Why do people pretend college tennis is a pathway to the ATP?

[Tennis2349]

It seems all data is ignored, especially the fact that 90 percent of the top 200 never played college tennis.

1. Looking at exceptions :

John Isner, Danielle Collins, and Ben Shelton.

NCAA broadcasts and tv broadcasts keep pumping up the ncaa to look at a few top players that at some point in a decade crack the top 100.

Or a few players that are set to go pro, play a season, then see no real value and move on quickly.


2 (Comfort)
The U.S. lacks state funded junior system like Europe or South America. For American families, college is the default after juniors. Coaches and parents frame it as a pro pathway because the real pathway (moving to Europe at 16) is financially impossible. It’s comforting. Keeping hope alive.

3 Marketing : NCAA programs market themselves as “launchpads to the pros” to recruit top international and domestic talent This messaging filters into the public.


Obviously pros are winning atp tournaments or gaining valuable points at the ages of 18 -22. Not starting their point chasing at 22-23 at 1000 in the world.

They are not taking classes and playing no ad tennis often times with just a third set tiebreaker.

Which leads me to ask what do people mean when they say “it helps Americans play a higher level”. With what goal? They played a higher level and then become an accountant?

The top Americans never even played a semester of college tennis. Others played a season as something to try but quickly saw it wasn’t what they need.

 

[atatu]

I think the short answer is that it's a good option for some players who may not be prepared to tackle the tour right away. If you look at the 17 Americans ranked in the top 100 today you'll see that at least 9 of them spent some time playing college tennis (I'm not counting Brooksby) that's a pretty significant percentage (much higher than the 10 percent you suggest).

 

[Tennis2349]

I think the short answer is that it's a good option for some players who may not be prepared to tackle the tour right away. If you look at the 17 Americans ranked in the top 100 today you'll see that at least 9 of them spent some time playing college tennis (I'm not counting Brooksby) that's a pretty significant percentage (much higher than the 10 percent you suggest).

Is it anything new?

Prior to 1980 2 percent of top 50 college players were foreign. So presumably college tennis was weaker.

At the same time should we say college tennis created John McEnroe and jimmy connors? Along with the others we never heard of that dabbled in and out of the top 200?

Im not sure if correlation is causation. If we are saying tougher college tennis helps elite Americans, we had far more in the top 100 in 1980.

 

[atatu]

I know that foreign players in college tennis is a subject you're kind of fixated on, but your original post wasn't really asking specifically about foreign players. My response was that for some players college tennis is a viable alternative if they aren't ready for the tour, which is true. If you look at guys like Shelton, Tien, Nakashima, Quinn, Kovacevic, Spizzirri, Kypson and Giron, they are all good examples of players who benefitted from spending some time in the college ranks.

 

[Tennis2349]

I know that foreign players in college tennis is a subject you're kind of fixated on, but your original post wasn't really asking specifically about foreign players. My response was that for some players college tennis is a viable alternative if they aren't ready for the tour, which is true. If you look at guys like Shelton, Tien, Nakashima, Quinn, Kovacevic, Spizzirri, Kypson and Giron, they are all good examples of players who benefitted from spending some time in the college ranks.

so we would say college tennis benefited McEnroe and Connor’s.

Just curious as to why 80 percent of pros make it another way, but those few xollege guys that convert cant play challenger tournaments and train? How does studying for classes for a semester or year help?

They went pro inspite of college tennis. Not because of it

 

[Connor35]

It seems all data is ignored, especially the fact that 90 percent of the top 200 never played college tennis.

1. Looking at exceptions :

John Isner, Danielle Collins, and Ben Shelton.

You left off one of this week's slam semifinalists.
You left of a current 1000 holder.
You left off plenty of others.

If you want an honest answer, go listen to Arthur Rinderknech's podcast on Caroline Garcia's podcast. He actually talks alot about how much college tennis helped him to become a professional player.

 

[Tennis2349]

You left off one of this week's slam semifinalists.
You left of a current 1000 holder.
You left off plenty of others.

If you want an honest answer, go listen to Arthur Rinderknech's podcast on Caroline Garcia's podcast. He actually talks alot about how much college tennis helped him to become a professional player.

Is college wrestling a pathway to the Olympics. Yes. College football and basketball a pathway to the pros. Yes.

college soccer for the women’s World Cup team. Yes.

The above highest levels get 90-100 percent of their athletes from college. Those are legitimate pathways. And often times those guys/gala stay the full 4 years.

What you have in tennis is maybe 1 guy annually from around the entire world that will be top 100, and they do not get 4 year degrees. He is the type to win the junior US open and play 20
College matches.

Then people look and say “oh wow. 4 Americans in top 100 played a season of college tennis. But those guys graduated over the course of a decade. The top Americans did not waste time playing college tennis. .

Most years the NCAA championship winner in all of the NCAA will not have any chance at breaking top 300 in his life.

In the above sports I mentioned the elite played college. In tennis the elite do not.

Again, it’s nothing new. A guy I played in high school tennis decades ago played for Harvard and also played in Wimbledon.

Obviously his time at Harvard had nothing to do with his success. Same with McEnroe and Connor’s. Top college players always went pro whether the ncaa was easy or a higher level.

The elite will be fine anywhere. Taking a pro and convincing him to play a few college matches, is like those academies that take credit for a players success because he joined them at 17 to hit for a couple months after being trained elsewhere.

 

[Tennis2349]

A real pathway is college wrestling.

98 percent of American gold
Medal winners wrestled in college. The entire Olympic team. And almost all of them stay for 4 years. That shows college is a benefit.

Clearly in tennis the elite winning grand slams arent playing college. The top 5 Americans didnt play college. Of the top 100 99 percent do not have a 4 years degree and over 80 percent never played college.

The few who played some college matches did not need to, like the wrestlers. They were already top in the world juniors. If the college scene was a benefit you would see 80 percent of top atp having a 4 year degree. Not one out of 100.

