The Hannity Poll

[Pro_Tour_630]

Do you approve of a 75% reduction in opportunities to play national tournaments outside of your individual sections and or do you prefer to leave the current (2012), although still "reduced," opportunities in place?

[OneTennisParent]

Sorry for the length of this post, but I only write when I am passionate, and then I have lots to say.

I am torn. The poll seems clear cut. However, the phrasing is too much like saying "would you be in favor of rainy days, or sunny?" Of course you prefer sunny, but the rain is necessary.

While the 2014 edicts have been forced upon us, and my first reaction is to push back, there are components of which I approve. For example; I am tired of watching players of questionable talent travelling to weak sections in pursuit of easier points. These "checkbook national" players SHOULD be reigned in, and forced to play in their own sections. While they account for only a small percentage of players in the grand scheme, when you have only 7 sectional endorsement spots for a Super National, to see two of them go to players who "buy" their points is frustrating. Making entry to nationals dependent upon sectional results seems reasonable to me.

Where I find fault is:

1 - The elimination of half the Super National events - This coupled with having the remaining two within a month of each other insures that some deserving players will either have to play injured, or miss the opportunity. Add to that the fact that a July birthday now insures you will be younger than most competitors will mean you are effectively "playing up" in a Super Nat whether you want to or not. Many of these June/July B'day players will not have had sufficient time to accumulate enough points to even get in. How many players turning 15 in July will already have enough points in the 16s to get in a Super Nat? Oh... I forgot; it's now about catering to the prodigies not the masses. If they would put one Super Nat in July, and another in January, at least players would be more likely to get in one or the other. Or leave the 4 existing Super Nats.

2 - The reduction to 32-draw (or less) of the level 2 & 3 events. Really? Once the first year has passed, the players who got in will have an insurmountable advantage over the rest of the field. When the top 50 players are the only ones who can qualify, the rest of the field will be left in the dust. Every month you don't get in, puts you farther behind. The fallout is greater for us in Florida than most sections. In Florida, they award sectional points to national points by a factor of 3 to 1, up to 5 to 1. For example; if you win a Super Nat, you get 1,200 national points. That same win will get you 5,000 Florida sectional points. With 12 sectional endorsement spots, whoever gets into the first few nationals will skyrocket past their peers. When # 20 has 4,000 points, and # 21 has 1,200, how do you close that gap? # 21 will never get endorsed. How about making the Level 3's a 64-draw and the Level 2's a 32-draw? That creates a stepping stone event to allow for progression as apposed to simply shutting the door at 32.

3 - Dramatic increase in wild cards. The most egregious example is that fully 25% of the "Sweet 16" will be WCs. If the process were transparent, I'd have no issue, but the current criteria is so shrouded in secrecy, I can only presume that it is geared toward the selection committee's favorites, and/or social promotion. I have seen too many players with only moderate success in their own division get WCs into the next division up in a Super Nat. They lose badly every time, but it continues to be standard policy for the committee. The Old Boy's Club makes the decisions, and refuses to explain how they go about it.

4 - Eliminating national points for Level 5 events. This has lead to discussion at the sectional level of eliminating the Level 5's entirely. Ostensibly this is to direct more play to local levels. However, if your player is any good, they will go deep in any Level 6 event, and even the next division up for Level 7. With the point disparity, you will have to play 4-6 times more events. This increases the risk of injury, takes away time to improve, and leaves working parents with the dilemma of pulling out, or missing work. Regardless of whether I can afford to take the day off financially, my employer expects me to be working on Mondays. I could use all available vacation and personal days, and still come up 30-days short for a full tennis schedule's Monday finals if we have to play Level 6/7 to make up for the loss of Level 5s.

[Tennishacker]

Pro Tour, your attempt to get a job at the USTA is laughable.

[Pro_Tour_630]

Originally Posted by OneTennisParent

Sorry for the length of this post, but I only write when I am passionate, and then I have lots to say.

I am torn. The poll seems clear cut. However, the phrasing is too much like saying "would you be in favor of rainy days, or sunny?" Of course you prefer sunny, but the rain is necessary.

While the 2014 edicts have been forced upon us, and my first reaction is to push back, there are components of which I approve. For example; I am tired of watching players of questionable talent travelling to weak sections in pursuit of easier points. These "checkbook national" players SHOULD be reigned in, and forced to play in their own sections. While they account for only a small percentage of players in the grand scheme, when you have only 7 sectional endorsement spots for a Super National, to see two of them go to players who "buy" their points is frustrating. Making entry to nationals dependent upon sectional results seems reasonable to me.

