Student loan debt is a terrible problem but like someone else said, you aren't going to do anything remotely significant about it by giving scholarship money now going to foreign athletes to US cross country runners if only because the percentage of college students on cross country teams is well under 1%. There were about ten of us on my team in a school with undergraduate enrollment of about 4,000.
The University of New Mexico has over 22,000 students enrolled and something like 7 Kenyans getting scholarships. Let's say a quarter of those 22,000 are taking on significant loan debt, so a bit over 5,000. Now give those Kenyan scholarships to US distance runners, assume that the seven getting that money would be among the 5,000 taking on significant loan debt, and you still have a bit over 5,000 UNM students who are likely to struggle with student loan repayment.
I get it. You really don't like seeing foreign students getting scholarship money that you want US kids to get and are looking for a reason why they shouldn't. But this "solution" does nothing to address the problem except for an absolutely tiny segment of the population.
$300,000,000 per year just for cross country and track runners is massive. If we stopped all international scholarships in our sport we'd still have an amazing, exciting race at NCAAs. If anything, it would be more exciting and we'd have more interest in it.
Then factor in other sports with high populations of internationals like soccer, tennis, swimming, field hockey, + volleyball and the number is in the billions.
Some people pay 2-3x the amount of the loan when factoring in interest. So those numbers can double or triple when you consider interest.
Yes, $300,000,000 for cross country runners is massive but you are seriously overestimating the number of college students getting athletic scholarships. Let's go back to New Mexico and imagine that each of the other sports you mention are giving the same number of scholarships to foreign athletes in each sport. You're up to 42 foreign scholarships and double the number for women. Now let's say that only 10% of the overall student body are taking out loans that will be difficult to repay. Of 2,200 plus students you've helped 90 and for those 90 it's a great thing but it does nothing for the vast majority of student borrowers.
I struggled with student loan debt for many years and I have tremendous sympathy for people doing it now. It's ridiculous and obscene that someone pays their loan faithfully for maybe ten years, pays back more than s/he borrowed, and still owes more than s/he originally borrowed. But giving athletic scholarships to a several thousand US athletes that are now going to foeign athletes does nothing to address the scope of the problem. And for what it's worth, if eliminating foreign runners were to have any affect on my interest level it probably would reduce it, though I expect it would have no affect at all.
It sounds kind of ridiculous. The funny part of the Letsrun article is schools are paying recruiting companies $25,000 a year to find prospective Kenyans, plus all the other expenses. You could justify it if it was a revenue generating sport like football, but I can't believe schools are spending money like this all for the purpose of building a better cross country/track team. Whether a team places top 4 at nationals or doesn't even make the meet makes essentially no difference to the school's reputation/prestige due to how niche the sport is. Absolutely no real benefit from the school's perspective besides managing egos of the athletics department. If an international athlete wants to come here and contacts a coach on their own, then that's one thing, but why get into some kind of Kenyan recruiting arms race just for cross country?
Great Post!
What is the ROI with paying a "broker" $25,000 for a Kenyan runner? Or any other runner for that matter? Any coach who has paid a "broker" for an athlete is a 100% LOSER!!! I'd personally sit face to face with any one of these coaches and tell them so. These LAME coaches are simply paying for talent to be successful. The excuse of saying "all the good programs are doing it" is a cop out, and truly shines a light on the lack of coaching knowledge and ability. There's no way this is sustainable, and eventually the bubble will burst, and these "wannabe" coaches will be exposed. It's not about sour-grapes, any quality coach isn't afraid to lose, and understands that they will have great recruiting classes and not so great recruiting classes. Giving a legitimate foreign athlete a "full ride" is great, and I'm all for it, but to undermine the running talent in your own back yard is irresponsible. Learn to be a good coach, not a horse trader just trying to take a short-cut to success.
I'm hearing through the grapevine that when this bubble bursts, all of these coaches will get fired. Better get your resume ready Dave.
