Do people complain about foreign players

Ihatetennis · Jun 9, 2017

chrisb said:
really, I thought tennis was a game, education is the prime reason you go to college, and if you can play a game and get enjoyment out of it that is great. It helps you connect more with your school and perhaps make lifetime friends. I played 3 sports in a D1 program and made good lifetime friends. When we get together its not about winning and losing that dominates the conversation, but I guess I have been deluded in the past 50 years since graduation, I really didn`t know it was only about winning. Thanks for clueing me in. By your reasoning there is only 1 team that is successful each year and schools should do whatever to be that school. I truly hope you are not a coach to infect kids with that sick discourse

Coaches are there to put together winning programs. That's their job, not to stroke the egos of Americans who are not even close to the level of their competition.

Yes schools should do whatever it takes for them to make their program better, wether it be recruit a couple strong guys from the us and the rest foreign.

When you look at it there are maybe 75-140 kids in a class that are good enough to play d1, and many of those kids go on to d3. And the top talent doesn't even go to d1(taylor Fritz, tiafoe, kozlov)

You played 3 sports??? I'm sorry, but that's not the reality in today's athletes. My generation, as I am a current collegiate player, specialized. Look at the d1 tennis players and non of them are dual sport athletes. Today's world isn't like yours was.

Tennis is a game, but winning is the business. Unless you're all about participation trophies.

And success can be defined as many different things, winning the national championship is a goal yes and it's the ultimate prize but not every player can be good enough to be on a team that wins a national championship. I'm not, but my goal is to personally get a ranking and help lead my team into the national rankings and I am in a team that represents all 6 livable continents. And I'm the only American in the lineup, but not for a lack of recruiting but a lack of American talent wanting to come to us.

jcgatennismom · Jun 10, 2017

Ihatetennis said:
Lol, at public schools and any private school this is 100% false.

My school team has 70% foreign, a player from every livable continent and we are one big family, Americans don't want to come and foreign talent does. It's not for a lack of American recruiting but because Indiana is not favorable compared to lower academic quality schools on the coast..

I know you go to a D3 school. D3 is usually 90% US players due to the lack of athletic scholarships. Are the foreign players on your team attending on a mostly full academic ride? Since your school is private, maybe they can get need-based aid too. Many public universities limit needbased financial aid to in-state students. Why did the internationals chose a D3 school? Are they just wanting to continue their tennis, see the US, and get a degree? I assume attending D3 and with their UTR level their ambition is not to turn pro; your 1S would probably play 6 at a middle midmajor. However, if they love tennis, they could end up being teaching pros in the US as some Americans assume anyone with an accent is a better teacher

Just curious as all the international players we have met were only looking at D1, D2, and NAIA for the athletic aid. Good to hear the team is a family. I think the coaches set the tone. If the coaches treat all players with respect, players usually will too.

You said the players were from every continent. I do wonder about how US players feel who go to colleges where all the internationals speak the same non English language outside class. Son knew one US player who transferred because the international players never really accepted him; luckily he had a great experience at his 2nd college where his best friend was one of the internationals. You are right that US players are not rushing to commit to colleges in the cornfields. I have heard Nebraska and Iowa have great facilities but even though they are in the Big 10, they have a hard time recruiting Americans while other Big 10 schools have plenty of US kids on the bench.

Ihatetennis · Jun 10, 2017

jcgatennismom said:
I know you go to a D3 school. D3 is usually 90% US players due to the lack of athletic scholarships. Are the foreign players on your team attending on a mostly full academic ride? Since your school is private, maybe they can get need-based aid too. Many public universities limit needbased financial aid to in-state students. Why did the internationals chose a D3 school? Are they just wanting to continue their tennis, see the US, and get a degree? I assume attending D3 and with their UTR level their ambition is not to turn pro; your 1S would probably play 6 at a middle midmajor. However, if they love tennis, they could end up being teaching pros in the US as some Americans assume anyone with an accent is a better teacher Just curious as all the international players we have met were only looking at D1, D2, and NAIA for the athletic aid. Good to hear the team is a family. I think the coaches set the tone. If the coaches treat all players with respect, players usually will too.

You said the players were from every continent. I do wonder about how US players feel who go to colleges where all the internationals speak the same non English language outside class. Son knew one US player who transferred because the international players never really accepted him; luckily he had a great experience at his 2nd college where his best friend was one of the internationals. You are right that US players are not rushing to commit to colleges in the cornfields. I have heard Nebraska and Iowa have great facilities but even though they are in the Big 10, they have a hard time recruiting Americans while other Big 10 schools have plenty of US kids on the bench.

All the kids on my team are attending because they want a good education. Our 1 has been MVP of the conference every year and will graduate wth the highest honors next year as he has had 5 semesters with a 4.0 in computer science and this past one with a 3.87

No one came to play tennis, they looked for good academic schools to also play tennis for.

Many of our alumn have become very successful with cs and a few went on to work in silicone valley immediately after graduation. One of them owns a tech company in Europe now.

The school also has a very large endowment for our small population as well as many grants and gifts given to help financial aid. We have received 1 million+ these past 2 years to increase our financial aid.

ClarkC · Jun 11, 2017

Ihatetennis said:
Lastly, foreign players bring a lot to the schools, our schools are also in the business of creating the strongest students and alumni(regardless of if they graduate). I'll tell you what, Davidson probably doesn't resent Stephen curry for leaving before graduating. And I bet that UVA, university of Illinois and other schools who put out players like Kevin Anderson and Somdev Devvarman. Schools produce students and future citizens, not just Americans.

Tangential point here, just to set the record straight: Somdev Devvarman played four years at UVa and got his degree on time.

Ihatetennis · Jun 11, 2017

ClarkC said:
Tangential point here, just to set the record straight: Somdev Devvarman played four years at UVa and got his degree on time.

I know, I was pointing out that schools don't resent foreign or professional talent.

That foreign players bring more to the game than not.

chrisb · Jun 12, 2017

Ihatetennis said:
Coaches are there to put together winning programs. That's their job, not to stroke the egos of Americans who are not even close to the level of their competition.

Yes schools should do whatever it takes for them to make their program better, wether it be recruit a couple strong guys from the us and the rest foreign.

When you look at it there are maybe 75-140 kids in a class that are good enough to play d1, and many of those kids go on to d3. And the top talent doesn't even go to d1(taylor Fritz, tiafoe, kozlov)

You played 3 sports??? I'm sorry, but that's not the reality in today's athletes. My generation, as I am a current collegiate player, specialized. Look at the d1 tennis players and non of them are dual sport athletes. Today's world isn't like yours was.

Tennis is a game, but winning is the business. Unless you're all about participation trophies.

And success can be defined as many different things, winning the national championship is a goal yes and it's the ultimate prize but not every player can be good enough to be on a team that wins a national championship. I'm not, but my goal is to personally get a ranking and help lead my team into the national rankings and I am in a team that represents all 6 livable continents. And I'm the only American in the lineup, but not for a lack of recruiting but a lack of American talent wanting to come to us.

