Foreigners in College Tennis

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by OneTennisParent

No issue with foreign competition. Big issue with tax dollars going to foreigners. Why not welcome any foreign player who can help the team, but on their own dime, not the public dole. Or even limiting foreign scholarships to 50%? I understand that private colleges would have a big advantage, but that doesn't mean we should just accept it. Sometimes the right thing is detrimental, but you do it anyway.

Are you talking about federal tax money or state? How does federal support to colleges get into athletic scholarships?

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by OneTennisParent

Sometimes the right thing is detrimental, but you do it anyway.

Amen to that, but it is pretty tough to get someone to fall on the sword while the other 300 sit back and watch you bleed.

If folks truly want a school to stop or limit recruiting foreigners to their school, they need to get out their checkbooks. Write a multi-million dollar endowment check to your college that will fund scholarships to the tennis program with a stipulation that the scholarships can only be used for domestically born tennis athletes. Probably in the neighborhood of $5,208,333 is all it would take...figuring 6% interest in perpetuity would yield $312,500 per year. Avg year of a scholarship might be 25k per year (25k x 12.5 = 312,500)

That's probably the only way it would truly get changed...outside funding of the program. If the school doesn't have to worry about paying 4.5 men & 8 women's scholarships every year, they probably won't care if the team stinks or not.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

Prediction: This thread will likely go on for 20 pages with nothing being said that was not already said in other threads on the subject. Even points that were painstakingly disproven in past threads (e.g. concerning the details of how sports are funded) will be confidently posted again, often by the same people who saw their points refuted previously.

And then on the 21st page, there are going to be 2 people that really don't see eye to eye, they are going to start throwing insults. One's going to call the other a racist. The other is going to call the first one something that needs to be hidden by ****'s. And then the thread will be deleted.

Two days later, another thread with the same subject heading will be started.

[tennis5]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

And then on the 21st page, there are going to be 2 people that really don't see eye to eye, they are going to start throwing insults. One's going to call the other a racist. The other is going to call the first one something that needs to be hidden by ****'s. And then the thread will be deleted.

Two days later, another thread with the same subject heading will be started.

A subject that won't go away....

The original thread was started by someone who opposed the large percentage of foreigners in college tennis.

The thread was then swamped with American parents of tennis juniors ( myself), American tennis juniors, college tennis fans, foreigners who played college tennis, Americans who played college tennis, college coaches and yes, foreign recruiters.

Everyone has something at stake and so the battle becomes heated.....

But, the level of vitriol towards the end was off the charts, with comments that folks were racist and xenophobic
if they were opposed to foreigners on a state school tennis team......

So, perhaps that was the end goal of some posters which was to push the thread off the board.....

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by tennis5

Everyone has something at stake and so the battle becomes heated.....

Yes, but not everyone argues from the selfish perspective based on what he has at stake. Some of us just try to figure out what is true and right.

I have two sons. Older one played some college soccer, but tennis was just a second sport. Out of college now. Younger son has been recovering from injuries for 2.5 years, just starting to play again. He hopes to get on an upward path in terms of TRN rankings when he is able to play tournaments again, but he will be trying to sell college coaches on his potential, not on his ranking at the time that recruitment decisions are made, because he will likely not have enough time to get the ranking up to a really high level. That will be a tough sell. Back before the recruiting of foreign players, he might have fared better. Today's colleges that recruit 5-star players used to recruit the equivalent of 4-star players, and today's 4-star colleges used to recruit the equivalent of 3-stars, etc. He would have had a better chance back then.

So, why do I not oppose offering scholarships to foreign recruits? Because I think it strengthens college tennis, because I think that our kids need to learn to compete, because many kids report that developing a friendship on the college team with some guy from Holland or Germany was a great experience, and various other reasons. Most or all of these reasons might never affect my son in a positive way.

In the post-modern age, most people don't believe in truth any more, only self interest. They assume that everyone is just arguing out of self interest. My son has never played a national tournament and likely never will, yet I examine the threads about USTA changes to national tournaments with great interest, from the perspective of, "Will this be good or bad for American tennis?" Sometimes a comment will draw a response along the lines of, "So, your kid is probably one who will easily get into the new smaller draws, and you don't care about the rest of us, right?" Many people today cannot conceive of anyone simply seeking the good and the true. Then, when my honest opinion does coincide with my self interests (e.g. I think the legal interpretations of Title IX are a travesty, and I have two sons and no daughters), people think they have discovered your motivation. Aha! Of course you are arguing that way!

