USTA Youth Tennis Town Hall meeting - Page 3

tennis5 · 11-26-2012, 04:33 PM

International players are heavily marketed here in the United States, and our American counterparts are being singled out! (parent)
I’m not sure I understand this statement. If someone could clarify for me, that would be helpful.

From experience, most USTA coaches only support players here in the United States who are highly ranked! (parent)
That’s a problem inherent in the Player ID and Player Development departments of USTA. Those departments are charged with identifying players who have the potential to become our next American champions. The question becomes: would the dollars allocated to paying the salaries of those coaches be better spent supporting local coaches who are developing top-level players in their own backyards?

The entire ‘talent id’ for pre-adolescents is a complete crap shoot. (K. Kamperman)
Amen, Mr. Kamperman! I’m hoping to see USTA do away with this piece of the puzzle entirely and paint with a broader brush when using its financial resources for player development.

So, if it is a "complete crap shoot", why continue to pour millions into PD?

The Mid-Atlantic region converts every parent into a cash machine and is ultra selective as per the ability of the player they choose to work with. (parent)

I feel that I should homeschool my child just so he/she can get ahead and attend a better school! (parent)
I still don’t understand how the proposed changes are going to reduce missed school days. Can someone please explain that one to me? Is homeschooling going to become the necessary norm for those wanting to achieve the highest levels in junior tennis? Is it already the norm?

Wow, folks, if you are pulling your kid out of school to attend a better college, they still have to be able to do the high level work in college.
My daughter plays a college sport and why the coach cares about her performance, she doesn't care if she has a high level job when she is 40.

By expanding the participation base here in the United States, we have a wider audience to draw from, player-wise! (K. Kamperman)
Agree.

When my child is being coached at a club, I have no idea how to measure the quality of the program with regard to the training environment! (parent)
This is where USTA could really step in and prove to be a valuable resource to parents. I hope the parent quoted here finds my blog and reads my series on Choosing A Coach!

I am in favor of increased draw sizes at the national level, tournament wise! (parent)
Me, too!

You [the USTA] need to make the draws more backended! (parent)
What does that mean?

We have to look at the structure, with regard to the rankings. (K. Kamperman)
I’m not sure what Mr. Kamperman is saying here. Is he concerned about the current PPR ranking system? If so, I’m very glad to hear that and hope that it is re-evaluated to include head-to-head competition.

There isn’t any other ranking system in any other sport that doesn’t come under heavy scrutiny! (K. Kamperman)

I’d like to see more American players get more scholarships. (D. Haggerty)
Me, too, Mr. Haggerty! How is USTA going to make that happen? Is it going to take a firmer stand with NCAA and college coaches and athletic directors? We need USTA to advocate for our kids in this regard.

I think it is good for both the American and International players to compete with one another. (D. Haggerty)
That is why the ITF circuit is such a great option for many players.

If that is so, why were so many ITFs cut in this country?

The USTA is not in the driver’s seat for college scholarships. (K. Kamperman)
Right. Those rules are established by NCAA. USTA could, however, take a stronger position and advocate for increased scholarships on the men’s side and for limiting the number of scholarships that go to international players. The NJCAA has already paved the way.

Well, we all saw the USTA exert pressure on the NCAA with the proposed college tennis changes, why can't they exert the same pressure about a 2 man foreign cap per team?
Not to be cynical, but probably because that doesn't help the USTA get the two players into the US Open. If college tennis had a bunch of 4 star and 5 stars playing with their blue chips, that would be the kiss of death.

The parents’ feedback and recommendations have no value with regard to influencing change within the USTA. (parent)
I think these listening meetings prove otherwise. At the very least, USTA is making an effort to get feedback directly from those of us affected by these proposed changes. Whether or not it acts on that feedback is yet to be seen. I’m trying to remain hopeful.

Actually, I don't understand the concept of a listening tour.
What would be better would be a Q and A where they actually responded to valid complaints.

The players from Florida and California are complaining that other sections have weaker competition. (parent)
The statistics confirm that fact. I looked at the November 2012 National Standing List for the Boys 18s – the sections with the most players in the top 100 are (in order) Southern California (17), Texas & Southern (tied with 12), Florida & Eastern (tied with 10), and ******* (9).

If I was running the USTA like a business, I don’t know why I would limit American players’ options! (parent)

Folks, that is a veiled threat. There is talk that if the USTA goes through with these changes, there are a few deep pocket tennis folks who will start another tennis association and I believe TRN will cover those matches.

I think it is good business if the USTA supports the passion of players here in the US. (parent)

The emotional rollercoaster that my child suffers, because of the extreme pressure in performing, is hampering his passion to wanna compete. (parent) High-level competition isn’t for everyone. Parents have to look at each child to determine what’s in his/her best interest. One thing I will say is that, at least in the Southern section, there are many levels of competition from which to choose. For a player who doesn’t thrive under the pressure of high-level play, there are other options to still compete but at a lower stress level.

Parents aren’t seeing developmental plans from USTA coaches. (parent)
Again, I feel like USTA could really be a positive force if it would become more of a guide for parents trying to navigate the complicated tournament and development system.

We’re gonna look at all recommended proposals and pass them on to section leaders. (K. Kamperman)
A question that was posed on the ParentingAces Facebook page: “What will compel USTA to change anything as a result of holding these ‘listening’ meetings?” I would really like to hear USTA’s answer to this question as I think it’s a crucial piece of the puzzle.

A VOTE FROM THE USTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGARDING A PAUSE TO THE CHANGES FOR 2013 WILL TAKE PLACE IN DECEMBER 2012. USTA LEADERSHIP WILL REVIEW FEEDBACK FROM THESE “LISTENING” MEETINGS DURING THE ANNUAL MEETING IN MARCH AFTER WHICH A VOTE WILL BE TAKEN ON HOW TO PROCEED IN 2014. (K. Kamperman)
This is why we need to communicate NOW with our section presidents and let them know our thoughts on these proposed changes. Time is of the essence.

tennis5 · 11-26-2012, 04:41 PM

Currently, 88,000 kids play at all levels here in the US. (K. Kamperman)

Increasing participation at the high school level will help increase the USTA bottom line, player-wise! (coach)
I have to disagree with this statement, at least insofar as high school tennis in Georgia is currently structured. Our state high school association has passed an eligibility rule which will effectively eliminate all high-performance players from their high school teams. The level of competition in our state’s high schools has become on par with recreational league tennis.

