1. Eyestone is making some valid points about structural issues with the NCAA. Teams full of 20something Kenyans with years of pro running experience are making a mockery of the sport.
2. Eyestone has no business talking about "overage" athletes. He's not doing anything wrong, but nobody from BYU can be the one to speak on that particular issue. Have a little self-awareness, man.
might be missing something as a non-American here, but do the missions not only last like a year or two? would that really give a huge advantage?
Taking two years to bicycle around the world is training in disguise.
This is true.
Mormons here in SoCal are recognizable by their white shirts, black slacks, and putting their bicycles on bus bike racks to get to an appointment or canvassing area.
Taking two years to bicycle around the world is training in disguise.
This is true.
Mormons here in SoCal are recognizable by their white shirts, black slacks, and putting their bicycles on bus bike racks to get to an appointment or canvassing area.
1. Eyestone is making some valid points about structural issues with the NCAA. Teams full of 20something Kenyans with years of pro running experience are making a mockery of the sport.
2. Eyestone has no business talking about "overage" athletes. He's not doing anything wrong, but nobody from BYU can be the one to speak on that particular issue. Have a little self-awareness, man.
The NCAA in all sports is broken due to NIL and unlimited transfer. The job of these coaches is to win, and that means doing everything they can within the rules to accomplish that. Dave Smith was exactly right in his rebuttal. If Eyesore thinks this is an issue, then work to get the rule changed by being involved. Kind of unprofessional to call out your fellow coaches because they are doing something completely within the rules. Just seems like sour grapes from BYU because their team got younger from last year and isn’t as equipped to compete.
Typical BYU deflection. Who wants to go to college for that long? Except for BYU kids that are not good enough to win in 5 years.
Ed is just pissed his kids have to race athletes that are the same age as his kids. Different phenomena or not, it's very similar. The rules are what they are, currently. And Ed lost his coveted advantage. If Ed can change the rules, he gets his advantage back. Think about that!
Not deflection, just basic economic analysis. If we assume coaches are rational actors competing for finite rewards (in this case championships or podium placings), and we assume, as you posit, that one coach (Eyestone) has found an "advantage" that allows him to outcompete other programs, why do the other coaches not pursue that "advantage" to optimize their own outcomes? It is not "Eyestone's coveted advantage"—it is available to anyone. The fact they don't pursue it suggests, at the very least, that the assumed "advantage" is either not actually an "advantage" or is outweighed by other tradeoffs, such as the added complexity of managing a program where athletes are gone for a significant amount of time.
We are dealing, at root, with an empirical question (and I'm sincerely interested in knowing the answer). Which of the following pathways will, on average, lead to superior outcomes?
(A) Athlete X enters college at 18 and trains and competes for four years.
(B) Athlete X takes two years off with zero to minimal training after high school, returns to college at age 20, and trains and competes for four years.
How will performance at 22 following pathway A compare to performance at 24 following pathway B? It's an empirical question, but we are unlikely to ever have the most robust forms of empirical evidence—like randomized controlled trials—to answer it. So we are mostly left with counterfactuals to argue over.
--Conner Mantz won two XC championships following pathway B. What results would he have had following Pathway A? I think it reasonable to assume his results would have been similar.
--Creed Thompson got 12th at Nationals last year aged 22 following pathway A. What place would he have achieved (in 2026) following pathway B?
I'm not sure anyone actually knows the answer to these questions—myself included. My hunch is it would be a mixed bag. Some would have a small benefit following pathway B, but certainly not all; some might perform worse. Maybe even, on average, it could be a small net benefit, but we cannot ignore the extra burden in programmatic complexity of having to manage departures and returns, with some athletes reintegrating at much reduced levels of fitness. I think if you polled coaches across the NCAA, most would not want to deal with it.
D1 coaches do not want kids to go on missions. Period. That’s all you really need to know about whether it’s some great way to build a program. It isn’t.
In the recruiting process, coach after coach ghosts kids that aren’t well above the school’s average recruit after learning they would go on missions.
And I have argued that what you posit as self-evident—it is "absolutely advantageous" to have a two-year break with minimal training so as to be older than competitors—is not, in fact, self-evident. We need empirical evidence to answer the question. But we are unlikely to get it, so we are mostly stuck arguing based on assumptions and counterfactuals.
Maybe you need that. I have all the data I need to realize having 5 years from 20-25 is preferred than 5 years from 18-23 for far more runners than it is a hindrance.
Are you willing to share the data? I’m serious—I work with data for a living and am interested in an answer to this question.
