Wow, watching the streaming Sun Belt tennis Coverage was exciting :(

[Nacho]

Every year this is a heated debate, and I don’t mind bringing it up again:

So, I was excited to see ESPN streaming some of the conference matches this past weekend; namely the Sun Belt men’s and women’s tournament. I was interested to see the tennis since Georgia State men were in it and I have wanted to watch them play.

I saw some of the matches of both men’s and women’s, and they were somewhat boring as far as play, but the matches had some drama at the end so I timed my nap to wake up at the end. Kidding aside, I was truly frustrated that every single player was International. I saw Troy women: 0 Americans. ULM women: 0 Americans. S. Alabama women: 2 Americans. GSU men: 2 Americans, Troy men: 3 Americans, and South Alabama men: 0 Americans. Wow! Couldn’t believe Americans were that poorly represented (90 percent International in the Sun Belt as far as I calculated. In disclosure, I am not agains internationals. I have, on this chat room in fact, actually defended them as I do think tennis is an international sport and a mix can be good was for a good. However, this is ridiculous. Really shows how far these coaches have taken it to the extreme for recruiting just Internationals. Especially on the women’s side where things like Title IX were supposed to enhance the opportunities for American female student athletes, not provide opportunities to Internationals.

I took a look at past recruiting classes, and on average between the states of Mississippi and Alabama there are 2-3 five star or Blue chip, 2-3 four stars, and the rest fall below that mostly being 1 star. So, the issue is there just aren’t many recruit-able players in those two states to fill the rosters of Troy, South Alabama and ULM (and throw in there Ole Miss, Miss St. Alabama, LSU, Samford, and all the others inbetween) unless they take 1 stars, and that would make them uncompetitive. If I’m the coach at one of those schools and I got 6-8 scholarships, I would go international as well. I not sure I blame them……By my count only 6 players came out of MS or AL in 2016, and only a couple went D-1, the other 4 went other divisions/smaller schools, or are probably playing tennis on campus which is what most American Jr. Players play. In fact, I am finding more and more that are playing this instead as they don’t have to commit to anything, it allows them to compete, and in some cases more students turn out for these then the varsity matches!

I don’t think the issue can be addressed with the college ranks. The real problem is why aren’t the 1 stars 4-5 stars? Why isn’t there enough competition and events early on that a kid growing up in Alabama can have the same chance as a girl growing up in Russia, Latvia, Japan or China (those are some of the countries those players are from). There is a major problem in our Jr. system, and the college ranks reflect this. I have seen some good tennis schools drive Jr. Development locally in places like Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio State, and Illinois.

Again, I think its great to have some International players on teams, but to have it so dominant is bad for college tennis, bad for tennis, and shows a major dysfunction in our Jr. tennis at local levels. I hope Brian Boland can fix this….

So, enjoying the idea of seeing some college tennis on TV; even an obscure conference like the Sun Belt. But its so painful to watch right now, if they want to make it more interesting maybe some care in understanding the audience watching ESPN streams. Featuring an obscure conference, which ends in a match between two girls from Russia having 50 ball moon ball rallies, playing No-ad, is not going to drive Jr players to the courts in the US, or create more fans of the game.

So, maybe preaching to the choir, maybe some of you don't care and just want to watch whoever. But I think we should care for the future of the sport is thin in the US.

 

[Clemson_tennis]

The in person vs on TV aspect makes a huge difference. In person pretty much any match is exiting to watch if you like tennis. This past weekend I went to Weber State vs Southern Utah and Idaho State vs Southern Utah women's matches in person. And they were actually pretty enjoyable to watch. You get to see the angles and speed of the shots better, get to see the players up close and get to know their personalties and playing styles. While on TV these matches would have probably been super dull.

I love the fact that college tennis is on TV more often now but it's not as exciting of a watch as you would hope. First of all you cannot choose which court you want to watch, you can't watch more than one at once like you can in person. The camera angels era usually not that great on TV. For instance I struggle to watch the FSU men's ESPN3 broadcasts just because they just don't capture my attention. The angles aren't good, the on court sound is basically muted and it just makes the play seem a lot more dull than it really is.

 

[tennisjunky]

I know this is a taboo around here and lots of people don't like this subject to come up....... but honestly watching US college tennis teams with international players is just not interesting. No matter how good they are. I'd rather just watch the pros from other countries.

