Beth Sullivan making headlines at UT

malmo wrote: Striking too the contrast between her and her predecessor, the beloved Harry Groves...

(Looking backwards one job) Just curious, was BAS hired by the same Penn State athletic administration that turned a blind eye to the Jerry Sandusky situation? If so, it might explain in part why a person of BAS's poor character landed a job at such a prestigious university in the first place.

I agree with all this. I have dealt with BAS and I didn't like her either, but I think she's taking way more heat because she's female.

Exhibit A: the MOM who went berserk here a few pages back. No one treats a woman worse than another woman. If you coach them, you know this.

Reality Check X 2

Here are the finals results for SEC hurdles 2014.

These are times from young mature women with the advantage of all the training you get at a D-1 school. You are disingenuous to use (top 8 13.18 and 58.58)as your comparison. Given the kind of training she would have gotten she was right on track. Look at Kia Seymour from PSU who was recruited with a 59+ time now she's sub 56. You may or may not be a college coach. I have my doubts.

100 hurdles

1. 12.86

2. 13.03

3. 13.18

4. 13.34

5. 13.38

6. 13.54

7. 13.77

8. 14.24

400 hurdles

1. 54.70

2. 55.67

3. 56.01

4. 56.27

5. 57.74

6. 58.18

7. 58.74

8. 59.35

so what's your theory as to why she dumped her?

She's a distance runner. She thinks she can score more with 1500 and up with new recruits and use the full scholarship she saved and use for 2 or more athletes. That's how she had a 76 woman roster at PSU. Watch over the next recruiting class, you'll see.

I can't help but wonder if part of the decision was based on Morgan rejecting BAS at Penn. BAS offered her 80% and a chance to work with her, and Morgan rejected her. A lot of people don't do well with rejection...throw in an ego...

notfast wrote:

I can't help but wonder if part of the decision was based on Morgan rejecting BAS at Penn. BAS offered her 80% and a chance to work with her, and Morgan rejected her. A lot of people don't do well with rejection...throw in an ego...

You are on to something Sir, well done.

Everyone has been analyzing this from every angle, it seems the only one not discussed is female shallowness and dealing with rejection.

notfast wrote:

I can't help but wonder if part of the decision was based on Morgan rejecting BAS at Penn. BAS offered her 80% and a chance to work with her, and Morgan rejected her. A lot of people don't do well with rejection...throw in an ego...

Anything is possible, but given the six for six nature here it seems more like it was not too highly individualized.

This thread is so long, I cannot remember if she kept some recruits. If these were all of them, then little of what they have done matters very much AND it is absolutely unrelated to anything that they have done or not done either at Tennessee or since the end of track season.

I guess the difference is that if you cut someone in December, you can at least pretend that it was because of their abilities, lack of work ethic, fitness, whatever.

This was very close to the start of the season, and seemed to be based more on numbers on paper and firing an assistant coach than what was actually happening in practice.

She got the job early in the summer. She had MONTHS to do the math regarding scholarships and assistant coaches. If she didn't like the way these girls looked on paper, she should have let them know before they started classes so they could have had the option to avoid all kinds of eligibility issues.

I think a bigger factor is that Morgan Harvey regressed her senior year. Her next best time in the 100 hurdles to her 13.95 was over 14.2. I'm sorry I do not see an SEC Champion or NCAA Qualifier in her.

They had 2 weeks of practice/try outs to prove they belonged, I'm sure some xc runners were cut during that time period too. They should have trained more over the summer. There are plenty of D2 and D3 programs focused on development. They should look into those programs.

educator wrote:

They had 2 weeks of practice/try outs to prove they belonged, I'm sure some xc runners were cut during that time period too. They should have trained more over the summer. There are plenty of D2 and D3 programs focused on development. They should look into those programs.

You're missing the point. A scholarship athlete doesn't need to prove a anything. By offering her a scholarship she has already proved she belongs at least for the term of the schoarship.

Cutting a scholarship athlete for any reason other than misconduct is wrong.Cutting a freshman scholarship athlete in the first two weeks has only one purpose -- the exact as much emotional stress and pain as possible hoping she will quit school. It is reprehensible conduct that should not ever be tolerated in a university setting. It is vile ..pure evil incarnate. The univerity's mission is to educate and incourage personal growth. That is the mission of every department on campus all of the time. As a represenative of the university BAS has already proven to be an abject failure in this regard. For what?

Exactly. These scholarship athletes made the first hard decision of their young lives. Having to deal with recruiting calls and agonizing over what to do. The 59 second hurdler probably got recruiting calls every night and as a kid had to deal with the pressure of telling coaches "No" and picked her school over 20 others. It can be an ordeal for a young kid that is recruited hard to make that choice.

The fact that she told some of the recruits that they would be included in the transition over the summer and cut them after school started is despicable and possibly evidence of a sociopath with no empathy with anyone other then themselves.

Which might describe the majority of D1 track coaches these days.

If you sign a full-letter-of intent to go to a college the rule should be they get one year to compete and be evaluated before they cut.

A walk-on is different.

Obviously you didn't read my earlier reply. Harvey was injured second half of senior season because of having to run on cement floors in hallways. Do you remember the snow last year? I assure you that you'll see her progress at her next school.

BTW did you see her run at Penn Relays in April? 60.02 was fast early in the season. It was the fastest for some time for a High School runner.

The one thing I am missing after reading this thread is all three girls were track recruits not cross runners.

Do track athletes have practices in September? If not how do you prove you belong before practice or meets even start?

I guess there is no way Tennessee will fire her after they gave her that big of a contract.Talk about screwing something up pretty quickly.

malmo wrote:

You're missing the point. A scholarship athlete doesn't need to prove a anything. By offering her a scholarship she has already proved she belongs at least for the term of the schoarship.

Cutting a scholarship athlete for any reason other than misconduct is wrong.Cutting a freshman scholarship athlete in the first two weeks has only one purpose -- the exact as much emotional stress and pain as possible hoping she will quit school. It is reprehensible conduct that should not ever be tolerated in a university setting. It is vile ..pure evil incarnate. The univerity's mission is to educate and incourage personal growth. That is the mission of every department on campus all of the time. As a represenative of the university BAS has already proven to be an abject failure in this regard. For what?

^^^This.^^^ Speaking as a former D1 walk on, former D1 scholarship athlete, former D1 assistant coach, parent of D1 scholarship athletes, and professor. An AD with any principle would give BAS the same treatment and tell her to clean out her locker, that's not how we treat 18 year olds with big dreams and the world in front of them.

I do agree with some previous posters that this thread would have not made it past 75 posts if she wasn't a female head coach.

Oh I think there would be just as much disgust if it were a cloddish male coach unfairly dumping recruits.

So it is ok to hold scholarship athletes to a lesser standard than walkons because they are already on scholarship. Why should the coach be required to sink additional time into an athlete who didn't sink a second of time into the program over the summer? Why are they entitled to a year long evaluation period?