Originally Posted by klu375
You are not wrong - these are all quotes from the meeting by USTA brass, not my opinions. Unfortunately I had to take care of others more important things during this meeting so was listening with one ear and had to leave early. I do not think they ironed out all finer details of the changes, including the number of wcs. They may shorten ranking period to 6 months. It seems there are changes in allocaions of sections to regions since the original proposal. Sectional quota will be 40% size/60% strength of section, strength being sum of all players with top 150 national ranking in all age groups on Dec 31st, recalculated yearly. I got an impression that they are not sure what exactly they are doing. Only tennis5 has all the answers - maybe USTA should consult her.
It seems they are having trouble recruiting TDs to conduct 32 draw nat/reg. tournaments. Barns TD said that they would be fine with losing entry fees from 128 players
There was a mid-major coach who expressed concern that he would not be able to recruit players from out of his region given his recruiting budget of only $2K (and he does not recruit by video only!). Brewer agreed that it was a legitimate concern but said that the coaches had to be creative. (How creative - drive for 10hs to 32 draw regional and stay in a motel 6 or take all expense paid trip to Russia?)
Brewer mentioned that this was the lest contentious road show - not many parents there cared about 2014, myself included
Overall it is a very well organized tournament in a very nice location, with a lot of great players to watch and learn from and it is not clear who will benefit from cutting 128 kids from being part of it. In 2014 at this time they will have an opportunity to go to Midland, TX and Horsham, PA to play regional.
God is in the details. Or is it the Devil??? I have heard it both ways, but never mind, the point is that details are important.
As I have said from the beginning of this debate, these changes just don't seem well thought out. Everything that has been reported (and recorded) this week bears that out. Way to many "That's a good question" and "we need to look into that" responses.
At one point they said "we need to make sure there is a way for kids to move up an down". What ? You didn't think of that before you designed the system ??? Your going to look into that now ???
They clearly didn't understand many of the complexities and subtleties of the system they are changing, and many of the unknown unknowns of the system they are implementing. That unintended consequences thing.
They seem to think that the problems with their proposed system will be solved by moving some sections around, modifying the point tables, etc.
"Rearranging Deck Chairs"