Where I find fault is:

1 - The elimination of half the Super National events - This coupled with having the remaining two within a month of each other insures that some deserving players will either have to play injured, or miss the opportunity. Add to that the fact that a July birthday now insures you will be younger than most competitors will mean you are effectively "playing up" in a Super Nat whether you want to or not. Many of these June/July B'day players will not have had sufficient time to accumulate enough points to even get in. How many players turning 15 in July will already have enough points in the 16s to get in a Super Nat? Oh... I forgot; it's now about catering to the prodigies not the masses. If they would put one Super Nat in July, and another in January, at least players would be more likely to get in one or the other. Or leave the 4 existing Super Nats.

2 - The reduction to 32-draw (or less) of the level 2 & 3 events. Really? Once the first year has passed, the players who got in will have an insurmountable advantage over the rest of the field. When the top 50 players are the only ones who can qualify, the rest of the field will be left in the dust. Every month you don't get in, puts you farther behind. The fallout is greater for us in Florida than most sections. In Florida, they award sectional points to national points by a factor of 3 to 1, up to 5 to 1. For example; if you win a Super Nat, you get 1,200 national points. That same win will get you 5,000 Florida sectional points. With 12 sectional endorsement spots, whoever gets into the first few nationals will skyrocket past their peers. When # 20 has 4,000 points, and # 21 has 1,200, how do you close that gap? # 21 will never get endorsed. How about making the Level 3's a 64-draw and the Level 2's a 32-draw? That creates a stepping stone event to allow for progression as apposed to simply shutting the door at 32.

3 - Dramatic increase in wild cards. The most egregious example is that fully 25% of the "Sweet 16" will be WCs. If the process were transparent, I'd have no issue, but the current criteria is so shrouded in secrecy, I can only presume that it is geared toward the selection committee's favorites, and/or social promotion. I have seen too many players with only moderate success in their own division get WCs into the next division up in a Super Nat. They lose badly every time, but it continues to be standard policy for the committee. The Old Boy's Club makes the decisions, and refuses to explain how they go about it.

4 - Eliminating national points for Level 5 events. This has lead to discussion at the sectional level of eliminating the Level 5's entirely. Ostensibly this is to direct more play to local levels. However, if your player is any good, they will go deep in any Level 6 event, and even the next division up for Level 7. With the point disparity, you will have to play 4-6 times more events. This increases the risk of injury, takes away time to improve, and leaves working parents with the dilemma of pulling out, or missing work. Regardless of whether I can afford to take the day off financially, my employer expects me to be working on Mondays. I could use all available vacation and personal days, and still come up 30-days short for a full tennis schedule's Monday finals if we have to play Level 6/7 to make up for the loss of Level 5s.

finally voice of reason, thank you one for taking the time to respond. All points are valid.

[Pro_Tour_630]

Originally Posted by Tennishacker

Pro Tour, your attempt to get a job at the USTA is laughable.

did you get a job yet hack, you know for the insurance for your shoulder injury operation.

[Tennishacker]

Originally Posted by Pro_Tour_630

did you get a job yet hack, you know for the insurance for your shoulder injury operation.

Thanks for your concern, should is almost good.

[Pro_Tour_630]

Originally Posted by Tennishacker

Thanks for your concern, should is almost good.

glad your shoulder is getting better but did you get insurance you know just incase pain comes back and you need surgery thanks for voting BTW

[Tennishacker]

Originally Posted by Pro_Tour_630

glad your shoulder is getting better but did you get insurance you know just incase pain comes bacak and you need surgery thanks for voting BTW

Im covered now, but with a very high deductible. Actually pleased with with just letting nature heal the shoulder.

[10ismom]

I do agree with some changes but disagree with many changes in the 2014 schedule.

- 2 super nationals should not be close together. One in Jan and one in July or August seems to be a good compromise.

- increase wildcards? Why? so USTAPD can play a game with it instead of (some) parents flying juniors all over the country on the current schedule.

What I'd like to see is some decrease, not drastically, in draw size. As discussed in another thread, a kid with national ranking at # 880 or #1000+ accepted to a super national event does sound really bad.

I do like the new created adjoined regional tournament opportunity. It will create more pooled players for us.

ProTour, if you asked me what is better for the future of Jr. Tennis in America..........with only 2 choices, I would have to say the current system. Kids have more opportunities to compete at the higher levels.

I have to say that currently the US juniors seem to do well in the international venues and junior slams. Many also turned pros. The current schedule must have been working somehow. We all just have to be patient for the new waves of American ATP & WTA top 20s.

[MomTennis]

I can say from experience that the summer only schedule as others have noted, is tough for the May thorugh July birthdays. Very hard to get enough national points to qualify for Level 2 and up tournaments so you end up missing a summer of good competition every other year.

