What Does Sherri Do Now?

[Oliver Hardy]

This is the way I see the future of the OU program. I guess this is where I see the major options regarding the future for our coach and the program. I'm wondering which road Sherri/Joe/Boren takes.

Do nothing different. Keep working hard the way you have for the last 20 years. Keep recruiting hard. No changes in assistants. No change in type of player you may be recruiting. No difference in way you coach or in what you will accept or tolerate from a player. Recruiting, something you don't like is going to get much harder under this scenario. You can't believe nothing needs to change. This could get you fired in no less than two years. Please, don't do this.

Change It Up/Turn it around somehow. Shake up some or all facets of the program: recruiting, the way you coach, change assistants, demand more players, look for a different type of recruit, refocus yourself (the way Stoops reportedly did) etc. As little or as much as you want, but try something different (if you already haven't). You can't believe nothing is wrong with this team and this program. You can fix it.

Retire. You've been in the job 20 years. Even Supergirl and Wonder Woman get tired and want to head toward new horizons. You are always going to have a good paying job at OU. You are too valuable as an emissary for the university to ever let you go. Maybe you need a change -- but maybe you don't. Only you can decide. Virtually everyone loves and respects you for what you have accomplished. However, as great as you are, please don't hang on desperately until your legacy is tarnished.

Wait Around To Get Fired. This is perilously close to doing nothing. OUWBB is never going to be a money maker, but Joe and David are never going to allow it to collapse as far down as it was when you were hired. The question is how low will they let it go? How long can they go before puling the trigger? Waiting around to get fired also tarnishes your reputation and would mean, probably, no second career at OU. I believe you have two years at best.

These are really the only overall scenarios facing OUWBB. Now that I've thrown this out there, what do the rest of you think? What variations do you see? What will Sherri do? I know she isn't a quitter ---- but something has to happen.

 

[sybarite]

1. I don't believe that there is any way that Castiglione or Boren would fire Sherri.

If anything, Joe C. has indicated that he has more interest in perception than in championships. Boren seems to have the same philosophy. We have allowed a rather storied wrestling program to deteriorate to less than a shadow of what it was, with no apparent interest.

We never were really interested in the women's program, as demonstrated firmly by its closure some three to four years prior to Sherri's hiring. Even then, we hired a high school coach rather than to invest in one of the more recognized possibilities. The fact that Sherri turned a bad image into a successful venture has endeared her to the university administration forever. She has done exactly what they wanted, and she even won some games along the way. She has vastly overachieved.

This university would never hire Kim Mulkey. If the boosters were to hire Kim and pay her salary and give her to the university, they would not accept her. Championships or not, she is not the image that they want for the university. How many people run around the academic world proclaiming an admiration for Baylor?--or Kim.

Message board values is not the reason that Sherri has a job, and she has excelled at what they hired her to do. Don't bring up football. That program had a different mission, and they have tolerated a bit of a decline in that program in order to keep the image of the program high--limited NCAA problems.

2. Get a sense of reality of expectations.

Oklahoma is not a mecca. You don't see kids across the country lining up to go to OU. In many places, they aren't even sure where it is.

We don't have the advantages that we had in building a football program. The Southwest Conference and SEC are integrated.

I don't know exactly what we can expect from this program. When you see a group of people who are operating without direction, it may be due to the inability of the people to perform, to leadership, or to some unforeseen consequences that disrupted the sense of order. Unless you know exactly what has caused this or have a defined way to correct it, I suggest that you let those who have built the machine to repair it.

 

[SOONERGRAD]

This is the way I see the future of the OU program. I guess this is where I see the major options regarding the future for our coach and the program. I'm wondering which road Sherri/Joe/Boren takes.

Do nothing different. Keep working hard the way you have for the last 20 years. Keep recruiting hard. No changes in assistants. No change in type of player you may be recruiting. No difference in way you coach or in what you will accept or tolerate from a player. Recruiting, something you don't like is going to get much harder under this scenario. You can't believe nothing needs to change. This could get you fired in no less than two years. Please, don't do this.

Change It Up/Turn it around somehow. Shake up some or all facets of the program: recruiting, the way you coach, change assistants, demand more players, look for a different type of recruit, refocus yourself (the way Stoops reportedly did) etc. As little or as much as you want, but try something different (if you already haven't). You can't believe nothing is wrong with this team and this program. You can fix it.

