Sean Hannity Vs Usta

[tennisforlife77]

I don't have a crystal ball but here's how i think this plays out...kids ranked below say 125/200 are forced back into sectional play exclusively. The level 2 3 and 4 national events will disintegrate and only the top kids will play each other on a national basis at the level 1's and the masters etc. That may not be a disaster for a kid in So Cal but it will be pretty much a disaster for the up and coming kid in a smaller section. The top 125-200 kids who are given the national opportunities will separate themselves from the pack and there will be very little turnover in that group as they move from one age group to the next. Without a vibrant middle class of player to push the top group they also stagnate...as i said i don't have a crystal ball but that seems like a potential and pretty negative outcome for everyone....AND the JCC who put this plan in place will be long gone and who will be accountable if it is a failure!!

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by tennisforlife77

I don't have a crystal ball but here's how i think this plays out...kids ranked below say 125/200 are forced back into sectional play exclusively. The level 2 3 and 4 national events will disintegrate and only the top kids will play each other on a national basis at the level 1's and the masters etc. That may not be a disaster for a kid in So Cal but it will be pretty much a disaster for the up and coming kid in a smaller section. The top 125-200 kids who are given the national opportunities will separate themselves from the pack and there will be very little turnover in that group as they move from one age group to the next. Without a vibrant middle class of player to push the top group they also stagnate...as i said i don't have a crystal ball but that seems like a potential and pretty negative outcome for everyone....AND the JCC who put this plan in place will be long gone and who will be accountable if it is a failure!!

I think what you say is plausible except for, "Without a vibrant middle class of player to push the top group they also stagnate". I don't think players 1-50 will suffer if they cannot get matches with numbers 201-250. And I don't think players 150-200 will suffer, if as it turns out, they get more matches against 100-149 than 201-250

Don't mean to insult you by saying this is pretty close to my original thinking..........as I posted a day or two ago.

[tennis5]

Originally Posted by coaching32yrs

You make a good point. However I question how "enriching" it is to travel from Long Island to Palm Springs and lose in the first round of the Easter Bowl. Maybe it's better for the kid from L.I. to learn he/she is not deserving of position in the Easter Bowl this year. 256 player draws are too big.

EASTER BOWL is 128, not 256.

Then again, this 128 draw will be gone soon.

[coaching32yrs]

Originally Posted by tennis5

EASTER BOWL is 128, not 256.

Then again, this 128 draw will be gone soon.

Kalmazoo is a 256 player draw. There are several players who lost in the first round of sectionals and the first round of the July Nat Opens who will be playing. It makes no sense. They have the money and want to be able to say I played Kalmazoo. I have no problem with the USTA trying to fix this.

[chalkflewup]

Originally Posted by coaching32yrs

Kalmazoo is a 256 player draw. There are several players who lost in the first round of sectionals and the first round of the July Nat Opens who will be playing. It makes no sense. They have the money and want to be able to say I played Kalmazoo. I have no problem with the USTA trying to fix this.

You really think that's the reason why they play? Just so they can say they played Kalamazoo? I don't think that's the primary reason at all. They play 1) because they want to and 2) because they can.

[watergirl]

Reading the information for the Zoo it appears the following would be true.

The draw may be for 256 but the Zoo only takes 192 players of which around 120 get in with their sections endorsement. Each section has a different number of their endorsed players that get an automatic entry. So let's say that your sections # 1 player is ranked 200. He would automatically get in over a So-Cals player who might be # 20 on the endorsement list but ranked #195.

[tball2day]

.......................

[justinmadison]

Originally Posted by tball2day

Didn't you just say what coach32 said? They play 1) because they want to say they are playing the zoo and 2) because they can since mom and dad can afford it. A lot of kids do certain tournaments just to say they did, even the junior slams, some have no business there in that they haven't got a shot passed the first round, but they want to say they played in one...Zoo is the same for others. And they go for the blueberries and cream.

Many college coaches are happy to see this draw cut.

Just out of curiosity, which of the kids that qualified to play in Wimbledon this year did not have any business being there?

You obviously have absolutely no idea how much those kids worked to achieve a top 88 junior ITF ranking.

FYI, every college coach will be unhappy when they decide to cut the draw for the zoo.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by justinmadison

Just out of curiosity, which of the kids that qualified to play in Wimbledon this year did not have any business being there?

You obviously have absolutely no idea how much those kids worked to achieve a top 88 junior ITF ranking.

FYI, every college coach will be unhappy when they decide to cut the draw for the zoo.

Doesn't this also make the opposite point? That many draws are extremely selective and disallow "noncompetitive" players?

[justinmadison]

The opponents of the changes argue that the reducing draw sizes and numbers of tournament hamper junior development. The opponents of the change desire the opportunity to play.

