Nacho
Hall of Fame
Additionally I am excited for the Illinois Ohio State match this weekend, should be awesome!
Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim on Foreign College Tennis Players
- Thread starter CaliDawg
- Start date
Additionally I am excited for the Illinois Ohio State match this weekend, should be awesome!
Nacho
Hall of Fame
Check out the TCU horned Frogs then. One of the top teams in the country with no players from Texas and four Foreign players headlining their line up. They have one of the biggest fan bases in college tennis, and drew 1200 people to their last match. I would say no one cares their top players are international, they want good tennis. So, you can still struggle with this, but maybe this will help
http://www.gofrogs.com/sports/m-tennis/mtt/tcu-m-tennis-mtt.html
tennis_ocd
Hall of Fame
Even in 2013 -- a few years ago, tcu set attendance records. And to further complicate, record attendance was match vs Texas a&m who have a team composed of about 1/2 local talent.
I think I could make a better argument the local kids drew the crowd lol
I think I could make a better argument the local kids drew the crowd lol
Nacho
Hall of Fame
Not really, but you could make a better argument that a mix is healthy for tennis. Between TCU and A&M they are about a 40/60 mix of Intl and US players, so slightly below avg. A&M has always carried 4-5 foreign players, and started building a successful program 15 years ago. Before that only football ruled there. But for the attendance, the current TA&M is a great team with a French number 1, is a nearby rival to TCU and has also developed a tennis fanbase of its own. People showed up because they like great tennis and those schools. Plus, there are a number of factors to the attendance there is no way you can point to that one factor (top ranked teams, top ranked players, amazing facilities, an athletic department that promotes them, good social media coverage), local talent may be way down the list. And when people show, they want a winner. And one match doesn't make it TCU would draw a big crowd playing Ole Miss, an all foreign team. People like the team (lol).
I get it, you are all in on the USA only team concept, no worries. I am all for promoting college tennis and creating awareness, so we are on the same page there. I just want people to think big picture about it, there is a lot that goes into it not just the roster. International diversity is tennis, and its healthy but most of all the players like it.
tennis7777777
Rookie
I was at that match, Tcu just dominated. Fun atmosphere, but that must be Roditi counting the fans, no chance there was more then 700/800, perhaps counting each person as 2
tennis7777777
Rookie
Maybe you were the one counting, kids walking on campus count? Absolutely zero chance there was 1000
How many TCU matches have you been to? Everybody at the center was counted.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
tennis_ocd
Hall of Fame
Regardless of what the actual numbers they may be 10x more than at the Savannah challenge; an event with better tennis players and quality of matches.... along with a few recognized names to the most casual of fan.
Further supporting the position that collegiate tennis attendance/interest isn't driven by seeing 500 ranked players vs. watching 1500 types.
Nacho
Hall of Fame
The ATP challenger tour is relatively new as a concept and schedule. The same tournaments used to be a Satellite tour which had no money, so there really isn't a clear recognition for it. Its a shame because the quality is great. Playing the matches during the week day doesn't help either. Plus, the events don't get a lot of press and don't have the outlets that colleges do, but get financial backing so they don't try hard to promote themselves. What it proves is that lack of social media, lack of promotion, lack of media attention, and then a bunch of names people haven't heard of will get you an event no one shows up to. And those US challenger events are typically made up of US players and ex college players so its really a shame they get no attention. So it proves that no one cares enough about watching tennis for tennis, or even knows these tournaments exist. College team tennis is much more interesting, has a lot more potential for watching and is working hard to develop a product people will come for. Much more drama in the college game then ATP/pro game, regardless of the player.
Why do wins matter if you're a money loser?
Clemson_tennis
Legend
every college sport is a money loser except football at the big schools and men's basketball at some.
If you have better teams you can be less of a money loser.
Zacenroe86
Rookie
Tcu got owned in Lubbock today. Tech really put it to them.. Good crowd, high energy. Surprised at how soft Cameron Norrie is..mentally. Very flustered today
Nacho
Hall of Fame
Why have Athletics in general? They are all money losers, even football in many schools. Its unfortunate your philosophical question even is out there, its why sports outside of football and basketball were cut so much in the nineties. Colleges don't just have athletics to make money.
However, from a money standpoint a winning program is important especially for tennis as it generates alum interest (donations), sponsorships, more media attention, advertisements student support and helps the sale of goods which is what schools really make money on not turnstile receipts. So yes, WINS MATTER!
It was 4-3 wasn't it? Lost the match in the 3rd set.
