Shockers Provide Cure For SIU Ailments

[DUShock]

trufan, thank you for the posting and the excellent and well though tout statement but I must confess some ignorance with the ladies program. I am guilty of holding a punch pass for games back when they were winning and the then wife and I attended fairly regularly.

When I think of Coach Smith I think of 1) NITs 2) winning seasons 3) Valley contender 4) diminishing production in the win columns (poor recruiter?) and 5) yelling but fun to watch.

What mess was the program in? Please don't take my question as a smug or predetermined statement, I am truly interested.

Go Shocks!!!!

[trufan]

DUFan-- the mess I am referring to primarily involves the fact that there were not enough players in the pipeline to develop. 4 or 5 players went on to play lower division basketball (NCAA Div. 2 or NAIA) instead of completing their eligibility at WSU. As far as I can tell from internet investigation, they did not even perform well at those lower levels! Candace Burns (I forgot to mention her as a player who completed her eligibility here on my last post. Sorry.) did not even play HIGH SCHOOL basketball her senior year, and yet, was given a scholarship by Coach Smith. She never contributed more than 2 minutes per game. Candace was a hard-working, positive person, but not a Division I basketball player. The program this staff walked into was not unlike walking into a program where there just has not been one before...no division I athletes to coach.
We brought in this nationally respected coach, gave her basically nothing to work with (I do not mean to imply that Schaus has not been supportive, just that there weren't Division I basketball players here to work with.) and now we wonder why we haven't got a winning program yet. Smith's lack of recruiting bought WSU 3-4 years worth of losses after he left. Then we had the "unlucky year" wherein 4 of the top 6-7 players were injured/unable to play to anything near their potential all year last year. Now Albright is getting better and better athletes to sign with Wichita State. She deserves, in my mind, a chance to see what she can do with particularly these latest recruits and Val Siemens.
Again, how can she be given only the same length of time as Smith, who did NOT recruit Division I players?
There is reason for hope, and with that in mind, we should be patient

[wsubballfan]

But, the point is not with her players to some, but with her style. She may have been successful years ago using a style where you build around one player but with the advancement of women's ball, that style is no longer producing results. Perhaps she has reached a point in her career where she can not keep up with the changes. Why bother mentioning the talent in the program now when she only uses/relies on one player? And, it seems obvious this style won't change next year. Only the player's name will change.

[RoyalShock]

From following men's b-ball, it is the assistant coaches that do most of the talent development and the head coach who tries to put it together by inserting that talent into their offensive and defensive systems.

If women's b-ball is comparable, then I see only little value in Jane as a head coach. It sounds like she's had some good assistants but hasn't performed in her responsibilities as HC.

[trufan]

Have you asked whether "just get the ball to Kiki" is the game plan? I have actually asked what roles the staff has in mind for each player, and I found out that Kiki has a significant number of touches that are expected each game, though I don't remember the exact number. Others are also expected to contribute to various degrees as well, although they seem to be quite a bit less consistent at getting the job done than Kiki is. I cannot get on board with your idea that it is somehow stupid to highlight the play of Kiki, who was Missouri Valley Freshman of the Year, and who remains a consistent offensive producer despite the fact that other teams key their defensive efforts on her.
And as for the idea that this staff is "behind the times": Imust admit, since they worked with Pat Summitt this summer, tailoring the offensive schemes to WSU's specific personnel, they are every bit as behind the times as is Coach Summitt! While I am sure that you have a fair amount of basketball knowledge, I will still assume that the winningest college basketball coach in history knows even more than you do, wsubballfan!

[SubGod22]

I would say from having watched Kyrie play for quite a while that Jane probably hasn't used or gotten as much out of Kyrie as possible.

[1972Shocker]

trufan, I have to give you credit. You are a great fan of Jane and your support for her never wanes regardless of her performance. You may be the last of the Mohicans as LadyShocker has thrown in the towel.

You predicted this team would be 14-4 in the MVC this year, yet they will finish closer to 4-14. Our 9 MVC losses have been by an average of 22.6 points. Yet you still think Jane is doing a great job.

