Discussion in 'College Tennis Talk' started by Railbird, Oct 22, 2008.
Who was the last American ncaa tennis champion?
Amer Delic in 2003
1998 Bob Bryan Stanford
1999 Jeff Morrison Florida
2000 Alex Kim Stanford
2007 Audra Cohen Miami, Fla.
2008 Amanda McDowell Georgia Tech
Not to far back.
Limit to 3 foreign players on Athletic Scholarships.
Limiting the number of foreign scholies to one per team would have not much effect on the NCAA champion results. The top foreign players would come over in that case as well. The lower or borderline players are the ones that would be affected.
look at drake university
they have like no US born players
Welcome to global compeition... did someone lose to a foreign player for a spot? : )
haha thats just how it is... when was the last american to win a grand slam..... andy?? yea thats just how tennis is right now... it sucks (im an american) but i played D1 and had to deal with it, you should look at it as probably getting to play against better comp. If you don't want to play foreigners or the really great college players, go play D3
They have like 3 US players...Since when were Chicago, IL and Rochester, MN considered a foreign country?
You want all foreign, try Ole Miss.
College tennis isn't an entitlement sport.
There should be a rule that an American team must have at least one American on scholarship though.
If the NCAA had the same stringent rules for tennis as they do for football and basketball there would be a lot less foreign players. No guys who try the pro tour and don't make it. No prize money at all- none of this you can accept money as long as it is less than expenses.
IS Delic an American?
Here is the only really fair answer to this:
Only American citizens are eligible for athletic scholarships. Teams can have foreign players, but they have to pay for their education or can come in on academic scholarships.
He is a naturalized citizen. Came to the US at age 13 or 14. From what I have read he had just a little tennis training prior to coming the US.
Then you'll have the exact scenario that coaches talk about: All the top American juniors will go to a few select schools. The schools that are currently competitive with those schools are so because they have foreign players.
If you limit the athletic scholarships, there will be far less parity - there will be a very few elite teams and a bunch of other teams with much less talented players.
Besides - it would never fly. The school athletic directors in the ITA would have to agree and ratify. Those athletic directors will hear from the coaches about the argument above and they'll hear from lawyers who will tell them that they could be opening themselves up for lawsuits (whether it's true or not, just the possibility would prevent it from happening).
And before it's brought up for the seemingly thousandth time: athletic scholarships are NOT funded directly from US tax dollars. Athletic scholarships are by and large funded by revenues generated from the revenue sports, the majority of which is football. Additional athletic scholarship money generally comes from booster organizations (donations, fund-raisers, etc.).
How do you explain the fact that only around 65% of D1 football schools make a profit? There are also a lot of D1 tennis schools that do not have D1 football. How do these teams support tennis- all from donations and boosters?
Schools attempt to get the sport "fully endowed", so there's a nice fat bank account that draws enough interest to fully cover the budget of the sport in question.
That was part of the deal for swimming, wrestling and tennis at ASU. They were dropped because the football revenues were not enough to sustain all the programs (head coach makes enough annually to cover all three sports budgets for nearly 3 years*), so they dropped the programs. They allowed the sports back in if they could become so endowed.
Swimming and wrestling were able to do so, largely because of outside donations by a few wealthy folks (Jerry Colangelo was a primary contributor for wrestling, e.g.). Tennis was not able to do it. Evidently there are more people willing to donate to the other two sports.
*That budget included coaches salaries, scholarship moneys, travel expenses, sporting equipment expenses, etc. - Tennis was valued at about $350,000 per year. The men's head coach made about 80K, the asst. coach around 30K. Figure 4.5 scholarships at about 30K per (ASU estimates $28,564 including meals) and you're left with about $100K for travel, balls, string, etc.)
Yeah. That's exactly what happened to ASU Tennis. Although, there is some speculation that Robert Sarver, owner of the Phoenix Suns, a huge tennis fanatic, currently building an indoor tennis court at his own home, will write a 5 million dollar check to reinstate ASU tennis but they won't be back until next year, and not many players will come back. Like Matt, Andres, Wes etc.
