The Mt Rushmore of WCBB Coaches

[alexrgct]

What Tara's done is simply remarkable. Her affiliation with an elite institution is both a draw and a detriment. Although she has indeed not reached the mountaintop since 1992, she has 10 total Final Fours. She coached the #2 program of the 1990s, the #6 program of the 2000s, and will probably end up with a top 5 program at worst in the 2010s (tracking at #2 currently, though will have a hard time holding off Baylor after next season). Only Pat has exceeded that kind of success over three decades (though Geno's tracking to do so if he coaches this decade out). Add the Olympic gold (at a point where the model for being the Olympic coach was at the expense of her college program), and I think she deserves that last spot.

 

[Scotter]

I think she more than deserves the last spot. She was deserving of an automatic spot without second thought along with Geno and Pat. Rush's handful of years no matter how successful don't really compare to Tara three decades of work in its impact on women's basketball.

What Tara's done is simply remarkable. Her affiliation with an elite institution is both a draw and a detriment. Although she has indeed not reached the mountaintop since 1992, she has 10 total Final Fours. She coached the #2 program of the 1990s, the #6 program of the 2000s, and will probably end up with a top 5 program at worst in the 2010s (tracking at #2 currently, though will have a hard time holding off Baylor after next season). Only Pat has exceeded that kind of success over three decades (though Geno's tracking to do so if he coaches this decade out). Add the Olympic gold (at a point where the model for being the Olympic coach was at the expense of her college program), and I think she deserves that last spot.

 

[ThisJustIn]

I agree with Scotter re: Tara.

Also, I understand why the Macs and Rush get all that attention -- but there is a reason they call it the Wade Trophy.

 

[Zorro]

Leon

 

[VAUConnFan]

Yeah, it's crazy to think how well her teams do with basically role players. The years she has been very, very good she has a superstar like Riley or Diggins (and it pains me to say that, blech) but contrast that with Rutgers, which has lots of players in the WNBA and doesn't have the level of sustained success.

One would hardly call Notre Dame's 18 Big East First Teamers role players. Hopefully, the facts back up these claims.

 

[Husky7882]

If you were to make a WCBB HC Mt. Rushmore, I think the first three faces wouldn't be particularly controversial. Pat Summitt has to be there- no explanation needed. Geno also requires no explanation. And I think Cathy Rush has to be on there for coaching Immaculata to three straight AIAW NCs and setting the initial bar for the sport. So who would be the fourth? Some ideas:

Marianne Stanley (ODU, among other places)- played for Cathy Rush and in her own right won two AIAW NCs and one NCAA NC.

Sonja Hogg (La Tech)- one AIAW and one NCAA NC, generally considered a trailblazer from the early days.

Linda Sharp (USC)- made three NCAA finals, winning twice. Her USC teams raised the bar in terms of athleticism for WBB at the time.

Jody Conradt (Texas)- one NC, first perfect season of the NCAA era, one of the all-time winningest coaches.

Tara VanDerVeer (Stanford)- two time national champion with success that has spanned multiple eras in the sport. All this and strict academic restrictions in terms of who she can recruit and sign.

C. Vivian Stringer (Cheyney, Iowa, Rutgers)- has taken three programs to the Final Four, one of the all-time winningest coaches.

Kim Mulkey (Baylor)- Next era coach, heir apparent to the title of "face of WCBB" after Geno retires (not that she's likely to be coaching that much longer than Geno), two NCs and counting.

Carolyn Peck (Purdue)- Just kidding...

Someone else?

I've never heard of this Carolyn Peck you mention, but I've heard of Coach Carolyn Peck. Would that be the same person?

 

[Husky7882]

What Tara's done is simply remarkable. Her affiliation with an elite institution is both a draw and a detriment. Although she has indeed not reached the mountaintop since 1992, she has 10 total Final Fours. She coached the #2 program of the 1990s, the #6 program of the 2000s, and will probably end up with a top 5 program at worst in the 2010s (tracking at #2 currently, though will have a hard time holding off Baylor after next season). Only Pat has exceeded that kind of success over three decades (though Geno's tracking to do so if he coaches this decade out). Add the Olympic gold (at a point where the model for being the Olympic coach was at the expense of her college program), and I think she deserves that last spot.

This is precisely why I voted for Tara; as much as I admire MM's accomplishments with the players she has, I admire TV's even more. Besides, the only time I don't root for Stanford is when they're playing UCONN.

 

[sarals24]

One would hardly call Notre Dame's 18 Big East First Teamers role players. Hopefully, the facts back up these claims.

Role players might be the wrong term, but they definitely haven't had the type of players with sustained success in the WNBA, for example. Other than Ruth Riley, they haven't had a player on an Olympics team; UConn has six on this team alone. So I guess what I'm saying is that ND recruits kids who will be successful in college but aren't necessarily pro level players. Which makes it impressive that she's had the success she has had in the past.

This current crop of players might be different; Peters and Diggins could have long pro careers, for example, and I think McBride is very, very good.

 

[ChicagoGG]

Tara 's overall resume, particularly taking year off from her own team to be the Olympic coach, tips the last spot to her, IMO. Very classy program, love to watch them play (anybody but UConn, that is...).

