I don't fully understand all the Brosnan hate, yes he's a bit cocky, but he really does have a passion for the sport. Nico and Colin have done well so he didn't burn out his athletes either. Would like to see him bring up some mid major or get another coaching gig somewhere
I don't fully understand all the Brosnan hate, yes he's a bit cocky, but he really does have a passion for the sport. Nico and Colin have done well so he didn't burn out his athletes either. Would like to see him bring up some mid major or get another coaching gig somewhere
I’m honestly surprised there isn’t more hate toward Brosnan on LetsRun considering how many trolls are on here. But I think most people can agree he’s a very good coach who gets results. I also don’t really buy the idea that he’s cocky. I’ve talked to him and seen him at meets, and he never came across that way to me. He’s confident and passionate about coaching, but when athletes start running fast, people always look for reasons to criticize or exaggerate things. That’s just how track culture can be sometimes. At this point, UCLA’s conference results and hires show that the program seems more focused on hiring safe, comfortable coaches instead of truly elite ones who can elevate the program.
I was looking forward to what Brosnan could have done. He was turning things around quickly, he's a high risk high reward for the next school to hire.
Brosnan is definitely a high risk, high reward hire because he pushes boundaries, operates with a lot of intensity and confidence, and isn’t the type of coach who quietly plays it safe within the system, but at the same time, he has a proven track record of getting athletes to improve quickly, building strong team culture, generating excitement around programs, and producing results at a level many coaches never reach.
There’s absolutely no excuse for a school like UCLA to be finishing last or second to last at the conference meet. At this point it’s clear that coaching and leadership changes are needed.
There’s absolutely no excuse for a school like UCLA to be finishing last or second to last at the conference meet. At this point it’s clear that coaching and leadership changes are needed.
They let go of Brosnan, and then they replaced him with worse coaches
I don't fully understand all the Brosnan hate, yes he's a bit cocky, but he really does have a passion for the sport. Nico and Colin have done well so he didn't burn out his athletes either. Would like to see him bring up some mid major or get another coaching gig somewhere
I’m honestly surprised there isn’t more hate toward Brosnan on LetsRun considering how many trolls are on here. But I think most people can agree he’s a very good coach who gets results. I also don’t really buy the idea that he’s cocky. I’ve talked to him and seen him at meets, and he never came across that way to me. He’s confident and passionate about coaching, but when athletes start running fast, people always look for reasons to criticize or exaggerate things. That’s just how track culture can be sometimes. At this point, UCLA’s conference results and hires show that the program seems more focused on hiring safe, comfortable coaches instead of truly elite ones who can elevate the program.
Why are you all complaining about this now? UCLA has been trash for decades. Their last men's championship was 1988.
Their last women's NCAA champion was in 2004 led by SPRINTERS AND HURDLERS AND FIELD EVENTS.
It doesn't make sense to slander the coaches in 2026 when they are at a huge disadvantage compared to other top teams who are increasing scholarships to 45 per gender and are offering massive NIL deals. UCLA is in really bad financial trouble and is cutting resources to all sports.
When football and basketball go "pro" and the NCAA folds, then Olympic sports are going to get canceled and cut. This could happen within the next 2-3 years. Why put money into a program that you are betting won't exist in short order?
I’m honestly surprised there isn’t more hate toward Brosnan on LetsRun considering how many trolls are on here. But I think most people can agree he’s a very good coach who gets results. I also don’t really buy the idea that he’s cocky. I’ve talked to him and seen him at meets, and he never came across that way to me. He’s confident and passionate about coaching, but when athletes start running fast, people always look for reasons to criticize or exaggerate things. That’s just how track culture can be sometimes. At this point, UCLA’s conference results and hires show that the program seems more focused on hiring safe, comfortable coaches instead of truly elite ones who can elevate the program.
Why are you all complaining about this now? UCLA has been trash for decades. Their last men's championship was 1988.
Their last women's NCAA champion was in 2004 led by SPRINTERS AND HURDLERS AND FIELD EVENTS.
It doesn't make sense to slander the coaches in 2026 when they are at a huge disadvantage compared to other top teams who are increasing scholarships to 45 per gender and are offering massive NIL deals. UCLA is in really bad financial trouble and is cutting resources to all sports.
First off, UCLA not winning a national title since 1988 doesn’t suddenly mean the program should be finishing near last in the conference. There’s a massive difference between “not winning NCAA titles” and becoming completely non-competitive in a major conference.
The NIL and scholarship landscape affects everyone, not just UCLA. Plenty of programs with fewer resources are still outperforming them.
The team is significantly worse under Joanna Hayes and that’s just a fact.
And also, “slander” is spoken, not written. Written criticism is called libel
Why are you all complaining about this now? UCLA has been trash for decades. Their last men's championship was 1988.
