Maybe our USTA 12s aren't so bad

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

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.

So the there-are-only-25-blue-chips-not-30-we-must-strive-for-accuracy guy is calling me condescending ? Seriously ?

Anyway, you say you know that primary is different from exclusive, but then you posit the she recruits exclusively from NW and winds up with a roster that is exclusively made of up PNW'ers ?? Huh ?

Reality is she should strive to find one every year. Wont always happen. Some years the talent won't be there, some years it will. She needs to take a hard run at every five star and even take a look the top four stars in her section.

I have said, in two separate posts in this thread, that a couple of foreign kids on the roster is a good thing, and Clark is spot on saying that she should recruiting California hard.

[Misterbill]

Don't know what is so hard to figure out.

First, if you go on a message board and tell someone to "go look it up", I think it is not unreasonable to expect that someone would consider that to be condescending...... and in fact, I think there might be a pretty good chance that more direct, graphic terms would be used to describe any person who feels a compulsion to post that way.

Second, if requirements.....in any facet of business or sports.....can be satisfied through the first priority solutions, I think you don't get to the secondary priority solutions. Otherwise, I think, the first priority would not be the first priority.

Just my opinions. Now on to the substance.

I am not ready to give Jill Hultquist advice that she should take a run at every five star, and the top four stars in her section. And I don't know why that advice....whether it is good or bad..... is even directed solely at her and not at the Washington State coach or the U Hawaii coach, for example, or any other coach.

As a parent, I welcome her candor about her recruiting standards. Someday, if you go through the recruiting process as a parent, you may begin to understand where I am coming from, even if you apparently do not understand now.

Maybe the disconnect in our views is that you are primarily interested in the success of the U Washington women's tennis program (why this might be, you haven't disclosed), and I am primarily interested here in the Junior Forum in the perspective of potential recruits who are sizing up their chances of getting an offer from UW and trying to figure how much time, effort and emotion to devote to that endeavor.

I'll take a Jill Hultquist approach any day over the smooth talkers and Johnny and Janey Feel Goods who have no qualms about raising false expectations among recruits and letting them crash in a heap.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Don't know what is so hard to figure out.

First, if you go on a message board and tell someone to "go look it up", I think it is not unreasonable to expect that someone would consider that to be condescending...... and in fact, I think there might be a pretty good chance that more direct, graphic terms would be used to describe any person who feels a compulsion to post that way.

Pot, kettle, black. Sorry, but do you really think people don't see through your passive aggressive routine ? Lecture me in the number of blue chips and the 'need for accuracy' and your snarky little "but you knew that" comments, and then call me condescending...amazing...

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Second, if requirements.....in any facet of business or sports.....can be satisfied through the first priority solutions, I think you don't get to the secondary priority solutions. Otherwise, I think, the first priority would not be the first priority.

This is just, well, silly. Coaches, or business people, or elementary school kids for that matter, are expected to manage multiple, sometimes conflicting priorities. For instance one of my primary responsibilities is to work to support my family, but I still manage to spend time(too much) on this message board, and do other things, like eat, for instance. I really can't believe how I have to explain how the PNW should be her primary but not exclusive area for recruiting.

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Just my opinions. Now on to the substance.

I am not ready to give Jill Hultquist advice that she should take a run at every five star, and the top four stars in her section. And I don't know why that advice....whether it is good or bad..... is even directed solely at her and not at the Washington State coach or the U Hawaii coach, for example, or any other coach.

Have you even been reading this thread ? Its directed at her becuase she made the quote. And the thread was started(by someone else, not me) because one of her foreign "blue chip" equivalents lost to a 12 year old.I didn't start this thread to call her out. But I don't mind doing it either.

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Maybe the disconnect in our views is that you are primarily interested in the success of the U Washington women's tennis program (why this might be, you haven't disclosed), and I am primarily interested here in the Junior Forum in the perspective of potential recruits who are sizing up their chances of getting an offer from UW and trying to figure how much time, effort and emotion to devote to that endeavor.

