USTA taking over USPTA ?

I received this from an oline magazine, Tennis Now, today.

USTA is taking over a teaching pro organization, USPTA?

Check out this link http://www.tennisnow.com/News/USTA-Seeks-To-Take-Over-Teaching-Pro-Organizations.aspx

What is your thought?
What effect will this be on junior tennis?
And .....what effect on tennis in the US?

The USPTA simply helps provide some standards of testing for teaching pros. I may be missing what the 'takeover' means? The author of that article did not provide any ramifications that would result.

CoachDad said:

The USPTA simply helps provide some standards of testing for teaching pros. I may be missing what the 'takeover' means? The author of that article did not provide any ramifications that would result.

Click to expand...

This is like the Post Office trying to take over the Teamsters union. There is a small relationship that functions just fine independent of one another. There is no need to join together unless you just want the other side to shut up.

If the taking over or merger occurs, can the USTA control or regulate "how tennis is taught" in this country?

For example, no regulation ball instruction for 10 and under in the US ?

Folks, I am as anti USTA as anyone but lets not chase flying saucers here. Tennis coaches teach for decades and decades, some are USPTA, some are not. Many clubs have foreign coaches. So the USTA's plan would be to get the USPTA, slowly train coaches over the next 50 years to gradually take over the way tennis is taught from all the existing coaches who will eventually retire? And send special enforcers to secretly make sure all coaches adhere to a certain teaching philosophy? Really?

There are 1000s of books and online resources for tennis coaches to learn whatever way they choose to teach despite of and in addition to any USPTA credentials they choose to pursue.

CoachDad said:

Folks, I am as anti USTA as anyone but lets not chase flying saucers here. Tennis coaches teach for decades and decades, some are USPTA, some are not. Many clubs have foreign coaches. So the USTA's plan would be to get the USPTA, slowly train coaches over the next 50 years to gradually take over the way tennis is taught from all the existing coaches who will eventually retire? And send special enforcers to secretly make sure all coaches adhere to a certain teaching philosophy? Really?

There are 1000s of books and online resources for tennis coaches to learn whatever way they choose to teach despite of and in addition to any USPTA credentials they choose to pursue.

Click to expand...

I am not anti- or pro-USTA. Just to exercise the brain. It has not even happened yet, the merging.

But would it be good for junior tennis development in this country (or not) if coaches are more on the same pages ??

Your opinion is as good as anyone's.

My opinion is that I would like the option to pick and choose.

Anyway the concept that all coaches in any sport would be required to coach and teach the same way would be less enforceable than Prohibition, I think.

10ismom said:

I am not anti- or pro-USTA. Just to exercise the brain. It has not even happened yet, the merging.

But would it be good for junior tennis development in this country (or not) if coaches are more on the same pages ??

Click to expand...

Don't think it would matter either way. We have not exactly dominated the top levels of tennis the past 15 years. So it couldn't hurt but probably is not the key to greater success either. The internet has ended any sort of dogma in tennis coaching, too many available sources of all different coaching philosophies available with a few mouse clicks.

As the United States Professional Teaching Association (USPTA) and its newly ordained Board of Directors move the organization in what they call a “new direction,” many insiders are convinced that the organization will soon be in the hands of the United States Tennis Association (USTA).

Industry insiders indicate that the firing of Tim Heckler, USPTA’s veteran CEO, was the latest in a series of events designed to weaken the organization by eliminating those that are willing to stand up for TENNIS even when it’s at odds with the USTA. While Heckler has always looked out for the best interests of teaching pros, a sentiment shared by four past presidents in their letter to the USPTA Board, the USTA appears to be seeking to expand its power and control over the teaching pro organization.

In most organizations, the CEO would be given the opportunity to help implement the board’s “new direction”. However, in this situation, the new USPTA Board has refused to explain what is meant by a “new direction” and has been unwilling to give Heckler the opportunity. This further reaffirms many insiders belief that this is a behind the scenes action driven by the USTA to take over the world’s oldest and largest association of teaching professionals with more than 15,000 members in order to ensure that one of the few remaining independent voices in the tennis industry is silenced.

