Foreigners in College Tennis

andfor said:

Try to discredit it all you want. More proof then the "what I noticed" that goes on here all the time on this subject.

Since you have nothing to refute it, I'll say the numbers are likely similar until proven otherwise.

Click to expand...

It is in black and white..... 2006/2007.

It is 2012 now.

How could the numbers be similar when the foreign percentages have been increasing every year?

I am sorry that the USTA doesn't feel this is a relevant topic to pull together some new numbers,

but I am not sure we can debate old information unless you wanted to do a study that showed the yearly increase, so it was relevant.

andfor said:

How does the document show that kids ranked below 300 have little chance? Break that down for us?

Did a little looking and it looks like players around ranked 1000 are finding places to play. Class of 2012 http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/list.asp?id=1125&order=rank&page=10. Class of 2011 http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/list.asp?id=1115&order=rank&page=10 Since I won't name the kids you have to look a little around the number 1000.

Click to expand...

Finding places to play does not mean they got a scholarship. Go to page 4 and you will see have of them say Div III. That means no athletic scholarship. This could mean a lot of things though, they might have been able to get a scholarship from a DVI II school and preferred to pay the money to go to a DIV II, or maybe they got an academic scholarship to DIII. I don't think you can tell with the data that is there.

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

gameboy said:

That depends. How many of the American players from USC, Stanford, and UCLA outside the top 20 ranking nationally (for their entry year)?

Click to expand...

No hard data available at my fingertips, but almost certainlly the clear majority of them. Of the top 20 girls this year, only 3 committed to pac 12 schools. So of the Americans kids on those team, no more than 12 were probably inside the top 20.

This year, Cal, Arizona State, Arizona, and Stanford, all teams that beat Udub regularly, had no problems offering scholarship to girls well outside the top 20.

Udub however couldn't seem to attract any girls in the top 100. Wonder which part of the world next years freshman's class is coming from.

Sorry, the empirical data is not supporting the notion that "better kids" are getting the scholarships. I actually think there is an "expert from afar" bias situation going on here. College tennis coaches don't use sabermetrics and seemed to be biased in favor of foreign players becuase "everybody(who'se smart) knows" they're better. Looked, they lived at an Academy ! They have a sophisticated accent! Better yet, there 20 and I don't like to deal with whining 18 year olds!

andfor said:

How does the document show that kids ranked below 300 have little chance? Break that down for us?

Did a little looking and it looks like players around ranked 1000 are finding places to play. Class of 2012 http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/list.asp?id=1125&order=rank&page=10. Class of 2011 http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/list.asp?id=1115&order=rank&page=10 Since I won't name the kids you have to look a little around the number 1000.

Click to expand...

Those aren't necessarily scholarship spots. Hard to tell. Here's a nice simple article everybody might like to see on college tennis prospects. Scholarship money seems limited to a pretty high rank even at Div III.

http://longislandtennismagazine.com...-path-your-junior-ranking-might-take-you-any-


The point is that there are roughly 300,000 (from USTA stats) US high school varsity tennis players each year. If only the top elite 3% deserve college tennis scholarships that would make 9,000 US teens who love tennis and put a lot of time and effort into it. Surely many would like to get a college tennis scholarship. The vast majority won't get one. Freeing up foreign spots would help these students and their families out.

rufus_smith said:

Those aren't necessarily scholarship spots. Hard to tell. Here's a nice simple article everybody might like to see on college tennis prospects. Scholarship money seems limited to a pretty high rank even at Div III.

http://longislandtennismagazine.com...-path-your-junior-ranking-might-take-you-any-


The point is that there are roughly 300,000 (from USTA stats) US high school varsity tennis players each year. If only the top elite 3% deserve college tennis scholarships that would make 9,000 US teens who love tennis and put a lot of time and effort into it. Surely many would like to get a college tennis scholarship. The vast majority won't get one. Freeing up foreign spots would help these students and their families out.

Click to expand...

I was trying to provide a can-do example that there's kids ranked around 1000 nationally finding places to play. Granted, we don't know what type of tennis scholarship money has or has not been awarded. Such a sad story for those who choose to go the DIII route and pay their own way. I feel for them.

You're numbers are skewed. Of the 300,000 they are not all graduating every year. Is college tennis really supposed to be there for the 9000th best player? What ever happened to inter-murals? What's next, no cut college tennis? Come on.

It is the job of the USTA to take membership money from not rich people and spend the millions on a few rich kids in the hopes that these rich kids will one day become multimillionaires.

It the the job of American universities to give free education to rich kids who are not good enough to make a career on the tour.

We have to stop pandering to the poor and the middle class and focus on helping the rich.

This is America not some communist, fascist, anarchist resort that Obama would have wanted. Remain true to our founding father.

We, the rich slave owning white Christian men, with inalienable rights to ever richer lives, unfettered liberties, and hedonistic pursuit of our happiness (at the expense of others) ecretera ecretera.

tennis5 said:

First, I struggle with the concept that Foreign competition helps Americans play better tennis.

If a team is 100% comprised of foreigners, how does that help Americans?

Or if the team has 2 Americans and the rest are foreigners, how does that help the other Americans who didn't make the team?


I also wrestle with this question, is college tennis for the student-athlete or is for a junior to work on their pro aspirations.

The USTA until recently changed their stance when Pat admitted to making a mistake, not a big mistake mind you, but a "little mistake".

"We in the USTA maybe made a little mistake in pushing some of our junior prospects to go straight to the pros in the past," McEnroe says.

So, while I do believe the USTA could exert some pressure, for example, lobby the NCAA for some type of cap ( 2 foreigners per team),

I don't think they consider that in their best interest in terms of getting an American to the finals of the US Open.

The USTA wants the foreign competition here to help the few kids, say ten kids, that will break into the top 100.

So, hundreds of kids in each grade will lose spots to foreigners each year, so that a few kids can realize their pro aspiration.

When did college tennis become the training ground for becoming a pro?

And the fact that the word college is in front of the word tennis, isn't the point of going to college to get an education?

Now, some of you on this board are under the impression that all the US kids have to do is get better......

"Get better, play better....."

But, we don't have the support of the USTA, and quite frankly, after the new junior changes that were put through for 2014

where the next crop of young kids will play only 2 Super Nats for the entire year,

I would say the USTA is severely handicapping the rest of the junior population here in this country...

( excluding the USTA kids who will be able to play in the other 2 Super Nats - 16 to 32 draw).

Also, many of the ITFs seemed to have disappear too in this country? Makes it hard to get better without the competition to play.

If American juniors want to really get better, they will have to move to Europe where the land of tennis opportunity and many tournaments await.

Then, they come back to America and get the college tennis spots.

Click to expand...

gameboy said:

I am hoping that tennis will help her get into a college of her choice, but I have no expectations that she is going to get a scholarship for it. Nor do I want one, as she has very high academic achievements so far and she has a realistic chance of getting into an Ivy League school or local top public universities with full scholarship (academic, not athletic).

Click to expand...

The way things are going when your daughter graduates HS the Ivy League tennis teams may be 50% foreign. And good luck getting there on academic merit only. She may be able to get a full academic scholarship at the local top public university but she will not be able to play on the varsity team there. Maybe because in high school your daughter after practice will be doing home work until 2am every day. So she may find it difficult to compete against these Eastern Europeans who did not go to school at all.

andfor said:

Unfortunately many of those who are adamantly opposed to internationals playing college sports choose only to see it their way. I'm for Americans improving and playing up to the level of play as opposed to bringing the level of play down to meet the needs of those players who are want to play somewhere they are simply not qualified.