More passive-aggressive stuff, sweet. Imply all you want that I have some secret hidden motive but I think I have been very straight forward. I don't have any interest in University of Washington beyond the interest of the vast majority of tennis parents who are deeply disturbed at the trend in foreign scholarships. My concern is that another top 50 university has for all intents and purposes closed its doors to American tennis players. While there are a significant number of tennis scholarships available for women players, they increasingly being shut out of the best universities by coaches like this.

[rptennis]

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.

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

I actually had a chance to see UW womens team live over the past weekend in SD and they look pretty deep to me. They don't have a bonafide top 10 player but from 1-7, they are deep. My daughter played two of their players in her bracket and they are consistent, strong competitors. In fact, the UW player that my daughter played in the semis took USC, Stanford and UCLA to three sets last yr and beat Arizona and A State in dual matches. So it's not like they are getting blown out by the PAC 12 teams. The overall scores might be lopsided last yr but the matches were competitive. UW is just in a very tough conference.

They should be very competitive this yr in the PAC 12. As for UH, I lived in Hawaii for two years and know J Hernandez well. He has done a remarkable job of building his team from nowhere to a top 55 rankings last year. It's true that it is hard to recruit top Americans so he build his program with foreign players. Looks like UW did the same and should be better for it in the long run

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Pot, kettle, black. Sorry, but do you really think people don't see through your passive aggressive routine ? Lecture me in the number of blue chips and the 'need for accuracy' and your snarky little "but you knew that" comments, and then call me condescending...amazing...



This is just, well, silly. Coaches, or business people, or elementary school kids for that matter, are expected to manage multiple, sometimes conflicting priorities. For instance one of my primary responsibilities is to work to support my family, but I still manage to spend time(too much) on this message board, and do other things, like eat, for instance. I really can't believe how I have to explain how the PNW should be her primary but not exclusive area for recruiting.



Have you even been reading this thread ? Its directed at her becuase she made the quote. And the thread was started(by someone else, not me) because one of her foreign "blue chip" equivalents lost to a 12 year old.I didn't start this thread to call her out. But I don't mind doing it either.



More passive-aggressive stuff, sweet. Imply all you want that I have some secret hidden motive but I think I have been very straight forward. I don't have any interest in University of Washington beyond the interest of the vast majority of tennis parents who are deeply disturbed at the trend in foreign scholarships. My concern is that another top 50 university has for all intents and purposes closed its doors to American tennis players. While there are a significant number of tennis scholarships available for women players, they increasingly being shut out of the best universities by coaches like this.

Anything I say now would be repetitious because I still believe what I have said here, and I haven't been persuaded by your arguments or tone. But more repetition would undoubtedly be boring for the Board.

I will accept that you are part of a group that is "deeply disturbed", as you say. I guess in the process of discussion, countervailing points that would have tended to mitigate any disturbing feelings got under your skin. I regret that.

So, after this I'm off in responding to you here (I think), not ignoring you.....maybe you will choose to raise this topic in the College Forum, as has been done by others before, and express your disturbance and concerns there. If you do, one of the points I might make is that this is not a Jill Hultquist issue any more than it is a Jun Hernandez issue at U Hawaii. I think Jill Hultquist should be appreciated for her candor and for letting recruits know where they stand vis-a-vis her program.

EDIT: I guess I just repeated myself in that last sentence, sorry for that.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by rptennis

Alohajrtennis

I actually had a chance to see UW womens team live over the past weekend in SD and they look pretty deep to me. They don't have a bonafide top 10 player but from 1-7, they are deep. My daughter played two of their players in her bracket and they are consistent, strong competitors. In fact, the UW player that my daughter played in the semis took USC, Stanford and UCLA to three sets last yr and beat Arizona and A State in dual matches. So it's not like they are getting blown out by the PAC 12 teams. The overall scores might be lopsided last yr but the matches were competitive. UW is just in a very tough conference.

