I was at a big Canadian university and asked about their athletic teams. The guy said they didn't have any teams and then remarked, "This isn't the US, you know."
Growing up in the US, it had never occurred to me that colleges in other countries might not offer athletic scholarships.
Does anyone know what countries do and don't offer college scholarships for athletes? Specifically, for runners.
What "big" Canadian university were you at that didn't have a team? Canada isn't the US, but a lot of schools do field XC and track teams.
we're (pretty much) the only country in the world where sports are associated with schools. everywhere else it's club.
That makes more sense to me -- what if you're school has/gets a terrible coach that is not working for you at all -- in a club system you can attend whatever university you want and run for whomever you wish
UBC and SFU in Canada are the only ones that come to mind that compete (NAIA) and have scholarships.
It was Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland. I have no idea if they have a running team, but I was asking about football and basketball, and they didn't have that.
Hey, no offence to any newfies or MUN grads, but that's not a "big" university. They have a very good reputation for quality education, but they're not big.
I'll bet they have a hockey team...
When you say "big" Canadian university, there are a handful that come to mind, working from west to east... UBC, SFU, U of Alberta, U of Toronto, Queens, and McGill. None of the other few dozen could really be called "big" (well, maybe I've missed a few on the bubble).
On a running related note, what were you doing on the rock, and did you get out for a run? Nice place to run - no shortage of hills, usually very windy, and chances are good to see an ice berg in the harbour. You get to try any Quidi Vidi beer?
trackhead wrote:
in a club system you can attend whatever university you want and run for whomever you wish
How is that any different from the US system? Granted, not many kids choose that path, but how is that different from what Webb or Rubb are/were doing?
the difference is that it's what everybody does; in our system, switching coaches (and competing, generally) means switching schools -- not something done weith great ease -- how many just end up fading away from the sport?
I suppose compared to those you mentioned, MUN is not so large, but I would still classify it as big enough to have sports teams. I don't know if they even have college hockey teams.
Personally, this has given me a new respect for the US as the land of opportunity. How many clubs in other countries will pay a college stipend for its members? In the US, there are probably thousands of young runners each year who get at least some sort of running scholarship. Here, there is incentive for young athletes to develop both mind and body.
Zobel wrote:I suppose compared to those you mentioned, MUN is not so large, but I would still classify it as big enough to have sports teams.
Well... one thing you need to remember is that they have to travel off the rock (ie. fly) anytime they want to compete, so university athletics would be pretty expensive from St. John's.
If you're considering MUN as a school, though, I can wholeheartedly recommend the newfoundland cultural experience. Great folks with a fresh approach to living. You can learn a lot from the slower pace of life.
Pete wrote:
Hey, no offence to any newfies or MUN grads, but that's not a "big" university. They have a very good reputation for quality education, but they're not big.
I'll bet they have a hockey team...
If they do, it's not particularly serious. Major Junior hockey (now there's a contradiction in terms!) is where the good players go.
>>>>That makes more sense to me -- what if you're school has/gets a terrible coach that is not working for you at all -- in a club system you can attend whatever university you want and run for whomever you wish
Agree with trackhead here. Coming from another country, thus from the outside looking in so I may be off-base ocasionally, I find the problem with the college system is that an athlete may change coaches up to 3-4 times during their career ie...youth coach...HS...college...after college. It doesn't allow an athlete the opportunity to develop with one coach, and can be terribly dispruting. A club system allows that. The college system doesn't encourage developing coaches either. A coaches can do an outstanding job, take an athlete so far only to lose them when they get to college, not much incentive. As college and development are world aparts this can lead to disaster and the athlete eventually disappearing. If you get a terrible coach you're stuck with them. College coaches, with the tendency to overwork athletes, seems to train for the "here and now" for instant college results with little or no thought about future development. With XC, indoor, outdoor season to train for there is not much opportunity to train and peak for personal goals if you're a top-liner. Unfortunately one has to pay for their education somehow. This does not happen in a club system. You get choices of events, develop at you're own pace under a coach of you're choice....if you're not happy you can change coaches whenever you wanted...and you can work towards you're own goals and peak for them.
An interesting question, coming from another country, is why can't athletes get a scholarship and and train and compete under their own coaches? I know it's you're rules and system of getting scholaship dollars but I believe would be better if the athlete had a choice. May also encourage continuity and development of non-college coaches, hence development of athletes. While the athlete would still realise his responsiblities to his college, they may also be able to develop more at their own pace. That way they're not at risk of being stuck under a terrible coach for years.
It's only my opinion anayway...what do others think?
Ok, to clarify a few things:
1. Yes, Canada does have university sport. Most of the major universities belong to the CIS. There is CIS x-country and indoor track, but no outdoor track - most Canadian universities wrap up in mid April - there's still snow on the ground in many parts of the country - thus, no outdoor track.
There is also sport at the college level in most, but not all, parts of Canada. Generally speaking, the two year schools and small universities/colleges (e.g. under 3000 students or so) belong to the CCAA. The CCAA has x-country running only in Alberta and Ontario - no track.
