nevermind
nevermind
yeah ucla sucks big time. they are so bad they qualified 3 individuals for nationals. damn losers.
hairy man downstairs wrote:
(if your going to rob half the tallent in california at least do somthing with it)
I can't vouch for the women, but I'd like you to try and find anybody on the men's team who isn't running dramatically better than they were in high school. Look at the three who just qualified for nationals, for example (Ramos and Shackleton brothers) Sure they were good in high school but I don't think they were national caliber talents. As for the rest of the team, they had a great season until they couldn't put it all together at regionals when it really mattered. As for the loaded freshman class, they dominated in a couple local meets. I guess none could break into the top 7 yet, but you can't say that the kids "tallents" were robbed from california because they aren't leading UCLA to the national meet as a bunch of 18 year olds. Come on...
Ucla's performance this season totally validates my opinion that despite their recruiting attraction EP's coaching skills annilate their distance runners potential growth. With his sales skills maybe he should look into a job at Home Depot.
i'm not a big ucla fun or anything, but i don't think the ucla program is the coaches fault. There has been some girls who've improved over the yrs in the program (ashley caldwell for instance) and i think some of the girls like the ones right now on the team are more invloved in the social life which is hampering their performance. There's only so much a coach can do to improve an athlete.
I find it hard to believe that there are actually some supporters of the UCLA XC program. This is almost as confusing as why their results are so poor.
A couple of posts allude to the "social life". Isn't this the fault of the coach to steer kids away from the party scene and remove those that party too much from the team. Shouldn't be any more of a problem than at any other school. Temptations are everywhere.
Eric Peterson needs to be fired. There are so many other coaches that could take mediocre runners and turn them into great ones. Coach Peterson does not give anyone a chance. Its time Coach Venegas get someone new
Tri This wrote:
I find it hard to believe that there are actually some supporters of the UCLA XC program. This is almost as confusing as why their results are so poor.
A couple of posts allude to the "social life". Isn't this the fault of the coach to steer kids away from the party scene and remove those that party too much from the team. Shouldn't be any more of a problem than at any other school. Temptations are everywhere.
you're confusing them with Washington
just the facts wrote:
Some friends of mine and I, who live in the midwest have always called UCLA "Where good distance runners go to die." That may be unfair, but it sure seems like they get quality recruits year after year, and we rarely hear about development from any of them.
By the way, how good is the area around campus for training?
-it was a stacked region
-they have to recruit guys who are good at track so that they can score points in the Pac 10.
-they are probably overutilizing the track and weightroom
however,
-a 2:13 girl I know got kicked off their team a few years ago and moved over to Cornell. maybe she couldn't handle it, but she was a pretty intense person and i don't see any reason why she couldn't hack the school.
-coaches for all sports are way too intense. cal loses a bunch of talented runners every year, ive heard uw does drills until they pass out. but it isn't just track, those schools don't let their athletes be regular people, they get too stressed out and end up doing way worse then they would have if they were just allowed a little leeway to figure things out. those programs burn people out and it is sad. what makes it worse is that whether being so tough produces results is questionable.
-it was a stacked region
-they have to recruit guys who are good at track so that they can score points in the Pac 10.
-they are probably overutilizing the track and weightroom
however,
-a 2:13 girl I know got kicked off their team a few years ago and moved over to Cornell. maybe she couldn't handle it, but she was a pretty intense person and i don't see any reason why she couldn't hack the school.
-coaches for all sports are way too intense. cal loses a bunch of talented runners every year, ive heard uw does drills until they pass out. but it isn't just track, those schools don't let their athletes be regular people, they get too stressed out and end up doing way worse then they would have if they were just allowed a little leeway to figure things out. those programs burn people out and it is sad. what makes it worse is that whether being so tough produces results is questionable.
I still can not get over the idea that Peterson was talking down other schools programs that my teammate was thinking about attending. That kind of talk is ONLY acceptable for stupid posts online like this, not when you are talking to a naive teenager that doesnt know where he is going to go school.
i think everyone knows that UCLA's men's team is chock full of talent, so give em' a break. Peterson, on the other hand...have at it
Wrong West Coast Team wrote:
you're confusing them with Washington
I might be thinking back a few years, but using Track & Field News old "where are they now" issues, it seemed UCLA loaded up tremendously every year. Maybe they bent the truth a bit concerning their incoming recruits. If they really got the talent that was advertised every year, they have grossly underachieved.
