RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Who should be the next Team USA head coach?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Who should be the next Team USA head coach?
Karen Aston
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
Geno Auriemma
7%
 7%  [ 5 ]
Doug Bruno
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
Brenda Frese
4%
 4%  [ 3 ]
Gail Goestenkors
7%
 7%  [ 5 ]
Quentin Hillsman
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Muffet McGraw
12%
 12%  [ 9 ]
Kevin McGuff
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
Kim Mulkey
7%
 7%  [ 5 ]
Mike Neighbors
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
Scott Rueck
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
Dawn Staley
22%
 22%  [ 16 ]
Tara VanDerveer
7%
 7%  [ 5 ]
Jeff Walz
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
Other
22%
 22%  [ 16 ]
Total Votes : 70

Author Message
dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 10:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
pilight wrote:
Shades wrote:
pilight wrote:
The Dawn Staley love makes no sense. Is her one Final Four run really that impressive?



It makes perfect sense. She's currently an assistant.


So is Doug Bruno and he has very little support. So is Cheryl Reeve and she wasn't considered a serious enough candidate to even get listed. What makes Staley so special?


Bruno is like Auriemma in sheep's clothing. Smile

I find it amazing Dave would choose Reeve over another round of Auriemma. UConn-fatigue from one of its biggest homers?


Oh please....I didn't think he should do this team.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63713



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 10:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

dtsnms wrote:
Shades wrote:
pilight wrote:
Shades wrote:
pilight wrote:
The Dawn Staley love makes no sense. Is her one Final Four run really that impressive?



It makes perfect sense. She's currently an assistant.


So is Doug Bruno and he has very little support. So is Cheryl Reeve and she wasn't considered a serious enough candidate to even get listed. What makes Staley so special?


Bruno is like Auriemma in sheep's clothing. Smile

I find it amazing Dave would choose Reeve over another round of Auriemma. UConn-fatigue from one of its biggest homers?


Oh please....I didn't think he should do this team.


How come?



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 16464
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 11:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
I'm guessing the next coach will be female -- it would be more than ironic if Hammon wound up coaching (or does her participation in the Olympics as a Russian disqualify her?).


It doesn't disqualify her in terms of FIBA or the IOC. Whether USAB would select her is another matter altogether.


Does the committee have a say in this? Because i can tell you know that Katie Smith will say HELL NO to Hammon as a coach. Laughing I remember her reaction when Hammon made the choice to play for Russia and how she acted towards Hammon during those games Shocked She would barely give her a hand and look at her.



_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 11:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
dtsnms wrote:
Shades wrote:
pilight wrote:
Shades wrote:
pilight wrote:
The Dawn Staley love makes no sense. Is her one Final Four run really that impressive?



It makes perfect sense. She's currently an assistant.


So is Doug Bruno and he has very little support. So is Cheryl Reeve and she wasn't considered a serious enough candidate to even get listed. What makes Staley so special?


Bruno is like Auriemma in sheep's clothing. Smile

I find it amazing Dave would choose Reeve over another round of Auriemma. UConn-fatigue from one of its biggest homers?


Oh please....I didn't think he should do this team.


How come?


I'm a "one term" guy. Share the wealth, other great coaches around.


Angus24



Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 686
Location: South Dakota


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 11:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

How about Hammon and Hughes?


mb1



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 4691
Location: Scottsdale,AZ,USA


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 11:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hammon.



_________________
I've got a crush on Rebby!

LONG LIVE THE WNBA!
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5408



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 12:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I've read that Parker should be on the team simply because she is the best, or one of the best. Case closed. How do those who feel that way reconcile that opinion with one that says that Geno should step aside and give someone else a chance at coaching.

Shouldn't the best coach belong on the bench of the US national team? And yet only 8% of the respondents feel that way while in the other poll 92% feel that Parker should replace someone they feel isn't as good as her.

Very revealing.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63713



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 12:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Is Hammon a legit possibility? She's another one who has a job in which the schedule probably conflicts a bit.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 12:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
I've read that Parker should be on the team simply because she is the best, or one of the best. Case closed. How do those who feel that way reconcile that opinion with one that says that Geno should step aside and give someone else a chance at coaching.

Shouldn't the best coach belong on the bench of the US national team? And yet only 8% of the respondents feel that way while in the other poll 92% feel that Parker should replace someone they feel isn't as good as her.

Very revealing.

You are making the (poor) assumption that Geno is "the best coach". He is an excellent coach who runs a very successful program. But is he actually a better coach than some of the other options? Is he objectively better than someone like Reeve, or Hughes, or some other coach that has been successful at the professional level? Winning college championships has just as much to do with recruiting as it does coaching.

Unlike the players who can be objectively measured to some degree...as in Parker is clearly a better player than Stewart right now, measuring coaches is not that easy.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32326



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 12:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
Is Hammon a legit possibility? She's another one who has a job in which the schedule probably conflicts a bit.


but, but, but...could we have a Russian as head coach?



