Did they teach you about discrimination on your mission where you got parasites?
ED EYESTONE THROWS SERIOUS SHADE AT SUDBURY, GAUSON, AND SMITH FOR INTERNATIONAL RECRUITING
College Running
D1
We merged two threads on the same article into 1 and kept the OG title. The 2nd title was “Ed Eyeston (sic), who coached Conner Mantz to 2 NCAA titles at age 24, complains about overage foreigners”
-
56
-
rojo wrote:
RossiCheated wrote:
Never thought I would write this, but...
I feel kind of bad for the NCAA.
Why?
They have to be tired of getting sued into oblivion, and can't really make any rules that will slow much of this down.
Try to slow down unfettered transfers? Get sued.
Try to limit income streams? Get sued.
Try to have a strict age limit? Get sued.
Try to limit how many foreign-born (international student) athletes you have? Get sued.
And good luck making the case that the NCAA would win any of those kind of cases in the current environment. Obviously I don't mean to speak in absolutes and claim the NCAA is completely powerless, but you get my point and it is largely true.
EDIT TO ADD: If the point of the conversation is to say that athletic departments or coaches should recruit American students as a matter of policy or personal ethics, then I think that discussion is certainly interesting.
Great post.
Jonathan and I went to the coaches party last night. We were talking about this stuff. I said, “Look , can we just get an age cap? That’s not controversial.” Two different coaches said “no chance - lawsuit.” I was stunned.
God help us if coaches are moonlighting as lawyers.
None of this is particularly complicated: You get 6 years from graduation to complete 4 seasons. High school graduation is verified.
Military service, medical issues, and mission trips get exemptions.
Club competition after graduation counts against the clock. Narrowly tailored, does not discriminate against a protected class. If there was a will there certainly would be a way.142 -
Space Ghost wrote:
Of course two years of maturation for a post-adolescent male is a net gain, even accounting for the two-year hole in training. But that's not the point AT ALL. What Eyestone does in building his NCAA program is recruit 18 year olds who are far away from being competitive at the NCAA level (even an 8:45 two-mile gets you nowhere at NCAAs). He then has to work to develop them (and hope they have the necessary talent and focus) into top NCAA athletes, which is a damn high level. The game is trying to guess right on the 18 year olds and then build a culture and training program that maximized the chances for them to develop into difference-makers. But even with the best coaching, most of the 18 year olds won't have the combination of talent, luck, and focus to become the sub-13:30 guy you need to be to have an impact at the national level. But that's the game.
What Scholarbook does is deliver dozens of athletes who have already gone through that funnel and proven they ARE one of those former 18 years olds with the right talent and luck (and maybe pharmacist). They are ALREADY at top NCAA level.
So even if you believe (as I do) that the Mormon missions provide a boost to BYU, Eyestone is still guessing on 18 year olds and then having to develop them through the ups and downs (which is complicated by the big training gap). Completely different game from the coaches who buy athletes at the other end of the funnel.
This is the answer, eyestone is actually training people (including freshman and non-mission goers i.e. linkletter, creed Thompson, Tayvon Kitchen) to be nationally competitive athletes from being not competitive to being competitive. Other coaches are literally buying athletes through sportsbook who come pretrained. They are not the same.
271 -
Space Ghost wrote:
Of course two years of maturation for a post-adolescent male is a net gain, even accounting for the two-year hole in training. But that's not the point AT ALL. What Eyestone does in building his NCAA program is recruit 18 year olds who are far away from being competitive at the NCAA level (even an 8:45 two-mile gets you nowhere at NCAAs). He then has to work to develop them (and hope they have the necessary talent and focus) into top NCAA athletes, which is a damn high level. The game is trying to guess right on the 18 year olds and then build a culture and training program that maximized the chances for them to develop into difference-makers. But even with the best coaching, most of the 18 year olds won't have the combination of talent, luck, and focus to become the sub-13:30 guy you need to be to have an impact at the national level. But that's the game.
What Scholarbook does is deliver dozens of athletes who have already gone through that funnel and proven they ARE one of those former 18 years olds with the right talent and luck (and maybe pharmacist). They are ALREADY at top NCAA level.
So even if you believe (as I do) that the Mormon missions provide a boost to BYU, Eyestone is still guessing on 18 year olds and then having to develop them through the ups and downs (which is complicated by the big training gap). Completely different game from the coaches who buy athletes at the other end of the funnel.
How does he guess about 18 year olds? Walk-ons are lottery tickets, and it’s more about odds than coaching.
Has anyone asked Eyestone if he’s embarrassed to receive 13:26 and 8:34 guys without having to spend even a second on recruiting?
315 -
This is such a weak answer to an already weak question. Of course the programs taking advantage of ready made imported pros see the merits of foreign recruits. It is a journalistic failure to not bring up Arkansas’ convicted doper that was rostered just a few years ago to highlight just one negative aspect of the internationals coming to the NCAA.
130 -
Another classic Letsrun thread about anything related to BYU.
Ed Eyestone: exists
90% of the comments: "Mormons are age cheats and their religion is stupid!"
