Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Women's College' started by spykemanne, Mar 17, 2018.
It’s the North Dakota assistant who is a finalist at Montana not the head coach.
Agree with this! Lance would do a great job at UTSA as he knows the area and is well respected!
I currently have 6 open positions:
Arkansas Pine Bluff
2004: Male head coaches 201. Female head coaches 99
2017: Male head coaches 244. Female head coaches 88. (Plus 1 female/male co-head coach pair.)
2018: Male head coaches 233. Female head coaches 94. Open positions 6. (Plus 2 female/male co-head coach pairs.)
Who are the final candidates at Montana?
From the sound of it:
Trentham - Associate head coach at Missouri
Citowicki - Associate head coach at North Dakota
Not sure who from UC Davis
I believe some mentioned this might happen? Jacksonville U (FL) is open. Heard from a former club player today.
so no women? wow.
When does Randy Waldrum get the same criticism as Greg Miller at Pitt for cleaning house on his roster? A lot of transfer requests due to not being in the new coach's plans.
Are transfer requests public? How do you know? Pitt as a power five would have had to guarantee any awards. My child's award is laid out each year although not official until she signs an NLI. We will know what the deal is. I guess he can say I don't think you will see the field and the kid can look around. Is that's what is happening? I mean that happened every year. Kids simply aren't at the level he thinks he needs for success, or yes a new hot freshman or transfer comes along. He's doing kids a favor if he tells them with time to transfer if he doesn't see them playing much in the fall.
The ACC does not use the 4 year signing as mandatory. It is Year by year.
Depends on context. It happens every time there's turnover, but there are better and worse ways to do it. Miller wrote the text book on the worst way.
No it doesn't and no there isn't. Getting rid of someone is getting rid of someone. Telling someone they are not needed is telling someone they are not needed. Saying you won't play is saying you won't play. The only context is if a case happened personally and you then want to give ONE side on a public Big Soccer website. I bet if a Waldrum "shown the door" player had a parent on this forum, it would sound exactly the same.
I agree that every coach should have the right to do as he/she pleases with a roster. I don't know all the specifics of conference and NCAA rules since they seem to change every year so I can't weigh in on that. But it's unfair roster turnover is happening again at Pitt, yet Waldrum's resume gives him a pass compared to Miller.
Miller had one of his athletes who was on a full ride sign a release of scholarship form and didn’t tell her what she was signing. Kid should have known better than to just sign something a coach asks for a quick signature on but regardless that is plain immoral. If Waldrum did that he would be condemned too.
Again, I have a hard time taking everything posted on these forums as gospel. There are two sides to every story and we all know how when news is passed down through people, it gets exaggerated every time its re-told. Is that version #7 or #47? It seems the compliance staff would be as guilty, or more, for allowing that to happen since they are involved in those matters.
The athlete subsequently transferred to another school in the area and it for sure happened. That aside two things happened under Miller that can’t be disputed:
- they were terrible as a program
- the culture was clearly so toxic the admins decided to make a change
However you slice it he did a terrible job on and off the field
All power 5 conferences have to guarantee the 4 years if each year was offered, I guess the offer could look like 50% 0% 0%0% but I can tell you that my child had several ACC offers and all were 4 year commitments. They also now offer cost of attendance so the kid also get's a check to attend if that's part of her deal.
If they do have the 4 years in the LOI with an amount then they can't drop them for injury or poor performance but they can for ineligibility and major misconduct.
And yes this applies to all sports.
It was the kid that went to Duquesne a few years back. That was some shady business by Miller and sometimes you have to wonder what the dude was doing with his ethics there. We all want to win but man he took that program down the wrong route.
While this may or may not be true, it's appears accurate to say that the program, at the end of his time, was at about the same level as at the beginning of his time. In other words, it was neither worse nor better.
I think it's worth distinguishing between a coach and how he/she coaches and what the team's record has been. They don't necessarily match, at least not over the short or even medium term. Over the long term may be a different matter. (Miller has not been at Pitt over the long term.)
Create a new thread-
“NCAA enchances entitlement of college athletes”
They will be next year. New rules that have been a little more quiet do to the new recruiting rules being the big topic of discussion. But there will be a database with athletes that have permission to contact, schools have 48 hours to post them to the database once they ask for it. There are a few others that have to do only with transfers as well.
The school can offer 4 years signed. However the acc does not mandate this. So one school may have their own policy and must sign for 4 years while another school says it is up to the coach to decide what they want to do. There are a couple of the power five conferences that made the decision to mandate 4 years and all schools in that conference must abide by that conference rule. Acc does not mandate that.
Any update on these? Pre-seaon is not that far away.
Prairie View and UAPB are filled...typical SWAC laziness but they are filled. PVAM is a canadian female international.
How recent is your information? Originally the individual conferences did come out. Big 10 etc and individually mandate it. So you were right a few years ago. However now the power 5 voted together to ALL mandate it. Do your own research and show me where I am mistaken? Mine (and our own experience) has convinced me that it is unlikely that they can even put lower percentages in for years 2,3,4 than they have in one.
The ACC is part of the power 5 group that voted as a somewhat independent entity to require it among ALL member. There may be a work around In That they might offer an individual athlete 0% years 2,3,4 but if any school has a positive percentage in the LOI they can't back out for anything except gross misconduct or ineligibility.
However I haven't seen or heard of any college offering 0% in subsequent years. I am not sure the P5 can. It's possible that the power 5s have to offer at least the first year's level in subsequent years as part of the guarantee they voted in place.
Here is our direct experience with a HIGH ( the Lowe tier ACC offered fulls) level ACC program. We found that the percentage offered for all 4 years was lower than all of the other offers received. That level was guaranteed 4 years. The coach said to us he expected the level to go up but he had to hedge his bets on freshmen because quite a few don't pan out. This way he could easily raise the level in subsequent years if she met expectations. He gave examples of kids on the team that started at lower levels and as senior starters had 100%. The level offered was significant but not as high as the others received. We were told (true or not -I suspect not) that this was the highest athletic award issued to freshmen at that school.
I think your information is dated. Please check your own research and make sure it is more current than below before you counter