2. Athletic scholarships are available in Canada, but they are small - generally up to the amount of tuition at the very, very best. Undergrad tuition at a publicly funded school is generally $6000 Can (about $5000US) or less - you can go to college in some parts of Canada for $2500 tuition or so.
It's possible for athletes to get other scholarships (i.e. kinda of like the Ivy Schools and Div 3 which don't give out athletic scholarships per se) which can cover costs over and above tuition.
3. Some universities are affiliated with clubs, so it is possible to train with your age group, high school, university, and post-university coach in some cases. Moreover, some university programs allow you to train with your club coach and still compete with the university team.
4. No it's not big business like NCAA; in my mind, there's still a better balance between school and academics in Canada than there is in the US.
j squire wrote:If they do (have a hockey team...), it's not particularly serious. Major Junior hockey (now there's a contradiction in terms!) is where the good players go.Not exactly correct. Some of the country's best junior players wind up playing university hockey after they run out of eligibility. The university game is a higher calibre than major junior. Not quite NHL or even minor pro calibre, but a notch above junior, and probably on par with some of the European club leagues.
From my perspective, I prefer the US way. A lot of college coaches, in fact most of them, are pretty decent. In those cases, you get free education, free travel, and free access to a professional coach. In other countries, all except the most elite athletes must pay for their own education and, correct me if I'm wrong, must also pay for their own coaches and travel. How is this a better system than what the US has?
Zobel wrote:
From my perspective, I prefer the US way. A lot of college coaches, in fact most of them, are pretty decent. In those cases, you get free education, free travel, and free access to a professional coach. In other countries, all except the most elite athletes must pay for their own education and, correct me if I'm wrong, must also pay for their own coaches and travel. How is this a better system than what the US has?
If the majority are so good, I think that we'd be in a much better place in the world of distance running.
Education is publicly funded.
trackhead wrote:
Zobel wrote:From my perspective, I prefer the US way. A lot of college coaches, in fact most of them, are pretty decent. In those cases, you get free education, free travel, and free access to a professional coach. In other countries, all except the most elite athletes must pay for their own education and, correct me if I'm wrong, must also pay for their own coaches and travel. How is this a better system than what the US has?
If the majority are so good, I think that we'd be in a much better place in the world of distance running.
Education is publicly funded.
To Trackhead: I don't think the point of our system is to pump out world class runners (or other athletes). Some people get confused and think that, but I believe that we'll see more promising runners taking the Webb way in the future.
Yeah, education is publicly funded in many countries, but it is also not for everyone. There are some places where you get sorted by high school. Here in the states just about anyone can go to college - there are strengths and weaknesses to both.
The thing that sets our academic system apart is the quality of our postgraduate study - we do the best research and the brightest people in the world come to our schools. We do far more research than the publicly funded systems in europe.
>>I don't think the point of our system is to pump out world class runners (or other athletes). Some people get confused and think that, but I believe that we'll see more promising runners taking the Webb way in the future.
Doesn't do the athlete who wants a long-term athletic career any good. If it's not to pump out world class runners then let them stay with their own coaches and develop in their own way rather than an avergave coach who'll pump you with too many miles looking for instant results for their school. Despite the number of runners in HS and college, probably more than anywhere, they produce very little.
>>The thing that sets our academic system apart is the quality of our postgraduate study - we do the best research and the brightest people in the world come to our schools. We do far more research than the publicly funded systems in europe.
Despite being publicly funded (well..sort of-it's a loans sytem which you pay back after you start working at 3% of your salary after your salary exceeds a certain threshold)we are one of the world leaders (along with the U.S. of course) in medical breakthroughs.
My humble opinion for what it's worth.
then shouldn't there be some sort of advisory?
WARNING -- THIS SCHOOL PUTS YOUR IMMEDIATE PERFORMANCE AS ITS PRIMARY OBJECTIVE; YOUR LONG TERM SUCCESS IS A SECONDARY PRIORITY
If you're serious about being the best runner you can be, wouldn't most NCAA programs race you too much? I'm fortunate enough to be a west coast native, but I can't imagine doing cross country and then indoors and then outdoors -- when do I get to train effectively? Not even elites have that schedule -- XC and indoors are during the same season -- that makes a whole lot more sense.
What is the appeal of having the school trophy case as a higher priority than the athlete?
Trackhead....could not agree more!!
trackhead wrote:
then shouldn't there be some sort of advisory?
WARNING -- THIS SCHOOL PUTS YOUR IMMEDIATE PERFORMANCE AS ITS PRIMARY OBJECTIVE; YOUR LONG TERM SUCCESS IS A SECONDARY PRIORITY
If you're serious about being the best runner you can be, wouldn't most NCAA programs race you too much? I'm fortunate enough to be a west coast native, but I can't imagine doing cross country and then indoors and then outdoors -- when do I get to train effectively? Not even elites have that schedule -- XC and indoors are during the same season -- that makes a whole lot more sense.
What is the appeal of having the school trophy case as a higher priority than the athlete?
Yes, I agree absolutely- the statement you make above should hang in every training room right next to the warnings about chewing tobacco and gambling. But that'll never happen.