Wayne Bryan must be reading this forum.....

[Soianka]

Yes, I don't understand why 4 and 3 stars are considered not good enough for college tennis. Before the foreigners came, they were good enough to play college tennis.

I would say that 99% of 3 & 4 star kids are hardcore tennis players. They may not be as talented as blue chippers, but they work just as hard and have the same passion for the game. Who is to say that they don't belong in college tennis.

Yes, and some of those 3 and 4 star players maybe just as talented or more talented than their blue chip counterparts but may have started playing tennis at a later age, did not have the quantity and/or quality of tennis coaching of their blue chip counterparts, are late bloomers, or their parents did not have the funds to fully develop their talents, etc.

Whatever the case may be, they should be good enough to play tennis at the vast majority of DI, DII, and DIII schools.

 

[andfor]

Yes, and some of those 3 and 4 star players maybe just as talented or more talented than their blue chip counterparts but may have started playing tennis at a later age, did not have the quantity and/or quality of tennis coaching of their blue chip counterparts, are late bloomers, or their parents did not have the funds to fully develop their talents, etc.

Whatever the case may be, they should be good enough to play tennis at the vast majority of DI, DII, and DIII schools.

And they are. The BCS schools are not the vast majority.

 

[andfor]

Yes, I don't understand why 4 and 3 stars are considered not good enough for college tennis. Before the foreigners came, they were good enough to play college tennis.

I would say that 99% of 3 & 4 star kids are hardcore tennis players. They may not be as talented as blue chippers, but they work just as hard and have the same passion for the game. Who is to say that they don't belong in college tennis.

Name one poster who said "they don't belong in college tennis". Be sure to quote them.

 

[seminoleG]

I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread:

Div I Coaches are paid Bonus money based on team results. So although its nice to say Buy American, Buy in State if my livelyhood is tied to results the best kids to get results are the ones I recruit.

Remember when you talk College Athletics follow the $$$$$$.

I am a Booster for FSU, and Academics are secondary to Finances.

I do not like seeing our Tennis Team loaded with Foreign players but understand the dynamic of the Business of Sport.

As I continue to say:

There is Sport and the Business of Sport the two have very different Goals!

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

Here is a physical analogy, as people keep talking about funnels and pyramids. A pyramid has a straight line up the side, as it narrows from base to peak. When I look at a funnel, it narrows at a constant rate from the wide mouth to the small opening at the bottom. It does not narrow at a certain rate and then widen out again (i.e. too easy to get into national tournaments), nor does it narrow at a certain rate and then have a dramatic narrowing at one point (e.g. making it too hard to get into nationals).

If you want to provide a nice continuum of opportunities, you require a certain level of performance consistently. For example, at certain ages only the top 5 results count in sectional rankings. So, maybe a player should have to achieve points equal to 3-5 semifinals in Level 5 sectionals to get into a Level 3 sectional, and points equal to 3-5 semifinals in Level 3 sectionals to get into Level 1 sectionals (Championships). I know that sectional tournaments are not strictly limited like this, it depends on how many try to sign up, etc., but the basic point is to require a certain level of excellence, but NOT to require that you are so dominant that you are getting bored at one level before you are allowed to try the next level.

Then the same pattern would hold at the national tournaments. To get into an L3 national, you need 3-5 semifinal results two levels down (Challengers, a.k.a. L2 sectionals). To get into an L2 national, 3-5 semifinal results at L1 sectionals (Championships). Of course, you can achieve the equivalent of 3 semifinals in another way (1 semi, 4 quarters).

Now, the $64,000 question is: Did the USTA address a problem with a weird funnel shape, or create one? Did you have to achieve a certain level of result along the way, until suddenly at some national level it was too easy to get in, so you no longer needed those kind of results from 1-2 levels down? Or, did they make it the case that you can progress up the ladder by achieving a certain level of results (quarters, or semis) and now that is not good enough to climb steps on the national ladder?

If they achieved a smooth funnel shape, fine with me. If they took a smooth funnel shape and ruined it, not good. If they took a funnel that was too wide at the L1/L2 national level and over-corrected and made it too narrow, not good. Perhaps the question could be answered by simply looking at points tables and who was getting into various tournaments in the past versus today, but it would take more time than I want to devote to it at the moment, as it does not greatly affect my son.

ENRON!!!!!!! scandal !!!!!! foul !!!!!!! you mean now I have to achieve a certain level of excellence and get points to get into L3 nationals:shock:. You mean I do not have to resort to applying "wait list" to as many L3 in the middle of nowhere hoping that I get lucky one day and make the cut. Funny how some parents abuse this loophole yet they complain about the WC loophole

 

[justinmadison]

Div I Coaches are paid Bonus money based on team results. So although its nice to say Buy American, Buy in State if my livelyhood is tied to results the best kids to get results are the ones I recruit.

I do not like seeing our Tennis Team loaded with Foreign players but understand the dynamic of the Business of Sport.

I hear this line of reasoning quite a bit but I do not understand. Certainly, if foreign players are in US college tennis coaches will rightly feel the need to recruiting them in order to stay competitive. If foreign players are excluded or limited then all coaches will have the same “handicap” and it will balance out.

I have even read a post where it was claimed that college coaches cannot win without foreign players and so if all foreign players were banned no one could win. I pointed out the obvious fact that someone will win every match with or without foreign players.

 

[tennis5]

I hear this line of reasoning quite a bit but I do not understand. Certainly, if foreign players are in US college tennis coaches will rightly feel the need to recruiting them in order to stay competitive. If foreign players are excluded or limited then all coaches will have the same “handicap” and it will balance out.