 

[tennisfan17]

Current top 200 players who have played college tennis. I might of missed a few.
Ben Shelton, Learner Tien, Valentin Vacherot, Rafa Jodar, Francisco Cerundolo, Cam Norrie, Brandon Nakashima, Nuno Borges, Gabe Diallo, Yannick Hafmann, Ethan Quinn, Alex Kovacevic, Marcos Giron, Eliot Spizzirri, Alexsandar Vukic, Adam Walton, Rinky Hijikata, Patrick Kypson, Mackenzie McDonald, JP Jones, Nishesh Basavareddy, Jacob Fearnley, Arthur Fery, Michael Zheng, August Holmgren, Toby Samuel, Liam Draxl, Colton Smith, Chris Rodesch, Borna Gojo, Alexis Galarneau, Tristan Boyer and Clement Chidekh.

As you move further down to the top 500 the numbers tend to increase as well. Just wanted to give more context to the total number of top 200 ATP pros with college ties. Cheers.

 

[Tennis2349]

Current top 200 players who have played college tennis. I might of missed a few.
Ben Shelton, Learner Tien, Valentin Vacherot, Rafa Jodar, Francisco Cerundolo, Cam Norrie, Brandon Nakashima, Nuno Borges, Gabe Diallo, Yannick Hafmann, Ethan Quinn, Alex Kovacevic, Marcos Giron, Eliot Spizzirri, Alexsandar Vukic, Adam Walton, Rinky Hijikata, Patrick Kypson, Mackenzie McDonald, JP Jones, Nishesh Basavareddy, Jacob Fearnley, Arthur Fery, Michael Zheng, August Holmgren, Toby Samuel, Liam Draxl, Colton Smith, Chris Rodesch, Borna Gojo, Alexis Galarneau, Tristan Boyer and Clement Chidekh.

As you move further down to the top 500 the numbers tend to increase as well. Just wanted to give more context to the total number of top 200 ATP pros with college ties. Cheers.

Exactly. 85 percent felt college is not a pathway to the pros. I am sure that 85 percent could have had a full ride for 4 years.

So how may of those above have a 4 year degree? Which is the entire point to going to college.

 

[tennisfan17]

Exactly. 85 percent felt college is not a pathway to the pros. I am sure that 85 percent could have had a full ride for 4 years.

So how may of those above have a 4 year degree? Which is the entire point to going to college.

Over half I believe have a degree from their associated university.

Hard to believe quantify how each individual see’s their time in college as being helpful to their development as a pro as that is something only they themselves can state.

I know people like Rinderknech, Vacherot, Basavareddy, Kovacevic, and Draxl I’ve heard talk about how college tennis helped them.

I would guess Learner, Cerundolo, and Shelton probably didn’t have nearly as much benefit from college.

The only people who can say it helped are the people who went ultimately

 

[Super Tennis Man Yes]

College is not a pathway to the pros in the sense that, like golf and other individual sports, there is no draft to declare for at the end of the season.

It does, however, essentially fund the players during the season, giving them the opportunity to further develop, play competitive tennis, travel, and get their gear and stringing essentially free of charge. Like you said, the USTA does a pretty lackluster job of funding its talent. Also, it's clear many of them with any professional aspirations are grinding it out in Challenger tournaments during the college offseason. Those are good tests to see how they're stacking up.

Once or if they start seeing success at the college/open tournament level, the balance between getting a four year degree and playing professionally is going to be heavily tipped to one side.

There are only so many professional tournaments to be won and there are only so many spots at the top. I'm sure these guys and gals, like everyone else in the world, would give their left arms to crack the top 100.

 

[jcgatennismom]

College is not a pathway to the pros in the sense that, like golf and other individual sports, there is no draft to declare for at the end of the season.

It does, however, essentially fund the players during the season, giving them the opportunity to further develop, play competitive tennis, travel, and get their gear and stringing essentially free of charge. Like you said, the USTA does a pretty lackluster job of funding its talent. Also, it's clear many of them with any professional aspirations are grinding it out in Challenger tournaments during the college offseason. Those are good tests to see how they're stacking up.

Once or if they start seeing success at the college/open tournament level, the balance between getting a four year degree and playing professionally is going to be heavily tipped to one side.

There are only so many professional tournaments to be won and there are only so many spots at the top. I'm sure these guys and gals, like everyone else in the world, would give their left arms to crack the top 100.

It helps too that some of the top P4 universities host Challengers (with others hosting Futures) providing WCs into MD or Qualis for the better players on the teams. The ATP ATL 250 used to give a MD WC each year alternating between US players at GT and UGA. Winning a match at the 250 helped jumpstart Eubank's career.

 

[Tennis2349]

College is not a pathway to the pros in the sense that, like golf and other individual sports, there is no draft to declare for at the end of the season.

It does, however, essentially fund the players during the season, giving them the opportunity to further develop, play competitive tennis, travel, and get their gear and stringing essentially free of charge. Like you said, the USTA does a pretty lackluster job of funding its talent. Also, it's clear many of them with any professional aspirations are grinding it out in Challenger tournaments during the college offseason. Those are good tests to see how they're stacking up.

Once or if they start seeing success at the college/open tournament level, the balance between getting a four year degree and playing professionally is going to be heavily tipped to one side.

There are only so many professional tournaments to be won and there are only so many spots at the top. I'm sure these guys and gals, like everyone else in the world, would give their left arms to crack the top 100.

Imagine a Russian wrestler comes to the US for one semester, then goes back home and wins Olympic gold for Russia. Would you praise the American college system for that gold? No, people would laugh. You'd say they were already elite and built in Russia. What did one semester do? So why do we do the exact same thing for tennis players?

It would also seem ridiculous we are even housing and paying for him. Like we are proud of being used?

Even worse, let’s say hundreds of wrestlers from Russia need $$$$. So they all come here for a semester, wrestle each other, then go back home. Then absurdely some would say “well this helps Americans “. Literally giving resources and training to Russians helps Americans!

