Sean Hannity Vs Usta

Discussion in 'Junior League & Tournament Talk' started by HIGH-TECH TENNIS, Jun 26, 2012.

  1. klu375

    klu375 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    503
    I hope Mr. & Mrs. Schmo from Greenwich, CT or Alpine, NJ, parents of 4 star tennis player, are buying his response. Because if not they may decide that tennis lifestyle is not fun any more and they can get their kid into Middlebury by switching her to lacrosse/volleyball. Their money currently support existing tennis infrastructure and even some kids on scholarships.
     
  2. Misterbill

    Misterbill Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    671
    If your point is that junior volleyball and lax players have a greater chance to play in national competition than junior tennis players, my current understanding is that you are wrong, although I am ready to be shown the facts that prove otherwise
     
  3. MarTennis

    MarTennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    269
    Why?

    Their are 17 sections to which if we are members and that interested we would have already been participating in the politics of the sport stateside. Your proposal is a day late and dollar short.
     
  4. MarTennis

    MarTennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    269
    Feel sorry for the kids...

    where sport is decided on their behalf. The downside of parental authority.
     
  5. MarTennis

    MarTennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    269
    When tennis in any form is occuring...

    ...the last thing I would think about is Hannity. I'm the fool if that occurs.:)
     
  6. chalkflewup

    chalkflewup Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,697
    So you think this was done in a vacuum and the membership was never polled concerning national tournaments, draw size, financial challenge to participate, etc...?
     
  7. klu375

    klu375 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    503
    I know very little about lax/vb. What am trying to say is that USTA may alienate very important and large segment of tennis society of which Hannity is a representative. These people usually get what they want and do not appreciate to be told that their kids are not good enough. And for what purpose - to save a day or two at the Supernational for the top players whose training at home is possibly subsidized by the very same people USTA is now cutting off? Great move.
    Incidentally Eastern Section where Hannity resides should do fine under new rules. Enough competition, large quota, section is compact, very limited travel for sectional play, region that makes sense geographically. WCs for local players training at USTA East further expanding this quota. Why complain? Tennis lifestyle may be affected? His kids are too young for their parents to be into it too much. Unless he acts as a voice for other parents he meets at clinics/tournaments.
     
  8. tennis5

    tennis5 Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,290
    First, I commend Mr. Hannity. I don't watch his show, but just because I don't like his political leaning, doesn't mean I can't appreciate his views as a parent in the tennis community. It sounds like to me parents sought him out to complain to and he listened. Bravo to him for standing up to the USTA.

    But, in a very strange way, I think these cut backs could be positive for the kids playing college sports.
    Not playing college tennis, mind you, but other college sports, and save the parents heck a lot of money in the long run.
    For parents just starting off with little ones, they don't know yet how closed the door is for American kids in college tennis in regards to scholarship money.
    I would venture to say that the reductions in national play ( check out the cuts in the 12's, really sad). will reduce the number of kids who will take the sport seriously. This in turn, will push Johnny to football or baseball or lacrosse......
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2012
  9. tennis5

    tennis5 Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,290
    The month leading up to the vote in March was a month where many parents in all sections complained to their sectional offices........

    The week before the vote, my inbox was flooded with letter crisscrossing the country telling folks what was going on and to call their sectional office.

    I would say we did do a good job contacting our sectional office.
     
  10. Misterbill

    Misterbill Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    671
    Parents who are just starting off with little ones, and who choose sports for their kids based on the availability of college scholarship money, make me very sad. That says more about me than about those parents......I know there are lots of parents out there like that and my view is probably in the minority.

    What makes me happy is parents who introduce their kids to lots of sports, and see which ones the kids like best and/or appear to have the highest ceiling in...........and let them run with it wherever it takes them

    By the way, it's funny how high ceiling/enjoyment usually coincide
     
  11. sundaypunch

    sundaypunch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,645
    The USTA knows that this isn't really possible - they essentially have a monopoly on junior tennis. It's not like these parents are going to pull their kids from competing.
     
