PDA

View Full Version : Men's NCAAs 2009



Mr. Negative
March 30th, 2009, 10:17 PM
How many guys from other countries does it take to win a National Championship?

Good thing they all attended classes on campus the entire year..... :-)

Makes everyone feel proud to see the American Record holder on the 4th place podium.

knelson
March 31st, 2009, 01:16 AM
Actually Auburn doesn't even have that many foreign swimmers. Looking at their roster:

Jakob Andkjaer (Denmark) - he was a big contributor on the relays, but only made the B final in all his individual events

Christopher Fox (UK) - Didn't compete

Adam Godzinski (France) - Diver. Didn't compete.

Gideon Louw (RSA) - Relays, A final in both the 50 and 100 free.

Matt Targett (Aus) - Relays, 3rd in the 50 and 100 free, 16th in the 100 fly

Pascal Wollach (Canada) - Relays, 4th in the 100 and 200 back

So I guess the answer to your question is that it takes four.

aquageek
March 31st, 2009, 04:53 AM
Very clever disguise, Pablo.

thewookiee
March 31st, 2009, 07:14 AM
Gee, talk about a poor sport. Trying to take away from the team's preformanc by being a jerk.

AU won the meet by having the most points. Would you have been so rude of Stanford or Cal had won the meet? Probably

Paul Smith
March 31st, 2009, 10:09 AM
More importantly how many foreign swimmers swam at NCAA's that did not compete last fall...taking on-line courses to gain eligibility.

It's sad that there are still so many coaches who push the envelope on the rules...

21 year old Sophomores? Give me a break.

Mr. Negative
March 31st, 2009, 10:19 AM
Did every team at NCAAs have access to (and funding for) the new Jaked suit that reportedly costs as much as $700?

http://swimnerdz.com/Home_Page.html

knelson
March 31st, 2009, 10:24 AM
More importantly how many foreign swimmers swam at NCAA's that did not compete last fall...taking on-line courses to gain eligibility.

Not sure, but this isn't illegal is it? If not, what's the controversy? If coaches don't like this maybe they should push for a rule change. Maybe make it a requirement that only swimmers on the roster at the start of the season are eligible for NCAAs.

tjrpatt
March 31st, 2009, 12:21 PM
The Rocket Science aren't badly priced. Where can you buy the Jared Swimwear in the US? It kind of sucks that some people weren't able to swim in the $700.00 suits. But, swimming is about who has the most financial resources to succeed.

The Fortress
March 31st, 2009, 12:23 PM
Did every team at NCAAs have access to (and funding for) the new Jaked suit that reportedly costs as much as $700?

http://swimnerdz.com/Home_Page.html

I was wondering what that gold/brown suit was.

But didn't Targett underperform somewhat in that suit?

knelson
March 31st, 2009, 01:30 PM
But didn't Matt Taggart underperform somewhat in that suit?

Targett.

Hard to say. He swam at Australian Trials the week before, so it's understandable if he was a little off.

aquageek
March 31st, 2009, 01:59 PM
Ask Mr. Negative how his bike ride yesterday was.

Paul Smith
March 31st, 2009, 05:25 PM
I say we need to start a push for Title X that will allow equal access to college swimming scholarships for US citizens. Let's kick foreign swimmers out of college programs until there is "balance". 2 per team on scholarship max, no more than 20% of overall program.

Geek...I gave you EVERY clue you needed...you're smarter than that.

Mr. Negative
March 31st, 2009, 05:51 PM
When the crowd was chanting "U S A.. U S A..." after the 400 free relay awards presentation, do you think they were cheering for the winning team? ..... or the American Record holder.

aquageek
March 31st, 2009, 06:40 PM
Geek...I gave you EVERY clue you needed...you're smarter than that.

Oh man, maybe it's the Colorado Pale Rider himself making his triumphant return to Swimville. I know he took his one workout horse down to Tx A&M this past weekend.

2fish&1whale
March 31st, 2009, 06:57 PM
When the crowd was chanting "U S A.. U S A..." after the 400 free relay awards presentation, do you think they were cheering for the winning team? ..... or the American Record holder.
It was Texas that was doing the chanting, right?

ced357
April 1st, 2009, 12:46 AM
Does anyone know when NCAA's will be televised?

knelson
April 1st, 2009, 12:52 AM
Tomorrow on ESPN2 from 3:00-4:30 EDT.

SLOmmafan
April 1st, 2009, 12:30 PM
Come on now - I think American swimming (particularly Men's) is in pretty good shape to start worrying about a few fast foreigners doing well at the NCAA's. Look at the Olympics this year - the American men had by far the most depth.

I applaud Auburn for looking beyond our own shores to find high quality swimmers. It is up to the individual school (in my opinion) to determine if their scholarships should be going to non-American athletes. Perhaps it serves as a challenge to up and coming young American swimmers to go faster and be more appealing to NCAA coaches and teams out there.

Paul Smith
April 1st, 2009, 01:40 PM
Come on now - I think American swimming (particularly Men's) is in pretty good shape to start worrying about a few fast foreigners doing well at the NCAA's. Look at the Olympics this year - the American men had by far the most depth.

Especially when you consider swimmers like Cavic who chicken out of swimming in the US Trials and sign up with Serbia...where he has never lived.

And think of the depth we'd have if all those US trained swimmers actually swam for us??

Knightswimmer2
April 1st, 2009, 01:53 PM
Especially when you consider swimmers like Cavic who chicken out of swimming in the US Trials and sign up with Serbia...where he has never lived.

And think of the depth we'd have if all those US trained swimmers actually swam for us??


I dont see what the problem is with Cavic swimming for his parents country. He has always represented Serbia in international meets, wasn't a huge shocker to see him swim for them in the Olympics. Its not like he didn't make the US Team and then decided to go to Serbia.

Mr. Negative
April 1st, 2009, 01:53 PM
SLOmmafan,

"I think American swimming (particularly Men's) is in pretty good shape"... "the American men had by far the most depth."

Perhaps a closer look at the 2008 Olympics is necessary. Take away ONE man from the US Team, and they only win 2 events.

That.......... is not the definition of "depth".

tjrpatt
April 1st, 2009, 01:56 PM
I wonder how the foreign swimmers manage everything financially. Sure, they get full rides to college but are they allowed to get endorsements since they are not US citizens. The one guy was in Australia the week before and that costs a pretty penny.

Cavic totally could have made the US team because Crocker wasn't at his best. The worst was one year when the guy won the gold medal in some swimming event. He was an American citizen but represented Spain or some other European country. Well, at least, Matt Grevers "manned up" and swam the US trials when he easily could have represented Holland. I like Markus Rogan's approach. He lived in Austria til he was 12. Parents moved to the US but represented Austria in the International Competition. Unless you were born or lived in another country for a long time, you shouldn't be representing a country that you great great great grandparents came from!!

knelson
April 1st, 2009, 02:06 PM
Perhaps a closer look at the 2008 Olympics is necessary. Take away ONE man from the US Team, and they only win 2 events.

Well, in those two events the U.S. did go 1-2. Also, in the relays--with the exception of the 400 free relay--I think it's a stretch to say the US wouldn't have won without Phelps.


I wonder how the foreign swimmers manage everything financially. Sure, they get full rides to college but are they allowed to get endorsements since they are not US citizens.

Um, if they are swimming in the NCAA they better not be getting endorsements!

I would assume Targett's travel was paid for by Swimming Australia.

Mr. Negative
April 1st, 2009, 02:25 PM
Well, in those two events the U.S. did go 1-2. Also, in the relays--with the exception of the 400 free relay--I think it's a stretch to say the US wouldn't have won without Phelps.

Fact: a huge amount of momentum is lost without that one man at the games.


How about a 21 year old sophomore? Sounds like a good way to score a few extra points in breast stroke and medley relays at NCAAs.

jim clemmons
April 1st, 2009, 02:32 PM
How about a 21 year old sophomore? Sounds like a...

...late bloomer?

knelson
April 1st, 2009, 02:37 PM
How about a 21 year old sophomore? Sounds like a good way to score a few extra points in breast stroke and medley relays at NCAAs.

I agree! Just like 21 year old sophomore Bryan Collins helped out Texas in the IM events.

tjrpatt
April 1st, 2009, 02:47 PM
Fact: a huge amount of momentum is lost without that one man at the games.


How about a 21 year old sophomore? Sounds like a good way to score a few extra points in breast stroke and medley relays at NCAAs.


Heck, there was a guy on my college team who was 25 and had to retire early because he was too old by NCAA rules or something. It kind of sucked because they really needed him on the 1997-1998 season. 21 year old sophomores is nothing new in college swimming. Does anyone know the age limit to compete in college swimming?

Mr. Negative
April 1st, 2009, 02:58 PM
I agree! Just like 21 year old sophomore Bryan Collins helped out Texas in the IM events.

Quite a difference in points scored by the two men wouldn't you agree?

It's sad but not surprising that so many coaches turn to so much talent outside the US to score more points.

Perhaps I would do the same thing if I were a college coach and thought I couldn't recruit effectively in the US against other teams and wanted to insure job security.

SLOmmafan
April 1st, 2009, 03:01 PM
SLOmmafan,

"I think American swimming (particularly Men's) is in pretty good shape"... "the American men had by far the most depth."

Perhaps a closer look at the 2008 Olympics is necessary. Take away ONE man from the US Team, and they only win 2 events.

That.......... is not the definition of "depth".


I have to disagree! While there is no doubt that Michael Phelps was the single most significant factor on the US team, there is still incredible depth. The US men won every relay (with Phelps), but could have won at least two of them without him in my opinion (other than the 4 x 100 free).

Look at the medal counts - US had 11 more medals then the second place team (Australia). Even taking away evey Phelps victory we still win the medal count (how is that not depth???).

Not to mention, other countries are in similar positions. Take away Alain Bernard and France loses it's only male gold.

knelson
April 1st, 2009, 03:03 PM
Quite a difference in points scored by the two men wouldn't you agree?

Oh, I see. The problem isn't 21 year old sophs, it's 21 year old sophs who score lots of points. Specifically who score points for rival teams :)

Nathan Adrian is another 21 year old sophomore who scored lots of points.

Mr. Negative
April 1st, 2009, 03:11 PM
6 foreigners..... 6 lost scholarships (or fractions) for US swimmers.....

Well.... I'm sure they will publicly thank their schools and coaches when they compete for their home countries at international competitions.

Talk about throwing money down a drain.

What a joke.

But to answer your question more directly. I'd much rather take the easy way out and have the top talented foreigner than have to demonstrate real coaching ability. Face it...... it's instant points year after year.

Chris Stevenson
April 1st, 2009, 03:23 PM
It's sad but not surprising that so many coaches turn to so much talent outside the US to score more points.

Perhaps I would do the same thing if I were a college coach and thought I couldn't recruit effectively in the US against other teams and wanted to insure job security.

This is all sour grapes, and old sour grapes at that. I've been hearing similar things for decades. It is more difficult, costly and risky to recruit abroad than domestically. For every success story you see at the championship level, there are many more "failures" (the term is relative, hence the quote marks).

USAS has long depended on NCAA swimming to train most of its best athletes (rather than doing it themselves). This is simply one consequence; it shouldn't be a great surprise that a university's interest and that of USAS (or the USOC) do not perfectly mesh. It is not the duty of a university or its swim coach to advance the interests of the US National Team.

