32 Draws at last weekend's Level 2 Nationals.

[hound 109]

How did it go for everyone?

My kid is playing 12s & I honestly think that the 32 draw is logical for 12 & under. The cut off was (i think) about #220 in the nation. There were (imo) 28-29 high quality kids & only 2-3 weaker kids. Had it been a 64 draw, half would have been fairly weak.

BUT....my observation for the closest B14s tournament (the same weekend) was different. With over 100 applicants & a good 30 kids who are 4 star or higher NOT being able to get in because they hadn't accumulated enough national points. They had the game & could have knocked off many kids in the B14s draw, but were on the outside looking in.

6 months ago, i was opposed to lowering the L2s to a 32 draw. Now, I'm definitely opposed to them lowering the L2s to a 32 draw in 14s, 16s, & 18s (imo, they should be a 64 draw). BUT based on my observation (at the tournament) the 12s should probably remain a 32 draw.

Anybody else have a kid that played last weekend? How did it go & how do you all see the 32 draw in your kid's age group?

 

[JLyon]

the 32 draw works great for the 12's due to the match limits on the 12's ( 2singles a day and 1 doubles). There are a ton of players for the 14-18's but keeping at 32 is probably best due to travel and time commitment.

 

[hunter]

My kid played 14s... the last seeded player was ranked somewhere in the 30s. The 4 kids who were let in off of their 12s ranking were weak - I personally think that in a 32 draw, 4 from the younger group seems like a lot. For example, you could have had #20 in the nation playing #40 in the nation first round (and there were several match-ups like that) and on the next court have significantly weaker players on both sides of the net. I am in favor of the 32 draw. By the way, many players were given suspension points for pulling out of the backdraw. They should be and worse should happen-it's a 3 day tourney and they still pull out? Ridiculous

 

[hunter]

and by the way, there are no match limits in the level 2s. doubles is an 8game pro set, 2 singles and 2 doubles a day is permitted.

 

[JLyon]

My point was if you go to a 64 draw or 48 draw then you run into the issue of being able to finish in 3 days as you need have to have one day of 3 MD matches, in addition to trying to finish a 32 draw of doubles. So a 32 draw is perfect for the 12's. I wish the Super Nationals would go to 2 matches a day rather than doing 1 round a day.
If one plays Full 3 sets you can only play 2 matches a day MD or 1 MD and 3 Doubles. See Page 97 of FAC.

 

[hound 109]

My kid played 14s... the last seeded player was ranked somewhere in the 30s. The 4 kids who were let in off of their 12s ranking were weak - I personally think that in a 32 draw, 4 from the younger group seems like a lot. For example, you could have had #20 in the nation playing #40 in the nation first round (and there were several match-ups like that) and on the next court have significantly weaker players on both sides of the net. I am in favor of the 32 draw. By the way, many players were given suspension points for pulling out of the backdraw. They should be and worse should happen-it's a 3 day tourney and they still pull out? Ridiculous

Ridiculous is right.

Pulling out of a backdraw of a L2 (with a 32 draw) is crazy. The feed in through quarters often results in fantastic matches in the back draw on Sunday (& of course on Monday). Our two final back draw matches (on monday) featured a 3 seed & a 6 seed. (both top 50 in the country).

My kid got to play 3 kids from 3 different sections, Southern, MW & MO Valley (two of them ranked top 100) in the back draw. I love these 3 day L2s.....& I love feed in back draws.

(Our section doesn't have feed ins & i've been all over them to have them....makes for some great second & third day matches.)

 

[tennis5]

With 100 kids on the wait list for the 14's, quite a few 4 stars, ( saw one blue chip too), I think the draw should be bigger. That being said, the tournament was over by Monday, back in school by Tuesday, so that is a positive too.

 

[Keysmickey]

I cannot believe so many people still find draw reductions to be a good thing. Keep kids from playing? I find this ridiculous. In the end the larger draws allow kids who are (1) under the radar, (2) those who started late, (3) those who haven't played as much growing up and (4) those from the tough sections and are lost in the numbers to have a chance to be noticed on a relevant stage. I just don't see any negatives.

The arguments of (1) only playing 'top competition' and (2) 'school' are unjustified. In junior tennis who knows what the top competition truly is? When my daughter was a three star she beat two five stars at big events. Why should she have been excluded from that opportunity because of a skewed point system? Re: school, my daughter was a 50-50 kid (50% real school / 50% virtual school). We travelled to every event necessary and seldom had problems with the school as we kept them in the loop (she was a 4 point student). Travel and hardship is part of what you sign up for in this sport and there will never be any getting around that, IMO.

These bigger tournaments (coaches venues, as I like to call them) need to be open to more kids, not fewer. If the top 10 don't want to possibly play (an occasional two), three or four star then don't go. Put the onus on the kids who are already receiving all of the breaks from the system. Build from the ground up.

Lastly, I will admit the USTA has done something I totally agree with. The point penalties for skipping the back draw is long overdue although I wonder how long it will last as it generally only affects the top tier kids who feel the back draw's are beneath them.