Click to expand...

andfor said:

Unfortunately many of those who are adamantly opposed to internationals playing college sports choose only to see it their way. I'm for Americans improving and playing up to the level of play as opposed to bringing the level of play down to meet the needs of those players who are want to play somewhere they are simply not qualified.

Click to expand...

I could rewrite this "Unfortunately many of those who are adamantly opposed to any restrictions oninternationals playing college sports choose only to see it their way. I'm for Americans improving and playing up to the level of play as opposed to bringing the level of play down to meet the needs of those players who are want to play somewhere they are simply not qualified.

One of the things that the opponents of restrictions on college scholarships for foreigners always seem to do is throw our red herrings and misstate our arguments. I don't think I have seen one commentator in support of eliminating all foreigners or all foreign scholarships from colleges tennis, and if there is someone, they certainly don't represent the view of the vast majority. The issue is that now more than 50% of DIV I women's scholarships are now being awarded to non-Americans. All we wont are reasonable limits.

You response tends to be well, they can get a scholarship to East Armpit U if they're half way decent so they have no right to complain. That's wrong becuase these kids aren't just going to college to play tennis, there going to get an education, and these DIV 1 BCS scholarship were mandated by law and should be available for them to compete for, but it clear some college coaches(through there own word) don't even consider them.

You always asking pro-limiters to back up there claims while making unsubstantiated claims that the foreigners get the scholarship because they're better, that by limiting we would bring down the levle of play, but this is an assertion you have no chance of proving. You don't have any quantifiable data to support this, becuase you can't. For the majority of these foreign scholarship awardees, there are no tennis recruiting ranking,no USTA rankings, not enough tournament results where you can compare these kids to the US kids. Scholarship awards are generally made on the coaches qualitative analysis of their videotape, etc, and as I said previously, there seems to be anti-american bias at work here. I mean, everybody knows the US has lost it lead in tennis, right ? We haven't had a champion since Sampras, these foreign kids got to be better, all the American kids want to do is play video games....

dennis10is said:

It is the job of the USTA to take membership money from not rich people and spend the millions on a few rich kids in the hopes that these rich kids will one day become multimillionaires.

It the the job of American universities to give free education to rich kids who are not good enough to make a career on the tour.

We have to stop pandering to the poor and the middle class and focus on helping the rich.

This is America not some communist, fascist, anarchist resort that Obama would have wanted. Remain true to our founding father.

We, the rich slave owning white Christian men, with inalienable rights to ever richer lives, unfettered liberties, and hedonistic pursuit of our happiness (at the expense of others) ecretera ecretera.

Click to expand...

Ah Dennis, can always count on you for some insightful comment. Just one question for you : do you get internet access in your tent or do you have to leave your OWS rally to post ?

gameboy said:

Why do you believe that universities care about helping Americans play better tennis?

Click to expand...

Gameboy - I saw your picture today - it was in a dictionary, right next to the word cynical. I feel like I am always being accused of having ulterior motives, like we are clansmen just trying to keep tennis pure or something. But whats your motivation for your unbridled defense of the status quo ? I'm getting kind of tired of being asked what my hidden agenda is when I think I have been pretty straight forward. Your agenda seems to be everything is just honkey-dorey, don't change anything. So let me ask you, what's the problem, conceptually, with reasonable limits on internationals in colleges Tennis ? What's the problem with holding our coaches to, higher standing then just winning or losing ? Try not to be cynical.

The problem with limits is that the NCAA has been given legal advice that this would constitute discrimination. If anyone on the Board hasn't seen the link yet, which has been posted many multiples of times, let me know and I will try to find it again.

Holding coaches to a "higher standing" (standard?) than winning or losing works for me in theory. Implementing and enforcing this in practice is a different story. I nominate Aloha as Commissioner for Higher Standards than Winning or Losing in College Sports.

Sincerely, based just on the posts here, I think he would be best qualified to get something done!

Alohajrtennis said:

Gameboy - I saw your picture today - it was in a dictionary, right next to the word cynical. I feel like I am always being accused of having ulterior motives, like we are clansmen just trying to keep tennis pure or something. But whats your motivation for your unbridled defense of the status quo ? I'm getting kind of tired of being asked what my hidden agenda is when I think I have been pretty straight forward. Your agenda seems to be everything is just honkey-dorey, don't change anything. So let me ask you, what's the problem, conceptually, with reasonable limits on internationals in colleges Tennis ? What's the problem with holding our coaches to, higher standing then just winning or losing ? Try not to be cynical.

Click to expand...

Without trying to be cynical, I'll take a stab...

My beef is that in America, due to our democratic ways, people see things they don't like and try to create rules to help themselves. This is the perfect example. People see something as insignificant (big picture) as a college tennis roster and they want rules to limit or eliminate the people that are being rewarded for their skills.

Rather than spend their time and energy improving their skills, the mentality becomes "change the rules so I can get my piece of the pie". But, who says it is your pie to be gotten? If you have the skills it takes, you'll get rewarded. But people don't see it that way. They see it as, "I'm pretty good amongst my competition so I deserve to get to play at the next level". Then, they gripe when they are told that they actually aren't that good and their competition wasn't either. And most never go and compete internationally because...they aren't good enough to have ever compete at that level.

I don't deny that finances come into the equation. This is an ungodly expensive sport to play, train for, travel for, and compete at the highest levels. We are talking 150k-200k per year to do the international itf circuit. Folks don't have the cash laying around to take that gamble which could creep into 7 figure territory over time. There is not enough sponsorship availability from the USTA or corporate partners to back as many players as other countries do. We are busy doing that with other sports like football and basketball.

Regardless, the cream always rises to the top. If a player has what it takes in their brain, in their heart, and in their body...they will rise up. But the fact is that very few have it and they are competing for a select few spots against others that do. Change the rules to favor the weak and punish the strong? That isn't what happens in a capitalist society.

Flack jacket being put on....now.

If the NJCAA (National Junior College Athletic Association) has the power to limit the amount of International players, then the NCAA could do it if they wanted to. The NCAA could care less about all sports other than men's football and basketball, because those are the only ones with huge TV contracts.

The only thing that limiting the amount of players on a team would do is make it more competitive among more teams. Those players are still going to come, they would just be more spread out, which would help the game.

There are really 3 levels of DI tennis; the top 10, then next 15 and then the rest. Why not even them out?

TennisFan2Day said:

If the NJCAA (National Junior College Athletic Association) has the power to limit the amount of International players, then the NCAA could do it if they wanted to. The NCAA could care less about all sports other than men's football and basketball, because those are the only ones with huge TV contracts.

The only thing that limiting the amount of players on a team would do is make it more competitive among more teams. Those players are still going to come, they would just be more spread out, which would help the game.

There are really 3 levels of DI tennis; the top 10, then next 15 and then the rest. Why not even them out?

Click to expand...

That is a great idea!
If foriegn players are spreading out more...then coaches will have to COACH players more in order to keep their winning records.

Hopefully, college coaches will then have more fulfilling career of real "coaching".

Agreed with Mr.Bill, I will also nominate AlohaTennis to get things done...though I know Mr.Bill did not quite mean it.

10ismom said:

Agreed with Mr.Bill, I will also nominate AlohaTennis to get things done...though I know Mr.Bill did not quite mean it.

Click to expand...

Well, that was pretty snarky......and wrong. I did mean it.

