US Juniors needs MORE Nat'l and advanced experiences not less

Misterbill · Sep 14, 2012

Alohajrtennis said:
Gameboy is more than capable of defending himself. But I don't even think Gameboy would disagree with the sentiment that he thinks taking a child ranked 200 to a national tournament is a financially irresponsible decision..

Yeah, I'm third man in, so I should bow out here................but I really think your last statement is a non sequitur.

I think financial responsibility or irresponsibility is a financial question, no?

If you got money to burn it is not financially irresponsible to take #200 to a national. If you're broke or scraping by.............then it might be, and that's what people are discussing.

Setting aside finances, our family never thought we were entitled to enter a national tournament when the ranking was about 200. When it happened, great. If it didn't, no pangs of deprivation

gameboy · Sep 14, 2012

klu375 said:
Gameboy attains his happiness by listening to his daughter playing piano and watching her doing Singapore math. He attempted to enjoy her playing tennis but it did not pan out. So he smartly concluded that investing time and money in tennis would produce negative ROI and would just distract her from achieving the goal of his life - for her to be accepted into IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITY.
... But here comes Gameboy and tells us - screw you - you and your kids are not important so shut up. And the best part is that Gameboy has probably never been to a junior tennis tournament.

Personally attacking me or my daughter is not going to bother me. I have bigger things to worry about than some random Internet guy hurting my feelings. So go right ahead, attack away. I am just not going to respond in kind, because it is pointless.

I have been to junior tennis tournaments. I played a few when I was younger. I was certainly not a top 1000 player, but I know a bit about the tournament circuit. The reason why I am limiting my daughter's exposure to all that is because of things that I saw (which has just gotten worse based on posts around here).

gameboy · Sep 14, 2012

Alohajrtennis said:
Gameboy is more than capable of defending himself. But I don't even think Gameboy would disagree with the sentiment that he thinks taking a child ranked 200 to a national tournament is a financially irresponsible decision..

I don't care whether or not it is financially responsible or not. The parents are more than capable of figuring that out.

What they need to realize is that getting into a national tournament when you are ranked 200 is not a God given right. And they need to really be honest about the entitled thinking of "if my child just got more exposure to top players, he will be a top 50 player!!!".

Misterbill · Sep 14, 2012

TCF said:
Its more the parents than the students to be honest. Same arguments, the draws used to be larger to include some lower ranked kids, they planned family trips around it, etc. They worry about exposure to college coaches.

Our city tennis center has added some more local tournaments. We will make use of video and networking to put kids in front of more college coaches.

Thanks for your response. I understand the "family trip" thing, but I don't think that is a substantive consideration, at least for my family. My family is responsible for the family trips we take, not USTA.

As far as exposure to college coaches (I don't know how old your students are) I think there are a lot of workarounds there too. College coaches need the same number of players regardless of the USTA national tournament policy.

As an aside, I've coached a number of youth sports teams in various sports. Something I learned....and I started to tell parents at the beginning of every new season is "If the player doesn't have a problem then there is no problem"

10s4US · Sep 14, 2012

justinmadison said:
It makes no sense to argue the pros and cons of the changes without understand the truth about why they were made.

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. When a company that is a monopoly makes changes the vast majority of its customers do not like and then explains why the changes are good in a way that the majority of participates believe do not make sense you have to question the companies true motivations. Usually, the people making the changes are the ones benefiting from them. It’s not rocket science.

Arguing with people who think it makes sense to take away opportunity because people cannot be trusted to make good decision is a waste of time.

In 2010 junior players did not care about the Player Development program. If you were a good player and had a private coach with a few friends to practice with you did not need them. You could work with your coach, practice with your team or at your club and play lots of tournaments with high quality competition. You did not need to travel very much to qualify for the top tournaments. There were many national tournaments all over the country and they were not difficult to enter. If you could do well in a couple of L3s you were in your L2, do well there and you are in the L1s. You did not need to play them all because there were many to choose from and there were bigger draws. If you wanted to play more tournaments, because you lived in SoCal or had the means, you would have continuous access to top quality competition to gage where you were at and improve through experience. You did not need wild cards when you aged up because the draws were large and you could play your way in.

The PD guys hated this. The best kids did not want to be in the PD program. It is difficult to justify the big budgets and highly paid executives when none of the players even care you exist.

How to fix this problem? How about cut the number of tournaments to the point where it is difficult to have access to great competition increasing the importance of a training center with many players. How about cut the draw sizes and increase the wildcards controlled by the PD guys giving them the power to get kids into the tournament draws and keep them in when the age up. Problem solved. Now Player Development is important and players want (need) to be in the program.

The problem was clear and they had the power to fix it. So they did. I bet the number of applicants to the HiPo program has skyrocketed. The activity level makes the coaches look great. I can just imagine the power points with graphs up and to the right on applications, players in the program and success rates. By the time anyone realizes junior tennis in the US is going down the tubes Pat’s bank account will be full and we can move on to the next guy who has an even better idea for his bank account, oh, that’s right, I meant for US junior tennis.

Changes have been made for a number of reasons. You are bringing up an interesting consequence and incentives of PD's motivations and results in part, however in Carson's Calif West Coast HPD the numbers been drastically reduced and the facility is out to bid for an outside (private) academy to take over a 12 and under training! West Coast PD Center changes every year
since its inception. It has had problems for the same reasons
the USTA in general has. It large with diversified needs. It is in a large area in SO CAL with difficult traffic and distances. More localized training elsewhere is more convenient for parents. Carson was working better and had more participants when players could come two or three times a week from say San Diego, Orange County, Santa Barbara two hours away. When they wanted fulltime home schooled, numbers dropped. The boys programs pretty much stopped years ago (although I heard they are working with a few boys again.)

Some of the goals such as not missing school, keep costs down, have come from surveys 4-6 years ago from 3 previous two year jr committee administrations, which turn 50% each term. Though Meeting 4 times a year
the Jr committee fails to have an adequate and neccesary vetting review process for the proposals before passage. While the 2014 changes had plenty of notice unlike the 2011 notice of 4 months for planning, the review,feedback, member input process was non existent. Very few of the people that passed the changes will even be on the committee in 2014 to evaluate. The Natl Jr Committee process needs to be reassessed and changed.

The increase in Wild Cards supports your
point and flies in the face of earned advancement.

TCF · Sep 14, 2012

================================================.

Misterbill · Sep 14, 2012

TCF said:
1. The family trip dynamic was a big deal. Many of these families also brought along younger siblings and cousins. Good way to hook the younger ones into tennis. The trips were extended time to bond and generate good feelings about tennis. I do not think the USTA did tennis a service by lessening these experiences for tennis families.

