2021 Season

[sandor]

With that said, the 1 year difference from spring 2014 to spring 2015 also shows that it was not simply a recruiting game. I know he might have had a couple transfers, but most of the racing lineups appear to be the same and the boats skyrocketed in terms of competitiveness which doesn't just happen with a couple new strong athletes.

Yes and no; it really depends on your situation. Imagine you had six stars and two anchors...replace the anchors with impact transfers. There were definitely spring semester transfers announced pretty soon after he was announced as Texas HC. There was no delaying the improvement. But to the point of competitiveness, the program had been through some pretty low points, losing to Oklahoma, et al., and Dave probably set a really high standard for fitness and attitude. Nothing is ever purely recruiting, but it can be a real force multiplier. (I can think of one story where just one transfer made an impact on a program for several years...)

It makes sense that new physiological training (ie not technique) could pay off within a year.
Add even a single transfer with that leadership factor & you can birth the right environment.

Didn't Stanford remark this year at how surprised they were with their team results based on their limitations of running/land/individual training? But remarked on the doubling down of their senior class?

More hours training = more boat speed

[Mango]

Dave’s a great coach in about every sense of the word/title. Recruiting is part of coaching, and Dave didn’t just bring in a couple of recruits. Half the v8 wasn’t there in the fall. He found 4 mid year transfers. That alone is impressive and remarkable.


He’s also a tremendously talented technical coach. There is sort of a purest mentality among some that kind of belittles recruiting. Recruiting is a huge part of the job. Whether your running a club in Pittsburgh or the HC at Texas. You have to build a program. Getting better athletes quickly is part of a programs turn around.

[Norm]

The transition forTexas was mostly the coaching. Resources didn’t change much from what I understand.

There were international athletes recruited to Texas who gave it a year and went home. It was not a good environment. Happy crews train better.

Another example is Tennessee. Get a great assistant in and a struggling head coach finds her feet, the 5th years come back and they make the NCAAs for the first time in 10? years with few great recruits. Assistant of the year?

[asdad123]

Dave’s a great coach in about every sense of the word/title. Recruiting is part of coaching, and Dave didn’t just bring in a couple of recruits. Half the v8 wasn’t there in the fall. He found 4 mid year transfers. That alone is impressive and remarkable.


He’s also a tremendously talented technical coach. There is sort of a purest mentality among some that kind of belittles recruiting. Recruiting is a huge part of the job. Whether your running a club in Pittsburgh or the HC at Texas. You have to build a program. Getting better athletes quickly is part of a programs turn around.

With that said, the 1 year difference from spring 2014 to spring 2015 also shows that it was not simply a recruiting game. I know he might have had a couple transfers, but most of the racing lineups appear to be the same and the boats skyrocketed in terms of competitiveness which doesn't just happen with a couple new strong athletes.

Yes and no; it really depends on your situation. Imagine you had six stars and two anchors...replace the anchors with impact transfers. There were definitely spring semester transfers announced pretty soon after he was announced as Texas HC. There was no delaying the improvement. But to the point of competitiveness, the program had been through some pretty low points, losing to Oklahoma, et al., and Dave probably set a really high standard for fitness and attitude. Nothing is ever purely recruiting, but it can be a real force multiplier. (I can think of one story where just one transfer made an impact on a program for several years...)

From what I see on the texas website and press releases:

2015 v8 had two rowers that weren't on the team in Spring 2014, and 2 rowers that were in the 2V

2v had two new rowers that weren't on the team the year before, 2 that came from the v8, and two from the v4.

If the improvement was mostly due to an influx of talent you wouldn't have two members of the previously 3rd place 2v, winning the v8. And you wouldn't have members of your v4 winning the 2v. All of these "anchor athletes" would have slid down the roster, but that didn't happen.

The v8 essentially made a 30 second swing, losing by 14 to winning by 16. I have no doubt the newcomers were a big help, but I don't think it does the team justice considering most of the athletes were developed in house.

[rowing]

most of the athletes were developed in house.

Swish!

Kudos to Dave on this **noteworthy** accomplishment.

[asdad123]

most of the athletes were developed in house.

Swish!

Kudos to Dave on this **noteworthy** accomplishment.

No one said it wasn't. It's just not the only noteworthy accomplishment in the history of collegiate rowing

[rowing]

most of the athletes were developed in house.

Swish!

Kudos to Dave on this **noteworthy** accomplishment.

No one said it wasn't. It's just not the only noteworthy accomplishment in the history of collegiate rowing

I see "noteworthy" as a scrolling news ticker. This is the current threshold for noteworthy. Something that has not been done previously.

Multiple people apparently have coached to win titles at more than one institution. Old news. Boring news if the second program was already proven in the top ten.

I am eager to see if someone else can, like Dave, take an unranked team to the top. When that happens two or three more times, then it will be old news too.

[asdad123]

I see "noteworthy" as a scrolling news ticker. This is the current threshold for noteworthy. Something that has not been done previously.

Something not been done previously? Like sweeping NCAAs? Like sweeping NCAAs twice?

I don't know why this is such an issue for you. Everyone thinks the Texas turnaround was great, but you're hell-bent on debating the adjectives to describe the turnaround and the exclusivity of that adjective.

[rowing]

Obtuse or illiterate? Let me know which.

The debate is what constitutes "noteworthy" in the present era. Several coaches have delivered titles at different institutions now.

I argue the new noteworthy is elevating an unranked team as a second or third act. When that gets to be old hat, we will need a new noteworthy.

I would say change my mind, but you can't seem to grasp the basic premise of the debate, despite the clear language making it possible.