I travel from Rochester to NYC seven times a year and it is VERY costly and time-consuming. (parent)
I wonder if the USTA is willing to pick up the traveling expenses for players who travel outside of their respective region.
(parent) I know my section (Southern) does have need-based scholarship funds available to help offset some of the costs of junior tennis. I’m guessing other sections have something similar.

I’m on the board of player development for the New England section and am concerned about these new rule changes. (coach)

There is no guarantee for our children, especially when we have to spend so much money for travel and tournament fees that I am beginning to think the investment isn’t worth it anymore! (parent)
That is a decision each family has to make for itself. With my three kids, only one of whom is a tennis player, I’ve found that pursuing an interest to the point of mastery is expensive, whether it’s a sport or an art form.

I still would like someone to ask the question about Winter Nationals.....
1)It doesn't interfere with school...........
2) IT IS AFFORDABLE TO PARENTS WHO LIVE IN THAT AREA....
3) It gives spring birthdays an opportunity to GET INTO the tournament.
4) It provides the cold weather indoor players an opportunity to play outdoors.

What is interesting is Eddie Herr and the Orange Bowl interferes with school.
And the question that begs to be asked are the "top players" that are playing these two long events in December too physically exhausted
to play Winter Nationals in the SAME month, so the USTA feels like it is not in "their" best interest to have this tournament.

The proposed dates for the remaining “listening” meetings are as follows:

December 16: ITA Convention (for convention attendees only), Naples FL
December 26: 16s & 18s Winter Nationals, Scottsdale, AZ
December 27: 12s & 14s Winter Nationals, Tucson, AZ
Jan. 10-13: Southern Section annual meeting, Atlanta, GA
Feb. 15-17: Texas Section annual meeting, Grapevine, TX

tennis5 · 12-05-2012, 02:39 PM

Is this a done deal?

RELATED TOPICS

Tennisjunior tennischangesUSTA

http://www.examiner.com/article/usta...ening-and-more

By a quick glance at the United States Tennis Association's website their mission is clear.
“To promote and develop the growth of tennis”

It's with that in mind that the USTA is in the midst a series of town hall meetings, dubbed a "listening tour" to discuss not only changes to its junior competition calendar, but a change in structure and philosophy that they hope will pay off on many fronts. They are inviting all concerned parties to attend and ask questions.

"The USTA realizes that change is difficult," admits Jon Vegosen, Chairman of the Board and President of the USTA. "When you look at how our competitive system is faring and when you look at the numbers, and the numbers don't lie-- and they tell an interesting story."

That story is one where tennis is often left out and forgotten.

Vegosen went on:

"In this country (we have) 40 million registered youth sports participants, and over 99% of them do not play tennis, so we have a huge market we could and should be growing if we are to fulfill our mission."

I was able to talk with Vegosen, and Kurt Kampermann, USTA Chief Executive of Community Tennis about the "listening tour" as a couple of the dates are now in the books and about how the proposed changes will change the face of junior tennis in America.

The consensus is this that the town hall meetings are great, but some are wondering if what's being discussed is falling on deaf ears, or are questions being answered and alternatives being considered.

"We are happy to answer any questions that come up in town hall meetings," offered up Kampermann. "I can tell you in the first two, we didn't have as many questions as we had opinions."

The USTA said these meeting are about giving people the opportunity to "weigh in."
One things all parties involved can agree on is the junior tennis competitive structure in the is country is very complicated.

Kampermann said these meetings will explain the changes and rationale. From the change in draw sizes, to putting an emphasis on play at the local and sectional levels.

"It's been a challenge to make sure people understand the whole picture," said Kampermann. "We really are taking their feedback to heart, and our goal is not be be right, but to get it right."

Vegosen says the new structure creates more opportunities and that means more numbers.

"We need a bigger pool of kids that are actually competing at tennis," explains Kampermann, who has taught juniors, and has witnessed how other countries are going about developing junior tennis players.

"We want kids to reach their full potential," echoed Vegosen.

Only 20,000 kids under the age of 10 are playing junior competitive tennis in the country, the USTA is trying to get the world out about how they want to change that.

The 10 & Under Tennis and Quickstart programs are already out there, and data is being collected.

Vegosen said he expects it to be successful, and the national tournament structure and ranking system they are proposing to compliment and accommodate all the tennis players that will be in the system.

Whether it will pass, and then work, remains to be seen. The USTA knows they can't please everyone, but they are trying... and listening.

Remaining meetings are as follows:

Dec. 16: ITA Convention (for convention attendees only), Naples, Fla.
Dec. 26: 16s & 18s Winter Nationals, Scottsdale, Ariz.
Dec. 27: 12s & 14s Winter Nationals, Tucson
Jan. 10-13: Southern Section annual meeting, Atlanta
Feb. 15-17: Texas Section annual meeting, Grapevine, Texas

tennis5 · 12-17-2012, 01:47 PM

Unfortunately, Julie and I don't share the same view of foreigners in college tennis
( I am for a two man cap) and she feels it is great tennis,
but I do wish the question of how the smaller draws will affect kids being recruited to college was raised.

Ok, here is her recap. Also, check it out on Zoo Tennis:

USTA Town Hall Meeting at ITA Convention

I drove across the state and back today to attend the USTA luncheon and Town Hall meeting at the ITA Coaches Convention in Naples, FL. I was invited to attend by the USTA's Bill Mountford, who had initially signed on to present to the college coaches about the 10-and-under tennis initiative, but when the October Tennis Industry meeting in Chicago resulted in the scheduling of Town Hall meetings and a listening tour to discuss the upcoming Junior Competition changes, that presentation was truncated, with more time allotted for questions for about junior competition changes.

In attendance for the USTA were Mountford and outgoing president Jon Vegosen, who were on the podium, and Junior Competition committee member and now chairperson Andrea Norman and USTA Junior Competition Director Lew Brewer at a front table, who were available for questions.

Vegosen explained the philosophy behind the changes, emphasizing the need to have more local tennis opportunities for young people when they begin exploring all the youth sports available to them.

The coaches received a one-page "CliffNotes" version of the document, with the 2014 schedule as proposed, but there was definitely a wide range of awareness and understanding of the new structure. Several coaches voiced support of the concept of returning to sectional play, saying the value of those tournaments to them has decreased with some of the best players not playing in them. There was a comment about the size of the four regions for the new regionals and the travel required (Minnesota to Texas in this particular case), but I didn't detect from Norman any sense this might be altered.