Its not a revenue producing sport. The level of competition would be the same even if the level of play is diminished. That is not what I am addressing. I am talking about taking aid money set aside for need schollys going to foreign kids to play a game. To take away that money from a poor bright kid to give to a kid that just hits a ball is BS. Ef your win crap, its about getting deserving kids into their correct place in the job market

Nacho · Jun 12, 2017

I'll keep saying it....Focus on why our Jr programs can't compete with foreign programs and produce more top notch players, and less on the fact that coaches are bringing in internationals to try and build strong programs. American Jr's are falling well below their counterparts...there is a reason for this...Coaches here want to win, who can blame them. And potentially great tennis players are dropping the sport, for other sports, for several reasons (cost, adjustments in scoring, travel, etc.). International tennis is much stronger these days, and it doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon....

chrisb · Jun 12, 2017

Nacho said:
I'll keep saying it....Focus on why our Jr programs can't compete with foreign programs and produce more top notch players, and less on the fact that coaches are bringing in internationals to try and build strong programs. American Jr's are falling well below their counterparts...there is a reason for this...Coaches here want to win, who can blame them. And potentially great tennis players are dropping the sport, for other sports, for several reasons (cost, adjustments in scoring, travel, etc.). International tennis is much stronger these days, and it doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon....

Its a chicken and egg scenario imo, Colleges cut schollys American parents switch sports for kids, and/or the training is too expensive so they go to cheaper sports. Its a combo. One of my lessons whose parents are euro sent kid to Euro for 6 months. Cost was incredibly less. Too many people in private sector making too much money. I also coach basketball. For the most part getting much better athletes in hoops

Ihatetennis · Jun 12, 2017

chrisb said:
Its not a revenue producing sport. The level of competition would be the same even if the level of play is diminished. That is not what I am addressing. I am talking about taking aid money set aside for need schollys going to foreign kids to play a game. To take away that money from a poor bright kid to give to a kid that just hits a ball is BS. Ef your win crap, its about getting deserving kids into their correct place in the job market

Athletic scholarship isn't given to the less privelaged students it's given to the best athletes. If your less privelaged student doesn't take advantage of schools that offer him/her scholarships then that's too bad.

That's where you're wrong, these scholarships aren't federally funded or taken from the need based aid pool.

And without foreign players the competition would be very different. The schools "in the cornfields" wouldn't be able to compete at all and your typical cali schools and top powerhouses of Americans would still be there.

Foreign kids also have higher standards for getting aid as foreign aid is very little as it is. Read up on it because your lack of understanding is honestly incredible.

If there are less privelaged students who are bright, they should be applying to schools like mine where 25% are on the pell grant and have their full needs met so they can attend.

Private schools give more aid and it's also theirs to choose where it goes. Public universities have less aid, they also barely give out need based aid.

Nacho · Jun 12, 2017

chrisb said:
Its a chicken and egg scenario imo, Colleges cut schollys American parents switch sports for kids, and/or the training is too expensive so they go to cheaper sports. Its a combo. One of my lessons whose parents are euro sent kid to Euro for 6 months. Cost was incredibly less. Too many people in private sector making too much money. I also coach basketball. For the most part getting much better athletes in hoops

Do you mean too many private sector tennis people? If thats what you mean I totally agree....Its highway robbery compared to other sports. Most sports are high school supported or locally supported, not tennis. And, also remember who is banking on this: racket and clothing companies, pros that have to have "certifications" now, USTA which requires "certifications", and now the ITA. Even ref's are starting to get their share. The organizations are not grass roots anymore...they are businesses themselves...They need players=revenue. They need good players=Internationals. They need parity to gain interest=Abbreviated scoring.

So, with lots of achievements in participation at an early age do you think excellence in developing Jr players goes by the waist side?

NCAA sets the bar on scholarships (4-men, 8 women in tennis)....and some schools opt to put those to their bigger team sports rather than tennis. Private schools can tinker with this more. Remember, Title IX never dictated this it just stretched the budgets of schools with more programs then they were used to fielding. The International stuff comes into play because coaches can get around the 4 by getting English 2nd language scholarships and other Internationally driven scholarships. And now it is the norm.

Also, some sports are an arms race. Football for instance takes up a ton of budget, and doesn't always give back like people think. It impacts a ton of sports, I recommend this article for all of you:

http://buffalonews.com/2017/06/08/c...ocial&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1497039800

ClarkC · Jun 12, 2017

chrisb said:
Its a chicken and egg scenario imo, Colleges cut schollys American parents switch sports for kids, and/or the training is too expensive so they go to cheaper sports. Its a combo.

Logically, that is not a "chicken and egg" scenario. It is a case in which two different factors drive the same result. A chicken and egg scenario is one in which we must solve problem A before we can solve problem B, but we also must solve problem B before we can solve problem A, which is obviously a dilemma.

If we make progress on reducing the costs of junior tennis, we improve the overall financial situation for parents. If we improve the availability of scholarship dollars for American college-bound players, we also improve the financial situation for parents. If we make both improvements, even better.

But we can address one without addressing the other. Given the general problem with human nature in looking at the short term rather than the long term, the short term priority is to reduce the cost of junior tennis. Those costs occur in the short term and are certain; college scholarships are a long-term possibility and are less certain. I don't buy the argument that parents of the twelve year old player are dropping the sport because of long-term predictions of scholarship money at age 18. I buy the argument that kids of that age play multiple sports and tennis sure looks expensive compared to those other sports, so when it is time to trim the number of sports on the schedule, the expensive one gets dropped.

If we want to make the biggest progress, we need to address the costs of junior tennis, but the other issue (American vs. foreign scholarship dollars) is more appealing because it offers scapegoats.

Deacon Drive · Jun 12, 2017

ClarkC said:
Logically, that is not a "chicken and egg" scenario. It is a case in which two different factors drive the same result. A chicken and egg scenario is one in which we must solve problem A before we can solve problem B, but we also must solve problem B before we can solve problem A, which is obviously a dilemma.

If we make progress on reducing the costs of junior tennis, we improve the overall financial situation for parents. If we improve the availability of scholarship dollars for American college-bound players, we also improve the financial situation for parents. If we make both improvements, even better.

But we can address one without addressing the other. Given the general problem with human nature in looking at the short term rather than the long term, the short term priority is the reduce the cost of junior tennis. Those costs occur in the short term and are certain; college scholarships are a long-term possibility and are less certain. I don't buy the argument that parents of the twelve year old player are dropping the sport because of long-term predictions of scholarship money at age 18. I buy the argument that kids of that age play multiple sports and tennis sure looks expensive compared to those other sports, so when it is time to trim the number of sports on the schedule, the expensive one gets dropped.

If we want to make the biggest progress, we need to address the costs of junior tennis, but the other issue (American vs. foreign scholarship dollars) is more appealing because it offers scapegoats.

