Should the NCAA deincentivize foreign athlete in Track & XC

Translation: I am crying because my slow son isn't going to get a scholarship to a good distance school. Today I will blame the other athletes being too fast. Tomorrow I will blame his current coaches. Im thinking if I complain enough society will change for me and what I want.

Competition breeds success. Having international athletes is definitely a good thing for the NCAA and US athletes alike.

As for a coach saying there's no money unless you run 4:04, you are obviousy talking to the very best of the best colleges in the entire United States. If you're not a supermodel yourself don't go chasing super models.

Like somebody pointed out, foreign competition just means that we have the most competitive league for young track athletes in the world in our backyard. It definitely helps the US develop talent disproportionately more than the rest of the world. For the "ncaa ruins athletes" crowd, any runner can opt out if they want.

Anyway, the NCAA is already in two countries, so who do you consider foreign? Because canadians are already foreigners in the US and vice versa.

Globalization will only increase foreign participation in US. Distance running will never be like college tennis (look at most DI college rosters for that sport) because the HS development system is comparatively good, but the world is a big place.

If Americans want scholarships like foreign athletes they need to take some time off after school to run and start classes at 20 years old.

Also, good money (tuition to full) for most DI mid major programs start at 4:16ish. 4:04 is money at big time programs. 4:00 is full ride to anywhere.

NEWS FLASH: most distance studs are getting full skollies!

Change my mind.

From a coach who has a lot of foreign and also American athletes, my perspective is this:

Sub 4:20 1600m runners turn my offers away for books and walk on spots on non nationally ranked Power 5 programs.

Foreign athletes who run sub 3:55 for 1500m actually sign with my program.

Now it is really hard for Americans to get money on my team. We are competitive enough that I don't offer 4:20 1600m runners anyrhing, but I still don't get very many 4:12-15 Americans interested so the money goes increasingly to foreign athletes.

I think instead of punishing teams like Alabama for recruiting talent regardless of where it comes from we should give bonuses to coaches who are willing to recruit and sign mediocre Americans like the OP's son.

Change.My.Mind wrote:

NEWS FLASH: most distance studs are getting full skollies!

Change my mind.

D1 gives out how many scholarships? Most track teams score points in what events? Most power schools have how many team members running cross country? Do the math . That will lead to the facts but it will never change your mind.

Dudes right about tennis. Love when Stanford kicks butt .

I agree with OP but it's been this way for over 50 years or so. It's not going to change. Crazy that they have an all American status that can be filled with everything but that. Days are gone when we saw such talent as Rono, Nieambui(?) , Wagwa, etc. Back then a sub 30:00 did not mean much. These days schools get the 3rd rate foreign Runners and that wins at conference. Mad respect for the real American that can step it up these days and beat these guys.

Early 1980's all or nearly all US universities, department or school of engineering became mostly foreign students. Should we protest? Should all US universities shut down their schools of engineering? In US, US high school coaches know how to groom elite 100m to 800m runners, 110m hurdles, (300 or 400)m hurdlers, and jumpers. Why didn't you have your son doing five yard to fifty yard sprints since he was age three? Why did you groom your son to be a distance guy? What are your son's 400/800 PR's?

I agree with your general point. Your proposal will never happen though. For one the NCAA does not care about non-revenue sports and secondly the recruitment of foreign athletes is endemic to the track association.

Ok. First off this isn't sour grapes due to what my son was offered or not offered. He's at an excellent university and doing well in school and XC. My son could have gotten $ from what I consider lesser academically robust schools, but we weren't going down that road. For the people who gave non trolling responses, thanks for your perspective. I didn't realize that so many scholarships were being turned down and that the only choice was to search in East Africa. From looking at Div1 rosters I generally see that the name programs get a few stars and have in state quality walk-ons (typically 4:20 or so in the 1600). If Canada is in the NCAA then they wouldn't be considered foreigners under anything I proposed, and I'm in total agreement that nothing like this would happen. Men's track and XC has to field an entire team with 12.6 scholarships and on the women's side they get 18. My thinking was more along the lines of what is best for the future of US distance running. If racing against the best is better than getting more developmental guys involved, then so be it. Tyler Day may be Malcolm Gladwell level outlier but only ran 4:21 and 9:28 in high school in the 1600/3200.

