Maybe our USTA 12s aren't so bad

[goober]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

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.

I agree- the worst case scenario is that she will do as bad as the team she took over in which case she will lose her job. That is actually a realistic scenario. Of course it is easy to say yes recruit more Americans when it is not your job on the line. Most coaches if given the choice between losing their jobs and giving marginally competitive American players more scholarships, would choose to keep their jobs. The only way I can see that ever changing is if the AD decides that giving Americans more scholarships is more important than winning at their particular (nonpowerhouse tennis) college or the NCAA decides to limit the number of foreign scholies.

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by goober

I agree- the worst case scenario is that she will do as bad as the team she took over in which case she will lose her job. That is actually a realistic scenario. Of course it is easy to say yes recruit more Americans when it is not your job on the line. Most coaches if given the choice between losing their jobs and giving marginally competitive American players more scholarships, would choose to keep their jobs. The only way I can see that ever changing is if the AD decides that giving Americans more scholarships is more important than winning at their particular (nonpowerhouse tennis) college or the NCAA decides to limit the number of foreign scholies.

At our local college the coach(canadian) has NO pressure from the A.D. to win. He has FINALLY listened to me and recruited almost all players from Georgia. I told him that he should recruit all Georgia kids and try to develop players verse recruit foreign players that hes never seen play.If A.D.s took this same approach with a non revenue sport like tennis then i think it will help with the college tennis problem. The big problem is most college tennis coaches are cluless about player development and just know how to recruit.The school is division 2 and most American kids think d2 is a bad thing and would rather get no scholarship money and play number 9 for a d1 team and never see any playing time but say they play d1.Alot of American kids think they are better than they really are and think they should be playing d1 tennis when in reality d2 would be a better spot.

[goober]

Originally Posted by ga tennis

At our local college the coach(canadian) has NO pressure from the A.D. to win. He has FINALLY listened to me and recruited almost all players from Georgia. I told him that he should recruit all Georgia kids and try to develop players verse recruit foreign players that hes never seen play.If A.D.s took this same approach with a non revenue sport like tennis then i think it will help with the college tennis problem. The big problem is most college tennis coaches are cluless about player development and just know how to recruit.The school is division 2 and most American kids think d2 is a bad thing and would rather get no scholarship money and play number 9 for a d1 team and never see any playing time but say they play d1.Alot of American kids think they are better than they really are and think they should be playing d1 tennis when in reality d2 would be a better spot.

Well good for him. But D2 and no pressure from AD- he should be getting American kids. The D2 (or D3) versus D1 problem is prevalent in almost all college sports. Most American kids that are stars at the high school level think they should be D1 in almost every sport. Their is a huge prestige factor between the highest level and the lower levels. Very difficult to get around this perception until these kids realize they are not as good as they think they are and they might be better off being a major part of D2 team rather than a benchwarmer on a D1 team.

[Alohajrtennis]

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.

They have modern indoor facility there as well. When you combine the city, the quality of the university, and yes the weather, I don't think she's at a recruiting disadvantage vis-a-vis the majority of other teams in her division. Maybe not as an attractive destination as the CA schools, but on par with the other schools. Particular recruits may prefer the year round sunshine of Arizona and Utah, but others may may not like the heat.

Yes, California is the next logical recruitment area. Most coaches start in the backyard and then the next step is in their conference. All those road trips are recruiting trips as well.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by goober

I agree- the worst case scenario is that she will do as bad as the team she took over in which case she will lose her job. That is actually a realistic scenario. Of course it is easy to say yes recruit more Americans when it is not your job on the line. Most coaches if given the choice between losing their jobs and giving marginally competitive American players more scholarships, would choose to keep their jobs. The only way I can see that ever changing is if the AD decides that giving Americans more scholarships is more important than winning at their particular (nonpowerhouse tennis) college or the NCAA decides to limit the number of foreign scholies.