As those of you who read zootennis regularly know, I have been studying the changes as they've been presented in the nine-page document the USTA has released for many months, and have followed many of the blogs and forums that have delved into the issue. I don't claim to understand how it will all work, but I do find the notion that every player(save wild cards) who qualify for the two gold ball Nationals remaining--the Clays and Hard Courts--must come from sectional endorsements. There is no other way in. It may result in the best players in the United States playing sectionals again, or it may result in the best players skipping the nationals, playing ITFs instead.

I made only two comments during the meeting, the first to point out that as long as the ITF path exists in the United States (and every other country in the world, more or less) and it potentially leads to the US Open Junior Championships, some players will take that option, rather than the one the USTA provides. As USC coach Peter Smith said about this, "the cat's out of the bag," and no structure the USTA sets up can reverse that change in junior tennis.

David Roditi of TCU, who was a National Coach for the USTA before he returned to coach the men's team at his alma mater, asked if these changes may mean two separate paths: one to the US Open Juniors and one to the USTA Nationals. He mentioned that good players skip the national tournaments in Mexico, opting instead for ITF events, and while there are obviously big differences in the two countries and their federations, it is a point worth considering. Now players can do both, but will the elimination of the national standing list force them to choose one or the other?

This led to a wild card discussion, and 16 wild cards is the number set aside for the 128 draws in the boys and girls 18s. Peter Wright of Cal asked if those might be tied to some sort of qualification system, as the ITA does for its wild cards or at-large selections.

As for the 128 draws themselves, a few coaches were for them, seeing in the 192-draws a number of players not of college quality; a few agreed that a qualifying event prior to the two remaining nationals would be a good solution, and Vegosen said that is being considered.

I've always thought qualifiers a dependable and easy-to-understand part of tennis, so I am hopeful this will happen, but that brings me to my second comment at the luncheon.

It wasn't really a comment, but a question. I wanted to know how the coaches felt about the demise of the Winter Nationals, or rather, the metamorphosis of it to a team event. I'm not sure how many coaches had absorbed this change prior to the luncheon, but Shelia McInerney of Arizona State said she liked team events, citing the August 18s Team championships and their format. Peter Smith suggested the 64 players involved in the Winter Nationals (with the "waterfalls") were too few to justify the expense of a recruiting trip and suggested more team events in the younger age divisions, saying the 12s zonals always are at the top of his college players' favorite tournaments list.

Mountford made sure that those coaches who didn't speak to the issues raised during the 90-minute meeting (and I just touched on a few) had an option to contact him privately later, and he also encouraged everyone to use the email account letusknow@usta.com for further, private feedback and suggestions. The ITA will be sending links to the USTA's one-page and nine-page documents to its members following the meeting to help raise awareness among the coaches.

It's my perception that he monitors this account himself and will use it to help quantify the support for the tweaks being considered. I do not think the plan, voted and approved in March of this year, will be scrapped. The USTA appears to be committed to its philosophy and its implementation, and that includes the sections (save Southern, perhaps). But I think if enough people take the time to understand the new structure and comment on what they would like to see changed in it, the USTA will take those emails seriously. If they don't hear from those affected, they will presume agreement with the changes that will be implemented in 2014.

The next Town Hall listening meetings are at the Winter Nationals:

December 26: 16s & 18s Winter Nationals, Scottsdale, AZ
December 27: 12s & 14s Winter Nationals, Tucson, AZ

Please attend if you can.

MarTennis · 12-18-2012, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennis5

International players are heavily marketed here in the United States, and our American counterparts are being singled out! (parent)
I’m not sure I understand this statement. If someone could clarify for me, that would be helpful.

From experience, most USTA coaches only support players here in the United States who are highly ranked! (parent)
That’s a problem inherent in the Player ID and Player Development departments of USTA. Those departments are charged with identifying players who have the potential to become our next American champions. The question becomes: would the dollars allocated to paying the salaries of those coaches be better spent supporting local coaches who are developing top-level players in their own backyards?

The entire ‘talent id’ for pre-adolescents is a complete crap shoot. (K. Kamperman)
Amen, Mr. Kamperman! I’m hoping to see USTA do away with this piece of the puzzle entirely and paint with a broader brush when using its financial resources for player development.

So, if it is a "complete crap shoot", why continue to pour millions into PD?

The Mid-Atlantic region converts every parent into a cash machine and is ultra selective as per the ability of the player they choose to work with. (parent)

I feel that I should homeschool my child just so he/she can get ahead and attend a better school! (parent)
I still don’t understand how the proposed changes are going to reduce missed school days. Can someone please explain that one to me? Is homeschooling going to become the necessary norm for those wanting to achieve the highest levels in junior tennis? Is it already the norm?

Wow, folks, if you are pulling your kid out of school to attend a better college, they still have to be able to do the high level work in college.
My daughter plays a college sport and why the coach cares about her performance, she doesn't care if she has a high level job when she is 40.

By expanding the participation base here in the United States, we have a wider audience to draw from, player-wise! (K. Kamperman)
Agree.

When my child is being coached at a club, I have no idea how to measure the quality of the program with regard to the training environment! (parent)
This is where USTA could really step in and prove to be a valuable resource to parents. I hope the parent quoted here finds my blog and reads my series on Choosing A Coach!

I am in favor of increased draw sizes at the national level, tournament wise! (parent)
Me, too!

You [the USTA] need to make the draws more backended! (parent)
What does that mean?

We have to look at the structure, with regard to the rankings. (K. Kamperman)
I’m not sure what Mr. Kamperman is saying here. Is he concerned about the current PPR ranking system? If so, I’m very glad to hear that and hope that it is re-evaluated to include head-to-head competition.

There isn’t any other ranking system in any other sport that doesn’t come under heavy scrutiny! (K. Kamperman)

I’d like to see more American players get more scholarships. (D. Haggerty)
Me, too, Mr. Haggerty! How is USTA going to make that happen? Is it going to take a firmer stand with NCAA and college coaches and athletic directors? We need USTA to advocate for our kids in this regard.

I think it is good for both the American and International players to compete with one another. (D. Haggerty)
That is why the ITF circuit is such a great option for many players.

If that is so, why were so many ITFs cut in this country?

The USTA is not in the driver’s seat for college scholarships. (K. Kamperman)
Right. Those rules are established by NCAA. USTA could, however, take a stronger position and advocate for increased scholarships on the men’s side and for limiting the number of scholarships that go to international players. The NJCAA has already paved the way.

