Sherri is WAY over paid! Why...

[Oliver Hardy]

You are completely off base in your criticism of Norm, Tango. Completely.

Sherri has had two abysmal years. Her first one and last year. She's had mediocre years and great years in between.

Last year, this year, and, hopefully, next year will probably go down on OUWBB history as the greatest of all time, even outdoing the years of the twins, D-Rob and Abi and Amanda.

For the last three or four years, prior to this, our recruiting flat out stunk and the lack of depth killed us until this season.

Those years have been some of Sherri's worst seasons, recruiting, player development and coaching.

Now, it is clearly evident she is back doing everything she should be doing at perhaps the best level of her career.

Does she deserve a million a year. Some years she has, a lot of years she didn't.

I disagree with Vinny because he's a troll, but one who has a right to have his say.

Norm, (Tango despite your silly opinion, is one of the finest message board (former) mods and commentators I have seen and he is invaluable to this board's past, present, and future.

Why can't it be that we are all a little bit right and a little bit wrong? I think it can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SoonerNorm]

I guess I will never understand why if someone wants to criticize Stoops, Lon, or Capel, no one would care. But, if you say anything negative about Sherri, you are a troll and should be beheaded. In my opinion, Sherri is a really good coach but, she can do better.

 

[Vinny78]

I guess I will never understand why if someone wants to criticize Stoops, Lon, or Capel, no one would care. But, if you say anything negative about Sherri, you are a troll and should be beheaded. In my opinion, Sherri is a really good coach but, she can do better.

Norm, that's the reason I love your posts and respect the things you say. You are on here all the time BUT you don't sugar coat things like many on here do. And you don't attack people either like some (cough cough Syb Tango).

And as you know anytime you State the truth and the Obvious they can't deal with it and attack. That is why many good posters no longer post on here beacuse many don't want tomhear common sense.

Just like Ollie called me a troll. Well if he or she would just PM me i would show Ollie all my season tickets and the donations etc but Ollie doesn't want to know just wants to attack.. Thanks again for your common sense and your contributions to this board, i read all of it.

 

[soonerstar]

Norm, that's the reason I love your posts and respect the things you say. You are on here all the time BUT you don't sugar coat things like many on here do. And you don't attack people either like some (cough cough Syb Tango).

And as you know anytime you State the truth and the Obvious they can't deal with it and attack. That is why many good posters no longer post on here beacuse many don't want tomhear common sense.

Just like Ollie called me a troll. Well if he or she would just PM me i would show Ollie all my season tickets and the donations etc but Ollie doesn't want to know just wants to attack.. Thanks again for your common sense and your contributions to this board, i read all of it.

+1

 

[SKSooner]

Also, do you agree with me about Stoops?

Well, no, I really don't. I would be very surprised if Bob Stoops has been doing anything much different the last few years than he did in his first several years. Maybe some minor things, but I would imagine his work hours, preparation, and recruiting effort is probably unchanged. The fact is some years turn out better than others. Some players turn out better than others. You have to take risks. You have injuries. Some years you are lucky, some unlucky. Some recruiting classes turn out bad, but maybe you did a better job recruiting on a bad class than you did for the good class. Who knows, because there could be a lot of variables. For some time spans, you have a lot of competition in the conference. Other years, everyone else stinks and your record looks better. But with good coaches, over time, they prove themselves. Just like I think Stoops will make a comeback, so will Sherri Coale. But both coaches have been at OU for so long, it can only be expected they would have periods where they weren't as successful as their best years.

With Sherri Coale, you are getting more than a basketball coach. Maybe all that matters to some are the wins and losses, but there are things Sherri Coale does that the university appreciates. Her students graduate. They are exceptional citizens. She teaches classes at the university. She goes above and beyond to represent the University of Oklahoma in any way that Boren & Castiglione ask. If anything, I doubt that she's fat and happy. What she might be is overextended, and that would fall at Boren and Castiglione's feet. She is asked to be more than a coach at OU, and that's very unique for a women's basketball coach.

The other thing Sherri Coale does that won't change but potentially limits her success on the court is the fact she has standards for her program. She simply doesn't recruit certain types of players because of their attitude. She's been very honest in that it requires a certain type of person to play basketball at OU. I realize that sounds corny, but I have been following her program since Day 1. I have known people who worked for Sherri Coale & have worked for Joe Castiglione, and Sherri Coale does things a certain way. I respect the fact that she hasn't compromised her values. You rarely, rarely see one of her players getting in any kind of trouble or having discipline issues.