Tennis participation continues to decline despite nearly $100 million invested in growing the game initiatives since 1995. Last year, the USTA spent over $8 million on Ten and Under Tennis (TAUT) and plans to spend another $8 million this year. Many are questioning the USTA’s effectiveness at increasing tennis participation and want to see some accountability.

The first vice president of the USTA, Dave Haggerty, indicates that the USTA is a slow-moving organization that can only focus on one major initiative at a time, and right now, that is 10 and Under Tennis. So, how could the USTA possible be able to oversee and manage the USPTA?

Currently, the USTA has approximately 700,000 members while our sport has approximately 5 million avid players (competing over 20 times per year) according to the Tennis Industry Association. So, more than 70% of play is outside the USTA’s jurisdiction.

It’s no secret that the USTA is highly political as volunteers compete for who gets seats in the presidents’ box at the US Open rather than what is in the best interest of TENNIS. The USTA fails to manage its own organization effectively and should not seek to take over other successful tennis organizations.

Do not take the idea of the upcoming USTA monopolization lightly as a former USPTA division president has indicated that some USPTA members want to fold under the USTA. If this were to happen, it would be a huge blow to the sport.

Many in the USPTA are making a final attempt to save the organization from the “new direction” at the upcoming April executive committee meeting in Houston, Texas. Four past presidents of the USPTA have written a letter to the membership seeking an explanation and a reinstatement of Tim as CEO. Many other leaders have voiced serious displeasure with the situation including Jim Loehr, Jack Groppel and USPTA Master Professional Jimmy Parker. Some teaching professionals have started a petition to renew Tim Heckler’s contract. Others have made it clear that if the USTA were to take over the USPTA, they would leave the organization immediately and form a new entity.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Above is the article. Tad confusing on who fired Heckler though.

What I had heard from someone on the inside, and quite frankly not sure what it means for juniors
is that the USTA doesn't like how the the pros are trained.
I don't really know why they care about everyone having the same standard teaching procedures ( not their players),
but that is what I heard.

floridatennisdude said:

This is like the Post Office trying to take over the Teamsters union. There is a small relationship that functions just fine independent of one another. There is no need to join together unless you just want the other side to shut up.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the Teamsters union just whack them?

This is a case of an old dinosaur taking over another old dinosaur.

I can't think of anything significant that the USPTA has accomplished.

Clintspin said:

This is a case of an old dinosaur taking over another old dinosaur.

I can't think of anything significant that the USPTA has accomplished.

Click to expand...

Agreed. If they said USTA might take over something that works like Little Mo or TRN....then I would be concerned. Take over the USPTA, knock yourself out, all yours.

The USPTA represents a commitment to the tennis coaching profession made up of professional coaches who pursue ongoing professional development. The certification program supports this professional development and establishes different qualification levels for coaches including their playing experience.

The members also benefit from a liability insurance policy made possible by the membership (as in human bodies) and the testing and professional development component of the organization as well as the membership dues. There are a few other nice benefits for members, but these are the most important. The USPTR is similar but with a different twist...geared to a standardized teaching method and attracting minorities.

Having said all that, no idea why the USTA would want to 'own' the USPTA. Unless they think it's relevant to get USPTA support for 10U tennis program.

I've suggested this in the past, and that I personally thought it would be a good idea. I haven't learned all that much from the USPTA, and my humble opinion is that the USTA should implement and have it's own certification process for teaching credentials in this country. The testing should be more rigorous, and I would be curious as to what the curriculum and standards would be. There are many certified professionals in this country that are clueless on developing juniors, but think they have it all down. That is part of the flaw of having an independent system, you will have those that excel because they choose to study and get better on their own, and you will have plenty that do their own thing and the development of junios suffers because of it. A country with this many resources simply shouldn't be struggling at any point in time.