  12. coaching32yrs

    coaching32yrs Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    449
    Everything the USTA is doing is because they are trying to develop the next generation of great American players. They are going about it the wrong way. They should focus only on big super athletic kids. Small kids with above average athletic ability have no shot. Yet they continue to fund those kids. Even though some of them have wealthy parents that can afford the training. It makes no sense. Americans will not be a major factor in the slams for many years once Serena retires. We just don't have our great athletes playing tennis.
     
  13. Alohajrtennis

    Alohajrtennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    469
    The problem is that they are going about it all. PM only cares about PD and the next great American generation of superstars so they are taking over Junior Tennis, and corrupting it to make this its primary purpose purpose. Junior tennis should exist for and in and of itself and a childhood experience. Increase ITF events and potential pros can play those. Russel compares the new system to little league baseball, but little league baseball doesn't exist to create pro baseball players. Very, very few kids who get to Williamsport get to the big leagues. MLB does not control LLB, and therefore cannot distort its purpose like USTA is doing with Junior Tennis.
     
  14. Alohajrtennis

    Alohajrtennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    469
    I think both of these are true but will be attributable to TAUT, not changes to the national junior schedule.

    Then when all these kids start to turn 11 and 12 and 13 and find out if they aren't the #1 or #2 in their section, and the number #1 and #2 kids have parents who are tennis coaches and spend there summers at Bolletiri, and that the USTA has no use for them if they are not #1 or #2("can't fly until yu can beat everyone who you can drive to", they will realize the odds are pretty stacked against them and they will go play soccer...

    The ones who remain will be better though
     
  15. tennis5

    tennis5 Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,290
    So, on the money. Patrick McEnroe only seems to care about the PD, and the entire system is being distorted and ruined for a FEW PLAYERS.....
     
  16. chalkflewup

    chalkflewup Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,697
    So you agree that in 5 years USTA membership will increase and the quality of play in the US will improve as a result of TAUT... a P-Mac initiative.
     
  17. klu375

    klu375 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    503
    I agree that USTA membership will increase - all these 8yo that will get free jr. membership to play these very important TAUT tournaments and USTA bosses will report how successful they are in increasing membership so they deserve a bonus. But could you explain what "quality of play in the US" means and why it will improve? Average recreational player will hit a cleaner ball?
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2012
  18. Alohajrtennis

    Alohajrtennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    469
    Membership :yes
    Quality of play : yes, within the reasonable confines of what we have been discussing, but not more broadly. By that I mean we will have a larger and deeper talent pool at the 11-14 age levels. The very best in this group may not be any better than the top players we have now, but I I think the talent pool will be deeper.

    Here's where it all goes to ****. At this point, the new junior format starts ruthlessly culling the winners from the losers. Picture bears picking salmon from a stream. A couple make it upstream but these are only the strongest who would have made it anyhow. And we are right back where we started, TAUT wasted.

    Look, the design here is simple. PD is building a funnel rather than a pipeline. Increase the mouth of the funnel to get more kids in, then quickly narrow them down so they can focus on the very top kids. While its design will increase the number of kids entering the funnel, temporarily broadening the sport, the real goal is ultimately fewer but more exceptional higher level players.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2012
  19. Alohajrtennis

    Alohajrtennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    469
    BTW, this seems to be a gotcha sort of post...so, first of all, while I have some reservations about TAUT, I am not some huge opponent of it either..Don't know if you thought I was...and I also don't have an personal dislike for P-Mac, I don't think he is the devil, etc, I just think they have gone too far with these changes to Junior Tennis for the wrong reasons.

    I also never argued that the existing system was perfect. But I don't go for the any change is for the better argument either, which as has been pointed out is large part of Russels argumentum verbosum. At least the old system had an "its' better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail" sort of philosophy. By this, I mean it better than 10 unqualified kids move on to the next round than one potential future superstar get left behind.

