How many ncaa qualifying teams only Americans?

zxcvzxvc wrote:

It's funded by American taxpayers, so why not focus on American talent where it exists. The argument might be that there is superior foreign talent to be had. In many cases, however, you could do as well with American runners, and Harvard is absolutely one of those cases. Many runners would love to go there.

and not all taxpayers are american/born in the us.

zxcvzxvc wrote:

It's funded by American taxpayers, so why not focus on American talent where it exists. The argument might be that there is superior foreign talent to be had. In many cases, however, you could do as well with American runners, and Harvard is absolutely one of those cases. Many runners would love to go there.

Yeah, the average person (myself included) could really care less about any of that. Outside of this board, I couldn't imagine anyone viewing this as a real problem.

Like Really Bro wrote:

Are Canadians Americans?

Yes and so are Brazilians or Panamanians but when an American says American they mean anybody not African or brown...whites only.

JTFC!! wrote:

Arkansas qualified with only Americans

No, they did not.

White South Africans (Viljoen) are still foreign. I have no problem with international collegiate athletes, but I understand the arguments regarding teams being more domestic.

What ticks me off is when people direct ire at Kenyans, but ignore Australians, Canadians, Europeans and white South Africans.

You could care less but could not imagine? Do you mean that you could not care less about where they are born? When you state the opposite, you will be misunderstood.

Yes I am old wrote:

meritade wrote:

Thought every one at a service academy went for free - obviously tough to get in, and then a 3 yr post school military commitment.

It used to be a minimum 6-year post graduation commitment. Has it changed?

You owe 5 years of service after graduation from one of the academies. Many will owe more after signing up for further education (flight school, advanced degrees, etc.).

It’s not good for the US athletes that don’t receive scholarships because those funds end up going to support the Olympic development of foreign nationals. A lot of US talent probably goes undeveloped because those athletes that are talented but under trained coming out of high school are not given the privledge of an athletic scholarship because the money is given to a foreigner. As someone who ran at a highly competitive division 1 school, a lot of the All-Americans on the team were not working the 60-70 hrs a week I was working in the summer or the 20 hrs a week I was interning during the school year to pay the bills. I sometimes wonder what I might have accomplished as a runner if I had the comparatively easier schedule afforded to those on scholarship or those from wealthy families. The presence of foreign athletes gains us nothing and only benefits the Olympic development of foreign nations.

College coaches do not get bonuses and job security through in state and domestic development. Overall performance is what matters. Until that changes, why would a college coach take a risk and invest in 18 year old Americans when 20 year old internationals, who have faster times, are available?

Ryan O’Neal wrote:

Not Harvard

MEN: Germany, UK,(x3), Canada, Greece

WOMEN: UK, Israel, Germany, Canada

Harvard's actual top 7s btw, since this guy just went to the roster and picked out the internationals:

MEN: USA, UK, USA, USA, UK, USA, Germany

WOMEN: USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, Israel

Joe the issue has been going on for years. Back in 86 i was recruited by James Madison and George Mason in VA. James Madison has a good program with some quality runners but George Mason had a runner from Somalia named Abdi Bile who was achieving good things and they were recruiting a German athlete Stephan Franke. The assistant coach was no other than Jama Aden! It was an easy choice I wanted to go and run with great runners. Yes I only received a small scholarship but was happy to be there. Now that is not all the story. Cook was kind of ready to get rid of me after my freshman year and off I went but to this day I learned a lot in my time there.

Fast forward and now as a coach in Australia and I have sent 4 aussie's to Uni's in the states and I can guarantee you that their teammates where more than happy to have them and they added a level of focus and commitment to their programs.

Sorry you didn't have teammates from other countries add something to you as a person. It was a great experience at GMU in 87 just wish Cook wasn't such an arse.

Let it Rupp wrote:

zxcvzxvc wrote:

It's funded by American taxpayers, so why not focus on American talent where it exists. The argument might be that there is superior foreign talent to be had. In many cases, however, you could do as well with American runners, and Harvard is absolutely one of those cases. Many runners would love to go there.

