Sherri is WAY over paid! Why...

[Oliver Hardy]

Syb, using your point, you could argue hunting and baking were the result of sexism.

Your point isn't invalid, but the issue is more comes than that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sybarite]

I have no idea if women or any other sub set of the population received any benefit direct or residual. The plan was to benefit the university. It did.

If you have a point to make and you want me to follow along till you get there, you need to speed up. I can not think as slow as you do.

I've been busy watching two basketball games.

OK. I'll speed it up with a couple of statements that involve the legality of the points that you are trying to make.

The University of Oklahoma is responsible to the people of Oklahoma, to provide an education for the citizens (male and female) for their betterment and that of the State of Oklahoma. It's responsibility is as much to the women of the state as it is to the men (or football fans). The University of Oklahoma does not operate a professional football team whose success is defined by profit. The football team was actually built to fund the university and its responsibilities.

Finally, we have defined that women are entitled to somewhat of an equal treatment by both courts and law (Title IX). The athletic department may make some evaluations based on their idea of the most effective way to operate. But, those evaluations are also defined by the laws and the responsibilities of the university to ALL of its citizens. As such, the football program does not operate separately from the responsibility of the university. The laws and guidelines of the university define that we will have a specific allocation of funding to women's programs, The university has defined what men's programs it will retain. You might notice that we no longer have swimming. But, these decisions are not made with what you perceive as the football program funding all. Indeed, the football program only exists as a tool of the university in order to achieve its other goals.

Joe C. and the university have determined what each coach will be paid. It is not some lark decision. It is a decision made based on the goals of the university and the responsibility that it has to the citizens of Oklahoma. It's not like Sherri is stealing money from OU. They are the ones that define what she is paid and why. But, they do not regard the football program as the foundation for athletics or their funding. It is a tool.

 

[sybarite]

Syb, using your point, you could argue hunting and baking were the result of sexism.

Your point isn't invalid, but the issue is more comes than that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am rather amused by the path that the thread has taken, and it has been somewhat revealing. If you look at the statement that I made that set some people off, it was, "this discussion apparently revolves around sexism." If you look at the statement, it doesn't actually say what most think it does. It uses the word, "apparently." Examine the meanings of that word.

I find it fascinating that so many were "poked" by that statement. It is interesting that so many feel offended. Is that an acceptance?

There are some rather obvious facts. There is a difference in the treatment of men and women. Women couldn't vote until 1920, the first year they actually voted in the nation as a whole. Interesting? When I was at OU, there were no women's sports, even intramurals. Would you not admit that this was sexism? It may not have had a bunch of guys insulting women, but it did mean that they did not have the same opportunities as men. What is sexism if not that?

It took Title IX to force universities, supposedly the most enlightened of our nation, to provide athletic opportunities in some measure of balance to women. Was that not an attempt to overcome sexism? We could go on with this forever. But, it seems to be an attitude that persists and shades a lot of different endeavors.

Do you think that a male coach of a male team would come under so much criticism if he had been to three final fours, been to sixteen straight NCAA tournaments, been the president of the Womens Association of Basketball Coaches, been an assistant to the US team, and been the head coach of the national U-16 team? Consider it.

We are certain that sexism has existed. Is this some of it in continuation?

 

[Oliver Hardy]

I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not offended. I enjoyed the discussion. I just think you oversimplified it,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Oliver Hardy]

Yes, I do think a male coach would be under fire, but I don't like the insinuation that everyone who disagrees with your analysis is sexist.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sybarite]

Can you show me where I said anyone was racist? That was an accusation.

 

[sybarite]

Ah. You changed your post. Now, show me where I called an individual a sexist.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

I probably edited my post because my thumbs are too large.

Of course you never outright said it. You've just insinuated it with every post. You also unilaterally condemned everyone in the last 150 years who led higher education institutions as sexist because they didn't have women's sports.

I disagree with you that they all were automatically sexist. My guess is that prior to the 1960s most educators and the public didn't even think about women playing sports. That doesn't mean everyone of them was sexist as you imply. I'm sure most of them never even thought about it.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

I meant to type sexist. Sorry, Sybil.

 

[sybarite]

I probably edited my post because my thumbs are too large.

Of course you never outright said it. You've just insinuated it with every post. You also unilaterally condemned everyone in the last 150 years who led higher education institutions as sexist because they didn't have women's sports.