As Mr Neg points out, it is easy to rail against the practice and appeal to altruism/patriotism when one doesn't have to risk anything thereby.

No rules are being broken. If someone is worried about using taxpayer money to train foreign athletes (not merely swimmers) at public schools then do something about it. But I have yet to hear a strong case to be made against the practice.

Mr. Negative
April 1st, 2009, 03:47 PM
Mr. Stephenson,

It is fairly obvious that there can be no "strong case" against the current situation as you are a supporter of the status quo.

As for your supposition that it is not the duty of a university or its swim coach to advance the interests of the US National Team. Try reconciling that logic with the coaches who have both duties with the same group of swimmers.

The overlap is evident.

orca1946
April 1st, 2009, 03:49 PM
Hey, we have american swimmers that bounce from team to team to set records. Never mind the ruling that states they can't do this. Check Illinois to see how this works.

shoalsswimmer
April 1st, 2009, 04:22 PM
Globalization is all around.

Auburn showed every one what teamwork is all about. How many individual events did they win, one?

It came down to coaching, prepardness and clutch performance. Everything fell into place on Saturday night. Auburn scored BIG.

The burnt orange was toast.

War Eagle!!!

Mr. Negative
April 1st, 2009, 04:38 PM
Auburn swam VERY well the 3rd day of the NCAAs.

However, there still remains vastly different opinions on recruiting approaches between the top schools and some of the nations leading coaches.

ced357
April 1st, 2009, 04:40 PM
I missed The televised showing today!!! Does anyone know if it will be on tv again, or where I can find videos on the web.

Chris Stevenson
April 1st, 2009, 04:47 PM
It is fairly obvious that there can be no "strong case" against the current situation as you are a supporter of the status quo.

As for your supposition that it is not the duty of a university or its swim coach to advance the interests of the US National Team. Try reconciling that logic with the coaches who have both duties with the same group of swimmers.

The overlap is evident.

The existence, or not, of a strong argument should be independent of my own position. If you can't make a strong case, just say so, don't blame me for it.

As for my "supposition"...although I am not privy to the contracts of college coaches, I would be willing to bet there is no mention of the US National team.

If such coaches ALSO have duties to the national team, and those duties conflict with and lessen their effectiveness as college coaches...why, those are grounds to be fired.

Like it or don't, the fact is that our universities are open to non-Americans, including athletes. No rules are broken by recruiting those athletes, it isn't morally objectionable, and it isn't the "cheap fix" that you seem to think it is.

pwb
April 1st, 2009, 04:53 PM
Competition makes us better ... no matter whether that competition comes from the guy next door, the next state or another country. Suck it up, get in the pool and train.

aquageek
April 1st, 2009, 04:57 PM
This opposition to foreigners is somewhat ironic given the Chinese are essentially underwriting our economy at present.

Tim L
April 1st, 2009, 05:41 PM
Auburn swam VERY well the 3rd day of the NCAAs.

However, there still remains vastly different opinions on recruiting approaches between the top schools and some of the nations leading coaches.

There are recruiting approaches for the more patriotic coaches that might also work such as recruiting more depth in non-freestyle events.

Tim

Paul Smith
April 1st, 2009, 06:18 PM
Texas wins the meet if Spann had not gotten sick

People may disagree and thats fine....but I will never accept that having foreign athletes in any sport not living in the US, not at the college training with the team and taking on-line courses to get eligible in time to show up for NCAA's allowed. It's not illegal but I think its wrong.

Tim L
April 1st, 2009, 06:42 PM
Texas wins the meet if Spann had not gotten sick

People may disagree and thats fine....but I will never accept that having foreign athletes in any sport not living in the US, not at the college training with the team and taking on-line courses to get eligible in time to show up for NCAA's allowed. It's not illegal but I think its wrong.

It would have been really close with Spann, but Texas might have won by a few points. Injuries and sicknesses are part of the deal and a little more depth outside the freestyle events would have gone a long way.

I have no idea whether swimmers not training with the team and the use of online courses actually occurred, but I wouldn't be too proud of a win if that is how it was achieved. Maybe there should be some rules. Does this occur in other NCAA sports (track)?

Feigen was incredible and it was great to see Blake Worsley from Steamboat Springs and the University of Denver in the 200/500 Free.

Tim

aquageek
April 1st, 2009, 06:46 PM
It's not illegal but I think its wrong.

This coming from a man who thinks eating SPAM, wearing wife-beaters, dressing a dog in a bikini, and liking Tears for Fears is right. The source must be considered.

Jeff Commings
April 1st, 2009, 06:52 PM
I missed The televised showing today!!! Does anyone know if it will be on tv again, or where I can find videos on the web.

You can go here (http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/College_news.asp) and view footage of just about every race from the women's and men's NCAAs.

Paul Smith
April 1st, 2009, 06:53 PM
This coming from a man who thinks eating SPAM, wearing wife-beaters, dressing a dog in a bikini, and liking Tears for Fears is right. The source must be considered.


Just couldn't stay away could you...getting easier all the time to draw you in!

Paul Smith
April 1st, 2009, 06:56 PM
The current issue of the ASCA editorial by John Leonard just happens to be about saving college swimming. Below is the email I sent him today;

"John,
I enjoyed your article’ “Preserve, Protect and Expand Collegiate Swimming” …however I found it interesting that no mention of foreign swimmers on college teams was mentioned. If there truly is an organization being formed by the ASCA, CSCAA & USA Swimming to work on this effort can they truly avoid a discussion about the impact of allowing the limited (and declining) resources and opportunities to swim at the college level to be spent on training other countries athletes?

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m all for having colleges recruit and train foreign athletes…to a point…I enjoyed the friendships and increased caliber of training/competition of that at while I was at UCSB. My point however is that if you and others believe that “The prospect of swimming in college is a major draw to keep high school swimmers in our sport and progressing” than what message are we sending these kids when they are on the bubble of being good enough to get a scholarship but see instead that it goes to a foreign athlete? Honestly I’m surprised no one has proposed a cap of “X” percentage of foreign swimmers/scholarships per team…or is it really win at any cost?

Finally I’m also wondering what the thoughts of those who just watched the NCAA’s on TV/the Internet recently were seeing/hearing chants of “USA, USA” after the awards ceremony for the 400 free relay where Texas breaks the AR and takes 2nd?

Best regards,

Paul Smith"

Mr. Negative
April 1st, 2009, 07:17 PM
It is unfortunate that Auburn will not have a relay American Record with this recruiting strategy.

Tim L
April 1st, 2009, 07:41 PM
The current issue of the ASCA editorial by John Leonard just happens to be about saving college swimming. Below is the email I sent him today;

"John,
I enjoyed your article’ “Preserve, Protect and Expand Collegiate Swimming” …however I found it interesting that no mention of foreign swimmers on college teams was mentioned. If there truly is an organization being formed by the ASCA, CSCAA & USA Swimming to work on this effort can they truly avoid a discussion about the impact of allowing the limited (and declining) resources and opportunities to swim at the college level to be spent on training other countries athletes?

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m all for having colleges recruit and train foreign athletes…to a point…I enjoyed the friendships and increased caliber of training/competition of that at while I was at UCSB. My point however is that if you and others believe that “The prospect of swimming in college is a major draw to keep high school swimmers in our sport and progressing” than what message are we sending these kids when they are on the bubble of being good enough to get a scholarship but see instead that it goes to a foreign athlete? Honestly I’m surprised no one has proposed a cap of “X” percentage of foreign swimmers/scholarships per team…or is it really win at any cost?

Finally I’m also wondering what the thoughts of those who just watched the NCAA’s on TV/the Internet recently were seeing/hearing chants of “USA, USA” after the awards ceremony for the 400 free relay where Texas breaks the AR and takes 4th?

Best regards,

Paul Smith"

Good luck with that argument.

I was with you on the online courses and training with the team arguments, but training U.S. athletes is more a USA swimming issue than an NCAA issue. Obviously, the coaches and athletes are intermingled to a great extent, but definitely two separate matters. I have a lot of respect for coaches that try to uphold their commitment to USA swimming while coaching NCAA swimming, but maybe they should make the occasional exception on their teams if winning matters that much to them or the university.

After seeing the results from Division II, I wonder if Division II isn't the new place for the non-elite college swimmer (bubble swimmers) and a source of scholarships. I am sure there are plenty of foreign swimmers in Division II as well, but I have to say I was surprised a bit by number of Division II programs from schools that never had programs when I was in college that fielded reasonable teams. I assume Division II will keep getting better and stronger as the depth of Division I programs diminishes. Maybe there will be a Division II Olympian someday.

Tim

Paul Smith
April 1st, 2009, 07:50 PM
Good luck with that argument.

I was with you on the online courses and training with the team arguments, but training U.S. athletes is more a USA swimming issue than an NCAA issue. Obviously, the coaches and athletes are intermingled to a great extent, but definitely two separate matters. I have a lot of respect for coaches that try to uphold their commitment to USA swimming while coaching NCAA swimming, but maybe they should make the occasional exception on their teams if winning matters that much to them or the university.

After seeing the results from Division II, I wonder if Division II isn't the new place for the non-elite college swimmer (bubble swimmers) and a source of scholarships. I am sure there are plenty of foreign swimmers in Division II as well, but I have to say I was surprised a bit by number of Division II programs from schools that never had programs when I was in college that fielded reasonable teams. I assume Division II will keep getting better and stronger as the depth of Division I programs diminishes. Maybe there will be a Division II Olympian someday.

Tim

Tim, as I pointed out in the letter these 3 organizations are now coordinating their efforts to try and save/grow college swimming...and I think its about time because we are all in this together. And unless there are some actual rules governing the situation then we'll continue to see some coaches take the path of least resisitance and bring in outside talent vs. spend the time to try and develop a US kid.

In Leonard's editorial he mentions the "net loss" of Div I programs (almost entirely mens but some womens and other Olympic sports are just as bad if not worse) and the increase in Div III programs and the fact the the NCAA statistics don't "hide" this situation.

thewookiee
April 1st, 2009, 08:45 PM
Ok, I am going to change things up a bit. While watching the races, I noticed in freestyle that it appeared that the guys were having their hands/forearms, elbows enter the water at the exact same moment, same angle too.

I have read for years that it should be fingers first, the forearm, etc, etc. But watching the races, it appears that the hand and forearm almost flat on the water as the hands go into the catch. It looks like they sat the forearm/hand down onto the water, instead of piercing it.

Chris Stevenson
April 1st, 2009, 09:03 PM
I will never accept that having foreign athletes in any sport not living in the US, not at the college training with the team and taking on-line courses to get eligible in time to show up for NCAA's allowed. It's not illegal but I think its wrong.

I agree with this statement so much that I would even delete the modifier "foreign" and state that it should apply to ANY athlete.


"…however I found it interesting that no mention of foreign swimmers on college teams was mentioned. If there truly is an organization being formed by the ASCA, CSCAA & USA Swimming to work on this effort can they truly avoid a discussion about the impact of allowing the limited (and declining) resources and opportunities to swim at the college level to be spent on training other countries athletes?

