I believe Stanford has an opening
I believe Stanford has an opening
I understand where you’re coming from and that makes a lot of sense.
The problem is not giving women a chance at entry level positions, it’s how quickly they can parlay that entry level position into a P5 position.
A women can work at a smaller D1 or D2 school for 1-3 years max and then make the big jump to P5, men can’t.
So theirs less “pay your dues” involved in women moving up the ladder as apposed to their counterparts and that’s where the Inexperienced/undeserving rhetoric is derived.
Updates on assistant jobs at Georgia & TAMU?
Does anybody know what is going on at Western Michigan? Are they done interviewing for a new director?
Cardinal perch wrote:
Who takes over at Stanford. Will the Powell’s consider after just one year at UW? Promote from current staff and go 2 coaches? Vin coming back?
The speculation for this one will be much more fun then what UNC was.
Would the Powell's consider coming back home after just one year? I think they might. You'd think that would be a dream situation for them. Decisions, decisions... I can't see Vin getting back into coaching at the collegiate level. I just can't. Then again, I'm surprised Milt would leave Stanford for UNC.
With the Jenkins hire, where will Mark Napier end up?
YES. Thank you for this.
Everyone needs to understand that this is reality for ANY coach who is not a white male. If you're thinking "that's not a thing" then that's your own privilege getting in the way. Congrats to you for having an easy path to your job, now please step aside and consider the strengths of all applicants and coaches.
Those of us who are older white males and looking for a coaching job are screwed.
SHE CAN COACH wrote:
re: women getting into coaching
Here's the thing, y'all. Perhaps it IS easier for women to get interviews and maybe even get hired into entry-level/assistant positions. Fine. But the problem is that it is hard to KEEP women in coaching. There are so many reasons for this.
1. Double standards (Too nice and you're a pushover, too direct and you're a b*tch; too young and you're not qualified, too old and you're out of touch; too masculine and you're a lesbian/aggressive/bossy, too feminine and you won't be taken seriously/relegated to team mom/etc)
2. No "old boys network" for women (see: Letsrun, USTFCCCA convention speakers, etc)
3. S.A. preference for male coaches (society has taught us this)
4. Family/better pay elsewhere/kids/spouse's job
In regards to females getting head coaching jobs:
When admins say, "I want to hire the best," this automatically privileges male candidates. Why?
1. Men already hold 82% of WOMEN's XC/TF team head coaching jobs (
https://www.cehd.umn.edu/tuckercenter/research/womencoaches.html). So there are already more "qualified" men who have held similar positions already out there.
2. When we think of characteristics of a "good coach", we tend to think of stereotypically masculine words (strong, tough, smart, leadership, etc). When we see these characteristics in women, we have a few less-complimentary words (b*tch, butch, bossy, mean, screamer, etc). Also - if we see a woman who is more feminine, we doubt her competency because we have so few models of successful female coaches. It's such a tightrope we women walk on.
If you don't believe in affirmative action, then I see why you might be against giving "less qualified" women a chance. However, at some point, someone's gotta take a chance on these ladies and give them the leadership roles that they CAN thrive in if they feel supported, if they have the autonomy they need, and if they are treated as if they are competent.
Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk. Credit to the Tucker Center for a lot of this ish. They're great.
The most qualified applicants should get the job. Period. Think about the student-athletes (after all, they are what it's all about).
Would student-athletes have a better shot at succeeding at that university under a female head coach that's 27 years old with 3 years of experience? Or would they have a better shot at performing well under a head coach that is 37 years old with 12 years of coaching experience including 6 years as a head coach?
By hiring LESS QUALIFIED coaches just for affirmative action/diversity, the student-athletes at that school have a LOWER chance of success.
What was Milt’s base salary at Stanford?
How old is "white boy" Milt?
Hateraid wrote:
Those of us who are older white males and looking for a coaching job are screwed.
When is Andrew Valmon going to be let go? This program has been bad ever since he took over. Please bring UMD back to it's glory days of Track & Field.
https://ncaamarket.ncaa.org/jobs/12501594/assistant-coach-track-field
not true at all wrote:
SHE CAN COACH wrote:
re: women getting into coaching
Here's the thing, y'all. Perhaps it IS easier for women to get interviews and maybe even get hired into entry-level/assistant positions. Fine. But the problem is that it is hard to KEEP women in coaching. There are so many reasons for this.
1. Double standards (Too nice and you're a pushover, too direct and you're a b*tch; too young and you're not qualified, too old and you're out of touch; too masculine and you're a lesbian/aggressive/bossy, too feminine and you won't be taken seriously/relegated to team mom/etc)
2. No "old boys network" for women (see: Letsrun, USTFCCCA convention speakers, etc)
3. S.A. preference for male coaches (society has taught us this)
4. Family/better pay elsewhere/kids/spouse's job
In regards to females getting head coaching jobs:
When admins say, "I want to hire the best," this automatically privileges male candidates. Why?
1. Men already hold 82% of WOMEN's XC/TF team head coaching jobs (
https://www.cehd.umn.edu/tuckercenter/research/womencoaches.html). So there are already more "qualified" men who have held similar positions already out there.