    I don't think the new schedule meets the kids and parents needs, and I really am not convinced it will even help PD meet their own objectives. Basically, I don't agree that they need to narrow the funnel so much if they have any faith that 10 and under is going to be successful.
     
  20. tball2day

    tball2day Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    603
    ....................
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012
  21. chalkflewup

    chalkflewup Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,697
    While it's a controversial and interesting debate, time will be the real test.
     
  22. coaching32yrs

    coaching32yrs Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    449
    You make a good point. However I question how "enriching" it is to travel from Long Island to Palm Springs and lose in the first round of the Easter Bowl. Maybe it's better for the kid from L.I. to learn he/she is not deserving of position in the Easter Bowl this year. 256 player draws are too big.
     
  23. chalkflewup

    chalkflewup Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,697
    Agreed. It may be "rich" but not enriching.
     
  24. gully

    gully Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    790
    You realize, of course, that no matter whether the draw size is 256 or 16 or anything between or on either side: half of the players there are going to lose in the first round. I don't think we can conclude that all first-round losers "don't deserve" to be in the draw, since no matter WHAT size it is, half will lose regardless.
     
  25. Swissv2

    Swissv2 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,491
    Location:
    Tennis Courts!
  26. jigglypuff

    jigglypuff Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    317
    I pretty much knew where it was going (2nd page) after he said ... "that only the very best players should be competing at the highest levels of national competition".

    It's a convenient justification that can even be massaged to justify the current system.
     
  27. chalkflewup

    chalkflewup Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,697
    Depends how you look at it. You'll have twice as many losers in the first round of a 256 draw compared to a 128 draw.

    I think the bigger challenge lies in determining the appropriate logic that drives who gets in and who doesn't.
     
  28. MarTennis

    MarTennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    269
    Kinda would mean that such kids do not possess the requisite love of the game to be college viable, and if you have the love then a college scholarship is not the be all and end all.
     
  29. MarTennis

    MarTennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    269
    Shmo on teacher's salary would benefit from the changes. Shmo is not schleping around the country to expensive tournaments
     
  30. tennisforlife77

    tennisforlife77 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    102
    The 2014 proposals are radical and unique and i think quite risky in that they have divorced national tournament selection from the national rankings list. I don't know anyone who thinks the USTA rankings are particularly accurate but they are relevant in that they drive who gets into what tournament and then who is seeded 1 etc. As far as i know no other competitive tennis structure in the world does this ( with the exception of the Olympics which has its own agenda).ATP rankings determine which tournaments the pros get into as do ITF rankings etc. USTA national rankings going forward will have almost no relevance except for seeding. Personally i think this is the heart of the matter and I'm surprised no one is talking about it. Imagine what would happen if the ATP decided that they wanted to discourage travel by up and coming pro's and that going forward all selections for Masters and Grand Slam events would be by National quota. I'm guessing the guts of pro tennis - the challenger and futures circuits would implode and i think there is a risk this happens here. The new structure will absolutely involve less travel, be less expensive and encourage sectional play which is their stated objective but at what cost. As Chalk says only time will tell but i think they are embarking down a risky path with a very uncertain set of outcomes in addition to the less travel/less expense mantra we keep hearing about. Players behavior will be driven by the incentive structures in place. Playing one of the new level 2 national selection tournaments and winning it will do nothing to help me qualify for K Zoo. Playing a level 4 regional will not help me get into a level 3 regional and so on and so forth..risky risky risky in my mind!!
     
  31. barringer97

    barringer97 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    377
    How are they radical and unique when they are basically going back to way they used to be?
     
  32. Alohajrtennis

    Alohajrtennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    469
    First off all, most of these tournaments have either a compass draw at younger ages or consolation brackets, so they will usually get two matches if not more.

    Second of all, if you are an unseeded player who happens to draw the number one seed in the first round, I hope the lesson they learn is not that you are undeserving, but that sometimes it's the "luck of the draw" and they got to play a really tough competitor and hope fully learned from it.

