If you haven't visited Hunington WV you shouldn't comment.
Foreigners are probably the only athletes they CAN get that will come.
If you haven't visited Hunington WV you shouldn't comment.
Foreigners are probably the only athletes they CAN get that will come.
You were perhaps taking away a scholarship spot from a US athlete but if you were it was because your coach thought you'd be a better runner. And you were NOT taking money from US taxpayers. You were taking it from your university's athletic department which does not receive taxpayer money and is instead funded by ticket sales, media revenue, conference revenue sharing, donations, student activity fees, etc. If you went to a state university you actually cost the taxpayers LESS money than you'd have done if you had been a resident of that state because in that case the state's taxpayers would have been paying for about half of your tuition but as an out of state student, and out of country is no different than out of state, the athletic department paid your full fare. For whatever reason, soccer matters to Marshall and they do what they need to to succeed and it's not costing West Virginians anything.
The Chronicle of Higher Ed wrote:
You were perhaps taking away a scholarship spot from a US athlete but if you were it was because your coach thought you'd be a better runner. And you were NOT taking money from US taxpayers. You were taking it from your university's athletic department which does not receive taxpayer money and is instead funded by ticket sales, media revenue, conference revenue sharing, donations, student activity fees, etc. If you went to a state university you actually cost the taxpayers LESS money than you'd have done if you had been a resident of that state because in that case the state's taxpayers would have been paying for about half of your tuition but as an out of state student, and out of country is no different than out of state, the athletic department paid your full fare. For whatever reason, soccer matters to Marshall and they do what they need to to succeed and it's not costing West Virginians anything.
Wow you are a moron and you have no clue have college or athletic departments work.
So no one has figured out why they have 50 people on the roster?
Anyway, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Howard won a
couple of NCAA titles in the 1970s with almost an all foreign squad:
My classmate at Princeton - Grant Wahl - wrot ehis first ever SI story on it.
truth here wrote:
The Chronicle of Higher Ed wrote:
You were perhaps taking away a scholarship spot from a US athlete but if you were it was because your coach thought you'd be a better runner. And you were NOT taking money from US taxpayers. You were taking it from your university's athletic department which does not receive taxpayer money and is instead funded by ticket sales, media revenue, conference revenue sharing, donations, student activity fees, etc. If you went to a state university you actually cost the taxpayers LESS money than you'd have done if you had been a resident of that state because in that case the state's taxpayers would have been paying for about half of your tuition but as an out of state student, and out of country is no different than out of state, the athletic department paid your full fare. For whatever reason, soccer matters to Marshall and they do what they need to to succeed and it's not costing West Virginians anything.
Wow you are a moron and you have no clue have college or athletic departments work.
I'm pretty sure is do. But if you know better why not explain how they work rather than toss out a useless insult?
rojo wrote:
So no one has figured out why they have 50 people on the roster?
Anyway, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Howard won a
couple of NCAA titles in the 1970s with almost an all foreign squad:
My classmate at Princeton - Grant Wahl - wrot ehis first ever SI story on it.
https://vault.si.com/vault/1997/02/24/men-on-a-mission-the-1974-howard-university-soccer-team-wanted-to-win-more-than-an-ncaa-titleene
Many schools will have 25-30 on the roster. Even this is a lot, since no more than 17-18 might actually play, and many coaches will use as few as 14-15 players.
There's 47 on the current Marshall roster. I can't explain that, I've never seen a college roster with more than maybe 35, and even that's 10 more than a lot of schools will have.
In both 2018 and 2019, with the same coach, there were 29 players on the Marshall roster. So the bloated roster this year may have something to do with Covid.
I'm surprised a UK based, or European based pro team hasn't taken kids from their system and plugged them in over here.
Pay for the coach, supply the athletes, hide their stuff overseas - the NCAA will never find it.
Each of these teams has a junior program. They take kids in their early teens. This would be a great , cheap way to drag out their coaching.
okeeedooodie wrote:
I'm surprised a UK based, or European based pro team hasn't taken kids from their system and plugged them in over here.
Pay for the coach, supply the athletes, hide their stuff overseas - the NCAA will never find it.
Each of these teams has a junior program. They take kids in their early teens. This would be a great , cheap way to drag out their coaching.
That's interesting. But it would probably only work in select cases. Like the players would need to be eligible, that might be a challenge for some age wise and schooling wise. Then you likely run into problems with maintaining rights to the players. So you couldn't put your top prospects there.
Alright bud, imma just call your bluff right now. I highly doubt you are a foreign athlete, who "knew (I) coming at the expense of tax payers and US athletes.", and now wants a "25% cap on foreign athletes to the US."