Getting back to TennisFan's previous post, I cannot speak with any authority about the possible legal distinctions between the ability of the NCAA and NJCAA to limit athletic scholarships for foreigners. Is it because many NJCAA schools are community colleges with community-based missions? If anyone out there can advise about the legal distinctions, if any, grateful

Alohajrtennis said:

Sorry, the empirical data is not supporting the notion that "better kids" are getting the scholarships. I actually think there is an "expert from afar" bias situation going on here. College tennis coaches don't use sabermetrics and seemed to be biased in favor of foreign players becuase "everybody(who'se smart) knows" they're better. Looked, they lived at an Academy ! They have a sophisticated accent! Better yet, there 20 and I don't like to deal with whining 18 year olds!

Click to expand...

I don't know about that.

Looking at the UW roster, it looks like the American freshman that they have (Kimiko) was ranked outside top 25, so the coach saying don't even bother if you are not top 20 seems to be just a hyperbole.

And looking further, Kimiko's first year results are pretty much in line with lower foreign players that the coach recruited. The sample size is quite small, but it looks like UW coach know which level the foreign players are.

Also, looking at USC, UCLA, and Stanford rosters, almost every girl was a top 5 player in their section. That would make them all top 30 to 40 players at least. I am sure those girls were also recruited by UW.

Alohajrtennis said:

Gameboy - I saw your picture today - it was in a dictionary, right next to the word cynical. I feel like I am always being accused of having ulterior motives, like we are clansmen just trying to keep tennis pure or something. But whats your motivation for your unbridled defense of the status quo ? I'm getting kind of tired of being asked what my hidden agenda is when I think I have been pretty straight forward. Your agenda seems to be everything is just honkey-dorey, don't change anything. So let me ask you, what's the problem, conceptually, with reasonable limits on internationals in colleges Tennis ? What's the problem with holding our coaches to, higher standing then just winning or losing ? Try not to be cynical.

Click to expand...

I believe most people reading this thread would have a good idea of who is the cynical person and I don't think it is me... just sayin'.

I am not defending anything. Like I said before, I have no dog in the fight. I am just trying to provide a realistic perspective on things not colored by your own personal situation.

Almost all NCAA coaches are held to the same standard:

1. You must win
2. You must not embarrass the university

That is about it. You get a lot of leeway with #2, if you excel with #1 (see: Pitino), but your number one job is to win. They will only develop lesser players if it helps them achieve #1. If not, they won't. That is not being cynical, that is just being realistic.

American tennis players have two options;

1. Get better and compete better against foreign players
2. Don't expect scholarships at your dream schools

Expecting to rig the system to make it easier for you is just not going to get anywhere.

P.S. 300,000 tennis players in high school seems awfully high as there are only about 250,000 high school seniors playing football (and high school football teams have 50+ kids on their roster vs 10 or so on the tennis teams).

gameboy said:

Almost all NCAA coaches are held to the same standard:

1. You must win
2. You must not embarrass the university

).

Click to expand...

How do you explain coaches that have been at the same school for 10-30 years with occasional conference titles?

Alohajrtennis said:

This year, Cal, Arizona State, Arizona, and Stanford, all teams that beat Udub regularly, had no problems offering scholarship to girls well outside the top 20.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Typical error that has been corrected 1000 times in these stupid discussions. Stanford received two verbal commitments in this recruiting class. Hardebeck is ranked #1. The 5-star is obviously a walk-on. Notice on her TRN page, where she lists Stanford as "Verbal", the spaces under "Offered" and "Signed NLI" are left blank. That implies pretty strongly that she was not offered a scholarship, and therefore she did not sign a National Letter of Intent, which you do only when there is a financial commitment.

floridatennisdude said:

Without trying to be cynical, I'll take a stab...

My beef is that in America, due to our democratic ways, people see things they don't like and try to create rules to help themselves. This is the perfect example. People see something as insignificant (big picture) as a college tennis roster and they want rules to limit or eliminate the people that are being rewarded for their skills.

Rather than spend their time and energy improving their skills, the mentality becomes "change the rules so I can get my piece of the pie". But, who says it is your pie to be gotten? If you have the skills it takes, you'll get rewarded. But people don't see it that way. They see it as, "I'm pretty good amongst my competition so I deserve to get to play at the next level". Then, they gripe when they are told that they actually aren't that good and their competition wasn't either. And most never go and compete internationally because...they aren't good enough to have ever compete at that level.

I don't deny that finances come into the equation. This is an ungodly expensive sport to play, train for, travel for, and compete at the highest levels. We are talking 150k-200k per year to do the international itf circuit. Folks don't have the cash laying around to take that gamble which could creep into 7 figure territory over time. There is not enough sponsorship availability from the USTA or corporate partners to back as many players as other countries do. We are busy doing that with other sports like football and basketball.

Regardless, the cream always rises to the top. If a player has what it takes in their brain, in their heart, and in their body...they will rise up. But the fact is that very few have it and they are competing for a select few spots against others that do. Change the rules to favor the weak and punish the strong? That isn't what happens in a capitalist society.

Flack jacket being put on....now.

Click to expand...

Good post.

But, you state:

They see it as, "I'm pretty good amongst my competition so I deserve to get to play at the next level". Then, they gripe when they are told that they actually aren't that good and their competition wasn't either. And most never go and compete internationally because...they aren't good enough to have ever compete at that level.

First, ( and I hope someone has the history to answer this) why are there so few ITF's in this country?
The US is comparable in size, ok bear with me on square miles, with Europe....
But, we seem to have fewer ITF's and then we seem to have lost quite a few too.

Your argument is if you want to be on the same level as say the Europeans, then you should compete internationally.
And your state to get to the "next level" this is necessary for American juniors to play college tennis in ......
their own country.

While I happen to agree with that statement, how many Americans could actually afford to do this?
Maybe, a dad who played professional basketball and can send his daughter abroad to do this.
But, the rest of us are trying to pay our mortgage and save for college.

Second, a bit of convoluted logic to make my point.
Imagine this scenario. 16 and under Orange Bowl, BOYS.
Let's say the top 4 places at the OB was the standard for a junior to be accepted into an academy for the year - all expenses paid.
That would seem fair, say all the 16 and under competing at an international event.
What if some junior was 18 though..... and he slipped into the event.
Wouldn't most likely that 18 year old junior win?
Is that really a true test of the 16 and under juniors who had to compete with a boy who was 2 years older?

Now, in turn, a junior that has a fall birthday ( up North where the age cut offs are different).
He graduates at 17. Turns 18 his fall of freshman year at college.
Why should he be in the same league of comparison with a 20 year old?
Or a 21 year old that comes in as a freshman, and the following year is a senior.
Now, all on this board are saying.. Oh he only has this left xxx in terms of eligibility.
But, bottom line, the kid still took a spot.....
Sure, that freshman might play matches against a senior who is 4 years older.....
But, at least that freshman has the opportunity to do that.
In many scenarios, the coach looks at kid turning 18 versus kid who is 20 already, and chooses older, stronger and bigger.
It doesn't seem live a level playing field.

The trends are dramatically increasing. I would say most parents of juniors age 10-17 will still see their kid play college tennis. But, if the percentages keep increasing, I would say very few Americans of parents on this board of juniors under the age of ten will see college tennis in their future. Many teams will be 100% foreign.

Tennishacker said:

How do you explain coaches that have been at the same school for 10-30 years with occasional conference titles?

Click to expand...

If you are at a small school with limited regional reach, occasional conference title will take you a long way. If you are at a major state university with reputation for winning championships year in and year out? Not so much.

gameboy said:

If you are at a small school with limited regional reach, occasional conference title will take you a long way. If you are at a major state university with reputation for winning championships year in and year out? Not so much.

Click to expand...