Very well stated.

chrisb · Jun 13, 2017

Nacho said:
Do you mean too many private sector tennis people? If thats what you mean I totally agree....Its highway robbery compared to other sports. Most sports are high school supported or locally supported, not tennis. And, also remember who is banking on this: racket and clothing companies, pros that have to have "certifications" now, USTA which requires "certifications", and now the ITA. Even ref's are starting to get their share. The organizations are not grass roots anymore...they are businesses themselves...They need players=revenue. They need good players=Internationals. They need parity to gain interest=Abbreviated scoring.

So, with lots of achievements in participation at an early age do you think excellence in developing Jr players goes by the waist side?

NCAA sets the bar on scholarships (4-men, 8 women in tennis)....and some schools opt to put those to their bigger team sports rather than tennis. Private schools can tinker with this more. Remember, Title IX never dictated this it just stretched the budgets of schools with more programs then they were used to fielding. The International stuff comes into play because coaches can get around the 4 by getting English 2nd language scholarships and other Internationally driven scholarships. And now it is the norm.

Also, some sports are an arms race. Football for instance takes up a ton of budget, and doesn't always give back like people think. It impacts a ton of sports, I recommend this article for all of you:

http://buffalonews.com/2017/06/08/c...ocial&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1497039800

Yes that is exactly what I am talking about. I live on LI NY, as a kid, and as my son grew up almost every town had a tourny during the summer. Fee usually was a can of balls. This gave you a chance to play a tourny every weekend, and jrs during the week. That is all gone. All tournys are at indoor clubs USTA sanctioned and cost 50 to 100 dollars to enter. Played at off peak times with everybody making money. You show up at match time and play and leave. In short it stinks. The lessons indoors are 100+ per hour the groups are 120 to 150 per and the drilling sessions are usually 6 to a court. All designed with one purpose Make max profit. It is too expensive for the average person

Nacho · Jun 13, 2017

chrisb said:
Yes that is exactly what I am talking about. I live on LI NY, as a kid, and as my son grew up almost every town had a tourny during the summer. Fee usually was a can of balls. This gave you a chance to play a tourny every weekend, and jrs during the week. That is all gone. All tournys are at indoor clubs USTA sanctioned and cost 50 to 100 dollars to enter. Played at off peak times with everybody making money. You show up at match time and play and leave. In short it stinks. The lessons indoors are 100+ per hour the groups are 120 to 150 per and the drilling sessions are usually 6 to a court. All designed with one purpose Make max profit. It is too expensive for the average person

Don't disagree here...its a business, and the business of teaching Jr players is monopolized by the USTA. They were hardly involved until the late eighties early nineties except as a support body, and its been since Roddick that we have had a legit American Champion, and longer since we have had more then 10 Americans in the top 100. Coincidence? The USTA went from volunteers to a full board and CEO....Driven initially by the US Open, which is their cash cow. All the small grass roots leagues have essentially been walloped by them....Now, they get "certified" by the USTA....its almost criminal what has happened, and without any challenge.

I realize the USTA is popular with many people on here, especially those who work for them as ref's or run clubs, but if you give thought to the business of Jr tennis and their involvement you will realize it is not built to build champions....but participants. And participation doesn't breed great players, thus no American players ready for college tennis, and a small handful that can compete in the pros.

chrisb · Jun 13, 2017

Nacho said:
Don't disagree here...its a business, and the business of teaching Jr players is monopolized by the USTA. They were hardly involved until the late eighties early nineties except as a support body, and its been since Roddick that we have had a legit American Champion, and longer since we have had more then 10 Americans in the top 100. Coincidence? The USTA went from volunteers to a full board and CEO....Driven initially by the US Open, which is their cash cow. All the small grass roots leagues have essentially been walloped by them....Now, they get "certified" by the USTA....its almost criminal what has happened, and without any challenge.

I realize the USTA is popular with many people on here, especially those who work for them as ref's or run clubs, but if you give thought to the business of Jr tennis and their involvement you will realize it is not built to build champions....but participants. And participation doesn't breed great players, thus no American players ready for college tennis, and a small handful that can compete in the pros.

exactly

chrisb · Jun 13, 2017

ClarkC said:
Logically, that is not a "chicken and egg" scenario. It is a case in which two different factors drive the same result. A chicken and egg scenario is one in which we must solve problem A before we can solve problem B, but we also must solve problem B before we can solve problem A, which is obviously a dilemma.

If we make progress on reducing the costs of junior tennis, we improve the overall financial situation for parents. If we improve the availability of scholarship dollars for American college-bound players, we also improve the financial situation for parents. If we make both improvements, even better.

But we can address one without addressing the other. Given the general problem with human nature in looking at the short term rather than the long term, the short term priority is the reduce the cost of junior tennis. Those costs occur in the short term and are certain; college scholarships are a long-term possibility and are less certain. I don't buy the argument that parents of the twelve year old player are dropping the sport because of long-term predictions of scholarship money at age 18. I buy the argument that kids of that age play multiple sports and tennis sure looks expensive compared to those other sports, so when it is time to trim the number of sports on the schedule, the expensive one gets dropped.

If we want to make the biggest progress, we need to address the costs of junior tennis, but the other issue (American vs. foreign scholarship dollars) is more appealing because it offers scapegoats.

The question is which drives the other. IMO it is the greed factor that drives both. Football basketball bring in the most money (and also spend by far the most money. My school district when my children were growing up wanted to drop boys and girls tennis to save money. I did research and found out that both programs could run for the cost of 1.5 football players) Fact is football at the highest college level has become so expensive that it can no longer support other sports. Thus the less important sports are being under funded or dropped to feed the beast

Nacho · Jun 13, 2017

chrisb said:
The question is which drives the other. IMO it is the greed factor that drives both. Football basketball bring in the most money (and also spend by far the most money. My school district when my children were growing up wanted to drop boys and girls tennis to save money. I did research and found out that both programs could run for the cost of 1.5 football players) Fact is football at the highest college level has become so expensive that it can no longer support other sports. Thus the less important sports are being under funded or dropped to feed the beast

The Budget is the biggest factor in dropping programs. Title IX requires equal participation between genders, so that has meant more women's sports which ate into the already existing mens sports. At the time Womens sports was dominated by the AIAW, and it was mostly recreational in all sports. Since the NCAA took over, many mens sports have taken a hit, replaced with women's. Mens Swimming, Wrestling, gymnastics, Volleyball, Tennis and golf, all had to be leveraged to make room for the additions of women's sports, usually those same ones. And, football is the main culprit as schools see it as a way to make money. What I have always thought was strange with this is that women don't compete at the same level as men, or at least there is not that many of them doing so. The need for so many womens sports to make up for the mens is not necessary. But schools just can't carry the budgets, and the result is a lot of international players pick up the opportunities. It is also an arms race in college sports, with many college unable to compete with just fielding a team without scholarships and major budgets....so they cut it. Tennis could easily exist this way, but the bigger, better funded schools would destroy them. Title IX has helped many womens sports such as Soccer and Basketball, which have developed exceptional athletes, but I think it could be revisited.