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m all for having colleges recruit and train foreign athletes…to a point…I enjoyed the friendships and increased caliber of training/competition of that at while I was at UCSB. My point however is that if you and others believe that “The prospect of swimming in college is a major draw to keep high school swimmers in our sport and progressing” than what message are we sending these kids when they are on the bubble of being good enough to get a scholarship but see instead that it goes to a foreign athlete? Honestly I’m surprised no one has proposed a cap of “X” percentage of foreign swimmers/scholarships per team…or is it really win at any cost?

Finally I’m also wondering what the thoughts of those who just watched the NCAA’s on TV/the Internet recently were seeing/hearing chants of “USA, USA” after the awards ceremony for the 400 free relay where Texas breaks the AR and takes 2nd?

Public universities are funded mostly by three groups: taxpayers, tuition from matriculating students, and donations from alums. The institutional mission is education in its broadest sense. So tell me:

-- what role does athletics, and swimming in particular, play in the institutional mission?
-- how does the presence of foreign athletes compromise this mission in any way?

The vast majority of the people paying the bills at universities are not competitive swimmers and have no interest in the sport. They certainly don't put their money down expecting that it will be spent to improve the US Olympic Team.

I can make a better case that the presence of foreign students (athletes or otherwise) has a more positive impact on the education of the general student than substituting him for a homegrown jock with sub-par admission statistics.

Athletic scholarships are not a God-given right. If a homegrown talent wants one, he can swim fast enough to earn one. If he loves the sport and wants to swim in college, he can do so without one.

If USAS is depending on (ever-diminishing numbers of) athletic scholarships to improve the prospects of US Swimming on the international level...well, I think that's pretty poor strategic planning.

ehoch
April 1st, 2009, 09:56 PM
Here we go again - always this subject - foreign swimmer here came on a Free ride to USC 20 years ago.

21 year old sophomores: I was 21 as a sophomore. 1 additional year of school + 15 month of military -- that is a really silly argument.

How many college scholarships for swimming in the United States ? What is the total number ? I really don't know --- but let's say it's 400. That is 400 more scholarships than all European countries combined have for their swimmers and I am guessing it's the same for Japan and Australia -- it just does not exist.

So in regards to the Olympics, the US still has an unbelievable advantage through the college system.

A limit to the number of foreign scholarships may be a good compromise -- but don't forget that most teams are made up of 25-40 swimmers - not just the scholarship athletes. So having 3 or 4 foreign swimmers on a 40 man roster is really not all that much.

Maybe foreign swimmers simply don't want to go to Texas -- have you been there :bump: ---- but then again, Auburn is not exactly a metropolis either....

Muppet
April 1st, 2009, 10:17 PM
Athletic scholarships are not a God-given right.

Amen.

--

These scholarships are being handed out based on merit. These kids have for the most part EARNED the right to the money they receive - whether it be their grades, SAT's or athletic skills. Why should someone's country of origin determine whether or not they get a spot in school? Isn't that discrimination?

Look, I'm all for encouraging Americans to attend American universities, but this country gives opportunities to all people. If I'm in charge of handing out scholarships and if Joe American's profile tells me that his slacker ass doesn't deserve any of my money, I'm giving it to Joe Foreigner.

tjrpatt
April 1st, 2009, 10:37 PM
If only all slacker a** would be denied scholarships over hard workers, college swimming would be so great. But, some swimmers are able to make Jr. or Senior Natls cuts without any hard work and get those scholarships on the basis that the college coach thought that the swimmer worked his/her butt off to get those times. I swam with a boatload of slacker a**es in my age group days. It is really annoying to watch someone get a full ride to a CAA or whatever school and these people are leaving 30 minutes after the start of practice and hanging out at a ice cream parlor for the same amount of time that you did a 8K to 10K workout. It is not fun nor funny.

Paul Smith
April 1st, 2009, 10:55 PM
If USAS is depending on (ever-diminishing numbers of) athletic scholarships to improve the prospects of US Swimming on the international level...well, I think that's pretty poor strategic planning.

I'll be interested to get your take on the ASCA editorial I referenced...the Amercian Swimming Coaches Association, The College Swimming Coaches Association of America & USA-Swimming "are working together to fund an organization called "Preserve, Protect and Expand Collegiate Swimming".

There is a quote from NCAA president Myles Brand "it's ok, it's good, for a University to support financially, its athletic department....we don't realistically expect the athletic departments to self-fund" (there is quite a bit more.

So call me a patriot, call me a hater, whatever...if Europe wants to have college athletics they should do it. I feel they should be welcome here to a point but that first and foremost we need to offer the majority of our rssoter spots and avaialble funds to US citizens. If the mission, as this coalition states is to work together and help save/exapnd college swimming AND thru that offer incentives for US high school students to stay in the sport I think that is a good thing.

Chris Stevenson
April 1st, 2009, 11:45 PM
I'll be interested to get your take on the ASCA editorial I referenced...the Amercian Swimming Coaches Association, The College Swimming Coaches Association of America & USA-Swimming "are working together to fund an organization called "Preserve, Protect and Expand Collegiate Swimming".

I'll read it soon. Certainly I'll be in favor of most things that preserves college swimming unless it somehow threatens the quality of the education of either athlete or non-athlete student. (As an educator, I find that my feelings towards college athletics are a little more mixed than they were when I was a college athlete myself.)

Despite my earlier statement about strategic planning, clearly collegiate swimming is a benefit to the US' ability to compete internationally. You have only to compare US competitiveness in Olympic sports that typically exist at the college level with those that do not, though there are other factors at work too (eg the existence of professional leagues).

The main problem I see is the conflict between the goals of the university and USA-S. If USA-S wants to hitch their wagon to NCAA swimming that's fine...they just need to accept those differences.

But ultimately I am not at all convinced that the influx of foreign swimmers harms US swimmers. One can make a pretty good case that the NCAA Championship meets are the most competitive annual swim meet in the world. Certainly it is up near the top, anyway. Why mess with that?

In addition, the exchange of ideas goes both ways when foreign swimmers come to the US. US coaches and athletes could stand to learn a lot from athletes who achieve initial success elsewhere and with different training philosophies (and often with far inferior facilities and conditions). It is not always a sure thing at all that such athletes do better here in the US, despite any supposed "superiority" in training methods.

I like the openness of the US system. When I was 12 and my family moved to Greece, I couldn't even join a swim team -- much less swim in a meet -- until I proved my Greek ancestry. Long story...but I much prefer the US way, and I think it benefits US swimming too.

aloha
April 2nd, 2009, 12:58 AM
follow the money. thats all anybody cares about anymore. and who makes money in college swimming? not the university. not the athletes. only the coaches. the coaches dont care where the swimmers are from, they want to win to protect their jobs/bank accounts and most importantly their massive egos.

i agree with paul smith but i have to say ive been around these college swimmers and the foreign guys seem more mature, better work ethic, more dedication, etc....

if i were a college coach i would sign the guys that give me the best chance to win. the foreign guys just have that "it" factor. they arent geeks like some of these young americans. their mindset is different. maybe because they are on a mission to succeed in the US and plant roots here and remain after college, i dunno. i hate to say it but the americans seem like spoiled babies. case in point, phelps.....dude has a chip on his shoulder even after his success, i get the feeling he was a geek growing up now the fame has turned him into this "now im cool, everyone likes me" i wanna get back at everyone who flicked my ears kinda guy. very childish compared to foreign dudes.

sorry to rip on all of your guys hero. just the way i see things around here.

knelson
April 2nd, 2009, 02:11 AM
But, some swimmers are able to make Jr. or Senior Natls cuts without any hard work and get those scholarships on the basis that the college coach thought that the swimmer worked his/her butt off to get those times.

Not really. They got the scholarship because they swim fast. Points aren't awarded at swim meets on the basis of who worked the hardest in practice.

Mr. Negative
April 2nd, 2009, 09:04 AM
The vast majority of the people paying the bills at universities are not competitive swimmers and have no interest in the sport. They certainly don't put their money down expecting that it will be spent to improve the US Olympic Team.

They certainly don't put their money down expecting that it will be funnelled to individuals that don't stay in the US or willing to represent the US athletically either.



I can make a better case that the presence of foreign students (athletes or otherwise) has a more positive impact on the education of the general student than substituting him for a homegrown jock with sub-par admission statistics.

Or a kid from another country pushing out a homegrown kid with similar talent and the same dream.



Athletic scholarships are not a God-given right. If a homegrown talent wants one, he can swim fast enough to earn one. If he loves the sport and wants to swim in college, he can do so without one.

Unfortunately so many other countries do not offer the same financial opportunity to Americans despite your claims that they have so much to teach US programs. Feel free to come to the US and pursue your athletic dreams.... but do it on your own funds. If you want money from a US institutions, then stick around and make the team at the US Trials. Don't wimp out and go back to a supposed country of origin for the easy ticket to the Games based on your American training and financed education..... and if you can't find the courage to represent the US athletically, then at least acknowledge publicly your American coaches and programs. This recognition is so seldom done in international competition.

Like it or not, there is a huge link between NCAA and USA Swimming.............. Similar coaches.... same kids..... same dreams. The US Olympic coach is often an NCAA coach. He does not divide his brain in half in the summer.

tjrpatt
April 2nd, 2009, 09:12 AM
Not really. They got the scholarship because they swim fast. Points aren't awarded at swim meets on the basis of who worked the hardest in practice.


I know. I was venting.

gobears
April 2nd, 2009, 09:13 AM
It seems your cause would be better served, Mr. Negative, by pursuing rule changes rather than complaining on this message board. The rules don't disallow foreign swimmers at this time. If you feel so strongly, you should do something proactive and do what you can to change the rules.

I agree that no student (U.S. citizen or otherwise) should be competing for any team when they are only taking online classes from afar. But, again, if the rules allow for that, the rules are what needs changing.

Why is it that John Leonard and other U.S. coaches aren't pushing for these rule changes? These rules have presumably been on the books for years, why hasn't anyone been compelled to make changes in the past?

Mr. Negative
April 2nd, 2009, 09:42 AM
GoBears,

The recipe works for those coaches who pursue this strategy. Why would they object?

knelson
April 2nd, 2009, 10:17 AM
They certainly don't put their money down expecting that it will be funnelled to individuals that don't stay in the US or willing to represent the US athletically either.

Are you sure they care? I would think their primary goal is for those athletes to represent the university well. Who cares if they compete for another country outside NCAA sanctioned competition? And why would they care if they stay in the U.S.? Right now at work I'm working side-by-side with foreign nationals from Japan, India, Russia, Spain, etc. They are contributing to the economy of their own country and also to the economy of the U.S. with their work. There are many international students who are educated in the U.S. and choose to stay and work here and that's great, but if they choose to return to their home I don't have a problem with that either.

Chris Stevenson
April 2nd, 2009, 10:32 AM
They certainly don't put their money down expecting that it will be funnelled to individuals that don't stay in the US or willing to represent the US athletically either.

The money goes to university student-athletes, as expected. The anticipated return is good performances while competing for the university.

The rest doesn't matter in the least. Donors want teams to win, the others expect a good educational environment.

Besides once having been a scholarship swimmer, I work at a university; cultural and ethnic diversity is prized on college campuses and serves the students well.

Chris Stevenson
April 2nd, 2009, 10:35 AM
GoBears,

The recipe works for those coaches who pursue this strategy. Why would they object?