Tell me about Washington.
the fact is that ucla has loads of talent, enough to where they shouldn't be getting beat by half the teams in their region, yet they still do. And to the argument that some of their athletes get developed...every program develops SOME athletes, a good program, however, develops most to all of their athletes. Plus look at laef barnes, that kid was solid in highschool and he was in the mid 30's at regionals. Simply put, they underacheived.
the fact is that ucla has loads of talent, enough to where they shouldn't be getting beat by half the teams in their region, yet they still do. And to the argument that some of their athletes get developed...every program develops SOME athletes, a good program, however, develops most to all of their athletes. Plus look at laef barnes, that kid was solid in highschool and he was in the mid 30's at regionals. Simply put, they underacheived.
Hairy man downstairs wrote:
I still can not get over the idea that Peterson was talking down other schools programs that my teammate was thinking about attending.
believe it or not, a lot of coaches do this.
egg wrote:
the fact is that ucla has loads of talent, enough to where they shouldn't be getting beat by half the teams in their region, yet they still do...Plus look at laef barnes, that kid was solid in highschool and he was in the mid 30's at regionals. Simply put, they underacheived.[/quote]
Here are the West region teams that UCLA lost to this year:
Oregon (0-2)
Stanford (0-1)
Portland (0-3, including a 1 point loss at Pre-NCAA and by 10 at Dellinger)
Cal (0-2)
Arizona State (1-1)
Cal Poly (1-1)
There are more than 30 men's teams in the West Region and UCLA didn't lose to any others. Is your quote about "getting beat by half the teams" referring to all 30-plus or just these 6 above?
If it's just the 6 above, then maybe you're close to correct.
I can imagine them beating both Cal Poly and Arizona State, but the fact of the matter is that all 6 of these teams are in possession of a number of former California state champions as well as Foot Locker finalists. UCLA had none of either category in Springfield last week. Michael Cybulski and Kent Morikawa are their first in recent memory and their impact will be felt in the future.
The bulk of the current team's roster (about 2/3) was recruited in the past two campaigns -- the oldest are now 19-year old sophomores. The best runners on the roster are now juniors and seniors and were brought in as members of very small recruiting classes. UCLA's upper class simply does not have the depth of talent that Oregon and Stanford do and that can catch up to you in Cross Country. Mike Hadden's missing this year is proof of this. With him healthy and running up to last year's level, the Bruins would have likely been a favorite for a top 15 finish in Terre Haute next Monday.
There's no doubt that the team ran below their own expectations last Saturday, but none of this would be up for discussion right now had they found the way to move up just 1 or 2 points to get in front of Arizona State.
And isn't it odd that we always find ways to beat down on a team that underperforms instead of giving credit to Arizona State and Cal Poly for running their best races of the year? I was at the West Region race and can vouch for the quality and depth of the field. UCLA scored 167 points last year in the same race to finish 6th and qualify for NCAAs. This year 142 only bought seventh place.
Congratulations to all the competitors who gave their best effort, regardless of where it landed them. That's why they run and that's what it's all about.
Nice defense for the mens team, pham. You raise some good points.
However, how about the women's team? Can you raise a defense for them? Good luck with that, but I would like to see you try.
The men's team at UCLA is young. I think they under-achieved this year but I will wait to judge them at this time next year. The UCLA women's team is a joke, and Mr. Peterson is the head coach of this group. I attended the Pac-10's and I couldn't believe how porly girls like Laura Jirges, Olga Aulet-Leon, and Ciara Viehweg ran. These same girls were part of last year's team. And not one of these girls improved. And to add insult to injury, Allison Bohannon is injured again and may not come back until the outdoor season. The Lady Bruins finished 10th at the Pac-10 Championships and 23rd at Regionals. They lost to every Pac-10 team at Regionals and could not muster enough to beat Loyola Marymount and Santa Clara. There is disarray in the UCLA women's program and things need to be fixed right now!
"Pham the great defender"..... I've finally determined that either you are EP or the X runner, or X runner now coaching elsewhere, who feels the loyal need to defend a distance program circling the porcelain fixture.
You bring up injuries which all teams incur, however their program seems to get more than their share. Where's the coach? Party in Westwood? Where's the Coach? Several of CA's best HS runners go south? Where's the coach? A reoccurring fact is a decline in performance at the late season big races.Where's the coach? They ran their best but seem to have gotten their butt kicked. Wheres the coach?
Do you get my point? Every runner there deserves credit for their efforts for a long unrewarding season. This is not about them. They deserve better
Now pham, after eliminating the athletes from the equation because they gave it their all. God bless them!! and by the way God help them!!.
Can you please write another essay defending "Wheres the coach" or oh no I got busted for defending my program or maybe the teams that had great races had good coaches! Bring it on I can't wait. Thank you in advance.