Brosnan killing it at UCLA!

RossiCheated wrote:

WaitAMinute wrote:

In 2016, the West region sent 6 teams to the NCAA championships... explain to me how they can't make it to nationals because 4 teams are ahead of them?

Serious question; how many teams came out of that region in 2017 and after?

RossiCheated wrote:

WaitAMinute wrote:

In 2016, the West region sent 6 teams to the NCAA championships... explain to me how they can't make it to nationals because 4 teams are ahead of them?

Serious question; how many teams came out of that region in 2017 and after?

cramister wrote:

Eh these are just all the pieces rolling from the last coach.

College coaching is mainly recruiting, let's see what he does in 3 years

xzcvzxcv wrote:

UCLA's a better academic school than Washington and he can outrecruit Andy Powell. Washington wasn't a great running power prior to Powell coming over from Oregon with a lot of hype and bringing athletes. Has his recruiting been tremendous since then? Washington's beatable by UCLA in 3-5 years, particularly in xc, where Powell places less emphasis than track. I set it down here now and we can look back on this statement, as we've looked back on so many of my past correct prognostications.

P5 Coach wrote:

p5 athlete wrote:

Stanford has several guys on full rides... not even the guys you would expect

That’s because Stanford gives a full tuition need based aid scholarship for households that make under something between $150k and $125k (I don’t know what that exact figure is anymore). Families that make something under about $125k to $100k get a full need based aid scholarship because Stanford (and most Ivies) consider that poor. Not a dime of that comes from athletics. Now, athletics is welcome to fill in the remainder of what need based doesn’t cover - which allows your buddy to insinuate they’re on a full athletic scholarship. But then of course they’d be lying to you.

P5 Coach wrote:

xzcvzxcv wrote:

UCLA's a better academic school than Washington and he can outrecruit Andy Powell. Washington wasn't a great running power prior to Powell coming over from Oregon with a lot of hype and bringing athletes. Has his recruiting been tremendous since then? Washington's beatable by UCLA in 3-5 years, particularly in xc, where Powell places less emphasis than track. I set it down here now and we can look back on this statement, as we've looked back on so many of my past correct prognostications.

Brosnan won’t be at UCLA next fall. The entire track staff is getting fired in June because the director isn’t getting his contract renewed. Go ahead and bump this then.

LWRunner wrote:

P5 Coach wrote:

That’s because Stanford gives a full tuition need based aid scholarship for households that make under something between $150k and $125k (I don’t know what that exact figure is anymore). Families that make something under about $125k to $100k get a full need based aid scholarship because Stanford (and most Ivies) consider that poor. Not a dime of that comes from athletics. Now, athletics is welcome to fill in the remainder of what need based doesn’t cover - which allows your buddy to insinuate they’re on a full athletic scholarship. But then of course they’d be lying to you.

Thats only if you get into Stanford on your own merit. So what you're saying is wrong

xzcvzxcv wrote:

Just compare the two interviews and tell me who can recruit better:

Andy Powell

Video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXYFqPT5oSw

Sean Brosnan

Video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RLvCBQRkIM

What huh wrote:

cramister wrote:

Eh these are just all the pieces rolling from the last coach.

College coaching is mainly recruiting, let's see what he does in 3 years

All coaching is mainly recruiting in track and field. it’s all talent.

SLG wrote:

xzcvzxcv wrote:

Just compare the two interviews and tell me who can recruit better:

Andy Powell

Video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXYFqPT5oSw

Sean Brosnan

Video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RLvCBQRkIM

What is there about Brosnan's interview that would lead anyone to believe that he is a "better recruiter"?

Both coaches seem to be equally intelligent and well-spoken to me.

Think Again wrote:

SLG wrote:

What is there about Brosnan's interview that would lead anyone to believe that he is a "better recruiter"?

Both coaches seem to be equally intelligent and well-spoken to me.

I've talked to both of them on several occasions. Brosnan is a really good salesman with a upbeat attitude. Powell comes across as just an average guy.

As far as who can recruit better, I would bet on Brosnan.

Crootin wrote:

It is going to be hard to make UCLA successful in the Pac 12. He is up against CU, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington. All of have won a national title with both genders (well Washington has a trophy for the men).

They have better natural training locations, and everyone has access to the talent now with the internet. Probably better funded as well on the distance sides

SB is a great coach but you can’t out recruit and out develop all of these other programs consistently.

Think the Oregon men’s team out performed UCLA today with similar talent.

P5 Coach wrote:

LWRunner wrote:

Thats only if you get into Stanford on your own merit. So what you're saying is wrong

That’s patently false. I regularly recruit against them. It’s my job to know this. Sorry you got called out bud.