And finally, let's be honest. Sherri Coale built the OU women's basketball program from nothing. It was pure embarrassment before she got here. I don't think I need to remind people that it was just a couple of years before she was hired that the program was temporarily cancelled. Over the years, she has earned the right to have a couple of 18 win seasons. Let's not try and pretend like the last couple years were the first years she's had that weren't stellar. She's had mediocre years a few times. But, she's also been to 3 Final Fours and 9 Sweet 16s in 18 years. For a program that had nothing before she got here, I think it's crazy to complain as much as you do. When she leaves, it wouldn't surprise me if the program went right back into the tank. Look at what has happened with Texas & Texas Tech.

You can criticize Sherri Coale all you want, but I've been following your posts and I'm wondering what you think Sherri Coale does right. You question her recruiting. You question her coaching decisions. You question her player development. You question her assistant coaches. I'm still trying to figure out how in the world she's been to 3 Final Fours if her approach to coaching the game of basketball is as mediocre as you say it is.

I've read your posts this year and in previous years questioning her coaching decisions. You honestly have a tone that makes me think you believe Sherri Coale's level of strategy is that of a high school coach.

 

[NMSooner'80]

:woot :woot

Well, no, I really don't. I would be very surprised if Bob Stoops has been doing anything much different the last few years than he did in his first several years. Maybe some minor things, but I would imagine his work hours, preparation, and recruiting effort is probably unchanged. The fact is some years turn out better than others. Some players turn out better than others. You have to take risks. You have injuries. Some years you are lucky, some unlucky. Some recruiting classes turn out bad, but maybe you did a better job recruiting on a bad class than you did for the good class. Who knows, because there could be a lot of variables. For some time spans, you have a lot of competition in the conference. Other years, everyone else stinks and your record looks better. But with good coaches, over time, they prove themselves. Just like I think Stoops will make a comeback, so will Sherri Coale. But both coaches have been at OU for so long, it can only be expected they would have periods where they weren't as successful as their best years.

With Sherri Coale, you are getting more than a basketball coach. Maybe all that matters to some are the wins and losses, but there are things Sherri Coale does that the university appreciates. Her students graduate. They are exceptional citizens. She teaches classes at the university. She goes above and beyond to represent the University of Oklahoma in any way that Boren & Castiglione ask. If anything, I doubt that she's fat and happy. What she might be is overextended, and that would fall at Boren and Castiglione's feet. She is asked to be more than a coach at OU, and that's very unique for a women's basketball coach.

The other thing Sherri Coale does that won't change but potentially limits her success on the court is the fact she has standards for her program. She simply doesn't recruit certain types of players because of their attitude. She's been very honest in that it requires a certain type of person to play basketball at OU. I realize that sounds corny, but I have been following her program since Day 1. I have known people who worked for Sherri Coale & have worked for Joe Castiglione, and Sherri Coale does things a certain way. I respect the fact that she hasn't compromised her values. You rarely, rarely see one of her players getting in any kind of trouble or having discipline issues.

And finally, let's be honest. Sherri Coale built the OU women's basketball program from nothing. It was pure embarrassment before she got here. I don't think I need to remind people that it was just a couple of years before she was hired that the program was temporarily cancelled. Over the years, she has earned the right to have a couple of 18 win seasons. Let's not try and pretend like the last couple years were the first years she's had that weren't stellar. She's had mediocre years a few times. But, she's also been to 3 Final Fours and 9 Sweet 16s in 18 years. For a program that had nothing before she got here, I think it's crazy to complain as much as you do. When she leaves, it wouldn't surprise me if the program went right back into the tank. Look at what has happened with Texas & Texas Tech.

You can criticize Sherri Coale all you want, but I've been following your posts and I'm wondering what you think Sherri Coale does right. You question her recruiting. You question her coaching decisions. You question her player development. You question her assistant coaches. I'm still trying to figure out how in the world she's been to 3 Final Fours if her approach to coaching the game of basketball is as mediocre as you say it is.

I've read your posts this year and in previous years questioning her coaching decisions. You honestly have a tone that makes me think you believe Sherri Coale's level of strategy is that of a high school coach.

 

[sybarite]

Well, no, I really don't. I would be very surprised if Bob Stoops has been doing anything much different the last few years than he did in his first several years. Maybe some minor things, but I would imagine his work hours, preparation, and recruiting effort is probably unchanged. The fact is some years turn out better than others. Some players turn out better than others. You have to take risks. You have injuries. Some years you are lucky, some unlucky. Some recruiting classes turn out bad, but maybe you did a better job recruiting on a bad class than you did for the good class. Who knows, because there could be a lot of variables. For some time spans, you have a lot of competition in the conference. Other years, everyone else stinks and your record looks better. But with good coaches, over time, they prove themselves. Just like I think Stoops will make a comeback, so will Sherri Coale. But both coaches have been at OU for so long, it can only be expected they would have periods where they weren't as successful as their best years.

