Functional "Minor League"

[Alohajrtennis]

I believe the recent proposed changes by the USTA and the NCAA, and the reactions to them, are symptomatic of the larger problem in tennis - the lack of a viable, functioning link, a minor league/tour, between junior competition and the ATP tour.

Most sports have minor leagues and/or a highly functional college system that helps players make the transition from junior student athlete to professional. Even when they make the 'big leagues' directly, all but the very top players are expected to sit on the bench for a while.

High School football programs don't focus on creating professional football players, their goal is to get the kids to the next level - college. Same with basketball. Baseball players hope to get drafted and play in the minors for several seasons, etc. Golfers try to get to the web.com or other developmental tour, maybe Q school right away but for most, no, its a couple years slogging away in the minor tours.

Most minor league sports would lose money, substantial amounts, without substantial subsidies from there major league affiliates. This is true in every sport. The players are generally not millionaires, but they are taken care of. But heck, the top players on the web.com tour(pga developmental tour) can earn over $1m a year. A player needs to make enough money that they can stick it out for 2,3 maybe four years to see if it all comes together, but not that they are happy playing for 10. It shouldn't cost the players money.

For the people who say the junior tennis system is broken, it's not producing enough champions, I say you are expecting too much out of it. The junior tennis system should produce enough quality players to fill a substantial number of scholarship spots in college, and to put the top juniors into the futures and challenger circuits. It's the job of the colleges and and the futures and challenger circuits to take the kids to the pro's. The days of 14 year old's winning grand slams is over. Some people say that the junior system is "broken" becuase it hasn't produced enough professional champions, I say it broken because it hasn't produced enough players to fill our scholarships - half our scholarships are going to internationals.

Well, while USTA would like them to cooperate, the NCAA seems to be saying they are not interested in the job, so what's the alternative for these kids? Go pro. But if you think the junior system is broken and expensive, well then you have not looked at the futures circuit. Being a 'professional' on futures will cost you a couple hundred thousand a year in expenses, to be offset by minuscule purses.

If UTSA wants to return to the "glory days" of having five Americans in the top 20 at any given time, that means we would need to have 25 Americans in top 100, as opposed to ~10. We need to have 50+ in top 200, 150 in top 300, etc.

Assuming the players in the top 150 can earn a living from prize money/endorsements, etc. , that's still hundreds of 'kids' who both have to be extremely talented and either 1) coincidentally independently wealthy or 2) have significant financial support.

If the USTA wants to create champions, they should focus on #2. Create a functioning 'development tour', a bridge league/tour from juniors to self-supporting professional. Sponsorships and stipends, increase prize money, etc.

This is where champions can be built, but it doesn't exist. Like I said, if you think Junior tennis is broken, you haven't looked at the futures tour.

ok, flak jacket on.

[maggmaster]

Yes, look at the German or the French tournament systems or even the British, though theirs is not quite as good. In Germany they have paid leagues and a tournament series, in France they have an open level event basically every weekend with a decent prize and short travel distances and in Britain they have the British Tour where at least you can consistently get good competetion with short travel. We have a decent open scene in California but other than that it is pretty dead.

[andfor]

Would your functional tour be open to everyone here in the states? Or if internationals came over to play it and took all the slot would there be outrage?

[maggmaster]

I think it should be open. If it were implemented correctly it should consist of short travel distance, decent paying tournaments that are accesible to everyone. With the size of the US that would end up being a lot of tournaments and foreign players would probably just help fill the draws. The trick would be getting sponsors for the individual series in geographic areas.

[andfor]

Sponsors are an issue. It needs to be fully backed by the USTA. Additional sponsors would be revenue for the tournaments.

[maggmaster]

I actually dont think it needs to be sponsored by the USTA. It just needs to be a functional tournament series with prize money and a high level of competition.

[coaching32yrs]

Aloha is on to something here. I see a lot of energy wasted on discussing the USTA changes. They will not help "produce" American champions. We absolutlely need a USTA minor league for 18-24 year olds with real prize money. This will allow the top 100 American players to compete and train at a high level. It never made any sense for USTA development to stop at age 18. The USTA is the only one that can do it. They may have to cut some of the scholarships to USTA training centers for 14 and 15 year olds which, by most accounts, are a waste of money.

[sundaypunch]

I agree with the concept. For this to happen, it would require considerable sponsorship money. Where will this come from? Many minor league sports in the USA have excellent attendance at their games. I don't see this happening for tennis matches which means sponsor dollars will likely be scarce.

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by coaching32yrs

Aloha is on to something here. I see a lot of energy wasted on discussing the USTA changes. They will not help "produce" American champions. We absolutlely need a USTA minor league for 18-24 year olds with real prize money. This will allow the top 100 American players to compete and train at a high level. It never made any sense for USTA development to stop at age 18. The USTA is the only one that can do it. They may have to cut some of the scholarships to USTA training centers for 14 and 15 year olds which, by most accounts, are a waste of money.

That would make too much sense to do something like this.

[maggmaster]

If I were the USTA and wanted to attract sponsors to this, I would try to make the minor leage events attractive to smaller companies who cannot afford a pro event. I may even build some kind of graduated sponsorship system where you have to sponsor so many minors in addition to your pro tournament.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by andfor

Would your functional tour be open to everyone here in the states? Or if internationals came over to play it and took all the slot would there be outrage?

