Hey Sporting News, look outside the box with your crappy lists

The poster’s comment was, as expected, negative because the list didn’t contain Dan Gable, the long-time Iowa coach and 1972 Olympic Champion who led the Hawkeyes to 15 NCAA titles, including nine of them in a row. This was also in an era where there was more competition, more programs, Division II and III champions competing. He did it at a time where it was tougher, at least, if you’re looking at total competition. There are schools increasing their budgets to help wrestling, but you can’t pull the “beat everyone because there was no one” card with Gable.

The list was trendy. As a broad-based sports fan, there isn’t a single name I didn’t recognize. The “Hall of Famers” were from the major sports. I think Pat Summitt and Geno Auriemma (Tennessee & Connecticut women’s basketball) would have gone unnoticed had they not been likely listed on the nomination form.

Anyway, I also saw another omission — Beth Anders, the long-time field hockey coach at Old Dominion University, my alma mater. So here’s my reply on The Sporting News’ website about Gable and Anders.

Here’s my reply on The Sporting News site.

“The comments above on Dan Gable are accurate. You can’t mention college wrestling without mentioning Iowa, which means you can’t not mention Dan Gable. He set the bar in this sport and his omission caters to the trendy mainstream crowd.

Then there’s Beth Anders, the “Wooden” or “Gable” of women’s college field hockey. From ‘81-’00, Old Dominion’s field hockey team won NINE NCAA Championships and finished second three times.

How’s this for a winning percentage: 492-92-7 … In 29 seasons, ODU Field Hockey has made the NCAA Tournament 28 times, with last year being the first time in school history the school didn’t make it.

I’d equate Beth Anders dominance to Pat Summitt’s in terms of competition and becoming the dominant force in the sport.

Without Dan Gable or Beth Anders even considered, this list just continues to be part of the “Hey, it’s a trendy list.”

When polled, did these Hall of Famers know anything outside “popular” names?

Every single name on this list is recognizable. Shows lack of research.

You list Hank Iba at Oklahoma State, but what about E.C. Gallagher … you know Gallagher-Iba Arena? E.C. Gallagher led Oklahoma A&M (now Oklahoma State) to 11 National Championships in 13 years, ranging from 1928 – 40.

You guys need to let your “experts” and Hall of Famers know there are more Hall of Fames than what SportsCenter and The Sporting News tell you about. I used to subscribe to this publication, a long, long time ago.

Glad to see the reasons I stopped subscribing still exist … lack of any such broad-based sports coverage.

We talk about being mainstream, then the “mainstream” media compiles a list ignoring two of the most important college coaches outside of roundball and pigskin. If it weren’t for ESPN, who the hell would know who Pat Summitt and Geno are?

I even went further, comparing E.C. Gallagher to Hank Iba. Gallagher won 11 national championships in 13 years at Oklahoma A&M/State. Iba won two in 36 seasons. Iba’s not even the best coach in Oklahoma A&M/State’s athletic history. I know he was a well-respected coach, but in this case, numbers don’t lie.

Same with Anders, who might be the second-most instense current head coach in college, behind current Iowa head coach Tom Brands. Basically, if Tom Brands were a field hockey coach, he’d be Beth Anders.

FOLLOW UP: College women's basketball started crowning national champions in 1972 with the formation of the AIAW. The NCAA first crowned an NCAA champion in 1982, so we've got 27 years of NCAA Champions, and 37 years of women's basketball champions.

Of the 17 schools which have won NCAA/AIAW championships, only two have won more than six championships -- Tennessee and Connecticut. Both of their coaches are on the list.

College wrestling championships date back to 1928, with the "official" title being recognized in 1934.

Dating back to 1928, FIVE college wrestling coaches have won more than five championships.

E.C. Gallagher 11 (Oklahoma A&M/State) Art Griffith 8 (Oklahoma A&M/State) Myron Roderick 7 (Oklahoma A&M/State) Harold Nichols (Iowa State) 6 Dan Gable (Iowa) 15 John Smith (Oklahoma State) 5

North Carolina's women's soccer coach, ODU's field hockey coach, the St. John's football coach (as noted in the comments section) ... NUMEROUS omissions in favor of coaches who might have won one or two titles because they're trendy.

PmoehrinVarsity

113 days ago

Score 4

I understand where your coming from, but something like greatest coach of all-time is so opinionated I take any list like that with a grain of salt.

Of course something like that is going to be trendy. They're trying to sell magazines and make money, and quite frankly more people would rather here about dozens of great college football coaches then they would Dan Gable, or women's soccer, so that's what gets published.

In no way is that taking a shot at Dan Gable or anyone else mentioned. They were great coaches and dominated their sports like few others. But very few people care to know who they are.

When reading articles like that the goal of most people is to get told what they already believe. They don't like seeing their heroes not be recognized, and if they see it as much they aren't as likely to read the magazine anymore.

What I try to take away from a list like that is to take the time to read about the stories of the people they had mentioned. You'll get much more out of that, then trying to get someone mentioned who think think should be given credit.

If people want to take the time to find out who Dan Gable is, they usually won't need to look at a list like this to do so. There's plenty of other lists out there that will give credit to Gable and others, and if people dig deep enough they'll find them.

Permalink | Reply

CheezerAll-Star

112 days ago

Score 3

I disagree. A true sports fan would like to hear about the people of which they are not readily aware. Anybody who follows mainstream sports can find out information on the mainstream names. The people that are paid to research and report on these topics should be the ones digging a little deeper. They should be the ones expanding the knowledge of their readers.

If you specifically consider a list of the Top 50 of anything, the opportunity is obvious. As you say, the lists are so subjective that when you go to a depth of 50 people, it offers a good opportunity to look past the mainstream names.

Permalink