Do we (WBB fans) assess male and female WBB head coaches equally?

[TheFarmFan]

Hi all, a random observation/question that I'd be curious for your collective wisdom about:

I noticed tonight in the Baylor-Texas thread some (not unreasonable) roasting of Karen Aston's coaching ability, and it got me to thinking: do we assess male and female WBB head coaches in the same way? The reason I ask is that the coaches I regularly see roasted for poor coaching abilities are almost always female. In particular, this is a repeated trope applied to Aston, Holly Warlick, Cori Close, and Lindsay Gottlieb, off the top of my head, and in almost every game thread featuring those teams, both on this board and on others. By contrast, I can't really think of a single male WBB head coach that regularly receives as much scorn. Maybe that's on the merits, but it does strike me as a little odd, given that at the top of the heap, there's roughly gender parity among the best coaches (e.g., Geno, Waltz, Rueck, Graves, Schaefer vs. Pat, Tara, MM, Mulkey, CTT, Hatchell), and yet outside the truly elite, female head coaches seem (impressionistically, at least) to be singled out much more than men. And this despite the fact that all four of the female head coaches I've just mentioned - Aston, Warlick, Close, and Gottlieb - regularly seem to get their teams into the Top 25 in the country.

So: Respectfully, am I wrong in perceiving this? If not, is there a legitimate basis for the disproportionate scorn that seems to be directed toward female coaches?

 

[Vowelguy]

Kevin McGuff has gotten roasted on this board.
Andy Landers used to get some shots as well.

 

[Plebe]

Tyler Summitt was reviewed quite unfavorably by this board.

 

[HuskyMJ]

It may be unintentional but I see women coaches like Cori Close have their good recruiting used against them as a negative, as if to say she does not win enough with her talent, she is just a recruiter. But for men's coaches like say Doug Bruno, its how he is a great coach and does more with less or whatever. But recruiting is a big part of coaching. Why is someone like Bruno praised for more for less instead of criticized for not being a good recruiter? Basically being a good recruit opens you up to criticism but if you don't recruit well then its not your fault, you are graded on a curve because you don't have as good of talent, even if its your own fault.

 

[TheFarmFan]

It may be unintentional but I see women coaches like Cori Close have their good recruiting used against them as a negative, as if to say she does not win enough with her talent, she is just a recruiter. But for men's coaches like say Doug Bruno, its how he is a great coach and does more with less or whatever. But recruiting is a big part of coaching. Why is someone like Bruno praised for more for less instead of criticized for not being a good recruiter? Basically being a good recruit opens you up to criticism but if you don't recruit well then its not your fault, you are graded on a curve because you don't have as good of talent, even if its your own fault.

Nicely put - that's a more precise articulation of what I'm reacting to. Each of Aston, Warlick, Close and Gottlieb are said to be great recruiters who aren't very good coaches, but when the reverse is true (and it's usually a male coach), it's seen as a virtue, not a flaw.

And I suspect Tyler Summitt's roasting had more to do with nepotism and his subsequent poor choices than his gender. I imagine a "Twyla" Summitt who started head coaching at 23 and was fired by 25 for sleeping with a player would have been met with at least much as much vitriol, and probably much more...

... And while we're at it, I suspect Tyler's gender played a big role in his getting the job in the first place - in the year 2014, I can't see a Twyla Summitt, or any female, being offered a head coaching position one year out of college... Yes, his mother did too, but that was back when the head coach was also washing the players' uniforms and getting paid $250/month.

 

[Plebe]

Nicely put - that's a more precise articulation of what I'm reacting to. Each of Aston, Warlick, Close and Gottlieb are said to be great recruiters who aren't very good coaches, but when the reverse is true (and it's usually a male coach), it's seen as a virtue, not a flaw.

As @vowelguy alluded to above, Kevin McGuff has been raked over the coals many a time on these pages with the very same "great recruiter, bad coach" rap. It was pretty much all we heard about for the last two years every time Ohio State was discussed.