Well, we all saw the USTA exert pressure on the NCAA with the proposed college tennis changes, why can't they exert the same pressure about a 2 man foreign cap per team?
Not to be cynical, but probably because that doesn't help the USTA get the two players into the US Open. If college tennis had a bunch of 4 star and 5 stars playing with their blue chips, that would be the kiss of death.

The parents’ feedback and recommendations have no value with regard to influencing change within the USTA. (parent)
I think these listening meetings prove otherwise. At the very least, USTA is making an effort to get feedback directly from those of us affected by these proposed changes. Whether or not it acts on that feedback is yet to be seen. I’m trying to remain hopeful.

Actually, I don't understand the concept of a listening tour.
What would be better would be a Q and A where they actually responded to valid complaints.

The players from Florida and California are complaining that other sections have weaker competition. (parent)
The statistics confirm that fact. I looked at the November 2012 National Standing List for the Boys 18s – the sections with the most players in the top 100 are (in order) Southern California (17), Texas & Southern (tied with 12), Florida & Eastern (tied with 10), and ******* (9).

If I was running the USTA like a business, I don’t know why I would limit American players’ options! (parent)

Folks, that is a veiled threat. There is talk that if the USTA goes through with these changes, there are a few deep pocket tennis folks who will start another tennis association and I believe TRN will cover those matches.

I think it is good business if the USTA supports the passion of players here in the US. (parent)

The emotional rollercoaster that my child suffers, because of the extreme pressure in performing, is hampering his passion to wanna compete. (parent) High-level competition isn’t for everyone. Parents have to look at each child to determine what’s in his/her best interest. One thing I will say is that, at least in the Southern section, there are many levels of competition from which to choose. For a player who doesn’t thrive under the pressure of high-level play, there are other options to still compete but at a lower stress level.

Parents aren’t seeing developmental plans from USTA coaches. (parent)
Again, I feel like USTA could really be a positive force if it would become more of a guide for parents trying to navigate the complicated tournament and development system.

We’re gonna look at all recommended proposals and pass them on to section leaders. (K. Kamperman)
A question that was posed on the ParentingAces Facebook page: “What will compel USTA to change anything as a result of holding these ‘listening’ meetings?” I would really like to hear USTA’s answer to this question as I think it’s a crucial piece of the puzzle.

A VOTE FROM THE USTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGARDING A PAUSE TO THE CHANGES FOR 2013 WILL TAKE PLACE IN DECEMBER 2012. USTA LEADERSHIP WILL REVIEW FEEDBACK FROM THESE “LISTENING” MEETINGS DURING THE ANNUAL MEETING IN MARCH AFTER WHICH A VOTE WILL BE TAKEN ON HOW TO PROCEED IN 2014. (K. Kamperman)
This is why we need to communicate NOW with our section presidents and let them know our thoughts on these proposed changes. Time is of the essence.

...may be a good thing for the overclass to start, it will pretty much eliminate the vocal opposition, cull the silent opposition and allow the USTA to implement the changes for better or worse. Definitely not a reason to chuck the changes.

Chemist · 12-19-2012, 05:44 PM

The approved (but temporarily suspended) changes by USTA on junior tennis schedule would effectively reduce opportunities for juniors to play national events including team competitions, by 54%, 44%, 44%, and 54% for 12s, 14s, 16s, and 18s, respectively. Few folks, however, have recognized that the changes will also reduce opportunities for junior to play sectional tournaments that would earn them national ranking points by 50% in all age groups!
Currently sections host 1 L3, 3 L4, and 8 L5 tournaments (12 in total) in a year. The new structure would allow sections to host a total of 6 tournaments, 2 L3, and 4 L4, from which juniors can earn their national ranking points. This is a 50% reduction!!!

Alohajrtennis · 12-19-2012, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chemist

The approved (but temporarily suspended) changes by USTA on junior tennis schedule would effectively reduce opportunities for juniors to play national events including team competitions, by 54%, 44%, 44%, and 54% for 12s, 14s, 16s, and 18s, respectively. Few folks, however, have recognized that the changes will also reduce opportunities for junior to play sectional tournaments that would earn them national ranking points by 50% in all age groups!
Currently sections host 1 L3, 3 L4, and 8 L5 tournaments (12 in total) in a year. The new structure would allow sections to host a total of 6 tournaments, 2 L3, and 4 L4, from which juniors can earn their national ranking points. This is a 50% reduction!!!

Yeah, we noticed this...

Couple other things you may not have noticed though....national ranking points and a dollar will get you on the bus....under the new system, sectional ranking points are what primarily matter until you are top 64 or so....

Chemist · 12-20-2012, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Yeah, we noticed this...

Couple other things you may not have noticed though....national ranking points and a dollar will get you on the bus....under the new system, sectional ranking points are what primarily matter until you are top 64 or so....

In our section, most top players play sectional championship. Bjorn Fratangelo may be the only exception. The section quota is used for L3 and Clay and Hard Court Supernationals only. National Selection Tournaments (3 sites, 32 draw - national ranking top 150?), Winter Teams (2 teams, 32 players each - national ranking top 100?) and Easter Bowl (32 draw - national ranking top 50?) will require high national ranking to get in. These L5 tournaments are very popular for younger players to play up. We had 13-14 year old kids playing B18/L5.

BTW, would it be a good idea for USTA to keep the winter national and move these new team competitions to mid August?

National Grand Master and Sweet 16 should be helpful for developing top players. The very best juniors are playing ITF or Futures.

tennis5 · 12-20-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chemist

In our section, most top players play sectional championship. Bjorn Fratangelo may be the only exception. The section quota is used for L3 and Clay and Hard Court Supernationals only. National Selection Tournaments (3 sites, 32 draw - national ranking top 150?), Winter Teams (2 teams, 32 players each - national ranking top 100?) and Easter Bowl (32 draw - national ranking top 50?) will require high national ranking to get in. These L5 tournaments are very popular for younger players to play up. We had 13-14 year old kids playing B18/L5.

BTW, would it be a good idea for USTA to keep the winter national and move these new team competitions to mid August?

National Grand Master and Sweet 16 should be helpful for developing top players. The very best juniors are playing ITF or Futures.

Keep in mind that the USTA PD coaches had a hand in designing the changes.

So, is it in their best interest to have their players do Eddie Herr, OB, and then Winter Nationals?