Really surprised Norrie got beat. He's had two matches in conference play where he hasn't broken the guy once (Soares, Axel)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Zacenroe86
Rookie
4-2.
And it's one thing if a guy serves out of a tree ( Cough..Ryan Shane), but he looked awful in doubles too. Could hardly toss the ball, body language looked poor, footwork, whole package. Watched him last spring at nationals and he looked twice the player he was yesterday. Same with Nunez..
Rybakov on the other hand..that guy is a machine
Wasn't Lopez up 5-2 serving for the match?
Don't really think it was a beatdown.
Norrie has been up and down lately. He was whipping Lenz a week ago before the match got stopped. Best I've seen him play. He barely lost to Cid twice who is probably the best player in the nation and beat Koepfer last semester.
He needs to find some stability
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Zacenroe86
Rookie
Definitely wasn't a thrashing, TCU would have won if Sandy didn't clinch.
I'm a big Tech fan..sorry for overblowing it.
Norrie could definitely be a decent pro but you're right. Needs stability and some edge to his game. Stalder and Blake are a great doubles team..number 3 doubles was the real killer. That should be a check mark in their book 99% of the time with Norrie-Rybakov. My guess is Roditi will put Norrie-Johnson at 2, Rybakov-Nunez at 3 for the Big 12. We will see
I'm a big Tech fan..sorry for overblowing it.
Norrie could definitely be a decent pro but you're right. Needs stability and some edge to his game. Stalder and Blake are a great doubles team..number 3 doubles was the real killer. That should be a check mark in their book 99% of the time with Norrie-Rybakov. My guess is Roditi will put Norrie-Johnson at 2, Rybakov-Nunez at 3 for the Big 12. We will see
How would a school lose less money at tennis if they don't even charge for admission?
By attracting more donors.
Nacho
Hall of Fame
Donor's, Alumni support, sponsorships, ads, sales of merchandise, media coverage. I know people that love some schools just because of the tennis team, or other sports besides football/basketball.
Maybe at the higher level but my favorite D2 school has multiple national championships and only receivers 114,000 a year in total athletic contributions.
Doesn't make sense to have a team full of international kids.
Nacho
Hall of Fame
Your getting into one offs. Most D-II Athletic programs aren't profitable. Most athletic programs aren't profitable. The school, coaches and athletic administrations have a responsibility to promote their programs, stay in touch with alumni and coordinate donor's. Some smaller schools have been able to do this well to check out are Furman, Hope College, Williams college, Rice, or more recently Georgia Gwinnett in the NAIA. Its really up to the school how they want to handle their flow of money and where it goes, no matter if its tennis or some other program. If your D-II has a winning program, but little support from the athletic department, that coach either is doing a hell of a job, or is a lifer at that college and puts up with the lack of support. Or even worse, has no idea how to promote the program.
I live in Columbus and have followed Ohio State for years. Before 2002-3 they were a mediocre program that got little money, played on some student rec. courts, and finished middle to last in the Big Ten every year. Its a school with an interest in nothing but football and basketball, and paid little attention to tennis outside of fielding a team. They had a long time coach that never wanted to push back on the administration and was stuck in his ways, mostly just recruiting some local kids and occasionally getting an international player but only by chance. When TY Tucker took over he completely changed the mentality, recruited great talent, fought to get donors to give money to upgrade the facilities, took a crappy warehouse and turned it into an awesome indoor facility, and built a team on a mix of foreign and US talent, (Blaz Rola won the NCAA's), and now its a winning program in the Big Ten, and constantly in the mix of the NCAA championship. The school completely backs it now. Crowds show up, people donate, buy gear, support the team, and no one cares that their number one guy is from Denmark. They are all out there chanting OHIO, its a college match with college students and its fun. 15 years ago no one cared.
It takes a little effort, but if your D-II school isn't willing they will not see any reward. US players are great to cheer for, but so is winning. And having a winning program starts building it....
For you American player only guys, one thing I would argue for you is that there are coaches out there that don't want to take the time to watch and recruit players, and would rather sit on youtube all day and cherry pick some international players from videos thinking this is an "easier" way to build a team or recruit. I think we can all agree recruiting is a process, and one that should be carefully considered, and certainly there are great players all over but to be lazy about this and not put any effort into it will only get you a sub par team of international kids that no one cares about. I have seen this happen in some places, and the coaches are quickly gone. So, I think maybe we can all find common ground there. But don't dismiss the international student athlete, they are all student athletes who are embraced by their teams and contribute to the program.