 

[TheFarmFan]

As @vowelguy alluded to above, Kevin McGuff has been raked over the coals many a time on these pages with the very same "great recruiter, bad coach" rap. It was pretty much all we heard about for the last two years every time Ohio State was discussed.

Interesting - thanks. But I'm not sure the existence of one counter-example disproves my sense that this criticism seems to be leveled more at female coaches? Are you implying you don't observe any disparity, warranted or otherwise?

 

[Plebe]

Interesting - thanks. But I'm not sure the existence of one counter-example disproves my sense that this criticism seems to be leveled more at female coaches? Are you implying you don't observe any disparity, warranted or otherwise?

I've seen glimpses of this criticism leveled earlier this year at Kelly Graves as well. There are also female coaches who aren't getting this criticism. Muffet and Tara are perhaps the two most prominent counterexamples on that side of the equation. Carolyn Kieger has been praised as a good coach as well.

 

[Tenspro2002]

There probably is some subconscious "benefit of the doubt" sexism at play.

A male coach generally gets the benefit of the doubt because, subconsciously, they "look the part". Not so with a female coach. Same sort of thing that applies in business, tech, academia, etc.

 

[WestsideWaltz]

I think it's hard to find anyone who's said Gottlieb was a good recruiter.

 

[MSSportsGuy]

I've had this thought before while reading posts on this board for the past few years. Mulkey, Freeze, Aston, Warlick even Staley frequently draw criticisms yet many praise Vic, Waltz, Graves, Rueck and Moore. I am a male who loves the game and think a team should employ the best coach but I can see why some women get frustrated about how more and more opportunities being a head coach of a WCBB program are going to men.

The male coaches I've named have been successful overall but so have the female coaches, but Warlick and Aston have yet to show the fruits of their recruiting success on the court.

I recall the number of conversations in 2016 when the FF consisted of 4 male coached teams and even last year when there were 3 of the 4 in Columbus. Of course ND won the title but those evens inspired a lot of conversation about having opportunities for women in the game given the same treatment isn't offered in the men's game.

 

[Sonny44]

I think it's more of personality and rivalry, not gender. Holly because of hatred of the program/school; McCallie because the Duke program is pitiful; Bruno because he's a personal friend of Geno, etc.

 

[Millenial23]

Very interesting thread, thanks for posting! Valid points from most all posters here so far. A bit of it may be unintentional sexism/impressions, a bit may be because of hatred/views from 'our' coach Geno. I also want to add in likeability. Women coaches, I believe, (and women in general) are supposed to be much more likeable. So even though we hate Muffet for her antics and that of her players, honestly, are we supposed to like her? She's beaten us more than any other coach in recent history. If she was a man, would we hate her as much? Dawn Staley isn't especially liked here either it sometimes seems (not by all). Would she be liked more and given more credit for what she has done if she were male? Maybe. Who knows? But neither would really be expected to be 'liked' if they were male coaches. Whereas we see coaches like Vic, Doug, even Jeff, as being men of 'character' who wouldn't put up with 'bad behavior/attitude' from his players. Maybe some of this is true, maybe some of it is gender stereotypes helping them out. We will never know for sure, and there's definitely no clear answer, but it's most likely somewhere in the middle.

 

[Charliebball]

It may be unintentional but I see women coaches like Cori Close have their good recruiting used against them as a negative, as if to say she does not win enough with her talent, she is just a recruiter. But for men's coaches like say Doug Bruno, its how he is a great coach and does more with less or whatever. But recruiting is a big part of coaching. Why is someone like Bruno praised for more for less instead of criticized for not being a good recruiter? Basically being a good recruit opens you up to criticism but if you don't recruit well then its not your fault, you are graded on a curve because you don't have as good of talent, even if its your own fault.

from a WBB recruiting standpoint you simply can't compare DePaul to schools like Texas or UCLA which are just far more attractive to recruits never mind the geographic proximity to great talent..........

