Huffins out at Cal

Dave Maggard wrote:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Richie Boulet become a 6-time All-American under Tony? Didn't Erin Belger come in 3rd at the NCAA's under Tony? Didn't Chloe Jarvis win the Pac-10's? Didn't Alysia Johnson come in 3rd at NCAA Outdoors last season? Didn't she follow that up just 2 weeks later with a 4th place finish at USATF Outdoor Nationals? Didn't Alysia win the NCAA Indoor title this year, along with the Pac-10's and NCAA Regional in Eugene on Rebekah Noble's home track? Or how about David Torrence becoming eligible again and running the mile this season in 3:58.62? Or JC transfer Francis Gadayan making the podium at Pac-10's this season? What about Cal grads Magdalena Lewy and Peter Gilmore and Steve Moreno in the Marathon???

It looks like Dave Maggard defines a successful coach as one who is there when one or two individuals--at any one time--place high at post-season meets or run fast performances sometime during the season.

sj quick, however, is emphasizing that the distance team's performances while under Sandoval's direct (in XC) and indirect (T&F) leadership is appalling, and thus Sandoval would make for a horrible coach where a team is concerned. If Sandoval has not "produced" but few talents outside of the two middle distances (800 and 1500), how would he be able to oversee athletes that don't run middle distance events... say they use an implement or more explosive speed in their respective events.

Maggard, I understand that you're more concerned with Track and Field and bean-counting the NCAA qualifiers, but could you please address the men and women PAC-10 and District team performances in cross country? How about the PAC-10 team finishes in track? It's cool if you don't care about the frequent last place and next-to-last place finishes that Cal's men and women's team (both in cross country and track), but if Tony produces a couple individuals (meaning he's not producing over 10 times when you consider the entire squad), and that those individuals are almost always in two events, wouldn't you say that he'd make a better personal coach than a team coach? Wouldn't you agree that he should privately coach age-groupers or elites rather than a distance squad, or more importantly at this juncture an entire Track and Field team?

jethro wrote:

Cal Alum, stop making excuses for that sorry ass program! It's ridiculous that Sandoval hasn't done better with outstanding talent. Matuszak and Yosef Ghebray should be all americans by now.

No excuses necessary.

Just the facts. If you think that you could have been in Ghebray's and Chris Chavez's place at Pac-10 XC's and still finished the race, then I guess you must be a legend in your own mind.

Better yet, since you think so highly of yourself perhaps you should send your resume to Sandy Barbour.

Here's her address:

University of California

Miss Sandy Barbour, Athletic Director

Haas Pavilion, #4422

Berkeley, CA 94720-4422

Hope you have some D-1 coaching experience on your resume.

Good Luck!

Cal Alum wrote:

Cal Men's XC placed 3rd in 2005 and would have

...

Cal Alum, please do us all a favor and post the PAC-10 team results of cal men and women over the past decade. It would be fantastic if you included how many teams competed, so that the readers of this thread can know that all those 8th and 9th place finishes (oh believe me, Cal Alum, you'll find 'em) are really dead last.

Oh yeah, since you brought up just the men's team in 2005, please report back what place they finished in Districts a couple weeks later.

I'm not trying to rag on you (seriously) but I feel that you're focusing on 50% of a team, 50% of their post-season races, in one season out of many that Sandoval has been at the helm. Surely you see why people think your narrow analysis isn't convincing?

midwaste wrote:

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Tony has gotten more than enough talent over the years. Don't give me this Huffins--scholarship dollars b.s. Whether or not he had a lot or a little $, he has had the recruits to build a good team.

More than enough talent to do what in XC?

Win Regionals?

With who?

Why don't you go cry out for Mark Conover's head down at Cal-Poly since they finished in 9th place last season at Regionals, one place ahead of Cal.

Cal Alum, by your logic either Ghebray or Matuszak's high school coaches could do better! Ghebrey ran 8:52 as a high school junior and Matuszak ran 3:44 as a senior. Quit making excuses for a lazy ass coach! I could easily take his place.

Cal Alum wrote:

Hope you have some D-1 coaching experience on your resume.

Good Luck!

Oh THAT'S what Huffins was doing instead of finishing college. Couldn't resist, sorry.

cannot ape this wrote:

I'm not trying to rag on you (seriously) but I feel that you're focusing on 50% of a team, 50% of their post-season races, in one season out of many that Sandoval has been at the helm. Surely you see why people think your narrow analysis isn't convincing?

Wasn't this thread about Cal's Track & Field program under Chris Huffins?

Or have the XC "geeks" of LetsRun invaded yet another topic that has nothing to do with cross country.

When will they figure out that their sport isn't even on television, and no one could care less about xc.

