Wilson_Player
New User
Has any pro made it from D-3 or D-2 college tennis? We don't hear much about the background of pros that went to college first.
Has any pro made it from D-3 or D-2 college tennis? We don't hear much about the background of pros that went to college first.
Has any pro made it from D-3 or D-2 college tennis? We don't hear much about the background of pros that went to college first.
Yeah there are probably a few D3 and D2 players that have played around on the futures and challenger circuits, but the only D3 player that I know of that has made it big is Butorac in doubles. I think he peaked in the rankings around #15 (meaning top 10 as a team with either or maybe both Rojer and Klaasen). He and Klaasen lost in the Aussie Open final one year. Butorac just retired this year.
Were Flach and Seguso at a smaller division school? It rings a bell.
This is correct regarding Butorac. The year he went to the finals of the Aussie Open (2014) he and Klaasen finished 9 as a team at the end of the year and just missed the World Tour Finals. He played at D3 Gustavus but actually started at a D1 school (Ball State). He's a brilliant doubles player.
siue is gone now, they did get rid of their program last yearThey came from SIU-Edwardsville, which is D-I now but was D-II at the time (early 80's). And incidentally almost eliminated their tennis program this last year
siue is gone now, they did get rid of their program last year
Nah, women won conference. My friend is playing there now. Women weren't on the chopping block from what she's told meyea your right, but I believe they were getting rid of both and kept the womens program
Nah, women won conference. My friend is playing there now. Women weren't on the chopping block from what she's told me
matt seeberger, eric buotorac. eric made a grand slam final in doubles like mentioned.Barely anyone makes it pro from D1, so it should go without saying that no one makes it pro from D2/3
Seeberger has a career high singles ranking of 1,200, a career high doubles ranking of 155 and a current doubles ranking of 590, no current singles ranking. His career prize money total is $29,493 so you're pushing it to say he 'made it' as a pro. Also your claim that doubles is more important in D3 is false, it is no more important than it is in D1 or D2. There are only 3 former D1 college players in the ATP top 100 singles rankings (no D2 or D3) vs 16 former D1 players in the top 100 in doubles, Boutorac is the exception as the only non-D1 player. If doubles were more important than why aren't there more D3 players in the ATP doubles rankings? Buotorac by any measure has had a good doubles career but he is an anomaly. As another poster stated, very few of the top D1 players who try the pro tour really make it as it is so these days you cannot say college tennis, at any level, is a real viable pathway to 'making it' on the pro tour, especially in singles and only marginally so in doubles.matt seeberger, eric buotorac. eric made a grand slam final in doubles like mentioned.
Plus d3 doubles is more important so the potential for doubles players to come out is pretty high if there happens to be a solid guy who works very hard.
Seeberger has a career high singles ranking of 1,200, a career high doubles ranking of 155 and a current doubles ranking of 590, no current singles ranking. His career prize money total is $29,493 so you're pushing it to say he 'made it' as a pro. Also your claim that doubles is more important in D3 is false, it is no more important than it is in D1 or D2. There are only 3 former D1 college players in the ATP top 100 singles rankings (no D2 or D3) vs 16 former D1 players in the top 100 in doubles, Boutorac is the exception as the only non-D1 player. If doubles were more important than why aren't there more D3 players in the ATP doubles rankings? Buotorac by any measure has had a good doubles career but he is an anomaly. As another poster stated, very few of the top D1 players who try the pro tour really make it as it is so these days you cannot say college tennis, at any level, is a real viable pathway to 'making it' on the pro tour, especially in singles and only marginally so in doubles.
Doubles is more important in d3 so a player is more likely to develop into a better doubles player.Seeberger has a career high singles ranking of 1,200, a career high doubles ranking of 155 and a current doubles ranking of 590, no current singles ranking. His career prize money total is $29,493 so you're pushing it to say he 'made it' as a pro. Also your claim that doubles is more important in D3 is false, it is no more important than it is in D1 or D2. There are only 3 former D1 college players in the ATP top 100 singles rankings (no D2 or D3) vs 16 former D1 players in the top 100 in doubles, Boutorac is the exception as the only non-D1 player. If doubles were more important than why aren't there more D3 players in the ATP doubles rankings? Buotorac by any measure has had a good doubles career but he is an anomaly. As another poster stated, very few of the top D1 players who try the pro tour really make it as it is so these days you cannot say college tennis, at any level, is a real viable pathway to 'making it' on the pro tour, especially in singles and only marginally so in doubles.