 

['nuff sed]

Interesting. WBB is unique in the sports world in that it is maybe, the only sport where men and women go head to head in coaching and management positions where we can evaluate the points you bring up.

The raise in salaries makes this field attractive to men now, a direct blowback of Title IX to the chagrin of many women I would assume too.

What goes on in the board rooms and CEO's offices in the private sector are just as hidden to the public when the CEO is a woman rather than a male. Performance there is measured in $$$, and failure to deliver draws equal criticism and equal praise. Stockholders at the AGM care for nothing else but $$$.

But sports coverage exposes the issues to the general public, making it a pretty good laboratory to observe behavior and attitudes.

There are clearly biases built in IMO. It's unavoidable.

"Competitive" vs "Aggressive" behavior, "pretty" vs "not pretty", white vs black, gay vs straight ---- its all there, and its all here too

 

[CocoHusky]

The BY is an equal opportunity roasting board and the roasting is always directly proportional to the results specifically the ability of any coach to develop players. On this board Geno is used as a standard bearer therefore everyone else (man or woman) is going to fall significantly short. When you fail to reach a final four with a team almost full of HS McDonalds or the #1 recruiting classes as Holly, Cori ,Karen, & Kevin have done many times you should be roasted. When you make consecutive FF or consecutive appearances in the Championship game without a team of HS McDonalds as Brenda and Vic have done then you mostly get praises here.

 

[CL82]

Is the OP just talking about the woman's game? In the men's game men are routinely pilloried for their various failings and positive results (recruiting) are often used as justifications for cheating accusations.

Sports are sports. You root for the good guys and criticize the bad guys. In my experience though success is ultimately respected. Geno gets cheered at Baylor. Most of us don't particularly care for Muffet but are quick to recognize her achievements (cough, sorry I threw up just a bit in my mouth). I'm big believer that sports is the ultimate meritocracy. Win and world loves (or at least begrudgingly respects) you. Lose and your faults will be thoroughly parsed. I don't think gender matters much for most people.

 

[SVCBeercats]

There are clearly biases built in IMO. It's unavoidable.
"Competitive" vs "Aggressive" behavior, "pretty" vs "not pretty", white vs black, gay vs straight ---- its all there, and its all here too

Performance vs lack of performance; winning vs losing; development vs lack of development

 

[Orangutan]

I also want to add in likeability. Women coaches, I believe, (and women in general) are supposed to be much more likeable. So even though we hate Muffet for her antics and that of her players, honestly, are we supposed to like her? She's beaten us more than any other coach in recent history. If she was a man, would we hate her as much?

This is what I've noticed. It seems like women coaches are held to a different standard of behavior/likability. Obviously, I'm particularly sensitive to it as a Notre Dame fan and with McGraw it's compounded by history and ND's status as UConn's current #1 villain. But I notice it with Mulkey, Frese, Staley, etc.

Feels like women aren't allowed to complain to officials (seen as "whining") or criticize their team ("throw them under the bus") but men can do it without getting as much criticism.

The complaining to refs that Schaeffer and Walz do would not be so overlooked if they were women, imo. But it seems they're largely very well liked here. The only prominent woman coach that I can think of that seems well liked here is Tara.

 

[bennyskid]

I'd like to challenge what seems to be a fundamental assumption. Let's suppose,"there are clearly biases built in". Let's suppose that women are disparaged for personality features that are tolerated in men. Let's assume all that.

But suppose we do a statistical analysis, and let's suppose that we find that female coaches make the same wages and are no more or less likely to be fired than male coaches with similar resumes.

(I imagine this to be the case. At least, in this thread no one has yet suggested that it isn't.)

