LOB - I never said that coaches prefer giving more money to foreigners. But they do. And the NCAA does almost nothing to slow it. They have to pass English proficiency exams and gain admission.

quote:

---

Will Jamaica let our sprinters train with Usain Bolt?

---

Will the USOC allow Usain Bolt on the track in Chula Vista? Nope.

There are currently several non-Jamaicans at Racers Track Club.

The HPTC in Kingston has athletes from all over the islands. It is, to be clear and fair, governed by the IAAF and not the JAAA.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 6/11/2012 9:00p).]

They won't allow Bolt because he is the worlds best and we don't want him to get any better using our facilities. The issue is where are the world's best coaches and sports programs?

The best swimming coaches and programs overall are in the US. And we seem perfectly content to make French, Brazilian, South African, Japanese, Canadian, even Australian etc. athletes better.

I don't see other countries that have a worlds best sports program train Americans. One US swimmer in France is hardly significant.

Speed skaters in the Netherlands? Bobsledders in Switzerland?

Eddie just signed a foreigner this year, BTW.

I guess when it matters enough and he doesn't get the American kid he wants, he does the same as everyone else.

China recently opened a $15+ million ping pong academy in Shanghai for foreigners, including a few kids from our Romanian-coached Olympic team.

The US women's soccer team is coached by a Swede.

[This message has been edited by AGBlastoff (edited 6/12/2012 7:38a).]

Again, I don't think the world-class athletes are really the issue here. They make up a very small (less than 1%) of the total number of foreign athletes competing in the NCAA.

The real issue is what is the benefit of giving scholarships to foreigners at the expense of American kids (even down to JUCO ranks and Division III schools)? Why shouldn't we put a cap on the number of foreign athletes in order to promote educational opportnities for our own?

quote:

---

They make up a very small (less than 1%) of the total number of foreign athletes competing in the NCAA.

---

That's actually not true, but yes, there will not be anything near 17000 foreign Olympians in London that trained in the United States at one point in time.

About 4.5% of NCAA athletes are foreign, as mentioned, that's about 17000-18000 of them. While I understand both sides, in my opinion, we're not at a point where we need to place a cap. We'll see where the numbers are in the future, but I'm okay with where we're at. Part of what makes this country great is its built on offering something better for all of those who seek it (and deserving of it).

Looking at aggregate numbers of the entire NCAA is misleading. I bet foreign athletes are concentrated in three sports: track and field and swimming and diving, and tennis.

A few in basketball, nearly zero in football and baseball, etc. Probably just a few in soccer, volleyball, wresting.

And the sports where foreign athletes are present in large numbers are sports where scholarships are precious.

Not quite.

Track and field, and cross country, had less foreign participation than the average NCAA sport in the latest NCAA report I've found.

Swimming was at 5.2% for the men and 4.4% for the women. A little above average, but nothing outrageous. Fencing, golf, ice hockey, skiing, soccer, squash, tennis, and water polo had higher foreign participation.

You're right on the money about tennis. Foreign participation is lower than ice hockey only, at 21.7% and 17.1% for men and women, respectively.


I don't think its particularly misleading to look at the aggregate numbers. I was speaking to person who was talking about sport as an avenue for American kids to have education opportunities. A Texas A&M education is the same for a football player as it is an equestrian athlete. Edit: It might be worth to pay attention to a few sports, such as basketball, that draw from a lower income demographic (see below post).

On the topic of elite athletes, its worthwhile to look at individual sports. But to me, all it boils down to is a hell of a lot more American kids play football than foreigners, and a hell of a lot more foreign kids play tennis than Americans. "Fixing" tennis or fencing or what have you starts long before college.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 6/19/2012 10:17p).]