Their last women's NCAA champion was in 2004 led by SPRINTERS AND HURDLERS AND FIELD EVENTS.
It doesn't make sense to slander the coaches in 2026 when they are at a huge disadvantage compared to other top teams who are increasing scholarships to 45 per gender and are offering massive NIL deals. UCLA is in really bad financial trouble and is cutting resources to all sports.
First off, UCLA not winning a national title since 1988 doesn’t suddenly mean the program should be finishing near last in the conference. There’s a massive difference between “not winning NCAA titles” and becoming completely non-competitive in a major conference.
The NIL and scholarship landscape affects everyone, not just UCLA. Plenty of programs with fewer resources are still outperforming them.
The team is significantly worse under Joanna Hayes and that’s just a fact.
And also, “slander” is spoken, not written. Written criticism is called libel
Regardless of how much UCLA wants to believe Joanna Hayes was the “golden hire,” she’s somehow managed to take a program that was once solid and turn it into an absolute disaster in just two years across nearly every event group.
UCLA is better funded than the other UC programs, so at some point the excuses run out. I say this as someone who genuinely wants them to succeed and who has always been a huge Bruin supporter. But the coaching and leadership just haven’t been good enough. I’ve never seen it this bad. At the end of the day, if UCLA wants to become a respectable national program again, major coaching changes need to happen. The current staff simply isn’t getting it done, not even close. This thread exists because UCLA is sitting at the bottom ( dead last) of the conference with a head coach who is clearly failing to deliver results.
Joanna Hayes — Director of Track & Field/Cross Country (head coach) Andrew Ferris — Assistant Coach, Distance Sean Denard — Assistant Coach, Throws Tate Curran — Assistant Coach, Pole Vault Nick Newman — Assistant Coach, Jumps/Multis Arman Hall — Assistant Coach, Sprints Mecca McGlaston — Assistant Coach, Sprints/Hurdles Wellington Zaza — Assistant Coach, Sprints/Hurdles/Jumps
And this is why they are last place at Big Tens. No question they have band leadership and bad coaches.
This staff looks more like a community college setup than a Power 4 coaching staff
Ucla does not have the budget to pay both a top director and a staff what it takes to live within a 30 min commute to campus in a 3 bedroom 2 bath home (1100+ sf) with off street parking, you know, for all those seasoned coaches who have a spouse and 2 kids.
YOU GET THAT, RIGHT?
But top directors already know this. And this is just one of the many drawbacks a 9%-admission-rate PUBLIC university presents to coaches.
It's going to be 75 today in LA. USC is in the middle of the biggest urban sprawl in the country. That is not an attractive place to try to recruit distance runners.
I agree that for perception purposes they should probably do a better job of at least being marginally competitive but I see zero issues with the way they've decided to construct their team.
You guys sit here and make it act like these programs are a joke, like they're Pitt or Boston College in the ACC or Maryland in the Big Ten. They're not.
plus, it's indoors... who cares? certainly not anyone on the west coast.
UCLA must not care about Outdoor Track either. They finished 16th place out of 17 😂
First off, UCLA not winning a national title since 1988 doesn’t suddenly mean the program should be finishing near last in the conference. There’s a massive difference between “not winning NCAA titles” and becoming completely non-competitive in a major conference.
The NIL and scholarship landscape affects everyone, not just UCLA. Plenty of programs with fewer resources are still outperforming them.
The team is significantly worse under Joanna Hayes and that’s just a fact.
And also, “slander” is spoken, not written. Written criticism is called libel
Regardless of how much UCLA wants to believe Joanna Hayes was the “golden hire,” she’s somehow managed to take a program that was once solid and turn it into an absolute disaster in just two years across nearly every event group.
Nobody thinks Hayes was the "golden hire" at all. The reality is that Mike Smith and Chris Miltenberg and Caryl Smith Gilbert and Mike Holloway did not apply for UCLA.
But I do think it's unfair to judge someone so harshly after just 2 years. Also it's a waste of your time to complain about it because the AD is not firing her after 2 years because track is not a priority.
Regardless of how much UCLA wants to believe Joanna Hayes was the “golden hire,” she’s somehow managed to take a program that was once solid and turn it into an absolute disaster in just two years across nearly every event group.
Nobody thinks Hayes was the "golden hire" at all. The reality is that Mike Smith and Chris Miltenberg and Caryl Smith Gilbert and Mike Holloway did not apply for UCLA.
But I do think it's unfair to judge someone so harshly after just 2 years. Also it's a waste of your time to complain about it because the AD is not firing her after 2 years because track is not a priority.
Well they gave Avery Anderson walking papers for her? He was a much better leader and coach.