Every four years I'm struck by the goodish numbers of NCAA athletes not competing for Team USA...and then I idly wonder if this is an issue or not. A foreign NCAA athlete means our university system has funded, at least in part, the development of another country's Olympic team. But maybe it's not a big deal--maybe (say) Joseph Schooling would be just as good if he stayed in Singapore versus swimming for Texas. Or maybe not?

Being open to foreign athletes means we can occasionally flip them to Team USA, of course.

It's not an issue whatsoever. If anything, it's a credit to the NCAA. For sports not named basketball, chances are these foreign athletes will stay four years and graduate. I found it awesome that Columbia's women's soccer team has several NCAA reps and that Brazil has three.

Plenty of NCAA athletes would love to represent Team USA; there are only so many spots available. Just the way it goes. Fortunately for some there are other Olympic opportunities available

Extreme example, Nigeria's men's basketball team - I think all but one player was born in the U.S. and that everyone played college ball. One other example, Puerto Rico volleyball player Lynda Morales was born in California and played at Cal State Northridge.

You'll find other examples sprinkled around everywhere.

There's that and the fact many of them are legitimately foreigners who just happened to become educated at US institutions. There's no shame in people representing the country they were born in even if they train here. That's been going on for decades.

*Colombia

For a number of sports, particularly on the women's side, the NCAA provides the best training ground available. For UND, our women's hockey team has enrolled several Euro Olympians, as they don't have much opportunity at home, even in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany etc.

It's a tribute to our college system if foreign athletes are willing to come over here and study as well as compete. The facilities and coaching are high quality for the most part and you can earn a high quality education at the same time.

It's mutually beneficial for the Jamaican sprinters who go to Alabama, the Hungarian water polo player who attends USC, the Finnish hockey player who attends Minnesota-Duluth. They hone their skills stateside, the competition improves, and it helps spread the sport and university's reputation across the globe.

(08-15-2016 11:34 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  It's a tribute to our college system if foreign athletes are willing to come over here and study as well as compete. The facilities and coaching are high quality for the most part and you can earn a high quality education at the same time.

It's mutually beneficial for the Jamaican sprinters who go to Alabama, the Hungarian water polo player who attends USC, the Finnish hockey player who attends Minnesota-Duluth. They hone their skills stateside, the competition improves, and it helps spread the sport and university's reputation across the globe.

Right, it's mutually advantageous for the university and the athlete...what I'm wondering if it's bad for Team USA, on balance, to be helping in the training of people who could later be taking our medals and whose countries don't have our sports infrastructure.

(08-16-2016 12:53 AM)justinslot Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 11:34 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  It's a tribute to our college system if foreign athletes are willing to come over here and study as well as compete. The facilities and coaching are high quality for the most part and you can earn a high quality education at the same time.

It's mutually beneficial for the Jamaican sprinters who go to Alabama, the Hungarian water polo player who attends USC, the Finnish hockey player who attends Minnesota-Duluth. They hone their skills stateside, the competition improves, and it helps spread the sport and university's reputation across the globe.

Right, it's mutually advantageous for the university and the athlete...what I'm wondering if it's bad for Team USA, on balance, to be helping in the training of people who could later be taking our medals and whose countries don't have our sports infrastructure.

I guess you could consider it an unintended consequence of sorts, but I'll use UH's Tania Cagnotto for example. I don't see her 2 medals for Italy as taken from someone from the USA, I'm just glad she represents UH and celebrate the medals the same way I would USA medals. It's just sports, after all.

4 years of training at a university is probably a drop in the bucket for most Olympians, anyway. Most train from the time they were kids, and if they showed world class-caliber potential/promise, they would have gotten the training regardless of whether they attended American universities or not.

(08-16-2016 12:53 AM)justinslot Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 11:34 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  It's a tribute to our college system if foreign athletes are willing to come over here and study as well as compete. The facilities and coaching are high quality for the most part and you can earn a high quality education at the same time.

It's mutually beneficial for the Jamaican sprinters who go to Alabama, the Hungarian water polo player who attends USC, the Finnish hockey player who attends Minnesota-Duluth. They hone their skills stateside, the competition improves, and it helps spread the sport and university's reputation across the globe.

Right, it's mutually advantageous for the university and the athlete...what I'm wondering if it's bad for Team USA, on balance, to be helping in the training of people who could later be taking our medals and whose countries don't have our sports infrastructure.

It's good as a whole for us. Helps to encourage the growth and development of sports in other countries - Sweden women's soccer upsetting the U.S. in these Olympics is a biggie - and by the same token, there will be foreign athletes who choose to compete for Team USA.

(08-16-2016 12:53 AM)justinslot Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 11:34 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  It's a tribute to our college system if foreign athletes are willing to come over here and study as well as compete. The facilities and coaching are high quality for the most part and you can earn a high quality education at the same time.

It's mutually beneficial for the Jamaican sprinters who go to Alabama, the Hungarian water polo player who attends USC, the Finnish hockey player who attends Minnesota-Duluth. They hone their skills stateside, the competition improves, and it helps spread the sport and university's reputation across the globe.

Right, it's mutually advantageous for the university and the athlete...what I'm wondering if it's bad for Team USA, on balance, to be helping in the training of people who could later be taking our medals and whose countries don't have our sports infrastructure.

