Why do people find the idea of foreigners in the NCAA so apalling?

I would like to institute a "ding you're done" rule.

On the day you turn 24, "ding, you're done." No stories, no tales of woe. It's over, Rover.

Got nothing to do with racism. Simply tell us what the letters NCAA stand for? National Collegiate Athletic Association. I don't see the word International in there. That is my problem with foreigners. I would be okay if teams were allowed a certain percentage (15-20% ??) of foreign athletes on their rosters.

The "foreigner" situation won't change in the NCAA until it impacts the only major sport it could practically impact - basketball.

Look, if Wake Forest recruited the Lithuanian junior national team (which they realistically could do) and went to the final Four....then you might see some change/backlash in limiting "furners". Until then, nothing will change.

Back in 1980 there was an NCAA rule that for every year over 24, you lost a year of eligibility. What happened to that?

Finally, Morten Bostrom (NAU) did 2 years at U. of Helsinki (2002 & 2003) yet still got in 4 years at NAU...please explain that.

The 1980 rule was that for each year one competed after turning 20 one lost a season. That has been changed to each year after turning 21 one loses a season. So an incoming frosh at 20 or 21 has five years in which to compete four seasons in a sport.

This all to benefit the foreign student. I believe it's a disservice to the US athletes. I say once a guy hits 24 - American or foreign - he should be done, as in "stick a fork in him".

Another White Runer wrote:

Those who hate foreign runners are just ignorant...

It just seems the right thing to do to help rise up some of these foreign runners who would otherwise be running in poverty. Americans would learn to start following the foreign runners on their college team and our relationship with the world would improve.

Yes, embracing foreigners on our college teams as a path to improving our foreign relations. If our current situation is good, then having ZERO scholarships for Americans by limiting them to foreigners from east Africa would be even better, helping that many more rise up from poverty.

I'd like to add to this by saying that Providence hardly ever gives scholarships to American kids. Most of the 18 year old freshman, 19 year old sophomores, etc. are not good enough to be in their top 7 anyway.

Well, on the women's side there has been money spent on US kids. I happy to report that two US girls ran very well this fall for Providence. A couple of New Yorkers - A+.

They've had others in the past, too - the Cappello sisters.

Going way back, you'd find Amy Rudolph.

You also have to balance the fact that most top American kids won't go to Providence. You know, they've got to go to the usual: Stanford, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Ivies, etc.

It is competitive out there when you are talking about top end runners.

Just like any recruit can decide where he or she attends college, a coach can decide whether or not to coach at a certain college or not. Every coach uses his or her resources to bring in the best recruits possible. To say that a coach that has Kenyan or foreign athletes never tried to recruit American athletes, is rediculous. As a college coach, I always try to recruit the best athlete possible and I am sure that is what every other coach in the country does as well. But if kids do not want to attend a certain school then it is the coach's responsibility to build a quality program. Instead of bashing the coach's recruiting methods try encouraging the athletes to attend another school where they can be a number 1 or 2 runner for that school versus a number 9 or 10 at stronger cross or track program. It is these athletes that I know would help benefit some of the colleges that have foreign athletes.

People don't stake out a position on foreigners in college track because they think carefully about it. It's a visceral reaction.

It might be different if most people who pay attention to this were as emotionally involved in "their" college winning as they do for football and basketball. Then they'd excuse a lot. But as it is, there's only one team they're really tied into: the US national team for the Olympics and Worlds and the like. So to them it's bordering on treason to bring in a foreigner. (The ambivalence or outright hostility to naturalized citizens on a USA team is a related but separate topic.)

There are some otherwise nice people who do have some unconscious racism at work here. My college coach was very against bringing in foreigners, but was recruiting a Canadian "because that's different". I told him, more or less, that he was full of shit. Either no foreigners at all, or no distinction between them.

la la land wrote:

9 out of 15 are 17 years old = 60 percent.

Nobody will be 20 during their frosh year. Most foreign athletes are 20 or 21 during freshman year. The US runners are 18 and 19. Those extra two years mean a lot - it means that the college coach doesn't have to use the first 2 years on scholarship as development time for the US runner, he can get the foreign guy who already has that developmental time in him. So, he passes on the US runner.

Well, if you are going to be logical and make a common sense argument, no one will understand you on this forum. ;-)

quote]

Well, if you are going to be logical and make a common sense argument, no one will understand you on this forum. ;-)[/quote]

True. But if I make illogical and non sensical arguements, no one will understand me either.