Yeah. There are a bunch of "legacy" coaches who are there, for among other considerations, because...........they are legacies. I think that's one reason why you included the word "almost" in your original post on this.

Some that come to mind are:

Laura Travis--Delaware
Jamie Sanchez--Loyola Marymount (I think the tennis courts there are named after him)
Pierre Pilote--Stetson
Arlo Elkins--South Carolina (who sadly passed away this spring, was there for about 28 years I think)
Jonathan Zych--St Louis

I am sure there are others

tennis5 said:

Good post.

But, you state:

They see it as, "I'm pretty good amongst my competition so I deserve to get to play at the next level". Then, they gripe when they are told that they actually aren't that good and their competition wasn't either. And most never go and compete internationally because...they aren't good enough to have ever compete at that level.

First, ( and I hope someone has the history to answer this) why are there so few ITF's in this country?
The US is comparable in size, ok bear with me on square miles, with Europe....
But, we seem to have fewer ITF's and then we seem to have lost quite a few too.

My gut instinct is that it comes down to sponsorships. If sponsors see a benefit in throwing money at something, they tend to write checks. But, for 32 kids playing tennis in front of parents and a few tennis bums, it just isn't worth the cost to them.

Your argument is if you want to be on the same level as say the Europeans, then you should compete internationally.
And your state to get to the "next level" this is necessary for American juniors to play college tennis in ......
their own country.

Hey, I'm not making the rules up. Just telling you how the game is played. If you want to compete against the foreign kids to prove you belong...you'll have to go to them. Unfortunately, that is what it would take to prove your worth against them.

While I happen to agree with that statement, how many Americans could actually afford to do this?
Maybe, a dad who played professional basketball and can send his daughter abroad to do this.
But, the rest of us are trying to pay our mortgage and save for college.

Totally agree. And I mentioned that.

Second, a bit of convoluted logic to make my point.
Imagine this scenario. 16 and under Orange Bowl, BOYS.
Let's say the top 4 places at the OB was the standard for a junior to be accepted into an academy for the year - all expenses paid.
That would seem fair, say all the 16 and under competing at an international event.
What if some junior was 18 though..... and he slipped into the event.
Wouldn't most likely that 18 year old junior win?
Is that really a true test of the 16 and under juniors who had to compete with a boy who was 2 years older?

Now, in turn, a junior that has a fall birthday ( up North where the age cut offs are different).
He graduates at 17. Turns 18 his fall of freshman year at college.
Why should he be in the same league of comparison with a 20 year old?
Or a 21 year old that comes in as a freshman, and the following year is a senior.
Now, all on this board are saying.. Oh he only has this left xxx in terms of eligibility.
But, bottom line, the kid still took a spot.....
Sure, that freshman might play matches against a senior who is 4 years older.....
But, at least that freshman has the opportunity to do that.
In many scenarios, the coach looks at kid turning 18 versus kid who is 20 already, and chooses older, stronger and bigger.
It doesn't seem live a level playing field.

Totally agree. I am for a 19U age limit for freshmen in all NCAA sports. I support that. I just don't think it is fair to make it a "foreigner rule." It should apply to all players in every sport.

The trends are dramatically increasing. I would say most parents of juniors age 10-17 will still see their kid play college tennis. But, if the percentages keep increasing, I would say very few Americans of parents on this board of juniors under the age of ten will see college tennis in their future. Many teams will be 100% foreign.

General logic tells me that this isn't likely. Even if you have 50% foreign born in the women's D1 game, you have a lot of Americans still. The top schools will always recruit the top Americans. It's the others trying to keep up with the Jonses that will always have a foreign recruiting pipeline.

Click to expand...

Bolded my responses

The problem is that there is international demand for something that only exists in the united states.

At the pro level, this isn't really a problem, because it all balances out. Tennis is a very international sport now, so Americans are facing much more competition from overseas, but there's a lot of opportunity overseas as well.

In college tennis, unfortunately there really isn't much opportunity outside the US to play. So international players who decide that they want to play college tennis have only one place to go - the US.

The world population is about 6.8 billion, and the US is about 311 million - about 4.5% of the world population. Of course, the *tennis playing* population in the US is a larger percentage than that, but it's not like american football, which is played overwhelmingly in the US. This is an international game.

People talk about bringing up the level of tennis in the US, and that's a fine idea, but it's not going to change the basic numbers here. If the tennis playing population is international, the international population of tennis players exceeds the number of US players, the US is the only place to play college tennis, and international students have the same access to these spots and scholarships as the US... well, we can raise our level, but it's not realistic to think that the US is going to supply the majority of the top college tennis players any more than it would supply the majority of pro players in a very international game.

The big difference is that there's a demand for pro players overseas, but no demand for college players - however, supply is international, so the entire international population of college-bound tennis players is funneled into the US. Raising the level of the US game may change things a bit on the margins, and I'm all for it, but its not going to dramatically change these numbers.

ClarkC said:

Wrong. Typical error that has been corrected 1000 times in these stupid discussions. Stanford received two verbal commitments in this recruiting class. Hardebeck is ranked #1. The 5-star is obviously a walk-on. Notice on her TRN page, where she lists Stanford as "Verbal", the spaces under "Offered" and "Signed NLI" are left blank. That implies pretty strongly that she was not offered a scholarship, and therefore she did not sign a National Letter of Intent, which you do only when there is a financial commitment.

Click to expand...

Might as well just right "Gotcha". No, it's not wrong, that was just one of the players and we don't know what her exact situation. Maybe she got a full academic scholarship and didn't need the athletic, no way to know. In any case, what about all the others ? sorry, the math is simple, you can't have the top 40 or even just top 20 schools, all with 2 scholarships a years, all get every recruit from inside the top 20.

Alohajrtennis said:

I could rewrite this "Unfortunately many of those who are adamantly opposed to any restrictions oninternationals playing college sports choose only to see it their way. I'm for Americans improving and playing up to the level of play as opposed to bringing the level of play down to meet the needs of those players who are want to play somewhere they are simply not qualified.

One of the things that the opponents of restrictions on college scholarships for foreigners always seem to do is throw our red herrings and misstate our arguments. I don't think I have seen one commentator in support of eliminating all foreigners or all foreign scholarships from colleges tennis, and if there is someone, they certainly don't represent the view of the vast majority. The issue is that now more than 50% of DIV I women's scholarships are now being awarded to non-Americans. All we wont are reasonable limits.

You response tends to be well, they can get a scholarship to East Armpit U if they're half way decent so they have no right to complain. That's wrong becuase these kids aren't just going to college to play tennis, there going to get an education, and these DIV 1 BCS scholarship were mandated by law and should be available for them to compete for, but it clear some college coaches(through there own word) don't even consider them.

You always asking pro-limiters to back up there claims while making unsubstantiated claims that the foreigners get the scholarship because they're better, that by limiting we would bring down the levle of play, but this is an assertion you have no chance of proving. You don't have any quantifiable data to support this, becuase you can't. For the majority of these foreign scholarship awardees, there are no tennis recruiting ranking,no USTA rankings, not enough tournament results where you can compare these kids to the US kids. Scholarship awards are generally made on the coaches qualitative analysis of their videotape, etc, and as I said previously, there seems to be anti-american bias at work here. I mean, everybody knows the US has lost it lead in tennis, right ? We haven't had a champion since Sampras, these foreign kids got to be better, all the American kids want to do is play video games....

Click to expand...

I'm not against limiting international spots or even creating a 19 yr. min. age to start college tennis to get 4 full yr. However, the roster limiting rule change is a pipedream. The age limit, maybe but doubtful.