No.

So, the event that was designed, (this small team event), where the players stay for training by coaches after they lose.

Interesting, never heard of a NATIONAL TOURNAMENT FOR A GOLD BALL
where the players stay and get free training by coaches....

Original document had a large percentage of kids wild card into this event.

I wonder who the USTA will choose?

NLBwell · 12-20-2012, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chemist

The approved (but temporarily suspended) changes by USTA on junior tennis schedule would effectively reduce opportunities for juniors to play national events including team competitions, by 54%, 44%, 44%, and 54% for 12s, 14s, 16s, and 18s, respectively. Few folks, however, have recognized that the changes will also reduce opportunities for junior to play sectional tournaments that would earn them national ranking points by 50% in all age groups!
Currently sections host 1 L3, 3 L4, and 8 L5 tournaments (12 in total) in a year. The new structure would allow sections to host a total of 6 tournaments, 2 L3, and 4 L4, from which juniors can earn their national ranking points. This is a 50% reduction!!!

So basically the USTA doesn't have to bother putting on half their tournaments anymore?

Chemist · 12-20-2012, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennis5

Keep in mind that the USTA PD coaches had a hand in designing the changes.

So, is it in their best interest to have their players do Eddie Herr, OB, and then Winter Nationals?

No.

So, the event that was designed, (this small team event), where the players stay for training by coaches after they lose.

Interesting, never heard of a NATIONAL TOURNAMENT FOR A GOLD BALL
where the players stay and get free training by coaches....

Original document had a large percentage of kids wild card into this event.

I wonder who the USTA will choose?

Are you implying that the very top kids, who have already played Eddie Herr and/or Orange Bowl would be too tired to play the Winter National? If so, they would be too tired to play the winter teams. I will ask the USTA officials on 12/26 to explain why they want to replace the winter national with team competition.

BTW, the only change that I think make sense is play intersectional and zonal concurrently that would allow kids to have one week break in the summer. Adding 14s intersectional is also good.

Chemist · 12-20-2012, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NLBwell

So basically the USTA doesn't have to bother putting on half their tournaments anymore?

They would reduce the opportunities of playing national events by about 50% - by eliminating winter nationals, eliminating 18s Spring Championship, reducing national open site from 4 to 3, reducing regional sites from 8 to 4, reducing national opens from 4 to 2, reducing regional from 4 to 3, reducing draw sizes of Easter Bowl (12s-16s) from 128 to 32, reducing draw sizes of clay and hard court championship: from 128 to 64 for 12s and from 196 to 128 for 16s & 18s. They would add a few new tournaments, but they only benefit the elite players. Their excuse is to shift tournament play to sections. However, they slap their own faces by eliminating all L5 (8 in total).

So what they are doing is to encourage our kids to play less tournaments!

Alohajrtennis · 12-20-2012, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NLBwell

So basically the USTA doesn't have to bother putting on half their tournaments anymore?

Yeah, basically. Closer to 75% reduction, because in addition to eliminating tournaments they are shrinking draws too.

Alohajrtennis · 12-20-2012, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chemist

Are you implying that the very top kids, who have already played Eddie Herr and/or Orange Bowl would be too tired to play the Winter National? If so, they would be too tired to play the winter teams. I will ask the USTA officials on 12/26 to explain why they want to replace the winter national with team competition.

BTW, the only change that I think make sense is play intersectional and zonal concurrently that would allow kids to have one week break in the summer. Adding 14s intersectional is also good.

A lot don't right now. Especially the ones from the south and Florida, they hate going to cold Arizona in December. I wouldn't be surprised if the new team event is in Florida too.

Alohajrtennis · 12-20-2012, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chemist

In our section, most top players play sectional championship. Bjorn Fratangelo may be the only exception. The section quota is used for L3 and Clay and Hard Court Supernationals only. National Selection Tournaments (3 sites, 32 draw - national ranking top 150?), Winter Teams (2 teams, 32 players each - national ranking top 100?) and Easter Bowl (32 draw - national ranking top 50?) will require high national ranking to get in. These L5 tournaments are very popular for younger players to play up. We had 13-14 year old kids playing B18/L5.

BTW, would it be a good idea for USTA to keep the winter national and move these new team competitions to mid August?

National Grand Master and Sweet 16 should be helpful for developing top players. The very best juniors are playing ITF or Futures.

Yes, the people who designed these changes have this weird notion that are all these 'national players' who don't play there sectional events, and that weakens the sectional competition, so by blowing up all the national tournaments(national, opens, regionals) and restricting access based on sectional quotas these kids will be forced to play in there sections, that will make sectional play tougher, and that will make tennis look less expensive compared to other sports, so tennis will then be able to attract more elite athletes. Seriously, they really think this.

The whole logic chain falls apart rather easily, starting with the fact that these national only players who don't play sectional events are few and far between, and the reason they don't play there section is not because they have too much money and want to waste it flying all over the place or don't want to, but because they don't have enough challenging competition in there sections.

Alohajrtennis · 12-20-2012, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chemist

So what they are doing is to encourage our kids to play less tournaments!

Yes. There are quite a few people who think this. I am not one of them. That is one of the objectives of the changes, have the kids compete less..

Chemist · 12-21-2012, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Yes, the people who designed these changes have this weird notion that are all these 'national players' who don't play there sectional events, and that weakens the sectional competition, so by blowing up all the national tournaments(national, opens, regionals) and restricting access based on sectional quotas these kids will be forced to play in there sections, that will make sectional play tougher, and that will make tennis look less expensive compared to other sports, so tennis will then be able to attract more elite athletes. Seriously, they really think this.

The whole logic chain falls apart rather easily, starting with the fact that these national only players who don't play sectional events are few and far between, and the reason they don't play there section is not because they have too much money and want to waste it flying all over the place or don't want to, but because they don't have enough challenging competition in there sections.

You are right on! The best players don't even bother to play national opens - not enough challenge. The very best don't even show up at the clay court championship - not enough challenge again. Many do play Kalamazoo or San Diego, because the winner gets a wild card in US Open main draw. How would USTA force these, who don't play national opens, to play section tournaments? They would rather train hard or chase their ITF or ATP ranking points. Like you said, many many top players, high 5 stars or blue chips are playing sections, especially, in strong sections like FL, Southern CA, Eastern, Mid

West, TX, or Southern, because they can be challenged there. A few years ago, my son lost to a blue chip from FL in B14 Clay super national. That kid never played a single tournament out of the state!

tennis5 · 12-21-2012, 07:59 AM

[quote=Alohajrtennis;7073226]Yes, the people who designed these changes have this weird notion that are all these 'national players' who don't play there sectional events, and that weakens the sectional competition, so by blowing up all the national tournaments(national, opens, regionals) and restricting access based on sectional quotas these kids will be forced to play in there sections, that will make sectional play tougher, and that will make tennis look less expensive compared to other sports, so tennis will then be able to attract more elite athletes. Seriously, they really think this.

