When looking at the Arizona Wildcats’ cross country
roster, one cannot help but notice the bevy of foreign names that
appear: Mutanya, Maiyo, Cheseret, Trafeh, Mpanga. All of these
athletes were raised in Africa and, coincidently, also led Arizona
to the NCAA Western Region Championship on Nov. 12, ending
Stanford’s 10-year hold on the title.
This influx of international talent is not exclusive to Arizona,
however.
Arkansas, which is ranked No. 2 in the nation, is primarily
composed of runners from overseas as well. And at No. 1, Wisconsin
is also led by foreign runners. Recruitment of these athletes has
become a way for cross country teams around the nation to take
their programs to the next level, but at the same time, questions
have begun to arise about whether or not the search for the next
international star has left the American distance runner in the
dust.
UCLA head coach Eric Peterson knows just how hard it is to land
a top high school recruit.
“Part of it is competition,” Peterson explained.
“There aren’t that many great, outstanding distance
runners in the United States, and yet there are a lot of programs
out there vying for their talents.”
Peterson also believes that the high school system in America is
not geared toward churning out extraordinary distance runners,
placing more weight on racing rather than training.
“In America and especially in California,” Peterson
said, “if you look at the racing schedule of these high
school athletes, there’s not a lot of training going on when
you have two cross country meets in a week in a six-week period.
The emphasis is placed on competition, not training and
development.”
In comparison, foreign runners begin their training at much
younger ages and usually train and compete through club systems
rather than high schools. UCLA steeplechase runner Erik Emilsson, a
native of Sweden, began racing at the age of seven and joined a
club team at 13.
“Foreign runners seem to be more well-rounded and get more
sophisticated training,” said Emilsson, who came to UCLA
after Tulane cut its track program in 2002. “In Sweden, I
worked more on my development than I did on racing all the
time.”
With this extra guidance, international runners become more
attractive to coaches here in America. The coaches know that the
college system in the U.S. can combine a high-level education with
the athlete’s aspirations for sports as well, an option that
is many times not available overseas.
James Li, the head coach at Arizona, has built up a reputation
working with African athletes, coaching such distance running stars
as Benard Legat at Washington State, who won the bronze medal in
the 1500 meters at the 2004 Olympics, and now Robert Cheseret, who
will be one of the top contenders for the individual title at the
Nov. 21 NCAA Championships in only his junior season. With the
reputation Li has built at the international level, he has been
able to lure such athletes to his program and as a result, boasts
one of the most potent cross country lineups in the country.
“The mix of international students and our American
students works out great,” said Li, who himself was a
standout runner at the national level in China. “The
Americans work with the international runners and it really
improves everyone, not just in running, but it also has a major
impact on their lives.”
However, bringing in international athletes is not always as
simple as recruiting domestic athletes. Often, these runners are of
such a high level and must come from so far overseas that the team
must give track and field scholarships to them since cross country
does not have its own scholarships. For men’s track, only
12.6 scholarships are allotted for the entire team, which makes
giving a large amount of scholarships to cross country athletes
risky.
Though Li would not disclose how many scholarships are invested
in his star-studded group of Kenyans, both Peterson and Emilsson
believe that Li would have a hard time attracting such athletes
without offering them full rides. This problem of too few
scholarships affects both groups of runners as made evident when
one compares the performance of the cross country and the track
teams. While the Wildcats’ cross country team will be one of
the top contenders in next week’s NCAA Championship meet,
their track team has consistently been stuck in the Pac-10 basement
for years.
Peterson knows that while in the fall his focus is on his cross
country teams, he and the rest of the UCLA coaches are working
foremost on fielding a multi-dimensional track team.
“Having a good cross country team is great,”
Peterson said. “But I know that myself and the other coaches
here, our primary focus is on building a successful track and field
program.”
Despite his success, Li does hear criticism for his
specialization in building his team around foreign runners.
However, he is quick to point out that his runners do have
obstacles to overcome, just as any other distance program.
“The bottom line is that I want to find the best athletes
I can get here wherever I can,” Li said. “People that
say that we have it easy, it’s a cop-out. (The African
runners) work just as hard as anyone else and if anything, they
struggle more than Americans because they are so far from home and
they have to learn a whole different culture and
language.”
The NCAA, on the other hand, knows just how talented these
runners are, regardless of what cultural and language barriers they
must overcome, and the organization has taken action to make sure
that qualified American runners receive the attention they deserve.
At the championship level, in both track and field and cross
country, an international athlete cannot take an All-American honor
from an American athlete.
For instance, at last year’s cross country championships,
Bruin senior Jon Rankin finished in 39th place and the top 30
finishers received All-American honors. However, the NCAA gives out
an extra All-American accolade for each international runner that
finishes in the top 30. Therefore, since there were over nine
international runners ahead of Rankin, mostly in the top ten, the
NCAA removed those runners from the equation, opening the door for
Rankin to receive the NCAA’s highest honor.
The international runner still receives All-American honors,
however, and many current Bruins believe that the NCAA protecting
All-American status exclusively for Americans is fair.
“Because the NCAA has it as an “˜American’
award, I don’t see a problem with giving it to American
guys,” said junior Austin Ramos, who himself is aiming for
All-American accolades at the NCAA Championships. “I know
that if they win a race in their country, they would have a
distinction for their accomplishment, so I think that it is
fair.”
Even with the increasing trend of bringing in foreign athletes,
American runners are still the driving force behind NCAA cross
country. Last year’s men’s and women’s team
champions were both from Colorado and comprised entirely of
American runners. Other programs, such as the one at Stanford, a
cross country powerhouse, also focus their attention solely on
recruitment at home, not abroad.
“When you look at Stanford,” Peterson said,
“they have done a great job focusing on the “˜American
kid’ and they have built up a stable of good
runners.”
Overall, Ramos and other American distance runners welcome the
extra competition provided by the immigration of international
runners to the United States.
“They’re just on another level than us
genetically,” Ramos said, “but I do think it makes me
better because it makes me strive to beat people who are better
than me. I don’t want to look at only Americans. If I am
eventually going to race against them anyways, I might as well
start now.”
Peterson also believes that mixing such high-level athletes can
only help collegiate cross country.
“You really have to admire the abilities of someone like
Robert Cheseret,” Peterson said. “Seeing and competing
against someone like that who is at such an elite level really can
only push our guys harder.”