More likely, you are a young white US male who is salty they couldn't make a D1 team and now likes to play pretend "foreign athlete" online to give his nationalist worldviews an air of credibility.
America's universities are the best in the world in part because they admit people from all over the world.
applebys123 wrote:
Alright bud, imma just call your bluff right now. I highly doubt you are a foreign athlete, who "knew (I) coming at the expense of tax payers and US athletes.", and now wants a "25% cap on foreign athletes to the US."
More likely, you are a young white US male who is salty they couldn't make a D1 team and now likes to play pretend "foreign athlete" online to give his nationalist worldviews an air of credibility.
America's universities are the best in the world in part because they admit people from all over the world.
Good guess I'd say. People here who don't like the foreign presence in the NCAA usually seem to drag out the line about US taxpayers paying for those athletes to go to school when that's not true. And you're right, going to a university is supposed to broaden your learning and perspective. Getting to know people from other countries is a good way of doing that.
The Chronicle of Higher Ed wrote:
truth here wrote:
Wow you are a moron and you have no clue have college or athletic departments work.
I'm pretty sure is do. But if you know better why not explain how they work rather than toss out a useless insult?
Most athletic departments lose money. Marshall's athletic department loses close to 2 million per year (this calculation may not even include the cost of athletic scholarships). Guess who ends up footing the bill for those losses? The taxpayers and the tuition-paying students.
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/sports/columnists/chuck_landon/chuck-landon-marshall-athletics-consistently-losing-money/article_54c86b17-bfd8-5bad-96aa-a4cdac73f972.htmlHasn't Joe Franklin of New Mexico and previously Butler been doing just this for years. At Butler, he consistently had 4 foreigners in his top 5.
Wasn't is just 2 years ago Letsrun did a story on the UNM women's team being all foreigners?
The business of athletic departments and money they lose or make for their universities is not as simple and straightforward as just looking at a balance sheet. Most schools do not get as many applicants as they want. Athletic teams attract applicants in some cases from high school kids who want to keep playing their sport in college and in some cases because many high school kids consider watching athletic teams as part of the university experience that they want to have.
My son has a friend who was very clear he wanted to go to a school where he could watch a fairly big time football team. In the early 00s when Appalachian State was still playing 1-AA football they opened the season at Michigan who was then ranked #2 in D 1-A and won. The number of applications ASU got the next year was something like 1,000 times more than they'd ever gotten. My dad's alma mater dropped football in the early '50s and brought it back around 1980 because they knew they'd get 40-50 more applications from high school boys who had played in high school and wanted to keep on in college.
The money schools get from the increased number of applicants usually more than offsets the losses of the athletic department. And the money to cover those shortfalls does not come from taxpayers or tuition money. There are various sources that cover it with the most common being the student activity fee. So yes, students cover the shortfalls but not with tuition money or taxpayer money of any kind.
"but not . . . taxpayer money of any kind"
Except for the taxpayer money to pay for infrastructure and facilities that support athletic programs, including water, sewer, and electric bills; and the lost real estate tax revenue from land now occupied by the tax exempt athletic facilities. For large schools, PSU being a good example, taxpayer funded highways to get 100K+ people to the relatively remote campus a few times a year.
CrispyChicken wrote:
"but not . . . taxpayer money of any kind"
Except for the taxpayer money to pay for infrastructure and facilities that support athletic programs, including water, sewer, and electric bills; and the lost real estate tax revenue from land now occupied by the tax exempt athletic facilities. For large schools, PSU being a good example, taxpayer funded highways to get 100K+ people to the relatively remote campus a few times a year.
You're really digging here. There is no tax revenue lost because of land occupied by tax exempt athletic facilities. Take the facilities away and the land still belongs to the tax exempt university so still no revenue. And the highways that people use to drive to a place like Penn State are used year round. It's a campus with something like 40,000 students. People come and go all the time and mostly not to go to athletic events. It's right next to I-80. If Penn State didn't exist I-80 still would. It's also right next to I-99 which was built as a corridor between I-80 in State College and the Pa. Turnpike in Bedford. Yes, those highways get you into and out of State College faster than US 322 or Pa. 26 or 64 did but none of those roads were built with the idea of transporting football fans.
And if you really want to look at the economic impact of a major university's athletic program on its community think about the money the community makes when you have nearly something like 80,000 people coming to town seven times a year needing to eat and get a hotel room for a couple nights.