Getting rid of Level 5 tournaments will make life more difficult especially in giving kids opportunities to play. Level 5 have FIC which enables those who get the tough first round draw a chance to play more. (after all some one in the first round has to play the top seed!) For most of us there is travel involved even in playing regional tournaments - we have to miss at least a half day of school on numerous occasions just to get to the Friday afternoon match for any weekend tournment so to have the opportunity to play an extra match is important. Most of our Level 7 tournaments do not have consolation rounds and in Level 6 the FMLC is a joke - most kids do not want to stick around for a 2 point match.

[10ismom]

ProTour,
You have it totally wrong. My kids are not eating and breathing tennis and we don't really care about national rankings.

You asked what is better for Jr. Tennis in America?

Both 2012 and 2014 schedules are not perfect but you got my vote. I know many people are reluctant to vote or not follow this issue close enough.

You should not think that people who voted or posted only care about themselves.
The forum opens for discussions and opinions. What you've got is people's honest opinion on this issue.
Sorry if you don't like them.

[Pro_Tour_630]

Originally Posted by 10ismom

ProTour,
You have it totally wrong. My kids are not eating and breathing tennis and we don't really care about national rankings.

You asked what is better for Jr. Tennis in America?

Both 2012 and 2014 schedules are not perfect but you got my vote. I know many people are reluctant to vote or not follow this issue close enough.

You should not think that people who voted or posted only care about themselves.
The forum opens for discussions and opinions. What you've got is people's honest opinion on this issue.
Sorry if you don't like them.

nope I did not ask what is good for american tennis, hannity did, I could care less about the votes, it is a silly poll, and hannity knows this which is why no one is voting. I just wanted to point out the folks that have a kid who is nationally ranked who will be affected, not you. there are some voters that not only do they care about national ranking but they care dearly about U10 ranking :LOL!!!!

Mom, please create your poll and lets see.

[gully]

Wow, PT, that's uncalled for. My kid, FWIW, is already through the system, soon off to a very nice school with a full D1 scholly in hand. Like I've said in more than one thread, she and kids like her benefited greatly from the opportunity to grow her game by playing in 3 or 4 national events per year. I'm sorry her peer group won't have that opportunity in the future.

Those who have argued against the new regime haven't said "the world is ending"--only that the decision-making was conducted without input and that the result will not lead to any demonstrable improvement for the top tier (while simply reducing opportunities for those below that tier).

There's really no reason for you to be such a .... about it.

[tennisforlife77]

Just a little defensive PT - i guess if the numbers are running 82 - 17 against you then blame the turnout! FWIW my kid is top 5 in his section and will get into any of their new silly little tournaments to play the same kids over and over again but i can tell you it won't be good for his tennis... you shouldn't be confused that it's only the marginally ranked national players that are against this. Most of the top players and their families hate it too!

[Pro_Tour_630]

Originally Posted by tennisforlife77

Just a little defensive PT - i guess if the numbers are running 82 - 17 against you then blame the turnout! FWIW my kid is top 5 in his section and will get into any of their new silly little tournaments to play the same kids over and over again but i can tell you it won't be good for his tennis... you shouldn't be confused that it's only the marginally ranked national players that are against this. Most of the top players and their families hate it too!

correct, lots of noise that do not mean much,

it seems we have a winner, it is not the end of the world to play the same kids over and over again if you want variety go ITF which gives a new meaning to the word travel, vs some that dodge the top local players to have a ........."national ranking" that does not mean much and can't back it up

there are tens of thousands that are going to be affected but only 30 voted out of a thousand views I guess we failed, Hannity needs a bigger audience,

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by Pro_Tour_630

if you have no dog in the fight, your vote holds less water. My son will be greatly affected and he is not even a top tier player. I do have resources to fly him around the country and inflate his national ranking but I am not going to put him through this. Maybe I am the only one on this forum that is a realist, others are delusional and the word "national ranking" means something special to them.

not sure how top tier is going to improve by playing a whole bunch of mediocre players in the first round and spare them the agony

You're one of many who is the parent of a 12 & under (10 & under?)

In 14s, 16s & 18s, IN THE CURRENT system, there is no "flying around the country" in search of cheap points.

This was the case 2+ years ago, & could still be the case in 12 & under (who cares?). In 14s & up, only very highly ranked kids get into L1s & L2s & only highly ranked kids get into L3s.

(aside from the july L3 which is no longer a 64 draw, so please don't bring up the July L3 when cherry picking examples, it's no longer relevent).

Thankfully most of the 12 & under parents quietly read for a few months & occasionally thoughtfully post (as they gather knowledge about how National USTA tournaments work). A handful of them post all the time & show how clueless they are about National Junior Tennis.

- Flying around for cheap points.
- girls ranked 1000 & above getting into L1s.

Jeesh. Old news & Cherry Picking stats that now is no longer relevent.

What's next? Are you going to tell the parent of a blue chip first year age up in Ohio that his "pathway" is cheaper attending an L3 in Portland Ore than it would be attending on in Nashville or Philly?

