does he "own" it when his athletes are unemployable because they got a degree at a 5th- rate institution ?
Graduate schools don't really care what your undergraduate is. We get applicants from grad schools like Stanford, Princeton, Cornell, and what surprises me is just that many of them come from unknown undergraduate liberal arts colleges, not typically your Wellesley, Williams, Swarthmore, but places no one has heard of. Undergraduate pedigree just doesn't matter if you're going on to grad school, and even with the unpedigreed Ph.D.'s (who went to lesser state schools), their performance record counts far more so that if they are extremely productive, they can beat the Ivy Leaguers. Moreover, the profs at a place like Northern Arizona are often going to be Ivy Leaguers or productive unpedigreed types as well.
It's a 10km XC race, not a 1500m ... Mile times mean little in NCAA cross. Strength is so much more important especially since you're racing 2x10km in 7 days. 5k PBs are a better measure of talent since not everyone has run 10ks.
I am blown away with how unintelligent all of you are. 1500 times are the best measure of TALENT because most of those Stanford guys will NEVER be able to run a 3:54 mile or 3:37 in the 1500. Meanwhile all of the NAU guys, with proper training and living at altitude, can potentially run 27:20 for 10k.
It's clear that NAU uses track to set the stage for cross country in the fall. Stanford however is peaking for outdoors. Stanford goes hard all 3 seasons and gets fatigued - you saw that at NCAAs because Stanford was injured and burned out.
Even with Stanford's 5k times, the NCAA coaches DID NOT rank Stanford 1st in the preseason poll.
does he "own" it when his athletes are unemployable because they got a degree at a 5th- rate institution ?
There’s a lot of reasons people are unemployable, the college you attended is not. A business degree at NAU is worth more than women’s studies degree at Stanford.
Sadly not true in many cases. The major matters far less than the institution
Dave Smith did more with the talent he had this year than Mike Smith.
Not on the womens side. Everyone always says if he's so good why aren't the women succeeding. Ck out how far they've come with hard work and no flashy recruits. Nothing to take away from NCST they are AMAZING.. but their roster is absolutely stacked with the best talent to come out of HS plus Grad transfers supplementing. They better win with that.. OKST also has quite the amazing HS recruits on their roster. Stanford & UNC too... I follow HS running closely and I recognize names on all those teams. NAU not so much. He has elevated those girls to an impressive level with his coaching and the culture they have created on that campus. UNM is the only other team i don't tend to have any name recognition for their roster and what they accomplished in xc before college..
It's a 10km XC race, not a 1500m ... Mile times mean little in NCAA cross. Strength is so much more important especially since you're racing 2x10km in 7 days. 5k PBs are a better measure of talent since not everyone has run 10ks.
I am blown away with how unintelligent all of you are. 1500 times are the best measure of TALENT because most of those Stanford guys will NEVER be able to run a 3:54 mile or 3:37 in the 1500. Meanwhile all of the NAU guys, with proper training and living at altitude, can potentially run 27:20 for 10k.
It's clear that NAU uses track to set the stage for cross country in the fall. Stanford however is peaking for outdoors. Stanford goes hard all 3 seasons and gets fatigued - you saw that at NCAAs because Stanford was injured and burned out.
Even with Stanford's 5k times, the NCAA coaches DID NOT rank Stanford 1st in the preseason poll.
It's a 10km XC race, not a 1500m ... Mile times mean little in NCAA cross. Strength is so much more important especially since you're racing 2x10km in 7 days. 5k PBs are a better measure of talent since not everyone has run 10ks.
I am blown away with how unintelligent all of you are. 1500 times are the best measure of TALENT because most of those Stanford guys will NEVER be able to run a 3:54 mile or 3:37 in the 1500. Meanwhile all of the NAU guys, with proper training and living at altitude, can potentially run 27:20 for 10k.
It's clear that NAU uses track to set the stage for cross country in the fall. Stanford however is peaking for outdoors. Stanford goes hard all 3 seasons and gets fatigued - you saw that at NCAAs because Stanford was injured and burned out.
Even with Stanford's 5k times, the NCAA coaches DID NOT rank Stanford 1st in the preseason poll.
Lmao calm down first of all, we can have a healthy conversation about running with insulting each other...
Your reason for 1500 times being the best measure of talent makes no sense. Why is it a better measure because the Stanford runners won't ever run 3:54?
I'd also argue the Stanford athletes have a way better chance of running 3:37/3:54 than anyone from NAU (other than Nico) has of running 27:20...
Saying that all 5 of the NAU guys can run 27:20 (aka 5 guys of the same XC team getting in the world top 20 for 2022..) is just plain wrong again. Prosser and Hasty are just going to run faster than their 5k PBs back to back? These athletes already live at altitude and are definitely training properly. None of them have run a time that's equivalent to 27:20 over any distance, from 1500, 3000 or 5000 The closest is Nico with a 13:11 (27:35 IAAF eq)
Stanford's top 5 athletes had better average distance (5k/10k) PBs going into the season. I think that's a better measure of talent when talking about 10km XC racing.
Both schools train and race hard year round. For example, Nico ran NCAA indoors, outdoors, USAs, and Abdi ran Worlds after that...
Listen from 1:55. I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard D1 coaches (or any coach at any level) say they personally administered poor training and have taken that level of accountability on themselves. The athletic world would be a much better place with this kind of humility.
Pretty sure athletes and parents own the decision to go to NAU. The coach is their to maximize their choice. My question is why you feel so compelled to dish out your hate in a public forum like this. Does it make you feel better about yourself?
does he "own" it when his athletes are unemployable because they got a degree at a 5th- rate institution ?
There’s a lot of reasons people are unemployable, the college you attended is not. A business degree at NAU is worth more than women’s studies degree at Stanford.
You can keep telling yourself that, but a business degree from anywhere is worthless. The curriculum (basic accounting, how to use Microsoft Office, etc) could be taught to anyone with half a brain in six weeks. But that's beside the point.
Unfortunately, what matters is the appearance of pedigree. That's why investment banks hire people with art history degrees from Princeton. The hypothetical women's studies grad from Stanford is going to be assumed to be smarter than other people because of their degree-granting institution.
Stanford's times looked strong on the surface but none of their athletes have EVER broken 4 in the mile or an equivalent in the 1500. NAU had 6 that ran 3:39 or faster for 1500 last year with Nico and Kusche at 3:37.
Good thing NCAA cross country is a 1500 on the indoor track. Stanford had three guys under 27:50 and their entire top seven is under 13:40 or something ridiculous.
Graduate schools don't really care what your undergraduate is. We get applicants from grad schools like Stanford, Princeton, Cornell, and what surprises me is just that many of them come from unknown undergraduate liberal arts colleges, not typically your Wellesley, Williams, Swarthmore, but places no one has heard of. Undergraduate pedigree just doesn't matter if you're going on to grad school, and even with the unpedigreed Ph.D.'s (who went to lesser state schools), their performance record counts far more so that if they are extremely productive, they can beat the Ivy Leaguers. Moreover, the profs at a place like Northern Arizona are often going to be Ivy Leaguers or productive unpedigreed types as well.
Not true for MD or JD schools. Those guys love pedigree. It's a huge circle jerk.
Are you basing this off of anything? I think an NAU business degree is worth something but all sorts of people have ended up higher in the business world at Stanford and Ivy League institutions without getting a business degree there. Michael Lewis literally got a job on Wall Street, the hardest place to land a job in the business world, with a art history degree from Yale. A Stanford degree is every bit worth this.