I disagree with you that they all were automatically sexist. My guess is that prior to the 1960s most educators and the public didn't even think about women playing sports. That doesn't mean everyone of them was sexist as you imply. I'm sure most of them never even thought about it.

So, the fact that women did not have equal opportunity didn't mean that the society that permitted this was sexist?

Of course, it was.

It is absurd to think otherwise. The thing is to move past it, not pretend it wasn't true.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Peyton came to play again last night. She never seems to take a night off...knock on wood.

Gabbi had a tough night shooting the ball (although, a couple of her shots were rushed because of the shot clock) and Sherri had her guarding Moody...that's a mismatch. I didn't understand that. Yes, I know...some will promptly tell me that I should never question Sherri :ez-laugh:

Sharane came to play as well...that was sure good to see. She made a couple of good fouls and some silly ones that sent her to the bench early but she did some damage while she was in there.

Gioya continues to struggle.

Kaylon missed a couple of easy shots and failed to slid over on help defense early. She was a lot quicker than ISU's center. I thought we should have taken advantage of that matchup (going inside/out) all game as Kaylon had an advantage.

IF we can get Gioya back to playing like she did early, we will be okay. If not, games are going to be more of a struggle than they should be.

One thing I know, getting beat on the boards by double digits is a killer.

 

[garyeb2]

I've been busy watching two basketball games.

OK. I'll speed it up with a couple of statements that involve the legality of the points that you are trying to make.

The University of Oklahoma is responsible to the people of Oklahoma, to provide an education for the citizens (male and female) for their betterment and that of the State of Oklahoma. It's responsibility is as much to the women of the state as it is to the men (or football fans). The University of Oklahoma does not operate a professional football team whose success is defined by profit. The football team was actually built to fund the university and its responsibilities.

Finally, we have defined that women are entitled to somewhat of an equal treatment by both courts and law (Title IX). The athletic department may make some evaluations based on their idea of the most effective way to operate. But, those evaluations are also defined by the laws and the responsibilities of the university to ALL of its citizens. As such, the football program does not operate separately from the responsibility of the university. The laws and guidelines of the university define that we will have a specific allocation of funding to women's programs, The university has defined what men's programs it will retain. You might notice that we no longer have swimming. But, these decisions are not made with what you perceive as the football program funding all. Indeed, the football program only exists as a tool of the university in order to achieve its other goals.

Joe C. and the university have determined what each coach will be paid. It is not some lark decision. It is a decision made based on the goals of the university and the responsibility that it has to the citizens of Oklahoma. It's not like Sherri is stealing money from OU. They are the ones that define what she is paid and why. But, they do not regard the football program as the foundation for athletics or their funding. It is a tool.

OU has always been a high minded institution. They sent Lil Red packing long before it was politically correct to do so. Boren and Joe C embraced the concepts of Title IX and have been champions of it's implementation.

But, doing all these great things comes with a cost. The money does not come from the tooth fairy. It comes from the profits generated from the football team. Without that, the athletic landscape and the variety of opportunities available would be totally different.

On this topic you dove head first into muddy water, took the wrong fork in the road, stepped off a cliff, and you can not recover. You are just wrong. Quit squirming and move on.

 

[sybarite]

OU has always been a high minded institution. They sent Lil Red packing long before it was politically correct to do so. Boren and Joe C embraced the concepts of Title IX and have been champions of it's implementation.

But, doing all these great things comes with a cost. The money does not come from the tooth fairy. It comes from the profits generated from the football team. Without that, the athletic landscape and the variety of opportunities available would be totally different.

On this topic you dove head first into muddy water, took the wrong fork in the road, stepped off a cliff, and you can not recover. You are just wrong. Quit squirming and move on.

Is this your exit strategy? As I stated clearly to Oliver, the denial of sexism in the history of this is absurd. The only question is whether it was involved in the origin of this thread. It is interesting how much irritation the question provoked, usually the indication that you have hit a nerve. Let me assure you that those muddy waters will contain alligators from now on. It is best to avoid such topics.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

Good old Syb. Back to being an arbitrator of all that is right and wrong; the lone voice who knows all, sees all; and the man who decides what we can discuss and how.

