At this point some NCAA programs aren’t really developing athletes, they’re assembling rosters. Instead of building runners over four years, they rely heavily on older, already-developed international athletes who arrive with near professional resumes. It creates a situation where the “coaching” is basically just plugging in finished products and collecting results. Plenty of coaches across the country hate this dynamic because it undermines what NCAA cross country should be about, identifying talent, developing it, and building a team. When a program stacks mature athletes who are physically and competitively way beyond the typical 18- to 22-year-old American system, it changes the sport and makes the playing field feel fundamentally uneven. These coaches are snakes and not good for the sport one bit!
College Coaches Try to Recruit The best Athletes Possible, But there Job is Still to Develop Them. They (Coaches and The Athletes Set Short and Long Goals) They need to win their Conference and NCAA or come close, The longer a Coach goes without winning an NCAA Title The More The Pressure Builds They Were putting lots of Pressure on my friend/former teamate (Who did lead His team to 5 NCAA Titles) He Mentioned They fired his first College Coach (Tom Chesbro Who has won 1 NCAA Title) because He kept coming in 2nd, He Had just led the Team to 2nd place as a Team, and he is fired a few days later. (The Pressure is Enormous on Coaches if they Don't Lead the School To an NCAA Title) So Hell yes they try to develop Athletes, Extremely Few can win NCAA off of the ability they had as High Schoolers (There are rare Exceptions.
Have you ever heard of a period? That was brutal to read
Some of you don't seem to understand economics. These coaches hsve all had the same number of scholarships to work with. And equivalent f9reigners typically cost more than Americans.
As I said in the previous post, I actually think it's a good thing. US runners who wouldn't once have gotten much chance at international competition will get a bit of it. It should make them better runners.
Yes, geneticists at OSU and Iowa State are on record saying that racing Kenyans makes your DNA 6-7% Kenyan.
The New Mexican School of Kenya. medicine did research to scientifically prove that forcing American 18 olds to race 28 year old Kenyans actually alters and improves the DNA of those Americans and increases their genetic potential.
We should start flooding American high schools with 23 year old Kenyans because American 15 year olds need to toughen up.
GEORGE COUTTIE IS BRITISH. There are so many more internationals than most people realize.
Last year the Kenyans ran bad because NCAAs was in Wisconsin and they struggle in the freezing cold. Also Habtom Samuel got spiked and ran half of the race with one shoe on and blood pouring from both feet.
And he still nearly beat 2024 Olympia Graham Blanks who would run 12:59 a couple weeks later and 12:48 in the summer.
I don't know why Kipkirui of New Mexico didn't run XC but he ran 26:50 in the 10k outdoors, won the NCAA Championship, and then outkicked Nico Young and Grant Fisher to place 4th in the 10k at the World Championships.
Our collegiate system literally helped a foreigner beat Americans at the world championships. Why are we allowing this?
I’ve spoken with the worlds foremost Olympic historian David Wallechinsky, and he’s concluded after covering every Olympics since 1984 at the athletes themselves aren’t as patriotic as you think and they would jump flags in a heartbeat. And honestly, I was happy for Ishmael more than I would’ve been for a random Kenyan at least he was a product of the NCAA system and I can say, I saw him running at the national championship
Wallachinsky is not the formost Olympic historian. You guys love to bestow titles on each other. He also shouldn’t be talking about patriotism, people who know about him know what he’s really like.
And likely many more that were swept under the rug by NCAA institutions that did not make it out into national media. We are still waiting to see what actually happened with the Iowa State rumors as well.
Can you help to explain the difference in XC compared to other NCAA sports? International students in basketball are everywhere. Don't hear that complaint.
Because international athletes are competing that automatically means they're doping?
Or could it be that one is afraid of a bit of competition, and instead need to find a fact-less conclusion such as doping?
The NCAA has evolved. I suggest you evolve beyond your closed-minded approach that is subtly racist.
The influx of internationals is a problem in all sports, and is going to get a lot worse in TRACK now that men's teams JUST increased from 12.6 scholarships to 45 scholarships. The vast majority of those additional scholarships are going to end up with international people.
Nobody honestly believes more Americans are going to buy ESPN+ or Flotrack subscriptions to watch the top 5 Americans struggle against 25-30 year old Kenyans that are doping.
High school track meets have more fans in attendance than college meets because fans are actually invested in the athletes.
I hate doping and I believe there should be lower age limits in NCAA competition, BUT, for the sake of your sanity, you should stick to American Football mate. Nobody REALLY cares about that sport outside of the USA and you've got less chance of seeing an influx of internationals, as even your neighbours in Canada can't grasp the game and have taken up Rugby instead. Also, less reason for you to moan about doping, as it's a truly level playing field, with everybody doing it, rather than just the odd African in T&F/XC.
And likely many more that were swept under the rug by NCAA institutions that did not make it out into national media. We are still waiting to see what actually happened with the Iowa State rumors as well.
I’m guessing you were thinking of Iowa State with the original post and then realized that none of them were suspended and none of the suspended guys even tested positive
And likely many more that were swept under the rug by NCAA institutions that did not make it out into national media. We are still waiting to see what actually happened with the Iowa State rumors as well.
Dude, that's not "just had numerous high profile Kenyans in the NCAA test positive".
Wow, another thread about how other programs are successful and you are not. These programs are not breaking any rules and they ARE developing athletes. LR community loves data, why don't you actually look at the data. Around Natty time it's always a good idea to head over to the echo chamber here on LetsRun and make ourselves feel better by bashing the successful programs.
Sounds like you are mad about the rules, that's not the fault of these coaches. They are playing the game better than you and you're mad about it.