Note: to the earlier posts with specific regard to the 12's draw size. I agree that it is true that at 12 these tournaments ARE generally in less demand so the reduced draw could be legitimate but personally I still favor more kids over less kids even in the 12's.

 

[klu375]

I cannot believe so many people still find draw reductions to be a good thing. Keep kids from playing? I find this ridiculous. In the end the larger draws allow kids who are (1) under the radar, (2) those who started late, (3) those who haven't played as much growing up and (4) those from the tough sections and are lost in the numbers to have a chance to be noticed on a relevant stage. I just don't see any negatives.

The arguments of (1) only playing 'top competition' and (2) 'school' are unjustified. In junior tennis who knows what the top competition truly is? When my daughter was a three star she beat two five stars at big events. Why should she have been excluded from that opportunity because of a skewed point system? Re: school, my daughter was a 50-50 kid (50% real school / 50% virtual school). We travelled to every event necessary and seldom had problems with the school as we kept them in the loop (she was a 4 point student). Travel and hardship is part of what you sign up for in this sport and there will never be any getting around that, IMO.

These bigger tournaments (coaches venues, as I like to call them) need to be open to more kids, not fewer. If the top 10 don't want to possibly play (an occasional two), three or four star then don't go. Put the onus on the kids who are already receiving all of the breaks from the system. Build from the ground up.

Lastly, I will admit the USTA has done something I totally agree with. The point penalties for skipping the back draw is long overdue although I wonder how long it will last as it generally only affects the top tier kids who feel the back draw's are beneath them.

Note: to the earlier posts with specific regard to the 12's draw size. I agree that it is true that at 12 these tournaments ARE generally in less demand so the reduced draw could be legitimate but personally I still favor more kids over less kids even in the 12's.

I think the 32 draw is great if you can get in. My daughter skipped 2 days of school and was greeted on Tuesday with 2 school nastygrams, one for each day, promising not to give her credit for her courses. I missed 2 days of work. For kids in regular public school and working parents the new system is much better.

 

[Keysmickey]

I think the 32 draw is great if you can get in. My daughter skipped 2 days of school and was greeted on Tuesday with 2 school nastygrams, one for each day, promising not to give her credit for her courses. I missed 2 days of work. For kids in regular public school and working parents the new system is much better.

Only if you're part of the 32 who can get in though. In the stronger sections there are at least another 32 talented kids that will never or seldom get in and with college scholarships on the line this is unacceptable.

You need to work with your school and show them how exceptional your child is being a Student and a Nationally ranked athlete. Most educators will appreciate that. If not you either have to move, home school or cut back your tennis schedule. Both my wife and I worked and I missed many weeks over the span (I am lucky enough to be self employed though). Tennis is not a sport for the non committed that is for sure but keeping kids below some artificially managed ranking from playing is not the answer.

BTW, I would estimate that there are 15-20% fewer girls playing serious tennis in Florida over last year (just a personal guestimate). Do they care?

 

[hound 109]

I cannot believe so many people still find draw reductions to be a good thing. Keep kids from playing? I find this ridiculous. In the end the larger draws allow kids who are (1) under the radar, (2) those who started late, (3) those who haven't played as much growing up and (4) those from the tough sections and are lost in the numbers to have a chance to be noticed on a relevant stage. I just don't see any negatives.

The arguments of (1) only playing 'top competition' and (2) 'school' are unjustified. In junior tennis who knows what the top competition truly is? When my daughter was a three star she beat two five stars at big events. Why should she have been excluded from that opportunity because of a skewed point system? Re: school, my daughter was a 50-50 kid (50% real school / 50% virtual school). We travelled to every event necessary and seldom had problems with the school as we kept them in the loop (she was a 4 point student). Travel and hardship is part of what you sign up for in this sport and there will never be any getting around that, IMO.

These bigger tournaments (coaches venues, as I like to call them) need to be open to more kids, not fewer. If the top 10 don't want to possibly play (an occasional two), three or four star then don't go. Put the onus on the kids who are already receiving all of the breaks from the system. Build from the ground up.

Lastly, I will admit the USTA has done something I totally agree with. The point penalties for skipping the back draw is long overdue although I wonder how long it will last as it generally only affects the top tier kids who feel the back draw's are beneath them.

Note: to the earlier posts with specific regard to the 12's draw size. I agree that it is true that at 12 these tournaments ARE generally in less demand so the reduced draw could be legitimate but personally I still favor more kids over less kids even in the 12's.

Keysmickey, I completely agree with your post & share (shared) your opinion when this topic was discussed after the announcement last year (of shrinking the draw size on L2s & L3s from 64 to 32).

Pretty much why i brought it up.