Do better people. Do some research, don't be a jerk about someone's beliefs if they happen to be different from yours, talk about running... Pretty simple. And no, I didn't go to BYU and I don't particularly care for them, but I don't have to bash Ed's religion and claim he somehow cheated when he's arguably one of the best coaches in the country and objectively the most successful men's coach in Utah (where every school has majority LDS kids on their teams).
346 -
I wish more coaches would speak out on this for this reason. If the only champions of this cause are BYU and Rita Gary, then there’s no shortage of holes to poke in the method of thinking.
82 -
OED wrote:
Do you seriously think that Casey Clinger, a two-time NXN champ and the highest placing freshman at NCs his first year did better in college by going on a mission than he would have had he stayed home and trained continuously?
Of course I think he was better by competing at 25-26! Do you honestly think 20 year old Casey Clinger, a two-time NXN champ and highest ranking placing freshman at NCs his first year at college would take 4 YEARS to “recover” fitness from a two year mission and be better off from being in his athletic prime?!
812 -
rocketrunner wrote:
Another classic Letsrun thread about anything related to BYU.
Ed Eyestone: exists
90% of the comments: "Mormons are age cheats and their religion is stupid!"
Do better people. Do some research, don't be a jerk about someone's beliefs if they happen to be different from yours, talk about running... Pretty simple. And no, I didn't go to BYU and I don't particularly care for them, but I don't have to bash Ed's religion and claim he somehow cheated when he's arguably one of the best coaches in the country and objectively the most successful men's coach in Utah (where every school has majority LDS kids on their teams).
Attacking their religion is childish and frankly not relevant.
Do you see hypocrisy in the BYU coach complaining about unfairness of overage athletes?
165 -
deaf ears ed wrote:
OED wrote:
Even if they take two years off from training? Come on, use your brain (I know, a big ask on this board)!
Undoubtedly, yes. How many Mormons do you know? It is not the sedentary lifestyle that many defenders of the practice try to paint. These are some of the top distance talents in the country, how long do you think it takes them to get back aerobic fitness? Not 3-4 years, that’s for sure. And then they reap the benefits of being 25-26 year olds in their athletic prime.
Amen. LRC is the place that allows the least informed and least experienced. Physical development occurs regardless of the (running) training levels during those two years. How many times do injured runners come back better than ever during extended training breaks? Often.
Puberty is a powerful training enhancer, regardless of the actual training. Ever look at pictures of yourself during the growth years? Not just pictures of yourself in your hs running gear, but pictures of headshots? At 14, 16, 18, 20, 22? You look entirely different from year to year. I saw a team photo from my freshman year of college. I looked like a little kid who snuck in the photo.
Only in the LRC fantasy world do they think Mormons lose irrecoverable fitness due to the mission. It doesn't happen. I've said before in this thread, I wished that I took off a year or two before starting college. It would have made a huge difference.
Just to make sure anyone doesn't misinterpret what I've said. I admire what Eyestone and BYU has done. I like the whole clean living thing. There is a lot to be said about it. But when it comes to complaining about over-aged Kenyans, Eyestone should just zip it. He's the last NCAA coach who has a bona fide complaint.219 -
I agree with all of this except "exploit foreign recruits"....these recruits are doing the exploitation.
91 -
Airport lounge 2 wrote:
rojo wrote:
Great post.
Jonathan and I went to the coaches party last night. We were talking about this stuff. I said, “Look , can we just get an age cap? That’s not controversial.” Two different coaches said “no chance - lawsuit.” I was stunned.
God help us if coaches are moonlighting as lawyers.
None of this is particularly complicated: You get 6 years from graduation to complete 4 seasons. High school graduation is verified.
Military service, medical issues, and mission trips get exemptions.
Club competition after graduation counts against the clock. Narrowly tailored, does not discriminate against a protected class. If there was a will there certainly would be a way.Just call it 7 and you’ll get buy in from all the BYU fans.
11 -
deaf ears ed wrote:
OED wrote:
Do you seriously think that Casey Clinger, a two-time NXN champ and the highest placing freshman at NCs his first year did better in college by going on a mission than he would have had he stayed home and trained continuously?
Of course I think he was better by competing at 25-26! Do you honestly think 20 year old Casey Clinger, a two-time NXN champ and highest ranking placing freshman at NCs his first year at college would take 4 YEARS to “recover” fitness from a two year mission and be better off from being in his athletic prime?!
Geez man, you don’t even understand your own argument, do you? It’s not about “recovery.” It’s about whether a 25 year old Clinger who took two years off is in a better position than a 23 year old Clinger who has been running continuously. Clinger’s results, as I noted above, are pretty good proof that he wasn’t in a better position. Clinger wa always going to be good. Being in one’s athletic prime is more a product of years training than an age. Being 25 doesn’t automatically make someone faster. This is what I mean by pointing out how shallow your arguments are. They literally boil down to “Clinger was good. Clinger served a mission. Therefore, the mission gave Clinger an advantage.” Logical fallacies aside, it completely ignores reality.
