better than playing college tennis and wasting 4 years .. haven't seen too many improved while playing college tennis(maybe just a handful out of hundreds every year)... yeah I know everyone is going to throw ""college education"" in my face...
2013-14 Season - Division 1
- Thread starter TopDawg
- Start date
better than playing college tennis and wasting 4 years .. haven't seen too many improved while playing college tennis(maybe just a handful out of hundreds every year)... yeah I know everyone is going to throw ""college education"" in my face...
Many, many college athletes, not just in tennis, leave after playing 4 years without getting a degree, I think a lot of people forget or don't realize that. I know people who've gone to college in their 30s or 40s, you can't start a pro tennis career in your 30s or 40s. so I don't blame anyone for wanting to give it shot. Besides, very, very, few college players have gone on to do better in the pros than players who went straight into the pros (and again, not all the college players earned a degree).
1) maybe worth pointing out that 3 of top 4 highest ranked americans right now came through college
2) even if you do make it in sports, what do you do once you retire - sit on your ass? not very fulfilling for anyone with a brain in their head
try telling grant hill his duke education wasn't worth it when he could have jumped to the nba earlier - doesn't need the money now but a competitive smart guy always needs a challenge to be happy
http://www.pentamezz.com/team/
B1G Tennis
New User
Based on what, exactly? There are three US Men in the top 100 right now who didn't play college tennis. One was the #1 ranked junior in the world at age 15. One won the Kalamazoo tourney twice. There aren't an American juniors over 16 that that have a resume of that caliber.
So your sample size of comparable non-college pros is one person. Meanwhile, for that one person there are tons of no-college pros who have burned out. There are tons of Scoville Jenkins, Michael McClunes, Adam El Mihdawys, or Jordan Coxs that were "sure-fire talents" but wound up never cracking the top 150. And these were all top juniors in their classes, which is very rare for college players. If anything, college tennis has shown to be a better development model over the last decade.
If you are incapable of making the top 250 or so within a year, you shouldn't go pro. Considering Escobedo's played half of a full schedule and if you double his points, he'd be ranked around #500, it's clear he's not there. He's never even beaten a top 300 player. To throw away a tennis scholarship and the admissions bump, money, and academic counseling that comes with it is a stupid decision for him.
or for a tennis example, richey reneberg after winning multiple dubs grand slams and being a top 20 singles player at one time, now a taconic capital finance bigwig
college is still a good investment (especially if you can get an athletic department to pay for it), don't get tricked into thinking otherwise
college is still a good investment (especially if you can get an athletic department to pay for it), don't get tricked into thinking otherwise
yeah, it's pretty straightforward if you ask me
if you're a once in a generation talent like nadal - go pro, should end up great
if you're a once a year talent like ryan harrison or donald young - maybe go pro, still may not end up great
if you're a hundred a year talent like most everyone else - don't be a goddamn idiot
Different players progress at different stages and in different environments though. David Ferrer wasn't a 'once a year' talent when he was 18. Pro tennis still would appear to have been the right choice for him.
For some guys college is a great environment and Isner, Johnson and Klahn clearly made the most of it. For others however, it brings distractions and can cause them to lose focus. The emphasis on 'winning now' can also be detrimental to a player's development.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still, in general terms at least, very much in the 'college is a better option for the vast majority of players' camp. It's just important not to be too black and white about the issue.
Based on the rankings history of the last 20 years or so. Your argument is based on the current rankings, which happen to be during a period where the US has had probably it's worst showing in the last 100 years or more. I'm also including foreign players who both have and have not played college tennis, are you? I know players who've turned pro straight out of juniors, they traveled the world, met people they otherwise would not have, and gained invaluable experiences. They later went back to school, started businesses, entered the work force, and used some the connections they made playing the pro tennis tour even though they did not grow rich from playing. I've yet to talk to a player who turned pro early tell me they regretted it.
So this notion that a young player turning pro early is doomed to life a panhandling by the freeway in their later years is nonsense. You and others need to get off your high horse and quit thinking you know better how someone else should live their life. You're 9-5 drudge is probably not how many would not want to live their lives, they just don't go on the internet and get all upset about it.
Last edited:
nice story
i read through it a couple times seeing if there were any names attached, didn't find any
sure, some people have had nice experiences on the pro tour, don't doubt that even if you didn't bother to provide even one anecdotal name
but it's not the sound decision when a free college degree is on your plate unless you're a once-a-year talent or better (talking men's tennis here, may not apply to other sports with deeper rosters of money-making pros) or your family has you set up for life no matter what you dick around doing professionally
Last edited:
aka during the period where tennis has become more global and competitive than ever - i'd say results from 10 or even 5 years ago have lost their relevance by now - we're not just randomly in a period where americans started sucking at tennis - it has gotten way harder to make it on tour than it was a generation ago
Last edited:
Clemson_tennis
Legend
Obviously the top talents of the world (Krygios, Quinzi, Coric, Kozlov, Garin etc.) should go straight pro. But for players that are not making a lot of inroads on the challenger circuit they should consider college. Nowadays on the ATP tour, players are not making the 17-18 year old breakthroughs like they used to. Are Fratangelo and Krueger better players now for choosing the pros? They are no better than say a Domijan or Giron who did select college. It's all about personal preference. I personally think that the college route is better for avoiding burnout.