Nacho
Hall of Fame
Ok, sorry to re-visit this but I figure some of you might be interested as I am having a change of heart after watching the championships…..but for different reasons then a fan standpoint. After some discussions with people and gaining a better understanding of the process today from start to finish I think so many International players in college tennis is terrible for USA tennis. Here is how I see it now:
I think College should be an extension of JR tennis development, and provide chances for everyone to compete and not get shuffled away as a number 6 player on a team dominated by International. Having more tournament formats dictate points, rankings, and letting kids compete would be a better option for development then dual match. And getting rid of no-ad in the tournaments at least might also prepare kids for futures on the tour. I like the dual matches, but this favors older International players, which is why there are so many out there. I am still going to cheer for my favorite teams no matter who is out there, but would love to see some changes made to encourage more American development. I think this would engage people through the pros much like it did in the 70’s when the players back then played tournaments and had a small dual match schedule.
- College tennis should serve as the breeding ground for American players to go and train to be pros.
- The team format, no ad scoring, dual match play encourages ready players, and not development so it is daunting for 17 year players not at a high level yet
- Players that have potential and want to develop go other routes, leaving lessor players going the college route and diluting the potential talent and sending many to other levels of school
- High school tennis is a disaster, and does nothing to prepare people. Should be developed as an extension of Jr. tennis and do away with team format
- Kids grow up in a competitive, individual format so the college format can be a complete departure from their development. Those that can compete win, and those that might be able to compete keep trying
- International players who won’t make it on the tour immediately flock to college, older, more ready to immediately make an impact so coaches are drawn to them. Thus, they dominate the sport (65% of the scholarships go to international players). Many of them travel around Europe playing for a year or two before making the decision, thus gaining a year advantage on US players
- The college format, while fan friendly, is not focused on development. Its why few to none make it in the pro ranks, and those that do don’t make it very far. It doesn't encourage people to keep trying if they lose. You lose, your out of the line up and not playing thus it encourages transfers, and drop outs from the game
- Golf, similar to tennis, should be something we all look at as a model. Almost all US pro golfers play in college before turning pro, and develop because they continue to playing in a tournament format. College golf better prepares the professional and people that may not play in a dual line up have a chance in the tournament format, sometimes rising to the top
I think College should be an extension of JR tennis development, and provide chances for everyone to compete and not get shuffled away as a number 6 player on a team dominated by International. Having more tournament formats dictate points, rankings, and letting kids compete would be a better option for development then dual match. And getting rid of no-ad in the tournaments at least might also prepare kids for futures on the tour. I like the dual matches, but this favors older International players, which is why there are so many out there. I am still going to cheer for my favorite teams no matter who is out there, but would love to see some changes made to encourage more American development. I think this would engage people through the pros much like it did in the 70’s when the players back then played tournaments and had a small dual match schedule.
College tennis has not really had a history of developing pro players on any type of widespread basis since around the 70's/80's. Much of that has to do with the increase participation globally.
D1 tennis has for the most part been a player ready environment for the last 20-30 years.
Getting rid of internationals will not help the Americans who actually have a chance to develop for the pros, it will only stunt them not facing the best available competition.
H.S. tennis should find a way for results to count for USTA, TR and UTR rankings.
With the average age of the top 100 male pro being around 27 or 28, almost no one is making it on the pro tour immediately. In D1 if you skip your freshman year to play pro tennis, you lose eligibility. Europe has more ITF Futures and are easier to travel to, U.S. American kids can do the same.
Not really sure anyone wants to go back to 5 hour duels at this point. But agree the shortened format may not be best for those going to go pro, not the worst thing either. At least they're still keeping score, LOL!
If D1 should be an extension of JR tennis, what does that make DII, DIII, NAIA and JUCO? Many lower classmen that may be labeled as developing players on DI rosters already play in fall tournament play.
D1 tennis has for the most part been a player ready environment for the last 20-30 years.
Getting rid of internationals will not help the Americans who actually have a chance to develop for the pros, it will only stunt them not facing the best available competition.
H.S. tennis should find a way for results to count for USTA, TR and UTR rankings.
With the average age of the top 100 male pro being around 27 or 28, almost no one is making it on the pro tour immediately. In D1 if you skip your freshman year to play pro tennis, you lose eligibility. Europe has more ITF Futures and are easier to travel to, U.S. American kids can do the same.
Not really sure anyone wants to go back to 5 hour duels at this point. But agree the shortened format may not be best for those going to go pro, not the worst thing either. At least they're still keeping score, LOL!