With Sherri Coale, you are getting more than a basketball coach. Maybe all that matters to some are the wins and losses, but there are things Sherri Coale does that the university appreciates. Her students graduate. They are exceptional citizens. She teaches classes at the university. She goes above and beyond to represent the University of Oklahoma in any way that Boren & Castiglione ask. If anything, I doubt that she's fat and happy. What she might be is overextended, and that would fall at Boren and Castiglione's feet. She is asked to be more than a coach at OU, and that's very unique for a women's basketball coach.

The other thing Sherri Coale does that won't change but potentially limits her success on the court is the fact she has standards for her program. She simply doesn't recruit certain types of players because of their attitude. She's been very honest in that it requires a certain type of person to play basketball at OU. I realize that sounds corny, but I have been following her program since Day 1. I have known people who worked for Sherri Coale & have worked for Joe Castiglione, and Sherri Coale does things a certain way. I respect the fact that she hasn't compromised her values. You rarely, rarely see one of her players getting in any kind of trouble or having discipline issues.

And finally, let's be honest. Sherri Coale built the OU women's basketball program from nothing. It was pure embarrassment before she got here. I don't think I need to remind people that it was just a couple of years before she was hired that the program was temporarily cancelled. Over the years, she has earned the right to have a couple of 18 win seasons. Let's not try and pretend like the last couple years were the first years she's had that weren't stellar. She's had mediocre years a few times. But, she's also been to 3 Final Fours and 9 Sweet 16s in 18 years. For a program that had nothing before she got here, I think it's crazy to complain as much as you do. When she leaves, it wouldn't surprise me if the program went right back into the tank. Look at what has happened with Texas & Texas Tech.

You can criticize Sherri Coale all you want, but I've been following your posts and I'm wondering what you think Sherri Coale does right. You question her recruiting. You question her coaching decisions. You question her player development. You question her assistant coaches. I'm still trying to figure out how in the world she's been to 3 Final Fours if her approach to coaching the game of basketball is as mediocre as you say it is.

I've read your posts this year and in previous years questioning her coaching decisions. You honestly have a tone that makes me think you believe Sherri Coale's level of strategy is that of a high school coach.

Excellent!

 

[tycat947]

Well, no, I really don't. I would be very surprised if Bob Stoops has been doing anything much different the last few years than he did in his first several years. Maybe some minor things, but I would imagine his work hours, preparation, and recruiting effort is probably unchanged. The fact is some years turn out better than others. Some players turn out better than others. You have to take risks. You have injuries. Some years you are lucky, some unlucky. Some recruiting classes turn out bad, but maybe you did a better job recruiting on a bad class than you did for the good class. Who knows, because there could be a lot of variables. For some time spans, you have a lot of competition in the conference. Other years, everyone else stinks and your record looks better. But with good coaches, over time, they prove themselves. Just like I think Stoops will make a comeback, so will Sherri Coale. But both coaches have been at OU for so long, it can only be expected they would have periods where they weren't as successful as their best years.

With Sherri Coale, you are getting more than a basketball coach. Maybe all that matters to some are the wins and losses, but there are things Sherri Coale does that the university appreciates. Her students graduate. They are exceptional citizens. She teaches classes at the university. She goes above and beyond to represent the University of Oklahoma in any way that Boren & Castiglione ask. If anything, I doubt that she's fat and happy. What she might be is overextended, and that would fall at Boren and Castiglione's feet. She is asked to be more than a coach at OU, and that's very unique for a women's basketball coach.

The other thing Sherri Coale does that won't change but potentially limits her success on the court is the fact she has standards for her program. She simply doesn't recruit certain types of players because of their attitude. She's been very honest in that it requires a certain type of person to play basketball at OU. I realize that sounds corny, but I have been following her program since Day 1. I have known people who worked for Sherri Coale & have worked for Joe Castiglione, and Sherri Coale does things a certain way. I respect the fact that she hasn't compromised her values. You rarely, rarely see one of her players getting in any kind of trouble or having discipline issues.

And finally, let's be honest. Sherri Coale built the OU women's basketball program from nothing. It was pure embarrassment before she got here. I don't think I need to remind people that it was just a couple of years before she was hired that the program was temporarily cancelled. Over the years, she has earned the right to have a couple of 18 win seasons. Let's not try and pretend like the last couple years were the first years she's had that weren't stellar. She's had mediocre years a few times. But, she's also been to 3 Final Fours and 9 Sweet 16s in 18 years. For a program that had nothing before she got here, I think it's crazy to complain as much as you do. When she leaves, it wouldn't surprise me if the program went right back into the tank. Look at what has happened with Texas & Texas Tech.