It's very good for American athletes, because competing with and against the best in your sport helps you improve your own skills and performance, thus you're more likely to perform better in international competitions.

Staying in your own cocoon and not seeking out better competition would not be the best thing for elite U.S. athletes in any sport (coughcough MLS coughcough ... but that's a topic for a different forum).

(08-16-2016 01:21 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 12:53 AM)justinslot Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 11:34 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  It's a tribute to our college system if foreign athletes are willing to come over here and study as well as compete. The facilities and coaching are high quality for the most part and you can earn a high quality education at the same time.

It's mutually beneficial for the Jamaican sprinters who go to Alabama, the Hungarian water polo player who attends USC, the Finnish hockey player who attends Minnesota-Duluth. They hone their skills stateside, the competition improves, and it helps spread the sport and university's reputation across the globe.

Right, it's mutually advantageous for the university and the athlete...what I'm wondering if it's bad for Team USA, on balance, to be helping in the training of people who could later be taking our medals and whose countries don't have our sports infrastructure.

It's very good for American athletes, because competing with and against the best in your sport helps you improve your own skills and performance, thus you're more likely to perform better in international competitions.

Staying in your own cocoon and not seeking out better competition would not be the best thing for elite U.S. athletes in any sport (coughcough MLS coughcough ... but that's a topic for a different forum).

So the argument is: letting foreign athletes take advantage of our sports infrastructure and help them to win medals for other countries is good because their presence here raises our own athlete's levels of competition and helps them win more medals? That's not a bad argument.

I am in favor of whatever system keeps us on top of the medals table.

(08-16-2016 01:12 AM)Kronke Wrote:  4 years of training at a university is probably a drop in the bucket for most Olympians, anyway. Most train from the time they were kids, and if they showed world class-caliber potential/promise, they would have gotten the training irregardless of whether they attended American universities or not.

So true, irregardless of what anyone has to say...





























[snicker]

At many universities the best athlete on the team is from overseas and if you take a look at just about any non-revenue roster at any school from NAIA to Stanford and you'll see many top-notch foreign athletes. My team at NIU had athletes from Mexico, Germany, Australia, England, Sweden and South Africa. Each of them was certainly a top team and conference performer, and close to qualifying for the NCAA championships.

Some coaches could easily complete, and may even prefer, a roster with recruited foreigners and American walk-ons to put the best team in place for the W. I used to be slightly conflicted about it because I used to lose to those foreign athletes in competition but now it's more about the institutional W vs the individual W for me.....

Akron this year had 2 foreign Olympic athletes and 1 domestic. I see no harm in cheering for your country 1st then cheering for a fellow alum 2nd.

Personally I like the feeling that I'm able to see the best in the world on my college campus. You don't hear people in England saying they should only allow Brits to play in the Premier League because allowing foreign athletes hurts their World Cup chances.

I was going to wait until after the games to post this:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/20...tes-school

"There are 1,018 incoming, current and former NCAA student-athletes set to compete in the 2016 Summer Olympics in Brazil, representing 107 countries and 223 NCAA member institutions across all three divisions. Of the 1,018 athletes competing, 168 are current student-athletes "

Mind you, the USA only sent about 500 athletes to Rio, and 20% of them didn't go to college. So the majority of NCAA athletes competed for other countries. Curiously, the vast majority of the NCAA medal winners competed for the USA, so there is probably some truth to the statement that they only play for foreign nations if they're not good enough to get on the US team.

Nearly 10% of all athletes in the Olympics competed in the NCAA.

any data on the number of foreign athletes that are non-NCAA but train in the US?

The NCAA schools who give scholarships to foreign athletes aren't doing so for altruistic reasons. They do it because they believe they (the school) will benefit from it on the field.

Frankly, it's of absolutely no interest to me whether America wins some mythical "contest" or not. The Olympics is about individual achievement, and to the extent we get caught up in medal counts, that's merely a corruption of the games.

Where does Domantas Sabonis fit in all this? Born in Portland but grew up overseas. Played four years in Spain before committing to Gonzaga. He's on the Lithuanian basketball team.

So should Sabonis be considered an American athlete or foreign?

(08-16-2016 01:44 AM)justinslot Wrote:  So the argument is: letting foreign athletes take advantage of our sports infrastructure and help them to win medals for other countries is good because their presence here raises our own athlete's levels of competition and helps them win more medals? That's not a bad argument.

I am in favor of whatever system keeps us on top of the medals table.

Is Joseph Schooling taking advantage of UT? Or is UT taking advantage of Schooling to win shitloads of NCAA titles? With Singapore confirming that Schooling will be able to go back to finish his last 2 years at UT, Texas is a heavy favorite to repeat as NCAA men's swimming champs.

USC could not stop sending out press releases last week about how awesome Katinka Hosszu was doing at the Olympics.

If people at UT and USC don't think they're being taken advantage of, I'm not sure why people unrelated to those schools should be concerned.

(08-16-2016 10:33 AM)john01992 Wrote:  any data on the number of foreign athletes that are non-NCAA but train in the US?

The men's 10,000 meter track race, Mo Farrah, trains at the Nike facility in Oregon. Sort of odd because he's from the UK and I'm sure they have great track facilities there.

That made me curious about the answer to your question too, but I've been unable to find any data.