They would object on principle if they are as US-focused as you contend.

Mostly they object, though, when they get beat by a team with more foreign swimmers than they have...

Tim L
April 2nd, 2009, 11:01 AM
If there truly is an organization being formed by the ASCA, CSCAA & USA Swimming to work on this effort can they truly avoid a discussion about the impact of allowing the limited (and declining) resources and opportunities to swim at the college level to be spent on training other countries athletes?


I can't imagine these 3 organizations will make any significant progress. The one missing organization is the NCAA and they are not going to allow a restriction on foreign athletes. Maybe USA Swimming can fund scholarships designated for U.S. athletes and that will help. Perhaps, you might get some coaches to be a bit more patriotic in their recruiting, but at best it will be a voluntary thing.

The coaches should get a rule change on the online courses and off-site training. However, Chris is right that the rule change should be broad enough to apply to any NCAA athlete, not just foreigners. I still think Division II is the place for U.S. bubble swimmers. Division I is a hopeless place for anything other than elite swimmers with its general fixation on football and basketball budgets.

Tim

Paul Smith
April 2nd, 2009, 11:40 AM
Come on now - I think American swimming (particularly Men's) is in pretty good shape to start worrying about a few fast foreigners doing well at the NCAA's. Look at the Olympics this year - the American men had by far the most depth.

I applaud Auburn for looking beyond our own shores to find high quality swimmers. It is up to the individual school (in my opinion) to determine if their scholarships should be going to non-American athletes. Perhaps it serves as a challenge to up and coming young American swimmers to go faster and be more appealing to NCAA coaches and teams out there.

So I would assume than that you are 100% in support of the business world outsourcing jobs as well? I mean really...why would anyone want to put a program in place, in this country, that would be good for its citizens...in sports or buisness...when you can go the easy route?

Paul Smith
April 2nd, 2009, 11:44 AM
Cavic totally could have made the US team because Crocker wasn't at his best. The worst was one year when the guy won the gold medal in some swimming event. He was an American citizen but represented Spain or some other European country. Well, at least, Matt Grevers "manned up" and swam the US trials when he easily could have represented Holland. I like Markus Rogan's approach. He lived in Austria til he was 12. Parents moved to the US but represented Austria in the International Competition. Unless you were born or lived in another country for a long time, you shouldn't be representing a country that you great great great grandparents came from!!

The flip side of this type of situation is what about the Serbian kid who can't come and live/train in this country and does his best given the limited resources he has...and is the 3rd fastest flyer...Cavic goes to the Olympics and this kid stays home. For every athlete who has grown up in this country with dual citizenship...was trained with US resources...and then figures out they can't make the US team so they go down the path of least resistence...a kid living in that other country gets displaced.

chaos
April 2nd, 2009, 11:45 AM
OMG! there are foreigners in our universities?!!!!!!

lock the doors!
pull the blinds!

make them go away!

Dacsus65
April 2nd, 2009, 11:52 AM
Isolationism does not work economically or socially. We tried that route in the 1930s which only deepened the global depression and ultimately failed. Foreign students and workers bring revenue to our economy as well as contributing to our society as whole. I work and attend school with people from other countries, some plan to stay here others plan to return home.

Out sourcing of jobs is something that comes with realizing we live in a global economy, while I dislike the idea on principle I realize that it is part of a capitalist economy. In either case, it really is unrelated to NCAA competition, in my humble opinion.

shoalsswimmer
April 2nd, 2009, 11:59 AM
Chris Stevenson,

Thank you for your salient responses and for exposing this thread for what it is...total BS.

If UTexas would have won - would Mr Negative even have been created by the mad scientist's alter ego?

Were there chants of USA-USA when American swimmers from other universities...say from Cal, Michigan or even Auburn(Tyler McGill 44.63100fly) broke American records? I didn't hear it.

Perhaps it was only Texas fans chanting? Classy.

You don't think great coaching was involved to get guys like Tyler McGill, Logan Madsen, Adam Klein, Michael Silva, Jared White and Kohlton Norys ready for this meet. Did the "foreign" guys just waltz out there with no direction from Brett Hawke and perform?

Auburn may not be able to break American records in relays (only shatter them and set new NCAA records), so I guess they'll have to settle for another lowly NCAA championship.

And like Brett said, "this championship belongs to Richard."

I think it is a beautiful story.

Mr. Negative
April 2nd, 2009, 12:59 PM
Correct...... Richard Quick has been recruiting kids from other countries to round out his teams for many years.

Often his top international talent doesn't stay to represent the US in the summer season. It is no coincidence that Auburn has fewer American successes during the summer season than you would think given their strong NCAA showing each year. Many represent their own countries instead.

tjrpatt
April 2nd, 2009, 01:07 PM
The flip side of this type of situation is what about the Serbian kid who can't come and live/train in this country and does his best given the limited resources he has...and is the 3rd fastest flyer...Cavic goes to the Olympics and this kid stays home. For every athlete who has grown up in this country with dual citizenship...was trained with US resources...and then figures out they can't make the US team so they go down the path of least resistence...a kid living in that other country gets displaced.

That is terrible. I say that if you were born here, man up like Grevers, and swim the US trials. Let some home grown Serbrian or Bulgarian swimmer go to the Olympics instead of carpetbagging your way to the Olympics.

Paul Smith
April 2nd, 2009, 01:50 PM
Chris Stevenson,

Thank you for your salient responses and for exposing this thread for what it is...total BS.

If UTexas would have won - would Mr Negative even have been created by the mad scientist's alter ego?

Were there chants of USA-USA when American swimmers from other universities...say from Cal, Michigan or even Auburn(Tyler McGill 44.63100fly) broke American records? I didn't hear it.

Perhaps it was only Texas fans chanting? Classy.

You don't think great coaching was involved to get guys like Tyler McGill, Logan Madsen, Adam Klein, Michael Silva, Jared White and Kohlton Norys ready for this meet. Did the "foreign" guys just waltz out there with no direction from Brett Hawke and perform?

Auburn may not be able to break American records in relays (only shatter them and set new NCAA records), so I guess they'll have to settle for another lowly NCAA championship.

And like Brett said, "this championship belongs to Richard."

I think it is a beautiful story.

So would you support a college team that was made up 100% of foreign swimmers?

This is not about Auburn...this is not about protectionism...this is taking a hard look at how we best support US swimming interests within the college system. Does it make any sense a all to have some type of structure in place that limits the numbers of these athletes on a college team?

Mr. Negative
April 2nd, 2009, 01:51 PM
The money goes to university student-athletes, as expected. The anticipated return is good performances while competing for the university.

The particular "student-athlete" is where we obviously disagree.


The rest doesn't matter in the least. Donors want teams to win, the others expect a good educational environment.

Where you draw the line depends on where it "doesn't matter".... or do you even have a line? Perhaps an entire team of very talented kids from other countries would be acceptable?


Besides once having been a scholarship swimmer, I work at a university; cultural and ethnic diversity is prized on college campuses and serves the students well.

True, but don't kid yourself. The foreign swimmers on the Auburn team aren't being recruited to blend cultural and ethnic diversity on campus. That's a joke. They are there for their exceptional talent, the coach's failure to recruit enough talent in those events in the US, and to win the NCAA Team Championships.

gobears
April 2nd, 2009, 02:50 PM
Swimmers on the Auburn team aren't being recruited to blend cultural and ethnic diversity on campus. That's a joke. They are there for their exceptional talent, the coach's failure to recruit enough talent in those events in the US, and to win the NCAA Team Championships.

Isn't a part of your problem that the some of the talent that's here in the U.S. isn't as "exceptional" as that of other countries? Perhaps USAS needs to address this issue instead of limiting the availability of scholarships to foreign athletes.

You're upset that Texas out-recruits Auburn in the U.S. and then loses NCAA's to Auburn because Auburn turns to the best available talent? If you were the head coach at Auburn you'd really just sit there and be satisfied with second-tier athletes from the U.S.? Or would you put together a winning program? The NCAA could stop scoring meets and then maybe coaches would be less inclined to try to win...

Tim L
April 2nd, 2009, 03:20 PM
So would you support a college team that was made up 100% of foreign swimmers?

Probably not as much as a team with mostly U.S. talent.

Back in the day, the University of Houston fielded teams that were probably more than 50% foreign swimmers. The team was cut even though they were pretty good. I seem to recall that some coaches said it was cheaper and easier to recruit foreign swimmers because he didn't have to compete with other schools, recruiting visits, etc. I think once a coach goes crazy with foreign swimmers he is probably jeopardizing the program to some degree. If I were an athletic director looking for a reason to cut men's swimming and it was more than 50% foreign swimmers, it would be easier to make that cut because I doubt you hear as many complaints from parents and alumni. Moderation is probably the best approach for a long-term program.

On the flip side, does the Texas men's team have any non-U.S. swimmers? That seems a bit odd for a university that is very culturally diverse and almost seems a bit discrimatory. Texas should probably make an exception or two. Maybe start out with a token Canadian, South African, or Brit to put them over the top! I recommend a non-freestyler.

Tim

aquageek
April 2nd, 2009, 03:27 PM
On the flip side, does the Texas men's team have any non-U.S. swimmers? Tim

Preach - when you consider that Texans like to continuously spew about how they are truly a sovereign nation, then, by default, anyone from outside the state is a foreigner. This could potentially make them the biggest hypocrites of them all.

gobears
April 2nd, 2009, 03:31 PM
There are some things about our current system that I don't particularly like either. One woman I swam with got to represent another (small) country at the Olympics. She had never lived in that country and she didn't even have NCAA cuts. Yet, she went to the Olympics and will forever be known as an Olympian. Am I jealous? Sure. Would I have gone if someone offered me a spot on their team? Can't say I wouldn't jump at the chance.

shoalsswimmer
April 2nd, 2009, 03:45 PM
So would you support a college team that was made up 100% of foreign swimmers?

This is not about Auburn...this is not about protectionism...this is taking a hard look at how we best support US swimming interests within the college system. Does it make any sense a all to have some type of structure in place that limits the numbers of these athletes on a college team?

I will support my college team no matter what.

Yes, this is about Auburn (this time); you brought it up.

Speaking to limits of how many foreign athletes can be on a college team -let's see...looks like the majic number is four. So, four.

Right now, I really don't see where having foreign athletes on college teams is a big problem; unless your team has none, and they lose.

pwb
April 2nd, 2009, 03:54 PM
You're upset that Texas out-recruits Auburn in the U.S. and then loses NCAA's to Auburn because Auburn turns to the best available talent?

Just take a trip to Auburn, look around (outside of the pool/natatorium) at the community ... then go to Austin and do the same ... and you'll understand a big reason why Auburn has to recruit more foreigners. :)

gobears
April 2nd, 2009, 04:05 PM
Just take a trip to Auburn, look around (outside of the pool/natatorium) at the community ... then go to Austin and do the same ... and you'll understand a big reason why Auburn has to recruit more foreigners. :)

I've been to UT and seen the Auburn Campus (not the natatorium). I can understand why one would choose Austin over small-town Auburn. Auburn is never going to be able to change it's location. What they can do, to be competitive, is to recruit the best talent leftover. One way they can start to get the best U.S. talent is to win. To win they need good swimmers. There are no restrictions about where they can look for good swimmers. To ask them to be patriots and settle for less is pretty unrealistic when you really think about it.

