PDA

View Full Version : Question about Div III player's USTA rating


beernutz
07-10-2008, 01:29 PM
On another forum, a player on the Div III Amherst College team, whose identity I don't know, claimed "I'd guess I am somewhere between a 5.5 and a 6.0."

When I questioned this, he responded, "Top education > being a D1 tennis slave.

edit: this is just looking at how USTA describes it; I was highly ranked in my section and had a national ranking, that seems to suggest a 5.5 to 6.0 ya?"

Does this rating seem reasonable?

consistency wins
07-10-2008, 03:35 PM
Not sure I understand your question here...

beernutz
07-10-2008, 07:30 PM
Not sure I understand your question here...

Based on the information provided, how likely is it that a Div III player at Amherst College who is highly ranked in his section and had a national ranking is actually between a 5.5 and 6.0 USTA rating?

WBF
07-11-2008, 02:52 AM
What is his national ranking? 6.0 seems unlikely. 5.0, weak 5.5, or 5.5 seems likely.

Why?

Here is a guy who was #1 in division 3:

http://www.itftennis.com/mens/players/activity.asp?player=100003276

Not one main draw win, and only qualified for 2 tournaments.

I would call him a 5.5 or strong 5.5 (maybe a weak 6.0? not sure how to determine this. seems less likely). I would imagine he would destroy this guy you speak of.

alb1
07-11-2008, 10:08 AM
Amherst finished 15th in D3 this past year. If he plays at the top of the team then he might be a 5.5 .

String|Guru
07-11-2008, 10:21 AM
There are a lot of players floating around DIII that are very strong players. Usually these are foreign players who come to a school where the coach is from the same country. While D III schools do not offer athletic schlorships, schools often give a lot of financial aid to foreign students to claim a "diverse" student body.

Coach Carter
07-11-2008, 07:37 PM
There are a lot of players floating around DIII that are very strong players. Usually these are foreign players who come to a school where the coach is from the same country. While D III schools do not offer athletic schlorships, schools often give a lot of financial aid to foreign students to claim a "diverse" student body.

You have to be kidding me! I am a D3 college coach...you would rarely if ever have a foreign player. While we can give American players nice academic scholarship packages (combined with governmental financial aid)...the governmental side is "out the window" for a foreigner. That coupled with the fact that the person would have to be able to provide "proof of financial ability to pay"...makes it REAL TOUGH to get foreign players in D3 unless they are loaded.

As for the insinuation that D3 players are weak ("the #1 player in D3 couldn't win opening round matches")...

National Singles Rankings
1. Mike Greenberg, Kenyon (was #36 nationally in '06)
2. Filip Marinkovic, Middlebury (top Canadian)
3. John Watts, Washington U (#59 in '06)
4. Andy Bryan, Gustavus
5. Stephen Sullivan, Bowdoin (4 star from Florida in '07)
6. Michael Goodwin, Emory (#33 in '05)
7. Michael Klimchak, TCNJ
8. Larry Wang, Claremont (#77 in '05)
9. David Maldow, Johns Hopkins (#104 in '06)
10. John Mook, Christopher Newport
11. Jared Kamel, UC Santa Cruz
12. Charlie Cutler, Washington U (#242 in '05)
13. Randy Loden, MWC
14. Spencer Feldman, Trintiy(CT) (#96 in '06)
15. Chris Fletcher, Methodist
16. John James, MWC
17. Dan Greenberg, Williams
18. Garrett Gates, Bowdoin
19. Zach Lerner, Amherst
20. Brendan Kincaid, Salisbury
21. Oliver Gaines, Trinity (TX) (#149 in '04)
22. Andrew Lee, Middlebury
23 T. John Kauss, Gustavus
23 T. Mark Boren, Emory
25. Max Ortiz, UC Santa Cruz (#320 in '04)
26. James Furr, Trinity (TX) (#242 in '04)
27. Eric Wagar, Redlands
28. Nick Lebedoff, Williams
29. Cameron Taylor, Pomona
30. John Pelton, Hope
31. Dustin Phillips, UT-Tyler (#189 in '05)
32. David Sutton, Greensboro
33. Ben Stein, Bates
34. Miguel Yunes, Carthage
35. Kortney Keith, Depauw (#92 in '04)

Okay, I took some time to help educate again...I took a rankings sample from the national top 35. Some pretty dang good players.