The supporters of the changes argue that many players should not be allowed to play in these tournaments either because it is not beneficial for them or they do not deserve to play.

That just sounds wrong to me. I do not understand why supporters of the change should feel the need to make the judgment call for someone else as to what is best for their player. If people do not think it is a good idea they will not play.

Who exactly does the new system help? In my son’s last tournament in the US it was a Level 2 national and he did not lose a set until the semifinals. He lost 9 games in the first three matches. He learned something in each of those matches. Does anyone really think he would have benefited from one less match?

The idea that limiting national play will increase competition in the sections does not pass the sniff test. Look at the number of local tournaments and divide by the number of players that are now excluded. Do you really think that creates a benefit? If you were one of the kids that use to play national you are playing up a division anyway. The kids playing the local tournament are glad you are because a 25 minute 0,0 was not what they were looking for anyway.

Who cares if some people were able to afford to travel more and thus qualify for national play. There is no one under the new system that now qualifies to play that could not or did not qualify under the old system. Read the last sentence again. It is an important point.

Think hard about what you are actually advocating. Do you really think taking away kids developmental choices is a good thing? Do you really know so much better you should make that call for someone you have never even met? Who are you helping?

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by justinmadison

The opponents of the changes argue that the reducing draw sizes and numbers of tournament hamper junior development. The opponents of the change desire the opportunity to play.

The supporters of the changes argue that many players should not be allowed to play in these tournaments either because it is not beneficial for them or they do not deserve to play.

That just sounds wrong to me. I do not understand why supporters of the change should feel the need to make the judgment call for someone else as to what is best for their player. If people do not think it is a good idea they will not play.

Who exactly does the new system help? In my son’s last tournament in the US it was a Level 2 national and he did not lose a set until the semifinals. He lost 9 games in the first three matches. He learned something in each of those matches. Does anyone really think he would have benefited from one less match?

The idea that limiting national play will increase competition in the sections does not pass the sniff test. Look at the number of local tournaments and divide by the number of players that are now excluded. Do you really think that creates a benefit? If you were one of the kids that use to play national you are playing up a division anyway. The kids playing the local tournament are glad you are because a 25 minute 0,0 was not what they were looking for anyway.

Who cares if some people were able to afford to travel more and thus qualify for national play. There is no one under the new system that now qualifies to play that could not or did not qualify under the old system. Read the last sentence again. It is an important point.

Think hard about what you are actually advocating. Do you really think taking away kids developmental choices is a good thing? Do you really know so much better you should make that call for someone you have never even met? Who are you helping?

Exactly Madison. At this age, they should error on the side more kids playing not less. Refer to the Bjorn thread. Few if any of these kids are going to jump into the top 100 at 18 anymore anyhow. Why the rush to cull the herd ? All of this just so that the early developers, the kids who are in the top at the 14's, can save an extra day of travel and don't have to suffer the indignation of playing someone that they bagel them in the first round.

[tennis5]

Originally Posted by coaching32yrs

Kalmazoo is a 256 player draw. There are several players who lost in the first round of sectionals and the first round of the July Nat Opens who will be playing. It makes no sense. They have the money and want to be able to say I played Kalmazoo. I have no problem with the USTA trying to fix this.

So, just to be clear, Easter Bowl is 128 juniors. But, that is gone soon.

And now we are talking about Kalamazoo which is 192 juniors....

I am just trying to understand what you are saying, you think the 192 kids do not have competitive matches in the beginning?

So, then you agree with the change for Clay and Hard to go from 192 to 128, with a doubling of wild cards from 8 to 16?

With an increase in wild cards, we have 128-16 = only 112 kids who are getting in.
I think that is almost too small, but I am curious why you think this smaller draw will be better than the current 192?

[TennisTaxi]

Originally Posted by barringer97

I also grew up in SoCal under this format (the new one that is actually the old one), and we (SoCal) developed some good players (Sampras, Chang, Davenport, etc.).

My point exactly, Sampras, Chang and Davenport "were" able to travel out of So Cal to play on clay and grass. My son qualified to play National clay courts in Fla. and he had previously played on clay two times...because it is next to impossible to find a clay court in So Cal. We found a clay court an hour away and at a private club...we basically had to beg to let him on the court, and they limited to times he could practice. However, if he hadn't qualified for this tournament, he probably would not have played on clay again.

So, how well developed can they get if they cannot find a surface to play on nor be be able to find a tournament to play at?

[kme5150]

I still don't understand why the USTA didn't take a proven model like the ITF and just copy it. Have small draws and qualifiers for every tournament. None of this stupid sectional stuff. Does anybody really care about being #1 in a weak section?

I don't understand why all the section's point systems are not the same. For example, in the Eastern section they have Bonus Points for beating high ranked players just like on the National list.