I have even read a post where it was claimed that college coaches cannot win without foreign players and so if all foreign players were banned no one could win. I pointed out the obvious fact that someone will win every match with or without foreign players.

I think if we could just put in a cap of two players per team for state schools, that would satisfy the folks,
and put all the state schools on an equal playing field.

Otherwise, I just don't see the point of having a tennis team at a state school where it is all foreigners......
I keep hearing, over and over again, that having foreigners on a team helps American tennis,
but how does it help when there are no Americans on the team?

 

[Misterbill]

I think if we could just put in a cap of two players per team for state schools, that would satisfy the folks,
and put all the state schools on an equal playing field.

Otherwise, I just don't see the point of having a tennis team at a state school where it is all foreigners......
I keep hearing, over and over again, that having foreigners on a team helps American tennis,
but how does it help when there are no Americans on the team?

What folks? The tiny minority who are complaining on tennis message boards?

First, any state can choose to cap or limit scholys to foreign tennis players......or even walk-ons if that is what you are proposing. Anyone who feels strongly about that should call their state representative, I think. My own opinion is that this issue would be seen as kind of narrow and goofy compared to all the real issues that exist in State government.

Maybe the suggestion is for the NCAA to cap State school slots for foreigners, but not private school slots? I think that is very unrealistic.

In response to the question of how does it help American tennis to have better foreign players rather than inferior American players on the team.....well I suggest we just ask the 400 or so American girls and 350 or so American boys who have committed this season prior to Spring Signing Day.

 

[Misterbill]

Is it so difficult to type the word "scholarship?"

I think this type of post shows the Board that you are inclined to complain about trivial things

 

[seminoleG]

I hear this line of reasoning quite a bit but I do not understand. Certainly, if foreign players are in US college tennis coaches will rightly feel the need to recruiting them in order to stay competitive. If foreign players are excluded or limited then all coaches will have the same “handicap” and it will balance out.

I have even read a post where it was claimed that college coaches cannot win without foreign players and so if all foreign players were banned no one could win. I pointed out the obvious fact that someone will win every match with or without foreign players.

The POOL of 5 Star players is limited. So who gets them? That will create a haves and have not in the Top Programs.

So when you hear you cannot win, translate that to SOME program's will win most of the time. That is also not fair.

I am in favor of having a CAP. Limit the % of Foreign players to that of the student body. Limit F1 Visa's for Student Athletes to the same % of the Student Body. SO if FSU has 15% F1 Visa students, the Athletic Department is limited to 15% F1 Visa scholarship athletes.

 

[tennis5]

What folks? The tiny minority who are complaining on tennis message boards?

Maybe the suggestion is for the NCAA to cap State school slots for foreigners, but not private school slots? I think that is very unrealistic.

.

I understand you feel it is a "tiny minority who are complaining on tennis message boards",
but I do think there is a greater swell of unhappiness and uneasiness with the growing percentage each year of foreigners in college tennis.

Based on the fact that over 500 junior colleges have put in a restriction on foreigners,
I think the "tiny minority" might be a bigger number.

 

[seminoleG]

What folks? The tiny minority who are complaining on tennis message boards?

First, any state can choose to cap or limit scholys to foreign tennis players......or even walk-ons if that is what you are proposing. Anyone who feels strongly about that should call their state representative, I think. My own opinion is that this issue would be seen as kind of narrow and goofy compared to all the real issues that exist in State government.

Maybe the suggestion is for the NCAA to cap State school slots for foreigners, but not private school slots? I think that is very unrealistic.

In response to the question of how does it help American tennis to have better foreign players rather than inferior American players on the team.....well I suggest we just ask the 400 or so American girls and 350 or so American boys who have committed this season prior to Spring Signing Day.

Misterbill - As a FSU BOOSTER this issue is not a Tiny one. Many have issue with BOOSTER money going to Foreign Kids, Track, Gymnastics, Swimming etc.... These sports and others are a bulk of the Non-Revenue sports that depend on funding from BOOSTERS and Revenue Athletics.

So to all the posters, BOOSTERS are not happy with this issue.

 

[andfor]

I understand you feel it is a "tiny minority who are complaining on tennis message boards",
but I do think there is a greater swell of unhappiness and uneasiness with the growing percentage each year of foreigners in college tennis.

Based on the fact that over 500 junior colleges have put in a restriction on foreigners,
I think the "tiny minority" might be a bigger number.

Do you know all the reasoning behind that decision?

The Mississippi Junior College Athletic Association took it two steps further. As I understand it, starting in the fall 2012 the tennis programs will be allowed no foreigners and only one out of state player.

Let's come back in a year or two and see how the national and the Miss. systems are doing compared to today. In Mississippi today they currently have a pretty good JUCO tennis system overall. With the new restrictions I sadly don't see it getting better.

Mississippi's main rational behind the restrictions was financial.

 

[Misterbill]

Misterbill - As a FSU BOOSTER this issue is not a Tiny one. Many have issue with BOOSTER money going to Foreign Kids, Track, Gymnastics, Swimming etc.... These sports and others are a bulk of the Non-Revenue sports that depend on funding from BOOSTERS and Revenue Athletics.

So to all the posters, BOOSTERS are not happy with this issue.

That is interesting! This is not to doubt what you are saying, but my experience with donors is that they want their school's programs to be successful, first and foremost.