Here's D1 -
Rank Player School Year HomeTown
1 Somdev Devvarman U of Virginia Senior Chennai, India
2 Oleksandr Nedovyesov Oklahoma State University Sophomore Alushta
3 Travis Helgeson U of Georgia Senior Overland Park, Kan. (#9 in '04)
4 Greg Ouellette U of Florida Senior Ormond Beach, Fla. (#8 in '04)
5 Andre Begemann Pepperdine Senior Blomberg
6 Denes Lukacs Baylor University Sophomore
7 Daniel Vallverdu U of Miami (Florida) Junior Valencia, Venezuela
8 Alex Clayton Stanford University Freshman Plantation, FL
9 Robert Farah U of Southern California Sophomore Cali, Columbia
10 Lars Poerschke Baylor University Senior Buseck
11 Arnau Brugues U of Tulsa Junior Barcelona
12 Dimitar Kutrovsky U of Texas at Austin Sophomore Sofia, Bulgaria
13 Justin Kronauge Ohio State University Sophomore Dayton, Ohio (#10 in '06)
14 Bryan Koniecko Ohio State University Junior Long Island, N.Y (#7 in '05)
15 J.P. Smith U of Tennessee, Knoxville Freshman Kelso-Queensland
16 Steven Moneke Ohio State University Junior Alten-Buseck
17 Nate Schnugg U of Georgia Sophomore Meford, Ore. (#7 in '06)
18 Ivan Bjelica Mississippi State University Senior Belgrade, Serbia
19 Jean-Yves Aubone Florida State University Sophomore Miami, FL
20 Erling Tveit U of Mississippi Senior Oslo
20 Bruno Rosa Rice University Sophomore Florianopolis
22 Bassam Beidas Pepperdine Sophomore Cairo
23 Harel Srugo UCLA Senior Kibutz Gazit
24 Ryan Rowe U of Illinois Senior Moline, Ill. (#26 in '04)
25 Conor Pollock Texas A&M University Junior San Antonio, Texas (#9 in '05)

Great players yes...but what are the % of Americans...where is the opportunity?

kctennis1005
07-11-2008, 09:01 PM
coach carter, have you ever played cms? i beat there #4 player in a futures qualifier a few weeks back.

WBF
07-12-2008, 04:44 AM
As for the insinuation that D3 players are weak ("the #1 player in D3 couldn't win opening round matches")...


There are some very talented D3 players to be sure. I would not call them weak, but I would be very hesitant to call any of them (perhaps one or two every 10 years) a 6.0. Maybe my definition of a 6.0 isn't right?

Here is a ranking list from 2006. http://64.70.241.76/Div3Rankings/d3men_6_7_06.htm . Not sure how accurate it is, but I'm 100% sure Boe-Wiegaard was #1, and the other names look familiar and correct...

#1, Boe-Wiegard, lost a tight first round match at a local futures here. Looking at his history, http://www.itftennis.com/mens/players/activity.asp?player=100003276 He has never advanced past the first round of a futures, and doesn't even qualify all the time. A weak player? That would be a ridiculous assertion. He dominated my section as a junior (New England), and is obviously very talented. A 6.0 though? I have trouble calling a guy who hasn't won a single first round futures match a 6.0. And this is after he developed his game further after graduation.

Anyhow, my answer was for the guy asking what a nationally ranked guy from Amherst would be rated (NTRP). Considering there is no Amherst guy in the top 15, and the very top players probably aren't even 6.0s, I figure my answer that there is nearly no chance that this player is a 6.0 is quite reasonable.

10isDad
07-12-2008, 05:19 AM
Y'all are pretty hung up on the ratings and seem to make many assumptions about what these players rankings would be. Who really gives a crap, since US juniors generally don't have ratings in the first place.

