Rehash/Update on foreign players

10isDad · Aug 27, 2008

Not that I want this topic to start up again on this forum, but I would like to let people know about the following:

Annette Broersma sent an e-mail indicating she is collecting letters to send to the ITA related to foreign players receiving tennis scholarships. Part of this e-mail is excerpted below. Please note, the emphasis is mine...

"To all those who were involved in the...discussions about college tennis and internationals receiving the majority of scholarships:

I stated that I would ask any of you who are willing to write -- to send me your letter to be forwarded to someone who may be able to help us.

I am told this person would be Patrick McEnroe. So, let's collect some articulate letters, either FOR or AGAINST the preponderance of desirable American DI scholarships going to foreign tennis players!

Send them to me, and I will send them on to the ITA (Intercollegiate T.A.) and USTA by the end of October.

If you'd like to hear a radio interview I did recently that touches on this subject, use the attached link and click on the 8/25 Posting. Fast-forward to the last 15 minutes of the broadcast.

Link: www.blogtalkradio.com/USA-on-the-Ball "

Actually the entire broadcast is pretty informative, especially for people wanting to know a bit about the recruiting process so listen to the whole show.

She asks that letters be forwarded to her via her website http://www.annettesports.com

MLoutch · Aug 27, 2008

This is a great idea but isn't this an NCAA issue?? Should we not be pushing the NCAA on limiting these free rides? I know that in the recent talks in the NCAA about this it always comes down to the coaches moaning about the lack of depth and talent, blah, blah, blah...etc in the USA and that they HAVE to go overseas to fill out programs.

Why hasn't the USTA pushed to fight this??? I mean it is the USta.

10isDad · Aug 27, 2008

The NCAA's position is it's up to the governing organization which is the ITA.

Listen to the interview on the link listed. She (Annette) mentions some limitations placed on hockey scholarships for foreigners. I don't know anything about that, with the exception of the mention on that interview. Anybody know?

AndrewD · Aug 28, 2008

10isDad said:
So, let's collect some articulate letters, either FOR or AGAINST the preponderance of desirable American DI scholarships going to foreign tennis players!

Preponderance? Does she in any way prove that the overwhelming majority (which is what the word means) of scholarships are going to international students, or is she just trying to inflame the situation by using a word that carries more weight than is warranted?

Also, why is it only Division I scholarships she cares about? Surely, if you were bothered by the 'preponderance' of 'desirable' scholarships going to foreign players you'd care about all divisions (including and especially the NAIA) that award them.

Either way, that's a very heavily biased sentence which gives me reason to doubt her motives and sincerity.

10isDad · Aug 28, 2008

I also wondered why she singled out D1. It could be that she has stats on the number of D2 scholarships and the preponderance of those may NOT go to foreign tennis players. I have no idea about NAIA schools, unfortunately.

BTW - Webster defines preponderance simply "superior in number or quantity; majority". There need not be any connotation of "overwhelming" associated with it; certainly she didn't use the word.

As for the alleged preponderance of scholarships, it's likely true. There are stats that show that 30% of NCAA tennis players are foreign born (including D3). I personally went through every D1 college website last year and categorized players as best I could and conservatively* came up with nearly 40% of D1 players. Couple that with the statistics about the much higher percentage of the top college players that are foreign born and it's not too difficult to imagine that the majority (more than 1/2) of available men's tennis scholarships are being awarded to foreigners.

*Conservatively, because there are many college players with very 'foreign sounding' names who list their home town as "Bradenton, FL" or other academy hotspots, list their high school as an online high school such as Laurel Springs. Not knowing for certain, I chalked these people up as US players, not foreign players, even though some are surely foreign players residing at a US tennis academy. So basically, I only counted a player as a foreign player if they listed their hometown/high school as somewhere outside the US.

JLyon · Aug 28, 2008

Looking at rosters is one thing, but can you accurately say that foreign players are taking 50% of the ATHLETIC scholarships? They could be getting academic scholarships or in some instances pay their own way. It is easy to assume just by looking at roster's but it might not be completely true.

tacoben · Aug 28, 2008

Bottom line...it's our tax dollars that the help fund the foreign players. There needs to be an adjustment. We just need to start watching out for "our" own kids...kind of akin to shipping our jobs overseas, is how I see it.

Serpententacle · Aug 28, 2008

tacoben said:
Bottom line...it's our tax dollars that the help fund the foreign players. There needs to be an adjustment. We just need to start watching out for "our" own kids...kind of akin to shipping our jobs overseas, is how I see it.

Maybe "our" own kids should train as hard as the foreign kids and "our kids" will get the scholarships.

tacoben · Aug 28, 2008

Serpententacle said:
Maybe "our" own kids should train as hard as the foreign kids and "our kids" will get the scholarships.