I get it that we're concerned for men swimming in the U.S. I have boys. Maybe they'll swim. I should be concerned for them. But, IMO, as long as it's legal to have foreign swimmers it's silly to think coaches are going to settle for 8th place at NCAA's just so they can be patriotic. They're hired to win.

pwb
April 2nd, 2009, 04:18 PM
I get it that we're concerned for men swimming in the U.S. I have boys. Maybe they'll swim. I should be concerned for them. But, IMO, as long as it's legal to have foreign swimmers it's silly to think coaches are going to settle for 8th place at NCAA's just so they can be patriotic. They're hired to win.

I agree.

I do want to support and have USA swimming improve, but not by putting up "trade barriers." Let's compete by being better in the pool, in the classroom, etc.

I compete in my professional career every single day against people globally; the sooner our kids realize this, the better.

The Fortress
April 2nd, 2009, 04:23 PM
OMG! there are foreigners in our universities?!!!!!!

lock the doors!
pull the blinds!

make them go away!

Seriously! I agree with Chris as well. This is old sour grapes.

I'm not worried for my kids. I don't give a hoot if they get athletic scholarships. I want them to get an education. Not that I don't think college sports can't be rewarding. I just don't view them as the ultimate goal.

Having recently been to Auburn, can't say I'd want to go to school there! Sorry Southerners. It's a little remote and rural.

Mr. Negative
April 2nd, 2009, 04:24 PM
Ironic that Texas's coach helped put the Auburn program on the map in the 70's prior to Richard Quick.

The Fortress
April 2nd, 2009, 04:26 PM
Ironic that Texas's coach helped put the Auburn program on the map in the 70's prior to Richard Quick.

Who cares? Why is this important?

Mr. Negative
April 2nd, 2009, 04:30 PM
Just thought it was interesting that he coached there, then Richard, then Marsh, then Richard.

Somewhat of an incestuous and small world.

I'm so sorry I offended you with my side comment Fortress.............. NOT !

The Fortress
April 2nd, 2009, 04:33 PM
I'm so sorry I offended you with my side comment Fortress.............. NOT !

Didn't offend me even in the slightest! hahaha

Just didn't think it was remotely relevant to the discussion.

gobears
April 2nd, 2009, 04:36 PM
Ironic that Texas's coach helped put the Auburn program on the map in the 70's prior to Richard Quick.

Wow, this REALLY makes you sound like you're just pissed off that Texas didn't win. Is that all this whole post is really about?

Chris Stevenson
April 2nd, 2009, 04:44 PM
Where you draw the line depends on where it "doesn't matter".... or do you even have a line? Perhaps an entire team of very talented kids from other countries would be acceptable?

I draw the line where the rulebook does. I'm pretty sure an all-foreign team isn't against the rules.

Perhaps a better question is, would I be comfortable sending my son to swim for a team consisting largely of foreign athletes? Assuming a good fit otherwise with the coach, program and school, my answer is: absolutely! He would learn a lot.


...don't kid yourself. The foreign swimmers on the Auburn team aren't being recruited to blend cultural and ethnic diversity on campus. That's a joke. They are there for their exceptional talent, the coach's failure to recruit enough talent in those events in the US, and to win the NCAA Team Championships.

Hmmm. Who is being more naive: me for believing that increased diversity has educational value, regardless of the motives for bringing the student here? Or you for believing that coaches who recruit domestically do so because their hearts are pure and they sleep in a red, white and blue bedspread?

And again I contend that it is more expensive and often riskier to recruit foreign athletes than those in the US. Riskier because there is usually a much greater change in cultural and training environment that the foreign athlete has to contend with. Getting away from what is familiar -- and what led to prior success in the pool -- doesn't always work out as well.

shoalsswimmer
April 2nd, 2009, 04:46 PM
Wow, this REALLY makes you sound like you're just pissed off that Texas didn't win. Is that all this whole post is really about?

Yes.

Tim L
April 2nd, 2009, 04:48 PM
Preach - when you consider that Texans like to continuously spew about how they are truly a sovereign nation, then, by default, anyone from outside the state is a foreigner. This could potentially make them the biggest hypocrites of them all.

I lived in small-town Texas through high school and college and have certainly heard some of that as a Michigan native, but it seems to have lessened greatly since the late 70s. Austin generally is the most enlightened part of Texas and comparable to any college town that I know of. I think most of Texas' swimmers/coaches/parents/fans probably come from other parts of the country too.

I think the more overriding trait is that the Longhorns hate to lose and feel like they should win everything given all their financial support to athletics and general feeling of superiority. Texas just needs to try harder and I am sure they will.

Does anyone else find it offensive that all their swimmers have to flash the Longhorn sign when they get introduced? Can't they just waive like everyone else? They are still better than the Aggies though!

Tim

aquageek
April 2nd, 2009, 04:54 PM
Does anyone else find it offensive that all their swimmers have to flash the Longhorn sign when they get introduced?

It could be worse, imagine what would happen if Tennessee became a swimming powerhouse. The sheer hell of listening to Rocky Top after every event would make everyone crazy.

I've wondered about the longhorn sign myself but I've given into it. After all, I know there are adult males in their 40s who get that mangy heifer tattooed on their body.

Tim L
April 2nd, 2009, 05:09 PM
It could be worse, imagine what would happen if Tennessee became a swimming powerhouse. The sheer hell of listening to Rocky Top after every event would make everyone crazy.

I've wondered about the longhorn sign myself but I've given into it. After all, I know there are adult males in their 40s who get that mangy heifer tattooed on their body.

Now I can't get Rocky Top out of my head. That BCS championship game that they won a decade ago was enough for me.

The longhorn tattoos are beyond explanation. A mangy range cow with oversized horns that was largely driven to northern slaughter houses as a mascot choice? I don't get it. However, it is better than Yosemite Sam which is largely my school's mascot. Don't even get me started on the Aggies and their yell leaders. Texas is a strange and wonderful place.

Tim

Daaaave
April 2nd, 2009, 05:43 PM
Perhaps a better question is, would I be comfortable sending my son to swim for a team consisting largely of foreign athletes? Assuming a good fit otherwise with the coach, program and school, my answer is: absolutely! He would learn a lot.



Good question. Say there's a hypothetical American kid deciding where to go to school and swim. He is 6'4 and growing with dinner-plate hands, and is thought to have potential to be a world-class sprinter. He, his parents, club coaches, and USA Swimming have an interest in optimizing his ability.

He has a chance to train at a not-so-hypothetical university program with a (non-US) sprint coach who has produced recent olympic medalists and finalists, and some of those olympians are currently on the team or have recently left/graduated but are still training with said coach (or at least maintain close ties). Still others in the program are on national teams for other (lesser) swimming powerhouse countries, also bringing unique training and racing experiences.

How is this not a good scenario for the hypothetical American kid and for USA swimming? Seems a good way to optimize his potential. Not to say he couldn't be great elsewhere, but if it were my kid it would seem pretty sweet, even if it meant a partial, rather than a full ride.

Paul Smith
April 2nd, 2009, 06:07 PM
The math is very simple

Team rosters are limited

Capping the number of foreign swimmers on a college team = more US swimmers on that team = more possibilites to develop potential Olympic swimmers for the US.

An example is Texas bringing in Agustin Magruder...one of those talented but undeveloped US high schoolers who probably would have never gotten a shot at a top tier team if someone was looking for a "quick fix". The kid takes 12th in the 100 breast and 10th in the 200 as a 5th year senior.

Mr. Negative
April 2nd, 2009, 06:26 PM
How is this not a good scenario for the hypothetical American kid and for USA swimming? Seems a good way to optimize his potential. Not to say he couldn't be great elsewhere, but if it were my kid it would seem pretty sweet, even if it meant a partial, rather than a full ride.

You are assuming he will get a piece of a scholarship. More than likely, he will not be chosen at a school like this and be forced to explore a secondary or tertiary choice (i.e. assuming those teams as well don't dedicate as much as 1/3rd of their eligible scholarship money to kids from other countries).

Lazy / Low Risk recruiting. That's what it comes down to. Grab your prepackaged top level international talent and sign here.

orca1946
April 2nd, 2009, 06:38 PM
Coaches will play any game plan that they can get away with.

gobears
April 2nd, 2009, 06:45 PM
Lazy / Low Risk recruiting. That's what it comes down to. Grab your prepackaged top level international talent and sign here.

I suppose UT goes out of its way to grab the "unpackaged" lower level talent here in the U.S.? What's the difference between grabbing the "prepackaged top level talent" here in the U.S. and doing the same internationally--what makes one "lazy" and immoral?

I get the point that you're pissed Texas lost. I get it that you think the U.S. should exclusively benefit from any good performance by a swimmer training here. I understand that you want more spots for U.S. men on top level college teams. What I DO NOT understand is where you come off calling the legal (and logically very strategic) practice of international recruiting by college coaches lazy or immoral. You don't like it. Fine. That doesn't make the practice inherently wrong. Make the practice against the rules and THEN you can claim someone is cheating. Until then, your arguments are very weak.

Jazz Hands
April 2nd, 2009, 06:48 PM
I'm so sorry I offended you with my side comment Fortress.............. NOT !

This suit is black...


NOT!

Chris Stevenson
April 2nd, 2009, 07:04 PM
The math is very simple

Team rosters are limited

Capping the number of foreign swimmers on a college team = more US swimmers on that team = more possibilites to develop potential Olympic swimmers for the US.

Yes, very simple...but colleges are simply not in the business of developing US Olympic talent. That's the USAS's/USOC's job.

Why should a university feel obliged to do their job for them? What is in it for them, other than the mushy feel-good stuff that Mr Neg is talking about?

Give a convincing answer to that to the NCAA, ADs, and university presidents and you may get the cap that you desire.

Being an educator myself, and perhaps foolishly believing that to be the main business of universities, I would love it if the argument were put in those terms.

My cynical side says that any argument that persuasively shows a benefit to the bottom line will work too.

Mr. Negative
April 2nd, 2009, 07:19 PM
Yes, very simple...but colleges are simply not in the business of developing US Olympic talent. That's the USAS's/USOC's job.

That is simply a crock of crap.

Fact is the SAME talent swims in both arenas (USA Swimming and NCAA). Your border between the two worlds is nothing but adminstrative. The talent moves freely between both bodies and the personal goals and coaches are the same between each body. One is not exclusive of the other.

To assume that colleges have no roll or involvement in developing talent that goes to the Games or competes internationally is truely naive.

Paul Smith
April 2nd, 2009, 07:34 PM
Yes, very simple...but colleges are simply not in the business of developing US Olympic talent. That's the USAS's/USOC's job.

Why should a university feel obliged to do their job for them? What is in it for them, other than the mushy feel-good stuff that Mr Neg is talking about?

Give a convincing answer to that to the NCAA, ADs, and university presidents and you may get the cap that you desire.

Being an educator myself, and perhaps foolishly believing that to be the main business of universities, I would love it if the argument were put in those terms.

My cynical side says that any argument that persuasively shows a benefit to the bottom line will work too.

Chris...I think I have said this 3 times now...there is a coalition of the 3 major organizers of swimming in this country who are starting to work together...I think its a good thing. I also think anyone who actually competes in swimming and is a US citizen pretty much agress the pinnacle in our sport is the Olympics and anything the various agencies can do to help support each other in winning more gold medals the better.