Overall record : I don't think it matters. In a conference like the PAC-12, it how you do in the conference that matters. In addition, she explicitly stated that the reason she recruits foreign players was becuase she needed to be more competitive in her conference, not becuase she wanted to do better out of conference. As I said, How's that working out for her ? If the AD decides to cut her loose, it going to be cause of her conference record, not her ITA ranking. I'm pretty sure the AD's bonus is tied to conference rankings and titles. I'd wager a bet the women tennis team ITA ranking does not factor into his bonus.

Again, the foreign players she has bought in have shown they are no more competitive in her conference than an average American 5 star(AKA Marginally competitive American Players) that she claims are not good enough for her. Sorry, the choice you have layed out, between losing their jobs and giving marginally competitive American players more scholarships, is just not the reality of the situation.

She needs to set realistic recruiting goals, get the best Americans she can get, maybe supplement them with a couple of foreign players, not six, ad improve the program a step at a time.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

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

I used to have a brother who lived with his wife and child in the Seattle area when he worked at Boeing. We visited several times up there. Beautiful area. We often scheduled family vacations in the Pacific Northwest for that reason. Spent one vacation going down the Oregon coast, another in the San Juan Islands, and another in Victoria, British Columbia, and surrounding sites, including Whistler (summer, not skiing season). I think that area is really pretty. When I narrowed down my list of schools to consider attending for my Ph.D., the University of Washington was on the final list of four schools.

Not a personal dislike of Seattle or UW. But I have heard top tennis players in Virginia say that they are probably heading farther south for college. An outstanding indoor facility at UVa has been a big boost to our recruiting here. A lot of players just don't want to be anywhere for tennis if the weather will force them indoors a good bit of the time. Some of the rainier places are among the most beautiful to visit, because it takes some rain to have some natural beauty. But we are talking about tennis, not a week's vacation.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

Not a personal dislike of Seattle or UW. But I have heard top tennis players in Virginia say that they are probably heading farther south for college. An outstanding indoor facility at UVa has been a big boost to our recruiting here. A lot of players just don't want to be anywhere for tennis if the weather will force them indoors a good bit of the time. Some of the rainier places are among the most beautiful to visit, because it takes some rain to have some natural beauty. But we are talking about tennis, not a week's vacation.

This is consistent with my slice of experience as well.

I do not agree with the claim of another poster that UW does not have a recruiting disadvantage vis-a-vis most other Pac-12 teams in tennis. I think Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, Arizona, and ASU....at least.....have recruiting advantages over UW in tennis.

A big surprise in Pac-12 tennis is Washington State, in cold, remote Pullman, WA. Wonder how they did it. By recruiting in their back yard? Whatever they have done might be a model for UW.

I'm gonna check right now

[NLBwell]

Eastern Washington isn't that cold and it is sunny a lot. Pullman is definitely not the big city, though.

[Misterbill]

Today's weather in Pullman, WA:

http://www.weather.com/weather/today...an+WA+USWA0356

One day does not prove anything, but I'm standing by my comment that Pullman is cold.............especially by Pac-12 standards

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Today's weather in Pullman, WA:

http://www.weather.com/weather/today...an+WA+USWA0356

One day does not prove anything, but I'm standing by my comment that Pullman is cold.............especially by Pac-12 standards

Everything is relative. For their Russian players, this is probably considered balmy.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

This is consistent with my slice of experience as well.

I do not agree with the claim of another poster that UW does not have a recruiting disadvantage vis-a-vis most other Pac-12 teams in tennis. I think Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, Arizona, and ASU....at least.....have recruiting advantages over UW in tennis.

The first four definitely have an overall advantage. The Arizona schools I feel are a toss up, and really come down to the player. It's not just the weather, University of Washington is significantly better school academically and that is something I hope factors into recruit decisions. If the tennis programs were of equal quality, and I had to recommend one to my child, I would certainly recommend UW over the Arizona schools. I understand this is a matter of opinion and we don't agree.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

The first four definitely have an overall advantage. The Arizona schools I feel are a toss up, and really come down to the player. It's not just the weather, University of Washington is significantly better school academically and that is something I hope factors into recruit decisions. If the tennis programs were of equal quality, and I had to recommend one to my child, I would certainly recommend UW over the Arizona schools. I understand this is a matter of opinion and we don't agree.