Let me ask you this. Is Jane not accountable for anything that has happened over the past 5 years? Remember, Jane has said last year's team was horribly coached. This year has been no better.

Compare Jane's performance in her first five year's to Mark Turgeon's first five years. Coach Turgeon inherited a program at least in as bad of shape as what Jane inherited.

Coach Turgeon's records were:

2000-01: 9-19
2001-02: 15-15
2002-03: 18-12 NIT
2003-04: 21-11 NIT
2004-05: 22-10 NIT

and of course Year 6:

2005-06: 26-9 MVC Champs & NCAA Sweet 16

Jane's Record:

2003-04: 10-18 (Very similar to Mark's 1st year with inherited players)
2004-05: 5-22 (Understandable with a Very Young Team)
2005-06: 15-13 (Solid season - lot's of experience to carry forward)
2006-07: 9-20
2007-08: 8-15 So Far

Our 6 non-conference wins were against teams with an average RPI of 244, including the scintillating 40-34 win over #295 Texas Pan American. That kind of home schedule and play will really pull in the fans -- Not.

Note that Mark did not have the benefit of the Roundhouse Renaissance until his 4th season. Jane had this benefit from Day 1. Furthermore, the Men's MVC was a pretty tough league during the Turgeon regime. The Women's side has been pretty mediocre.

Turgeon's record is what I would expect out of a GOOD Coach. Gradual improvement from year-to year and real evidence of building a solid program.

You say Jane is buidling a program, but I fail to see it and as of right now the foundation of her "program" seems to be full of cracks.

I thought Jane was a good hire based on her track record, although Wisconsin letting her go after only one bad season seemed curious.

Not sure why Jane has not been successful at Wichita State. She is very personable and always has a positive attitude. I have nothing against Jane personally, however, she simply has not got the job done and there is little, if anything, on the horizon to make a realistic observer think otherwise.

Jane's initial contract was for five year's and she has been given that full amount of time which is more than enough time to evaluate her performance. She has the worst winning % of any of the 6 Coaches since the women's intercollegiate program was established in 1974.

She has publicly admitted that she has done a poor job of coaching. Now she and you want us to believe if we just give her more time somehow things will be different in the future. No thanks, I'm not buying. Furthermore, I think that will be a hard sell to recruits going forward.

But as I have said before, I have no influence on the decision regarding Jane, other than if she is retained I will not be renewing my season tickets. That is apparently the only effective means I have to express my opinion on the matter.

[wsubballfan]

Thanks for making my point. How can a coach know how many touches to expect a player to have regardless of opponent? That is exactly what our opponents count on - Jane expecting Kiki to get the ball regardless. As far as the others' consistency, other than Hoyt, no other player is allowed the playing time to develop consistency.

And, as far as the staff talking to Summit, that doesn't mean Jane specifically has been able to change what appears to be her coaching style here. And, she is the one who publicly said "she gets it now" which implies she didn't before she got to WSU. Those are her words not mine.

You can be an Albright fan all you want and I won't question your basketball knowledge. I have never used the word "stupid" in any of my posts. I am just pointing out that is does not work at this level....there are probably levels where it does.

I have said all along Kiki is a decent player. She is more productive when she is not the focus.

As an example of your factual representations in previous posts, I would disagree that Antionette ever did solve her "walking" problem. So, just presenting opinions as fact does not make them so.

[DUShock]

If only the win percentage was as solid as Killdeer 1972!

[1972Shocker]

If only the win percentage was as solid as Killdeer 1972!

Meaning?

[trufan]