If a majority of the Florida State donors have an issue with their donations going to foreigners, why aren't they able to get the practice halted? What is the FSU administration giving as its justification for recruiting the best athletes regardless of nationality?

 

[seminoleG]

That is interesting! This is not to doubt what you are saying, but my experience with donors is that they want their school's programs to be successful, first and foremost.

If a majority of the Florida State donors have an issue with their donations going to foreigners, why aren't they able to get the practice halted? What is the FSU administration giving as its justification for recruiting the best athletes regardless of nationality?

Double edged SWORD, watching the Gators win Track Titles led to us recruiting Foreign runners.

You are correct to a point. I for one have not given the TRACK team a dime I have issue with it. Personal choice, others Boosters feel the same. I expect the administration to do what they feel is best for the Institution and if Winning is the catch all be all well.........

I do know Boosters have issue with it and THEY are the ones these parents need to sway, not the University officials.

Yes the Boosters are able to sway these programs and have done so. Some more than others, you can look at various universities and see some have very few foreign players that is by design, others have all foreign players.

Now my kid would never go to a School that had mostly foreign players as I do agree if you can't get the 5 star US kids why would a US kid go there?

 

[andfor]

The POOL of 5 Star players is limited. So who gets them? That will create a haves and have not in the Top Programs.

So when you hear you cannot win, translate that to SOME program's will win most of the time. That is also not fair.

I am in favor of having a CAP. Limit the % of Foreign players to that of the student body. Limit F1 Visa's for Student Athletes to the same % of the Student Body. SO if FSU has 15% F1 Visa students, the Athletic Department is limited to 15% F1 Visa scholarship athletes.

Seriously? You are for some form of redistribution of college tennis wealth?

The problem is there are simply not enough top American kids to competitively support all the D1 tennis programs need for impact players. Add in all the D2, D3, NAIA and JUCO's the take some of the D1 level talent every graduating class and maybe, just maybe someone can see how the issue is compounded for D1 coaches.

 

[tball2day]

......................

 

[justinmadison]

I think if we could just put in a cap of two players per team for state schools, that would satisfy the folks,
and put all the state schools on an equal playing field.

It has to be a NCAA rule that applies to every school in the division to make it a level playing field.

In response to the question of how does it help American tennis to have better foreign players rather than inferior American players on the team.....well I suggest we just ask the 400 or so American girls and 350 or so American boys who have committed this season prior to Spring Signing Day.

In most cases you can ask them during a team match because they will be sitting on the bench watching the foreigners play

The POOL of 5 Star players is limited. So who gets them? That will create a haves and have not in the Top Programs.
So when you hear you cannot win, translate that to SOME program's will win most of the time. That is also not fair.

I don’t understand your reasoning here. The TRN list is just a stack ranked list of American tennis players with the top 25 being blue chip next 75 five star … etc. If you could put all tennis players, foreign and domestic, in the list and stack rank them you would still have 25 blue chip, 75 five star etc and the have and have not programs.

As far as I can tell UCS won the last three years. That seems like a program winning most of the time with the current system.

 

[Misterbill]

Double edged SWORD, watching the Gators win Track Titles led to us recruiting Foreign runners.

You are correct to a point. I for one have not given the TRACK team a dime I have issue with it. Personal choice, others Boosters feel the same. I expect the administration to do what they feel is best for the Institution and if Winning is the catch all be all well.........

I do know Boosters have issue with it and THEY are the ones these parents need to sway, not the University officials.

Yes the Boosters are able to sway these programs and have done so. Some more than others, you can look at various universities and see some have very few foreign players that is by design, others have all foreign players.

Now my kid would never go to a School that had mostly foreign players as I do agree if you can't get the 5 star US kids why would a US kid go there?

Thanks for your post, interesting and informative.

As for the bolded portion....why would a US kid go to a school that can't get a 5-star.......I think that reflects some of the "entitlement" mentality that some of us sense. Let me try to offer some answers to that question:

1. The kid happens to be a 3-star.

2. The kid prioritizes academics over tennis

3. There are only about 75 5-stars/blue chips each year, for each of the boys and the girls. Some schools attract multiple 5 stars. Lets say for each of the boys and girls there are 50 schools that have 5 stars in a recruiting class. That may leave these schools with one....or zero....remaining scholy slots. That means fewer than 50 other boys or 50 other girls in a recruiting class would be playing college tennis if they don't want to go to a school that can't recruit 5-stars.

Those are three answers I can think of, maybe others will post up more

 

[justinmadison]

If you think 3 and 4 stars are in any way comparable to a blue chip, there lies the problem. It is not the foreigners, most 3 and 4 stars just aren't good enough for competitive D1 programs plain and simple. And coaches need good players to remain competitive.

Help me understand this position. If you did not allow foreigners to play why would 3 and 4 star player not be competitive? After all they would be playing against other 3 and 4 star players. There are a limited number of blue chip players who would be playing at a higher spot in the lineup against other blue chip players.

Coaches need players as good as the players on the other teams. It is relative measure. You could even make that case that starting with less refined freshman would actually give the coach more chances to coach and prove their ability.

 

[tball2day]

..........................

 

[Misterbill]

Help me understand this position. If you did not allow foreigners to play why would 3 and 4 star player not be competitive? After all they would be playing against other 3 and 4 star players. There are a limited number of blue chip players who would be playing at a higher spot in the lineup against other blue chip players.

Coaches need players as good as the players on the other teams. It is relative measure. You could even make that case that starting with less refined freshman would actually give the coach more chances to coach and prove their ability.

