Sherri is WAY over paid! Why...

[SoonerTraveler]

Typical ad hominem by sybarite. Someone that has an opposing view just must be a sexist or racist.

 

[Vinny78]

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.

yep

 

[sybarite]

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.

Can you show me that in the charter of the university? Can you find someone associated with the university that is willing to make such a statement?

You do realize that you have just stated that anything that insists upon equal treatment under the law has no place in a university because it is for profit. Of course, this means that restaurants could also refuse service to customers on the basis of race and gender, something that we have rejected as the standards of our community.

 

[SoonerTraveler]

... You do realize that you have just stated that anything that insists upon equal treatment under the law has no place in a university because it is for profit. Of course, this means that restaurants could also refuse service to customers on the basis of race and gender, something that we have rejected as the standards of our community.

What does this have to do with anything? It is like you are fixated on directly (or indirectly) judging all opposing opinions as being based on sexism or racism. Do you realize this is how you come across? Only a racist or sexist could possible disagree with you. Huh?

 

[sybarite]

What does this have to do with anything? It is like you are fixated on directly (or indirectly) judging all opposing opinions as being based on sexism or racism. Do you realize this is how you come across? Only a racist or sexist could possible disagree with you. Huh?

I'm sorry that you can't follow the logic, Traveler. The claim was that the University of Oklahoma Athletic Department IS a for profit operation.

Effectively, this implies that the university can discriminate against those programs that do not make a profit. This, of course, would defy the existence of Title IX which gives some semblance of equal treatment to women without requirement of a profit.

The courts have also ruled that you cannot discriminate on the basis of race in a for-profit business like a restaurant. You can't deny service on the basis of race. The assumption is now that this has been extended to all.

So, we have both court decisions and Title IX which has been passed by Congress that state that you cannot discriminate against women, that you must give equal access (or something near equal) to women without regard to profit.

Got it?

 

[badger]

This thread is 6 pages long and I still don't know how much Sherri Coale is paid. I think that's vital info as to determine whether or not she's overpaid

EDIT: Nevermind! I just googled the answer!
http://www.soonersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=31000&ATCLID=208398481

With the extension, Coale was given an annual base salary raise to $100,100 plus benefits. Her previously salary was $90,100.

Man, a 10 percent raise, huh? I totally agree that given the economy and our position outside the top 25 that we should reconsider that amount. Hopefully the OU regents will take that into consideration in future contract negotiations.

 

[badger]

I'm a troll.

That was a 1999 news release.

Here's the actual number:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportshom...cle_2cd1e9c9-cabf-5bd2-b5c1-2b67362bed44.html

OU women’s basketball coach Sherri Coale also cashed in Wednesday. Her new deal pays $8.96 million over seven years, beginning with the $1.13 million she will earn in 2014-15.

Once again, I'm a troll.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

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.

+1 Bravo!

 

[SoonerTraveler]

I'm sorry that you can't follow the logic, Traveler. The claim was that the University of Oklahoma Athletic Department IS a for profit operation.

Effectively, this implies that the university can discriminate against those programs that do not make a profit. This, of course, would defy the existence of Title IX which gives some semblance of equal treatment to women without requirement of a profit.

The courts have also ruled that you cannot discriminate on the basis of race in a for-profit business like a restaurant. You can't deny service on the basis of race. The assumption is now that this has been extended to all.

So, we have both court decisions and Title IX which has been passed by Congress that state that you cannot discriminate against women, that you must give equal access (or something near equal) to women without regard to profit.

Got it?

Yes. Yes. What logic is there to follow? It does not take a scientist to understand that discrimination based on sex or race is against the law, and these laws apply to both profit and non-profit organizations.

My issue is your direct (or obviously implied) insult to other OU fans by calling them racist or sexist.

