OU Girl
New member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,834
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree Tango.
At the time of the NCAA penalties, it was suggested by some that it appeared possible Mulkey had actual funded the summer league team and manipulated things to get her daughter on it. Whether or not that part is true, she certainly used that scenario so she could "sit with the parents of the other players" and recruit their kids. It has been reported, and is "interesting" that that entire team disbanded once she had signed it's members.
That is as clear a violation of NCAA rules as you will find. It is CHEATING. Intentional CHEATING. The NCAA ruled that whole thing cheating and penalized Baylor. Coaches are strictly limited on the number and settings in which they can contact players and their families. So no, other coaches could not meet with those families even remotely as often as she did. She has built her entire program around that manipulation of the rules, and recruited based on the fruits it bore.
Why in the world would some of you honor such actions and want our coach to cheat?
I will never understand that. I disagree with you. I do not want to build a team around cheating and dishonest people.
Yes, Switzer gave a couch to a player whose apartment and furnishings burned to the ground - and we got penalized for it. But those types of "acts of kindness" were a part of his personality and not just a part of some great recruiting scandal. For example, he also would get up in the middle of the night and take a sack of groceries to a family and sit and help them get through the night and settle things down - at the quest of the head of DHS. You bet I think those kinds of things are far different than using a summer league to be able to spend countless hours recruiting players - against the most obvious NCAA rules.
Come on folks. Let's encourage winning without cheating in recruiting and not heap praise and honor on a win at all costs value system.
SoonerNorm
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 19,033
- Reaction score
- 1
Are you sure you didn't leave out a few things about Switzer?
Let's make this clear: Hack-a-shaq is different from fouling someone who is out of bounds. Officials have tolerated hack-a-shaq without calling it intentional. But, if a player is fouled while still out of bounds, that is not a discretionary foul.. It is required to be called an intentional foul. It extends beyond the idea of hack-a-shaq.
womenssports
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,509
- Reaction score
- 28
During that time, I believe Switzer did far more as did many or most of the NCAA Div I football programs.....or at least those who won. I did not condone it then or now but it was pretty much accepted practise.
Ah. The Mulkey defense: Switzer did it.
If you read what Sally Jenkins and Michelle Voepel wrote, they were trying to keep women's sport from becoming as crooked as men's sport. Kim Mulkey had committed a violation that brought the women's world into the realm of the illegalities of the men's world for the first time. She had thrown tar onto the purity of women's sport, the thing it has always tried to maintain.
To try to compare that with men's sport or indicate that it had any resemblance to anything is another subject. If you have ever studied the history of the NCAA, the entire impetus that led to its formation was that at one time a bunch of frat rats from Harvard challenged the frat rats from Yale to a game (participants may have been others). After losing, they challenged them to another game. But, this time, they hired a local thug to play for Harvard. Yale figured it out after losing to the new improved Harvard team and hired their own thug. Unfortunately, the thug might play for you today and Yale tomorrow. You have to get some control over the thugs.
Hence the NCAA. It took a few years, and there were a few other steps, like requiring that the thugs be students, to being enrolled students, to being enrolled students who actually attended classes, to being enrolled students who actually passed a few classes, to being enrolled students who actually made progress towards a major, etc. It too almost a hundred years before anyone was actually required to graduate. But, the NCAA has always been about controlling "thugs" rather than any honorable relationship with the athlete as a student.
Anything that Switzer did was relatively minor in comparison to what was going on, and Switzer was more of a victim of a former OU athlete who hated losing to Switzer than he was guilty of anything. I'm glad that Paterno eventually apologized for his remarks. Royal didn't.
But, none of this had anything to do with women's basketball, and none of it is an excuse for the toleration of someone who broke the rules of sport and decorum such that I doubt she ever wins a Presidency of any College Women's Basketball association, unless it is formed and housed in Huntsville.
If you read what Sally Jenkins and Michelle Voepel wrote, they were trying to keep women's sport from becoming as crooked as men's sport. Kim Mulkey had committed a violation that brought the women's world into the realm of the illegalities of the men's world for the first time. She had thrown tar onto the purity of women's sport, the thing it has always tried to maintain.
To try to compare that with men's sport or indicate that it had any resemblance to anything is another subject. If you have ever studied the history of the NCAA, the entire impetus that led to its formation was that at one time a bunch of frat rats from Harvard challenged the frat rats from Yale to a game (participants may have been others). After losing, they challenged them to another game. But, this time, they hired a local thug to play for Harvard. Yale figured it out after losing to the new improved Harvard team and hired their own thug. Unfortunately, the thug might play for you today and Yale tomorrow. You have to get some control over the thugs.
Hence the NCAA. It took a few years, and there were a few other steps, like requiring that the thugs be students, to being enrolled students, to being enrolled students who actually attended classes, to being enrolled students who actually passed a few classes, to being enrolled students who actually made progress towards a major, etc. It too almost a hundred years before anyone was actually required to graduate. But, the NCAA has always been about controlling "thugs" rather than any honorable relationship with the athlete as a student.
Anything that Switzer did was relatively minor in comparison to what was going on, and Switzer was more of a victim of a former OU athlete who hated losing to Switzer than he was guilty of anything. I'm glad that Paterno eventually apologized for his remarks. Royal didn't.
But, none of this had anything to do with women's basketball, and none of it is an excuse for the toleration of someone who broke the rules of sport and decorum such that I doubt she ever wins a Presidency of any College Women's Basketball association, unless it is formed and housed in Huntsville.
Sooner Cal
New member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2010
- Messages
- 216
- Reaction score
- 0
Not a fan of Mulkey, not surprised Baylor was cited by the NCAA. But what I find reprehensible is their hypocrisy regarding gays. Either believe in your religious principles that you claim come from God or change your principles. I'm for the latter, but could accept the former is they actually abided by it. But preaching it is a sin while having a gay player win championships for you is the worst of all possibilities.