Let's look at this year's recruiting class.

Men--13 schools attracted blue chips
Women--14 schools attracted blue chips

(there are still a few blue chips who haven't committed)

Blue chips playing blue chips is the exception rather than the rule. More often blue chips are playing blue chips or foreigners with blue chip caliber.

Coach wins and graduates the players = Coach eats
Coach loses = Coach goes to the Greyhound station
Coach with 3 star playing against a blue chip in conference at #1 because he/she can't recruit a foreigner = Greyhound station for the coach and possible chopping block for the program

 

[justinmadison]

The point I was trying to make is you cannot compare a 3 or 4 star to a blue chip, they are world's apart. I was referring to competitive (top tier D1 schools). People think their kids are better (entitled) to more than they are at times and putting these two groups in the same boat doesn't make sense.

It just sounds like people think the foreign players are taking their spots and in some cases they aren't getting on the team simply because junior isn't good enough, that's all. You can't lower the standard of a team to make room for lower level players. This isn't kindergarten.

You can lower the standard of all college tennis by limiting the eligibility of foreigners. If this happens then junior will be competitive at the top tier D1 schools. Foreigners are taking the spots of the US kids. We should be able to agree on these points. They are by definition true.

We could disagree on whether this is fair or good for the top US juniors or several other points.

Coach wins and graduates the players = Coach eats
Coach loses = Coach goes to the Greyhound station
Coach with 3 star playing against a blue chip in conference at #1 because he/she can't recruit a foreigner = Greyhound station for the coach and possible chopping block for the program

Coaches are hired and fired based on how they preform against expectations and how they compare to their peers. If some coaches recruit better than others that works in their favor. This is true regardless of foreign participation.

The idea that a coach would be fired because no coaches are able to recruit foreign players is not logical. The coach would only be fired if the AD felt he could find a new coach that would perform better. The new coach would face the same limitations as the old coach.

This is how it is in every sport. This is how it was before foreign players starting playing in the US. There are arguments supporting foreign participation in tennis, this is not one of them.

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

the fact still remains that there are some (maybe few) 3/4 star players that are better than some (few) blue star.

 

[Soianka]

I think this type of post shows the Board that you are inclined to complain about trivial things

I thought it was pretty obvious I was joking with you.

 

[Misterbill]

You can lower the standard of all college tennis by limiting the eligibility of foreigners. If this happens then junior will be competitive at the top tier D1 schools. Foreigners are taking the spots of the US kids. We should be able to agree on these points. They are by definition true.

We could disagree on whether this is fair or good for the top US juniors or several other points.




Coaches are hired and fired based on how they preform against expectations and how they compare to their peers. If some coaches recruit better than others that works in their favor. This is true regardless of foreign participation.

The idea that a coach would be fired because no coaches are able to recruit foreign players is not logical. The coach would only be fired if the AD felt he could find a new coach that would perform better. The new coach would face the same limitations as the old coach.

This is how it is in every sport. This is how it was before foreign players starting playing in the US. There are arguments supporting foreign participation in tennis, this is not one of them.

You can get blue chip Americans to play football at Texas Tech or Baylor or Oregon. Blue chip tennis players seem to be more fussy.

I don't think it is as simple as getting a better recruiter at Texas Tech and the American blue chips will come. Some schools have an institutionalized problem attracting blue chip American tennis players.

If foreigners are banned from college tennis, a non-revenue producing sport, (an extreme view even on this Board) I would predict a significant reduction in programs because Stanford, Cal, UCLA, the ACC and a few others would be the perennial winners

 

[Soianka]

If you think 3 and 4 stars are in any way comparable to a blue chip, there lies the problem. It is not the foreigners, most 3 and 4 stars just aren't good enough for competitive D1 programs plain and simple. And coaches need good players to remain competitive.

Your average blue chip practices 4-6 hours a day, 7 days a week, whether in school or not. I don't know many 3 or 4 stars doing that. The difference between 400 and 200 is one thing. Top 200 to 50 is another. Top 50 versus 25 whole different ballgame. Top 10 are a world apart from even the other 15 blue chips. Each climb is exponentially harder....

Thinking 3 and 4 stars are comparable to blue chips in any way is going to lead you to some poor college choices and expectations that are very unrealistic.

You obviously didn't read my post carefully and just wanted to continue on with your own meme.

Of course the 3 and 4 star players are not practicing and playing as much as the typical blue chip (in high school and before), but that is where college level developmental coaching comes in.

Furthermore, not every American high school student has a 4.0 GPA and a 2400 SAT. The ones that do usually go to Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc.

But wait, Backwater University is upset that none of those 4.0 students want to go to BU.

Oh no!

Well of course the answer is that Backwater University should just import mostly foreign students with 4.0 GPA's and 2400 SAT's scores because American students with 3.0 GPAs and 1800 SATs scores are just not good enough for them.

We don't accept this type of thinking in academic recruiting but somehow it seems acceptable to some in college level athletic recruiting.

 

[Soianka]

the fact still remains that there are some (maybe few) 3/4 star players that are better than some (few) blue star.

Yes, definitely!

With proper coaching and effort put into developing these players and looking for success in the longterm rather than immediately.

Also, I think the NCAA rules as they pertain to recruiting maybe should be examined. Perhaps if college level programs were able to participate more in the area of supporing the development of local junior players, this issue might resolve itself.

 

[Misterbill]

You obviously didn't read my post carefully and just wanted to continue on with your own meme.