It just feels like Americans want some comfort or want to be a part of something by glazing this system as some world class training center for tennis when the best well never even consider taking part in it. Even if it means subsidizing foeigners just to have their name attached to it.

I guess the theory is “this foreign player trained and subsidized by X government isnt quite ready to make it pro full time. So American institutions of higher learning need to step up and help him financially so he has a slight chance. And if we do this with hundreds, 1 foreigner annually might make it! ”

That 15 percent of guys in the top 200 all trained after their semester or year. No? They left college over the span of 10-15 years. It’s not an annual amount of playwrs making top 200. It’s probably an average of 1-2 a year.

And let’s stop with the “this makes Americans better” garbage. Is college turning out American grand slam winners? It did 50 years ago. Not anymore.

Or the next absurdity.. “when American kids and families see the next level of wrestling in their nation is 85 percent Russian at the highest level of college, that will get them more interested and the sport of wrestling with then grow!” That will give them more incentive! lol what???

Then they act dumbfounded. Hmmmm why arent Americans winning slams? Why arent more athletes starting out with and continuing tennis? It’s just all so baffling! They can go d3! Or maybe low level d1 somewhere ! But we just can’t stop subsidizing Russian athletes!

Fritz Tiafoe and Paul certainly didnt partake . Sheltons dad was the coach so the reason he was there is obvious.


If you do the math, and each d1 men’s team is about 1,000,000 annually to run, and there are about 1700 foreign players, with each player costing about 100k per year, we spent 1.75 billion in the last decade training foreign tennis players.

For what? To say it possibly helped 20 foreign dudes hang around the top 200?

 

[armchair]

It seems all data is ignored, especially the fact that 90 percent of the top 200 never played college tennis.

1. Looking at exceptions :

John Isner, Danielle Collins, and Ben Shelton.

NCAA broadcasts and tv broadcasts keep pumping up the ncaa to look at a few top players that at some point in a decade crack the top 100.

Or a few players that are set to go pro, play a season, then see no real value and move on quickly.


2 (Comfort)
The U.S. lacks state funded junior system like Europe or South America. For American families, college is the default after juniors. Coaches and parents frame it as a pro pathway because the real pathway (moving to Europe at 16) is financially impossible. It’s comforting. Keeping hope alive.

3 Marketing : NCAA programs market themselves as “launchpads to the pros” to recruit top international and domestic talent This messaging filters into the public.


Obviously pros are winning atp tournaments or gaining valuable points at the ages of 18 -22. Not starting their point chasing at 22-23 at 1000 in the world.

They are not taking classes and playing no ad tennis often times with just a third set tiebreaker.

Which leads me to ask what do people mean when they say “it helps Americans play a higher level”. With what goal? They played a higher level and then become an accountant?

The top Americans never even played a semester of college tennis. Others played a season as something to try but quickly saw it wasn’t what they need.

Your premise that college programs market themselves as "launchpads to the pro" is wrong. College programs don't do this. Your other premise that players go to college thinking it will help them become successful pros is also mostly wrong. Players opt to go to college--and most of the players at major programs are from Europe or South America ---because they know they're not ready for the pros. Many of course have aspirations of playing professionally---but their still developing and, I presume, aren't really sure if they are good enough to make a mark successfully. They go to college, get a free education and can develop as tennis players at not cost to them, and then play it by ear. Those few who become elite players leave and tackle the pro circuit. Everyone else, recognizing that their level may not be good enough, stay in college, enjoy the experience, get a degree. Pro tennis is littered with players who didn't go to college, opted to go pro when young and didn't make it. You see that in soccer in Europe: Huge numbers of young men starting training with pro clubs at very young ages--8 or 10 years old, spend years pretty much living soccer 24/7. But 80 percent of them get weeded out along the way, do not become pro players and do not go to college. They're all probably working blue-collar jobs now. College tennis players are usually quite aware of their talent level and make decisions accordingly.

 

[Tennis2349]

I agree with much of what you said.

For 99 percent of college tennis players the point is to get a degree. Which is my point. College tennis is not forming top pros.

For the handful that played a bit of college tennis, and made the top 200 somewhere within a decade after , they were already pro before arriving or a top junior in the world. Simply because they stopped by college tennis and played a few matches did not make this happen.

I could probably argue more college players went professional 40 years ago when the ncaa was far weaker. You just never heard of them or forgot guys like Todd Martin, sheltons, Connor’s, McEnroe played college tennis. Or the hundreds of others you never heard of.

 

[Tennis2349]

Your premise that college programs market themselves as "launchpads to the pro" is wrong. College programs don't do this. Your other premise that players go to college thinking it will help them become successful pros is also mostly wrong. Players opt to go to college--and most of the players at major programs are from Europe or South America ---because they know they're not ready for the pros. Many of course have aspirations of playing professionally---but their still developing and, I presume, aren't really sure if they are good enough to make a mark successfully. They go to college, get a free education and can develop as tennis players at not cost to them, and then play it by ear. Those few who become elite players leave and tackle the pro circuit. Everyone else, recognizing that their level may not be good enough, stay in college, enjoy the experience, get a degree. Pro tennis is littered with players who didn't go to college, opted to go pro when young and didn't make it. You see that in soccer in Europe: Huge numbers of young men starting training with pro clubs at very young ages--8 or 10 years old, spend years pretty much living soccer 24/7. But 80 percent of them get weeded out along the way, do not become pro players and do not go to college. They're all probably working blue-collar jobs now. College tennis players are usually quite aware of their talent level and make decisions accordingly.

I agree with much of what you said.

For 99.999 percent of college tennis players the point is to get a degree. Which is my point. College tennis is not forming top pros.


For the handful that played a bit of college tennis, and made the top 200 somewhere within a decade after , they were already pro before arriving or a top junior in the world. Simply because they stopped by college tennis and played a few matches did not make this happen.

Similarly today some top college players played on their high school team. Are we saying high school tennis is the pathway to d1

I could probably argue more college players went professional 40 years ago when the ncaa was far weaker. You just never heard of them or forgot guys like Todd Martin, sheltons, Connor’s, McEnroe played college tennis. Or the hundreds of others you never heard of.

