Very interesting article in the Wall St. Journal today.

http://on.wsj.com/MaQcgf

A&M had 69% ratio of foreign Olympians in 2008.

I read that article today. Although I am a proponent of favoring Americans (and Texans) where possible in our athletic programs, I bet ten years ago (say 2004 Olympics) there were near zero Aggie Olympians in any sport. Maybe just Sykora in volleyball.

It would be interesting to see a list of those 16 Olympians. Half may be swimmers. I wonder too if those names were of people who competed in the Olympics while they were enrolled or it included post-grads.

I'm always in favor of American (and Texan) athletes, but I don't know, it seems that if an American has legitimate athletic ability, they don't struggle to find an opportunity to get quality coaching and facilities.

As far as swimming specifically, 31 of our 60 swimming entries came away from Beijing with a medal. Another 6 or so finished in 4th, and 4 or so finished in 5th place. That's pretty darn good if you ask me, but it'd certainly be interesting to see the numbers of how many of our American Olympians were beat by someone who swam at an American college.


A failure to get youth involved and receiving quality coaching at quality facilities is what concerns me. (See tennis, soccer, etc...)

I can only say that wherever Auburn recruits their swimmers, we should be doing the same. National and international exposure is a good thing as long as we maintain/improve our academics/research.

[This message has been edited by gamedrunk (edited 6/6/2012 8:14p).]

By that logic then we should cap the number of foreign students allowed into U.S. universities across the board because us non-athletes have to compete against them for jobs. It's great to see Americans win medals, but it's even better to see our university help young men and women reach their potential and make the world better for them, their families and society as a whole.

If you saw the ESPN story on the African cross country runners going to Alaska-Anchorage then you would know this is the only chance some of these kids have ata better life. The part I disagree with is that some of these athletes are 25+ when they come over giving them an advantage. I'm also against the baseball player turned college football player at 25. I think individuals like Mark Dodge are the exception. What makes that difficult though is in some cases it just takes that long for the athlete to raise enough money to fly to the U.S.

You guys are worried about this? Try educating thousands of Ph.D. scientists and engineers, then sending them to the four winds to compete against us because our country won't allow them to work here. The Olympics is the least of our concerns.

quote:

---

By that logic then we should cap the number of foreign students allowed into U.S. universities

---

I think PUBLIC universities should cap the number of foreign students. I don't care what private universities do.

I think the fundamental priority for a public university is to educate qualified residents of the US and the state. That includes athletes. I am not against foreign athletes. But I think it is undesirable for a public school's team to be dominated by foreign athletes.

In the case of swimmers, the sport I know best, in the 2008 Olympics the following non-American medalists/finalists all trained at US universities (looking at a results list and relying on memory of where they swam). There are many more that were not finalists.

Cesar Cielo (Brazil/Auburn)
Fred Bousquet (France/Auburn)
Matt Targett (Australia/Auburn)
Kirsty Coventry (Zimbabwe/Auburn)
Julia Wilkinson (Canada/TAMU)
Milorad Cavic (Serbia/Cal)
Simon Burnett (UK/Arizona)
Ous Melloulli (Tunisia/USC)
Roland Schoeman (South Africa/Arizona)
Gemma Spofforth (UK/Florida)
Ryk Neethling (South Africa/Arizona)

This may be a primitive way of looking at things, but I think it is France's job to prepare their athletes for the Olympics, not US coaches for US universities using US facilities.

quote:

---

The part I disagree with is that some of these athletes are 25+ when they come over giving them an advantage.

---

Rules were put in place 30 years ago to combat this. This only happens now with special exceptions.

As far as the main topic goes, coaches are paid to win. Period. It's foolish to think any coach will take a lower-performing American over a higher-performing foreigner. And they shouldn't.

Should we also limit this in the NBA or MLB? Get rid of Tony Parker, Ginobili, Dirk, Olajuwon. Get rid of Pudge, Pujols, Mariano Rivera -- the list goes on and on.

This is a slippery slope put forth by lazy, less talented Americans. To be perfectly frank, the foreigners -- as a whole -- take advantage of and excel academically better than Americans do. They realize the opportunity they are given and take full advantage.

We would be limiting our athletic advancement by not allowing foreigners into our system due to watered down competition. They make us better and work harder and honestly provide great examples of what we should aspire to be. Hell many of these kids are getting degrees in languages that are not their natural one. How many American kids do you see going overseas to do that?