Gosh, how no one has missed you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[garyeb2]

Is this your exit strategy? As I stated clearly to Oliver, the denial of sexism in the history of this is absurd. The only question is whether it was involved in the origin of this thread. It is interesting how much irritation the question provoked, usually the indication that you have hit a nerve. Let me assure you that those muddy waters will contain alligators from now on. It is best to avoid such topics.

What does that mean? Is it like, if I post something that you don't approve of, you are going to respond in all capitol letters? Boy, I sure hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[soonermike22]

OU has always been a high minded institution. They sent Lil Red packing long before it was politically correct to do so. Boren and Joe C embraced the concepts of Title IX and have been champions of it's implementation.

But, doing all these great things comes with a cost. The money does not come from the tooth fairy. It comes from the profits generated from the football team. Without that, the athletic landscape and the variety of opportunities available would be totally different.

On this topic you dove head first into muddy water, took the wrong fork in the road, stepped off a cliff, and you can not recover. You are just wrong. Quit squirming and move on.

Lil Red was sent packing because of native Americas and students protesting against using a native American as a "mascot", in the early 70"s, not because of sudden enlightenment. Title 9 was implemented long before Joe C or D Boren were at OU. Circumstances and finances change the make-up of "equality", but there is a strong effort on all PUBLIC institutions to adhere to the spirit of the law. (Because of possible legal action and moral right).
ALL sports live off football money, (mens bb sometimes comes out ahead), as does fundraising, as well as some money straight to academic enhancement.

Interesting "discussion" that I don't have a part in except I was around OU when lil Red was banned, and have daughters affected by title9.

 

[badger]

Wow 8 pages now. At least the women are better at beating KSU than the men, amirite?

Don't bother to groan. The last four games are @KSU, Baylor, KU and @OSU. I could live with 2-2.

But we BETTER have a good Big 12/NCAA tourney showing, or else Bob Stoops can give Sherri advice on how to clean house

 

[Vinny78]

This !!

 

[SoonerinNC]

Interesting threa.

Went from Sherri being overpaid to football supporting all OU athletics to sexism and Title VII.

When I went to OU the only sport for women was intramural field hockey. Thought it was sad. Knew a young lady who was a phenomenal athlete. There was a powder puff football game one year and she just dominated. Heisman type performance. Sad that she was unable to enjoy her athletic ability.

Regarding Sherri, I don't know the appropriate price for a 19 year coach who has had a fair amount of success. I will yield to Joe C for that. I suspect that while they won't admit it some of the contributors to this thread want her gone.

I don't claim to have a clue about how college basketball is played even though I coached boys basketball for 6 years in Colorado and at Star-Spencer and coached two Fort Sill post basketball championship teams while in the service.

Sherri has to have some coaching skills. She has reached three final fours and two of them were without the Paris twins. Other than that she has done it with a minimal number of top rated players.

I watch a fair number of UConn games on the net. It is a pleasure to watch the strong fundamentals, the smart play and of course talented players of the quality OU doesn't often get. So it is not a fair comparison from a talent standpoint. But they have minimum turnovers and fouls and have one starter hitting over 50% from the arc and others over 40%. They had two consecutive games where the other team did not shoot a free throw and it was not bad officiating. the Big 12 seems to have a corner on bad officiating.

Sherri teaches a very high risk game. We do a good job with the up tempo game but our half court game often looks like they are playing in mud. We score a ton of baskets on out of bounds plays but can't seem to get players open consistently in our half court offense. We often make the same mistakes over and over. ViVi with no back to the basket game trying to score over taller players, getting blocked and a turnover. Sharane and Carter trying to penetrate over and over and losing the ball half of the time.

At times we look sharp and at other times the high risk game results in turnovers and wild shots. Bottom line there are some great wins and some bad losses. But Sherri has had at least moderate success with that style. Whether you like or dislike her you have to give her that. And her record is not loaded with cupcakes like other teams.

So is consistent trips to the NCAA and a few sweet sixteens and final fours mixed in worth $1 million a year? I can't judge that. It is a lot of money but I have a bigger problem with trashy movie stars making $20 million a picture and foul mouthed rappers making a fortune making young people think bad behavior is cool.

 

[badger]

So is consistent trips to the NCAA and a few sweet sixteens and final fours mixed in worth $1 million a year?

I don't like the idea of first round exits two years in a row, so ask me again in a week

Same goes for the guys team (Lon's guys, not Sherri's guys lol). Enough with the first round exits. You don't put first round exit on a t-shirt!