Say all you want about playing a Eastern Armpit U. but even if the fantasy of rule change happens, there will still be those who just are not good enough to play at Alabama, Ole Miss, Texas, Virginia, etc. And when there are 2 internationals and 6 out of state kids on those rosters (cause that's going to be the consequence) what's the next line of complaints?

In any case very little is going to happen to change the system we have today. Time to go practice.

Alohajrtennis said:

Might as well just right "Gotcha". No, it's not wrong, that was just one of the players and we don't know what her exact situation. Maybe she got a full academic scholarship and didn't need the athletic, no way to know. In any case, what about all the others ? sorry, the math is simple, you can't have the top 40 or even just top 20 schools, all with 2 scholarships a years, all get every recruit from inside the top 20.

Click to expand...

You're changing the subject. The point you were originally making was simple:

1. University of Washington coach says she can only take top 20 recruits from America.

2. Stanford takes a recruit outside the top 20.

3. Stanford is better than Washington.

4. Therefore, if Stanford can take a 5-star recruit from well outside the top 20, then so can Washington.

The flaw in the logic is that Stanford might never give any playing time to their five star recruit, and is not giving any athletic dollars and almost certainly never will to their 5-star recruit. So her example means nothing as far as Washington is concerned.

I would agree that the UW coach was exaggerating about only taking top 20 recruits. Woman exaggerate a lot.

Maybe the real insight from the example is this: A 5-star recruit, who could have had a free ride at many other schools, could have been that coveted American recruit who is in the top 6 at some school, making everyone happy on this board. Instead, she is walking on at Stanford and will likely never see any meaningful playing time. That should give you an idea of what many college coaches are up against in their recruiting. Only status-seeking Americans do this. A foreign recruit does not pass up a full ride at Arizona or Oregon so she can walk on at Stanford, so the coaches at those schools can recruit overseas knowing that they are not wasting their time and watching a desirable recruit decide at the last minute to walk on somewhere.

ClarkC said:

You're changing the subject. The point you were originally making was simple:

1. University of Washington coach says she can only take top 20 recruits from America.

2. Stanford takes a recruit outside the top 20.

3. Stanford is better than Washington.

4. Therefore, if Stanford can take a 5-star recruit from well outside the top 20, then so can Washington.

The flaw in the logic is that Stanford might never give any playing time to their five star recruit, and is not giving any athletic dollars and almost certainly never will to their 5-star recruit. So her example means nothing as far as Washington is concerned.

I would agree that the UW coach was exaggerating about only taking top 20 recruits. Woman exaggerate a lot.

Maybe the real insight from the example is this: A 5-star recruit, who could have had a free ride at many other schools, could have been that coveted American recruit who is in the top 6 at some school, making everyone happy on this board. Instead, she is walking on at Stanford and will likely never see any meaningful playing time. That should give you an idea of what many college coaches are up against in their recruiting. Only status-seeking Americans do this. A foreign recruit does not pass up a full ride at Arizona or Oregon so she can walk on at Stanford, so the coaches at those schools can recruit overseas knowing that they are not wasting their time and watching a desirable recruit decide at the last minute to walk on somewhere.

Click to expand...

No, the point that I was making said "Cal, Arizona State, Arizona, and Stanford". I actually left out USC, they signed #25. You, in an attempt to play gotcha decided to focus solely on the one Stanford recruit as if disproving one of these disproves the larger point. It doesn't. You also seem to "know" That this girl is a walk on wont see any playing time, thats just pure speculation.

gameboy said:

I don't know about that.

Looking at the UW roster, it looks like the American freshman that they have (Kimiko) was ranked outside top 25, so the coach saying don't even bother if you are not top 20 seems to be just a hyperbole.

And looking further, Kimiko's first year results are pretty much in line with lower foreign players that the coach recruited. The sample size is quite small, but it looks like UW coach know which level the foreign players are.

Also, looking at USC, UCLA, and Stanford rosters, almost every girl was a top 5 player in their section. That would make them all top 30 to 40 players at least. I am sure those girls were also recruited by UW.

Click to expand...

I concur. I think you are referring to Riko Shimizu ? Anyway, great player, great to have her in the college game. But I think she's a Japanese National but she may be naturalized. Ojai = Bradenton = not real home town. If not, definitely the kind of player who would not have a problem getting spot on a US roster even if there were limits in place.

Yes Riko. I've seen her play. Her bio says she was born in Japan but moved here. I am guessing she was naturalized as all of her junior records are from US.

Delano said:

The problem is that there is international demand for something that only exists in the united states.

At the pro level, this isn't really a problem, because it all balances out. Tennis is a very international sport now, so Americans are facing much more competition from overseas, but there's a lot of opportunity overseas as well.

In college tennis, unfortunately there really isn't much opportunity outside the US to play. So international players who decide that they want to play college tennis have only one place to go - the US.

The world population is about 6.8 billion, and the US is about 311 million - about 4.5% of the world population. Of course, the *tennis playing* population in the US is a larger percentage than that, but it's not like american football, which is played overwhelmingly in the US. This is an international game.

People talk about bringing up the level of tennis in the US, and that's a fine idea, but it's not going to change the basic numbers here. If the tennis playing population is international, the international population of tennis players exceeds the number of US players, the US is the only place to play college tennis, and international students have the same access to these spots and scholarships as the US... well, we can raise our level, but it's not realistic to think that the US is going to supply the majority of the top college tennis players any more than it would supply the majority of pro players in a very international game.

The big difference is that there's a demand for pro players overseas, but no demand for college players - however, supply is international, so the entire international population of college-bound tennis players is funneled into the US. Raising the level of the US game may change things a bit on the margins, and I'm all for it, but its not going to dramatically change these numbers.

Click to expand...

Very insightful on the problem from a numbers perspective.

Thanks for posting.

In the interests of fairness, competition, and cultural enrichment, each foreign player on college scholarship should agree to invite a US player to their home country to play in a tennis tourney once a year, all expenses paid of course.

klu375 said:

The way things are going when your daughter graduates HS the Ivy League tennis teams may be 50% foreign. And good luck getting there on academic merit only. She may be able to get a full academic scholarship at the local top public university but she will not be able to play on the varsity team there. Maybe because in high school your daughter after practice will be doing home work until 2am every day. So she may find it difficult to compete against these Eastern Europeans who did not go to school at all.

Click to expand...

Your an idiot if you think europeans dont go to school at all. Have you checked the grades of many of these foreigners? They actually find our universities much easier then the work they do in Highschool.

The comments on these boards are appalling sometimes........

rufus_smith said:

In the interests of fairness, competition, and cultural enrichment, each foreign player on college scholarship should agree to invite a US player to their home country to play in a tennis tourney once a year, all expenses paid of course.

Click to expand...

Tennis version of foreign exchange...I like it

cmb said:

Your an idiot if you think europeans dont go to school at all. Have you checked the grades of many of these foreigners? They actually find our universities much easier then the work they do in Highschool.

The comments on these boards are appalling sometimes........

Click to expand...

I have no doubts that europeans who did go to school may find many of our universities much easier than their high school. But some of them, especially eastern europeans, did very little schooling. There are also special HSs for athletes with much lower requirements.

40% of recrits are USA (from Conference Champions)

I did a ton of research. First I found each of the Conference Champions, and then I found the Rosters of each team. 122 recruits are USA and 183 are International. So 40% are USA. (see summary below) 60% are foreigners.