I'd be much more interested in seeing a local player battle it our against their arch rival from another college. Even if the quality isn't near as good. I just don't see how someone can get excited about watching people from countries half way around the world that have ZERO connection with the school, especially when the international is using the school as a training ground before going or attempting to go pro.

I see this as just another example of NCAA, USRTA (R for recreation) ITF, all doing whatever they can to destroy USA tennis.

 

[jcgatennismom]

Every year this is a heated debate, and I don’t mind bringing it up again:

. Kidding aside, I was truly frustrated that every single player was International. Wow! Couldn’t believe Americans were that poorly represented (90 percent International in the Sun Belt as far as I calculated. In disclosure, I am not agains internationals. I have, on this chat room in fact, actually defended them as I do think tennis is an international sport and a mix can be good was for a good. However, this is ridiculous. Really shows how far these coaches have taken it to the extreme for recruiting just Internationals.

The real problem is why aren’t the 1 stars 4-5 stars? Why isn’t there enough competition and events early on that a kid growing up in Alabama can have the same chance as a girl growing up in Russia, Latvia, Japan or China (those are some of the countries those players are from). There is a major problem in our Jr. system, and the college ranks reflect this. I have seen some good tennis schools drive Jr. Development locally in places like Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio State, and Illinois.

Again, I think its great to have some International players on teams, but to have it so dominant is bad for college tennis, bad for tennis, and shows a major dysfunction in our Jr. tennis at local levels. I hope Brian Boland can fix this….

.

Having recently gone through recruiting, I would say that most D1 teams have 40-50% US players on the roster, but usually only two play singles, and the Americans playing in the bottom half of the Power 5 or ranked lineups are getting 0 to 20% scholarships. As it has been stated on these boards before, the best US athletes are going to choose the sports they see on TV, can play at a high level and be recruited at their high school, and the ones with a higher possibility of a living wage playing the sport after college.. The low scholarship $ for boys doesn't help either. Tennis attracts mostly players from upper middle class families. Maybe they are not as "hungry" as some of the internationals. The future of US juniors in college tennis may be the top 25 of each class playing at Power 5 schools and the rest using tennis as a means to get admitted to top D3 schools. For those who are not super smart, they may be relegated to Tennis on Campus at their state flagship. Currently even a lot of 5 stars are choosing D3s. There are still good scholarship packages for the better 4 stars and 5 stars at some of the mid majors, but I think the percentage of US players actually playing in the lineup is declining every year.

Now conferences like the Sunbelt do try to recruit Americans but they are trying to recruit the same players as the Power schools are recruiting for the bottom of their lineups. At least the Power 5 schools send their coaches to the top US national tournaments like Kzoo. I think only one Sunbelt coach went to Nat Clays last year and none to Kzoo. It sends a message to US junior players when coaches dont attend the top US national tournaments. Most D1 teams end up recruiting internationals and filling in their roster with inexpensive in state 4 star players. I doubt if any player that is not in the top 150 in the nation is getting recruited at any D1 school with some scholarship $. You will not find many US recruits looking to play for schools like South Alabama; most US juniors hope to play for their flagship state university or a selective school. They will choose colleges in cities rather than those in small towns unless the state flagship is in a small town. The lack of US players on rosters is mainly due to coaches assuming that international players are better than all but the 25 top Americans, but the junior players contribute to the problem by being picky and noncommital. International players are easier to recruit because if a coach shows them the money, they will come. US players are looking for the right fit and that takes more time and effort on the part of the coach.

You ask the question why is the US system not developing 1 stars into 4 and 5 stars. The problem is worse than that. To play at the bottom of a Power 5, players really need to be 13+ which is about the top 50-75 in each class but playing the bottom of a Power 5 is a 20% or less scholarship. To play at a midlevel midmajor, a player probably needs to be a UTR 12 now, possibly 11.5 might get a spot and redshirt freshman year. Too many juniors are not at that level in spite of years of training.