Sure these families can now still take their family trips, and they will, with no thought of tennis or spreading it to the next generation.

2. Tennis coaches need the same number of players....but they do not need any more incentive to go after even more foreign players.

3. Tennis kids 'not having a problem with it' does not make sense to me, kids are kids. They do not care that their younger cousins get exposed to tennis, or that local restaurants get a bump and also have good feelings about tennis. And they are not thinking about whether a college coach might use the lower draws to give more consideration to the foreign boy his associate coach told him about.

Your saying about the players not having a problem with it then parents should not might apply to 8 year olds playing baseball. It does not fit tennis kids who have scholarship possibilities in their future. And it does not apply to a sport where parents are asked to foot such heavy bills. The parent's money keeps youth tennis in existence.

1. Assume for now that your Point #1 is valid. Wonder why tennis seems to be the only sport that exhibits this characteristic. I am not aware of it in other youth sports.

2. If I am understanding correctly, fewer national tournaments in centralized locations in the US will make it more difficult and expensive for college coaches to recruit.......so to compensate they will go overseas to recruit?

3. Baseball players don't have scholarship opportunities? Or players in other sports?

No one here needs to believe me. Anyone can check out message boards like this for other youth sports. The couple I follow just don't seem to have the concerns that come up here in connection with national competition. I guess tennis is just different.

TCF · Sep 14, 2012

================================================

Alohajrtennis · Sep 14, 2012

Misterbill said:
1. Assume for now that your Point #1 is valid. Wonder why tennis seems to be the only sport that exhibits this characteristic. I am not aware of it in other youth sports.

I think we have disagreed before on the amount of traveling done by select soccer teams and the like, but no matter. I don't think that's the issue.

I think too much time is spent comparing Tennis to other team sports and I think the analogies fall apart pretty quickly. I think the answer lies in the uniqueness of tennis. It is both an individual sport, like swimming and golf, but it's also a head-to-head sport. Like Andre and Mike Agassi pointed out, its closest analogy is really that dying sport known as boxing.

Peoples objections with the changes vary by section. Under the changes, there are numerous smaller sections, that nonetheless encompass a multi-state area, where even the 3rd or 4th best player won't even qualify for a regional, never mind a national. In these smaller sections the top half dozen kids are playing each other over and over. They need and want the occasional variety the regionals, opens and nationals offer.

With team sports, teams make ups change, seniors graduate, freshman step up, bench players become starters, so even tough you may play the same team over an over again, it doesn't have the sameness to it. With tennis you have the same kids in the same age groups playing each other over and over for years.

TCF · Sep 14, 2012

================================================

Misterbill · Sep 14, 2012

TCF said:
I have also coached baseball and basketball. My best buddy is a head soccer coach for a winning high school program. Yes, tennis is different. Maybe because of the need for parental financial support.

Tennis is a niche sport now. It depends on families to pass it down to the next generation. Not many kids discover and fall for it on their own. I am not talking about the people that hit a ball in the park 3 times a year, I am talking about the ones who spend real money on youth tennis.

So I think the USTA needs to consider the family and generational pass down dynamic as it makes decisions. TAUT can get kids into tennis cheaply....but it will depend on the family willing to spend money on tennis if the kids stick with it.

Do I think the college coach thing is a super big deal, nah, not really. I hope it is not. Like you said, lots of work arounds. Just passing along how the parents are thinking it will work out.

First, I fully understand you are passing along how the parents are thinking.

That said, I find it hard to relate to the line of thinking that the USTA needs to consider the family and generational pass-down dynamic in considering how many national tournaments there should be and how big the draws are.

I don't think a family needs to travel to a national tournament where their kid is entered to pass-down a love for tennis. The kid probably has it anyway by then, I should think.

If the kid still does not love tennis, why can't they pass down the love of the sport by traveling to a college or pro match/tournament................like families do in baseball, football etc.

Anyway, I understand you are passing along the mantra on this

Misterbill · Sep 14, 2012

Alohajrtennis said:
I think we have disagreed before on the amount of traveling done by select soccer teams and the like, but no matter. I don't think that's the issue.

I think too much time is spent comparing Tennis to other team sports and I think the analogies fall apart pretty quickly. I think the answer lies in the uniqueness of tennis. It is both an individual sport, like swimming and golf, but it's also a head-to-head sport. Like Andre and Mike Agassi pointed out, its closest analogy is really that dying sport known as boxing.

Peoples objections with the changes vary by section. Under the changes, there are numerous smaller sections, that nonetheless encompass a multi-state area, where even the 3rd or 4th best player won't even qualify for a regional, never mind a national. In these smaller sections the top half dozen kids are playing each other over and over. They need and want the occasional variety the regionals, opens and nationals offer.

With team sports, teams make ups change, seniors graduate, freshman step up, bench players become starters, so even tough you may play the same team over an over again, it doesn't have the sameness to it. With tennis you have the same kids in the same age groups playing each other over and over for years.

I may have missed something important about the new rules. Is it correct that players are prohibited from playing in tournaments in other sections or the new "regions"?

How many nationals, that people think they are entitled to, are being deprived of them each year? Four? Five?

I should think the "sameness" problem could be worked around by traveling instead to another section for a tournament, or playing "up" in a higher age group. (After all, we are talking about National talent here.) I have a hard time thinking this is the real issue...............unless, as I first inquired, I do not correctly understand the new rules.

Alohajrtennis · Sep 14, 2012

Misterbill said:
I may have missed something important about the new rules. Is it correct that players are prohibited from playing in tournaments in other sections or the new "regions"?

How many nationals, that people think they are entitled to, are being deprived of them each year? Four? Five?

I should think the "sameness" problem could be worked around by traveling instead to another section for a tournament, or playing "up" in a higher age group. (After all, we are talking about National talent here.) I have a hard time thinking this is the real issue...............unless, as I first inquired, I do not correctly understand the new rules.

For the most part, yes, they are in large part prohibited from playing in other sections tournaments. The significant sectional tournaments under the new system, the level 3's and 4's are closed, only open to sectional residents. The level 5's, which were open, have been eliminated.

Now, nothing is stopping a section, or a private organization, from having a 'sectional' tournament that doesn't have points and getting people from other sections to play, as well as their best kids, but the fact is this has never been necessary before becuase the tournament system satisfied the demand. Not 100%, lots kids on waiting lsits, but also enough that an alternate system was not viable.

In 2014 when the supply no longer comes close to meeting the demand, tournaments and opportunities like this may become viable where they are not now.