Try asking American athletes that have foreign teammates what they think about the situation.

seems like the 'US Coaches' you're referring to are people like Brett Hawke, Rick Demont, Anthony Nesty, Mike Bottom (2008 Croatian National Team), Dave Salo (2008 Tunisian National Team), Steve Bultman (team Canada/Mexico).

until these guys/girls are being paid more by USA swimming to further the national mission than the athletes/universities to accomplish individual goals, then this will continue to happen.

Maybe there is a higher percentage of foreign Olympians because it can be easier to make an Olympic squad for smaller countries?

I think it's great for A&M to train domestic and foreign Olympians. It can only help the university.

quote:

---

By that logic then we should cap the number of foreign students allowed into U.S. universities across the board

---

We do that actually. It isn't a universal cap on the number of international students, but each school creates their own cap in one form or another (although most of the time the cap doesn't differentiate between out of state and out of country). Some of the schools have a hard policy like University of Wisconsin. They would only have at most 25% nonresidents (this was as of a couple years ago anyways). Other times there will be other restrictions that while doesn't specifically limit it to a number/percentage, realistically makes a high percentage of nonresidents unapproachable. The top 10% rule is an example of a policy which by itself basically ensures A&M will have a huge chuck of its student body from Texas. Public universities pay attention to the number of international students attending and have a plan for how they want their students body to be represented geographically. It is very intentional.

Also on a side note, one reasons to have out of state students is they can subsidies the in state students. Some schools have their out of state tuition set so much higher that it not only makes up for the loss of state funding not covering those students but actually can help offset the cost for in state students. Arizona upped their cap on number of nonresident students a couple of years ago and that was basically their rational for the decision.

quote:

---

This may be a primitive way of looking at things, but I think it is France's job to prepare their athletes for the Olympics, not US coaches for US universities using US facilities.

---

I agree it is France's job to prepare their athletes for the Olympics and not the US. But if we are getting something in return, I don't have a problem with an agreement that is mutually beneficial. If more people in France and the world know about Texas A&M and other US colleges, that makes our degrees more valuable.

We save France some money by giving their top athletes a place to train and some coaching and in exchange they provide us with more international exposure and branding for our universities. Sounds like a good trade off to me. Especially since we would have the program and the expense anyways.

I am a bit neanderthal on some of this. I am not interested whatsoever in improving the performance of foreign athletes for their country's benefit. In fact I would be pleased if the US could return to dominance in many Olympic sports like they were before.

When it serves our interests, then I am more flexible. I know that TAMU is a better swim team because of our foreign athletes. Probably T&F too. But I also know that other swim teams are much better than ours (mostly mens) and they have little or no foreign athletes.

Our best female swimmer in history is a Canadian, and a wonderful one. We may have an even better swimmer or two on campus now and they are American. I'm happy about that. Our best male swimmers have probably been Matt Rose (Canada) or Balasz (Hungary), perhaps someone else I can't remember. Our best divers have been Canadian or Australian.

I am perfectly comfortable riding the success of foreign athletes to improve our status and appeal - so that we can do even better with recruiting American athletes.

[This message has been edited by SpicewoodAg (edited 6/7/2012 11:55a).]

It's not like they aren't trying Spicewood. You simply can't put a gun to a great American kid's head and force them to come here. Our coaches are doing the best they can in trying to recruit American kids that will improve the program.

LOB - I know they are trying. And with the women's program, we are moving the needle. With the men - I don't see a real improvement or change in recruiting.

None of this says we can't and shouldn't continue to improve recruitment of elite American athletes.

With diving - it is too early to tell. I have no idea who Jay has signed to replace Nel, Potvin, and Patrick.

I have believed for a long time that the NCAA needs to cap the number of foreign students allowed to compete on each team.

The societal benefit from the amount of resources spent on athletics by our universities is very debatable. If we are going to spend that much money on scholarships and facilities for our athletes, however, let's at least make it American kids who are benefitting from it.

I have no problem with foreign kids getting the benefit of U.S. training- to an extent.

We are the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth and our kids (millions of them!) have benefits and built in head-start/advantages over the rest of the world. I don't really want to complain about some country having any "advantage" by making use of our own resources.

On the other hand, these are U.S. universities paid for by us, the taxpayers. There should be some limit in the amount of foreign student scholarships- which by definition, take a spot away from a domestic kid- likely one whose parents are paying taxes to support the foreign kid who took their son's or daughter's place.

