Originally Posted by JakeRicardyau11
I am the number one player for a 4-a school in south Alabama.(I am a junior) I have only played tennis for 2 and a half years (at any level) I do not have a pro, and I have only played in one usta tournament, my only training is playing competitive matches with my cousin, who has played tennis for a few more years than me, but with very good players (friends at a tennis/soccer camp he taught soccer at). Anyway I recently played a proset with a 4 star University of Alabama commit in one of my high school matches. Although he beat me 8-1, I threw away at least 3 games. I feel that he was a much better player than me, but I was expecting much more from a d-1 commit. I had hopes of playing d-3 tennis at the university of chicago, but after playing this guy I feel that division 1 tennis just isn't played on as high a level as I though. Is this a fair assumption or do you think that this kid was maybe just a fluke of a recruit.
Well, keep in mind that within every Division there are some good schools and some OK schools and in D3 and NAIA you will see some (but not many) absolutely awful schools tennis-wise. Just because a school is Division 1 doesn't mean that you need to be amazing to play for them. I know on the women's side that if you want to play at a school like Stanford or UCLA you better be good and accomplished in your tennis career. However, if you want to play at a school like Georgetown, for example, you don't have to be anywheres near as good as you would have to be for some other schools. Their tennis program isn't as strong. It's the same on the men's side as there are many D1 schools out there and if you REALLY want to play D1 you could probably find a school that's right for you. It would help you greatly though to have at least some kind of ranking, at least a Sectional ranking.
I am not saying that you don't have to be good to play D1, you have be at least decent...but there can be huge differences between the levels of play at various D1 schools.