They could also have different types of certifications, those more geared towards beginners, adults, tournament players etc. etc.

t135 said:

The USPTA represents a commitment to the tennis coaching profession made up of professional coaches who pursue ongoing professional development. The certification program supports this professional development and establishes different qualification levels for coaches including their playing experience.

The members also benefit from a liability insurance policy made possible by the membership (as in human bodies) and the testing and professional development component of the organization as well as the membership dues. There are a few other nice benefits for members, but these are the most important. The USPTR is similar but with a different twist...geared to a standardized teaching method and attracting minorities.

Having said all that, no idea why the USTA would want to 'own' the USPTA. Unless they think it's relevant to get USPTA support for 10U tennis program.

Click to expand...

Not really relevant these days. Tennis is global and the internet allows us to learn from all over the world. The USPTA does not serve that big a function anymore. I learned more in a few visits to Emilio Sanchez Vicario than any USPTA stuff.

I owned a large health club for 16 years....liability insurance for tennis pros and other instructors is a few hundred a year no matter USPTA or not. Thats not really much of a benefit.

Any tennis coach worth a dime should be spending their time on Tennis Resources and other internet resources, seminars featuring international coaches, etc. and not so much worrying about their USPTA certs. Tennis coaches need to focus on learning from the Spanish, French, Russian, Belgium, and other systems.

A Friend's kid just returned from a USTA PD Camp. I can say this the USTA has a major obstacle in implementing its 10U system. The instructors. Understand that the USTA has dug it self in and I would expect this move. Good or Bad if you don't control the validating authority for instruction how can you validate YOUR course of action.

As for Lil Mo, nice organization nice product but to use it as a measure of Junior Tennis is way off base.

seminoleG said:

A Friend's kid just returned from a USTA PD Camp. I can say this the USTA has a major obstacle in implementing its 10U system. The instructors. Understand that the USTA has dug it self in and I would expect this move. Good or Bad if you don't control the validating authority for instruction how can you validate YOUR course of action.

As for Lil Mo, nice organization nice product but to use it as a measure of Junior Tennis is way off base.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate further.

Overall sentiment was the execution of 10U (Towards PD) is hampered by the lack of but in OVERALL by the coaches, and Tennis Centers.

The current system isn't working (Developing Top players) so it must be the Coaches or the way they approach Coaching????

Too many Tournaments (travel days included) and not enough training.

If they (USTA) truly believe this then a move to control the USPTA would be a natural progression.

I'm not taking a side on this, but understand if this is true.

ChiefAce said:

I've suggested this in the past, and that I personally thought it would be a good idea. I haven't learned all that much from the USPTA, and my humble opinion is that the USTA should implement and have it's own certification process for teaching credentials in this country. The testing should be more rigorous, and I would be curious as to what the curriculum and standards would be. There are many certified professionals in this country that are clueless on developing juniors, but think they have it all down. That is part of the flaw of having an independent system, you will have those that excel because they choose to study and get better on their own, and you will have plenty that do their own thing and the development of junios suffers because of it. A country with this many resources simply shouldn't be struggling at any point in time.

They could also have different types of certifications, those more geared towards beginners, adults, tournament players etc. etc.

Click to expand...

Yup...of all organizations to fret about changes, put the USPTA at the bottom of the list. Its pretty lame and anemic for the most part. A new curriculum should include showing basic knowledge of coaching ideas from around the world and be updated frequently.

This is too funny, first we had previous threads say USTA can't coach its way out of a paper bag, never developed a single top 10 player, and now they are so good we want them to take over the USPTA. However, I think one reason they want to "control" USPTA is that Tim Heckler had always felt the USTA wants to take credit and students from his members, and that USTA PD does not want to work with top independent(non-USTA PD) coaches. Will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Bash and Crash said:

This is too funny, first we had previous threads say USTA can't coach its way out of a paper bag, never developed a single top 10 player, and now they are so good we want them to take over the USPTA. However, I think one reason they want to "control" USPTA is that Tim Heckler had always felt the USTA wants to take credit and students from his members, and that USTA PD does not want to work with top independent(non-USTA PD) coaches. Will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Click to expand...

