Bridget Anderson will take over csun
Bridget Anderson will take over csun
get it here first wrote:
Get over it wrote:stop with BS UCLA rumors....
No problem. Can do.
http://www.uclabruins.com/news/2017/7/6/anderson-named-track-field-cross-country-director.aspx?path=cross
I am the biggest loser on this board, i sincerely apologize for my lack of respect. I am dumb
smarthire wrote:
UCLA makes a smart hire.
Guy who has been highly successful and successful as of late as well.
still looking for Florida job?
Florida has already started contacting candidates from a short list.
Already?!! This position has been open for months. Sad to see how long this has taken.
just sucks that no more dominoes will be falling. Could have shaken up the track world. But should be a calm internal hire process at csun. Doubt he gtes rid of any of the current staff
Kevin Jermyn is headed back to North Carolina to get back in to coaching
Wyoming to begin search for throws coach soon
what happened there?
So Jermyn to Elon
bruisedbruins wrote:
what happened there?
Throws coach retired. Sprints coach took a D2 head coach position. Jumps coach will take over sprints and moves to associate head coach. Female distance coach moves to associate head xc and track coach and will oversee women's xc and split distance duties. Brought in an additional distance coach from Colorado State to work with men's xc and split distance duties.
Unlikely
here we go wrote:
Bridget Anderson will take over csun
So, I'm a little confused by your post? Are you saying you wouldn't send athletes to Seattle U because they aren't good and lack funding, or because you didn't like or trust the former coaches with your kids to develop/care for?
Which coaches in state would you like to see apply for the job? Assuming nothing will change with funding for the program, would you send kids their if they got an excellent coach?
Just curious.
Sleeplessness wrote:
So, I'm a little confused by your post? Are you saying you wouldn't send athletes to Seattle U because they aren't good and lack funding, or because you didn't like or trust the former coaches with your kids to develop/care for?
Which coaches in state would you like to see apply for the job? Assuming nothing will change with funding for the program, would you send kids their if they got an excellent coach?
Just curious.
Sorry for not being clear. I HAVE had athletes go to Seattle U. I just didn't SEND them there. About 2/3 of all athletes don't finish out their eligibility, so you better go somewhere where you want to be in case athletics doesn't work out. When a kid wants to go to Seattle U for academics or because it's right for them, who am I to discourage that. So I stay silent. After all, it's a great school.
My criticism isn't that they have limited resources. I mean, welcome to collegiate track and field. Of COURSE they lack resources. But their strategy is foolish. As it stands, they have, IMO, no chance at attracting the sort of kids who will allow them to ever exceed Portland (duh) or Gonzaga as those staffs presently stand, because they are all after the same kid and Seattle is late to the game. So Seattle U starts from this flawed premise that they can be a Catholic education, distance-centric program, and then the folks directing the program aren't developing the distance runners they DO have. What's the point?
Now it's possible they could bring in some bright, energetic mind and that could change. But even so, would that magic coach stay at Seattle U?
In the end, their problem is the same problem that plagues college coaching everywhere: AD's lack the ability to discern what a good coach is, or how to define success. So they make poor decisions about a sport they don't understand and the program is a placeholder that allows it to say they are 'supporting' a minimal # of sports to satisfy their conference or whomever. Not trying to bag on Seattle U, but it is what it is. It's like that at hundreds of other places. But IMO the people who were directing the program there did not develop athletes.
But my point is that if they took a chance and tried to find a new niche with some fundamentally sound speed and power coaching, they might actually find much more success than they now have. They have flirted with this idea a little in that it's my understanding that some of their assistants are capable people who might find success if given a chance. I hope they do. UW gets a ton of athletes for nothing who simply wash out at out of state programs and want to come home to go to school. If Seattle U could tap into that, they might have something. Maybe take a flyer on the guys who are already there? I'm not sure I know anyone locally who would specifically the right fit.
Although I agree with many of your points, I would just like to point out that you are far off base with thinking that 2/3s of all athletes don't complete their eligibility. I am a college coach, and I would say roughly 90-95% of athletes complete their eligibility.
With that being said, your point remains. You should go somewhere where, if athletics don't work out, you would still be happy. I wholeheartedly agree with the philosophy of your statement.
That one dude wrote:
Although I agree with many of your points, I would just like to point out that you are far off base with thinking that 2/3s of all athletes don't complete their eligibility. I am a college coach, and I would say roughly 90-95% of athletes complete their eligibility.
With that being said, your point remains. You should go somewhere where, if athletics don't work out, you would still be happy. I wholeheartedly agree with the philosophy of your statement.
Off topic, but I saw this and thought I would chime in...
The figure is way, way lower than 90-95%. Maybe your program is fortunate. Maybe 90-95% of scholarship athletes in certain event groups? Based on our program and coaching friends of mine who have athletes that go to college, the figure is much lower than that. Maybe not 33%, but closer to that than 90%+.
smarthire wrote:
UCLA makes a smart hire.
Guy who has been highly successful and successful as of late as well.
Nope! The happiest people in Los Angeles today are the track and field fans over at USC. I am sure the Trojans are celebrating this hire!
That's fair. Perhaps I am just fortunate, or I overestimate the numbers. Maybe a little of both. The evidence I have is anecdotally based, and has no data to support it.
But, in my experience, if a coach has more than half of their athletes not complete their eligibility, then there is a problem. A small percentage will always move away from the sport because the demands are too high, they don't enjoy it, or they want something else from their college experience. All things I support. But if I had that many athletes quit the team, I would like to think that I would reevaluate my strategies to be more supportive of an student-athlete experience that would support continued participation and (hopefully) improvement.