USTA has watered down tennis by increasing draws at the sectional level. To get the ranking to play the top USTA national tournaments, players have to play a lot of lengthy sectional tourneys. There are just too many hoops to jump through.The players who are rated 12-13+ waste time and money (hotels) in the early rounds. There are plenty of European players 13+, 14+, and in the European system there is more cross play between juniors and adults. If we want more US players to be competitive with international players, there needs to be more local opportunities for the junior UTR 12.5-13+s to play older college UTR 13+ and pro UTR 14+s. Some top juniors play international junior ITFs or US Futures Qualifiers but they are likely to lose early in the future Qualis. Junior ITFs unlike USTA have qualifiers so most matches in the main draw are competitive. However that is an expensive route to get good competition and players have to be homeschooled. There is only one grass court ITF in the summer in the US-should be more to give players who attend school a chance to play; they would have to get through qualifier, but if they are talented, they could make into main draw and win matches.

New local/regional UTR tournaments may be the answer to provide affordable high level competition. There is a new staggered entry UTR tournament with a $5000 purse in Maryland this summer https://blog.universaltennis.com/2017/04/19/utr-national-open-clay-court-championships-coming/ If more staggered entry prize money tournaments like this one become popular, maybe US juniors will get the crossplay with other collegians and young pros that they need to be more competitive with internationals. The ITA summer circuit tourneys were supposed to promote college/junior crossplay, but they do not tend to draw the better college players. College players either play Futures or prize $ opens during the summer.

I think a mix of US players and internationals is appropriate for college teams. Many juniors train with internationals now who have come to the US to train. However, there needs to be more of a balance or college tennis could hit a tipping point where only a handful of US players are recruited, and tennis is dropped at schools outside the Power 5 and D3. It also hurts US juniors that they are recruited early -from spring of their junior year to fall of their senior and they are being compared to international players who often are not recruited until late in their senior year or even in the summer for a January start. Due to timing, their results may reflect an extra year of experience and a higher rating. Some may be a year older anyway due to a gap year. I dont believe in quotas but I do believe many coaches prefer internationals when there might be equally talented US players available. I think the bulk of the scholarship $ goes to the international players. Many top US players will continue to choose D3 because if they are offered very small scholarships to play 30+ hours tennis at D1, they may discover it is cheaper and more major-friendly to play top D3 with need or merit aid. US D1 coaches want really cheap US players to play #4-8; more US juniors and their families are deciding they have better options at D3 or some midmajors.

 

[Clemson_tennis]

I'd be much more interested in seeing a local player battle it our against their arch rival from another college. Even if the quality isn't near as good. I just don't see how someone can get excited about watching people from countries half way around the world that have ZERO connection with the school, especially when the international is using the school as a training ground before going or attempting to go pro.

.

Zero connection except, moving to the University, living every day of their lives on the campus for years, becoming entrenched in the culture of the University, going to other sporting events, making friends etc. The auto-international crowd on here needs to to stop looking at international players as hired guns. They are student athletes just like the Americans. How many of them are really using college tennis solely for training for the pros? Only the very top ones which is the exact same thing that the top Americans do anyway.

You may say the international players have no idea about the American schools before being recruited, but how many American players know for sure what school they are going to play at when they go to college? Nationwide recruiting is a thing. How many teams could afford to recruit 100% "locally"? Athletes in all college sports go to different states to play sports. Very few grow up a fan of the school they end up playing for, which you seem to be suggesting is the only thing that can make a real college tennis battle. Noah Rubin, from NY, went to a school in NC for 1 year to train for the pros. Meanwhile several international guys spend 4 years at a University becoming apart of the team and school, yet to you that is the real problem with college tennis.

Maybe it should be like little league baseball and teams are only allowed to take players from a 50 mile radius.

 

[Nacho]

The in person vs on TV aspect makes a huge difference. In person pretty much any match is exiting to watch if you like tennis. This past weekend I went to Weber State vs Southern Utah and Idaho State vs Southern Utah women's matches in person. And they were actually pretty enjoyable to watch. You get to see the angles and speed of the shots better, get to see the players up close and get to know their personalties and playing styles. While on TV these matches would have probably been super dull.

I love the fact that college tennis is on TV more often now but it's not as exciting of a watch as you would hope. First of all you cannot choose which court you want to watch, you can't watch more than one at once like you can in person. The camera angels era usually not that great on TV. For instance I struggle to watch the FSU men's ESPN3 broadcasts just because they just don't capture my attention. The angles aren't good, the on court sound is basically muted and it just makes the play seem a lot more dull than it really is.

