Not trying to diminish Patty Gasso's team at all. Her team is everything you said it is.
Nor am I denying that OU's football factory doesn't enable women's sports (and men's sports) to exist. That's common knowledge.
I just think you want to have it both ways in lauding Gasso's great team while saying Auriemma's or Summitt's accomplishments in women's basketball are not as worthy because they coach a women's team. I am not comparing the athleticism of a man to that of a woman and I'm not saying Gasso's team could beat the men's National Softball Team or that the UConn women could beat the UConn men. That is not even worthy of debate and it's really not fair if one just enjoys the sport for what it is.
It's nothing close to hypocrisy. I'd say that winning a high school state title in football in Texas is a tougher task than the one Auriemma or Summitt attempted every year. Both had superior players virtually every year.
So if I said the Todd Dodge was a quality high school football coach, and praised his teams for playing with great fundamentals, that isn't hypocrisy, even if I contended that his task wasn't close to as tough as BStoops or other elite college football coach. Praising Dodge, or my favorite John Clark, or even a great coach in 4A isn't hypocrisy.
The original discussion that you're trying to trash, was when I defended my position that Bob Stoops is the best coach on campus, when he was being trashed for losing in the national semifinals of the CFP. Trying to compete in his profession is so much tougher for a lot of reasons.
It's one reason why Auriemma avoided the opportunity to prove himself coaching me. He had the opportunity. But he preferred to be the biggest fish in a much less competitive pond. And that's okay.
An additional part of the discussion in that or another thread, was my contention that Title IX is inherently unfair, because it creates left wing boundaries for who gets awarded a scholarship and who doesn't. In OUr culture, it used to be the best, but that's no longer the case. I don't want to dredge that up again. If there are 16 men's and 16 women's scholarships in basketball, why do half of them go to women, when none of the women can compete with the men at the same school.
A great high school boys team would cream any of UConn's national champs, because it's a different game. That doesn't mean that Auriemma isn't a great coach. But tossing out the notion that he should be in the same conversation with John Wooden is more than a small stretch.
And that is relevant to the discussion, because it's a large part of why women's sports aren't self funding. Except for maybe women's gymnastics, you can find more talented high school boys, and most of why we go watch a game, it to watch amazing athleticism. Auriemma's game is played below the rim. High school JV boy's games, aren't.
That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be women's funded. But equal funding is patently unfair. So is the discussion about great coaching. Again, I love Patti Gasso. And I love watching any team in any sport, including 12 year olds, playing any game with great fundamentals, and admire any coach who teaches them well enough for their team to execute that way in any game, but especially in championship pressure.
In any college endeavor, you only want the groups of your choosing, to get advantages that you prescribe. Then you name call those who disagree. You subdivide the best when it suits you, and dividing when it suits you. That sound incredibly hypocritical, to me.