If D1 should be an extension of JR tennis, what does that make DII, DIII, NAIA and JUCO? Many lower classmen that may be labeled as developing players on DI rosters already play in fall tournament play.
Last edited:
High school tennis doesn't provide the level of competition of USTA Jrs, but it can provide team and school spirit, as well as opportunities for followership, teamwork, and leadership. It certainly is advantageous for a student-athlete who spends so much of their off time in activities (USTA) completely separate from their school and community.
I would assume college coaches would have some questions about recruits if they had no team experience. How is this player going to fit in with the team? How well will the player accept decisions meant to benefit the whole rather than just them?
Nacho
Hall of Fame
Yes, doesn't label the other divisions anything. In fact, with tennis I am not sure the different divisions are necessary, but just my opinion. The Divisional format just suits the marketers and big conference money people.
Again, I still love watching tennis, and in its current format I'll cheer for the International player. Just seeing the whole thing a little differently now
Nacho
Hall of Fame
HS tennis is a waste, but doesn't have to be. It needs a complete overall and always has. I remember competing in the late 80's and didn't even bother with HS tennis my Sr. year, didn't even matter to my coach in college and certainly wasn't a make or break. It was better as it gave me more time to practice and compete elsewhere. But, I do see a value in there somewhere just not sure the zillion chiefs are going to figure it out
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
UTR wants high school matches included and for the 2014/15 year was encouraging teams in our area to report. My son won all his in state varsity matches for that year, and I looked into reporting matches for our singles. I thought it might help players as they played guys ranked in the 11s, 12s. However, they also had to play lower ranked UTR guys so I did not report scores because I did not want the singles players replacing a 12+ tourney win with a 10.5 varsity win. UTR includes enough matches for college players, but for juniors playing tourneys and varsity, they might play 30 matches in 2 months. Excluding varsity, some juniors play 30+ matches in 3 months.
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
There are schools in several states with a high level of HS varsity tennis; guys play the same guys in singles for HS matches that they meet in their high level sectional tournaments. HS tennis may offer good tournament practice that means less days at academies=less $ spent and also less tournaments played. My son used to play mid level sectional tournaments as practice for high level sectional tournaments but this year skipped the midlevel and played HS for practice. I know multiple guys ranked in TRN top 40-100 that play HS tennis in our state and other states. For these level of teams, coaches let players practice at their own academies and top players maybe play 2/3 of matches letting teammates get singles practice against the weakest teams in the schedule.
It is also good prep for college play to learn to play with a lot of people watching at state playoff rounds, some even heckling. Players get used to the pressure of playing for the clinch point in an important match. Juniors dont learn that in tournaments. There are national zonal team tournaments but players are on a team for 5 days, not a season-just not the same. College coaches dont value HS tennis as a stand alone, but I do think they value a player having the team experience if they are also a ranked tournament player. The value of HS tennis depends if you live in a strong tennis area and if players can balance it with tournaments and regular school academics.
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
A couple comments on your post.
We have met international players who come to the US at 17 or 18 having graduated or supposedly still in school but all they are taking are online SAT courses. They compete for a year or in case of the graduates, they can only compete for 6 months but they can still train fulltime for the other 6 months of their gap year. These players are a mix of levels but they all come over with the goal of finding a college roster spot and 75% scholarship. They will play D1, D2 or NAIA. They go to US academies run by pros from their home country or region, and many are hosted by American families. On the one hand, I believe in cultural exchange, but on the other the generosity of these US families make be taking college spots from their own kids.
It takes the efforts of all 6 singles lines and dubs to win a college match. Sometimes it is the bottom lines that win the match. What is bothersome to me is how unequal the aid is spread. There are teams that are fairly even with US and international players but often the top 3 or 4 spots are internationals. I keep hearing about US players that play lines 4-6 getting no and little athletic aid, or freshmen who get no $ 1st year but are told next year if they perform well, etc. If the top 4 internationals are getting 75%+ and the remaining % is spread among 4-6 players, the US players are getting crumbs. The NCAA published a survey on all sports, and I think the tennis players reported that tennis took up 32 hours a week. The US players are supposed to be smart and get the merit aid. Then they have to make a high GPA while playing those 32 hours with the minimal athletic aid. No wonder so many US players either transfer or drop off team to keep merit scholarship and stay at school. No wonder a lot more players ranked 40-100 on TRN are choosing Ivys or D3s. The irony is that US players who get minimal athletic aid pay the student fees at public state universities that fund the athletic budgets that allow coaches to go over to Europe to recruit players for the tennis team. I hope US players will get smarter and choose teams that value them-the guy who is 6-8 on the power team might be a key player on mid major with a better scholarship deal.