So if you had/have a kid(s) that you are supporting in tennis...invested a lot of money in, coaching fees, tournaments fees through out the years, travel lodging, etc....don't you wish that you would at least get something back in return?...then to have some foreigner take their scholarship spot. I'm just saying that there needs to be an adjustment since it appears to favor foreigners who in all likely hood, may opt to play pro before graduation and or may not even graduate at all.

ClarkC · Aug 28, 2008

Serpententacle said:
Maybe "our" own kids should train as hard as the foreign kids and "our kids" will get the scholarships.

That is easy to say, but the numbers don't work out that way. It might be that there are only 5 kids from Bulgaria on scholarship in NCAA Division I, another 6 from Romania, 2 from Latvia, 10 from Poland, etc. In each case, there is no reason to think that these other countries do a better job of developing tennis talent, or that the numbers are out of proportion to the populations of those countries compared to the population of the USA. But the college coaches can take only the very best few players from each country.

When the numbers are all added up, there are a lot of scholarships going to foreign players, without any necessary implication that Americans are deficient. If 50% of scholarships go to foreigners, then the American youth players are equal to all players from all other countries COMBINED.

The question is where dollars in non-revenue sports, i.e. taxpayer dollars, should go. Should the last partial scholarship offer in this year's recruiting class at State U. go to the #125 player from the USA, or to the #5 player from Belgium, who is a somewhat better player? Neither of them will earn any money for the college. Both will be receiving a taxpayer subsidy even without a scholarship, because it is a state school. One of them comes from a family that has paid taxes here for 18 years.

On the other hand, the slightly less good American player will not help push and develop his elite American teammates as well as that #5 player form Belgium. If our goal is to develop the next great American player, that should be considered (although many doubt that the next great top 10 pro will come from college anyway, except maybe playing one year at #1 singles).

10isDad · Aug 28, 2008

tacoben said:
Bottom line...it's our tax dollars that the help fund the foreign players. There needs to be an adjustment. We just need to start watching out for "our" own kids...kind of akin to shipping our jobs overseas, is how I see it.

On just about every university website if you look hard enough you will see some sort of statement that indicates athletic scholarships do not come from state or local taxes; rather the claim is athletic scholarships come from:

1. Revenues generated by football and to a smaller degree basketball/baseball
2. Private donations/Booster Clubs

The claim is that most tax dollars for universities are used to improve facilities - both academic and athletic.

I have absolutely no idea whether this is truly the case. I'm just pointing out what I have found and read.

10isDad · Aug 28, 2008

JLyon said:
Looking at rosters is one thing, but can you accurately say that foreign players are taking 50% of the ATHLETIC scholarships? They could be getting academic scholarships or in some instances pay their own way. It is easy to assume just by looking at roster's but it might not be completely true.

I made no claim about the accuracy of the statement. I said that it's not hard to imagine. Let's say that 30% of college D1 players are foreign. In 2005, 38 of the 64 players in the individual men's singles tournament were foreign. In other studies, it's often stated that over 50% of the top n players are foreign. A New York Times article states that in 2007, 83 of the top 125 men were foreign.

Pure assumption would be that scholarship money would tend to be given more to the top players on each team. Even when divided up, which most men's tennis scholarships are, there would be a logical assumption that the more money would go to the top players. So, if over 50% of the top players are foreign, assumption would, therefore indicate that over 50% of scholarship money would go to these foreigners.

Gus · Aug 28, 2008

I did a little research on this on behalf of my daughter, looking at rosters and % of foreign players. By looking at rosters it is not possible to tell who is on scholarship but some general conclusions can be made.

One interesting thing I noticed was that a predominance of foreign players doesn't necessarily equate to success. Examples(women): Kansas State, 100% foreign roster mustered a 10th place in the Big 12; OK State, 90% foreign got 6th. To be fair, Baylor, 100% won 1st in that conference. Others: Washington State at 80% foreign got 7th in the Pac 10 (9), and Oregon, also at 80% came in 6th. In the WAC, Boise St.(100%) and Fresno (90%) got good results, but Nevada (100%) and NMSU (90%) had very little to show for it. In the Big West, LBSU (100%) won the conference but Pacific (90%) was next to last.

Since it is doubtful that these schools have much of a scouting budget, I conclude (perhaps incorrectly) that human nature-specifically laziness- has taken over. These coaches are outsourcing scouting, listening to placement agents that tout many of these foreign players to be better than they really are. There is perhaps also some sex appeal to recruiting a foreigner v. someone local. I'm no expert on the subject, but I'm pretty sure Kansas State could have come in tenth place with 0% foreign players too.

ClarkC · Aug 28, 2008

Gus said:
I did a little research on this on behalf of my daughter, looking at rosters and % of foreign players. By looking at rosters it is not possible to tell who is on scholarship but some general conclusions can be made.

