US Juniors needs MORE Nat'l and advanced experiences not less

[justinmadison]

It makes no sense to argue the pros and cons of the changes without understand the truth about why they were made.

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. When a company that is a monopoly makes changes the vast majority of its customers do not like and then explains why the changes are good in a way that the majority of participates believe do not make sense you have to question the companies true motivations. Usually, the people making the changes are the ones benefiting from them. It’s not rocket science.

Arguing with people who think it makes sense to take away opportunity because people cannot be trusted to make good decision is a waste of time.

In 2010 junior players did not care about the Player Development program. If you were a good player and had a private coach with a few friends to practice with you did not need them. You could work with your coach, practice with your team or at your club and play lots of tournaments with high quality competition. You did not need to travel very much to qualify for the top tournaments. There were many national tournaments all over the country and they were not difficult to enter. If you could do well in a couple of L3s you were in your L2, do well there and you are in the L1s. You did not need to play them all because there were many to choose from and there were bigger draws. If you wanted to play more tournaments, because you lived in SoCal or had the means, you would have continuous access to top quality competition to gage where you were at and improve through experience. You did not need wild cards when you aged up because the draws were large and you could play your way in.

The PD guys hated this. The best kids did not want to be in the PD program. It is difficult to justify the big budgets and highly paid executives when none of the players even care you exist.

How to fix this problem? How about cut the number of tournaments to the point where it is difficult to have access to great competition increasing the importance of a training center with many players. How about cut the draw sizes and increase the wildcards controlled by the PD guys giving them the power to get kids into the tournament draws and keep them in when the age up. Problem solved. Now Player Development is important and players want (need) to be in the program.

The problem was clear and they had the power to fix it. So they did. I bet the number of applicants to the HiPo program has skyrocketed. The activity level makes the coaches look great. I can just imagine the power points with graphs up and to the right on applications, players in the program and success rates. By the time anyone realizes junior tennis in the US is going down the tubes Pat’s bank account will be full and we can move on to the next guy who has an even better idea for his bank account, oh, that’s right, I meant for US junior tennis.

[gameboy]

Throwing out some big conspiracy theory is not going to bring more people to your position. It will actually push more sane people away from you.

It is not a winning strategy...

[klu375]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

I disagree with your analysis of Gameboy's points and your assessment of how he attains his happiness.

Gameboy attains his happiness by listening to his daughter playing piano and watching her doing Singapore math. He attempted to enjoy her playing tennis but it did not pan out. So he smartly concluded that investing time and money in tennis would produce negative ROI and would just distract her from achieving the goal of his life - for her to be accepted into IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITY.
A lot of the statements made by Gameboy are either ridiculous or serve-serving. Junior tennis player ranked 100-800 are the mainstay of all junior HP tennis programs around the country. They make HP tennis possible as it is their parents who support tennis clubs, coaches, equipment and clothing manufacturers and very often those players ranked below 100 as well as under-served groups Gameboy so worried about. USTA does not provide any resources to these players except overcharging them for poorly run sanctioned tournaments often conducted in questionable locations at inconvenient times and in weird conditions. Most of them are looking forward to become college players. But Gameboy does not care about this kind of players and will be fine if college tennis goes away because it does not serve his needs. Even worse these pesky tennis players may take 10+ Ivy spots reserved for his daughter.
Parents of these poor souls actually want junior tennis to be a positive experience for their kids and they are advocating some reasonable National tournament schedule that would really achieve the goals stated by USTA - cheaper participation, less missed school, ability to compete at the proper level as well as reasonable access to college recruiting showcases. Proposed tournament schedule mostly does not achieve these goals and many parents are obviously upset. But here comes Gameboy and tells us - screw you - you and your kids are not important so shut up. And the best part is that Gameboy has probably never been to a junior tennis tournament.

[TCF]

justinmadison is correct. When Pat Mac makes statements that they can identify the talent that can make it at a young age, it shows the arrogance and ignorance is coming from the top. Even Nick B. admits he has no clue who can truly make it at a young age.

Like or dislike the USTA, it can not be argued effectively that they are not control freaks in some aspects of their operations.

[kme5150]

Originally Posted by justinmadison

The PD guys hated this. The best kids did not want to be in the PD program. It is difficult to justify the big budgets and highly paid executives when none of the players even care you exist.