 

[Wink96]

Tara great coach in a very difficult situation.

 

[alexrgct]

Interesting that Jody's getting quite a bit of love in the poll, but no one's made a case for her in the thread. Not saying at all that she doesn't deserve consideration, just thought that was interestng.

 

[VAUConnFan]

Interesting that Jody's getting quite a bit of love in the poll, but no one's made a case for her in the thread. Not saying at all that she doesn't deserve consideration, just thought that was interestng.

My guess - relatively little is known about her. I call myself a fan of wbb and know close to nothing about Coach Conradt.

 

[Icebear]

Interesting that Jody's getting quite a bit of love in the poll, but no one's made a case for her in the thread. Not saying at all that she doesn't deserve consideration, just thought that was interestng.

I think it is pretty clear that if Leon Barmore had been included he would have been a runaway leader. I am sure many of us just voted so we could see the numbers I voted for Jody on that basis thinking it would be less likely to affect the voting. Probably the greatest oversight was not including an other line in the poll.

 

[alexrgct]

I think it is pretty clear that if Leon Barmore had been included he would have been a runaway leader. I am sure many of us just voted so we could see the numbers I voted for Jody on that basis thinking it would be less likely to affect the voting. Probably the greatest oversight was not including an other line in the poll.

It's not clear to me that Barmore would be the runaway leader. Tara, I think, would be right there, if not ahead.

I meant to have an "other" option (just because I knew I'd forget someone), but hit submit prematurely and the forum interface won't let you edit the poll.

 

[Icebear]

It's not clear to me that Barmore would be the runaway leader. Tara, I think, would be right there, if not ahead.

I meant to have an "other" option (just because I knew I'd forget someone), but hit submit prematurely and the forum interface won't let you edit the poll.

I realize that problem Alex as I have run into it myself. Runaway was probably appropriate earlier but he has had fewer mentions later in the thread.

 

[EricSD]

I think it's pretty clear to me. Tara over Leon. really, a no brainer. but that's just my opinion.

 

[VAUConnFan]

In terms of preparing her players and making in-game adjustments, Muffett is in the top 4 or so today. Her players play smart and don't beat themselves. In terms of talent, how many ND players are there in the WNBA--just a few? She now has 1 NC and 2 other finals appearances. Her team has been ranked for a long time.

Yeah, it's crazy to think how well her teams do with basically role players. The years she has been very, very good she has a superstar like Riley or Diggins (and it pains me to say that, blech) but contrast that with Rutgers, which has lots of players in the WNBA and doesn't have the level of sustained success.

Role players might be the wrong term, but they definitely haven't had the type of players with sustained success in the WNBA, for example. Other than Ruth Riley, they haven't had a player on an Olympics team; UConn has six on this team alone. So I guess what I'm saying is that ND recruits kids who will be successful in college but aren't necessarily pro level players. Which makes it impressive that she's had the success she has had in the past.

This current crop of players might be different; Peters and Diggins could have long pro careers, for example, and I think McBride is very, very good.

Notre Dame, as earlier mentioned, has had 18 players named to the Big East Conference First Team. Until Notre Dame's recent run of two consecutive Final Fours, Notre Dame and Rutgers made the same number of appearances. Dare I say, there were zero All Americans on either of Rutgers' two Final Four teams, and there have only been 9 Scarlet Knights named First Team Big East. A mere cursory glance at the Big East Media guide would refute any notion of Notre Dame achieving its sustained success to the overachievement of role players. Notre Dame has had some darn good ballplayers. The Big East Media Guide would also refute any notion of Rutgers' lack of sustained success at any level.

 

[baylorprof]

Though I hope some day Mulkey qualifies (I hope she decides to keep coaching long enough to accrue a few more titles), in my opinion, the "Mt." should have only two heads--Summit and Geno.

The early years were all crap shoots in terms of who set the stages for later greatness. I know this--the last few years of Hogg's work at Baylor were embarassing. the game had passed her SO by. Wayland Baptist in west texas did for lots of years before scholarships. In the 'modern' era, only 4 programs have won TWO national titles--only four (Stanford, USC, LaTech, and Baylor). and then there's nobody between those four and the top two (Tennessee with 8 and you guys wiht 7). That WIDE gap between those programs/coaches and the upper two (Tennessee and UCONN) is drastic.

Should some coach (Kim???) win a 3rd and/or 4th then maybe they edge their way in to the Summit/Auriema tandem and create a holy trinity.

But for now, only two are worthy of being carved in stone. One will win no more (summit) and the other will win several more (Geno). So, the gap, in fact, may even widen before someone like Kim closes it.

 

[Samanthabrown3]

I have never quite decided if Cathy Rush really belongs there or not. Shouldn't your career have at least some length to it?

Yes, but you should get paid, too. That tends to make a career longer.

 

[MilfordHusky]

ND has had good players, but relatively few All-Americans. I would guess that Stanford has had 3 times as many or more. I interpret that as Tara having had more talent to work with, but her coaching helped those players get the AA recognition. I think Muffet has done very well with good, but not great talent. Over the last 15 years, ND may not have been in the top 10 in terms of talent pool. Tennessee has had tremendous talent. I would say that Muffet would have done better with the Tennessee talent, and Pat would have done far worse with the ND talent.