How many ncaa qualifying teams only Americans?

Ok boomer wrote:

Sense wrote:

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.

I cannot begin to unravel what you are trying to say. Please enlighten me as to when airfares payed by American customers at US airports are diverted to free seats and other benefits for non-paying foreign nationals.

I am also in the dark as to how my internet dollars are somehow diverted for free access to other readers while simultaneously making the BBC off limits to me and my family. I do not pay British taxes, by the way.

Educating foreigners is almost always a net gain for America. We get to educate someone for 4 years who will enter the workforce as a skilled worker - likely in America - and pay taxes to the us government. The benefit is we only had to educate the foreigner for four years while American children have to be educated for 16 years on our dime. With foreigners we get a mostly already educated member of society that another country paid for

Guysysvsbzh wrote:

Educating foreigners is almost always a net gain for America. We get to educate someone for 4 years who will enter the workforce as a skilled worker - likely in America - and pay taxes to the us government. The benefit is we only had to educate the foreigner for four years while American children have to be educated for 16 years on our dime. With foreigners we get a mostly already educated member of society that another country paid for

Apples and oranges, my friend.

We are discussing the increasingly limited number of athletic scholarships available at American universities that are offered to those outside the US. Almost all of those athletes will return to their home countries. Your generic foreign student who is not on an athletic scholarship is a drop in the bucket on a percentage basis compared to teams where 50-100% are recruited across the seas.

You do, however, bring up an issue to debate at another time. Namely, how do we apportion college access/scholarships for the most benefit in light of decades of family and educational degradation in our largest metro areas? Administered by whom?

Guysysvsbzh wrote:

Educating foreigners is almost always a net gain for America. We get to educate someone for 4 years who will enter the workforce as a skilled worker - likely in America - and pay taxes to the us government. The benefit is we only had to educate the foreigner for four years while American children have to be educated for 16 years on our dime. With foreigners we get a mostly already educated member of society that another country paid for

Not one bit of that is true.

Sophistry

Guysysvsbzh wrote:

Educating foreigners is almost always a net gain for America. We get to educate someone for 4 years who will enter the workforce as a skilled worker - likely in America - and pay taxes to the us government. The benefit is we only had to educate the foreigner for four years while American children have to be educated for 16 years on our dime. With foreigners we get a mostly already educated member of society that another country paid for

You give your resources to foreigners. That will be a net gain for America.

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.

People want to see their school name do well in sports. They don't care about the athletes as people. You think SEC schools started accepting blacks on their school football teams for any reason other than they helped them win games?

Less. It's probably closer to 80/20. A team exclusively of US athletes is the exception and not the rule.

I understand that it takes away scholarships from Americans and that’s a bummer. However, having foreigners on the team were part of a well rounded collegiate experience. Being around and building relationships with those of different cultures is extremely beneficial. Remember the point of college is education and building teamwork skills is part of that education.

Maybe a compromise? Something like only two scholarships can go to non American citizens?

Review of the Top 15 teams top 7

NAU -3

CU - None

BYU - None

Stanford - None

Portland - 2

Tulsa - 5

Iowa State - 2

Oregon - 2

Ole Miss - 3

Purdue - None

Washington - 2

Notre Dame -1

MTSU - 6

Wisconsin - 2

Iona - 6

So of the top 15 teams in the USTFCCCA poll, 11 teams have at least 1 (73%), three of which (20%) top 5 scoring runners are all foreign (Tulsa, MTSU, and Iona). In all of the top 15 teams combined, 32.4% of the top 7 athletes are foreigners (and about 43% of the top 5 runners). Each of those athletes represents an American athlete that is not given the chance to further their development at the collegiate level.

Sliding Scale wrote:

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.

Yes they did. I was talking about he men's team.

JTFC!! wrote:

Sliding Scale wrote:

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.

Yes they did. I was talking about he men's team.

*the

JTFC!! wrote:

Arkansas qualified with only Americans

[/quote]

That's gotta be a first for Arkansas (it's worth noting that they were not running Boit this year for some reason). Of course they did it in probably the weakest region in the US. They lost their home meet to 2 division 2 teams from Colorado that are probably the #4 and #6 programs in the state of Colorado respectively.

Like Really Bro wrote:

Are Canadians Americans?

Canada is in the Americas but we don't like being associated with the USA, so no.

Does Air Force Academy have a prep school ?

Not Nomar wrote:

Air Force Women

The Air Force women should be top 10 every year. They are desperate for women so admissions standards are very low for women. The coaches have an influence over the admissions to lower standards even more.

While other programs have limited scholarships, everyone goes to Air Force for free. That means the Air Force women could potentially have 50 long distance runners on their roster without one of them paying a dime.

While those in the Army or Navy actually face some danger in their service to the country, the Air Force members do not because they just sit in a control room and press buttons.

The altitude they train at is yet another HUGE advantage.

15 Australians in the field.

Somehow the Australian national body thinks that there are six in a team (smh).