You can criticize Sherri Coale all you want, but I've been following your posts and I'm wondering what you think Sherri Coale does right. You question her recruiting. You question her coaching decisions. You question her player development. You question her assistant coaches. I'm still trying to figure out how in the world she's been to 3 Final Fours if her approach to coaching the game of basketball is as mediocre as you say it is.

I've read your posts this year and in previous years questioning her coaching decisions. You honestly have a tone that makes me think you believe Sherri Coale's level of strategy is that of a high school coach.

Bravo!!!!!!

 

[SoonerNorm]

Well, no, I really don't. I would be very surprised if Bob Stoops has been doing anything much different the last few years than he did in his first several years. Maybe some minor things, but I would imagine his work hours, preparation, and recruiting effort is probably unchanged. The fact is some years turn out better than others. Some players turn out better than others. You have to take risks. You have injuries. Some years you are lucky, some unlucky. Some recruiting classes turn out bad, but maybe you did a better job recruiting on a bad class than you did for the good class. Who knows, because there could be a lot of variables. For some time spans, you have a lot of competition in the conference. Other years, everyone else stinks and your record looks better. But with good coaches, over time, they prove themselves. Just like I think Stoops will make a comeback, so will Sherri Coale. But both coaches have been at OU for so long, it can only be expected they would have periods where they weren't as successful as their best years.

With Sherri Coale, you are getting more than a basketball coach. Maybe all that matters to some are the wins and losses, but there are things Sherri Coale does that the university appreciates. Her students graduate. They are exceptional citizens. She teaches classes at the university. She goes above and beyond to represent the University of Oklahoma in any way that Boren & Castiglione ask. If anything, I doubt that she's fat and happy. What she might be is overextended, and that would fall at Boren and Castiglione's feet. She is asked to be more than a coach at OU, and that's very unique for a women's basketball coach.

The other thing Sherri Coale does that won't change but potentially limits her success on the court is the fact she has standards for her program. She simply doesn't recruit certain types of players because of their attitude. She's been very honest in that it requires a certain type of person to play basketball at OU. I realize that sounds corny, but I have been following her program since Day 1. I have known people who worked for Sherri Coale & have worked for Joe Castiglione, and Sherri Coale does things a certain way. I respect the fact that she hasn't compromised her values. You rarely, rarely see one of her players getting in any kind of trouble or having discipline issues.

And finally, let's be honest. Sherri Coale built the OU women's basketball program from nothing. It was pure embarrassment before she got here. I don't think I need to remind people that it was just a couple of years before she was hired that the program was temporarily cancelled. Over the years, she has earned the right to have a couple of 18 win seasons. Let's not try and pretend like the last couple years were the first years she's had that weren't stellar. She's had mediocre years a few times. But, she's also been to 3 Final Fours and 9 Sweet 16s in 18 years. For a program that had nothing before she got here, I think it's crazy to complain as much as you do. When she leaves, it wouldn't surprise me if the program went right back into the tank. Look at what has happened with Texas & Texas Tech.

You can criticize Sherri Coale all you want, but I've been following your posts and I'm wondering what you think Sherri Coale does right. You question her recruiting. You question her coaching decisions. You question her player development. You question her assistant coaches. I'm still trying to figure out how in the world she's been to 3 Final Fours if her approach to coaching the game of basketball is as mediocre as you say it is.

I've read your posts this year and in previous years questioning her coaching decisions. You honestly have a tone that makes me think you believe Sherri Coale's level of strategy is that of a high school coach.

If you will take the time to do some research, you will find that OU cancelled the women's program in 1990. Burl Plunkett took over from Gary Hudson in 1994 and remained the coach through 1996. Coach Plunkett went 22-9 in 1995. He had an overall winning percentage of 59% as OU's coach for those 3 years. Sherri came in 1997 and has developed a winning percentage of 67%. To say Sherri created the program from nothing is not true and does not give Plunkett any consideration for the commendable job that he did. Should Sherri be given credit for improving the program? YOU BET! Has she maintained the excellent play recently? Nope, she hasn't. If you are okay with that, no problem.

If you think Bob Stoops has earned his high salary the last few years that puts you in an unique group as just about everyone I know thought he should have been fired at the end of the past year. He has fired several coaches in the last couple of years trying to right the ship. It certainly appears he knows he has failed to meet expectations and he is trying to do something about it.

Do you always agree with Sherri's recruiting and all of her coaching decisions? If so, again, that puts you in an unique category. There is nothing written that I'm aware of that says fans must agree with coaches all the time and they should not be allowed to voice an opinion if it differs from what we see on the field/court. If that is you, I tip my hat. Good for you!