The USTA talks as if they want to support US juniors and college players but it is a lot of talk and no action but I am hopeful it will be better with Martin Blackman (well?) -cant remember name in charge. The USTA hosted a showcase at the ITA coaches conference in Naples, but ironically most of the kids that attended were internationals that attended Florida academies. The acceptance was based on date of registration. This showcase was not promoted at all at National Clays or KZoo last year. The USTA has the Emails of the national tourney competitors and could have sent an Email out to those players and had a table at those tourneys. They should have set one deadline and accepted the candidates with the highest UTR in stead of filling the showcase with internationals who are already seen by coaches at Florida ITFs, Eddie Herr, etc. The USTA has no problem selling the contact info of jr players to promoters who run for fee showcases that cost $400 but the USTA filled most of its free showcase with international players. The USTA share outdated statistics on the levels of international players in college tennis at their forums and national and high level sectional tournaments. At one sectional championship, one of the speakers was a power coach, international himself, who basically implied the US players should play D3 and he talked about traveling to Europe to recruit a girl who later transferred. USTA encourages US players to look at D2 at these forums, but the % of international players in D2 is even higher in D1. USTA needs to get their facts straight and at least level with US parents.
I think it is cheaper for European players to get both match practice and tournament experience. I dont totally understand how the clubs work, but it sounds like there is a lot more play between juniors and adults plus tournaments are closer together and easy to reach by train. One US company offers US juniors or collegians the opportunity to play 2 tourneys a week for 4-5 weeks this summer in Europe but of course it costs $5000. In the US, it is impossible to get junior ITF and/or low level circuit experience with a bunch of tourneys close in distance in a short period of time. Our system is set up so it is expensive to train and compete. College offers a cheaper alternative but US players lose out to the players with more international experience. Some of those European countries are smaller than states, yet they have their own Davis Cup teams, and players may have national support. There is support for just a handful of junior players from the USTA. For as large as country in size and population, we host a small number of ITF junior tournaments. If USTA does not turn things around, the only US juniors who will be able to compete at high levels will be those rich enough to travel to ITFs in other countries and who are also totally homeschooled. If you are an adult less than 10 years out of college who played on a ranked team offer to hit with juniors-that might be one less drill session they have to pay for.
My son is in the recruiting process but not quite at the offer stage. I hope things go better for him than some of the stories I have heard from the classes before. I would definitely not recommend tennis as a sport for boys in the current environment.
Nacho
Hall of Fame
As a starting point I should outline that my perspective on this is someone who follows college tennis closely (along with all things tennis) despite not being from the U.S. nor playing college tennis in the U.S. Many of my friends did play college tennis however and I have coached several players who have gone to play it and who I advised during the process. I have also competed for a UK University side against several U.S. college sides, both in the U.S. during a trip and in the U.K. in an international fixture. I have also played and coached a side at the Masters U event.
It is clear that a system which places no restrictions on players from overseas is beneficial for two groups of people.
1) International players (duh)
2) Top level Americans with pro aspirations
It's clear that for the really top level American players the presence of top international players in college tennis is beneficial, as they increase the level of competition, both in practice and at match time. They also give American players exposure to a much wider variety of playing styles, which can only help their development. If foreign players were banned or even strictly restricted it is unlikely that UCLA (for example) would face the same level of competition when they visited Waco, Texas or Norman, Oklahoma.
I occasionally see the argument that the number of international players in college tennis has a negative impact of the development of American pro tennis prospects as players find it harder to get spots on teams or to access scholarship dollars. I am sorry, but if a player is not able to get a spot on a good D1 team or get a reasonable scholarship offer, when they are 18, they are not a realistic pro prospect. I accept players do have different development trajectories, but I would suggest that anybody who fits this description is so far behind the curve that pro tennis (at a self-sustaining level) is incredibly unlikely.
Where I think the issue is less clear cut is what is the appropriate balance when it comes to (the vast majority) of players who are not playing for the very top teams, nor harbor hopes of a professional tennis career. Personally, I am a liberal internationalist so I would not be concerned about the nationality of players. I accept however that other reasonable people can take alternative reasonable views, particularly when U.S. taxpayers money is involved.