Regarding your question as to "why should a university feel obligated to do their job" I have say that seems pretty naive. I don't think there is a University in existence that has had an Olympian of pro athlete attend that doesn't use that as a recruiting tool to students and athletes alike. I'll also leave you with this quotes from NCAA President Myles Brand which was in the same ASCA article I have referenced:

" The job of the University is to take teenagers and turn them into people"

" ten years from now, do you suppose the student will remember his calculus? or will she remember instead, the lessons learned in her sports participation?

" it's ok, it's good,, for the University to support finacially, it's athletic department...we don't realistically expect the athletic departments to self-fund....sports sponsorship on a wide range of experiences for college students is an acceptable part of the university mission because Athletics is in fact, part and parcel of the educational experiance. It's where many lessons are learned in life."

ehoch
April 2nd, 2009, 07:46 PM
Paul - that's a nice reply. But just because these organizations work together, that does not mean they have the same goal. You simply feel that a goal of college swim teams should be to develop US Olympians and those silly college coaches just want to field the best team they can.

The recruiting actually makes no difference between US Olympians and "other Olympians" - that's something just some people like to track.

Mr. Negative
April 2nd, 2009, 07:58 PM
The recruiting actually makes no difference between US Olympians and "other Olympians" - that's something just some people like to track.


Well.... it's certainly tracked on NBC every 4 years..... and its a similar group of swimmers in the NCAAs.

thewookiee
April 2nd, 2009, 08:33 PM
I wonder, did Paul and Mr. Negative complain this much and this loudly win Arizona won the ncaa title last year? I counted 8 guys on the Arizona team that won last year that are FOREIGNERS. Seems a bit two faced to me.

Why is it each time Auburn wins, Paul gripes about them winning? Yet, Arizona wins using more non-americans than Auburn did this year, yet he and others did belly ache about that win. Seems a bit two-faced.

Paul Smith
April 2nd, 2009, 09:04 PM
I wonder, did Paul and Mr. Negative complain this much and this loudly win Arizona won the ncaa title last year? I counted 8 guys on the Arizona team that won last year that are FOREIGNERS. Seems a bit two faced to me.

Why is it each time Auburn wins, Paul gripes about them winning? Yet, Arizona wins using more non-americans than Auburn did this year, yet he and others did belly ache about that win. Seems a bit two-faced.

Louder actually. Don't confuse my efforts to try and save ASU's swimming program which I have been very active in even though at one time they probably had 75% of their swimmers from foreign countries.

I have always advocated supporting the growth and excellence of US swimming...what's your problem? America hater?

chaos
April 2nd, 2009, 09:14 PM
our country is better than your country because we can produce more olympic swimming gold medals???????

seems like an argument that should be taking place in the school yard between (immature) third graders.

Chris Stevenson
April 2nd, 2009, 09:30 PM
That is simply a crock of crap.

Fact is the SAME talent swims in both arenas (USA Swimming and NCAA). Your border between the two worlds is nothing but adminstrative. The talent moves freely between both bodies and the personal goals and coaches are the same between each body. One is not exclusive of the other.

To assume that colleges have no roll or involvement in developing talent that goes to the Games or competes internationally is truely naive.

I didn't say they weren't involved or that they had no role. I said it wasn't their purpose; it is simply an unintended by-product as they go about their business.

Please find me a university mission statement that says anything about developing Olympians -- specifically the US variety -- and I'll gladly concede the point.

In fact if you search through such statements (and unfortunately I've had to be present at meetings when they were crafted), you are much more likely to find concerns about helping students deal with a variety of cultures and values. You most certainly won't find jingoistic sentiments.


Chris...I think I have said this 3 times now...there is a coalition of the 3 major organizers of swimming in this country who are starting to work together...I think its a good thing. I also think anyone who actually competes in swimming and is a US citizen pretty much agress the pinnacle in our sport is the Olympics and anything the various agencies can do to help support each other in winning more gold medals the better.

Regarding your question as to "why should a university feel obligated to do their job" I have say that seems pretty naive. I don't think there is a University in existence that has had an Olympian of pro athlete attend that doesn't use that as a recruiting tool to students and athletes alike. I'll also leave you with this quotes from NCAA President Myles Brand which was in the same ASCA article I have referenced:

" The job of the University is to take teenagers and turn them into people"

" ten years from now, do you suppose the student will remember his calculus? or will she remember instead, the lessons learned in her sports participation?

" it's ok, it's good,, for the University to support finacially, it's athletic department...we don't realistically expect the athletic departments to self-fund....sports sponsorship on a wide range of experiences for college students is an acceptable part of the university mission because Athletics is in fact, part and parcel of the educational experiance. It's where many lessons are learned in life."

Believe me, Paul, I am VERY familiar with the many ways in which a university sells itself to prospective students. I am involved in the process. Except for perhaps the very biggest names, former Olympians rank very far down the list for non-athletes prospectives. It also doesn't generally get the university much money from deep pockets, funding agencies and the like. Some donors probably like having a lot of ex-pro athletes as alums in the major revenue sports.

And of course having ex-Olympians will help attract prospective students who participate in that sport. But like Erik says, an Olympian is an Olympian, US or not. Universities and athletic teams will trumpet the fact either way.

I do remember your discussion about this alliance. I think it is great, but I'll be frankly surprised if they get universities to agree on a cap for athletic scholarships to non-US citizens unless the universities get something substantial out of it.

For example: if your coalition was willing to pony up some real money, endow a large number of swimming scholarships at some of the major swimming schools, and specify that they were to be used for US citizens, then MAYBE you can gain some real traction.

I actually think that is perhaps their best bet. Sure, it can get expensive...but much much cheaper than doing it all themselves. After all, the universities would still pay for all the coaches, facilities, trainers, etc.

But if they are basically saying, "you should do it b/c it is your patriotic duty"...well. I won't be holding my breath.

Paul Smith
April 2nd, 2009, 09:54 PM
our country is better than your country because we can produce more olympic swimming gold medals???????

seems like an argument that should be taking place in the school yard between (immature) third graders.


DB you are so full of it! So tell all of us with a straight face you cheered for the French 400 free relay last summer and the South Africans 4 years ago! Give me a friggin break!

No one hear has remotely gone down the path of "ours is bigger than yours"...that's you and you alone my friend.

What (I hope) some of us are trying to better understand is how to make US Swimming on ALL levels more successful...some of us fully believe that college swimming has a major impact on the development of future US Olympians and we should be supporting that any way we can...

ALM
April 2nd, 2009, 10:24 PM
Out of curiosity, how many foreign athletes will be playing in this weekend's Final Four? Isn't UConn's big guy a "foreigner"?

Chris Stevenson
April 2nd, 2009, 10:28 PM
On a slightly different note...

One thing that I find interesting about this discussion is that the role of college swimming in determining the composition of the US Olympic team is less than it has been in a long time.

Twenty years ago, if you looked at the US finalists at the most recent NCAA championships, you were pretty certain that you would find most of them in the finals of Olympic Trials, vying for spots on the team (especially the men).

That is no longer the case. In this age of the significant post-collegiate swimming career, it was not at all unusual to find events at the last Olympic Trials in which recent NCAA champions were dark horses to make the team, and would barely even make the finals.

It may not even be a stretch to say that the role of collegiate swimming in the training of US Olympians is about what the role of HS training programs used to be, twenty years ago.

Chris Stevenson
April 2nd, 2009, 10:31 PM
Out of curiosity, how many foreign athletes will be playing in this weekend's Final Four? Isn't UConn's big guy a "foreigner"?

Sure, sure, more sour grapes. (Sorry Anna Lea, I couldn't resist...your team spanked my team pretty badly last year.)

ALM
April 2nd, 2009, 10:58 PM
Sure, sure, more sour grapes. (Sorry Anna Lea, I couldn't resist...your team spanked my team pretty badly last year.)

No sour grapes here. I don't have a problem with foreign college athletes. Plus, last year's Kansas team had a foreign athlete (Sasha Kaun).

JimRude
April 2nd, 2009, 11:03 PM
Although I must admit that I am somewhat biased, having swam at a univ with lots of furners, why don't we focus on saving - or even expanding - men's college swimming (which appears headed the direction of wrestling and other increasingly irrelevant sports), instead of griping about non-Americans taking "our" scholarships?

chaos
April 2nd, 2009, 11:14 PM
[QUOTE=Paul Smith;175672]DB you are so full of it! So tell all of us with a straight face you cheered for the French 400 free relay last summer and the South Africans 4 years ago! Give me a friggin break! QUOTE]

i am not a francophobe...... my fries will always be french.

the 400 free relay was one of the greatest sporting events i have ever seen period. this would also be true if the outcome had been reversed.... anyone who thinks otherwise is looking through a very narrow lens.

thewookiee
April 3rd, 2009, 07:51 AM
Louder actually. Don't confuse my efforts to try and save ASU's swimming program which I have been very active in even though at one time they probably had 75% of their swimmers from foreign countries.

I have always advocated supporting the growth and excellence of US swimming...what's your problem? America hater?

I don't recall the outrage from last year's Arizona win, using 8 foreigners, that has come this year or any year that Auburn wins the title. Seems less of a "pro-american" stance and more of "I hate Auburn's success at the NCAA's" stance.

I support US swimming and want it to grow too. Doesn't mean that we have to throw hatered toward Auburn for their success. If bringing in foreigners is what it takes, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Like tpratt, I swam on the same college team with a bunch of foreign guys. They were more mature,more focused than the rest. They bring a positive influence to a team and help develop less mature, less focused athletes by their example.

This thread is really about being jealous of one schools success because they choose to look outside the 50 states for good swimmers than it is about developing USA swimming.

mctrusty
April 3rd, 2009, 09:31 AM
our country is better than your country because we can produce more olympic swimming gold medals???????

seems like an argument that should be taking place in the school yard between (immature) third graders.

It's a much better argument than "our country is better than your country because we have more and bigger bombs"

chaos
April 3rd, 2009, 09:53 AM
It's a much better argument than "our country is better than your country because we have more and bigger bombs"

couldn't agree more......... but still a third grade argument.

Tim L
April 3rd, 2009, 10:51 AM
This just seems like sour grapes.

The NCAA is never going to put a restriction on foreign athletes/students (especially dictated by a sport like swimming). Paul and Mr. Negative seem like patriotic idealists.

Texas lost. It was close. Coach Reese needs to either do better at his patriotic recruiting approach or bend a little bit on foreign recruits, but the NCAA is not going to change. The NCAA is not even at the table with the coaching organizations and USA-S.

Change the rules for online courses and similar tactics. Get USA-S to fund American swimming scholarships. Convince a few more coaches to recruit Americans. Support the existing Division I programs however you can. All those things seem like they can be accomplished and would help U.S. swimming.

Tim

Mr. Negative
April 3rd, 2009, 11:25 AM
....... Change the rules for online courses and similar tactics. Get USA-S to fund American swimming scholarships. Convince a few more coaches to recruit Americans. Support the existing Division I programs however you can. All those things seem like they can be accomplished and would help U.S. swimming.
Tim

Agreed

Paul Smith
April 3rd, 2009, 11:29 AM
I don't recall the outrage from last year's Arizona win, using 8 foreigners, that has come this year or any year that Auburn wins the title. Seems less of a "pro-american" stance and more of "I hate Auburn's success at the NCAA's" stance.