Of course the 3 and 4 star players are not practicing and playing as much as the typical blue chip (in high school and before), but that is where college level developmental coaching comes in.

Furthermore, not every American high school student has a 4.0 GPA and a 2400 SAT. The ones that do usually go to Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc.

But wait, Backwater University is upset that none of those 4.0 students want to go to BU.

Oh no!

Well of course the answer is that Backwater University should just import mostly foreign students with 4.0 GPA's and 2400 SAT's scores because American students with 3.0 GPAs and 1800 SATs scores are just not good enough for them.

We don't accept this type of thinking in academic recruiting but somehow it seems acceptable to some in college level athletic recruiting.

Winning should not be everything in college tennis. It is not professional tennis after all.

In all D1 college sports the objective is to win. Players have a job. It is not recreation.

If D1 competition does not meet a student-athlete's objectives there are a lot of other alternatives

 

[Soianka]

In all D1 college sports the objective is to win. Players have a job. It is not recreation.

Obviously one of the main objectives is to produce winning teams.

However, it is not and should not be the only goal that needed to be considered.

Otherwise, there would be no NCAA eligibility requirements and schools would be able to choose whichever athlete they deemed best able to "win" whether that person was academically prepared for college or otherwise.

The best schools with the best tennis players also require them to be GREAT students as well as great athletes.

The point is that American college-level programs have an obligation to consider other factors besides which warm bodies are best able to immediately deliver a win.

 

[Misterbill]

Obviously one of the main objectives is to produce winning teams.

However, it is not and should not be the only goal that needed to be considered.

Otherwise, there would be no NCAA eligibility requirements and schools would be able to choose whichever athlete they deemed best able to "win" whether that person was academically prepared for college or otherwise.

The best schools with the best tennis players also require them to be GREAT students as well as great athletes.

The point is that American college-level programs have an obligation to consider other factors besides which warm bodies are best able to immediately deliver a win.

This is getting a little abstract for me.....that's not to denigrate the point, it's a comment about me.

Is the point that....between two tennis players who have equal academic and amateur credentials....American DI programs have/should have an obligation to choose the inferior player with an American passport over the superior player with another passport?

 

[seminoleG]

Thanks for your post, interesting and informative.

As for the bolded portion....why would a US kid go to a school that can't get a 5-star.......I think that reflects some of the "entitlement" mentality that some of us sense. Let me try to offer some answers to that question:

1. The kid happens to be a 3-star.

My hypothetical assumed my kid was a 5 Start

2. The kid prioritizes academics over tennis

??? Not pertinent to this point

3. There are only about 75 5-stars/blue chips each year, for each of the boys and the girls. Some schools attract multiple 5 stars. Lets say for each of the boys and girls there are 50 schools that have 5 stars in a recruiting class. That may leave these schools with one....or zero....remaining scholy slots. That means fewer than 50 other boys or 50 other girls in a recruiting class would be playing college tennis if they don't want to go to a school that can't recruit 5-stars.

My point is I wouldn't have my kid (5 Start) go to a University with Foreigners that couldn't recruit another 5 Star. Those are three answers I can think of, maybe others will post up more

..........

 

[seminoleG]

Seriously? You are for some form of redistribution of college tennis wealth?

The problem is there are simply not enough top American kids to competitively support all the D1 tennis programs need for impact players. Add in all the D2, D3, NAIA and JUCO's the take some of the D1 level talent every graduating class and maybe, just maybe someone can see how the issue is compounded for D1 coaches.

No, no not a redistribution. I meant that if the US Academic Institutions eliminated Foreign Players than we get a system we HAD in college football where all the great talent stayed in a finite number of schools.

I don't agree but without enough Top US kids the Foreign Players level the playing field.

College Football had this "redistribution" in the form of reduced scholarships so the top schools couldn't sign all the Blue Chipers.

 

[Soianka]

This is getting a little abstract for me.....that's not to denigrate the point, it's a comment about me.

Is the point that....between two tennis players who have equal academic and amateur credentials....American colleges have/should have an obligation to choose the inferior player with an American passport over the superior player with another passport?

I wouldn't state it that way.

I don't know what the solution is in its entirety. Only that there is a real problem when a coach would rather have his entire team composed of foreign players (who trained like pros for a good majority of their lives) versus filling the team with mostly 3 star American players who are excellent students and are likely to go on to become excellent American citizens and contribute to our society.

Aren't our Universities charged with producing many of our next crop of contributing members of society?

Yet, now some would rather fund the educations of people who will likely go back to their countries of origin and contribute to the development of their own societies rather than invest in our own young people simply because they may not win as much.

I think there is something really wrong with that.

It is not professional tennis that we are talking about. Winning should not be everything. The goal of any university or college has to be about something more meaninful than that.

 

[Misterbill]

..........

Thanks for the clarification.

I can empathize with your point about 5-star recruits, didn't originally know that was the fact situation.

I think all recruits and their parents should check the track record of schools they are considering to see if recruitment policies for foreigners, or out-of-staters, or whatever, meet your own requirements.

The coaches that have a propensity to recruit foreigners are out there for all to see.

 

[Misterbill]

I wouldn't state it that way.

I don't know what the solution is in its entirety. Only that there is a real problem when a coach would rather have his entire team composed of foreign players (who trained like pros for a good majority of their lives) versus filling the team with mostly 3 star American players who are excellent students and are likely to go on to become excellent American citizens and contribute to our society.

Aren't our Universities charged with producing many of our next crop of contributing members of society?