Yes but that is not the topic. Some teams go heavier in sprints. Some go heavier in distance. But getting foreigners isnot easier than going with Anericans.
I was correcting the poster who said everyone has he same number of scholarships... that is untrue. That is all.
Scholarships are a critical factor.
Limit for track/xc combined used to be 12.6.
Many schools still chose to use 0 scholarships, relying on all walk ons.
New limit is 17 + 45 = 62!
Still many schools STILL choose 0, relying on all walkons. This is what we call an unfunded program.
So NO, scholarships are not equal. They are between 0 and 62. Schools with scholarships for distance runners are at the top, while schools with 0 scholarships are at the bottom.
The influx of internationals is a problem in all sports, and is going to get a lot worse in TRACK now that men's teams JUST increased from 12.6 scholarships to 45 scholarships. The vast majority of those additional scholarships are going to end up with international people.
Nobody honestly believes more Americans are going to buy ESPN+ or Flotrack subscriptions to watch the top 5 Americans struggle against 25-30 year old Kenyans that are doping.
High school track meets have more fans in attendance than college meets because fans are actually invested in the athletes.
Fans are definitely more invested in high school track than college but a lot of that is because the athletes are their friends, their kids, and friends of their kids. I doubt I've ever been to a high school meet where any significant number of spectators didn't have some personal connection to at least a few of the competitors.
And high school meets actually mean something, scores are kept, league standings are kept. Most college races either don't keep score at all or have so many teams running that except for the few in the top places placing doesn't matter that much at least to fans.
A main reason high school meets have a larger turn out is because all of the parents and friends and some other relatives are local or normally within close driving distance. Not the case for many D1 meets.
My daughter is a sophomore on a college team and they absolutely keep score at every XC meet. Perhaps you are thinking of track, where they only normally keep score at championship meets.
I am sure the increase in foreign athletes has some impact on the number of fans, due to less local parents, but not a giant impact.
american scholarships for americans - not racist, just common sense.
Who would down vote this? So many Americans are brainwashed into prioritizing immigrants and foreigners.
Scholarships to AMERICAN schools should be for AMERICANs only.
I upvoted their post but can see why people disagree. I don't think we should have 0 scholarships for foreigners, H1B is a good example academically of a program that helps non-Americans get access to American educational institutions. I believe that having some Kenyans at the top will raise the bar for American athetes overall but the super teams are unfair.
This is already happening with professors as well, let alone graduate students, because universities are just not going to pay 100k for them to come even if they are the best candidates. So, the candidates are almost all already in the country or are from the Americas.
I was correcting the poster who said everyone has he same number of scholarships... that is untrue. That is all.
Scholarships are a critical factor.
Limit for track/xc combined used to be 12.6.
Many schools still chose to use 0 scholarships, relying on all walk ons.
New limit is 17 + 45 = 62!
Still many schools STILL choose 0, relying on all walkons. This is what we call an unfunded program.
So NO, scholarships are not equal. They are between 0 and 62. Schools with scholarships for distance runners are at the top, while schools with 0 scholarships are at the bottom.
pretty sure that the 17 is part of the 45 so not 62 roster spots
and very few schools... like less than ten, will have be offering 45 scholarships.
but still the fact remains, the more scholarships dedicated to distance the better the XC team will be
You see this pattern across every NCAA sport when the system shifts from developing athletes to assembling rosters, the long-term health of American talent gets hurt. it’s the heavy reliance on older, already developed international athletes who often arrive with near professional experience. None of this is the athletes’ fault. The real problem is that this model leaves very little room for true American development. When coaches fill their top five with athletes who are 24–26 years old and have already competed at a near-pro level — sometimes even earning prize money on the roads, the NCAA stops functioning as a developmental pipeline and becomes more of a results-shopping platform. Younger U.S. runners lose opportunities to mature, race big meets, and gain the kind of experience they need to succeed at the next level. The coaches who rely on this model end up hurting American distance development because they aren’t building anything, they’re importing finished products to win right now. It’s short term success at the expense of the bigger picture. If the NCAA actually wants to grow the sport domestically, it needs coaches committed to identifying talent, coaching it, and investing in long term growth instead of bypassing the process altogether. The coaches at Florida, OSU and U of NM are small minded and hurt American distance running at the expense of an easy win
“The coaches at Florida, OSU and U of NM are small minded and hurt American distance running at the expense of an easy win”
Fans are definitely more invested in high school track than college but a lot of that is because the athletes are their friends, their kids, and friends of their kids. I doubt I've ever been to a high school meet where any significant number of spectators didn't have some personal connection to at least a few of the competitors.
And high school meets actually mean something, scores are kept, league standings are kept. Most college races either don't keep score at all or have so many teams running that except for the few in the top places placing doesn't matter that much at least to fans.
A main reason high school meets have a larger turn out is because all of the parents and friends and some other relatives are local or normally within close driving distance. Not the case for many D1 meets.
My daughter is a sophomore on a college team and they absolutely keep score at every XC meet. Perhaps you are thinking of track, where they only normally keep score at championship meets.
I am sure the increase in foreign athletes has some impact on the number of fans, due to less local parents, but not a giant impact.
I know scores are kept at cross country meets. I'm just not sure how important your score or place in a twenty to forty team meet is if you aren't one of the teams with a real chance of winning or placing high. My sons both ran in college for a school that was at best a mid pack finisher at most meets. No one, including the coach, seemed to care much about their place other than at their conference meet. When I ran all but one or two meets were duals or tris, we kept a won-loss record, and where we placed in every meet mattered.