Sounds nice in theory..... that there should be one standard of teaching.
But, what makes this country great, is that we are unique and creative and many of our top players in the past did not all play the same identical way.

Bash....I don't 'want' the USTA to take over the USPTA. I think it is irrelevant either way as neither is all that great at player development. Too many awful coaches with USPTA certs.

The best coaches are eager learners, always searching online, attending seminars, exploring international ideas, pushing what they know. They also study non tennis technical things such as nutrition, motivation, recovery, etc.

If they have a USTA, USPTA, both, none after their names I just do not think will matter. A parent should do a sex offender background check on a potential coach, watch his/her style, ask for their insurance rider, talk to other parents and decide if a coach is right for their kid. Relying on USPTA on their card is far down the list of things to worry about.

CoachDad said:

Bash....I don't 'want' the USTA to take over the USPTA. I think it is irrelevant either way as neither is all that great at player development. Too many awful coaches with USPTA certs.

The best coaches are eager learners, always searching online, attending seminars, exploring international ideas, pushing what they know. They also study non tennis technical things such as nutrition, motivation, recovery, etc.

If they have a USTA, USPTA, both, none after their names I just do not think will matter. A parent should do a sex offender background check on a potential coach, watch his/her style, ask for their insurance rider, talk to other parents and decide if a coach is right for their kid. Relying on USPTA on their card is far down the list of things to worry about.

Click to expand...

Totally agree, although I'm USPTA, usually need it to get a job at clubs, parents should always do their due diligence. As I've posted before, look at the good players and ask who their coach is. The good coaches don't need to approach kids at the park or tournies players know who they are.

Bash and Crash said:

Totally agree, although I'm USPTA, usually need it to get a job at clubs, parents should always do their due diligence. As I've posted before, look at the good players and ask who their coach is. The good coaches don't need to approach kids at the park or tournies players know who they are.

Click to expand...

Best pro I ever worked with was a brazillian former college all American that played pro for a few years and was a Grad Asst at a small college. I remember when I met him, I asked whether he was USTA or PTR affiliated. His response was, "What is that?"

He then proceeded to change my court positioning and point play strategy over the next few clinics. He didn't even use a cart and ball feed. He would just have a hand and pocket full of balls that he would rally in with the group. I don't know who taught him how to teach, but he quickly became the most popular pro in town.

Having said all that, no idea why the USTA would want to 'own' the USPTA. Unless they think it's relevant to get USPTA support for 10U tennis program.[/QUOTE]

You're kidding, right? Didn't they try a powerplay many years ago? This is SOP for the USTA. It's all about money and control. Or is it the other way around? A marvelous organization, not!

floridatennisdude said:

Best pro I ever worked with was a brazillian former college all American that played pro for a few years and was a Grad Asst at a small college. I remember when I met him, I asked whether he was USTA or PTR affiliated. His response was, "What is that?"

He then proceeded to change my court positioning and point play strategy over the next few clinics. He didn't even use a cart and ball feed. He would just have a hand and pocket full of balls that he would rally in with the group. I don't know who taught him how to teach, but he quickly became the most popular pro in town.

Click to expand...

. Teaching is a gift people are born with indeed. Great players don't always make great teachers. Most tennis teachers/coaches are more gifted in certain areas than in others (my gift was teaching technique). The value of a professional organization like USPTA is to provide a platform for tennis players who want to teach to become well rounded professionals. Used appropriately a smart individual can use the USPTA to fill in their weaknesses and have a networking system for professional development beyond what comes natural or easiest to them. The USPTA is a means to an end, not an end. And USPTA certification only means someone has made a commitment to a higher level of professionalism. It doesn't guarantee anything because in the end, people who teach and coach tennis are just that; people. And we are all different and unique.

Furthermore, not everyone is smart enough to take advantage of the opportunity, or even need that void filled in their tennis life. But it is shallow to criticize the USPTA because it doesn't fit your immediate need. Just turn around and maturely walk away. That's all you have to do. Go do your own thing, then let us know when you've produced some division 1 players or top 100 pros. I've done that and the USPTA was invaluable in my professional development. I did it myself, but the organization was helpful in the process.