Unfortunately, the push to get the program re-instated without causing too much of a delay has an initial deadline of October 31st of 2008. After that, it's gonna be much more difficult.
The committee does state a goal to not only get the sport reinstated, but also to try to promote participation among local or sectional athletes much more.
Such policies won't foster better American players; rather, they'll only pave the way for more American mediocrity. Competition breeds excellence.
My sense is that most American tennis juniors and their parents that are aiming at college rather than the pro tour (which is the vast majority) don't care about better college tennis per se. They care about getting a tennis scholarship so they don't have to pay for college.
From my understanding, full blown tennis scholarships are somewhat rare. At any rate, who's to say we're to deny foreign players access to our secondary education?
On the mens side they get 4.5 and on the women's side they get 9 full scholies.
I don't see any problem with foreign players or students for that matter in the US system as long as I am not paying for it.
The bigger problem is I colleges are spending too much money on athletics in general when their mission is supposedly academic. Many schools are like semipro leagues where the athletes are students in name only. I would be perfectly happy if there were zero college athletic scholarships and we followed the Ivy league model.
But this would be hurting too many students. A huge majority of those that are on a full athletic scholarship go on to complete their 4 years and compete in their sport while they are there, then go on to another school for more education or go right into a career other than professional sports.
Most of the athletes that get a full ride get the chance for a great education at top schools where they might not be able to afford going to if it weren't for the athletic scholarship. Many of them are worthy of going to a great school, but can't afford it and don't make the cut for an academic scholarship.
For the most part, students that go to an Ivy League school are there for academics. There are some decent athletic programs in the Ivy League, but most of the students get in because of their grades and test scores. If there is someone that the schools in Ivy League really want based on athletics, I think that they give them an "academic scholarship" anyway because the rules don't allow athletic ones.
I guess the question is why does being a great athlete make you more worthy of a full ride over people who can't afford it and can't make an academic scholarship cutoff but are great musicians, great artists, great writers, great debaters, great community leaders, ect. I am not anti-college sports in fact I follow many of them. But I don't see how being a great athlete makes you more worthy than somebody who isn't but has other exceptional skills.
Yeah. But the public perception of this situation is already very bad for ASU athletics. If one was to raise the funds after and they made another stipulation you could expect a huge uproar from the community.
so why do you want to limit the number of players? to get rid of competition?
Great Musicians, artists and writers also have scholarships as well. Most of them are considered academic scholarships. Also, a lot of great artists and musicians get scholarships into specialized schools and campuses. There are no tennis schools or baseball or football schools.
Tennis School = Bolliteri / IMG academies - IIRC - IMG also has schools for soccer, tennis, basketball, baseball, etc......
There are probably more baseball and football academies and training camps than you can count.
The main reason why there are sports scholarship is because schools want to win and offering a scholarship is a way to attract the top players. I'd also like to think that it gives people who are talented athletes a way to get into schools and also get an education, but that doesn't seem to be the case at a majority of the big-time Div. 1 schools, which is really a shame.
I don't think limiting foreign players is the way to go, I just think they need to make the rules consistent about who's an amateur player and who isn't. You would probably have less foreign players in the NCAA if coaches weren't allowed to pick up these pro/semi-pro players for their teams.
Another thought is that foreign players are probably not the top problem for NCAA tennis, it's probably making sure that schools even have a varsity tennis team. I remember that Pitt got rid of men’s tennis my sophomore year. Don't know if they ever brought the sport back.
Do we expect an 18 yr straight out of high school to compete with a 22 year old freshman? I know the NCAA is adressing that problem and that should make a difference. But yes, it is about the competetion.
tennis academies like Bolliterri don't offer college level classes and degrees. Art and Music academies do.
So are you gonna tell an American that he can't come to Stanford or Duke or Illinois on a tennis scholarship because he played in a couple of futures or a challenger when he was 16, got a wild card into main draw and lost first round, collected his expense money and and not prize money so he could play in college?
