Reconsideration of USTA Junior Competition Changes

[Tcbtennis]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Also, it's not clear to me that it was USTA that released this statement, or if was it the group that met with them. On tennis recruiting site it does not say who the communication was from, and it seems to be written from the perspective of the group who met with them, not the USTA. Might be an attempt by Steve Bellamy, Robert Sasseville and Kevin Kempin to put pressure on USTA.

According to Collete, "As I understand it, the statement was approved for release by the USTA, but it was not supplied by them."

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Colette Lewis (as posted above):

No one has asked me, but I would much rather the USTA go to the standard worldwide tennis format of qualifying tournaments immediately preceding any and all major national events. If the majority of selections are made by sectional endorsements/rankings and a national ranking list, I would be delighted to see a 128-draw with 16 qualifiers, just like the US Open, here in Kalamazoo for the boys 16 and 18 Nationals.


I could get on board with something like this. But I wonder if it would satisfy the three main areas of concern with the current changes, as stated by others?

1. Not enough family travel opportunities to National tournaments
2. Inconvenience and expense for college recruiters
3. Not enough variety of opponents

It sounds to me like all three concerns would be satisfied:

1. You can travel to the qualifying rounds. Someone could object that a family does not know whether their child will make it to the main draw, so they don't know how many nights to book at a hotel, but they don't know exactly how far in the current draw their child will get, in any tournament, so this is nothing new and works the same for any tournament format.

2. Some college recruiters are only after the very top players. They don't show up for round 1 at Kalamazoo today, and won't show up for the qualifying rounds in the future. Other recruiters know they cannot sign the top 20-30 players, so they will show up for the qualifying rounds but will probably save money by leaving before the main draw concludes, which they probably do today, as well.

3. Because players from all over the nation will descend on Kalamazoo and the Clay Courts for qualifying rounds, there will be a variety of opponents there, just like there is a variety of opponents in the early rounds of the current Clay Courts and Kalamazoo.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

It sounds to me like all three concerns would be satisfied:

1. You can travel to the qualifying rounds. Someone could object that a family does not know whether their child will make it to the main draw, so they don't know how many nights to book at a hotel, but they don't know exactly how far in the current draw their child will get, in any tournament, so this is nothing new and works the same for any tournament format.

2. Some college recruiters are only after the very top players. They don't show up for round 1 at Kalamazoo today, and won't show up for the qualifying rounds in the future. Other recruiters know they cannot sign the top 20-30 players, so they will show up for the qualifying rounds but will probably save money by leaving before the main draw concludes, which they probably do today, as well.

3. Because players from all over the nation will descend on Kalamazoo and the Clay Courts for qualifying rounds, there will be a variety of opponents there, just like there is a variety of opponents in the early rounds of the current Clay Courts and Kalamazoo.

I generally concur with this.

1. I really don't understand the complaint here, even though I respect that a lot of people have it, so hard for me to figure what would satisfy. Unless people really need to fly or drive to THE NATIONAL TOURNAMENT, I think this would provide good tourist and family time opportunities.

2. Heartily agree!!!!!!

3. Heartily agree!!!!!!

PS. Didn't you come up with the qualifier idea in some thread here last week?

[BirdieLane]

Sorry but these numbers are fishy.

It's very deceiving and disingenuous to count the regional tourneys in the 2012 totals and ignore them 2014. I just looked at the numbers and came up with 1,298 for 18s. It discredits those that would put these forward.

National:
96 (Feb L2)
128 (Easter bowl ITF closed)
128 (Clays)
6 (July Team)
128 (Hards)
12 (Oct Gr Masters)
96 (Nov L2)
64 (Dec Team)

Regional (counted before so should count now)
128 (Feb L4)
128 (May L3)
128 (July L3 or L4)
128 (Oct L3)
128 (Nov L4)

Total 1298

[10s4US]

Originally Posted by HIGH-TECH TENNIS in related thread USTA needs more NAt'l Tournaments not less...
to 10S4US---I didn't create the petition, I don't know who did, the customer who asked us to forward it did so because they want to notify other parents ... please understand that we have been and continue to be strongly opposed to the changes. However, there appears to be NOTHING that anyone can do to prevent them from taking effect. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