Yeah, the average person (myself included) could really care less about any of that. Outside of this board, I couldn't imagine anyone viewing this as a real problem.

Perhaps most of the frequenters of this board are too young to agree but parents work, serve and pay taxes to provide opportunities for their kids. There have been countless college students over the last 40 years who would have been on college sports rosters and gained from that experience if the spots had not been reserved for foreign athletes or if the sports had not been discontinued via Title IX.

It's hard enough for kids to stand out in a country of 300 million. Expand the field to 7 billion and the opportunities are 20 times less frequent.

There is a silent plurality, if not majority, of forgotten toilers who have been voting as of late against this philosophy of "Just shut up, work, accumulate debt and send us the money. for our brave new world."

Good for you. But some Americans didn't get a spot because of those foreigners. So it may have enriched your experience but it eliminated the experience entirely for others.

zxcvzxvc wrote:

It's funded by American taxpayers, so why not focus on American talent where it exists. The argument might be that there is superior foreign talent to be had. In many cases, however, you could do as well with American runners, and Harvard is absolutely one of those cases. Many runners would love to go there.

What is funded by American taxpayers? Scholarships are usually funded by donors, student fees, and revenue from football and basketball, not from taxpayers (although yes, many of those people are also taxpayers).

start making sense wrote:

zxcvzxvc wrote:

It's funded by American taxpayers, so why not focus on American talent where it exists. The argument might be that there is superior foreign talent to be had. In many cases, however, you could do as well with American runners, and Harvard is absolutely one of those cases. Many runners would love to go there.

What is funded by American taxpayers? Scholarships are usually funded by donors, student fees, and revenue from football and basketball, not from taxpayers (although yes, many of those people are also taxpayers).

What, indeed:

The buildings, roads, salaries, athletic facilities, student aid(which the federal government uses as a justification to infringe upon the academic freedom of faculties by mandating political correctness in curricula and student relations).

There ain't no teams or scholarships if there is not a university in the first place. All those student loans and grants, state and federal, that come by way of the US taxpayer are what pay the bills for all colleges, public and private.

There must be a list somewhere of the experiences that prospective college students should expect to be at least partially off limits if born in the USA.

Sense wrote:

start making sense wrote:

What is funded by American taxpayers? Scholarships are usually funded by donors, student fees, and revenue from football and basketball, not from taxpayers (although yes, many of those people are also taxpayers).

What, indeed:

The buildings, roads, salaries, athletic facilities, student aid(which the federal government uses as a justification to infringe upon the academic freedom of faculties by mandating political correctness in curricula and student relations).

There ain't no teams or scholarships if there is not a university in the first place. All those student loans and grants, state and federal, that come by way of the US taxpayer are what pay the bills for all colleges, public and private.

There must be a list somewhere of the experiences that prospective college students should expect to be at least partially off limits if born in the USA.

Well, if this is the justification then no university should admit foreign students.

That is why public colleges have 2 rates. The out of state foreigners pay a higher rate but scholarship athletes don't.

I agree 100%.

Like Really Bro wrote:

Are Canadians Americans?

There is always some turd in every group that doesn’t know the name of our country and what the people of our country are called.

Sense wrote:

start making sense wrote:

What is funded by American taxpayers? Scholarships are usually funded by donors, student fees, and revenue from football and basketball, not from taxpayers (although yes, many of those people are also taxpayers).

What, indeed:

The buildings, roads, salaries, athletic facilities, student aid(which the federal government uses as a justification to infringe upon the academic freedom of faculties by mandating political correctness in curricula and student relations).

There ain't no teams or scholarships if there is not a university in the first place. All those student loans and grants, state and federal, that come by way of the US taxpayer are what pay the bills for all colleges, public and private.

There must be a list somewhere of the experiences that prospective college students should expect to be at least partially off limits if born in the USA.

This is a remarkably terrible argument, kudos. By this train of logic international travel and reading BBC News are freeloading.