As for your offhand snide remark about National Talent, that's really one of the key issues in the debate. What exactly is National talent ? Is it potential future pro ? Is it potential NCAA scholarship recipient ?

It a rhetorical question, I know we are pretty far apart on this.

Misterbill · Sep 14, 2012

Alohajrtennis said:
For the most part, yes, they are in large part prohibited from playing in other sections tournaments. The significant sectional tournaments under the new system, the level 3's and 4's are closed, only open to sectional residents. The level 5's, which were open, have been eliminated.

Now, nothing is stopping a section, or a private organization, from having a 'sectional' tournament that doesn't have points and getting people from other sections to play, as well as their best kids, but the fact is this has never been necessary before becuase the tournament system satisfied a significant part of this demand. Not 100%, lots kids on waiting lsits, but also enough that an alternate system was not viable.

In 2014 when the supply no longer comes close to meeting the demand, tournaments and opportunities like this may become viable where they are not now.

As for your offhand snide remark about National Talent, that's really one of the key issues in the debate. What exactly is National talent ? Is it potential future pro ? Is it potential NCAA scholarship recipient ?

It a rhetorical question, I know we are pretty far apart on this.

You can't resist attacking the person instead of the point, can you?

By "national talent" I was referring to players who believe they should be candidates for national tournaments.

Sheeeeeeeeeesh.

Alohajrtennis · Sep 14, 2012

I don't think I attacked you, I commented that your remark seemed offhand and snide, and unfortunately that's the way it reads when you put it in parenths and capitalize the N, and well, you have been known to use sarcasm. I mean, if the shoe fits....anyway, My sincere apologies if that's was not your intent.

Misterbill · Sep 14, 2012

Alohajrtennis said:
I don't think I attacked you, I commented that your remark seemed offhand and snide, and unfortunately that's the way it reads when you put it in parenths and capitalize the N, and well, you have been known to use sarcasm. I mean, if the shoe fits....anyway, My sincere apologies if that's was not your intent.

No big deal.

But you still state it is snide, and you also can't resist stating I have a reputation for sarcasm. I stand by the observations I made in my prior post.

The point....again......is that players who think they are candidates for national--small "n"--tournaments should have no qualms about playing up now and then to challenge themselves and to mitigate any "sameness" issues.

And any families who choose to live in isolated areas I think need to anticipate and assume the risk that there may not be as readily diverse selections of opponents as would exist in less isolated areas.

Maybe if anyone is interested, there can be comments about the substance of these modest, unoriginal points.

EDIT: Parentheses are an indication of snideness?

ClarkC · Sep 14, 2012

Has anyone defending the new USTA draw sizes ever answered the following simple question:

Why do we have to cut draw sizes for the two summer super nationals that remain, which do not conflict with school?

All of the rationale about time away from school does not apply. The only rationale that applies is the expenditure of money. If you have a 192 draw at Kalamazoo, and you are Jack Sock or some other star, then you have to arrive early enough to beat some poor slob 6-1, 6-1, and do it again in the next round, etc. Paying money for hotel rooms so you can play uncompetitive matches.

However, a simple solution is to have a 64 draw with 16 spots for qualifiers. The qualifying tournament could get 128 additional players down to 16 with only three rounds of play. So, if you are top 48, you don't have to spend the extra nights in a hotel. Or, you could have a 32 draw with 8 spots for qualifiers, or a 64 draw with 32 spots for qualifiers, etc. Lots of possibilities, depending on how USTA wants to set the cutoff for who has to show up early and who can show up late, and how many days of hotel they want to save for the top players. Heck, you could have a 32 draw with 16 spots for qualifiers, let 256 kids into the qualifying draw, and have two fewer hotel nights for the top 16 than they currently pay for, while having more total kids taking a trip to Kalamazoo.

So, you could have almost the current 192 players, or even more than 192, but the top people don't have to spend extra money. The only people who spend the early hotel room money are those who choose to do so, because they think they will enjoy the experience, they might get hot and have a couple of significant wins that college coaches will see, etc. They spend the money of their own free will, knowing that the odds are that they will not take the tennis world by storm. Why not do that?

Alohajrtennis · Sep 14, 2012

Misterbill said:
EDIT: Parentheses are an indication of snideness?

The parentheses and the "after all" was why I described it as off-hand. Combine the "after all" with an uppercase N and I read it as you being sarcastic or snide. Again, that's just the way I read it, I take your word for it it was not your intent, and apologize.

Alohajrtennis · Sep 14, 2012

Misterbill said:
And any families who choose to live in isolated areas I think need to anticipate and assume the risk that there may not be as readily diverse selections of opponents as would exist in less isolated areas.

I am not talking about where I live. I don't think the inhabitants of Seattle, Minneapolis or Phoenix consider themselves to be living in isolated areas. While these may not be large tennis cities like Boca Raton or Bradenton or SoCal, these sections (PNW, Norhtern and SW) all encompass three or four states and can send only two or three kids (per age group) to regional events, and about the same, or less, to the new national events with reduced draws.

Alohajrtennis · Sep 14, 2012

Misterbill said:
The point....again......is that players who think they are candidates for national--small "n"--tournaments should have no qualms about playing up now and then to challenge themselves and to mitigate any "sameness" issues.

They do, they regularly play up. My 11 year old plays 14 all the time. Top girls in the 18's has been the top girls in 18's since she was 14. But all the top girls regularly play up, so chances are you run into the same kids anyhow.

Anyway, I am not arguing that every kid needs to go to every regional/national tournaments every year. What most people liked was that there was enough tournaments that lots of kids could go to some of them, even one. The schedule been cut so dramatically that very few will get to go to any.

It's not clear to me by some of your comments that you appreciate how drastically the schedule has been reduced.

TCF · Sep 14, 2012

================================================

Alohajrtennis · Sep 14, 2012

ClarkC said:
Has anyone defending the new USTA draw sizes ever answered the following simple question:

Why do we have to cut draw sizes for the two summer super nationals that remain, which do not conflict with school?

All of the rationale about time away from school does not apply. The only rationale that applies is the expenditure of money. If you have a 192 draw at Kalamazoo, and you are Jack Sock or some other star, then you have to arrive early enough to beat some poor slob 6-1, 6-1, and do it again in the next round, etc. Paying money for hotel rooms so you can play uncompetitive matches.

However, a simple solution is to have a 64 draw with 16 spots for qualifiers. The qualifying tournament could get 128 additional players down to 16 with only three rounds of play. So, if you are top 48, you don't have to spend the extra nights in a hotel. Or, you could have a 32 draw with 8 spots for qualifiers, or a 64 draw with 32 spots for qualifiers, etc. Lots of possibilities, depending on how USTA wants to set the cutoff for who has to show up early and who can show up late, and how many days of hotel they want to save for the top players. Heck, you could have a 32 draw with 16 spots for qualifiers, let 256 kids into the qualifying draw, and have two fewer hotel nights for the top 16 than they currently pay for, while having more total kids taking a trip to Kalamazoo.