Retire. You've been in the job 20 years. Even Supergirl and Wonder Woman get tired and want to head toward new horizons. You are always going to have a good paying job at OU. You are too valuable as an emissary for the university to ever let you go. Maybe you need a change -- but maybe you don't. Only you can decide. Virtually everyone loves and respects you for what you have accomplished. However, as great as you are, please don't hang on desperately until your legacy is tarnished.

Wait Around To Get Fired. This is perilously close to doing nothing. OUWBB is never going to be a money maker, but Joe and David are never going to allow it to collapse as far down as it was when you were hired. The question is how low will they let it go? How long can they go before puling the trigger? Waiting around to get fired also tarnishes your reputation and would mean, probably, no second career at OU. I believe you have two years at best.

These are really the only overall scenarios facing OUWBB. Now that I've thrown this out there, what do the rest of you think? What variations do you see? What will Sherri do? I know she isn't a quitter ---- but something has to happen.

I say if she doesn't have a ship in the next 5-6 years, then it will be time to retire. I think Coach Coale just needs to take a time to reflect and think where does she go from here? What got her to the 2002 final 4? What style of play got her to the 09 and 2010 final 4? Those are the type of things I would look at.

Recruiting wise, the 2017 and 2018 classes will be very crucial and could be a turning point for our program. I say we hit these next two classes hard , especially around the state of Texas and the Oklahoma area. I'm tired of coaches who only recruit to fit a system. Recruit some kids that can just flat out play! If your a good coach then you will find out ways for them to adjust to your system and style of play. Just my opinion.

 

[SoonerNorm]

I say if she doesn't have a ship in the next 5-6 years, then it will be time to retire. I think Coach Coale just needs to take a time to reflect and think where does she go from here? What got her to the 2002 final 4? What style of play got her to the 09 and 2010 final 4? Those are the type of things I would look at.

Recruiting wise, the 2017 and 2018 classes will be very crucial and could be a turning point for our program. I say we hit these next two classes hard , especially around the state of Texas and the Oklahoma area. I'm tired of coaches who only recruit to fit a system. Recruit some kids that can just flat out play! If your a good coach then you will find out ways for them to adjust to your system and style of play. Just my opinion.

Great post! Recruit, recruit, recruit.

 

[soonermike22]

Boren would not fire her, or let her be fired, but if ENOUGH donors mentioned their unhappiness, and heat builds he is capable of cutting her out. He would either talk her into retiring, or more likely move into a PR/fundraising job in the Athletic Department.
SC has never acted like she is very big on "changes". I think she just hangs on until we get a 6' 9" center.

 

[sybarite]

Boren would not fire her, or let her be fired, but if ENOUGH donors mentioned their unhappiness, and heat builds he is capable of cutting her out. He would either talk her into retiring, or more likely move into a PR/fundraising job in the Athletic Department.
SC has never acted like she is very big on "changes". I think she just hangs on until we get a 6' 9" center.

I think most of the donors to the women's sports love her. She is the image of the university that they want. The Stillettos are not the same as the good ole boys.

 

[soonerstar]

I think she WILL DO NOTHING DIFFERENT. Boren/Castiglione will never fire her.

 

[soonermike22]

I think most of the donors to the women's sports love her. She is the image of the university that they want. The Stillettos are not the same as the good ole boys.

Not BB donors-the big dollar donors to the University-who probably don't care about wbb, but Boren does listen to them.

 

[sybarite]

Not BB donors-the big dollar donors to the University-who probably don't care about wbb, but Boren does listen to them.

If they don't care, why would they want to fire Sherri?

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

I expect Sherri is more frustrated than all of us. However, unlike us, she is responsible to get things turned around.

One problem is that she built a system this year based on what the NCAA said would be the new officiating style. A big part of that was that a defender would not be allowed to disrupt the free movement of the offensive player. A number of big-12 officials have attempted to follow that directive. However, a good number have stubbornly refused. The head of big-12 officiating has not been effective at providing leadership on this key change - and teams who believed the NCAA have been damaged by it. Of course, he is not a leader. He is one of the "good-ole-boys".

One thing you must give both Kim and Karen credit for is they were not gullible enough to fall for that. Their teams have remained somewhat physical, while we went to more of a finesse approach. So you have situations where we are shoved off our path and not only cannot score, but also do not get a foul called. It is my belief in all parts of life that when change is promised you do not go whole hog with it until it actually happens.

Obviously that is not our entire problem, but it is one factor. Our team is not designed to be successful at the physical, shove you around, wrap your arms around a player style of play.

