View Single Post
Old 08-06-2010, 08:49 PM   #19
flat
Rookie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenniscrazed View Post
Honestly, I think you maybe overreacting on this. 1) Smaller draw sizes are beneficial overall as those that should be there will and those who shouldn't won't very simple. 2) Tournament directors will protect their events to best of their ability.
Not sure of your point here. Regardless of the draw size, or the number of tournaments, your statement of "those that should be there will and those who shouldn't won't" is always true. Maybe USTA should 1/2 the draw to 16 and decrease it to 2 tournaments a year? Then those who *really* should be there will...

USTA (hopefully) did this for a good reason. I would like to understand how they hope to promote the Section more.

I'm currently on JM's side, though. Speaking from a personal perspective, we will have a lot less choices this coming year. So either we are content to play the same players repeatedly in local tournaments, or else we'll spend money to send him to various academies (near relatives house) so he can get more exposure. So not sure we'll save money thru this.

Last edited by flat : 08-06-2010 at 10:34 PM.
flat is offline