Many people are donors to the OU athletic department, which means they are helping to fund the education and development of women and minorities. Many people attend the men’s and women’s basketball games, which means they are there in person to cheer on the OU teams that include women and minorities. They support the teams. They go to the games. Are these same people automatically sexist and racist because they don’t share your view of the world?

None of your replies address the FACT that you use name-calling against someone that disagrees with you. This has nothing to do with logic. This has to do with what you have written.

 

[garyeb2]

Can you show me that in the charter of the university? Can you find someone associated with the university that is willing to make such a statement?

You do realize that you have just stated that anything that insists upon equal treatment under the law has no place in a university because it is for profit. Of course, this means that restaurants could also refuse service to customers on the basis of race and gender, something that we have rejected as the standards of our community.

Are you posting from a mental institution? The athletic department is self funded and self sufficient. The funds are not co-mingled. In most all years, the athletic department does well enough to funnel some money back to the university. But, it never goes the other way (from the general fund to the athletic department)

The amount of profit generated by the football team funds the entirety of all other athletic activities. Everything. There is no other money available excepting gifts from donors, ticket sales, TV revenue, concessions, ect. which is revenue for the athletic department and/or the program that generated it.

All other sports but football lose money. They do not generate enough revenue on their own to break even. The only variable is how much do they lose. Football profits makes up the difference for all of them.

Because of the endowed scholarships, women's basketball is less of a drain on the budget and that is a good thing. But, they still lose a lot of money.

We don't have women's sports at Oklahoma because of title 9. We have women's sports because the football program generates enough profit that we can afford them.

The law doesn't mandate that women's sports must exist. It simply requires that if a school is going to have athletic programs it must have an equal number of men and women participating. And of course, the number of athletes participating in football are exempt from that count.

Every program has a budget that includes the meager revenues they generate on their own plus what the football team can afford to give them. a coach's job is to achieve and maintain excellence within the confines of the budget they are provided.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

Sexism does exist in college athletics, but it's not just sexism, it's profit too.

You can not separate the two. Title IX was made the law to give women the opportunity to participate in college athletics by making universities create women's sports programs that, to some small degree, mimicked their men's sports. Prior to Title IX, most colleges had refused to create women's sports programs.

Title IX did no say it had to be equally funded.

Universities want/are forced to have women's sports to adhere to federal law on equal access. They are not forced to give a penny-to-penny match.

Where Syb is wrong is that the funding for these programs is based upon sexism alone. Profit of the major sports pays for operating budgets of the lesser male and female sports. A major factor is always going to be profit and money in college athletic decisions.

Yes, most colleges would like to drop most unprofitable sports programs. It just so happens those are mostly women's programs. But men and women's track and field, baseball, gymnastics, golf, soccer, softball, tennis none of those programs are all usuallly unprofitable.

Universities have athletic programs as part of a decision to provide a well-rounded learning environment and to keep students, staff and alumni involved financially or socially.

Colleges are in the sports business because:

They need to. They want to. They are force to.

 

[sybarite]

Are you posting from a mental institution? The athletic department is self funded and self sufficient. The funds are not co-mingled. In most all years, the athletic department does well enough to funnel some money back to the university. But, it never goes the other way (from the general fund to the athletic department)

The amount of profit generated by the football team funds the entirety of all other athletic activities. Everything. There is no other money available excepting gifts from donors, ticket sales, TV revenue, concessions, ect. which is revenue for the athletic department and/or the program that generated it.

All other sports but football lose money. They do not generate enough revenue on their own to break even. The only variable is how much do they lose. Football profits makes up the difference for all of them.

Because of the endowed scholarships, women's basketball is less of a drain on the budget and that is a good thing. But, they still lose a lot of money.

We don't have women's sports at Oklahoma because of title 9. We have women's sports because the football program generates enough profit that we can afford them.

The law doesn't mandate that women's sports must exist. It simply requires that if a school is going to have athletic programs it must have an equal number of men and women participating. And of course, the number of athletes participating in football are exempt from that count.