I believe there could be less football programs out there, and have programs similar to the model of a school like Cleveland State. Schools hang on to these because they think they will make big bucks, but they cost a big budget which doesn't outweigh the profit unless you are Alabama, Texas or Ohio State.

Also for Jr tennis, I believe the USTA needs to get out of the coaching business, and just administrate. let the coaches coach and develop at the local level how they want, stop dictating, certifying and making it all one formula; everyone is different. Let the coaches develop their academies and place for kids to play. Then, let the grass roots tournaments exist and simplify the way kids develop. Not everyone is the same, do away with all the level stuff, and let tournaments be places for competition. You lose you lose, that part of tennis. Get rid of no ad, and go another route with abbreviating scoring if time is an issue, but let this be decided by the tournament director and not dictated by the bureaucracy. I would even go as far as to eliminate consolation matches. Finally, let kids chase the big trophies, no more awards for frivolous stuff (sportsmanship, placing in tournaments, showing up etc. There may be less players initially, but there will be more competitors in the long run and it will be affordable again

chrisb · Jun 13, 2017

Nacho said:
The Budget is the biggest factor in dropping programs. Title IX requires equal participation between genders, so that has meant more women's sports which ate into the already existing mens sports. At the time Womens sports was dominated by the AIAW, and it was mostly recreational in all sports. Since the NCAA took over, many mens sports have taken a hit, replaced with women's. Mens Swimming, Wrestling, gymnastics, Volleyball, Tennis and golf, all had to be leveraged to make room for the additions of women's sports, usually those same ones. And, football is the main culprit as schools see it as a way to make money. What I have always thought was strange with this is that women don't compete at the same level as men, or at least there is not that many of them doing so. The need for so many womens sports to make up for the mens is not necessary. But schools just can't carry the budgets, and the result is a lot of international players pick up the opportunities. It is also an arms race in college sports, with many college unable to compete with just fielding a team without scholarships and major budgets....so they cut it. Tennis could easily exist this way, but the bigger, better funded schools would destroy them. Title IX has helped many womens sports such as Soccer and Basketball, which have developed exceptional athletes, but I think it could be revisited.

I believe there could be less football programs out there, and have programs similar to the model of a school like Cleveland State. Schools hang on to these because they think they will make big bucks, but they cost a big budget which doesn't outweigh the profit unless you are Alabama, Texas or Ohio State.

Also for Jr tennis, I believe the USTA needs to get out of the coaching business, and just administrate. let the coaches coach and develop at the local level how they want, stop dictating, certifying and making it all one formula; everyone is different. Let the coaches develop their academies and place for kids to play. Then, let the grass roots tournaments exist and simplify the way kids develop. Not everyone is the same, do away with all the level stuff, and let tournaments be places for competition. You lose you lose, that part of tennis. Get rid of no ad, and go another route with abbreviating scoring if time is an issue, but let this be decided by the tournament director and not dictated by the bureaucracy. I would even go as far as to eliminate consolation matches. Finally, let kids chase the big trophies, no more awards for frivolous stuff (sportsmanship, placing in tournaments, showing up etc. There may be less players initially, but there will be more competitors in the long run and it will be affordable again

Good luck with title 9. Football and basketball should not even be classified as college sports. They are pro teams that don`t have to pay their players. They carry 85 for fbs schools and 63 for fbc schools next is hockey 18 basketball13 swim 14 lax12 soccer 9.9(mens). Most of the minor sports have 4.5 These are max numbers. If you take out football you could fully fund an additional 85. this comes out to 21.25 per year. If you cut that to 60 that comes to 15 per year and opens up 15 more schollys. Really you need 85? Then their are the coaches and their salaries. A real cause of concern when a coach doubles or triples the Presidents salary

jcgatennismom · Jun 13, 2017

Whether it makes $ or not, students want their football or at least their basketball. In my home state, students at KSU several years ago voted to increase their student fees so the university could add a football team. When universities have cut football teams, there have been protests, and one was restored-Univ of Alabama at Birmingham. If you look at small private school with under 3000 students, 45% of the males attending are athletes, and the schools may still be 60/40 female/male. If there were not sports at those schools, the schools would probably fold as the women would not attend either if the ratio of males goes much below 40%. Some of those school probably inflate tuition for everyone else so they can afford to have all those athletes. I watch tennis now since son plays, but I confess I went to 4 years of college without watching a tennis match even though I knew one player on the team. It was just not on my radar. As much as some people do not like Kyrgios, we need players like that-American or not- to possibly get more fans and players interested in tennis. I hate that the dubs format was shortened because dubs is more exciting to watch; players are not going to grind for hours in a dubs match-someone will poach and end the point. We Americans have a short attention span-we want the fastbreak and dunk, the 40 yard passes, the exciting interceptions... Tennis requires a more focused attention. However having watched UGA play at the NCAAs, I have seen that tennis can be as fun a spectator sport as football or basketball.

chrisb said:
Good luck with title 9. Football and basketball should not even be classified as college sports. They are pro teams that don`t have to pay their players. They carry 85 for fbs schools and 63 for fbc schools next is hockey 18 basketball13 swim 14 lax12 soccer 9.9(mens). Most of the minor sports have 4.5 These are max numbers. If you take out football you could fully fund an additional 85. this comes out to 21.25 per year. If you cut that to 60 that comes to 15 per year and opens up 15 more schollys. Really you need 85? Then their are the coaches and their salaries. A real cause of concern when a coach doubles or triples the Presidents salary[/QUOTE

chrisb · Jun 13, 2017

This post is funny, in a sad way. Did I say to cut football? I don`t think so. Colleges are using kids to make millions in revenue and telling the kids (many of whom do not qualify for that school) they have the opportunity to get an education. That is the biggest joke ever. I say pay the kids that are bringing in the money some, and pay the FA coaches less. I am saying that colleges have gotten way off the amatuer bus and are actually running professional programs using these kids for 4 years. Its an excuse to cut programs that don`t produce money for possibly real students. The College has become its own Corporation

Nacho · Jun 14, 2017

chrisb said:
This post is funny, in a sad way. Did I say to cut football? I don`t think so. Colleges are using kids to make millions in revenue and telling the kids (many of whom do not qualify for that school) they have the opportunity to get an education. That is the biggest joke ever. I say pay the kids that are bringing in the money some, and pay the FA coaches less. I am saying that colleges have gotten way off the amatuer bus and are actually running professional programs using these kids for 4 years. Its an excuse to cut programs that don`t produce money for possibly real students. The College has become its own Corporation

Actually I kind of did....Sure kids love football, but they like their power 5 football. Everywhere else its a struggle to field a stadium, fill seats, and support a program. I enjoy football, but pay no attention to anything but to the one SEC team I went to school at. Small programs are not supported, and students don't even show up to the games. I can tell you a kid going to Bowling Green could care less about BG football, and is probably following and attending Michigan or Ohio State games.

