View Single Post
Old 10-13-2012, 01:35 PM   #26
floridatennisdude
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream_On View Post
So you would rather there be hardly any tennis programs at all, rather than having ones of which some have a lot of internationals? where would all the americans play at then? the same places they do now, on the bench for uga like the post above says while the internationals play at the d2's and actually get to play.
It's just that the lower end (JCs) making the rule, just makes their best talent work harder for an opportunity at a higher level. The JCs have a diluted product that still doesn't have a domestic demand. Thus, programs will be unable to be competitive and, possibly, unable to fill a roster. The upper level programs become stronger as they cherry pick from the lower levels.

Now, if D1 created a max 2 limit it would be different. Their product would be diluted initially. But it would provide leadership approval for the lower levels to also dilute their talent. The problem is convincing the NCAA that it isn't discrimination to exclude people from their schools athletic programs based on a residency. It's just not going to happen.

The supply of American tennis talent doesn't match the demand for players that can play at college levels. It's not going to help the sport by providing more opportunities to people of this country. It's just going to make the product weak.

It's pretty simple economic theory that gets resolved via supply and demand. What happens when you cut off supply? Demand.....
floridatennisdude is offline   Reply With Quote