Wetmore makes me sick

Didn't mean to bold that last post.... sorry

Some coaches like Wetmore and Lalanna choose to develop American kids and not recruit foreigners. I think this is great. Last time I looked this is the USA. I am sorry if you foreign athletes get your feelings hurt, but what colleges in the UK, Australia, or any foreign country, even in Europe choose to develop American runners. Why should we develop runners for the rest of the world. There are over 1000 Kenyan athletes in NCAA and NAIA colleges running competitively. That is a scholarship that an American kid does not have. THIS IS AMERICA. I applaude whetmore for his recruiting American students. Way to win with home built US muscle instead of some store bought foreign make.

DirtBall wrote:

The problem I do have, however, is with the coaches that recruit the foreignors. True, the foreignors raise the competition and that is a plus. But this does not outweigh the problems that they cause. There are only 12.6 track scholarships and foreignors generally require a full ride, thus eliminating opportunities for some athletes that want to go to a top program but can't afford it.

You also have a problem with being an uneducated buffoon.

IF he gets you upset, don't read articles about him.

duuuuh...

wetmore just wants to help America

Made in the USA wrote:

Some coaches like Wetmore and Lalanna choose to develop American kids and not recruit foreigners. I think this is great. Last time I looked this is the USA. I am sorry if you foreign athletes get your feelings hurt, but what colleges in the UK, Australia, or any foreign country, even in Europe choose to develop American runners. Why should we develop runners for the rest of the world. There are over 1000 Kenyan athletes in NCAA and NAIA colleges running competitively. That is a scholarship that an American kid does not have. THIS IS AMERICA. I applaude whetmore for his recruiting American students. Way to win with home built US muscle instead of some store bought foreign make.

Hit the nail right on the head

First, to the one or two guys arguing against every single statement that Golden Buff makes just because you have a thing against Wetmore, let it go. There's no reason for this thread to be 12 pages. Golden Buffalo, perhaps you should not respond to every attack as well.

Second, Those who are supporting the use of foreign athletes (although most are just using this as a conduit to slam Wetmore), you can't have it both ways. You can not argue that using foreign atheltes raises the competition level of the NCAA, and turn around and argue that the foreign athletes aren't any more talented than the homegrown runners recruited by Wetmore or other "xenophobic" coaches.

Agree with Wetmore wrote:

I agree with Wetmore....US Tax dollars pay for the development in US Olympic sports. Its all about building US athletes to compete on the olympic level....which is funded by US citizens....not for athletes of ANY other country.

Plus any foreigner on Mark Wetmores team will not be awarded one scholarship penny...They must walk on!

US tax dolars do NOT train Olympic athletes. You could strain to say that tax dollars pay for a college campus and such but that is a bit of stretch. Scholarships for athletes generally come from fundraising and not tax dollars.

At most state universities, in-state tuition is much cheaper than out of state. Especially at Colorado.

Any US citizen can become a Colorado resident eventually if they follow the rules, register to vote and don't get too much money from out of state parents. A non-US citizen can NEVER get in-state tuition.

So recruiting Yanks makes sense financially. A coach can spread out their scholarship money to more Americans than they can Kenyans, Russians etc.

While true in theory, most out-of-state recruits do not become in-state residents before graduating. No coach who wants to win should let that be a consideration in recruiting.

It's probably not the same people arguing both of those points. The quality of foreigners coming into NCAA D1 distance running, aside from the occasional Bernie Lagat and David Kimani (maybe two or so per decade), is way below what guys like Virgin, Salazar, and Spivey faced in their day. Even if there aren't runners like UKEP's squad from the late 70's, it still helps to have 50% (as an example) more incoming freshmen in D1 with the talent level equivalent to the typical FL finalist than to have just FL finalists (and lesser talents) alone as incoming freshman. It still enhances competition, even if they're filling in the gaps in places that FL finalists refuse to be recruited to. In many instances the foreign athlete is easier to work with than the entitled and cocky American is, so that might be a factor, too.

LifeCoachBernie wrote:

Those who are supporting the use of foreign athletes (although most are just using this as a conduit to slam Wetmore), you can't have it both ways. You can not argue that using foreign atheltes raises the competition level of the NCAA, and turn around and argue that the foreign athletes aren't any more talented than the homegrown runners recruited by Wetmore or other "xenophobic" coaches.