174 -
BYU is a church and all of their rules start there.
I think it is very applicable to point out to hypocrisy in Eyestone’s statements. Many of which are related to the religious beliefs.
Sounds like sour grapes from a coach that doesn’t like people playing by the same rules he takes advantage of.
315 -
There's nothing racist about wanting to keep American colleges' roster spots for Americans. Get those Kenyans/Brits/Aussies/whatever else out of the running for American scholarships.
200 -
OED wrote:
deaf ears ed wrote:
Of course I think he was better by competing at 25-26! Do you honestly think 20 year old Casey Clinger, a two-time NXN champ and highest ranking placing freshman at NCs his first year at college would take 4 YEARS to “recover” fitness from a two year mission and be better off from being in his athletic prime?!
Geez man, you don’t even understand your own argument, do you? It’s not about “recovery.” It’s about whether a 25 year old Clinger who took two years off is in a better position than a 23 year old Clinger who has been running continuously. Clinger’s results, as I noted above, are pretty good proof that he wasn’t in a better position. Clinger wa always going to be good. Being in one’s athletic prime is more a product of years training than an age. Being 25 doesn’t automatically make someone faster. This is what I mean by pointing out how shallow your arguments are. They literally boil down to “Clinger was good. Clinger served a mission. Therefore, the mission gave Clinger an advantage.” Logical fallacies aside, it completely ignores reality.
Yes I absolutely understand he had an advantage for being 25 with an interruption in formal training vs being 23, precisely because he was so talented that the mission would not set him back years to recoup fitness from. Your arguments are no logically stronger or deeper than those you criticize. They literally boil down to “mission bad, never get back to what could have been”.
610 -
American development pool wrote:
There's nothing racist about wanting to keep American colleges' roster spots for Americans. Get those Kenyans/Brits/Aussies/whatever else out of the running for American scholarships.
Disagree. Just make an EPL style “homegrown” rule.
One idea: “no more than 3 runners can start a XC race at a conference or national meet who: (i) do not have US citizenship, or (ii) attended at least one year of high school in the United States before the age of 18, or (iii) enrolled at the university before the age of 20.
41 -
deaf ears ed wrote:
OED wrote:
Geez man, you don’t even understand your own argument, do you? It’s not about “recovery.” It’s about whether a 25 year old Clinger who took two years off is in a better position than a 23 year old Clinger who has been running continuously. Clinger’s results, as I noted above, are pretty good proof that he wasn’t in a better position. Clinger wa always going to be good. Being in one’s athletic prime is more a product of years training than an age. Being 25 doesn’t automatically make someone faster. This is what I mean by pointing out how shallow your arguments are. They literally boil down to “Clinger was good. Clinger served a mission. Therefore, the mission gave Clinger an advantage.” Logical fallacies aside, it completely ignores reality.
Yes I absolutely understand he had an advantage for being 25 with an interruption in formal training vs being 23, precisely because he was so talented that the mission would not set him back years to recoup fitness from. Your arguments are no logically stronger or deeper than those you criticize. They literally boil down to “mission bad, never get back to what could have been”.
You can’t address the points I’ve made so now you resort to straw man arguments. I never said they never get back to what they would have become. If anything, that is exactly the argument I am making. As a whole, I think BYU guys who serve a mission are in the same spot their senior year than if they hadn’t served a mission. I don’t see the mission as being an advantage (and that’s without going into detail on all the guys who don’t make it back fitness-wise from the mission, and there are some every year). The age increase, generally speaking, is offset by the years missed. Of course, my arguments are simply based on hundreds of first hand accounts, including my own, and a close relationship with Eyestone and the team since the 80s, but what do I know?
77 -
O Canada wrote:
Yeah, I wonder why people viewed 18 year old Canadian freshman like grant fisher or Justin knight as a lot different than 28 year old Kenyan pros!
Or 25 year old Mormons like Connor Mantz was when he won his 2nd NCAA Cross champs
45 -
OED wrote:
deaf ears ed wrote:
Yes I absolutely understand he had an advantage for being 25 with an interruption in formal training vs being 23, precisely because he was so talented that the mission would not set him back years to recoup fitness from. Your arguments are no logically stronger or deeper than those you criticize. They literally boil down to “mission bad, never get back to what could have been”.
You can’t address the points I’ve made so now you resort to straw man arguments. I never said they never get back to what they would have become. If anything, that is exactly the argument I am making. As a whole, I think BYU guys who serve a mission are in the same spot their senior year than if they hadn’t served a mission. I don’t see the mission as being an advantage (and that’s without going into detail on all the guys who don’t make it back fitness-wise from the mission, and there are some every year). The age increase, generally speaking, is offset by the years missed. Of course, my arguments are simply based on hundreds of first hand accounts, including my own, and a close relationship with Eyestone and the team since the 80s, but what do I know?
Again, your arguments do not have any more logical substance than mine. American athletic history has given me millions of data points on the average athletic peak of US distance runners. Of course there are exceptions.
But I’m sure your own mission trip and close relationship with Ed doesn’t bias your opinions in any way.
59
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.