No, I think Internationals should be allowed. However, I think there should be a concept of seasonal tour membership, ala the PGA or Web.com tour, where you a guaranteed entry to all the events in a given time period. Tour members should be predominantly American, but not exclusively. Also, a certain amount of entries at each events should be 'open' to qualifiers, non-tour members, etc.

Part of what they need to make pro is have guaranteed period of time (6 months ? A year ? IDK) where they are guaranteed to play every week and don't spend half there time figuring out what the next event they can get into is, how to get there, last minute wild cards etc

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

I agree with the concept. For this to happen, it would require considerable sponsorship money. Where will this come from? Many minor league sports in the USA have excellent attendance at their games. I don't see this happening for tennis matches which means sponsor dollars will likely be scarce.

Even the teams with good attendance rarely break even. The Durham Bulls are the exception that proves the rule. The web.com tour doesn't function without PGA subsidies. USTA just has to be committed needs to decide better to spend money here than somewhere else. If the USTA commits some money to it and makes it more interesting than it is, that will help attract corporate sponsorships as well, but it still wont pay for itself.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by coaching32yrs

Aloha is on to something here. I see a lot of energy wasted on discussing the USTA changes. They will not help "produce" American champions. We absolutlely need a USTA minor league for 18-24 year olds with real prize money. This will allow the top 100 American players to compete and train at a high level. It never made any sense for USTA development to stop at age 18. The USTA is the only one that can do it. They may have to cut some of the scholarships to USTA training centers for 14 and 15 year olds which, by most accounts, are a waste of money.

I also think it needs to be attacked with more than just increase prize money, which would be good though. Needs to be away to at least cover the expenses of tour players. stipends, cover travel expenses. Keep the events close together and charter a bus from event to event, pay for the hotel rooms, every one is guaranteed to play the next event so they are all going the same place. The independently wealthy don't have to take the bus.

Also, don't schedule the challengers in Florida one week, Honolulu the next and Dallas the next. Follow a seasonal path like the PGA does. West coat swing, southern swing, etc.

[MarTennis]

You need the best of the the developing pro's to be sponsored and travel together, taking on the pro's in each region of the country. Culminating into a qualification on regional basis to a "new league" championship at some designated time of the year. Could be a regional winner who breaks thru or one of the sponsored travellers. Also, it needs to be reality tv on Tennis Channel. Think I will work on it a bit. Who's in?

[Tennishacker]

Aloha, thanks for bringing up this topic again.

Many on this board agree that there must be better organization, money and more "minor league" tournaments for the up and coming players with the help of the USTA.

Back in the 80's, there was a Penn challenger type circuit that took place starting in socal,then the southwest, Texas, the southern states and ended up in Florida.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by MarTennis

You need the best of the the developing pro's to be sponsored and travel together, taking on the pro's in each region of the country. Culminating into a qualification on regional basis to a "new league" championship at some designated time of the year. Could be a regional winner who breaks thru or one of the sponsored travellers. Also, it needs to be reality tv on Tennis Channel. Think I will work on it a bit. Who's in?

I like the reality tv angle. I mean, seriously, how many reruns of the 2010 Quatar Opens women quarterfinals can you watch ?

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

I like the reality tv angle. I mean, seriously, how many reruns of the 2010 Quatar Opens women quarterfinals can you watch ?

AMEN!!! I wish they would show college tennis, junior tennis, futures ,challengers anything but all these reruns.

[gameboy]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

High School football programs don't focus on creating professional football players, their goal is to get the kids to the next level - college. Same with basketball.

This is patently FALSE.

Less than 10% of the kids who play high school football or basketball get scholarship to play in college. Designing a program around those 10% would be a HUMONGOUS waste of time and effort for any school district.

The goal of high school programs is to provide opportunities for kids to play sports they love in an organized setting - period. Whether or not those kids get to college is secondary. There are private schools that are known more for their pipe-line to colleges, but those are few and far in-between.

[chalkflewup]

Originally Posted by gameboy

This is patently FALSE.

Less than 10% of the kids who play high school football or basketball get scholarship to play in college. Designing a program around those 10% would be a HUMONGOUS waste of time and effort for any school district.

The goal of high school programs is to provide opportunities for kids to play sports they love in an organized setting - period. Whether or not those kids get to college is secondary. There are private schools that are known more for their pipe-line to colleges, but those are few and far in-between.

I completely agree with your assessment.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by gameboy

This is patently FALSE.

Less than 10% of the kids who play high school football or basketball get scholarship to play in college. Designing a program around those 10% would be a HUMONGOUS waste of time and effort for any school district.

The goal of high school programs is to provide opportunities for kids to play sports they love in an organized setting - period. Whether or not those kids get to college is secondary. There are private schools that are known more for their pipe-line to colleges, but those are few and far in-between.

I agree with you, but also think you are nitpicking. I could have worded it better. I actually think the number is closer to 5%, and the same thing applies at the next level. Only 5% of college football players wil go pro. The point is High Schools don't try to create full fledged professionals, except in the rare circumstances, the best they can hope for is a player to make it to the next, intermediate level, whether it be college or a minor leauge.

I think you are making the same point I have been trying to make with regards to the usta changes I am not a fan of. I have been mocked pretty heavily for using the phrase 'childhood experience' and 'end in and of itself'. The changes are all about finding the 1% with not much regard for the other 99%.