 

[thebigz]

Over half I believe have a degree from their associated university.

Hard to believe quantify how each individual see’s their time in college as being helpful to their development as a pro as that is something only they themselves can state.

I know people like Rinderknech, Vacherot, Basavareddy, Kovacevic, and Draxl I’ve heard talk about how college tennis helped them.

I would guess Learner, Cerundolo, and Shelton probably didn’t have nearly as much benefit from college.

The only people who can say it helped are the people who went ultimately

Fearnley also spoke about his perspective in depth in changeover podcast. He said he would probably never make it on tour if he didn’t go play college tennis. When he arrived at TCU he wasn’t good enough to play on the TCU starting line up. The summer he graduated he took a set off Novak at Wimbledon. He was a top 100 player less 12 months out of college (at TCU full 5 year due to Covid)

OP seems to be posing in a “change my mind” booth without actually open to having his mind changed, failing to engage with compelling evidence & argument when presented.

I’m not sure it’s worth the time for me to engage further.

On the men side especially, barring the few generational talent(who often also get wildcards), most top juniors each year simply are not physically ready OR have the financial backing to sustain a full time pro schedule. Most of pros you point to that did not go to college, were financially supported by federations or rich daddy & mommy when they are 18, unless they are the few generational talent that are more the exception than the norm.

Most top juniors would NEVER make it top 200 sustainably, college or not. But college give a chance to those who are not good enough yet but have the potential, to mature and succeed later.

Cost of living taken care of, free training, coaching & top of line facility, high level peers to train & grow with at the top D1 programs where this conversation is relevant, high level competition without financial stress, normal social life for a young men/women, mentorship from coaches, upper classmen, alumni. Many top programs even help with expenses when players play pro events in summer/fall, let alone medical expenses for any injuries…

On the other hand: brutal life traveling on the futures/challenger tour, barely making money covering expenses, unable to afford a traveling coach… oh, a major injury is financially bankrupting

Without deep pockets, federation support, or huge sponsorship dollars at a young age, which path is more appealing for young 18-24 years old players to develop their game and mature?

 

[Tennis2349]

Fearnley also spoke about his perspective in depth in changeover podcast. He said he would probably never make it on tour if he didn’t go play college tennis. When he arrived at TCU he wasn’t good enough to play on the TCU starting line up. The summer he graduated he took a set off Novak at Wimbledon. He was a top 100 player less 12 months out of college (at TCU full 5 year due to Covid)

OP seems to be posing in a “change my mind” booth without actually open to having his mind changed, failing to engage with compelling evidence & argument when presented.

I’m not sure it’s worth the time for me to engage further.

On the men side especially, barring the few generational talent(who often also get wildcards), most top juniors each year simply are not physically ready OR have the financial backing to sustain a full time pro schedule. Most of pros you point to that did not go to college, were financially supported by federations or rich daddy & mommy when they are 18, unless they are the few generational talent that are more the exception than the norm.

Most top juniors would NEVER make it top 200 sustainably, college or not. But college give a chance to those who are not good enough yet but have the potential, to mature and succeed later.

Cost of living taken care of, free training, coaching & top of line facility, high level peers to train & grow with at the top D1 programs where this conversation is relevant, high level competition without financial stress, normal social life for a young men/women, mentorship from coaches, upper classmen, alumni. Many top programs even help with expenses when players play pro events in summer/fall, let alone medical expenses for any injuries…

On the other hand: brutal life traveling on the futures/challenger tour, barely making money covering expenses, unable to afford a traveling coach… oh, a major injury is financially bankrupting

Without deep pockets, federation support, or huge sponsorship dollars at a young age, which path is more appealing for young 18-24 years old players to develop their game and mature?

Fearnley was a top junior in the world who would hit with Roger Federer and had wins as a junior over alcaraz and sinner as a junior.

Find me a guy that was not top junior in the world that college “developed” into a pro. You won’t.

Fearnley also had the quickest rise in history from 700 in the world at college to 98 in one year. So that would be an outlier.

He was on the pro path regardless. Not at 18, but perhaps by 21. In his case college probably held him back a few years rather than propelled him.

with the average cost of a d1 team being 500k to 2.5 million, and 237 teams, let’s says d1 tennis costs 250 million per year. For a decade that is 2.5 billion dollars.

If the goal was to produce top talent it’s horribly inefficient.

 

[Super Tennis Man Yes]

If the goal was to produce top talent it’s horribly inefficient.

It's not. Nowhere in the NCAA mission statement does it mention preparing amateur athletes to turn pro in any sport. The NCAA would still exist if there was no ATP/WTA.

Based on your above reply to me, I can no longer tell if this is just an anti-foreigner rant or if you're just willing to die on some hill over a comment someone made during a college tennis match. It's been explained over and over with anecdotal evidence from the players themselves that college tennis helped prepare them for the pros, but your only argument is that they were going to turn pro anyway.

 

[Tennis2349]

It's not. Nowhere in the NCAA mission statement does it mention preparing amateur athletes to turn pro in any sport. The NCAA would still exist if there was no ATP/WTA.

Based on your above reply to me, I can no longer tell if this is just an anti-foreigner rant or if you're just willing to die on some hill over a comment someone made during a college tennis match. It's been explained over and over with anecdotal evidence from the players themselves that college tennis helped prepare them for the pros, but your only argument is that they were going to turn pro anyway.

What I keep hearing is :

“We NEED the best around the world to play college tennis so the level will be raised!”

My question is raised for what purpose. Because over the last decade 20 guys are in the top 200 that played some college tennis?” Mainly foreigners. Is it creating American grand slam champions? Our top guys skipped it.

I think these select few would be fine with or without it. Yes they might need sponsors or have their parents pay. We spent 1.7 billion on foreign players in the last decade.

Clearly it isn’t helping Americans reach the top level.