I look at Patty Gasso and Mark Williams and I see coaches competing for national championships. Both of them have more difficult situations than either Bob or Sherri as they are limited in the scholarship help they can offer. They don't use that as an excuse. They just produce. Mark Williams' worst finish since 2000 is 4th and that was his first year. Since then, he has finished 3rd or higher. He has won 5 national championships. Patty's team hasn't finished out of the top 7 in the last 4 years. She is loaded again this year.

I have started plenty of positive threads on this board which you can verify if you choose. That doesn't make me a better fan than you but it doesn't make you a better fan than me if you choose to never observe anything wrong with what is going on.

 

[SKSooner]

If you will take the time to do some research, you will find that OU cancelled the women's program in 1990. Burl Plunkett took over from Gary Hudson in 1994 and remained the coach through 1996. Coach Plunkett went 22-9 in 1995. He had an overall winning percentage of 59% as OU's coach for those 3 years. Sherri came in 1997 and has developed a winning percentage of 67%. To say Sherri created the program from nothing is not true and does not give Plunkett any consideration for the commendable job that he did. Should Sherri be given credit for improving the program? YOU BET! Has she maintained the excellent play recently? Nope, she hasn't. If you are okay with that, no problem.

If you think Bob Stoops has earned his high salary the last few years that puts you in an unique group as just about everyone I know thought he should have been fired at the end of the past year. He has fired several coaches in the last couple of years trying to right the ship. It certainly appears he knows he has failed to meet expectations and he is trying to do something about it.

Do you always agree with Sherri's recruiting and all of her coaching decisions? If so, again, that puts you in an unique category. There is nothing written that I'm aware of that says fans must agree with coaches all the time and they should not be allowed to voice an opinion if it differs from what we see on the field/court. If that is you, I tip my hat. Good for you!

I look at Patty Gasso and Mark Williams and I see coaches competing for national championships. Both of them have more difficult situations than either Bob or Sherri as they are limited in the scholarship help they can offer. They don't use that as an excuse. They just produce. Mark Williams' worst finish since 2000 is 4th and that was his first year. Since then, he has finished 3rd or higher. He has won 5 national championships. Patty's team hasn't finished out of the top 7 in the last 4 years. She is loaded again this year.

I have started plenty of positive threads on this board which you can verify if you choose. That doesn't make me a better fan than you but it doesn't make you a better fan than me if you choose to never observe anything wrong with what is going on.

Norm, you've absolutely got to be kidding me. Go get a clue. There are 16 schools in the entire country with Division 1 men's gymnastics teams. Don't try and play this limited scholarship crap. There's only 15 other teams competing against him in the entire county! To bring up Mark Williams as some kind of example of what Sherri Coale should be doing is one of the most laughable arguments I've seen posted on this board. Seriously, it is. That's not meant to be some kind of mean, over-the-top remark, either. It's just one of the most clueless arguments you could make.

And to bring up Plunkett? Seriously? The man left Sherri Coale with one of the worst teams in OU women's basketball history. I credit Hynes for having the guts to hire Sherri Coale, but there is a reason that a high school coach was hired. NOBODY ELSE WANTED THE JOB because the program was in terrible shape! Anyone who was familiar with Coale's first season knows how dreadfully bad the team was. Plunkett might have been a decent basketball coach on the court, but he had done an absolutely pitiful job recruiting and wasn't even good health.

You are correct in that the last few season, Coale's teams haven't been excellent. Do I think she will have excellent teams in the future? Yes. Are you ridiculous & unreasonable in your expectations? Yes, you are. You think a coach who has over 300 competitors has it easier than a coach with 15 competitors.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Norm, you've absolutely got to be kidding me. Go get a clue. There are 16 schools in the entire country with Division 1 men's gymnastics teams. Don't try and play this limited scholarship crap. There's only 15 other teams competing against him in the entire county! To bring up Mark Williams as some kind of example of what Sherri Coale should be doing is one of the most laughable arguments I've seen posted on this board. Seriously, it is. That's not meant to be some kind of mean, over-the-top remark, either. It's just one of the most clueless arguments you could make.

And to bring up Plunkett? Seriously? The man left Sherri Coale with one of the worst teams in OU women's basketball history. I credit Hynes for having the guts to hire Sherri Coale, but there is a reason that a high school coach was hired. NOBODY ELSE WANTED THE JOB because the program was in terrible shape! Anyone who was familiar with Coale's first season knows how dreadfully bad the team was. Plunkett might have been a decent basketball coach on the court, but he had done an absolutely pitiful job recruiting and wasn't even good health.

You are correct in that the last few season, Coale's teams haven't been excellent. Do I think she will have excellent teams in the future? Yes. Are you ridiculous & unreasonable in your expectations? Yes, you are. You think a coach who has over 300 competitors has it easier than a coach with 15 competitors.