_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 12:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
Shades wrote:
Is Hammon a legit possibility? She's another one who has a job in which the schedule probably conflicts a bit.


but, but, but...could we have a Russian as head coach?

US Men's Soccer has a German as a head coach.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 12:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
I've read that Parker should be on the team simply because she is the best, or one of the best. Case closed. How do those who feel that way reconcile that opinion with one that says that Geno should step aside and give someone else a chance at coaching.

Shouldn't the best coach belong on the bench of the US national team? And yet only 8% of the respondents feel that way while in the other poll 92% feel that Parker should replace someone they feel isn't as good as her.

Very revealing.


Apples and oranges.

There are a limited amount of supremely talented players that qualify for the Olympic team and they have a limited window of opportunity due to age, injuries, etc.

There is no such limitation on a coach's ability to do their job, and it is one person, not 12.

I have no problem saying that Parker should be on the team and Geno should not continue to coach, even though I feel Geno is the best coach.

The biggest difference is supremely talented players can more than make up for the difference between a great and very good coach. I have no doubts that Reeve, McGraw, or Staley would win gold with this group if Geno was not coach.


FollowtheCardinalRule



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 12:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
I've read that Parker should be on the team simply because she is the best, or one of the best. Case closed. How do those who feel that way reconcile that opinion with one that says that Geno should step aside and give someone else a chance at coaching.

Shouldn't the best coach belong on the bench of the US national team? And yet only 8% of the respondents feel that way while in the other poll 92% feel that Parker should replace someone they feel isn't as good as her.

Very revealing.


Well, the issue with this statement IMO is that college coaching is more than just coaching along the sidelines. While Geno is a very good X and O's coach I'd argue that his success at the college level is better attributed to the ability to recruit the best players. I think that it's highly plausible that there are coaches who are better at coaching on the sidelines than Geno in terms of their game plans. (See, Tara (Amber, baby!), Walz (bt. Baylor!), Muffet.) While those are just a few examples that come to mind, I'm sure that if you gave Trudi Lacey the Olympic Team, they'd walk away with gold. I think that the point being is that there are a lot of coaches who are able to come up with excellent game plans, and given the talent at their disposal, they would be able to succeed as well. I think that there is certainly an advantage to having Geno being the coach in terms of the increased media exposure that he brings as the "legend" of UConn is attached to the Olympic Team chasing Gold--however, it does seem to me that it creates an imbalance in the college game due to the incredible recruiting advantage it gives him.


dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 12:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
Is Hammon a legit possibility? She's another one who has a job in which the schedule probably conflicts a bit.


Let her coach women before we put her in charge of the women's national team.

She's an NBA coach, not a WNBA coach.


FollowtheCardinalRule



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 12:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FollowtheCardinalRule wrote:
linkster wrote:
I've read that Parker should be on the team simply because she is the best, or one of the best. Case closed. How do those who feel that way reconcile that opinion with one that says that Geno should step aside and give someone else a chance at coaching.

Shouldn't the best coach belong on the bench of the US national team? And yet only 8% of the respondents feel that way while in the other poll 92% feel that Parker should replace someone they feel isn't as good as her.

Very revealing.


Well, the issue with this statement IMO is that college coaching is more than just coaching along the sidelines. While Geno is a very good X and O's coach I'd argue that his success at the college level is better attributed to the ability to recruit the best players. I think that it's highly plausible that there are coaches who are better at coaching on the sidelines than Geno in terms of their game plans. (See, Tara (Amber, baby!), Walz (bt. Baylor!), Muffet.) While those are just a few examples that come to mind, I'm sure that if you gave Trudi Lacey the Olympic Team, they'd walk away with gold. I think that the point being is that there are a lot of coaches who are able to come up with excellent game plans, and given the talent at their disposal, they would be able to succeed as well. I think that there is certainly an advantage to having Geno being the coach in terms of the increased media exposure that he brings as the "legend" of UConn is attached to the Olympic Team chasing Gold--however, it does seem to me that it creates an imbalance in the college game due to the incredible recruiting advantage it gives him.


Perhaps I shouldn't say Trudi Lacey, considering that France beat a Geno-coached USA. I forgot about that.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 12:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
Shades wrote:
Is Hammon a legit possibility? She's another one who has a job in which the schedule probably conflicts a bit.


but, but, but...could we have a Russian as head coach?


The current head coach wasn't born in this country



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 1:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
I've read that Parker should be on the team simply because she is the best, or one of the best. Case closed. How do those who feel that way reconcile that opinion with one that says that Geno should step aside and give someone else a chance at coaching.

Shouldn't the best coach belong on the bench of the US national team? And yet only 8% of the respondents feel that way while in the other poll 92% feel that Parker should replace someone they feel isn't as good as her.