But that's just me.

Probably only one main reason the USTA wants the USPTA.
Getting more people to join and play USTA tournaments, leagues, etc
= more $$ ---err, I meant, they want to grow the sport of tennis in the U.S.

USPTA / PTR certification means as much as the individual puts into it. Other than that it's just an excuse to have a comma after your name on a business card.

If the USPTA is taken over by the USTA it will not change what I do in the lest. I will still work hard on improving my work and effectiveness with equally hard-work.

-SF

SFrazeur said:

USPTA / PTR certification means as much as the individual puts into it. Other than that it's just an excuse to have a comma after your name on a business card.

If the USPTA is taken over by the USTA it will not change what I do in the lest. I will still work hard on improving my work and effectiveness with equally hard-work.

-SF

Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

SFrazeur said:

USPTA / PTR certification means as much as the individual puts into it. Other than that it's just an excuse to have a comma after your name on a business card.

If the USPTA is taken over by the USTA it will not change what I do in the lest. I will still work hard on improving my work and effectiveness with equally hard-work.

-SF

Click to expand...

Well said man!

The CEO of the USTA Kurt Kamperman just answered this question directly:
http://tennisinsiders.com/?post_type=featured_story&p=407

bdudaday said:

The CEO of the USTA Kurt Kamperman just answered this question directly:
http://tennisinsiders.com/?post_type=featured_story&p=407

Click to expand...

It's down about 3/4 of the way down the page.

bdudaday said:

It's down about 3/4 of the way down the page.

Click to expand...

For the lazy...

Kamperman: The USTA taking over the USPTA is a conspiracy theory that’s been playing longer than Phantom of the Opera has been on Broadway. As Jon Vegosen and Gordon Smith recently wrote to the USPTA Executive Committee, if the USTA wanted to get into the business of certifying teaching pros, we could do so without taking over any teaching organization. Our preference has always been to work with the existing organizations. It’s funny how the USTA gets criticized from both sides on most tennis issues. People want to blame the USTA for every challenge facing our sport – creating more players, developing American champions, saving college tennis, etc., etc. At the same time, we also get criticized for supposedly trying to take over everything in tennis, i.e. the USPTA. No organization, including the USTA is perfect, and we are always striving to do things better. That said, from my viewpoint, the USTA is an organization where virtually all of our volunteers and staff are focused on our mission: to promote and develop the growth of tennis. I believe that everyone involved in the USTA is trying to do just that. We are not the evil empire some people make us out to be.

bdudaday said:

The CEO of the USTA Kurt Kamperman just answered this question directly:
http://tennisinsiders.com/?post_type=featured_story&p=407

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting. Lot of information in this interview..

Here is the response for college tennis:
( It is amazing that the USTA does not have "any influence at all with the NCAA on this issue")

Question:
The best tennis players in the US are starting as early as 2 and 3 years of age.
Their parents are spending 100′s of 1000′s of dollars on the sport and in my humble opinion tennis players are by far and away the most skilled at their sport of any athletes in any sport. But, you can be the #1 boy in the US and not get a full college scholarship to the school you want to go to…or even the top 5 schools you want to go to! You can be a top 30 US junior player and not get a whiff of playtime. Is this fair?

Answer:
Kamperman: The USTA would love to see more US players on college teams. But again, this is an NCAA issue and can only be changed by the member institutions themselves. The member institutions that offer tennis must come together to make this happen. We’ve looked at this issue for decades now with the ITA and concluded that USTA does not have any influence at all with the NCAA on this issue. We’ve chosen to spend our time and money on saving varsity programs and creating USTA Tennis on Campus. USTA Tennis on Campus has been a huge success by providing opportunities for college students to compete in tennis on club teams. Obviously, playing on a club team is not a substitute for collegiate varsity tennis or the varsity tennis experience, but we do have over 35,000college students playing. The USTA Collegiate Committee has a thorough FAQ regarding the international player issue. Those who want to know more about this issue should check out the FAQ because it can help clear up some misconceptions:

tennis5 said:

Thanks for posting. Lot of information in this interview..