They should be very competitive this yr in the PAC 12. As for UH, I lived in Hawaii for two years and know J Hernandez well. He has done a remarkable job of building his team from nowhere to a top 55 rankings last year. It's true that it is hard to recruit top Americans so he build his program with foreign players. Looks like UW did the same and should be better for it in the long run

Aloha RCP,

There no question the UW girls are a talented group and no question they do play in a tough conference. Frankly its very surprising to me they have been near the bottom of the conference, instead of somewhere in the middle. The issue is the team is not doing any better in that conference than a team of 5 star Americans would do. And that's the issue - those are the players she thinks are not good enough for her team.

And I know everyone is clever enough to figure out where I am from becuase of my stupid handle, but I don't see the point of drawing UH into this just because I live in Hawaii. I don't represent UH, I did not attended there, but more importantly, Jun didn't make the comments she made, has actually won a conference title(yes I am aware it was not the Pac 12), and I know he doesn't share her attitude. And I honestly believe he would be very interested in talking to any 5, 4 or 3 star who wants to play for Hawaii. No, he did not ask me to post this.

And like like Hawaii, I dont think it appropriate to lump all coaches in with the UW coach and say they all think this way, she's just the only one being honest. I dont think that's the case. From the same interview, here is a quote from the Vanderbilt coach :

Geoff MacDonald, women's tennis coach, Vanderbilt

For MacDonald the debate is mostly a fairness issue. He is not opposed to one or two international players but a whole team of international players doesn't feel right to him. He says Title IX law forced colleges to spend as much money on women's athletics and provide as many opportunities for them.

"I don't know if the intent of Title IX was for a European pro player to come here and take a scholarship away from an American kid who might not be as good."

It is not uncommon for MacDonald to encounter coaches who go strictly overseas and make friends at pro tournaments in Europe. "If we were handing out math scholarships we wouldn't go to Finland and get the best mathematicians. Because this is competitive people are willing to go all over the world."

So, I am willing to give most coaches the benefit of the doubt, unless they open their mouth and say something that removes that doubt.

Every coach has different challenges. Several times people have written something along the lines of "why dont you rag on the Washington State coach, they have all foreigners". Well, I don't really know what the attitude of the Washington State coach is, they are in more challenging recruiting situation that UW( Pullman is not Siberia, but it is not Seattle either, academically, Washington State is not UW) etc. I can see why it would be tough for them to get 5 stars, forget about clue chips. UW should be able to get 5 stars, and they should not be considering themselves too good for 5 stars.

[Tennisstringz]

Originally Posted by 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.

The top ranked juniors, even 12s can beat significant d-1players, especially the homeschoolers. What's the point here? The kids at the top often aim for professional, whereas the college girls aren't usually looking to turn pro. If the 12 yr old and the uw girl played again, it might be6-1, 6-1. Let's see how it goes when this 12 yr old grows up and she has the pressure on her.

[goober]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Aloha RCP,

I can see why it would be tough for them to get 5 stars, forget about clue chips. UW should be able to get 5 stars, and they should not be considering themselves too good for 5 stars.

If you look at UW roster. She definitely is not above taking 5 star Americans. The 3 americans on her roster are 5 Star, 3 star and unrated (from Hawaii no less)

The actual quote she gave in the orginal article was "It's hard to rebuild a team if you lose the top 20, 30 American players to the traditional powerhouse programmes each year."

The part that is ascribed to her "... she picks a few select American players each year and offers them scholarships first. If they don't take them she goes international." was NOT quote and could be entirely taken out of context of her conversation or not even what she meant. Obviously she is just not offering blue chip players in America.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by goober

If you look at UW roster. She definitely is not above taking 5 star Americans. The 3 americans on her roster are 5 Star, 3 star and unrated (from Hawaii no less)

The actual quote she gave in the orginal article was "It's hard to rebuild a team if you lose the top 20, 30 American players to the traditional powerhouse programmes each year."

The part that is ascribed to her "... she picks a few select American players each year and offers them scholarships first. If they don't take them she goes international." was NOT quote and could be entirely taken out of context of her conversation or not even what she meant. Obviously she is just not offering blue chip players in America.

