The 1996 USA women’s basketball team remains 1 of the greatest in the history of the sport: a 52-0 record in pre-Olympic competition, 8-0 during the Olympics en route to a gold medal, 9 Hall of Fame players (Teresa Edwards/Ruthie Bolton-Holifield/Sheryl Swoopes/Lisa Leslie/Katrina McClain/Dawn Staley/Jennifer Azzi/Rebecca Lobo/Nikki McCray), and 3 Hall of Fame coaches (head coach Tara VanDerveer, assistant coaches Ceal Barry/Marian Washington). Now the team has added yet another piece to its Hall of Fame puzzle as 1 of the women who did a lion’s share of the work off the court has finally joined the club. Carol Callan served as Chair of the Player Selection Committee back then, currently sits on the Women’s Basketball Hall of Fame Board of Directors, and last summer was elected president of FIBA Americas. Her most recent election was last week when the Women’s Basketball Hall of Fame announced that she would be part of its Class of 2020. Earlier today HoopsHD’s Jon Teitel got to chat with Carol about that legendary 1996 squad and what it means to be a Hall of Famer.
You graduated magna cum laude from college, got 2 master’s degrees from Colorado, and spent 10 years as director of athletics/activities for Fairview High School in Boulder: how much importance do you place on academics? A lot: I have been a lifelong learner and still enjoy reading/learning new things. The only way you grow as a person is to challenge yourself mentally about how things work in this world. I was a math major but since then I have been intrigued by government/history, especially since I do not have to write any papers about them!
In February 1995 you were hired to oversee the 1995-96 USA Basketball Women’s national team that went 60-0 while winning a gold medal at the 1996 Olympics: how did you build the team, and where does it rank among the greatest in the history of the sport? My role leading up to that was as Secretary of the USA Basketball Executive Committee and Chair of the Player Selection Committee. I worked on scheduling for the 52 games that would prepare us for the Olympics and take the team around the country so that people could see what we were about. WNBA President Val Ackerman also was interested in seeing how we moved forward to determine whether a pro league could become successful. It was a daily pleasure but also a lot of work. It is hard to compare the 6 Olympic teams that I have had the chance to be around, but when you have a year to prepare with great athletes it helps you become the best you can be. It felt like we were in control against Brazil but if you look at the final score we were not that far apart. No other team put in as much time/energy as that team did. The 1996 team convinced the NBA that it could work from a financial standpoint and led to the WNBA as NBA Commissioner David Stern helped us get our footing. It is easy to remember the 1st and the last teams but all 6 were great.
As a member of the Women’s Player Selection Committee from 1989-1995 (and chairwoman during the final few years), how does the Selection Committee work, and how has the decision-making changed over the past 3 decades? We meet periodically by phone because a lot of the other members are coaches. A lot of our games are broadcast on TV but selection is based on a large body of work. We have evolved: we used to take 6 players and tell them that we would be the core of the team if they committed to attend every training camp but things always come up. Now we have a larger pool of 36 or so players and we pick the 12-member team from that group with no guarantees. The Committee eventually gets together in person to talk about a variety of things over the course of a day and a half before making the final decision. The bigger difference over time is the quantity of elite players we have now: we have had to tell some former Olympians that they might not make the next Olympic team. In 1996 everyone was new but in Rio in 2016 we only had 3 newcomers.
As the Women’s National Team director you are responsible for everything from competitions to training camps: how much pressure is there to win a 7th straight Olympic gold medal this summer, and how on earth did the team have a 7-PT loss to Russia in the 2006 FIBA World Championship semifinal despite having some of the greatest players ever such as Sue Bird/Sheryl Swoopes/Tamika Catchings/Tina Thompson/Diana Taurasi/Katie Smith/Candace Parker (the Russians made 8-14 threes while the US made 6-13 FTs)? I remember Coach Geno Auriemma saying several times that pressure is a single mom trying to feed her family when she does not have a lot of money. We have really good players/coaches who want to perform well every time they step onto the court. They are not thinking about gold medal #7: they view it more as an opportunity to show everyone what they can do. The 1996 pioneers wanted to be known not just as players but also who they are as people, which continues today. A lot of fans enjoy watching us play and if winning comes as a product of that then so be it. The teams that we play are not slouches by any means but 1 of our advantages is the depth we have. That 2006 team had great depth but very little time to train together. The WNBA wants to take advantage of their own schedule but for the Olympics you break the season up so that everyone comes together. For the World Championships you might have your best players unavailable to train with the team if they end up going all the way to the WNBA Finals. We respect our opponents but simply do not have as much training time leading up to the World Cup. We almost lost to Russia in 1998/2002 and had to play well from behind: that was their hey-day and they got ahead of us by a lot in 2006. We play good teams and did not develop our own winning legacy by beating bad teams.
