Recruiting Questions

[Sweetest OU Girl]

Let me begin by saying I really like Sherri and I respect her immensely. I love the values she seems to require of her players. And with the right kind of players we have seen success at the highest levels.

But there have been several posts discussing the fact we do not seem to sign the athletic players many feel we need. It has started me thinking about that more than in the past. I suspect Sherri works really hard at recruiting. I do not see her as lazy at anything. There have to be other factors at play that are keeping the athletic inner city kids off our team.

So what is/are the reasons in your opinion? I'll give some possibilities, then you can respond to them - or provide your own.

1. Sherri does not want those kind of players. Maybe she wants kids who are already "good" kids. And she does not think she can help (or perhaps just does not want to deal with) those with "rough edges". There were rumors she backed off Griner for that reason - with pretty good reason as we learned over her 4 years and even after graduation. But who knows if we really backed off? I'm not so sure that is true. But do we often just look for the more "polished" girls?

2. We are seen as a dramatically anti-Obama, anti-progressive state. Most of the kids we are talking about here are diametrically opposed to our state image about all that - as we all know. Could other coaches recruiting against us try to convince the inner city kids to avoid us by suggesting our values are not in their best interest and not in the interest of their families? Please do not respond by getting into a political discussion here. It makes no difference who is right or wrong. But could that be something other "win at all costs" recruiters use to portray us in a bad light?

3. I couldn't help noticing today that Ashton (Texas' coach) portrays a very mature, professional image. That is, she dresses and acts her age and maturity level. I really like the image she projects - even though she is a shorthorn. On the other hand, Sherri is almost 50, but often dresses like a teeny bopper. Her hair is always hanging in front of her eyes. She cannot talk to you without continually needing to sweep her hair out of her face - a habit that is very, very annoying and distracting to most mature people. I could see some parents wanting to get their kids in the presence of a more mature, professional coach. I can guarantee you the image is not accurate. Sherri is really smart, stable, and very classy. But so often people judge all of us by appearance - and in recruiting you cannot afford to place any obstacles in the way. Is it time for her to accept the fact she is getting older and project the visual image of a wise, mature woman?

4. Courtney is the best player we have ever had - in my opinion. But she was widely seen as never getting into the best shape - and thus never quite achieving the success she might have. It appears that as she has matured, she has found the motivation to change that. Could other recruiters still use that against us? They could say things like "Sherri never was able to help Courtney reach her full potential due to conditioning & development". And they could find several other of our players over the years about whom the same is true. And they would then suggest the same thing will happen if they sign with us. I could see lots of kids - and their parents - worrying about that if it was portrayed in just the right framework.

So what do you think? Which of these are without merit? Could any be a factor? What other ideas do you have?

 

[SoonerNorm]

Let me begin by saying I really like Sherri and I respect her immensely. I love the values she seems to require of her players. And with the right kind of players we have seen success at the highest levels.

But there have been several posts discussing the fact we do not seem to sign the athletic players many feel we need. It has started me thinking about that more than in the past. I suspect Sherri works really hard at recruiting. I do not see her as lazy at anything. There have to be other factors at play that are keeping the athletic inner city kids off our team.

So what is/are the reasons in your opinion? I'll give some possibilities, then you can respond to them - or provide your own.

1. Sherri does not want those kind of players. Maybe she wants kids who are already "good" kids. And she does not think she can help (or perhaps just does not want to deal with) those with "rough edges". There were rumors she backed off Griner for that reason - with pretty good reason as we learned over her 4 years and even after graduation. But who knows if we really backed off? I'm not so sure that is true. But do we often just look for the more "polished" girls?

2. We are seen as a dramatically anti-Obama, anti-progressive state. Most of the kids we are talking about here are diametrically opposed to our state image about all that - as we all know. Could other coaches recruiting against us try to convince the inner city kids to avoid us by suggesting our values are not in their best interest and not in the interest of their families? Please do not respond by getting into a political discussion here. It makes no difference who is right or wrong. But could that be something other "win at all costs" recruiters use to portray us in a bad light?

3. I couldn't help noticing today that Ashton (Texas' coach) portrays a very mature, professional image. That is, she dresses and acts her age and maturity level. I really like the image she projects - even though she is a shorthorn. On the other hand, Sherri is almost 50, but often dresses like a teeny bopper. Her hair is always hanging in front of her eyes. She cannot talk to you without continually needing to sweep her hair out of her face - a habit that is very, very annoying and distracting to most mature people. I could see some parents wanting to get their kids in the presence of a more mature, professional coach. I can guarantee you the image is not accurate. Sherri is really smart, stable, and very classy. But so often people judge all of us by appearance - and in recruiting you cannot afford to place any obstacles in the way. Is it time for her to accept the fact she is getting older and project the visual image of a wise, mature woman?

4. Courtney is the best player we have ever had - in my opinion. But she was widely seen as never getting into the best shape - and thus never quite achieving the success she might have. It appears that as she has matured, she has found the motivation to change that. Could other recruiters still use that against us? They could say things like "Sherri never was able to help Courtney reach her full potential due to conditioning & development". And they could find several other of our players over the years about whom the same is true. And they would then suggest the same thing will happen if they sign with us. I could see lots of kids - and their parents - worrying about that if it was portrayed in just the right framework.

