OU vs Marist on Dish?

[sybarite]

I have a question with all your knowledge explain to us less knowledgeable the specific differences in recruiting basketball and gymnastics. Remember to provide facts, examples and specifics not the mere statement that Syb said there was a difference because when you consider that source it becomes folly. Give us a clue not a declaration for Syb.

Otherwise acknowledge that you might be wrong. Oh and I am an acquaintance of two members of the football coaching staff, two members of the men's basketball staff and one member of the women's basketball staff and another head coach at OU that concur with my generality based on discussions we have had. So being as how you use Sherri as a source frequently I thought I would use a couple of mine now.

Norm and Spock, other than an attempt to be contrary and contemptuous, you have nothing to add to this discussion. So, I suggest that you withdraw. If anyone else wants to examine the situation at OU, I will be more than willing to have an intelligent discussion, not a teenage brawl.

Several have questioned why or stated that Sherri has difficulty getting the top recruits. I have invited a discussion as to why that might be true. The gymnastics vs basketball issue may be a place to start. And, yes, it has something to do with Norman. How could it not? The thought that it would not include an evaluation of where you will live is absurd.

 

[BigDSooner43]

:woot

I don't think anyone is in a position to defend Sherri's recruiting. Particularly if you are expecting an elite program. Fact is we rarely get one of the elite recruits that we are pursuing. typically our recruits are interesting under the radar talents who are usually better than their ranking. While I am not a strong believer that we should have a recruiting bonanza after reaching a final four we did get four all-americans in the twins, Thompson and Olijawan but we didn't benefit that much on the court. Good seasons but not vary many great seasons. Since all four were basically inside players maybe that should not be a great surprise. We are probably a B in recruiting. More because we appear to do a good job of recognizing talent than in landing the big ones. We get a lot of good sleepers.

Watching this team is like being on a roller coaster. It ranges from disappointing losses to inspiring wins. From 15-0 runs to 0-15 runs often in the same half.

From brilliant passes on backdoor plays to passes that sail to no one or hit Griffin from the knees down.

We can close up on the Dukes and Louisvilles but then there is the dry spell where we either get too far behind to do more than get close or lose a big lead like against Louisville that should have set us up for a win.

It is a wild ride. But we usually end up better at the end of the season than we look in late December.

 

[soonermike22]

Speaking without any inside knowledge, I see us recruiting really nice kids, religious, and mainstream. Do some recruits "not fit in" because they are not as goody two-shoe, and know that they don't quite have the same strong beliefs as the majority of OU players. I am not saying that the ones we miss out on are not great kids, they just may not have the strong FCA lifestyle that seems so strong here. If that is the case, our pool of possible recruits is significantly smaller. Brittany Griner, Andrea Riley, come to mind, and there are always top Oklahoma recruits we never seem to try to recruit. Opinions? Am I way out in left field?

 

[sybarite]

Speaking without any inside knowledge, I see us recruiting really nice kids, religious, and mainstream. Do some recruits "not fit in" because they are not as goody two-shoe, and know that they don't quite have the same strong beliefs as the majority of OU players. I am not saying that the ones we miss out on are not great kids, they just may not have the strong FCA lifestyle that seems so strong here. If that is the case, our pool of possible recruits is significantly smaller. Brittany Griner, Andrea Riley, come to mind, and there are always top Oklahoma recruits we never seem to try to recruit. Opinions? Am I way out in left field?

I think you have a part of the situation identified. I'm not sure how much of an influence that this is, but we, supposedly, did refuse a McDonald's All-American because of her character issues. I don't know if Sherri would turn down a Griner, but I don't see Griner fitting all that well. I didn't see her fitting at Baylor either, but it took until she used up her eligibility for her to see that. I feel certain that we do reject some prospects because Sherri or the players reject them. With others, the prospect themselves might feel that they don't fit in with our system. This does influence the situation somewhat.

Edit: Gasso may be more into the FCA thing than Sherri.

 

[polo21998]

I believe many time it may not be the recruitor but the 'Members of the Team" that will make the difference in if a kid chooses one school over the other... If a kid does not connect or feel comfortable with the "team members" they may choose to go where they feel wanted...

 

[sybarite]

I believe many time it may not be the recruitor but the 'Members of the Team" that will make the difference in if a kid chooses one school over the other... If a kid does not connect or feel comfortable with the "team members" they may choose to go where they feel wanted...

