Yup! Americans are too weak to compete against the best runners from other countries. They should compete against similarly weak 'talent' so they can build their egos sufficently before they go out into the big, bad world of distance running and take on the world's best runners.
US coaches have always tried to get the best athletes out of Kenya but always lacked the knowledge, resources, network or time to do so. You’d occasionally see glimpses of what’s possible when one of the ten average runners recruited out of Kenya actually turned out to be good but the best athletes either didn’t consider going to the NCAA (before cost of attendance scholarships) or were not able to secure scholarships due to lack of contacts to US collegiate coaches.
Today, you have recruiting agencies perfecting the game that coaches themselves never mastered. They find the right athletes, understand ncaa eligibility rules and help both coaches and athletes to get eligible, get admitted, get US visas, etc.
You cannot blame the athletes to chase an opportunity of financial stability, an opportunity to get educated, all while pursuing their hopes of a professional running career. Anybody in their situation would do the same.
And all this complaining about their age is getting old. Get over it. Everyone is operating within the rules. If you’re not understanding the rules that’s neither the athletes problem, nor the coaches problem, nor the recruiting agencies problem. Rules are there to be interpreted, followed and if that’s done then no one should complain about it simply due to the fact that people can’t seem to understand them.
This professionalization of recruiting is a common thing other sports but is relatively new in track and field. It has only been done for about a year now when it comes to Kenyan recruiting but Kenyan runners dominating the NCAA in XC and long distance races is the future. Get ready for it. In 2-3 years over half of the top 40 spots in NCAA D1 will go to runners from Kenya. Mark my words.
10
5
"Comfort must not be expected by folks that go a pleasuring."
And all this complaining about their age is getting old. Get over it. Everyone is operating within the rules. If you’re not understanding the rules that’s neither the athletes problem, nor the coaches problem, nor the recruiting agencies problem. Rules are there to be interpreted, followed and if that’s done then no one should complain about it simply due to the fact that people can’t seem to understand them.
I would agree with you that we should just "get over" the whole age thing if American High Schoolers had access to world class training for 2 to 3 years after high school without burning eligibility (i.e., JUCOs) - but they don't. So until then the complaining about the age gap is valid.
If you get beaten by NAU by such a BS rule, I do not blame you for trying to show some ingenuity to get revenge.
For all Dave Smith knew, Mike Smith was going to keep getting transfers and was never going to retire so he figured, I got Alex Maier, Faoud Massoui, and Ryan Schoppe, it's now or never
I would agree with you that we should just "get over" the whole age thing if American High Schoolers had access to world class training for 2 to 3 years after high school without burning eligibility (i.e., JUCOs) - but they don't. So until then the complaining about the age gap is valid.
Most young bright Americans focus on getting ahead in life quickly. Many finish undergrad still 21, are making good money by 25, and firmly established in career by 30.
If instead a runner focused on 'getting my age 21-26 years in college running' there are plenty of ways to use gap years, etc to achieve this.
The opportunity is there, just almost 0 Americans would choose to do this.
Note there are plenty of 25-28 yr old American football players in college. In this case there is, however, a strong financial incentive if they can then play a couple years in NFL.
Given that there is almost no equivalent alternative for a top Mormon runner, it will be interesting now to see how they develop their club team.
Many top runners will still choose BYU even if they can't get a roster spot.
You'd be right until you remember that mormons are only 2% of the country's population. Absolutely NOBODY wants to even consider BYU as a school unless they fall in that small group. Think of all the substance abuse theyd miss out on!!!
It needs to be studied how LDS is such a small population and yet makes up so many top american distance runners.
Study will find that clean living, work ethic, and religious faith are a potent combination not shared by most folks in the 'west', let alone hedonistic college students.
Their age is not the issue. The issue is that some people don't like East Africans competing. This is D1 athletics. If you can get the absolute best talent in the world, you would turn it down? Coaches get incentive bonuses. AD's get incentive bonuses. Athletes get paid. It's a business.
But the opportunities are there if they run fast enough. All of these arguments against East Africans are ridiculous. It works for them. It works for the coaches. It works for the AD's.
Of the top 15 mens finishers, every single athlete was either a BYU athlete or an East African.