Every program has a budget that includes the meager revenues they generate on their own plus what the football team can afford to give them. a coach's job is to achieve and maintain excellence within the confines of the budget they are provided.

Now, that's funny.

 

[SoonerTraveler]

... The athletic department is self funded and self sufficient. The funds are not co-mingled. In most all years, the athletic department does well enough to funnel some money back to the university. But, it never goes the other way (from the general fund to the athletic department)

The amount of profit generated by the football team funds the entirety of all other athletic activities. Everything. There is no other money available excepting gifts from donors, ticket sales, TV revenue, concessions, ect. which is revenue for the athletic department and/or the program that generated it.

All other sports but football lose money. They do not generate enough revenue on their own to break even. The only variable is how much do they lose. Football profits makes up the difference for all of them.

Because of the endowed scholarships, women's basketball is less of a drain on the budget and that is a good thing. But, they still lose a lot of money.

We don't have women's sports at Oklahoma because of title 9. We have women's sports because the football program generates enough profit that we can afford them.

The law doesn't mandate that women's sports must exist. It simply requires that if a school is going to have athletic programs it must have an equal number of men and women participating. And of course, the number of athletes participating in football are exempt from that count.

Every program has a budget that includes the meager revenues they generate on their own plus what the football team can afford to give them. a coach's job is to achieve and maintain excellence within the confines of the budget they are provided.

Yes. Yes. But that is actually factual and logical.

 

[sybarite]

Sexism does exist in college athletics, but it's not just sexism, it's profit too.

You can not separate the two. Title IX was made the law to give women the opportunity to participate in college athletics by making universities create women's sports programs that, to some small degree, mimicked their men's supports.

It did no say it had to be equally funded.

Where Syb is wrong is that the funding for these programs is based upon profit alone, not sexism. Profit of the major supports pays for operating budgets of the lesser male and female sports.

Universities want/are forced to have women's sports to adhere to federal law on equal access. They are not forced to give a penny-to-penny match.

Yes, most colleges would like to drop most unprofitable sports programs. It just so happens those are mostly men's programs. But track and field, baseball, gymnastics, golf, tennis none of those programs is profitable.

Universities have athletic programs as part of a decision to provide a well-rounded learning environment and to keep students, staff and alumni involved financially or socially.

Colleges are in the sports business because:

1. They should be to improve education.
2. To keep a university community engaged with their fundraising, involvement and national reputation.
3. Because the need to to be successful .
4. To make money
5. Because they legally have to.

It's not about sex. It's about sex and everything else.

You have a few straw men arguments here. Fact, until Title IX, we had no women's programs. It was forced upon us. What does that say to you?

Fact, we had several non-profit men's sports. But, I don't remember anyone closing the men's basketball program for lack of profitability. What does that say to you?

You can build from there.

 

[Sooners4Life0101]

All this is so incredibly irrelevant. Sherri is not going anywhere this season, that I know. And barring several injuries she will not be going anywhere for next 3 to 4 years at least. I don't need google to tell you that.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

Sexism does exist in college athletics, but it's not just sexism, it's profit too.

You can not separate the two. Title IX was made the law to give women the opportunity to participate in college athletics by making universities create women's sports programs that, to some small degree, mimicked their mens' sports.

Title IX did no say such efforts had to be equally funded.

Where Syb is wrong is that the funding for these programs is based upon sexism alone and not profit too. Profit of the major supports pays for operating budgets of the lesser male and female sports.

Yes, most colleges would like to drop most unprofitable sports programs. It just so happens those are mostly men's programs. But track and field, baseball, gymnastics, golf, tennis none of those programs are usually profitable.

Universities have athletic programs as part of a decision to provide a well-rounded learning environment and to keep students, staff and alumni involved financially or socially.

Colleges are in the sports business because they need to be, want to be, have to be.

It's not about what's between your legs. It's about sex, profit and everything else.