One interesting thing I noticed was that a predominance of foreign players doesn't necessarily equate to success. Examples(women): Kansas State, 100% foreign roster mustered a 10th place in the Big 12; OK State, 90% foreign got 6th. To be fair, Baylor, 100% won 1st in that conference. Others: Washington State at 80% foreign got 7th in the Pac 10 (9), and Oregon, also at 80% came in 6th. In the WAC, Boise St.(100%) and Fresno (90%) got good results, but Nevada (100%) and NMSU (90%) had very little to show for it. In the Big West, LBSU (100%) won the conference but Pacific (90%) was next to last.

Since it is doubtful that these schools have much of a scouting budget, I conclude (perhaps incorrectly) that human nature-specifically laziness- has taken over. These coaches are outsourcing scouting, listening to placement agents that tout many of these foreign players to be better than they really are. There is perhaps also some sex appeal to recruiting a foreigner v. someone local. I'm no expert on the subject, but I'm pretty sure Kansas State could have come in tenth place with 0% foreign players too.

Many second-tier schools recruit foreign players because the good Americans are not necessarily interested in playing there, while foreign players are often happy to have the scholarships. But, when a school does that and is third-tier, like Kansas State on the women's side, then I agree that they could have accomplished that a number of ways.

10isDad · Aug 28, 2008

JLyon said:
Looking at rosters is one thing, but can you accurately say that foreign players are taking 50% of the ATHLETIC scholarships? They could be getting academic scholarships or in some instances pay their own way. It is easy to assume just by looking at roster's but it might not be completely true.

I have no idea of this person's credentials, but I have excerpted an article I found below. The emphasis is mine:

Scholarship woes plague tennis scene
Rick Meyers Monday, July 24, 2006

Last week's column sparked a lot of discussion from a lot of people. The column tried to offer possible explanations as to why there are not more American professional tennis players ranked as high in the world rankings as we have enjoyed in previous years.
Other people had their own ideas as to the problems and their version of solutions some of which had merit and others that didn't.

One of the problems that I mentioned is that our young American juniors don't seem to be as motivated and dedicated.

For most American juniors, playing college tennis is a stepping stone to the pro ranks. And the aspiration of most junior athletes is to improve their skills enough to receive a college scholarship. But there are two major problems for our juniors.

Because of Title IX there are only 4 1/2 tennis scholarships offered to a men's tennis team. There are six players that play in the starting lineup and most teams carry 10-12 players on the roster but only 4 1/2 scholarships to divide among them. A coach has to decide which players are his best and offer them partial scholarships.

The ladies are allowed to offer 8 scholarships to their players so, in that sense, it's a little better for the ladies.

But another problem is that the majority of the scholarships are given to players from foreign countries. Some studies say that close to 60 percent of the college scholarships are given to foreigners.

It doesn't take long for our juniors to figure out that it will be very difficult to receive one of those coveted scholarships. This is true for even a player ranked in the top 100 in the nation or top 15 in Texas.

The very few top junior Americans receive the scholarships, along with the foreigners.

ClarkC · Aug 28, 2008

A couple of questions:

1) What is the likelihood that the next American top 10 player will come through college for any length of time? Our male grand slam winners in the last 35 years have been Jimmy Connors (1 year at UCLA), John McEnroe (1 year at Stanford), Andy Roddick (no college), etc. Connors and McEnroe went to college when it was simply expected, and people were shocked later in that era when Jimmy Arias and Aaron Krickstein went pro out of high school. I don't think that UCLA and Stanford "developed" Connors and McEnroe into the players they became.

2) The blue chip recruits still do pretty well in getting scholarships. What is the likelihood that the next American grand slam winner was not a blue chip recruit? There is some likelihood he could be a late bloomer, but that was not the case with Connors, McEnroe, Roddick, et al.

3) It seems that there are fewer foreign women than foreign men in NCAA tennis, although not dramatically fewer, and there are about twice as many scholarships for women. Again, colleges did not develop Venus, Serena, Lindsay, et al.

I think the college issues are separate from the "next great American player" issues and we should not overstate the case here. A lot of top American players are pushed down from first tier to second tier colleges by foreign recruits, or are pushed down from scholarship to walk-on status at first tier colleges. That is the issue.

AndrewD · Aug 28, 2008

This is a completely pointless discussion until someone can answer two very simple questions

1) What do you qualify as a scholarship?

2) How much financial aid is given to American players.

If a university/college funds local players via academic scholarships, in-state scholarships (I believe Georgia uses this one), financial aid and other revenue sources, they can then attract international players (who don't qualify for the other forms of financial assistance) with their tennis-specific scholarships. END RESULT is that the American players are not being disadvantaged.

Until you can positively show that the colleges/universities AREN'T 'fiddling the books' in that way, you can't be making any reasoned, sensible claims (ones that aren't based on pure emotion and lack of reason) about the distribution of tennis-specific scholarships.

Lastly, I think the most revealing thing about this topic is the way in which people's first reaction is to attack the international players themselves (eg, they abuse the system, they steal scholarships, etc) instead of directing their anger towards the system (an American system, not a foreign one). Says a lot about them, their biases and their bigotry.