In an earlier era, people were encouraged to discuss and debate and try to get closer to the truth. Today, the schools don't have real classroom discussion of that sort very much. They have "bull sessions" where "every person's opinion is equally valuable." Just spout off your ignorance and emotion and the teacher is supposed to "validate you" with some positive feedback. As a result, no one can understand the kid who bothers to strenuously disagree with some statement that was made. The only motive they can think of is that he must be trying to make that other kid look bad in front of the teacher and the whole class. Hence, today, every disagreement is viewed as a sign of personal animosity. If you think that Nadal is the GOAT, then you are a "Federer hater," and if you think that Federer is the GOAT, you are a "Nadal hater." If you think that the second-team quarterback should be starting for your local pro football team, you are a "hater" of the starting quarterback. And so on.

While my son would likely be better off without so much foreign competition for dollars, I oppose trying to limit the foreign spots on each team. Yet, when fellow defenders of the same position claim that no tax dollars ever find their way into the athletic department, I point out that this is not true. Wait -- why did I do that? Which side am I on, anyway? Isn't that what these arguments are all about, taking sides and embracing every argument that favors your side even when it does not sound true, and rejecting every counter-argument instead of learning something from it?

[floridatennisdude]

Wow, Clark. I normally get irritated by your nitpicking. Much respect for how you wrote the above.

But, I still despise the computer rankings

[gameboy]

I think this thread would be much more civil, if you just drop the "my tax dollars support these foreigners" meme.

In most big time athletic institutions, the money for the entire athletic department comes from donations and revenue from football and basketball. And as many have pointed out, men's teams don't even have that many scholarships to dole out.

You can debate whether or not NCAA should limit foreign scholarships, but using "tax dollar" argument is just disingenuous.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by gameboy

I think this thread would be much more civil, if you just drop the "my tax dollars support these foreigners" meme.

In most big time athletic institutions, the money for the entire athletic department comes from donations and revenue from football and basketball. And as many have pointed out, men's teams don't even have that many scholarships to dole out.

You can debate whether or not NCAA should limit foreign scholarships, but using "tax dollar" argument is just disingenuous.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Gameboy!

Even if you and I are misguided, well, the US foreign aid budget is somewhere in the $40+ billion range. Seems there could be a lot more done for little Johnny and Janey with that money than the amount of federal tax money that finds its way into scholarships for foreign college tennis players

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-percent-us-b/

And I am tired of posting about how objecting to scholys for foreigners based on the use of state tax money (if any) = objecting to scholys for out-of-staters on State school rosters.

EDIT: I support the general concept of foreign aid, even if I have not approved every line item, in case anyone misreads this into thinking I am bashing foreign aid.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by gameboy

In most big time athletic institutions,

What about the other 90% of schools that offer scholarships then ? Why is the discussion only limited to "big time" athletic institutions? There are more scholarships available from non-BCS Div I schools and DIV II. Most of these schools athletic programs run at a deficit and borrow money from there general fund(which they never pay back). In addition, almost 99% of the schools in the US receives federal funding - either directly, in most cases, indirectly, because the tuition money they receive from student is in part from federal grants and student loans subsidized by tax payers.

Originally Posted by gameboy

You can debate whether or not NCAA should limit foreign scholarships, but using "tax dollar" argument is just disingenuous.

Good way to discuss, first step: impune the motives of anyone who disagrees with you. No its not's disingenuous at all. If the school receives any federal funding, which as I stated above, they almost all do, than tax dollars are going to their athletic program. They can set up all the 'special funds' and accounting chicanery they want in order to say that X doesn't pay for Y, Z pays for Y, but at the end of the day, it chicanery, you can't take water out of half a glass.

[gameboy]

If you want to talk about scholarships in Div II or III schools, then at least limit your conversations to those schools (and I don't think highly ranked kids are having problems getting into Div 2 or 3 programs).

From what I have seen, most of the talks have been centered around BCS programs which means there are no tax dollars involved.

[Alohajrtennis]

I think the discussion was about athletic scholarships, which means DIV I and DIV II, not DIV III. I don't think most people would have assumed we were just talking about BCS programs. And we will have to agree to disagree about there being tax dollars involved in BCS scholarships, but do me the small favor of not accusing me of being disingenuous and I'll do the same for your. Thats the way to keep the conversation civil.