You really are a pathetic, bitter joke. Miserable people like you love running your mouth as if anyone actually cares. Do you honestly think recruiting services like Scholarbook lose sleep because you call them brokers? Newsflash, managers in every industry are brokers too, your ignorance isn’t shocking, just predictable. When everything is said and done, these kids will walk away with an education while you sit there spewing worthless opinions. This is exactly the kind of garbage that comes from jealous, failed coaches who hide behind “popular opinions” instead of doing anything meaningful themselves or Crazy, this is probably coming from some wimpy, hippie, slow, washed-up wannabe trying to take cheap shots at people who are actually successful because that’s the only thing you’re capable of. And seriously, do you think real sprinters waste time whining about athletes who are faster? Absolutely not, that’s the mindset of someone who knows they’ll never be relevant.
This is exactly the kind of garbage that comes from jealous, failed coaches who can't get opportunities except by attacking successful coaches on letsrun. Get a life.
$300,000,000 per year just for cross country and track runners is massive. If we stopped all international scholarships in our sport we'd still have an amazing, exciting race at NCAAs. If anything, it would be more exciting and we'd have more interest in it.
Then factor in other sports with high populations of internationals like soccer, tennis, swimming, field hockey, + volleyball and the number is in the billions.
Some people pay 2-3x the amount of the loan when factoring in interest. So those numbers can double or triple when you consider interest.
Yes, $300,000,000 for cross country runners is massive but you are seriously overestimating the number of college students getting athletic scholarships. Let's go back to New Mexico and imagine that each of the other sports you mention are giving the same number of scholarships to foreign athletes in each sport. You're up to 42 foreign scholarships and double the number for women. Now let's say that only 10% of the overall student body are taking out loans that will be difficult to repay. Of 2,200 plus students you've helped 90 and for those 90 it's a great thing but it does nothing for the vast majority of student borrowers.
I struggled with student loan debt for many years and I have tremendous sympathy for people doing it now. It's ridiculous and obscene that someone pays their loan faithfully for maybe ten years, pays back more than s/he borrowed, and still owes more than s/he originally borrowed. But giving athletic scholarships to a several thousand US athletes that are now going to foeign athletes does nothing to address the scope of the problem. And for what it's worth, if eliminating foreign runners were to have any affect on my interest level it probably would reduce it, though I expect it would have no affect at all.
If someone gets a full athletic scholarship who wasn't going to need loans anyway, then they get to spend that money and it goes right back into the economy. They will put it into a car, or a fancy vacation after college, or investing it in the stock market. That money will create jobs and boost the economy and our GDP. Companies profits will increase and your 401k gains value.
82 full foreign scholarships at 1 school (New Mexico as your example) is extremely significant. Multiply that by 350 other D1 schools and $50,000 per year. It's a sh*tload of money. 1.4 billion per year.
1.4 billion US dollars per year go to international athletes....and it doesn't even increase viewership of NCAA or make the competitions more exciting. Most would argue it makes the competitions less exciting.
The simple math is that there are just not enough US athletes getting scholarships to have a significant effect on the business of student loan debt and nowhere near enough foreign athletes to have any impact on it. I'd like some validation on that $1.4 billion to foreign athletes number. Annually D1 gives out $3.6 billion is scholarships so you're talking about nearly half going to foreigners. How many Kenyans are on your normal football or basketball team? Those are the sports that give out the bulk of that money. Most cross country and track scholarships are going to US kids. Look at results from Regionals, ALL results, top to bottom at every regional, not just ones at particular Regionals or above the 80th percentile. The 200ish runners in every one are by far mostly Americans.
This post was edited 15 minutes after it was posted.
The simple math is that there are just not enough US athletes getting scholarships to have a significant effect on the business of student loan debt and nowhere near enough foreign athletes to have any impact on it. Most of that $1.4 billion in schoarships is going to US athletes anyway. How many Kenyans are on your normal football or basketball team? Most cross country and track scholarships are going to US kids. Look at results from Regionals, ALL results, top to bottom at every regional, not just ones at particular Regionals or above the 80th percentile. The 200ish runners in every one are by far mostly Americans
are you on drugs? the 42 foreign scholarships was your number. I actually did the math wrong you said double for women so it would be 84 foreign scholarships by your own admission.