If both of these things are true, then the only logical conclusion is that "bias" is not what we think it is. Maybe that "bias" is simply an evolutionary response - across genders we are looking at potential mates, within the same gender we are looking at potential rivals. And - maybe, just maybe - we are capable of setting those instincts aside at a conscious level and appreciating all coaches for their actual virtues and accomplishments.

It seems to me that both of these things have always been necessary for any sort of human society to function. We have a little tiny rat brain in our skull programmed for fighting, fleeing, and duck*ing. And we have a great big human brain around it, programmed for talking, sharing, building, and watching WBB. The rat brain tells us, "Muffet scowls too much." The human brain asks, "I wonder how much it would cost to get her to coach at our school?"

 

[uconnell]

Truthfully never thought about it at all.

 

[IWearShoes]

Maybe I'm completely blind to my own biases, but I don't feel I see gender at all when assessing a WCBB coach.

The SEC is what I'm most familiar with and 9 of the 14 coaches are women. It would be difficult to be honestly critical of SEC coaching and not touch on women, but plenty of men have been pilloried.

Jimmy Dykes was a terrible hire at Arkansas and was roasted unmercifully on many SEC boards.

The fella down at Florida, whose name I do not know, can't be long for that job, but his predecessor, Amanda Butler, who I remember, has proven AD Striklin a bit of an idiot on that move.

Eddie Munster, uh, Matt Insell at Ole Miss was praised prolifically on MSU boards in the same vein that UConn fans praise Holly. We hoped he would never leave us, but we are candidly a little worried this new female coach, Yolett McPhee-McCuin, is going to be a future problem. If that ain't respect, what is?

 

[CL82]

This is what I've noticed. It seems like women coaches are held to a different standard of behavior/likability. Obviously, I'm particularly sensitive to it as a Notre Dame fan and with McGraw it's compounded by history and ND's status as UConn's current #1 villain. But I notice it with Mulkey, Frese, Staley, etc.

Feels like women aren't allowed to complain to officials (seen as "whining") or criticize their team ("throw them under the bus") but men can do it without getting as much criticism.

The complaining to refs that Schaeffer and Walz do would not be so overlooked if they were women, imo. But it seems they're largely very well liked here. The only prominent woman coach that I can think of that seems well liked here is Tara.

Mmm. Don't think I agree. Danny Hurley is getting "T-ed up" by officials. Pat Summitt used to jaw all day. Once you are established, the refs give you some wiggle room.

 

[Plebe]

There probably is some subconscious "benefit of the doubt" sexism at play.

A male coach generally gets the benefit of the doubt because, subconsciously, they "look the part". Not so with a female coach. Same sort of thing that applies in business, tech, academia, etc.

I know I probably came across as a sexism denier in my earlier posts, but I completely agree with this.

I believe the "benefit of the doubt" edge you mention has played out, for example, in the common refrain that Frese can't coach and that Walz, as her then-assistant, deserves all the credit for her one national championship.

I believe it's also played out in some of the overly harsh assessments of, for example, Mulkey's coaching abilities.

 

[uconnell]

Mmm. Don't think I agree. Danny Hurley is getting "T-ed up" by officials. Pat Summitt used to jaw all day. Once you are established, the refs give you some wiggle room.

This is what I've noticed. It seems like women coaches are held to a different standard of behavior/likability. Obviously, I'm particularly sensitive to it as a Notre Dame fan and with McGraw it's compounded by history and ND's status as UConn's current #1 villain. But I notice it with Mulkey, Frese, Staley, etc.

Feels like women aren't allowed to complain to officials (seen as "whining") or criticize their team ("throw them under the bus") but men can do it without getting as much criticism.

The complaining to refs that Schaeffer and Walz do would not be so overlooked if they were women, imo. But it seems they're largely very well liked here. The only prominent woman coach that I can think of that seems well liked here is Tara.

If you are complaining that UConn fans say McGraw whines too much to the refs,,
Well she does. If you are saying that ND fans don’t complain and dislike Geno, well they do. So what?