Parallels with Stoops

[j2d2]

Lots of gritching here about Sherri and staff. I see decidedly similar parallels with the football situation under Stoops three years ago(actually five ). I was thoroughly fed up with the football staff of both lines. Even for a non-guru it seemed clear that certain staff werent doing their job and the diminishing quality of the players recruited seemed inarguable. In women's basketball it's not so much the diminishing quality of the recruits as it is the failure to sign players that we should given out history and the quality of the coach as a coach and person. Yet we are under performing by every measure I know considering the coach and history. Conclusion: staff, staff, staff. I appreciate Sherri's loyalty as I did Stoop's. BUT. Their loyalty goes first to the university that pays them and then to the kids that play for them who deserve the best teammates that can be acquired in order for them to reach their potential. Time for at least two members of this staff to go - NOW.

 

[sybarite]

I get tired of these absurd comparisons. It clearly indicates that people have not given much thought or established much perspective over the game.

Stoops entered a program that was the winningest program since WWII. The program had six national titles and had finished regularly in the top five or ten. Winning conference titles was such an afterthought that you were considered an inferior coach if you didn't win. The tradition had been built and rebuilt, and the tradition of the program sold the program, not the coach. The football program has won seven titles in 64 years. Indeed, it won seven titles in 51 years. If you don't win a national title every seven years, you really aren't taking advantage of the program.

The men's basketball program has been in the Final Four three times in over a hundred years of existence---three.

Now, explain how we got a woman's program that we had exhibited the genius to shut down ended up getting to the what some consider the greatest national title game in the it involved the best team in history. Who built the program that did that? Who built the program that put three teams in the Final Four in fifteen years, not 115?

That is perspective. Comparisons to Stoops are nonsense. He still has a lot to do to measure up to his own expectations, because he DID inherit a tradition.

 

[j2d2]

It is nonsense to ignore present performance rather than expect little from a program that has clearly shown that OU has a platform to enable the women's program to win regardless of it's short history. Recruits are old enough to know about OU's last final four appearance. We are not devoid of favorable history-just mediocre performance and recruiting the last few years. The wins in the women's program have not produced the results reasonably to be expected. I am comparing ONLY the loyalty of the two head coaches to their staff when the teams performance isnt what it should be-even measured against its own respective histories.

 

[sybarite]

Since Stoops last won a national title with the tradition of the OU football program, Sherri has been to three FInal Fours. Now, which one has not produced recently?

 

[j2d2]

Sherri.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Since Stoops last won a national title with the tradition of the OU football program, Sherri has been to three FInal Fours. Now, which one has not produced recently?

Sherri. Stoops has played for three national championships since Sherri last played for one and he has won a national championship.

During the last five seasons Stoops has finished 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 1st and 4th in the B12. Sherri has finished 6th, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd and 3rd in the regular season standings. Sherri has won no conference titles with two opportunities each season. Stoops has won a conference title (2010) and had two runner-up finishes.

 

[sybarite]

OU football isn't satisfied to play for national titles. It wins.

We won six in fifty years before Stoops. Once since.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Lots of gritching here about Sherri and staff. I see decidedly similar parallels with the football situation under Stoops three years ago(actually five ). I was thoroughly fed up with the football staff of both lines. Even for a non-guru it seemed clear that certain staff werent doing their job and the diminishing quality of the players recruited seemed inarguable. In women's basketball it's not so much the diminishing quality of the recruits as it is the failure to sign players that we should given out history and the quality of the coach as a coach and person. Yet we are under performing by every measure I know considering the coach and history. Conclusion: staff, staff, staff. I appreciate Sherri's loyalty as I did Stoop's. BUT. Their loyalty goes first to the university that pays them and then to the kids that play for them who deserve the best teammates that can be acquired in order for them to reach their potential. Time for at least two members of this staff to go - NOW.

Your point is very valid. Bob saw that the football team was falling behind other teams and he wanted to improve recruiting as well as coaching the players on the field. He made the tough decision to let some coaches go and hired others he believes will give them the best chance to win.