I absolutely believe that the draw size should be a minimum of 64 (or larger) in 14s, 16, & 18s. But in 12s, what struck me was that the cut off at 32 actually worked. Had it been 64 they would have had:

- 12-15 2 star & lower kids get in who would have been pounded "Two & out" anyway (in 14s & up you wouldn't even get down to 3 stars getting in....much less 2 star. & my observastion is that even in 12s.....2 stars get pounded by 4 & 5 stars)
- 5-7 3rd & 4th graders who's parents are touring the country putting them in every National they can put them in....& they would have been pounded "Two & out".
- A bunch of local rec kids to fill out the draw....who would have been pounded "Two & out".

I suspect the July 9th L3s (which will have 64 draws) will be filled with LOTS of these type of players in 12s. (making the "national" tournament far weaker than one of our sectional ranking tournaments).

Keysmickey.....I agree with you on 14s, 16s & 18s.....but have to admit that for 12s the 32 draw worked pretty logically. (imo)

 

[Sunbeam]

Something's not right

Doesn't bode well in promoting competition between the the good 18s kids who have been working hard and maturing physically and mentally (wasn't that the interesting characteristic about the B18s?).

Consider a rising 4-star player, Junior in high school, enjoying great success in his age group when he could travel to the L1, L2 and L3 events. 16s Rank, top 110.

Just aged up. He is now ranked circa 1000 in the 18s.

Coaches who were interested when they saw his 16s results say 'I will definitely come see you play in this summer's L1s'.

How is this player going to get to the big venues if, ranked 1000, he can not even get into the L3 and L2 events? Applies for every one, averages 60 on the huge wait lists.

I am sure there are many others in the same boat.

Meanwhile the fortunate who have been in the 18s for a year before the changes (older Juniors) are golden. They are repeatedly admitted into the L1,2 and3 events. They are living off those elevated points. They do not even have to play in their sections to get national points

For the newly aged up player, picking up local points as would be one's first thought. However, it would take at least 8 months to get to the top 200. (If every tournament is a complete success.) The recruiting hour is over by that time...


It's disappointing that they didn't 'do the math' when they decided on this 32draw change. On the other hand, it's hard to predict all of the nuances of what a change will bring.

I agree that it should be reviewed in the case of the 16s and 18s. I also agree as others have stated, that 4 from the younger group is too much.

 

[klu375]

This 32 draw G16 National Open was weaker than our upcoming sectional. The only reason we went is to chase points to qualify for the summer nationals. Her tennis development would not suffer if we did not go.

"National level athlete?" "Home school for tennis?" This is funny. I did not see a single girl who I can call a great all around tennis player and at 15-16 they are almost a finished product. Most of them are poor athletes, some better athletes are too small (5'2" und under), most have technical deficiencies, many cannot construct points or have no idea how they plan to win a match. Many are poor competitors or head cases. I guess the better girls of this age are not playing L2 G16 tournaments any more. I cannot imagine there was a need to admit another 128 girls. This would bring the level of play completely down. I think all these girls should concentrate on schoolwork.

 

[Keysmickey]

Thanks hound 109 and regarding 12's I defer to your opinion as it's been a long time since we've been there and you're in the game right now. So thanks for the enlightenment.

Based on hound and klu's post's I admit that my 18 months or so away from this and not having participated in the game since the rules changed may make my views subject to dissection.

But, in our experience we saw opponents who were mostly NOT full time HS students. I accept that Florida is a bit different that other sections but the National Open's we attended, especially in Florida and the South were full of kids who will virtually all play college tennis. Even at 64 there were many future college players on the wait list. So I ask, is it in our juniors best interest to cater only to the academy elite?

 

[MomTennis]

According to USTA 32 draw was designed to make junior tennis more competitive and to make players "earn" their way into Level 2 and Level 1 competition but at least during the first sesaon it is not working out - consider the junior player who has a good record in Sectionals - top 10 but not enough national points (because of lack of sectional tournaments that give national points) to be in top 150 in the country - the next higher tournaments are level 3s also limited to 32 draws and for the kids in the Northeast a considerable distance away and very expensive. There is no way the kid can accumulate enough national points to qualify so he is labeled by USTA as not having earned his way in yet he is a 3 star prospect and has beaten 5 star prospects. So much for USTA trying to cultivate junior tennis -they have made it more elitest and designed for the academy or home schooled players which makes no sense.

 

[seminoleG]

According to USTA 32 draw was designed to make junior tennis more competitive and to make players "earn" their way into Level 2 and Level 1 competition but at least during the first sesaon it is not working out - consider the junior player who has a good record in Sectionals - top 10 but not enough national points (because of lack of sectional tournaments that give national points) to be in top 150 in the country - the next higher tournaments are level 3s also limited to 32 draws and for the kids in the Northeast a considerable distance away and very expensive. There is no way the kid can accumulate enough national points to qualify so he is labeled by USTA as not having earned his way in yet he is a 3 star prospect and has beaten 5 star prospects. So much for USTA trying to cultivate junior tennis -they have made it more elitest and designed for the academy or home schooled players which makes no sense.

