University of San Francisco- All Foreign Team

Charlotte Taylor is a CUTIE

vivalarepublica wrote:

But if they are foreign AND attractive, does Letsrun really care?

BUTTHOLE SURFER wrote:

The women's team is suddenly a national powerhouse due to their ALL FOREIGN top 7. They finished 2nd in Wisconsin with a complete foreign roster.

Message to Coach!!!!

How about recruiting some U.S. talent and be a "Real" coach and actually develop U.S. runners. Anyone can "Cherry Pick" talent abroad, throw some scholarship money at them and win. I'm all for having a few foreign athletes on your roster but to have 100% of your traveling 7 and 99% of your total roster being foreign students??? Really??? Not trying to be a nationalist but I do believe in growing and developing our U.S. runners within our collegiate system. There's more than enough talent in the U.S. (and California) without going abroad for you to put together a successful program.

The coach there did reach out to my US born daughter about 3 year ago when my daughter was being recruited. My daughter was not interested. She had not heard the school/team and was not really interested in going to the west coast. We live in the Great Lakes region and there are teams in the region that interested my daughter.

Carl Spackler wrote:

Most people who follow college athletics know that if a coach is importing athletes, that's a sign they are taking a "shortcut" to developing a nationally competitive team. This happens in a lot of college athletics--not just women's XC. The bigger question is how good is the coach at developing runners (foreign or US) in her system.

Here is reality. To get a 2:10/4:55/10:30 american woman, USF likely has to cough up 75% give or take 25% depending on other variables. Cal & UCLA get that same kid for a books scholarship - as will most of the rest of the Pac-12 - at MOST. Honestly they probably walk-on if they're a California kid. Stanford has that kid walk-on if they let her walk on.

To get a 2:08/4:50/10:20 kid, USF HAS to drop a full ride. Cal & UCLA get that kid for pocket change & Stanford recruits that kid to walk on.

So explain this to me...when a full ride can get you a proven 21 year old winner that doesn't need much development or you have to fight like hell (a lot harder than for the better foreigner) for the 10:20 California kid who's still going to take 2 - 3 years to develop for that full ride...and they're a "California kid" (less upside with more entitlement & less grit)...who would you spend that money on? And that kid probably still isn't going to USF. It really is pretty simple. And not easy to do...it still took Helen 15 or so years to get to this point & fine tune their system...but that's still half as long as Rob Conner. Yes - I know they've been a national power for about 10 -15 years so probably took them similar amounts of time to build to national prominence. But recruiting & developing men is completely different than doing the same with women. Basically, you HAVE to buy women...not men. Trust me...

4 of Rob's top 5 are American dude. 6 and 7 were foreign, so it may be different at nationals. We'll see! Conner can flat out coach.

UP Band Wagon wrote:

4 of Rob's top 5 are American dude. 6 and 7 were foreign, so it may be different at nationals. We'll see! Conner can flat out coach.

I'm not saying he can't. Dude. He clearly can. I was simply pointing out that the mechanics of building a nationally competitive men's program v. women's program are very different. Almost apples to oranges. And it's well known that Rob wants nothing to do with coaching women - likely for that reason.

He still has A LOT of scholarship money invested in that team - offering kids who Pac-12 schools aren't offering anything to full rides when combined with academic aid (let's call it very roughly 50/50 academic/athletic). Because Portland gives big academic aid to any average 3.5/25 ACT/1200 SAT kid because they seriously lack smart kids at Portland in general. Trust me...I would know. Now, this doesn't take anything away from his success & I don't mean for it to. He's clearly developed a very successful system that obviously competes with the best XC programs in the country every year often without near the facilities & name recognition. But let's not pretend it hasn't taken A LOT of scholarship money - that yes, goes mostly to Americans. But you don't have to pay NEARLY as much for men as you do women. Any college coach will tell you that.

Stanford, Oregon or Colorado can "throw scholarship money" and cherry pick the top US talent. What is the difference?

The coaches job is to win. If the best American's won't come, are they to simply give up and take the "next level down" American kids and lose? Or follow NCAA rules and find similarly fast or superiorly fast kids from somewhere else on planet earth?

We wouldn't be talking about USF if they were the 100th best team in the country. so they must be doing something right.

I agree with your point..to a point but I also know USF has 50% academic scholarships. My daughter was offered this so might only need 50% athletic to get a full if they recruit good students. Similar to Portland example above.

Not deplorable wrote:

Just doing jobs Americans don't want to do. Not surprised it's Frisco.

Yeah, what 'merican kid wants a free ride in the Bay Area.?