Here is the response for college tennis:
( It is amazing that the USTA does not have "any influence at all with the NCAA on this issue")

Question:
The best tennis players in the US are starting as early as 2 and 3 years of age.
Their parents are spending 100′s of 1000′s of dollars on the sport and in my humble opinion tennis players are by far and away the most skilled at their sport of any athletes in any sport. But, you can be the #1 boy in the US and not get a full college scholarship to the school you want to go to…or even the top 5 schools you want to go to! You can be a top 30 US junior player and not get a whiff of playtime. Is this fair?

Answer:
Kamperman: The USTA would love to see more US players on college teams. But again, this is an NCAA issue and can only be changed by the member institutions themselves. The member institutions that offer tennis must come together to make this happen. We’ve looked at this issue for decades now with the ITA and concluded that USTA does not have any influence at all with the NCAA on this issue. We’ve chosen to spend our time and money on saving varsity programs and creating USTA Tennis on Campus. USTA Tennis on Campus has been a huge success by providing opportunities for college students to compete in tennis on club teams. Obviously, playing on a club team is not a substitute for collegiate varsity tennis or the varsity tennis experience, but we do have over 35,000college students playing. The USTA Collegiate Committee has a thorough FAQ regarding the international player issue. Those who want to know more about this issue should check out the FAQ because it can help clear up some misconceptions:

Click to expand...

BTW. That's a stupid question with an equally dim answer. There are no full scholarships being given out to boys because DI only has 4.5 scholarships max to work with for men's tennis. Girls get full scholarships at programs that have 8 scholarships available. What boy in the US Top 30 does not get a whiff of playtime?

Is there a reason you left out that link Kamperman references at the end of his quote?

Q: The best tennis players in the US are starting as early as 2 and 3 years of age. Their parents are spending 100′s of 1000′s of dollars on the sport and in my humble opinion tennis players are by far and away the most skilled at their sport of any athletes in any sport. But, you can be the #1 boy in the US and not get a full college scholarship to the school you want to go to…or even the top 5 schools you want to go to! You can be a top 30 US junior player and not get a whiff of playtime. Is this fair?

A: Kamperman: The USTA would love to see more US players on college teams. But again, this is an NCAA issue and can only be changed by the member institutions themselves. The member institutions that offer tennis must come together to make this happen. We’ve looked at this issue for decades now with the ITA and concluded that USTA does not have any influence at all with the NCAA on this issue. We’ve chosen to spend our time and money on saving varsity programs and creating USTA Tennis on Campus. USTA Tennis on Campus has been a huge success by providing opportunities for college students to compete in tennis on club teams. Obviously, playing on a club team is not a substitute for collegiate varsity tennis or the varsity tennis experience, but we do have over 35,000college students playing. The USTA Collegiate Committee has a thorough FAQ regarding the international player issue. Those who want to know more about this issue should check out the FAQ because it can help clear up some misconceptions: http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/USTA_Intl_SA_FAQ_FINAL_CLEAN.pdf

Well this must be embarrassing for the theorists on here. I'm sure this doesn't stop the usta from being a clueless evil tennis empire though.

One day, in the far but glorious future, Americans will dominate tennis. the USTA will ensure that no other country exists aside from the US. No human beings exist aside from Americans. There will be only one sport in the US.

That day of complete tennis domination I will not be alive to enjoy but I know that my progeny will make it happen.

God bless the USTA and no other organizations

10ismom said:

I received this from an oline magazine, Tennis Now, today.

USTA is taking over a teaching pro organization, USPTA?

Check out this link http://www.tennisnow.com/News/USTA-Seeks-To-Take-Over-Teaching-Pro-Organizations.aspx

What is your thought?
What effect will this be on junior tennis?
And .....what effect on tennis in the US?

Click to expand...