It's like waking up and finding yourself in a Kafka novel.

Nope. It's racism.

You reply yawn to a two sentence comment and then proceed to write pages of drivel. No irony there!

Since when did it become an accepted fact that Kenyan runners can only beat American ones when they have an age advantage?

I guess that would explain all the US distance medals in the Olympics and the lack of Kenyan ones.

You are the voice of reason.

la la land wrote:

Yet there are a fair amount of foreigners in NCAA basketball, yet you never hear much complaining about that. Why? Because by and large American born bball players from the hood are still better. The reason people complain about foreigners in running is because they win. If theye were finishing mid pack no one would give a crap.

If you want to complain about foreigners taking up athletic scholarship $, that pales in comparison to the amount of academic scholarship $ foreigners take.

you don't hear complaining about it because the best ones don't waste their time with the ncaa and go straight to the nba. take a look at the recent drafts and you will see that the first round is littered with foreign players.

if a school somehow managed to convince 5 24-year old nba-ready foreigners to enroll and they shredded every team en route to an ncaa NC, you would hear a lot of complaining and i would expect changes because hiring a bunch of older foreigner ringers is NOT what ncaa competition is about. seton hall took a lot of heat in 1989 when it hired andrew gaze to play for it from november to march and was a key cog in its NC run. he dropped out the week after the NC finals and never returned.

Does anyone have the numbers or percentages of foreign athletes competing at all levels of NCAA cross and track? I would be curious to look into whether there appears to be more foreigners due to high representation at the upper levels of competition or if they are scattered across all talent levels.

Wejos Third Leg wrote:

Got nothing to do with racism. Simply tell us what the letters NCAA stand for? National Collegiate Athletic Association. I don't see the word International in there. That is my problem with foreigners. I would be okay if teams were allowed a certain percentage (15-20% ??) of foreign athletes on their rosters.

I'm glad we've got a (mostly) civilized discussion going here. Some good points made by both sides. This, however, is not an argument at all. Simply because it says NATIONAL collegiate athletics association doesn't mean that there should be no internationals within it.

By that logic the Toronto Raptors shouldn't exist. Neither should the entire NATIONAL Hockey League.

I think the 'N' in NCAA refers more to where the league takes place rather than who is or should be allowed to compete.

The National is modifying Collegiate and since they are US Colleges there is no problem.

I am really curious exactly how many Americans lose scholarships to foreigners. After all coming out of High School with 14:30-45 potential will get a scholarship somewhere, instead it is the borderline D1 people who end up going D2 who are actually losing a scholarship. The others just may not get the scholarships they want.

Along those lines, what are the numbers of foreigners athletes? It is probably a small number and Americans actually do still succeed at the Collegiate level.

The purpose of the NCAA is not to develop athletes. If it would be much easier to be an athlete without taking class. They probably do try (whether they succeed is another question) at getting student athletes. In this regard then it is really better to get some fast Kenyans than some Americans. The Kenyans will take school seriously and live/work in the US if they don't go pro. The Americas will just try to be a sports start, realize they can't go pro and work at a shoe store while doing local road races. The Kenyan in the long run is worth more.

People get too focused on the short term and forget about all the runners foreign or not who don't keep running. I know of Kenyans from UTEP who either stayed at the school to finish their degree (unlike the Americans who "major in running") or after graduating applied to PhD programs and taught in US public schools. Not to mention that the year they ran XC CU won Nations. (As a side note, DIII Star Peter Kosgei couldn't break 4 for an indoor 1500 or 2 flat for an 800 when first ran for Hamilton, while he isn't on scholarship he is anything but pre-made.)

Ultimately, the foreign athlete question isn't about ability, semantics, or tax dollars. Instead it is a knee jerk reaction. There are the brave souls who strive for consistency but the majority of people are talking about Kenyans when they say foreigners (I have more in common with a Kenyan than many Americas, and the argument is that "I cheer for whites over blacks because I have more in common with them" is facially preposterous because race, unlike nationality, has nothing to do with personality.). There is a racial element to peoples problems. In the end the argument is this: Some Kenyans are good at running professionally, therefore Kenyans are good at running, therefore having Kenyans on a team is getting an advantage, advantages are cheating, therefore having Kenyans on your team is cheating. Logically it breaks down in many places, but the argument against foreigners isn't logical.

your post is illogical.