Maybe our USTA 12s aren't so bad

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

That is not what I am saying. Her own public comments on American players and international are the issue. This is a coach who is bottom dweller( in her division) who basically has written off American players becuase she's not good enough to recruit top 20-30 blue chips. I'm saying the issue is the coach and not the quality if American players, and that her strategy of recruiting international players to better compete in the Pac 12 is a failure.

I wish any coach good luck recruiting the 30th blue chip. (I know that was probably an inadvertent error, but funny still).

So if Jill Hultquist recruited from "her back yard" as you advised her to do, how much higher do you think U Washington would rank in the Pac-12 and ITA?

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

I wish any coach good luck recruiting the 30th blue chip. (I know that was probably an inadvertent error, but funny still).

There are 26 junior blue chips and 28 sophomore blue chips. I said 30. Yes, that's pretty funny. Got me again there. ROTFL.

Originally Posted by Misterbill

So if Jill Hultquist recruited from "her back yard" as you advised her to do, how much higher do you think U Washington would rank in the Pac-12 and ITA?

Obviously an impossible question, any answer would be just speculation. I can say with confidence though that they would go no lower that one place further down in the PAC-12 rankings.

[Misterbill]

Strange. TRN says there are only 25 blue chips per class. But you knew that.

http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/about/TopProspects.asp

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Strange. TRN says there are only 25 blue chips per class. But you knew that.

http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/about/TopProspects.asp

What exactly is your point, other than to be picayune, or to just argue with everything I post for the fun of it ? I know what there policy is, but I guess they don't always follow it. Go count them. There are currently 26 junior blue chips and 28 sophomore blue chips. Or don't. Whatever. Really, who cares. I said 30. WTF is funny about that ??

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Obviously an impossible question, any answer would be just speculation. I can say with confidence though that they would go no lower that one place further down in the PAC-12 rankings.

OK, I'll go way out on a limb here and say U Washington has a lot better chance of winning more matches/having a successful program/doing better in the Pac-12 and ITA rankings by recruiting nationally and internationally than by recruiting in their back yard.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

What exactly is your point, other than to be picayune, or to just argue with everything I post for the fun of it ? I know what there policy is, but I guess they don't always follow it. Go count them. There are currently 26 junior blue chips and 28 sophomore blue chips. Or don't. Whatever. Really, who cares. I said 30. WTF is funny about that ??

Here is the answer, I guess, from TRN.

+++ There is one additional criteria that can be met to achieve Blue Chip status. Players ranked in the Top 10 in the six-month period prior to the publication of the ratings will be tabbed as Blue Chips (to recognize highly-ranked players who stopped playing junior events).


My point? I think all of us should strive for accuracy on factual matters, especially in the Junior forum

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

OK, I'll go way out on a limb here and say U Washington has a lot better chance of winning more matches/having a successful program/doing better in the Pac-12 and ITA rankings by recruiting nationally and internationally than by recruiting in their back yard.

Since we striving for accuracy, I think it only fair that youe review what I wrote. I wrote:

1) her primary(I didn't say exclusive) recruiting area should be her back yard(could be interpreted various ways, but I think really the Pacific Northwest is a better interpetation, not just Washington State). Every decent recruiting coach knows you have to own your own backyard. This is just common sense. Things is, schools like Arizona State, who finished ahead of Washington, managed to find some players from the PNW.

2) I said I believe having some international players is a good thing.

So, yes, if she wants to compete in the PAC-12, she needs to recruit from all three areas, in that order of priority. Her first step is losing the attitude that if they are not top 30, they aren't good enough for her. Has it occurred to her that shes not good enough for the players ? They are second to last place three years running. What I am saying she should get solid five stars and build the programs from there instead of trying to find silver bullets.If she can get the team above 500 and in the top 5 or 6, she can make a decent pitch to blue stars as to why they should come.

[Misterbill]

Opinions don't have to be accurate.....don't know how you could verify that anyway except after the fact. I was talking about facts.

Anyway. Your opinion is that Jill Hultquist should recruit from the Pacific Northwest as her primary priority. I disagree.

