Because Cal Poly went on to place 13th at nationals the next week.
Because Cal Poly went on to place 13th at nationals the next week.
"The Play" wrote:
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.
...enough talent to build a good team. That's what I said. I never said win regionals. I would expect them at the least to be competitive (top 4 or 5) within their conference on a consistent basis, and they should probably be a top 5-10 team in the region.
"The Play" wrote:
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.
...enough talent to build a good team. That's what I said. I never said win regionals. I would expect them at the least to be competitive (top 4 or 5) within their conference on a consistent basis, and they should probably be a top 5-10 team in the region.
adgsdfagd wrote:
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?
These are excellent questions.
Finally, someone on this thread that understands D-1 track and field!
I would say that there is a significant difference between the academic requirements it takes to get into ASU vs CAL. That is why comparing CAL to Stanford is probably the most equitable and logical comparison.
I don't think that the improvement or lack of development while an athlete at CAL is the issue. For example, just look at sprinter/jumper Antonette Carter who came to Cal out of high school, NOT recruited by any D-1 school and had a high school PR of 12.1 in the 100m as a prep and 17-07 in the LJ.
Huffins, (to his credit) got Carter down to 11.33 and 22.72 after 4 years; both school records, not too mention jumping 21-04 in the LJ for #2 all-time at CAL next to Sheila Hudson.
Sandoval, has taken Alysia Johnson ( the CIF State Meet winner in 2:08.8x ) down over 7 seconds in the last 3 years, and the season isn't over yet. He has also done a great job with Torrence this year, breaking the school record set by Don Bowden in the Mile at 3:58.62 This is a wonderful achievement for Torrence, since he was not enrolled at Cal during the 2005 season.
Miller, has coached a ton of jumpers and decathletes to becoming All-Americans. This year, Ed Wright won the NCAA Regionals with a jump of 7-03.25 and Inika McPherson was runner-up ( on misses ) tying Sharon Day of Cal-Poly at 6-00.50
As you might recall, Wright won the California State High School Meet in 2004 with a jump of 6-10.25 He has obviously had some great development under Coach Miller.
Recently, Cal added former UCLA standout Scott Slover as its pole-vault coach this year. Slover took Tracy O'Hara to an NCAA Championship in 2000 and 2002. He and his father ( Bob was in the Oly Trials in '68 and '72 ) just recently coached Tori Anthony to a new National High School record in the pole-vault at 14-01.
NCAA West Regional Championships
Women's Final Standings (top 10)
1) Arizona State 94
2) Southern California 74
3) UCLA 67
4) Stanford 60
5) San Diego State 53
6) Brigham Young 48.50
7) California 48
8) Oregon 44
9) Arizona 33
10) Washington 29
Men's Final Standings (top 10)
1) Southern California 83
2) Oregon 75
3) Washington 70
4) UCLA 53.50
5) Arizona State 53
6) Washington State 46
7) Arizona 43.50
7) Stanford 43.50
9) Brigham Young 35.50
10) California 27
10) Long Beach State 27
I can't believe that I got pushed out at Oregon just one month before winning the Pac-10 Championship! And now Vin has taken the budget at Oregon up to $2.6 million and they still can't finish ahead of the CAL WOMEN at REGIONALS, even after losing sprinter/jumper Carter to graduation!
impartial observer wrote:
Okay fine, can I expect better than consistently low finishes? Or is that "unrealistic" too?
See above standings for the 2007 NCAA Regionals.
Cal needs to do better a conference meets. Regional meets are places where a small group of athletes can score many points. To win a Pac-10 meet you have to have DEPTH. Given the recruiting Cal should have plenty of depth. Sandoval's weakness is that he can't develop depth, rather just a couple
"stars".
Academic standards? What a weak excuse. Have you been watching too many of those "we're going pro in something other than sports" NCAA commercials?
