It sounds like both of their careers were doing well. It didn't sound like she was making sacrifices with her working at a private school and earning so many awards. But the article quoting her with regards to her husband's passion was jarring. Isn't she chasing her passion in Houston? I'm not doubting that the hours required of an NCAA distance coach are detrimental to a relationship, but the quotes provided by RW show her to be less than respectful of her husbands career choice and accomplishments.
RW article made Eric Heins wife sound pretty horrible
College Running
D1
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
You've got to be joking. It sounds like they have a pretty healthy relationship and prioritize their family life. She sounded grateful to him for being willing to support her in the change.
Cool story. No controversy here. Please shut up.
BTW here's the article:
http://www.runnersworld.com/college/walking-away-from-no-1-inside-an-ncaa-coachs-family-decision -
How LRC handle such a situation with your spouse (especially the ladies on here)?
-
Houston? OMG! Even in the most affluent areas Houston is oppressive and not just the climate. I want to cry for this family.
No way that I would ask my spouse to even consider this a move. If it came to such a point then the couple could commute which happens more than most people realize.
She sounds like she always resented his coaching. What's the nasty comment about hoping he didn't find something he liked as much. Can you imagine what will be going through his mind one day late Aug next yr while sweating at the bus stop with his kid; looking up and instead of seeing a gorgeous mountain line he sees a string of cookie cutter houses as far as the eye can see and a blinding sun 2 ft above his head! -
I thought they sounded like a good couple and what she wants to do can only be done in one specific place. His career's more portable. I see no problem.
-
Does anyone on this thread have any experience with actual collegiate coaching (and no, I don't mean being a volunteer at U. of Nowhere or an assistant at a community college)? Let alone at a successful D1 program. The travel required for a position like this can be an enormous drain on a family and anyone who would criticize a couple's decision to let the other person have a shot at her career clearly has not been through this situation. If you can't imagine leaving this kind of position you've never held anything close to it.
From the article:
“He is so good at his job and those kids really look up to him. He does have an impact on their lives,†she said. “You know, I supported him all these years and I love him and I’m so proud of him. For him to turn around and say that he’s going to support me really means a lot, because I really love my job…it’s everything I’ve ever wanted.â€
How is this not being supportive? Or is it that, since she's his wife, she should have just thrown away her very promising career for his, forever? If my family sacrificed for years so that I could enjoy a career I loved and my spouse had a shot at a dream job, I'd be a real dick to not recognize that fair is fair.
Again from the article:
Kaci is confident he will find a path that feeds his ambition, though she jokingly said she hopes not too much.
“He’s got a passion for running and athletics so I hope something along those lines is able to come up or he can be engaged in. That’s the hard part—being engaged,†she said, laughing. “I know what engaged looks like.â€
What isn't clear about this being a joke? What sane person in a loving relationship doesn't want to spend more time with his/her spouse? Once again LR proves itself to be full of misogynist basement dwellers with no coaching experience who want to do nothing but criticize people who have had jobs they'd never have a shot at. -
Sounds totally fair. She spent 10 years where the focus was on his job. Why not now spend 10 years so she can work at NASA? I'd be thrilled to do the same for my wife, and I know she would be happy to do the same for me.
-
Observerrat wrote:
It sounds like both of their careers were doing well. It didn't sound like she was making sacrifices with her working at a private school and earning so many awards. But the article quoting her with regards to her husband's passion was jarring. Isn't she chasing her passion in Houston? I'm not doubting that the hours required of an NCAA distance coach are detrimental to a relationship, but the quotes provided by RW show her to be less than respectful of her husbands career choice and accomplishments.
I TOTALLY disagree with your assesment. I got out of coaching when I decided I was getting married as I don't know how anyone could coach while raising a family unless the wife was a stay at home mom.
As a coach, you are literally working 35-40 weekends a year. She basically has held down the fort for the last decade. He can do it for the next and then maybe get back into it when the kids are out of the nest.
This isn't football where you are pulling in $4 million a year (so you can afford as many nannies you want) and only working crazy hours for 3 months. -
Even coaching at the high school level takes a ton of time. I can't imagine the time involved at the collegiate level. If you have young kids you end up missing tons of events for 8 hour track meets all spring long.
Cheers to this young husband for taking a step away from his passion to let his wife take her passion to the next level. -
iagree wrote:
Sounds totally fair. She spent 10 years where the focus was on his job. Why not now spend 10 years so she can work at NASA? I'd be thrilled to do the same for my wife, and I know she would be happy to do the same for me.
+1 -
No healthy is being able to spend time apart and grow. She really couldn't spend 4-5 days apart
-
Bizarre that LRC comments concentrate on making this about men and women, or husbands and wives, but not about parents/children.
Before modern thinking came about, one of the prime beneficiaries of the marital unit was the child(ren).
To the extent that there's some friction in their relationship, I don't think either of them (as portrayed by the article) has exactly put the kids first, but rather it's some namby-pambyness about "careers" and "dream jobs" (particularly the LRC language used). Not yet an egoisme a deux, but not too far off either.