ClarkC · Aug 28, 2008

AndrewD said:
Lastly, I think the most revealing thing about this topic is the way in which people's first reaction is to attack the international players themselves (eg, they abuse the system, they steal scholarships, etc) instead of directing their anger towards the system (an American system, not a foreign one). Says a lot about them, their biases and their bigotry.

Can you document this ridiculous assertion? I have re-read every post in this thread and do not find that the first thing everyone did was attack the foreign players themselves. Your assertion says a lot about you, your biases, and your bigotry.

Why don't you tally up how many of the 16 posts before yours made attacks on foreign players themselves?

10isDad · Aug 28, 2008

The point of this thread was simply to let people know that Ms. Broersma is collecting letters BOTH FOR AND AGAINST this whole issue.

Some people (I'm actually one of them) really have no problem with foreigners getting scholarships. It simply points to the fact that US junior tennis has fallen behind. If my tax dollars were to fund these scholarships, I might have a problem, but from what I've read that's not the case. I used to follow Arizona State's tennis program quite closely (before it was cancelled earlier this year) and I can tell you that the foreign players were the heart and soul of the team - all great guys and generally more friendly than the US players.

Some people want to limit the scholarship money to a certain figure - 20% has been bandied about a bit.

Still others want quotas on the maximum number of foreigners allowed on a team.

However, the point of the thread wasn't to have people argue about it here - use your talents to formulate an "articulate letter" and let your voice be held in a forum that might actually matter.

Master Flow · Aug 28, 2008

Foreign players should stay in there country! I WANT A SCHOLARSHIP TOO! i am a little worse/ just as good as a foreign player. STOP LOOKING OVERSEAS AND LOOK IN AMERICA!!!!

10isDad · Aug 29, 2008

^^^ Perhaps you mean "their" country...

As an FYI, foreign colleges do not offer organized sports in the same way as the NCAA and NAIA do. If they want to play college ball, they have to come here. Over there, the options are club ball or professional. While there's nothing wrong at all with club ball, it's not necessarily the same, even though I've heard the level of club ball in Europe can be extremely high.

Also, read the original post and the post above yours: if you feel strongly either way, go to the Contact Us page at annettesports.com, draft a letter (preferably spell correctly and don't yell (EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS)) and send it.

Master Flow · Aug 29, 2008

preferably spell correctly and don't yell (EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS))

oops my caps was on and i was to lazy to retype it. and i prefer not to care really 1 voice don't change a choir so y bother......

NickC · Aug 29, 2008

I think the whole thing with foreign students can be compared to football (soccer) and how foreign players are taking over the English Premier League. What I mean by this is that (generally) foreign players 'want it' more, so they put in the hard work, so they deserve it more than the locals who aren't as hungry for success and don't work as hard and don't put in the hours needed - yet they believe since it's their country, they have the divine right to do as they please, since they are the ones paying the taxes to support the state schools (or so they say). But on the flip side, I can totally understand why a college would look to recruit overseas. Most of the time the kids are just flat out better than American kids. In this day and age where at the D-I level where, no matter the sport, winning at all costs means everything. If the NCAA could find a way to tone that down a notch or two, and restrict the real high level (like near pro-level ability of the players) to the best of the best.

Won't ever happen, but it's a nice thought.

atatu · Aug 29, 2008

deleted, see post below.

atatu · Aug 29, 2008

Master Flow said:
preferably spell correctly and don't yell (EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS))

oops my caps was on and i was to lazy to retype it. and i prefer not to care really 1 voice don't change a choir so y bother......

I see that an academic scholarship is out of the question....the fact that you are too (not "to") lazy may be part of the problem.

ClarkC · Aug 29, 2008

NicholasCole said:
I think the whole thing with foreign students can be compared to football (soccer) and how foreign players are taking over the English Premier League. What I mean by this is that (generally) foreign players 'want it' more, so they put in the hard work, so they deserve it more than the locals who aren't as hungry for success and don't work as hard and don't put in the hours needed ....

Nonsense. The English Premier League is full of foreigners because it is the richest league in the world and can afford to buy them. They can buy the top few players from France, top few from Holland, top few from each Scandinavian country, etc., because they are a richer league than those countries' leagues.

In fact, the very best leagues among their competitors, such as the Spanish and Italian and German leagues, lose comparatively few of their players to the English. It is about money, not who is better.

It is a given that the top 100 English soccer players will all be in the English Premier League. They almost never play anywhere else. So, who should the EPL teams sign after they grab the top 100 English players? Who would you expect to be a better player: the #1 player from Belgium or Norway or even Iceland, or the #101 player from England?

I made this point with respect to the NCAA having only 5 Bulgarians, only 6 Romanians, etc., but it all adds up because there are a lot of countries in the world. It does NOT mean that those countries do a better job of developing youth tennis players than the USA. But people cannot be deterred from spouting that bit of conventional wisdom, I guess. It is fashionable to trash one's own country and claim that people here don't work hard, don't want it, etc.