Yet, now some would rather fund the educations of people who will likely go back to their countries of origin and contribute to the development of their own societies rather than invest in our own young people simply because they may not win as much.

I think there is something really wrong with that.

It is not professional tennis that we are talking about. Winning should not be everything. The goal of any university or college has to be about something more meaninful than that.

We can debate forever what should and shouldn't be, which is fine and fun.

But the reality, today...for all players who are old enough today to get out on the court...... is that D1 college sports is about winning. And DI college sports will be all about winning by the time anyone who is old enough to get out on the court today becomes old enough to get recruited. That's why they pay, yes-pay, 8 girls and the equivalent of 4.5 boys to play tennis!

Your philosophy is a fine one, and it finds support at the DIII level. There are plenty of DIII tennis opportunities at great schools. Is the point that there are not enough DIII tennis schools so the DI schools should lower their competitive standards?

I do not see the justification for imposing DIII standards on DI unless the objective is to do away with athletic scholarships (that's for a whole other thread though, I think)

 

[Soianka]

We can debate forever what should and shouldn't be, which is fine and fun.

But the reality is that D1 college sports is about winning. That's why they pay, yes-pay, 8 girls and the equivalent of 4.5 boys to play tennis!

Your philosophy is a fine one, and it finds support at the DIII level. I do not see the justification for imposing DIII standards on DI unless the objective is to do away with athletic scholarships (that's for a whole other thread though, I think)

I think you are missing my point but I won't go into it again.

Your point seems to be that the SA's main function is as a paid employee. If true, then why not just hire some professional tennis players for the team who don't have to enroll in any classes at all?

Why have eligibility standards at all?

This is not DI versus DIII standards. Not all DI schools treat their SA's as paid employees (Ivy league for example) and perhaps none should.

 

[Misterbill]

I think you are missing my point but I won't go into it again.

Your point seems to be that the SA's main function is as a paid employee. If true, then why not just hire some professional tennis players for the team who don't have to enroll in any classes at all?

Why have eligibility standards at all?

This is not DI versus DIII standards. Not all DI schools treat their SA's as paid employees (Ivy league for example) and perhaps none should.

It is not my opinion that DI athletes have a job that they are paid for. It is a fact

I think anyone who has advised you or your children otherwise has done you a real disservice.

If the little dahling is a blue chip.....dahling can call the shots.

If the young child is a 5 star/upper 4 star and competitive there's a good shot for BCS or other top program. If youngster is not competitive, there's DIII

If the kid is a mid 4-star to upper 3 star who is competitive then he/she should be able to find a mid-major or lower DI program. If not competitive, then there is DII and DIII and NAIA etc.

If the family's pride is a mid-3 star or below, there might still be some DI possibilities out there, but a more realistic target would be the other divisions.

I think these are the expectations parents and players should have. If anyone is telling their 3 star that they should expect a BCS scholy, they are doing them a disservice.

And after they don't get the BCS scholy, if they tell the kids it's because of the foreigners, I think they are making excuses and confusing fantasy with reality

 

[tennis5]

I think you are missing my point but I won't go into it again.

Your point seems to be that the SA's main function is as a paid employee. If true, then why not just hire some professional tennis players for the team who don't have to enroll in any classes at all?

Why have eligibility standards at all?

This is not DI versus DIII standards. Not all DI schools treat their SA's as paid employees (Ivy league for example) and perhaps none should.

I understand the point, that it is college.... so, education first, sports second.

At least, that is how the Ivys treat the kids,
( and one can also say that with no special consideration for the athletes at an Ivy, for example, zero priority for registration for classes and therefore lab and practice are at the same time, professors that do care that they are giving a test and you are away for the game, no assistance basically),
that is why so many kids don't attend the Ivys, they can't do both well (school workload and the tennis) at a high level.

Many of the foreign kids have told me when they first came here for college,
they couldn't speak English, and obviously, couldn't read it either, and it was a struggle for them.
Now, one could also argue that some members of the football team can't read either, so maybe that argument goes out the window

 

[tennis5]

I wouldn't state it that way.

I don't know what the solution is in its entirety. Only that there is a real problem when a coach would rather have his entire team composed of foreign players (who trained like pros for a good majority of their lives) versus filling the team with mostly 3 star American players who are excellent students and are likely to go on to become excellent American citizens and contribute to our society.

Aren't our Universities charged with producing many of our next crop of contributing members of society?

Yet, now some would rather fund the educations of people who will likely go back to their countries of origin and contribute to the development of their own societies rather than invest in our own young people simply because they may not win as much.

I think there is something really wrong with that.

It is not professional tennis that we are talking about. Winning should not be everything. The goal of any university or college has to be about something more meaninful than that.

Exactly, why I don't have an issue if the CT kid goes to the MA state school,
because those kids will stay here and grow the local economy.

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

8. Does the NCAA limit the number of international student-athletes that can receive scholarships on American collegiate varsity tennis teams?

There are no NCAA limits on international student-athletes. There could be significant, if not insurmountable, legal hurdles for the NCAA to try to limit the number of international student-athletes that can receive scholarships on American varsity collegiate tennis teams. An early attempt by the NCAA to do this in the 1970’s in track was deemed discriminatory. Several respected experts have recently advised the USTA that the situation is the same pertaining to tennis and other varsity sports today. Neither the USTA (the governing body of tennis in the U.S.) nor the ITA (the governing body of varsity college tennis) has jurisdiction to institute such a prohibition or limitation on its own. At its own discretion, however, any individual college or university could explore its options in this regard. Certainly, the USTA encourages individual coaches, colleges, and universities to actively recruit outstanding young Americans. Further, it should be noted that there have been a number of highly successful collegiate varsity teams comprised of all American players, including some that have won NCAA championships.