However, in keeping with the USTA, the definition of a 6.0 includes "The 6.0 player typically has had intensive training for national tournament competition at the junior level and collegiate levels
and has obtained a sectional and/or national ranking"

It doesn't say they're competitive, just that they've had "intensive training for" national junior or collegiate level events.

35ft6
07-12-2008, 05:22 AM
Does this rating seem reasonable?It's possible. Amherst had a really good team when I was playing D-3 and I'm assuming they're just as strong or stronger now. Their top guy is probably weak 6.0 or so, and the rest of the top 3 or 4 are probably 5.5 at least.

35ft6
07-12-2008, 05:29 AM
There are some very talented D3 players to be sure. I would not call them weak, but I would be very hesitant to call any of them (perhaps one or two every 10 years) a 6.0. Maybe my definition of a 6.0 isn't right?Yeah, I think you're overestimating what it means to be 6.0. IMO. To me 6.0 is a solid open level player, and to be more specific, a solid So Cal Open level player, meaning he can win one or two, maybe even 3 rounds consistently even though he won't really win any big tournaments.

Winning a match in futures is stronger than 6.0. This kid I used to watch play was ranked in the top 15 in Boys 14 nationally, got beat 1 and 1 in the qualifying in the futures, and this kid would toy with most 5.5's.

WBF
07-12-2008, 06:45 AM
35ft6, yeah, then maybe I have a screwed up view of what a 6.0 is! I just look at this:

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/sitecore_usta/USTA/Document%20Assets/2008/02/14/doc_13_7372.pdf

6.5 = Satellite, Futures, Circuit Players (over # 400 in world)
6.0 = Div. 1 Top 75 ranked college team or player (commited to, playing, or played )

And I know for sure that the very top D3 players (as in #1-#3's, this guy is only #19 if he is the top player from Amherst) would have trouble with many unranked D1 players, let alone ranked ones! I played a guy who was formerly top 20 D3, and has been improving/training/playing futures ever since... He wasn't nearly as impressive as a D1 guy I played who wasn't ranked, but had a few wins over ranked players. The difference was night and day. Again, I'm basing this off rather limited personal experience and rough guidelines, so I would imagine there's a good chance I'm wrong.

And could a 14 year old really toy with 5.5's? Seems like at that age the experience of a 5.5 would preclude any 'toying'.

AceInYourFace
07-12-2008, 10:21 AM
I know several ex-DIII players, one DIII player cant make it through a 4.0 draw and another one that plays at the 5.0 level or better, go figure.

WBF
07-12-2008, 10:43 AM
Oh, the range for DIII is simply massive. Some schools struggle to find a team and end up recruiting non-tennis players and other people who would probably be rated a 3.5 or so. Other schools get players up to 5.5 (and perhaps 6.0 on rare occasions). Our team wasn't even ranked near the top, but we had wins over D1 schools and had a player who transfered from a top-tier D1 school. We played some local schools who would do terribly in bad high school sections.

35ft6
07-12-2008, 01:39 PM
6.5 = Satellite, Futures, Circuit Players (over # 400 in world)
6.0 = Div. 1 Top 75 ranked college team or player (commited to, playing, or played ) That sounds about right for 6.0. And a lot of guys on top 75 ranked D-1 team couldn't win a futures match in the USA.And I know for sure that the very top D3 players (as in #1-#3's, this guy is only #19 if he is the top player from Amherst) would have trouble with many unranked D1 players, let alone ranked ones!True. D-1 is way way way deeper than D-3, that's undeniable. And I know people claim that the NTRP loses all meaning above 5.0 or so, but the really good D-1 players are 6.5 to 7.0. And even among D-1 players, the number 6 for UCLA or Georgia would destroy the number 1 singles players of many many D-1 teams. D-1 tennis varies wildly, and there are definitely parts of D-1 that overlaps with D-3.I played a guy who was formerly top 20 D3, and has been improving/training/playing futures ever since... He wasn't nearly as impressive as a D1 guy I played who wasn't ranked, but had a few wins over ranked players. The difference was night and day. Again, I'm basing this off rather limited personal experience and rough guidelines, so I would imagine there's a good chance I'm wrong. You're probably right. But all I'm saying is there are 6.0's in D-1 tennis. The top guys for teams like Santa Cruz and Emory are pretty solid. Maybe not super strong 6.0's, but definitely above 5.5.And could a 14 year old really toy with 5.5's? Seems like at that age the experience of a 5.5 would preclude any 'toying'.Like I said, he was top 15 in the country nationally in boy's 14's. He would beat most 5.5's pretty badly, but then again, what I consider 5.5 you might consider 6.0.