Not adding some sort of Qualies or Wins vs formula will continue to leave out the kid that does not travel and play every weekend. They say you can play up and those points count also, even more travel and tournaments.

If you add Qualies and those kids consistently get into the draws then what does that say about the rankings and chasing points?

USTA Tournament system and Using it to ID the best Juniors are di·a·met·ri·cal·ly op·posed. It ID's the best Junior Tournament players!

 

[tennis5]

Doesn't bode well in promoting competition between the the good 18s kids who have been working hard and maturing physically and mentally (wasn't that the interesting characteristic about the B18s?).

Consider a rising 4-star player, Junior in high school, enjoying great success in his age group when he could travel to the L1, L2 and L3 events. 16s Rank, top 110.

Just aged up. He is now ranked circa 1000 in the 18s.

Coaches who were interested when they saw his 16s results say 'I will definitely come see you play in this summer's L1s'.

How is this player going to get to the big venues if, ranked 1000, he can not even get into the L3 and L2 events? Applies for every one, averages 60 on the huge wait lists.

I am sure there are many others in the same boat.

Meanwhile the fortunate who have been in the 18s for a year before the changes (older Juniors) are golden. They are repeatedly admitted into the L1,2 and3 events. They are living off those elevated points. They do not even have to play in their sections to get national points

For the newly aged up player, picking up local points as would be one's first thought. However, it would take at least 8 months to get to the top 200. (If every tournament is a complete success.) The recruiting hour is over by that time...


It's disappointing that they didn't 'do the math' when they decided on this 32draw change. On the other hand, it's hard to predict all of the nuances of what a change will bring.

I agree that it should be reviewed in the case of the 16s and 18s. I also agree as others have stated, that 4 from the younger group is too much.

I wish the powers to be at the USTA would read this and realize the consequences this has on a junior in a high school.

 

[justinmadison]

It's disappointing that they didn't 'do the math' when they decided on this 32draw change. On the other hand, it's hard to predict all of the nuances of what a change will bring.

They might not have done the math, but I did it for them. I sent an email to the entire junior competition committee with the results and how it would create all of the exact issues we are discussing on this thread. Not one person on the committee even bothered to reply.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=341746

At the end of the day it is all about what is good for the USTA coaches pushing the changes at the USTA. It may sound harsh but they do not care about American tennis, they care about their paychecks. The coaches do not want the USTA hipo kids traveling to tournaments. The more time they spend away from training centers the less able the coaches are able to justify their facilities and salaries. They fewer national tournaments the more important it is to be in a USTA training center so you can get good match play. They harder it is to age up and “break into” the next level the more important it is to get a wildcard from the USTA. Name one aspect of the change that does not directly benefit the coaches and give them more power and control.

 

[Keysmickey]

They might not have done the math, but I did it for them. I sent an email to the entire junior competition committee with the results and how it would create all of the exact issues we are discussing on this thread. Not one person on the committee even bothered to reply.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=341746

At the end of the day it is all about what is good for the USTA coaches pushing the changes at the USTA. It may sound harsh but they do not care about American tennis, they care about their paychecks. The coaches do not want the USTA hipo kids traveling to tournaments. The more time they spend away from training centers the less able the coaches are able to justify their facilities and salaries. They fewer national tournaments the more important it is to be in a USTA training center so you can get good match play. They harder it is to age up and “break into” the next level the more important it is to get a wildcard from the USTA. Name one aspect of the change that does not directly benefit the coaches and give them more power and control.

Very good post.

 

[seminoleG]

Name one aspect of the change that does not directly benefit the coaches and give them more power and control.

Yes but isn't the issue $$$$$. Driving kids/parents to compete in Locals. Across the country these tournament directors cite decreasing revenues. The adoption of QS has boosted what ...Revenues. USTA is facilitating change to benefit folks that make money off our kids.

I am absolutely shocked that another major corporation or rich pissed off parent has not adpoted a competing system. In the very competitive world of High Performance Basketball, Soccer, Baseball there are several organizing bodies. USTA has this ability because as consumers we give it to them. Do you think if a more competitive or as competitive body were organized in Tennis Colleges and sponsors would not take notice.

I am a blue collar guy and seems to me to many of these soft white collar parents don't have the balls to do what is needed. Compete:twisted:

 

[Keysmickey]

Yes but isn't the issue $$$$$. Driving kids/parents to compete in Locals. Across the country these tournament directors cite decreasing revenues. The adoption of QS has boosted what ...Revenues. USTA is facilitating change to benefit folks that make money off our kids.

I am absolutely shocked that another major corporation or rich pissed off parent has not adpoted a competing system. In the very competitive world of High Performance Basketball, Soccer, Baseball there are several organizing bodies. USTA has this ability because as consumers we give it to them. Do you think if a more competitive or as competitive body were organized in Tennis Colleges and sponsors would not take notice.

