Mark Wetmore's Letter to the Editor

Tyrell Hundley wrote:

I consider myself to be very well informed when it comes to the collegiate running scene. I know many coaches and many former and current athletes.

I have never once heard anything- good or bad- about Jay Johnson as a recruiter. Actually, I've heard very little about him as a coach other than what I've read on these boards.

Can some informed person (non biased please, "Wetmore is Done" clearly has an agenda) give his or her opinion on the man's coaching and all of his kooky drills?

I will take your word and I will even admit my bias but I am surprised that you have never heard (at least) about Jay's recruiting skills. The guy was excellent.

Also, Jay has had tremendous success recently with Renee Metivier.

not the best wrote:

How is it a "classless letter"? How is it okay for Jay to make "subtle jabs" at people, and no one gets to defend their position or respond? I respect Wetmore for responding to the letter. At least he gets his voice heard. Jay looks like the classless person to me, and very self-promoting. Someone earlier asked a great question: what has he done in coaching to even get the article in the first place? Oh yeah, I know, he is friends with the editor, who just so happens to live in Boulder. Shame on Jay and Running Times for printing that crap about people. Also, I will predict the JJ Running Camps won't be on CU's campus next year. He isn't welcome there anymore. He just burns bridges. It's a damn shame he is a prick. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

Is Jay obligated to love Wetmore?

Do you think that Wetmore's letter is honest? Can you cite any objective evidence that Jay's job performance--md coaching and recruiting--ever waned or failed to produce results?

My issue remains two-fold: Wetmore's letter reads like an overraction to any criticism of his girlfriend. Secondly, the letter is dishonest.

"What started as a dream job eventually soured. "I went from fitting to not fitting because my job description when I was hired shifted out of my control," is Johnson's diplomatic way of saying that Wetmore's significant other had joined the coaching staff and unofficially assumed many of Johnson's on-paper responsibilities. Johnson resigned in 2008."

I can see why Wetmore might want to respond to this quote but maybe he could have said something a little more diplomatic. These guys(Johnson and Wetmore) both end up looking like a little childish in this whole situation. Both of them seem to have their allies lurking on the message boards.

I give Johnson a lot of credit for his passion but it may be very difficult for him to become a truly national, established coach based upon how coaches learn the trade here in the states. Most of them have to stay in a high school or university setting for years (and have a lot of success) and then springboard to a larger role.

Look at Wetmore. High school coach for a number of years, Seton Hall, volunteer assistant at CU, then coach at CU....and he's had a ton of success at CU.

Johnson benefits from Wetmore not wanting to coach post-collegiates in Boulder with a ton of former college athletes around. He's quirky, passionate, and has his athletes do some interesting stuff (kettle bells, etc.) Whether this translates into faster running for most over the long haul is to be determined.

I can't blame the guy for generating buzz. He has to in order to create a name for himself. Wetmore admits in one of flotrack.org interviews that there is security in college coaching that's not found in the post collegiate circles.

Continued success to both of these guys. They're not in competition with each other so they should lay off the animosity in these articles.

"Everyone I know connected to the CU program (probably 10-15) has said that Heather Burroughs has been a cancer to the program"

Whenver anyone uses the term "everyone says" and/or calls someone a cancer, there is a high probability that the writer is full of crap.

Hey Bud wrote:

Look at Wetmore. High school coach for a number of years, Seton Hall, volunteer assistant at CU, then coach at CU....and he's had a ton of success at CU.

.

This is something Jay and other should think about before bashing Wetmore.

You have to pay your dues before you pay the rent.

Wetmore is done wrote:

Wetmore didn't recruit any of those guys either. One might argue that Wetmore (and Johnson for that matter) have always been lucky that Chris Lear wrote a book about the CU team. That has always helped their guys team. Johnson did wonders for their girls team.

Uhm, Wetmore made the team from nothing, which is how he recruited a premier HS talent like Goucher, which why Lear showed up in Goucher's senior year at CU and the Torres brothers committed to CU before the book came out. So, the dynasty was well established before Lear, even before Jay Johnson, and lets not forget that Jay Johnson owed everything to Wetmore not the reverse.

No, I'm sorry you are an idiot. Jay says in the article that he is taking "subtle jabs". I was referring to the article, not a letter. Please learn to read. And slow down, I am not calling anyone names. Maybe you could also take the high road. I was saying that Mark's letter to the editor is not classless. Grow up, okay?

Also, Jay has had tremendous success recently with Renee Metivier.[/quote]

Jay no longer coaches Renee.

not the best wrote:

No, I'm sorry you are an idiot. Jay says in the article that he is taking "subtle jabs". I was referring to the article, not a letter. Please learn to read. And slow down, I am not calling anyone names. Maybe you could also take the high road. I was saying that Mark's letter to the editor is not classless. Grow up, okay?

Actually it's the writer who takes the jabs. Read the article again. The writer does the interpreting of what Johnson says.

Johnson's quote by itself is a very diplomatic response to why he left.

Fact Checker wrote:

Uhm, Wetmore made the team from nothing, which is how he recruited a premier HS talent like Goucher, which why Lear showed up in Goucher's senior year at CU and the Torres brothers committed to CU before the book came out. So, the dynasty was well established before Lear, even before Jay Johnson, and lets not forget that Jay Johnson owed everything to Wetmore not the reverse.

^This

If you see it that way, okay. I don't. Nor do I see the other stuff like "how did we not get smarter our 5th year?" also as subtle jabs. Jay clearly in his own mind thinks he deserves sympathy over the way things went at CU, and also thinks he is a brilliant coach. Good for him. Lastly, if the writer took liberties, where is Jay's letter to the editor saying so? It won't be found.

Actually it's the writer who takes the jabs. Read the article again. The writer does the interpreting of what Johnson says.

Johnson's quote by itself is a very diplomatic response to why he left.[/quote]

I read this letter in RT and it just makes me sad. I always pulled for the CU program because a) they aren't the University of Nike 2) they don't just go get 7 Kenyans 3) I like that Wetmore is such a Lydiard guy.

Now you read this stuff and it seems that human frailties and general sillyness distract from what should be the focus on winning titles and developing distance runners.

Then learn to cite a reference, genius, because this thread has been only about the letter and the cited passage (in the OP) from the article. Your opinion has extremely flimsy basis.

well let' see wrote:

He hasn't had too much success coaching.

You're ignorant. Johnson has helped both Vaughns, both Renee Metivier-Baillie and her husband Austin, and Tyler McCandless to plenty of success. You'd have to have actually paid attention to have known that.

not the best wrote:

Also, Jay has had tremendous success recently with Renee Metivier.

Jay no longer coaches Renee.[/quote]

Do go on.

Don't need to. You just misunderstood. No surprise there!

Her husband coaches her now.

hardset nipples wrote:

not the best wrote:

Also, Jay has had tremendous success recently with Renee Metivier.

Jay no longer coaches Renee.

Do go on.[/quote]

not the best wrote:

Don't need to. You just misunderstood. No surprise there!

Only because you lack the ability to communicate (or even to think) clearly. Hence you labeling an article written by Scott Douglas as a "letter." Slow down, sober up, let the adults discuss matters that are beyond your grasp.

luv2run has the most relevant and important point here. No matter how fine of a coach Wetmore is (and from my own outside observations, I think he is tremendous), the rules against nepotism in public employment make a whole lot of sense. And query why there were not followed to the letter here. Note this is not a knock on anyone's skills or abilities. Rather, some time appearances and avoidance of conflicts really matter, because to have them means a whole lot of distraction. The four pages in this thread self-authenticate this proposition.