NCAA XC vs Rhodes Scholarship

Another one wrote:

Here is another case of a Rhodes / Nationals conflict:

http://www.pe.pomona.edu/sports/wxc/2012-13/releases/20121110kqf78u

This runner will choose the Rhodes over running. Good for her.

The answer to this is very easy for me.

1) If you are a D1 athlete and your team makes it, you simply have to go to NCAAs. You 100% owe it to your teammates. It has nothing to do with whether you are on scholarship or not. Many of them are on scholarship but even at say the Ivies - you owe something to your teammates. I used to hate it when people would pull "I'm not on scholarship card" anyway. You likely got into the school because of the coach but that's irrelevant as well - you are part of a team.

2) D3 - I still think you should go for your teammates, but don't know the team dynamic as well.

3) If it's individual, I can see someone skipping NCAAs, particularly at D3, but would leave that up to the individual.

How about if the student athlete is happy with their decision let it go? They will live with it, not you.

So as long as someone is happy with their decision we should respect that no matter how much that decision hurts other people? Ok.

The latest news is good ...

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21989227/stanford-cross-country-runner-will-compete-title-and

Hey LetsRun, my name is Henry Reich and I was a runner in this exact situation at Grinnell College in 2008 - I was our top runner, we made DIII nats as a team for the first time in over fifteen years, and I had to decide between running at nats and going to the Rhodes interview (since no rich donor offered to fly me back and forth on a private plane). I chose nationals, it was an awesome experience, and four years later I can say that I am 100% happy with my decision.

Henry Reich

creator of

www.youtube.com/MinutePhysics

You define yourself and your values through your intentional acts and so the decision that a student-athlete makes faced with this dilemma establishes which values that s/he holds highest, team, individual, athletic, academic, greatness, etc.

I disagree that a D1 runner whose team makes it absolutely has to choose the NCAAs. The reality is that team scores don't matter much after the top 10- maybe 15 if you are an Ivy League team without redshirts and scholarships. The exception is that no one wants to finish DFL. But there is a huge difference between being on a team that's in the mix and one that isn't.

Obviously Stanford is in contention, having scored 45 points in the West regional qualifier. So this situation doesn't apply to Unterreiner.

But you get the team that's ranked 23rd, where the big deal was qualifying for NCAAs. Maybe a guy on that team should think about the Rhodes interview- I would put that decision at the same level as an individual qualifier's dilemma.

As far as I'm concerned the Rhodes Committee should be more interested in someone willing to forego the opportunity for a scholarship to do what, well, helped qualify them for the scholarship in the first place, than someone who is willing to drop their prior commitments for the opportunity to slobber over a bunch of good old boys' feet.

One course of action here shows that you actual care about the things you do, the other shows you only care about how the things you do make you look.

Also, Rojo, as a former D3 Runner, I'm offended by your suggestion that D3 athletes are expected to have less commitment to their teammates and to their running than a DI athlete. Why should running on a D3 team be expected involve less of a commitment to your teammates than a DI team?

The only argument I can see here is one based on the fact that a DI program might be paying for your education based on your ability to run, and so you owe it to the school to run. Otherwise, your logic of separating D3 and D1 is, in my opinion complete bullshit and represents the type of elitist attitude that so many people on the board take toward D3 athletes. We care about our running just as much as everyone else.

"The actual demand for could, gents and childrens ugg ugg boots may be remarkable, much http://www.bootssea.co.uk/ more than our own anticipations" affirms Dana Beament, owner of Traditional western Australian-based ugg boot provider ugg boots. "Individuals are purchasing ugg boots thus speedily that people are usually having difficulties to have inventory to keep up with your purchases. Currently we're getting again orders and the ones remain happy to wait up to a few months because of their authentic Aussie uggs outlet ugg ugg boot boot styles".

LordPat wrote:

Also, Rojo, as a former D3 Runner, I'm offended by your suggestion that D3 athletes are expected to have less commitment to their teammates and to their running than a DI athlete. Why should running on a D3 team be expected involve less of a commitment to your teammates than a DI team?