 

[thebigz]

Fearnley was a top junior in the world who would hit with Roger Federer and had wins as a junior over alcaraz and sinner as a junior.

Find me a guy that was not top junior in the world that college “developed” into a pro. You won’t.

Read my post again. Your assumption of being a top junior put them already on a path to be a successful pro in top 200 is not just not true. They have the level to win a one off match vs top 200? Yes probably. Having the physicality and finances to play full time pro schedule sustainably? No. There’s a massive delta there that most top juniors NEVER will cross.

Your framing is a straw man argument that none of us proposed.

In his case college probably held him back a few years rather than propelled him.

You can believe that baseless counter factual case if you want. Fearneley himself would discredit that in a heartbeat

with the average cost of a d1 team being 500k to 2.5 million, and 237 teams, let’s says d1 tennis costs 250 million per year. For a decade that is 2.5 billion dollars.


If the goal was to produce top talent it’s horribly inefficient.

Another strawman argument here. We are talking about maybe 15-20 of the top D1 programs(that are not funded by public money btw) on men’s side and 10 on the women’s side that are relevant for providing a path to pro tennis (for TOP JUNIORS who won’t survive on tour yet).

No one is proposing that the entire NCAA system is there to produce pro players. 95% of programs outside the ELITE few, are there for good players who would never turn pro to get an education and have a great college athletic experience

 

[Tennis2349]

Read my post again. Your assumption of being a top junior put them already on a path to be a successful pro in top 200 is not just not true. They have the level to win a one off match vs top 200? Yes probably. Having the physicality and finances to play full time pro schedule sustainably? No. There’s a massive delta there that most top juniors NEVER will cross.

Your framing is a straw man argument that none of us proposed.

You can believe that baseless counter factual case if you want. Fearneley himself would discredit that in a heartbeat


Another strawman argument here. We are talking about maybe 15-20 of the top D1 programs(that are not funded by public money btw) on men’s side and 10 on the women’s side that are relevant for providing a path to pro tennis (for TOP JUNIORS who won’t survive on tour yet).

No one is proposing that the entire NCAA system is there to produce pro players. 95% of programs outside the ELITE few, are there for good players who would never turn pro to get an education and have a great college athletic experience

What you are doing is this…

I personally know a 12.8 utr that played 4 years of high school tennis. True story. Graduating this year.

As a freshman he wasn’t a 12 .8 utr. Nor was he first singles.

Then we would say “see!!!! High school tennis
Formed him into a top junior. He said as a freshman he wasn’t as good!!”

Now we all know that is laughable.

Playing 20 -25 best of 3 , no ad, no let usually third set tie breaker tennis annnualy, against weaker competition, while studying for accounting, isnt forming anything.

It would be absurd to ignore all the work the kid I know did from freshman year until senior year to single out high school tennis as the driver because he played it.

It’s even more ridiculous when many of you desperately try to attach xollege tennis to “15 percent of the top 200!” Because most of them played one season.

If thats the case college tennis formed John McEnroe and jimmy connors.

 

[DaDave]

I had a friend who played University instead of pro at 18. High level some of the points he made to me was that when ure teen, physically majority of the guys are much stronger and fitter than u. It was difficult to keep up with the pace and especially consistency. Mentally u go from winning a lot of junior matches to barely winning much, so mentally it was also hard not only to survive, but try new things, tactics, technique to improve. Then he mentioned about being lonely and not having a lot of funds to survive long playing tourney after tourney. U don’t really have practice partners day in and day out. Ultimately he tried pro for a short bit after college but found happiness experiencing the whole college experience that opened doors to work a good corporate job

 

[Super Tennis Man Yes]

Then we would say “see!!!! High school tennis
Formed him into a top junior. He said as a freshman he wasn’t as good!!”

No one, literally no one, is saying this. Your goalposts can't move much further.

And you made the post, so you should find someone besides you saying the following:

“We NEED the best around the world to play college tennis so the level will be raised!”

 

[paperweight36]

Why do people pretend college tennis is a pathway to the ATP?​

Nobody says this. It's simply a better option than funding yourself and grinding it out on the ITF circuit. And when you don't make it, at least you have a college degree.

There's really no good pathway to the ATP. Just over 100 tennis players in the world are good enough at any given time to be ATP professionals. And just like any professional sport, the average career of an ATP pro is probably around 3 years. So even if you make it, except for the VERY best, most don't make it for long.

Even if you're "really good", you probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than being an ATP touring pro.

 

[Tennis2349]

No one, literally no one, is saying this. Your goalposts can't move much further.

And you made the post, so you should find someone besides you saying the following:

“We NEED the best around the world to play college tennis so the level will be raised!”

Ok then. That’s fine.

So IF someone were to say “we need foreign players in college tennis to raise the level” that would be a rather stupid goal. I personally have read it here often and others reiterate just that.

 

[Tennis2349]

I had a friend who played University instead of pro at 18. High level some of the points he made to me was that when ure teen, physically majority of the guys are much stronger and fitter than u. It was difficult to keep up with the pace and especially consistency. Mentally u go from winning a lot of junior matches to barely winning much, so mentally it was also hard not only to survive, but try new things, tactics, technique to improve. Then he mentioned about being lonely and not having a lot of funds to survive long playing tourney after tourney. U don’t really have practice partners day in and day out. Ultimately he tried pro for a short bit after college but found happiness experiencing the whole college experience that opened doors to work a good corporate job

Exactly. And I would say it was more or less that your friend wasn’t good enough.

Most top players are entering the top 100 around 19-20, and it takes 3-4 years to improve their game on the tour. They are playing pro events, not dual matches on weekends.

Some late bloomers might find delaying the pro tour for 4-5 years useful, but I would be interested in knowing how many top 200 players have a 4 year degree. Maybe 1 percent?

 

[Curtennis]

Is college wrestling a pathway to the Olympics. Yes. College football and basketball a pathway to the pros. Yes.

college soccer for the women’s World Cup team. Yes.

