Univ of Montana finalists

I'll betcha the chic gets it.

But the looks of the other 3 candidates it seems she is a better qualified for the job anyways. Quit hatin c0ck.

It doesn't matter to me who gets it, but i would guess that if she's the only female finalist she may only be considered in the name of "gender equity".

I hope you are being sarcastic when you say she is the best qualified of the 4 finalists. How do you figure? She's likely the best looking, that is for sure. Most qualified, not so sure.

She(Arndt-Molis) is most likely just playing the game for a raise. She was offered the distance job at Boise State but had made up her mind before even arriving that she was going to turn it down. She may have already cashed in on that move. To some of these coaches it's all about playing their own AD's for dollars. Some AD's get very upset at the thought of having to replace a female slot on their staff roster-and make no mistake, it is about counting gender and race at the D-I level. The NCAA does counts of these numbers every year and reports them to the media! It's not ethical to play this way and it hurts the sport in the long run. I believe a coach should state from the beginning that they may be interested, but that it's going to take alot to get them to leave. Instead they come in on a finalist visit and act the part of the eager beaver, when in fact they have no intention of ever leaving their current job. In the case of Arndt-Molis, she stated to athletes very clearly on her visit to Boise State "not to worry, that she would not be coming to coach them anyway." I don't know what that speaks to, but we'll leave it up to you to make that judgement.

She(Arndt-Molis) is most likely just playing the game for a raise. She was offered the distance job at Boise State but had made up her mind before even arriving that she was going to turn it down. She may have already cashed in on that move. To some of these coaches it's all about playing their own AD's for dollars. Some AD's get very upset at the thought of having to replace a female slot on their staff roster-and make no mistake, it is about counting gender and race at the D-I level. The NCAA does counts of these numbers every year and reports them to the media! It's not ethical to play this way and it hurts the sport in the long run. I believe a coach should state from the beginning that they may be interested, but that it's going to take alot to get them to leave. Instead they come in on a finalist visit and act the part of the eager beaver, when in fact they have no intention of ever leaving their current job. In the case of Arndt-Molis, she stated to athletes very clearly on her visit to Boise State "not to worry, that she would not be coming to coach them anyway." I don't know what that speaks to, but we'll leave it up to you to make that judgement.

Biggest flirt in the NCAA; uses her looks for evil.

Kosmin wrote:

I hope you are being sarcastic when you say she is the best qualified of the 4 finalists. How do you figure? She's likely the best looking, that is for sure. Most qualified, not so sure.

Have you researched the other 3? Can you tell me how she isn't the best qualified? I'm being serious, please tell me what the others have done to make them more qualified.

Either they are clearing the way for a qualified female and have stacked her against a bunch of decent coaches, none of whom I can remember having a lot of individuals qualified for NCAA's.

Or they really think they have the best group of individuals, but my guess is they need a female and so they are interviewing, wink,wink the other three older guys to bring the young talented, personable female.

Use some common sense. The men being interviewed have more experience and they have all produced. They are also in good jobs. If they are going to move, Montana would need to pay more. Montana needs a quality coach and to get one they need to increase what they pay for the position.

The young candidate is, clearly, younger and less qualified. She has no history of proven administrative responsibilities (associate head coach is only an assistant coach, really). She has been marketing her schools limited success by taking credit for other peoples work (all assistants take all the same credit for all the same athletes). But, she is young and wants to move up so she most likely would accept a lower paying job when the others would not.

Montana is covering their bets but not doing a good job doing it. They want a good coach but do not want to pay for one. So in the end they are going to have a young coach that more than likely will not produce and move on in a few years.

Young coaches usually mean hungry coaches…so yes they will move on to bigger and better things…haven't you ever heard sometimes you have to trade the good for the better...

Not always, believe me. Especially in this situation. You have to be very careful with people who are good at marketing themselves. They are usually the ones that are quite cut throat that will do most anything for success or certainly blame others for failure.

People need a some time to develop into a DI head coach. She needs more time as a top assistant. The NCAA is filed with many top notch assistants and head coaches with very solid credentials and experience and they are very, very hungry. You can have both, you just have to look.

use common sense,

I agree with your though thoughts on this matter. With the success of athletes in various programs, and all the different coaches taking credit, I wonder who the respective genius in each program truly is. In this instance, is it Walt or the female assistant? It can't be both. Somebody is riding someone else's coattails...

Coach Watcher wrote:

...I wonder who the respective genius in each program truly is. In this instance, is it Walt or the female assistant? It can't be both. Somebody is riding someone else's coattails...

Yeah, it DEFINITELY couldn't be both. There is NO WAY two people could work together and function as a single unit to make a better quality team than either one alone. Good argument.

Good coaching staffs work together, but what we are saying is that some people present themselves in manners that suggest they alone were the reason for the success.

Look at the bio's for some NCAA staffs and everybody appears to be taking solo credit for every athlete that succeeds. This is pure marketing and not reflective of what is going on at the school.

It is the head coach that drives 95% of the success of a team.

Again, all I'm saying that be aware of people that market themselves as "a great young coach" when they have had only a few years of being with a team. Good coaches do not have to market themselves, they get well known for what they do not what they pretend to know or have suggested that they have accomplished, especially when they have not had real responsibility.

Good coaching staffs work together, but what we are saying is that some people present themselves in manners that suggest they alone were the reason for the success.

Look at the bio's for some NCAA staffs and everybody appears to be taking solo credit for every athlete that succeeds. This is pure marketing and not reflective of what is going on at the school.

It is the head coach that drives 95% of the success of a team.

Again, all I'm saying that be aware of people that market themselves as "a great young coach" when they have had only a few years of being with a team. Good coaches do not have to market themselves, they get well known for what they do not what they pretend to know or have suggested that they have accomplished, especially when they have not had real responsibility.

DeWitt has been a great coach at UW-Parkside... He has been the women's coach there and has done great things with a limited budget. 4 GLVC women's cc titles in a row and several all-americans on the distance level. Jessica Lamp, Naomi Fulton, and Jill Winkler the last two years. He just took over the men's program this year and went from not having any distance scorers the year before in track at conference to having scorers in diferent events. Definitely has the men's program on the right track. It will take them a couple of years to be in contention for a national berth in a tough cross region but he definitely will if he stays. He is retired so he can devote all of his time to coaching now. Definitely one of the most underrated coaches in DII.

He's actually not retired, but still does a great job.

I would pick DeWitt.

Success? He's coached Jenny Crain for ages.

He's the guy. If they pass him over, their loss.