Physical teams still get the benefit of the doubt while touch fouls are heavily penalized. Exactly the opposite of what will be needed for WBB to move forward nationally - as the NCAA clearly understands.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

I completely agree Boren/Joe won't fire her. They'll give her another job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[womenssports]

She will be here in whatever position until her son can succeed her.

 

[Soonerbay]

I completely agree Boren/Joe won't fire her. They'll give her another job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't believe that she will ever get fired either. I agree that they give her another job.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

She will be here in whatever position until her son can succeed her.

I personally doubt her son is going to be the head coach at OU. I expect we will hire a female coach to succeed Sherri when she - on her own- decides to retire.

The handful of universities that provide the real leadership in college athletics generally like giving women opportunities to coach female sports. Notice that Texas did exactly that some time back.

It is the next (lower) tier of schools that tend ( speaking generalities here - there are a few exceptions) to hire men to coach women's teams. I guess with the theory that a woman's place is in the home.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

1. I don't believe that there is any way that Castiglione or Boren would fire Sherri.

If anything, Joe C. has indicated that he has more interest in perception than in championships. Boren seems to have the same philosophy. We have allowed a rather storied wrestling program to deteriorate to less than a shadow of what it was, with no apparent interest.

Neither seems all that concerned with WBB. In fact one thing you notice at the games is that neither attends very often. Especially recently.

To me, that suggests they are quite comfortable with the way it is being directed.

 

[tycat947]

Neither seems all that concerned with WBB. In fact one thing you notice at the games is that neither attends very often. Especially recently.

To me, that suggests they are quite comfortable with the way it is being directed.

I don't think that has anything to do with it. Boren has attended at least one game this year which I don't remember seeing him at a game the last 2 or 3 seasons. He's also attended more men's games this year than the last 3 or 4 years combined. Joe is also chairman of the NCAA men's selection committee so they are both plenty busy I'm sure.

I'm not sure why you would say "neither seems all that concerned with WBB". Is that only because they don't attend every game? In the 10 years I've had season tickets, I think there is not a lot of difference in attendance from year to year. I think lack of attendance is poor indicator of whether they are concerned or not. I can pretty much assure that Boren and Castiglione are concerned about all things OU.

 

[womenssports]

I personally doubt her son is going to be the head coach at OU. I expect we will hire a female coach to succeed Sherri when she - on her own- decides to retire.

The handful of universities that provide the real leadership in college athletics generally like giving women opportunities to coach female sports. Notice that Texas did exactly that some time back.

It is the next (lower) tier of schools that tend ( speaking generalities here - there are a few exceptions) to hire men to coach women's teams. I guess with the theory that a woman's place is in the home.

Don't want to get into that discussion. Too much research and analysis and really having to THINK. Much too difficult for me. However, I still believe what I said. Thinking most of us will be around to see if it comes true or not. HOWEVER, if I am wrong I will deny having ever posted any such thing and I will use my superior computer skills to erase not only my posts here but mine saved on others computers. Or maybe not, cuz probably don't have those skills.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Following are the attendance reports from OU. These are tickets sold. OU does not report butts in the seats for women's basketball.

2008- 9963
2009- 9007
2010- 7681
2011- 5490
2012- 6851
2013- 6004
2014- 5632
2015- 5373
2016- 4677

Attendance has dropped each year other than 2012. It has dropped 13% from last year and has dropped 54% since 2008. It is anyone's guess how many ticket holders actually show up.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

Following are the attendance reports from OU. These are tickets sold. OU does not report butts in the seats for women's basketball.

2008- 9963
2009- 9007
2010- 7681
2011- 5490
2012- 6851
2013- 6004
2014- 5632
2015- 5373
2016- 4677

Attendance has dropped each year other than 2012. It has dropped 13% from last year and has dropped 54% since 2008. It is anyone's guess how many ticket holders actually show up.

Thanks for looking up those figures, Norm. It is apparent to everyone at the games that attendance has dropped. When Courtney was here, even the upper deck behind the baskets were substantially filled at times.

Do you recall what happened to make the numbers jump up in 2012? That is surprising.

One factor is when we played UCONN we would get really strong attendance. That could be one of many factors that might explain an average drop of a couple hundred seats when spread over the year, but I expect we all assume winning is a big part of it. Of course I'm not sure getting beat by UCONN makes it worth it.