Even I will admit than when I see a mediocre, unranked, D1 or D2 team that is exclusively made up of Eastern European or South American players (for example) I scratch my head as to how such a team fits into the overall strategic objectives of the University or of the state government who may be funding it. I will also admit than when personally advising my players on colleges I would always encourage them to gravitate towards teams which have a decent number of American players. For me a team that was 100% international was a red flag as it suggested that, for one reason or another, the coach was unable to recruit Americans, who were likely to be making more informed decisions about their college choice.
I think if any changes were to be made all the powers that be would need to sit down and decide what was the appropriate balance to be struck between college as a location for developing American players for pro tennis and as a location for providing opportunities to Americans interested in playing competitive tennis, at a reasonably high level, and with access to scholarship dollars as part of the bargain. It probably does need to be accepted by people on both sides of the argument though that there is a level of trade off between the two.
It is clear that a system which places no restrictions on players from overseas is beneficial for two groups of people.
1) International players (duh)
2) Top level Americans with pro aspirations
It's clear that for the really top level American players the presence of top international players in college tennis is beneficial, as they increase the level of competition, both in practice and at match time. They also give American players exposure to a much wider variety of playing styles, which can only help their development. If foreign players were banned or even strictly restricted it is unlikely that UCLA (for example) would face the same level of competition when they visited Waco, Texas or Norman, Oklahoma.
I occasionally see the argument that the number of international players in college tennis has a negative impact of the development of American pro tennis prospects as players find it harder to get spots on teams or to access scholarship dollars. I am sorry, but if a player is not able to get a spot on a good D1 team or get a reasonable scholarship offer, when they are 18, they are not a realistic pro prospect. I accept players do have different development trajectories, but I would suggest that anybody who fits this description is so far behind the curve that pro tennis (at a self-sustaining level) is incredibly unlikely.
Where I think the issue is less clear cut is what is the appropriate balance when it comes to (the vast majority) of players who are not playing for the very top teams, nor harbor hopes of a professional tennis career. Personally, I am a liberal internationalist so I would not be concerned about the nationality of players. I accept however that other reasonable people can take alternative reasonable views, particularly when U.S. taxpayers money is involved.
Even I will admit than when I see a mediocre, unranked, D1 or D2 team that is exclusively made up of Eastern European or South American players (for example) I scratch my head as to how such a team fits into the overall strategic objectives of the University or of the state government who may be funding it. I will also admit than when personally advising my players on colleges I would always encourage them to gravitate towards teams which have a decent number of American players. For me a team that was 100% international was a red flag as it suggested that, for one reason or another, the coach was unable to recruit Americans, who were likely to be making more informed decisions about their college choice.
I think if any changes were to be made all the powers that be would need to sit down and decide what was the appropriate balance to be struck between college as a location for developing American players for pro tennis and as a location for providing opportunities to Americans interested in playing competitive tennis, at a reasonably high level, and with access to scholarship dollars as part of the bargain. It probably does need to be accepted by people on both sides of the argument though that there is a level of trade off between the two.
Nacho
Hall of Fame
"I am sorry, but if a player is not able to get a spot on a good D1 team or get a reasonable scholarship offer, when they are 18, they are not a realistic pro prospect. I accept players do have different development trajectories, but I would suggest that anybody who fits this description is so far behind the curve that pro tennis (at a self-sustaining level) is incredibly unlikely."
I agree with you here. Except that the system as built is going to attract a player with the kind of experience some of these Intl's have. Who are you going to recruit, a 18-20 yr old Intl kid who played on their Davis cup team and has 2 years ITF experience/WQ ATP experience, or a 17 yr US kid who is not developed yet with just the Zoo under the belt. I think the system for US players needs to change to provide them the opportunities. 17 yr old Intl vs US kid is about the same, but the Intl is getting more ITF chances. Again not saying get rid of Intl, but need to address the way US players are prepared. US players don't stand a chance in the current system and are overlooked
"I am a liberal internationalist so I would not be concerned about the nationality of players. I accept however that other reasonable people can take alternative reasonable views, particularly when U.S. taxpayers money is involved."
I like the diversity of International players as well, and I certainly love watching really good ones. I played with Intl guys and I work with lots of people intl today, the relationships are important and valued. I think the powers that be should make a decision on the role of college tennis in development, and look at how the rules and competition stands. Right now, it doesn't favor a US player, but is a US system. If everyone is ok with that, then it is what it is. Dual matches, no ad, 10 point 3rd set breakers, none of those exist in pro tennis, or jr tennis and are a departure from the sport, favoring certain players. As a fan I like it, but from a development standpoint I am not sure I do. Not worried about the taxpayer aspect, I want a good team and if the top guys are Intl and play great tennis I will watch, they are still college students.