NickC · Aug 29, 2008

^
Not so. If it was all just Englishmen, you'd notice that it'd be a crappy league. If the English players are so good, it'd reflect on the English team, which hasn't won a competition since 1966, long before a non-english speaker set foot in Old Trafford, Highbury, Anfield, or any other stadia. Also, it may be about money, yet foreign sides such as Real Madrid and AC Milan are much more successful in European competition than any English side. So your logic is quite wrong, it usually is about winning, not money. By the way, the German Bundesliga brings in more than the English league, much more. If you look at the top 4 sides in the Premiership, you'll notice that out of all the 4 teams' starting lineups, only a total of 9 players are English. Arsenal usually fields a team entirely of foreigners (much like most College Tennis Teams), and as such, have been heavily criticized for such an action, yet nobody here complains when a D-I College Tennis team fields an entire starting roster of foreigners. As such, most juniors I know often are turned off by this and even though they work their asses off, they know that there's someone from Eastern Europe or South America that is just a little bit better than them, who will get their spot on a collegiate team. It's not that they don't work hard, it's just that they know that it'll never happen. If teams stopped giving foreigners spots, I'm sure kids here would start working harder, because they know they'll have a slim chance, not a zero chance.

Master Flow · Aug 31, 2008

atatu said:
I see that an academic scholarship is out of the question....the fact that you are too (not "to") lazy may be part of the problem.

When did i haf to spell anything right on this??? BTW (that's: by the way for you :twisted

i totally agree with the above comment. Foreing people always get the "1 up" on americans. i could be better then a foreigner and they will still recruit the foreign person......why you ask?.....there stupid! And last i checked if we do pay taxes then some of it does go to the school. so there is no "or so they say". or at least my state does that. And that is reason why out of state tuition is high, b/c (because:twisted

you don't pay taxes. LEARN AMERICAN HISTORY! and i WANTED to caps all that :twisted:

_mats_ · Sep 2, 2008

atatu said:
I see that an academic scholarship is out of the question....the fact that you are too (not "to") lazy may be part of the problem.

haha completely owned.

Those "bad bad foreign students" can spell 100% also, as well as play tennis really really well.

Another hate-filled post/thread reeking of xenophobia.

ClarkC · Sep 2, 2008

_mats_ said:
Another hate-filled post/thread reeking of xenophobia.

Which posts were filled with hate? Be specific, please.

andfor · Sep 2, 2008

If we take away sports scholarships for the foreigners who's to say the coaches won't find academic or some other kind of aide and have them play as non-scholarship athletes anyway?

Also, if we exclude foreigners from all U.S. college sports, D1 or other, by executing this isolationists policy who can tell me if all the college tennis programs out there now will be able to fill their line-ups with only U.S. players? The untended consequence could be not enough tennis players then programs get dropped. Is this what we American tennis players want for college tennis?

andfor · Sep 2, 2008

Master Flow said:
When did i haf to spell anything right on this??? BTW (that's: by the way for you :twisted i totally agree with the above comment. Foreing people always get the "1 up" on americans. i could be better then a foreigner and they will still recruit the foreign person......why you ask?.....there stupid! And last i checked if we do pay taxes then some of it does go to the school. so there is no "or so they say". or at least my state does that. And that is reason why out of state tuition is high, b/c (because:twisted you don't pay taxes. LEARN AMERICAN HISTORY! and i WANTED to caps all that :twisted:

The taxes argument is one of my favorites. Why then are the private universities lumped in with the public on this issue? Is it because they also are recipients of some level of U.S. Federal funding? I bet it's less than public schools. Should Private and Public schools have the same restrictions? If taxes is the argument will the federal government have to step in along with the NCAA in restricting athletic aide to foreigners? Why has this not already happened?

How will U.S. athletes benefit from not having foreign born athletes on their teams and to compete against if it makes for better competition?

10isDad · Sep 2, 2008

'andfor' strikes again as the voice of reason and astutely communicating points better than most...

andfor · Sep 2, 2008

10isDad said:
'andfor' strikes again as the voice of reason and astutely communicating points better than most...

As if I haven't in the past?

Remember, alumni, colleges and college AD's ask/require their coaches to win, and why shouldn't they, that is why we keep score, right? This being a constant, coaches will find a way to get the best athletes on campus, no matter where they have to get them from, U.S. or foreign.

Water always finds it's way to the lowest point.

andfor · Sep 2, 2008

Gus said:
I did a little research on this on behalf of my daughter, looking at rosters and % of foreign players. By looking at rosters it is not possible to tell who is on scholarship but some general conclusions can be made.

One interesting thing I noticed was that a predominance of foreign players doesn't necessarily equate to success. Examples(women): Kansas State, 100% foreign roster mustered a 10th place in the Big 12; OK State, 90% foreign got 6th. To be fair, Baylor, 100% won 1st in that conference. Others: Washington State at 80% foreign got 7th in the Pac 10 (9), and Oregon, also at 80% came in 6th. In the WAC, Boise St.(100%) and Fresno (90%) got good results, but Nevada (100%) and NMSU (90%) had very little to show for it. In the Big West, LBSU (100%) won the conference but Pacific (90%) was next to last.

