NCAA Regionals Without the K-Mart

Yes, but the programs that lose people would have scholarships to use for other top runners.

you are missing the point of this post

The only point you seem to be making is that several of the schools have several foreigners representing them in the NCAA regional...In other news, the Japanese bomb Pearl Harber. Back to you Bob, in the studio.

american observer wrote:

you are missing the point of this post

I get the point. The point of the post was to present irrelevant information. Could you go ahead and score the meet with brown haired runners removed? That would be equally meaningful.

The whole point of the entire post is to show the separation between big schools and smaller schools is the connections to be able to draw foreigners into their Schools.

NCAA

NATIONAL collegiate athletic association

NATIONAL

NATIONAL

NATIONAL NOT INTERNATIONAL!

Are there rules against international athletes? No? Then STFU. Maybe the KKK will put together a recreational running league for you.

american observer wrote:

NCAA

NATIONAL collegiate athletic association

NATIONAL

NATIONAL

NATIONAL NOT INTERNATIONAL!

Yup, that National modifies the collegiate.

I understand that the foreigners are people just like the Americans and they have the right to run in the NCAA but, I think the problem is poor coaches going overseas and picking up a few Brits and east africans and winning conference championships and placing well in meets like Regionals and Nationals. I personally enjoy watching American kids develop and challenge the foreigners (ex. Chris Derrick vs. Lawi last year). It does seem like a 18 yr old high school freshman is at a big disadvantage running against a 21-23 yr old graduate student from overseas or an African with no real birth certificate with 4 years of eligibility left. 4 or 5 years ago Oklahoma St. had the feel of the blue collar hard working small town kids but now they only have 3 americans in their top 10 and it makes them harder to respect, honestly. I honestly will root for teams like Colorado, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Stanford, and Texas comprised of far less foreigners if any because it feels like they don't go out and "buy a championship" they work for it and develop American kids in order to win championships.

I like having the foreigners in the NCAA because it pushes the competition to new levels but, I think it's wrong for coaches and teams take credit for work that they didn't do.

american observer wrote:

The whole point of the entire post is to show the separation between big schools and smaller schools is the connections to be able to draw foreigners into their Schools.

NCAA

NATIONAL collegiate athletic association

NATIONAL

NATIONAL

NATIONAL NOT INTERNATIONAL!

Yup. It is an association of colleges in the U.S. Good point.

Again you are missing the point... im not saying its wrong im just saying that these big schools with connections can be seen as such a fast great team, when if you pull out the foreigners they are just as good as some of the small schools that have no foreigners. so if your going to be so ignorant and try to say "the KKK will put together a recreational running league for you" than your ignorance blinds you from a simple argument i have proposed.

Exactly! you got exactly what i was trying to say, "poor Coaches buying a Championship".

Your argument is inane because it assumes the large schools wouldn't use their scholarships at all. What would happen is that the large schools would take all the good American runners, and everyone else would be terrible.

PS I don't think Texas is a great example of developing your own runners.

american observer wrote:

Exactly! you got exactly what i was trying to say, "poor Coaches buying a Championship".

That's what all the top schools do. They buy championships by recruiting state champions and footlocker stars.

So you should be against those schools also. How many of the top schools out there actually have good programs that don't depend on buying new recruits every year? Look at a school like Stanford. They bring in stars every year and few of them last til senior year. That's exactly an example of your "poor coaches buying a championship". Good programs are led by seniors. Lesser programs are led by freshmen.

But there is nothing wrong with this. Certainly nothing that warrants making up silly superlative categories.

If you want to make a more interesting and legitimate superlative list, then how about one that shows which teams are dependent on underclassmen and star recruits vs teams that actually have good programs.