Goober, our family actually knows someone who was interested in UW a few years ago. Soon after expressing interest, she got a nice email back from Jill Hultquist saying thanks and that if you are not in the top 50 (top 50) or so on TRN, your chances of getting an offer were very low, but you are welcome to pursue a possible walk-on role if you wish.

The player was not top 50, so there was momentary disappointment....... but a feeling of relief not to have to read tea leaves, and lasting admiration for the candor of Jill Hultquist.

[I was going to say something else right here, but that would have just been repetition]

[goober]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Goober, our family actually knows someone who was interested in UW a few years ago. Soon after expressing interest, she got a nice email back from Jill Hultquist saying thanks and that if you are not in the top 50 (top 50) or so on TRN, your chances of getting an offer were very low, but you are welcome to pursue a possible walk-on role if you wish.

The player was not top 50, so there was momentary disappointment....... but a feeling of relief not to have to read tea leaves, and lasting admiration for the candor of Jill Hultquist.

[I was going to say something else right here, but that would have just been repetition]

So if that is the case she is actually not offering you unless you are blue chip (top 25) or 5 star. 5 star looks like it goes down to around 60-70. I am sure she would take someone in the 60-70 range. So if you are 4 star or lower you have to walk on. Is that unreasonable for a PAC 12 school?

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by goober

So if that is the case she is actually not offering you unless you are blue chip (top 25) or 5 star. 5 star looks like it goes down to around 60-70. I am sure she would take someone in the 60-70 range. If you are 4 star or lower you have to walk on. Is that unreasonable for a PAC 12 school?

TRN says there are 25 blue chips, and then the next 50 are five-stars, so that is 75. But we have seen that the number can vary a little.

I don't think Jill Hultquist's recruiting priorities are unreasonable. Seems she thinks she needs "Top-50" TRN talent to compete in the Pac-12. I can't argue with that. She tries to get it domestically as the top priority and if she is successful, she never has to go to her secondary priorities. If she can't get top 50 talent domestically, then she goes to the next priority, which is apparently international recruits.

Contrary to some suggestions, I believe UW is at a recruiting disadvantage to most other Pac-12 teams and lots of top programs in the South and Southeast. So it would not surprise me if UW cannot get two top-50s domestically every year.

I am not going to tell Jill Hultquist that her first priority should be top-200 (4-star) talent from around her back yard. I think she's got it down pretty good........and based on her longevity at UW (8 years), I am guessing her AD agrees.

[WARPWOODIE]

US Girls vs. Foreign Recruits:

Cal Berkeley 4 6
Washington State 1 7
Washington 3 6
Arizona 4 4
UCLA 13 2
Stanford 8 0
Oregon 4 5
Oregon State No Women's program
Arizona State 6 2
Utah (**) 5 3
Colorado (**) 5 3
USC 11 1

(**) denotes new addition to pac 12

My argument is...three of the popular pac 12 schools, namely Stanford, UCLA, USC have mainly US kids and are successfull programs.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by goober

If you look at UW roster. She definitely is not above taking 5 star Americans. The 3 americans on her roster are 5 Star, 3 star and unrated (from Hawaii no less)

Care to wager who the two walks-ons are ?

Originally Posted by goober

The actual quote she gave in the original article was "It's hard to rebuild a team if you lose the top 20, 30 American players to the traditional powerhouse programmes each year."

yes, it's hard. This is the pack 12 we are talking about. If you want to run with the big dogs, you need to learn how to pee in the tall grass. But its her job. That's what I meant when I said lazy. If she is not capable of recruiting any American players worthy of her program, than I say she is not doing her job.

Originally Posted by goober

The part that is ascribed to her "... she picks a few select American players each year and offers them scholarships first. If they don't take them she goes international." was NOT quote and could be entirely taken out of context of her conversation or not even what she meant. Obviously she is just not offering blue chip players in America.