Me and you are on the same page in that we love college tennis...I like to watch even the obscure stuff. This is more of a call to fix the Jr system in America so that American players become more relevant. Too many drop out, and to have the college ranks filled with internationals taking money, doesn't help drive interest. You and I will always watch, but we are a very small minority. And too much effort is being put in right now without a juicy product for the average watcher.

For the TV coverage, I agree with you using playsight cameras and having few angles and dull announcing really doesn't help. But at least there is effort to market it, although at what cost....

 

[Nacho]

I know this is a taboo around here and lots of people don't like this subject to come up....... but honestly watching US college tennis teams with international players is just not interesting. No matter how good they are. I'd rather just watch the pros from other countries.

I'd be much more interested in seeing a local player battle it our against their arch rival from another college. Even if the quality isn't near as good. I just don't see how someone can get excited about watching people from countries half way around the world that have ZERO connection with the school, especially when the international is using the school as a training ground before going or attempting to go pro.

I see this as just another example of NCAA, USRTA (R for recreation) ITF, all doing whatever they can to destroy USA tennis.

Not taboo, its a real issue. I think for most fans, there is no interest in watching mid-major colleges playing with all Internationals. So your right.

I am on both sides of this: I love to see really good players go at it, no matter the country. But the matches I saw on TV were 50 ball rallies between a Russian girl and a girl from Latvia. Why bother, they weren't very good (again how is there no player locally to compete), and the match was anti climatic and cut into the more intriguing match of GSU and S. Alabama. Even for a big tennis fan like me I couldn't watch it. And, to top it off, the schools, located in Alabama and Louisiana, had only 2 US players between them and 1 from either state. How does that happen? I don't blame the coaches, there are no recruitable players from Alabama or Louisiana. The few that are good (which is 1 or 2) go to bigger D-1, the rest can't compete. How does a country like Latvia (population 2 million) produce a moon ball player who is better then anyone the State of Alabama can produce (population 5 million)? I don't get it. Shows how horrible and costly our Jr tennis is in the US. Parents are smart, they push their kids into other sports. Easier, cheaper, and more supported. Tennis is popular and kids like to play, but it ends there....

....and we see the results in the college game in that US public schools, paid for by US taxpayers, are giving scholarships, based on Title IX, to female athletes from other countries. Not sure I am in agreement with that.

Also consider that things like No-Ad have been forced on college tennis in order to Market it....but no thought is put into the core reason people, fans, or broadcasters don't want to: no one to root for, no story. ESPN is going through the motions here, and trying to make and effort, but the problem runs much deeper.

I am happy for the players, and I have nothing against International players, in fact, I really enjoy watching many of them. Just think our Jr system is an absolute disaster that it can't compete with the talent level.

 

[Nacho]

Having recently gone through recruiting, I would say that most D1 teams have 40-50% US players on the roster, but usually only two play singles, and the Americans playing in the bottom half of the Power 5 or ranked lineups are getting 0 to 20% scholarships. As it has been stated on these boards before, the best US athletes are going to choose the sports they see on TV, can play at a high level and be recruited at their high school, and the ones with a higher possibility of a living wage playing the sport after college.. The low scholarship $ for boys doesn't help either. Tennis attracts mostly players from upper middle class families. Maybe they are not as "hungry" as some of the internationals. The future of US juniors in college tennis may be the top 25 of each class playing at Power 5 schools and the rest using tennis as a means to get admitted to top D3 schools. For those who are not super smart, they may be relegated to Tennis on Campus at their state flagship. Currently even a lot of 5 stars are choosing D3s. There are still good scholarship packages for the better 4 stars and 5 stars at some of the mid majors, but I think the percentage of US players actually playing in the lineup is declining every year.