Very revealing.


The advantages college coaches get in recruiting and the pro coaches get in free agency are sufficient reason to limit them to one "term". When Geno was appointed head coach of Team USA in 2009 he had only five national championships and was five years removed from the most recent one. Since his appointment he's won six national championships in eight years. He's gotten an enormous advantage from being head coach of Team USA.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5408



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 1:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
linkster wrote:
I've read that Parker should be on the team simply because she is the best, or one of the best. Case closed. How do those who feel that way reconcile that opinion with one that says that Geno should step aside and give someone else a chance at coaching.

Shouldn't the best coach belong on the bench of the US national team? And yet only 8% of the respondents feel that way while in the other poll 92% feel that Parker should replace someone they feel isn't as good as her.

Very revealing.

You are making the (poor) assumption that Geno is "the best coach". He is an excellent coach who runs a very successful program. But is he actually a better coach than some of the other options? Is he objectively better than someone like Reeve, or Hughes, or some other coach that has been successful at the professional level? Winning college championships has just as much to do with recruiting as it does coaching.

Unlike the players who can be objectively measured to some degree...as in Parker is clearly a better player than Stewart right now, measuring coaches is not that easy.


If winning at a professional level is so important why have so few done it? And how many pro coaches are on the poll list compared to college coaches?

Which of the college coaches is better than Geno? Maybe McGraw. Maybe Tara?

But neither has shown any recent interest in USA basketball.

And you can say that Geno has won because he recruits the best players. But isn't that evidence that he has the most experience of any college level coach in dealing with elite level players? And what really interests me is how Geno's success lies in recruiting the "best player", and after signing them and coaching them to multi-championships and sending them to the pros where they win championships and are put on the US team I read posts claiming that there are better alternatives and that they are on the team only because of favoritism?


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63713



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 1:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

dtsnms wrote:
Shades wrote:
Is Hammon a legit possibility? She's another one who has a job in which the schedule probably conflicts a bit.


Let her coach women before we put her in charge of the women's national team.

She's an NBA coach, not a WNBA coach.


Reverse sexism? I thought one of the good outcomes of Hammon coaching men is it teaches society to be more tolerant and not discriminate on the basis of gender.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24327
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 1:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

dtsnms wrote:
Shades wrote:
Is Hammon a legit possibility? She's another one who has a job in which the schedule probably conflicts a bit.


Let her coach women before we put her in charge of the women's national team.

She's an NBA coach, not a WNBA coach.

I wouldn't hugely care about not having coached women. Or about the Russian thing. But never having been a head coach at any level would exclude her for me, and I would think for USA Basketball as well.

If you're putting someone in charge of your national team, it seems a good idea for that person to have been in charge of some team somewhere beforehand.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
kool-aide



Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 1650



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 1:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yup. Let's wait for Hammon to have a HEAD coaching job before recommending her to be the head coach for USA women's bball.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 1:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
I wouldn't hugely care about not having coached women. Or about the Russian thing. But never having been a head coach at any level would exclude her for me, and I would think for USA Basketball as well.


I have a feeling the Russian thing would bother USA Basketball more than it does you or me or most people on this board.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 4:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

dtsnms wrote:
linkster wrote:
I've read that Parker should be on the team simply because she is the best, or one of the best. Case closed. How do those who feel that way reconcile that opinion with one that says that Geno should step aside and give someone else a chance at coaching.

Shouldn't the best coach belong on the bench of the US national team? And yet only 8% of the respondents feel that way while in the other poll 92% feel that Parker should replace someone they feel isn't as good as her.

Very revealing.


Apples and oranges.

There are a limited amount of supremely talented players that qualify for the Olympic team and they have a limited window of opportunity due to age, injuries, etc.

There is no such limitation on a coach's ability to do their job, and it is one person, not 12.

I have no problem saying that Parker should be on the team and Geno should not continue to coach, even though I feel Geno is the best coach.

The biggest difference is supremely talented players can more than make up for the difference between a great and very good coach. I have no doubts that Reeve, McGraw, or Staley would win gold with this group if Geno was not coach.


X_________



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14102



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 6:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

UofDel_Alum wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Great question ... I voted for McGraw off the list, but Reeve would be a good choice.

I'm guessing the next coach will be female -- it would be more than ironic if Hammon wound up coaching (or does her participation in the Olympics as a Russian disqualify her?).


I voted for Reeve, but I did not think of Hammon. I like that choice also.


So Geno Auriemma is not qualified to Coach USA Basketball because he is not a WNBA coach, but another person who is also not a WNBA coach is a good choice?


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/29/16 6:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Does anyone seriously believe for a second that USA Basketball would ever remotely consider Hammon given her response to being left off the team and the brouhaha that ensued?

I think that's a total non starter.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin