PDA

View Full Version : Foreign swimmers training in the U.S.



Pages : 1 [2]

lefty
June 23rd, 2005, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by aquageek
Have I inadvertently backed myself into a supporter of V02Max and early blooming?

Ha, I was thinking the same thing.

Tom Ellison
June 23rd, 2005, 12:54 PM
"How can you now claim you aren't an isolationist when you have stated in big bold caps to close the border on this thread? "

Hey, let my neck off the matt here guys....I said, CLOSE THE BORDER TO ILLEGAL ALIENS.....ONES THAT ARE NOT AUTHORIZED ENTRY BY THE US GOV.

aquageek
June 23rd, 2005, 12:55 PM
Well, crap, that's what I get for trying to stir things up.

Changing topics - a training partner of mine was shaving (face) next to me this morning and was using the new Gary Hall Jr Barbasol. I ridiculed him, he punched me.

Tom Ellison
June 23rd, 2005, 12:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by aquageek
Have I inadvertently backed myself into a supporter of V02Max and early blooming?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geek....PLEASE...and I AM BEGGING HERE....tell me you are NOT lumping me into THAT.....;)

That hurts.....

aquageek
June 23rd, 2005, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
Regardless of the left...or the right....and NOTHING to do with min wage.....SHUT THE BORDERS.....and.............. I DO NOT GIVE A RATS A-- ABOUT LEFT OR RIGHT...JUST SHUT THE BORDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No idea how I assumed you preferred isolationism.

knelson
June 23rd, 2005, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
Heck, do not take my word for this....just ask any top ranked college swimmer in the USA what his or her ultimate goal is "in swimming"....and I bet dollars to donuts they tell you...TO SWIM IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES!

This is probably the ultimate goal of the swimmers, but the ultimate goal of college programs is to win NCAAs, and they're the ones offering college athletic scholarships--not USA Swimming.

Tom Ellison
June 23rd, 2005, 01:20 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
Heck, do not take my word for this....just ask any top ranked college swimmer in the USA what his or her ultimate goal is "in swimming"....and I bet dollars to donuts they tell you...TO SWIM IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geek, A few posts after I posted that, I clarified my stance to read as follows, for I had previously omitted illegal in my post.

"Connie:
You immigrated to this country legally and became a productive citizen, and in doing so actions like that are what made our country great. I am not espousing that we close our borders to everyone. "

Rob Copeland
June 23rd, 2005, 01:26 PM
Justforfun,

Sooooooooooo... was this what you were looking for when you posted your initial questions?

NOTE: Congratulations!!!!!! “Foreign swimmers training in the U.S.” has just passed “Transsexuals in the Olympics” and is now the 6th most active thread ever on this forum.

tjburk
June 23rd, 2005, 01:34 PM
You guys and girls can twist things around all you want for the sake of an argument!!! It's amazing!! But I still stand with Tom in saying...we have never...I REPEAT NEVER...anywhere suggested not letting anyone swim here that wants to!!! Please, bring them on from all over the world!!! But, let their country's Olympic Team pay for their ride!!! Not my hard earned tax dollars!!!!

tjburk
June 23rd, 2005, 01:35 PM
I would further qualify my argument to say...If they are going to stay and become a US citizen...by all means a scholarship is in order! If not, let their country pay for the training.

ehoch
June 23rd, 2005, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
"and should give that money to USA swimmers that will represent this country in the BIG SHOW!

....just ask any top ranked college swimmer in the USA what his or her ultimate goal is "in swimming"....and I bet dollars to donuts they tell you...TO SWIM IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES!

This is the part I really don't get -- why to you keep saying to give the money to US swimmers that will go on to the Olympics. The swimmers that have a shot at the Olympics will get scholarships. You can't argue with that.

There are maybe 10 new scholarships a year (each men / women) going to international swimmers -- the US "replacements" for these scholarships would never make the US Olympic team. The choice for the university is to either give a scholarship to a French Olympian going 43.0 in the 100 Free or to a US swimmer going 45.5 (and the closest he will get to the Olympics is his French teammate).

The other thing that bothers me is that US colleges would have the obligation to "promote America". Their focus is eduaction and that's what it should be. First of all -- it's not your money to spend -- it has been given to the university. They feel it is a wise investment to give a scholarship to the very best athletes in the world (not in the US -- in the world). And second -- America is by far the best country in the world in swimming -- are you still bitter about losing the 4x100 Free relay. Even though all the South-Africans winning the realy train in the US -- NONE of the dutch, who got 2nd train in the US.

Also - I think you should kick out Jonnty Skinner, Sergio Lopez, and Jon Urbancek - I don't want any foreign coaches promoting America by making American swimmers faster. In fact US swimmers coached by foreign coaches should not get scholarships -- they had an unfair advantage -- they are foreign. While we are at it -- take away the medals from Lenny -- he was not born here either -- he did promote the US by becoming a citizen, but he has an accent, so that does not promote American language.

Also -since somebody did asked -- I came here at age 19 (instead of 18) on a swimming scholarship -- because I had to complete my military service.

aquageek
June 23rd, 2005, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by tjburk
Not my hard earned tax dollars!!!!

I'll kick in my part and yours so that our athletes train with the best.

Tom Ellison
June 23rd, 2005, 01:40 PM
I feel as though I am whizing in the Ocean to raise the tide here...
I am done posting on this thread....and I believe each to his own thought....
Next!

tjburk
June 23rd, 2005, 01:48 PM
EHOCH....WHO? And I say WHO? Again.....ever said anything about the US Citizens you quoted getting kicked out of here? Besides you, for the sake of an argument that you are losing! I welcome people from everywhere on this planet to come train here!!!!! Always will!!!! I've been all over this world fighting for those rights of people to come here and live the American Dream. I welcome them with open arms! But, don't put my hard earned tax money up there to eventually support another countries Olympic team. Is that really so hard to understand? Or isthat just the difference in opinions? I think it is a difference of opinion, so please don't call me or any other American bitter because we want what's best for our country.

aquageek
June 23rd, 2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by tjburk
I think it is a difference of opinion, so please don't call me or any other American bitter because we want what's best for our country.

How is limiting competition for our student athletes the best for our country?

tjburk
June 23rd, 2005, 01:57 PM
Again, Geek....where in any of my threads did I say I wanted to limit competition in college? Where? I welcome them anytime they want to come!


I DON'T FEEL I OR YOU SHOULD PAY FOR IT!

Let them come all they want...but give those scholarships to our own...whether they have a shot at the Olympics or not is irrelevant...after all...they are there for an education right?

Matt S
June 23rd, 2005, 02:39 PM
Tracey, how exactly is your tax money involved if USC or Harvard gives a swimming scholarship to a South African? I'm assuming you pay taxes to GA (or perhaps some other State if you are active military stationed in GA). Please tell me again, how do decisions by the University of Minnesota swim team affect your tax bill?

Aquageek, you have raised another excellent point. Assume for the moment that not every U.S. swimmer with potential to get a scholarship has a realistic shot of making the Olympics. (I think that is a very solid assumption.) What is the best method for improving the U.S. scholarship swimmers who do have a realistic shot? Is it adding more U.S. citizens to the NCAAs--people who they will trounce without too much trouble? Or, is it regular competition against the best in the world? You seem to argue the latter, and I'm inclined to agree.

Finally, what is so special about being almost, but not quite, fast enough to beat out the foreign competition for a swimming scholarship? These folks were rewarded for being faster than anyone else in their swim league, period. No style points or compelling life stories were factored in. Why is it they can't live with that same rule now that they are on the other side of the cut line?

Matt

tjburk
June 23rd, 2005, 02:43 PM
Matt, as a matter of fact...I was born and raised in SoCal. I live out here on the other coast now since retiring from the U.S. Army 2 and a half years ago.

tjburk
June 23rd, 2005, 02:45 PM
Can somebody tell me a College or University that is totally self sufficient? And does not rely on Federal Funding of some sort? I am sure there is one somewhere.

aquageek
June 23rd, 2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Matt S
Aquageek, you have raised another excellent point.

I need to remedy that.

tjburk
June 23rd, 2005, 02:47 PM
And Matt...I would ask you as well....where, anywhere did I say to limit the number of foreign swimmers in the NCAAs? Where? Never did, never will! It's like talking to a wall!

aquageek
June 23rd, 2005, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by tjburk
Can somebody tell me a College or University that is totally self sufficient? And does not rely on Federal Funding of some sort? I am sure there is one somewhere.

I doubt the $.50 of your federal tax bill that ends up funding a cancer study at a public university in North Carolina will adversely hamper the US's chances of gold at the next Olympics.

tjburk
June 23rd, 2005, 02:52 PM
Geek, you kill me!!!! LOL Always the dramatist.:D

lefty
June 23rd, 2005, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by tjburk
Can somebody tell me a College or University that is totally self sufficient? And does not rely on Federal Funding of some sort? I am sure there is one somewhere.

Liberty University? Just a hunch.

gull
June 23rd, 2005, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Matt S
Tracey, how exactly is your tax money involved if USC or Harvard gives a swimming scholarship to a South African?


Actually, none of the Ivy League schools award swimming scholarships (or athletic scholarships of any kind for that matter). Besides, Harvard is a private university with a privately funded endowment.

LindsayNB
June 23rd, 2005, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by tjburk
where, anywhere did I say to limit the number of foreign swimmers in the NCAAs? Where? Never did, never will! It's like talking to a wall!

You seem to be operating on the assumption that the foreign swimmers will come whether they get scholarships or not. Outlawing scholarships for foreign swimmers will almost certainly limit the number of such swimmers going to college in the US. You seem to believe the sole purpose of scholarships is to advance the US Olympic team, other people see broader purposes.

gull
June 23rd, 2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by LindsayNB
You seem to be operating on the assumption that the foreign swimmers will come whether they get scholarships or not. Outlawing scholarships for foreign swimmers will almost certainly limit the number of such swimmers going to college in the US. You seem to believe the sole purpose of scholarships is to advance the US Olympic team, other people see broader purposes.

But ehoch posted the following:"The main reason international swimmers like going to US colleges is not the free education -- schools are basically for free in most European countries. The reason is the ability to combine school and swimming (or track and field, water polo, ....)."

TheGoodSmith
June 23rd, 2005, 04:51 PM
Like it or not athletic scholarships are primarily for advancing the sporting success of the school. They are a reward to the athlete for posessing an obvious talent, hardwork and promise of good success and potential within the sport. They are NOT a reflection of academic prowess. One would hope that the athlete would use them wisely for scholastic endeavors to help professional advancement later in life, but this is NOT the motive behind an athletic scholarship.

Don't kid yourself. The coach wants to lure talent and the ability to further his team and his own career in a given sport. This formula and pursuit does help lead to Olympic acheivements.

Handing over this money over to foreigners without citizenship is a slap in the face to American kids training hard for the financial opportunity.

Foreigners can swim on the team of their choice on their own dime.


John Smith

gull
June 23rd, 2005, 04:56 PM
But if what Lindsay says is true, namely that the foreign swimmers won't attend US colleges without a scholarship, presumably because of the cost (?), then we can assume that there are American swimmers in a similar position (who don't have the option of attending a free (?) university in Europe).

aquageek
June 23rd, 2005, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
One would hope that the athlete would use them wisely for scholastic endeavors to help professional advancement later in life, but this is NOT the motive behind an athletic scholarship.


This couldn't be further from the truth. When you consider that something like <1% of all college athletes actually go on to be professional athletes and that most college sports do not have pro leages, that leaves the only plausible explanation for why students accept scholarships to be the training for a professional career outside of their sport.

Now, if you contend there is some alterior motive behind colleges recruiting the best athletes, you may have a valid point, although I would disagree also. Most colleges, recognizing that all but 2 sports generate any revenue (and you're lucky if that's the case), realize through the admissions policy that extra curriculars make for a well rounded student and the committment to sports shows much more than just athletic ability. I am not denying that successful sports programs add prestige to a university, but the vast, vast, vast majority of college sports programs are a financial strain on a university.

And, so what if a college coach wants to further his career. Don't we all?

LindsayNB
June 23rd, 2005, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by gull80
But if what Lindsay says is true, namely that the foreign swimmers won't attend US colleges without a scholarship, presumably because of the cost (?), then we can assume that there are American swimmers in a similar position (who don't have the option of attending a free (?) university in Europe).

In a similar position except for not being Olympic caliber.

As I said early on in the thread, people who do not agree on the purpose of athletic scholarships are unlikely to ever come to agreement on who should or should not receive said scholarships. This thread is going in circles.

It's like trying to argue about the Olympics with some of the people working from the assumption that it is about personal excellence while others are working from the assumption it is about competition between nations...

ehoch
June 23rd, 2005, 06:33 PM
Here is a quote from Chuck Wielgus:

USA Swimming Executive Director Chuck Wielgus is familiar with both sides.

"From a selfish, narrow, USA Swimming-how-do-we-do-in-international-competition perspective, there's reason to be concerned," he said. "For purely selfish reasons, I would love to see 100 percent of scholarship money go to American kids. I think, though, that the most realistic approach would be to recognize the value of diversity in athletics, yet have some sort of governor on how much scholarship money could be allocated to foreign athletes.

Well - he pretty much says it all -- selfish, narrow, but would still like to see a cap.

Howard
June 23rd, 2005, 06:39 PM
What was your motivation to come to the US and why USC?

Rob Copeland
June 24th, 2005, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by ehoch
Well - he pretty much says it all -- selfish, narrow, but would still like to see a cap.

I don’t think any of us favor limiting athletic scholarships to foreign athletes (PLEASE NOTE we favor limiting scholarships not athletes) disagree that this is a narrow America first attitude. Although for most of the posters selfish is the wrong term, since not many have any personal gain from this.

Now if we want to really look at narrow and selfish, look at the foreign athlete who with all the available free education in Europe, decides for purely personal selfish reasons, to forgo this vast pool of free education to come to the US and take a precious limited resource, a swimming scholarship. Or look at the selfish coach who searches the world for the fastest swimmers to improve his placement in conference and NCAA championships, with little or no regard of how the individual will benefit the school or the school benefit the student.

And I agree with Wielgus’s comment “I think, though, that the most realistic approach would be to recognize the value of diversity in athletics, yet have some sort of governor on how much scholarship money could be allocated to foreign athletes.”

breastroker
June 25th, 2005, 11:32 AM
Several Points

Remember the days of three swimmers from each country, and sometimes the USA would go 1-2-3? We have always been the land of opportunity, where someone from the USA with potential can make good.

When the foreign invasion of atheletes started in track, the USA was strong, and it was just some college coaches wanting to look good. But now 25 years later, our track and field teams are much weaker. The talent pool seems much smaller. But is it really? Or is it just that some teams win NCAA championships every year with large numbers of non USA citizens.

Without college athletic scholarships going to americans eventually swimming will be like track.

I have coached swimmers who had just as much talent as some of the foreign swimmers who took the top college athletic scholarships. They went to colleges with smaller programs, less opportunity to succeed.

I agree with Smith
Handing over this money over to foreigners without citizenship is a slap in the face to American kids training hard for the financial opportunity

craiglll@yahoo.com
June 25th, 2005, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by breastroker
Several Points

Remember the days of three swimmers from each country, and sometimes the USA would go 1-2-3? We have always been the land of opportunity, where someone from the USA with potential can make good.

When the foreign invasion of atheletes started in track, the USA was strong, and it was just some college coaches wanting to look good. But now 25 years later, our track and field teams are much weaker. The talent pool seems much smaller. But is it really? Or is it just that some teams win NCAA championships every year with large numbers of non USA citizens.

Without college athletic scholarships going to americans eventually swimming will be like track.

I have coached swimmers who had just as much talent as some of the foreign swimmers who took the top college athletic scholarships. They went to colleges with smaller programs, less opportunity to succeed.

I agree with Smith

Kenyon College, Drury College. there are wonderful swimmign programs at many small schools. also, I thought that US runners held more world records than did all other countries combined. that was back in 2001 so it might have changed but I don't think so. what is good about less US kids having to go into sports to get to college is that they have a few other opportuinities. do you know that in the general college populationonly about 55% graduate. the number get larger with Div II & III schools. It is almost like getting married. So much failure!

Sabretooth Tiger
June 25th, 2005, 01:33 PM
I'm not sure that the decline in U.S. Track and Field is proven to be rooted in the delivery of college scholarships to foreign athletes. Indeed, is that a cause or rather, and effect? It is a complicated question. Here are some examples of alternative explanations:

1. As to long distance events, the decline of of participation in high school track and field, lack of media exposure compared to basketball, football and baseball, the road race boom, marathons, the expansion of age group road racing. See the entire study at
http://www.designingwbt.com/WPDC/examples/chap4/research/research.htm


2. The decline in overall youth fitness at
http://pe4life.com/youthsportselitism.php

3. That changing popularity of different sports. For example
http://www.decatursports.com/articles/soccer_participation.htm

These are just a few examples without any in depth study.

My point being that I'm not aware of any evidence that giving scholarships to non-citizen athletes is having any signficant impact on the quality of U.S. Olympic/International competition.

If you have the evidence, I'd love to see it . . . let's not confuse opinions and beliefs with provable facts.

carl

craiglll@yahoo.com
June 27th, 2005, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by botterud
I'm not sure that the decline in U.S. Track and Field is proven to be rooted in the delivery of college scholarships to foreign athletes. Indeed, is that a cause or rather, and effect? It is a complicated question. Here are some examples of alternative explanations:

1. As to long distance events, the decline of of participation in high school track and field, lack of media exposure compared to basketball, football and baseball, the road race boom, marathons, the expansion of age group road racing. See the entire study at
http://www.designingwbt.com/WPDC/examples/chap4/research/research.htm


2. The decline in overall youth fitness at
http://pe4life.com/youthsportselitism.php

3. That changing popularity of different sports. For example
http://www.decatursports.com/articles/soccer_participation.htm

These are just a few examples without any in depth study.

My point being that I'm not aware of any evidence that giving scholarships to non-citizen athletes is having any signficant impact on the quality of U.S. Olympic/International competition.

If you have the evidence, I'd love to see it . . . let's not confuse opinions and beliefs with provable facts.

carl

Carl,
Over the week end, I spoke with a prof who is a coach in a relatively small college & teaches PE. He gave every point you just made as to why more scholarships are going to foreingers. then I was around soem kids all under 14 yrs of age. These weren't the kids I'm usually arund who are very atheletic. None of these kids were physically fit. Almost all were what I woud term very overweight ( at least 7-10 pounds). There were six boys. No way could any of them participate in a sporting event right now. I wonder how many of them will grow up & be very obese?

Frank Thompson
December 13th, 2005, 03:23 PM
Mr Goodsmith:

I think this is where Matt wanted you to post your thoughts with the other thoughts you and everyone had a while back. I have to kinda of disagree with you and think the Men's 400 Free Relay is back under US control after a long 8 year dry spell. The fact that the USA team went 3:13.77 which was only .60 off of the World Record by South Africa will attested to that.

I agree with what Jeff Commings said and believe the USA was more focused on this relay in Montreal than they were in Athens. I remember the distractions with healthy Hall and sick Crocker and they both were not on the relay this past summer. I could not believe the South Africans didn't even field a team at the World Championships because both Roland Schoeman and Ryk Neethling were having a great year. Those other 2 guys Darian Townsend and Lyndon Ferns had great NCAA meets and if any one of these guys gets injured they don't have applicable back ups to go in the 3:13 area.

Look at the USA and the potential that we have for 2008. Led by new swimmers like recent USMS and maybe American Record holder Nick Brunelli who defeated 2 time Olympic Gold medalist Pieter van den Hoogenband in 100 Free last week at the US Open. Add Ben Wild Man Tobriner, Garrett Weber Gale, Gabriel Woodward, along with the experienced veterns like Lezak, Dusing, Walker, Phelps, Crocker, and Hall and I don't think anybody is going to touch the USA.

Also I think the USA is in control of the 800 Free Relay after only winning the relay once since 1988 at either a World Championship and Olympics and have proven to be a threat to the 7:04.66 World Record by Australia in 2001. I think they can go better than 7:06.58 that they did in 2005.

TheGoodSmith
December 14th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Frank,

I've got to disagree with your assessment of the 400 free relay as this event is a barometer of our country's depth in sprint freestylers. We have been relatively weak in the sprint freestylers the last two Olympics. Relying on our oldest sprinter (Hall in the 50 free) is not impressive and shows that we are having some difficulties turning out as many great sprinters like we used to. The fact that we failed to place a SINGLE individual in the 100m free final was an absolute embarassment to the US in Greece. Think about it ....... NO ONE from the US in the finals in the 100m free. Jim Montgomery, Matt Biondi and Rowdy Gaines were probably suffering a mild stroke when they watched that event. It's unreal to fathom even when I think back about it today.

This country needs more emphasis on short course, NCAA style pure sprint style atheticism in my opinion. Long course emphasis over the past decade or so has tapped our sprinter programs and emphasis.

I have to disagree with you on the relay situation. I don't think anything is "under control" yet for the US.


John Smith

aquageek
December 14th, 2005, 01:20 PM
Smith:

Stop the pathetic Canadianesqe whining about the demise of all things US Sporting. We are still the dominant power in the Olympics, a fact that hasn't changed EVER. You can pick and chose a race or sport here and there but overall we are still the ones to beat, even with the explosion of athletes completing in the Olympics. I mean, look at the complete and total collapse of the French and British in the Olympics the past century. Now, there are two countries who can cry about their reduced status.

If the US turned all our attention to one sport, like the Aussies do in swimming, the Chinese do in gymnastics/diving or the Canadians do in men's syncronized water ballet there'd be no complaints. But, since we excel at everything, it's ok for us not to be the best in absolutely every race every time. It'll all come around, even if we give 2 or 3 Angolan swimmers a scholarship at IUPUI from time to time.

Peter Cruise
December 14th, 2005, 02:02 PM
Ah, the geek weighs in...how did the audition for the Broadway musical adaptation of the movie Deliverance go? Did you get the part as third hillbilly? Speaking of North Carolina's contribution to sports...well, right...

aquageek
December 14th, 2005, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Peter Cruise
Speaking of North Carolina's contribution to sports...well, right...

I realize it's hard to beat Ben Johnson, Canada's finest addition to the sporting world, but here in Deliverance country (btw - Burt Reynolds went to FSU, which is in Florida) we can claim Michael Jordan, Arnold Palmer and gull80 among our elite athletes.

You keep it up and we'll send our second tier football players to your football development league. Wait, we already do that. Dang, you guys have it all up there.

Peter Cruise
December 14th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Plus, you're the proud host city for the Hillbilly Olympics....

Frank Thompson
December 14th, 2005, 04:20 PM
Mr Goodsmith:

I will admit that the USA was greased in Greece in the Mens 100 Free. I remember Jim Lampley, sports commentator for NBC pointing out that it was one of the all time lowest performances in the 100 Free because it was the first time the USA and no one in either the semi final and the final. He also stated that the present NBC color analyst for swimming, one Rowdy Gaines went a faster time (49.80) than Jason Lezek did swimming in the heats with a time of :49.87 for 21st place. Ian Crocker swam a :49.73 for a tie for 17th place and was suppose to have a swim off for the semi final but the DQ slip for George Bovell was not done correctly by FINA officials and he was reinstated to swim in the semi final knocking Ian Crocker to 17th.

This was one of the biggest suprises/flukes/upsets at the Olympics because Jason Lezak went a :48.17 at the Olympic Trials in Long Beach about 6 weeks earlier and at that time was the 2nd fastest time in history only behind Hoggie. Ian Crocker went :46.25 in the 100 Free SCM at the recent NCAA Championships to break Alexender Popov WR of :46.74. Obviously these guys did not live up to there potential and would have easily made the finals if they swam like they did previously. In fact if Jason would have done that :48.17 he would have tied for the Gold Medal. He just had a bad meet just like Brendan Hansen did. If Brandan would have gone the 2:09.04 at Long Beach instead of the 2:10.87 he did at Greece he would have won the Gold Medal regardless what Kitajimi does.

If you take this event plus the two relay losses out, the USA has not done that bad at the last 2 Olympics in sprint freestyle. Losing to Australia by .19 was considered a major upset and Australia didn't even make the final for this relay in 2004. If you take that :50.05 split away from the sick Crocker and if he would have swam to his potential the result of the relay might have been different. Also remember the slam dunk in the 50 Free with Hall/Ervin or Ervin/Hall in Sydney.

The USA has 5 swimmers in the 100 Meter Free in the current FINA World Rankings which is more than any other nation. Italy has 4 swimmers and they did not even make the final in Montreal.
I think all of the countries are real close now but I still believe that the USA has more depth than anyone in sprint free events.

TheGoodSmith
December 14th, 2005, 05:01 PM
Frank,

You are ever the optimist. I give you one place in the top eight if everything had gone better in Greece in the 100 free. You have too many "ifs" in your argument. Personally, I don't think Lezak could've taken down Hoogie even on a good day.

Yes the Hall/Ervin 50 in 2000 was sweet, but there's not been a replacement of similar caliber in 8 years. Relying on an old man like Gary is a lame excuse for American sprinters. The pipe needs to be constantly refilled and replaced. But don't worry, we'll train Freddy Biscuits nice and hard the next few years so he can continue to break 19.0 short course yard and then pound our butts in China.

Could Ian have top 8 at Greece. Hell yes.... when he's on he's god like. Two guys does not a relay make.

I still don't think the US is where they should be on the 50 and 100m free.

John Smith

White Buffalo
December 14th, 2005, 05:45 PM
Lezak has consistently proven that he cannot compete in major international competition. (His recent win in Korea proves my point) If the USA is relying on Jason in 2008, our country is in trouble unless he changes over the next two years. If you go back and look at his Olympic splits, he never was in the race as he went out slow! Truly, that strategy is so ridiculous it borders on insanity. If one wanted to "save", one would go out fast and shut it down when advancement was insured, rather than try to accelerate when everyone is blowing by you with meters to go!

Crocker was ill and has proven since the Olympics what he can do when healthy. His recent 42.6 100 yard freestyle at The Texas Invitational demonstrates his capability when healthy and unshaved unlike his relay split, which was the slowest at the Olympics. His world record last summer in the 100 meter fly leaves no doubt.

Hansen also proved himself last summer by winning 3 golds at the World Champonships.

My recollection is this thread started with foreigners training in our college system. Simply put, we trained the majority part of the South African winning 400 meter relay or Arizona. And, our sprinter outlook for 2008 looks bleak, unless Jones, Graves, Weber-Gale or someone steps up! On the men's side, at 9.9 scholarships, it is, at the least, painful to see these scholarships go to foreigners but with the sport of swimming dying in America, who can blame a Mark Shubert for going out and getting Mellouli? Or, who can blame Florida for probably have 5 languages spoken in their locker room? It is my opinion that the problem at the least partially rests with USS swimming and the poor vision that it previously has implemented dating back more than a decade. The individuals who implemented a flawed vision no longer hold positions of power, but the "hang over" lingers. If grass root age group swimming can be remodeled, maybe more "athletes" will be available for the college coaches to select from. But based on the current age group structure, mom and dad shall continue to head to soccer tournaments and not marathon age group swimming meets lasting days, which leave college coaches with less talent to choose from. At least, to my knowledge, down south at the University of Texas, where there is not snow and ice like outside my window, only Americans and an occassional dual citizen are recruited, but again, if a guy can go 18.7 like Dave Marsh's Frenchman, I support Dave Marsh!

And Geek, if you have not figured it out yet, the USA is in decline just like France and England! For the past 5 centuries, the country that began a century as the world superpower NEVER ended the century as the world superpower.

aquageek
December 14th, 2005, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by White Buffalo
And Geek, if you have not figured it out yet, the USA is in decline just like France and England!

I was referring to sports, not geo politics. And, we are not declining in sports.

Tom Ellison
December 14th, 2005, 06:18 PM
Just an FYI for everyone....Deliverance was filmed in GA.....and GA is ANYTHING but hillbilly.....and for that matter....NC has some great Univ's like Duke, Wake Forest, NC, NC State to name a few......

Matt S
December 14th, 2005, 06:53 PM
You guys are on fire, and I mean that as a compliment. Your comments on freestyle sprinters and the 400 FR, the way you break down recent results and look at trends... This is what the discussion forums were meant to be.

So, what do you think of the medley relays? The U.S. men have never lost, but we were all worried in 1996. To what to you attribute our crushing dominance in the stroke sprints? It seems to me this tests the breadth rather than the depth of a nation's swim program. What's your take?

Matt

Paul Smith
December 15th, 2005, 11:34 AM
Geek,
Not sure I agree, either we are declining or the rest of the world is catching up.......which isn't hard to do when you consider how many of their athletes we are training!

One thing for sure......if we are declinging we can take the Qatur route and start buying off some athletes that could help us out: Ferns, Schoeman, Hoogie...........

Sam Perry
December 15th, 2005, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Paul Smith
One thing for sure......if we are declinging we can take the Qatur route and start buying off some athletes that could help us out: Ferns, Schoeman, Hoogie...........

Isn't that how this whole thing started? In essence wouldn't y'all agree that is what many of our college programs are doing today?

A scholarship and the opportunity to train and compete here is in essence "buying off some athletes that could help us out" (us being the respective college program) which is to the detriment to the US swimming development. 9.9 scholarships is a ludicrous number in itself. If college coaches want to use that miniscule number on foreign athletes just to help out their programs then shame on them.

If alumni want to support a foreign contingency to "help out" their program fine, but I am firmly in the camp that we are ruining this sport and others as well by using these NCAA sanctioned scholarships to help out programs.

Kudos to programs like Texas and Stanford (as well as many minor programs) for holding themselves to a higher standard. I am sure they would have had a legitimate shot at Fred Buckets, but they chose Wildeman-Tobriner and Weber-Gale. Did it cost them a potential NCAA title? Maybe, but standards are standards...

aquageek
December 15th, 2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Paul Smith
Geek,
Not sure I agree, either we are declining or the rest of the world is catching up.......which isn't hard to do when you consider how many of their athletes we are training!

One thing for sure......if we are declinging we can take the Qatur route and start buying off some athletes that could help us out: Ferns, Schoeman, Hoogie...........

You really need to provide facts on this. How many of the 10K athletes in the last Olympics did the US train? And, how does that number compare to previous years? And, what again is your opposition to US elite athletes training day in and day out with elite world atheletes? How exactly does that hurt us?

And, I assume you are excluding Lenny Krazelburg (apologies on spelling) from your whole argument, right? Tim Duncan? It's not like the US doesn't do it.

TheGoodSmith
December 15th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Geek,

There is no difference between us paying foreign athletes without citizenship rare scholarship dollars to swim in the US and other foreign athletes selling their abilities to random countries like Qatar.

It's all crap. As far as I am concerned foreigners can train in the US on their own dime all they want. Handing out money to them to induce them to come is merely insult to injury.

If I were King, the NCAA would look a lot different.


John Smith

TheGoodSmith
December 15th, 2005, 01:01 PM
Matt S.,

The medley relay for the US lately has been a function of Texas swimming. 3 out of 4 have been developed by Eddie. Might I add that Neil Walker (another Longhorn) is also a force to be reckon with for the 4th position on that relay. Eddie has always placed strong emphasis on his sprint program and had great successes in the 200 and below. I would not draw parallels with Eddie's coaching philosophies with that of US swimming and other coaches at large. He is usually a decade or more ahead in his thought process, techniques and programs.


John Smith

aquageek
December 15th, 2005, 01:21 PM
I'm sorry, I missed your facts on how many of the 10K athletes we trained at the last Olympics to support your statement.

And, what was your comment about the US using foreign born athletes to bolster our medal count? Is that ok?

I suppose also checked the facts that show the US has won about the same number of overall medals at the Olympics for the past few decades. This, despite the fact that participation in the Olympics is up 40-50% AND there are rules implemented specifically designed to thwart our dominance.

For instance, in 1952 there were 69 countries and 5K athletes and the US won 76 medals (1st overall). In 1976 there were 92 countries and 6K althetes and the US won 94 medals (3rd overall). In 2004, there were 202 countries and 11.1K athletes and the US won 103 medals (1st overall). In 1952 the US medaled in 8/11 swimming events (72%). In 2004 the US medaled in 24/32 swimming events (75%). Couldn't find data on 1976. It doesn't look like we medalled in 1896 in swimming, where 4 events were held.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Paul Smith
December 15th, 2005, 02:31 PM
A couple of points of clarification:

- Any athlete that wants to come her and train who pays their own way I have no problem with..........however I do have a problem with our subsidizing this training via college scholoraships (which are often paid for with tax dollars to the university).

- I do have a problem with the Olympics allowing athletes to compete for any country that pays them but does not require them to have citizenship..........contrary to Phil's position of wanting all sports to be about individuals vs. countries or teams. (PS: geek........as far as I know both Duncan and Lenny obtained citizenship here....!!)

- Geek......I'll check my stats but can assure you that a lot of the Kenyons dominating running events train here in the US, again I don't have any issue with that if their country is paying the way or their using their own funds.

PS: so how do you feel about the ice skating couple from the US who they just found out one is an illegal alien........?A whole nother topic there eh?!

aquageek
December 15th, 2005, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Paul Smith
PS: so how do you feel about the ice skating couple from the US who they just found out one is an illegal alien........?A whole nother topic there eh?!

It's a little disturbing that you are up to date on ice skating news. I'd expect that from Cruise, but not you.

LindsayNB
December 15th, 2005, 03:05 PM
So the basic problems are:

The USA is too poor to be able to afford to fund scholarships for people who aren't taxpayers.

University programs are placing the interests of their programs ahead of US Olympic medal counts.

Foreigners are unworthy scum.

Does that cover it? :D

Paul Smith
December 15th, 2005, 03:15 PM
Hey Lindsay......seems we've been down this path before:

- So how many colleges in Canada provide hockey scholorships to US citizens?

- See a lot of schools in Mexico paying soccer scholorships to US athletes as well......same in France.

Your welcome to come down here and train....would love to have you...but don't ask me to pay for it. I wouldn't do the same if I wanted to come to your country......and I would be considered scum by the way!!

Geek........I'm like an onion; many, many layers that may surprise you!

aquageek
December 15th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Paul Smith
I'm like an onion; many, many layers that may surprise you!

Disturbing, not surprising.

Peter Cruise
December 15th, 2005, 03:26 PM
Paul, if you are an onion (pretty damn tall one) then John is a head of garlic (locally grown and funded).

White Buffalo
December 15th, 2005, 04:02 PM
Geek, I am somewhat taken aback by your "unique" arguments and attacks on individuals. The fact is this is a swimming forum, so whether the USA medaled in table tennis, horse jumping or pistol shooting, in my opinion, is beyond the scope of discussion.
More importantly, in 1976, the USA Men's team won EVERY swimming event except the 200 breastroke which was won by David Wilke of Great Britian who trained.....at the University of Miami. In fact, the USA swept many events, such as the 200 free, 200 fly, etc. It is unfortunate that the world made a trade off of additional events for dropping 3 participants per country afterward as a direct penalty regarding our excellence.
And, I believe our women would have been equally dominate if you throw the now known and documented cheaters, the East Germans, out and redistribute the medals. Why does track and field do this but the Olympics will not? I am sure Shirley Babashoff is still "pissed" after all these years as the cheaters deprived her of the title of probably the greatest or one of thegreatest ( Tracy Caulkins getting shut out in 80 by President Carter) female swimmer ever and 6 gold medals. I wonder what kind of "surprise swims we shall see out of the Chinese in 2008 on their home turf.

Today, one can look at the most recent Olympics in 2004 and on the men's side ascertain the following:

50 free- shut out; best 5th
100 free- shut out; best 17th
200 free- third
400 free- third
etc.

This is clearly not dominance and in my opinion not excellence regarding sprinting.The launching pad is primarily college swimming and hopefully someone can reverse the trend of dropping both men and women's teams (Tulane) and getting age group children excited about swimming rather than other sports.

As for foreigners at the NCAA level, I will leave that for others to debate, but clearly American swimming is not what it use to be, and going back to Olympics that pre date the modern butterfly, breastroke, etc. is not of any merit.

aquageek
December 15th, 2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by White Buffalo
Geek, I am somewhat taken aback by your "unique" arguments and attacks on individuals. The fact is this is a swimming forum, so whether the USA medaled in table tennis, horse jumping or pistol shooting, in my opinion, is beyond the scope of discussion.

You obviously have not realized it's important to alter the subject enough so that logical arguments as presented by a Smith are nullified.

BTW - Buffalos can't swim, why are you on this forum? It's a swim forum after all.

Frank Thompson
December 15th, 2005, 04:56 PM
White Buffalo:

I believe the USA did not get shut out at the 2004 Olympics in the 50 Free. Gary Hall Jr won the gold medal with a time of :21.93 and was the defending Olympic Champion from 2000. Gary can become the first American Man to win 3 Gold Medals in the same event at the Olympics in 2008.

Phil Arcuni
December 15th, 2005, 05:12 PM
Can any one tell me that any American 17 year old swimmers that have a chance at medaling in the Olympics can not or have not gotten scholarships to a good swimming university?

Anticipating that the answer is no, then any additional scholarships (those given after the ones to deserving American swimmers) will go to second tier non-internationally competitive swimmers. Why should my tax dollars be spent on second tier swimmers? So that some university will win more meets? I would rather give the money to the philosophy department.

I would rather that my tax dollars be spent on world class swimmers who will provide competition and training stress to the best American swimmers. That will make American swimmers better!

For that matter, I resent it when Cal gives scholarships to Texan or North Carolinean swimmers. These scholarships are paid by *my* tax dollars, not theirs!

aquageek
December 15th, 2005, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Phil Arcuni
For that matter, I resent it when Cal gives scholarships to Texan or North Carolinean swimmers. These scholarships are paid by *my* tax dollars, not theirs!

This is actually a pretty valid point. Since most universities rely on funding from state taxes, there really isn't any difference between giving a North Carolinian a scholarship to a California school versus a Lithuanian.

I hadn't contemplated this point.

White Buffalo
December 15th, 2005, 05:26 PM
Frank:
That was not an oversight; anyone who cannot come and support his teammates, in violation of the conduct code, is not a part of the team in my opinion.
WB

aquageek
December 15th, 2005, 05:45 PM
Oh no, not that silly argument again, which has been roundly lampooned time and again on this forum.

Let's give his medal to Qatar, for the right price.

TheGoodSmith
December 15th, 2005, 05:48 PM
Phil,

You must be off your rocker with a comment like that. Are you KIDDING ME !?

I'll name you dozens of tier II kids that don't start with money or start with a fraction of a scholarship their freshman year and then improve dramatically to the final heat of the NCAAs.

Here's one........... SHAWN JORDAN.... Univ. of Texas. That guy started off as a skinny little prepubescent acne faced nobody his freshman year and went on to crush the nation in the sprint freestyle events his Junior and Senior years. Eddie saw the talent in him in highschool when he was a mere 22+ 50 freestyler.

Quite frankly, you're DEAD WRONG on your tier two agrument. The best talent from abroad is NEVER worth giving money to compared to consolation heat caliber swimmers (tier II) that are home grown. Foreigners are free to come workout and swim at universities on their own dime. We should NEVER pay them over our own home grown boys. I am shocked at your response.


John Smith

Paul Smith
December 15th, 2005, 06:20 PM
As off track as Phil is, he does have a point about Texans & geeks from NC!

Hell John.......we've been trying to get you out of Colorado since you arrived!

Sam Perry
December 15th, 2005, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by White Buffalo
Frank:
That was not an oversight; anyone who cannot come and support his teammates, in violation of the conduct code, is not a part of the team in my opinion.
WB

That is the cheapest shot at an Olympic champion tht I have seen on here. I don't agree with how Gary handled himself in 2004, but to not recognize his Olympic dominance in the 50 is ridiculous.

Hall won the gold medal like it or not. It just amazes me how people on here continue to make these ridiculous remarks and are not brave enough to show their own name. At least Mr. Beza can do that.

I'd love for you to speak to Gary or his father (who are both great people personally) and explain your line of reasoning to them.

Peter Cruise
December 15th, 2005, 06:44 PM
I thought it was North Carolingians- seriously

Frank Thompson
December 15th, 2005, 07:00 PM
Sam:

I went back and read the posts on what White Buffalo said on that locked thread. In fact I believe Gary Jr. saw the thread and read the posts and made comments about what USMS swimmers were saying about him and those topics on his website. So I am not surprised at the cheap shot comment and I don't believe you can change WB feelings and opinions about Gary Jr.

Of course I don't believe that Gary Jr. and Gary Sr. believe that all in USMS think like this judging from the reception they both got at the LC Nationals in Mission Viejo.

Phil Arcuni
December 15th, 2005, 07:11 PM
Quite frankly, you're DEAD WRONG on your tier two agrument. The best talent from abroad is NEVER worth giving money to compared to consolation heat caliber swimmers (tier II) that are home grown. Foreigners are free to come workout and swim at universities on their own dime. We should NEVER pay them over our own home grown boys. I am shocked at your response.

John, as a very wise but fast swimmer once told me on this forum:

"Dude, you take this question far too seriously!"

Anyway, I doubt you can name *dozens* of un scholarship swimmers who have made the finals of the US Olympic trials. (We are talking about international caliber swimming here, not one country's competition of swimmers between the age of 19 and 22, in a course swum no where else in the world.)

Oh sure, you may find a couple of late bloomers, but it takes a good judge of talent to see a 22 second high school swimmer and let him swim (with no scholarship). Would he have had a scholarship if foreigners weren't allowed?

I think it is the difference between the generous and the miserly of spirit. I see foreign scholarship as an opportunity to help the foreign swimmers, and international swimming, and the better US swimmers, and NCAA competition. You see it as helping foreign swimmers (which is bad, I guess.)

Frankly, NCAA consolation heat swimmers whould have been better off studying more than spending 5 hours a day in the pool and weight room. I don't think full swimming scholarships help them any. Scholarships based on academics or need would be better.

gull
December 15th, 2005, 07:13 PM
C'mon, Geek. Tim Duncan was born on St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a United States territory. Anyway, Wake Forest University, his alma mater, is private, so his athletic scholarship was not paid for with state tax dollars.

gull
December 15th, 2005, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Phil Arcuni
Frankly, NCAA consolation heat swimmers would have been better off studying more than spending 5 hours a day in the pool and weight room.

I didn't even qualify for NCAAs--I probably should have studied more, too. However, I have qualified for USMS Nationals, so maybe it was worth it after all.

craiglll@yahoo.com
December 15th, 2005, 09:34 PM
There are many really good swimmers at small private schools that could very possibly get a lot better if they had the coaching provided at big schools. Meets aren't won by only getting first place finishes!

TheGoodSmith
December 16th, 2005, 10:28 AM
Sam and Phil,

We have obviously grown up on two different sides of the swimming planet.

You quote.....

"Frankly, NCAA consolation heat swimmers whould have been better off studying more than spending 5 hours a day in the pool and weight room. "

is pretty stunning if you think about it. To imply that only the top 2 or 3 in each event should seriously continue to pursue their careers in college and receive full scholarship ..... well.... it's almost amusing. We're so far apart on this topic it's not worth getting into.

As for White Buffalo...... well...... he's certainly brash. (I keep thinking I'm the most irritating personality in masters swimming but I keep getting passed) You can not deny Gary's athletecism and talent in the water..... and I don't think white buffalo has ever said that Gary wasn't gifted or impressive in the pool. His point was conduct..... more specifically....... "code of conduct". May I remind you of the incident in the 1988 Olympics when several members of the men's team were immediatly instructed to pack their bags and go home because of their "conduct" violations there. Fortunately for Gary he was not sent home after he made his violation. I don't know that I have ever heard him apologize for this violation in Greece either.... correct me if I'm wrong though. Gary is a phenom in the pool .... no doubt about it. We're talking about a man who as I remember broke 1:34 in the 200yd free early on at school..... incredibly talented and strong. However, I admit I have a hard time reconciling Gary's swimming success with what appeared to be self centered behavior and negative and distracting media attention at Greece.

Then again, the opinions of an average "John Smith" are not that relevant in the end.

Phil Arcuni
December 16th, 2005, 10:41 AM
John, I guess we are far apart, since I can not even figure out what you are talking about. I can count on two hands the people that have even come close to making a career out of swimming. That is why I suggested that swimming scholarships take away, for most people, fron the activities that would lead to a better career.

Just because you say I am shocking and stunning does not mean I am, and those kinds of adjectives are pretty extreme. By the way, I do not think that state monies should be spent to make the state teams win more meets. I do not think that is a good use of educational resources.

TheGoodSmith
December 16th, 2005, 10:47 AM
Phil,

It's "competitive" swimming......... not "open swim".

Sorry if you don't like spending money on state teams to "win more meets". I personally love the concept.

Again.... we are at complete odds.


John Smith

aquageek
December 16th, 2005, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Phil Arcuni
That is why I suggested that swimming scholarships take away, for most people, fron the activities that would lead to a better career.

I don't think this is accurate at all. Swimmers are notorious for being overachieving students. If someone can be a top swimmer, they obviously have great time management skills given the crazy practice hours. All that leads to a successful career.

I could have heard this wrong but I think that scholarship athletes have a higher grad rate than non scholarship students. So, I'm not exactly what activities scholarships take away from that lead to better careers. I suppose if I had a scholarship I would have spent less time, um, in bars, in college.

BillS
December 16th, 2005, 12:06 PM
Sam, John, et. al.:

Referring to a fine swimmer like Mr. Bousquet as "Freddie Biscuits" or "Fred Buckets" diminishes your otherwise valid arguments.

The central point of debate is whether the folks in charge of handing out swimming scholarships should limit the award of them, or at least accord preference to, US athletes. A foreign athlete has no control over the mechanics of our scholarship process. I think most of us here would argue that the US offers the finest combination of educational and sporting opportunities in the world. It is the rare foreign athlete who would turn down a full ride at a program like Auburn's. Demeaning a great athlete does not help make your point.

In a debate, always look for the high road, and avoid the cheap shot. Your argument will be more effective for it.

ande
December 16th, 2005, 12:09 PM
Obviously those swimmers are covered, but if you ask

"are there any swimmers who could score points at NCAA's who either walked on or received particial scholarships, who might have received more if their team hadn't given scholarships to foreign athletes?"

the answer has to be
YES

Each team only has 9.9 scholarships to allocate.


Ande


Originally posted by Phil Arcuni
Can any one tell me that any American 17 year old swimmers that have a chance at medaling in the Olympics can not or have not gotten scholarships to a good swimming university?

Anticipating that the answer is no, then any additional scholarships (those given after the ones to deserving American swimmers) will go to second tier non-internationally competitive swimmers. Why should my tax dollars be spent on second tier swimmers? So that some university will win more meets? I would rather give the money to the philosophy department.

I would rather that my tax dollars be spent on world class swimmers who will provide competition and training stress to the best American swimmers. That will make American swimmers better!

For that matter, I resent it when Cal gives scholarships to Texan or North Carolinean swimmers. These scholarships are paid by *my* tax dollars, not theirs!

ande
December 16th, 2005, 12:15 PM
gary's olympic dominance, it's true he won the 50 free
but only by 1/100th of a second.
I'll be surprised if he wins in 2008.

Granted Gary's one of the most talented swimmers who's ever graced our sport, but I believe he didn't swim as fast as he could have if he trained harder and more consistently and that's the shame of it.

ande


Originally posted by Sam Perry
That is the cheapest shot at an Olympic champion tht I have seen on here. I don't agree with how Gary handled himself in 2004, but to not recognize his Olympic dominance in the 50 is ridiculous.

Hall won the gold medal like it or not. It just amazes me how people on here continue to make these ridiculous remarks and are not brave enough to show their own name. At least Mr. Beza can do that.

I'd love for you to speak to Gary or his father (who are both great people personally) and explain your line of reasoning to them.

TheGoodSmith
December 16th, 2005, 12:25 PM
Bill S.,

Remember..... this forum is also part entertainment..... :-)

I can assure you we all recognize and respect his incredible accomplishment in the 50 free. Sam, Phil and I are merely throwing daggers.


John Smith

aquageek
December 16th, 2005, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by ande
Granted Gary's one of the most talented swimmers who's ever graced our sport, but I believe he didn't swim as fast as he could have if he trained harder and more consistently and that's the shame of it.

That's a little self righteous, don't you think? C'mon now, he's a gold medalist and by your own admission one of the greatest swimmers of all time. He's turned his sport into a career, advocates for diabetes, etc, etc, etc. There's no shame in anything he has done. What does he have left to prove?

Could MJ have won a seventh title if he hadn't played baseball? Yes, probably, what a shame!

TheGoodSmith
December 16th, 2005, 12:45 PM
Man I wish I had started this discussion thread. I could have EASILY won the coveted 2005 "Most Controversial Discussion" award.


John Smith

patrick
December 16th, 2005, 01:53 PM
"Gimbutis is Latest Swimmer Pursued by Qatar -- December 15, 2005
BERKELEY, California, December 16. THE wildfire that Qatar has ignited in its recruitment of top-flight athletes could be spreading following a report in the Lithuanian newspaper, The Lietuvos Rytas. According the newspaper report, Rolandas Gimbutis is on the cusp of accepting a lucrative offer to swim for Qatar, which recently acquired the services of Croatian Duje Draganja.

A two-time Olympic sprinter who trains at the University of California under the tutelage of Mike Bottom, Gimbutis has reportedly been offered $10,000 per month to represent Qatar. The 24-year-old has apparently given a verbal acceptance to the offer and could soon sign a deal. Gimbutis’ father discussed the advantages of accepting the offer in the newspaper story. "



Maybe Qatar should hire Mike Bottom as their head swim coach--they may be two Berkeley swimmers away from a relay medal.

BillS
December 16th, 2005, 01:59 PM
John, don't give up hope . . . you still have a couple weeks left in '05. Plenty o'time for a creative fellow like yourself . . . :D

Frank Thompson
December 16th, 2005, 02:49 PM
Mr. Goodsmith:

"May I remind you of the incident in the 1988 Olympics when several members of the men's team were immediatly instructed to pack their bags and go home because of their "conduct" violations there." What incident are you referring to? Honest I can't remember anything several members did that were conduct violations.

Sam Perry
December 16th, 2005, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by ande
gary's olympic dominance, it's true he won the 50 free
but only by 1/100th of a second.
I'll be surprised if he wins in 2008.

Granted Gary's one of the most talented swimmers who's ever graced our sport, but I believe he didn't swim as fast as he could have if he trained harder and more consistently and that's the shame of it.

ande

I don't care what his MARGIN of victory is gold medals are gold medals. Also, don't believe everything you read about Gary's training. I watched him and the sprint team train in 2000. Although their methods were unique to say the least, they trained to race and race only. Gary is the best RACER I have seen in my lifetime. When it matters, he is ready to go. I also know that as he has aged and dealt with Type II Diabetes, so who knows how hard he can actually train due to his illness.

Like it or not (and I don't because I don't have his talent!), he has dominated at the highest level of our sport for many years now. I don't care what "the margin of victory" was.

To state he could go faster if he trained harder is complete hyperbole.

Sam Perry
December 16th, 2005, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by BillS
Sam, John, et. al.:

Referring to a fine swimmer like Mr. Bousquet as "Freddie Biscuits" or "Fred Buckets" diminishes your otherwise valid arguments.

The central point of debate is whether the folks in charge of handing out swimming scholarships should limit the award of them, or at least accord preference to, US athletes. A foreign athlete has no control over the mechanics of our scholarship process. I think most of us here would argue that the US offers the finest combination of educational and sporting opportunities in the world. It is the rare foreign athlete who would turn down a full ride at a program like Auburn's. Demeaning a great athlete does not help make your point.

In a debate, always look for the high road, and avoid the cheap shot. Your argument will be more effective for it.

Lighten up. I didn't know how to correctly spell his name and MS doesn't have a spell check for Bousquet!

If referring to someone as a lighthearted JOKE diminishes what they have accomplished, then we all are guilty of that at sometime or other in our life. Give me a break...

Sam Perry
December 16th, 2005, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
Sam and Phil,

We have obviously grown up on two different sides of the swimming planet.

You quote.....

"Frankly, NCAA consolation heat swimmers whould have been better off studying more than spending 5 hours a day in the pool and weight room. "

is pretty stunning if you think about it. To imply that only the top 2 or 3 in each event should seriously continue to pursue their careers in college and receive full scholarship ..... well.... it's almost amusing. We're so far apart on this topic it's not worth getting into.

As for White Buffalo...... well...... he's certainly brash. (I keep thinking I'm the most irritating personality in masters swimming but I keep getting passed) You can not deny Gary's athletecism and talent in the water..... and I don't think white buffalo has ever said that Gary wasn't gifted or impressive in the pool. His point was conduct..... more specifically....... "code of conduct". May I remind you of the incident in the 1988 Olympics when several members of the men's team were immediatly instructed to pack their bags and go home because of their "conduct" violations there. Fortunately for Gary he was not sent home after he made his violation. I don't know that I have ever heard him apologize for this violation in Greece either.... correct me if I'm wrong though. Gary is a phenom in the pool .... no doubt about it. We're talking about a man who as I remember broke 1:34 in the 200yd free early on at school..... incredibly talented and strong. However, I admit I have a hard time reconciling Gary's swimming success with what appeared to be self centered behavior and negative and distracting media attention at Greece.


If you read my statement, I clearly stated I didn't agree with his actions, which I don't. To compare that to what happened in 1988 is stretching it in my opinion. They were alleged to have partaken in something illegal. Last time I looked I don't think there is a law against wearing a robe or missing a relay. Again, what he did was wrong in my opinion, but Gary is his own person. I don't think he ever apologized for his actions (what good would that do anyway), but I think if drilled deeper with him, he would admith he didn't handle the situation in the best way.

Sam Perry
December 16th, 2005, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
Sam and Phil,

We have obviously grown up on two different sides of the swimming planet.

You quote.....

"Frankly, NCAA consolation heat swimmers whould have been better off studying more than spending 5 hours a day in the pool and weight room. "

is pretty stunning if you think about it. To imply that only the top 2 or 3 in each event should seriously continue to pursue their careers in college and receive full scholarship ..... well.... it's almost amusing. We're so far apart on this topic it's not worth getting into.

As for White Buffalo...... well...... he's certainly brash. (I keep thinking I'm the most irritating personality in masters swimming but I keep getting passed) You can not deny Gary's athletecism and talent in the water..... and I don't think white buffalo has ever said that Gary wasn't gifted or impressive in the pool. His point was conduct..... more specifically....... "code of conduct". May I remind you of the incident in the 1988 Olympics when several members of the men's team were immediatly instructed to pack their bags and go home because of their "conduct" violations there. Fortunately for Gary he was not sent home after he made his violation. I don't know that I have ever heard him apologize for this violation in Greece either.... correct me if I'm wrong though. Gary is a phenom in the pool .... no doubt about it. We're talking about a man who as I remember broke 1:34 in the 200yd free early on at school..... incredibly talented and strong. However, I admit I have a hard time reconciling Gary's swimming success with what appeared to be self centered behavior and negative and distracting media attention at Greece.


If you read my statement, I clearly stated I didn't agree with his actions, which I don't. To compare that to what happened in 1988 is stretching it in my opinion. They were alleged to have partaken in something illegal. Last time I looked I don't think there is a law against wearing a robe or missing a relay. Again, what he did was wrong in my opinion, but Gary is his own person. I don't think he ever apologized for his actions (what good would that do anyway), but I think if drilled deeper with him, he would admit he didn't handle the situation in the best way.

TheGoodSmith
December 16th, 2005, 03:56 PM
Sam,

What's worse..... ?

1. Being sent home because you took a local statue or artifact after drinking.

or

2. Not showing up to watch and support your own teamates swim.

Come on Sam.... what is it you usually say....... "you're all hat and no cattle" on this issue...... a couple of young americans out drinking and making a bad decision vs. a conscious decision to not show up to support Team USA because of being mad you didn't get selected to swim the finals on the relay.


John Smith

aquageek
December 16th, 2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
a couple of young americans out drinking and making a bad decision vs. a conscious decision to not show up to support Team USA because of being mad you didn't get selected to swim the finals on the relay.

Isn't drinking too much a conscious decision?

TheGoodSmith
December 16th, 2005, 04:29 PM
They're both bad actually.


Geek... if you'd like to play then feel free to offer a credible opinion to our discussion (i.e. argument)....... otherwise, continue flapping your wings in your cage and pretend you're being noticed.


John Smith

Sam Perry
December 16th, 2005, 04:53 PM
It's about what is LEGAL and what isn't. Last time I looked at the penal code, theft of artifacts was considered illegal. Again, I don't agree with what Gary did. If you want to blame someone, blame Coach Reese for NOT sending Gary home. Don't blame Gary... (All hat no cattle is definetly a great phrase, but I have NO idea what it has to do with this.)

Sabretooth Tiger
December 16th, 2005, 04:55 PM
Both are silly . . . but if you want to step back and observe from a disinterested standpoint, I'd have to say that theft trumps failing to "show up and cheer" by a measure or two if we have to categorize items as good or bad.

I mean look at it, drinking and then stealing a local artifact. Hell, I did that when I was in college, in my fraternity, and it was a prank, but illegal nonetheless. I was not an Olympian, representing the U.S. in the premier international athletic competition on the planet. So, drinking and stealing in that context . . . muy malo.

On the other hand, wearing non conforming shorts or staying away from a competition . . . less than steller . . . breaks the rules . . . but you're not going to hear me whine, complain or bad mouth him about it.

I'd take Hall's conduct over the former any day.

my six cents

aquageek
December 16th, 2005, 05:33 PM
My opinion, since you have requested it and apparently like me in a cage, is that it's absolutely ridiculous for all you folks to be obsessed by something Hall did a few years ago. From where I swim, he's fantastic in my book and I'll overlook this in favor of the good he's doing.

I mean, we have one guy or gal named Buffalo who has disowned Hall and others who feel drunken larceny is not as bad. I've been known to drunken buffoon from time to time, on the other hand.

Paul Smith
December 16th, 2005, 05:44 PM
some thoughts/opinions:

- John & Sam, you sound like a couple of cranky old ladies and have seriously hijacked this thread; settle it in the pool, may I suggest you two go for cumulative time for the 50, 100 & 200 back in Coral Springs?!

- Bad behavior? Gary was out of line as were the two idiots in Seoul.......but neither compares to the contiuning antics we see every four years of our lovely mens track team!! Bottom line is if its not going to be enforced by the coaching staff and/or the USOC then we live with it.

- Geek....thought you we're posting from the NC pen this whole time, at least thats what Gull told us!

- Sam......come on dude, you and Killen both share the same "hat" and JS called you on it!!

TheGoodSmith
December 16th, 2005, 05:53 PM
Sam,

Would you feel the same way about this (i.e legal vs. ethical) if you were a team member in Greece or better yet a finalist on the free relay?

I doubt it.



and yes...... Geek..... there are times when I prefer you in a cage.


Paul..... backstroke is a girly stroke anyway.


John

Sam Perry
December 16th, 2005, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Paul Smith
some thoughts/opinions:

- John & Sam, you sound like a couple of cranky old ladies and have seriously hijacked this thread; settle it in the pool, may I suggest you two go for cumulative time for the 50, 100 & 200 back in Coral Springs?!

-

Not about to settle anything in the pool these days. I have gotten so d*&% slow since last years surgery, that I have even started wondering if I should start wearing fins to keep up. Shamful, but true.

JS - let's agree to disagree and not be accused of hijacking a thread, I love the debate, and look for the dialogue in good fun/discussion.

PS - as far as me and Killeen "wearing the same hat", I can assure you my head is nowhere near the size of his. (Literally and figuratively)

craiglll@yahoo.com
December 17th, 2005, 04:50 PM
I have been meaning to add this but keep forgetting. Inge dde Bruin practice at Virginai with the maem's team. She didn't attend classes but only worked out with them. She really improved and didn't take away any scholarships for the women at Virginia. While she was there, she did 10x 100 repeats four times with conversee allstar high tops & a complete warmup outfit.

Frank Thompson
December 17th, 2005, 05:50 PM
Craigll:

Are you sure of this? I heard that Inge swam for the Tualatin Hills Thunderbolt Club out of Oregon under coach Paul Bergen. In fact I recall reading on this forum that Swimmer Bill Volkening said that this story was never true about swimming with tennis shoes and that she made incredible improvements because of a unique and innovative dry land program. I never heard that she swam in Virginia.

cinc3100
December 18th, 2005, 12:56 AM
Well, Gary is a sprinter and training a lot of yardage doesn't make sense. Swimming at a faster speed with more rest makes sense for a 50 and 100 freestyler. As for foreign swimmers a lot of sports now have people compete for one country and train in another these days. Swimming isn't the only one. In fact, that why we now are seeing some North Arfician swimmers doing good in swimming now than in the past.

cinc3100
December 18th, 2005, 01:13 AM
Well, thank about 30 years ago it was the Aussies, and the Americans and the Europeans and sometimes Japanese that medaled at the Olympics. And some good latin Americans. Now the sport is more around the world where someone can go to the olympics and worlds. And less people in the third world have to go under special categories like Eric the Eeel, that came from a wealthy Afrcian family and got to train in Spain and almost dropped a mintue off of his time. India qualified I think in the A standard at worlds in a relay.

Dennis Tesch
December 20th, 2005, 03:59 PM
Very difficult to follow this post.....but here are some thoughts.

I coached Division I swimming for over 10 years. In that time I had several American swimmers and a good amount of foriegn swimmer on my teams. There were many different reason why these swimmers participated on my team.

1. It was rare, maybe one of two swimmers over my entire career, that received a "full" ride scholarship. Most athletes were on partial scholarships and had to find funding from other areas (parents, grants, work, etc).

2. I would have to say in general terms that I recruited for American swimmers first. They are easier to get into school, it is more cost effective to recruit them, and there are many more American athletes to choose from. Being a midlevel division one school, I had many top level American athletes decide not to attend my school because the wanted to go to a top ten school on a lesser or no scholarship situation. "Many American athletes pass on money to train with better programs". With this in mind, I wouldn't award a scholarship to an American athlete that didn't meet my minimal guidelines for a scholarship.

3. I had foriegn athletes walk on to my program or have very little scholarship. My point being, that all foriegn athletes don't come here just to gain America training. They are here for an education. Most of the foreign athletes were better students than there America counter parts. Most of my foreign athletes went on to graduate school and paid for it themselves.

4. I also found it interesting that most of the foreign athletes could get a free education back home at their universities. They all wanted to come to America, because they got the best opportunity here, plus they got to keep swimming.

5. I find it interesting that American is one of the only counties in the world that ties it's sport with it's education programs. Sometimes I really wonder why our universities haven't gotten out of the sports business and focused on pure education. Most athletic departments lose money. I really think sports would be better off away from education and left to find a way to survive on its own. (This is a whole other subject to be discuss later).

This is a difficult topic and I understand most of the viewpoints on this forum. It will be interesting to see where this goes in the future.

Alex
December 20th, 2005, 04:52 PM
Naaa, I think it will be better to send all non-american people back home and let the indians keep the property....:D

TheGoodSmith
December 20th, 2005, 04:56 PM
Dennis Tesch,

Nice response ..... however,

1. With the limited number of available swimming sholarships most teams divide their money in fractions between swimmers. Only the best of the best usually get a full ride these days. I am not surprised that you had practically no foreign swimmers on full ride during your coaching term. None the less, I applaud this fact.

2. Recruiting for a mid level division I school is slightly different than recruiting at the top 10 division I schools. Great talent to support the top ten teams gets even more scarce and more competitive to come by. It is not surprising that coaches give up now and then and turn abroad for better swimmers... not that I personally approve of it. And Im not saying that mid level division one schools don't have an occasional finalist at "the show" or someone that is a real "player" and scores points. But you must have certainly struggled to get top notch domestic talent while you were recruiting each year. If American pass on money you offered then they obviously don't need it enough. I think this discussion starts to split into a tier I vs. a larger tier II talent pool at some point.

3. I submit to you that the foreign athletes that you say come here for mostly an education are usually not the talented ones that are competing against our 400 free relay members at the Olympics. Again, we begin to split the discussion from tier I to tier II players at NCAAs.

4. Sounds like many of your foreigners were well enough off to attend an American university on their own dime.

5. Swimming and lessor revenue sports would probably die a slow death if colleges divested themselves from athletics.


John Smith

Matt S
December 20th, 2005, 05:55 PM
Dennis,

I really appreciate your comments and perspectives. Thanks for enlightening me.

John,

So now we need special rules for "top tier" Division I schools? Just so an occasional Dutchman or Afrikanner doesn't train in the U.S. and on "our" nickle, and then wins a gold medal that "should" go to an American? Get real! This discussion has turned so abstract and disconnected from 99.999% of competitive swimming it is silly.

Matt

TheGoodSmith
December 21st, 2005, 12:46 PM
Matt S.,

Sorry you disagree.


John Smith

LindsayNB
February 2nd, 2006, 09:36 AM
Where does this money come from?

Many who are not involved on a daily basis may have the misconception that: athletic departments who offer scholarships are using state tax dollars to pay for them; or that athletic departments do not actually pay the university the cost of each scholarship and instead that the university merely waives the fee. However, both assumptions are untrue for most institutions.

From Open letter from Bill Wadley, ASCA President
http://www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/ViewNewsArticle.aspx?TabId=1&Alias=Rainbow&Lang=en&ItemId=975&mid=45

aquageek
February 2nd, 2006, 10:29 AM
I found it interesting at OSU has the largest athletic budget in the NCAA. I had always heard it was Stanford. Then again, it probably cost OSU a lot of money to bring Maurice Clarrett to that school and then subsequently bail him out of jail every weekend for a year.

Frank Thompson
February 2nd, 2006, 04:56 PM
So we have been misinformed on all these posts about who really pays the cost of foreign swimmers training in the U.S.? I didn't know that OSU had the largest athletic budget. I thought it was either Michigan or Texas. But I might be getting that confused with alumni donors that make gifts/establish endowments to the programs athletic budget.

What I find interesting is that the three schools mentioned here all have very succesful football programs with huge stadiums to help there other programs. I don't have the figure off the top my head but I remember the ridiculously inflated figure the networks paid the NCAA to televise the NCAA tournament and the Final Four. I wonder if that money is going back to the schools in any way. This is a very interesting topic about where does the money come from.

Its too bad I didn't see this last week because I saw Bill Wadley at the Michigan/OSU meet last weekend and would have asked him about it. By the way, Bill used to coach Michigan State University many years ago. Maybe Kirk Nelson, who is a frequent visitor here swam for MSU back then when Bill coached.

cinc3100
February 7th, 2006, 01:20 AM
Holland or most western european countries you can be a good swimmer whether you swim in the US or not. Take Michael Gross about 20 years ago. He never wanted to swim in the US and he was very sucessful swimming in Germany with less yardage. Now muslem countries in North Africia, where a couple of Swimmers at the olympics came from, the best thing is to locate to the US in your high school years, which many of them do now and continue in college or post college in the US.

dorothyrde
February 7th, 2006, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Frank Thompson
.

What I find interesting is that the three schools mentioned here all have very succesful football programs with huge stadiums to help there other programs. I don't have the figure off the top my head but I remember the ridiculously inflated figure the networks paid the NCAA to televise the NCAA tournament and the Final Four. I wonder if that money is going back to the schools in any way. This is a very interesting topic about where does the money come from.

.

The schools get money for just appearing in the NCAA tourney, not just the final 4. Each game they get, means more money. So should I ask Illinois to re-establish Men's swimming since they probably got a lot more money last year? :)

aquageek
February 7th, 2006, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by dorothyrde
The schools get money for just appearing in the NCAA tourney, not just the final 4. Each game they get, means more money. So should I ask Illinois to re-establish Men's swimming since they probably got a lot more money last year? :)

Not as much as my Heels got!

dorothyrde
February 7th, 2006, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by aquageek
Not as much as my Heels got!

Yep, and unfortunately both schools won't get near as much this year! But just wait, they may be back at it together in the future!

Does NC have men's swimming?

gull
February 7th, 2006, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by dorothyrde
Does NC have men's swimming?

Yes. In fact, Chip Peterson will be swimming for UNC next year.

aquageek
February 7th, 2006, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by dorothyrde
Does NC have men's swimming?

Gull80 is correct. Not only do we have swimming but the pool (Koury Natatorium) is located directly beside the Dean Dome, college basketball's greatest arena.

I'm also pleased to see Gull80 refer to us as UNC, not NC or UNC-CH.

dorothyrde
February 7th, 2006, 12:15 PM
Well you know us Northerners, can't get our initials correct. It is nice UNC still has men's swimming. Right now, the U of I women's team is scrambling for a place to practice as their pool gets shut down very soon.

MichiganHusker
February 7th, 2006, 12:52 PM
I can't speak for Basketball, but I know that the entire school's conference gets a share of the pot when that school goes to a bowl game, win or lose.

knelson
February 7th, 2006, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Frank Thompson
By the way, Bill used to coach Michigan State University many years ago. Maybe Kirk Nelson, who is a frequent visitor here swam for MSU back then when Bill coached.

Yes, Bill Wadley was the coach at Michigan State my freshman year.

Paul Smith
March 26th, 2006, 09:13 AM
After following NCAA's the last 3 days and reading the following @ swiminfo.....figured this may be a conversation worth continuning:

"ATLANTA, Georgia, March 25. THE team battle was decided, but there was still one relay to swim, and no one was conceding anything to anyone. With Auburn in lane 3 and Arizona in 4, the stage was set for a titanic 400 freestyle relay battle. It turned out to be all that...and more.

In an incredible, thrilling finish to a superb meet, Arizona nipped Auburn, 2:48.39 to 2:48.89.

Interestingly, three of the four Arizona swimmers and all four Auburn swimmers are foreigners."

One more point of interest, I heard from a friend of mine last night that one of the reasons the SEC has had such a strong presence of foreigners over the years is that the conference allows them to pay in state tuition after thier first year.....?

Peter Cruise
March 26th, 2006, 02:10 PM
Paul- I expect John to weigh in with new ammunition after this meet- that is, if he didn't explode into pieces from indignation after the relay you mentioned.

Seriously, from following this meet, event by event on the Omega site, I was flabbergasted by the sheer numbers of foreign-sounding names (I also realize that is no sure criteria of who is really American or not). As a fan I believe they contributed to the quality of the meet (Super Simon!) but I take the point that they change the very nature of the meet from what it once was.

As has been pointed out previously in this long-simmering debate (yes, I admit to trying to set off John) there are a broad range of types of scholarships & varieties of universities participating that would make the scholarship issue a quagmire, how about this: if this is a really important issue then only American citizens (or legal immigrants, I guess) could score points in the meet. That would circumvent the scholarship issue. Just a thought, any way...I'll sit back and slug back some rich Canadian brewskis and await the return of GoodSmith to the debate.

Paul Smith
March 27th, 2006, 10:26 AM
Peter,
In talking about this over the weekend with a fomer Div I coach he again brought up the huge problem of lack of boys swimmers coming up thru the age group ranks here in the US, somethng evil-goodsmith has brought up in prior threads as well.

I can see both sides of the debate over foreign swimmers and have fanned the flames from time to time here.....and will again.

Although right now USS swimming needs to completely overhaul its recruiment of young boys to our sport, as long as scholorships at colleges are given to foreign swimmers at the expense of a (possibly) less developed US talent I don't think we'll turn things around very quickly.

Personally I'd like to see the NCAA impose the same types of restrictions some Euro pro teams do on foreigners, Volleyball for example allows two "foreign" players per team.

I say allow fully funded US schools 2 full rides for foreign swimmers, more can attend if they like but would have to pay for themselves or get funding from their own governments (who ultimately benefit from a US education when returning to work in their home countries).

