the summer of women continues. the funny thing is i know a good amount of females who are as upset about the hirings as the men are, several women have told me how ridiculous it is that a coach will hire somebody with such low experience in various positions around the country and that its happened so that head coaches stay in control, make themselves look better.
Yea, this is a joke, the sport is becoming a joke.
Too many inept insecure little men as head coaches hiring the candidate who is the least threat to their power. The guys who have been around say they want someone who is loyal, what they mean by that is someone who will not question anything and just shut up and follow, the ultimate yes man or yes women.
Real truth guy wrote:
People don’t have to like it or not but we hire people we have experience with and trust. Obviously Miltenberg has a long history with her. Makes total sense. Every one of us would do the same thing. I’m not hiring someone I don’t know or isn’t highly recommended to me by someone I do know and trust. There are a lot of coaches that are very good coaches who will also Stab you on the back the first chance they get. Trust and shared philosophy is really important.
Not saying it was or wasn't a good hire, but not true that Milt has a long history with her. He may have recruited her to G'town, but he left for Stanford in 2012 just as she was entering school.
History with her doesn't matter, she worked with 1st and 2nd graders, that is apparently enough.
history smistory wrote:
History with her doesn't matter, she worked with 1st and 2nd graders, that is apparently enough.
You guys are ridiculous. UNC and Milt are subsidizing her professional running career. She is there to run with the kids, and help with recruiting by being a good female runner on campus. That is it. She isn't writing workouts, she isn't planning travel, she probably won't even be holding a stop-watch, and driving a van. Before she was hired, Jessica Riden was the only female on an all-male staff, a staff that had 3 females last academic year. Like it or not, even at UNC, xc/track is an equivalency sport, and diversity numbers matter to athletic directors.
Does it suck that you all didn't even get a chance at this job? Yes, but everybody else also knows what these jobs are. You aren't missing a career-making opportunity.
For the record, actual qualified female coaches hate these hires too, because they make women in coaching look bad.
"received her M.A. in nonprofit management from Oregon in 2018 after graduating from Georgetown with a B.A. in psychology in 2016"
I would be willing to bet that she is one of the women that "drops out" of coaching in a few years, when her running career is over and she wants to get a real job.
1st and 2nd grades wrote:
melted tar heel wrote:
This is just a joke. Only in T & F. Where drug cheats are embraced and loyalty and ass kissing is more important than competency. Yea
Her coaching experience consists of:
"... and oversaw the development of first- and second-grade students... "
She is the only female on staff at UNC. The AD most likely told him to hire a female. So he hires one he knows and one who is distance. I'm not saying its right, but your first coaching job with zero experience should not be at a Power 5, especially one of the top pubic universities.
Time will tell if she can actually coach and coach well. At least Miltenberg should be and hopefully will teach and mentor her.
Precisely. Just move on. Many factors and various dynamics affect each of these hirings. This board originated as a means for intel for positions. Now, it's a joke. Most of you are not college coaches and have strong desires to be one and yet bash all those who have received an opportunity. Others are grimy college coaches who assume every position they're worthy of. Trust, that your time will come. Spending all day bashing others individuals' favor is not appealing.
Congratulations to all of you who have made a transition in or out of our beloved sport!
Did people on this board howl when Dylan Sorensen was hired at Stanford? What was his experience? Seemed to work out okay. I don’t know why some of these good old boys think coaching positions shouldn’t operate the way the real world does: smart people who develop relationships are going to get opportunities. And actually being a good competitive runner, believe it or not, has value in coaching.
What running career do you speak of concerning Nadel? Is she that good? Obviously not her career or she wouldn't be taking a job as a workout pacer for UNC.
Rock Heavy wrote:
history smistory wrote:
History with her doesn't matter, she worked with 1st and 2nd graders, that is apparently enough.
You guys are ridiculous. UNC and Milt are subsidizing her professional running career. She is there to run with the kids, and help with recruiting by being a good female runner on campus. That is it. She isn't writing workouts, she isn't planning travel, she probably won't even be holding a stop-watch, and driving a van. Before she was hired, Jessica Riden was the only female on an all-male staff, a staff that had 3 females last academic year. Like it or not, even at UNC, xc/track is an equivalency sport, and diversity numbers matter to athletic directors.
Does it suck that you all didn't even get a chance at this job? Yes, but everybody else also knows what these jobs are. You aren't missing a career-making opportunity.
For the record, actual qualified female coaches hate these hires too, because they make women in coaching look bad.
"received her M.A. in nonprofit management from Oregon in 2018 after graduating from Georgetown with a B.A. in psychology in 2016"
I would be willing to bet that she is one of the women that "drops out" of coaching in a few years, when her running career is over and she wants to get a real job.