@BP,

American athletes benefit from training with olympic-level athletes from other countries. Maybe foreign athletes will stay in the US to train or work after their collegiate careers and contribute to the country.

Unless you want the cap to be zero, Olympic level athletes from other countries will get admitted, come over, compete and train. You might keep out some marginal Olympic qualifiers, but Cielo or Coventry or Kirani James are always going to have a place to land whether it's A&M, Auburn, Cal, or wherever.

I'm not worried about providing an advantage to Olympic level athletes from other countries. I'm concerned with giving foreign students scholarships that could (should) be going to American kids.

The vast majority of foreign student athletes are never going to participate in the Olympics or even play pro sports. But we have set up this massive athletic overlay at our universities where even Division 3 and NAIA schools bring over foreign athletes to compete for them.

All I'm saying is that if our schools are going to spend that kind of money and resources on sports, then I think American kids should be the beneficiaries of it.

The main principle of competitive sports is to win. If American kids want the opportunity then they need to be better than their foreign counterparts. Sports are all about survival of the fittest. There is no reason or need for entitlements in sports.

Using percentages is misleading. Of course the majority of olympians at these schools compete for other countries. The USA can field only so many athletes, so an actual American Olympian is going to be rare.

This has been going on for a long time. Look at Baylor tennis, a few years ago it was the German national team. The coaches are paid to win, if we had a stud qb from Australia and won a MNC would anyone care?

Don't hear much about foreign football stars, though. I guess nobody is as interested in American football as we are.

quote:

---

Using percentages is misleading. Of course the majority of olympians at these schools compete for other countries. The USA can field only so many athletes, so an actual American Olympian is going to be rare.

---

Exactly why.

That and the fact that most American Olympians who are out there AREN'T IN COLLEGE. In other countries, where the sports are less developed, the best swimmers often flame out after college, so putting college-aged swimmers onto Olympic Teams is common. In the US (with a few exceptions), a vast majority of Olympians are out of college. Women's swimming would be one exception, where this year it could be close to a 50-50 split.

What tha' Hell?
Even little Navarro College (Corsicana) recruits basketball players from foreign countries.

As far as foreign students competing for American jobs, they can legally only do that if they get a green card. A student visa isn't sufficient for that. An employer can chose to help any foreigner get a green card, but it is expensive and time consuming.

In theory you have to "prove" that either no other American entry is qualified for your job or wants it. You do that by advertising the job in at least two publications of the immigration department's choosing and then waiting several months. If there are American applicants, you can interview them to see if they truly qualify, but if they do, you have to hire them. They don't have to be better than the foreign student, just qualified.

When I worked for Alcoa labs in the '80s, we hired a Polish Ph.D. who had escaped from the Communist regime and attended the University of Wisconsin on a student visa. He also was a chemical engineer with a Master's Degree. We were able to list the job as requiring both a Ph.D. in statistics and chemical engineering, and that, I think, allowed us not to find any other candidates. But it ended up costing Alcoa over $250,000 in fees in the late 80s.

I'm sure if you are devious enough you can probably go outside the strict rules, but at least those are the ones that were in place. It isn't really clear that it is "easy" for a foreign student to take an American job. Unless, of course, they marry an American citizen!

One aspect that maybe isn't being looked at is in terms of people like Roland Schoeman or Kirsty Coventry:

In both examples, they are sponsored by foreign companies (to the tune of millions of dollars); Remain in the US on a "extra-ordinary abilities" visa and spend way more (of that foreign companies money) + pay taxes over that time period than what the scholarship cost the university.

On top of that, they bring in athletic and leadership skills to whatever club they compete for here, plus greatly increase the US's competitive base (competition breeds success)

Then, for the most part, unless they've found permanent employment (which is VERY hard to do for a foreigner) they have to leave. The win in these cases is overwhelmingly FOR the US.

For those that think their tax money is paying for this: If a div. 1 university offers EVERY sport then there are 445 men and womens scholarships. Most of these are paid for by alumni or the Ath dept. yearly intake.
If you take most public college's and populations, should all of it fall to the tax payer (never happens) then it is a fraction of a cent.

On top of all this, remember that we should all be working to make the USA the very best it can possibly be. If that means (in an increasingly smaller world) that you have to give a fraction of a cent to entice some of the worlds best talent and hardest workers to stay, live, work and help the US prosper, then I'm all for it.