The whole logic chain falls apart rather easily, starting with the fact that these national only players who don't play sectional events are few and far between, and the reason they don't play there section is not because they have too much money and want to waste it flying all over the place or don't want to, but because they don't have enough challenging competition in there sections.[/QUOTE]

And I would say they don't even live in their section most of the time.

I think what is going to happen is we are going to have two very separate and distinct groups going forward in the country if these changes go through for 2014.

The better players will leave the USTA national system, and just play ITFS.

Ironically, parents will be spending more money flying their kids to ITF tournaments.

And some parents will also be spending more money with these strange regions as it appears no one consulted a map.....

NLBwell · 12-21-2012, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Yeah, basically. Closer to 75% reduction, because in addition to eliminating tournaments they are shrinking draws too.

So, at the root of it, they've just made their jobs much easier, which is the purpose of any bureaucracy - whether it be private or government. I don't think the USTA officials will take a 50% or 75% pay cut.
Of course much of the work for the actual tournaments is done by volunteers or people paid a pittance who do it for the love of the game. Guess they are out of luck, too.

seminoleG · 12-22-2012, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennis5

Ironically, parents will be spending more money flying their kids to ITF tournaments.

And some parents will also be spending more money with these strange regions as it appears no one consulted a map.....

Cost is not that far apart. Hiking across the US is pricey and from florida to can be in Central America before Texas. I can get lots places before California.

Travel from some areas are much cheaper to Central America than middle america. Many deals exists where a trip to Austin is full fare.

Several parents of teens tell me avoid the USTA path, comparable cost with a better chance of overall success.

11-26-2012, 04:33 PM	#41
tennis5 Professional Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,261	Parenting Aces continued International players are heavily marketed here in the United States, and our American counterparts are being singled out! (parent) I’m not sure I understand this statement. If someone could clarify for me, that would be helpful. From experience, most USTA coaches only support players here in the United States who are highly ranked! (parent) That’s a problem inherent in the Player ID and Player Development departments of USTA. Those departments are charged with identifying players who have the potential to become our next American champions. The question becomes: would the dollars allocated to paying the salaries of those coaches be better spent supporting local coaches who are developing top-level players in their own backyards? The entire ‘talent id’ for pre-adolescents is a complete crap shoot. (K. Kamperman) Amen, Mr. Kamperman! I’m hoping to see USTA do away with this piece of the puzzle entirely and paint with a broader brush when using its financial resources for player development. So, if it is a "complete crap shoot", why continue to pour millions into PD? The Mid-Atlantic region converts every parent into a cash machine and is ultra selective as per the ability of the player they choose to work with. (parent) I feel that I should homeschool my child just so he/she can get ahead and attend a better school! (parent) I still don’t understand how the proposed changes are going to reduce missed school days. Can someone please explain that one to me? Is homeschooling going to become the necessary norm for those wanting to achieve the highest levels in junior tennis? Is it already the norm? Wow, folks, if you are pulling your kid out of school to attend a better college, they still have to be able to do the high level work in college. My daughter plays a college sport and why the coach cares about her performance, she doesn't care if she has a high level job when she is 40. By expanding the participation base here in the United States, we have a wider audience to draw from, player-wise! (K. Kamperman) Agree. When my child is being coached at a club, I have no idea how to measure the quality of the program with regard to the training environment! (parent) This is where USTA could really step in and prove to be a valuable resource to parents. I hope the parent quoted here finds my blog and reads my series on Choosing A Coach! I am in favor of increased draw sizes at the national level, tournament wise! (parent) Me, too! You [the USTA] need to make the draws more backended! (parent) What does that mean? We have to look at the structure, with regard to the rankings. (K. Kamperman) I’m not sure what Mr. Kamperman is saying here. Is he concerned about the current PPR ranking system? If so, I’m very glad to hear that and hope that it is re-evaluated to include head-to-head competition. There isn’t any other ranking system in any other sport that doesn’t come under heavy scrutiny! (K. Kamperman) I’d like to see more American players get more scholarships. (D. Haggerty) Me, too, Mr. Haggerty! How is USTA going to make that happen? Is it going to take a firmer stand with NCAA and college coaches and athletic directors? We need USTA to advocate for our kids in this regard. I think it is good for both the American and International players to compete with one another. (D. Haggerty) That is why the ITF circuit is such a great option for many players. If that is so, why were so many ITFs cut in this country? The USTA is not in the driver’s seat for college scholarships. (K. Kamperman) Right. Those rules are established by NCAA. USTA could, however, take a stronger position and advocate for increased scholarships on the men’s side and for limiting the number of scholarships that go to international players. The NJCAA has already paved the way. Well, we all saw the USTA exert pressure on the NCAA with the proposed college tennis changes, why can't they exert the same pressure about a 2 man foreign cap per team? Not to be cynical, but probably because that doesn't help the USTA get the two players into the US Open. If college tennis had a bunch of 4 star and 5 stars playing with their blue chips, that would be the kiss of death. The parents’ feedback and recommendations have no value with regard to influencing change within the USTA. (parent) I think these listening meetings prove otherwise. At the very least, USTA is making an effort to get feedback directly from those of us affected by these proposed changes. Whether or not it acts on that feedback is yet to be seen. I’m trying to remain hopeful. Actually, I don't understand the concept of a listening tour. What would be better would be a Q and A where they actually responded to valid complaints. The players from Florida and California are complaining that other sections have weaker competition. (parent) The statistics confirm that fact. I looked at the November 2012 National Standing List for the Boys 18s – the sections with the most players in the top 100 are (in order) Southern California (17), Texas & Southern (tied with 12), Florida & Eastern (tied with 10), and ***** (9). If I was running the USTA like a business, I don’t know why I would limit American players’ options! (parent) Folks, that is a veiled threat. There is talk that if the USTA goes through with these changes, there are a few deep pocket tennis folks who will start another tennis association and I believe TRN will cover those matches. I think it is good business if the USTA supports the passion of players here in the US. (parent) The emotional rollercoaster that my child suffers, because of the extreme pressure in performing, is hampering his passion to wanna compete. (parent) High-level competition isn’t for everyone. Parents have to look at each child to determine what’s in his/her best interest. One thing I will say is that, at least in the Southern section, there are many levels of competition from which to choose. For a player who doesn’t thrive under the pressure of high-level play, there are other options to still compete but at a lower stress level. Parents aren’t seeing developmental plans from USTA coaches. (parent)** Again, I feel like USTA could really be a positive force if it would become more of a guide for parents trying to navigate the complicated tournament and development system. We’re gonna look at all recommended proposals and pass them on to section leaders. (K. Kamperman) A question that was posed on the ParentingAces Facebook page: “What will compel USTA to change anything as a result of holding these ‘listening’ meetings?” I would really like to hear USTA’s answer to this question as I think it’s a crucial piece of the puzzle. A VOTE FROM THE USTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGARDING A PAUSE TO THE CHANGES FOR 2013 WILL TAKE PLACE IN DECEMBER 2012. USTA LEADERSHIP WILL REVIEW FEEDBACK FROM THESE “LISTENING” MEETINGS DURING THE ANNUAL MEETING IN MARCH AFTER WHICH A VOTE WILL BE TAKEN ON HOW TO PROCEED IN 2014. (K. Kamperman) This is why we need to communicate NOW with our section presidents and let them know our thoughts on these proposed changes. Time is of the essence. Last edited by tennis5 : 11-26-2012 at 04:41 PM.