How to fix this problem? How about cut the number of tournaments to the point where it is difficult to have access to great competition increasing the importance of a training center with many players. How about cut the draw sizes and increase the wildcards controlled by the PD guys giving them the power to get kids into the tournament draws and keep them in when the age up. Problem solved. Now Player Development is important and players want (need) to be in the program.

Bingo!!!!!

That is exactly what happened.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by klu375

Gameboy attains his happiness by listening to his daughter playing piano and watching her doing Singapore math. He attempted to enjoy her playing tennis but it did not pan out. So he smartly concluded that investing time and money in tennis would produce negative ROI and would just distract her from achieving the goal of his life - for her to be accepted into IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITY.
A lot of the statements made by Gameboy are either ridiculous or serve-serving. Junior tennis player ranked 100-800 are the mainstay of all junior HP tennis programs around the country. They make HP tennis possible as it is their parents who support tennis clubs, coaches, equipment and clothing manufacturers and very often those players ranked below 100 as well as under-served groups Gameboy so worried about. USTA does not provide any resources to these players except overcharging them for poorly run sanctioned tournaments often conducted in questionable locations at inconvenient times and in weird conditions. Most of them are looking forward to become college players. But Gameboy does not care about this kind of players and will be fine if college tennis goes away because it does not serve his needs. Even worse these pesky tennis players may take 10+ Ivy spots reserved for his daughter.
Parents of these poor souls actually want junior tennis to be a positive experience for their kids and they are advocating some reasonable National tournament schedule that would really achieve the goals stated by USTA - cheaper participation, less missed school, ability to compete at the proper level as well as reasonable access to college recruiting showcases. Proposed tournament schedule mostly does not achieve these goals and many parents are obviously upset. But here comes Gameboy and tells us - screw you - you and your kids are not important so shut up. And the best part is that Gameboy has probably never been to a junior tennis tournament.

I agree with a lot of the points that Gameboy makes. So wuddya gonna do now........post an imagined profile of my family and their tennis abilities and aspirations?

If you think the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If you think the law is on your side, argue the law. If you think neither the facts nor the law is on your side, attack the person..........I guess is the mantra around here.

Would be interested in knowing how anyone thinks the USTA should alter its schedule to provide more reasonable access to college recruiting showcases, as you brought up. I think college showcases are very valuable, but I didn't realize the USTA is/was adversely affecting my family's access to them.

What should I be mad at the USTA about in connection with college showcases?

[TCF]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

I agree with a lot of the points that Gameboy makes.

I find the debate interesting. I also agree with a gameboy on a good deal if it. But I also have some students who fall into the group he says we should not 'care about'. The parents are as passionately angry about things as I have ever seen them.

So I'm very torn about the changes.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by TCF

I find the debate interesting. I also agree with a gameboy on a good deal if it. But I also have some students who fall into the group he says we should not 'care about'. The parents are as passionately angry about things as I have ever seen them.

So I'm very torn about the changes.

I didn't give too much literal meaning to "care about". The point I took away was that in a policy decision that will positively affect some and negatively affect others, the interest served in satisfying certain constituencies is not always decisive in coming to a final result.

What is the general profile of your students who are not in one of the winning constituencies? I am sure you are not just lying down and taking it..........how are you working around it?

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

I disagree with your analysis of Gameboy's points and your assessment of how he attains his happiness.

He has not stated or suggested that anyone is immature or irresponsible. You are the only one who has done that.

I don't think anyone in this thread is immature or irresponsible.

But if you think the shoe fits.............

Ha! I see what you did there, very clever...

When he says parents of junior tennis players are like horses who cannot resist carrots, he is characterizing them as not being capable of making responsible decisions, hence irresponsible. So don't tell me he didn't do that..

Gameboy is more than capable of defending himself. But I don't even think Gameboy would disagree with the sentiment that he thinks taking a child ranked 200 to a national tournament is a financially irresponsible decision..

[TCF]

================================================

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Gameboy is more than capable of defending himself. But I don't even think Gameboy would disagree with the sentiment that he thinks taking a child ranked 200 to a national tournament is a financially irresponsible decision..

Yeah, I'm third man in, so I should bow out here................but I really think your last statement is a non sequitur.

I think financial responsibility or irresponsibility is a financial question, no?