So what do you think? Which of these are without merit? Could any be a factor? What other ideas do you have?

My opinion is, politics has absolutely nothing to do with recruiting. First, those girls start getting recruited when they are 15 years young or younger. They don't know about politics and could not care less. By the time they are old enough to vote, they will be out of school or almost out.

I have heard from an OU insider that Sherri will nix recruitment of players who do not portray the image she prefers. I understand the assistants do not always agree but they have no say-so.

I doubt her appearance is a negative in recruiting. When Sherri is not in the spotlight, she often does not wear makeup, she just looks like a working coach.

It is possible other coaches will use Courtney but I think they will concentrate on where the program is now and the fact we are getting worse, not better, and have never won a NC.

I'm not even sure we are doing a good job of evaluating talent right now.

Bottom line, I believe Kim, Karen, Blair, etc are better at evaluating talent and better at building relationships with the recruits and their parents than is Sherri. I think you have to love recruiting and be willing to give it everything you have or you will have to settle for lower rated recruits. I haven't heard Sherri say anything that indicates she is passionate about recruiting.

Not only is it important to look at where a recruit is ranked, you also need to pay attention to who is recruiting that kid. Is UCONN, Tenn, Notre Dame, Duke, etc recruiting that player? If not, there probably is a reason, either they already have better players at that position OR they don't think that girl is good enough for them to sign.

 

[garyeb2]

I'm glad it was a woman that brought up #3.

 

[sybarite]

Let me begin by saying I really like Sherri and I respect her immensely. I love the values she seems to require of her players. And with the right kind of players we have seen success at the highest levels.

But there have been several posts discussing the fact we do not seem to sign the athletic players many feel we need. It has started me thinking about that more than in the past. I suspect Sherri works really hard at recruiting. I do not see her as lazy at anything. There have to be other factors at play that are keeping the athletic inner city kids off our team.

So what is/are the reasons in your opinion? I'll give some possibilities, then you can respond to them - or provide your own.

1. Sherri does not want those kind of players. Maybe she wants kids who are already "good" kids. And she does not think she can help (or perhaps just does not want to deal with) those with "rough edges". There were rumors she backed off Griner for that reason - with pretty good reason as we learned over her 4 years and even after graduation. But who knows if we really backed off? I'm not so sure that is true. But do we often just look for the more "polished" girls?

2. We are seen as a dramatically anti-Obama, anti-progressive state. Most of the kids we are talking about here are diametrically opposed to our state image about all that - as we all know. Could other coaches recruiting against us try to convince the inner city kids to avoid us by suggesting our values are not in their best interest and not in the interest of their families? Please do not respond by getting into a political discussion here. It makes no difference who is right or wrong. But could that be something other "win at all costs" recruiters use to portray us in a bad light?

3. I couldn't help noticing today that Ashton (Texas' coach) portrays a very mature, professional image. That is, she dresses and acts her age and maturity level. I really like the image she projects - even though she is a shorthorn. On the other hand, Sherri is almost 50, but often dresses like a teeny bopper. Her hair is always hanging in front of her eyes. She cannot talk to you without continually needing to sweep her hair out of her face - a habit that is very, very annoying and distracting to most mature people. I could see some parents wanting to get their kids in the presence of a more mature, professional coach. I can guarantee you the image is not accurate. Sherri is really smart, stable, and very classy. But so often people judge all of us by appearance - and in recruiting you cannot afford to place any obstacles in the way. Is it time for her to accept the fact she is getting older and project the visual image of a wise, mature woman?

4. Courtney is the best player we have ever had - in my opinion. But she was widely seen as never getting into the best shape - and thus never quite achieving the success she might have. It appears that as she has matured, she has found the motivation to change that. Could other recruiters still use that against us? They could say things like "Sherri never was able to help Courtney reach her full potential due to conditioning & development". And they could find several other of our players over the years about whom the same is true. And they would then suggest the same thing will happen if they sign with us. I could see lots of kids - and their parents - worrying about that if it was portrayed in just the right framework.

So what do you think? Which of these are without merit? Could any be a factor? What other ideas do you have?

Some very valid ideas, and I'm sure that they are at least partially accurate.

1. Although I have heard that, the only player that I have specifically seen named as having been "rejected" was rejected by the players. That player ended up at LSU some time back. I do think that the players do have the capability of rejecting potential recruits. Given the differences in the players that we have on the team, it would be interesting to know what they do deem worthy of rejection.

2. I think this is a major problem for OU. By the age of ten, minority kids have heard of cities, areas, etc., that have a stigma within their community. It has nothing to do with their voting. They do realize what their status is as well as what the reputations of a given area might be.

3. On one hand, I can see this. On the other hand, Sherri is fairly well-known to be a writer, and educator. That might take precedence over her hair style. She is very well-spoken, and I think she is highly respected by those who might have children who would be prospects.

