Have Mercy.
Leroy Burrell out does former Tennessee coach - cuts 30 athletes this week
College Running
D1
-
00
-
Sliding Scale wrote:
I also don't know if I love the way college athletics is going, but this is not unique. Look at Colorado football with Sanders overhauling the roster.
You mean the Colorado that finished last in the Pac-12 with a 1-11 mark in 2022? That Colorado?
20 -
Surprise! wrote:
Javman wrote:
There are two sides to this argument. One side is yes, this is culling the field in order to recruit better talent and be more competitive in the toughest conference in the U.S.
However, there are lots of those kids that end up becoming coaches themselves...some quite good coaches of the future. Cutting them might be aborting some of those careers before they ever start.
Not cutting a kid because they might be a coach one day is one of the weirdest non-trolling takes I've ever read here, and that's saying something.
LOL
And agreed.
00 -
What tha? wrote:
Auburn coach Leroy Burrell kicked 30 athletes off team this past Monday. Done immediately. Kicked to curb. Seems far worse than Beth Sullivan Alford did when taking Tennessee job. Why no discussion? Because he’s a male? Black? Former world record-holder? The silence is hypocritical for a board that vilified Sullivan-Alford……..
I see nothing wrong with this. A Director is allowed to analyze their team and make changes necessary for success. PERIODT!!! This is done everyday in the actual Real World.
31 -
What tha? wrote:
Auburn coach Leroy Burrell kicked 30 athletes off team this past Monday. Done immediately. Kicked to curb. Seems far worse than Beth Sullivan Alford did when taking Tennessee job. Why no discussion? Because he’s a male? Black? Former world record-holder? The silence is hypocritical for a board that vilified Sullivan-Alford……..
“Because he’s…black”
bruh you guys don’t give up do you?
20 -
automorphic wrote:
Smart move wrote:
Since when is kicking off unproductive members of a team something bad? That is what he SHOULD do. Looks like Auburn just became better. It absolutely should happen more often. Our sport would not be such a pathetic participation sport if this were allowed to happen everywhere.
I don't get this perspective. Our sport is harsh and meritocratic: there is one winner, and it's usually the same guy who won last week. There's no hiding behind your teammates or a weak opponent--the clock always gives you away.
Or the other hand, participation is universal and democratic. There's little cost to having an extra heat at a meet or sending an extra body through a track workout. In a large road race, that extends to the number of competitors as well: if you want to beat Kipchoge, just enter the same race he does and try your best. You won't win, but that's only because of your lack of elite talent and/or training, not because of some artificial barrier (at least until recently).
When people suggest more cuts, I think they're conflating the challenges of the sport itself with the challenges we artificially put in athletes' way. Allowing anyone and everyone to participate doesn't make it any easier to win the race (perhaps it even makes it harder). It doesn't take away from the battle in the front pack or the fast heat to have slower packs or slow heats. The only thing a more inclusive sport makes easier is crossing the starting line, not the finish line. And the latter is the grail that every runner chases, as it should be.
(I'm not saying there's no legitimate reason for track to make cuts, even big cuts. There are plenty, almost all of them coming back to money in one way or another. But I'm tired of the argument that exclusivity is somehow its own reward. Sometimes a necessary trade-off? Of course. But it is very much a trade-off rather than somehow being a good thing on its own merits.)
I really like this perspective on the sport as a whole. That being said, this is a school in the most loaded conference in the NCAA. There's more talent at the SEC meet than at your average pro competition. Sounds like the new regime is announcing their intention to compete, and that means raising the standard and letting everyone know that there are new expectations. Sucks for those who got cut, but there are other opportunities at the NCAA level.
In general, I agree that most programs should try to accommodate as many athletes as they reasonably can.
30 -
RossiCheated wrote:
To reply to myself...
You wanted a thread on this. Now you have one.
I am putting the burden on you.
Name names and give us performances they had this year.
If you don't bring the facts that I have requested, so we can have an informed conversation on the topic, they YOU are the person not talking about it, and we have the right to wonder why.
You seem like a very emotional person.
01 -
with 12.6M/18F scholarships, how many were actually on the books?
10 -
Leaf Boy wrote:
RossiCheated wrote:
To reply to myself...
You wanted a thread on this. Now you have one.
I am putting the burden on you.
Name names and give us performances they had this year.
If you don't bring the facts that I have requested, so we can have an informed conversation on the topic, they YOU are the person not talking about it, and we have the right to wonder why.
You seem like a very emotional person.
Believe me, I have absolutely no emotion on this topic, and typically I am accused of being too analytical and not emotional enough.
Try reading my post in the most boring, flat tone you can, and that is how I wrote it.
He wanted a thread. We now have one. We still could use the facts. He still has not provided them.
Read all of that like a robot and you know how I feel. I can't have 1/100th of the emotion that the OP had in starting the thread.
00 -
Rojo,
Your long reply to this never addresses the obvious racism of the original post. Why?
11
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.