Even I will admit than when I see a mediocre, unranked, D1 or D2 team that is exclusively made up of Eastern European or South American players (for example) I scratch my head as to how such a team fits into the overall strategic objectives of the University or of the state government who may be funding it. I will also admit than when personally advising my players on colleges I would always encourage them to gravitate towards teams which have a decent number of American players. For me a team that was 100% international was a red flag as it suggested that, for one reason or another, the coach was unable to recruit Americans, who were likely to be making more informed decisions about their college choice.
I think thats smart,and intuitive. I think some coaches are hung up on Int'l players being the only option. It is an easy way out, and takes a lot more legwork to recruit American players. They are younger, parents are involved, they have other outlets and need more attention sometimes, Int'l to them is just easier. And they like experience. One of the Int'l guys on my team in college was 24 yrs old and a Jr? I was 17 and a freshman, there is a big difference!
I think if any changes were to be made all the powers that be would need to sit down and decide what was the appropriate balance to be struck between college as a location for developing American players for pro tennis and as a location for providing opportunities to Americans interested in playing competitive tennis, at a reasonably high level, and with access to scholarship dollars as part of the bargain. It probably does need to be accepted by people on both sides of the argument though that there is a level of trade off between the two.
Totally. I worry there are a lot of "experts" and not enough people listening and asking questions. The Alumni engagement is lacking, and the parent engagement is just when their child is playing but wanes. There are some new people in place but all signs would say they are pursuing the marketing route without considering the development; only time will tell. Again, I think golf is a good model and a college sport similar to tennis doing it right and producing a good product with pro development.
I agree with you here. Except that the system as built is going to attract a player with the kind of experience some of these Intl's have. Who are you going to recruit, a 18-20 yr old Intl kid who played on their Davis cup team and has 2 years ITF experience/WQ ATP experience, or a 17 yr US kid who is not developed yet with just the Zoo under the belt. I think the system for US players needs to change to provide them the opportunities. 17 yr old Intl vs US kid is about the same, but the Intl is getting more ITF chances. Again not saying get rid of Intl, but need to address the way US players are prepared. US players don't stand a chance in the current system and are overlooked
"I am a liberal internationalist so I would not be concerned about the nationality of players. I accept however that other reasonable people can take alternative reasonable views, particularly when U.S. taxpayers money is involved."
I like the diversity of International players as well, and I certainly love watching really good ones. I played with Intl guys and I work with lots of people intl today, the relationships are important and valued. I think the powers that be should make a decision on the role of college tennis in development, and look at how the rules and competition stands. Right now, it doesn't favor a US player, but is a US system. If everyone is ok with that, then it is what it is. Dual matches, no ad, 10 point 3rd set breakers, none of those exist in pro tennis, or jr tennis and are a departure from the sport, favoring certain players. As a fan I like it, but from a development standpoint I am not sure I do. Not worried about the taxpayer aspect, I want a good team and if the top guys are Intl and play great tennis I will watch, they are still college students.
Even I will admit than when I see a mediocre, unranked, D1 or D2 team that is exclusively made up of Eastern European or South American players (for example) I scratch my head as to how such a team fits into the overall strategic objectives of the University or of the state government who may be funding it. I will also admit than when personally advising my players on colleges I would always encourage them to gravitate towards teams which have a decent number of American players. For me a team that was 100% international was a red flag as it suggested that, for one reason or another, the coach was unable to recruit Americans, who were likely to be making more informed decisions about their college choice.
I think thats smart,and intuitive. I think some coaches are hung up on Int'l players being the only option. It is an easy way out, and takes a lot more legwork to recruit American players. They are younger, parents are involved, they have other outlets and need more attention sometimes, Int'l to them is just easier. And they like experience. One of the Int'l guys on my team in college was 24 yrs old and a Jr? I was 17 and a freshman, there is a big difference!
I think if any changes were to be made all the powers that be would need to sit down and decide what was the appropriate balance to be struck between college as a location for developing American players for pro tennis and as a location for providing opportunities to Americans interested in playing competitive tennis, at a reasonably high level, and with access to scholarship dollars as part of the bargain. It probably does need to be accepted by people on both sides of the argument though that there is a level of trade off between the two.