4. Courtney did not seem to feel the need to develop until she had experienced some failure in the pros. When one is almost POY as a freshman, they might be inclined to think they are good enough. They are, but good enough to do what? A little improvement might have resulted in a title and better prepared her for a pro career. I'm not so sure that she valued that at the time. We see those who did not progress, but we may forget that Danielle was a rather poor shooter as a freshman. She also had no control over her passes. She became a prolific free throw shooter, developed a medium jump shot, and learned to pass. She is still developing as a pro. It is really up to a player as to their development. We also saw a freshman who wasn't very good in Griner. She became an excellent free throw and jump shooter. She never did become a great rebounder, even at 6-8.

I think, as stated elsewhere, that OU has a rather narrow window. If you look at the Big Twelve as a whole, it doesn't get the big superstars, other than at Texas or Baylor. I suspect that the end will arrive for Baylor soon. Both of these really put a lot of emphasis on the women's program. Texas and Baylor can spend money when they want a winner. I don't think OU has ever had that type of commitment to the women's program. It was all Sherri.

But, we have difficulty getting the #1 recruits, with the exception of Courtney who had an unusual background for a minority. We often get visits, more out of respect for Sherri it seems. That is diminishing somewhat. But, UConn and Notre Dame can miss on some players. We really can't. When we are dealing with #30 players, we have to have some of them hit like #4s. We can't have injuries, like with Maddie, Whitney, Kaylon, etc. We need to be able to get pretty much the best from at least five or six of our players, and they need to remain healthy. We have had some disappointments in leadership and injuries, and it sets us back.

Today, for example, we started three freshmen. We played a fourth most of the game. We only played one senior and two juniors, one of whom has been somewhat of a disappointment so far. We are young. We need to grow up quickly.

 

[Speedy17]

A #30 player is an amazing player. In fact, a Top 100 player is an amazing player. Think about it - there are 350+ D-1 teams giving out 14 scholarships each. That is 4900 players. The teams that draw Top Ten players - are few and far between. OU is in the conversation a little but you can't get Top 30 players then play like OU is playing. Speaking of schools, I seem to remember Stanford being all over Nicole Kornet and obviously A&M took Peyton Little. Regardless of everything, OU should be playing much better than they are.

2015 Top Ten
UConn - 2
Duke - 2
Texas - 2
ND - 1
Nebraska - 1
Louisville -1
Did not Sign - 1

Top 30
UConn - 3
Duke - 3
ND - 3
Louisville - 2
Texas - 2
UCLA -2
Maryland - 2
UNC - 2
Purdue - 2
Nebraska - 1
Baylor -1
Cal - 1
USC - 1
Tennessee - 1
Missouri -1
Penn State - 1
Michigan State - 1

 

[mikeareese]

OU does have 3 top players committed in Mulkey, Dungee, and Llanusa. OU could possibly add a couple of other top rated players. Lets face it. This is a young team. This is Littles first year. She is basically a freshman. Kornet has played well. The elimination of camps probably hurts the evualuation of players. I just saw a paper for OU baseball winter camps. Camps also let you find those hidden players. Stoops even has down years. I agree OU does need 1 new up and coming assistant.

 

[SoonerinNC]

I have never been into the "Sherri doesn't develop players". Certainly Courtney didn't progress from the sensational freshman season.

But Ny Stevenson could only run and jump when she arrived on campus. She developed into a solid complete player. Abbie O, Ashley Paris and Amanda Thompson were at their best as seniors after struggling in their earlier years. Kornet is significantly improved this year. Then there is DRob.

Sherri's challenge is in front of her. She has the makings of strong recruiting classes in 15 and 16. There are still a number of really strong players still uncommitted, including in our backyard in Norman. She needs to keep many of the top players in state. She has not always done that well. At times I have wondered about her relationship with Oklahoma high school coaches. No information one way or another but I still wonder. Closing the summer camps probably didn't help in that regard.

 

[Soonerbay]

I have never been into the "Sherri doesn't develop players". Certainly Courtney didn't progress from the sensational freshman season.

But Ny Stevenson could only run and jump when she arrived on campus. She developed into a solid complete player. Abbie O, Ashley Paris and Amanda Thompson were at their best as seniors after struggling in their earlier years. Kornet is significantly improved this year. Then there is DRob.

Sherri's challenge is in front of her. She has the makings of strong recruiting classes in 15 and 16. There are still a number of really strong players still uncommitted, including in our backyard in Norman. She needs to keep many of the top players in state. She has not always done that well. At times I have wondered about her relationship with Oklahoma high school coaches. No information one way or another but I still wonder. Closing the summer camps probably didn't help in that regard.

SC has done well with the continued development of guards. She needs a great post coach...should have hired one years ago. EDIT: Clifford Ray for starters! Hansmeyer obviously could not do it...or maybe she was not permitted. Either way...it didn't happen with any of the post players. AParis was much more assertive in high school and played more like a power guard. Those skills were not developed any further at OU. I don't think she was necessarily a better player as a senior; she regained her confidence after riding pine when she should have and could have contributed. BUT...per the statements of SC, she chose to go with her upper class players. The best chance to win the NC was when poor coaching decisions (to go with upper class) cost the game vs Stanford in San Antonio.