Auriemma was the head coach at the past 2 Olympics: how goes the transition to 2020 Olympic head coach Dawn Staley? I think pretty well: it helps that Dawn was on Geno’s staff for the past 4 years. We have some new players in the mix but also a lot of veterans. We want the best players to play for us again and again so we have several players trying to become 4 or 5-time Olympians. Dawn is well-versed in how this works as a 3-time gold medalist herself. Her preparation over the past 18 months allowed the players to get used to her, and now they are.
You have previously stated, “the beauty of our program is that we have a broad pool of players that we can draw from”: I understand the advantage of having Olympians who have been a part of USA Basketball since their high school/college days, but how much room is there for late-bloomers who comes out of relative obscurity (like 2019 WNBA All-Stars Natasha Howard/Chelsea Gray)? I think there is a lot of room for such players: it is not like we did not know about them! Natasha has played for us before (on the 2016 Women’s Select Team) and Chelsea has unfortunately been hurt a few times in the past. Birthdays also play a factor as they are a cut-off for certain kinds of teams: Chelsea’s birthday in October did not allow her to participate as much.
How do you generate increased interest in women’s basketball (be it USA Basketball or the WNBA or high school programs)? We have 3 purposes: prepare for the Olympics, promote the team as a unit, and inspire young kids to want to play basketball. That was the crux of 1996 and we are still trying to do it today. Our earliest teams are at the U-16/U-17 level and we have developed an open application process for any kid to say she is good enough to get to Colorado Springs and make the team. When Sabrina Ionescu was a 16-year old she applied, showed up, and made the team. Scouting services are nice but we want to give as many kids an opportunity as possible: now we have to turn people away. We have a good youth development program and when you have a viable pro league and great college programs throughout the country it helps with growth. We are not an All-Star team so we do not select the 12 best players: we pick the 12 who make up the best team.
You were elected President of FIBA Americas last June: how is it going so far, and how difficult is it to oversee a major international tournament that includes 43 different federations? They do not all show up at the same event, which is a good thing! I was fortunate to be nominated by Canada/USA, which was a nice thing, and to be confirmed was an honor. It is interesting to have 2 countries with a lot of resources because a lot of countries have talented athletes who do it a different way, but trying to move everyone forward is obviously a challenge for our zone. 3X3 is a key part of that, especially if you are a smaller federation. It makes for real excitement and there is no guarantee that 1 country will always win it. The zone is spread out and very diverse but much like our own country that is a strength.
You have spent almost 4 decades as the Colorado women’s basketball radio analyst: how do you like the job, and what do you hope to do in the future? I hope that I can still do a few of their games: as a math major I was pretty good at not talking too much and as an analyst during live action you have about 4 seconds to get your point across! Growing up in St. Louis we all listened to Jack Buck/Harry Caray and I thought that it would be fun to try. As a Colorado graduate it is a wonderful hobby.
You serve on the Women’s Basketball Hall of Fame Board of Directors and last week you were elected to the Hall of Fame: was it a surprise, and where does that rank among the highlights of your career? USA Basketball has a position on the Board and I am the senior ranking female at the moment. It is an incredible honor just to be considered a finalist. What makes it so special is that I know almost everyone else who has been inducted (not just this year’s class) so to now be considered colleagues with them is just amazing. Being part of a gold medal-winning team is similar to being inducted: it is just as special as everything else we all do.
Staff Bracket – February 17, 2020
For John Stalica’s UTR Game of the Day between Grambling and Texas Southern – CLICK HERE
It is Chad’s turn to put together the HoopsHD Staff Bracket this week. Below you will see his projections through games of Sunday, February 16, as well as his notes on the bracket. Below Chad’s Notes are the (totally inaccurate) responses by other members of the staff.
NOTES
– The Big Ten (10 teams) and Big East (7 teams) led the way. The last four teams in (as shown in the First Four matchups) were Florida, Richmond, Utah State and Cincinnati. The top four teams out were Purdue, South Carolina, Mississippi State and UNC-Greensboro. Also considered were Arkansas, Stanford, Syracuse, SMU, Utah and NC State.
– BYU is on the 6 line, but was actually an 8 seed on my Seed List. It was impossible to bracket BYU onto the 7, 8, 9 or 10 lines, so the only remaining solution was to move the Cougars a very rare two seed lines up. Houston and Michigan both fell down a seed line due to this move. The NCAA Principles and Procedures do allow for a two-line move if absolutely necessary, which was the case this week.
– I have two Big Ten teams on the 2 line, and I feel both clearly belong there. Penn State and Maryland are both on 8 game winning streaks and both have three Tier 1-A wins away from home. These teams are playing great basketball and both have a shot at the 1 line if someone ahead slips up.
– The Pac-12 placed three teams on the 5 line or higher, which is a sign of how much better the league has been this season after its struggles the last few years. On top of that, USC and Arizona State are both on the 9 line, with Arizona State playing its best basketball at the right time of the season.