I wouldn't agree with any argument that starts with "educational opportunities." Yes, in a perfect world, that's what college sports are about. In the real world, it's not what college sports are about. I think you'd have a hard time proving a whole lot of American high school swimmers and tennis players don't come to A&M simply because they can't afford it if they don't get an athletic scholarship...not in that demographic. Scholarships for many sports (there are exceptions) are as much a badge of honor for years of hard work. Which is fine. But I think on average, international athletes probably aren't taking away a whole lot of educational opportunities.

But who knows, maybe there are numbers that prove me wrong.

Its an argument in trickle down vs. trickle up economics, isn't it?

Would more money for Americans in tennis encourage lower income groups to play more tennis, thus turning tennis into an "educational opportunity" sport?

Too many have made this arguement a personal stand based on negative personal experiences!

The original topic of this thread was really about the US training other country's top athletes. NCAA rosters with foreign athletes is a related issue but doesn't address elite post-grad athletes from other countries training as part of US programs, many coached by NCAA coaches.

My position is:

- I do not think it is in the best interests of US Olympic teams to train foreign athletes. I would rather we lose whatever goodness supposedly comes from Cesar Cielo training with our guys in Auburn and force him to train in Brazil. A few of our athletes might lose a training partner, but the foreigners would lose more. I'm OK with the US losing a bit because the "rest of world" loses more. I'm skeptical US coaches would leave their elite US programs to chase foreign athletes or a few coaching $$. Who will coach Kitajima on the pool deck in London? Dave Salo who trains him in Los Angeles or Kitajima's Japanese coach?
- If the NCAA restricted (not eliminated) foreign athletes some NCAA teams and sports would definitely suffer. Auburn swimming would suffer, Cal would suffer, and A&M swimming would suffer. I have no idea how many tennis teams would lose talent. I'm OK with that too. Those limited scholarships and roster spots would go to Americans. No revenue would be lost because none of these sports have any. I realize the 1/4 scholarship A&M might give in some of these sports isn't a financial make or break for most of the kids that come here. But A&M and Div 1 schools spend a lot of money per athlete, even for walk-ons.
- Until other countries with elite programs start welcoming American athletes and/or contributing to our programs with money I see little reason for US sports programs to be so welcoming to foreign athletes.

[This message has been edited by SpicewoodAg (edited 6/20/2012 9:11a).]

What about Americans that want to represent a different country in order to better their shot at the Olympics? A&M has a few of those.

From an NCAA perspective I don't care about Americans who somehow manage to get to the Olympics via another country.

I didn't know Kim Pavlin is somehow a Croatian ???? That's OK with me.

quote:

---

I didn't know Kim Pavlin is somehow a Croatian ?

---

Pavlin is as Croatian as Loncaric is American.

Does it look odd that their are 18 girls going to U.S. Trials and 1 from the boys team?

Spicewood,

I think it goes back to what is the purpose of college athletics. I don't know that there is a single purpose everyone can agree upon, but I am not sure that the NCAA and the USOC have the same purpose.

At one point in time, I think the purpose of college athletics was to make well rounded graduates and give structured extra-curricular activities to its students. Today with recruiting and scholarship money for sports, I don't find this to be true. Now maybe this is still the reason for D3 and community college athletic programs and intramural sports.

One of the arguments I hear most often is that the purpose of college athletics is to serve as a marketing tool for the universities in which it increases donations by alumni, revenue through trademark memorabilia, applications, and branding. These seem to really apply to football and basketball though and not so much to the other sports. I can see some benefits to marketing in other sports, just not enough that I think one of the main purposes of a university having x sport is marketing. At any rate, if it is about marketing/branding, then I think it makes sense for each university to choose how they want to allocate their scholarships to best serve their interests.

Your argument is based on the notion that the purpose (or one of the main purposes) of college athletics for the US to win as many medals as possible in the Olympics? I don't see the benefits to A&M by the US winning the most medals at the Olympics, so I have a hard time seeing that as the reason for A&M to sponsor x sport. I also don't see how that is the most efficient way to develop US athletes for the Olympics. It seems to make a lot more sense for all of the best athletes to be in one location training and competing together with the best coaches as opposed to spread throughout the country at various schools.