I'm sure Sherri knows recruiting needs to improve and players need to perform better on the court. She has yet to take action to make the necessary changes.

 

[SoonerSpock]

OU football isn't satisfied to play for national titles. It wins.

We won six in fifty years before Stoops. Once since.

But women's basketball is satisfied to just play in Final Fours? Perhaps shows you the different expectation each program/fans place on themselves/their team. And why Stoops does a better job.

 

[atlantasooner]

I don't see why Sherri should be given any kind of pass that would not be given to Bob.
The whole built the program from nothing card is played out. Completely.

She's compensated at an elite level.
Coached at an elite level.

I think the Bob comparison are very valid. If Bob with tremendous advantages that football has over women's hoops felt the need to overhaul his recruiting approach especially in terms of social media marketing, then why is so controversial to say that Sherri should do the same.

Kruger's staff and Lon are much more active on Twitter than Sherri's.

 

[SoonerNorm]

But women's basketball is satisfied to just play in Final Fours? Perhaps shows you the different expectation each program/fans place on themselves/their team. And why Stoops does a better job.

If things don't change, it could a long time before we sniff another final four. There are too many teams on the rise such as South Carolina, Texas, Ohio St., UCLA, etc. Of course, there is still UCONN, Notre Dame, Tenn, and Stanford.

 

[SoonerNorm]

I don't see why Sherri should be given any kind of pass that would not be given to Bob.
The whole built the program from nothing card is played out. Completely.

She's compensated at an elite level.
Coached at an elite level.

I think the Bob comparison are very valid. If Bob with tremendous advantages that football has over women's hoops felt the need to overhaul his recruiting approach especially in terms of social media marketing, then why is so controversial to say that Sherri should do the same.

Kruger's staff and Lon are much more active on Twitter than Sherri's.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! I get so sick of hearing that same ole tired, obsolete argument that is only used to justify lower performance levels. Does anyone think what happened at South Carolina when Dawn Staley took over is relevant today? Look at what Aston is doing at Texas and Close at UCLA. Those coaches don't give a rip about how bad their teams were before they were hired. They went to work building relationships with elite players, getting commitments, and making an immediate impact toward building their programs to compete at the highest levels.

 

[betterstill]

I get the feeling that the program is on a downhill slide. Sherri said when we got the Paris twins that we were finally able to cash in on playing for the championship. We got to some final fours and now we have not been able to cash in on that. I do not bother to read about quality recruits whom we are offering because they nearly always go somewhere else.

Something is wrong. I don't know what it is. I think maybe Sherri herself is not a consistently good recruiter. I think she is paid too much for the results we have been getting.

I guess when the attendance really drops something will be done. I hope Sherri figures out how to get it going again before that happens.

 

[sybarite]

A comparison to Stoops is so absurd as to reveals only the attitudes of those who want to make it.

Stoops hasn't even performed at the level that the tradition would expect.

There is no OU women's basketball program without Sherri. You have absolutely no reason to think OU would ever be a Sweet Sixteen team without Sherri, much less contend for a Final Four. You will eventually get your wish. OU will be without Sherri, and the program will likely drop out of sight. You'll also blame that on Sherri since she let it go downhill, not even acknowledging that there was no hill until she arrived.

For $5 million a year, you can replace what Stoops does. For $1 million, you can't find a way for the women's program to survive.

 

[BanjoCharley]

Sherri. Stoops has played for three national championships since Sherri last played for one and he has won a national championship.

During the last five seasons Stoops has finished 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 1st and 4th in the B12. Sherri has finished 6th, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd and 3rd in the regular season standings. Sherri has won no conference titles with two opportunities each season. Stoops has won a conference title (2010) and had two runner-up finishes.

So now we count runner-up finishes as football success? I don't think so. That is Mack Brown thinking.

 

[SoonerSpock]

So now we count runner-up finishes as football success? I don't think so. That is Mack Brown thinking.

You do when comparing them to Sherri's performance in WBB which what the discussion was about.

