Metcalf steps down from coaching at University of Washington

lol I have no emotion in this and I am not deceived, nor have I ever been deceived about this disparity of power.

You may be thinking women sleep their way to the top, and that coaches and athletes sleeping together is an example of that. It is, only in that vulnerable teenagers who don't have a strong father figure and lack both a sense of personal power and clearly established boundaries are susceptible to falling into bed with their superiors. "You like me?"

Maybe we agree on that part.

What we don't agree on is the superior's role in this. The superior's role is to have and maintain boundaries for the protection of his/her charge. It's part of the job. So calm down and stop being defensive.

The gulf coast, obviously.

Speaking of the Gulf Coast, the last couple of days the Weather Channel was running a headline, "Alberto threatens Gulf Coast."

husein wrote:

Interesting. I've known people with 1300/1600 SATs that didn't get admitted to UW.

Interesting.

I know a couple of "students" there that can't spell "SAT".

Sprintas wrote:

UW can't go sprints as some suggest as much as the facilities and talent pool around them could support it because the admission standards are so tough on the men's side that they can't get enough guys into school. Football and basketball eat up all the exceptions the university makes on men's side. Should have some emphasis on women's side because they can make it work there easier but have done a poor job historically in the area. Best move would be distance head and focus on field events and multis.

Admissions standards? That's hilarious.

Just because your school is a little harder to get into than Oregon, doesn't make UW an Ivy!

Recruiting Sprinters @ Washington ??

USC and UCLA has tougher standards and can recruit sprinters, leapers, and throwers just fine.

I don't think that UW sprint coach Eric Metcalf (the former Cleveland Browns KR/RB from the '90s) has been given the resources to recruit top flight sprinters or horizontal jumpers for the Huskies.

Unfortunately, I think that he won't be retained by whoever they hire as the new director/head track coach unless they promote Jason Drake. Even then, my gut tells me Eric may say screw this, and run his track club full time and enjoy being a alumni ambassador for the Cleveland Browns. He certainly doesn't need the money coaching track.

I say get a top-flight distance coach, but don't make that coach the director/head coach at UW.

ThatsSomeFunny$h1tMan wrote:

Admissions standards? That's hilarious.

Just because your school is a little harder to get into than Oregon, doesn't make UW an Ivy!

Recruiting Sprinters @ Washington ??

USC and UCLA has tougher standards and can recruit sprinters, leapers, and throwers just fine.

USC is a private school and can do whateeeeeeever they want with admitting athletes.

UCLA has trouble admitting sprinters, leapers, and throwers. If you are a 4.0 athlete, then you can get an admit to UCLA. All other athletes, often the best out there, go to... USC.

UW does have high standards. Not as high as UCLA, but they are still a school managing state money and must adhere to admission rules. Bottom line? Sprinters, jumpers and throwers need and prefer hot weather.

USC is most attractive to sprinters, jumpers and throwers.

UW alum in LA wrote:

ThatsSomeFunny$h1tMan wrote:

Admissions standards? That's hilarious.

Just because your school is a little harder to get into than Oregon, doesn't make UW an Ivy!

Recruiting Sprinters @ Washington ??

USC and UCLA has tougher standards and can recruit sprinters, leapers, and throwers just fine.

USC is a private school and can do whateeeeeeever they want with admitting athletes.

UCLA has trouble admitting sprinters, leapers, and throwers. If you are a 4.0 athlete, then you can get an admit to UCLA. All other athletes, often the best out there, go to... USC.

UW does have high standards. Not as high as UCLA, but they are still a school managing state money and must adhere to admission rules. Bottom line? Sprinters, jumpers and throwers need and prefer hot weather.

USC is most attractive to sprinters, jumpers and throwers.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/public-ivy-league-schools

Not so....you definitely don't need a 4.0 at UCLA if you are an athlete they want.. My son met with a coach @UCLA 1 1/2 years ago and was told as long as he had a 3.0, admission was no problem.

Notso wrote:

Not so....you definitely don't need a 4.0 at UCLA if you are an athlete they want.. My son met with a coach @UCLA 1 1/2 years ago and was told as long as he had a 3.0, admission was no problem.

On the 4.0 scale or the 5.0 scale?

People always conflate the entrance requirements for regular students vs highly recruited athletes, where the athletic department can get an exception. For example, at schools like UW and UCLA, you better have at least a 3.5 (out of 4.0) GPA in a solid HS curriculum plus extracurricular activities, and even higher if they’re overweight in your particular profile as they try to balance the statistics of their incoming freshman classes.

For highly recruited HS all-American types, they would have no trouble taking someone with a HS GPA in the low 2’s (out of 4.0) from a far easier class curriculum.

You know "Ivy Leagues" is a moniker that means nothing, right? It's actually known now by Millennials and Gez Z as an NCAA Athletic Conference and nothing else. It's like the word Redskins still trying to be relevant.

Theriot wrote:

at schools like UW and UCLA,

For highly recruited HS all-American types, they would have no trouble taking someone with a HS GPA in the low 2’s (out of 4.0) from a far easier class curriculum.

actually, you're wrong.

Actually, he's right. Kids going to UW this year with mid to low 2.0's.

UW alum in LA wrote:

Theriot wrote:

at schools like UW and UCLA,

For highly recruited HS all-American types, they would have no trouble taking someone with a HS GPA in the low 2’s (out of 4.0) from a far easier class curriculum.

actually, you're wrong.

Wake up dipsh*t wrote:

Actually, he's right.

Kids going to UW this year with mid to low 2.0's.

UW alum in LA wrote:

actually, you're wrong.

I don't know about UW...but UCLA can't touch anyone in the low 2.0's. And they're going to have trouble with anyone not over 3.0.

UW alum in LA wrote:

Notso wrote:

Not so....you definitely don't need a 4.0 at UCLA if you are an athlete they want.. My son met with a coach @UCLA 1 1/2 years ago and was told as long as he had a 3.0, admission was no problem.

On the 4.0 scale or the 5.0 scale?

3.0 out of 4.0 scale.

So every person on the UCLA football roster had at least a 3.0 gpa in high school?! Hilarious.

Tyson wrote:

So every person on the UCLA football roster had at least a 3.0 gpa in high school?! Hilarious.

ucla football team high school gpa is ~3.1-3.2 i think

Yeah, that’s the average...so for every guy getting a 3.7, someone else had a 2.5

Tyson wrote:

So every person on the UCLA football roster had at least a 3.0 gpa in high school?! Hilarious.

Probably not but can't speak to football recruiting standards.

Context of the conversation: my son met with one of the track coaches on an unofficial early on in the recruiting process and had asked about his admissibility chances. He had a 3.5 unweighted and was worried that wasn't high enough. We are from outside of CA and had heard you needed a 4.0 to get in. So when he asked ,the coach's response was to ask if he currently had a 3.0 or higher and then proceeded to tell him he was good and didn't need to worry about being admitted that they have flexibility.

So my point was to the people saying that UW admission standards are what makes it hard for recruiting...not true. UCLA is far harder to get into then UW.