 

[sybarite]

Yes. Yes. But that is actually factual and logical.

Do you find it at all interesting that a thread about how Sherri is overpaid has generated so many posts from people who aren't even participants on this board? We never see them other than to find something negative.

Since you don't accept the statement that initiated this, "the discussion apparently revolves around sexism," what do you think the negativity towards the women's program and the women's coach, both of which have been quite successful, revolves around? It derives mostly from posters who seem to have no interest in the women's program other than to come over and post after a loss or when there is a thread attacking Sherri or the program. Why is that? Why don't we see them when the program has had a success?

When some of these have lamented that the program hasn't been the same since Bo Overton left, why is that? When they complain that Sherri isn't competent to teach certain aspects of basketball or isn't knowledgeable about certain aspects of basketball after nineteen years as the head coach of a successful program, what are they really saying? How would you explain it?

I can look to sexism. The possibility that I could also just say that someone was being a jerk.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

1. 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.

2. 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.

1. Or perhaps your best point guard, and your top recruit both have to have ACL surgeries and miss all/most games for two years.

2. I do have a different idea than you about the intangibles. If you look around at the people attending the women's games it will be pretty clear that the intangibles are quite important to to many/most of them.

The majority of Universities around the country are emphasizing these things you call "intangibles". I suspect they are not intangible to the people and their families who get caught up in the challenges being addressed by the various teams (men & women). Sherri is just better at it than many since "good works" seem to align well with her personality and philosophy of life.

Some University Presidents, Athletic Directors, coaches, players, and fans understand the value of encouraging people facing challenges, raising money to attempt to find solutions for social and medical challenges, and raising awareness that everything that happens to people is not always their fault.

Some don't.

I'm very proud that our players fit into the first group. Did everyone hear the comments by KK on the TV post game Saturday? As was stated by the announcers, it tied a "perfect pink bow" on the entire telecast.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

If we want a good/possibly great college coach we have one.

Is she perfect? No. Was she doing a poor job the last few years? I think so (The last Sweet 16 appearance, in my opinion, was the luck of the draw). Can she do better? She has, is, and will.

Does she deserve the money she is getting? I think so, right now.

We also have to consider, as a program, paying market value. We may not want to, but to have the type of program we want, we may have to pay a million or more a year. That is not wrong, but there should mean tougher scrutiny on a yearly basis of every coach, no just Sherri.

And I think there has been. If Sherri was turning in another year like last year, I think she'd be on double-secret probation and next season's results would get her fired or keep her hired.

But this year has been a mixed bag of bad and better -- and it looks to be getting better by the game, breakdowns like Baylor and Texas aside.

The next two years brings us some of the best recruits we've ever had. The frig will be full with talented players (for the first time in about 5 years), and Sherri is trying different line-ups, giving everyone a chance, pulling players for poor play and stupid decisions, and no one is immune, as they were the last few years. She may have favorites still, but they are all on a much shorter leash.

I'm glad we are paying Sherri a great salary. She had little kids when she started this and she devoted her life to it, no doubt at the expense of her family. Any manager or business owner does that. Most average workers do too.

I don't like automatic raises, especially for coaches. She will probably get one this year and I would say, right now, she deserves it.

If we stink up the rest of this year, and have two bad years following this one, then that would be 3.5 out of four years of unacceptable performances, and I think it would be time for her to move on, whether she wanted to or not.

 

[sybarite]

Oliver. Is there a point to your last post?

You seem to be saying that colleges would like to drop non-profitable men's sports, but don't. Does this support your argument?

You say that colleges developed sports in order to provide a well-rounded educational experience. Is that correct in the way I have stated it? Have you ever gone back to look at the history of sport in colleges? It had absolutely nothing to do with academia.

Colleges are in the business of sport because they have to be? There are schools that do not have sports. Some have very limited commitment to sports, including some of the best and richest. Is any of what you said actually true, or is it something that we have come to accept?