Biggest non-USA recruiting conferences were Conference USA and Ohio Valley with zero (0) USA players on both teams in each of their conference championship matches (Tulsa v. Memphis & Eastern Kentucky v. Tennessee Tech). What an oxymoron that "Conference USA" has zero Americans!!

Other low or non, USA-recruiting universities = Binghampton, Eastern Tennessee, VCU, Tulsa, South Carolina, Farleigh Dickinson, Eastern Kentucky

My accolades to the gent from Turkey who is in the USA Army!

Best USA-recruiting universities were: Harvard, Fairfield, Army, Univ of Georgia.

By conference:

Conference Champions USA Int'l Total %
American East Binghampton 0 10 10 0%
Atlantic 10 Geo. Washington 2 6 8 25%
Atlantic Coast Virginia 7 6 13 54%
Atlantic Sun Eastern Tenn 1 10 11 9%
Big 12 Oklahoma 5 5 10 50%
Big East St. Johns 4 5 9 44%
Big Sky Sacramento St 3 8 11 27%
Big South Radford 3 6 9 33%
Big Ten Illinois 4 3 7 57%
Big West Cal Poly 7 4 11 64%
Colonial Virginia Common 1 8 9 11%
Conf. USA Tulsa 0 7 7 0%
Great West N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Horizon Green Bay 3 6 9 33%
Independent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ivy League Harvard 13 2 15 87%
Metro Atlantic Fairfield 10 1 11 91%
Mid American Western Michigan 2 6 8 25%
Mid Eastern South Carolina St 0 9 9 0%
Missouri Valley Drake 3 8 11 27%
Mountain West Boise State 5 5 10 50%
Northeast Farleigh Dickinson 0 9 9 0%
Ohio Valley Eastern Kentucky 0 9 9 0%
Pacific 12 Univ of So. Calif. 6 7 13 46%
Patriot League Army 10 1 11 91%
Southeastern Univ of Georgia 9 3 12 75%
Southern Coll of Charleston 4 5 9 44%
Southland Univof TX SA 3 7 10 30%
Southwestern Alcorn State 0 6 6 0%
Summit Univ of MissourKC 7 5 12 58%
Sun Belt Middle Tennessee 2 7 9 22%
West Coast Pepperdine 5 4 9 56%
Western Fresno State 3 5 8 38%

122 183 305 40%

can someone tell me how to line up the columns of my data table & how to correct the spelling of "recruits?" Thanks!

tennismom42 said:

I did a ton of research. First I found each of the Conference Champions, and then I found the Rosters of each team. 122 recruits are USA and 183 are International. So 40% are USA. (see summary below) 60% are foreigners.

Biggest non-USA recruiting conferences were Conference USA and Ohio Valley with zero (0) USA players on both teams in each of their conference championship matches (Tulsa v. Memphis & Eastern Kentucky v. Tennessee Tech). What an oxymoron that "Conference USA" has zero Americans!!

Other low or non, USA-recruiting universities = Binghampton, Eastern Tennessee, VCU, Tulsa, South Carolina, Farleigh Dickinson, Eastern Kentucky

My accolades to the gent from Turkey who is in the USA Army!

Best USA-recruiting universities were: Harvard, Fairfield, Army, Univ of Georgia.

By conference:

Conference Champions USA Int'l Total %
American East Binghampton 0 10 10 0%
Atlantic 10 Geo. Washington 2 6 8 25%
Atlantic Coast Virginia 7 6 13 54%
Atlantic Sun Eastern Tenn 1 10 11 9%
Big 12 Oklahoma 5 5 10 50%
Big East St. Johns 4 5 9 44%
Big Sky Sacramento St 3 8 11 27%
Big South Radford 3 6 9 33%
Big Ten Illinois 4 3 7 57%
Big West Cal Poly 7 4 11 64%
Colonial Virginia Common 1 8 9 11%
Conf. USA Tulsa 0 7 7 0%
Great West N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Horizon Green Bay 3 6 9 33%
Independent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ivy League Harvard 13 2 15 87%
Metro Atlantic Fairfield 10 1 11 91%
Mid American Western Michigan 2 6 8 25%
Mid Eastern South Carolina St 0 9 9 0%
Missouri Valley Drake 3 8 11 27%
Mountain West Boise State 5 5 10 50%
Northeast Farleigh Dickinson 0 9 9 0%
Ohio Valley Eastern Kentucky 0 9 9 0%
Pacific 12 Univ of So. Calif. 6 7 13 46%
Patriot League Army 10 1 11 91%
Southeastern Univ of Georgia 9 3 12 75%
Southern Coll of Charleston 4 5 9 44%
Southland Univof TX SA 3 7 10 30%
Southwestern Alcorn State 0 6 6 0%
Summit Univ of MissourKC 7 5 12 58%
Sun Belt Middle Tennessee 2 7 9 22%
West Coast Pepperdine 5 4 9 56%
Western Fresno State 3 5 8 38%

122 183 305 40%

Click to expand...

Not surewhat your stats are based on as you mention rosters and recruits. Are they based on current rosters, or the players that schools are recruiting?

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

Current recruits from rosters = 40%

First I found the current champions from each conference. Then I found the roster from each of those teams. So the stats are current data, of current recruits, of each conference champion. I wish I had time to research the other 32. Maybe I will re calculate after the first round.

1 and done for Winthrop women against Duke in 1st round. Already have 7 foreigners. Maybe a couple more are needed.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/05/11/3967689/winthrop-womens-tennis-falls-to.html

good work, now how many of those Americans actually play in the line up? keep in mind that a good % of those americans u see on the roster, are just waterboys and sparring partners.

rww said:

1 and done for Winthrop women against Duke in 1st round. Already have 7 foreigners. Maybe a couple more are needed.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/05/11/3967689/winthrop-womens-tennis-falls-to.html

Click to expand...

For a school like that to take a set at 1 and 4 ain't too shabby. Yea, I know that Duke sat their regular #1. Still not bad.

cmb said:

good work, now how many of those Americans actually play in the line up? keep in mind that a good % of those americans u see on the roster, are just waterboys and sparring partners.

Click to expand...

These are conference champs and although it's a nice sampling it's by no means representative of the percentages across the college tennis board. These numbers will be scewed to favor the internationals because the majority of the conference champs are from non-BCS conferences. These schools tend to favor attracting internationals and traditionally have a hard time pulling in American players.

Since we are taking samplings let's look at Alcorn St. They are a HBCU. Their tennis team has no Americans. Clearly not making up typical enrollment percentages of HBCU's. I'd like to see what the rest of the rosters look like in the SWAC but I'm not going to waste that time as I have a good idea. But heck Alcorn St. made the NCAA with an all foreign roster. The MEAC and South Carolina St. is no different. Who would and where would these American tennis player be that so badly want to play DI tennis at these schools that are getting shut out due to internationals?

Any of you pro international roster limiting proponent parents up for offering your BlueChip, 5 star or even 4 star kid up to play tennis at a SWAC or MEAC school? That's what I thought.

andfor said:

These are conference champs and although it's a nice sampling it's by no means representative of the percentages across the college tennis board. These numbers will be scewed to favor the internationals because the majority of the conference champs are from non-BCS conferences. These schools tend to favor attracting internationals and traditionally have a hard time pulling in American players.

Since we are taking samplings let's look at Alcorn St. They are a HBCU. Their tennis team has no Americans. Clearly not making up typical enrollment percentages of HBCU's. I'd like to see what the rest of the rosters look like in the SWAC but I'm not going to waste that time as I have a good idea. But heck Alcorn St. made the NCAA with an all foreign roster. The MEAC and South Carolina St. is no different. Who would and where would these American tennis player be that so badly want to play DI tennis at these schools that are getting shut out due to internationals?