Now conferences like the Sunbelt do try to recruit Americans but they are trying to recruit the same players as the Power schools are recruiting for the bottom of their lineups. At least the Power 5 schools send their coaches to the top US national tournaments like Kzoo. I think only one Sunbelt coach went to Nat Clays last year and none to Kzoo. It sends a message to US junior players when coaches dont attend the top US national tournaments. Most D1 teams end up recruiting internationals and filling in their roster with inexpensive in state 4 star players. I doubt if any player that is not in the top 150 in the nation is getting recruited at any D1 school with some scholarship $. You will not find many US recruits looking to play for schools like South Alabama; most US juniors hope to play for their flagship state university or a selective school. They will choose colleges in cities rather than those in small towns unless the state flagship is in a small town. The lack of US players on rosters is mainly due to coaches assuming that international players are better than all but the 25 top Americans, but the junior players contribute to the problem by being picky and noncommital. International players are easier to recruit because if a coach shows them the money, they will come. US players are looking for the right fit and that takes more time and effort on the part of the coach.

You ask the question why is the US system not developing 1 stars into 4 and 5 stars. The problem is worse than that. To play at the bottom of a Power 5, players really need to be 13+ which is about the top 50-75 in each class but playing the bottom of a Power 5 is a 20% or less scholarship. To play at a midlevel midmajor, a player probably needs to be a UTR 12 now, possibly 11.5 might get a spot and redshirt freshman year. Too many juniors are not at that level in spite of years of training.

USTA has watered down tennis by increasing draws at the sectional level. To get the ranking to play the top USTA national tournaments, players have to play a lot of lengthy sectional tourneys. There are just too many hoops to jump through.The players who are rated 12-13+ waste time and money (hotels) in the early rounds. There are plenty of European players 13+, 14+, and in the European system there is more cross play between juniors and adults. If we want more US players to be competitive with international players, there needs to be more local opportunities for the junior UTR 12.5-13+s to play older college UTR 13+ and pro UTR 14+s. Some top juniors play international junior ITFs or US Futures Qualifiers but they are likely to lose early in the future Qualis. Junior ITFs unlike USTA have qualifiers so most matches in the main draw are competitive. However that is an expensive route to get good competition and players have to be homeschooled. There is only one grass court ITF in the summer in the US-should be more to give players who attend school a chance to play; they would have to get through qualifier, but if they are talented, they could make into main draw and win matches.

New local/regional UTR tournaments may be the answer to provide affordable high level competition. There is a new staggered entry UTR tournament with a $5000 purse in Maryland this summer https://blog.universaltennis.com/2017/04/19/utr-national-open-clay-court-championships-coming/ If more staggered entry prize money tournaments like this one become popular, maybe US juniors will get the crossplay with other collegians and young pros that they need to be more competitive with internationals. The ITA summer circuit tourneys were supposed to promote college/junior crossplay, but they do not tend to draw the better college players. College players either play Futures or prize $ opens during the summer.

I think a mix of US players and internationals is appropriate for college teams. Many juniors train with internationals now who have come to the US to train. However, there needs to be more of a balance or college tennis could hit a tipping point where only a handful of US players are recruited, and tennis is dropped at schools outside the Power 5 and D3. It also hurts US juniors that they are recruited early -from spring of their junior year to fall of their senior and they are being compared to international players who often are not recruited until late in their senior year or even in the summer for a January start. Due to timing, their results may reflect an extra year of experience and a higher rating. Some may be a year older anyway due to a gap year. I dont believe in quotas but I do believe many coaches prefer internationals when there might be equally talented US players available. I think the bulk of the scholarship $ goes to the international players. Many top US players will continue to choose D3 because if they are offered very small scholarships to play 30+ hours tennis at D1, they may discover it is cheaper and more major-friendly to play top D3 with need or merit aid. US D1 coaches want really cheap US players to play #4-8; more US juniors and their families are deciding they have better options at D3 or some midmajors.

I think we are saying the same things here....But my focus really isn't on college, college tennis is reflective of the end result. Just not sure anyone can sit back and think that in a state like Alabama, they can only produce 2 D-1 college players a year, and maybe 2-3 others that play at different levels, and thats it. And then feel they set up and function of Jr tennis is successful enough to supply schools with an adequate amount of opportunities for players.

67% of US teams are filled with Internationals, that was the last statistic I saw.

Average team has 4 scholarships, some have less or none, some women's teams have 8 scholarships.

Yes, most of those scholarships go to Internationals....But I don't blame the coaches for going that route, there just aren't enough players.

