Really the question should be would it have been 5 in a row if they didn't start so wide in 2019
Really the question should be would it have been 5 in a row if they didn't start so wide in 2019
There's always a little luck involved. What if the team came down on with a bad case of the flu or Covid-19, a bad cold? What if they all got food poisoning the night before? Granted, this is not a great amount but you do need a little bit of luck over tings that you can't control.
Otherwise preparation, training, and recruiting are the biggest factors and Coach Smith has done well on those three fronts.
Andrew Luck Quit wrote:
With NAU it was all luck. They flipped a coin that morning and it said heads. That’s the only reason they won. Recruiting, training, culture had nothing to do with it.
The Fighting Irish had no luck despite being Irish and it being so close to Saint Patrick’s Day. They recruited well, trained well, and have a great culture. It’s a shame they came in second to Luck.
Is this a joke? NAU isn't lucky. They have won several NCAA Cross titles. Now Notre Dame....yes they were lucky. They didn't run at all indoors and only twice in the fall. Other major traditional powerhouse programs ran indoors at their conference and at NCAA indoors. and followed that up with this race 2 and 3 days later. NAU and Notre Dame should have beat them, which they did. Put an asterisk on this years cross country season. It should have been cancelled, just like indoor and outdoor NCAA's.
He literally said that they flipped a coin and that's why they won
That post oozed sarcasm
how didn't you see it?????
They just have more luck than other teams. Top runners know that which is why they go there.
Flagpole wrote:
Just telling it like it is wrote:
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.
Again...WTF!
Don't back off what you said. Your post clearly indicates that one of the reasons NAU won the title is due to the fact that the school is not academically competitive (non-rigorous), thus their athletes do not need to study as hard as other "more rigorous" schools and have more time to train. Correct? Your "Brother", Mr. Just telling it like it is, shares your lame assessment. We're talking about RUNNING! not mechanical engineering.
"Go Run One"
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.
What observation? Why? Your "Brother"? Uhhhh...it was a backhanded compliment. Do you really believe that one of the reasons NAU won the national title was due to "non-rigorous" academics? Should the NCAA take the ranking of a school's academics into consideration when determining the outcome of athletic competition? I'm guessing you and your "Bro" go to a "so-called" prestigious university? and maybe you're just not as good or "lucky"? Sounds like Sour Grapes to me.
Here's the kicker, I didn't even go to NAU and have no reason to defend their accomplishment. No sour grapes here...Bro! Just respecting and acknowledging their NCAA championship, something you'll never experience.
"Go Run One"
Four NAU guys went top ten in this order:
Nico Young, a freshman, ran 7:57 in hs and won xc nationals.
Abdihamid Nur, a sophomore, ran 4:28/9:27 in high school.
Blaise Ferro, a redshirt senior, ran 4:17/9:03 in high school.
Luis Grijalva, a grad student, ran 4:02/8:46 in high school.
Which one represents the best coaching job?
Guys get into NAU who can't get into most of the other D1 schools who have decent XC programs.
Avg ACT
NAU 22
ND 34
OK St 25
Arkansas 27
Stanford 34
IA St 26
It's not that the academic standards are lower at NAU, that's not the point. The point is they get recruits whose highest priority is NCAA XC and Distance. It's that simple.
If my kid was Nico (who I assume did much better than an ACT of 22), I'd ask him what's his highest priority for college.
-The answer for him and the other NAU recruits is simple - College XC and Distance
-The answer for most of the runners at Stanford is a great degree and College XC and Distance and an awesome college experience
-The answer for most of the runners at ND is a great degree and College Athletics (not just XC/Track, but also going to watch your student athlete friends excel in many sports).
-The answer for those at BYU - Church and Running (and a super inexpensive college cost)
It's all about priorities. Smith is a great coach who maximizes the talent and the priorities of his recruits. There's a lot of great coaches, he just gets the most talented and driven to win XC. Stanford gets talent, but their recruits want a great job and a great athletic experience. They won't lose sleep if they come in 5th at NCAAs. The NAU team will lose sleep and it will push them during every hard workout and long run for the next year.
Aouita 84 wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
CORRECT! Some runners want to focus on running. Nothing wrong with that.
Again...WTF!
Don't back off what you said. Your post clearly indicates that one of the reasons NAU won the title is due to the fact that the school is not academically competitive (non-rigorous), thus their athletes do not need to study as hard as other "more rigorous" schools and have more time to train. Correct? Your "Brother", Mr. Just telling it like it is, shares your lame assessment. We're talking about RUNNING! not mechanical engineering.
"Go Run One"
No backing off anything, brother.
You are assuming something I didn't say, so let's deal with that first. I didn't say anything about have more TIME to train. There is a limit to how much TIME training is beneficial. What a less-vigorous academic school allows for is more time to do OTHER things...sleep, have fun, etc. If your main focus in college is being the best athlete you can be (and that IS the main focus for some, and there's nothing wrong with that), then it's not a bad idea to choose a school that doesn't require a ton of your time to keep your head above water academically.
I know personally two runners who transferred away from IVY League schools because the work load was too much for them when coupled with the demands of their running.
NAU's lack of academic rigor is just ONE of the things that makes it attractive for serious runners. I mentioned the other things...altitude training, professional runners all around, great coaching, and history of greatness. I am correct. You seem to either be offended that NAU's academics have been slighted here (NAU grad perhaps?) or you just have no clue generally. You pick.
This^ is correct. If you are a runner who either doesn't have the grades/test scores to get into Stanford or ND, of if you just don't WANT to work super hard on academics while in college, it's a pretty good option (if you are a good enough runner). Flagstaff is beautiful. The altitude training is hard to beat.