Since it is doubtful that these schools have much of a scouting budget, I conclude (perhaps incorrectly) that human nature-specifically laziness- has taken over. These coaches are outsourcing scouting, listening to placement agents that tout many of these foreign players to be better than they really are. There is perhaps also some sex appeal to recruiting a foreigner v. someone local. I'm no expert on the subject, but I'm pretty sure Kansas State could have come in tenth place with 0% foreign players too.

Interesting K-State has come into the discussion. Often they are better than last year. Often they participate as a team in the NCAA and have a player or two in the draw. I have heard from very credible sources outside the program that K-State does not even recruit U.S. players unless they are approached by them first. Apparently the best U.S. players needed to win at the Big 12 and NCAA level won't even consider attending school there let alone play tennis for the school.

That said getting last is not a good position for them to defend (if they had to) not having U.S. players on the team. Then again how many girls that could have actually played for KSU let alone win matches in the Big 12 do we know who did not get to go to school there and play tennis?

Master Flow · Sep 2, 2008

andfor said:
How will U.S. athletes benefit from not having foreign born athletes on their teams and to compete against if it makes for better competition?

I never said foreign people cant play in the US but they shouldnt get full ride scholarships.

andfor · Sep 2, 2008

Master Flow said:
I never said foreign people cant play in the US but they shouldnt get full ride scholarships.

I looked through the thread and did not see you where you wrote "they shouldnt get full ride scholarships". Maybe I missed it or maybe that's what you wanted to say but didn't write it. If you wrote it somewhere, my apologies.

JLyon · Sep 3, 2008

Master Flow said:
I never said foreign people cant play in the US but they shouldnt get full ride scholarships.

Captain obvious most male players do not get full rides anyways and you would be surprised that large number of Women's programs do not offer the 8 full rides available at D1. Also would you complain if a foreign player came in and got a full ride academic scholarship? Shoudl we say no smart foreign students allowed at any university because some lazy American student did not work hard enough?

Master Flow · Sep 3, 2008

JLyon said:
Captain obvious most male players do not get full rides anyways and you would be surprised that large number of Women's programs do not offer the 8 full rides available at D1. Also would you complain if a foreign player came in and got a full ride academic scholarship? Shoudl we say no smart foreign students allowed at any university because some lazy American student did not work hard enough?

Sports and Academics are two different things. I feel in america we should have a majority of AMERICANS on the team ( 1 or 2 or 3 foreigners). Not the whole roster full of them. i dont care if they only have club tennis in their country. that is what they are forcing us americans to do. And lazy has nothing to do with it. why are thet looking in other countries before they look in there own backyard? i could see if every american was horrible beyond belief, but we're not.

andfor · Sep 3, 2008

Master Flow said:
Sports and Academics are two different things. I feel in america we should have a majority of AMERICANS on the team ( 1 or 2 or 3 foreigners). Not the whole roster full of them. i dont care if they only have club tennis in their country. that is what they are forcing us americans to do. And lazy has nothing to do with it. why are thet looking in other countries before they look in there own backyard? i could see if every american was horrible beyond belief, but we're not.

Good luck with that.

Gus · Sep 4, 2008

andfor said:
That said getting last is not a good position for them to defend (if they had to) not having U.S. players on the team. Then again how many girls that could have actually played for KSU let alone win matches in the Big 12 do we know who did not get to go to school there and play tennis?

Fact is that we just can't know the answer to that simply by looking at rosters. I think the point of my original post was that results were not guaranteed by having a high percentage of foreign players. Since competitive sports are ultimately results oriented, I imagine that at some point a degree of equilibrium will be reached at most schools (if we're not already there for the most part). Schools that have a high % of foreign players and get no results will have little choice but to re-examine what they're doing, while schools that achieve good results with foreign players will ultimately begin to attract top Americans. In the near future gone will be the teams of 100% of either.

Having said this, I think it's OK hold public universities to a higher accountability and that can only speed up this process. The good people of Kansas allowed KSU to have a 100% foreign team that accomplished nothing. It's ok for the good people of Kansas to ask questions and require answers. That will accelerate some change for the better.

andfor · Sep 4, 2008

Gus said:
Fact is that we just can't know the answer to that simply by looking at rosters. I think the point of my original post was that results were not guaranteed by having a high percentage of foreign players. Since competitive sports are ultimately results oriented, I imagine that at some point a degree of equilibrium will be reached at most schools (if we're not already there for the most part). Schools that have a high % of foreign players and get no results will have little choice but to re-examine what they're doing, while schools that achieve good results with foreign players will ultimately begin to attract top Americans. In the near future gone will be the teams of 100% of either.