But anyway, yeah, the top D-1 guys would smoke the top D-3 guys.

Coach Carter
07-13-2008, 09:19 AM
coach carter, have you ever played cms? i beat there #4 player in a futures qualifier a few weeks back.

no sir...haven't played Mudd Scripps...

Coach Carter
07-13-2008, 09:32 AM
Geez what an in depth, wasted topic. Listen at any level of tennis the talent level varies greatly. Go to a big, prestigious HS and the #25 player on the ladder could beat the #1 at another large, but lesser tennis talented HS 6-0, 6-0. Go to the top D1 and it's #12 could throttle the #1 at a weak D1. At the top D3, the #15 could pummel the #1 at a un-inspired D3. This could be said anywhere in the tennis world.

These ratings mean nothing...you self rate these days...THEY MEAN NOTHING. You play where the competition is...in your area!

Generalizations are pointless...and hurt those that don't know any better.

Coach Carter
07-13-2008, 09:35 AM
That said, I go to the summer ITA's and you can watch D3 players beat D1's all the time. You could also watch club players from schools like A&M beat D1 players. It's all about the player...not the rating and not even the school they go to. Tennis is about the player that works the hardest and has the best strokes (that day) winning.

10isDad
07-13-2008, 10:00 AM
Geez what an in depth, wasted topic. Listen at any level of tennis the talent level varies greatly. Go to a big, prestigious HS and the #25 player on the ladder could beat the #1 at another large, but lesser tennis talented HS 6-0, 6-0. Go to the top D1 and it's #12 could throttle the #1 at a weak D1. At the top D3, the #15 could pummel the #1 at a un-inspired D3. This could be said anywhere in the tennis world.

These ratings mean nothing...you self rate these days...THEY MEAN NOTHING. You play where the competition is...in your area!

Generalizations are pointless...and hurt those that don't know any better.

Well said, but I bet in a few posts people have all but forgotten it and are back bickering about ratings again.

I think people forget just how many DI schools there are and there isn't a ton of parity.

To give an example, at a clinic my son used to attend, there were two college kids who helped out. One played #1, the other #4 & 5 at a lesser known D1 school called Longwood. The guy who played #1 was decent but wouldn't have stood a chance against even the #6 player from the local university. In fact, there's a local community college where this kid probably would have played #2 or 3. At the time, there were a couple 15 year old juniors - my kid included -who could beat the #4/5 guy - at least in practice sets.

BTW, when he graduated from high school, the #1 guy's national ranking was 189, so all you nay-sayers indicating if you want to play D1 ball, you'd better be top 50 should pay attention. The guy playing #4/5 was ranked in the 500s and he is also playing D1 ball.

If your goal in college is to play tennis first, there will likely be a school where you can play, perhaps even D1. If you're willing to do your homework and look at some of these lesser known schools, there are programs out there. You may have to travel, you may have to play at a school that most Americans haven't even heard of, but there are programs out there.

WBF
07-13-2008, 10:52 AM
Geez what an in depth, wasted topic. Listen at any level of tennis the talent level varies greatly. Go to a big, prestigious HS and the #25 player on the ladder could beat the #1 at another large, but lesser tennis talented HS 6-0, 6-0. Go to the top D1 and it's #12 could throttle the #1 at a weak D1. At the top D3, the #15 could pummel the #1 at a un-inspired D3. This could be said anywhere in the tennis world.

These ratings mean nothing...you self rate these days...THEY MEAN NOTHING. You play where the competition is...in your area!