So, you could have almost the current 192 players, or even more than 192, but the top people don't have to spend extra money. The only people who spend the early hotel room money are those who choose to do so, because they think they will enjoy the experience, they might get hot and have a couple of significant wins that college coaches will see, etc. They spend the money of their own free will, knowing that the odds are that they will not take the tennis world by storm. Why not do that?

This is way too logical.

First, seriously though, it not clear these sorts of incremental modifications were considered.

Another thing to consider, which I don't think has been discussed, is that the main 12 and 14 national events are very different from the 16 and 18 events, and not just the size of the contestants. They are compass draws, kids will play a minimum of four matches, most play six. For kids this age, its a huge adventure, a great experience, and that vast majority of them will go home with a positive tennis experience : some wins, some losses, a feeling that they did great, or a realization that they have to work harder, but motivated nonetheless. Its a reward for all the hard work. Its much better for the kids to spend a week at these tournaments then spending thousands of dollars to <fill in name of tennis academy here>, and they will get as much out of it if not more.

So, I am not sure your qualifying/main draw approach works at these age levels.

tennis5 · Sep 14, 2012

Misterbill said:
Is it correct that players are prohibited from playing in tournaments in other sections or the new "regions"?

How many nationals, that people think they are entitled to, are being deprived of them each year? Four? Five?

I should think the "sameness" problem could be worked around by traveling instead to another section for a tournament

I know we are ignoring each other ( my request, thank you for obliging),
but I just want to make sure the posts are accurate for other readers.

1) Sectionals ( best players of the section) are only for your section.

2) Regionals, under the new rules, will be only for your region.
No traveling to other regionals.
This is very limiting, and also geographically more difficult for some locations.

3) Super Nats were cut by 50% ( 4 tournaments to 2), and the two remaining will have their draw size cut.
12's was drastically cut to 64 players which makes no sense....

TCF · Sep 14, 2012

================================================.

tennis5 · Sep 14, 2012

ClarkC said:
Has anyone defending the new USTA draw sizes ever answered the following simple question:

Why do we have to cut draw sizes for the two summer super nationals that remain, which do not conflict with school?

All of the rationale about time away from school does not apply. The only rationale that applies is the expenditure of money. If you have a 192 draw at Kalamazoo, and you are Jack Sock or some other star, then you have to arrive early enough to beat some poor slob 6-1, 6-1, and do it again in the next round, etc. Paying money for hotel rooms so you can play uncompetitive matches.

Good points.

1) Rational for cutting tournaments was not to miss school.
Winter Nats everyone is off, and Clay and Hard takes place over summer.

2) Wouldn't Jack Sock get a bye? Couldn't he arrive the next day?

3) I haven't met one blue chip who is in favor of the cuts.....

tennis5 · Sep 14, 2012

justinmadison said:
It makes no sense to argue the pros and cons of the changes without understand the truth about why they were made.

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. When a company that is a monopoly makes changes the vast majority of its customers do not like and then explains why the changes are good in a way that the majority of participates believe do not make sense you have to question the companies true motivations. Usually, the people making the changes are the ones benefiting from them. It’s not rocket science.

Arguing with people who think it makes sense to take away opportunity because people cannot be trusted to make good decision is a waste of time.

In 2010 junior players did not care about the Player Development program. If you were a good player and had a private coach with a few friends to practice with you did not need them. You could work with your coach, practice with your team or at your club and play lots of tournaments with high quality competition. You did not need to travel very much to qualify for the top tournaments. There were many national tournaments all over the country and they were not difficult to enter. If you could do well in a couple of L3s you were in your L2, do well there and you are in the L1s. You did not need to play them all because there were many to choose from and there were bigger draws. If you wanted to play more tournaments, because you lived in SoCal or had the means, you would have continuous access to top quality competition to gage where you were at and improve through experience. You did not need wild cards when you aged up because the draws were large and you could play your way in.

The PD guys hated this. The best kids did not want to be in the PD program. It is difficult to justify the big budgets and highly paid executives when none of the players even care you exist.

How to fix this problem? How about cut the number of tournaments to the point where it is difficult to have access to great competition increasing the importance of a training center with many players. How about cut the draw sizes and increase the wildcards controlled by the PD guys giving them the power to get kids into the tournament draws and keep them in when the age up. Problem solved. Now Player Development is important and players want (need) to be in the program.

The problem was clear and they had the power to fix it. So they did. I bet the number of applicants to the HiPo program has skyrocketed. The activity level makes the coaches look great. I can just imagine the power points with graphs up and to the right on applications, players in the program and success rates. By the time anyone realizes junior tennis in the US is going down the tubes Pat’s bank account will be full and we can move on to the next guy who has an even better idea for his bank account, oh, that’s right, I meant for US junior tennis.

Reducing the draws

Increasing the wild cards where before you would shrug your head as number 40 on the wait list would get in and lose main and backdraw, imagine how bad it will be going forward.
( and just to digress the past two years they have given their PD kids wc and they did terrible, and then they kicked them out of the program....... So, they spent all this money on kids who couldn't get one win...)

Xmas now being a team event with their PD coaches and if you lose you stay and continue to play............

Slashing the 12's

All these changes make the best players have to join the PD if they want to be part of the elite game.

Misterbill · Sep 14, 2012

TCF said:
We are creatures of habit, generations of families have developed kids for these tournaments. Americans are also focused on 'prizes'. Competing in the large national tournaments meant something to them. For all we know the lack of that opportunity makes them decide tennis is not for their families next generation.

You are focused on what these people 'could do'. Sure they could do all the things you suggest. They could change what they have done for decades and do what they can to limit the effect of the changes. Or as customers of tennis, they could choose not to. That is the grand experiment being run now.

In the end, these families will make their choices. Its like the third generation losing the language spoken by the immigrant grand parents. These families may decide that USTA junior tennis is no longer worth their while, the tennis tournament thing ends with this generation.

Like I said, Americans are prize obsessed, tournaments are their prizes. Local and sectional may not be enough. Rightly or wrongly, many of these families think national large draws are their kid's payoff for the money they spend on tennis. There is no law that says a consumer has to be rational. So they may decide the next generation should play soccer like all the other kids in the neighborhood.

I think it would be foolish to think these changes may not have unintended consequences long term on the number of American families who take competitive junior tennis seriously. We shall see.

