Is U.S. distance running being stunted by scholarships going to foreign athletes?

all that would come from that is 9:45 3200 runners getting scholarships from d1 schools. i'm sorry, i don't see how that helps US runners. it certainly doesn't help our runners as much as racing against the tougher competition provided by foreign athletes.

There aren't that many foreign athletes in the NCAA that any American with a bit of talent can't get a scholoship.

I would imagine not that many future Olympians are missing out because of a foreign athletes.

There certainly is validity to the idea of athletic growth through having to compete against the best. Yet I have seen a fair number of 9:45 (and slower) high school 3200 runners who improve to elite levels simply through proper coaching and training.

So, then, I guess the question becomes whether they improved by virtue of more coaching attention or through the benefit of having to race against better foreign competition.

name some. and i'm not talking about girls.

Of Course....but this has been going on for almost 50 years....Look at the Kenyan 1988 Gold medalists 800-Ereng/1500-Peter Rono...American College students...our system works but for the wrong countries...Villanova--Ron Delaney/Coughlin/O'Sullivan--What school did Abdi Bile run for?? Check it out...

umm , if anything foreign athletes are only raising the bar for American athletes to push themselves and work harder to be better. The more the merrier.

We all love the story of Brian Sell and how he was a 12 minute two miler in high school and has since progressed to become the champion of the world, but for every case like his, there are dozens (maybe hundreds) of runners who won't improve no matter how much coaching/attention/competiton/coddling you give them. Do you intend to give cash to every runner who wants to run in college? Sure you might find a diamond in the rough once in a while, but isn't it easier/smarter to give scholarships to athletes who have demonstrated superlative athletic ability? College coaches are (for the most part) going to give their money to runners who can make an immediate impact on their teams. In some cases those athletes may be foreign. And yes, restricting athletic scholarships to those born in the United States would be a form of discrimination.

I'll first concede that our definitions of "elite" may not be the same. But I'll use a few runners from Indiana State as examples, simply because it's been easy for me to follow those athletes as a Terre Haute resident and frequent meet volunteer:

Kyle Hobbs - Qualified for the NCAA championship cross country meet as an individual.

Jason Gunn - Qualified for the NCAA championship cross country meet as an individual.

Justin Kunz - Qualified for the NCAA championship cross country meet as an individual; recently ran around 29:50 in Knoxville

Jordan Fife - NCAA qualifier in the steeplechase; recently ran around 8:40 at mt. Sac.

As I said, I don't know how you personally define elite. But my point is that none of these guys were blue chip recruits out of high school, yet they improved vastly under the coaching and attention of John McNichols and John Gartland.

and these were people who failed to get a scholarship?

and, yeah, that's certainly not how i or most people would define elite. elite is not qualifying for an ncaa championship. and, if anything, your examples illustrate how scholarship money apparently doesn't play a great role in the development of US athletes. i have never met a runner who had the desire and talent to run at a high level who would let something like a lack of scholarship get in the way of his/her goals. if you do, i'm sorry, you already lack the single-mindedness required to be an elite runner.

if we're interested in developing a bunch of second or third tier collegiate runners, i'd bet increasing scholarship money would help there. i don't see how it does anything other than hurt us at the highest levels. ask adam goucher or jorge torres if they would have been as good if they didn't have mwangi or cragg as their foils. those are the types of US runners whose development we should care the most about - not the justin kunzs and jordan fifes of the world.

the only recent/current athlete i can think of who was a mediocre/poor runner in high school who became an elite runner is sell and his 10:06.

RE: "and these were people who failed to get a scholarship?"

I'm sure those guys were on scholarship but, per your demand, I was trying to list a few runners who were more at the average level while in high school.

You make good points.

US atheletes are mostly being held back by the fact that to get the best RUNNING opprotunities, you have to qualify academically first. You want a GREAT reason americans will NEVER catch the likes of Kenya, or Etheopia, or most of the African countries - because athletics in america is used for only entertainment, whereas in other countries, you have the choice to make it Life. That's why those countries have systems set up catching their talent before their teen years - so they have YEARS to fully develope them. In other countries you actually have the CHOICE to choose athletics first - then academics, whereas in the united states, that's not an option. In order to compete you must go to school (academics). I understand it, and I do agree with the importance of academics, but i do not agree with not having the choice, and i find it humorous that everyone's asking "why" we're so damn slow, and it's simple: We work for a living, They Run for a living.

i didn't really think it was my demand; you started a thread asking about scholarship money - seemingly making the implication that a lack of it was somehow stunting our athletes' growth. i don't see that occurring.

you said the question became whether runners improve via more coaching attention or competing against foreign competition. the answer to that is obvious: better and more coaching. but, again, i don't see runners not getting enough coaching attention. there are many great coaches and programs around this country at all levels - indiana state is a great example - where an athlete can go and develop. i don't see anyone who truly wants it being denied an opportunity.

fife... high school 9:45/4:30

walk on at indiana state

dude, there's tons of reasons for why this argument is not valid. I recently wrote an 11-page paper on the fallacy of the view. But the easiest point is:

Even if you're not the great in college, you can still walk on and get the great coaching if you want. And it's not like there aren't good coaches at non-D1 levels either. all taking out international athletes would do would be to dilute the top level of competition.

"In order to attend the college that he very much desires to attend, the student-athlete may have to take a pay cut. But what of others who need to have that scholarship money in order to attend college? It’s a quite simple answer, really. There are many levels of competition from NCAA Division I through Division III to NAIA Divisions I and II. The only people unable to earn a good scholarship anywhere are people who would be unable to earn one if the international student-athletes were not attending college in moderate numbers in the first place."

International athletes only make up 7.0% of the entire student-athlete population. Give a rest with all this "Americans are getting screwed!!11!!!" crap.

Foreigners are actually a good thing for the NCAA. They increase the level of competition. That means the upper-level US guys will have a chance to race high-level competition while in college.

Foreigners also help US kids learn about cultures and ideas that they may not have had the chance to have been exposed to if they didn't run with them in college.

and look where it got him. i realize this is asking someone to prove the impossible, but would he have done as well if he had gone to, say, michigan on a scholarship because they didn't recruit any canadians or kiwis? if you're at the level he was in high school, a place like indiana state is a great place to be. he obviously had the mentality to become a much better collegiate/post-collegiate runner than he was in high school. those guys, assuming they have the required talent mixed in, will find a place that helps them achieve their goals and will thrive wherever that may be.

Spivey once said Africans in the NCAA forced him to run faster. If it does not get out of control it can be a good thing for American runners.

I believe Lagat is going to make Americans faster in the 08 trials. Do you think Lagat is going to mess around at a 3:42 1500 pace. Remember, what Maree did for US miling in the early 80s. Of course Scott's genius would excel in any era.

Scott 3:47

Maree 3:48

Byers 3:50

Harbour 3:50

Gregorek 3:51

Spivey 3:49

At one time the US had six guys under 3:52 for the mile. What incredible depth!!!

Did I say Americans are getting screwed?? No! I was just throwing a topic out for discussion.

Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick! Once again...and again... and again - Why do people on this board have to be so freaking rude?

Roster limits and men's team cuts are much more damaging than having international athletes on American college teams.

I look at it as an advantage for American collegiates having the opportunity to compete against people from around the world without having to go to Europe to do so. You get exposed to a higher level of the sport and in talking with them discover how they got to that level.