Generalizations are pointless...and hurt those that don't know any better.

That said, I go to the summer ITA's and you can watch D3 players beat D1's all the time. You could also watch club players from schools like A&M beat D1 players. It's all about the player...not the rating and not even the school they go to. Tennis is about the player that works the hardest and has the best strokes (that day) winning.

I agree, and I could care less about ratings. The op specifically asks about ratings though.

Working hard and having good strokes aren't the only contributing factors to a win though. I played one of my best matches in terms of strokes and effort last night, but lost due to poor tactics (instead of going for winners and forcing errors at opportune moments, I waited for him to make an unforced error during one game (the break) the second set and during third set tie-breaker).

String|Guru
07-13-2008, 02:16 PM
You have to be kidding me! I am a D3 college coach...you would rarely if ever have a foreign player. While we can give American players nice academic scholarship packages (combined with governmental financial aid)...the governmental side is "out the window" for a foreigner. That coupled with the fact that the person would have to be able to provide "proof of financial ability to pay"...makes it REAL TOUGH to get foreign players in D3 unless they are loaded.

Well I played D III and half of my team was foreign, and most of the top players at the other schools in the conference were foreign. Maybe I was just in some vacuum...

WBF
07-13-2008, 02:28 PM
Yeah, that is an odd assertion. We had two starting foreign players, and one non-starting foreign player. Obviously not as common as in D1, but far from 'rarely if ever'.

35ft6
07-13-2008, 08:31 PM
These ratings mean nothing...you self rate these days...THEY MEAN NOTHING. Even if people exaggerate, it doesn't make ratings "mean nothing." Likewise, if on dating ads, guys tend to overstate their height, it doesn't mean the notion of measuring height means nothing.

Coach Carter
07-16-2008, 04:00 PM
Even if people exaggerate, it doesn't make ratings "mean nothing." Likewise, if on dating ads, guys tend to overstate their height, it doesn't mean the notion of measuring height means nothing.

:)

true, true...I guess you are correct.

Coach Carter
07-16-2008, 04:06 PM
Well I played D III and half of my team was foreign, and most of the top players at the other schools in the conference were foreign. Maybe I was just in some vacuum...

interesting! we are in a 14 team conference...not a foreign player in the top 6 of any (men or women). in my 4 years of coaching here (big schedule...atleast 25 duals a year)...I seriously do not remember a true "foreign" player.

oh well...maybe I should simply say...at most D3 schools it would be difficult to swing it with a foreign kiddo unless they had deep pockets and were seriously seeking to play there.

GeoffB
07-25-2008, 01:34 PM
Because it's the lowest category of college program, D3 tennis has a massive range.

At the lowest level, there are colleges with undergraduate enrollments of under 2,000 students where athletics is an afterthought - and a decent high school player would be able to walk on to the team. They're still fine players, and they'd probably do well at the 4.0 level.

Then you have schools with a huge student body that are D3 mainly because they don't offer athletic scholarships. I attended UC San Diego when it was officially a D3 school (I think they've moved up to D2 now). Sure the scholarship situation is equivalent to a tiny D3 school, but they're drawing from a student body of almost 20,000, most of whom are from the extremely tennis-thick environment of California.

So obviously the range is going to be very substantial.

Of course, once colleges start offering scholarships and/or recruiting heavily, the size of the student body becomes increasingly irrelevant. Stanford, for instance, is pretty small compared to large state-supported colleges (around 6,000 undergrads, I think), but their tennis team is hand-picked and top players really want to go there, so the talent level vastly exceeds what you'd expect for a D3 school of similar size without scholarships or heavy recruiting.

Vamz
07-31-2008, 02:17 PM
Amherst has one of the best recruiting classes this year, top 10 including Div. 1. So he is definitely good enough.