Am I happy when OU doesn't win it all. NO. But reality is the Sooner have won it 7 times in the last 64 years and I definitely do not consider 57 of those 64 years unsuccessful seasons. Many were disappointments like bowl losses to Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, Miami, Clemson, BYU, Mississippi, LSU, USC, Boise State, WVY, Florida and aTm but most definitely all those seasons were very successful seasons. They were just not what our often unrealistic expectations wanted.

We could have easily won 3 or 4 of the 7 games with MNC implications with a little luck or without the injury bug. But when you play top teams for national championships winning more than 50% is overwhelming success.

An all or nothing mentality reminds me of an ostrich with his head stuck in the sand.

 

[sybarite]

But, the discussion of Sherri is invalid. Sherri didn't walk into a program that had six national titles in 49 years. Stoops did. At this point in their careers, Switzer and Wilkinson had three national titles.

All of the other coaches in OU women's basketball history have exactly one Sweet Sixteen finish between them---one. Sherri has nine.

You insist on comparing a non-existent program with the most successful football program of the past sixty years.

 

[BanjoCharley]

I'm referring to runner-up for conference championships. As far as I am concerned, Stoops is one for five and Sherri is zero for five. I don't think Bob's second place finishes top Sherri's third place finishes. Grinner dominated B12 WBB for several of those years, who dominated FB then?

 

[SoonerSpock]

A comparison to Stoops is so absurd as to reveals only the attitudes of those who want to make it.
Stoops hasn't even performed at the level that the tradition would expect.

There is no OU women's basketball program without Sherri. You have absolutely no reason to think OU would ever be a Sweet Sixteen team without Sherri, much less contend for a Final Four. You will eventually get your wish. OU will be without Sherri, and the program will likely drop out of sight. You'll also blame that on Sherri since she let it go downhill, not even acknowledging that there was no hill until she arrived.

For $5 million a year, you can replace what Stoops does. For $1 million, you can't find a way for the women's program to survive.

You are the one that initiated the reference to Stoops:
sybarite Re: Parallels with Stoops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Stoops last won a national title with the tradition of the OU football program, Sherri has been to three FInal Fours. Now, which one has not produced recently?
sybarite Re: Parallels with Stoops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, the discussion of Sherri is invalid. Sherri didn't walk into a program that had six national titles in 49 years. Stoops did. At this point in their careers, Switzer and Wilkinson had three national titles.

All of the other coaches in OU women's basketball history have exactly one Sweet Sixteen finish between them---one. Sherri has nine.

You insist on comparing a non-existent program with the most successful football program of the past sixty years.

By my recollection the last three years before Stoops arrival the football team went 12-22 under John Blake whereas Burl Pluckett went 52-36 in the three years prior to Sherri's arrival.

 

[SoonerSpock]

A comparison to Stoops is so absurd as to reveals only the attitudes of those who want to make it.

Stoops hasn't even performed at the level that the tradition would expect.

There is no OU women's basketball program without Sherri. You have absolutely no reason to think OU would ever be a Sweet Sixteen team without Sherri, much less contend for a Final Four. You will eventually get your wish. OU will be without Sherri, and the program will likely drop out of sight. You'll also blame that on Sherri since she let it go downhill, not even acknowledging that there was no hill until she arrived.

For $5 million a year, you can replace what Stoops does. For $1 million, you can't find a way for the women's program to survive.

Both are paid a top five salary for their position nationally and expectations for the money paid should be similar. Otherwise pay Sherri commensurate to the expectation set for her.

It would be much easier to get a coach that can win at Sherri's level for a $1 million than to get a coach for $5 million that can win at Stoops level for 15 years.

Now a replacement for Sherri probably would not present near the image that Sherri provides the university and that too warrant compensation. I most definitely am not saying Sherri is overpaid. Just that we as fans are justified to expect her to perform better on the court than she has for the last five years. Especially when she creates false expectations every year by saying their goal is to compete for the conference and the national championship.

False expectations produce disgruntled fans. It is what it is.