I am a blue collar guy and seems to me to many of these soft white collar parents don't have the balls to do what is needed. Compete:twisted:

I am amazed too. There has to be a hurdle that I don't see that is virtually insurmountable. As college was my focus I always thought a college bound tournament circuit for verifiable juniors and seniors whose interest is college tennis rather than pros would be great but certainly it would seem that money is there to be made from all ages in this competitive sport.

 

[MomTennis]

USTA Tournament system and Using it to ID the best Juniors are di·a·met·ri·cal·ly op·posed. It ID's the best Junior Tournament players!

Also to IDs those players whose parents can pay to travel 4-6 times a year to locations that are over 8 hours by car to compete in three day tournaments. It is no wonder talented juniors turn to team sports such as soccer and basketball where the burden of travel is spread out among more people on a team

 

[Keysmickey]

USTA Tournament system and Using it to ID the best Juniors are di·a·met·ri·cal·ly op·posed. It ID's the best Junior Tournament players!

Also to IDs those players whose parents can pay to travel 4-6 times a year to locations that are over 8 hours by car to compete in three day tournaments. It is no wonder talented juniors turn to team sports such as soccer and basketball where the burden of travel is spread out among more people on a team

No offense intended, but I think this is where you're wrong. Sure the rich parents can afford the travel but with the small draws it will only be them with the chance to succeed. With the larger draws (some) average families who find a way to pay the price (as we did) can sneak in through the back door and get noticed.

There is no way this sport is going to get cheap or just sectionalized. Travel and sacrifice will always be part of the game for the average family who has tougher decisions than the rich ones do. But the bigger draws and MORE travel opportunities are better for unhearlded kid to be recognized, just not good for the parents wallet or mind.

 

[tennis5]

No offense intended, but I think this is where you're wrong. Sure the rich parents can afford the travel but with the small draws it will only be them with the chance to succeed. With the larger draws (some) average families who find a way to pay the price (as we did) can sneak in through the back door and get noticed.

There is no way this sport is going to get cheap or just sectionalized. Travel and sacrifice will always be part of the game for the average family who has tougher decisions than the rich ones do. But the bigger draws and MORE travel opportunities are better for unhearlded kid to be recognized, just not good for the parents wallet or mind.

I think tennis is just an expensive sport. Period.

I would like to see the USTA put the money into poor, minority areas where the kids never get to hit a ball.

 

[seminoleG]

No offense intended, but I think this is where you're wrong. Sure the rich parents can afford the travel but with the small draws it will only be them with the chance to succeed. With the larger draws (some) average families who find a way to pay the price (as we did) can sneak in through the back door and get noticed.

There is no way this sport is going to get cheap or just sectionalized. Travel and sacrifice will always be part of the game for the average family who has tougher decisions than the rich ones do. But the bigger draws and MORE travel opportunities are better for unhearlded kid to be recognized, just not good for the parents wallet or mind.

I disagree. Do you know how expensive those Basketball and Soccer clubs are? They travel and per person spend what we do on a week long tournament. But they have sponsors that know if one makes it he will wear their stuff. Now flash to the USTA what do they do? Provide a forum for the best kids to play based on their ranking system!

Ok so they own the system and the forum. SEE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT?

What if a person owned regionalized courts and a sponsor PAID to run a fee less tournament with other corporations equipment makers etc. Cost for Main Draw absorbed including hospitality and portion for Qualies. Past matches not rankings used to seed by a panel of selected experts.

All this is possible but the consumers are OK with the current system, a true monopoly. Honestly if USTA tried to stop this anti-trust litigation would follow. As much as we pay for lessons the governing body should ensure the competitive field allows all to compete.

If the USTA truly wanted to get the bet juniors they would add QUALIES!
They don't because it is the $$$ part of the USTA that has to feed it's other customers that make $$$ off the points chase.

Now I'm no tennis guy but 2 years reading, talking, and experiencing the points chase it's pretty clear to me who the stakeholders are and what their primary motives are.

 

[Keysmickey]

I disagree. Do you know how expensive those Basketball and Soccer clubs are? They travel and per person spend what we do on a week long tournament. But they have sponsors that know if one makes it he will wear their stuff. Now flash to the USTA what do they do? Provide a forum for the best kids to play based on their ranking system!

Ok so they own the system and the forum. SEE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT?

What if a person owned regionalized courts and a sponsor PAID to run a fee less tournament with other corporations equipment makers etc. Cost for Main Draw absorbed including hospitality and portion for Qualies. Past matches not rankings used to seed by a panel of selected experts.

All this is possible but the consumers are OK with the current system, a true monopoly. Honestly if USTA tried to stop this anti-trust litigation would follow. As much as we pay for lessons the governing body should ensure the competitive field allows all to compete.

If the USTA truly wanted to get the bet juniors they would add QUALIES!
They don't because it is the $$$ part of the USTA that has to feed it's other customers that make $$$ off the points chase.

Now I'm no tennis guy but 2 years reading, talking, and experiencing the points chase it's pretty clear to me who the stakeholders are and what their primary motives are.

I'm not sure what I've posted that you disagree with but I pretty much agree with you.