[rww]

Winthrop Univ, Rock Hill SC. currently 3 US citizens total on mens and womens teams. 1 is a local gratis walk-on. been going on for at least 15 years.

[rufus_smith]

Most BCS and NCAA athletic programs are subsidized by taxes and student fees.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...analysis_N.htm

[Alohajrtennis]

Thanks Rufus, good link, I had almost forgotten about the ubiquitous user fees they keep raising every year.

[Tennishacker]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

Today's colleges that recruit 5-star players used to recruit the equivalent of 4-star players, and today's 4-star colleges used to recruit the equivalent of 3-stars, etc. He would have had a better chance back then.

So, why do I not oppose offering scholarships to foreign recruits? Because I think it strengthens college tennis, because I think that our kids need to learn to compete?

What is the role of American college tennis?

Is it to "compete" among all college age tennis players in the world, or
is it the responsibility of college tennis to prepare them for the professional game?

Neither, starting with kindergarten, school athletics is to help build strong bodies, so that we have strong minds.

ClarkC, that was one of your greatest post!

[gameboy]

That is nice a article from USA Today. Lots of information and stats available directly on line!

Here are some examples (picked randomly mostly from major state institutions):

University of Michigan (my alma mater)
Operating Revenue: $107 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

University of Illinois
Operating Revenue: $97 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Alabama
Operating Revenue: $130 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

California
Operating Revenue: $69 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Cincinnati (cited in the report)
Operating Revenue: $41 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Georgia
Operating Revenue: $90 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Texas A&M: $82 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

As you can see there are $0 tax dollars going to "foreign scholarships". Other than Cincinnati, these schools didn't even have "direct institutional contribution". Even that is coming from mostly school endowment and tuitions. But to argue that that is your tax dollar is at work IS disingenuous.

[tennis5]

Originally Posted by gameboy

That is nice a article from USA Today. Lots of information and stats available directly on line!

Here are some examples (picked randomly mostly from major state institutions):

University of Michigan (my alma mater)
Operating Revenue: $107 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

University of Illinois
Operating Revenue: $97 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Alabama
Operating Revenue: $130 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

California
Operating Revenue: $69 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Cincinnati (cited in the report)
Operating Revenue: $41 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Georgia
Operating Revenue: $90 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

Texas A&M: $82 million
Direct state or other government support: $0

As you can see there are $0 tax dollars going to "foreign scholarships". Other than Cincinnati, these schools didn't even have "direct institutional contribution". Even that is coming from mostly school endowment and tuitions. But to argue that that is your tax dollar is at work IS disingenuous.

Can you please provide a link?

I saw who Obama picked for basketball, but that was about it.

[Alohajrtennis]

Nice random cherry picking. Amazing how you only first narrowed your list to major state institutions before randomly picking. What about the other 300 schools ? Oh, I forgot, you are limiting the discussion to top BCS schools. And you calling me disingenuous ?

More importantly, if you want to talk about disingenuous, you are throwing out straw man arguments and then shooting them down : I never said tax revenues go to directly fund scholarships. The issue is the indirect funding that makes the tennis and other athletic programs possible in the first place. What I am saying is that tax payer funding and subsidies go directly and indirectly to those schools and their athletic programs, and therefore direct and indirect affects their scholarship program, and that makes the public funding relevant. Those tennis players are working out in weight rooms and playing on courts that were not paid for with private donations, they were probably built using taxpayer funded tax-exempt bonds. Heck, most of the revenue the universities receive is from government backed student loans and grants.

[Misterbill]

Winthrop:

Operating Revenue: $11.1 million
Operating Expenses: $10.78 million
Direct State or other gov support: $7,000

U South Carolina:

Operating Revenue: $79.8 mil
Operating Expenses: $78.29 mil
Direct State or other gov support: $0

Maybe the S Carolina government and legislature don't see the portion of $7,000 that is going for foreign tennis scholarships at Winthrop as being a big issue. I don't know, I'm not familiar with S Carolina politics.

PS: I know the word "disingenuous" is not a compliment, but I never thought of it as being an insult or constituting uncivil dialogue. Maybe someone will use the d-word back at me for this!

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

PS: I know the word "disingenuous" is not a compliment, but I never thought of it as being an insult or constituting uncivil dialogue. Maybe someone will use the d-word back at me for this!

Where I come from, Its a $4 word for liar.