Look, we’ll never get randomized controlled trials or true ceteris paribus comparisons, but here’s one potential way of approaching the question. First we gather a large sample of historical data on D1-bound athletes, half of whom ran a typical career from 18-22 (bin A) and half of whom served LDS missions and were 24 during their senior year (bin B). I assume most, but not necessarily all, of those in bin B would be from BYU’s team. Then we create best-match pairs between the two bins based on high school PBs. Each athlete from bin A would be matched with someone from bin B. Finally, we compare senior year performances of the matched pairs and calculate the overall patterns. This might give us something of a starting point even if it’s methodologically imperfect. (What if bin B performances are stronger, but it’s an artifact of superior training, arguendo, at BYU—hard to rule that out.) And we’d definitely want a sample that included points from across the distribution, I.e, athletes who were poor and middling in college as well as those who were outstanding, whose results might be atypical.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
The NCAA in all sports is broken due to NIL and unlimited transfer. The job of these coaches is to win, and that means doing everything they can within the rules to accomplish that. Dave Smith was exactly right in his rebuttal. If Eyesore thinks this is an issue, then work to get the rule changed by being involved. Kind of unprofessional to call out your fellow coaches because they are doing something completely within the rules. Just seems like sour grapes from BYU because their team got younger from last year and isn’t as equipped to compete.
Agree
It's like asking rich folks to stop using tax loopholes- "for the good of the country". It's legal, but you just shouldn't do it.
Everyone upset about international athletes in the NCAA, especially the ones coming out of Kenya, are often the same people who voted for nine regions and fifty All Americans. You wanted participation ribbons and now you’re mad because the competition got real.
Let’s be honest. This isn’t about nationality, race, or some invasion of the sport. It’s about standards finally being raised again. For years, cross country diluted itself. We stretched recognition, lowered expectations, and convinced a whole generation of average runners that they were elite just for showing up. Now true talent is back in the mix and suddenly people are uncomfortable. Every other NCAA sport lives in this reality. Field events have been international forever. Soccer, tennis, basketball, same thing. When the competition gets better, you either adapt or you get exposed.
Cross country doesn’t get to hide behind tradition or nostalgia. If little Johnny or Jane can’t keep up anymore, maybe it’s not because someone else is “taking” something. Maybe it’s because the standard finally caught up to the conversation.
Step up, or find another hobby where participation still counts as greatness.
Grand Fisher was a product of the Michigan high school system so he would’ve qualified for US tuition no matter what but I agree that that Ed Eyestone is the last person to be fighting this battle. Casey Klinger being 25 is still different from some of these Kenyans being 28 and 29 when they start. I don’t see why they can’t enforce the no pros law a little bit and have a little bit better age limit regulations.
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
When they lost that tie breaker at home, everyone knew Dave would come back and squash them.
Really it’s 4-5 things hitting at once.
Transfer portal, NIL, international recruiting services figuring out the game. Scholarbook was around for YEARS but slow euros would pay 10k to get a US scholarship. Some Austrian girl with a slow 3k time might end up at a mid major. figuring out how to make the schools pay for it was genius. I’ll
The NCAA is an amazing deal. Food, housing, school, medical, training, equipment, travel, meets (our meets are awesome). That’s why Kenyans/ Ugandans, Euros, Aussies want to come here
Eyestone is upset because he worked for years to turn BYU into the Death Star and now their advantages don’t mean as much.
BYU’s advantages?
Altitude, religious missions giving longer eligibility, insanely cheap tuition for Mormons (not mentioned enough) massive roster (gone), amazing in state talent, huge budget (did you know they stay at Marriotts for free? Church buddies). Also every Mormon kid wants to go there. Lastly he’s a great coach.
Look at that list above… how is Tulane going to be competitive against that? THEY CANT
So this evens the playing field. And Eyestone is not super pumped.
Your last statements are totally bullsh*t.
Tulane is an incredible academic school with a beautiful campus and located in New Orleans - a vacation hotspot.
Additionally they have a large amount of scholarships and a big enough budget to pay agents hundreds of thousands of dollars for international recruits.
If their coaches can't put those resources towards recruiting good enough Americans to be competitive, then those coaches DESERVE TO GET FIRED.
Requiring every school to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for each Kenyan is NOT leveling the playing field. That's rigging the deck because only a handful of schools can do that.
Can anyone quantify how much older BYU runners actually are? Theoretically, they could be 2 years older than other teams if they all went on missions, but are they actually? A couple years ago NAU's average age was 21.5 (they had two 23 yr olds and two 24 yr olds) and BYU's was 22.5. Just one year older on average but two years less of training from the mission.
Even if they are significantly older, the problem with the age advantage argument is that you can't separate out the effects of age with that of training because everyone other than BYU runners train continuously from high school through college. How can you quantify how much of the progression is due to them aging vs their continuous training if both are happening at the same time?
Let's put it this way, Casey Clinger's kids will have memories of watching their dad running at NCAA XCs.