Then the scholarship limits tripled. So the number of international scholarships will likely triple.
What were are talking about is preventing student load debt from INCREASING. There's nothing we can do about the 2 trillion in student loan debt, but by adding 1.4 billion per year to AMERICAN SCHOLARSHIPS will make a huge difference in student loan debt not increasing as fast.
And the only drawback to giving the scholarships to americans? Some college sports teams won't be as strong. Big deal.
GIVE THE SCHOLARSHIPS TO AMERICANS. CONGRESS TAKE ACTION.
The bigger issue for me is the trend of college athletics. The NIL, Transfer Portal, no SAT/ACT, High School core curriculum, and now East African feeder network.
I just don’t care much about the product. Yes product, not collegiate sport in the true sense.
The simple math is that there are just not enough US athletes getting scholarships to have a significant effect on the business of student loan debt and nowhere near enough foreign athletes to have any impact on it. Most of that $1.4 billion in schoarships is going to US athletes anyway. How many Kenyans are on your normal football or basketball team? Most cross country and track scholarships are going to US kids. Look at results from Regionals, ALL results, top to bottom at every regional, not just ones at particular Regionals or above the 80th percentile. The 200ish runners in every one are by far mostly Americans
are you on drugs? the 42 foreign scholarships was your number. I actually did the math wrong you said double for women so it would be 84 foreign scholarships by your own admission.
Then the scholarship limits tripled. So the number of international scholarships will likely triple.
What were are talking about is preventing student load debt from INCREASING. There's nothing we can do about the 2 trillion in student loan debt, but by adding 1.4 billion per year to AMERICAN SCHOLARSHIPS will make a huge difference in student loan debt not increasing as fast.
And the only drawback to giving the scholarships to americans? Some college sports teams won't be as strong. Big deal.
GIVE THE SCHOLARSHIPS TO AMERICANS. CONGRESS TAKE ACTION.
So you have 84 foreign scholarships and somewhere between maybe 2,000 and 10,000 or maybe more New Mexico students needing loans. Give those 84 scholarships to US kids and you still have somewhere between 2,000 and 10,000 or maybe more New Mexico students needing loans. It's great for those 84 students but does nothing at all significant for most of those other 2,000 to 10,000 or whatever students.
For you and me some college sports teams not being as strong might not be a big deal but if you're a coach or athletic director whose job is to field the most competitive teams possible it's quite a big deal. And honestly I like knowing that there are schools that care enough about cross country to go after the best runners they can find. It makes for better competition.
The bigger issue for me is the trend of college athletics. The NIL, Transfer Portal, no SAT/ACT, High School core curriculum, and now East African feeder network.
I just don’t care much about the product. Yes product, not collegiate sport in the true sense.
I very much agree. It was always a bit of a reach to believe the student part of student/athlete at a lot of big time places but it's beyond a reach now.
The bigger issue for me is the trend of college athletics. The NIL, Transfer Portal, no SAT/ACT, High School core curriculum, and now East African feeder network.
I just don’t care much about the product. Yes product, not collegiate sport in the true sense.
I very much agree. It was always a bit of a reach to believe the student part of student/athlete at a lot of big time places but it's beyond a reach now.
HRE, I suppose it eliminated compliance issues for the most part. What was once viewed as cheating the individual for the benefit of the coach is now the rule of the road. It is a mockery of academic institutions. Academic ineligibility appears to be a thing of the past. Makes you wonder how prepared today’s student/athletes are for life after sport.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
are you on drugs? the 42 foreign scholarships was your number. I actually did the math wrong you said double for women so it would be 84 foreign scholarships by your own admission.
Then the scholarship limits tripled. So the number of international scholarships will likely triple.
What were are talking about is preventing student load debt from INCREASING. There's nothing we can do about the 2 trillion in student loan debt, but by adding 1.4 billion per year to AMERICAN SCHOLARSHIPS will make a huge difference in student loan debt not increasing as fast.