That’s why I said just look around these type of hires. You don’t want this position at all, looks good to be at a UNC or other p5 school but you wouldn’t get to do anything! Your career would go nowhere. That’s why milt didn’t look to hire a highly experienced person man or women because they wouldn’t want it. Now, yes if you’re someone looking to get your foot in the door i get it. But looks like a female needed to be added to this staff and she fit the bill. Basically a paid volunteer assistant and women aren’t volunteering because they know the leverage they possess. Again, focus on the jobs that could be objective hires and go all in for those. Be a stand alone coach you’ll get more respect that way anyhow!
future unemployed??? wrote:
What running career do you speak of concerning Nadel? Is she that good? Obviously not her career or she wouldn't be taking a job as a workout pacer for UNC.
I didn’t use the word career. She was a competitive collegiate runner. Plenty of dudes out there “coaching” who haven’t competed to win a race ever.
Makiba on being named head coach at WMU: Just wanted to update my facebook. The queen has adjusted her crown!
Sliding Scale wrote:
confused here wrote:
She is likely going to be a stopwatch holder as the 3rd distance coach on staff. Maybe the designated pacer for the women's workouts. Just watch though, in 3 years she'll be a head coach at another power 5 school despite being just a babysitter at UNC.
Not familiar with the above coach/athlete, but given the stature of the school it is likely she will move on to some good opportunities in the next few years.
You can be frustrated, or you can view it as job security. How often do inexperienced hires pan out? A lot of the schools in my conference that make such hires tend to struggle in track. In reality, such hires are just helping established coaches (male or female) stay on top of their respective conferences.
The biggest issue is when underqualified candidates get jobs they don't deserve and aren't ready for, they can ruin the track and field careers of hundreds of athletes before getting fired. My biggest gripe is teams are getting coaches that will 100% inevitably fail. Is checking a box for title 9 purposes worth ruining the collegiate athletic careers of hundreds of athletes? Any sane person would say no.
Dose of Truth wrote:
Sliding Scale wrote:
Not familiar with the above coach/athlete, but given the stature of the school it is likely she will move on to some good opportunities in the next few years.
You can be frustrated, or you can view it as job security. How often do inexperienced hires pan out? A lot of the schools in my conference that make such hires tend to struggle in track. In reality, such hires are just helping established coaches (male or female) stay on top of their respective conferences.
The biggest issue is when underqualified candidates get jobs they don't deserve and aren't ready for, they can ruin the track and field careers of hundreds of athletes before getting fired. My biggest gripe is teams are getting coaches that will 100% inevitably fail. Is checking a box for title 9 purposes worth ruining the collegiate athletic careers of hundreds of athletes? Any sane person would say no.
Hyperbole is fun.
It is what it is wrote:
Rock Heavy wrote:
You guys are ridiculous. UNC and Milt are subsidizing her professional running career. She is there to run with the kids, and help with recruiting by being a good female runner on campus. That is it. She isn't writing workouts, she isn't planning travel, she probably won't even be holding a stop-watch, and driving a van. Before she was hired, Jessica Riden was the only female on an all-male staff, a staff that had 3 females last academic year. Like it or not, even at UNC, xc/track is an equivalency sport, and diversity numbers matter to athletic directors.
Does it suck that you all didn't even get a chance at this job? Yes, but everybody else also knows what these jobs are. You aren't missing a career-making opportunity.
For the record, actual qualified female coaches hate these hires too, because they make women in coaching look bad.
"received her M.A. in nonprofit management from Oregon in 2018 after graduating from Georgetown with a B.A. in psychology in 2016"
I would be willing to bet that she is one of the women that "drops out" of coaching in a few years, when her running career is over and she wants to get a real job.
That’s why I said just look around these type of hires. You don’t want this position at all, looks good to be at a UNC or other p5 school but you wouldn’t get to do anything! Your career would go nowhere. That’s why milt didn’t look to hire a highly experienced person man or women because they wouldn’t want it. Now, yes if you’re someone looking to get your foot in the door i get it. But looks like a female needed to be added to this staff and she fit the bill. Basically a paid volunteer assistant and women aren’t volunteering because they know the leverage they possess. Again, focus on the jobs that could be objective hires and go all in for those. Be a stand alone coach you’ll get more respect that way anyhow!
Get this - if she can survive her breeding years & being Milty's sidekick for the next 5 - 10 years, she'll command a six figure job as her next one...how does that make you white christian dude-bro's feel?!
Kevin Hadsell wrote:
Dose of Truth wrote:
The biggest issue is when underqualified candidates get jobs they don't deserve and aren't ready for, they can ruin the track and field careers of hundreds of athletes before getting fired. My biggest gripe is teams are getting coaches that will 100% inevitably fail. Is checking a box for title 9 purposes worth ruining the collegiate athletic careers of hundreds of athletes? Any sane person would say no.
Hyperbole is fun.
Not sure why you are so quick to pass judgement, your situation is a perfect example of my point. Not that you were unqualified, but rather it proves it's not hyperbole to say a coach doing bad things can really mess up the team. Toledo still hasn't fully recovered and it's been how many years since you left?
Doug Fraley to Washington