The Cal athletic departments can practically have recruits "skip" the admissions office. I've heard that recruits are told to just "fill out" an application as nothing more than a formality. So long as you meet the NCAA minimum GPA and SAT score (VERY VERY VERY VERY LOW REQUIREMENTS) and you're good enough at your sport, Cal will get you in... Cal will get you in...
Just talk to half the kids (the ones who haven't flunked out) on the team--DUMB AS ROCKS!
These athletes you mention could be outliers. How about the other sprinters, distance runners, throwers. It pains me to see people point to a tiny subset of data when making a generalization. I know that this tiny portion is the easiest data to collect, but you'd be a fool to assess a coach's ability to coach a team off a couple of marks.
Don't be a fool. Gather more information.
Find out whose performances declined and incorporate.
Assess transfers, those who quit. If a coach has more athletes under-performing I don't see how you can conclude that the coach is fit to be part of a D-1 track program.
impartial observer wrote:
Cal needs to do better a conference meets. Regional meets are places where a small group of athletes can score many points. To win a Pac-10 meet you have to have DEPTH. Given the recruiting Cal should have plenty of depth.
Yet another moron that has no idea what he is talking about. Depth at Cal? What Depth???
No sprinters in the 100, 200, 400 on the men's team.
A decathlete anchored the 4x1 at the Big Meet this year!
No long jumper or triple jumper ( besides one decathlete ).
No 10,000m runner.
You obviously have little knowledge of the program.
jethro wrote:
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.
And yet another MORON that has no idea what he is talking about.
3:44 for Matusak in high school???
What drugs are you on?
With all due respect to Mark, you aren't even close.
Try 3:49.81 at the Pan-Am Juniors and 3:47.07 at US. Jr. Nattionals.
Now go back and crawl into your pathetic little hole.
impartial observer wrote:
Academic standards? What a weak excuse. Have you been watching too many of those "we're going pro in something other than sports" NCAA commercials?
The Cal athletic departments can practically have recruits "skip" the admissions office. I've heard that recruits are told to just "fill out" an application as nothing more than a formality. So long as you meet the NCAA minimum GPA and SAT score (VERY VERY VERY VERY LOW REQUIREMENTS) and you're good enough at your sport, Cal will get you in... Cal will get you in...
Just talk to half the kids (the ones who haven't flunked out) on the team--DUMB AS ROCKS!
Now this is my favorite post of the thread "Mr. Impartial Observer"
Please tell us what drugs you've been taking.
I'd really like to know.
:)
The proof is in the pudding. Look at how they fared against the other PAC-10 teams at regionals. The other PAC-10 teams get it done at conference AND at Regionals. Just an observation.
Women #5/10
Men #9/9
NCAA West Regional Championships
Women's Final Standings (top 10)
1) Arizona State 94
2) Southern California 74
3) UCLA 67
4) Stanford 60
5) San Diego State 53
6) Brigham Young 48.50
7) California 48
8) Oregon 44
9) Arizona 33
10) Washington 29
Men's Final Standings (top 10)
1) Southern California 83
2) Oregon 75
3) Washington 70
4) UCLA 53.50
5) Arizona State 53
6) Washington State 46
7) Arizona 43.50
7) Stanford 43.50
9) Brigham Young 35.50
10) California 27
10) Long Beach State 27
Reality-Check wrote:
Yet another moron that has no idea what he is talking about. Depth at Cal? What Depth???
No sprinters in the 100, 200, 400 on the men's team.
A decathlete anchored the 4x1 at the Big Meet this year!
No long jumper or triple jumper ( besides one decathlete ).
No 10,000m runner.
My point was that Cal track has NO DEPTH. And you seem to agree?
Cal did have a 10k runner. Oh wait, he transferred away from Sandoval's lousy excuse for a D1 Pac10 XC team. No long jumper or triple jumper. Huffins must have just forgot about these events when rounding out his roster. No wonder he got fired. And yes, his (well, I guess they're not his anymore) sprinters SUCK too (except the one anomaly, anntonete carter).