I support US swimming and want it to grow too. Doesn't mean that we have to throw hatered toward Auburn for their success. If bringing in foreigners is what it takes, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Like tpratt, I swam on the same college team with a bunch of foreign guys. They were more mature,more focused than the rest. They bring a positive influence to a team and help develop less mature, less focused athletes by their example.

This thread is really about being jealous of one schools success because they choose to look outside the 50 states for good swimmers than it is about developing USA swimming.


Your confusing me with another Smith...I hate Texas almost as much as USC...don't really care one way or another about Auburn because when I was in college we never swam them...I like U of A because I think that Frank has one of the finest coaching staffs in the country but was not happy to see him train the South African gold medalists in the 400 free relay. In other words you have no idea who I am, what I stand for or an understaning of my posted postions here.

lefty
April 3rd, 2009, 11:37 AM
Would people being swimming 18's left and right now, if the two Auburn foreigners (Bousquet and Cielo) hadn't done it first? Those two raised the bar for NCAA swimming. I applaud them.

pwb
April 3rd, 2009, 11:38 AM
Your confusing me with another Smith...I hate Texas almost as much as USC...

I can vouch for Paul on this one ... he gives me crap about the Longhorns any chance he can get ...

thewookiee
April 3rd, 2009, 11:39 AM
In other words you have no idea who I am, what I stand for or an understaning of my posted postions here.

Paul, I know that you care about swimming. I know that you care about American swimming and want to see it be the best swimming country in the world.

But it also comes across that when a college, like Auburn or Arizona, use foreign talent to improve their swim programs, people seem to want to see them burned at the stakes for supposedly taking away spots for American kids. If ANY school is breaking the rules in terms of what their student-athletes are doing or how they are taking classes, then yes they do need to be punished...regardless of foreign talent or not. BUT, if AU, UofA, Cal, use foreign talent legally...then what is the fuss about? If the top American kids don't want to go to Auburn or Cali to swim, then the coaches shouldn't have to waste their time going after lower level swimmers, if they are able to legally get good swimmers from other countries. There is nothing wrong with bringing in foreign kids to help improve one's program. I swam with a lot of foreign kids. To this day, I am grateful for that opportunity.

thewookiee
April 3rd, 2009, 11:41 AM
Your confusing me with another Smith...I hate Texas almost as much as USC....

Paul...I hate USC too. Ever since Steve Spurrier became their football coach...can't stand em. :)

Paul Smith
April 3rd, 2009, 11:52 AM
There is nothing wrong with bringing in foreign kids to help improve one's program. I swam with a lot of foreign kids. To this day, I am grateful for that opportunity.

100% agree. I also had the pleasure of swimming with/against some great foreign talent in college...and today (although Hoch would tell you I've never really "swam" against him only trailed in his wake!)

On this thread I have only one thing I'm trying to discuss...does it ultimately help or hurt US swimmers chances of success (competing globally) if we have a limited number of college roster spots and an increasing number of those are filled with an un-capped number of foreign swimmers?

My answer to that is yes. That does not make me jealous, a hater, a protectionist or anything else other than someone that loves college and Olympic swimming and wants the US to dominate...

Mr. Negative
April 3rd, 2009, 11:54 AM
Would people be swimming 18's left and right now, if the two Auburn foreigners (Bousquet and Cielo) hadn't done it first? Those two raised the bar for NCAA swimming. I applaud them.

Would Bousquet and Cielo be quite as good if they didn't come and train in the US?

Why not focus on finding another Robin Leamy or Tom Jager instead?

thewookiee
April 3rd, 2009, 12:12 PM
My answer to that is yes. That does not make me jealous, a hater, a protectionist or anything else other than someone that loves college and Olympic swimming and wants the US to dominate...

Paul...my apologies. I misunderstood your posts as someone who didn't like how AU and Zona built their programs.

Peter Cruise
April 3rd, 2009, 12:48 PM
A few of these non-american swimmers may be displaced if the current downturn in the economy makes it less feasible for some top swimmers to finance their swimming by turning professional. Not that there's huge numbers, but it might make a difference.

I must confess, purely as a spectator sport, I have found the level of NCAA champs more compelling the last few years, partly due to the outside swimmers. Not germane to the topic, but I agree this is one of the top meets in the world. By the way, even though, as a foreigner I have embraced metric, I think the US Open yards records should be called World records...because they are.

By the way, I still think the biggest improvement to the NCAA champs would be to huck the divers right out of the meet. Let the best swim team win.

knelson
April 3rd, 2009, 01:58 PM
Would Bousquet and Cielo be quite as good if they didn't come and train in the US?

Probably not. Just another success story for NCAA swimming. You aren't suggesting that those guys getting better is a bad thing, are you?

I think any coach is going to want the best for all the swimmers he/she trains. Apparently Eddie Reese has decided that he'd rather concentrate on making American athletes better, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean his opinion is the only one. There are lots of coaches who are just looking out for the sport as a whole and want swimmers to go faster no matter where they were born.

Paul Smith
April 3rd, 2009, 02:12 PM
By the way, I still think the biggest improvement to the NCAA champs would be to huck the divers right out of the meet. Let the best swim team win.

Now were talking!!!

ande
April 3rd, 2009, 02:48 PM
Paul,

We get you

You crack yourself up.
It is jealousy.
It is Boredom.
You Did not accomplish enough when you were young, and
you hate anybody faster/younger than you.

You're into wine fine dine therapy.
Laura is your better 3/4ths, at least, maybe more.

Hook 'em,

Ande

Actually Paul is a fierce competitor, a smart racer, a great splitter, an outstanding swimmer & one of the nicest people I've met through masters.



In other words you have no idea
who I am,
what I stand for or
an understaning of my posted postions here.

ande
April 3rd, 2009, 03:20 PM
They are found & being developed. A couple are Nathan Adrian & Jimmy Fiegen

Garrett Weber Gale, Jason Lezak, Cullen Jones, Nick Brunelli, Benjamin WILDMAN TOBRINER, & any Americans listed in FINAs top 100 (http://www.fina.org/swimming/world_rankings/index.php)in the 50 or 100 fr

Keep your eyes on up & comers Shayne Flemming & Dax Hill.

One risk swimming runs is, losing very promising young athletes to more lucrative sports.




Why not focus on finding another Robin Leamy or Tom Jager instead?

lefty
April 3rd, 2009, 04:20 PM
Would Bousquet and Cielo be quite as good if they didn't come and train in the US?

Why not focus on finding another Robin Leamy or Tom Jager instead?

I will reask what Kirk said, are you suggesting that them getting better was a bad thing?

If the Jager's of the (US Swim) world are going undiscovered it isn't because foreigners are taking 25% of the scholarships. That makes no sense.

lefty
April 3rd, 2009, 04:27 PM
I compare diving to noodling: The pool was built, in part, because a finance guy determined that they could make money off the pool by offering water aerobics classes and open swim. Pools are expensive. We need as many people in the water as possible. Even noodlers (Just quit staring at me because I can swim a lap without stopping).

Similarly: I don't know how many programs would be dropped altogether if swimming and diving were separated, perhaps only a few, but the sports are better off coexisting.

Mr. Negative
April 3rd, 2009, 05:25 PM
There are lots of coaches who are just looking out for the sport as a whole and want swimmers to go faster no matter where they were born.

If you think this is why these kids from other countries have been recruited you are naive.

Lefty..... no I am not suggesting that these kids getting better is a bad thing. I am suggesting they benefited from the US program and funding. I would however, like them to attend classes the full year ON CAMPUS with the rest of the student swimmers and not show up half way through the year. If you look at the dual meet lineups from the Fall you may find a few names missing during that part of the season. OH BUT I FORGOT..... if the NCAA has a loop hole then its okay..... right?

Let's face it, coaches that take on top world class talent from abroad are NOT looking to build a broader cultural mecca on campus, they are NOT looking to benefit the sport of swimming world wide. They have one focus and that is to fill in gaps in their line up with talent they failed to recruit in the States, win at all cost and keep their job.

Question to all you altruistic international lovers of the sport. Last year the Lazer was banned because not all the schools had equal access to the suit. This year a new suit pops up with new technology in the manufacturing and not eveyone has access to it. Does this not hit an ethical chord with any of you?

pwb
April 3rd, 2009, 05:33 PM
... They have one focus and that is to fill in gaps in their line up with talent ..., win ... and keep their job...

Uhhh ... that's their job.

I don't know about you, but I try to do everything legal within my means to be successful at my job, including -- yes, I'll admit it -- hiring people from other countries. When I go looking at MBA programs and graduate engineering schools to hire the best talent, I don't care where they came from.

Tim L
April 3rd, 2009, 06:02 PM
Question to all you altruistic international lovers of the sport. Last year the the Lazer was banned because not all the schools had access to the suit. This year a new suit pops up with new technology in the manufacturing and not eveyone has access to it. Does this not hit an ethical chord with any of you?

There are so many versions of tech suits now it is difficult to differentiate. It doesn't seem like teams wearing LZRs were at a disadvantage. What was the time advantage of the Italian suits? Were they not available for purchase by any school that worked hard enough and had enough money (just like the LZR)? You are talking about those hideous brown suits, right?

Tim

gobears
April 3rd, 2009, 07:18 PM
Let's face it, coaches that take on top world class talent from abroad are NOT looking to build a broader cultural mecca on campus, they are NOT looking to benefit the sport of swimming world wide. They have one focus and that is to fill in gaps in their line up with talent they failed to recruit in the States, win at all cost and keep their job.
:bitching:

Wow. What more can be said. :confused:Wow.

hofffam
April 3rd, 2009, 07:40 PM
I admit it bugs me that so many foreign swimmers at at the top of NCAA swimming. I don't like the fact that so many foreigners develop their Olympic speed swimming for US universities.

But I don't really think these athletes are taking scholarships of elite Americans. They are taking positions that would go to SLOWER American kids.

There are not many sub-20 second 50 free guys in high school. So after Texas gets Fiegen and Cal gets Adrian, who does Auburn and Stanford go for? They want to compete with the best. So they could take a 20.5 guy instead or a 19 second foreigner. But will they? Not the programs that want a top 10 finish in NCAAs.

In many ways Texas has an advantage. For Texas kids, in state tuition is low. So a walkon pays as much as somone on half a scholarship at Stanford. There are only two Div 1 schools in Texas with a men's swim team.And guess what - lots of kids like Austin. So I think Eddie is successful recruiting Americans because it is relatively easy for him to do so.

I do not want to see NCAA rules that make it easy for foreigners to skirt any rules that other students have to adhere to.

Mr. Negative
April 3rd, 2009, 08:07 PM
There are so many versions of tech suits now it is difficult to differentiate. It doesn't seem like teams wearing LZRs were at a disadvantage. What was the time advantage of the Italian suits? Were they not available for purchase by any school that worked hard enough and had enough money (just like the LZR)? You are talking about those hideous brown suits, right?

Tim


Yes.... these (hideous brown) suits were not available for purchase by every school or individual prior to the meet.

knelson
April 4th, 2009, 01:25 AM
I just went to the Jaked website and they sure seem to be available for order. Obviously I didn't go through the entire process. It's possible it would have told me they can't ship to the U.S.

