Say what you want about Auriemma, but the fact of the matter is that UConn is the only school where I can name multiple women's basketball players this decade. And the reason for that is Geno Auriemma--if they played for any other coach in the country, girls like Bird and Cash would have toiled in anonymity.

Secondly, for someone who spouts toleration, the Sarah Palin reference is immature and childish. As someone who voted for Obama solely because of Palin, it takes away from an otherwise respectable column to insert a cheap political jab.

It's about time someone spoke out on this. Unfortunately, Geno's attitude is typical of college (and pro) basketball coaches in general. Domineering, tyrannical behavior is still the norm. I hate to raise it, but you could go all the way back to Latrell Sprewell choking P.J. Carlesimo. Not to excuse it, but it's symptomatic of the problem. I place Geno's UConn counterpart Calhoun's tasteless rant in the same category. Whether or not he is a money-maker for the school, his beknighted view of himself is repulsive.

when i saw the comments that he made in regards to the race of the stanford players and his players.... i didn't know what the hell he was trying to say. for a moment my partner and i were like "what?!??!" and then, after a few quizzical looks at each other we said.... oh yeah... he's talking about race from a privileged, white man's perspective....


I'm not surprised that the inherent racist ideologies that laced his comments went unnoticed, or at least not critiqued...

Why is Auriemma getting slammed for doing the right thing? Grimblebee, how can you compare him to Calhoun or Carlesimo, the former who cheats for his success (and screws over his student athletes), the latter who has experienced no individual success (and screws over his athletes). It's almost like you and Zirin are bending over backwards to find fault with the guy, when all he does is produce consistent winners both on the court and in the classroom.

As for his iconoclasm, BFD if no one is hurt or insulted by it, his players most importantly. Yeah, his "soft white" girl comment was inane, but that stereotype *does* apply in the majors to European male and female players (see: hockey, soccer and basketball in particular).

And as for Zirin's simplistic comment of "women's sports getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop", that is a very US-centric attitude. In Europe, Canada and parts of Asia, women's Olympic and World Championship sports get almost-as-much pub (soccer, hockey, water sports, plus golf) and same-and-far-greater pub (curling, figure skating, volleyball, plus tennis) than Men's. Just because all the US has to offer is the WNBA and random golf and tennis events (and the Olympics when they are held in the US) does not mean the rest of the world buys into the same paradigm. Nice try Zirin.

I find it refreshing when a white man offers a candid (not malicious) opinion on race. I rarely agree with him, but I appreciate it when we can talk openly and honestly. Those moments often present an opportunity to learn about a person as well as inform him about people he only knows through stereotypes, caricatures and prejudices. I am always amazed to find out how white guys consider themselves victims (in this case of stereotypes, in others of affirmative action, etc.). Amazing!

If you flip Geno's comments around, the stereotype is that black players are tough and physical (they're from the 'hood you know). He obviously considers this a compliment. I took him to mean, the suburban white players can be tough and physical too.

Last, I think the media focuses too much on the personalities and styles of coaches. I understand it to some degree at the college level where coaches can be the only constant. At the pro level I think reporters just tend to overemphasize the contribution of people that look like them, i.e. the white male.

It may be more of a European/international thing, but guys like Dirk, Vlade, Manu, are called "soft" either because they flop (like soccer players) or because they're not quick enough to be good defenders.

What was this article about?

"his tactics of criticizing his players and setting up power dynamics where they feel like they have to please their demanding coach"?????

Doesn't this describe just about ANY coach that players actually listen to? I mean, you can not like his "in your face" style, but would you complain about it the same way on the men's side? Do you think it takes away from the women's game more than Pat Summitt (talk about a harsh coach . . .) cancelling their annual game with UCONN? Do you think Pete Carroll or John Gagliardi doesn't set up a "power dynamic?" Or do you just think coaches shouldn't yell at girls?