Any of you pro international roster limiting proponent parents up for offering your BlueChip, 5 star or even 4 star kid up to play tennis at a SWAC or MEAC school? That's what I thought.

Click to expand...

Good one!

I don't think there are any Blue Chip, 5 star, or even top-half-4-star parents complaining about there not being good spots available because of foreigners. (Of course, if there is an exception, we know that this is defined as the being the norm by some)

I think this is a low-4-star, 3-star, 2-star parent issue....for the parents who are posting up about it from self-interest

Misterbill said:

Good one!

I don't think there are any Blue Chip, 5 star, or even top-half-4-star parents complaining about there not being good spots available because of foreigners. (Of course, if there is an exception, we know that this is defined as the being the norm by some)

I think this is a low-4-star, 3-star, 2-star parent issue....for the parents who are posting up about it from self-interest

Click to expand...

Correct, those doing the complaining would like everyone to think that's the norm. What we can't see is their hidden (behind their computers) agendas. The only real hard numbers are these showing top American kids are getting their opportunity. http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/USTA_Intl_SA_FAQ_FINAL_CLEAN.pdf However, since it was made in 2006 one poster try's to say it's out of date. Maybe that's because it does not meet with their agenda. Still the only hard real numbers out there. Even if they've changed and internationals are playing more college tennis in the U.S. I still contend there's plenty of tennis scholarship out there. Even for lower skilled H.S. players (1 stars and below).

Hmmm, self interest is an underlying motive for the position against internationals playing tennis? Regardless, I see little to few American kids showing interest in playing tennis at SWAC and MEAC schools. For me, I'm happy they have tennis programs for the handful of American kids grateful enough who want to play there.

Here's a NAIA HBCU school out doing the DI HBCU's when it comes to getting Americans. http://www.xula.edu/athletics/mt/roster/

Oh well, guess this is all over my head.

The player in our family did not get offers from some high-major/BCS schools we were interested in, which had foreigners on the roster.

We had no complaints, but if we did, it would have made more sense to complain about better players getting offers over lesser players (on paper at least).

100% of the players on these rosters are better than our player on paper, while only 25%--40% were foreigners, approximately.

Hmmm, maybe there should be a limit of 2 players who are better than my kid on BCS rosters!!!

Rosters of the top 40 in Men's DI Tennis
April 24, 2012 ITA Men's Team Rankings
* indicates starting line-up
27 teams out of the top 40 (68%) have starting line-ups of 50% or more foreign players
29 teams out of the top 40 (73%) have 4 or more foreign players on their roster
7 teams out of the top 40 have a 100% starting line-up of foreign players on their roster
Only 1 team out of the top 40 has a 100% American roster - Vanderbilt University

1 University of Southern California
6 foreign players on the team
3 out of 6 starters are foreign players (50%)
*Emilio Gomez - Guayaquil, Ecuador
Michael Grant - London, England
*Yannick Hanfmann - Karlsruhe, Germany
Eric Johnson - San Jose, Calif
*Steve Johnson - Orange, Calif
Ben Lankenau - Denver, Colo
John Meadows - Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
*Daniel Nguyen - Oxnard, Calif
*Roberto Quiroz - Guayaquil, Ecuador
*Ray Sarmiento - Rancho Cucamonga, Calif
Corey Smith - San Diego, Calif
Jordi Vives - Barcelona, Spain
Jonny Wang - San Marino, Calif

2 University of Georgia
3 foreign players on the team
3 out of 6 starters are foreign players (50%)
Garrett Brasseaux - Mandeville, La.
Eric Diaz - Athens, Ga.
*Sadio Doumbia - Toulouse, France
Campbell Johnson - Rancho Santa Fe, Calif.
Casey Kay - Atlanta, Ga.
Will Oliver - San Antonio, Texas
*Nathan Pasha - Atlanta, Ga.
*Hernus Pieters - Pretoria, South Africa
Will Reynolds - Chattanooga, Tenn.
*KU Singh - Gurgaon, Haryana, India
*Wil Spencer - Ponce de Leon, Fla.
*Ignacio Taboada - Atlanta, Ga.

3 Ohio State University
2 foreign players on the team
2 out of 6 starters are foreign players (33%)
*Chase Buchanan - New Albany, Ohio
Hunter Callahan - Lower Gwynedd, Pa.
Chris Diaz - Columbus
Peter Kobelt - New Albany, Ohio
Wyatt Lippert - Cincinnati, Ohio
*Devin McCarthy - Cincinnati, Ohio
*Kevin Metka - Worthington, Ohio
*Blaz Rola - Ptuj, Slovenia
*Connor Smith - Tampa, Fla.
*Ille Van Engelen - Eindhoven, Netherlands
Nelson Vick 75 - Grafton, Wis.
Steven Williams - Manlius, N.Y.

4 University of Virginia
6 foreign players on the team
1 out of 6 starters are foreign players (17%)
*Drew Courtney - Clifton, Va.
Dino Dell'Orto - Hong Kong, China
*Alex Domijan - Wesley Chapel, Fla.
Steven Eelkman Rooda - Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Brian Fang - Hacienda Heights, Calif
*Mitchell Frank - Annandale, Va.
*Jarmere Jenkins - College Park, Ga.
Reese Milner - Los Angeles, Calif.
Philippe Oudshoorn - Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
*Justin Shane - Falls Church, Va.
Ian Uriguen - Guatemala City, Guatemala
*Julen Uriguen - Guatemala City, Guatemala
Santiago Villegas - Bogota, Colombia

5 UCLA
5 foreign players on the team
1 out of 6 starters are foreign players (17%)
Alex Brigham - Culver City, CA
Colin Dresser - Bellevue, WA
Jeff Gast - Saratoga, CA
*Marcos Giron - Thousand Oaks, CA
Warren Hardie - Laguna Niguel, CA
Michael Hui - Oakland, CA
Evan Lee - Los Angeles, CA
*Nick Meister - Trabuco Canyon, CA
*Dennis Mkrtchian - Reseda, CA
*Dennis Novikov - San Jose, CA
*Adrien Puget - Le Haillan, France
Karue Sell - Jaragua do Sul, Brazil
Maxime Tabatruong - Paris, France
Ryoto Tachi - Tokyo, Japan
*Clay Thompson - Venice Beach, CA
Maik Ulrich - Dresden, Germany
Brendan Wee - Alamo, CA

6 University of Kentucky
6 foreign players on the team
5 out of 6 starters are foreign players (83%)
Matt Davis -R Gainesville, Fla.
Maks Gold -O Louisville, Ky.
*Alejandro Gomez - Cali, Colombia
Ryuji Hirooka - Tokyo, Japan
*Panav Jha - Pointe Claire, Montreal
Brett Johnson - Louisville, Ky.
*Tom Jomby - Nantes, France
*Alex Musialek - Dax, France
*Eric Quigley - Pewee Valley, Ky.
Grant Roberts - Lexington, Ky.
*Anthony Rossi - Marseille, France

7 Pepperdine
5 foreign players on the team
4 out of 6 starters are foreign players (67%)
*Hugh Clarke - Brisbane, Australia
*Sebastian Fanselow - Essen, Germany
*Mousheg Hovhannisyan - North Hollywood, Calif.
*Alex Llompart - Carolina, Puerto Rico
Daniel Moss - Malibu, Calif.
David Sofaer - Bellevue Hill, Australia
Kento Tanaka-Tamaki - Kihei, Hawaii
*Finn Tearney - Wellington, New Zealand
*Jenson Turner - Woodland Hills, Calif.