The above highest levels get 90-100 percent of their athletes from college. Those are legitimate pathways. And often times those guys/gala stay the full 4 years.

What you have in tennis is maybe 1 guy annually from around the entire world that will be top 100, and they do not get 4 year degrees. He is the type to win the junior US open and play 20
College matches.

Then people look and say “oh wow. 4 Americans in top 100 played a season of college tennis. But those guys graduated over the course of a decade. The top Americans did not waste time playing college tennis. .

Most years the NCAA championship winner in all of the NCAA will not have any chance at breaking top 300 in his life.

In the above sports I mentioned the elite played college. In tennis the elite do not.

Again, it’s nothing new. A guy I played in high school tennis decades ago played for Harvard and also played in Wimbledon.

Obviously his time at Harvard had nothing to do with his success. Same with McEnroe and Connor’s. Top college players always went pro whether the ncaa was easy or a higher level.

The elite will be fine anywhere. Taking a pro and convincing him to play a few college matches, is like those academies that take credit for a players success because he joined them at 17 to hit for a couple months after being trained elsewhere.

You say one guy is top 100… are there only 100 players on an active nfl roster?
NFL is nearly 2000 players and nba around 500. Why you limiting it to a tiny fraction of their numbers?

If you said that a very low percentage of American players did college first, that would be surprising to me.

What percent of professional cricket players went to American universities?

 

[Clemson_tennis]

Exactly. And I would say it was more or less that your friend wasn’t good enough.

Most top players are entering the top 100 around 19-20, and it takes 3-4 years to improve their game on the tour. They are playing pro events, not dual matches on weekends.

Some late bloomers might find delaying the pro tour for 4-5 years useful, but I would be interested in knowing how many top 200 players have a 4 year degree. Maybe 1 percent?

There are currently 36 players in the ATP top 200 who played college tennis. And by my count, 23 of those finished as a senior at their university. I don’t personally know them so I can’t ratify if they got a degree but they played through the senior season.

So actually it’s more common for a player to play a full career in college then make the top 200 than it is for a player who leaves early from college to do it

 

[aaron_h27]

How is this guy not banned and why do people keep discussing things with him when he knows everything?

 

[Tennis2349]

There are currently 36 players in the ATP top 200 who played college tennis. And by my count, 23 of those finished as a senior at their university. I don’t personally know them so I can’t ratify if they got a degree but they played through the senior season.

So actually it’s more common for a player to play a full career in college then make the top 200 than it is for a player who leaves early from college to do it

Can you list the players mentioned above? Specifically the 23 that played 4 years of college tennis. 10 percent is higher than I thought.

And time span of graduation? Is this over a decade or two?

 

[RSJfan]

..Just over 100 tennis players in the world are good enough at any given time to be ATP professionals.

True

And just like any professional sport, the average career of an ATP pro is probably around 3 years.

Very false. Those are football stats, which have to be near the bottom of career length. Average ATP pro tennis careers are significantly longer and way longer for players that are established in the top 10: 10-12 years. Kindly ask Dr Raul's good friend Grok.

 

[Clemson_tennis]

Can you list the players mentioned above? Specifically the 23 that played 4 years of college tennis. 10 percent is higher than I thought.

And time span of graduation? Is this over a decade or two?

It's active players so over the last decade or so.

(years at end)
#20 Valentin Vacherot, France, Texas A&M 17-20
#24 Arthur Rinderknech, France, Texas A&M 14-18
#29 Cam Norrie, UK, TCU, 14-17
#50 Nuno Borges, Portugal, Miss State, 16-19
#54 Gabriel Diallo, Canada, Kentucky 19-22 (left one year early)
#50 Yannic Hanfmann, Germany, USC 11-15
#69 Aleksandar Kovacevic, USA, Illinois 16-21
#88 Marcos Giron, USA, UCLA 11-14
#91 Adam Walton, Australia, Tennessee 17-22
#95 Eliot Spizzirri, USA, Texas 20-24
#100 Aleksandr Vukic, Australia, Illinois 14-18
#125 Mackenzie McDonald, USA, UCLA 13-16
#133 Jack Pinnington Jones, UK, TCU 23-25 (played 3 years)
#142 Moez Echargui, Tunisia, Nevada 11-15
#145 Jacob Fearnley, UK, TCU 19-24
#147 Michael Zheng, USA, Columbia 22-26
#149 August Holmgren, Denmark, San Diego 17-22
#150 Toby Samuel, UK, South Carolina 20-24
#163 Liam Draxl, France, Kentucky 19-23
#176 Colton Smith, USA, Arizona 21-25
#177 Chris Rodesch, Switzerland, Virginia 21-24
#178 Borna Gojo, Croatia, Wake Forest 17-19 (played 3 years)
#187 Alexis Galarneau, Canada, USA 16-21


Four from the UK. I think you could argue college tennis is better at developing pro players than the British LTA is

 

[bluetrain4]

so we would say college tennis benefited McEnroe and Connor’s.

Just curious as to why 80 percent of pros make it another way, but those few xollege guys that convert cant play challenger tournaments and train? How does studying for classes for a semester or year help?

They went pro inspite of college tennis. Not because of it

Do 80 percent of pros make it another way? Aren't there a ton of players who don't play college tennis, attempt pro tennis, and are stuck playing Futures and Challengers their entire careers or nearly their entire careers? I guess we have to define "making it."

 

[scmyers]

It's active players so over the last decade or so.