The experience of developing kids for national tournaments for generations is not shared by our family or tennis acquaintances. Not doubting that it exists. But I wonder how universal and pervasive it is.

If it is pervasive, that would seem to put a lot of pressure on masses of entry-level kids, and I wonder if it actually is counter-productive.

This all makes me sad. If the future of youth tennis depends on access to the prize of national competition for what, a difference of about 50-100 kids per tourney in various age groups, then I think there are a lot more fundamental issues with the sport that need to be dealt with.

Who knows, maybe it will be good for the sport to de-emphasize the focus on the prize of national competition for the masses, to the extent it exists. Let kids get their motivation and incentive from multiple, more readily available levels of success and accomplishment............as in most other sports.

Misterbill · Sep 14, 2012

tennis5 said:
I know we are ignoring each other ( my request, thank you for obliging),
but I just want to make sure the posts are accurate for other readers.

1) Sectionals ( best players of the section) are only for your section.

2) Regionals, under the new rules, will be only for your region.
No traveling to other regionals.
This is very limiting, and also geographically more difficult for some locations.

3) Super Nats were cut by 50% ( 4 tournaments to 2), and the two remaining will have their draw size cut.
12's was drastically cut to 64 players which makes no sense....

I never said I was ignoring you.

You have said you are ignoring me........make that five times now. Again, I urge you to be true to your word.

So, if I understand correctly, players may play in tournaments in other sections, except for Sectional championships. If I am wrong, I am sure someone will post up to correct me.

This is one way to mitigate any issues of playing the same persons over and over again in a small home section. For 16 and under kids, they can play up in another section and probably get good competition, if that is a concern.......and there would be the intangible benefits that others say exist in having family tennis trips

Tennishacker · Sep 14, 2012

ClarkC said:
Has anyone defending the new USTA draw sizes ever answered the following simple question:

Why do we have to cut draw sizes for the two summer super nationals that remain, which do not conflict with school?

All of the rationale about time away from school does not apply. The only rationale that applies is the expenditure of money. If you have a 192 draw at Kalamazoo, and you are Jack Sock or some other star, then you have to arrive early enough to beat some poor slob 6-1, 6-1, and do it again in the next round, etc. Paying money for hotel rooms so you can play uncompetitive matches.

However, a simple solution is to have a 64 draw with 16 spots for qualifiers. The qualifying tournament could get 128 additional players down to 16 with only three rounds of play. So, if you are top 48, you don't have to spend the extra nights in a hotel. Or, you could have a 32 draw with 8 spots for qualifiers, or a 64 draw with 32 spots for qualifiers, etc. Lots of possibilities, depending on how USTA wants to set the cutoff for who has to show up early and who can show up late, and how many days of hotel they want to save for the top players. Heck, you could have a 32 draw with 16 spots for qualifiers, let 256 kids into the qualifying draw, and have two fewer hotel nights for the top 16 than they currently pay for, while having more total kids taking a trip to Kalamazoo.

So, you could have almost the current 192 players, or even more than 192, but the top people don't have to spend extra money. The only people who spend the early hotel room money are those who choose to do so, because they think they will enjoy the experience, they might get hot and have a couple of significant wins that college coaches will see, etc. They spend the money of their own free will, knowing that the odds are that they will not take the tennis world by storm. Why not do that?

Clark, you solution is the what other tennis parents come up when discussing the USTA tournament changes.

Such a simple solution, fair, better for the seeded players, good for the economy...

Alohajrtennis · Sep 14, 2012

Misterbill said:
So, if I understand correctly, players may play in tournaments in other sections, except for Sectional championships. If I am wrong, I am sure someone will post up to correct me.

This is one way to mitigate any issues of playing the same persons over and over again in a small home section. For 16 and under kids, they can play up in another section and probably get good competition, if that is a concern

Ok, I am posting up. I think you misunderstood. It may be a matter of terminology, and I don't mean to be pedantic, but the answer is really much closer to no than yes. With the 2014 changes, it becomes much less practicable to lay in other sections.

Right now, each section has 12 'designated' events. These are the key sectional tournaments. Each section has seven level 5's, three level 4's and one level 3. When you use the phrase "Sectional Championships" it could be construed as mean just the level 3 or all 12 of the designateds, or maybe just the 3 L3's and the L4. In any case, the level 4's and the level 3's are closed. Only sectional residents can play these. Level 5 are open, out of section residents can play these.

However, in 2014, the level 5's are eliminated, and each section now gets two(2) level threes and four(4) level fours, for a total of six tourneys instead of 12. All of them will be closed, so you will no longer be able to play in significant tournaments in other sections.

10s4US · Sep 14, 2012

Misterbill said:
The experience of developing kids for national tournaments for generations is not shared by our family or tennis acquaintances. Not doubting that it exists. But I wonder how universal and pervasive it is.

If it is pervasive, that would seem to put a lot of pressure on masses of entry-level kids, and I wonder if it actually is counter-productive.

This all makes me sad. If the future of youth tennis depends on access to the prize of national competition for what, a difference of about 50-100 kids per tourney in various age groups, then I think there are a lot more fundamental issues with the sport that need to be dealt with.

Who knows, maybe it will be good for the sport to de-emphasize the focus on the prize of national competition for the masses, to the extent it exists. Let kids get their motivation and incentive from multiple, more readily available levels of success and accomplishment............as in most other sports.

You obviously havent experienced anything to do with competitive jr tennis and the progressive goals to the top of the game. Universal? Absolutely.The majority 99% (I know no one save USTA administration) that do participate in national tournaments AS WELL AS LOCAL that want them reduced to veritable elimination
"pressure on masses of entry-level kids, and I wonder if it actually is counter-productive?"
Yes people react differently to competition and those that dont like it go in modified or other directions but those that do like it as evident in the multi 1,000's that do like it shouldn't be denied. The USTA should provide more opportunities not limit them. Ill say therefore in the spirit of freedom of choice and economic supply and demand let those that do desire and benefit have the opportunity to participate. Sadly the USTA is allowing Player Development program to dictate and use the entire Junior program as theirs.
Team tennis,training workshop for top 32 sounds like a USTA training week or weekend Great do it but give natl USTA points for it?and exclude the other 75% that have made it to Winter Nats. Wow
As it is there are hundreds if not 1,000's other players that arent ranked high enough to get in that are on alternate list waiting that have applied for Nat'l champ trnies What IS the problem with Jack Sock having a bye the first day and practicing?
He'd be there anyway. It is his advantage to not have to come two days earlier to get acclamated like the other 128.
Bottom line is there is enough demand from the National Jr players to warrant continuing national opportunities. There is a clear mandate to do so.
For every administrator/J r Committee member that says they have a mandate for the 2011-2014 changes I'll show you hundreds of players ,parents,coaches, and directors they are serving that have been adversely impacted already and disapprove of many of the changes.
There are already national tournaments that will not have National USTA points that are planned for college coaches to scout and they will be packed.
to view

Misterbill · Sep 15, 2012

10s4US said:
You obviously havent experienced anything to do with competitive jr tennis and the progressive goals to the top of the game.