If you got money to burn it is not financially irresponsible to take #200 to a national. If you're broke or scraping by.............then it might be, and that's what people are discussing.

Setting aside finances, our family never thought we were entitled to enter a national tournament when the ranking was about 200. When it happened, great. If it didn't, no pangs of deprivation

[gameboy]

Originally Posted by klu375

Gameboy attains his happiness by listening to his daughter playing piano and watching her doing Singapore math. He attempted to enjoy her playing tennis but it did not pan out. So he smartly concluded that investing time and money in tennis would produce negative ROI and would just distract her from achieving the goal of his life - for her to be accepted into IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITY.
... But here comes Gameboy and tells us - screw you - you and your kids are not important so shut up. And the best part is that Gameboy has probably never been to a junior tennis tournament.

Personally attacking me or my daughter is not going to bother me. I have bigger things to worry about than some random Internet guy hurting my feelings. So go right ahead, attack away. I am just not going to respond in kind, because it is pointless.

I have been to junior tennis tournaments. I played a few when I was younger. I was certainly not a top 1000 player, but I know a bit about the tournament circuit. The reason why I am limiting my daughter's exposure to all that is because of things that I saw (which has just gotten worse based on posts around here).

[gameboy]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Gameboy is more than capable of defending himself. But I don't even think Gameboy would disagree with the sentiment that he thinks taking a child ranked 200 to a national tournament is a financially irresponsible decision..

I don't care whether or not it is financially responsible or not. The parents are more than capable of figuring that out.

What they need to realize is that getting into a national tournament when you are ranked 200 is not a God given right. And they need to really be honest about the entitled thinking of "if my child just got more exposure to top players, he will be a top 50 player!!!".

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by TCF

Its more the parents than the students to be honest. Same arguments, the draws used to be larger to include some lower ranked kids, they planned family trips around it, etc. They worry about exposure to college coaches.

Our city tennis center has added some more local tournaments. We will make use of video and networking to put kids in front of more college coaches.

Thanks for your response. I understand the "family trip" thing, but I don't think that is a substantive consideration, at least for my family. My family is responsible for the family trips we take, not USTA.

As far as exposure to college coaches (I don't know how old your students are) I think there are a lot of workarounds there too. College coaches need the same number of players regardless of the USTA national tournament policy.

As an aside, I've coached a number of youth sports teams in various sports. Something I learned....and I started to tell parents at the beginning of every new season is "If the player doesn't have a problem then there is no problem"

[10s4US]

Originally Posted by justinmadison

It makes no sense to argue the pros and cons of the changes without understand the truth about why they were made.

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. When a company that is a monopoly makes changes the vast majority of its customers do not like and then explains why the changes are good in a way that the majority of participates believe do not make sense you have to question the companies true motivations. Usually, the people making the changes are the ones benefiting from them. It’s not rocket science.

Arguing with people who think it makes sense to take away opportunity because people cannot be trusted to make good decision is a waste of time.

In 2010 junior players did not care about the Player Development program. If you were a good player and had a private coach with a few friends to practice with you did not need them. You could work with your coach, practice with your team or at your club and play lots of tournaments with high quality competition. You did not need to travel very much to qualify for the top tournaments. There were many national tournaments all over the country and they were not difficult to enter. If you could do well in a couple of L3s you were in your L2, do well there and you are in the L1s. You did not need to play them all because there were many to choose from and there were bigger draws. If you wanted to play more tournaments, because you lived in SoCal or had the means, you would have continuous access to top quality competition to gage where you were at and improve through experience. You did not need wild cards when you aged up because the draws were large and you could play your way in.

The PD guys hated this. The best kids did not want to be in the PD program. It is difficult to justify the big budgets and highly paid executives when none of the players even care you exist.

How to fix this problem? How about cut the number of tournaments to the point where it is difficult to have access to great competition increasing the importance of a training center with many players. How about cut the draw sizes and increase the wildcards controlled by the PD guys giving them the power to get kids into the tournament draws and keep them in when the age up. Problem solved. Now Player Development is important and players want (need) to be in the program.

The problem was clear and they had the power to fix it. So they did. I bet the number of applicants to the HiPo program has skyrocketed. The activity level makes the coaches look great. I can just imagine the power points with graphs up and to the right on applications, players in the program and success rates. By the time anyone realizes junior tennis in the US is going down the tubes Pat’s bank account will be full and we can move on to the next guy who has an even better idea for his bank account, oh, that’s right, I meant for US junior tennis.