2. When we think of characteristics of a "good coach", we tend to think of stereotypically masculine words (strong, tough, smart, leadership, etc). When we see these characteristics in women, we have a few less-complimentary words (b*tch, butch, bossy, mean, screamer, etc). Also - if we see a woman who is more feminine, we doubt her competency because we have so few models of successful female coaches. It's such a tightrope we women walk on.
If you don't believe in affirmative action, then I see why you might be against giving "less qualified" women a chance. However, at some point, someone's gotta take a chance on these ladies and give them the leadership roles that they CAN thrive in if they feel supported, if they have the autonomy they need, and if they are treated as if they are competent.
Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk. Credit to the Tucker Center for a lot of this ish. They're great.
The most qualified applicants should get the job. Period. Think about the student-athletes (after all, they are what it's all about).
Would student-athletes have a better shot at succeeding at that university under a female head coach that's 27 years old with 3 years of experience? Or would they have a better shot at performing well under a head coach that is 37 years old with 12 years of coaching experience including 6 years as a head coach?
By hiring LESS QUALIFIED coaches just for affirmative action/diversity, the student-athletes at that school have a LOWER chance of success.
Except more experience and qualifications doesn’t always mean ‘better’. There’s ton of average, or below-average coaches that have been doing it for 20+ years just like any other profession. Usually experience leads to enhanced coaching skills, but just like in athletes, there are the intangibles that come with great coaches. So a young coach with exceptional traits may be the better hire. Hiring off paper qualifications alone is just as dumb as hiring purely for affirmative action. That’s why they do interviews. I’m just going to assume the hiring committee saw incredible intangibles which caused them to hire her over other applicants with more qualifications on paper.
ESPN TF Watcher wrote:
https://gousfbulls.com/news/2019/6/27/track-field-erik-jenkins-named-track-and-field-cross-country-head-coach.aspx
How is Jenkins at developing distance runners? I have a daughter looking at Florida schools in a few years.
Does she run the 400m?
https://www.tfrrs.org/results/xc/14869/C-USA_Cross_Country_ChampionshipsAgjjybnmg wrote:
How is Jenkins at developing distance runners? I have a daughter looking at Florida schools in a few years.
12th of 13 teams.
Not good
Is this April Smith's job or nah?
Cause she's awesome!
not true at all wrote:
SHE CAN COACH wrote:
re: women getting into coaching
Here's the thing, y'all. Perhaps it IS easier for women to get interviews and maybe even get hired into entry-level/assistant positions. Fine. But the problem is that it is hard to KEEP women in coaching. There are so many reasons for this.
1. Double standards (Too nice and you're a pushover, too direct and you're a b*tch; too young and you're not qualified, too old and you're out of touch; too masculine and you're a lesbian/aggressive/bossy, too feminine and you won't be taken seriously/relegated to team mom/etc)
2. No "old boys network" for women (see: Letsrun, USTFCCCA convention speakers, etc)
3. S.A. preference for male coaches (society has taught us this)
4. Family/better pay elsewhere/kids/spouse's job
In regards to females getting head coaching jobs:
When admins say, "I want to hire the best," this automatically privileges male candidates. Why?
1. Men already hold 82% of WOMEN's XC/TF team head coaching jobs (
https://www.cehd.umn.edu/tuckercenter/research/womencoaches.html). So there are already more "qualified" men who have held similar positions already out there.
2. When we think of characteristics of a "good coach", we tend to think of stereotypically masculine words (strong, tough, smart, leadership, etc). When we see these characteristics in women, we have a few less-complimentary words (b*tch, butch, bossy, mean, screamer, etc). Also - if we see a woman who is more feminine, we doubt her competency because we have so few models of successful female coaches. It's such a tightrope we women walk on.
If you don't believe in affirmative action, then I see why you might be against giving "less qualified" women a chance. However, at some point, someone's gotta take a chance on these ladies and give them the leadership roles that they CAN thrive in if they feel supported, if they have the autonomy they need, and if they are treated as if they are competent.
Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk. Credit to the Tucker Center for a lot of this ish. They're great.
The most qualified applicants should get the job. Period. Think about the student-athletes (after all, they are what it's all about).
Would student-athletes have a better shot at succeeding at that university under a female head coach that's 27 years old with 3 years of experience? Or would they have a better shot at performing well under a head coach that is 37 years old with 12 years of coaching experience including 6 years as a head coach?
By hiring LESS QUALIFIED coaches just for affirmative action/diversity, the student-athletes at that school have a LOWER chance of success.
Age isn't the issue... there's a lot of young coaches out there doing great things it might not be at a power 5 school but they're killing it and looking for that opportunity. A lot of times you see older coaches get way too comfortable. But I do agree with you that administrators wanting to add a type of coach to boost their diversity stats is not the best for their athletes. A lot of time these institutions are the ones with the highest turn over rate because they did not find the person that is most qualified.
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Red Bull (who sponsors Mondo) calls Mondo the pole vaulting Usain Bolt. Is that a fair comparison?