Sure, it is always nice to get home-staters on the roster. But Washington is a pretty weak tennis state and the PNW is a pretty weak section, historically. I really don't think this is good advice. If I am wrong here, U Washington could save a lot of money by recruiting more at Sectionals than Nationals.

I have no problem with U Washington, and Jill Hultquist specifically....since you called her out personally......recruiting the best available players as the top priority whether they reside in the back yard, or nationally, or internationally.

I think all coaches of teams in competitive D1 conferences should go after the best available players regardless of residence or nationality...........and in the case of a possible tie, choose a home-stater over a non-home stater.

In the final analysis, what I think doesn't matter a fig. It's what the AD approves as team policy. For all we know, the UW AD has read this thread and will call in Jill Hultquist tomorrow and tell her to raise the competitiveness of the women's tennis program by putting the primary priority on recruiting in the Pacific Northwest!

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Get some more Americans and worse case she is still in the cellar of the pac 12 and and a couple of American kids get the educational opportunity they deserve.

No, worst case is that her team loses every game in the PAC-12 and has a worse non-conference record than they have achieved in recent years, also. For example, they could go 3-17 overall.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

That is not what I am saying. Her own public comments on American players and international are the issue. This is a coach who is bottom dweller( in her division) who basically has written off American players becuase she's not good enough to recruit top 20-30 blue chips. I'm saying the issue is the coach and not the quality if American players, and that her strategy of recruiting international players to better compete in the Pac 12 is a failure.

Just as a little mathematics exercise, I wonder how many programs can sign the top 30 American juniors every year? Hmm, let's see: These programs have eight full scholarships for women, so they average two per year. The top 15 women's teams could swallow up all of the top 30 recruits every year. I suppose there would be no excuse for the top 15 programs to look overseas, in that case, which would leave none of the top 30 available for other schools.

But, of course, if you take over a 3-17 program, you are located in nice, rainy Seattle, you cannot offer more scholarship money than anyone else because on the women's side everyone is offering full rides, then obviously you should be able to sign blue chip players if you are a good recruiter and you are not lazy. Right.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Sure, it is always nice to get home-staters on the roster. But Washington is a pretty weak tennis state and the PNW is a pretty weak section, historically. I really don't think this is good advice. If I am wrong here, U Washington could save a lot of money by recruiting more at Sectionals than Nationals.

The top three girls in Washington are four-star recruits this year. The top girl in Oregon is a three-star recruit.

Maybe someone who has time should compile a list of where the 50 five-star girls from last year's graduating class went to college this year. Then we could see what the odds appear to be for UW to get two of the five-stars every year until they have a solid program and can have a shot at attracting blue chips.

[t135]

What percentage of ranked female juniors are going on to play in college these days? Back when I was coaching it was low. A lot of players just quit playing when they went into college. Either couldn't play for their preferred school or just wanted to do something else.

[tennis5]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

No, I don't doubt that's her reason. I don't remember saying or implying otherwise. I just think she is wrong. Lazy too. I believe that as long as she has that philosophy/attitude, she is going to dwell in the cellar of the Pac 12. Recruiting international players is not going to solve her problem, she's not going to beat the cream of PAC 12 with these players. To do that, she needs to make her program more attractive to the top American players. Don't see how she accomplishes that with her attitude. Get some more Americans and worse case she is still in the cellar of the pac 12 and and a couple of American kids get the educational opportunity they deserve.

Bingo.......

[tennis5]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Our family has been through the D1 recruiting process. The existence of foreigners on a team was considered a positive rather than a negative consideration for any particular school.

Honest question, is it a positive when the entire team is all foreigners?

The sad thing is this will never change and the percentages will creep up every year.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

Just as a little mathematics exercise, I wonder how many programs can sign the top 30 American juniors every year? Hmm, let's see: These programs have eight full scholarships for women, so they average two per year. The top 15 women's teams could swallow up all of the top 30 recruits every year. I suppose there would be no excuse for the top 15 programs to look overseas, in that case, which would leave none of the top 30 available for other schools.

But, of course, if you take over a 3-17 program, you are located in nice, rainy Seattle, you cannot offer more scholarship money than anyone else because on the women's side everyone is offering full rides, then obviously you should be able to sign blue chip players if you are a good recruiter and you are not lazy. Right.