Here is an article for example https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/12/01/akron

And less kids are playing: http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/11/23/high-schools-dropping-and-adding-football-safety-concerns#

But there are lots of other examples....especially in the MAC. http://www.hustlebelt.com/2017/4/6/...an-conference-membership-expansion-whats-next

Football is popular no doubt, but has taken a hit from scandals, concussions and other violations, and thus, is not as valued with the millennial crowd as it is with the older donor crowd. Football takes a big budget, doesn't always pay back, and eats away at other sport opportunities. Then on top of that isn't widely support as it once was. This article is about NFL specifically, but is interesting: http://www.workinsports.com/blog/are-millennials-losing-interest-in-the-nfl/

Nacho · Jun 14, 2017

chrisb said:
This post is funny, in a sad way. Did I say to cut football? I don`t think so. Colleges are using kids to make millions in revenue and telling the kids (many of whom do not qualify for that school) they have the opportunity to get an education. That is the biggest joke ever. I say pay the kids that are bringing in the money some, and pay the FA coaches less. I am saying that colleges have gotten way off the amatuer bus and are actually running professional programs using these kids for 4 years. Its an excuse to cut programs that don`t produce money for possibly real students. The College has become its own Corporation

I recommend this podcast to you as it fits in with your concerns about money, payments, and where schools put money.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/food-fight/id1119389968?i=1000372453199&mt=2

chrisb · Jun 14, 2017

Nacho said:
I recommend this podcast to you as it fits in with your concerns about money, payments, and where schools put money.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/food-fight/id1119389968?i=1000372453199&mt=2

As a revisionist theory of history. ??? It is a nice site though thanks. Played soccer against Bowdoin daughter almost went there

chrisb · Jun 14, 2017

Nacho said:
Actually I kind of did....Sure kids love football, but they like their power 5 football. Everywhere else its a struggle to field a stadium, fill seats, and support a program. I enjoy football, but pay no attention to anything but to the one SEC team I went to school at. Small programs are not supported, and students don't even show up to the games. I can tell you a kid going to Bowling Green could care less about BG football, and is probably following and attending Michigan or Ohio State games.

Here is an article for example https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/12/01/akron

And less kids are playing: http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/11/23/high-schools-dropping-and-adding-football-safety-concerns#

But there are lots of other examples....especially in the MAC. http://www.hustlebelt.com/2017/4/6/...an-conference-membership-expansion-whats-next

Football is popular no doubt, but has taken a hit from scandals, concussions and other violations, and thus, is not as valued with the millennial crowd as it is with the older donor crowd. Football takes a big budget, doesn't always pay back, and eats away at other sport opportunities. Then on top of that isn't widely support as it once was. This article is about NFL specifically, but is interesting: http://www.workinsports.com/blog/are-millennials-losing-interest-in-the-nfl/

I agree with that. People are getting smarter. I had at least 4 concussions playing football for 2 years. Switched to soccer

Nacho · Jun 14, 2017

chrisb said:
As a revisionist theory of history. ??? It is a nice site though thanks. Played soccer against Bowdoin daughter almost went there

I think you will find it interesting and it might put a little color to the endowments some schools have while others still struggle. The example in this podcast is food, but it goes for sports as well. I think you will like it....give you something to listen to while your stuck in NY traffic

Nacho · Jun 14, 2017

jcgatennismom said:
Whether it makes $ or not, students want their football or at least their basketball. In my home state, students at KSU several years ago voted to increase their student fees so the university could add a football team. When universities have cut football teams, there have been protests, and one was restored-Univ of Alabama at Birmingham. If you look at small private school with under 3000 students, 45% of the males attending are athletes, and the schools may still be 60/40 female/male. If there were not sports at those schools, the schools would probably fold as the women would not attend either if the ratio of males goes much below 40%. Some of those school probably inflate tuition for everyone else so they can afford to have all those athletes. I watch tennis now since son plays, but I confess I went to 4 years of college without watching a tennis match even though I knew one player on the team. It was just not on my radar. As much as some people do not like Kyrgios, we need players like that-American or not- to possibly get more fans and players interested in tennis. I hate that the dubs format was shortened because dubs is more exciting to watch; players are not going to grind for hours in a dubs match-someone will poach and end the point. We Americans have a short attention span-we want the fastbreak and dunk, the 40 yard passes, the exciting interceptions... Tennis requires a more focused attention. However having watched UGA play at the NCAAs, I have seen that tennis can be as fun a spectator sport as football or basketball.

I have found that its not just tennis, students just don't go to sporting events period. No one goes to a swimming, Volleyball, Softball or Baseball event...students don't go...maybe parents and some locals fill up the seats, but college sports, even football and basketball, are not always attended except at bigger campuses. They may tailgate and party, but the sporting events are more of a local thing and don't fill seats. UAB is interesting because football is popular there in the state, look at Alabama and Auburn. If UAB were in Massachusetts, no one would have cared.

I went to one Basketball game in college because I dated a girl on the cheering squad.....that was it, I had no interest. And football games I tailgated, but half the time never made it to the game. I really didn't care especially if it was a mediocre season or opponent. Too much effort to go to the games, and the frat party was much more fun and I could have beers....I remember one time we didn't go to the game and actually watched another game with another school on TV because the game going on was boring....

Georgia, as well as some other schools like TCU, have gone out of their way to promote their tennis teams and events. Its has marinated a long time to get to that point. It shows its possible, and I have seen people attend tennis events and love it. But, like any sport, they have to have a reason to go, see good players, watch a good match. Hence, Internationals brought in to try and elevate programs....No-Ad to create parity....We reap what we sow

chrisb · Jun 19, 2017

Nacho said:
I have found that its not just tennis, students just don't go to sporting events period. No one goes to a swimming, Volleyball, Softball or Baseball event...students don't go...maybe parents and some locals fill up the seats, but college sports, even football and basketball, are not always attended except at bigger campuses. They may tailgate and party, but the sporting events are more of a local thing and don't fill seats. UAB is interesting because football is popular there in the state, look at Alabama and Auburn. If UAB were in Massachusetts, no one would have cared.

I went to one Basketball game in college because I dated a girl on the cheering squad.....that was it, I had no interest. And football games I tailgated, but half the time never made it to the game. I really didn't care especially if it was a mediocre season or opponent. Too much effort to go to the games, and the frat party was much more fun and I could have beers....I remember one time we didn't go to the game and actually watched another game with another school on TV because the game going on was boring....

Georgia, as well as some other schools like TCU, have gone out of their way to promote their tennis teams and events. Its has marinated a long time to get to that point. It shows its possible, and I have seen people attend tennis events and love it. But, like any sport, they have to have a reason to go, see good players, watch a good match. Hence, Internationals brought in to try and elevate programs....No-Ad to create parity....We reap what we sow

I will give another spin to this Euros are brought in because they don`t use up scholly money just student aid, and they are better players because they go to sports schools not high schools. And people still don`t come in droves to watch, so what is the point

tennisjunky · Jul 1, 2017

[QUOTE
It's a money issue not a talent issue. And it's not going to change.[/QUOTE]

Your 100% right, IhateTennis!