+1

 

[Soonerbay]

I believe many time it may not be the recruitor but the 'Members of the Team" that will make the difference in if a kid chooses one school over the other... If a kid does not connect or feel comfortable with the "team members" they may choose to go where they feel wanted...

You are exactly right. That is one of the main aspects that most players consider. Read the "Why OU' statements in the media guide and many of the players state that it had something to do with players. It's not the only aspect, but one.

At the same time, I personally know of recruits that liked the players, but decided that the coach was not what they were looking for in a coach.

 

[SoonerNorm]

I believe many time it may not be the recruitor but the 'Members of the Team" that will make the difference in if a kid chooses one school over the other... If a kid does not connect or feel comfortable with the "team members" they may choose to go where they feel wanted...

That is possible if the recruit actually visits. It would be interesting to find out how many we invite to visit vs how many actually accept the invitation. It would also be interesting to know how many we offer vs how many sign LOIs.

Of course, Gasso has the same challenges...will the recruits like the other softball players on the team.

 

[sybarite]

We seem to compete fairly frequently with Stanford, Duke, and Notre Dame. Sometimes, it is the Carolinas. They have a far superior academic reputation to that of OU. How much does that hurt us? Who among our recruiting opponents do you consider that we have an advantage on academically?

 

[SoonerNorm]

IF recruits focused mainly on academics, schools like USC, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Rice, Georgetown, Wake Forest, etc would excel in women's basketball. Since none of those schools can boast the NCAA record in the last 15 years that OU can, it seems pretty clear to me that while academics is likely a factor some recruits consider, it is certainly below their relationship with coaches, other players on the team, other recruits they will be playing with, NCAA records, how many previous players have gone on to the WNBA, how large are home crowds, etc.

Look at A&M. Their women's basketball program wasn't squat until Gary Blair was hired. Suddenly, they became a powerhouse. Some may contribute their sudden success to academics (A&M is certainly a good school) but, I rather suspect it had more to do with their recruiting, starting with the head coach. Same with Baylor.

I certainly have not seen any evidence that Stanford, Notre Dame, or Duke is signing elite basketball players because those players hope to become Rhodes Scholars or Harvard professors.

No one goes to Louisville because the school is recognized as an academic juggernaut. Same for LSU, Rutgers, Tenn, and Kentucky. In fact, not many good players came to OU until Sherri took over.

When it comes to recruiting, I think it is clear that the most important component is the recruiter. The best ones excel. The others get the leftovers.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

About a year ago we all had a variation of this last bit of discussion regarding the role religion might be playing on recruiting at OU. It was an interesting discussion. I see some people leaning in the direction that "it" might be a small part of what is going on whereas they had the opposite position a year ago.

I do think there are some hurdles that recruits may have to "jump" here to get an offer that they don't very many other places. But many places probably have their own special set of hurdles that a recruit must successfully meet to get an offer.

 

[scrybe]

Following are the recruiting rankings for 2013 and 2014. It is highly unlikely all of those teams are located in cities which are easier to recruit to than Norman. Plus, we have the tradition of having been to three final fours since 2002. That makes it MUCH easier to sell your program to recruits. These lists are obviously not 100% accurate but they are pretty good indicators of how our recruiting stacks up against other programs.

http://www.prospectsnation.com/2013-class-rankings

http://www.prospectsnation.com/2014-class-rankings-october-8

I am very high on Ortiz, Dungee, and Peyton. I also like what little I've seen of Pierre-Louis. Johnson has to be a major target for 2017 but right now we have to have really good bigs. I realize that we cannot have 13 elite players on the roster but I do think it's very realistic we have 2 or 3. I just think it is a disappointment when our recruiting classes aren't ranked in the top 20 for two years in a row. Recruiting cannot be based on finding "diamonds in the rough." You have to go after the great players and win on a few.

I don't necessarily have a horse in this race, but the bolded part of your post seems to somewhat shoot down the argument some of you are making.

 

[Soonerbay]

I don't necessarily have a horse in this race, but the bolded part of your post seems to somewhat shoot down the argument some of you are making.

Not at all. Just the opposite. Considering the FF's and the top recruits that were brought in to help earn those FF's...OU should have continued to sign top 10 talent, but instead the signing of top 10-20 talent has declined along with exposure and ticket sales which in turn help with recruiting/signing top talent. There were a number of top 1-25's that had OU on the list and/or visited (official and unofficial), but they didn't sign them. These players seemed to do well at other programs. Now, you don't really see any top 1-25's with OU even as an interest.