11-26-2012, 04:41 PM	#42
tennis5 Professional Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,261	Parenting Aces continued.... Currently, 88,000 kids play at all levels here in the US. (K. Kamperman) Increasing participation at the high school level will help increase the USTA bottom line, player-wise! (coach) I have to disagree with this statement, at least insofar as high school tennis in Georgia is currently structured. Our state high school association has passed an eligibility rule which will effectively eliminate all high-performance players from their high school teams. The level of competition in our state’s high schools has become on par with recreational league tennis. I travel from Rochester to NYC seven times a year and it is VERY costly and time-consuming. (parent) I wonder if the USTA is willing to pick up the traveling expenses for players who travel outside of their respective region. (parent) I know my section (Southern) does have need-based scholarship funds available to help offset some of the costs of junior tennis. I’m guessing other sections have something similar. I’m on the board of player development for the New England section and am concerned about these new rule changes. (coach) There is no guarantee for our children, especially when we have to spend so much money for travel and tournament fees that I am beginning to think the investment isn’t worth it anymore! (parent) That is a decision each family has to make for itself. With my three kids, only one of whom is a tennis player, I’ve found that pursuing an interest to the point of mastery is expensive, whether it’s a sport or an art form. I still would like someone to ask the question about Winter Nationals..... 1)It doesn't interfere with school........... 2) IT IS AFFORDABLE TO PARENTS WHO LIVE IN THAT AREA.... 3) It gives spring birthdays an opportunity to GET INTO the tournament. 4) It provides the cold weather indoor players an opportunity to play outdoors. What is interesting is Eddie Herr and the Orange Bowl interferes with school. And the question that begs to be asked are the "top players" that are playing these two long events in December too physically exhausted to play Winter Nationals in the SAME month, so the USTA feels like it is not in "their" best interest to have this tournament. The proposed dates for the remaining “listening” meetings are as follows: December 16: ITA Convention (for convention attendees only), Naples FL December 26: 16s & 18s Winter Nationals, Scottsdale, AZ December 27: 12s & 14s Winter Nationals, Tucson, AZ Jan. 10-13: Southern Section annual meeting, Atlanta, GA Feb. 15-17: Texas Section annual meeting, Grapevine, TX

12-05-2012, 02:39 PM	#43
tennis5 Professional Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,261	News article - 12/5 - Kampermann said these meetings will explain the changes and rat Is this a done deal? RELATED TOPICS Tennisjunior tennischangesUSTA http://www.examiner.com/article/usta...ening-and-more By a quick glance at the United States Tennis Association's website their mission is clear. “To promote and develop the growth of tennis” It's with that in mind that the USTA is in the midst a series of town hall meetings, dubbed a "listening tour" to discuss not only changes to its junior competition calendar, but a change in structure and philosophy that they hope will pay off on many fronts. They are inviting all concerned parties to attend and ask questions. "The USTA realizes that change is difficult," admits Jon Vegosen, Chairman of the Board and President of the USTA. "When you look at how our competitive system is faring and when you look at the numbers, and the numbers don't lie-- and they tell an interesting story." That story is one where tennis is often left out and forgotten. Vegosen went on: "In this country (we have) 40 million registered youth sports participants, and over 99% of them do not play tennis, so we have a huge market we could and should be growing if we are to fulfill our mission." I was able to talk with Vegosen, and Kurt Kampermann, USTA Chief Executive of Community Tennis about the "listening tour" as a couple of the dates are now in the books and about how the proposed changes will change the face of junior tennis in America. The consensus is this that the town hall meetings are great, but some are wondering if what's being discussed is falling on deaf ears, or are questions being answered and alternatives being considered. "We are happy to answer any questions that come up in town hall meetings," offered up Kampermann. "I can tell you in the first two, we didn't have as many questions as we had opinions." The USTA said these meeting are about giving people the opportunity to "weigh in." One things all parties involved can agree on is the junior tennis competitive structure in the is country is very complicated. Kampermann said these meetings will explain the changes and rationale. From the change in draw sizes, to putting an emphasis on play at the local and sectional levels. "It's been a challenge to make sure people understand the whole picture," said Kampermann. "We really are taking their feedback to heart, and our goal is not be be right, but to get it right." Vegosen says the new structure creates more opportunities and that means more numbers. "We need a bigger pool of kids that are actually competing at tennis," explains Kampermann, who has taught juniors, and has witnessed how other countries are going about developing junior tennis players. "We want kids to reach their full potential," echoed Vegosen. Only 20,000 kids under the age of 10 are playing junior competitive tennis in the country, the USTA is trying to get the world out about how they want to change that. The 10 & Under Tennis and Quickstart programs are already out there, and data is being collected. Vegosen said he expects it to be successful, and the national tournament structure and ranking system they are proposing to compliment and accommodate all the tennis players that will be in the system. Whether it will pass, and then work, remains to be seen. The USTA knows they can't please everyone, but they are trying... and listening. Remaining meetings are as follows: Dec. 16: ITA Convention (for convention attendees only), Naples, Fla. Dec. 26: 16s & 18s Winter Nationals, Scottsdale, Ariz. Dec. 27: 12s & 14s Winter Nationals, Tucson Jan. 10-13: Southern Section annual meeting, Atlanta Feb. 15-17: Texas Section annual meeting, Grapevine, Texas Last edited by tennis5 : 12-05-2012 at 02:45 PM.