But, really after 5.0, there are so few players to fill those ratings, that the rating system becomes amazingly inaccurate.

duso
07-31-2008, 05:53 PM
Come on! Do you think that only D1 has a lock on top players. How stupid are some of you? There are D3 programs that would be competitive with any D1 school. There are Junior Colleges that would scare some D1 programs. Do you think for a minute that UW Green Bay or a Valporaiso would beat a Tyler Junior College? Without hesitation TJC would beat straight up 1/2 of the Big 10 schools. Its just a fact. You must be stupid. Look at Gustavus in Minnesota, Carthage in Wisconsin, UT/Tyler in Texas. When I read this stuff, all I can think of is open your eyes! What some player who is 5 at the University of Iowa is better than the #1 at at Custavus, no way! Look at some of the #1s who played at Denison in Ohio over the past 10 years. I was a 3 player at a D1 program, I got my butt kicked twice by a player at Hamline in St Paul, MN. Its what you want out of life. Some of these small colleges they play good tennis, get a great education, and eventually go to top business, law, and medical schools and are highly successful.

ClarkC
07-31-2008, 06:29 PM
Amherst has one of the best recruiting classes this year, top 10 including Div. 1.

Amherst had their recruiting class ranked #13 among "mid-major" programs by tennisrecruiting.net. They got commitments from four 4-star ********, which is very good, but hardly top 10 including Division I : Amherst recruiting page (http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/team.asp?id=668)

ClarkC
07-31-2008, 06:30 PM
I forgot that r-e-c-r-u-i-t-s is a censored word on this board. Saw that in someone else's post. Mods might want to get someone to fix that.

WBF
07-31-2008, 07:07 PM
Come on! Do you think that only D1 has a lock on top players. How stupid are some of you? There are D3 programs that would be competitive with any D1 school. There are Junior Colleges that would scare some D1 programs. Do you think for a minute that UW Green Bay or a Valporaiso would beat a Tyler Junior College? Without hesitation TJC would beat straight up 1/2 of the Big 10 schools. Its just a fact. You must be stupid. Look at Gustavus in Minnesota, Carthage in Wisconsin, UT/Tyler in Texas. When I read this stuff, all I can think of is open your eyes! What some player who is 5 at the University of Iowa is better than the #1 at at Custavus, no way! Look at some of the #1s who played at Denison in Ohio over the past 10 years. I was a 3 player at a D1 program, I got my butt kicked twice by a player at Hamline in St Paul, MN. Its what you want out of life. Some of these small colleges they play good tennis, get a great education, and eventually go to top business, law, and medical schools and are highly successful.

Hey Duso, while I agree that there are a few individuals who might challenge players at the D1 level, but D3 is a whole different ballgame.

Heres an example. Will Boe-Wiegaard was #1 in D3 singles. He hasn't won a single main draw match in a futures level tournament. Not one.

I've had Adam Morgan, Shane Templeman, and Ari Beilin across the net from me (and watched countless others), and not one of them was as impressive as various current and former D1 players I've had the experience of playing with. Great players to be sure, but it is simply a whole different level.

zidane339
07-31-2008, 07:22 PM
Hey guys, I'm going to Carnegie Mellon University, D III. I'm at 4.0 player, do I stand a chance to get on the team?Thanks

ClarkC
08-01-2008, 04:53 PM
Hey Duso, while I agree that there are a few individuals who might challenge players at the D1 level, but D3 is a whole different ballgame.

Heres an example. Will Boe-Wiegaard was #1 in D3 singles. He hasn't won a single main draw match in a futures level tournament. Not one.

I've had Adam Morgan, Shane Templeman, and Ari Beilin across the net from me (and watched countless others), and not one of them was as impressive as various current and former D1 players I've had the experience of playing with. Great players to be sure, but it is simply a whole different level.

That's interesting, but Duso was talking about teams and you are the one talking about individuals. There are Division I programs that are so far from fully funded that they routinely have in their starting lineups players who were 1-, 2-, or 3-star ******** per tennisrecruiting.net. The Amherst class that I commented on earlier in this thread has two four-star ******** coming in next year, to a Division III school.