 

[seminoleG]

I'm not sure what I've posted that you disagree with but I pretty much agree with you.

Just that there is no way the sport will get cheap, or regionalized.

I slightly disagreed, but I can say this is the type of discussion we parents and players need.

It will not get cheap, but tournaments can get cheaper and regionalized. Entrepreneurship is energized when folks feel disenfranchised (sp). I just can't see with economics today this going on, as times have changed. Look at the draws for the 10s, 12s across the country they are down. Economic barriers are preventing new entrants in High Performance tennis. Academy revenues are down. Dollars spent chasing points are dwindling. QS is a financial savior and the USTA better be working on whats next when they turn 9,10?

I to a man have talked to several QS parents and they are in no way expecting to pay anywhere near what we pay for training and tournaments. Show them the cost of a level 3, or 2 and see their expression.

Economics will drive this whether USTA wants to believe it or not.

 

[Freak4tennis]

I disagree. Do you know how expensive those Basketball and Soccer clubs are? They travel and per person spend what we do on a week long tournament. But they have sponsors that know if one makes it he will wear their stuff. Now flash to the USTA what do they do? Provide a forum for the best kids to play based on their ranking system!

Ok so they own the system and the forum. SEE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT?

What if a person owned regionalized courts and a sponsor PAID to run a fee less tournament with other corporations equipment makers etc. Cost for Main Draw absorbed including hospitality and portion for Qualies. Past matches not rankings used to seed by a panel of selected experts.

All this is possible but the consumers are OK with the current system, a true monopoly. Honestly if USTA tried to stop this anti-trust litigation would follow. As much as we pay for lessons the governing body should ensure the competitive field allows all to compete.

If the USTA truly wanted to get the bet juniors they would add QUALIES!
They don't because it is the $$$ part of the USTA that has to feed it's other customers that make $$$ off the points chase.

Now I'm no tennis guy but 2 years reading, talking, and experiencing the points chase it's pretty clear to me who the stakeholders are and what their primary motives are.

Qualies, qualies, then more qualies, and when you're done more qualies and wild card tournaments.

As you will note in all my prior posts. The USTA National Junior system is the ONLY system in the entire world which does not have a qualifier event prior to the main draw. (ITF Juniors, Pro Circuit, ATP, WTA, even Jr Slams and Grand Slams) all have a qualifier system.

Now the USTA will argue that the regional, and local events are the qualifiers to the upper level events but everyone knows you couldn't rack up enough points to see the light of day unless you had a monster run.

 

[seminoleG]

Qualies, qualies, then more qualies, and when you're done more qualies and wild card tournaments.

As you will note in all my prior posts. The USTA National Junior system is the ONLY system in the entire world which does not have a qualifier event prior to the main draw. (ITF Juniors, Pro Circuit, ATP, WTA, even Jr Slams and Grand Slams) all have a qualifier system.

Now the USTA will argue that the regional, and local events are the qualifiers to the upper level events but everyone knows you couldn't rack up enough points to see the light of day unless you had a monster run.

Yep 100% correct. This time economics may force them to listen. As fewer and fewer parents enroll in locals chasing points for events they'll never get into. We had a level 3 with 30 kids in G12s won't get into due to reduced draws. I know 2 girls that would easily make semis but don't chase points and they won't get in. how long can you do this and not expect a backlash?

 

[chalkflewup]

They might not have done the math, but I did it for them. I sent an email to the entire junior competition committee with the results and how it would create all of the exact issues we are discussing on this thread. Not one person on the committee even bothered to reply.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=341746

At the end of the day it is all about what is good for the USTA coaches pushing the changes at the USTA. It may sound harsh but they do not care about American tennis, they care about their paychecks. The coaches do not want the USTA hipo kids traveling to tournaments. The more time they spend away from training centers the less able the coaches are able to justify their facilities and salaries. They fewer national tournaments the more important it is to be in a USTA training center so you can get good match play. They harder it is to age up and “break into” the next level the more important it is to get a wildcard from the USTA. Name one aspect of the change that does not directly benefit the coaches and give them more power and control.

It's quite clear to me that you don't know any of the USTA coaches to think they don't care about American tennis. And if you actually believe the USTA coaches control the instituted changes, then you obviously don't understand the process.

 

[Freak4tennis]

It's quite clear to me that you don't know any of the USTA coaches to think they don't care about American tennis. And if you actually believe the USTA coaches control the instituted changes, then you obviously don't understand the process.

Of course they care about the kids. But they care much more about the following;

Rent or mortgage -- $2,000 +/-
Gas -- $500
food -- $1,000 (unless single)
Credit cards -- $500
Misc. personal expenses $700

Fact of the matter is they have to care about their paychecks and the old saying "he who has the gold...makes the...." I think you know the ending.

 

[Freak4tennis]

Yep 100% correct. This time economics may force them to listen. As fewer and fewer parents enroll in locals chasing points for events they'll never get into. We had a level 3 with 30 kids in G12s won't get into due to reduced draws. I know 2 girls that would easily make semis but don't chase points and they won't get in. how long can you do this and not expect a backlash?