Totally. I worry there are a lot of "experts" and not enough people listening and asking questions. The Alumni engagement is lacking, and the parent engagement is just when their child is playing but wanes. There are some new people in place but all signs would say they are pursuing the marketing route without considering the development; only time will tell. Again, I think golf is a good model and a college sport similar to tennis doing it right and producing a good product with pro development.
I think we're on the same page on a lot of things. I think here though you're talking about the 'wrong type' of international as being problematic, unless you're going to eliminate international players all together (which I know you're not advocating). The Mikael Torpegaard's of this world aren't the guys who are competing with the marginal American player who desperately want to play D1 college tennis but who are struggling to get a line up slot/scholarship somewhere. They're the guys who are providing competition for the MacDonald's and the Shane's and the Hiltzik's of this world, guys who are never going to struggle to get recruited and who clearly benefit from the level of competition international players with experience like what you describe bring to college tennis. It's more the guy playing 6 at UW-Green Bay who is the issue...
Nacho
Hall of Fame
Also provide competition to Norrie, Koepfer, and Monteiro's of the world
....but actually we are sort of saying the same thing. I am more advocating figuring out how to raise the bar for American players so that the college development benefits them as much as the Int'l. In our current system, if it stays, it may mean taking a look at what is amateur status as this may be a defining point between the US and Int'l system. If a US kid like Konfederak plays some ATP challenger events, is he really considered a pro? Didn't McEnroe play pro while going to Stanford? I am not sure what the answer is, and I am all for International players and support them. But clearly US players are losing in development, and the prospects are bypassing College altogether. Title IX in a weird way I think also effects this because of the scholarship and budget aspect, so schools that should have teams eliminate them or don't have them. But thats a different story for a different threadThe 'pro' point I think is an interesting one. Personally I'd be of a view that the 'amateur' status of NCAA athletics is farcical to begin with and should be done away with. Without opening that hornet's nest I'd be of the view that the rules for tennis should be written in such a way that players should be allowed to play as many pro events as they want, take as much money as they want and sign with as many agents as they want and still be allowed play college tennis. The fact of the matter is that for anyone realistically considering college or for that matter even ending up at college, their expenses are going to have (significantly) exceeded their prize money up to that point in their career.
Where the restriction should be though, in order to level the play field is on age/high schoolgraduation grounds. If you tried to play pro for 6 years after school and then decide you want to go back to college that's fine but no, I do not think you should be eligible to play NCAA DI tennis.
Where the restriction should be though, in order to level the play field is on age/high schoolgraduation grounds. If you tried to play pro for 6 years after school and then decide you want to go back to college that's fine but no, I do not think you should be eligible to play NCAA DI tennis.
Nacho
Hall of Fame
Yes...I agree. There has to be a limitation somehow. It would be unfair if Ryan Harrison or Tim Smyczek decided to try their hand at college tennis after 8 years playing pro. But some of these guys, especially in the Florida system, are geared away from college because they are convinced it wont develop them as an ATP player. If Tommy Paul struggles in the next year, he can't decide to try college, but college tennis would be awesome with a Tommy Paul in there, but for a player like that playing challengers and qualifiers is the only other option besides college tennis...These players sometimes never really crack the top 200 and end up having go fund me pages to help pay because they can't make it. I am not sure the NCAA understands that Tennis is different then other sports. If you play baseball, you can be one of 6000 players in the minors and make a living. Tennis you basically need to crack the top 200 to make any money, and even then its tough. So its a different type of demand and for up and coming players the rules of college tennis make them consider pro tennis more. I think a hard look at what is amateur would go a long way if they want to market tennis, and then adding in more tournament formats. UCLA is good, but in dual matches alone we may never have known how good Mcdonald was. Individual tournament formats let the cream rise to the top, and more might given the chance. Thanks for commenting
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Butorac
For those people who say that you have no chance at pro if you aren't clearly playing.
Eric was in and out at line6 and transferred to d3 before going pro.
For those people who say that you have no chance at pro if you aren't clearly playing.
Eric was in and out at line6 and transferred to d3 before going pro.
Great guy and an inspirational model for sure. Not to be a total downer for anyone who dreams, but realistically he's a 1 in a million. I remember talking with him at a Challenger about 10 years ago. He was roughly 800 or so in singles and around 200 in doubles. He was contemplating giving up singles and focusing on doubles only. Said his movement for singles was holding him back. Glad he made it. I know two players on tour now who are better at singles than he was and are currently now much higher ranked in doubles. The road for them to get from around 200 in doubles to the top 100 is still so steep. At least they have their degree. Good luck to those who try. Best advice I bet Eric gives is get your degree first!