Go to tennisrecruiting.net and look at the Men's Teams (http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/division.asp?id=1&sessionid=12555AA41B1909BA) page. Click on the name of a conference and you can see what kind of ******** are coming into that conference for next year. Click on a weaker conference name, toss out the top 1-2 teams from that conference, and look at who committed to the other teams in that Division I conference. Then compare to say, Amherst in Division III. Who would win?

The point is that many kids get a $1000 scholarship to a really crummy team, so that they can brag to their friends, "I got a tennis scholarship to a Division I school!" A lot of the weaker Division I schools are well below many Division III schools in both tennis and academics. Yet the name "Division I" holds some mystique.

ClarkC
08-01-2008, 04:56 PM
By the way, I just contacted the webmaster about the silly censoring of the words r-e-c-r-u-i-t-s on this site. Hopefully they will fix the bug soon.

atatu
08-05-2008, 02:18 PM
You could also watch club players from schools like A&M beat D1 players.

I find that hard to believe, I have played against the two best club players from A&M (recent grads, the two brothers from Africa) and they compete at the 4.5 and 5.0 levels, no many D1 players they could beat.

SuperJimmy
08-12-2008, 11:29 PM
I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. A lot of good players can go to non-D1 schools if it means they can play in a location they like best or get a better education.

Not sure what the big deal is with what they'd be rated.

Looking at that D3 2006 list...hmm...small world. I used to play against a few of those guys in the top 50 in junior tourneys and high school as well. Good to know they actually got to play top singles for their schools (they play 5.0 league right now).

roc17355
10-08-2008, 11:40 AM
Oh, the range for DIII is simply massive. Some schools struggle to find a team and end up recruiting non-tennis players and other people who would probably be rated a 3.5 or so. Other schools get players up to 5.5 (and perhaps 6.0 on rare occasions). Our team wasn't even ranked near the top, but we had wins over D1 schools and had a player who transfered from a top-tier D1 school. We played some local schools who would do terribly in bad high school sections.

It may be different for mens and womens tennis but my girlfriend played for Mars Hill College in North Carolina and only played recreationally until college. Her main sport was soccer and because of her speed and good feet the tennis coach recruited her to play on the team. She did and was fairly successful, telling me many times how she beat players much better than her becasue of her speed and grit and how much it irritated them. They are DII by the way.

Cameron
10-10-2008, 05:55 PM
hey, you're the guy who helped me figure out how to make a thread on that 4 year old post a couple of days ago! Just wanted to say thanks for helping me out!! :)

Tennisman912
10-17-2008, 01:47 PM
Zidane339,

I would say no, you won’t have much of a chance to play for CMU. When my school played them, the weakest were in the good 4.5 range. Of course that was the early nineties so times could have changed but you can certainly give it a shot.

I agree with those who said they see a lot of foreign players in DIII and DII. In my college playing days I saw many foreign DIII players and in general they were all pretty strong. The best one I remember was some Indian kid who played for the Indian national team. He was very strong. He played for a school like Grove City College or something. As others have said, the range is pretty wide but I never faced anyone below 4.5 in my college career.

Good tennis

TM

zidane339
10-17-2008, 02:57 PM
Zidane339,

I would say no, you won’t have much of a chance to play for CMU. When my school played them, the weakest were in the good 4.5 range. Of course that was the early nineties so times could have changed but you can certainly give it a shot.

I agree with those who said they see a lot of foreign players in DIII and DII. In my college playing days I saw many foreign DIII players and in general they were all pretty strong. The best one I remember was some Indian kid who played for the Indian national team. He was very strong. He played for a school like Grove City College or something. As others have said, the range is pretty wide but I never faced anyone below 4.5 in my college career.

Good tennis


TM

Hey thanks for the reply..I've been in school a couple weeks now and yes, the players are very good. CMU is top fifteen in the nation in DIII and almost all the players are 5.0 and above. Oh well, academics are hard enough to handle here, I don't think I could handle varsity sports!The matches are super fun to watch though.

El Diablo
11-25-2008, 10:42 AM
My wife went to college at Williams, which has won some Div III titles, and I got to see some awesome players there who didn't want to be at large schools and were academically exemplary. Some looked like players I've been told were 6.0

goober
11-26-2008, 05:10 AM
Come on! Do you think that only D1 has a lock on top players. How stupid are some of you? There are D3 programs that would be competitive with any D1 school. .