Qualies, qualies, and when your done more qualies and wild card events. It's really that simple.

 

[justinmadison]

It's quite clear to me that you don't know any of the USTA coaches to think they don't care about American tennis. And if you actually believe the USTA coaches control the instituted changes, then you obviously don't understand the process.

Enlighten me. Everyone I have talked with about the changes has been clear the driving force was Jose Higueras. If you don’t agree than who was? Don’t tell us the public “reasons” behind the changes; tell us who was driving the changes. If you know the person, and you can see who benefits, you can determine the reasoning. Not by what is said, but by the people who profit.

Many people have stated the changes were made so the people who make money from tournaments would make more money. This is definitely not the case. The tournament directors were the biggest losers. Haft the draw size means half the money. Pretty simple.

I know for a fact the SoCal sectional leaders were absolutely against the changes for all of the reasons we have put forth in this thread. I have talked with many parents and players. In most cases it would be difficult to determine popular opinion by talking with a non-scientifically selected sample of effected parties. In this case it is easy to determine. Out of the hundreds of players and parents I have talked with in person at national events I have found 3 who thought the changes were a good idea.

So it is not for the players and parents, it is not for the tournament directors, certainly not for the future college coaches, who exactly is left?

 

[chalkflewup]

Fact of the matter is they have to care about their paychecks and the old saying "he who has the gold...makes the...." I think you know the ending.

Your comments are not factual and appear to be emotionally driven. Please cite chapter and verse where it states that the USTA coaches are the driving force behind the rule changes. They're way down on the food chain.

 

[justinmadison]

Your comments are not factual and appear to be emotionally driven. Please cite chapter and verse where it states that the USTA coaches are the driving force behind the rule changes. They're way down on the food chain.

Your comments are not factual and appear to be emotionally driven. Please cite chapter and verse where it states that USTA coaches are way down on the food chain.

 

[MomTennis]

No offense intended, but I think this is where you're wrong. Sure the rich parents can afford the travel but with the small draws it will only be them with the chance to succeed. With the larger draws (some) average families who find a way to pay the price (as we did) can sneak in through the back door and get noticed.

There is no way this sport is going to get cheap or just sectionalized. Travel and sacrifice will always be part of the game for the average family who has tougher decisions than the rich ones do. But the bigger draws and MORE travel opportunities are better for unhearlded kid to be recognized, just not good for the parents wallet or mind.

No offense taken but I think that we are saying the same thing. Larger draws give more kids the opportunity to play better competition. There is a poiint where sectional competition gets "old" - playing the same kids week after week and going into the match knowing that this kid beat me or I beat him last week is counterproductive.IMHO

 

[Keysmickey]

No offense taken but I think that we are saying the same thing. Larger draws give more kids the opportunity to play better competition. There is a poiint where sectional competition gets "old" - playing the same kids week after week and going into the match knowing that this kid beat me or I beat him last week is counterproductive.IMHO

Sorry, I must have misunderstood ... but I totally agree with this statement.

After 12's, 14's, & 16's you really don't want to play those same kids again in 18's. By this time half of the matches aren't won on tennis skills anymore but rather history and the game becomes more of a chess match and also leads to much less aggressive tennis, IMO.

 

[BSPE84]

Your comments are not factual and appear to be emotionally driven. Please cite chapter and verse where it states that USTA coaches are way down on the food chain.

JM, why do you even bother. Good luck with the move, hope to see you before then!

 

[tennis5]

I spoke to the tournament director this past weekend at the National tournament.

He was disappointed with the reduced draw and was not sure they would break even. However, he did try to cut some costs by only having one referee.

I asked him about the Quickstart, and he told me they had changed the name, it was now 10 and under tennis. He said the kids were getting bored with the smaller courts, and asking why they couldn't play on the bigger courts. But, he thought it would be a positive change in the summer for camp as he could get more kids on the courts and therefore, make more money.

 

[seminoleG]

I spoke to the tournament director this past weekend at the National tournament.

He was disappointed with the reduced draw and was not sure they would break even. However, he did try to cut some costs by only having one referee.

I feel for the director running G12s Designated that will lose ~$2,000 because the 26+ girls that will not make the smaller draw. But my answer would be if I'm losing money to not host the tournament. I wonder if they had to request these before the reduced draw size announcement was made. You can figure based on the draw size where break even is. I can't believe for 32 Draw any Director can make money.

 

[BMC9670]

I spoke to the tournament director this past weekend at the National tournament.

He was disappointed with the reduced draw and was not sure they would break even. However, he did try to cut some costs by only having one referee.

Ouch! That's not going to help the cheating problems that have been discussed at length on these boards. An unintended consequence of the change that the USTA should be made aware of, if they will acknowledge cheating is a problem, that is.