If Jill Hultquist takes your advice to recruit as a primary priority in her back yard....the PNW.....and is successful, you wouldn't have much of a chance to be making such a parental recommendation living out there in Hawaii, would you?

For the sake of your child's potential college tennis career, I hope no coach of a competitive D1 program....except Hawaii.....takes your advice.

Hmmmmmm.....maybe I'll check the U Hawaii roster right now to see if they are following your advice and succeeding at it, or are ending up doing what the UW and WSU coaches are doing.

**********

Looks like U Hawaii is taking the Jill Hultquist route. I do not know if you have the same objections about the U Hawaii program as you do about U Washington, but it seems to me the points you are trying to make would be pretty applicable in your own back yard.

[ClarkC]

I think the whole complaint here is that there are a lot of coaches who look at the other teams on their schedules and say, "I cannot compete with those teams unless I get blue chip recruits or foreign recruits who are equivalent to blue chips. So, I will offer scholarships to blue chips, especially if they are local or have some tie to my university, but I am unlikely to get many of them, so most of my recruiting will probably be overseas."

However, they say this to themselves, not in an interview. That is the whole beef here. The UW women's coach was honest about her situation. I have not seen that kind of bluntness from too many other coaches. The Baylor men's coach was interviewed a couple of years ago and was asked about the foreign recruits issue, and said the same thing. But most coaches keep quiet about it. even if they are thinking the exact same thoughts. Apparently, admitting the truth in public makes you a really bad coach, while doing the exact same recruiting without talking about it is fine.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

If Jill Hultquist takes your advice to recruit as a primary priority in her back yard....the PNW.....and is successful, you wouldn't have much of a chance to be making such a parental recommendation living out there in Hawaii, would you?

For the sake of your child's potential college tennis career, I hope no coach of a competitive D1 program....except Hawaii.....takes your advice.

Hmmmmmm.....maybe I'll check the U Hawaii roster right now to see if they are following your advice and succeeding at it, or are ending up doing what the UW and WSU coaches are doing.

**********

Looks like U Hawaii is taking the Jill Hultquist route. I do not know if you have the same objections about the U Hawaii program as you do about U Washington, but it seems to me the points you are trying to make would be pretty applicable in your own back yard.

For someone who claims to strive for accuracy, you are pretty good an inaccurately representing what I have said.

To repeat, primary is not a synonym for as exclusive, it is more like 'first'; go look it up. Secondarily, you explore the geographic territory covered by your conference. Thirdly you go nationally and internationally. This is recruiting 101.

The people at UH are good people. Even with our great weather, they have their own particular set of recruiting challenges. If you know any 5,4 or 3 stars encourage them to contact our coaches. They will not be told don't bother if you're not top 30.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

I think the whole complaint here is that there are a lot of coaches who look at the other teams on their schedules and say, "I cannot compete with those teams unless I get blue chip recruits or foreign recruits who are equivalent to blue chips. So, I will offer scholarships to blue chips, especially if they are local or have some tie to my university, but I am unlikely to get many of them, so most of my recruiting will probably be overseas."

However, they say this to themselves, not in an interview. That is the whole beef here. The UW women's coach was honest about her situation. I have not seen that kind of bluntness from too many other coaches. The Baylor men's coach was interviewed a couple of years ago and was asked about the foreign recruits issue, and said the same thing. But most coaches keep quiet about it. even if they are thinking the exact same thoughts. Apparently, admitting the truth in public makes you a really bad coach, while doing the exact same recruiting without talking about it is fine.

I think that's part of it, it's not the whole beef. She opened the door, I'm just walking through it.

I also think its where she draws the line, top 30, and the bigger fallacy that these 'experts from abroad' are somehow equivalent to the 'blue chips' she has to compete against. I think the records show that most of these kids turn out to be no better than than the 5 star Americans she feels are not good enough. People need to see that and understand our tennis kids are pretty darn good, and deserve better consideration from our coaches, who seem to be too quick to go abroad.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

For someone who claims to strive for accuracy, you are pretty good an inaccurately representing what I have said.