Really? What D3 school would be competitive in the PAC 10?

10isDad
11-26-2008, 05:28 AM
^^^Why revive a nearly 4 month old post? I'm sure the poster meant "many D1 schools". He brought up some slightly lower echelon D1 teams.

Honestly, wouldn't it have been interested to see last year's Oregon team take on some of the top D3 schools? Last year's Ducks were fairly unimpressive.

goober
11-26-2008, 06:01 AM
^^^Why revive a nearly 4 month old post? I'm sure the poster meant "many D1 schools". He brought up some slightly lower echelon D1 teams.

Honestly, wouldn't it have been interested to see last year's Oregon team take on some of the top D3 schools? Last year's Ducks were fairly unimpressive.

Well the last post was yesterday so the thread was not 4 months old. First time I read the comment. As an old teacher from high school once told me, "Say what you mean and mean what you say."

Anyways -yes Oregon did pretty badly in Pac 10 play last year. I don't think that they would have any problem beating any D3 team. Since you are familiar with the AZ players- Geoff Embry was high school player of the year in AZ in 2005, top 60 National ranking, won Supernationals in doubles U18 but could only crack the line up at number 5 and played some number 4 at Oregon. Do you honestly think that the #4 or 5 player on a D3 team could beat him? Maybe the #1 player on some teams could but, I doubt any of the #4 or 5 players could. So yes it may be an interesting match but the result would still be 7-0 or at best 6-1

10isDad
11-26-2008, 06:14 AM
I think Geoff's position on the team was due to some coach/player conflicts. Geoff said he beat the #1 guy several times in challenge matches. BTW - even though he's not eligible to play this year, I hear he's also been beating the #'s 2 & 3 at UA in practice matches.

Unfortunately, I've not seen any D3 teams play, much less the top teams. Some of the top D3 teams seem pretty loaded w/ foreign players and fairly highly ranked US players, but you're probably correct about the outcome - I'd still be interested in seeing it.

Coach Carter
11-27-2008, 05:16 PM
What is his national ranking? 6.0 seems unlikely. 5.0, weak 5.5, or 5.5 seems likely.

Why?

Here is a guy who was #1 in division 3:

http://www.itftennis.com/mens/players/activity.asp?player=100003276

Not one main draw win, and only qualified for 2 tournaments.

I would call him a 5.5 or strong 5.5 (maybe a weak 6.0? not sure how to determine this. seems less likely). I would imagine he would destroy this guy you speak of.

This guy has been mentioned a few times on here...possibly by you. These are low level pro tournaments your referencing. Not too bad...most of us aren't doing those chief. Whether much success or not...if you're attempting a pro career you can play as high a level as you want in NTRP ratings. How many times...every player is different...what I rate myself (since it is a self rating system) if so objective. What I "know" I can do on the court in a pressure situation as opposed to in a "feed" situation are 180 degrees different. I wish more people quit focussing or worrying about that crap!

Dunlopkid
07-30-2009, 02:06 PM
Zidane339,

I would say no, you won’t have much of a chance to play for CMU. When my school played them, the weakest were in the good 4.5 range. Of course that was the early nineties so times could have changed but you can certainly give it a shot.

I agree with those who said they see a lot of foreign players in DIII and DII. In my college playing days I saw many foreign DIII players and in general they were all pretty strong. The best one I remember was some Indian kid who played for the Indian national team. He was very strong. He played for a school like Grove City College or something. As others have said, the range is pretty wide but I never faced anyone below 4.5 in my college career.

Good tennis

TM

Sorry to revive an old thread, but I just stumbled on this. Do you know the name of this Indian player? And what do you mean by Indian national team? Davis Cup? I just ask because I will be attending this school.

woodrow1029
07-30-2009, 02:16 PM
Amherst finished 15th in D3 this past year. If he plays at the top of the team then he might be a 5.5 .
Amherst also made it either to the D3 Semis or Finals..