 

[sybarite]

scrybe, a lot of truth in what you say.

A good recruiter is what is needed? I almost get the idea that all we need is a flim-flam man to sell a top recruit. A flim-flam man only works if he can get out of town. But, we are talking about selling: a) four year, and/or b) the rest of a prospect's life.

There is a point that A&M was nothing before Blair. On the other hand, Texas had won a national title before GiGi, and GiGi had been pretty successful at Duke with five final fours and two finals appearances. GiGi was an established recruiter who brought some name talent to Duke. She even got some local big names to Texas. But, she had very little success with those recruits at Texas, and she really didn't get the national recruits at Texas. What was the difference between Duke and Texas? It's interesting that the first sentence in Wikipedia addresses her experience as the former coach at Texas, but not Duke where she experienced success.

With Blair at A&M, Mulkey at Baylor, and GiGi at Texas, three schools that have won the national title, we have watched Texas primary talent go elsewhere. Indeed, it is interesting where Texas prospects ended up this year. Let's look at the Prospect Nation top 150.
Texas prospects in top 150
#3 Ariel Atkins TEXAS
#5 Briana Turner Notre Dame
#6 Recee Caldwell UCLA
#12 Brooke McCarthy TEXAS
#50 Michelle Nwokedi Pennsylvania
#72 McKenzie Calvert USC
#89 Tyeshia Taylor New Mexico State
#95 JaLea Bennett Arizona
#104 Micayla Buckner BAYLOR
#129 Terriell Bradley Kansas

#25 Khaalia Hillsman Illinois went to Texas A&M
#30 Dekeiya Cohen South Carolina went to Baylor

Three of the top five in Texas went out of state. We have seen this for some time. Stanford survived the past few years with an Ogwumike in the lineup. USC had the Galbreath sisters who didn't seem to be what was expected.

Texas got a couple this year. But, none of the top Texas prospects went to A&M. #104 went to Baylor.

Why do so many of these kids leave Texas? I don't know the answers to these questions. I just think that recruiting involves a lot more than having a good recruiter. You are asking a girl to spend the next four years of her life with you. She also is looking at the rest of her life. The sale of a weekend isn't likely to have that much of an effect.

Thus far, I think we've just scratched the surface of what recruiting is all about. Let me give you something within my own family.

My son and daughter
Both parents graduated OU
Both grandparents graduated from OU
Both great grandparents graduated from OU, one played football in 1915.
Aunt and uncle graduated from OU
All three first cousins graduated from OU
Neither my son nor daughter even applied to OU. We drove them to the school, took them to football games, walked the campus. Never once considered OU. Bored totally.

Kids do things for their reasons. The question is why kids choose a school, a coach, a location, for college. What is the draw, and what are the negatives?

 

[sybarite]

Not at all. Just the opposite. Considering the FF's and the top recruits that were brought in to help earn those FF's...OU should have continued to sign top 10 talent, but instead the signing of top 10-20 talent has declined along with exposure and ticket sales which in turn help with recruiting/signing top talent. There were a number of top 1-25's that had OU on the list and/or visited (official and unofficial), but they didn't sign them. These players seemed to do well at other programs. Now, you don't really see any top 1-25's with OU even as an interest.

Is that really true? We have had top twenty-five talent visit OU, last year and this. Had two of them last year for certain.

How effective have those top ten talents been at attracting young prospects? OU had some good recruits, and they were good in college. Courtney may have been the best college player ever, at least among the top. But, Courtney, Ashley, Amanda, and Abi kind of disappeared after college. None were pro stars that remained on the front burner. Do kids know who she was? We had the same thing after 2002. Three were drafted, but none really succeeded in the pros. They were borderline prospects that probably maximized their talents in college. The only pro talent that OU has had was Danielle. She may end up as the only one that the younger crowd knows within a couple of years. She is respected.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Art Briles has been a successful football coach every where he's been.

Nick Saban has been successful at every college he has coached.

Bill Self has been successful at every college he has coached.

Gary Blair has been successful at every college he has been.

Brenda Frese has been successful at every college where she has coached.

Tara VanDerveer has been successful every where she's been.

Patty Gasso has been successful at the colleges where she has coached.

Calipari has had great success at every school he has been.

Barry Switzer was a great recruiter. I believe he could have recruited to any decent school in America.