As a 40-year-old, I can say that my father's life was likely changed more by the birth of my (older) sister than any thing else in his life. But again, the modern thinking seems to be "live my/our life as much as possible, fitting the kids in somewhere" (involving reams of nannies if necessary). -
Gfufj wrote:
No healthy is being able to spend time apart and grow. She really couldn't spend 4-5 days apart
It's not that 4-5 days that's the problem. Its the 3 months of hosting and traveling that happen before it. This year NAU hosts 5 indoor meets, of which Heins was the meet director. Of all their other meets, only one is in the state of Arizona. This means flying or a 6 hour bus ride to EVERY SINGLE MEET. This wears on you! -
Have a different opinion wrote:
Bizarre that LRC comments concentrate on making this about men and women, or husbands and wives, but not about parents/children.
Before modern thinking came about, one of the prime beneficiaries of the marital unit was the child(ren).
To the extent that there's some friction in their relationship, I don't think either of them (as portrayed by the article) has exactly put the kids first, but rather it's some namby-pambyness about "careers" and "dream jobs" (particularly the LRC language used). Not yet an egoisme a deux, but not too far off either.
As a 40-year-old, I can say that my father's life was likely changed more by the birth of my (older) sister than any thing else in his life. But again, the modern thinking seems to be "live my/our life as much as possible, fitting the kids in somewhere" (involving reams of nannies if necessary).
You're rambling a bit. Can you summarize your point? I think you've got a good point but I'm not quite sure exactly what you're trying to say. -
Thanks for the insight.
Though, I though you had left because you came to believe that coaching at the D1 level was a function of recruiting talent over the ability to develop talent; that developing talent is not possible in a 4-5 year period of time... [half joking]
But yes, from observing a local D1 coach, his wife and children do suffer quite a bit. But I have to wonder how this differs from my friends making partner in law firms and consulting firms, or as parents and spouses as Assistant Professors, or any number of professions that require an honest 55-70 hours per week.
My comment was less about the demands of coaching and more about the RW article and how it was written in a way that made me pick up on some underlying tones of the spouse wanting the coach to change as a person; the same would go if the coach asked the teacher to abandon their profession. There's not much equality in that. But more so, there is a high risk of damaging a person's sense of self and their identity with asking them to change in such a drastic way, and that can be very costly for a relationship. -
Have a different opinion wrote:
Bizarre that LRC comments concentrate on making this about men and women, or husbands and wives, but not about parents/children.
What an outdated idea. Government can care for the children nowadays. And RW didn't ask their opinion anyway. -
Nails are best wrote:
Have a different opinion wrote:
Bizarre that LRC comments concentrate on making this about men and women, or husbands and wives, but not about parents/children.
Before modern thinking came about, one of the prime beneficiaries of the marital unit was the child(ren).
To the extent that there's some friction in their relationship, I don't think either of them (as portrayed by the article) has exactly put the kids first, but rather it's some namby-pambyness about "careers" and "dream jobs" (particularly the LRC language used). Not yet an egoisme a deux, but not too far off either.
As a 40-year-old, I can say that my father's life was likely changed more by the birth of my (older) sister than any thing else in his life. But again, the modern thinking seems to be "live my/our life as much as possible, fitting the kids in somewhere" (involving reams of nannies if necessary).
You're rambling a bit. Can you summarize your point? I think you've got a good point but I'm not quite sure exactly what you're trying to say.
In the academic world, giving both spouses jobs is called "solving the 2-body problem". I'm not sure anyone has ever wondered why the kids (if any) don't seem to count as "bodies" . -
relatives in general wrote:
In the academic world, giving both spouses jobs is called "solving the 2-body problem". I'm not sure anyone has ever wondered why the kids (if any) don't seem to count as "bodies" .
I agree that should be a primary focus, but I don't think that is being ignored here. -
This is why Wetmore is the man. It's his life.
I agree the article made Heins' wife look bad, at least to me, when reading between the lines. I would have been more impressed if Eric simply said he needed a break and the timing worked out well, which is very likely more accurate. -
relatives in general wrote:
Nails are best wrote:
Have a different opinion wrote:
Bizarre that LRC comments concentrate on making this about men and women, or husbands and wives, but not about parents/children.
Before modern thinking came about, one of the prime beneficiaries of the marital unit was the child(ren).
To the extent that there's some friction in their relationship, I don't think either of them (as portrayed by the article) has exactly put the kids first, but rather it's some namby-pambyness about "careers" and "dream jobs" (particularly the LRC language used). Not yet an egoisme a deux, but not too far off either.
As a 40-year-old, I can say that my father's life was likely changed more by the birth of my (older) sister than any thing else in his life. But again, the modern thinking seems to be "live my/our life as much as possible, fitting the kids in somewhere" (involving reams of nannies if necessary).
You're rambling a bit. Can you summarize your point? I think you've got a good point but I'm not quite sure exactly what you're trying to say.
In the academic world, giving both spouses jobs is called "solving the 2-body problem". I'm not sure anyone has ever wondered why the kids (if any) don't seem to count as "bodies" .
Kids should be seen, not heard.