We also have yet to play Baylor or Texas - games that may encourage higher attendance. I guess we will see Sunday as a first test. But nothing left this year is going to have any major impact on the attendance figures. It disappoints me to see it drop like it has. I doubt anything other than winning at a high level can fix that.

There was a very large crowd at the Tech game when we had the "kid's day". Do you think they did not count all those attendees since season ticket holders did not buy or need a ticket - they just walked in and attended free. I also doubt the kids had tickets. Surely they had some way of counting attendance that day. Otherwise it would create a huge deficit in average attendance figures.

I don't know if its really a factor, but lots of so called "experts" say the Thunder has had a very negative impact on basketball attendance for everyone else. Even the OU men's team - with the #1 ranked team in the nation - has struggled to get fans in the seats (other than a couple of marque games) this year and the past few.

The most worrisome thing is that attendance is down about everywhere in WBB. That is the reason the NCAA changed the rules so offenses could have freer movement and scoring would go up. It is not having the success they hoped for - mostly because a number of officials refuse to adapt to the new rules. They still reward physical, rough play, although those same officials have punished players for lite touch fouls that have no impact on the game - exactly the opposite of what the NCAA wanted. Teams must score to maintain fan interest. No one wants to watch games where their team's scores are in the 50's or 60's.

 

[tycat947]

Thanks for looking up those figures, Norm. It is apparent to everyone at the games that attendance has dropped. When Courtney was here, even the upper deck behind the baskets were substantially filled at times.

Do you recall what happened to make the numbers jump up in 2012? That is surprising.

One factor is when we played UCONN we would get really strong attendance. That could be one of many factors that might explain an average drop of a couple hundred seats when spread over the year, but I expect we all assume winning is a big part of it. Of course I'm not sure getting beat by UCONN makes it worth it.

We also have yet to play Baylor or Texas - games that may encourage higher attendance. I guess we will see Sunday as a first test. But nothing left this year is going to have any major impact on the attendance figures. It disappoints me to see it drop like it has. I doubt anything other than winning at a high level can fix that.

There was a very large crowd at the Tech game when we had the "kid's day". Do you think they did not count all those attendees since season ticket holders did not buy or need a ticket - they just walked in and attended free. I also doubt the kids had tickets. Surely they had some way of counting attendance that day. Otherwise it would create a huge deficit in average attendance figures.

I don't know if its really a factor, but lots of so called "experts" say the Thunder has had a very negative impact on basketball attendance for everyone else. Even the OU men's team - with the #1 ranked team in the nation - has struggled to get fans in the seats (other than a couple of marque games) this year and the past few.

The most worrisome thing is that attendance is down about everywhere in WBB. That is the reason the NCAA changed the rules so offenses could have freer movement and scoring would go up. It is not having the success they hoped for - mostly because a number of officials refuse to adapt to the new rules. They still reward physical, rough play, although those same officials have punished players for lite touch fouls that have no impact on the game - exactly the opposite of what the NCAA wanted. Teams must score to maintain fan interest. No one wants to watch games where their team's scores are in the 50's or 60's.

This! And also the reason for moving 1st/2nd rounds back to campus sites. This is a problem with pretty much all collegiate sports. College football attendance has dropped like 3 years in a row.

People now all have big screens with HD viewing, smart phones/tablets where they can watch games anywhere and anytime.

There are exceptions but here are a few comparisons of other teams around the country:

Hypocrite U - Attendance has fallen from 8563 in 2011/12 and 9970 in 2012/31 to 6147 this year.

Texas - After a crowd of 9000 against Hypocrite U in Austin (a lot of them from Wacko) this year, they are Averaging for 2015/16 a total of 3874.

Tennessee - After averaging a total of 14414 in 2011/12, they have had annual decline in attendance to 10143 this year.

UConn - Attendance declined from 9168 in 2011/12 to 8216 in 2014/15 but is at 9727 so far this year (this with 3 NCs in a row).

There are some that have quit coming to games because of the play on the court but now that EVERY SINGLE home game is televised, for many, it's just easier and a lot less expensive to watch on TV. I just don't believe that is the main factor for reduction of attendance.

Notice our storied football team is NOT expanding seating capacity for our stadium. Joe has stated LNC renovations/building will not result in new seats.

Stats show attendance at OU men's games have declined from 9890 in 2012/13 to 9560 this year! We just had last week paid attendance of 7455 (actual attendance of 6344) against TCU as the #1 team in the nation!

Again, attendance problems are much deeper than our team play the last few years.