LindsayNB
March 27th, 2006, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Peter Cruise
how about this: if this is a really important issue then only American citizens (or legal immigrants, I guess) could score points in the meet.

So far there have been two motivations proposed for giving scholarships:
1) reward the children of taxpayers for doing well in high school swimming
2) attract the best swimmers so your team wins meets

It seems pretty clear that where scholarships are given to foreign students it is the latter motivation dominating, and if so it is clear that if foreign swimmers couldn't score points they would not be awarded scholarships, so your proposal is basically to eliminate scholarships to foreign students.

Your question goes back to whether the NCAAs should be a competition between American colleges, as they are now, or between American students. You can always calculate the results excluding foreign swimmers, but I don't think anyone would give the results very much weight.

The idea that it is a question of how to spend taxpayer money was already debunked in the article by the Ohio coach who pointed out that for the most part scholarships don't come out of taxpayer funding.

Wrt Paul's argument that men's swimming is suffering from lack of scholarships because so many are going to foreign swimmers, it seems unlikely to me that boys are deciding whether or not to pursue swimming because they expect to be edged out for scholarships by a foreign swimmer. It just doesn't sound like the kind of mindset a potential world class swimmer is going to have.

Sam Perry
March 27th, 2006, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by LindsayNB
SWrt Paul's argument that men's swimming is suffering from lack of scholarships because so many are going to foreign swimmers, it seems unlikely to me that boys are deciding whether or not to pursue swimming because they expect to be edged out for scholarships by a foreign swimmer. It just doesn't sound like the kind of mindset a potential world class swimmer is going to have.

This is an interesting thought.

Let's assume you have an 18 year old graduate who is a Junior National champion his Sr. year of high school. I would argue he is a potential world class swimmer. He gets offers from many Tier 2 schools but really thinks he could grow not going to a Tier 2 school where he is one of the top swimmers, but needs to go to a program where he will race every day those current world class swimmers. He really wants to go there, but loses his scholarship money (which he so desperately needs to afford that college) to an already world class swimmer from another country.

He goes on to that Tier 2 school and does pretty well. Not good enough to make an Olympic team but maintains his best times from High School but never really goes to that next level. It is pure speculation to imagine what he could have done at a Tier 1 school, but we know for sure he never got that chance because he lost the money he needed to another already world class athlete from a foreign country. I believe there are literally hundreds of stories like this.

It is unfortunate because as this happens, it works like a domino effect. The kid that could have gotten the Tier 2 scholarship moves down, until ultimately very talented athletes are forced out. So in contrast to your argument Lindsay, I do think it does have that effect as you go further and further down the food chain.

craiglll@yahoo.com
March 27th, 2006, 11:46 AM
I have two things to say about this.

1) My brother-in-law went to ASU. I can't even mention their swimming program to him wihtout him getting very angry. He played baseball there. He gets fund-raising letters allof the tiem about giving to the athletic program. He won't give a diem becasue they have so many foreign students on athletic scholarships inso many sports, not just swimming. He grew up in off-and-on in orphange. With out the scholarship money, he & his brothers wouldn't have been able to go to college. He especially thinks that for any school like ASU or Au to have crew is ridiculous.

2) As I've said before, the former AD at Knox College left to go baqck tyo work for the NCAA. His current job is to make sure that the foreign students coming to the US on scholarships have never been professionals in sports intheir home contries or eslwhere. This is a big issue especially involleyball, soccer and other sports that aren't big time money makers inthe US.

I really think that there should be some type of limit to thenumber of scholarships a school can give to foreigners. I think this is why smoe schools like Drury can get so many really good swimmers and gymnasts to go to a twon like Springfield, MO for college!!

LindsayNB
March 27th, 2006, 11:56 AM
Sam, if it is the case that a national champion at the high school level can't get a top level scholarship then I will readily concede there is a problem. But since there are Americans getting scholarships, if the national champions aren't getting them who is and why?


needs to go to a program where he will race every day those current world class swimmers.

Isn't there a problem if you replace the world class swimmers that he needs to race against with other not yet world class swimmers just like him?

In a sport like swimming with so many events and so much event specialization is it realistic to limit a program to, for example, two world class foreign swimmers? Does that mean all the people not swimming the events of those two swimmers are deprived of the opportunity to train with currently world class swimmers resulting in a highly specialized program?

Jeff Commings
March 27th, 2006, 12:26 PM
You guys have to understand that many of these foreign swimmers were not very good when they go to their colleges. From the way I understand it, people like Simon Burnett and a few of the Auburn kids personally wrote to the coaches to ask if they could go to school there. They weren't initially recruited. Then they get to the school and go lights out.

I've never had a problem wih foreign swimmers training in the US for free with scholarships. If anything, it steps up the game of the Americans they train with.

But if some American student has issue with foreigners swimming in college, there are lots of college teams that have very few foreigners. Michigan and Texas stand out for me. Stanford, too. Their top swimmers are all Americans.

Sam Perry
March 27th, 2006, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by LindsayNB
Sam, if it is the case that a national champion at the high school level can't get a top level scholarship then I will readily concede there is a problem. But since there are Americans getting scholarships, if the national champions aren't getting them who is and why?


I didn't say he was a National Champion that is obvious. I purposely stated he was a Junior National Champion, one step below in other words.

Sam Perry
March 27th, 2006, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Jeff Commings
You guys have to understand that many of these foreign swimmers were not very good when they go to their colleges. From the way I understand it, people like Simon Burnett and a few of the Auburn kids personally wrote to the coaches to ask if they could go to school there. They weren't initially recruited. Then they get to the school and go lights out.


This very well may be true. To my fault, I have never tracked where a guy like Burnett, half the Auburn team, 3/4 of the ASU team, etc. started and where they are today. I do have a hard time believing that a coach at one of these programs would use one of the very few scholarships they have in the first place on a foreign swimmer if they weren't already top notch.

If a foreign swimmer wants to train and compete here, I have no problem with that at all. So if they show up at the coach's doorstep and ask to swim on their own dime (or their government's money for that matter) fine.

I do think that is a little suspect, because if I were wanting to train and compete with the best here I would go to Texas, Stanford or Michigan depending on my specialty. I have a hard time believing that the best foreign athletes only want to train at Arizona, Auburn, or ASU to get better.

gull
March 27th, 2006, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by LindsayNB
The idea that it is a question of how to spend taxpayer money was already debunked in the article by the Ohio coach who pointed out that for the most part scholarships don't come out of taxpayer funding.

The fact remains they are receiving a free ride to a state university, which in turn is supported by the taxpayers. Why not award the slot to a deserving nonathlete who is a state resident? Even the largest state universities do not have unlimited enrollment.

kiwi surfer
March 27th, 2006, 01:45 PM
Admittedly I haven't read all the posts in this thread so please excuse me if this has already been answered. What is the percentage of scholarships held by foreign swimmers? It's probably fair to say too that these scholarships aren't given away because of some sense of charity. Rather I suspect it is because that particular university sees that foreign swimmer fitting into their programme/team better than anyone else they can get their hands on. I suspect it's win/win as far as the swimmer and university are concerned, not all take on the swimmer's part. Interestingly where I live, in a town of just over 100,000 people their are three professional swim coaches. One each from South Africa, The Netherlands and the USA. All part of the way things are now.

TheGoodSmith
March 27th, 2006, 01:55 PM
I've said it before...... any foreign athlete is welcome to come over to the US and train on any college team as a walk on and pay their own way. If they want great training and better depth in the programs they face on their own turf, they are more than welcome. DO NOT, however, give one dime of athletic scholarship money to foreign athletes over US talent. And we all know once the money dries up the foreign interest will do the same.

Fact is, the ICAA last weekend should've run two sets of point scores. One for the Americans and one for the foreigners. My Texas boys would've moved up considerably. Next year, my Horns are taking it back for the Collegiate Americans !

Face it, this is not the 1970s. The US doesn't own all the events at the Olympics any more. To train foreigners and let them go back and represent their own countries at the Games is a kin to aiding the enemy. Don't be stupid. The Brits, Aussies, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Italians and South Africans can keep and train their athletes using their own programs. They obviously have the talent.

Kiwi... don't be naive. The reason foreign athletes are recruited is that the coach has difficulty grabbing the guys he wants domestically and gives up and turns abroad for better talent to save his own job.

John Smith

LindsayNB
March 27th, 2006, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by gull80
The fact remains they are receiving a free ride to a state university, which in turn is supported by the taxpayers. Why not award the slot to a deserving nonathlete who is a state resident? Even the largest state universities do not have unlimited enrollment.

So you want to eliminate scholarships for out-of-state swimmers too? Actually your logic suggests doing away with out-of-state students altogether.

GoodSmith:
Why blame the coach for wanting to keep his job? Why not blame the people who would fire him if he doesn't produce a winning team? Why not blame the alumni that donate their money to boost their college's program instead donating to the Olympic program?

TheGoodSmith
March 27th, 2006, 05:00 PM
Linsay,

Why not blame the audience members who support recruitment and financial aid to foreign swimmers instead.


John Smith

gull
March 27th, 2006, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by LindsayNB
So you want to eliminate scholarships for out-of-state swimmers too? Actually your logic suggests doing away with out-of-state students altogether.

Why do you suppose state universities limit the number of out of state students (and charge them higher tuition)? Could it be because they have a responsibility to the taxpayers of the state?

Interestingly, eight of the fourteen players on the LSU basketball team are from Louisiana.

Paul Smith
March 29th, 2006, 03:46 PM
Why does the SEC allow foreign athletes to be charged "in state" tuittion their second year? Hmmm, maybe a reason Auburn , FL, etc. all have so many on their teams!

laineybug
March 29th, 2006, 04:00 PM
To qualify for in state tutiion at one of Georgia's public colleges all you have to do is be a resident of the state for one year.

Lainey, GO DAWGS!

laineybug
March 29th, 2006, 04:02 PM
LOL, Paul, it looks like neither one of us can type tutition correctly.

Peter Cruise
March 29th, 2006, 04:31 PM
perhaps American universities need spelling scholarships...

aquageek
March 29th, 2006, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Paul Smith
Why does the SEC allow foreign athletes to be charged "in state" tuittion their second year? Hmmm, maybe a reason Auburn , FL, etc. all have so many on their teams!

It would be helpful if you did even a moment of research before posting stuff like this. In-state residency status is determined by state laws/statutes, not by athletic team status.

GO DAWGS!

Paul Smith
March 30th, 2006, 12:03 PM
Geek, it was well researched with two very well known coachs I know who have to go up against SEC teams and doen't like how some use thier funding in ways that other conferences can't.

To much detail to go into on this forum so I threw ot the "gist" of problem.....but you are correct in calling me out on not providing all the details.

I still stand by my original postion; let as many foreign swimmers come to the US and swim at our universities who wish to apply and are accepted.....BUT, limit the number of scholorships each college can give to them to 2.

TheGoodSmith
March 30th, 2006, 05:12 PM
Make it zero


John Smith

Steve Ruiter
March 30th, 2006, 05:44 PM
I'm lost. Is this where I pick up my Klan robe and mask?

aquageek
March 30th, 2006, 05:55 PM
It's this type of antiquated and isolationist philosophy that ultimately puts the US at a competitive disadvantage - just ask any college that is accredited or any multi national corporation that makes money. Or, conversely, ask GM and Ford how this head-in-the-sand stance is working for them.

Fortunately for the Smiths there are still many unaccredited colleges out there where they can send their kids so as to avoid the pitfalls of a quality education.

TheGoodSmith
March 30th, 2006, 06:26 PM
Foreign athletes are free to come swim on their own dime.

aquageek
March 30th, 2006, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
Foreign athletes are free to come swim on their own dime.

Yes, you may be correct, at substandard unaccredited colleges.

Sam Perry
March 30th, 2006, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Steve Ruiter
I'm lost. Is this where I pick up my Klan robe and mask?

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read on here. It just amazes me that when someone expresses an opinion about the US being somewhat disadvantaged due to foreign swimmers taking scholarships from very talented US swimmers it devolves into veiled comments that that is some sort of racist view. Give me a break!

I am done with this discussion. You know where I stand and you can agree with me or agree to disagree. Since now those of us with this view are now perceived as Klansmen, I'll just sit at home in my white sheet and burn crosses in front of all the foreign swimmers yards.

newmastersswimmer
March 31st, 2006, 11:50 AM
Hey Sam....Its your buddy newmastersswimmer (aka Bork....or dork...whichever you prefer?)....I'll come with you on the cross burning escapade....LOL!

Wassup these days?....Sounds like you've been training hard and getting back into shape!.....I'm glad to hear how well you're doing after all those back problems....Keep it up my man!

Matt S
March 31st, 2006, 02:52 PM
I express profound disinterest and ennui with the issue of scholarships for swimmers who are not U.S. citizens.

However, what's all this about SEC schools dropping the tuition they charge varsity athletes to the in-state rate at the start of their sophmore year? Can this be true, and if so, why aren't the other programs yelling bloody murder about it? Most teams have a limited number of scholarships, and to make them stretch farther they sometimes give twice as many athletes half scholarships in stead of full rides. Do the SEC schools drop their tuition for all their students to the in-state rate when they become sophmores on the argument that now they have spent a year establishing in state residency? Didn't think so. That being the case, how could this not be viewed as a 50%, 60% or whatever the difference is, scholarship? Is that NCAA street legal?

Rant du jour: Div I athletics are a sham. They can be and are often great semi-pro athletic competition. However, near as I can tell, they are disproportionately expensive, largely because the athletic dept has shouldered the burden for paying for the "education" of it athletes. Consequently, they are unstable institutions, subject to the football team needing an new second assistant bottle-washer who has to be paid a six-figure salary. Moreover, the athletes for whom the tuition bills are being paid can't take full advantage of the educational opportunity because of the demands the program makes on their time. Oh BTW, I've heard from more than one scholarship athlete that they viewed their NCAA career as a "job" rather than an joy because of said demands.

Ladies & Gentlemen, this is bull-crap! Give me Div III athletics any day of the week, where programs are less likely to be sacrificed for monetary reasons, and everyone on the team is clear as to the primary reason they are in school. (Or, if they are not clear, it is because they are idiots, rather than being beholden to "the program's" athletic aspirations.)

aquageek
March 31st, 2006, 03:25 PM
Matt:

I enjoyed your post and all its hyperbole. Well stated. The only thing you are off on is your statement about assistant coaches and their salaries. Except for the primary assistant or major position coaches, most college assistants make absolutely horrible salaries. It is well known that due to these low salaries, many head coaches will pass along some of their salaries to them.

