Has anyone defending the new USTA draw sizes ever answered the following simple question:
Why do we have to cut draw sizes for the two summer super nationals that remain, which do not conflict with school?
All of the rationale about time away from school does not apply. The only rationale that applies is the expenditure of money. If you have a 192 draw at Kalamazoo, and you are Jack Sock or some other star, then you have to arrive early enough to beat some poor slob 6-1, 6-1, and do it again in the next round, etc. Paying money for hotel rooms so you can play uncompetitive matches.
However, a simple solution is to have a 64 draw with 16 spots for qualifiers. The qualifying tournament could get 128 additional players down to 16 with only three rounds of play. So, if you are top 48, you don't have to spend the extra nights in a hotel. Or, you could have a 32 draw with 8 spots for qualifiers, or a 64 draw with 32 spots for qualifiers, etc. Lots of possibilities, depending on how USTA wants to set the cutoff for who has to show up early and who can show up late, and how many days of hotel they want to save for the top players. Heck, you could have a 32 draw with 16 spots for qualifiers, let 256 kids into the qualifying draw, and have two fewer hotel nights for the top 16 than they currently pay for, while having more total kids taking a trip to Kalamazoo.
So, you could have almost the current 192 players, or even more than 192, but the top people don't have to spend extra money. The only people who spend the early hotel room money are those who choose to do so, because they think they will enjoy the experience, they might get hot and have a couple of significant wins that college coaches will see, etc. They spend the money of their own free will, knowing that the odds are that they will not take the tennis world by storm. Why not do that?