& the "top tier" will still have to play the riff raff in the first two rounds of L1s. It's the Sweet 16 tea parties that they get to play each other again & again & again.....& again & again.

hound <---also a parent of a top 3 in section kid who will play the L1s. (playing in one tomorrow.) But still befuddled on how 4-5 of the changes will help Junior tennis in general or the top tier in particular.

[tball2day]

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

[Pro_Tour_630]

Originally Posted by hound 109

You're one of many who is the parent of a 12 & under (10 & under?)

In 14s, 16s & 18s, IN THE CURRENT system, there is no "flying around the country" in search of cheap points.

This was the case 2+ years ago, & could still be the case in 12 & under (who cares?). In 14s & up, only very highly ranked kids get into L1s & L2s & only highly ranked kids get into L3s.

(aside from the july L3 which is no longer a 64 draw, so please don't bring up the July L3 when cherry picking examples, it's no longer relevent).

Thankfully most of the 12 & under parents quietly read for a few months & occasionally thoughtfully post (as they gather knowledge about how National USTA tournaments work). A handful of them post all the time & show how clueless they are about National Junior Tennis.

- Flying around for cheap points.
- girls ranked 1000 & above getting into L1s.

Jeesh. Old news & Cherry Picking stats that now is no longer relevent.

What's next? Are you going to tell the parent of a blue chip first year age up in Ohio that his "pathway" is cheaper attending an L3 in Portland Ore than it would be attending on in Nashville or Philly?

& the "top tier" will still have to play the riff raff in the first two rounds of L1s. It's the Sweet 16 tea parties that they get to play each other again & again & again.....& again & again.

hound <---also a parent of a top 3 in section kid who will play the L1s. (playing in one tomorrow.) But still befuddled on how 4-5 of the changes will help Junior tennis in general or the top tier in particular.

You know I have been around this rodeo before, I have a niece I developed play D1 in the past,,,,,,,,,,,, we cheated errrrrrrrrr played the system.

I can not stop laughing at the current U14-U16 parents that are foaming at the mouth, who will be affected.

One last thing hound, are you going to tell your kid that you are going to repeat a grade so their ranking will go up nationally, and cheat errrrrr I mean play the system because everyone is doing so. let us know

good luck with your kid.

[Pro_Tour_630]

Originally Posted by tball2day

I think 30 votes is more a reflection of how few people care about this forum than this issues. I can see that the 24 for that voted against seem to be people that have or have recently had a horse in the race. You can tell after a few posts who has actually gone through junior tennis. If you haven't been through it (or are deeply into it), you don't understand it. Heck, our sectional office, because it is run by people that didn't raise junior players, don't even get it. They just blindly voted for it. Had a conversation with them at an event recently, they don't have a clue, just riding alongside like big dopes - pretty sad.

oh i understand the system, it is the U14-U16 parents whos kids have had a national ranking and do not know how to tell ( be frank ) with Jr that they no longer will be playing nationally and will no longer have a national ranking

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by Pro_Tour_630

oh i understand the system, it is the U14-U16 parents whos kids have had a national ranking and do not know how to tell ( be frank ) with Jr that they no longer will be playing nationally and will no longer have a national ranking

National rankings are earned by playing in sectional tournaments. (Now & also in 2014).

(& also by playing in national L3s, L2s & L1s) & in 2014 we get national L4s....which i'm still not sure what I think about these yet.)

One also can play their way into an L1 by playing sectional's only. (now & also in 2014).

The same (or most of the same) 128 kids will be getting into the Clays & Hardcourts in 2014 that are getting in now.

No one will have to "splain" to Jr. about not having Natl. rankings (cause Jr. will still have the same ability to earn a ranking).

What many of us are complaining about has nothing to do with the "ranking". (Heck....the TRN ranking means more than the USTA ranking.) Kids ranked 200 (in usta) can beat kids ranked 60 in an age group for all sorts or reasons (just look at the zonal results).

Anyone who has a kid playing National Jr. Tournaments is quick to come to opinions on what is good & what is not good about the upcoming changes (& how it might affect our kid....or not). It's also easy for us to determine when a poster has no idea at all. Dude, this might be your second rodeo, but your talking points are all howlers.

- "point chasers"
- "entitled kids"
- "loss of national ranking"

What buzzword or misunderstood "cause & effect" is next?


Like Hannity & others posting here, there are 2-3 changes that I dislike because it effects us personally (we love going to the Winternational for example). But also, there are 3-4 changes that will have no effect on me or my kid.....but makes NO sense for US tennis. The fact that the new changes will prevent late bloomers (say from other sports) from rising to the top (the "pathways" make it damn near impossible) is to me a real head scratcher. The next great American player might be a late blooming athelete who dumped basketball at age 12 or something. But we'll never know because he'll get bogged down by the "pathway" &'ll give up, or never start in the first place.

.