And the only drawback to giving the scholarships to americans? Some college sports teams won't be as strong. Big deal.
GIVE THE SCHOLARSHIPS TO AMERICANS. CONGRESS TAKE ACTION.
So you have 84 foreign scholarships and somewhere between maybe 2,000 and 10,000 or maybe more New Mexico students needing loans. Give those 84 scholarships to US kids and you still have somewhere between 2,000 and 10,000 or maybe more New Mexico students needing loans. It's great for those 84 students but does nothing at all significant for most of those other 2,000 to 10,000 or whatever students.
For you and me some college sports teams not being as strong might not be a big deal but if you're a coach or athletic director whose job is to field the most competitive teams possible it's quite a big deal. And honestly I like knowing that there are schools that care enough about cross country to go after the best runners they can find. It makes for better competition.
It makes for better competition for the teams that recruit foreign athletes.
If you actually want 'better competition' (which you don't) you would want the NCAA to implement rules leveling the playing field.
The rules should be everyone has to have the same number of scholarships & roster spots and maybe everyone has to have exactly 2 (or maybe 3) international athletes.... throw in an age limit for good measure and that would make for better competition. But you don't want that because it would level the playing field.
are you on drugs? the 42 foreign scholarships was your number. I actually did the math wrong you said double for women so it would be 84 foreign scholarships by your own admission.
Then the scholarship limits tripled. So the number of international scholarships will likely triple.
What were are talking about is preventing student load debt from INCREASING. There's nothing we can do about the 2 trillion in student loan debt, but by adding 1.4 billion per year to AMERICAN SCHOLARSHIPS will make a huge difference in student loan debt not increasing as fast.
And the only drawback to giving the scholarships to americans? Some college sports teams won't be as strong. Big deal.
GIVE THE SCHOLARSHIPS TO AMERICANS. CONGRESS TAKE ACTION.
So you have 84 foreign scholarships and somewhere between maybe 2,000 and 10,000 or maybe more New Mexico students needing loans. Give those 84 scholarships to US kids and you still have somewhere between 2,000 and 10,000 or maybe more New Mexico students needing loans. It's great for those 84 students but does nothing at all significant for most of those other 2,000 to 10,000 or whatever students.
For you and me some college sports teams not being as strong might not be a big deal but if you're a coach or athletic director whose job is to field the most competitive teams possible it's quite a big deal. And honestly I like knowing that there are schools that care enough about cross country to go after the best runners they can find. It makes for better competition.
This is the dumbest argument in LRC history. If we can't help all 2000 students then we shouldn't help 84?
If you had the opportunity to give a home to 84 homeless people, you wouldn't just because there are millions more homeless people that you can't help?
If the NCAA rules were a level playing field via no international scholarships allowed, then the best coaches are going to win. You can field the best team with Americans. Especially at New Mexico where altitude gives you an advantage over everyone.
Nico Young committed to NAU, which is an extremely similar school to New Mexico. They could land the top American athletes there but they choose to be sleezy and recruit only from doped up nations. They deserve NO respect.
So you have 84 foreign scholarships and somewhere between maybe 2,000 and 10,000 or maybe more New Mexico students needing loans. Give those 84 scholarships to US kids and you still have somewhere between 2,000 and 10,000 or maybe more New Mexico students needing loans. It's great for those 84 students but does nothing at all significant for most of those other 2,000 to 10,000 or whatever students.
For you and me some college sports teams not being as strong might not be a big deal but if you're a coach or athletic director whose job is to field the most competitive teams possible it's quite a big deal. And honestly I like knowing that there are schools that care enough about cross country to go after the best runners they can find. It makes for better competition.
This is the dumbest argument in LRC history. If we can't help all 2000 students then we shouldn't help 84?
If you had the opportunity to give a home to 84 homeless people, you wouldn't just because there are millions more homeless people that you can't help?