1. I think you are making my point for me. There are not enough top 30 juniors to go around, they are in high demand. UW is being unrealistic in thinking they are in a position to attract these players today. But she is right, she needs to attract these players to compete at the top of the PAC 12.

2. Since she can't get these players, her strategy is to go abroad to get players that can compete with these players. This strategy is failing on two counts a) the foreign players she has brought in have not shown that they are any more competitive at competing with the top of the pac 12 than the average 5 star(top ~100) Americans and b) this is getting her no closer to getting her program closer to being a top 15 program that can get her in a position to recruit top 30 players.

3. She needs to build her program on a solid foundation, one class at a time. She needs to set realistic recruiting goals which should a this point be primarily focused on 5 stars. From the northwest, if available. When she gets to be a top 25 program, and at least in the top half of the pac 12, she can make a legitimate recruiting pitch to top30. Right now, she is too impatient to do that, and just going for whatever foreign player has the best resume. Again, she seems to be trying to find a sliver bullet(s)

4. I take it you don't like Seattle, but Udub is a very good University and many young people do like Seattle, more so than some of the other cities that some top colleges are located in. I don't think the quality if her university or its location presents any recruiting disadvantage.

[PTBL]

C. Liu (USTA) def G. Ysidora (Wash.) 1-6,6-4,7-6
M. Jodoin (Duke) def C. Liu (USTA) 7-6 (1), 6-3
M. Craft (Georgia) def C. Liu (USTA) 6-2, 6-3
Liu was probably hoping not to be swept away there. She certainly did better than that. Not bad for a 12-y-o to push Jodoin, who is ranked #27, to TB either.

[PTBL]

Originally Posted by rgwarren

Looks like both Claire Liu and Abby D will be playing at the Nike International at Club Med in about a month against best 12 yr olds in the world that should be a good measuring stick to see how they do. Where's TCF? He never got back to us on the match between his daughter and AD.

Where did this info come from?

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

4. I take it you don't like Seattle, but Udub is a very good University and many young people do like Seattle, more so than some of the other cities that some top colleges are located in. I don't think the quality if her university or its location presents any recruiting disadvantage.

Weather, and the ability to play outdoors pretty much whenever you want, can be big selling points in tennis recruiting. There are schools with great indoor facilities that use the facilities as a sales pitch to overcome this disadvantage to some degree. The Ohio State men's team is a good example. But you will notice that they recruit mainly M-i-d-western players who are already used to the weather, plus they usually have a small number of overseas players (typically just one or two in the top six). The quality of M-i-d-western boys in the juniors is quite a bit higher than the quality of Northwestern girls. So the Washington women's coach really needs to recruit California five stars who just miss out on being recruited by the top schools, and convince them to head north a little ways. Perhaps that is tougher than you think. Maybe we should look at where the California five-star girls have been going in recent years to get an idea.

[rgwarren]

Originally Posted by PTBL

Where did this info come from?

Directly from Nike.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

Weather, and the ability to play outdoors pretty much whenever you want, can be big selling points in tennis recruiting. There are schools with great indoor facilities that use the facilities as a sales pitch to overcome this disadvantage to some degree. The Ohio State men's team is a good example. But you will notice that they recruit mainly M-i-d-western players who are already used to the weather, plus they usually have a small number of overseas players (typically just one or two in the top six). The quality of M-i-d-western boys in the juniors is quite a bit higher than the quality of Northwestern girls. So the Washington women's coach really needs to recruit California five stars who just miss out on being recruited by the top schools, and convince them to head north a little ways. Perhaps that is tougher than you think. Maybe we should look at where the California five-star girls have been going in recent years to get an idea.

I think there are a lot of good points here. I think it is kinda self-apparent that competitive Pacific Northwest D1 schools do not enjoy recruiting advantages based on geography/weather over other competitive D1 schools from traditional tennis hotbeds in So Cal and the Southeast, for example.

I think it is wrong and silly for another poster to say that "I take it you don't like Seattle", which gives the appearance of ascribing personal prejudice and bias to the reasonable, objective opinions you have expressed here