Huffins out at Cal

That's not particularly insightful. I already knew all that. So do most of the people on this thread.

Now, how about a real question...

How can we help the program right now?

In terms of high school running, I think i proved my point about cal getting tons of long distance talent at xc. Remember, IN TERMS OF HIGH SCHOOL RUNNING, those "woodward park" type races are the only benchmark we have to guage talent. high school kids don't run the 10k often, if ever. when you have four flxc guys, two of whom finished in the top 3, you expect better than last place. does wsu even have a single flxc guy? I also said "minus the 800 middistance type guys" when I mentioned those athletes like carey, mclarys and pottey. I know those guys don't really do xc. the others do, and i bet it kills them that they underperform so badly. there's probably not a team out there with so many good track athletes that do so poorly in xc.

You're absolutely right it is about scoring points and given the demise of dual meets depth is less important and "success" can be gained by having a few stars...hence the trend towards specialist coaches. If one can develop the depth as UCLA has in the vault and did in the shot in 2004 ( I believe)so much the better. As a loyal Cal Alum like you I hope that Scott will be successful, given his record the probability of that is high.

stay well

I hope they keep slover. he seems like a good coach. he, miller, and phetzer should all be retained. i dont really care about the others two remaining coaches. its not like i have a say in it though...

This thread has gotten so long and heated, I figured I'd weigh in:

IMO, Here is Tony's problem. He doesn't give walk-ons the attention they deserve. He lets them on the team but doesn't look 'em in the eye after that.

I think he feels like his time with recruited/scholarship athletes is more precious since he is giving them money?

If you walk on at Cal, you're probably a really motivated person. After all, you got into Cal. And it's not like the distance team is that big (like it is at Oregon, where money is practicallyunlimited). If you have a decent guy (I'd say you need to be sub-1:56, sub-4:20, or sub-9:30 in HS to walk on at Cal) who is willing to put in 20-40 hours of his week for you at no cost, the least you could do is help him to develop because he very well could become a point scorer for your team. Sandoval simply uses these guys as filler at low level local meets instead of taking an interest to their development. He doesn't understand that a 1:55 guy or 9:25 guy might develop into an all-American with the right workouts, guidance, and increased mileage. Sandoval takes these "roster fillers" for granted, even though most of them could have gotten full rides at D2 or smaller D1 schools. He must have a notion that a walk-on can't beat a scholarship guy. He only seems to care about his scholarship athletes. He doesn't really develop his whole team--just a select few.

Not every walk on becomes an All-American. But some do. And when they do, you get depth. I don't see why a hard-working 4:20 guy (who had a lousy HS coach) couldn't get down to 4:02 4:03 in the mile. But Sandoval writes them off before they even show up for the fire trail time trial.

What ends up happening? These walk on guys get frustrated with Sandoval and quit (a few hang around all four years, but they are the exception). I've seen it happen on many occasions. They feel like they are giving their time to someone who doesn't appreciate it. They feel like committing time to Sandoval's practices and meetings is forcing them into undesireable classes/sections. They start worrying about getting a high GPA to go with that diploma (remember, at Cal, walk-ons are usually academic/brainiac types). They don't feel the commitment is worth the sacrifice anymore. And there goes your team's depth potential. Even if you get three FL guys every year, you're not going to win team competitions unless you have true depth. Sandoval doesn't care enough about a potential source of good, CHEAP (essentially free) depth: walk ons!

I'm not trying to bash Sandoval--he's a perfectly nice guy with good intentions. He just doesn't give walk ons a true "chance", doesn't seem to value their input, doesn't care what they run, and as a result, he doesn't generally get production from them. He doesn't seek the full potential of every athlete on his squad. Look I know its not kindergarten, and he shouldn't have to "hold everyone's hand", but you only get as much out of walk ons as you put into developing them. Walk ons are "free" talent that should be used.

Only speaking from personal experience.

Davis only ran 4:17 in high school, so I am not sure why you would call him a stud in high school. I mean really now, who that follows high school track in California would call a 4:17 1600m guy a stud? Furthermore, he had injuries at Cal that hindered his development, particularly the one in which a car door that was swung open broke a bone. He is doing as well as he is now due to Coach Sandoval. Ask him. He will be the first one to tell you that. His anchor leg against Russel Brown on the DMR team at Indoor Nats in Fayetteville this year was epic!

Coe is a freshman and will do very well at Cal.

I have no doubt that Matusak and the younger Ghebray will also go far and have a great opportunity to become all-americans under Sandoval. Yosef ran well this season, but "conditions" at the Regionals in Eugene got to him and hurt his performance. Just ask him. These runners are all still young and will be fine. It's unfortunate that people like yourself have already begun to question these fine athletes.

"Other" runners that you have mentioned, as good as you say they are finished 74th and 75th at the Pac-10 XC Championships last season, well over 26 minutes so I am unsure why you would bring them up as examples of "distance" runners who were stars as preps.

The Cal XC team is not deep by any means with runners who have established long-distance resumes from their high school careers. Anyone who says different is just fooling themselves. When you go to regionals last year and Yosef Ghebray is forced to drop out of the race due to an asthma attack along with Chris Chavez, there isn't much you can do.