(years at end)
#20 Valentin Vacherot, France, Texas A&M 17-20
#24 Arthur Rinderknech, France, Texas A&M 14-18
#29 Cam Norrie, UK, TCU, 14-17
#50 Nuno Borges, Portugal, Miss State, 16-19
#54 Gabriel Diallo, Canada, Kentucky 19-22 (left one year early)
#50 Yannic Hanfmann, Germany, USC 11-15
#69 Aleksandar Kovacevic, USA, Illinois 16-21
#88 Marcos Giron, USA, UCLA 11-14
#91 Adam Walton, Australia, Tennessee 17-22
#95 Eliot Spizzirri, USA, Texas 20-24
#100 Aleksandr Vukic, Australia, Illinois 14-18
#125 Mackenzie McDonald, USA, UCLA 13-16
#133 Jack Pinnington Jones, UK, TCU 23-25 (played 3 years)
#142 Moez Echargui, Tunisia, Nevada 11-15
#145 Jacob Fearnley, UK, TCU 19-24
#147 Michael Zheng, USA, Columbia 22-26
#149 August Holmgren, Denmark, San Diego 17-22
#150 Toby Samuel, UK, South Carolina 20-24
#163 Liam Draxl, France, Kentucky 19-23
#176 Colton Smith, USA, Arizona 21-25
#177 Chris Rodesch, Switzerland, Virginia 21-24
#178 Borna Gojo, Croatia, Wake Forest 17-19 (played 3 years)
#187 Alexis Galarneau, Canada, USA 16-21


Four from the UK. I think you could argue college tennis is better at developing pro players than the British LTA is

Love this list, and not to be nitpicky, however, off the top of top of my head ahead a few of the countries are incorrect. Vacherot is from Monaco. Liam Draxl is Canadian. Chris Rodesch is from Luxembourg.

 

[Tennis2349]

It's active players so over the last decade or so.

(years at end)
#20 Valentin Vacherot, France, Texas A&M 17-20
#24 Arthur Rinderknech, France, Texas A&M 14-18
#29 Cam Norrie, UK, TCU, 14-17
#50 Nuno Borges, Portugal, Miss State, 16-19
#54 Gabriel Diallo, Canada, Kentucky 19-22 (left one year early)
#50 Yannic Hanfmann, Germany, USC 11-15
#69 Aleksandar Kovacevic, USA, Illinois 16-21
#88 Marcos Giron, USA, UCLA 11-14
#91 Adam Walton, Australia, Tennessee 17-22
#95 Eliot Spizzirri, USA, Texas 20-24
#100 Aleksandr Vukic, Australia, Illinois 14-18
#125 Mackenzie McDonald, USA, UCLA 13-16
#133 Jack Pinnington Jones, UK, TCU 23-25 (played 3 years)
#142 Moez Echargui, Tunisia, Nevada 11-15
#145 Jacob Fearnley, UK, TCU 19-24
#147 Michael Zheng, USA, Columbia 22-26
#149 August Holmgren, Denmark, San Diego 17-22
#150 Toby Samuel, UK, South Carolina 20-24
#163 Liam Draxl, France, Kentucky 19-23
#176 Colton Smith, USA, Arizona 21-25
#177 Chris Rodesch, Switzerland, Virginia 21-24
#178 Borna Gojo, Croatia, Wake Forest 17-19 (played 3 years)
#187 Alexis Galarneau, Canada, USA 16-21


Four from the UK. I think you could argue college tennis is better at developing pro players than the British LTA i

So about 10 percent of the top 200 played 4 years of college tennis.

Atleast on this list, the average time after graduation is 5 years.

So more or less 1-2 guys each graduating year will make it to the top 200 within 2-10 years.

5 Americans. 18 foreign players.

So for Americans that are “benefitting” from increased college competition, it means maybe 1 american college player every two years might someday make the top 200 within a decade.

As of now, 25 Americans in top 200. 5 went to college for 4 years

 

[Shaolin]

No one is acting like college is a pathway to the pros.

Stop making things up OP.

 

[Tennis2349]

No one is acting like college is a pathway to the pros.

Stop making things up OP.

Back in the 80’s I believe close to 50 percent of the ATP top 100 did play college tennis. That number has plummeted.

But actually almost all of those that champion D1 college tennis being 70 percent foreign in 2026 , almost immediately say “they increase the level of college tennis”, then quickly run off names of current pros who played college tennis. So that’s basically the number one reason given for supporting foreigners to play college tennis in the USA. That higher level of competition also helps American kids become better.

It doesn’t create more pros than the past. (Especially not American pros) It isn’t making money. It’s often times the first sport to be cut.

So I guess the NCAA is now sort of a charity organization foreign athletes can use as a back up plan trying to find a lottery ticket. See how they develop, free training, free food, free housing, and maybe each year 1or 2 might crack the top 200 sometime in the future. Predominantly foreign.

I just have a hard time understanding the identity of college tennis.

It’s not a pathway to the pros. It’s not meant for American juniors that combine rigorous education with tennis. Even though it is college. The educational requirements between different countries are often times very different.

With shortened formats and different rules it isnt pure tennis.

And virtually nobody , with the exception of maybe 1-2 foreigners a year will ever make a living at the next level after college tennis.

It doesn’t make money and with the foreigners it actually leads to families turning away from tennis because to compete typically means having to reclass, home school, and spend ten years training to maybe beat out the world for a spot and partial scholarship. Ironically giving education a back seat to then go to a higher institution of learning to play a game ?


So it is actually killing american junior tennis.

Other sports seem to have a much clearer and obvious intent/ possible pathway.

 

[Shaolin]

Back in the 80’s I believe close to 50 percent of the ATP top 100 did play college tennis. That number has plummeted.

But actually almost all of those that champion D1 college tennis being 70 percent foreign in 2026 , almost immediately say “they increase the level of college tennis”, then quickly run off names of current pros who played college tennis. So that’s basically the number one reason given for supporting foreigners to play college tennis in the USA. That higher level of competition also helps American kids become better.

It doesn’t create more pros than the past. (Especially not American pros) It isn’t making money. It’s often times the first sport to be cut.

So I guess the NCAA is now sort of a charity organization foreign athletes can use as a back up plan trying to find a lottery ticket. See how they develop, free training, free food, free housing, and maybe each year 1or 2 might crack the top 200 sometime in the future. Predominantly foreign.

I just have a hard time understanding the identity of college tennis.

It’s not a pathway to the pros. It’s not meant for American juniors that combine rigorous education with tennis. Even though it is college. The educational requirements between different countries are often times very different.