I know it is a little bit icky that these BYU guys are marrying and having kids while still in college and still being on the team. They are in such a hurry to shack up , its a turn off.
that being said, it’s a mistake to think that because these Mormons happen to be white that they are rich enough to afford college colleges ridiculously expensive for most people right now. Additionally, the Mormon population in the US is one of the highest educated, they are one of the fringe groups out there that has the most respect for booksmarts which I respect.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
Ask Eyestone about BYUs 9th ranked men’s basketball team. An NIL fueled machine that ranks one of the most expensive in the nation.
With guys from Senegal and Mali.
Former pros from Serbia, France, Austria. Double digit transfers.
O they also paid two kids to leave their high schools (one from Mass, the other from Vegas) and join Utah Prep!
They probably feel this way about the Kenyans as well because the Mormon church teaches that those with dark skin cannot hold leadership positions or reach the top level of heaven.
#runforHER
That was a practice that was thoughtfully disowned many years ago by the church, and they have copped up to their racist past
Ed sounds like a hypocrite. He is complaining that many are older? Does he even look at his own team. Do better Eddie.
Sorry but there is no comparison between people like Solomon Kipchoge, Doris Lemngole, Ishmael Kipkirui, and Koitatoi Kidali who were top PRO talents before coming to the NCAA. They (allegedly) heroically declined massive lifechanging pro money, despite living in dirt poor villages, just to maintain NCAA eligibility.
Kipchoge declined pro money for 10 years after turning 18 just to one day be allowed to run in the NCAA!
And they are deciding to stay in the NCAA despite technically not being allowed to receive NIL money. So their families are sleeping on dirt floors in huts in villages with no electricity but they are declining hundreds of thousands of dollars just to run for a college team.
And it would be racist to claim that they are illegally accepting NIL money through their agents or intermediaries.
I have a lot of trouble believing that they are not making NIL money and that what they’re making in NIL $ they’re not sending home. They would be horrible children to their parents if they kept that money while their parents were sleeping on dirt floors.
Furthermore, competition is so stiff in Kenya that I don’t believe that all of these guys would prosper to the point where they would get good paychecks if they stay in Kenya
I guarantee not a single coach whose team is competing tomorrow would agree with you if the condition is that their athlete had to take two complete years off training before starting to compete. Not one. Not even Eyestone.
I guarantee you not a single coach whose team is competing tomorrow outside of Ed would agree with you.
As a former college coach, I would 100% LOVE to have all of my recruits take 2 years off and not run at all and then I get to coach them for years 3-6 versus having them run years 1-4.
It would only take them about 6 months - 1 year max to get to where they could train properly. Taken doesn’t go away. A freshman isn’t going to do a whole lot anyway but a 22-23-24 year old is going to dominate at 19-20-21 year old.
I guarantee you not a single coach whose team is competing tomorrow outside of Ed would agree with you.
As a former college coach, I would 100% LOVE to have all of my recruits take 2 years off and not run at all and then I get to coach them for years 3-6 versus having them run years 1-4.
It would only take them about 6 months - 1 year max to get to where they could train properly. Taken doesn’t go away. A freshman isn’t going to do a whole lot anyway but a 22-23-24 year old is going to dominate at 19-20-21 year old.
Everyone upset about international athletes in the NCAA, especially the ones coming out of Kenya, are often the same people who voted for nine regions and fifty All Americans. You wanted participation ribbons and now you’re mad because the competition got real.
Let’s be honest. This isn’t about nationality, race, or some invasion of the sport. It’s about standards finally being raised again. For years, cross country diluted itself. We stretched recognition, lowered expectations, and convinced a whole generation of average runners that they were elite just for showing up. Now true talent is back in the mix and suddenly people are uncomfortable. Every other NCAA sport lives in this reality. Field events have been international forever. Soccer, tennis, basketball, same thing. When the competition gets better, you either adapt or you get exposed.
Cross country doesn’t get to hide behind tradition or nostalgia. If little Johnny or Jane can’t keep up anymore, maybe it’s not because someone else is “taking” something. Maybe it’s because the standard finally caught up to the conversation.
Step up, or find another hobby where participation still counts as greatness.
"Just be a man and accept having your sport destroyed. Grrr I'm so tough snowflakes"
This attitude is why people hate boomers.
Are you going to tell us next that if a kid wants a full ride they should "just walk up to the coaches office and give him a firm handshake"
Sorry. Young men these days aren't into bending over and taking this crap like you want us to. This is our country. Our children don't need to "grind harder" to compete with 30 year old dopers. We actually can just ban them, keep calling us "whiners" all you want. Your attitude of "just shut up and take it" is the actual weak one, not us fighting to preserve our children and sport.
