There has been a lot of discussion since Athens about foreign swimmers training in the United States. Most of them attend U.S. Universities, receive athletic scholarships, and compete at NCAA's. Some notable examples include Duje Draganja (Cal), Fred Bousquet and Kirsty Coventry (Auburn), Markus Rogan (Stanford), and the South African sprinters (Arizona). Some train in the U.S., but don't compete for a university (Inge de Bruijn). All of these athletes benefit from U.S. coaching, from training with U.S. swimmers, and in some cases, from financial support provided by U.S. entities (athletic scholarships). They all turn around and then win medals for other countries.
A couple questions: 1) What do you think about this arrangement generally? 2) Is it of benefit or detriment to U.S. swimming to have these foreign athletes training and competing here? 3) Should we be giving athletic scholarships, which are a scarce resource in swimming, to foreign athletes who will represent their own countries internationally instead of U.S.-born swimmers who will represent us internationally?
I'm sure there are other issues, but these come directly to mind.
Former Member
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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)
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.
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.