The people that have posted incessantly about how Cal has TONS of long-distant talent at the XC level are simply not very knowledgeable. Remember, we're talking 10,000 METERS here and not the 5k that is run at Woodward Park for the State XC Champs. There is an adustment to make at the college level for everyone. It is easier said than done. Cal has "middle-distance" talent on their XC team, and that is far different than the teams like Stanford that specialize in 5 and 10k runners and have REAL depth.[/quote]

Kevin Davis and Many other of CAL's top recruits through the years have run fast times on the CA State Meet Course in XC. They get at least 5-6 guys every year who have run at least Sub 15:50 on the CA State XC course. Kevin Davis ran 15:35 there his Junior year, AND ran 9:06 for 3200m his senior year. You can't tell me that they just haven't recruited the right type of athlete to compete well in college XC. That's just a lame excuse. and completely incorrect.

The last two posts sound about right

Barre and Gilmore both ran in the 15:30's at Woodward Park (at the XC state meet) I believe, which is pretty studly. Also, I believe Barre was a 9:14 2miler.

Hey flotrack.com. Small request. Interview Tony Sandoval at nationals so that the world can see what an airhead he is.

Seriously. Let the man speak for himself.

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet are the many stories told by UC Davis and UCLA alums of meetings that they've set up with Sandoval (on the Berkeley campus) that he did not show up to, emails and phone calls not returned after initial contact, etc.

For those who say that Sandoval wasn't recruiting because he didn't have the money, please account for the fact that he made appointments to meet with athletes in the first place.

U-87 wrote:

he did not show up to, emails and phone calls not returned after initial contact, etc.

This sort of thing is common with Sandoval. (Even if you're on the team.)

Do you really believe that Huffins knows the first thing about coaching the hammer??? Get serious!

U-87 wrote:

he did not show up to, emails and phone calls not returned after initial contact, etc.

hahahahaa wrote:

This sort of thing is common with Sandoval. (Even if you're on the team.)

That's pretty funny given the fact that Ed Miller is the notorious one on the staff that does not reply to e-mails or phone calls. And for what it's worth, Bryan Fetzer is the recruiting coordinator at Cal. People like Tony, Ed, and Chris would tend to move in towards the end of the recruiting process. It looks like many of you on here that are quibbling about unreturned emails and phone calls miss this significant point.

Seriously, some of you guys quibble about the most insignificant things. It's nitpicking at best.

sj quik wrote:

there's a thing called walk-ons. and even if you are not going to give a person money, you can still show them that you want them to be a part of your program. in the past, both tony and erv did not care to talk to people would be non-scholarship athletes. it is those athletes that are going to see the biggest rate of improvement (and who help prove how "good" their coach is), and which you can build your program on. shoot, you may even end up with one of them on scholarship. but the cal coaches seemed to far up on their high-horses ("this is cal, they should be honored to come here.") to pay any attention to the guys that would go elsewhere, and develop into pretty good runners.

I call BS on this post.

How many D-1 programs out there build a program on "walk-ons"?

Get real.

This is D-1 we are talking about!

Not D2, not D3.

cal athlete wrote:

Not every walk on becomes an All-American. But some do. And when they do, you get depth. I don't see why a hard-working 4:20 guy (who had a lousy HS coach) couldn't get down to 4:02 4:03 in the mile. But Sandoval writes them off before they even show up for the fire trail time trial.

A 4:20 guy out of high school becoming a 4:02 miler in college?

I'm sorry, but you are dreamin'

If it even happens at all, it is EXTREMELY rare.

You are not being realistic.

This would refers to athletes who aren't being recruited or were academically unable to gain admission into Cal.

Yes, you do sound like you are a former "walk-on".

I was too way back in the day of Erv Hunt.

But the fact of the matter is that a D-1 track and field program is all about getting your athletes into the Regionals and then into the NCAA's with a chance to score points for the program. Let's be realistic here. You aren't gonna be doing that with non-scholarship athletes. The Pac-10 is far too competitive for that. And so are the Regionals and NCAA's.

Have you ever been to the Regionals before?

NCAA's?

I don't see any "walk-ons" competing at that level.

And as far as being school specific, I don't think that CAL is all alone in their lack of attention towards the "walk-on". Just look at UCLA. They get a ton of "walk-ons" every single year, and most of these kids simply fall by the wayside.

What you are talking about is not specific to the CAL program. And iin all fairness I don't believe that it is fair to characterize it as so.

Bear wrote:

You're absolutely right it is about scoring points and given the demise of dual meets depth is less important and "success" can be gained by having a few stars...hence the trend towards specialist coaches. If one can develop the depth as UCLA has in the vault and did in the shot in 2004 ( I believe)so much the better. As a loyal Cal Alum like you I hope that Scott will be successful, given his record the probability of that is high.

Very true.

And the people that are pissing and moaning about Cal's lack of attention to holding the hands of "walk-ons" just don't want to ACCEPT THE FACT of what you jus posted above.

Remember, Arkansas literally won a 2003 NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP with only two runners . . . by the names of Dan Lincoln and Alistair Cragg. These two distance guys accounted for something like 40 points of their team's total points!

Now, is a coach like John Mc Donough going to focus on specialized training for elite scholarship athletes such as Lincoln or Cragg that can help win him a title as Arkansas proved in its streak of supremacy from 1992-1999 or is McDonough gonna instead, spend his time trying to develop "walk-ons" that are a 90:1 longshot of making the NCAA's?

The answer is not just readily apparent.

It is based in historical Fact.

Lincoln was a walk-on, slap.