10s4US replies
NO.....
THANK YOU
The petition serves as a documented mandate, as a voice to amend 2014changes that the USTA can not deny. It is a mandate from the USTA membership and affiliates served and serving to give access and input to the decision making process and structure to the USTA membership and affiliates served and serving where the USTA system needs be more receptive,open and transparent.
....This forum provides an illuminating communication source to inform and network
As far as a DONE Deal 2011 is DONE, 2012 is on its way yet serves to
provide evidence/case studies of the changes negative effects of reduced natl opportunities and participation despite the desire for more by players,parents,coaches,directors
There IS still hope and time to amend changes to 2014 and open up access to participate in input and decision making process by membership served
by MEDIA blitz, high profile celebrity support the current
by Understanding ,working within, and modifying the USTA system
(2 meetings a year, special meetings can be called)
to be continued...

It is encouraging that the USTA executives are listening and holding discussions with major experienced John Q coaches,parents,players,directors, industry leaders such as Bellamy(coach,parent, facility director, Tennis Channel Founder),Sasseville(tournament director), and Kempkin (industry)

Hopefully basic economic principles of supply and demand, economies of scale, and social/political principles of freedoms of choice and self determination which have been negatively impacted can be highlighted and drive the dsicussions towards some pause and adjustments to changes.

It will be interesting to see what can and or will be done by this USTA group.

[klu375]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

It sounds to me like all three concerns would be satisfied:

1. You can travel to the qualifying rounds. Someone could object that a family does not know whether their child will make it to the main draw, so they don't know how many nights to book at a hotel, but they don't know exactly how far in the current draw their child will get, in any tournament, so this is nothing new and works the same for any tournament format.

2. Some college recruiters are only after the very top players. They don't show up for round 1 at Kalamazoo today, and won't show up for the qualifying rounds in the future. Other recruiters know they cannot sign the top 20-30 players, so they will show up for the qualifying rounds but will probably save money by leaving before the main draw concludes, which they probably do today, as well.

3. Because players from all over the nation will descend on Kalamazoo and the Clay Courts for qualifying rounds, there will be a variety of opponents there, just like there is a variety of opponents in the early rounds of the current Clay Courts and Kalamazoo.

Another option would be to run 128 slot L3 or L4 tournament for BG16-18 at the same dates and locations as Summer L1s.

[dallasoliver]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Also, it's not clear to me that it was USTA that released this statement, or if was it the group that met with them. On tennis recruiting site it does not say who the communication was from, and it seems to be written from the perspective of the group who met with them, not the USTA. Might be an attempt by Steve Bellamy, Robert Sasseville and Kevin Kempin to put pressure on USTA.

The statement was written by the above group of people, but the USTA made some small edits and approved the message for distribution.

Best,
Dallas

[10s4US]

Originally Posted by BirdieLane

Sorry but these numbers are fishy.

It's very deceiving and disingenuous to count the regional tourneys in the 2012 totals and ignore them 2014. I just looked at the numbers and came up with 1,298 for 18s. It discredits those that would put these forward.

National:
96 (Feb L2)
128 (Easter bowl ITF closed)
128 (Clays)
6 (July Team)
128 (Hards)
12 (Oct Gr Masters)
96 (Nov L2)
64 (Dec Team)

Regional (counted before so should count now)
128 (Feb L4)
128 (May L3)
128 (July L3 or L4)
128 (Oct L3)
128 (Nov L4)

Total 1298

While you pose a related qualification these numbers are neither fishy,deceiving, disingenuos,nor discrediting for reasons that you stated
While a few nat'l points are still gven in 2014, players are restricted to play only in their regions, unlike 2012 where a player can enter any where of choice in the country thus the regionals in 2014 are no longer nat'l opportunities
The regionals do not qualify to nationalslike Little MO

[BirdieLane]

Originally Posted by klu375

Another option would be to run 128 slot L3 or L4 tournament for BG16-18 at the same dates and locations as Summer L1s.

I believe this is the plan for Clays already. Could add same for Hards. Also, I think they've heard a lot of feedback to open up the regionals to everyone again - so I wouldn't be surprised if that is one change/concession. (10s4US - If they did that, then would you say those 640 spots count?)

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by dallasoliver

The statement was written by the above group of people, but the USTA made some small edits and approved the message for distribution.