Having said this, I think it's OK hold public universities to a higher accountability and that can only speed up this process. The good people of Kansas allowed KSU to have a 100% foreign team that accomplished nothing. It's ok for the good people of Kansas to ask questions and require answers. That will accelerate some change for the better.

As I said in my entire post that one bad season for KSU is not indicative of their overall success. On a one year examination verses the last 10 last year is an aberration. Having a successful program full foreigners does not guarantee Americans will follow. Just ask the coach.

BTW the Big 12 is very, very competitive. Schools like Texas and Texas A&M for example have a much larger name recognition and attraction to American tennis players across the U.S. than a Kansas State. That's a fact. American tennis kids (many of the better ones) historically want to play tennis at Big Time U. or not at all. How many Big 12 quality players are their in the State of Kansas anyway? Certainly not enough for a full competitive roster at KSU and Kansas. Then throw in Wichita State and schools coming into the state to recruit and what do you have left?

Pusher · Sep 4, 2008

Serpententacle said:
Maybe "our" own kids should train as hard as the foreign kids and "our kids" will get the scholarships.

Blame the victim?

andfor · Sep 4, 2008

Pusher said:
Blame the victim?

Other than grades and language competence (when applicable) what restrictions are put on Americans going to University outside the U.S.?

AndrewD · Sep 4, 2008

ClarkC said:
Can you document this ridiculous assertion? I have re-read every post in this thread and do not find that the first thing everyone did was attack the foreign players themselves. Your assertion says a lot about you, your biases, and your bigotry.

Firstly, you're going to have to make a greater effort to read clearly. I shouldn't have to explain this but, when someone writes that "people's first response is to....", they are talking in general. If a person wrote that " the first response of people in this thread is to...." (the answer would be two, not none, as you claim) then they'd be dealing with a specific group - but that, obviously, wasn't the case.

Even if I hadn't written clearly, it should have been perfectly obvious to anyone exactly what I was referring to. That being the case (and assuming you don't have an axe to grind - do you?), after you had you first thought, 'I can't see any posts here that are attacking foreign players' you should have had the, logical, second one, 'he must be talking about something else, somewhere else, someone else'. Trouble is, you stopped after the first thought and decided to become unpleasant. I don't know why. All I do know is that it's not my fault you didn't want to read what I wrote as it was written and in the spirit in which it was written. That's your fault and you should apologise for it.

Now, that out of the road, why don't you have a look through all of the past threads devoted to this issue as well as the articles appearing in print and on-line. When you've done that, come back here and tell all of us that the first response of the majority(the people in the word "people's") is to blame the international players and not the system.

Then you can post an apology.

Strange though, that you would pick at the one part, instead of addressing the significant question.

Gus · Sep 4, 2008

andfor said:
As I said in my entire post that one bad season for KSU is not indicative of their overall success. On a one year examination verses the last 10 last year is an aberration. Having a successful program full foreigners does not guarantee Americans will follow. Just ask the coach.

BTW the Big 12 is very, very competitive. Schools like Texas and Texas A&M for example have a much larger name recognition and attraction to American tennis players across the U.S. than a Kansas State. That's a fact. American tennis kids (many of the better ones) historically want to play tennis at Big Time U. or not at all. How many Big 12 quality players are their in the State of Kansas anyway? Certainly not enough for a full competitive roster at KSU and Kansas. Then throw in Wichita State and schools coming into the state to recruit and what do you have left?

I didn't want to pick on one program in particular, the fact is that most schools on the women's side have a healthy balance between foreign and domestic players. I don't have a beef against foreign players, but the few programs that are lopsided one way or another in most cases probably do so by choice. As you said in an earlier post AD's and alumni expect their coaches to win. If an all american side fails to win, the question will be "why don't we have any foreign players to help us?," the logical flip side is when an all foreign side competes and fails then the fixed gaze of public scrutiny is also a reasonable consequence.

But since you called me out on KSU, a program I care nothing about, I spent a half hour on their website just to protect my online ego (what a waste). 1. KSU has been successful in both football and basketball on the national level. That qualifies it as a "Big Time U". 2. Last year was not an abberation. The coach has been there 22 years and has a 207-259 record, about a 44% win rate. Over the last five years they have had one winning season, 11-10 in 2006, and accumulated a 35-62 record (36%). They have qualified for the NCAA's three times in their entire history (64 of the just about 100 teams get in). Their best year was in 2003 when they advanced to the round of 16. 3. I don't know how many girls in Kansas can compete at the Big 12 level, but in 2003, their most successful year ever, their roster listed 2 of the 7 girls as being from.....KANSAS. Time to re-evaluate things in Manhatten (the one in KS).

andfor · Sep 5, 2008

Gus said:
I didn't want to pick on one program in particular, the fact is that most schools on the women's side have a healthy balance between foreign and domestic players. I don't have a beef against foreign players, but the few programs that are lopsided one way or another in most cases probably do so by choice. As you said in an earlier post AD's and alumni expect their coaches to win. If an all american side fails to win, the question will be "why don't we have any foreign players to help us?," the logical flip side is when an all foreign side competes and fails then the fixed gaze of public scrutiny is also a reasonable consequence.