If the NCAA rules were a level playing field via no international scholarships allowed, then the best coaches are going to win. You can field the best team with Americans. Especially at New Mexico where altitude gives you an advantage over everyone.
Nico Young committed to NAU, which is an extremely similar school to New Mexico. They could land the top American athletes there but they choose to be sleezy and recruit only from doped up nations. They deserve NO respect.
While I agree with you ... the issue for UNM is that the good american runners have better options than UNM... hence the reason they go for international athletes
Did you not read the part where I said it's great for the 84 athletes getting the scholarships? Of course helping 84 or even 4 is better than not helping anyone. Just don't think that helping that number is doing anything remotely significant to help with the high cost of college and the problem of student debt by giving scholarships to a tiny percentage of students.
And why do you think that if you eliminate international scholarships the best coaches would win? The coaches who do the best job recruiting US runners would win. Obviously some of those coaches will do a better job developing those US runners but do you really think there would ever be a level playing field if schools like Tulsa or East Tennessee State are recruiting against Oklahoma State or Oklahoma? There is not an unlmited supply of distance running talent. When a Nico Young goes to a school that's like New Mexico it means he's not available for New Mexico and they'll need to find someone else.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
I very much agree. It was always a bit of a reach to believe the student part of student/athlete at a lot of big time places but it's beyond a reach now.
HRE, I suppose it eliminated compliance issues for the most part. What was once viewed as cheating the individual for the benefit of the coach is now the rule of the road. It is a mockery of academic institutions. Academic ineligibility appears to be a thing of the past. Makes you wonder how prepared today’s student/athletes are for life after sport.
Some things that used to be done illegally are now being done legally. If you wanted to bet on sports legally not so long ago you had to go to Las Vegas or Reno. Doing it anywhere else was illegal but not uncommon. Now it's legal everywhere.
Similarly if a university wanted to pay its athletes it had to be done under the table because it was illegal. Now it's done openly and legally. And you rarely heard about athletes becoming academically ineligible though it did happen now and again. You would hear stories of tutors doing assignments, taking take home exams, "passing" bogus classes, and so on to keep athletes eligible.
When I lived in DC the U of Maryland was having a very good run of football seasons. At one point they had a quarterback who was in the discussion for the Heisman. Sports Illustrated sent a reporter to follow him around for a week to see what his life was like off the field, in the dorm, the library, in classrooms, etc. Someone I knew who worked in the Maryland athletic department said the quarterback was not happy about this because it meant he would have to go to class that week.
The annual nationwide graduation rate for US colleges is always around 50% for all students so you can wonder how prepared for life after school a lot of people are but most get by. And the graduation rates for college athletes is much, much, higher than 50%. I can't recall the specific number anymore but I think it might be around 80% and only a few of those atheltes are high enough profile athletes in high enough profile sports for their schools to cheat to keep them eligible. We always muddle along but not always in the same way as we once did.
Did you not read the part where I said it's great for the 84 athletes getting the scholarships? Of course helping 84 or even 4 is better than not helping anyone. Just don't think that helping that number is doing anything remotely significant to help with the high cost of college and the problem of student debt by giving scholarships to a tiny percentage of students.
And why do you think that if you eliminate international scholarships the best coaches would win? The coaches who do the best job recruiting US runners would win. Obviously some of those coaches will do a better job developing those US runners but do you really think there would ever be a level playing field if schools like Tulsa or East Tennessee State are recruiting against Oklahoma State or Oklahoma? There is not an unlmited supply of distance running talent. When a Nico Young goes to a school that's like New Mexico it means he's not available for New Mexico and they'll need to find someone else.
There's already not a level playing field because currently teams that win are the ones that have the most money to pay sketchy agents for Kenyan runners. That's not even coaching or recruiting. It's just paying a ton of money.
At least if everyone is recruiting American kids, those athletes are making decisions about which teams and coaches they like best. That's a lot more fair because a school with no money has a chance to sell the recruit on their team culture and athlete development.
But now if you don't have $100,000 to pay each year, then you can't even contact the top Kenyans.