– Georgetown is a new entrant this week after the Hoyas, who were more short-handed than ever on Saturday, picked up a huge road win at Butler. Patrick Ewing’s team now has four Tier 1 true road wins, and could seriously be on their way to a tourney bid.
– Northern Iowa and East Tennessee State were both ranked above the last of the at-large teams, and have outside shots at bids if they win out. Also, keep an eye on UNC-Greensboro, a team that is in the top 4 out. Both ETSU and UNCG have home tests left against a very tough Furman team plus the SoCon tournament ahead.
– A couple of fascinating rivalry match-ups showed up in the first round. In the South Region, Butler and Indiana are matching up in a 6/11 game in St. Louis, while in the West Region, Iowa and Northern Iowa are meeting in a 5/12 game in Albany. Neither match-up occurred during the regular season this year.
STAFF COMMENTS
COMMENTS FROM JOHN
– One thing I’ve been conditioned to look for since joining the Hoops HD staff is Creighton’s annual February collapse. I don’t think it’s coming anytime soon – the Bluejays had a monster week where they not only further enhanced their profile with a road win at Seton Hall, they also smashed DePaul at home. I’d even say that the Bluejays could be as high as a 3 this week.
– Personally, I thought I was going to be called out as nuts when I had Georgetown as the last team in my field after this weekend. But like Xavier who had a game-changing win at Seton Hall two weeks ago, the Hoyas got their season-defining win at Butler without the services of Mac McClung and Omer Yurtseven. Normally, what the Selection Committee does with injuries is consider a) how the team played when healthy and b) evaluate the length of injuries and whether or not the players will come back fully healthy. Georgetown is the complete opposite – do we have to excuse them for being fully healthy and intact back in November?
– Arizona, Arizona State and Stanford were all big movers in the Pac-12 last weekend. Arizona and Arizona State both picked up road sweeps in the Bay Area, and in the case of the Sun Devils, it was their first once since the league expanded to 12 teams. Stanford, on the other hand, is in deep trouble now that they’ve lost seven of eight and are running out of opportunities for any kind of wins, much less signature wins.
– I know we’re all tough on our own teams – I’d probably have Xavier in my final four byes (meaning a low 10 or high 11), but I’d still have Rutgers in 8/9 territory. Normally, the Selection Committee would heavily frown upon a team that only has a single road victory (Nebraska). But while Rutgers is 17-0 at home, look at who they’ve beaten in the RAC: Seton Hall, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Purdue. Not everyone in the country would sweep that slate (two of which are protected seeds), and that HAS to count for something here.
– Purdue’s schizophrenic ways continued last week with losses against Penn State at home and a resurgent Ohio State team on the road; I would still personally have them in the field over a team like either Cincinnati or Utah State that doesn’t have nearly the quality of nice wins that Purdue does (nor does Purdue have ugly losses weighing them down like UC/USU). Oh, and I must applaud Chad for adding Angry Frank’s bunch to serious consideration (Boston U, Stetson, really?) for the field.
– Theoretically, I’d also love to know if a Seton Hall-Hofstra matchup would be permissible in the first round. I don’t know Chad’s seed list, but I don’t think there would be any home-court disadvantage for the Pirates here since they’re actually closer to Albany than Hofstra would be.
COMMENTS FROM DAVID
-I’m starting to warm up to Maryland. Winning at Michigan State, and winning the way that they did against a team that played well, had a late lead, and had all the momentum going their way, is a sign that Maryland can answer the bell when they need to. Having said that, I still don’t understand putting them ahead of Penn State, and Florida State, and Seton Hall, who have all won even bigger road games and even more of them. I like Maryland a lot more than I did this past Thursday, but still not as much as some of the teams that Chad (and to be fair, everybody else) continues to put Maryland ahead of.
-Arizona State on the 9 line?? Wow! I guess beating a Stanford team that’s outside the bubble, and beating a Cal team that may be good enough to earn a bye in the Mountain West Tournament (brought to you boy CONEXPO CON/AGG) REALLY impressed the counselor this week!
-I’m really not big on Indiana. In comparing them to, say, Northern Iowa (who Chad did select, but seeded behind Indiana) I see an IU team that’s beaten good teams at home, but none of those good teams are particularly good in true road games, and who’s only true win is at Northwestern. I know Northern Iowa just lost at Loyola Chicago, and that does have me holding my nose some, but Indiana hasn’t beaten a team on the road as good as Loyola CHI, so I’d still have them below UNI.
-I don’t understand Saint Mary’s. I mean…everyone he considered except for Utah looks better to me than Saint Mary’s. They’ve beaten BYU at home, the win against Wisconsin came during a stretch when the Badgers, and although Arizona State had an AMAZING week in Chad’s mind with their win over a team outside the bubble and another team that’s a thousand miles away from the bubble, that hardly seems like enough to select them, especially when you look at some of their losses.
-All and all, Chad tries really hard, and I guess we should applaud the effort, but he clearly does not know what he’s doing!!!!