To repeat, primary is not a synonym for as exclusive, it is more like 'first'; go look it up. Secondarily, you explore the geographic territory covered by your conference. Thirdly you go nationally and internationally. This is recruiting 101.

Whoa, you are not usually so condescending unless your feelings are hurt. Don't know where I said or suggested "primary" is a synonym for "exclusive".

What I did say was "If Jill Hultquist takes your advice to recruit as a primary priority in her back yard....the PNW.....and is successful, you wouldn't have much of a chance to be making such a parental recommendation living out there in Hawaii, would you?"

Translation: If she can be successful....if..... in finding two recruits a year (most years) from the PNW as her primary/first/non-exclusive priority, non-PNWers won't get recruited.

I'm standing by that one.

Maybe after you've been through the recruiting process, if that happens, you will welcome candor such as Jill Hultquist's.............instead of false encomiums that are heard from more than a few coaches who sometimes string along kids right through to the end of the process, even though they knew from the beginning they would never give them an offer.

Some people might call this Recruiting 201

[goober]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

The people at UH are good people. Even with our great weather, they have their own particular set of recruiting challenges. If you know any 5,4 or 3 stars encourage them to contact our coaches. They will not be told don't bother if you're not top 30.

Good people = don't talk about why you are taking foreign players. It is ok to take 7 out 9 players from foreign countries like last years women's UH team (more than UW!) as long as keep your mouth shut and don't make comments about it.

Hmm why are they not growing an american base of players? Why should you encourage 3,4,5 star players to contact them? Isn't that the coaches job to find these players and recruit them? Is it because they are lazy, bad recruiters or just pulling the trigger too soon on offering foreigners a scholie when a there are so many deserving American girls out there?

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

I think that's part of it, it's not the whole beef. She opened the door, I'm just walking through it.

I also think its where she draws the line, top 30, and the bigger fallacy that these 'experts from abroad' are somehow equivalent to the 'blue chips' she has to compete against. I think the records show that most of these kids turn out to be no better than than the 5 star Americans she feels are not good enough. People need to see that and understand our tennis kids are pretty darn good, and deserve better consideration from our coaches, who seem to be too quick to go abroad.

Talent evaluation in foreign recruiting is difficult. Lots of foreign recruits sound great, but they don't play the same tournaments as most of our American players, so it is hard to compare them. I have seen a lot of foreign players turn out to be mediocre by the standards of the team that recruited them. In fact, they often end up transferring to a slightly lesser school pretty quickly, after the player and coach have both figured out the situation in the first year. (Maros Horny Baylor->Maryland, Dennis Lengsfeld Baylor->Auburn, Jordi Vives USC->FGCU are a few examples on the men's side.)

So, the UW foreign recruits might not turn out to be competitive with the blue chips at USC, UCLA, and Stanford. But the UW women's coach knows with even greater certainty that the five-stars and four-stars in the Pacific Northwest will not be competitive with those blue chips, because they DO play the same tournaments, and the blue chips totally dominate them. With a foreign recruit, at least there is a possibility that they will be as good as their paper credentials make them sound.

[ClarkC]

By the way, it seems that Cal-Berkeley has a lot of foreign women at the top of their lineup. That is a pretty high reputation school, with pretty moderate weather, and a better tradition of high rankings to start from when recruiting. Cal would seem like a much more likely target of criticism on this score than UW, except for one factor: the interview quote.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

By the way, it seems that Cal-Berkeley has a lot of foreign women at the top of their lineup. That is a pretty high reputation school, with pretty moderate weather, and a better tradition of high rankings to start from when recruiting. Cal would seem like a much more likely target of criticism on this score than UW, except for one factor: the interview quote.

Her quote, and her record. Cal is competitive. UW is not. If she was challenging at the top if the conference, than that would support her argument. She is not. The cal roster also has more americans than the UW roster.