Sandoval's mens distance runners underperform. But its the womens team that has really gone to shit. Do they have anyone good? Duffy used to be good, but I think she is out of eligibility now. Honestly, the Cal womens XC team is P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C. Wasn't Sandoval's daughter, who had no business being on the team, by far the slowest on the squad. I can't believe you Cal backers let Sandoval get away with this crap.
Reality-Check wrote:
Now this is my favorite post of the thread "Mr. Impartial Observer"
Please tell us what drugs you've been taking.
I'd really like to know.
:)
Instead of arguing the merits of my points, this Cal backer decides to change the subject.
Can't handle the truth about Cal's athletic "standards". Wouldn't be surprised if Stanford is able to slide guys through the cracks too.
Cal backer, surely you don't think that all athletes who attended Cal met the more publicized academic standards?
It's called "tagging." Many of the top universities (public AND private) allow each sport an allotment of "tags" to ensure that a "tagged" athlete's application is approved.
Schools with high academic status know that by reserving a small number of spots for athletes, their reputation isn't harmed. So, the real "standard" is that if you aren't "tagged" or aren't allowed in under other auspices, you might have to have received high marks, solid SAT scores, etc.
Cal, Stanford, and other top-notch universities remain so because they've got a plethora of bad-a$$ academics... not because everyone who is enrolled is a bad-a$$.
For an "impartial observer" you sure have a lot of slanted viewpoints. Cal does not have easy admissions standards by any stretch of the imagination nor do they have easy classes. I know a number of great athletes who applied but were not admitted into Cal.
did huffins even coach the sprinters at cal? i dont think he did--i think it was that younger white dude. so, i dunno whose fault it is that they have no sprinters, and i dont know whose credit it is on the improvment of carter...
Reality-Check wrote:
Now this is my favorite post of the thread "Mr. Impartial Observer"
Please tell us what drugs you've been taking.
I'd really like to know.
:)
impartial observer wrote:
Instead of arguing the merits of my points, this Cal backer decides to change the subject.
Can't handle the truth about Cal's athletic "standards". Wouldn't be surprised if Stanford is able to slide guys through the cracks too.
Why should anyone argue the merits of your totally absurd and ignorant points when you have continually shown yourself to be anything but IMPARTIAL with the axe that you have to grind against CAL?
Now that you have dragged Stanford into your pathetic argument you have now shown, without question, that you are the DUMBEST person to ever post on LetsRun. And that's really saying a lot given the crap that continually floats around here and accepted as fact.
Congratulations!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/03/SPGRQQ6G8V1.DTLwhatever man wrote:
For an "impartial observer" you sure have a lot of slanted viewpoints. Cal does not have easy admissions standards by any stretch of the imagination nor do they have easy classes. I know a number of great athletes who applied but were not admitted into Cal.
For the general population, Cal DOES have TOUGH admissions standards. For elite scholarship athletes, these standards DO NOT apply. That's the truth.
Yes, Cal does have tougher than average classes and doesn't have pure "athlete" majors (P.E., recreation management, etc) like many schools do. However, the athletic advisors know what all the "athlete" classes are and help out their "clients" quite a bit. Cal is on average tough, but like anywhere, there are BS classes and majors (such as "American Studies"--wtf is that?).
Cal can't use academics as an excuse for poor performance. If anything, the school's high reputation helps with recruiting. Honestly, do you think all those FL finalists came to Cal just for the windbag Sandoval? No, they came partially because of the prospects for a Cal degree.
All that article proves is that, yes, Stanford is able to slip guys through the cracks too. They are basically admitting to it.
The admissions department finally decided to speak out. Maybe Stanford is raising the bar a little bar. All Cal has been doing is raising the bar on Jeff Tedford's salary.
In a school of 30,000 (Cal), nobody notices when a few athletes get let in. Everyone notices the football victories though.
And for someone with the name "reality-check", you sound an awful lot like "Track Dude".