Did I say that gymnastics has the same number of teams as basketball? Nope, wrong again. That doesn't mean Williams gets to coast. He still has to find the best potential gymnasts and talk them into coming to OU, then he has to develop them. You apparently think his job is a piece of cake. I think most gymnastic coaches who compete against him would disagree with you.

How about softball, I notice you didn't make any comparisons from recruiting in basketball to softball. Do you think Sherri or Patty has the easiest job when it comes to recruiting?

You said my expectations are too high for Sherri's team. What are your expectations for the program?

Is it an unreasonable expectation not to get by Baylor 9 straight times?

Is it reasonable to expect we would have more than one player who could start for Baylor?

Is it reasonable to expect we would be ranked in the top 10? Top 15? Top 20?

What changes do you expect to see take place to get back to competing for final fours? When do you think that will happen?

Do you ever complain about football or does Stoops get a pass from you regardless of how bad they do?

 

[garyeb2]

Norm, you've absolutely got to be kidding me. Go get a clue. There are 16 schools in the entire country with Division 1 men's gymnastics teams. Don't try and play this limited scholarship crap. There's only 15 other teams competing against him in the entire county! To bring up Mark Williams as some kind of example of what Sherri Coale should be doing is one of the most laughable arguments I've seen posted on this board. Seriously, it is. That's not meant to be some kind of mean, over-the-top remark, either. It's just one of the most clueless arguments you could make.

And to bring up Plunkett? Seriously? The man left Sherri Coale with one of the worst teams in OU women's basketball history. I credit Hynes for having the guts to hire Sherri Coale, but there is a reason that a high school coach was hired. NOBODY ELSE WANTED THE JOB because the program was in terrible shape! Anyone who was familiar with Coale's first season knows how dreadfully bad the team was. Plunkett might have been a decent basketball coach on the court, but he had done an absolutely pitiful job recruiting and wasn't even good health.

You are correct in that the last few season, Coale's teams haven't been excellent. Do I think she will have excellent teams in the future? Yes. Are you ridiculous & unreasonable in your expectations? Yes, you are. You think a coach who has over 300 competitors has it easier than a coach with 15 competitors.

You are being pretty insulting to a guy that is trying to be reasonable most all of the time. On top of that your argument is flawed, one sided, and skewed.

There is a huge competitive gap between women's basketball and gymnastics. You are right about that. Comparing the resumes between those two coaches is not a valid argument.

But, all of you worshippers at the alter of Sherri Coale disciples, will make the same argument to Kruger's vs Sherri's resume. Here is a news flash. The competitive gap betweem men's and women's basketball is comparable to women's basketball and gymnastics.

Sherri's record should only be evaluated verses the expectation within the context of women's basketball. If Sherri is drawing a top 10 salary and if women's basketball has a top 10 budget the expectation is top 10 results. If the top 10 result isn't there, then both her salary and budget were unreasonably set too high, or, she is underperforming. It is no more complicated than that.

The intangibles that Sherri brings argument is no good either. Coaching at the University of Oklahoma is a results oriented business and the intangibles aren't worth 3 rotten eggs.

 

[SKSooner]

Did I say that gymnastics has the same number of teams as basketball? Nope, wrong again. That doesn't mean Williams gets to coast. He still has to find the best potential gymnasts and talk them into coming to OU, then he has to develop them. You apparently think his job is a piece of cake. I think most gymnastic coaches who compete against him would disagree with you.

How about softball, I notice you didn't make any comparisons from recruiting in basketball to softball. Do you think Sherri or Patty has the easiest job when it comes to recruiting?

You said my expectations are too high for Sherri's team. What are your expectations for the program?

Is it an unreasonable expectation not to get by Baylor 9 straight times?

Is it reasonable to expect we would have more than one player who could start for Baylor?

Is it reasonable to expect we would be ranked in the top 10? Top 15? Top 20?

What changes do you expect to see take place to get back to competing for final fours? When do you think that will happen?

Do you ever complain about football or does Stoops get a pass from you regardless of how bad they do?

I don't think his job is a piece of cake. I think it's ridiculous to compare his job to Sherri Coale's because they are entirely different. The fact you are defending this lame, ridiculous argument says everything I need to know.

We're a top 20 team right now. Says the NCAA. And two years ago, we finished in the Sweet 16. It's not like we're that far off.

In the next few years, I would be surprised if we don't threaten to make another Final Four run. I think we're going to be pretty danged good in the Gabbi Ortiz era.

I'm a fan. I want to see our teams do well, but I also have perspective. Just because a coach has a few years that aren't as good doesn't mean I don't think the coach has lost it or needs to make drastic changes.