You make it sound like the 4:15 runner is headed to the coal mine if he gets no athletic scholarship. That is typically not the case. Most of the developmental guys are running. They probably still wouldn’t get a scholarship if you eliminated foreigners.

You have NCAA D1, D2,D3, NAIA, NJCAA D1, D3, California JCs and Pacific NW JCs. All told I am going to say there are more than a thousand schools with opportunities to run. If you aren’t offered a scholarship to D1, then go D2 or JC. Opportunities are not the problem. You simply want an opportunity that you (or your son) are not qualified for, so you decide to blame East Africans. Every collegiate level has developed talent to an elite level. US distance running has more than enough opportunities for college aged athletes and will be just fine.

The real problem with US distance running are people with attitudes like your’s. You want something that you have not earned, and propose changing the rules to give yourself another advantage.

I don't think they headed to the coal mine, as 1st off there are no jobs there in the 1st place. Obviously, the tough part is figuring out which guys have room to develop and which ones have already peaked in high school. If you go the rent a Kenyan route - there is no guess work. I think with some programs like say Great Oak in California - the guys are spent after high school. I haven't done a ton of tracking but I'm not aware of many of them excelling in college. This is true in a lot of sports - football coaches have to figure out which guys are maxed out and which ones who have room to develop. It's just that they are the revenue sport and get 84 scholarships so there is room for hit or miss. If they miss, they cut them after 2 years. With 12.6 you can't afford as many misses. It's clear to me why they go this way, I just don't think it's optimal from a US perspective.

Again __ or what ever your name is - this isn't about my son. I had one perspective pre recruiting and a different one post. He is never going to make a living post college with his feet - so the quality of his degree was a much higher priority than $ for running. The D1 coach we talked with (at a very good engineering school) was pretty blunt. He needs guys who are ready when they set foot on campus. Other schools may not be that way, but given out of state tuition - other quality engineering schools were even less likely.

Runners_Dad wrote:

Alabama has 5 Kenyans on their squad, but I don't see how that does much to help US athlete development. If docking a scholarship is too harsh, you could just limit the # of foreign nationals allowed on each team. Now this could have unintended consequences like coaches just recruiting more sprinters, but I think it's something to consider.

ParticipationTrophy wrote:

Translation: I am crying because my slow son isn't going to get a scholarship to a good distance school. Today I will blame the other athletes being too fast. Tomorrow I will blame his current coaches. Im thinking if I complain enough society will change for me and what I want.

Call me jaded. But name a single potential world beater that isn't good enough to get a scholarship out of HS.

The fact of the matter is it's a bell curve at the top of talent spectrum. If you aren't a top 10 FL type talent (Notice how i say talent and not performer), we aren't losing too much if you aren't developed.

RUPP - HS studd

Centro - HS stud

etc.

Rojo, I wasn't thinking that far out on the bell curve. More along the lines of pretty good in high school but due to coaching, injuries etc. didn't run fast enough to get D1 or D2 interest. Given good coaching they go from good to solid regional/national performers. There is a pragmatic choice between their degree and how badly they want to run. Extra scholarship dollars might do that in this case. In college football, they rank prospects by # of stars. 2 star is the lowest (1 star means that no one has even rated you). 5 stars are the can't miss guys, guys who are ready to step on the field now and compete. Every year at the NFL draft there are many more 2 - 3 star players drafted than the 4 & 5 star guys. Percentage wise the 4's and 5's are better represented but since there #'s are limited there are fewer total guys from these catagories drafted. 4 years of development and sheer numbers drive this dynamic. So my gut tells me the same thing would happen in XC and track if more guys were incentivized to compete.

Runners_dad, why were you involved in the conversation with the coach about scholarship money in the first place? Is it common now for parents to be involved in the recruiting process? It has been many moons since I went through the recruiting process myself, and I don't remember coaches having contact with any parents. I know things change and I don't think that there is anything wrong with it necessarily, but I'm just genuinely curious! Thanks.