Its probably going to get worse before it gets better with more teams cut. There is too much focus on the college game (with abbreviated scoring, format changes, and less tournaments) to generate interest. Too much focus on the marketing of the sport. There needs to be a grassroots level concentration on Jr tennis opportunities in order to get people into tennis. People will watch if there is a product to watch. If I knew there were two girls, rivals from high school, moon balling each other for 50 ball rallies in order to go to the NCAA's, it would be a lot more interesting to me then watching two girls from Russia and Latvia whom I never have heard of, have no attachment too, and have no story worth interest relative to Jr American tennis.

And on another note, really drives me nuts to hear of schools ripping apart their football locker rooms to build $10,000/locker complexes with videos showing highlights of each player in each locker, rather then upgrading other sports or supporting other scholarships. Such a waste of money out there, and a lack of responsibility towards bettering the student athlete. I get that some sports generate revenue, but they also cost a lot, and create an arms race for schools and the student athlete. Such a problem in sports right now....

 

[tennisdad99]

My son had full ride academic scholarships to a Sun Belt and a Southland Conference school (one program with mostly internationals and one with all internationals) . The coaches wouldn't even look at him for consideration as a walk-on. He ended up getting several D-I athletic scholarship offers from private school programs(with mostly American players). I don't think that some of the coaches at these "international heavy" programs want to take the chance of their international players getting pushed for their spot. "We've made commitments" is the kind of language that was used as reasoning. So the kid whose parent's taxes support these public schools can't even get look at a walk-on opportunity. That's what's wrong with college tennis in the USA.

 

[Nacho]

My son had full ride academic scholarships to a Sun Belt and a Southland Conference school (one program with mostly internationals and one with all internationals) . The coaches wouldn't even look at him for consideration as a walk-on. He ended up getting several D-I athletic scholarship offers from private school programs(with mostly American players). I don't think that some of the coaches at these "international heavy" programs want to take the chance of their international players getting pushed for their spot. "We've made commitments" is the kind of language that was used as reasoning. So the kid whose parent's taxes support these public schools can't even get look at a walk-on opportunity. That's what's wrong with college tennis in the USA.

Many coaches have contacts, and possibly even contracts with agencies in Europe that help them find candidates, so pushing out any prospects can be bad for business. But, regardless I don't know if I blame them. The experience can be bad, but so is losing with a bunch of one star candidates. The real problem masked in all this is good players drop out of tennis, and there is a severe lack of players for the programs, so they have to go the International route. Major problems with Jr. Tennis right now, and it reflects in college.

 

[tennisdad99]

Many coaches have contacts, and possibly even contracts with agencies in Europe that help them find candidates, so pushing out any prospects can be bad for business. But, regardless I don't know if I blame them. The experience can be bad, but so is losing with a bunch of one star candidates. The real problem masked in all this is good players drop out of tennis, and there is a severe lack of players for the programs, so they have to go the International route. Major problems with Jr. Tennis right now, and it reflects in college.

This is exactly the case as to the international players having agencies to place them. When these agencies get involved you have to look at what kind of "kick back" they are giving these coaches to take them. I don't think that winning and losing is the whole reason, because these teams are content to lose with these players every year.

 

[Nacho]

This is exactly the case as to the international players having agencies to place them. When these agencies get involved you have to look at what kind of "kick back" they are giving these coaches to take them. I don't think that winning and losing is the whole reason, because these teams are content to lose with these players every year.

Yes, some mid major programs out there have a bunch of Internationals and never win. Might as well give those opportunities to local players if possible? It's unfortunately an arms race. But, there are a few schools that have limited resources and actually do a great job of recruiting US kids. So, win or Lose, they are sticking a good balance and work to get good kids in. The Southern Conference is a good study of this, especially on the Women's side. It is a conference with some teams having a ton of resources and others having none. Some recruiting American players and giving them the opportunity to compete, and others recruiting all International. I think I have more respect for the coaches who can make some results happen with limited resources and recruiting USA kids, then the coach who just goes all International and wins.

I read in the recent Tennis Magazine an article promoting the USTA efforts with Jr's (10 and under basically), and the introduction of the game. I don't think this is a problem, its keeping them engaged at 14/15 when a small few make it out and the others drop out because they can't afford it. You probably hit this point with your son, and I am sure it was tough. Its too expensive, and too much time rather then putting their kids into other more locally centralized sports. USTA is putting a lot of effort into a system of development, but they need to let this be handled by coaches locally and put money into providing playing opportunities and events closer to home, at least my take.