 

[SKSooner]

The intangibles that Sherri brings argument is no good either. Coaching at the University of Oklahoma is a results oriented business and the intangibles aren't worth 3 rotten eggs.

Then you need to call for change at Boren & Castiglione's level, because they completely disagree with you.

And I can promise you that the people who have forked over the money for the 15 endowed scholarships don't feel the same way.

 

[SKSooner]

You are being pretty insulting to a guy that is trying to be reasonable most all of the time. On top of that your argument is flawed, one sided, and skewed.

There is a huge competitive gap between women's basketball and gymnastics. You are right about that. Comparing the resumes between those two coaches is not a valid argument.

But, all of you worshippers at the alter of Sherri Coale disciples, will make the same argument to Kruger's vs Sherri's resume. Here is a news flash. The competitive gap betweem men's and women's basketball is comparable to women's basketball and gymnastics.

Sherri's record should only be evaluated verses the expectation within the context of women's basketball. If Sherri is drawing a top 10 salary and if women's basketball has a top 10 budget the expectation is top 10 results. If the top 10 result isn't there, then both her salary and budget were unreasonably set too high, or, she is underperforming. It is no more complicated than that.

The intangibles that Sherri brings argument is no good either. Coaching at the University of Oklahoma is a results oriented business and the intangibles aren't worth 3 rotten eggs.

Sherri's resume is arguably a whole lot better than Kruger's in terms of championships and NCAA success.

 

[SoonerNorm]

I don't think his job is a piece of cake. I think it's ridiculous to compare his job to Sherri Coale's because they are entirely different. The fact you are defending this lame, ridiculous argument says everything I need to know.

We're a top 20 team right now. Says the NCAA. And two years ago, we finished in the Sweet 16. It's not like we're that far off.

In the next few years, I would be surprised if we don't threaten to make another Final Four run. I think we're going to be pretty danged good in the Gabbi Ortiz era.

I'm a fan. I want to see our teams do well, but I also have perspective. Just because a coach has a few years that aren't as good doesn't mean I don't think the coach has lost it or needs to make drastic changes.

I really didn't expect you to answer all of my questions but thought I would try anyway.

 

[garyeb2]

Sherri's resume is arguably a whole lot better than Kruger's in terms of championships and NCAA success.

You just did it. You compared gymnastics to women's basketball.

 

[garyeb2]

Then you need to call for change at Boren & Castiglione's level, because they completely disagree with you.

And I can promise you that the people who have forked over the money for the 15 endowed scholarships don't feel the same way.

Boren an Castiglione just kissed off on the Josh Heuple firing You couldn't find a finer guy, foundation and all. I was around when Gomer Jones was fired. In recent years they have run off a wrestling coach, baseball coach, golf coach, and a basketball coach when their programs failed to meet expectations.

Those endowments came when the program was riding high. I didn't endorse or recommend anything. I was just trying to help you emerge from the fog.

 

[sybarite]

Norm, you've absolutely got to be kidding me. Go get a clue. There are 16 schools in the entire country with Division 1 men's gymnastics teams. Don't try and play this limited scholarship crap. There's only 15 other teams competing against him in the entire county! To bring up Mark Williams as some kind of example of what Sherri Coale should be doing is one of the most laughable arguments I've seen posted on this board. Seriously, it is. That's not meant to be some kind of mean, over-the-top remark, either. It's just one of the most clueless arguments you could make.

And to bring up Plunkett? Seriously? The man left Sherri Coale with one of the worst teams in OU women's basketball history. I credit Hynes for having the guts to hire Sherri Coale, but there is a reason that a high school coach was hired. NOBODY ELSE WANTED THE JOB because the program was in terrible shape! Anyone who was familiar with Coale's first season knows how dreadfully bad the team was. Plunkett might have been a decent basketball coach on the court, but he had done an absolutely pitiful job recruiting and wasn't even good health.

You are correct in that the last few season, Coale's teams haven't been excellent. Do I think she will have excellent teams in the future? Yes. Are you ridiculous & unreasonable in your expectations? Yes, you are. You think a coach who has over 300 competitors has it easier than a coach with 15 competitors.

SK This has been going on for years. There is no logic involved in the discussion. It is much like the discussion of race or religion. There is a fantasy world in which there is no racism, and the racists are the victims. There is no logic involved. The same people who are basically anti-Sherri are really pro-Sherri or pro-OU. But, she is not Mulkey. It is fascinating that they are so eager to accept the results of a Mulkey without being willing to admit what the entire nation knows, that Mulkey got there by cheating. That's OK, because she gets the results that they want to see at OU.