I agree with your point..to a point but I also know USF has 50% academic scholarships. My daughter was offered this so might only need 50% athletic to get a full if they recruit good students. Similar to Portland example above.[/quote

Most people have no clue what coaches at smaller schools deal with. Yeah they have academic scholarships but so do other schools. If you only recruited kids who qualified for academic money, suddenly the recruiting pool shrinks. Lots of coaches can develop athletes in the NCAA. To be top 25 you have to be getting talented kids every year. That doesn't happen with American talent at small schools. Lots of smaller schools are trying to get that next tier kid. Why didn't your daughter go to USF? Probably for similar reasons that other U.S. kids don't go. Point is you have to get top level athletes to be at the top level in the NCAA. Doesn't mean that guarantees success. Coach's still have to coach. Every school deals with different variables that present challenges in recruiting to that school. Let's all stop pretending like it's easy to be good at xyz school with American kids. Maybe you should understand the challenges that USF faces in trying to get talented Americans. Like others posted the big names in and around the state are pulling in the talented girls for far less money. Giving those programs a big advantage. If it were so easy you would see more USF level schools with mostly Americans in the top 25 ever year. Most posters on here expect coaches to perform miracles. You really don't have a clue about running and what it takes to compete in the NCAA.

Carl Spackler wrote:

Most people who follow college athletics know that if a coach is importing athletes, that's a sign they are taking a "shortcut" to developing a nationally competitive team. This happens in a lot of college athletics--not just women's XC. The bigger question is how good is the coach at developing runners (foreign or US) in her system.

How is that a shortcut? Is recruiting out of state a shortcut? Is recruiting students that have run before a shortcut?

Jerry Shoemaker wrote:

Charlotte Taylor is a CUTIE

vivalarepublica wrote:

But if they are foreign AND attractive, does Letsrun really care?

Do we have to ask???

PICS??

Hello.... New Mexico & Providence won recent ncaa women’s XC titles the same way. Where was the hate back then?

Dude1 wrote:

Hello.... New Mexico & Providence won recent ncaa women’s XC titles the same way. Where was the hate back then?

I saw Courtney Frerichs (New Mexico) and Emily Sisson (Providence) run at the state championships in my home state. They are not foreign. San Francisco, as the OP mentioned, is entirely foreign.

Oregon is going the foreign way also, why do people on this site not hold them to the same standard?

FURMAN -- no foreign talent.

optional wrote:

Throw in Arkansas, Georgetown, Michigan, Colorado, etc. And then you'll see...IF THIS COACH WANTS TO BE TOP-10 IN THE NCAA...SHE HAS TO GO THE INTERNATIONAL ROUTE.

Now, that she's got some talent on her roster and they are getting some success and some publicity she might have a better chance at competing in the recruiting game with those schools aforementioned.

Just my two cents.

Easy Solution: Import Tax. If you want to go and recruit only foreign athletes - fine, but you'll pay double for them. If it costs twice and much to get a foreign athletes, maybe coaches will think twice about skipping over US athletes.

Hmmmmm!!!

Univ of Colorado #1- 23 women on the CC roster.....0 foreign athletes

Univ of San Francisco #6- 24 women on the roster.....13 foreign athletes

First off, I do have a good idea of how NCAA cross country works. I competed at a D-1 school of which our X-C team was consistently ranked in the Top 5 throughout every season (#1 on and off all 4 years) and finished in the Top 5 at the NCAA Championships all 4 years..........with ZERO foreign athletes on the roster of 20. So it can be done!!

I don't have an issue with schools recruiting and having foreign athletes on their rosters. I actually think its a good thing that brings diversity to a program. My point is that when over 50% of your roster is foreign and from that is your Top 7 scoring runners something is not right. It goes back to recruiting and coaching. It's rare that schools give out full rides to X-C runners unless they're a true "Blue Chipper". The combination of academic and athletic money are the main sources of financial aid. Not too mention that X-C runners are by and large very good students and the academic money is usually available without tapping out the athletic money which also needs to cover track and field. So more times than not money isn't the issue. My point is that it takes time to build a program and if done correctly through well thought out recruiting and coaching any program can bring in home grown talent along with limited foreign talent and be successful. Not too mention that most if not all recruited foreign athletes are VERY talented and need little coaching to begin with. Don't forget, I'm referring to FOREIGN RECRUITED athletes that are being brought in make a team successful. We need to invest and recruit our home grown athletes first and then bring in foreign athletes to fill out rosters if needed. Any wannabe coach can throw money at a foreign athlete, promise them a great education and win. That's not true coaching!!

Mens team not as good but still 5 of top 6 are foreign.

Tariff wrote:

Easy Solution: Import Tax. If you want to go and recruit only foreign athletes - fine, but you'll pay double for them. If it costs twice and much to get a foreign athletes, maybe coaches will think twice about skipping over US athletes.

I like it!!!