    Third, under the new system, the kid from Long Island may have to go to Pittsburgh in March instead of Palm beach and I personally would find it much more enriching to be in Palm Beach in March with my weekend suddenly available than in Pittsburgh.
     
  33. ClarkC

    ClarkC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,765
    Location:
    Charlottesville, VA
    Missing the point. Of course half the players lose in the first round. The question is how competitive those first round matches are. If every match is very competitive and high level, then maybe the draw size is too small. If almost none of the first round matches are competitive, then the draw size is too large. If about half of the first round matches are competitive, then the draw size is just about right, because reducing it would cut out players who are very competitive, and cut out a competitive match experience for quite a few players.
     
  34. gully

    gully Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    790
    Of course. The poster I quoted claimed that a kid who travels to a national event and lost in the first round doesn't deserve to be there. I'm glad you too see the flaw in that logic.

    There isn't anything inherently correct or incorrect about any given draw size. USTA has been saying that first-round matches are not competitive. Since they've never provided any evidence to this effect, I remain doubtful. Perhaps they are correct. I don't see how any anecdotal evidence could be helpful one way or the other. Maybe someone has done a study. First-round losers play the backdraw/compass draw and get their multiple matches in to make the experience more worthwhile; if they don't benefit from doing so, surely they don't keep going. Like alohajr pointed out, even a first-round loss to a top seed can be an instructive experience.
     
  35. Alohajrtennis

    Alohajrtennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    469
    Except first round tennis matches are, by design, generally non-competitive. Its called the seeding system. Using Russel's logic, Wimbledon would have to have a draw of 16(heck, a draw of four on the men's side).
     
  36. Misterbill

    Misterbill Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    671
    I am continuing to try to figure out what the big problem is with the changes, except for missed opportunities to take family trips to famous tournaments or to claim participation in a prestigious "national" tournament.

    Is anyone here claiming that under the current system he/she (or your child) would have reached a talent level of X...........but under the new system that person will only be able to reach a talent level of X-Y?

    Is that the issue? If it is, I am not yet convinced. If it isn't........then what is the issue?
     
  37. tennisforlife77

    tennisforlife77 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    102
    I think the issue is that under the proposed system national tournament play in the US will collapse.. Players will go from Sectional events straight to the National Championships... No one needs to play level 2 3 or 4 events because they don't help you get to the level 1's. I don't think that will help the quality of tennis in the country or lead to the next Pete Sampras or Jimmy Connors of that is the objective...the system neds those intermediate national step just like the pro tour needs the futures and challengers. I dont think the USTA has thought this through. They are going back to a system that produced champions 20 years ago... The world has changed. Tennis is a global sport now. Tenniseurope has an order of magnitude more kids playing pan European events...shrinking the number of national opportunities and players competing at the national level will hurt not help those at the top....
     
  38. Misterbill

    Misterbill Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    671
    OK, let's run with that.

    I earlier suggested that the group that might be most directly affected would be the high 4-stars/low 5-stars. You are saying it is the "top"? The top 25-50 or so? I could be persuaded of that, maybe. Maybe.
     
  39. tball2day

    tball2day Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    603
    ...................
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012
  40. Misterbill

    Misterbill Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    671
    I didn't quantify it to the "top". Another poster did.

    What definition of mine are you referring to, so I can properly respond to you?

    I hope I never said that a 3 star cannot become a 4 star, or a 4 star cannot become a 5 star.

    Are you saying that under the new system this is what will happen? I am getting more confused as this conversation progresses.......not because of the posts, it's just me.

    EDIT: It is not my intention to put words in anyone's mouth, but my take on your post is that you think players...all players.... in the current system who have potential to reach X level of talent won't be able to do that anymore, and will have to be satisfied with X-Y. If I have misinterpreted, please correct
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2012
  41. tennisforlife77

    tennisforlife77 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    102
    I don't have a crystal ball but here's how i think this plays out...kids ranked below say 125/200 are forced back into sectional play exclusively. The level 2 3 and 4 national events will disintegrate and only the top kids will play each other on a national basis at the level 1's and the masters etc. That may not be a disaster for a kid in So Cal but it will be pretty much a disaster for the up and coming kid in a smaller section. The top 125-200 kids who are given the national opportunities will separate themselves from the pack and there will be very little turnover in that group as they move from one age group to the next. Without a vibrant middle class of player to push the top group they also stagnate...as i said i don't have a crystal ball but that seems like a potential and pretty negative outcome for everyone....AND the JCC who put this plan in place will be long gone and who will be accountable if it is a failure!!
     