You are correct.

I am just an average D1 tennis parent, now, with a kid who previously earned slots at multiple junior nationals.

This excludes me from the group who has experienced anything to do with competitive junior tennis and the progressive goals to the top of the game according to your opinion, which I respect.

I am beginning to form the opinion that this is at the crux of a major problem with the sport.

TCF · Sep 15, 2012

================================================

10s4US · Sep 15, 2012

Misterbill said:
You are correct.

I am just an average D1 tennis parent, now, with a kid who previously earned slots at multiple junior nationals.

This excludes me from the group who has experienced anything to do with competitive junior tennis and the progressive goals to the top of the game according to your opinion, which I respect.

I am beginning to form the opinion that this is the crux of a major problem with the sport.

Are you stating your situation or saying if I am....?
In any case This situation has benefitted and thrived and should continue to be available for others. The crux of the problem is limiting opportunities for others.Limiting and restricting goes against the basic human principles of freedom of choice and economics. No one has been forced to play nat'ls nor should they be limited to only locals. I actually think qualifying locally then regionally ala Little Mo works as well congruently in certain situations with other stand alone Nationals for all, maybe having qualifying as well

Problem systemically is none of us has any input anyway thats the REAL CRUX of the problem. Others volunteer to approve what others think what is best for US in spite of our input, suggestions, and the mandated documented disapproval. Perhaps if we continue to shed light and advocate at all levels within and from with out things will change for the better.

Misterbill · Sep 15, 2012

TCF said:
Thats the best case scenario. Unfortunately I do not think it will work that way.

Most of these families seem to go back and forth if continuing to be very involved in youth tennis is worth it. Money is tighter than 30 years ago, no guarantee of SS being there for them, few pensions, college costs skyrocketing. Less room to risk spending lots of kid's tennis. Yet they do not seem to have interest in just local competition vs the same few kids. Sure it would save them money....but so would just switching to another sport. Thats the decision that will be made now.

There has to be a pay off for the kid not being the popular football player, missing his friends to practice tennis, etc. That pay off is nationals for many dedicated families. They COULD adjust to more local play, or just let the boys play baseball with their friends and let the girl's enjoy the social aspects of soccer.

I said in another post I see TAUT combined with these changes in tournaments changing youth tennis over time into dodge ball. A fun thing you do in gym class in grade school, maybe go to the park and hit a few times a year with your buddies or parent.

But the real danger is breaking the cycle of long time tennis families who support the USTA youth tournament structure.

Thanks for sharing this perspective, which I hadn't taken into account before. Now that I am aware of it, I will try to view things with this in mind.

Our family's tennis roots are much different, so maybe that's why I did not previously appreciate the influence of generations focusing on prep for national tournaments.

I was a playground rat, never had a private lesson. Won the State championship 14 and under.....it was called the State Closed tournament in those days (not a USTA event). Small state, and ages ago, so this modest accomplishment bears absolutely no resemblance to the level of talent it would take today to be 14 and under champ in any State, I would venture to say.

Kid was given a racquet and other sports equipment as a toddler. Took to tennis and seemed to have the highest ceiling there in my judgment, so we went with it. One star to four star on TRN. Got into some nationals, didn't get into others. D1 scholy at a mid-major. No expectation anywhere along the line of going pro.

We thought juniors was a great ride, with all the accomplishments, stress, challenges, disappointments, and life lessons. We think the kid's level of play would be the same regardless if there were more or fewer nationals. So I understand that this background puts me on the fringes....outer fringes....of mainstream thinking here.

But back to your point, appreciate the new...for me....insight you posted up

TCF · Sep 15, 2012

================================================

tennis5 · Sep 15, 2012

10s4US said:
Sadly the USTA is allowing Player Development program to dictate and use the entire Junior program as theirs.

Excellent observation. IT IS NOT THEIRS......
It belongs to the juniors of this country.

Team tennis,training workshop for top 32 sounds like a USTA training week or weekend Great do it but give natl USTA points for it?and exclude the other 75% that have made it to Winter Nats. Wow

So there with you buddy. Again, another event they took over that benefits only the PD players....
This event is heavily wild carded in, is run as a team event, when you lose, you stay on and continue in it,
and the coaches for this TEAM EVENT are PD COACHES and WAIT YOU SAY,
YOU GET NATIONAL POINTS FOR THIS .
WOW, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

As it is there are hundreds if not 1,000's other players that arent ranked high enough to get in that are on alternate list waiting that have applied for Nat'l champ trnies What IS the problem with Jack Sock having a bye the first day and practicing?

Bottom line is there is enough demand from the National Jr players to warrant continuing national opportunities. There is a clear mandate to do so.
For every administrator/J r Committee member that says they have a mandate for the 2011-2014 changes I'll show you hundreds of players ,parents,coaches, and directors they are serving that have been adversely impacted already and disapprove of many of the changes.

Great points. Well made. You are right, it is the third set.

Alohajrtennis · Sep 15, 2012

Misterbill said:
Thanks for sharing this perspective, which I hadn't taken into account before. Now that I am aware of it, I will try to view things with this in mind.

Our family's tennis roots are much different, so maybe that's why I did not previously appreciate the influence of generations focusing on prep for national tournaments.

I was a playground rat, never had a private lesson. Won the State championship 14 and under.....it was called the State Closed tournament in those days (not a USTA event). Small state, and ages ago, so this modest accomplishment bears absolutely no resemblance to the level of talent it would take today to be 14 and under champ in any State, I would venture to say.

Kid was given a racquet and other sports equipment as a toddler. Took to tennis and seemed to have the highest ceiling there in my judgment, so we went with it. One star to four star on TRN. Got into some nationals, didn't get into others. D1 scholy at a mid-major. No expectation anywhere along the line of going pro.

We thought juniors was a great ride, with all the accomplishments, stress, challenges, disappointments, and life lessons. We think the kid's level of play would be the same regardless if there were more or fewer nationals. So I understand that this background puts me on the fringes....outer fringes....of mainstream thinking here.

But back to your point, appreciate the new...for me....insight you posted up

Many people beleive that the changes are so drastic that a stories like yours may no longer be possible.