It's shameful how these teams have abandoned developing domestic talent. East Africans have been part of the NCAA for decades. But never like this.
Very peculiar that anyone is recruiting or importing athletes at educational institutions. The power of athletics to educate is well known. However that power isn't better (and may largely be lost) when those learning about athletics (or more accurately learning about themselves through athletics) are selected primarily for their ability to perform at elite levels.
And especially peculiar when such institutions are funded by taxpayers, who are theoretically expecting some kind of social good to arise from the subsidy. Hard to imagine the social good that comes from importing a bunch of African runners and flying them around to track meets. There is clearly some. But is there more than if local kids were attending the schools? I suppose that depends on whether the schools are providing utility or disutility to the attendees -- sadly not a question that is settled in all cases.
Taxpayer funded institutions ought to have coaches recruit from a school's existing student population, which should in turn be selected predominantly from local applicants. Other institutions should do as they please, knowing full well that recruiting elite athletes, while potentially useful for entertainment purposes, may crowd out others who may benefit more from the experience, regardless of their performance level.
Do you really think that BYU will beat Ok St. at nationals? Zero chance. Why would Ok St. shoot their wad at conference? No need. They have bigger goals.
But the opportunities are there if they run fast enough. All of these arguments against East Africans are ridiculous. It works for them. It works for the coaches. It works for the AD's.
I'm sure it pleases coaches and ADs who are chasing the wrong kinds of accolades and who have little concern for the folks who pay their keep.
The idea that taxpayers are paying for something to please coaches and ADs and not to educate the children of the people paying the taxes seems like clear mission drift. You could argue that having African distance runners is some kind of diversity thing -- like it is worth it because it broadens the horizons of the other students, or some such marginal benefit. But how would that benefit compare with the ability of another local to attend the institution or run on the track team?
Of course the universities may be more costly than beneficial (and potentially by orders of magnitude,) but even if they did succeed not in enriching financiers, and administrators, but in educating young people, you'd expect that the focus would be on educating young people, perhaps even helping them develop themselves mentally and physically, and not on recruiting people who already have esoteric skill sets like distance running.
During these 2 years they are required to wake up every morning at like 6 and exercise for an hour.
As a graduate of BYU that statement is just garbage. I am unaware of any missionaries being required to workout the first hour of the day during their missionary service. And certainly not enough to give them any advantage after they get back. I remember seeing several out of shape upon returning to BYU.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
During these 2 years they are required to wake up every morning at like 6 and exercise for an hour.
As a graduate of BYU that statement is just garbage. I am unaware of any missionaries being required to workout the first hour of the day during their missionary service. And certainly not enough to give them any advantage after they get back. I remember seeing several out of shape upon returning to BYU.
I ran twice in 2 years on my mission. I came back 10 lbs heavier and way slower.
Look at Conner Mantz. He gained a bunch of weight and could barely break 18 minutes for a 5k the last day of his mission.
People that say missions benefit athletes have no clue what they're talking about.
During these 2 years they are required to wake up every morning at like 6 and exercise for an hour.
As a graduate of BYU that statement is just garbage. I am unaware of any missionaries being required to workout the first hour of the day during their missionary service. And certainly not enough to give them any advantage after they get back. I remember seeing several out of shape upon returning to BYU.
I ran twice in 2 years on my mission. I came back 10 lbs heavier and way slower.
Look at Conner Mantz. He gained a bunch of weight and could barely break 18 minutes for a 5k the last day of his mission.
Your argument isn't as strong as you think. A 10-pound weight gain and a 17-minute 5k are entirely manageable starting points for a naturally proficient runner resuming training after a prolonged break, whether it from injury or in this case, a mission. Someone like Mantz could feasibly improve from an 17-minute to a 15-minute 5k within eight weeks of dedicated effort. Given another six to eight weeks, reaching a 14-minute flat isn't out of the question. As for the extra 10 pounds, shedding that weight can be a relatively swift process for anyone with a decent metabolism who commits to daily exercise. In total, it probably takes less than six months to get back to racing shape post-mission, about the same timeframe as an injury that required moderate surgery, but without the injury or the surgery.