The only argument I can see here is one based on the fact that a DI program might be paying for your education based on your ability to run, and so you owe it to the school to run. Otherwise, your logic of separating D3 and D1 is, in my opinion complete bullshit and represents the type of elitist attitude that so many people on the board take toward D3 athletes. We care about our running just as much as everyone else.

Division 1 and D3 are supposed to have different philosophies toward sports. That's why they're separate, D1 often places athletics over academics whereas in D3, the philosophy is supposed to be that academics and the collegiate experience come first. So that is a reason people might expect D3 and D1 athletes to make different choices in this scenario.

Anyway, as I stated at the beginning of the thread, I agree with you that this is completely the fault of the Rhodes Scholarship and complete and utter hypocrisy for them to claim to support student-athletes and then cause these conflicts for no good reason.

It's not an isolated incident, it happens every year, and the Rhodes people clearly don't care.

too legit to quit wrote:

Division 1 and D3 are supposed to have different philosophies toward sports. That's why they're separate, D1 often places athletics over academics whereas in D3, the philosophy is supposed to be that academics and the collegiate experience come first. So that is a reason people might expect D3 and D1 athletes to make different choices in this scenario.

Anyway, as I stated at the beginning of the thread, I agree with you that this is completely the fault of the Rhodes Scholarship and complete and utter hypocrisy for them to claim to support student-athletes and then cause these conflicts for no good reason.

It's not an isolated incident, it happens every year, and the Rhodes people clearly don't care.

Just to add to your statement, I would argue that competing in athletics is part of the collegiate experience for the D3 athlete. It shouldn't matter if your D1, D2, or D3, it still boils down to your commitments you made during your undergraduate experience, and trying to excel in those commitments. I don't think there's a right or wrong decision, but sometimes you need to make tough choices in life.

This is awesome.

I upvote Mr. Reich!

LordPat wrote:

One course of action here shows that you actual care about the things you do, the other shows you only care about how the things you do make you look.

It's not obvious to me which is which.

If one of my teammates had been faced with that choice, I'd tell him that he had my full support to go to the interview. And I'd mean it. I can't imagine that any of my teammates would have felt differently.

The decision, of course, is not straightforward. Among other things, the individual will usually be eligible for the scholarship the next year, and may even be a stronger candidate the second time around. Also, someone with a legitimate shot at an individual NCAA title may have more of an incentive to pass up the interview than a relatively weak runner on a relatively weak team. But whatever the choice, I wouldn't criticize it as being inappropriately selfish.

Henry Reich wrote:

Hey LetsRun, my name is Henry Reich and I was a runner in this exact situation at Grinnell College in 2008 - I was our top runner, we made DIII nats as a team for the first time in over fifteen years, and I had to decide between running at nats and going to the Rhodes interview (since no rich donor offered to fly me back and forth on a private plane). I chose nationals, it was an awesome experience, and four years later I can say that I am 100% happy with my decision.

Henry Reich

creator of

http://www.youtube.com/MinutePhysics

This is probably one of the greatest things I've ever read on LetsRun.

Henry Reich wrote:

Hey LetsRun, my name is Henry Reich and I was a runner in this exact situation at Grinnell College in 2008 - I was our top runner, we made DIII nats as a team for the first time in over fifteen years, and I had to decide between running at nats and going to the Rhodes interview (since no rich donor offered to fly me back and forth on a private plane). I chose nationals, it was an awesome experience, and four years later I can say that I am 100% happy with my decision.

Henry Reich

creator of

http://www.youtube.com/MinutePhysics

You're awesome. And inspirational.

Thanks for being awesome!

Too lazy to look it up wrote:

So as long as someone is happy with their decision we should respect that no matter how much that decision hurts other people? Ok.

Are other people really hurt by either athletes decision?

Been finding this to be an interesting discussion. This just posted to Stanford's athletic site. Think it speaks to the young man's athletic and academic chops, ands perhaps why the Rhodes seeks people of his mettle ...

http://www.gostanford.com/genrel/111512aaa.html

RS is old world trash. Why would anyone go to smelly stinky Europe for studies. Why do you think our parents left the whore house of Europe anyways ?