USTA is totally (and as long as I can remember, always has been) disfunctional and ineffecienct.
They are more concerned with political issues and diversity than tennis. Thank you Billy Jean King!

The USTA is playing tennis with one hand tied behind its back.

There needs to be real REGIONAL development opportunities, not centered in S. Cal and Florida. Its just too far.

We need the Rocky work out Gym for tennis.
To give you an example.

In Houston there are 2 older and dated tennis facilities with over 20 courts each, one with hard court, red and green clay, the other hard court with half indoor courts. Either could have been bought for a song, and USTA could start developing juniors on the complete cheap!!!! These are not showcase facilities like Lake Nona, but it gets you what you need NOW!
We don't need super fancy facilities, just good courts, good coaching, and ACCESSIBILITY and AFFORDABILITY!!!!! Everything else will fix itself!
There have to be other sites out there similar to this example in other areas of the US.

Without this, than our serious tennis areas are only S. CA and FL, with all other areas mostly irrelevant or recreational tennis area.

Nacho · Jul 1, 2017

tennisjunky said:
[QUOTE
It's a money issue not a talent issue. And it's not going to change.

Your 100% right, IhateTennis!

USTA is totally (and as long as I can remember, always has been) disfunctional and ineffecienct.
They are more concerned with political issues and diversity than tennis. Thank you Billy Jean King!

The USTA is playing tennis with one hand tied behind its back.

There needs to be real REGIONAL development opportunities, not centered in S. Cal and Florida. Its just too far.

We need the Rocky work out Gym for tennis.
To give you an example.

In Houston there are 2 older and dated tennis facilities with over 20 courts each, one with hard court, red and green clay, the other hard court with half indoor courts. Either could have been bought for a song, and USTA could start developing juniors on the complete cheap!!!! These are not showcase facilities like Lake Nona, but it gets you what you need NOW!
We don't need super fancy facilities, just good courts, good coaching, and ACCESSIBILITY and AFFORDABILITY!!!!! Everything else will fix itself!
There have to be other sites out there similar to this example in other areas of the US.

Without this, than our serious tennis areas are only S. CA and FL, with all other areas mostly irrelevant or recreational tennis area.[/QUOTE]

Can't like this statement enough.....well put

Ihatetennis · Jul 1, 2017

tennisjunky said:
[QUOTE
It's a money issue not a talent issue. And it's not going to change.

Your 100% right, IhateTennis!

USTA is totally (and as long as I can remember, always has been) disfunctional and ineffecienct.
They are more concerned with political issues and diversity than tennis. Thank you Billy Jean King!

The USTA is playing tennis with one hand tied behind its back.

There needs to be real REGIONAL development opportunities, not centered in S. Cal and Florida. Its just too far.

We need the Rocky work out Gym for tennis.
To give you an example.

In Houston there are 2 older and dated tennis facilities with over 20 courts each, one with hard court, red and green clay, the other hard court with half indoor courts. Either could have been bought for a song, and USTA could start developing juniors on the complete cheap!!!! These are not showcase facilities like Lake Nona, but it gets you what you need NOW!
We don't need super fancy facilities, just good courts, good coaching, and ACCESSIBILITY and AFFORDABILITY!!!!! Everything else will fix itself!
There have to be other sites out there similar to this example in other areas of the US.

Without this, than our serious tennis areas are only S. CA and FL, with all other areas mostly irrelevant or recreational tennis area.[/QUOTE]
It's also on the tennis companies.

They are ready to sponsor the top 50 kids in a country, and in a country the size of typical european countries thats about the top talent. However in the US we have many states that have more than 50 kids who are loaded with potential. With proper development and regional training rather than national training we would be able to maximize the amount of players that are training for a low cost with subsidized travel.

By doing so we would effectively be able to set up a program in which lets say the top 5% of tennis players from each section get free training at these sectional sites, and using a percentage instead of quota number would allow larger states to have more players training.

These players should also be provided shoes rackets and strings.

By removing the cost associated with training and equipment they would be able to play longer with less stress. Then move on to higher levels and we would be producing better players overall.

If texas funded the top 5% of tournament players with usta money we would have 100 kids from every age group being able to train as much as they want. I know it would be somewhat costly, but you could easily set up a usta boarding school with about 100 kids in each grade. Have parents cover a flat fee of 10k a year to cover some costs and subsidize the rest? then you would have a 6th-12th with a tuition gross of 6,000,000.

6 million could cover a lot of costs for 600 kids and staff. The usta would then cover the excess. This academy would easily be able to create some of the best players in the country easily.

tennisjunky · Jul 1, 2017

I agree and there are many CREATIVE options. But honestly, I've never seen anything creative come out of the USTA. Its just not in them.

Its about the parents flipping these exhaustive bills with no help.
Fortunately, with my girl I know the system. But that only goes so far.
An example:
Right now I personally know 5 girls at age 10 are complete ROCK STARS on the court, tons of talent and ferocious competitors.
The only concern now for them is burn out.
I know there parents, and within 2 years each will be out of tennis and into more school friendly sports.
But if there was something to tap into to get support or encouragement...... OR A FREAKIN COUPON OR DISCOUNT FOR RACKET STRINGING.....then they might stay in.

Seriously, USTA can't give a $5 coupon on stringing for juniors?!?!?

Missed opportunities!
Just my 2 cents

jcgatennismom · Jul 1, 2017

tennisjunky said:
I know there parents, and within 2 years each will be out of tennis and into more school friendly sports.
But if there was something to tap into to get support or encouragement...... OR A FREAKIN COUPON OR DISCOUNT FOR RACKET STRINGING.....then they might stay in.
Seriously, USTA can't give a $5 coupon on stringing for juniors?!?!?

Buy a stringer-great investment. You may have to do the stringing at first, but as teenagers, players can also string friends' racquets for extra money as well as stringing their own. Of course, coupons would be welcome when players break a string at a tournament.

tennisjunky · Jul 1, 2017

Correct on the stringer, I bought a nice pedestal gamma manual crank year ago, I've paid that thing off 10 fold.
Ball machine same thing, bought a nice portable one about 20 years back, think is still going string.
Great investment.
Funny when I think about that first stringer I had.... the ole Clipper.

Ihatetennis · Jul 2, 2017

tennisjunky said:
Correct on the stringer, I bought a nice pedestal gamma manual crank year ago, I've paid that thing off 10 fold.
Ball machine same thing, bought a nice portable one about 20 years back, think is still going string.
Great investment.
Funny when I think about that first stringer I had.... the ole Clipper.

I have a klipper, asked for it to be a Christmas present when I was in 4th grade. I've strung well over 500 rackets on it and it's going strong

projectone7 · Jul 17, 2017

Much of tennis scholarship money goes to foreign athletes. Except for Petros, Vukic, and a few others, much of that money would be better off promoting to American youths.