"Yeah, his "soft white" girl comment was inane, but that stereotype *does* apply in the majors to European male and female players (see: hockey, soccer and basketball in particular)."

Uh, Hockey and Soccer? This comment is one of the stupidest I've ever read of yours. How can people think white hockey players are soft? They only make up 95 % of the leagues. And I've lived in Europe for several years, and have never heard someone call a white player soft, aside from Italians. Dave hit the nail on the head when he said the majority of sports writers and media will always call a white player a digger, or hard-nosed, as opposed to soft.

Here's a quick true story: My pre-teen daughter joined a basketball team for the first time this year. At several games, a parent, obviously a basketball type, prowled the sidelines, barking orders at the girls. You could easily recognize the look and demeanor, the pacing like a lion protecting his pride. And the guy wasn't even the girls' coach. He was the BOYS' coach. But everyone thought that was OK, well, because that's just the norm.

There are only two sports in which a domineering attitude is considered standard in coaching -- football and basketball. Why? Why is intimidation and screaming and preening and posturing considered acceptable? Could it be because a majority of the players are black?

In baseball, outside the occasional Billy Martin, you don't see managers and coaches ranting at their players. (Maybe because they get to take it out on the umps.) In hockey, the coaches stand placidly in the box wearing their suits and...well, actually I've never been able to figure out what those guys do....

It may be unfair to compare Auriemma to Carlesimo, but it's still part of the same culture. The mild jerkiness of Auriemma leads in a straight line to the all-out horribleness of a Bobby Knight. These guys honestly think they are gods.

There is another issue here, which I think Dave is getting at. Like the boys' coach taking charge at my daughter's game, we are talking about men coaching women. Quick, name one female who coaches a men's basketball team, college or pro level. On the other hand, there are plenty of men coaching women's teams, both in college and in the WNBA. So when Auriemma steals the spotlight from his amazingly talented players, there is something more than a little unseemly about it.

I have nothing in principle about men coaching women -- though give me one good reason why Pat Summit or C. Vivian Stringer or Nancy Lieberman shouldn't be coaching in the NBA. But I think it's time to ask why other motivational techniques can't be used -- ones that are positive instead of demeaning and intimidating.

Hockey coaches don't yell? I don't know where you watch hockey, but I've seen hockey coaches, baseball coaches (I always thought those guys were the biggest jerks, really, since straining effort is so worthless when you're trying to hit or pitch, and those guys wrote the BOOK on demeaning kids), whatever, screem and wail. For me, I'm a lot more interested in what they're saying rather than their style - since that's what sticks with kids in the long run. I think there's a fine line between being intense and being a jerk, and there are plenty of quiet coaches who are really bad news, just like some loud ones are terrific. It's really pathetic that style totally trumps substance here.

And while we're at it, I'm glad you highlighted two women who are MUCH harsher and louder (though less successful) than Auriemma (Summitt & Stringer).

And while you're at it, Craig Lake is the head coach for men's track/xc at Brown (Ivy League, D1). If I wasn't so lazy, I could find several more women coaching men in college and high school (and there was a woman who coached a minor league soccer team in Arizona). Now explain to me how Auriema is at fault because of sexist hiring practices (and women coach's reluctance to coach men - let's face, they've been asked).

I used to be abig fan Dave, but your articles are more and more lsing any sort of focus or meaning. This article was all over the place and made no points. Concerning the stanford comments, he was making a pretty good point. On the pro level, guys like echstein and harpring who really don't work harder than anyone else, get credit for being scrappy, but at every other level of sports, the stereotype is different and when a suburban school plays a inner city school of black kids, they are almost always considered the underdog because it is perceived they don't have the toughness or atheltic ability to compete. Geno shot down that assumption adn should be applauded for that.

Second, Geno gets bashed for basically putting the same expectaitons on women that most college coaches have for their men teams. I thought we wanted women to be treated the same. If every coach was like geno, women's basketball would be much better.