UBA境外生現象的探討-以公開男一級為例

Abstract

本研究緒論主要探討大專籃球聯賽(UBA)公開男一級中境外生的現象，聚焦於公開男一級的發展與影響。UBA自1987年成立以來，為職業籃球和國家隊輸送人才，而自105學年度開始引進境外生以來，其數量和影響力不斷提升，尤其在112學年度達到高峰，因此，本研究目的有三點:一、瞭解UBA境外生制度的緣由與背景特殊性；二、分析UBA公開男一級中，境外生現象的發展趨勢演變；三、探討UBA教練所扮演的關鍵角色行動。方法有二:一是透過文獻分析，二是以質性方法進行，主要針對境外生的文化適應、政策變革及其對比賽結構的影響進行分析。結果：一、113 學年度「單場僅一名境外生」的新規範在「競技強度」與「制度公平」之間形成拉鋸：本土球員的上場機會顯著增加，但同時削弱了比賽張力，並放大學校資源之落差；二、境外生在語言溝通、訓練文化與日常生活三方面皆面臨適應挑戰，教練因而必須同時扮演技術指導者、文化中介者與心理支持者，常透過即時翻譯、一對一輔導及職務分工協助其融入團隊。

Since its establishment in 1987, the University Basketball Association (UBA) has been Taiwan’s primary pipeline for professional clubs and national squads. Beginning with the 2016–2017 season, Division I programs began recruiting foreign student-athletes in growing numbers, a trend that peaked in 2023–2024. To clarify how this influx is reshaping collegiate basketball, the present study pursued three aims: (1) to trace the policy logic and historical context of the foreign-player rules, (2) to map the trajectory of the phenomenon in the men’s Division I, and (3) to identify the pivotal roles assumed by coaches during implementation.A mixed qualitative design combined documentary analysis with semi-structured interviews involving head-coaches and international players. Attention centred on cultural adaptation, rule changes, and their influence on competitive structure.Findings show that the 2024–2025 regulation limiting “only one foreign player on court” has created a tug-of-war between competitive intensity and institutional equity. While domestic players now enjoy markedly greater playing time, game tension has been diluted and resource gaps between well-funded and under-resourced universities have widened. Moreover, foreign student-athletes confront persistent challenges in language, training culture, and daily life. Consequently, coaches must function simultaneously as technical instructors, cultural mediators, and psychological supporters, relying on real-time translation, one-on-one mentoring, and task re-allocation to integrate these athletes into the team ethos.The study highlights the need for policies that balance performance, fairness, and educational integrity; otherwise, superficial rule adjustments may deepen structural inequalities.