But since you called me out on KSU, a program I care nothing about, I spent a half hour on their website just to protect my online ego (what a waste). 1. KSU has been successful in both football and basketball on the national level. That qualifies it as a "Big Time U". 2. Last year was not an abberation. The coach has been there 22 years and has a 207-259 record, about a 44% win rate. Over the last five years they have had one winning season, 11-10 in 2006, and accumulated a 35-62 record (36%). They have qualified for the NCAA's three times in their entire history (64 of the just about 100 teams get in). Their best year was in 2003 when they advanced to the round of 16. 3. I don't know how many girls in Kansas can compete at the Big 12 level, but in 2003, their most successful year ever, their roster listed 2 of the 7 girls as being from.....KANSAS. Time to re-evaluate things in Manhatten (the one in KS).

Your assessment of the success of the KSU womens tennis program is a little narrow.

1. What qualifies them for Bigtime U. is your opinion. I respect it but disagree. Texas, Vandy, A&M, Florida, Flordia State, Stanford, Cal, Harvard, Alabama, Notre Dame, UT Knoxville, UNC, Duke and I could list about 30 others are typically where kids with tennis playing backgrounds want to go to college whether they play tennis or not. Not Kansas State. That's my opinion. You have yours I have mine, we can disagree respectfully. 2. KSU womens tennis has been in the NCAA top 75 every year going back to 2000. That's 8 years and as far back as I could find on the rankings. Sorry to break it to you but W-L's alone at the highest level are not indicative of success. Scheduling teams that are also consistently in the Top 75 year in and year out has a lot to do with being ranked or not. Along the way in order to maintain a ranking wins over ranked teams are crucial, and KSU beats other top ranked teams every year. 3. KSU womens tennis have qualified 3 times in the history of their program under the same coach, the one you want to have reevaluated. Not bad by friends of the program who knew their losing ways before he got there. 4. Your assessment of their homegrown talent is a little misleading. Both parents of the local players are originally from outside the U.S. One the local players was actually born in Moscow Russia the others parents both served as professors at K-State.

ClarkC · Sep 5, 2008

AndrewD said:
Firstly, you're going to have to make a greater effort to read clearly. I shouldn't have to explain this but, when someone writes that "people's first response is to....", they are talking in general. If a person wrote that " the first response of people in this thread is to...." (the answer would be two, not none, as you claim) then they'd be dealing with a specific group - but that, obviously, wasn't the case.

Even if I hadn't written clearly, it should have been perfectly obvious to anyone exactly what I was referring to. That being the case (and assuming you don't have an axe to grind - do you?), after you had you first thought, 'I can't see any posts here that are attacking foreign players' you should have had the, logical, second one, 'he must be talking about something else, somewhere else, someone else'. Trouble is, you stopped after the first thought and decided to become unpleasant. I don't know why. All I do know is that it's not my fault you didn't want to read what I wrote as it was written and in the spirit in which it was written. That's your fault and you should apologise for it.

Now, that out of the road, why don't you have a look through all of the past threads devoted to this issue as well as the articles appearing in print and on-line. When you've done that, come back here and tell all of us that the first response of the majority(the people in the word "people's") is to blame the international players and not the system.

Then you can post an apology.

Strange though, that you would pick at the one part, instead of addressing the significant question.

Blah, blah, blah.

I am supposed to believe that this thread is that different from all other discussions?

Why don't you post links to the other threads where the MAJORITY of first responses was to attack the foreign players? Because they don't exist?

Tharnid · Sep 5, 2008

It is what is...I know when I was looking at schools D-I-II-III and NAIA it was interesting to see what the coaches would say. I will tell you most of them were honest about it...they needed to stay competitive. I talked to one coach at MVC school and he told me "I won't be able to offer you a scholarship, but you can walk on. I have brought in some foreign players to stay competitive within our league". This team went on to win the MVC and has remaines competitive in their conference. The coaches are expected to win and remain competitive within their conferences. I can tell you that we (an NAIA school) beat a local Div II school fourteen years ago...it wouldn't happen today as they are Div I and have brought in players that make them competitive in a low level conference. The school who always won our conference tournament had five/six foreign players including a 35 yr old from Germany. No one could touch them.

There are scholarships out there people...you just have to find them and as coaches want to remain competitive you will see more players from other countries. Who do you blame? The coaches...they are just doing their jobs.
You might not get that scholy at UVA/USC/Insert one of the major D-I programs, but you can find a place to call home.

Rehash/Update on foreign players

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

New User

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

New User

Hall of Fame

New User

Professional

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

New User

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

New User

Legend

Hall of Fame

New User

Legend

New User

Legend

Professional

Legend

Legend

New User

Legend

Hall of Fame

New User

Similar threads