I know of an asst basketball coach at a top 5 NCAA D 1 school who became an NBA team pro scout and increased his salary 10 fold.

And, while I agree DIII is somewhat better, don't fool yourself. They might be small but they have the same issues, just on a somewhat smaller and less visible scale.

Blue Horn
March 31st, 2006, 03:42 PM
The University of Texas used to be like that for everyone (i am not sure if it is still that way). After living (assuming you made it your residence) in Texas for a year even as a student you were eligible for in state tuition. I would assume that if they do it for atheletes the have to do it for the general student body population. Otherwise you would have some serious NCAA violations.

Hook'em
Blue

laineybug
March 31st, 2006, 04:14 PM
I know for a fact that UGA drops tutition for all of its out of state or out of country students IF they establish residency in the state the first year. However, if a student is still a dependent of his/her parents and that parent lives in another state or another country, then out of state tutition applies. The question then is, are the foreign students who are getting in state tutition legally establishing residency, or is someone just looking the other way and saying, yeah, they've lived here a year, they are a resident and entitled to in state tutition.

patrick
March 31st, 2006, 04:49 PM
France’s Laure Manaudou has been approved by the NCAA Clearinghouse to compete in the collegiate ranks

http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/11147.asp

Early odds

USC 8 to 5
Arizona 5 to 1
Auburn 10 to 1
Florida 20 to 1
ASU 30 to 1

aquageek
March 31st, 2006, 04:53 PM
OMG - the conjoined Smith twins are gonna have a coronary. This one person could eliminate hundreds of poor deserving US swimmers from attending college as swimmers in the US.

Matt S
March 31st, 2006, 05:56 PM
IF the universities are so forgiving with all their students who can meet the same criteria as their varsity athletes, I am down with this practice. (After all, one could argue that every member of the Armed Services' Academies' teams is a scholarship athlete, but no one is seriously suggesting that is a competitive disadvantage for everyone else.) However, having dealt with a couple of Big Ten universities, my impression is that they are EXTREMELY stingy with who gets the in state rate.

Div I football: maybe I got the wrong impression from this article, but back when Nebraska football was stinkin' the joint up, they let go a couple of their assistant coaches in a house-cleaning move. The thing that popped my eyes is that both of these guys (and neither one was even as high as the offensive, defensive or special teams coordinator) were earning 6 figures, and one of them was in the 300K range. Granted Nebraska football is not normal.

Div III sports: the part that in my mind makes this more stable is that (1) no one is on scholarship, which means the athletic dept. avoids a major bill the Div I schools have to cover, and (2) I am not aware of any Div III program in any sport that actually makes money and covers other expenses in the dept. The football team has student athletes and that contributes to their education, just as the swim team. More people may care about football, but I'm not seeing any monetary incentive to sacrifice the other sports for the sake of the "revenue sports." Perhaps I was simply lucky enough to go to a school with an appropriate sense of balance and sanity, but that was my experience.

Laure Manaudou? Swim for a U.S. University? Why would she want to? Sacre bleu, she is a multiple-event Olympic Champion! Are you trying to tell me room, board, and free coaching are worth giving up whatever endorsement and sponsorship deals she could cut in her own country? And whatever performance bonuses the French Olympic movement doles out for outstanding swims? And World Cup purses? And if all of that exceeds her expectations she gets to keep every penny of the filthy corporate lucre. Plus, she won the 400; she's got some distance swimming capacity. The Aussies would love her in their pro open water swimming circuit. And, inquiring minds would like to know why she isn't even looking at the preeminent college distance program, the Univ. of Michigan. Who the heck is advising her?

Paul Smith
March 31st, 2006, 06:49 PM
Geek....if she comes it will be one less and thats one to many.

Sam, well stated......I can put up with Geek because John & I know where he lives and are going to pay a visit after nationals, but Steve's comments we're really bizarre.

aquageek
March 31st, 2006, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Paul Smith
Geek....if she comes it will be one less and thats one to many.


OK, so let's assume you are corect. The scholarship she will take is for a US swimmer that is not on the elite level, probably the last person offered the scholarship, right? But, what you fail, again, to realize is that every single US swimmer on her college team will now train next to an Olympian every single day. This ultimately MAY drive them to perform better, possibly at the Olympic level, which only benefits US swimming.

Oh, and btw, I've been taking a kick-boxing class lately so when you and the other Smith come to flog me, beware of my new-found sucker punch!

Paul Smith
March 31st, 2006, 09:01 PM
Geek, so lets take your argument from another viewpoint. Lets say that talented US swimmer who would have gotten the scholorship doesn't get her shot at swimming for this program and never maximizes her potential?

As for training next to an Olympian everyday....it may/may not have an impact....my evil twin and I can both attest to that. In fact in many cases it can be a deterant, case in point was Dara & Jenny who ultimately had to train separately going into the Olympics.

On and by the way....Gull filled us in on your "kick boxing", sorry but Tae Bo tapes don't count!!

Peter Cruise
March 31st, 2006, 10:06 PM
Geek- never mind the kick boxing; all you need is Ali's strategy against Foreman: Rope-a-Dope. Let the two sprinters flail away at you while you bob and weave 'til they fall to the ground in fast-twitch exhaustion. If you're creative with your invective, you might cause John to fall victim to a bout of apoplexy even sooner.

TheGoodSmith
April 3rd, 2006, 11:23 AM
Paul..... Geek's not coming to Coral Springs. You and I may have to take a road trip north for a surprise visit. He'll either buy us a round as a gesture of apology for all the abuse this past year, or we'll enroll him as a foreign athlete transfer to Arizona under an assumed name..... say........ "Vladimir Scholarshipsky".

aquageek
April 3rd, 2006, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
Paul..... Geek's not coming to Coral Springs. You and I may have to take a road trip north for a surprise visit. He'll either buy us a round as a gesture of apology for all the abuse this past year, or we'll enroll him as a foreign athlete transfer to Arizona under an assumed name..... say........ "Vladimir Scholarshipsky".

If you are gonna use my assumed name, please get it right. It's Francois Boudelaire.

Oh, and beers are on me, along with all the Kleenex that you twins will need as you become inconsolable about the foreign swimmers. That will probably be worse than watching a Dick Vermeil retirement news conference.

Peter Cruise
April 3rd, 2006, 05:44 PM
I would think that a GoodSmith news conference would resemble more the ones thrown by former coach Jim Mora...

aquageek
April 3rd, 2006, 06:16 PM
Mora was also known as a big cryer, in addition to his other antics. Man cryin', it's a darn shame these days.

Master.O
April 5th, 2006, 10:21 PM
communications enhance development

gull
June 13th, 2006, 09:21 AM
Phillip Whitten wrote an editorial on this subject in this month's issue of Swimming World. He noted that 5 of the 13 individual champions at the 2006 NCAAs were foreign athletes; fully 40% of the relay finalists were foreign as well. He made the point that the freshman foreign athletes are typically two or three years older than their American counterparts. Consequently, competition for swimming scholarships is not a level playing field, in his view.

craiglll@yahoo.com
June 13th, 2006, 10:10 AM
also, many foreign students have real problems wiht hte definition of "professional."

aquageek
June 13th, 2006, 10:50 AM
Oh no, here comes the whining again. Just when I thought it was safe to sell all my Kleenex stock I see wer'e gonna cry about this some more so I better hold onto that stock a while longer.

I had the opportunity to speak to an Auburn swimmer this past weekend. First, she was incredibly polite and well spoken. Second, she was an American. I asked her how many foreigners were on her team and she said 4 out of 26. I asked her if this was a problem and she laughed out loud. It's a non issue to her. Maybe she likes to train and compete against the best.

For the record, the NCAA is full of American born athletes who are both well over and under what we consider the standard college aged years (17-22 or so). It's not a foreign thing. Chris Weinke and Ed Cota are two that immediately come to mind, in addition to a football player at CU Boulder, who I can't remember.

geochuck
June 13th, 2006, 10:53 AM
I guess the USA soccer team wished they had some imports.

Blue Horn
June 13th, 2006, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by geochuck
I guess the USA soccer team wished they had some imports.
Why would they wish that?

geochuck
June 13th, 2006, 12:37 PM
They needed help yesterday.

Blue Horn
June 13th, 2006, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by geochuck
They needed help yesterday.

So why would they wish that they had imports?

gull
June 13th, 2006, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Blue Horn
So why would they wish that they had imports?

So they could win. Which is why the college coaches recruit the foreign swimmers. Or maybe it's because they just want the Americans to have the opportunity to train and compete with the best.

Matt S
June 13th, 2006, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by gull80
So they could win. Which is why the college coaches recruit the foreign swimmers. Or maybe it's because they just want the Americans to have the opportunity to train and compete with the best.

Gull,

You're on to something here, which is at the core of our disagreement about foreign scholarship athletes. Div I coaches are hired to "win." As college coaches they have to start with athletes in their late teens and early 20s who are already physically mature, or at least 95% so. We like to think about finding a diamond in the rough in a learn to swim class, or a so-so swimmer from a marginal high school program who walks on, and becomes a conference champion by his/her senior year. (And I have volunteered my time as an assistant coach to work with this very kind of athlete in a Div III program.) That almost never happens, and you can't score major points at your Championship meet that way on a consistent basis. Therefore, Div I coaches don't "win" Championships primarily through coaching. The way they "win" is by recruiting people who are already capable of finaling. The coaching part comes in by simply not messing up the talent you already have, and maybe up-grading a few of those people a place or two if you are really good.

So, why is it so scandalous that Div I coaches look to find the best swimmers, U.S. citizens or not, for their team? If they want to "win," recruiting determines their destiny. It is exactly the same thing that goes on at any level of swimming if the coach is about "winning." I don't understand why the folks who benefitted from that system their whole careers now get to cry foul when they don't like the results at the next level.

There, we've picked this bone one more time, so I'll shut up now.

Matt

gull
June 13th, 2006, 01:37 PM
I don't think you can argue that a 17 year old male swimmer has peaked in terms of athletic performance.

Matt S
June 13th, 2006, 06:43 PM
Not peaked, but you certainly know by that age whether he can score points at Div I NCAA Championships when he does reach his prime. That doesn't change my primary thesis that "winning" college swimming has more to do with recruiting than coaching, and that being the case, how can you blame a coach for seeking the best available athlete instead of the best available U.S. athlete?

Sam Perry
June 13th, 2006, 08:32 PM
Eddie Reese and Skip Kenney, enough said...

knelson
June 14th, 2006, 12:09 AM
I've probably quoted this exact rule in this thread before, but maybe it's worth repeating. From the NCAA Div I rule book:


14.2.3.2 Tennis and Swimming and Diving. Subsequent to the high-school graduation date of the student-athlete’s class (as determined by the first year of high-school enrollment or the international equivalent as specified in the NCAA Guide to International Academic Standards for Athletics Eligibility), a student-athlete shall have one year in order to be immediately eligible and retain the opportunity for four seasons of competition upon initial, full-time collegiate enrollment. Graduation from high school or secondary school shall be based on the student-athlete’s prescribed educational path in his or her country. The student also must meet all applicable NCAA, institutional and conference eligibility requirements. A student who does not enroll in a collegiate institution as a full-time student during that one-year time period shall be subject to the following:
(Adopted: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/97 for those student-athletes first entering a collegiate institution on or after 8/1/97; Revised: 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04 for competition occurring on or after 8/1/04)
(a) The student-athlete shall be charged with a season of intercollegiate tennis or swimming and diving eligibility for each calendar year subsequent to the one-year time period (i.e., the next opportunity to enroll after one calendar year has elapsed) and prior to full-time collegiate enrollment during which the student-athlete has participated in organized tennis or swimming and diving events per Bylaw 14.2.3.5.3. (Revised: 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04 for competition occurring on or after 8/1/04)
(b) Subsequent to the one-year time period, if the student-athlete has engaged in organized tennis or swimming and diving events per Bylaw 14.2.3.5.3, upon matriculation at the certifying institution, the student-athlete must fulfill an academic year in residence before being eligible to represent the institution in intercollegiate tennis or swimming and diving competition. (Revised: 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04 for competition occurring on or after 8/1/04)

These restrictions make it pretty difficult for these foreign athletes to be "two or three years older," or, at least if they are, they aren't getting four years of eligibility.

The thing that always got me is it seems like there's a perception that schools are going out and recruiting these Ivan Dragos from other countries when in fact they're just going out and recruiting kids who are just like the kids they recruit from the U.S. Last I checked the U.S. was still the dominant country in swimming, but coaches know there are plenty of talented kids in other countries who can help their team win and probably contribute just as postively to the team atmosphere as all the domestic swimmers do.

Paul Smith
October 9th, 2006, 04:29 PM
Since the Geek has been far to tame in recent postings....In hono of college season kicking in I thought I would dredge this old thread up with some updated info:

The NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse provides us with a certification process whereby the academic records of all domestic and international prospects interested in attending either an NCAA Division I or Division II institution are reviewed to determine the academic status of each prospect.

Beginning November 20, 2006, the responsibilities of the clearinghouse will expand to include the process of reviewing the amateur status of all prospects (high school/secondary school and junior college transfers) planning to enroll for the first time at an NCAA Division I or II institution fall 2007 and thereafter.

In order for a prospect to receive financial aid and/or participate at a Division I or II institution, the prospect must complete the amateurism registration process and be certified as an amateur by the clearinghouse.

Prospects will register online using the same Web site that currently is used for the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse

( www.ncaaclearinghouse.net <http://www.ncaaclearinghouse.net/> ).

Online registration is required. No hard copies of the registration form are available.

In addition to providing demographic and academic information, a prospect will be required to answer five questions about his/her athletics participation, prize money earned, expense money received and any contact they may have had with agents and/or professional teams. Depending on the responses to these questions, the prospect may be required to provide additional information.

Once a prospect answers the questions (and provides additional information if needed), this information will be reviewed and the prospect will receive a preliminary amateurism status report (certified, certified with conditions, not certified or pending). This preliminary status report will help Division I and II institutions determine if they wish to continue recruiting a prospect.

Starting April 7, 2007, all prospects enrolling in the fall 2007 that have registered and received a preliminary report will need to return to the clearinghouse Web site to update their registration form and confirm the accuracy of the information provided. After doing so, a prospect will receive final amateurism certification from the clearinghouse. Member institutions will be able to access this information via the clearinghouse Web site for the prospects listed on institutional request lists.

