They aren’t good. Step above, they’re dominant over years in a sport where year to year a team changes based on 1-2 people coming and leaving. Any inference otherwise is beyond moronic.
They aren’t good. Step above, they’re dominant over years in a sport where year to year a team changes based on 1-2 people coming and leaving. Any inference otherwise is beyond moronic.
Pascal wrote:
I'll give you that Mike Smith seems to have done good at GTown prior to NAU, and has managed to keep everyone reasonably healthy at NAU. But seriously, without landing Nico Young and without Blaise all of sudden being a healthy runner, NAU would not have won NCAA XC. So, I think Smith got lucky landing Nico Young and got lucky that Ferro was able to finally train for a period of time without injury. Without these lucky happenstances, Notre Dame would be our National Champs.
Is NAU good or lucky?
Correct. Without some of their best runners. NAU wouldn't be as good of a team. What is your point?
GOOD. NAU IS VERY VERY GOOD
What are you even talking about? Yes the fact they landed Nico and the fact that Ferro was healthy are two ways that they are lucky, similarly to how Notre Dame was lucky that they landed Nuguse and that Danny Kilrea was healthy. See what I mean? Luck plays in to every competition. Athletic competitions are always a combination of luck and ability. NAU is amazing. Notre Dame is amazing. The culmination of events both in and out of their control ended in NAU winning. Now we celebrate them. It's not that complicated.
Once is luck. Four times is not luck.
Wow, you might be on to something here. Having good runners on your team increases your team's chances of success. You should be a coach!
Pascal wrote:
I'll give you that Mike Smith seems to have done good at GTown prior to NAU, and has managed to keep everyone reasonably healthy at NAU. But seriously, without landing Nico Young and without Blaise all of sudden being a healthy runner, NAU would not have won NCAA XC. So, I think Smith got lucky landing Nico Young and got lucky that Ferro was able to finally train for a period of time without injury. Without these lucky happenstances, Notre Dame would be our National Champs.
Is NAU good or lucky?
WTF???
Am I actually reading this correctly? "Without these lucky happenstances, Notre Dame would be our National Champs".
A couple of gems for you:
1) Better lucky than good. (NAU was both).
2) If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Great job Lumberjacks!
"Go Run One"
Flagpole wrote:
Pascal wrote:
I'll give you that Mike Smith seems to have done good at GTown prior to NAU, and has managed to keep everyone reasonably healthy at NAU. But seriously, without landing Nico Young and without Blaise all of sudden being a healthy runner, NAU would not have won NCAA XC. So, I think Smith got lucky landing Nico Young and got lucky that Ferro was able to finally train for a period of time without injury. Without these lucky happenstances, Notre Dame would be our National Champs.
Is NAU good or lucky?
What is it with people always wanting to take credit away from a person or a program? Losers do that. Don't be a loser.
NAU has a lot going for it for top-notch runners. History of greatness, altitude training, professional runners all around, non-rigorous academics that allows the runners to focus on running.
That was a great back-handed compliment. Please explain "non-rigorous academics"?
Hmmm... sounds a little like sour grapes Mr/Ms. Flagpole.
"Go Run One"
seth_da_runner wrote:
They're good, though I could understand the argument that it gets easier to win after doing so for so long. They don't struggle to bring in big recruits with that many Nattys.
Few top recruits end up as successful in college as they were in HS.
Give credit where credit is due. Quality kids, quality culture, quality environment, quality coaching, AND still a little luck is always a good thing!
Most winners would settle for luck over good.
A school gets good recruits because of strong coaching and history. Top level athletes will go where they feel they will be developed the best. With running obviously altitude is a big plus so I guess the schools lactated in areas like NAU have that luck factor. Other than that I wouldn’t really say it’s luck.
Aouita 84 wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
What is it with people always wanting to take credit away from a person or a program? Losers do that. Don't be a loser.
NAU has a lot going for it for top-notch runners. History of greatness, altitude training, professional runners all around, non-rigorous academics that allows the runners to focus on running.
That was a great back-handed compliment. Please explain "non-rigorous academics"?
Hmmm... sounds a little like sour grapes Mr/Ms. Flagpole.