Best,
Dallas

Thanks, that makes sense.

[klu375]

Originally Posted by BirdieLane

I believe this is the plan for Clays already. Could add same for Hards. Also, I think they've heard a lot of feedback to open up the regionals to everyone again - so I wouldn't be surprised if that is one change/concession. (10s4US - If they did that, then would you say those 640 spots count?)

We really need to discuss how proposed 2014 Nat. schedule can be improved to satisfy various participants instead of crying about what was there in 2009. Not all their changes are bad. I like qualification for big events through local play. I do not see anything wrong with running multiple level events at the same time (and at the same locations for older age groups to simplify recruiting). Nothing wrong with the idea that everyone should play at their own level. My daughter who practices 6 hours a week does not necessarily need to play against somebody who practices 6 hours a day. But maybe she should have opportunities to play against somebody like her from another part of the country when school is off.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by klu375

We really need to discuss how proposed 2014 Nat. schedule can be improved to satisfy various participants instead of crying about what was there in 2009. Not all their changes are bad. I like qualification for big events through local play. I do not see anything wrong with running multiple level events at the same time (and at the same locations for older age groups to simplify recruiting). Nothing wrong with the idea that everyone should play at their own level. My daughter who practices 6 hours a week does not necessarily need to play against somebody who practices 6 hours a day. But maybe she should have opportunities to play against somebody like her from another part of the country when school is off.

I agree.

I think most of the objections to the changes revolve around couple areas, such as,

The draw sizes are just too small. Increase the draw sizes. Recognize that all ranking systems are imperfect, that there are inequities between sections, etc., so err on inclusivity not exclusivity. You shouldn't have to be best player in a three state area to got to to the next level.

Acknowledge the birth day problem. All Levels 1 are in summer now, except for the elite tea parties. Let them have there tea parties, but bring back winter nationals, or keep Easter bowl as full size event, not an elite 32 event.

[tennisgene]

I think UstA will do the right thing

[10s4US]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

I agree.

I think most of the objections to the changes revolve around couple areas, such as,

The draw sizes are just too small. Increase the draw sizes. Recognize that all ranking systems are imperfect, that there are inequities between sections, etc., so err on inclusivity not exclusivity. You shouldn't have to be best player in a three state area to got to to the next level.

Acknowledge the birth day problem. All Levels 1 are in summer now, except for the elite tea parties. Let them have there tea parties, but bring back winter nationals, or keep Easter bowl as full size event, not an elite 32 event.

Yes,
Follow the USTA mission statement to grow the game of tennis
Give everyone a chance to compete at multi levels, nationally as well, fairly
by earning it.
The existing structure is OK and can be improved by going back to 64 draw Nat opens or do qualiies for
or use Level 4's or 3's for qualies or way back to qualifying locally
Ther are Good New ideas moving forward such as sweet 16's, masters, and add training workshops for more kids than just the elite elite, increasing sectional quotas within section strength factors, fine but utilize reasonable wild card #'s and factors with specific accountable guidelines based on his level like the kid is a succcessful highly ranked ITF player doing only a few NAts/locals now or was injured and top ranked before, top ranked in lower age playing up etc which is the current criteria..,
In general try a few new adjustements without drastically limiting nat'l opportunities. Let our kids play.

[jrtennis]

The numbers posted on Zoo Tennis are not "fishy, deceiving or disingenuous."
Let's take a real simple look at 2012 vs. 2014 levels 1-3 without including sectionals, grand masters, sweet sixteens or team championships. I'm going to use 14s because they are simplest and the numbers are most favorable to the USTA side (clay and hard courts draw sizes reain the same). 2012 numbers are also more favorable to the USTA than those of years past.
2012: 512 opportunities in level 1s, 512 in 2s, 1280 in 3s.
2014: 288 in 1s, 256 in 2s, 384 in 3s.
As you can see, it is still a massive cut in playing opportunities to about 40% of where they are today. Combine that, in many cases, with smaller sectional draws and the difference is even more dramatic.