Comparing Turgeon's experience to the women's basketball experience for several reasons:
1) Turgeon did not walk in to a program that had "imploded" the year before,but just a stagnant program, which had at some time in the past, at least, had some measure of tradition.
2) Turgeon did not walk into a program with 4 or 5 DIVISION 2 or LOWER players on the team.
3) Women's basketball offers 14 scholarships per team, meaning that many athletes who could be great players on mid-major teams, choose instead to be end-of-the-bench players on BCS teams . Mens' basketball, in comparison, offers only 13 scholarships per team...thus allowing more parity in the game as a whole and better recruiting options for mid-major coaches.
4) While KU and K-State's mens' programs recruit widely from across the USA, Kansas State womens' basketball has staked it's Big 12 existence on retaining all of the highest ranked womens players from KANSAS, thus making even WSU's "home turf", so to speak, more difficult to recruit successfully than for Turgeon.
So maybe we should try to find a WOMENS' program that had very few division I athletes to build upon for us to compare.
As far as being happy with the product on the court...of course it is miserable to be losing this much....but there VERY DEFINITELY is HOPE for a turnaround with what talent is coming next year. And it just goes against every shred of fairness to think that Coach Smith (with no Division I experience) comes into a program that Hargrove had started building well (Jennifer Kazcka---need I say more?) and stops recruiting, leaving the team with 3 years of Division II and NAIA athletes. He gets 5 years. And then A PROVEN and RESPECTED (remember, candidate for NATIONAL coach of the year) coach walks into a sinking ship, patiently and persistently attempts to build a program, and is given the SAME 5 YEARS? That just doesn't make sense...
As far as the quote in the paper about "horribly coached", I think that anyone who has heard her chalk talks can easily see that that was a bad choice of words (If I got fired every time I chose bad words, I'd be in some pretty hot water!), but was her way of taking responsibility for the overall program. She identified problems and went about fixing them...thus the trip with her staff to work with Coach Summitt and the time with Dick Bennett working on defensive changes.
Identifying problems and working on them are STRENGTHS, not weaknesses.
Samantha Smith, Jadhon Kerr, Shantel Pointer, and Jennifer DeGarmo are all hitting the weights this summer. Val Siemens is eligible next year. Hopefully Whitney Rice will be healthy to start the season for the first time in several years next year. Jacie Hoyt has gained a LOT of experience at the point this year, and should be better. This coaching staff deserves at least ONE year more than Smith had. They have brought us better and better athletes each year. Let's see what they can do with them next year.

[DUShock]

We are all speculating, my guess is that Jim Schaus has a plan for the program and that Coach Albright is well aware of where the program is in relation to the plan. Whatever occurs I am certain that Schaus is on top of it and he has my support (for whatever that is worth, which isn't much)

Go Shocks!!!!

[trufan]

wsubball fan--First, I did not mean to imply that you had used the word "stupid" in your posts. I am sorry that it came across that way.
Second, I have heard Pat Summitt speak on TV of how many "touches" she would like Candace Parker to have..and Anosikee (sp?), too. This is very common in college basketball. I wonder if you are more acquainted with high school ball? Maybe AAU type ball? Anyway, it is obviously adjusted based on: 1) The performance of the supporting cast (WSU's guards, unfortunately, have had a fairly low shooting percentage most of this season, so this would point to increasing Kiki touches.) 2) Defensive adjustments (Kiki has not had much trouble scoring, despite the defensive adjustments of Valley teams this year, for the most part, so this would argue against decreasing her touches.)
Antionette's overall number of turnovers decreased each year she was here. I agree that at times she still travelled, even as a senior...but it decreased enough that professional teams were not discouraged from signing her to a contract and playing her.
I have one more thing that i would like to be certain that I have been clear about. I am not posting as a fan of Jane Albright. Rather, I am a fan of Wichita State women's basketball. ( I have followed this program for 31 years now, thru at least 5 coaches). And I am a fan of FAIRNESS. To allow one coach who walks into a program with one of the All-Time Greats of Missouri Valley Basketball (Kazcka) 5 years and then to allow the next coach (a PROVEN commodity) only the same 5 years after walking in to a program which is in shambles.....just is not fair or right...

[SubGod22]

I have no problem with fairness, but at this rate if Jane is back they'll play every home game in front of 5 people. There's no excitement or success anywhere near the program. She's gone backwards the last two years. I like the lady but there's no fan support for bringing her back. And you can't really blame anyone for that.

[trufan]

Once the winning starts, fans will be back, and in looking at her history, come in DROVES (1972 Shocker provided the attendance numbers from Wisconsin recently). Every program has a natural decline in attendance when there are many losses at all. It is pretty universal that attendance follows a teams's record. Once Val Siemens is eligible, and these current freshmen have more strength, I would anticipate the wins to start coming...and the attendance to follow...