"Go Run One"
Brother Flag isn't complementing, insulting, or backhanded-complementing NAU he's just observing. NAU isn't Stanford. You're the one who sounds sour grapes.
"Luck is opportunity meeting preparation" - LaVell Edwards
Coach Smith had his team prepared.
To quote the great John McDonnell: 'You make your own luck'
Pascal wrote:
I'll give you that Mike Smith seems to have done good at GTown prior to NAU, and has managed to keep everyone reasonably healthy at NAU. But seriously, without landing Nico Young and without Blaise all of sudden being a healthy runner, NAU would not have won NCAA XC. So, I think Smith got lucky landing Nico Young and got lucky that Ferro was able to finally train for a period of time without injury. Without these lucky happenstances, Notre Dame would be our National Champs.
Is NAU good or lucky?
So you are surprised the top team in the nation got the top recruit? If you took all of the best runners off all of the teams it would hurt all of their chances.
I don't think your question is either-or. I believe that a team can be both good and lucky, and a good combination of two leads to great things. The antonym of lucky isn't good- it's unfortunate or unlucky. And a great team that is unlucky can lose a title that "should've" been theirs (Colorado women, 2016), but a great team that is lucky can win by margins- which is what we saw from NAU on Monday.
First, NAU is lucky that it was able to land Mike Smith as a coach, has such a great location, and the factor that all of it's runners were healthy at the right time is partially luck (anyone can get injured at any time), but partially thanks to Mike Smith's expertise and being able to develop them to be healthy at the right time. NAU is lucky that none of their front four had a bad race (which happens to the best of us). Maybe we can list a few more things that made them lucky over the years and that led that their success.
I believe that landing Nico Young was not luck. I believe that the team culture, program success, and coach attracted him and since college decisions aren't random and since he chose to go there, it isn't luck. Think about it like this- if in a hypothetical game, players are distributed to different teams by choosing a random number in a bag and the best player ends up in (i.e.) the 7th team, that's lucky for that team. But lets say that each player chooses the team they want (as long as they have an offer) and the best player chooses the 7th team because of past success and team culture, that team is no longer lucky to have him. They earned him (in some sense) and the decision was not random, it was informed choice.
With injury, like I stated before, of course there is some luck, but Mike Smith's training obviously plays the biggest role into it. Chances are, Smith changed Ferro's training a bit to keep him healthy for a long period of time, therefor it not being lucky but strategized and intentional.
Whether they were lucky or not does not take away from the fact that they are good. They won Monday's title in a score of 60, which is dominant. Notre Dame had a great race, yes, and I would say they're good too. But with NAU's resume of having 4 of the past 5 titles, it is hard to deny that they are a great team. The location, coach, team mission, and culture all attract top recruits and will keep the program great for a while, I believe.
In conclusion, I think they're maybe 10% little lucky and 100% great.
Pascal wrote:
I'll give you that Mike Smith seems to have done good at GTown prior to NAU, and has managed to keep everyone reasonably healthy at NAU. But seriously, without landing Nico Young and without Blaise all of sudden being a healthy runner, NAU would not have won NCAA XC. So, I think Smith got lucky landing Nico Young and got lucky that Ferro was able to finally train for a period of time without injury. Without these lucky happenstances, Notre Dame would be our National Champs.
Is NAU good or lucky?
Why such stupid posts... of course they r good
Pascal wrote:
Hey, I think NAU is "good" and Mike Smith knows what he is doing. I started the thread because some of my buddies think they are just lucky...
Is Pascal just looking for attention or just looking for attention? I say both. Come on man they r good. It’s an open and shut case so just stop
Just telling it like it is wrote:
Aouita 84 wrote:
That was a great back-handed compliment. Please explain "non-rigorous academics"?
Hmmm... sounds a little like sour grapes Mr/Ms. Flagpole.
"Go Run One"
Brother Flag isn't complementing, insulting, or backhanded-complementing NAU he's just observing. NAU isn't Stanford. You're the one who sounds sour grapes.
CORRECT! Some runners want to focus on running. Nothing wrong with that.
IF you've ever coached a day in your life, you weren't any good at it and I feel bad for the athletes that were subjected to your drivel.