Until now, it possible for a player like your child to get into an occasional national. Builds the resume, helps in the chase for the scholarship. every edge counts. With the changes, those opportunities for you players to play in those nationals are gone. That mid-major coach is just as likely to take a foreign player now than take a risk on American kid with no track record. Yes there is videotape, but the American kid has now probably a lot less experience outside of the section, while the foreign kid probably has extensive match record from traveling around Europe or wherever.

That's really what most people who are unhappy the most want. With the changes, if you are not top 100, or better yet, top 50, you could be shut out of any competition outside of your section.

I am glad your child made it through the way they did. We just hope that door is till open in the future.

The supporters of the changes are generally have a couple of talking they like to spin : they say opponents of the changes are rich parents of untalented kids who want to fly around the country point chasing. In reality it is broad based and many opponents have different motivations. But the primary base of the opposition are more like your you(and Me) than the caricature above. Parents of talented kids smart enough to know there child is probably not going to be a professional. We are not arguing the current system is perfect, but we want a system that is not exclusive to just blue chips and 5 stars. With the changes, there is not even any room for 4-stars, like your child, to occasionally go to a national.

tennis5 · Sep 15, 2012

Alohajrtennis said:
Many people beleive that the changes are so drastic that a stories like yours may no longer be possible.

Until now, it possible for a player like your child to get into an occasional national. Builds the resume, helps in the chase for the scholarship. every edge counts. With the changes, those opportunities for you players to play in those nationals are gone. That mid-major coach is just as likely to take a foreign player now than take a risk on American kid with no track record. Yes there is videotape, but the American kid has now probably a lot less experience outside of the section, while the foreign kid probably has extensive match record from traveling around Europe or wherever.

That's really what most people who are unhappy the most want. With the changes, if you are not top 100, or better yet, top 50, you could be shut out of any competition outside of your section.

I am glad your child made it through the way they did. We just hope that door is till open in the future.

The supporters of the changes are generally have a couple of talking they like to spin : they say opponents of the changes are rich parents of untalented kids who want to fly around the country point chasing. In reality it is broad based and many opponents have different motivations. But the primary base of the opposition are more like your you(and Me) than the caricature above. Parents of talented kids smart enough to know there child is probably not going to be a professional. We are not arguing the current system is perfect, but we want a system that is not exclusive to just blue chips and 5 stars. With the changes, there is not even any room for 4-stars, like your child, to occasionally go to a national.

With a 64 draw for 12 and under....... it is primarily blue chips.

Why? 12 and under is a group that has:

7th graders
6th graders
And a couple of 8th graders with fall birthdays

TCF · Sep 15, 2012

================================================

Misterbill · Sep 15, 2012

TCF said:
Very nice summary Aloha. The first line is powerful....stories like MisterBill's relationship with tournament tennis may indeed be in the past.

My kid had lousy results in Nationals. We never got the impression that playing in Nationals was the key to recruitment. In fact, I have often thought if the kid didn't play Nationals, maybe there would have been a Major offer rather than mid-Major!!

I think it is an overstatement to say that the current changes will lead to overseas recruitment supplanting domestic recruitment....beyond the effect of other extraneous factors.

Especially so since Dallas Oliver has come on here at least twice to say he does not believe the changes will adversely affect the validity of the TRN rankings due to lack of cross-play.

If it is too inconvenient and expensive for a college coach to recruit at a couple of sections/regions..........why would he/she compensate for these particular problems by recruiting overseas?

10s4US · Sep 15, 2012

Misterbill said:
My kid had lousy results in Nationals. We never got the impression that playing in Nationals was the key to recruitment. In fact, I have often thought if the kid didn't play Nationals, maybe there would have been a Major offer rather than mid-Major!!

I think it is an overstatement to say that the current changes will lead to overseas recruitment supplanting domestic recruitment....beyond the effect of other extraneous factors.

Especially so since Dallas Oliver has come on here at least twice to say he does not believe the changes will adversely affect the validity of the TRN rankings due to lack of cross-play.

If it is too inconvenient and expensive for a college coach to recruit at a couple of sections/regions..........why would he/she compensate for these particular problems by recruiting overseas?

So you didn't value NAt'ls ...not that important in your personal family experience?
granted experience comes from a lot of places, older siblings, friends, friends parents and local Nat'l tournaments .. why not?
Heck I learned the game at the parks like you from Old Red a 70 yr old man with bad knees and a ridiculous underhand sidespin serve
and 30 yr old fireman hacker pusher who schooled this high school hotshot
in the art of endurance and not missing. And some tips from Big ten champs as I learned the art of teaching in a Rec program
Never my own private lesson nor a nat'l tournament myself, just local tourneys not even sectionals.
However my students and own kids have enjoyed the Nat'l experiences
and have enjoyed and will enjoy college scholarships therefore
Different strokes and paths... why limit opportunities for those that desire?

"" If it is too inconvenient and expensive for a college coach to recruit at a couple of sections/regions..........why would he/she compensate for these particular problems by recruiting overseas?[/QUOTE]"
...Interesting point...

Mitch Bridge · Sep 15, 2012

The recent tournament system that is no longer in effect is far from perfect, but it caused kids to compete more and gain more match experience than when the Start System was in place (2002). Competitive kids have been playing 70+ matches since they were 11 years old, keeping up with the Europeans in experience. As importantly, kids in weaker sections could chase the L3s around the country to play different kids. They didn't need the ranking points so much as the variety of opponent. The stronger section kids needed the points, so chasing the L3s was a must for qualifying for bigger tournaments. The inequality sectionally with the amount of stronger players as well as ranking point distribution was more neutralized with the abundance of L3s. It made these two factors more tolerable, and it also made it more fair.

I have lived in two different sections for long periods of time, and so I have the benefit of seeing the tournament system from both angles.

Misterbill · Sep 15, 2012

10s4US said:
So you didn't value NAt'ls ...not that important in your personal family experience?

In a nutshell.................no.

To expand a bit. When the player qualified for some Nationals......because we are competitive people........we were happy. When the player did not qualify for some Nationals, because we are competitive, we were disappointed.

No feelings of gratitude for receiving any favors in the case of qualifying. No feelings of deprivation for denial of any entitlement in the case of not qualifying. It was the competitive opportunity that was valued.....qualifying or not.

I guess another way to say that is that we value both wins and losses.

10s4US said:
Different strokes and paths... why limit opportunities for those that desire?

You asked why there should be limits on opportunities for those that desire? That's pretty abstract, I think. There are limits on practically all worthwhile opportunities I can think of in life......admission to Harvard, classroom spots in high school for a coveted course, tennis scholarships, roster spots on sports teams, a job at a great company..........I could go on but I think everyone gets the idea.