8 Duke University
4 foreign players on the team
3 out of 6 starters are foreign players (33%)
4th foreign player is not eligible for 2012
*Henrique Cunha - Jaú, Brazil
Cale Hammond - Tulsa, Okla.
*Raphael Hemmeler - Zurich, Switzerland
David Holland - Pennington, N.J.
Luke Marchese - Summit, N.J.
*Chris Mengel - Pittsburgh, Pa.
*Fred Saba - Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Bruno Semenzato - Sao Paulo, Brazil
*Jason Tahir - Rochester, N.Y.
*Torsten Wietoska - Leer, Germany

9 Mississippi State University
7 foreign players on the team
5 out of 6 starters are foreign players (83%)
*Louis Cant - Brugge, Belgium
*James Chaudry - Southampton, England
*George Coupland - Hatfield, England
*Artem Ilyushin - Granite Bay, CA
Antonio Lastre - Malaga, Spain
Trey Seymour - Greenville, MS
*Malte Stropp - Dusseldorf, Germany
*Zach White - Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
Ethan Wilkinson - Queensland, Australia

10 Stanford University
2 foreign players on the team
1 out of 6 starters are foreign players (17%)
Jamin Ball - Palo Alto, CA
Sam Ecker - Mequon, WI
*Daniel Ho - Rosemead, CA
Fawaz Hourani - Madaba, Jordan
*Matt Kandath - Gansevoort, N.Y.
Walker Kehrer - Pacific Palisades, CA
*Bradley Klahn - Poway, CA
Denis Lin - Thousand Oaks, CA
*John Morrissey - Dublin, Ireland
*Robert Stineman - Winnetka, IL
*Ryan Thacher - Studio City, CA

11 University of Florida
4 foreign players on the team players
2 out of 6 starters are foreign players (33%)
*Michael Alford - Tampa, Fla.
Andrew Butz - Vero Beach, Fla.
*Tripper Carleton - Naples, Fla.
*Florent Diep - Paris, France
Billy Federhofer - North Miami, Fla.
*Spencer Newman - Miami , Fla.
Stephane Piro - Marseille, France
Thomas Proisy - Saint Nom La Breteche, France
*Nassim Slilam - R Paris, France
*Bob van Overbeek - Boca Raton, Fla.
Gordon Watson - Naples, FL

12 University of Oklahoma
5 foreign players on the team
4 out of 6 starters are foreign players (67%)
*Guillermo Alcorta - Bilbao, Spain
*Lawrence Formentera - Colton, Calif.
*Tsvetan Mihov - Sofia, Bulgaria
Nick Papac - Fresno
*Costin Paval - Bucharest, Romania
Ryan Proctor - Tulsa, Okla.
David Pultr - Prague, Czech Republic
*Peerakit Siributwong - Bangkok, Thailand
John Warden - Tulsa, Okla.
*Dane Webb - Richardson, Texas

13 University of Mississippi
8 foreign players on the team
6 out of 6 starters are foreign players (100%)
*Johan Backstrom - Uppsala, Sweden
Alex Durham - Austin, Texas
Adrian Forberg Skogeng - Oslo, Norway
*William Kallberg - Stockholm, Sweden
*Jonas Lutjen - Schessel, Germany
Joe Rogers - Brighton, UK
*Nik Scholtz - Caledon, South Africa
*Chris Thiemann - Lehrte, Germany
*Marcel Thiemann - Lehrte, Germany
Zach Wilder -Oxford, Miss.

14 California
7 foreign players on the team
5 out of 6 starters are foreign players (83%)
*Nick Andrews - Folsom, Calif.
*Gregory Bayane - Meaux, France
*Carlos Cueto - Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
Ahmed Ismail - Cairo, Egypt
*Christoffer Konigsfeldt - Rungsted Kyst, Denmark
*Ben McLachlan - Queenstown, New Zealand
*Riki McLachlan - Queenstown, New Zealand
Chase Melton - Santa Barbara, Calif.
Tommie Murphy - Carlow, Ireland
Andrew Pises - Orinda, Calif.
Andrew Scholnick - Winnetka, Ill.

15 Auburn University
10 foreign players on the team (91%)
6 out of 6 starters are foreign players (100%)
*Daniel Cochrane - Alton, England
Liam Gomez - Trinidad & Tobago
Jean-Olivier Hebert - Granby, Quebec
*Dennis Lengsfeld - Alterkuelz, Germany
David Livingston - London, UK
*Lucas Lopasso - Santa Barbara D'oeste, Brazil
*Andreas Mies - Niederkassel, Germany
*Lukas Ollert - Munich, Germany
Rafael Rondino - Barueri, Brazil
*Alex Stamchev - Pleven, Bulgaria
Michael Wardell - Fort Myers, Fla.

16 University of Tennessee
5 foreign players on the team
3 out of 6 starters are foreign players (50%)
*Jarryd Chaplin - Sydney, Australia
*Brandon Fickey - Knoxville, Tenn.
*Edward Jones - Carmarthen, Wales
*Mikelis Libietis - Priekuli, Latvia
Trym Nagelstad - Oslo, Norway
Peter Nagovnak - Kraubath, Austria
Colton Norton - Jackson, Tenn.
*Taylor Patrick - Knoxville, Tenn.
*Hunter Reese - Kennesaw, Ga.
Bryan Swartz - Sarasota, Fla.

17 North Carolina
3 foreign players on the team
3 out of 6 starters are foreign players (50%)
Cameron Ahari - Tucson, Ariz.
*Brennan Boyajian - Weston, Fla.
*Joey Burkhardt - St. Augustine, Fla.
James Coxe - Raleigh, N.C.
Andrew Gores - Charlotte, N.C.
*Jose Hernandez - Santo Domingo, Dom.
*Esben Hess-Olesen - Viby, Denmark
Zach Hunter - Weston, Fla.
Taylor Meyer - Raleigh, N.C.
*William Parker - Shelby, N.C.
Alex Rafiee - Huntsville, Ala.
*Oystein Steiro - Snaroya, Norway

18 University of Texas
4 foreign players on the team
3 out of 6 starters are foreign players (50%)
Chris Camillone - Austin, Texas
*Ben Chen - Spring, Texas
*Lloyd Glasspool - Birmingham, England
*Soren Hess-Olesen - Aarhus, Denmark
Alex Hilliard - Corpus Christi, Texas
*David Holiner - Dallas, Texas
Jacoby Lewis - Birmingham, Ala.
*Sudanwa Sitaram - Tamil Nadu, India
Joey Swaysland - Wagga Wagga, Australia
*Daniel Whitehead - Sugar Land, Texas

19 Texas Tech University
7 foreign players on the team (88%)
6 out of 6 starters are foreign players (100%)
Jeff Bryan - San Angelo, Texas
*Raony Carvalho - Brazilia, Brazil
*Gonzalo Escobar - Manta, Ecuador
*Rafael Garcia - Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
*Vitor Manzini - Sao Paulo, Brazil
Raphael Pfister - Sao Paulo, Brazil
*Gabriel Wanderley - Sao Paulo, Brazil
*Francisco Zambon - Campinas, Brazil

20 University of Tulsa
7 foreign players on the team (100%)
6 out of 6 starters are foreign players (100%)
*Japie De Klerk - Ashton, South Africa
*Alejandro Espejo - Granada, Spain
Lucian Gheorghe - Bacau, Romania
*Grant Ive - Johannesburg, South Africa
*Tristan Jackson - Perth, Australia
*Clifford Marsland - Perth, Australia
*Ashley Watling - Ipswich, England