12-17-2012, 01:47 PM	#44
tennis5 Professional Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,261	From Zoo Tennis Unfortunately, Julie and I don't share the same view of foreigners in college tennis ( I am for a two man cap) and she feels it is great tennis, but I do wish the question of how the smaller draws will affect kids being recruited to college was raised. Ok, here is her recap. Also, check it out on Zoo Tennis: USTA Town Hall Meeting at ITA Convention I drove across the state and back today to attend the USTA luncheon and Town Hall meeting at the ITA Coaches Convention in Naples, FL. I was invited to attend by the USTA's Bill Mountford, who had initially signed on to present to the college coaches about the 10-and-under tennis initiative, but when the October Tennis Industry meeting in Chicago resulted in the scheduling of Town Hall meetings and a listening tour to discuss the upcoming Junior Competition changes, that presentation was truncated, with more time allotted for questions for about junior competition changes. In attendance for the USTA were Mountford and outgoing president Jon Vegosen, who were on the podium, and Junior Competition committee member and now chairperson Andrea Norman and USTA Junior Competition Director Lew Brewer at a front table, who were available for questions. Vegosen explained the philosophy behind the changes, emphasizing the need to have more local tennis opportunities for young people when they begin exploring all the youth sports available to them. The coaches received a one-page "CliffNotes" version of the document, with the 2014 schedule as proposed, but there was definitely a wide range of awareness and understanding of the new structure. Several coaches voiced support of the concept of returning to sectional play, saying the value of those tournaments to them has decreased with some of the best players not playing in them. There was a comment about the size of the four regions for the new regionals and the travel required (Minnesota to Texas in this particular case), but I didn't detect from Norman any sense this might be altered. As those of you who read zootennis regularly know, I have been studying the changes as they've been presented in the nine-page document the USTA has released for many months, and have followed many of the blogs and forums that have delved into the issue. I don't claim to understand how it will all work, but I do find the notion that every player(save wild cards) who qualify for the two gold ball Nationals remaining--the Clays and Hard Courts--must come from sectional endorsements. There is no other way in. It may result in the best players in the United States playing sectionals again, or it may result in the best players skipping the nationals, playing ITFs instead. I made only two comments during the meeting, the first to point out that as long as the ITF path exists in the United States (and every other country in the world, more or less) and it potentially leads to the US Open Junior Championships, some players will take that option, rather than the one the USTA provides. As USC coach Peter Smith said about this, "the cat's out of the bag," and no structure the USTA sets up can reverse that change in junior tennis. David Roditi of TCU, who was a National Coach for the USTA before he returned to coach the men's team at his alma mater, asked if these changes may mean two separate paths: one to the US Open Juniors and one to the USTA Nationals. He mentioned that good players skip the national tournaments in Mexico, opting instead for ITF events, and while there are obviously big differences in the two countries and their federations, it is a point worth considering. Now players can do both, but will the elimination of the national standing list force them to choose one or the other? This led to a wild card discussion, and 16 wild cards is the number set aside for the 128 draws in the boys and girls 18s. Peter Wright of Cal asked if those might be tied to some sort of qualification system, as the ITA does for its wild cards or at-large selections. As for the 128 draws themselves, a few coaches were for them, seeing in the 192-draws a number of players not of college quality; a few agreed that a qualifying event prior to the two remaining nationals would be a good solution, and Vegosen said that is being considered. I've always thought qualifiers a dependable and easy-to-understand part of tennis, so I am hopeful this will happen, but that brings me to my second comment at the luncheon. It wasn't really a comment, but a question. I wanted to know how the coaches felt about the demise of the Winter Nationals, or rather, the metamorphosis of it to a team event. I'm not sure how many coaches had absorbed this change prior to the luncheon, but Shelia McInerney of Arizona State said she liked team events, citing the August 18s Team championships and their format. Peter Smith suggested the 64 players involved in the Winter Nationals (with the "waterfalls") were too few to justify the expense of a recruiting trip and suggested more team events in the younger age divisions, saying the 12s zonals always are at the top of his college players' favorite tournaments list. Mountford made sure that those coaches who didn't speak to the issues raised during the 90-minute meeting (and I just touched on a few) had an option to contact him privately later, and he also encouraged everyone to use the email account letusknow@usta.com for further, private feedback and suggestions. The ITA will be sending links to the USTA's one-page and nine-page documents to its members following the meeting to help raise awareness among the coaches. It's my perception that he monitors this account himself and will use it to help quantify the support for the tweaks being considered. I do not think the plan, voted and approved in March of this year, will be scrapped. The USTA appears to be committed to its philosophy and its implementation, and that includes the sections (save Southern, perhaps). But I think if enough people take the time to understand the new structure and comment on what they would like to see changed in it, the USTA will take those emails seriously. If they don't hear from those affected, they will presume agreement with the changes that will be implemented in 2014. The next Town Hall listening meetings are at the Winter Nationals: December 26: 16s & 18s Winter Nationals, Scottsdale, AZ December 27: 12s & 14s Winter Nationals, Tucson, AZ Please attend if you can. Last edited by tennis5 : 12-17-2012 at 01:52 PM.

12-19-2012, 05:44 PM	#46
Chemist Rookie Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Near a tennis court Posts: 338	50% Reduction in National Ranking Point Opportunities The approved (but temporarily suspended) changes by USTA on junior tennis schedule would effectively reduce opportunities for juniors to play national events including team competitions, by 54%, 44%, 44%, and 54% for 12s, 14s, 16s, and 18s, respectively. Few folks, however, have recognized that the changes will also reduce opportunities for junior to play sectional tournaments that would earn them national ranking points by 50% in all age groups! Currently sections host 1 L3, 3 L4, and 8 L5 tournaments (12 in total) in a year. The new structure would allow sections to host a total of 6 tournaments, 2 L3, and 4 L4, from which juniors can earn their national ranking points. This is a 50% reduction!!!