I played internationally as a junior, played on scholarship for an NCAA National Championship team, played pro tennis and have coached many others who have done the same. The list of names would be huge, but out of respect I choose not to speak for others. I've actually played college tennis, and I loved it, and can say I can see why a player may choose to skip it. I suspect you and most of the others who are so judgemental never achieved anything of note in tennis yourselves. And you are really being naïve if you actually believe because I chose not speak for others and name them that it must not be true. And I'll say again, many players who go to college, scholarship or not, do not earn a degree. But you know better, that's why you're the most successful man in the world...aren't you? You get the last word, it means more to you anyway...
Last edited:
sure, a fair enough post, i prefer to paint it black and white because i think a lot of idiots trick themselves into thinking they're going to be the guy that beats the odds and makes it without college tennis despite not being an insane talent when you put the gray zone out there - but nothing is quite as simple as my post you responded to, i'm aware
was curious after your post and tried to find ferrer's junior itf results - didn't find much at all - how good was he? anyone know?
did find a story about his coach locking him in a ball closet because he didn't practice hard enough and him quitting for a week, however, good stuff
maybe if american coaches did that we'd have more top pros?
Don't forget Anderson, currently #20, Becker, Nedovyesov, Devvarman, and one of my faves, Blaz Rola, all college guys. If you saw Anderson as a freshman and then as a senior, the development was remarkable. Never would have happened if he went solo into the pros imo. The college development opportunity allows for late bloomers, the physically underdeveloped, the financially strapped players to get themselves ready for the grind of a pro career. I think there's one American junior a year who might have the game, the body, the mind, the results, and the money to go directly. Young, Sock, Querrey, for sure. (College certainly wouldn't have helped Young's mind.) Fratangelo, Krueger, they were bubble kids, but since they probably received financial backing, give it a go. Life's not over if you don't get a college education or you can go back like Devin Britton is doing. But like Mikej says if you're a hundred a year talent, college makes more sense. You get an education, plus the 50k to 75k in coaching, training, traveling, clothing, and all those ancillary expenses that going solo incurs.
Like most Spaniards he didn't play many junior tournaments and went straight to pro events. He didn't get his first ATP point till he was 18. He was obviously decent at this age but was definitely not a 'sure thing'. He was ranked around 400 when he turned 19 (back when this was a lot more common than it is now).
not the most successful man in the world by a long shot - but spent some years training at a place where i know plenty of names that tried to go pro as well - didnt work out well for most that went straight to pros (with one big exception hanging out around 100 in the world now, still tbd) - did work out quite well for the ones that enjoyed four years of top tier college tennis and free education then found out that top employers love guys that balanced top academics with being a top athlete
i understand everyone should do what they want with their life - that's all well and good - if my future son wants to go to jamaica and enjoy the sun and be a local fisherman, that's fine if it makes him happy - but i'm not going to tell him it's the decision that sets him up the best to have a lot of open doors in life - same with turning down a free college education
There is a lot more diversity in terms amongst U.S college in terms of academic rigour than there is in Europe...You don't necessarily have to be an academic all-star to find a suitable college...
One other thing that's worth mentioning and this is perhaps provoked somewhat by my previous post, is that it is worth also considering opportunity cost.
For someone who is quite limited academically, maybe college doesn't always equate to the best option. Perhaps worth trying to make it pro and then using that experience to aid you in your future career as a tennis coach.
For a more gifted student however, college tennis offers them the opportunity to both receive a cheaper college education, and also potentially to obtain admission into a better university than they would have due to their academic credentials alone. Such an opportunity may be very difficult to turn down for anyone who isn't absolutely dominating in junior tennis.
For someone who is quite limited academically, maybe college doesn't always equate to the best option. Perhaps worth trying to make it pro and then using that experience to aid you in your future career as a tennis coach.
For a more gifted student however, college tennis offers them the opportunity to both receive a cheaper college education, and also potentially to obtain admission into a better university than they would have due to their academic credentials alone. Such an opportunity may be very difficult to turn down for anyone who isn't absolutely dominating in junior tennis.