 

[Keysmickey]

Ouch! That's not going to help the cheating problems that have been discussed at length on these boards. An unintended consequence of the change that the USTA should be made aware of, if they will acknowledge cheating is a problem, that is.

... Which they won't.:sad:

 

[hound 109]

I feel for the director running G12s Designated that will lose ~$2,000 because the 26+ girls that will not make the smaller draw. But my answer would be if I'm losing money to not host the tournament. I wonder if they had to request these before the reduced draw size announcement was made. You can figure based on the draw size where break even is. I can't believe for 32 Draw any Director can make money.

The "bid" for national tournaments are due Feb. the previous year.

I don't think the announcement to lower the draw size (& the decision to make the other changes to the L2s & L3s) came out until after that. But i'm not plugged in.....anybody know when these changes were known?

I wonder if quality sites drop out of the bidding process because of draw size going forward?

(& isn't the number of referees at a L2 or L3 a USTA required number??)

 

[gully]

Had it been 64 they would have had:
- 12-15 2 star & lower kids get in who would have been pounded "Two & out" - 5-7 3rd & 4th graders who ... would have been pounded "Two & out".
- A bunch of local rec kids to fill out the draw....who would have been pounded "Two & out".

That a group of contestants goes "two and out" isn't an indicator that the draw is too big. No matter the draw size, 25% of the players will go "two and out."

 

[seminoleG]

The "bid" for national tournaments are due Feb. the previous year.

I don't think the announcement to lower the draw size (& the decision to make the other changes to the L2s & L3s) came out until after that. But i'm not plugged in.....anybody know when these changes were known?

I wonder if quality sites drop out of the bidding process because of draw size going forward?

(& isn't the number of referees at a L2 or L3 a USTA required number??)

I researched it and the reduced Draw size for 2011 was published in Sept 2010. I would guess that they told them before hand???? I know that the director for the FlState Closed has a 64 G12, and 32 G10s. They have not been told that the 10s for State Closed will go away, and unless they apply ranking points to QS then why have 10s. So they expect to lose a significant ammount of $$$$$ next year.

 

[Freak4tennis]

Your comments are not factual and appear to be emotionally driven. Please cite chapter and verse where it states that USTA coaches are way down on the food chain.

JM curiously where are you moving too. I have truly enjoyed your quantified data. Believe it or not it helped me a lot early last year. To that...Thanks

To whoever thinks the coaches are way down the food chain. You are kidding me. All USTA wild cards are determined by the National Coaches (hardly food chain decision making). But in case you're curious I have the Player Development Organizational chart and the National Coaches are 4th down from the top. Hardly the bottom of the barrel. Sells is 3 from the top and of course JH is 2n from the top.

 

[tennis5]

My kid played 14s... the last seeded player was ranked somewhere in the 30s. I am in favor of the 32 draw. By the way, many players were given suspension points for pulling out of the backdraw. They should be and worse should happen-it's a 3 day tourney and they still pull out? Ridiculous

I was curious about the suspension points being given out for pulling out of the backdraw..... I never heard of this. If you had an injury or an emergency, how could you get suspension points?

 

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by hound 109
Had it been 64 they would have had:
- 12-15 2 star & lower kids get in who would have been pounded "Two & out" - 5-7 3rd & 4th graders who ... would have been pounded "Two & out".
- A bunch of local rec kids to fill out the draw....who would have been pounded "Two & out".

That a group of contestants goes "two and out" isn't an indicator that the draw is too big. No matter the draw size, 25% of the players will go "two and out."

Good point. Let me re-phrase:

In the B12 L2 that i observed....had they extended the draw to 64 (given the applicant list):

- 12-15 would have been 2 star or lower & would have been smoked 1 & 0 twice (like the low level 3 star kids were smoked).

- 5-7 (lower level) 4th & 5th graders would have been smoked 1 & 0 (since i know many of them & they get smoked 1 & 0 in our Sectional ranking tournaments).

Only benefit (to them) would be the ability to "experience" a national tournament (which is cool....& IS an experience). But they can do that at the L3.....& earn their way into the L2s. And again.....my comments pertain to 12s, NOT to B 14s, where i saw 2 dozen 4 star kids NOT able to get into the draw, which is a shame.

 

[chalkflewup]

JM curiously where are you moving too. I have truly enjoyed your quantified data. Believe it or not it helped me a lot early last year. To that...Thanks

To whoever thinks the coaches are way down the food chain. You are kidding me. All USTA wild cards are determined by the National Coaches (hardly food chain decision making). But in case you're curious I have the Player Development Organizational chart and the National Coaches are 4th down from the top. Hardly the bottom of the barrel. Sells is 3 from the top and of course JH is 2n from the top.

My point was that the coaches do not institute the rule changes. There is a process for that and some of the recent changes were driven from a survey of the membership. The machine listened.

 

[tennis5]

and some of the recent changes were driven from a survey of the membership. The machine listened.

Survey.... They forgot to ask me.

Who got this survey?

I have been a USTA due paying member for years...