I think most of us will agree that recruiting is at least 80% of winning. All of the above coaches have one thing in common...they are all great recruiters. I thought Kelvin Sampson was a really good coach but he had trouble signing top 10-20 players. I would say he and Sherri are comparable in that regard. If Sherri had just 1 top 10 player and 1 top 20 player, I think we would be right back in another final four hunt.

Just being a great recruiter does not guarantee success. Some are great recruiters and poor coaches. But, you can take the very best coach around and they won't win like Pat Summit unless they can recruit like Pat Summit.

It is more difficult to recruit top players unless you have been to a final four to show recruits you have been there and with their help you can go even further. Sherri has 3 of those under her belt which gives her a huge advantage over a coach like Brian Giorgis.

 

[Soonerbay]

Is that really true? We have had top twenty-five talent visit OU, last year and this. Had two of them last year for certain.

How effective have those top ten talents been at attracting young prospects? OU had some good recruits, and they were good in college. Courtney may have been the best college player ever, at least among the top. But, Courtney, Ashley, Amanda, and Abi kind of disappeared after college. None were pro stars that remained on the front burner. Do kids know who she was? We had the same thing after 2002. Three were drafted, but none really succeeded in the pros. They were borderline prospects that probably maximized their talents in college. The only pro talent that OU has had was Danielle. She may end up as the only one that the younger crowd knows within a couple of years. She is respected.

That's not really what I'm referring to. My disappointment is based upon the top 25's who where coming to visit and/or had OU listed as an interest while CP, AP, AT and AO were still on the team. WNBA is overrated when it comes to recruiting players to college. There are only so many jobs available each year. Players that made it to the WNBA should not be the key ingredient to recruiting.

"Disappeared"? CP has been right up the highway in Tulsa...in the WNBA this past season. Maybe some of those media guide pages should be reserved for the players that are playing overseas and getting a great learning experience in doing so. Most of the WNBA players are playing abroad as well. OU has some responsibility in keeping alumni relevant where applicable.

 

[sybarite]

Norm, I'm not sure of your point. If you are trying to say that good recruiters can win everywhere, your points might be well-taken on Saban, Self, and Urban Meyer, maybe even Tara. But, let's look at where they ended up. Alabama wasn't exactly chopped liver as a traditional power, nor was Kansas basketball. Ohio State has been the class of the Big Ten with or without Meyer. I don't know of a better place for Tara.

While I think Kelvin might have been close to building a tradition at OU, coming on the heels of Tubbs, neither was able to get the top national recruit. Scotty was close. Capel did, and it killed him. Sherri had one thing occur that got her into the national scene. Courtney liked her. That probably got her Ashley, Amanda, Abi, and DRob. But, that loss to Stanford when Courtney was a freshman killed their best chance to become a power under Paris. They never had the healthy pieces after that, and that was a year with an opening----no UConn. We have never been to the Final Four unless UConn was undefeated.

But, there are also the Spurriers who can't seem to do it at South Carolina. How is Rutgers doing? Did Curry rebuild Tech? For every success, there is a failure. Sometimes, it isn't clear. Why would GiGi not succeed at Texas?

Gasso is softball. Different recruiting situation entirely.

The recent success of Louisville, Kentucky, Florida State, and Miami aren't that surprising. I hope that Sherri has now invaded the land of Florida. As far back as Bliss, we heard that Florida had a lot of great prospects, like Al Beal. We missed on one that I really wanted last year, and she is doing well at LSU.

It is also interesting that the Big Twelve is usually #1 or #2 among conference power ratings. Yet, how many #1-25 recruits end up at KU, KS, Iowa State, OSU, or Tech any more? We still don't know much about TCU and WV. But, these teams have done well without highly-rated recruits.

Stanford, Notre Dame, Connecticut, and Tennessee, maybe Duke, are the teams that recruit well nationally. Tennessee is probably due to their early entry into the scene. But, how did these others become the teams to which national prospects were most likely to consider?

 

[SoonerNorm]

I cannot think of a single way that softball recruiting is different than basketball recruiting other than Patty normally has to recruit more players every year than Sherri does. Both have to find the players, develop personal relationships, sell the program, and convince the recruits that OU would be their best choice to attend college.

 

[35TangoTango]

I cannot think of a single way that softball recruiting is different than basketball recruiting other than Patty normally has to recruit more players every year than Sherri does......

I bet you could if you really had to.