I am a firm believer that if you are somehow "injured" and can't play your consolation match that the USTA should do the responsible thing and make you sit out for two weeks from competition so you can "heal" properly. I guarantee that there would be much fewer walkovers. The doctor's note thing is a joke, just about everybody knows a doctor that will sign a note saying that you are injured. When I brought this up to our section they told me that sometimes it is just from cramping. That is when I said they can spend the next 2 weeks getting hydrated and get in better shape. I think it is wrong that the player who is willing to play in a walkover match doesn't get the Bonus Points, it is not their fault their opponent was scared to lose.

[barringer97]

Originally Posted by TennisTaxi

My point exactly, Sampras, Chang and Davenport "were" able to travel out of So Cal to play on clay and grass. My son qualified to play National clay courts in Fla. and he had previously played on clay two times...because it is next to impossible to find a clay court in So Cal. We found a clay court an hour away and at a private club...we basically had to beg to let him on the court, and they limited to times he could practice. However, if he hadn't qualified for this tournament, he probably would not have played on clay again.

So, how well developed can they get if they cannot find a surface to play on nor be be able to find a tournament to play at?

Is playing on Grass and Clay necessary player development? Is he going to play Wimbledon?

Seems like a silly angle.

[kme5150]

I have to agree.

If they are going to do a Super on Clays the winner should get one of the wildcards for RG, for both the juniors and the men's, like what is done for Hard Courts. Of course, they would need to move it before RG, but I am sure that it would fill up the way that Kzoo does rather than how it is now.

[chalkflewup]

Originally Posted by kme5150

I still don't understand why the USTA didn't take a proven model like the ITF and just copy it. Have small draws and qualifiers for every tournament. None of this stupid sectional stuff. Does anybody really care about being #1 in a weak section?

I don't understand why all the section's point systems are not the same. For example, in the Eastern section they have Bonus Points for beating high ranked players just like on the National list.

I am a firm believer that if you are somehow "injured" and can't play your consolation match that the USTA should do the responsible thing and make you sit out for two weeks from competition so you can "heal" properly. I guarantee that there would be much fewer walkovers. The doctor's note thing is a joke, just about everybody knows a doctor that will sign a note saying that you are injured. When I brought this up to our section they told me that sometimes it is just from cramping. That is when I said they can spend the next 2 weeks getting hydrated and get in better shape. I think it is wrong that the player who is willing to play in a walkover match doesn't get the Bonus Points, it is not their fault their opponent was scared to lose.

Points, schmointz... I just don't care about all the points and rankings. If my kid doesn't get in a tournament, life will still go on.

[Wuppy]

Isn't the USTA doing this so that overzealous parents won't take their kids all over the country to play but will rather keep them in school where they belong? Seems the USTA is realizing that 99.999% of the kids in junior sports will never be good enough to turn pro, especially in tennis where if you're ranked 150 or higher in the world you don't even make enough to break even each year.

Seems quite rational to me.

[kme5150]

Originally Posted by chalkflewup

Points, schmointz... I just don't care about all the points and rankings. If my kid doesn't get in a tournament, life will still go on.

Do you seriously think I care about the points? I just think if you are going to have a point based system that is going to be sectional based and that is the requirement to get into Supers then all the sections should have the same structure. My last one is going to be done soon, and has never had a problem making it into any tournament, so the system doesn't really matter to me personally. When the USTA finally figures out that it is not their job to produce champions but actually grow the game then they will finally be on the right track. Changing the point system and tournament schedule every couple of years is not the answer. I guarantee you that they will do it again by 2016. When you keep changing the strategy then there is nothing to be held accountable for.

You always seem to forget that not everybody lives in FL where there are TONS of options. Go check out Marco Martizi over in Parkland, he has a 12 year old girl who can probably beat most boys her age and she drives through the ball like a 16 year old boy. Nick Guizar over in Tampa has a 14 year old who could probably win the boys 14 Clays but doesn't care about tournaments either. The problem is that in order for most the 16 year old kids around the country to play decent talent, they have to play USTA if they are in a regular school setting.

Believe me, your opinion would change if you lived where there were not a lot of options. Where your 16 year old can't find anybody who can keep up more than a 5 ball rally within 50 miles or the ones that can don't feel like getting beat by a 16 year old kid. When the kids are 10, 12 and 14 it is easy almost everywhere, it is when they get older that the options run out.

[maggmaster]

The real solution, and it has been mentioned before, is another series of tournaments. Personally I like the idea of open tournaments, if every city had a circuit of tournaments that kids and adults could compete in year round, less travel would be required and local talent would be attracted and maintained. Local sponsors could pick individual tournaments or the whole series to support providing prizes and courts. Columbus Ohio already does this with their summer grand prix, a series of tournaments with small money prizes that culminate in a year end tournament that you need to have enough points to compete in. Juniors of course can refuse prize money to maintain amateur status.