I agree with you that there are several players that come over here for a year or 2, get a free ride at school, play, then leave and try the pro tour. but that happens in football and basketball with the Americans. I don't think that limiting the amount of foreigners will stop this problem. Several of the top tennis schools have high ranked players that are academic all american.
I think I am misunderstanding you. I don't know.
Why should a college exist that gives out degree for sports? Playing sports is not an academic endeavor. Some schools do have physical education or sports management degrees. But let's face it, if somebody gets a Water Polo scholarship, they are not going to college to Major in Water Polo, they are there to play for the team and get a degree in something completely unrelated.
And on the subject of "Art and Music Academies"- I think you greatly overestimate the availability of full ride scholies at these places. The Julliard pretty much only gives out need based financial aid. The Oberlin Conservatory gives out very few academic scholarships. Say you are an outstanding piano player, but have the GPA and SAT scores of the average D1 football player. You would have zero chances at getting a scholie there.
That's what they are doing now. America juniors who are playing futures do so as amateurs and do not collect prize money. The problem is in other countries, such as Germany, they have professional club tennis which is not ATP/ITF. They get money, but as long as they can show what their expenses were more than their earnings they are ok. So you get 20-21 year old freshmen with professional experience coming over competing against 17 and 18 year old freshman. Americans pretty much have to decide when they graduate from high school which route they are going and there's no turning back.
Ok. I knew that. I figured I was misunderstanding something. I thought that you were saying that anyone who plays a professional tournament shouldn't be able to play college tennis.
My bad. Thanks for clearing up your point for me.
I don't disagree with you now..
To my knowledge this does not happen anymore, at least not at the Division 1 level. After you receive your High School Diploma (foreign or U.S.) you have 5 years to complete four years of athletic eligibility. This has been a rule for at least a few years. Anyone else who knows more or if I'm wrong feel free to jump in.
As much as I love watching college sports, like football and basketball, on TV, I fully realize that "college" sports are waaaaaaayyyyy to intensive today. They need to cut the fluff, cut the TV contracts, cut the national play. It needs to go back to being buses for transportation, inter conference play only (except for one or two games of tradition (U of M or MSU vs Notre Dame for example) - you still bus there though), and a huge reduction in salaries for coaches, no scholarships for athletes, and sponsorships by corporations. If you go to school and you make the team, the team is secondary to the academics. Athletics should be treated as fun afterschool activities, with no recruiting, and every athlete has to try out in order to make the team (because no coach has ever seen them play before).
Now, the reality is that our culture revels sports. The brainy are geeks while the jocks are heroes and icons. The above scenario will never play out, even though I wish it would. Oh well.
Your ideas certainly have merit. However American culture often wants to know who the best is on the field of sport. Especially when it comes to football basketball and (even in college) baseball. That mindset trickles down to the rest of the sports and often college sports are driven by chasing additional revenue and big boosters for donations. Some would argue that restricting travel, practice and championship play is why colleges have club sports. Ooops, The USTA has the Tennis On Campus Program and even they play for a national championship, http://www.usta.com/sitecore/content/USTA/Global/Play_Now/College/News/WelcomeToTennisOnCampus.aspx
Remember, if you were alive, or seen the news clips, even back in the day Notre Dame used to take a train to LA to play USC in football.
I like the fact that foreigners play U.S. college tennis. I've argued for it till my fingers bleed from typing. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=163315&highlight=andfor
High school diplomas, like birth certificates, can be easily manufactured in some places.
But the new eligibility requirement certainly helps.
Acknowledged. B.O. is a prime example of how easy it is to get a manufactured birth ceritificate. JK
Yeah like americans can go get scholarships from foreign schools. Give me a brake!
I don't think there is an age limit.
There should be a rule that only 1/3 of the team can be foreign students.
Pretty sure there is in NCAA Division 1.
There's no age limit. I believe the stipulation is that for every year a player is trying to make it on the tour but earning less than $10,000 per year, they forfeit one year of eligibility for college. I think there's also a 1 year grace period before it kicks into effect.