2007 Prospect Notification: Prospects who have registered prior to the opening of the amateurism component of the clearinghouse will be advised either by e-mail or United States mail to return to the clearinghouse Web site after the opening to complete the amateurism portion of the initial-eligibility registration process. Any assistance institutions can provide in contacting and encouraging prospects to complete the registration process will be appreciated.

Tree
October 10th, 2006, 05:55 AM
Totally agree with Aquageek on this particular issue. My country, China, used to restrict people from moving around the country freely or across different provisions or cities and rural areas(actually it is still more or less the case nowadays). As a result, the general living conditions of the whole population was very low then. Why? because the majority of the population cannot make full use of their talents to benefit the country and the people as well as themselves. Just imagine, what universities you can go, what place you can work, what social benefits and health care you can get, were determined by what place or families you were born into despite the fact that you were talented, you were working extremely hard, all of which could easily become nothing compared to the odds that your birthplace was.

But with the economic reform as well as other reforms since 1979, Chinese people, to some extend, can move around the country freely, can make their own choice freely, can compete against the so called locals in every aspects. the result is obvious. the general living condition has been significantly improved. Of course some previleges that used to be only enjoyed by city people are now gone and spread to the rural areas. But to these city people, it is a fact that they are also better off in terms of general living condition.

To me, the same principle can be applied to the swim scholarship offered to internationl swimmers. On the one hand, Americans are denied even though they pay the tax. On the other hand, international swimmers get the scholarship. But I think the benefits would outweigh the loss in the long term. Because international swimmers bring new techniques, new minds, new training methods, which clashes with the American way and improve the swim standard in general. This, in my view, is the major return of recruiting international swimmers, just like the academic field.

For the tax payer issue, let's take another approach. Let's look ahead 10 years, 20 years, or more. Your son or your friend cannot get the scholarship. But it is possible that your grandson could do it. It is also possible that your grandson's outstanding performance might benefit largely or decisively from international swimmers. If we push it to extreme, that, your grandson might become champion only under an overseas training system that does not exist in America. Which one should you choose? the one that offer the scholarship based on nationality, in which case your grandson might never have the chance to become a swimmer because the training system that suits him is denied by America just because of the nationality issue. or another one that offer scholarship based on performance. Your grandson can be trained and attain a higher level.

To me, the tax paid today will return someday in the future. It is this kind of accumulation of generations that make our world better and better. It might not reward you or your son. But it will reward your grandson.

Please forgive me if there is any inapproporiate words. English is my second language. And I live in Beijing, rarely having the chance to practise it.

Finally thanks this forum. I learn a lot of techniques.

Good day!


It's both economically and physically impossible to close the border. Communist Europe and China tried it and look at them now, moving to the free market economy. There are really about a handful of nations these days that still hang onto the belief that closed borders benefit the economy, Cuba and N. Korea are two notable examples, and fine examples they are. So, move on from that notion. And, I seriously doubt many of the illegal aliens you are so concerned about bankrupting our southern border states are taking up swimming scholarships.

gull
October 10th, 2006, 09:37 AM
Totally agree with Aquageek on this particular issue.


First, welcome to the forum. Your English is quite good. However, you should never, ever say that you "totally agree with Aquageek." People will laugh.

Coaches recruit foreign swimmers for one reason only--to win championships. And I am not convinced that my grandchildren will benefit from the taxes I am paying now. But that's the subject for an entirely different thread.

Perhaps I'll see you in Beijing in 2008--it should be quite a show.

bud
October 10th, 2006, 10:03 AM
... To me, the tax paid today will return someday in the future. It is this kind of accumulation of generations that make our world better and better. It might not reward you or your son. But it will reward your grandson....
Good point, and good attitude, but you are overlooking one fundamental point: in the USA it is all about instant gratification. This “I want mine now” philosophy has, does, and will continue to get us in a lot of trouble. And as one of the worlds largest (if not the largest) consumer nations, this methodology has a severe impact on everyone else. We’re by no means the only ones with this IWMN habit, but we have led the way and we do set the example to be followed.

Shortsightedness, overconfidence, and selfishness will most certainly spell our doom. Just look at what happened to the “invincible” Roman Empire.

I welcome you to this message board as well. It does have a lot of great info, and can at times be very entertaining. And there are no national boundaries on this forum, which I think is pretty cool too.

aquageek
October 10th, 2006, 12:23 PM
And there are no national boundaries on this forum, which I think is pretty cool too.

It remains my mission to implement a northern border limitation on this forum.

The Fortress
October 10th, 2006, 01:56 PM
Gull:

So Aquageek is worse than evil John Smith? I have a lot to learn. Aquageek, was it you who said that I could never swim "properly" without fins? If so, I forgive you. I have a thick skin under my fastskin.

Leslie

Leslie

aquageek
October 10th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Gull:

So Aquageek is worse than evil John Smith? I have a lot to learn. Aquageek, was it you who said that I could never swim "properly" without fins? If so, I forgive you. I have a thick skin under my fastskin.


All you really need to know about this forum is that gull80 believes in TI above all other swimming techniques and the Smiths have egos larger than Texas. Oh, and I'm always right, don't forget that.

The Fortress
October 10th, 2006, 03:39 PM
Aquageek:

This sounds like the pot calling the kettle black ("the Smiths have egos larger than Texas). Were you the evil villain, no doubt with healthy shoulders, that told me I could never swim "properly if I used fins in practice" I think it was you! At the risk of sparking too much controvery, what's wrong with TI (apart from its possible non-application to caffeine laden sprints by weight lifters)? Wait a minute, I hope I'm not high-jacking another thread. People will think I'm evil too.

aquageek
October 10th, 2006, 03:44 PM
I think I said you swim differently with fins.

Ask gull80 about TI, I get lost in the long posts on the subject.

Peter Cruise
October 10th, 2006, 04:04 PM
Leslie- you must terminate your exposure to the contagion known to us as the Geek, lest you be confined to a level 4 biohazard containment facility to control the outbreak of facile and irresponsible noodlings on the inernet.

aquageek
October 10th, 2006, 05:01 PM
...noodling...

Another popular USMS discussion thread topic.

Peter Cruise
October 10th, 2006, 07:12 PM
Leslie- the rest of us take precautions (hepa filter mask, rubber gloves, plenty of bleach) when sharing a forum with the Geek. The Smiths have plans to take more drastic measures. We may have to declare North Carolina an outlaw state for giving him safe haven (sorry Gull). Canada has already declared him an undesirable foreign national intent on internet pyromania.

Tree
October 11th, 2006, 03:27 AM
Thank you, Craig. But why can I not say "totally agree with Aquageek"? I really do agree with his view. :confused:

You are welcomed to Beijing anytime you like. Just let me know when you come over and I could be your tour guild. You can also show your swimming skills. But maybe not in the Olympic stadium. :laugh2:


First, welcome to the forum. Your English is quite good. However, you should never, ever say that you "totally agree with Aquageek." People will laugh.

Coaches recruit foreign swimmers for one reason only--to win championships. And I am not convinced that my grandchildren will benefit from the taxes I am paying now. But that's the subject for an entirely different thread.

Perhaps I'll see you in Beijing in 2008--it should be quite a show.

Tree
October 11th, 2006, 03:59 AM
Thanks, bud. As you said, no national bundaries here. What really matters here is swimming. Actually I just started learning how to swim. This forum are too advanced for me and I cannot find a forum for new starters. But I enjoy reading the posts here even though I do not have a clue about the techniques most of the time(partly because they are too advanced and the language is also a problem). My feeling is that, wow, can I someday master such advanced techniques? This could aspire me to practise more and harder, which I think is fun and exciting.

I do not know this IWMN philosophy. Is it really a fundamental point of USA? We also have the similar philosophy here. But it cannot be regarded as a fundamental one in any way.
Good point, and good attitude, but you are overlooking one fundamental point: in the USA it is all about instant gratification. This “I want mine now” philosophy has, does, and will continue to get us in a lot of trouble.

I welcome you to this message board as well. It does have a lot of great info, and can at times be very entertaining. And there are no national boundaries on this forum, which I think is pretty cool too.

KaizenSwimmer
October 11th, 2006, 07:37 AM
Actually I just started learning how to swim. This forum are too advanced for me and I cannot find a forum for new starters.
Tree
The discussion forum at the Total Immersion site is regularly frequented by inexperienced swimmers who have very basic questions. You can find it at http://www.totalimmersion.net/talk-back.html.

Your command of English is quite impressive given that you get little opportunity to practice.

aquageek
October 11th, 2006, 10:08 AM
OK, so twice recently, in the past week even, we've gone from talking about TI to marketing TI on this forum. To me, there's a big difference. If you want to market your product, use the private mail feature.

KaizenSwimmer
October 11th, 2006, 11:19 AM
OK, so twice recently, in the past week even, we've gone from talking about TI to marketing TI on this forum. To me, there's a big difference. If you want to market your product, use the private mail feature.

Oops. Guilty as charged. Let's see that's two "marketing plugs" out of 200+ posts. Do you suppose there's a possibility that, beyond Leiming, there might be other novice swimmers who'd be interested in a forum that is visited by many people with similar concerns?

geochuck
October 11th, 2006, 11:33 AM
Terry every post I make is probably considered - Marketing - I do sell the od item from my website, I sell my video analysis, I sell my swim lessons and am developing my own swim machine to sell similar to the endless pool. It is being built now in Mexico and I hope to sell it all over the world. But you mentioned the name I was going to use (Pool In A Box) on your site. Would I infringe by using Pool In a Box.

aquageek
October 11th, 2006, 12:24 PM
Oops. Guilty as charged. Let's see that's two "marketing plugs" out of 200+ posts. Do you suppose there's a possibility that, beyond Leiming, there might be other novice swimmers who'd be interested in a forum that is visited by many people with similar concerns?

It's two in the past week, now make it three. I think you shouldn't rely on the USMS discussion forum as part of your business plan. I'm happy to read your philosophies on swimming sans the blatant plugs for your product.

KaizenSwimmer
October 11th, 2006, 01:43 PM
Would I infringe by using Pool In a Box.

It's not a trademark, so no worries.

Uh, oh, was that a blatant marketing plug?

David E. Morrill
October 11th, 2006, 02:49 PM
Several of you have pointed out the real reasons for welcoming swimmers from other countries to you ranks & files... besides "showing off" that grand American attribute of knowing how to pick and choose the "best and the better best"... no rinky-dink swimmers have scholarships.

But one thing I do know first hand, having assisted a swimmer in obtaining a full scholarship in the U.S.A., and that is that the State Department knows the benefits of exposing the American way of life to those who will eventually go back home and implement some of it back there.

Great export program.

Saludos,
David

ps - oh, USA, thanx for making it possible for us to win those medals...!!:lolup:

TheGoodSmith
October 11th, 2006, 04:40 PM
Yes, and I suppose a similar thanks is probably required from South Africa.


John Smith

geochuck
October 11th, 2006, 04:46 PM
That must be it exposing others to the American way of life. MacDonalds and Disneyland.

thewookiee
October 11th, 2006, 04:48 PM
It remains my mission to implement a northern border limitation on this forum.

Is that a northern border limitation on canada or anyone from above the Mason-Dixon line?

Frank Thompson
October 11th, 2006, 05:18 PM
Yes, and I suppose a similar thanks is probably required from South Africa.


John Smith

A thanks for what? That recently the USA broke the World Record in the 400 Free Relay by almost a full second. And that South Africia did not even challenge the USA in the past 2 years in major international meets, especially in 2005 when they had 4 capable swimmers in Montreal that could do so. I wonder if they are going to field a team in Melbourne at Worlds in 2007? They did at the 2006 Commonwealth Games and went 2 seconds slower than the USA WR time. I don't think you can call me the optimist now because I truly believe that the 400 Free Relay is absoutely under USA control and with people like Cullen Jones now who is still improving I see no change in the future. I wonder what happen to Qater and the foreign swimmers they were trying to recruit to challenge everyone?

TheGoodSmith
October 11th, 2006, 05:54 PM
Skip.......

What country won the gold in the 400m free relay at Greece while training a majority of its members at a US college?

The 400m free was one of the last "Americas Cup" achievements for the US. We don't take losing this event lightly.

When the US wins the 400m free relay in Beijing, I will hold my beer high in the air to salute.

Until then........ battles must be won. This is not about friendly international cultural exhanges on the blocks. This race (and the medley) demonstrate the depth, power and superiority of a country's cumulative swimming program. We need to take this event back and grind them into a fine powder.

End of discussion.

John Smith

Frank Thompson
October 11th, 2006, 07:08 PM
Skip.......

What country won the gold in the 400m free relay at Greece while training a majority of its members at a US college?

The 400m free was one of the last "Americas Cup" achievements for the US. We don't take losing this event lightly.

When the US wins the 400m free relay in Beijing, I will hold my beer high in the air to salute.

Until then........ battles must be won. This is not about friendly international cultural exhanges on the blocks. This race (and the medley) demonstrate the depth, power and superiority of a country's cumulative swimming program. We need to take this event back and grind them into a fine powder.


End of discussion.

John Smith

Mr Goodsmith:

I will always admit that the USA got greased in Greece. And we can all go back and read those threads about healthy Hall and sick Crocker. I really think the USA was surprised at the last two Olympics and the key legs of those losses was the lead off swims. People seem to forget about Michael Klim swimming completely out of his mind and setting a WR of :48.18, which was the second fastest time in history up until 2002. In the individual event he went :48.74 so his margin was enough to get them over the top. I also read that Anthony Erving did not have a good turn and was off on his split just enough to make that small difference. Just think if he could have done the :48.33 which he did the next year at the 2001 Worlds in Fukuoka we might have not lost that relay. Roland Schoeman split of :48.17 put the USA in a two second hole in 2004 that was just about impossible to make up.

Now this year you have to give credit for the USA World Record effort of 3:12.46 which broke the record by .71 and beat South African time of 3:14.97 at the 2006 Commonwealth Games by 2.51 seconds. I don't know if this meets your "grind them into fine powder" but a margin like that isn't even close. And the relay had the same guys on it except Darian Townsend and he was replaced by Jonas Zandberg who was not any slower. The splits are as follows: Schoeman :48.65, Ferns :48.43, Zandberg :49.44, and Neethling :48.45. So they were not swimming that slow individually and they have there major work cut out for them if they even challenge at the 2007 Worlds. I hope they don't make the same lame excuse that they don't have enough guys to field a relay. The USA has thrown down the challenge and until these guys or anybody goes in the 3:12 range, I would favor the USA in 2008. Hopefully we won't have a collapse from the improvement being made in the last two years and have complete team unity which was lacking in 2004.