No matter what they do, I see zero negative impact on junior tennis. Great coaches are great coaches regardless of their professional affiliations.

I'd love to see it happen though as USPTA has had some leadership challenges in recent years.

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

tball2day said:

That was not a dim question, it is a valid concern. andfor, while you post some good useful answers to many issues, I really think you are over your head about the college recruiting process and the reality for the players. There is always at least a single statement in your posts attacking an idea or another poster that indicates you are not involved nor have been in getting a player in the college system. A lot of "secrets" or realities come out then and some posts accurately reflect those issues. imo overall, you seem out of touch on this issue.

Click to expand...

I have a kid who did not receive offers (plural) from a couple of top choice D1 schools, both State and private. Each of these schools has foreigners on the roster. I am not sure if there was a causal connection between these two facts and don't really care.

This kid also received offers (plural) from other fine D1 State and private schools. These schools also have foreigners on the roster.

So does that give me standing to comment?

I think it was pretty dim to ask why the #1 US boy can not get a full scholarship to the school he wants to go to, or even the top 5 schools he wants to go to

I think it was pretty dim to wonder why a kid can be a top-30 US junior player and not get a whiff of playing time in college.

I think the person who asked these questions.....and anyone who thinks they are spot-on........is out of touch.

Name calling is counter-productive to moving forward. I wish we could all just get all long.

Misterbill said:

I have a kid who did not receive offers (plural) from a couple of top choice D1 schools, both State and private. Each of these schools has foreigners on the roster. I am not sure if there was a causal connection between these two facts and don't really care.

This kid also received offers (plural) from other fine D1 State and private schools. These schools also have foreigners on the roster.

So does that give me standing to comment?

I think it was pretty dim to ask why the #1 US boy can not get a full scholarship to the school he wants to go to, or even the top 5 schools he wants to go to

I think it was pretty dim to wonder why a kid can be a top-30 US junior player and not get a whiff of playing time in college.

I think the person who asked these questions.....and anyone who thinks they are spot-on........is out of touch.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding??? You do realize guys only have 4.5 scholarships to divide amongst 6-8 guys, very few are getting full rides, American or other.
#1 US Boy will be able to go wherever they want, so not a valid argument
Top 30 player not sniffing playing time ???? Top 30 will be able to play most anywhere, now if they are getting playing time could it not be because they have bad work ethic, poor attitude?

Now if it is same scenario but female most schools give full rides to 6-8 players so a Top 100 female will get a full ride, maybe not to Big Time U, but close if they open their eyes and look.

College coaches would prefer to have American players but if Amercians do not consider them what should they do? Fill scholarships with sub-par players because they have too.

JLyon said:

Are you kidding??? You do realize guys only have 4.5 scholarships to divide amongst 6-8 guys, very few are getting full rides, American or other.
#1 US Boy will be able to go wherever they want, so not a valid argument
Top 30 player not sniffing playing time ???? Top 30 will be able to play most anywhere, now if they are getting playing time could it not be because they have bad work ethic, poor attitude?

Now if it is same scenario but female most schools give full rides to 6-8 players so a Top 100 female will get a full ride, maybe not to Big Time U, but close if they open their eyes and look.

College coaches would prefer to have American players but if Amercians do not consider them what should they do? Fill scholarships with sub-par players because they have too.

Click to expand...

No, I am not kidding. I think those questions were dim. What's your issue? You think those questions are legit? Are you kidding????????

What is there about my post you do not understand?

If you think anyone is dim for asking why the #1 boy can not get a full scholy, quote up the post that thought the question was legit. If you think anyone is dim for asking why top 30 juniors can't get a whiff of playing time in college, quote up the post that thought the question was legit. And while you're at it, you can give them your red thumbs down.

PS. Kinda patronizing to tell us boys have 4.5 and girls get 8 fulls (if the school is fully-funded)...........I think the Board is beyond basics like that, but thanks anyway

JLyon said:

Are you kidding??? You do realize guys only have 4.5 scholarships to divide amongst 6-8 guys, very few are getting full rides, American or other.
#1 US Boy will be able to go wherever they want, so not a valid argument
Top 30 player not sniffing playing time ???? Top 30 will be able to play most anywhere, now if they are getting playing time could it not be because they have bad work ethic, poor attitude?