So, a player can kick around the futures/challengers tour for a year and it has no affect on his/her eligibility. If it surpasses a year, they now only have 3 years of eligibility left, etc.
It's also dependent upon earning less than $10,000 in winnings per year. At least, that's my take...
5 years to complete 4 from date of H.S. graduation in D1. Am I wrong?
That's so unfair for people who want to go back to college and play, having never played college sports before... and it seems like age discrimination.
You have 5 years of college to compete in 4 years of college athletics. From the date of HS graduation has nothing to do with it. You could graduate from HS, go to work in a factory for 10 years, decide to go to college and you've used up no eligibility.
I know it's D2, but do a search on the Grand Canyon University women's team. They had a player last year who was 60 years old. She went to college years way back in the 70s or 80s but never completed her degree. When she went back to school last year, she still had one year of eligibility left and she played on the team.
The only thing that would affect your eligibility is if you were some sort of tennis professional.
This may help with the age limit question.
Found it. Tennis clearly has age restrictions at the NCAA 1 Level.
22.214.171.124 Tennis and Swimming and Diving. After the high school graduation date of the studentathlete’s
class (as determined by the first year of high school enrollment or the international equivalent as
specified in the NCAA Guide to International Academic Standards for Athletics Eligibility), a student-athlete
shall have one year in order to be immediately eligible and retain the opportunity for four seasons of competition
upon initial, full-time collegiate enrollment. Graduation from high school or secondary school shall be
based on the student-athlete’s prescribed educational path in his or her country. The student also must meet
all applicable NCAA, institutional and conference eligibility requirements. A student who does not enroll in a
collegiate institution as a full-time student during that one-year time period shall be subject to the following:
(Adopted: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/97 for those student-athletes first entering a collegiate institution on or after 8/1/97;
Revised: 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04 for competition occurring on or after 8/1/04)
(a) The student-athlete shall be charged with a season of intercollegiate tennis or swimming and diving eligibility
for each calendar year after the one-year time period (the next opportunity to enroll after one calendar
year has elapsed) and prior to full-time collegiate enrollment during which the student-athlete has
participated in organized tennis or swimming and diving events per Bylaw 126.96.36.199.3. (Revised: 4/29/04
effective 8/1/04 for competition occurring on or after 8/1/04)
(b) After the one-year time period, if the student-athlete has engaged in organized tennis or swimming and
diving events per Bylaw 188.8.131.52.3, upon matriculation at the certifying institution, the student-athlete
must fulfill an academic year in residence before being eligible to represent the institution in intercollegiate
tennis or swimming and diving competition. (Revised: 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04 for competition occurring
on or after 8/1/04)
184.108.40.206.1 Matriculation After 20th Birthday—Tennis. In tennis, a student who is eligible under
Bylaw 220.127.116.11, but who participates in organized tennis events after his or her 20th birthday and before
full-time enrollment at the certifying institution shall be subject to the following: (Adopted: 4/29/04 effective
8/1/04 for competition occurring after 8/1/04; Revised: 6/10/04)
(a) The student will be charged with one season of intercollegiate tennis competition for each calendar
year after his or her 20th birthday and prior to full-time enrollment at the certifying institution
during which the student-athlete has participated in organized tennis events per Bylaw 18.104.22.168.3.
[Note: This includes participation in intercollegiate tennis while enrolled full-time in another twoyear
or four-year institution; however, this provision replaces the season of competition counted in
Bylaw 14.2 (only one season is used in any one year).]
(b) Upon matriculation at the certifying institution, the student-athlete must fulfill an academic year in
residence before being eligible to represent the institution in intercollegiate tennis, unless the student
transfers to the certifying institution with a minimum of 24 semester hours (or equivalent) of transferable
degree credit. (Note: All other NCAA transfer and academic eligibility requirements apply.)
For anyone wanting to download the NCAA D1 2008-09 By-Laws, have fun reading.
Separate names with a comma.