HRE wrote:
CrispyChicken wrote:
"but not . . . taxpayer money of any kind"
Except for the taxpayer money to pay for infrastructure and facilities that support athletic programs, including water, sewer, and electric bills; and the lost real estate tax revenue from land now occupied by the tax exempt athletic facilities. For large schools, PSU being a good example, taxpayer funded highways to get 100K+ people to the relatively remote campus a few times a year.
You're really digging here. There is no tax revenue lost because of land occupied by tax exempt athletic facilities. Take the facilities away and the land still belongs to the tax exempt university so still no revenue. And the highways that people use to drive to a place like Penn State are used year round. It's a campus with something like 40,000 students. People come and go all the time and mostly not to go to athletic events. It's right next to I-80. If Penn State didn't exist I-80 still would. It's also right next to I-99 which was built as a corridor between I-80 in State College and the Pa. Turnpike in Bedford. Yes, those highways get you into and out of State College faster than US 322 or Pa. 26 or 64 did but none of those roads were built with the idea of transporting football fans.
And if you really want to look at the economic impact of a major university's athletic program on its community think about the money the community makes when you have nearly something like 80,000 people coming to town seven times a year needing to eat and get a hotel room for a couple nights.
But even private schools being in the bulk of their revenue from American students. So ultimately American dollars fund these scholarships. I get that a school like Marshall isn’t necessarily attractive to the best American soccer players but allowing this practice forces other schools to recruit internationally to remain competitive. UNC lost to Marshall in the semis - next year maybe their coach gives an extra scholarship or two to the talented international over the American player. I presented stats earlier in this thread showing that almost 2/3rds of men’s tennis players playing in this years NCAA championship are foreigners. I wonder if people on this thread (including you Rojo) would feel differently if 2/3rds of NCAA XC nationals were foreigners. It happened in tennis because the foreign recruits are just better. Same is true in track. I have no doubt moving in that direction would seriously compromise US distance running development.
Tribe wrote:
But even private schools being in the bulk of their revenue from American students. So ultimately American dollars fund these scholarships. I get that a school like Marshall isn’t necessarily attractive to the best American soccer players but allowing this practice forces other schools to recruit internationally to remain competitive. UNC lost to Marshall in the semis - next year maybe their coach gives an extra scholarship or two to the talented international over the American player. I presented stats earlier in this thread showing that almost 2/3rds of men’s tennis players playing in this years NCAA championship are foreigners. I wonder if people on this thread (including you Rojo) would feel differently if 2/3rds of NCAA XC nationals were foreigners. It happened in tennis because the foreign recruits are just better. Same is true in track. I have no doubt moving in that direction would seriously compromise US distance running development.
The international recruits just move back to their own country after graduating, too. So the states that pay for their college education don't even get the benefit of adding them to the workforce.
That's like owning a corporation, spending huge amounts of money to train your staff, then 3 days later they leave. You don't even get the return from your own investment.
Yes, schools all get the bulk of their revenue from US students. And they get none from an athlete getting a full ride but it's the athletic department's money to spend as it sees fit and if foreign athletes give them better teams they're going to bring them in. If it means a US kid doesn't get a scholarship it's not the athletic department's fault, it's the kid's for not being better at his sport. And I doubt that any college coach's job description says anything about developing the sport for the US.
Again, the states do not pay for the education of foreign athletes. It's probably pointless to say this again as you're convinced they do. And many foreign students, athletes or not, go back to their home countries upon graduation. Many stay here. I could rattle off a dozen top level distance runners from my college years or thereabouts who came here and stayed permanently or for decades. Henry Rono just went back to Kenya a few months ago. Malcolm East is still here.
I get it. A lot of people don't like having foreigners competing in the NCAA and that's your own business and why you don't is also your own business, But if you're trying to persuade others that you're right, using inaccurate, made up reasons doesn't help your case.
HRE wrote:
Yes, schools all get the bulk of their revenue from US students. And they get none from an athlete getting a full ride but it's the athletic department's money to spend as it sees fit and if foreign athletes give them better teams they're going to bring them in. If it means a US kid doesn't get a scholarship it's not the athletic department's fault, it's the kid's for not being better at his sport. And I doubt that any college coach's job description says anything about developing the sport for the US.
I agree with this. I’ve been arguing principals but the practicality of creating a system that is more beneficial to American athletes is a big challenge. I think it would first require acknowledging/embracing the NCAA role as an Olympic sports development league, and then some sort of public/private partnership that creates financial benefit for the NCAA and schools. Not sure how this would happen but the first barrier is getting consensus that the NCAA should prioritize American athletes and based on this thread, that may be impossible.