NCAA VS. NAIA

Basically for me. It gave me an opportunity to grow as a runner and as a person. The level of competition is that of D2 for NCAA. If your were like me in high school (4:30, 9:38, 15:47 Mt. SAC) then NAIA offers you the opportunity to run without being ignored by your coach. In two years NAIA has turned me into a 14:54 5k (went through the 3200 at 9:30), 31:12 10k, 9:23 at a Time Trial for 2 miles. But if you are really talented (9:10 or lower, 4:10 or lower) then you could get a nice scholarship from NCAA and some attention. In NAIA I have grown spiritually and in running. I understand from my coach that training as an elite athlete without running those times can make me fast in the long run. For me it doesn't matter what teams I race, I mean we all have two legs, two arms, one nose, one tank. Some people are just more develop than me but NAIA gave me the opportunity to catch up. Up to now some runners that used to demolish me in high school now I can beat or be near them in any race. That is because they decided to go NCAA where life might be tougher than mines becuase of the many more distractions they acquired. God Bless.

cuirunningmonk wrote:

If your were like me in high school (4:30, 9:38, 15:47 Mt. SAC) then NAIA offers you the opportunity to run without being ignored by your coach. In two years NAIA has turned me into a .. 9:23 at a Time Trial for 2 miles.

Or train with elite in NCAA and go from a 9:41 3200 to a 9:03 2 mile in two years.

asdef wrote:

cuirunningmonk wrote:

If your were like me in high school (4:30, 9:38, 15:47 Mt. SAC) then NAIA offers you the opportunity to run without being ignored by your coach. In two years NAIA has turned me into a .. 9:23 at a Time Trial for 2 miles.

Or train with elite in NCAA and go from a 9:41 3200 to a 9:03 2 mile in two years.

Yeah, that happens all the time in the NCAA doesn't it. And it happens simply because of those four letters. That's how the world works. Personally, I like the NCAA because they have unicorns and mermaids and live on clouds and all the food tastes like the best chocolate you can imagine.

Well, I too have been to both schools, and I am currently at APU. I agree with the the other guy, I have grown a lot more as a person and not just as a runner at this NAIA school. At the NCAA school, it was a bad atmosphere for me, and because of that my running suffered. I also wasn't on scholarship, so I had to fight for any attention at all, even if I could beat some of the scholarship guys. I did improve running-wise, but at APU I improved a whole lot more, and enjoyed doing it. The coaching was better for me, and the atmosphere on the team was good. I hear that NAIA is about at the level of NCAA D2, and I think that sounds about right. The reality is, though, if you're fast, you're gonna run fast, no matter where you are. So you might as well go to a school that is going to make you overall a happier person, whether that be NCAA or NAIA.

cuirunningmonk is correct. The only runners that get any coaching at every NCAA institution are sub-9:10 guys. That means that this cross country season, only 38 freshmen were coached. The rest received unpersonalized, dumbass training since they fall through the cracks. They will soon burn out, and a few months later will never be heard from again. In addition, they are spiritually empty. Soon, they will all become dependent on alcohol or other drugs to assuage their pain. You may find some of these former runners under bridges or sleeping on benches. You might ask these guys, "How did this happen? Weren't you top ten at states?"

Then the derelict will say, "Yeah, I ran 9:13 though."

Then you will nod with a terrible kind of recognition.

So remember, if you choose NCAA, if you're not already in the sub-9:10 elect, you're damned. NOBODY outside that elect has ever improved or even been happy at an NCAA school. Just do the research.

Also with naia you might actually want to run after college

"Elite" in NCAA (I'm guessing you are referring to Div I?) would be maybe 5-10% of the runners that compete in NCAA. So with around 300 Division I schools in the country (maybe 250 xc/track programs?) that means there are a lot of teams that never make it in the top 25. Yes, it's deeper than the other NCAA divisions and NAIA but the program and coaches make the difference. Money is a big issue as well.

On these boards people confuse NCAA and NAIA with educational quality when affiliation has NOTHING to do with academics and everything to do with athletics. Schools apply to each division because of the fit to their institution.

As a former NAIA runner (I chose NAIA over NCAA because of the coach and program) I excelled and was able to compete enough against DI athletes to know where I stood. Only ranking in T & F News seemed to shut up the vocal elitist DI egos (usually the type that post on Letsrun degrading other Divisions and not the ones actually letting their running do the talking).

I ran, and run, post-college and respect everyone as a competitor rather than what division they ran at or what country they are from.

Find a college and a program that fits you and devote yourself to it (for 4 years). You'll get the payoff.

if it's a debate between some secondary ncaa school, like a sub par d1 school like gardner webb or any of the other of hundreds of programs that are alright, but not exceptional, and your focus is on running, u'd be better to try and get into a top naia school. Firstly, team competition is fun, and helps keep u motivated. If i went to a d1 school i'd be a nobody right...a decent runner, maybe trying to make something happen at conference, but more a less a nobody. At the naia level i can compete for nationals... even if im not front page material, it's more fun this way. academics vary school to school, so does a lot of other stuff. I went to a top class naia school and i don't regret it at all, except the town im in kidna sucks... but that's not the schools fault. I guess it also helps minimize distractions.

Former NAIA Runner wrote:

I ran, and run, post-college and respect everyone as a competitor rather than what division they ran at or what country they are from.

And that is the reality for most runners, no matter what division they are from. Running is pretty simple. It's you against a watch. NAIA, NCAA D2 and NCAA D3 runners get to compete against each other and against D1 competition, if their coaches schedule well. There is no real disadvantage to being NAIA, D2 or D3 IF you fit with the school and the program. In the end it's you against the competition and you against a clock and the clock does not discriminate.

I think it's reasonable to believe that the majority of people who get on here and rip on the NAIA are either from the NCAA D1 scrap heap, in other words, mediocre to bad D1 runners. Or they are D2 and D3 coaches that are looking for a way to gain a recruiting advantage by saying untrue and negative things about the NAIA. Most good D1 runners don't think about NAIA or D2 and D3 (positively or negatively) unless a runner from somewhere like that competes well against them. If that happens they talk and joke and have a beer with them after the race. There is no bias at all in the vast majority of legit runners.

Collegiate Track and Cross Country is unique. You can have D1 "talent" without needing to attend a D1 college. Since it is you against the clock, you can compete at any level if you find the right program. There is no professional league after college that only looks at D1. And even if there was, track is not subjective. You run the time you run the time. Period.

Every time you see a post bashing the NAIA or D2 and D3 just think of some pimple faced loser sitting at his computer instead of doing the miles, or at home instead of on the road because he didn't make the travel team. Or imagine some crappy coach who can't recruit without ripping other programs. Everyone else just runs and enjoys the sport.

----------------

Totally Agree!

Right on.

difference is NAIA has no money... NCAA has billoins