Given her hit rate with these few select offers, she can't be diving too far down the list of 5 stars. As Mr. Bill said, maybe she will go to 50. But she does not have record of recruiting them either.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by goober

So if that is the case she is actually not offering you unless you are blue chip (top 25) or 5 star. 5 star looks like it goes down to around 60-70. I am sure she would take someone in the 60-70 range.

Why are you sure of this ? Not consistent with her own quotes or Mr. Bill's experience.

Originally Posted by goober

So if you are 4 star or lower you have to walk on. Is that unreasonable for a PAC 12 school?

Yes, it is, becuase she is not an passive actor in this situation. It's her job, one might argue her even her primary(but not exclusive) responsibility, to recruit players. If the traditional powerhouses take the top 20,30, and she can't get any of those, well, whose fault is that ? Blame it on the weather ? If its completely unreasonable for her to compete in her conference with at least some American Scholarship players, and this is completely unachievable, than they should change conferences, or just drop tennis. But the simple fact is, its not. Other teams in her conference have better records, with more American kids, who were not necessarily even 5 stars. Arizona, which used to get 5 stars, now is recruiting blue chips. First step is an attitude adjustment.

It is also unreasonable is becuase she has shown many of the foreign kids she has offered scholarships are probably the equivalent of 4 star level players players. Even if unintentional, a by product of the difficulty if foreign recruiting, her records shows that she has a lower standard for foreign players than she does for Americans.

[jigglypuff]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Why are you sure of this ? Not consistent with her own quotes or Mr. Bill's experience.



Yes, it is, becuase she is not an passive actor in this situation. It's her job, one might argue her even her primary(but not exclusive) responsibility, to recruit players. If the traditional powerhouses take the top 20,30, and she can't get any of those, well, whose fault is that ? Blame it on the weather ? If its completely unreasonable for her to compete in her conference with at least some American Scholarship players, and this is completely unachievable, than they should change conferences, or just drop tennis. But the simple fact is, its not. Other teams in her conference have better records, with more American kids, who were not necessarily even 5 stars. Arizona, which used to get 5 stars, now is recruiting blue chips. First step is an attitude adjustment.

It is also unreasonable is becuase she has shown many of the foreign kids she has offered scholarships are probably the equivalent of 4 star level players players. Even if unintentional, a by product of the difficulty if foreign recruiting, her records shows that she has a lower standard for foreign players than she does for Americans.

Times have come and gone... You're still hanging on to "Buy American"?

What's the difference if she takes 4 star players over foreign kids? You're going to start moving up in your conference? Blue chips are going to start knocking on your door?

[goober]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Why are you sure of this ? Not consistent with her own quotes or Mr. Bill's experience.



Yes, it is, becuase she is not an passive actor in this situation. It's her job, one might argue her even her primary(but not exclusive) responsibility, to recruit players. If the traditional powerhouses take the top 20,30, and she can't get any of those, well, whose fault is that ? Blame it on the weather ? If its completely unreasonable for her to compete in her conference with at least some American Scholarship players, and this is completely unachievable, than they should change conferences, or just drop tennis. But the simple fact is, its not. Other teams in her conference have better records, with more American kids, who were not necessarily even 5 stars. Arizona, which used to get 5 stars, now is recruiting blue chips. First step is an attitude adjustment.

It is also unreasonable is becuase she has shown many of the foreign kids she has offered scholarships are probably the equivalent of 4 star level players players. Even if unintentional, a by product of the difficulty if foreign recruiting, her records shows that she has a lower standard for foreign players than she does for Americans.

I tired of going over the same arguments over and over. Fine you think she is doing a terrible job. I think she is doing an ok job. But none of it matters. The only person that matters is her boss and she is going on her 8th year.

All your whining is not going to change anything. Welcome to 21st century. It is a global market. You and your tennis kids better adjust to the foreign competition, it is not going away.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by goober

I tired of going over the same arguments over and over. Fine you think she is doing a terrible job. I think she is doing an ok job. But none of it matters. The only person that matters is her boss and she is going on her 8th year.

All your whining is not going to change anything. Welcome to 21st century. It is a global market. You and your tennis kids better adjust to the foreign competition, it is not going away.