This is a hill I'm willing to die on. There is absolutely no benefit to being 24 vs 22 in athletic performance. There are countless examples of 18 to 22 year olds that have excelled at a world class level. My argument is very strong. Look at Ingebretsen, Bekele, Kipchoge...there are limitless examples going back decades.
The reason why American college athletes get faster in college has nothing to do with age. It has everything to do with increasing fitness. These missionaries definitely aren't increasing their fitness.
During these 2 years they are required to wake up every morning at like 6 and exercise for an hour.
As a graduate of BYU that statement is just garbage. I am unaware of any missionaries being required to workout the first hour of the day during their missionary service. And certainly not enough to give them any advantage after they get back. I remember seeing several out of shape upon returning to BYU.
I ran twice in 2 years on my mission. I came back 10 lbs heavier and way slower.
Look at Conner Mantz. He gained a bunch of weight and could barely break 18 minutes for a 5k the last day of his mission.
People that say missions benefit athletes have no clue what they're talking about.
It only benefits them age wise, that's the POINT! We're not saying living in Ecuador for 2 years is an unfair advantage, being a 25–27-year-old Junior/Senior when you come home is a clear advantage over an 18–19-year-old. Also, what's the deal with not being able to run and or exercise while on your mission? Is this forbidden and or sinful? I understand the no drinking/caffeine, but exercise? The whole point of religion is to be happy, healthy, and a good person.
Don’t they only ride a bike or walk on their mission? Seems like a fitness builder to me!
Honestly I think it is a maturity and responsibility advantage. Most kids take two years of college learning how to take care of themselves. The Mormon culture along with the mission makes for a much more adult 21 year old than your standard American kid.
They don’t drink, live a clean life, they also all want to get married and have kids. Don’t see a lot of undecided majors over there at BYU. If you wanted 4 kids by 35 you study something real and think long term.
I coached for a while and the Euro kids I believe had this advantage as well. Much more responsible and capable of taking care of themselves. But the best and brightest come over. Takes a lot of move to a new country and live. Most kids still go home all the time in college so mom can rub their belly
There really needs to be age-based divisions in NCAA XC.
22-and-under and 23+ should be two different divisions in every major race, regionals, and nationals. A 25,26 year old competing against an 18 or 19 year old is a farce. Two totally different bodies in vastly different states of strength. One person in absolute prime of their running life and the other just discovering what their body can do in running.
It will be more apples-to-apples racing. Then BYU can race over-aged Kenyans and have a blast. it would also discourage so much red-shirting.
It only benefits them age wise, that's the POINT! We're not saying living in Ecuador for 2 years is an unfair advantage, being a 25–27-year-old Junior/Senior when you come home is a clear advantage over an 18–19-year-old. Also, what's the deal with not being able to run and or exercise while on your mission? Is this forbidden and or sinful? I understand the no drinking/caffeine, but exercise? The whole point of religion is to be happy, healthy, and a good person.
That's obvious but not unfair. A 22-24 year old senior or redshirt senior has an advantage over a 18-19 year old freshman as well.
For fairness sake, what you should be comparing is a 22-24 year old senior/redshirt senior vs a 24-26 year old senior or redshirt senior who served a 2 year mission.
Advantage, fairly even. Assuming a smooth transition back from the mission to previous fitness levels rather quickly, both athletes would have the same amount of years in the collegiate system to build up fitness at this point in their careers.
Aside from the fact that one runner delayed their development and potential pro career for a couple years.
How old were Hocker and Teare when they went pro? Like age 20-22. Top tier athletes can generally reach their full potential in college by 22 or 23 and go Pro. For top tier guys like Clinger and Simmons, serving a mission only hampers the potential longevity of their respective pro careers. It's not a self serving decision in terms of running advantage/convenience at all.
I'm sure Eyestone respects an athletes decision to serve a mission and is not discouraging at all. But I think you'd be kidding yourself if you believe that from a team performance, and talent development standpoint he wouldn't be higher on the prospect of having guys like Simmons and Clinger to develop right out of highschool for 4-5 years as opposed to the prospect of delayed development, along with introducing the risk and uncertainty of a two year hiatus.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.