[Mango]

Dave’s a great coach in about every sense of the word/title. Recruiting is part of coaching, and Dave didn’t just bring in a couple of recruits. Half the v8 wasn’t there in the fall. He found 4 mid year transfers. That alone is impressive and remarkable.


He’s also a tremendously talented technical coach. There is sort of a purest mentality among some that kind of belittles recruiting. Recruiting is a huge part of the job. Whether your running a club in Pittsburgh or the HC at Texas. You have to build a program. Getting better athletes quickly is part of a programs turn around.

With that said, the 1 year difference from spring 2014 to spring 2015 also shows that it was not simply a recruiting game. I know he might have had a couple transfers, but most of the racing lineups appear to be the same and the boats skyrocketed in terms of competitiveness which doesn't just happen with a couple new strong athletes.

Yes and no; it really depends on your situation. Imagine you had six stars and two anchors...replace the anchors with impact transfers. There were definitely spring semester transfers announced pretty soon after he was announced as Texas HC. There was no delaying the improvement. But to the point of competitiveness, the program had been through some pretty low points, losing to Oklahoma, et al., and Dave probably set a really high standard for fitness and attitude. Nothing is ever purely recruiting, but it can be a real force multiplier. (I can think of one story where just one transfer made an impact on a program for several years...)

From what I see on the texas website and press releases:

2015 v8 had two rowers that weren't on the team in Spring 2014, and 2 rowers that were in the 2V

2v had two new rowers that weren't on the team the year before, 2 that came from the v8, and two from the v4.

If the improvement was mostly due to an influx of talent you wouldn't have two members of the previously 3rd place 2v, winning the v8. And you wouldn't have members of your v4 winning the 2v. All of these "anchor athletes" would have slid down the roster, but that didn't happen.

The v8 essentially made a 30 second swing, losing by 14 to winning by 16. I have no doubt the newcomers were a big help, but I don't think it does the team justice considering most of the athletes were developed in house.

What a weird thing to argue. Dave O'Neill is a good rowing coach. Being a good rowing coach involves being a high level recruiter, creating a healthy culture, and of course, communicating to the 8 seats in the boat. It is not a pie, being good or making strategic moves with transfers does not take away from anything done in any other aspect of the job. It can be both.

Dave did a tremendous job in both bringing in higher quality athletes immediately and in short order and with directing the team. Both are keys to being a successful coach at a high level. Nobody is arguing that Dave is talented.

Lets just say it was "all recruiting" or whatever you are arguing against. At the end of the day, those 4 girls were out there for every other program in the country to bring in, and they didn't. Dave out hustled, out sold, out whatevered, everybody else to bring those young women in. He deserves credit for that since it is very march a large part of his job.

[FullSend]

I guess it's human instinct to compare things, but I don't get why this turned into Dave vs Yaz. Both are obviously great coaches and program builders full stop.

I'm mostly fascinated to see those two programs duke it out over the next few years. Some epic battles coming up for sure. Would love to see Texas go to Windemere.

Stanford was a major surprise for me, they were fast all year but that's a big turn up on UDub when it mattered most. Any ideas how they are set up for the next few years? Are they going to be back duking it out with Texas/UDub next year or was this a particularly special group?

[asdad123]

What a weird thing to argue. Dave O'Neill is a good rowing coach. Being a good rowing coach involves being a high level recruiter, creating a healthy culture, and of course, communicating to the 8 seats in the boat. It is not a pie, being good or making strategic moves with transfers does not take away from anything done in any other aspect of the job. It can be both.

Dave did a tremendous job in both bringing in higher quality athletes immediately and in short order and with directing the team. Both are keys to being a successful coach at a high level. Nobody is arguing that Dave is talented.

Lets just say it was "all recruiting" or whatever you are arguing against. At the end of the day, those 4 girls were out there for every other program in the country to bring in, and they didn't. Dave out hustled, out sold, out whatevered, everybody else to bring those young women in. He deserves credit for that since it is very march a large part of his job.

There's no argument. You said half the v8 was transfers and, unless I'm missing something, this wasn't the case.

I really don't understand your last paragraph. Where did I say he doesn't deserve credit for recruiting, or that it isn't an important aspect of the job? My point from the onset is that his results are very impressive considering the overall continuity in the roster.

I guess it's human instinct to compare things, but I don't get why this turned into Dave vs Yaz.

Rowing is the only one trying to make this Dave vs Yaz, and apparently I'm the only one dumb enough to have taken the bait

[rowing]

I guess it's human instinct to compare things, but I don't get why this turned into Dave vs Yaz.

Rowing is the only one trying to make this Dave vs Yaz, and apparently I'm the only one dumb enough to have taken the bait

I'm not making it anyone vs. anyone. I'm pointing out that this very specific recent accomplishment itself is inherently different than past standards of noteworthy. I'm expecting that others will accomplish it at some point, and accordingly it will be less noteworthy. Maybe someone will notch a third title under a different program.

But what I'm not doing is letting you ignore that these apples aren't those oranges ain't those f'ing bananas.

Have a fruit salad, CS.

[Prettyinfiveseat]

Rowing is the only one trying to make this Dave vs Yaz, and apparently I'm the only one dumb enough to have taken the bait[quote]

He baits a lot of people into his tirades. Learning to ignore him is getting easier

[rowing]

Rowing is the only one trying to make this Dave vs Yaz, and apparently I'm the only one dumb enough to have taken the bait

He baits a lot of people into his tirades. Learning to ignore him is getting easier

You can't even get over ODU. You would do well to ignore a lot of things.