Of course they will not beat Stanford, Oregon and Washington.
NAU is not expected to beat Stanford, so why would you expect UCLA to be competitive with Stanford?
Success for UCLA would be top 4 at Regionals and participation at NCAA.
As someone else pointed out, their top 3 are good (all sub 23:55). Presently however their #4 and #5 are too weak to beat Portland at Regionals. The good news however is that their spread between #4 and #7 was only 18s. Therefore, only 2 of the 4 need to improve significantly in the next couple of months for UCLA to beat Portland (not all the pressure is on current #4 and #5).
Depends if UP runs Strangio at regionals though. He would’ve been their top runner if he hadn’t raced unattached yesterday.
Don’t get too excited. Oregon was just cruising and Portland held people out, ran some unattached and didn’t really race. UCLA is a long way behind them.
Also, their girl’s team is really bad and he coaches them too.
UCLA will not be a factor of any kind in the conference and has no chance of qualifying for NCAA’s.
It’s entertaining/disconcerting to see replies like this. Ask yourself why you have so much animosity and hate for someone that you’ve never met.
Don’t get too excited. Oregon was just cruising and Portland held people out, ran some unattached and didn’t really race. UCLA is a long way behind them.
Also, their girl’s team is really bad and he coaches them too.
UCLA will not be a factor of any kind in the conference and has no chance of qualifying for NCAA’s.
It’s entertaining/disconcerting to see replies like this. Ask yourself why you have so much animosity and hate for someone that you’ve never met.
It’s interesting to see replies like this that used to be prevalent in the NP threads are now going to start appearing in the UCLA threads. Please tell me I need help, that I’m sad and have all kinds of personal issues for giving my opinion that UCLA won’t be very good this year.
it’s not all about you Sean. The team is not good enough to make it NCAA’s this year. Just stating my opinion with zero animosity.
It was always ridiculous that UCLA didn’t invest in a good XC/distance program. There’s lots of good running routes off campus, good weather, a strong history - it can only be a good thing for the program to finally improve.
It was always ridiculous that UCLA didn’t invest in a good XC/distance program. There’s lots of good running routes off campus, good weather, a strong history - it can only be a good thing for the program to finally improve.
Have they improved?
At Dellinger In 2019 they were 8 points behind Oregon. In 3rd. They beat Portland by 120 points. Their average time among their top 5 was almost 30 seconds per runner faster than this year’s team and they didn’t qualify for NCAA’s.
It was always ridiculous that UCLA didn’t invest in a good XC/distance program. There’s lots of good running routes off campus, good weather, a strong history - it can only be a good thing for the program to finally improve.
Have they improved?
At Dellinger In 2019 they were 8 points behind Oregon. In 3rd. They beat Portland by 120 points. Their average time among their top 5 was almost 30 seconds per runner faster than this year’s team and they didn’t qualify for NCAA’s.
In fact, last year, their team time was faster. 3 of this year’s top 5 ran last year and of those 3, 2 of them ran slower this year.
All the times were faster last year. Maybe course conditions were tougher. But UCLA was a lot better in placing than the 8th from last year. It looks promising to me. This doesn't mean they'll qualify this year but they'll be on the cusp. Next year, they'll make NCAA's probably. He didn't even have time to get recruits in for this season.
All the times were faster last year. Maybe course conditions were tougher. But UCLA was a lot better in placing than the 8th from last year. It looks promising to me. This doesn't mean they'll qualify this year but they'll be on the cusp. Next year, they'll make NCAA's probably. He didn't even have time to get recruits in for this season.
The times were better because the field was better. The placing was better because the field was 92 runners this year and over 150 last year.
It was always ridiculous that UCLA didn’t invest in a good XC/distance program. There’s lots of good running routes off campus, good weather, a strong history - it can only be a good thing for the program to finally improve.
UCAL occasionally had good XC teams over the years.
The UCLA Bruins are the athletic teams that represent the University of California, Los Angeles. The Bruin men's and women's teams participate in NCAA Division I as part of the Pac-12 Conference and the Mountain Pacific Sport...
Tbh Gonzaga is a lot better than Oregon, they held out James Mwaura (27:50 guy) and Evan Bates (13:45 guy) could see those guys running with Guermali their top guy today. And Portland held out 3-4 of their top runners at Dellinger, which means they are a lot better than what we saw in Dellinger. The way I see it as of now (but not set in stone). Such a toss up with 2-5
UCLA has always invested in XC. Just because you live in some fantasy world where they should give 6 scholies to XC is a you problem. The reality is, the number is 12.6 and the math does not change on that. It is about recruiting and hustling and coaching. The opportunity is there, and it has been proven as such. Brosnan will figure it out soon
he could be the best or worst coach out there - ridiculous to try to evaluate a guy who started in august based on a september meet
there's no secret workout he's introduced to the program in the last few weeks that's turned things around. 95+% of anything that happens even later this season was baked in before he got there
UCLA has always invested in XC. Just because you live in some fantasy world where they should give 6 scholies to XC is a you problem. The reality is, the number is 12.6 and the math does not change on that. It is about recruiting and hustling and coaching. The opportunity is there, and it has been proven as such. Brosnan will figure it out soon
What a weirdly aggressive response to such a benign post. Me: it’s weird that UCLA hasn’t been better given they have good recruiting conditions and it’s nice to see them doing well and investing in a good coach. You: that’s a YOU problem demanding more scholarships. Huh?
I don't think these UCLA results show much of Brosnan's ability yet.
Give him some time to settle in, recruit, etc. This result was probably off the coattails of the old administration.
Would it be fair to compare UCLA and Cal Poly to determine coaching ability? Both programs hired coaches within a couple of weeks of each other and were pretty close at regionals last year (UCLA 398 - Cal Ply 414).