It really seems like you're making up reasons (or excuses) for why Auburn won--or why Texas lost. What's next? Auburn's a quieter town than Austin so their swimmers get better sleep at night?

Mr. Negative
April 4th, 2009, 09:27 AM
Kirk,

Keep digging. You'll need to do a little more checking than the web site. The suits were not available to everyone prior to the meet. Is this the reason Auburn won..... of course not. Is it one more tactic to push the envelope?

Tell me your thoughts on the rest of my comments. Do care if kids aren't on campus the whole year and not sitting in classes as the rest of the domestic athletes are required ..... and aren't even swimming in some of the dual meets in the Fall and then show up for the last months of the season and go to "The Show" as if they were a "team".

You don't think this "World Cup" rule gets a bit ridiculous?

Wen does the NCAA become the ICAA?

The Fortress
April 4th, 2009, 09:34 AM
Last year the Lazer was banned because not all the schools had equal access to the suit. This year a new suit pops up with new technology in the manufacturing and not eveyone has access to it. Does this not hit an ethical chord with any of you?

This from the guy who wore a TYR "wetsuit" to SCY Nats in Austin when no other masters swimmer had access to it and it was not available for purchase?

Mr. Negative
April 4th, 2009, 09:40 AM
.... So I think Eddie is successful recruiting Americans because it is relatively easy for him to do so.

We will have to agree to disagree on this statement.

I believe he has been coaching for almost 4 decades. There are plenty of reasons kids want to go swim him other than slightly lower Texas in state tuition costs.

hofffam
April 4th, 2009, 10:23 AM
We will have to agree to disagree on this statement.

I believe he has been coaching for almost 4 decades. There are plenty of reasons kids want to go swim him other than slightly lower Texas in state tuition costs.

I don't mean to downplay Eddie himself. His record, his 2-time Olympic coach status, etc. are tremendous advantages. In fact that plays very well with Texas' other advantages.

But with a roster size of almost 40 today - most of his swimmers have no scholarship money at all. I'm sure the parents of many of his swimmers appreciate the lower costs. Their choice could be 1/4 or 1/2 scholarship somewhere else, or zero scholarship swimming for Eddie. It is relatively easy to choose the latter.

Chris Stevenson
April 4th, 2009, 10:23 AM
Do care if kids aren't on campus the whole year and not sitting in classes as the rest of the domestic athletes are required ..... and aren't even swimming in some of the dual meets in the Fall and then show up for the last months of the season and go to "The Show" as if they were a "team".

I have no idea how widespread this practice is among foreign swimmers, and of course it is bad behavior.

I am naturally against anything in "college athletics" that overemphasizes the second word and trivializes the first. (Though I suspect our objections have different sources, since you seem to be protecting the "team" aspect of the college team and I would guard the "college" aspect.)

But is this behavior specific to foreign athletes? No way. Plenty of similar stories of US athletes behaving this way, especially in the "big" revenue sports.

And back to swimming: when I was in college, during an Olympic year I remember one (US) swimmer who barely attended classes and did no homework until NCAAs, then promptly dropped all her classes and went home to train until Olympic Trials. Equally bad behavior in my book, though completely legal by NCAA rules.

College coaches in general (not just in swimming) have incentives to downplay the college education of their charges. Even here at U of Richmond -- a selective liberal arts school that is not in the business of big-time athletics -- I hear whispers, true or not, about how athletes are "encouraged" by their coaches or peers to avoid "hard" majors, or classes that are taught at inconvenient times (wrt training). I don't respect coaches who act that way...but it can be understandable if their job security depends almost entirely on their athletic success.

It is up to the institution as a whole to create an environment where such behavior is not tolerated, and that should include rewarding coaches for academic performance. The "requirement" that domestic athletes attend classes...if that's an NCAA rule, it is one that has been instituted after I attended college. The only such rules I have ever heard of have been specific to teams or universities. (For example, a previous football coach at UR would randomly send someone to check that his athletes are in class and are sitting in one of the front rows. I don't think he had any foreigners on his team, but if he did I very much doubt he would have made an exception for them.)

In this respect, swimming is fortunate because it isn't a high-profile, revenue-generating sport (where temptations are greater). Swimmers on the whole also tend to be pretty disciplined about their studies, though there are obviously exceptions.

Mr. Negative
April 4th, 2009, 04:19 PM
Mr. Stevenson,

Your thought's on some of the coaching comments and results of the new suit technology that several swimmers used at NCAAs.

The Jagged Edge Of Jaked Results
http://www.swimnews.com/News/view/6766 (http://www.swimnews.com/News/view/6766)

Everyone gets one..... or no one gets one. Wasn't that the rule last year?

knelson
April 4th, 2009, 04:41 PM
Tell me your thoughts on the rest of my comments. Do care if kids aren't on campus the whole year and not sitting in classes as the rest of the domestic athletes are required ..... and aren't even swimming in some of the dual meets in the Fall and then show up for the last months of the season and go to "The Show" as if they were a "team".

Yes, I think they should be full-time students who are physically on campus to be on the roster. I don't really have a problem with kids starting after winter break, though.

Chris Stevenson
April 4th, 2009, 05:34 PM
Mr. Stevenson,

Your thought's on some of the coaching comments and results of the new suit technology that several swimmers used at NCAAs.

The Jagged Edge Of Jaked Results
http://www.swimnews.com/News/view/6766 (http://www.swimnews.com/News/view/6766)

Everyone gets one..... or no one gets one. Wasn't that the rule last year?

I have never seen or heard of one of these suits, but substitute the word "LZR" and "Jaked" and this is a recycled article from early 2008, right? Many of the exact same phrases were used.

The state of swimming is in flux WRT these types of suits. If it isn't against the rules, what are we supposed to do?

FINA seems to be moving to standardize things and slow the approval process. To the extent that fault should be assigned, I believe the blame lies with FINA. Hopefully things will be cleared up by this time next year.

I also do think there is a tendency right now to assign all credit/blame to suits, regardless of any other factors (including other forms of cheating. Amazing how nobody hears about doping in swimming anymore.)

That Guy
April 4th, 2009, 09:15 PM
I have a dumb question about Jaked. Does it rhyme with "baked," "naked," or "jacked?"

knelson
April 4th, 2009, 11:43 PM
I have never seen or heard of one of these suits

I remember seeing them at the Olympics last summer. Not sure if it was the same suit as Auburn wore at NCAAs or if this is a new version.

Here's a picture of Federica Pellegrini from Beijing:
http://www.exposay.com/federica-pellegrini-2008-olympic-games---day-3---swimming/p/22174/4/

Chris Stevenson
April 4th, 2009, 11:56 PM
I remember seeing them at the Olympics last summer. Not sure if it was the same suit as Auburn wore at NCAAs or if this is a new version.

Here's a picture of Federica Pellegrini from Beijing:
http://www.exposay.com/federica-pellegrini-2008-olympic-games---day-3---swimming/p/22174/4/

Well, according to Lord's article the Jaked is better than the LZR and is (surprise!) an abomination. Amazing how Speedo seems so lilly pure and everything else is dirty.

If these suits are so much better than the LZR, why didn't the Italian team dominate the Olympics? After all, it's the suit not the swimmer, right?

Mr. Negative
April 5th, 2009, 01:00 PM
Well, according to Lord's article the Jaked is better than the LZR and is (surprise!) an abomination. Amazing how Speedo seems so lilly pure and everything else is dirty.

If these suits are so much better than the LZR, why didn't the Italian team dominate the Olympics? After all, it's the suit not the swimmer, right?

So if you think it's the same arguement as the LZR from the preceding year and the NCAA banned the LZR due to access in 2008, why don't you blame the NCAA and not FINA this year for allowing the suit that all teams don't have access?

Chris Stevenson
April 5th, 2009, 01:39 PM
So if you think it's the same arguement as the LZR from the preceding year and the NCAA banne0d the LZR due to access in 2008, why don't you blame FINA and not the NCAA this year for allowing the suit that all teams don't have access?

Mr Neg, I don't really understand this post. I think I said that if there is blame, then it rests with FINA. Their own rules state that everyone should have access. (If these suits have been around since the Olympics, why wouldn't that be true?)

I don't know enough backstory on this to have a strong opinion. I'm certainly not going to form one based on one article from such an obviously biased source (I'm talking about Craig Lord, btw, before you get your panties in a wad).

Are you trying to say that a certain un-named, apparently despicable team used these suits in the NCAAs, that they conferred an unfair advantage, and that no one else could get the suits? Please elaborate.

lefty
April 5th, 2009, 02:27 PM
Mr Neg, I don't really understand this post. I think I said that if there is blame, then it rests with FINA. Their own rules state that everyone should have access. (If these suits have been around since the Olympics, why wouldn't that be true?)

I don't know enough backstory on this to have a strong opinion. I'm certainly not going to form one based on one article from such an obviously biased source (I'm talking about Craig Lord, btw, before you get your panties in a wad).

Are you trying to say that a certain un-named, apparently despicable team used these suits in the NCAAs, that they conferred an unfair advantage, and that no one else could get the suits? Please elaborate.

I think he is saying that, not only does Aubrun cheat with foreign swimmers, they use cheat suits too (made by an Italian company no less). Yawn....

orca1946
April 5th, 2009, 02:28 PM
Does an on line course make you a student?

Mr. Negative
April 5th, 2009, 09:24 PM
So if you think it's the same arguement as the LZR from the preceding year and the NCAA banned the LZR due to access in 2008, why don't you blame the NCAA and not FINA this year for allowing the suit that all teams don't have access?


Typo in my response Chris. Try this. I may make more sense.

My question is about the NCAAs response to the LZR the preceding year. If the suit presents a similar question of access for individuals, why is the newest suit technology this year not under the same set of scrutiny as last year? Doesn't matter if its a winning team or not..... access is access in the end.

Chris Stevenson
April 5th, 2009, 10:40 PM
Typo in my response Chris. Try this. I may make more sense.

My question is about the NCAAs response to the LZR the preceding year. If the suit presents a similar question of access for individuals, why is the newest suit technology this year not under the same set of scrutiny as last year? Doesn't matter if its a winning team or not..... access is access in the end.

I don't know enough to have an opinion, just questions.

If the suits were available at -- and presumably approved for -- the Olympics, are they really "new?" Why would only Auburn (or whomever) have access to them? What evidence is there that this suit is really faster than the LZR? (I don't trust Lord's article at all on this score, he seems to take issue with the non-Speedo suits.) Anyway, so what if it is? The issue is access, not effectiveness.

I'm only guessing, but since the NCAA allowed the LZRs, I can only assume that they would just allow all suits that have been approved by FINA. I would hope that includes the issue of access since that's the FINA rule. Otherwise the NCAA would have to start up their own approval process, which is probably needlessly redundant and confusing.

stillwater
April 5th, 2009, 11:18 PM
Many division 1 sports have athletes that are more professional athlete than student. Perhaps swimming is comming into the mainstream.

It may be time to go with the flow.

Isn't the goal to increase participation, recruit fans, and bring money into sports programs?

Or is it to be a Luddite and never change.

Heck, I don't know. I don't like the suits though. They seem to take away from the original intent.