You might be "tired" of the argument...but this thread title suggests the conventional wisdom (that their 20 y/o freshmen are better than our 18 y/o freshmen).....might be inaccurate. The 12 y/o american beat the 20 something non american. She evidently "adjusted" in the tie break, while the ITF veteran folded like a lawn chair.

The "argument" that 5 star Americans are being passed over in favor of unproven non-americans is a topic that is logical to have in a Junior Tennis Forum.

I had no idea that the UW coach was THE lightning rod coach (when I posted that she should be embarrased that she had traveled half way across the world to recruit a player who lost to a 12 y/o.). Unlike others, i could care less what the coach says. I just think she's a numnut for not snagging better players given the prestigeous school & conference & given the "cool" vibe factor that Seattle gives off to the average youngster. She could have recruited 6 Asian Americans that would have been more solid competitors (& would have loved to compete in the Pac 10 & attend UW) than the player that lost to the 12 y/o girl.

[jigglypuff]

Originally Posted by hound 109

You might be "tired" of the argument...but this thread title suggests the conventional wisdom (that their 20 y/o freshmen are better than our 18 y/o freshmen).....might be inaccurate. The 12 y/o american beat the 20 something non american. She evidently "adjusted" in the tie break, while the ITF veteran folded like a lawn chair.

The "argument" that 5 star Americans are being passed over in favor of unproven non-americans is a topic that is logical to have in a Junior Tennis Forum.

I had no idea that the UW coach was THE lightning rod coach (when I posted that she should be embarrased that she had traveled half way across the world to recruit a player who lost to a 12 y/o.). Unlike others, i could care less what the coach says. I just think she's a numnut for not snagging better players given the prestigeous school & conference & given the "cool" vibe factor that Seattle gives off to the average youngster. She could have recruited 6 Asian Americans that would have been more solid competitors (& would have loved to compete in the Pac 10 & attend UW) than the player that lost to the 12 y/o girl.

Highly doubt it... UW is not very prestigious academically.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by jigglypuff

Highly doubt it... UW is not very prestigious academically.

Its generally in the top 50 American universities(#46). In the Pac 12, it ranks behind Stanford(#6), Cal(#21), USC(Tied #24), UCLA (Tied #24) and ahead, in most cases significantly, of all the other Pac 12 schools, including Arizona(#120). Other rankings may have them ranked differently. I don't know where you draw the line at prestigious.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by goober

I tired of going over the same arguments over and over. Fine you think she is doing a terrible job. I think she is doing an ok job. But none of it matters. The only person that matters is her boss and she is going on her 8th year.

All your whining is not going to change anything. Welcome to 21st century. It is a global market. You and your tennis kids better adjust to the foreign competition, it is not going away.

I'm not forcing you to argue with me. I am well ware of the fact that I am not her boss. But her boss is not the only person the matters. The foreign scholarship problem will go away, one way or another, eventually. Either coaches, AD's, conference heads, the ITA and NCAA will wake up and realize that teams dominated by foreigners are hurting college tennis and start to control it, or more and more tennis programs will get canceled. Sorry, but when a school is looking to save money, and the AD wakes up and notices that his last place tennis program is 90% foreign, but his last place soccer squad is 75% American, where is he going to decide to save money ?

For all the people who say foreigners are good for American tennis, they never seem to be able to answer the question "how is it good for American tennis when an all foreign team plays another all foreign team?" That question was asked and nobody bothered to answer it.

As for it being a global market, that's wrong. It's global on the demand side, but not on the supply side. Market implies trade. If foreign schools had tennis scholarships and they recruited Americans, it would be free market, and I would have no problem with it. But they don't. No other sport has anywhere near the problem tennis has.

I have said numerous times that I, and most of the people appalled by the current situation, are not opposed to some foreigners. But the situation is out of hand and getting worse. I guess you guys like it that way and want the rest of us to just quit "whining", shut up and accept it. Maybe you have your own vested interests, I don't know and don't care.