Boo-hoo-hoo.

jethro wrote:

I could easily take his place.

That's funny for a high school coach to say.

Ever thought of a gig on the Comedy Channel?

Go ahead jerkoff, send your resume to the AD.

LMAO!!!

1. Arizona State, 62; =2. LSU, 37; =2. Texas A&M, 37; =4. South Carolina, 33; =4. Texas, 33; 6. Michigan, 31; 7. Stanford, 30; 8. Georgia, 23; 9. USC, 22; =10. UCLA, 21; =10. Auburn, 21; =10. Texas Tech, 21; =13. Oregon, 20; =13. Virginia Tech, 20; =15. Washington State, 18; =15. Houston, 18; =17. Cal, 15; =17. Nebraska, 15; =17. Penn State, 15; 20. BYU, 13; =21. Arkansas, 12; =21. UTEP, 12; 23. TCU, 11; =24. Weber State, 10; =24. Sam Houston State, 10.

USTFCCCA Outdoor Women's Poll - Week 6 (05/30/07)

1. Arizona State

2. LSU

3. Texas A&M

4. Michigan

5. Georgia

6. South Carolina

7. Texas

8. UCLA

9. Stanford

10. USC

11. Texas Tech

12. Oregon

13. California

14. Nebraska

15. Auburn

16. Virginia Tech

17. Washington State

18. Miami

19. Georgia Tech

20. (tie) Houston, Penn State and UTEP

Well, we certainly know which conference is the most competitive in the nation . . .

6 of the top 15 women's teams in the Nation are from the Pac-10 Conference.

Asu #1

Ucla #8

Stanford #9

USC #10

Oregon #12

California #13

Cal Alum wrote:

No excuses necessary.

Just the facts. If you think that you could have been in Ghebray's and Chris Chavez's place at Pac-10 XC's and still finished the race, then I guess you must be a legend in your own mind.

This is unfortunate, but it's not like Cal is the only school whose guys might have had bad races, injuries, etc. at Pac-10s.

With the recruits Cal has been getting, they should be winning Pac-10s every year, not making excuses for why they got last.

Something has to change. Sounds like a new coach is a good starting point?

impartial observer wrote:

This is unfortunate, but it's not like Cal is the only school whose guys might have had bad races, injuries, etc. at Pac-10s.

With the recruits Cal has been getting, they should be winning Pac-10s every year, not making excuses for why they got last.

With all due respect, you have got to be one of the dumbest posters on Letsrun, and that is saying a lot.

Cal is suppose to be winning Pac-10's EVERY YEAR in XC?

Against the likes of Stanford, Oregon, Arizona, and Asu?

Are you freaking kidding me?

What are you smoking, dude?

And people wonder why track and field is so misunderstood by the general public - - - because we have idiots that proclaim to understand the sport that don't even have a clue.

Get real.

Cal Alum wrote:

Hope you have some D-1 coaching experience on your resume.

Good Luck!

cannot ape this wrote:

Oh THAT'S what Huffins was doing instead of finishing college. Couldn't resist, sorry.

Yep.

I don't think that AD Barbour will be making THAT mistake again. Rumor has it that she will only be interviewing people with D-1 HEAD COACHING experience.

:)

Trackster400 wrote:

Cal is suppose to be winning Pac-10's EVERY YEAR in XC?

Against the likes of Stanford, Oregon, Arizona, and Asu?

Are you freaking kidding me?

What are you smoking, dude?

Maybe I don't have low expectations. Do you?

Pac-10 Man wrote:

Well, we certainly know which conference is the most competitive in the nation . . .

6 of the top 15 women's teams in the Nation are from the Pac-10 Conference.

Asu #1

Ucla #8

Stanford #9

USC #10

Oregon #12

California #13

I leave the program and Oregon bumps Vin and the program up to a $2.6 million dollar budget and is still only ranked one spot ahead of Cal even though they lost Antonette Carter to graduation. That's unbelievable.

Oregon sucks!

Trackster400 wrote:

Cal is suppose to be winning Pac-10's EVERY YEAR in XC?

Against the likes of Stanford, Oregon, Arizona, and Asu?

Are you freaking kidding me?

What are you smoking, dude?

impartial observer wrote:

Maybe I don't have low expectations. Do you?

Your expectations are totally unrealistic my friend.

The Pac-10 is far too competitive for a school to dominate in XC, or track. For instance, did you see how strong ASU was this year? Did you even see how many girls they had in the 10,000 at Pac-10's, or in the Steeple at Regionals?

You need a serious reality check.

Okay fine, can I expect better than consistently low finishes? Or is that "unrealistic" too?

Is Cal's recruiting inferior to ASU? Is the problem with the talent they're getting, or is it the improvement of the athletes that is lacking?