Changes have been made for a number of reasons. You are bringing up an interesting consequence and incentives of PD's motivations and results in part, however in Carson's Calif West Coast HPD the numbers been drastically reduced and the facility is out to bid for an outside (private) academy to take over a 12 and under training! West Coast PD Center changes every year
since its inception. It has had problems for the same reasons
the USTA in general has. It large with diversified needs. It is in a large area in SO CAL with difficult traffic and distances. More localized training elsewhere is more convenient for parents. Carson was working better and had more participants when players could come two or three times a week from say San Diego, Orange County, Santa Barbara two hours away. When they wanted fulltime home schooled, numbers dropped. The boys programs pretty much stopped years ago (although I heard they are working with a few boys again.)

Some of the goals such as not missing school, keep costs down, have come from surveys 4-6 years ago from 3 previous two year jr committee administrations, which turn 50% each term. Though Meeting 4 times a year
the Jr committee fails to have an adequate and neccesary vetting review process for the proposals before passage. While the 2014 changes had plenty of notice unlike the 2011 notice of 4 months for planning, the review,feedback, member input process was non existent. Very few of the people that passed the changes will even be on the committee in 2014 to evaluate. The Natl Jr Committee process needs to be reassessed and changed.

The increase in Wild Cards supports your
point and flies in the face of earned advancement.

[TCF]

================================================.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by TCF

1. The family trip dynamic was a big deal. Many of these families also brought along younger siblings and cousins. Good way to hook the younger ones into tennis. The trips were extended time to bond and generate good feelings about tennis. I do not think the USTA did tennis a service by lessening these experiences for tennis families.

Sure these families can now still take their family trips, and they will, with no thought of tennis or spreading it to the next generation.

2. Tennis coaches need the same number of players....but they do not need any more incentive to go after even more foreign players.

3. Tennis kids 'not having a problem with it' does not make sense to me, kids are kids. They do not care that their younger cousins get exposed to tennis, or that local restaurants get a bump and also have good feelings about tennis. And they are not thinking about whether a college coach might use the lower draws to give more consideration to the foreign boy his associate coach told him about.

Your saying about the players not having a problem with it then parents should not might apply to 8 year olds playing baseball. It does not fit tennis kids who have scholarship possibilities in their future. And it does not apply to a sport where parents are asked to foot such heavy bills. The parent's money keeps youth tennis in existence.

1. Assume for now that your Point #1 is valid. Wonder why tennis seems to be the only sport that exhibits this characteristic. I am not aware of it in other youth sports.

2. If I am understanding correctly, fewer national tournaments in centralized locations in the US will make it more difficult and expensive for college coaches to recruit.......so to compensate they will go overseas to recruit?

3. Baseball players don't have scholarship opportunities? Or players in other sports?

No one here needs to believe me. Anyone can check out message boards like this for other youth sports. The couple I follow just don't seem to have the concerns that come up here in connection with national competition. I guess tennis is just different.

[TCF]

================================================

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

1. Assume for now that your Point #1 is valid. Wonder why tennis seems to be the only sport that exhibits this characteristic. I am not aware of it in other youth sports.

I think we have disagreed before on the amount of traveling done by select soccer teams and the like, but no matter. I don't think that's the issue.

I think too much time is spent comparing Tennis to other team sports and I think the analogies fall apart pretty quickly. I think the answer lies in the uniqueness of tennis. It is both an individual sport, like swimming and golf, but it's also a head-to-head sport. Like Andre and Mike Agassi pointed out, its closest analogy is really that dying sport known as boxing.

Peoples objections with the changes vary by section. Under the changes, there are numerous smaller sections, that nonetheless encompass a multi-state area, where even the 3rd or 4th best player won't even qualify for a regional, never mind a national. In these smaller sections the top half dozen kids are playing each other over and over. They need and want the occasional variety the regionals, opens and nationals offer.

With team sports, teams make ups change, seniors graduate, freshman step up, bench players become starters, so even tough you may play the same team over an over again, it doesn't have the sameness to it. With tennis you have the same kids in the same age groups playing each other over and over for years.

[TCF]

================================================