[BirdieLane]

Originally Posted by jrtennis

The numbers posted on Zoo Tennis are not "fishy, deceiving or disingenuous."
Let's take a real simple look at 2012 vs. 2014 levels 1-3 without including sectionals, grand masters, sweet sixteens or team championships. I'm going to use 14s because they are simplest and the numbers are most favorable to the USTA side (clay and hard courts draw sizes reain the same). 2012 numbers are also more favorable to the USTA than those of years past.
2012: 512 opportunities in level 1s, 512 in 2s, 1280 in 3s.
2014: 288 in 1s, 256 in 2s, 384 in 3s.
As you can see, it is still a massive cut in playing opportunities to about 40% of where they are today. Combine that, in many cases, with smaller sectional draws and the difference is even more dramatic.

You are making my point. Don't say it's 580 when, according to your numbers, its 928. A reduction to be sure...but no need to exaggerate to that extent.

Further, new L4s regionals are out-of-section opportunities that should definitely be counted because they will be a great place for the player who is a top sectional player but who is consistently a "2 and out" L1 player. They can go deep in these events. (But note that 25% will still go "2 and out") So hopefully, a strong sectional player can get out of the section and hopefully see a step-up in competition but not fly home having been able to count games won on one hand.

With that, said, here's my count of 14s in 2014:

Feb: 92 L2 + 128 L4
Mar/Apr: 32 L1
May: 16 L1 + 128 L3
July:
128 ClayL1 + 128 L4 (I think they made a mistake and called this L3)
70 IntersL1 + 225 ZonalL3
Aug: 128 HardL1
Oct: 16 L1 + 128 L3 (Plus 4? for grand masters?)
Nov: 92 L2 + 128 L4
Dec: 32 TeamL1 + 32 TeamL2

Maybe I'm off a little or missed something but thats what I get. Adding up and you get: 1900 OUT-OF-SECTION playing opportunities.

Even just counting L1-3 like you did, I get 1035 so we're close, but both clearly a lot higher than 580 claimed in the above numbers....that's my point.

Broken down like this:
L1 (or L1A..whatever that means): 426
L2: 128
L3: 481
L4: 256

As far as USTA reconsidering. I do hope they open the L3/4 regionals up so you can play at any of the sites and could maybe add a L3 or L4 concurrent with Easters...but beyond that, I've always been willing to at least see how this plays out.

I think it gives a player more concrete achievement steps. I.e. first feather is to work hard and get a shot at a L4 or L3. Double your efforts and then you can hold head high that you made a L2. Work triple hard and MAYBE you can make easter bowl cut (assume that will be about #50-60 or so??). And what if you work triple or quadruple hard and DON'T make Easter32 cutoff? Great!! You still had that goal and you worked your hardest for it...or maybe you didn't turn over every stone?..so try again!

Versus right now, you can be ranked #200+, but you pretty much get to do 'everything' - yet you don't really have what it takes to go deep nationally. So you just fly to clays and hards and even winters and you happily "participate".

But in 2014, guess, what? You might might need a ranking of #150 to get into the L2. And you might need a ranking of #60 to get into Easter. Well...now you have some work to do and some concrete goals beyond 'participation'.

I have kids playing at different levels. I'm looking forward to seeing if my weaker kids can make it regionals and if my strongest player works double/triple/quadruple hard to 'make' some of these new levels of play. (Noting that even if the goal of Easters or whatever is not obtained, the truly important thing is the double/triple determination and effort trying to get there)

My observation with kids and sports is that if they are truly passionate and there is a goal that is a little out of reach, they will "turn it on" and push very hard to achieve it...but the kid who is a 'lock' for tryouts (or national selection) will not have the same urgency to improve. (clearly theres a few exceptions, but this is a good generalization that I've seen play out over and over.)

[HIGH-TECH TENNIS]

We've been too busy to even think about the fact that this whole issue is being revisited...and I'm certainly in favor of anything extra consideration of what I thought was a "done deal" (since I read that Lew Brewer used those exact words, if I recall)...but do I think we're gonna get a "oh, well, just nevermind all those changes?" NO---I really doubt that. Then again, I know nothing about it and really am sick of the whole topic, aren't you? Wish they'd just let tennis players play tennis and let the parents make choices about what's best for THEIR children!!!

[10ismom]

Colette just posted a letter from USTA CEO Vegosen and Haggerty to Tim Russell, junior comp chairman, on her Zootennis blog tonight.