With shortened formats and different rules it isnt pure tennis.

And virtually nobody , with the exception of maybe 1-2 foreigners a year will ever make a living at the next level after college tennis.

It doesn’t make money and with the foreigners it actually leads to families turning away from tennis because to compete typically means having to reclass, home school, and spend ten years training to maybe beat out the world for a spot and partial scholarship. Ironically giving education a back seat to then go to a higher institution of learning to play a game ?


So it is actually killing american junior tennis.

Other sports seem to have a much clearer and obvious intent/ possible pathway.

Yes the whole system is strange in a myriad of ways, I will give you that. Somewhat pointless although it does give a backup to those who spend their whole childhood to training in case they do not go pro.

I do not agree it isn't ''pure tennis''. In some ways it is superior to other formats, such as playing the service let, something that should have been initiated pro tennis decades ago. Also, shortened tennis like No-Ad get to the pressure points more quickly which I prefer both in playing and watching.

 

[Clemson_tennis]

Back in the 80’s I believe close to 50 percent of the ATP top 100 did play college tennis. That number has plummeted.

But actually almost all of those that champion D1 college tennis being 70 percent foreign in 2026 , almost immediately say “they increase the level of college tennis”, then quickly run off names of current pros who played college tennis. So that’s basically the number one reason given for supporting foreigners to play college tennis in the USA. That higher level of competition also helps American kids become better.

It doesn’t create more pros than the past. (Especially not American pros) It isn’t making money. It’s often times the first sport to be cut.

So I guess the NCAA is now sort of a charity organization foreign athletes can use as a back up plan trying to find a lottery ticket. See how they develop, free training, free food, free housing, and maybe each year 1or 2 might crack the top 200 sometime in the future. Predominantly foreign.

I just have a hard time understanding the identity of college tennis.

It’s not a pathway to the pros. It’s not meant for American juniors that combine rigorous education with tennis. Even though it is college. The educational requirements between different countries are often times very different.

With shortened formats and different rules it isnt pure tennis.

And virtually nobody , with the exception of maybe 1-2 foreigners a year will ever make a living at the next level after college tennis.

It doesn’t make money and with the foreigners it actually leads to families turning away from tennis because to compete typically means having to reclass, home school, and spend ten years training to maybe beat out the world for a spot and partial scholarship. Ironically giving education a back seat to then go to a higher institution of learning to play a game ?


So it is actually killing american junior tennis.

Other sports seem to have a much clearer and obvious intent/ possible pathway.

I did this in another thread before but tennis is just a way more international sport overall now. I chose a random week in the 80s and looked at the ATP top 100. 40-50
of them were American back then. Now the USA has 16 in the top 100 and that’s actually considered really good and the most out of any country. There were periods in the 2010s with only a handful top 100 Americans. So pro the top down the sport is just less American centric.


Also I would say college soccer is less a pathway to the pros than tennis if you’re talking the very top level. I’m not sure if there’s even one former college soccer player in the English premier league. Lots in US soccer openly hate college soccer and want palyers to go to academies instead.

 

[silentkman]

Back in the 80’s I believe close to 50 percent of the ATP top 100 did play college tennis. That number has plummeted.

But actually almost all of those that champion D1 college tennis being 70 percent foreign in 2026 , almost immediately say “they increase the level of college tennis”, then quickly run off names of current pros who played college tennis. So that’s basically the number one reason given for supporting foreigners to play college tennis in the USA. That higher level of competition also helps American kids become better.

It doesn’t create more pros than the past. (Especially not American pros) It isn’t making money. It’s often times the first sport to be cut.

So I guess the NCAA is now sort of a charity organization foreign athletes can use as a back up plan trying to find a lottery ticket. See how they develop, free training, free food, free housing, and maybe each year 1or 2 might crack the top 200 sometime in the future. Predominantly foreign.

I just have a hard time understanding the identity of college tennis.

It’s not a pathway to the pros. It’s not meant for American juniors that combine rigorous education with tennis. Even though it is college. The educational requirements between different countries are often times very different.

With shortened formats and different rules it isnt pure tennis.

And virtually nobody , with the exception of maybe 1-2 foreigners a year will ever make a living at the next level after college tennis.

It doesn’t make money and with the foreigners it actually leads to families turning away from tennis because to compete typically means having to reclass, home school, and spend ten years training to maybe beat out the world for a spot and partial scholarship. Ironically giving education a back seat to then go to a higher institution of learning to play a game ?


So it is actually killing american junior tennis.

Other sports seem to have a much clearer and obvious intent/ possible pathway.

The coaches want to win, its that simple. Most AD's don't really care about tennis anyway. This is not a NCAA issue. I guess they should make special rules for Tennis. I'm not a fan of No Ad, but I've accepted it and the logic. What exactly do you want about a sport(college tennis) that a only niche community cares about? Coaches want to win. Everyone could be like Boston College. Tennis is the hardest sport in the world to make a living at. Just be happy going to a good school and getting a education.

 

[paperweight36]

Very false. Those are football stats, which have to be near the bottom of career length. Average ATP pro tennis careers are significantly longer and way longer for players that are established in the top 10: 10-12 years. Kindly ask Dr Raul's good friend Grok.

It's obviously going to depend on the pool of players your are averaging. And what you consider to still be a professional.

 

[Clemson_tennis]

The coaches want to win, its that simple. Most AD's don't really care about tennis anyway. This is not a NCAA issue. I guess they should make special rules for Tennis. I'm not a fan of No Ad, but I've accepted it and the logic. What exactly do you want about a sport(college tennis) that a only niche community cares about? Coaches want to win. Everyone could be like Boston College. Tennis is the hardest sport in the world to make a living at. Just be happy going to a good school and getting a education.

Also how about just… enjoyment?? Isn’t that why sports exist at all in the first place? I’m well aware that those of us who love college tennis are few and far between. But those playing it, attending, coaching etc mostly love it. So that’s “the point” of it.