William and Mary is ABYSSMAL

hornycat,

I re-read your post and you're clearly just trying to defend the athletes. I agree on that point, they have been through so much this year and seem like a talented group of young women from past performances. The problem is with the coaches, that is no question.There have been far too many excuses made for Jones and Braden

The distance program has not been the same since Steve Walsh was replaced as director with the throws coach.

Maybe this is why:

https://tribeathletics.com/news/2021/5/6/dave-johnson-tribe-scribe-with-omar-browns-expertise-w-m-sprinters-had-a-strong-weekend-in-the-caa-championships.aspx?fbclid=IwAR3WNORpdxDhLxwb3X8_p3QTF_tfl7542J_FWquUzvIq6ISs010eCrZVcMg

Trying to be good in too many places. Does anyone else remember when W&M women won like 15 conference championships in a row without nary a sprinter?

The director Heacock is an complete IDIOT. He dismantled one of the best distance programs in the country to build a more balanced track and field team that loses the conference championship by over 100 points.

Don't get me wrong, Braden and Jones are both colossal failures and there's no doubt they are doing a bad job too.

Sounds like a bunch of whiny distance runners on here. Get your head out of your a$$es and see there's more to programs than distance. Other programs in the CAA, except the bottom ones, are either fully funded or close to it. Of course they're going to eventually catch up. It's up to the admin to keep up with funding the program to be competitive. Plus, I can guarantee W&M admissions aren't as slack as most of the other CAA schools.

SpyderByte wrote:

Sounds like a bunch of whiny distance runners on here. Get your head out of your a$$es and see there's more to programs than distance. Other programs in the CAA, except the bottom ones, are either fully funded or close to it. Of course they're going to eventually catch up. It's up to the admin to keep up with funding the program to be competitive. Plus, I can guarantee W&M admissions aren't as slack as most of the other CAA schools.

Except those distance runners in the past have scored a lot of points at the NCAA OUTDOOR TRACK NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS. Emily Stites was 3rd in the 10k in 2015. Those 6 points got W&M 40th place.

This is a more well-rounded team across event groups, but are they going to come anywhere close to 40th place at the National Championships? HELL NO. They aren't even close to getting anyone to regionals.

american man wrote:

hornycat155 wrote:

You spelled abysmal incorrectly. The women's team has faced extreme adversity this year. You have no idea what the team has dealt with and have no right to comment on the performance of the team. The women's team had no coach in the fall. One athlete made to finals on a stress fracture in the 1500. Multiple athletes have continued to perform through extreme adversity. If you have an issue with team go directly to the coaches instead of posting about an issue you know nothing about on a public forum.

Why would you celebrate a coach making an athlete run on a broken bone? That's abusive.

Hornycat155 is Braden

He loves cats

and you just proved my point. Sure, distance may have taken a hit, but money has probably been allocated to other areas, not predominantly distance anymore. It is a more rounded team, providing opportunities to other athletes. This day in age, at the mid major level, AD's don't really care about how a team finishes. They care more about team and individual athletes' experiences.

champagne mango wrote:

Dozens of pancake joints in Williamsburg can lead to thunder thighs. Dust off the scale.

They do love their cakes down there.

Ok this is a fair statement

SpyderByte wrote:

and you just proved my point. Sure, distance may have taken a hit, but money has probably been allocated to other areas, not predominantly distance anymore. It is a more rounded team, providing opportunities to other athletes.

This day in age, at the mid major level, AD's don't really care about how a team finishes. They care more about team and individual athletes' experiences.

This is bull, while that may be true what does that have to do with which athletes you recruit, you can recruit all sprinters, predominantly throwers, etc and still achieve this. They have good distance runners and the balance of roster is irrelevant. The good runners they recruited are running terrible. They have the girls squad to win conference or be a contender yet they suck.

SpyderByte wrote:

and you just proved my point. Sure, distance may have taken a hit, but money has probably been allocated to other areas, not predominantly distance anymore. It is a more rounded team, providing opportunities to other athletes. This day in age, at the mid major level, AD's don't really care about how a team finishes. They care more about team and individual athletes' experiences.