Maybe we first need to answer the question of why should A&M sponsor tennis, swimming & diving, track and field, etc. Once we know the answer to that question, we can decide if it makes sense for elite foreign athletes to be on the roster.

quote:

---

Maybe we first need to answer the question of why should A&M sponsor tennis, swimming & diving, track and field, etc. Once we know the answer to that question, we can decide if it makes sense for elite foreign athletes to be on the roster.

---

Because college athletics by nature is amateur athletics. Your earlier statement tends to infer that football and basketball have now become professional athletics.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but I will do my best to answer your question.

Amateur refers to the players, not necessarily a league. You can have a for profit league that makes money using amateur players. College football and basketball players are amateurs. The programs themselves are run by a bunch of professionals. Just because an institution is getting something in return doesn't mean it is not amateur.

nereus - several related topics are included in this thread. I don't think the purpose of NCAA athletics is to prepare athletes for the Olympics. I still believe in the student-athlete concept. It has been massively corrupted by football and basketball because of the close association with professional sports and the huge amount of money in the sports.

I have a general confidence that college athletics are good for the student body. It gives the students another thing to identify with on campus. It isn't just books, papers, and tests. Not all students identify with football or basketball. They identify with the sports they played as kids or in high school. And of course football is 99.9% male. So a variety of sports makes sense to me. I don't really have a problem with Title IX. The real problem is the overwhelming power and money associated with football and basketball.

It turns out that college sports is a training ground for elite athletes, and many big universities have loosely connected club programs where non-students train in the same facilities at the same time with the same coaches as student-athletes.

A&M is a better university with sports programs. I think students are happier because there is a soccer team, tennis team, T&F, etc.

Finally - since scholarships are awarded to many of these athletes and since A&M is a public university, I think Texans and Americans should be favored over non-residents.

On the core topic of this thread, I think USA based sports organizations (USA Swimming for example) should do little or nothing to help the fortunes of athletes from other countries. To the degree that college programs co-mingle with these programs the colleges should follow suit.

[This message has been edited by Thesituation80 (edited 6/21/2012 5:53p).]

quote:

---

Does it look odd that their are 18 girls going to U.S. Trials and 1 from the boys team?

---

Schweitzer, Enriquez, Dalton, Ariens, Loncaric, Fonua, Clarke and Troskot are all qualified for OTs. Because most of those listed are foreign they cannot compete at the meet. Wagner would also be at OTs if he swam competitively in the summer.

I think that last post summs up the title of this thread. The girls have a few elite international swimmers too, and yet they are sending 18 swimmers to Omaha along with one from the boys team. I will ask the question again, does it look odd?

Scholarships given to foreign students do nto come from taxpayer funding so why should Texans or Americans benefit more than anyone else.

I want the A&M athletics teams to win. A&M pays the coaches to win. The minute A&M takes inferior athletes just because their from Texas is the day the program should be dropped.

Maroon,

I'm not sure what you are getting at? As someone mentioned before, it isn't like the A&M men's team is turning down a bunch of Olympic qualifying level US athletes.

You also need to remember that those aren't equal programs. The women have not finished outside the top 10 for the last 6 years while the men have not finished inside the top 10 during that same time period. Would you not think that a consistently top 10 program would have more top swimmers than a program that hasn't even had 1 finish in the top 10 recently?

spice,

You said you wanted to restrict (not eliminate) foreign scholarships/athletes. Would not all of the Olympic level athletes be the ones to get all the restricted scholarships? That would just remove the more marginal foreign swimmers, but not the ones that would compete for medals. Or are you proposing to restrict it in a different manner than number of scholarships/participants?

Maroon,

The men's team is smaller too. It's still not proportional but that can't be ignored.

Spicewood -- While I don't agree with the end of what you said, the first four graphs of your last post is the best thing you've ever put on texags. Well said my friend.

[This message has been edited by Look Out Below (edited 6/22/2012 11:00p).]