  42. Misterbill

    Misterbill Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    671
    I think what you say is plausible except for, "Without a vibrant middle class of player to push the top group they also stagnate". I don't think players 1-50 will suffer if they cannot get matches with numbers 201-250. And I don't think players 150-200 will suffer, if as it turns out, they get more matches against 100-149 than 201-250

    Don't mean to insult you by saying this is pretty close to my original thinking..........as I posted a day or two ago.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2012
  43. tennis5

    tennis5 Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,290

    EASTER BOWL is 128, not 256.

    Then again, this 128 draw will be gone soon.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2012
  44. coaching32yrs

    coaching32yrs Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    449
    Kalmazoo is a 256 player draw. There are several players who lost in the first round of sectionals and the first round of the July Nat Opens who will be playing. It makes no sense. They have the money and want to be able to say I played Kalmazoo. I have no problem with the USTA trying to fix this.
     
  45. chalkflewup

    chalkflewup Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,697
    You really think that's the reason why they play? Just so they can say they played Kalamazoo? I don't think that's the primary reason at all. They play 1) because they want to and 2) because they can.
     
  46. watergirl

    watergirl New User

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Messages:
    75
    Reading the information for the Zoo it appears the following would be true.

    The draw may be for 256 but the Zoo only takes 192 players of which around 120 get in with their sections endorsement. Each section has a different number of their endorsed players that get an automatic entry. So let's say that your sections # 1 player is ranked 200. He would automatically get in over a So-Cals player who might be # 20 on the endorsement list but ranked #195.
     
  47. tball2day

    tball2day Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    603
    .......................
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012
  48. justinmadison

    justinmadison Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    525
    Just out of curiosity, which of the kids that qualified to play in Wimbledon this year did not have any business being there?

    You obviously have absolutely no idea how much those kids worked to achieve a top 88 junior ITF ranking.

    FYI, every college coach will be unhappy when they decide to cut the draw for the zoo.
     
  49. sundaypunch

    sundaypunch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,645
    Doesn't this also make the opposite point? That many draws are extremely selective and disallow "noncompetitive" players?
     
  50. justinmadison

    justinmadison Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    525
    The opponents of the changes argue that the reducing draw sizes and numbers of tournament hamper junior development. The opponents of the change desire the opportunity to play.

    The supporters of the changes argue that many players should not be allowed to play in these tournaments either because it is not beneficial for them or they do not deserve to play.

    That just sounds wrong to me. I do not understand why supporters of the change should feel the need to make the judgment call for someone else as to what is best for their player. If people do not think it is a good idea they will not play.

    Who exactly does the new system help? In my son’s last tournament in the US it was a Level 2 national and he did not lose a set until the semifinals. He lost 9 games in the first three matches. He learned something in each of those matches. Does anyone really think he would have benefited from one less match?

    The idea that limiting national play will increase competition in the sections does not pass the sniff test. Look at the number of local tournaments and divide by the number of players that are now excluded. Do you really think that creates a benefit? If you were one of the kids that use to play national you are playing up a division anyway. The kids playing the local tournament are glad you are because a 25 minute 0,0 was not what they were looking for anyway.

    Who cares if some people were able to afford to travel more and thus qualify for national play. There is no one under the new system that now qualifies to play that could not or did not qualify under the old system. Read the last sentence again. It is an important point.

    Think hard about what you are actually advocating. Do you really think taking away kids developmental choices is a good thing? Do you really know so much better you should make that call for someone you have never even met? Who are you helping?
     

Share This Page