Not to nitpick, but Anderson played 3 years at Illinois, not 4. Anyway, you can cherry pick the names of players who've done well after playing in college just as you can cherry pick players who did nothing going pro straight out of juniors and vice versa. But individual examples here and there don't really amount to much. Johnson and Devvarman were exceptional college players, the Federer and Nadal if you will, their records would be very hard to match let alone beat. So using them as examples is pretty lame and unrealistic. There are plenty of college players, without degrees, who've done nothing as pros--are they really that much better off than players who turned pro straight out of juniors. I will say I've had experience coaching players who turned pro straight out of juniors and not one has gone into it with a pie-in-the-sky attitude that it will all be fairies and unicorns. They knew it would be tough. Almost every one has set some sort of time table where if they did not achieve a certain ranking, or certain financial status, by a certain time that they move on to something else. Again, many site the experiences they had traveling the world as an important part of what they're life is like now. As I said, I played and loved college tennis, but can see both sides.
Last edited:
B1G Tennis
New User
I gave a simple rule: If you can get in the top 250 within a year, you should go pro. By my count, there are only 2 top 25 players who weren't in the top 250 by their twentieth birthday. Those two? Anderson and Isner, the two who went to college. This myth of juniors who aren't incredibly elite forgoing college and having success on the pro tour isn't grounded in reality.
In order to prove your point, you've now had to go to the argument that they "met people they otherwise would not have." Your premise is that the Futures Tour (which often has less than a dozen spectators at matches) provides a better network than a college degree and representing schools with tens of thousands of wealthy alumni and often hundreds of spectators for matches. It simply doesn't make sense.
And as for "seeing the world," college players are just as capable of doing it after graduation. Indeed, they usually can see more of the world since they tend to have improved since age 18, so they win more on the Futures and Challengers to help them pay for travel.
And with regards to the "high horse" comments, you were the one who took a stand on the issue. It's pretty bizarre to make a questionable statement on the internet and then claim the high moral ground when someone disapproves of it. I'm not sure why you would make the post if you don't want debate and you already believe your view to be true. It seems like one of us is "upset," and it isn't me.
Clemson_tennis
Legend
just cam across this bizarre interaction at the net between Clay Thompson and David Sofaer from last year
tennisbuck
Hall of Fame
what was with that do u think?
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
he needs to learn to be a gentleman. this is gentleman's game. emulate tim henman, you can't go wrong
Yeah. That explanation makes it ok. He needs to be called out for what he is.
I've seen Clay grow up in SoCal and at times he's very much a gentleman ..but other times he seems like he's bi-polar ...
he's Clay... I just think he's a bad 6'6" wannabe actor...CATennisGirl
New User
I've seen Clay grow up in SoCal and at times he's very much a gentleman ..but other times he seems like he's bi-polar ...
Honestly, he just tries to put on a good show most of the time. It's pretty obnoxious in my opinion but other people LOVE watching him because of it.
Pretty much says it all....
Clay does try to entertain the crowd when he plays. Sometimes too much. He also tries to irritate his opponents as much as he can to throw them off their games. I have seen him play several times and have spoken with him on those occasions. He's a really nice, very well spoken young man. Just lets his emotions get the better of him on the court sometimes.
Clay does try to entertain the crowd when he plays. Sometimes too much. He also tries to irritate his opponents as much as he can to throw them off their games. I have seen him play several times and have spoken with him on those occasions. He's a really nice, very well spoken young man. Just lets his emotions get the better of him on the court sometimes.
CATennisGirl
New User
Agreed. But the most puzzling part to me is how he got the sportsmanship award at Indoors. His sarcastic applauding of his opponents' great shots must not be as transparent as I thought them to be.
Clemson_tennis
Legend
USC had 1 vote at the start of the year and OU had 3
Clemson_tennis
Legend
no offense to D3 but why is NCAA.com showing D3 tennis 4 straight days with semis and finals but will only show the D1 national title?
TopDawg
G.O.A.T.
If Giron does leave which it sounds like he probably will along with Thompson and Puget exhausting their eligibility that'll leave McDonald, Brymer, Mkrtchian, Sell, DiGiulio, and probably Austin Rapp as starters. Wonder if UCLA has anyone else coming in.
This is what Giron said after the match:
"I'm going to play a lot this summer and see where I'm at," said Giron. "I'll take the fall season off but after that I might come back to school."
This is what Giron said after the match:
"I'm going to play a lot this summer and see where I'm at," said Giron. "I'll take the fall season off but after that I might come back to school."
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
he is taking fall season off, meaning he isn't going to go to any classes at all this summer. won't this put him behind or keep him from graduating from UCLA on time ?
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Congratulations to Marcos Giron, you the MAN. and the blade 98 looks good too.
https://twitter.com/uclatennis/status/470979674504323073/photo/1
https://twitter.com/uclatennis/status/470979674504323073/photo/1
CATennisGirl
New User
From what I've heard, it's pretty easy to stay on track if you take one or two online courses while you're away. Should be interesting to see if Giron will stay in LA!
jaggy
Talk Tennis Guru
The NCAA is a truly bizarre institution
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
This summer he will be playing some challengers mostly. he will get wildcards into challengers with no problem since he won the NCAA title. that is the best way to prepare for US open, generally.
Similar threads
- Poll