You just moved the goalposts. Your previous implication is that distance only track teams don't do well in track. A previous poster proved that wrong.

You can have a stacked cross country team and still have tons of throwers and sprinters. Same number of people get opportunities.

What would give the team and the individual athletes better experiences than qualifying for nationals? Do you think they are loving their experience being a bottom tier team in the league?

trintajmpshp wrote: They have good distance runners and the balance of roster is irrelevant. The good runners they recruited are running terrible. They have the girls squad to win conference or be a contender yet they suck.

This is true, too. There's no excuse for the talented athletes on your roster to be running much slower than they did in high school.

Bottom tier of the league? That’s a bit over dramatic.

Remember when Utah focused on distance only and let go of a solid throws coach? How’s that working out for them. To be competitive, you have to be well rounded, even if it means allocating money from distance to other programs.

I’m guessing that after the really good distance coach left, the HC knew it would be tough to fill his shoes, so he put money in other areas, it’s really not rocket science.

And yes, athletes can absolutely have a great experience AND not compete for the conference title every year. Happens at hundreds of programs throughout the country.

Get over yourselves

Ren&Stimpy wrote:

Bottom tier of the league? That’s a bit over dramatic.

Remember when Utah focused on distance only and let go of a solid throws coach? How’s that working out for them. To be competitive, you have to be well rounded, even if it means allocating money from distance to other programs.

I’m guessing that after the really good distance coach left, the HC knew it would be tough to fill his shoes, so he put money in other areas, it’s really not rocket science.

And yes, athletes can absolutely have a great experience AND not compete for the conference title every year. Happens at hundreds of programs throughout the country.

Get over yourselves

I had this similar discussion about developing distance runners in regards to Clemson men being so bad. Distance runners can be developed. I’ve seen so many 20 min girls become 17 min girls in a year or two with good sound development. Failure to do this as a coach is a clear indication of lack of motivation or drive to have an improved team. Older coaches need to know when it’s time to move on if they don’t have the same drive. Too many young coaches who can develop looking for opportunities.

Ren&Stimpy wrote:

Bottom tier of the league? That’s a bit over dramatic.

Remember when Utah focused on distance only and let go of a solid throws coach? How’s that working out for them. To be competitive, you have to be well rounded, even if it means allocating money from distance to other programs.

I’m guessing that after the really good distance coach left, the HC knew it would be tough to fill his shoes, so he put money in other areas, it’s really not rocket science.

And yes, athletes can absolutely have a great experience AND not compete for the conference title every year. Happens at hundreds of programs throughout the country.

Get over yourselves

Remember when BYU women focused on distance and got top 10 in the country in Indoor Track and then won a national cross country championship just 2 days later?

W&M was most competitive at the NCAA level when they focused on distance runners, and they never neglected sprinters to do so. Heacock had Chris Solinsky on staff, I don't think the inability to attract top coaches is an issue.

american man wrote:

Remember when BYU women focused on distance and got top 10 in the country in Indoor Track and then won a national cross country championship just 2 days later?

W&M was most competitive at the NCAA level when they focused on distance runners, and they never neglected sprinters to do so. Heacock had Chris Solinsky on staff, I don't think the inability to attract top coaches is an issue.

Wait since when has Solinsky been a top distance coach? Yes a top athlete but I’m not buying top coach. W&M was his first real coaching job. Hardly makes you top tier at that point. Now he is at Florida and has done exactly what?

What happened with Chris Solinsky at W&M?

You can’t compare BYU to any other program. They get plenty of older athletes after their missions, relaxed admissions for athletes, plus much more funding. Not even close

Ren&Stimpy wrote:

You can’t compare BYU to any other program. They get plenty of older athletes after their missions, relaxed admissions for athletes, plus much more funding. Not even close

Dude try to get the damn point without being so technical. Put the koolaid down, they sucks and the coaches aren’t doing a good job.