Now if it is same scenario but female most schools give full rides to 6-8 players so a Top 100 female will get a full ride, maybe not to Big Time U, but close if they open their eyes and look.

College coaches would prefer to have American players but if Amercians do not consider them what should they do? Fill scholarships with sub-par players because they have too.

Click to expand...

See my prior post

Hmm a little research shows the #30 recruit from 2011 as a freshmen was playing #5 at an ACC school, #1 recruit playing at UCLA, #50 recruit played #1 at A-10 School. #75 Recruit playing #3 at ACC school. All playing as Freshmen

So your discussion on Top 30 not getting playing time is bunk.

JLyon said:

Hmm a little research shows the #30 recruit from 2011 as a freshmen was playing #5 at an ACC school, #1 recruit playing at UCLA, #50 recruit played #1 at A-10 School. #75 Recruit playing #3 at ACC school. All playing as Freshmen

So your discussion on Top 30 not getting playing time is bunk.

Click to expand...

You have a serious reading comprehension problem.

I do not have a discussion on Top 30 not getting playing time. I said someone else's question that asserted that point was dim.....and that person and anyone who agrees with him is out-of-touch. See post #40.

You are agreeing with me, and you don't realize it!!!!!!!

Or maybe you are just trolling the thread and haven't read it.

It is really funny to see you say that people who you agree with are posting bunk.

My laugh of the day!

Athletic scholarships at public American colleges and universities should be exclusively for tax paying Americans. It's as simple as that. The USA doesn't need to educate foreign students for free because of athletic ability. American coaches recruit those players to win more, and that's it. I coached college tennis and did exactly the same thing. And so did all the other coaches. It's a quick easy way to get compete for national championships against other teams who recruit foreign players.

t135 said:

Athletic scholarships at public American colleges and universities should be exclusively for tax paying Americans. It's as simple as that. The USA doesn't need to educate foreign students for free because of athletic ability. American coaches recruit those players to win more, and that's it. I coached college tennis and did exactly the same thing. And so did all the other coaches. It's a quick easy way to get compete for national championships against other teams who recruit foreign players.

Click to expand...

Why would you restrict it only to athletes?

t135 said:

Athletic scholarships at public American colleges and universities should be exclusively for tax paying Americans. It's as simple as that......

Click to expand...

I agree with Chalk's point in the previous post.

In addition, I don't understand what taxes have to do with it. If I am wrong and taxes are relevant, should kids with families who pay a lot of taxes get preferences for scholarships over kids from families who pay less tax?

What about the estimated 50% of Americans who pay no federal income tax. No scholys for you?

What about the kids from states with no state income tax. They pay sales taxes but so do foreigners who live in those states. No State U scholys for them either.....or foreigners who reside in those states are ok?

I really think the tax argument is kinda lame.

t135 said:

Athletic scholarships at public American colleges and universities should be exclusively for tax paying Americans. It's as simple as that........

Click to expand...

Yes, and for private schools who choose to still recruit internationally they would lose all federal and state funding they may be receiving. Or, create separate divisions for public and private colleges on the NCAA level and have different rules for each. Never let public and private schools compete again. With the internationals at private schools it would be so unfair.

Creating new divisions and restricting funding are both viable solutions that would very, very easily be passed by the NCAA and college presidents. If that does not work I'm sure either the state legislatures, governors and the U.S. Congress would gladly get involved. The U.S. Supreme court is another easy path, I'm surprised they have not been involved earlier. Hmmmm, my memory is a little fuzzy, I think the courts may have weighed in back in the 70's, oh well...........

Conversely, the U.S. could produce more tennis playing kids who want to play college tennis and also improve their level of play. Nah..........stupid idea, have to work and train to hard. The entitlement idea or changing the entire systems to conform to the American level of play and dumb down the system is much better.