 

[Soianka]

I understand the point, that it is college.... so, education first, sports second.

At least, that is how the Ivys treat the kids,
( and one can also say that with no special consideration for the athletes at an Ivy, for example, zero priority for registration for classes and therefore lab and practice are at the same time, professors that do care that they are giving a test and you are away for the game, no assistance basically),
that is why so many kids don't attend the Ivys, they can't do both well (school workload and the tennis) at a high level.

Many of the foreign kids have told me when they first came here for college,
they couldn't speak English, and obviously, couldn't read it either, and it was a struggle for them.
Now, one could also argue that some members of the football team can't read either, so maybe that argument goes out the window

You make a great point. I think this issue raises all kinds of things that really should be examined.

For example, DI football players. I mean that is a billion dollar industry but are the player really benefitting from the system as it stands?

If they are treated as paid employees (and many are), in a lot of ways they are getting the short end of the stick. They don't have time to really benefit from the educational scholarship because of their full-time job as athletes and they aren't getting any of the financial compensation though they are generating millions of dollars for their respective institutions.

Is this really what college tennis should be emulating?

With a big difference being that college tennis unlike college football does not generate billions of dollars a year.

Therefore, one would think that the focus could be and should be more on the student side of the student-athlete equation.

Otherwise, like I said, why not just hire some professional tennis players to play for the team and not require them to go to school at all.

 

[Misterbill]

8. Does the NCAA limit the number of international student-athletes that can receive scholarships on American collegiate varsity tennis teams?

There are no NCAA limits on international student-athletes. There could be significant, if not insurmountable, legal hurdles for the NCAA to try to limit the number of international student-athletes that can receive scholarships on American varsity collegiate tennis teams. An early attempt by the NCAA to do this in the 1970’s in track was deemed discriminatory. Several respected experts have recently advised the USTA that the situation is the same pertaining to tennis and other varsity sports today. Neither the USTA (the governing body of tennis in the U.S.) nor the ITA (the governing body of varsity college tennis) has jurisdiction to institute such a prohibition or limitation on its own. At its own discretion, however, any individual college or university could explore its options in this regard. Certainly, the USTA encourages individual coaches, colleges, and universities to actively recruit outstanding young Americans. Further, it should be noted that there have been a number of highly successful collegiate varsity teams comprised of all American players, including some that have won NCAA championships.

Wow, great find. Here is the link:

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/USTA_Intl_SA_FAQ_FINAL_CLEAN.pdf

Here's one excerpt:

3. What does the current scholarship landscape look like for our best American juniors?

While many people claim that the number of international student-athletes is limiting the ability of top American junior tennis players to receive tennis scholarships, the data from a recent study suggests that this is not the case. The overwhelming number of the Top 300 boys and girls (approximately 85% of the boys and 87% of the girls) are receiving college tennis scholarships. Some are choosing to attend Ivy League or top Division III Schools, which do not offer athletic scholarships. In addition, some are attending other schools but not on athletic scholarships even though some of them could have accepted an athletic scholarship elsewhere. Men are at a definite disadvantage regarding available tennis scholarships. This is because there are only 4.5 scholarships for men, as compared to 8 for women, allocated for respective NCAA Division I teams. Men are, in fact, at a disadvantage in three non-revenue sports (tennis, gymnastic, and volleyball).

And another

4. Why are there so many international student-athletes playing varsity tennis at American colleges and universities?

First, the United States is the only country that offers significant scholarship support for intercollegiate sports. The combined academic-athletic package is extremely attractive to tennis players seeking to attend college, including international student athletes. American college tennis is a natural magnet, offering the best of both worlds -- a college degree and the opportunity to compete at a high level. Second, varsity college coaches naturally want to win, and in many instances they are under a great deal of pressure to win from their Athletic Directors. There is significant prestige and money involved for programs that finish highly ranked in the year-end Learfield Sports Directors’ Cup. Presidents and Athletic Directors are often under tremendous pressure from alumni and trustees to put the “school on the map” with a strong showing. There are examples of coaches that have been fired by their Athletic Directors for refusing to recruit international student-athletes. Sometimes, due to factors such as type of school, level of program, facilities, location, or climate, American college coaches who want to improve the level of their program have a difficult time recruiting outstanding American juniors. If they are struggling to attract top American talent but can recruit similarly skilled or even better skilled
international student-athletes, many coaches will do so.

 

[andfor]

^^^^^^^^Good stuff. Both your last two posts. Guess what. It's been posted before.

It's good to see again for those who have not. I know how much work digging some of that stuff up takes. Thanks for finding it and posting again. Seriously.

 

[tennis5]

Wow, great find. Here is the link:

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/USTA_Intl_SA_FAQ_FINAL_CLEAN.pdf

Here's one excerpt:

3. What does the current scholarship landscape look like for our best American juniors?

While many people claim that the number of international student-athletes is limiting the ability of top American junior tennis players to receive tennis scholarships, the data from a recent study suggests that this is not the case. The overwhelming number of the Top 300 boys and girls (approximately 85% of the boys and 87% of the girls) are receiving college tennis scholarships. Some are choosing to attend Ivy League or top Division III Schools, which do not offer athletic scholarships. In addition, some are attending other schools but not on athletic scholarships even though some of them could have accepted an athletic scholarship elsewhere. Men are at a definite disadvantage regarding available tennis scholarships. This is because there are only 4.5 scholarships for men, as compared to 8 for women, allocated for respective NCAA Division I teams. Men are, in fact, at a disadvantage in three non-revenue sports (tennis, gymnastic, and volleyball).