Ehh this is quite a stretch that you're making here. Doubles is barely more important in D3 tennis than in D1 tennis. To me, you can say that someone made it as a pro player when they can support themselves from the income they make from tennis. While Seeberger was filthy in D3 and I can't take anything away from his accomplishments there, he was nowhere close to making it as a pro. That leaves Boutorac (who to my understanding started at D1) as the only one to do anything notable from D3.Doubles is more important in d3 so a player is more likely to develop into a better doubles player.
Seeberger made it to 155 in doubles, that's nothing to scoff at.
And the reason doubles is more important in d3 is because it counts for 3/9 points. So if you sweep doubles you start to a 3-0 lead and only need to win 2 singles matches.
I'm not saying there will be many d3 pros because obviously the talent goes to d1, but d3 has potential to put out a couple doubles players.
In d1 you have to win half of the singles flights to win a match if you win the doubles pointEhh this is quite a stretch that you're making here. Doubles is barely more important in D3 tennis than in D1 tennis. To me, you can say that someone made it as a pro player when they can support themselves from the income they make from tennis. While Seeberger was filthy in D3 and I can't take anything away from his accomplishments there, he was nowhere close to making it as a pro. That leaves Boutorac (who to my understanding started at D1) as the only one to do anything notable from D3.
Just look at Skylar Butts. He was arguably the best player in D3 last year. Recently he played a 10k Futures event. He won one round of qualies. That's what you're looking at for D3.
Ehh this is quite a stretch that you're making here. Doubles is barely more important in D3 tennis than in D1 tennis. To me, you can say that someone made it as a pro player when they can support themselves from the income they make from tennis. While Seeberger was filthy in D3 and I can't take anything away from his accomplishments there, he was nowhere close to making it as a pro. That leaves Boutorac (who to my understanding started at D1) as the only one to do anything notable from D3.
Just look at Skylar Butts. He was arguably the best player in D3 last year. Recently he played a 10k Futures event. He won one round of qualies. That's what you're looking at for D3.
We are in agreement on this. I absolutely view anyone who is skilled enough to get points as a pro. I think the misunderstanding is on the phrase 'made it.' I'm interpreting this as being successful as a professional tennis player. Very very very few pro players actually make it on the tour, and that's where I'm coming from.No one makes money in pro tennis unless they crack the top 100, or top 50 really. So, I think it is unfair to say only money makers are "pro's". Certainly Money makers can stick around and play longer, but most players on the tour view anyone who gets ATP points as someone who is at a pro level. If you get ATP points, and can qualify in tournaments, your a pro.
What you are saying is not hard at all to grasp and based solely off the numbers you are correct. 3/5 is bigger than 1/4. I currently play D3 tennis, and our team also schedules matches against D1 teams and we play by D1 rules. From experience, I can say that there is a very minimal difference in the importance of doubles between the formats. We don't train more or less for doubles depending on what rules our next match will be played under, and whatever marginal increase in importance doubles might have at the D3 level will do nothing to compensate for the massive skill gap between high level D1 and top tier D3.In d1 you have to win half of the singles flights to win a match if you win the doubles point
In d3 you have to win 1/3
In d1 doubles is shorter in format and worth less points.
How is this hard to grasp? 3-0 lead to 5 is bigger than 1-0 lead to 4
No one makes money in pro tennis unless they crack the top 100, or top 50 really. So, I think it is unfair to say only money makers are "pro's". Certainly Money makers can stick around and play longer, but most players on the tour view anyone who gets ATP points as someone who is at a pro level. If you get ATP points, and can qualify in tournaments, your a pro.
We are in agreement on this. I absolutely view anyone who is skilled enough to get points as a pro. I think the misunderstanding is on the phrase 'made it.' I'm interpreting this as being successful as a professional tennis player. Very very very few pro players actually make it on the tour, and that's where I'm coming from.
This guy tracks current college players with at least 2 ATP points
In my experience I have seen many D3 players with a level that is high enough to win Futures qualies and win couple rounds after that !Ehh this is quite a stretch that you're making here. Doubles is barely more important in D3 tennis than in D1 tennis. To me, you can say that someone made it as a pro player when they can support themselves from the income they make from tennis. While Seeberger was filthy in D3 and I can't take anything away from his accomplishments there, he was nowhere close to making it as a pro. That leaves Boutorac (who to my understanding started at D1) as the only one to do anything notable from D3.
Just look at Skylar Butts. He was arguably the best player in D3 last year. Recently he played a 10k Futures event. He won one round of qualies. That's what you're looking at for D3.