Other than being great training partners, I don't believe Kirsty Coventry (etc.) training in the US has done anything meaningfully beneficial to the US.

Because I tend to focus on swimming, when the men have 9.9 scholarships to give, then I am willing to bet that the typical fast foreigner has more scholarship money than the typical fast domestic kid.

Regarding taxpayer money. The athletic department pays for the coaches and the scholarships. But the pools are built with either donations (Americans), bond money (debt repaid by taxpayers), or general athletic funds (e.g. football money).

Let's consider an extreme case. Zero foreign athletes allowed to train at our universities and and elite post-grad clubs. Would NCAA sports be slower? Probably a bit. Would France, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Panama, England, Japan, South Africa, and Jamaica be slower in their sports too? Yes they would be. I'm more than OK with that.

1)

quote:

---

Because I tend to focus on swimming, when the men have 9.9 scholarships to give, then I am willing to bet that the typical fast foreigner has more scholarship money than the typical fast domestic kid.

---

I've heard this debate many times, and every college coach in the country who I've spoken with denies that a kid gets more money because they're foreign.

quote:

---

and elite post-grad clubs.

---

post-grad clubs are an entirely different conversation. They are private programs, and if American coaches are being paid by international federations to coach their swimmers, then who are we to deprive them of a livelihood? Would that mean that every other business in the country would have to stop selling to international customers? Pro swimmers in post-grad clubs are "customers" of the coach - he can't simply ship his coaching overseas.

If people start rallying against these coaches too hard...they'll simply leave the country. There's a lot of money to be made coaching swimming overseas if you're good, and the other countries are happy to have them regardless of nationality.

If we're going to try and tell these coaches how they're going to earn a living...then you all better be ready to shell-out to make up the difference. Buy more expensive tickets, go to a whole lot more pro meets (and pay a whole lot more for tickets), pay more dues to USA Swimming. Something tells me that most of us aren't going to be happy with that.

PS - Up until very recently, we had an American Olympian training in France. Food for thought.

[This message has been edited by AGBlastoff (edited 6/11/2012 1:16p).]

AgBlastoff - How many foreign swimmers are walkons? Or swimming for books? Unless these athletes are wealthy they need financial aid to pay for school here since at a public U they have to pay out of state tuition.

Elite post-grad programs....yes they are kind of private enterprises. Most of these teams train at universities. But I think with only a few exceptions, these coaches are NCAA coaches. Dave Salo, Teri McKeever, Frank Busch, Jack Baurle, etc. are all college coaches and I bet most of their income comes from the university they work for. Eddie Reese has almost zero foreign athletes in his post-grad group.

Just how much income does Salo derive from training Kitajima? And if he lost all his income from foreign athletes do you think he would leave California? For where? If another country wants to steal one of our coaches they surely can find the money to do so.

These clubs are sanctioned and insured by USA Swimming. It is not in USA Swimming's best interest to improve the fortunes of foreign country's athletes. Maybe if these athletes and countries build pools, donate their time, do what Cullen Jones is doing I would be more receptive.

Will Jamaica let our sprinters train with Usain Bolt?

The Chinese don't let our divers work with theirs.

Do the Nordic countries train our cross country skiers?

These coaches, ESPECIALLY Eddie, are the exception and not the rule.

And if you think a coach would rather give money to a 'typical fast' foreigner over a 'typical fast' American kid, I have a bridge to sell you.

One of the reasons we allow these foreign kids to come over here and do this is BECAUSE we aren't China, Russia, etc. We are better than that -- and better for it.

As 94chem says above, if the Olympics is our biggest concern then we’re doing alright in the grand scheme.

On the topic of the thread however it was my experience from track and field from way back in the early 90’s that foreign athletes like the Africans to Alaska-Anchorage were the exception.

Many of the track and field athletes from our conference were from Holland, New Zealand, Ireland and South Africa and had already graduated from college in their home country. They arrive to the US as 21+ year old freshmen, established as near professionals in their sport and at the time it sure felt like the scholarships would be better used on an 18 year old Texan kid or American at least.

Is this still happening or is it a thing of the past?

quote:

---

I've heard this debate many times, and every college coach in the country who I've spoken with denies that a kid gets more money because they're foreign.

---

They're lying to you.