Seems that Metcalf has been at Washington for at least 5 years by now. How much time do we give him? His track record (no pun intended) has been to recruit well, get some good results freshman year and that's the end of it for both the men and women. I mean it seems too many of the UW runners do well when they arrive, then the either get hurt or leave. I agree that they need to start scoring at the NCAA's and that isn't happening very often.
It's been closer to 15 years than 5. I don't agree that scoring at NCAA's is a perfect barometer for success, but certainly the longevity and continued improvement of all athletes should be considered - which by extrapolation should include more scorers at NCAA's based on the level of talent UW recruits.
I don't mean this to take a negative turn, but he is at least statistically a better coach than he was 5 and 10 and 15 years ago. No one comes out of the gates a perfect coach and he's still improving. With the level of talent available in WA alone, UW could and should be a powerhouse year after year, male and female.
He takes a lot of crap on these boards, but the reality is he's better than 90% of collegiate coaches. People just compare big programs to other big programs. So compared to Vin or other big names he's competing with, Metcalf is the weak link. But he is better than most available.
Something that he is doing is working a lot better for the women than the men. Maybe his "benign neglect" of easy days or some similar scenario is working against the men who run each other into the ground whereas the women are more cooperative and don't derail each other as much?
By this time it is also a lot easier for him to sell the women's than the men's programs to recruits, and for Metcalf, recruiting is apparently the majority of what success he's had.