Doubles · Jul 17, 2017

projectone7 said:
Much of tennis scholarship money goes to foreign athletes. Except for Petros, Vukic, and a few others, much of that money would be better off promoting to American youths.

I see where you're coming from, but if the level of talent isn't there for teams to excel with American players, then it isn't worth putting the money towards them. Tennis already struggles to bring in spectators so they might as well bring in the best players possible, regardless of where they're from.

gplracer · Jul 21, 2017

OneTennisParent said:
So you're a coach. And you have two prospects; one American, and one foreign. You want them both,but the foreigner cannot afford to come to your school without a scholarship. The easy fix is to work with the US kid's family to get him financial "aid", and give the scholarship $ to the foreigner. I put aid in quotes, as it usually results in debt.

Americans are a relatively affluent people, and have a fixation with getting a college degree, even if it's in a field that will pay less over 10-years than the tuition cost, so the coach knows that the US kid's parents will do whatever it takes to get him into school. Whereas the foreign player will just say "no" if you don't throw money at him.

This happens all the time and it is not fair. And if the US family does not do this they find another player.

Ihatetennis · Jul 22, 2017

gplracer said:
This happens all the time and it is not fair. And if the US family does not do this they find another player.

There seems to be a lot of entitlement in this thread.

1 colleges don't owe you anything

2 no one owes you anything

3 if you work hard then you'll get what you deserve

4 foreign players take spots where there is often talent gap in Americans wanting to come and what is needed to be competative

5 for the people in the back, no one owes you anything

Lastly, you'll be in debt if you go to a school that doesn't give you the right aid, I'm going d3 and will graduate debt free because I found the right school for me, not because I went to my dream school. My dream school would have cost 60k a year but that's not realistic.

jcgatennismom · Jul 23, 2017

gplracer said:
This happens all the time and it is not fair. And if the US family does not do this they find another player.

American players and parents are getting smarter. Over the last few years, there are more 5 star players turning down lowball offers to play for Power schools, and instead playing D3 or midmajor. The Power schools can always find another US player to take the spot but the coaches are having to go further down their list to find guys willing to play for peanuts. For the 5 stars who choose D3, they may still be spending the same amount of $ but getting a better education at a more selective university with a better prof to student ratio. There are even guys with ATP points and high jr ITF rankings choosing midmajor.

gplracer · Jul 23, 2017

Ihatetennis said:
There seems to be a lot of entitlement in this thread.

1 colleges don't owe you anything

2 no one owes you anything

3 if you work hard then you'll get what you deserve

4 foreign players take spots where there is often talent gap in Americans wanting to come and what is needed to be competative

5 for the people in the back, no one owes you anything

Lastly, you'll be in debt if you go to a school that doesn't give you the right aid, I'm going d3 and will graduate debt free because I found the right school for me, not because I went to my dream school. My dream school would have cost 60k a year but that's not realistic.

Many times colleges strong arm US players because they feel like they can pay. I knew a kid playing #1 for Georgia Southern. He did not get a scholarship. Instead it was given to some foreign player on the team because that player could not afford to come to the school if not on scholarship. Sometimes you are correct it is because the foreign player is a better player. It sure would be nice if you had to be a citizen of the country to get a scholarship. Many players come here, go to college for free and then leave to go back to their country. I agree the colleges do not owe you anything. It is just not in the best interest of people who pay taxes to support these schools. It is not just hard work. Many players work as hard as they can and do as much as their families can afford. In other countries the government pays to train the players. We do not have that support here.

Ihatetennis · Jul 23, 2017

gplracer said:
Many times colleges strong arm US players because they feel like they can pay. I knew a kid playing #1 for Georgia Southern. He did not get a scholarship. Instead it was given to some foreign player on the team because that player could not afford to come to the school if not on scholarship. Sometimes you are correct it is because the foreign player is a better player. It sure would be nice if you had to be a citizen of the country to get a scholarship. Many players come here, go to college for free and then leave to go back to their country. I agree the colleges do not owe you anything. It is just not in the best interest of people who pay taxes to support these schools. It is not just hard work. Many players work as hard as they can and do as much as their families can afford. In other countries the government pays to train the players. We do not have that support here.

That player could have gone d3, Georgia southern isn't putting out pro tennis players. It's his choice to go there on no scholarship, colleges don't force him to sign the enrollment papers.

Foreigners also go back to their countries not because they come here as 4 and done citizens lol, it's because they can't get citizenship or work visas or jobs. Ever think about that? I go to a school with 20% foreigners and most of them want to stay in the us, we have a few from travel ban countries who aren't going home for the next 4 years in order to get an education, because once they go back they don't know when they'll come back. Think about that, it's not that they don't want to be here, cuz they do wayyyyy more than going back home.

gplracer · Jul 23, 2017

Ihatetennis said:
That player could have gone d3, Georgia southern isn't putting out pro tennis players. It's his choice to go there on no scholarship, colleges don't force him to sign the enrollment papers.

Foreigners also go back to their countries not because they come here as 4 and done citizens lol, it's because they can't get citizenship or work visas or jobs. Ever think about that? I go to a school with 20% foreigners and most of them want to stay in the us, we have a few from travel ban countries who aren't going home for the next 4 years in order to get an education, because once they go back they don't know when they'll come back. Think about that, it's not that they don't want to be here, cuz they do wayyyyy more than going back home.

We are both correct did you ever think about that? I would still like to see people from our country getting those scholarships. You are also correct that Georgia Southern is not putting out pro players. Based on that logic why not give the scholarship to the better player. Are you saying you would rather see the scholarships go to foreigners who had their training paid by their government instead of a local kid who worked really hard but did not have unlimited resources?

jcgatennismom · Jul 23, 2017

Ihatetennis said:
That player could have gone d3, Georgia southern isn't putting out pro tennis players. It's his choice to go there on no scholarship, colleges don't force him to sign the enrollment papers.

/QUOTE]
If a player is competitive at line 1 in the Sunbelt where all the line 1s are at least UTR 13 and some are 13.5+, the player may not have wanted to play D3 where only a handful of players in the whole division are 13+. The top D3 teams have some 13s but those schools have very selective academic criteria. If the player chose GA Southern in the first place, the player probably didnt have the academic credentials to play top D3. What I think gplracer is saying is that if a US player is as good or better than an international player shouldn't he get a similar scholarship? Why is it only the Americans who are expected to sacrifice for the team or at least for the Power schools?The problem is if a US player does not get a scholarship or gets a very small one, that player probably has to work all summer while his international counterpart may be able to play club tennis or Futures all summer. Even if the players started out at the same level, the US player may be behind if he didnt play summer tournaments. The scholarships that some colleges offer US players would barely cover summer tournament travel and expenses let alone offset tuition and R&B. There can be very slight differences in UTR between players 4 through 8, but the international players in that group could be getting up to 5x the scholarship of the US players with possibly only a .1 or .2 UTR difference. Some of the international players may come from modest backgrounds, but others may be the sons of doctors, lawyers, and businessmen. The problem is with NCAA and Title IX there are only 4.5 scholarships which means teams have to average less than a half scholarship per player. Since internationals wont come and play without the $, the US players by default get the lower athletic scholarships. Of course some do get merit too, but then those players have to perform on court and keep up good grades while guys with high athletic scholarship might have time for a social life besides tennis and studying.