Wetmore's remark reminds me of that one thread about "blue collar" runners where someone made a NCAA list eliminating foreigners...

)))))))) Mark Wetmore is still one of the very few elite coaches who has WON the NCAA XC championship with nothing but American distance runners, many of whom were Colorado kids. And as for the idiot comment, nice attempt to elevate your own importance at my expense through diversion, but the FACT is that I have only hurled expletive insults at "growabrain," because of his rudimentary atttempt to condescend to me initially, followed by his use of the terms idiot and moron, which were completely unnecessary, by the way.

***Great, that's what I said. But I will reiterate for you, Wetmore is a great coach. But I will not bend over and kiss the ground he walks on.

I think it shouldn't matter what nationality a runner is, but how much that runner will work for a team and his scholarship.

I think Golden Buffalo is Jay Johnson

I watched the video it was pretty good. i like Wetmore, but the story isn't the best example of wetmore I think.

fantastic fred wrote:

I think Golden Buffalo is Jay Johnson

Funny, but no, I am definitely not Jay Johnson, nor am I Jason Drake. What I am is a former 9:30-something two-miler from Colorado who competed collegiately just prior to the Wetmore era. In fact, I don't know Wetmore very well, and he strikes me as somewhat abrasive. But I have a tremendous amount of respect for what he's done with the previously inept program at CU. He is a victim of his own success and will be subject to a lot of scrutiny obviously, and that is fine. But he single-handedly turned around CU's program. What people are missing here is that CU very much underachieved during the decade prior to Wetmore's arrival, and most of my rivals from Colorado, all of whom scored at state in the 1600 or 3200 steered clear of CU, for good reason.

Good points Golden Buff. In general, people on these boards have a memory bank that only goes back to about 2004, maybe 2002 at the most. Mark knows plenty about building from the "ground-up" because he did it like very few have (but one must go "way back" to the early 90's to know this and appreciate it).Mark got to where he can sign the best American recruits ONLY because he proved for a solid decade that he can win with the spare parts and misfits that no one else wanted.Runners with stats like Golden Buff (9:30 back-yard types) were the norm for at least the first 10 years that Mark was coach. Remember, even Alan Culpepper was a mere 4:08 miler in HS and he was by far our only blue-chippper for a few years (Boulder collectively orgasmed the day he signed!). For anyone that wants to dispute this you should take Adam Goucher's testimony to heart: He chose CU over the traditional, established powers because he saw what Mark was able to do with average to mildly talented runners. Then Goucher caused the Torri to sign who caused Ritz to sign etc....but it all STARTED with the triumph of common home-grown partisans over foreign, colonialist mercenaries.

Golden Buffalo wrote:

Funny, but no, I am definitely not Jay Johnson, nor am I Jason Drake. What I am is a former 9:30-something two-miler from Colorado who competed collegiately just prior to the Wetmore era. In fact, I don't know Wetmore very well, and he strikes me as somewhat abrasive. But I have a tremendous amount of respect for what he's done with the previously inept program at CU. He is a victim of his own success and will be subject to a lot of scrutiny obviously, and that is fine. But he single-handedly turned around CU's program. What people are missing here is that CU very much underachieved during the decade prior to Wetmore's arrival, and most of my rivals from Colorado, all of whom scored at state in the 1600 or 3200 steered clear of CU, for good reason.

You are 100% accurate. You know, the grand irony about this thread is that it generates free publicity for Wetmore, which was likely not the original poster's intent. Love Wetmore or hate him, he had to establish a program from the ground up, and he did not recruit foreign athletes or blue chip guys to do it. Now, he can somewhat rest on his laurels, and he probably has very limited time to lend his ear to anyone but the very best, for which he comes off as cantankerous. But the fact remains that not only has he been able to build a winning tradition, but he has launched many a runner into the professional ranks. If an elite kid wants to increase his chances of making it professionally, I'm sure that the likes of the Culpeppers, the Gouchers, the Torres brothers, the Ritzenheins, the Slatterys, etc, etc, would tell you that CU and Mark Wetmore is a good place to start.