This discussion apparently revolves around sexism. The fact that by many measures, the women's basketball program is the most successful now at OU for sustained performance is completely ignored. Fifteen straight NCAA appearances by a team that had only been to two NCAA appearances in its entire twenty-two year history is no achievement because women's basketball is halfway between gymnastics and men's basketball. That is the type of statement that reveals so much of the sexism involved in this discussion. Men's basketball at OU was never shut down due to lack of interest, something that reveals so much about the powers that be in the university and in Oklahoma. That Sherri was able to build something in such an environment is stunning. But, she should achieve success that only the football program has achieved, sustained chances for a national title. But, it has to do it without the absolute determination of the billionaire boosters that funded the growth of the football program. She's had to do it in the midst of people who resent Title IX because it forces some small equality in treatment of women.

They use the excuse of profit, without understanding that the University of Oklahoma is not a for profit institution, nor was it intended to be. Despite the demented that wish to have education be a profit center, the university system was developed to build an educated community, of which women tend to be a part. We didn't start the educational system to report a profit at the end of each year, and we don't insist on each department to demonstrate its impact on profits. We value the english and history departments because of what they mean to the values of our community, a community that includes people of all sexes, races, and religions.

As a native-born Oklahoman, I am embarrassed that a state that has the statue of a pioneer woman as one of its proudest emblems and was one of the first to have girl's basketball in highschool was so late at the table of women's athletics in college. There were no women's sports when I was at OU, even intramural. Ladies didn't do that type of thing. This was an attitude in the state which had been built as much on the shoulders of women as men. The women in the generation prior to mine in my family would make breakfast on a wood-burning stove, butcher a hog, kill a chicken for supper because company was coming, and milk the cows before supper. But, you had better not tell them that they aren't ladies, or they'll throw you into the manure pile. These are the women who built this state. They deserve better.

They deserve that their grandchildren and great-grandchildren honor their legacy by supporting those programs that enable their granddaughters to participate with equality. They earned it, and if you don't believe that, you need to have them throw you to the manure pile.

 

[garyeb2]

SK This has been going on for years. There is no logic involved in the discussion. It is much like the discussion of race or religion. There is a fantasy world in which there is no racism, and the racists are the victims. There is no logic involved. The same people who are basically anti-Sherri are really pro-Sherri or pro-OU. But, she is not Mulkey. It is fascinating that they are so eager to accept the results of a Mulkey without being willing to admit what the entire nation knows, that Mulkey got there by cheating. That's OK, because she gets the results that they want to see at OU.

This discussion apparently revolves around sexism. The fact that by many measures, the women's basketball program is the most successful now at OU for sustained performance is completely ignored. Fifteen straight NCAA appearances by a team that had only been to two NCAA appearances in its entire twenty-two year history is no achievement because women's basketball is halfway between gymnastics and men's basketball. That is the type of statement that reveals so much of the sexism involved in this discussion. Men's basketball at OU was never shut down due to lack of interest, something that reveals so much about the powers that be in the university and in Oklahoma. That Sherri was able to build something in such an environment is stunning. But, she should achieve success that only the football program has achieved, sustained chances for a national title. But, it has to do it without the absolute determination of the billionaire boosters that funded the growth of the football program. She's had to do it in the midst of people who resent Title IX because it forces some small equality in treatment of women.

They use the excuse of profit, without understanding that the University of Oklahoma is not a for profit institution, nor was it intended to be. Despite the demented that wish to have education be a profit center, the university system was developed to build an educated community, of which women tend to be a part. We didn't start the educational system to report a profit at the end of each year, and we don't insist on each department to demonstrate its impact on profits. We value the english and history departments because of what they mean to the values of our community, a community that includes people of all sexes, races, and religions.

As a native-born Oklahoman, I am embarrassed that a state that has the statue of a pioneer woman as one of its proudest emblems and was one of the first to have girl's basketball in highschool was so late at the table of women's athletics in college. There were no women's sports when I was at OU, even intramural. Ladies didn't do that type of thing. This was an attitude in the state which had been built as much on the shoulders of women as men. The women in the generation prior to mine in my family would make breakfast on a wood-burning stove, butcher a hog, kill a chicken for supper because company was coming, and milk the cows before supper. But, you had better not tell them that they aren't ladies, or they'll throw you into the manure pile. These are the women who built this state. They deserve better.

They deserve that their grandchildren and great-grandchildren honor their legacy by supporting those programs that enable their granddaughters to participate with equality. They earned it, and if you don't believe that, you need to have them throw you to the manure pile.

Another manifest? Geez. The University of Oklahoma athletic department IS a for profit operation. It is suppose to be. It has to be. The football program is the cash cow.

The athletic department distributes that money to the other programs in amounts they believe sufficient to achieve and maintain excellence. That is the stated standard. Programs that fall short have created a problem for themselves.

In all the times you have no real valid argument, it is always insult the messenger strategy.