--------------------------------------

Just to note tables are 2006-2007, and numbers pulled from above are 2007.

 

[Soianka]

Here's a practical example:

http://www.mercerbears.com/sports/wten/2011-12/roster

This is not a top academic school and will not attract the top students

So why are at least 4 out of 7 (maybe 6 out of 7) of their women players and at least 4 out of 7 (maybe all) of their men from outside the US?

Why would such a school expect to attract top tennis players when they don't attract top students in general?

Why is the local Macon, Georgia 1 or 2 star player who is good enough for this (not so great) school academically not good enough to play on their tennis team?

I am sure some local Macon players would be happy to accept a tennis scholarship to Mercer.

Even with the foreign players, they are not doing so great.

Though it does look like they have some commitments from American girls for next year.

 

[Misterbill]

Here's a practical example:

http://www.mercerbears.com/sports/wten/2011-12/roster

This is not a top academic school and will not attract the top students

So why are at least 4 out of 7 (maybe 6 out of 7) of their women players and at least 4 out of 7 (maybe all) of their men from outside the US?

Why would such a school expect to attract top tennis players when they don't attract top students in general?

Why is the local Macon, Georgia 1 or 2 star player who is good enough for this (not so great) school academically not good enough to play on their tennis team?

I am sure some local Macon players would be happy to accept a tennis scholarship to Mercer.

Even with the foreign players, they are not doing so great.

Though it does look like they have some commitments from American girls for next year.

Maybe because they are not good enough to play on the team?

Mercer recruited three 3-stars this year. I will let others draw their own conclusions about what this says about the talent level the coach is looking for.

I hope youngsters would be able to figure out for themselves why it is more likely a 3-star would get a scholy than a 1-star

If any 1-stars or 2-stars are reading this out there.....it is possible for you to play DI tennis on a scholy, but you should not consider it an entitlement. You can look through the TRN archives of college commitments to see where recent one and two stars have landed, and the odds are against you.

This is reality. This is fact.

It is fine to wring your hands over how unfortunate you are if you do not get a DI scholy, but I think you would only be doing that if some misinformed people....or people who are trying to make a buck by telling you what they think you want to hear.....did you a great disservice by deceiving you into having false expectations.

I hope you do not get deceived on this Board

 

[Soianka]

Maybe because they are not good enough to play on the team?

Mercer recruited three 3-stars this year. I will let others draw their own conclusions about what this says about the talent level the coach is looking for.

I hope youngsters would be able to figure out for themselves why it is more likely a 3-star would get a scholy than a 1-star

If any 1-stars or 2-stars are reading this out there.....it is possible for you to play DI tennis on a scholy, but you should not consider it an entitlement. You can look through the TRN archives of college commitments to see where recent one and two stars have landed, and the odds are against you.

This is reality. This is fact.

It is fine to wring your hands over how unfortunate you are if you do not get a DI scholy, but I think you would only be doing that if some misinformed people....or people who are trying to make a buck by telling you what they think you want to hear.....did you a great disservice by deceiving you into having false expectations.

I hope you do not get deceived on this Board

1. The word is scholarship. It's not that hard to type. Give it a try.

2. Mercer is a 3rd rate division I school of a 3rd rate academic institution that is state supported. Therefore, there is no logical reason that Mercer would attract 1st rate American tennis players.

3. They have this year, at long last, recruited three 3-star US players and 1 zero-star player, so I guess their tennis standards are not that high after all. It seems like those are the sort of players they should recruit as a state sponsored school that is not a top school by any measure.

It's beyond bizarre to have a 3rd rate school field a team with most of their members from France and Spain when there are plenty of local kids who would love to have a scholarship to that school and can lose just as well as Women from France and Spain can.

There is no reason in the world that they cannot have a losing team full of local georgia players just like they have a losing team full of foreign players.

 

[Misterbill]

1. The word is scholarship.

2. Mercer is a 3rd rate division I school of a 3rd rate academic institution that is state supported.

There is no reason in the world that they cannot have a losing team full of local georgia players just like they have a losing team full of foreign players.

And there are plenty of reasons why they should support their local players, which several people have outlined here.

Your arguments are circular and illogical.

It is nice to see that they have recruited some American girls after at least a couple years.

So you really are complaining that I call it a "scholy"!!!! How trivial.

Any 1-stars or 2-stars out there, it is a long-shot for you to get a DI scholy. Sometimes long-shots come in, of course, and if that is your dream, by all means give it your best shot. But please be realistic about your chances

I hope you will not let posters or parents or hucksters tell you that you deserve a DI slot or are entitled to a scholy, and create false expectations.

The facts are out there. You can disregard my so-called circular and illogical posts and come to your own conclusions based on the facts

 

[Soianka]

So you really are complaining that I call it a "scholy"!!!! How trivial.

It is slightly annoying, I'll admit it. But mostly I am joking with you.

But seriously Mercer is not a great school, they are not going to attract top american students or top american tennis players (and apparenly not top foreign players either).

And why should they? They are not a top school.

Should they start recruiting foreign Math majors also where 100% of their Math majors are from France and Spain?

A better approach, of course, would be to educate their American Math majors and bring them up to the appropriate level.

They can take a similar approach with their tennis team.