The letter mentioned possible modifications.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9s.../preview?pli=1

[klu375]

Originally Posted by 10ismom

Colette just posted a letter from USTA CEO Vegosen and Haggerty to Tim Russell, junior comp chairman, on her Zootennis blog tonight.

The letter mentioned possible modifications.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9s.../preview?pli=1

Translated from corporate speak this is a clear mandate to the Composer(s) to go back to the piano and produce a better piece of music. Nevertheless JCC and PD did an outstanding job! And CEOs made this letter public - King cares about his people, long live the King!

[10s4US]

Originally Posted by BirdieLane

You are making my point. Don't say it's 580 when, according to your numbers, its 928. A reduction to be sure...but no need to exaggerate to that extent.

Further, new L4s regionals are out-of-section opportunities that should definitely be counted because they will be a great place for the player who is a top sectional player but who is consistently a "2 and out" L1 player. They can go deep in these events. (But note that 25% will still go "2 and out") So hopefully, a strong sectional player can get out of the section and hopefully see a step-up in competition but not fly home having been able to count games won on one hand.

With that, said, here's my count of 14s in 2014:

Feb: 92 L2 + 128 L4
Mar/Apr: 32 L1
May: 16 L1 + 128 L3
July:
128 ClayL1 + 128 L4 (I think they made a mistake and called this L3)
70 IntersL1 + 225 ZonalL3
Aug: 128 HardL1
Oct: 16 L1 + 128 L3 (Plus 4? for grand masters?)
Nov: 92 L2 + 128 L4
Dec: 32 TeamL1 + 32 TeamL2

Maybe I'm off a little or missed something but thats what I get. Adding up and you get: 1900 OUT-OF-SECTION playing opportunities.

Even just counting L1-3 like you did, I get 1035 so we're close, but both clearly a lot higher than 580 claimed in the above numbers....that's my point.

Broken down like this:
L1 (or L1A..whatever that means): 426
L2: 128
L3: 481
L4: 256

As far as USTA reconsidering. I do hope they open the L3/4 regionals up so you can play at any of the sites and could maybe add a L3 or L4 concurrent with Easters...but beyond that, I've always been willing to at least see how this plays out.

I think it gives a player more concrete achievement steps. I.e. first feather is to work hard and get a shot at a L4 or L3. Double your efforts and then you can hold head high that you made a L2. Work triple hard and MAYBE you can make easter bowl cut (assume that will be about #50-60 or so??). And what if you work triple or quadruple hard and DON'T make Easter32 cutoff? Great!! You still had that goal and you worked your hardest for it...or maybe you didn't turn over every stone?..so try again!

Versus right now, you can be ranked #200+, but you pretty much get to do 'everything' - yet you don't really have what it takes to go deep nationally. So you just fly to clays and hards and even winters and you happily "participate".

But in 2014, guess, what? You might might need a ranking of #150 to get into the L2. And you might need a ranking of #60 to get into Easter. Well...now you have some work to do and some concrete goals beyond 'participation'.

I have kids playing at different levels. I'm looking forward to seeing if my weaker kids can make it regionals and if my strongest player works double/triple/quadruple hard to 'make' some of these new levels of play. (Noting that even if the goal of Easters or whatever is not obtained, the truly important thing is the double/triple determination and effort trying to get there)

My observation with kids and sports is that if they are truly passionate and there is a goal that is a little out of reach, they will "turn it on" and push very hard to achieve it...but the kid who is a 'lock' for tryouts (or national selection) will not have the same urgency to improve. (clearly theres a few exceptions, but this is a good generalization that I've seen play out over and over.)

Whatever and However parents/players spin their nat'l opportunities is a personal perogative/perspective, but THE POINT IS THEY NEED TO BE THERE
IN ORDER TO Allow each of us to choose THEIR CHOICE OF WHAT TO DO WITH and EXPERIENCE THE NAt'L Opportunities
Again, restricted regionals are not NAt'l as proposed for 2014.
and is not counted as such. and you are getting the point by thinking hmm.. maybe they should open it up as a nat'l evnt and allow US to make the choice

MORE IMPORTANTLY
Thank you to those that took the time to present the facts that
NUMBERS of NAT'L OPPORTUNITIES ARE BEING AND WILL BE REDUCED
DRASTICALLY IN 2014