D3 schools are excellent choices for some top players, but not good choices for others. The answer to the problem of US players getting less scholarship $ than international players of similar ability is not to just say "play D3." That isnt cheaper unless the player qualifies for need-based and/or merit aid. Many US players who play without athletic scholarships play in state where it may be easier to get merit plus tuition is cheaper anyway. Usually the most expensive choice for a US player is an out of state Power school public university as most of the merit and need-based aid goes to in state students. The privates have bigger endowments for merit and need.

I dont blame the coaches-they are just trying to work with what they have. They need at least 8 talented players, and NCAA only allows them to give out 4.5 scholarships. They have to find players and parents willing to pay the difference, and usually those are the American parents.

Ihatetennis · Jul 23, 2017

gplracer said:
We are both correct did you ever think about that? I would still like to see people from our country getting those scholarships. You are also correct that Georgia Southern is not putting out pro players. Based on that logic why not give the scholarship to the better player. Are you saying you would rather see the scholarships go to foreigners who had their training paid by their government instead of a local kid who worked really hard but did not have unlimited resources?

what im saying is, the school should do what benefits them the most. If they need a foreign player to be the best team they can be, then fair game, the kids that didn't get so good dont deserve spots that coaches dont offer them. Its up to the coach to decide, not you or i.

Would it be cool to see more americans, sure, would it be cool to see a bunch of 3 stars get whooped by uva, no not at all.

tennisjunky · Jul 24, 2017

Ihatetennis said:
There seems to be a lot of entitlement in this thread.

1 colleges don't owe you anything

2 no one owes you anything

3 if you work hard then you'll get what you deserve

4 foreign players take spots where there is often talent gap in Americans wanting to come and what is needed to be competative

5 for the people in the back, no one owes you anything

Lastly, you'll be in debt if you go to a school that doesn't give you the right aid, I'm going d3 and will graduate debt free because I found the right school for me, not because I went to my dream school. My dream school would have cost 60k a year but that's not realistic.

OHHHHH, I tried to stay away from this thread but its calling to me.
So, I'll try and keep it simple as not to waste time off my life.

COLLEGES ARE BUSINESSES!
I learned this the hard way when my wife finished law school and I found out there are not enough jobs for the newly minted lawyers each year. But the schools keep churning them out by the thousands each year!
These schools are in the business of taking your money in exchange for a degree. Its all about now.... not the future. They want the money..... now.
USRTA (R for recreation) operates the same way. Notice all fees keep going up. They do it because they can.

College tennis doesn't make the college money. We mostly all agree on this.
And, a winning college team, for most schools is only a tick mark on a marketing page for schools to attract paying customers.
People need to think of it this way...... your a student but also a customer. Coaches are under intense pressure to win and they will try and convince unsuspecting kids or naive parents to play for their school with: loans, grants, academic or athletic scholarships. It all about how to attack paying customers. Foreigners mostly, don't pay the bills. They are just helping them promote the university brand. Think of them as being on the tennis team and marketing team.
Really...... why do colleges care if the team is 100% or 0% foreign or USA talent. Tennis isn't making money! They are just wanting the trophy or ranking at the end of the year so they can market the result. Its Money Ball for tennis.

The whole system is rigged for finding NEW revenue streams. That's where convincing the USA talent to go on loans comes in.
Foreign = free, USA = $.
But, why go to a college just because your parents did, or out of loyalty....??? Their not going to give you break on tuition and you still get in.
But someone did mention that the gig is up, parents are on to this SCAM and USA talent is just moving away from the power schools. I think its the logical step and the long game is..... pulling kids out of tennis. Foreigners and the recruiting agencies have a near impossible lock on all D1 schools and most D2.

So the question is, as it has always been........ why shell out the truck loads of money for something with NO PAY OFF!!!!

Personally, I'm going down the road thinking all colleges should removed tennis from their athletic programs.
This will drain the swamp overnight, and leave professional tennis in the USA for the wealthy and recreation tennis for the masses.
And force all foreigners, if they want a degree to pay their own way.
This will get their hand out of Uncle Sam's pocket!

That's all from me....... too much coffee today!

gplracer · Jul 24, 2017

Wow! You said a lot! You have a lot of valid points. Although, I do not want college tennis to go away. I would like to see scholarships give to citizens of the country. They can do that in their country too just so it is fair for everyone.

wings56 · Jul 26, 2017

I've read many of these arguments. All have some validity, but no one calls out the core of the problem.

The best athletes in the United States do not tend to play tennis. They play football, baseball, and basketball. Tennis is not as "cool" here. Only a handful of other countries have tennis as the most popular sport, but a big portion of the world has tennis as the second or third most popular sport compared to fourth or lower here.

You can throw all the extra money at it that you'd like... restrict scholarships to foreign athletes... give out 8 scholarships for men's programs...

Bottom line. Change the perception of tennis in the minds of US kids, and the rest will change from there.

gino · Jul 31, 2017

J011yroger said:
Taking roster spots and scholarships in sports that Americans are good at too, or is it just tennis?

If Americans were better, would schools still recruit foreign players?

J

Here's the thing, J. It's a free way for them to gain admittance into the US educational system and while I had dozens of foreign teammates and students in my years, I think that there needs to be a hard cap so that less domestic kids are turned away from quality programs.

Slightly D1 · Aug 12, 2017

Late to the party but tennis is a financial loss for any school that has it with exception to maybe just maybe a couple power schools. It really doesn't make sense that a public school, using public funds (tax dollars), would give a scholarship to an international when their family has hardly contributed anything to the state that the school itself is in. My line of thinking rests in the fact that there is "in-state" and "out-of-state" tuition discrepancies when looking at public universities. Outside of football most colleges lose money on athletics in general but it doesn't seem right for internationals to get US scholarships over an American in any sport because when it comes down to it, its for the education and most college kids aren't going pro.

ClarkC · Aug 13, 2017

Slightly D1 said:
Late to the party but tennis is a financial loss for any school that has it with exception to maybe just maybe a couple power schools. It really doesn't make sense that a public school, using public funds (tax dollars), would give a scholarship to an international when their family has hardly contributed anything to the state that the school itself is in. My line of thinking rests in the fact that there is "in-state" and "out-of-state" tuition discrepancies when looking at public universities. Outside of football most colleges lose money on athletics in general but it doesn't seem right for internationals to get US scholarships over an American in any sport because when it comes down to it, its for the education and most college kids aren't going pro.

Explain why a non-revenue sport should offer scholarships at all, to Americans, if the point is education.

Do people complain about foreign players

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

Similar threads