Whether the limit should be 32 or 64 or 128 or 256 or whatever for National tennis tournaments, and how many Nattys there should be, is what everybody is discussing. And there are good arguments for various different formulas.

But to ask why there should be limits at all, I think assumes a premise that dispenses with reality. Will be interested to read others' thoughts about this

10s4US · Sep 15, 2012

Misterbill said:
In a nutshell.................no.

To expand a bit. When the player qualified for some Nationals......because we are competitive people........we were happy. When the player did not qualify for some Nationals, because we are competitive, we were disappointed.

No feelings of gratitude for receiving any favors in the case of qualifying. No feelings of deprivation for denial of any entitlement in the case of not qualifying. It was the competitive opportunity that was valued.....qualifying or not.

I guess another way to say that is that we value both wins and losses.

You asked why there should be limits on opportunities for those that desire? That's pretty abstract, I think. There are limits on practically all worthwhile opportunities I can think of in life......admission to Harvard, classroom spots in high school for a coveted course, tennis scholarships, roster spots on sports teams, a job at a great company..........I could go on but I think everyone gets the idea.

Whether the limit should be 32 or 64 or 128 or 256 or whatever for National tennis tournaments, and how many Nattys there should be, is what everybody is discussing. And there are good arguments for various different formulas.

But to ask why there should be limits at all, I think assumes a premise that dispenses with reality. Will be interested to read others' thoughts about this

And yours had the opportunity to compete, you benefitted win or lose as should our future players
that's the point Had Natls been cut 50-75% you might not even had that opportunity
As to the limit of players why not the economies of scale...supply and demand
where the resources support and need
If you want numbers...
ie 4 Nat Opens 64 draws
Level 1 128-196
etc
stand alone Regional tournaments
...pre 2011
Most importantly the USTA needs to listen and have have feedback forum
for the players,parents they serve...

dallasoliver · Sep 16, 2012

Misterbill said:
Especially so since Dallas Oliver has come on here at least twice to say he does not believe the changes will adversely affect the validity of the TRN rankings due to lack of cross-play.

I know that Tennis Recruiting is not the focus of this thread (and I don't want it to be), but I wanted to make one comment on what TRN is doing...

Our head-to-head rankings require some degree of cross-play between different parts of the country, and the 2014 changes do threaten that. Our strategy is to compensate by encouraging open tournaments across the country. These open tournaments - which we will call National Showcases - will be guaranteed to count in our rankings. We are working with tournament directors in many areas (New York, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Georgia, Oklahoma City, Southern California, Southwest Section) to start running these National Showcases. We are trying to work within the context of the USTA to get cross-play - which should keep our rankings viable and perhaps make them better than they are today.

There is always lead time in getting tournaments sanctioned - we are working hard on it now to make sure these National Showcases are hitting on all cylinders when we get to 2014.

Best,
Dallas

Misterbill · Sep 16, 2012

Dallas, thanks for this encouraging information. I think the National Showcases are a wonderful idea....and one that we could have expected smart entrepreneurs to seize upon.

In February you said the following. I, and maybe others, would be interested to know what has led you to change your mind, and now conclude that the new plan will threaten cross-play. Just more time to reflect?

dallasoliver said:
We'll see how things go, but honestly, the only thing that will make a difference is if there is not enough cross-play between players. The only areas where we have seen problems with our head-to-head system is when there are truly isolated pools of kids who play only among themselves. We don't think this will be the case - despite the new focus on play within sections.

There should still be plenty of cross-play at the top, and those players will (presumably) push others in their section down. (In our system, players earn credit for beating those below them and are pushed down by those above them.) There should also be a sufficient amount cross-play at the intermediate levels as well with some of the open events within the sections. There has never really been cross-play at the lower levels.

dallasoliver · Sep 16, 2012

Misterbill said:
Dallas, thanks for this encouraging information. I think the National Showcases are a wonderful idea....and one that we could have expected smart entrepreneurs to seize upon.

Tournament directors are excited about these. Many of these tournament directors are folks who ran the old open tournaments on holiday weekends and in the summertime - they are looking forward to running these types of events again.

Misterbill said:
In February you said the following. I, and maybe others, would be interested to know what has led you to change your mind, and now conclude that the new plan will threaten cross-play. Just more time to reflect?

I think the only statement I made before that I view differently today is this one:

dallasoliver said:
There should also be a sufficient amount cross-play at the intermediate levels as well with some of the open events within the sections. There has never really been cross-play at the lower levels.

I didn't realize that most of the open events were vanishing - which is where we saw a lot of cross-play for the intermediate levels - 3- and 4-Stars. These National Showcase events should pick up the slack there, and they should actually pick up some 2-Stars as well, which is why I think things could actually be better for us. Even if the USTA rescinds some of these changes, we think that these National Showcases will be a good thing, and so we will push them.

Best,
Dallas

TCF · Sep 16, 2012

================================================================================================

Misterbill · Sep 16, 2012

dallasoliver said:
Tournament directors are excited about these. Many of these tournament directors are folks who ran the old open tournaments on holiday weekends and in the summertime - they are looking forward to running these types of events again.

I think the only statement I made before that I view differently today is this one:

I didn't realize that most of the open events were vanishing - which is where we saw a lot of cross-play for the intermediate levels - 3- and 4-Stars. These National Showcase events should pick up the slack there, and they should actually pick up some 2-Stars as well, which is why I think things could actually be better for us. Even if the USTA rescinds some of these changes, we think that these National Showcases will be a good thing, and so we will push them.

Best,
Dallas

Thanks again, for this information and explanation.

I think the demands from a lot of posters here (not me) can be summed up in three categories

1. Demand for family trips that involve a child playing in a national tennis tournament

2. Demand for a greater variety of opponents

3. Demand for convenient opportunities for college coaches to recruit.

I think the 4-3-2 star National Showcases respond to all these demands, and should fill up fast

US Juniors needs MORE Nat'l and advanced experiences not less

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

New User

TCF

Guest

Semi-Pro

TCF

Guest

Semi-Pro

TCF

Guest

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

TCF

Guest

Semi-Pro

Professional

TCF

Guest

Professional

Professional

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Professional

Semi-Pro

New User

Semi-Pro

TCF

Guest

New User

Semi-Pro

TCF

Guest

Professional

Semi-Pro

Professional

TCF

Guest

Semi-Pro

New User

Rookie

Semi-Pro

New User

Rookie

Semi-Pro

Rookie

TCF

Guest

Semi-Pro

Similar threads