 

[jcgatennismom]

USTA thinks that increasing opportunities will automatically improve tennis-throw more kids at a sport, and the percentage odds are that a few more top young athletes will take up the sport. USTA bases a lot of its national point system on sectional tournaments-each section gets 6 with national points, regardless of whether the draws for those tournaments are 32 or 128+. USTA increased national tournaments this year-to some degree that is good because the #30 kid competing in California who only plays tough tourneys in state may have less national points than the #3 kid in Missouri or Kansas who loses badly playing at national level 3s. This year USTA added 5 national 3s (only had one at Notre Dame last year) and increased the draws at several national 2s from 32 to 64. Tomorrow registration ends for the May National 2 and most still have 20+ openings-anyone can get in.with double the draw size. USTA used to schedule the tournaments over Memorial Day but moved them back a week so they conflict with finals, end of school, playoffs, etc. There are UTR 13+ players signed up as well as guys ranked UTR 8-they would only qualify to play dubs on local high school teams but USTA will have them play Nat 2s unless there are rush of signups tonight. The 32 draw February Nat 2s were competitive with a much narrower range, 11.5ish to 13ish. USTA in its attempt to increase participation is weakening the upper levels. Why should a player who has never played or never won a match at national 4s get to play in a National 2? I sure hope college coaches dont stop over to watch. If they see some UTR 8s and 10s play and think that is the cream of US tennis they will rush to sign more internationals.

The higher ranked kids get tired of playing meaningless early rounds, missing school, paying expensive hotel bills, etc. Some seniors quit playing as soon as they sign their NLI. Maybe the coach did not give them much of a scholarship, so they dont want to spend $ on tourneys that they have to spend on tuition. The coaches get what they pay for. If they provide small or no scholarships to the Americans, those players wont have the resources to play and train to be ready for the college season. The ITF route is a much better route than USTA with two big caveats-it is expensive as players have to play overseas as there are limited ITFs in the US and players cant attend regular school. With the ITFs, the players who have not played before can play the Qualifer and if they really are talented, they make it to the main draw. The players who already have proved themselves start in the main draw.

There are a few D1 coaches who do have an American first mentality-try to find Americans at the level they need (e.g. 4 star +, not 1stars) and if the 4 stars are not interested, they go international. Some coaches with almost a completely international roster would like more Americans, but again they are not going to look any lower than almost 4 stars on an upward trend. I heard that from a teaching pro who used to be a D1 assistant. The game keeps getting more competitive.

As far as the coaches who just rely on a pipeline, those coaches are either lazy, understaffed, not interested in development, or some of all of the above. I dont think most parents would want their players to play for a coach like that. There are still plenty of coaches with motivation and vision. They may recruit a mix, may not look for Americans first but will respond to and watch Americans with the appropriate rankings who write them. Recruiting an American may take more than a year. Recruiting an international may be watching a video, asking a few questions to an agency rep, and then making an offer.

Many public colleges will give roster spots to in state students if not $. If a player is a late bloomer and his tennis takes off in college, that player may make it into the lineup. Only 20% who dont make the lineup as freshmen, make it later. Those coaches may drop those walk ons if they dont produce or tell them not to bother to come to practice. I know a couple midlevel midmajor D1 universities who have some Americans on the team that played some tournaments (3star/4 star border) but who mainly played for top state high school teams. Those guys maybe got a chance or two to play dubs or line 6 this spring. One of the players will probably get to play in the lineup next year as his team had many seniors. So to tennisdad99, not all public universities turn their noses up at the 3 star in state kids. However, your son was smart to take the mix of athletic and merit $ to attend a school where he will make the lineup and get a good education.

 

[Nacho]

USTA thinks that increasing opportunities will automatically improve tennis-throw more kids at a sport, and the percentage odds are that a few more top young athletes will take up the sport. USTA bases a lot of its national point system on sectional tournaments-each section gets 6 with national points, regardless of whether the draws for those tournaments are 32 or 128+. USTA increased national tournaments this year-to some degree that is good because the #30 kid competing in California who only plays tough tourneys in state may have less national points than the #3 kid in Missouri or Kansas who loses badly playing at national level 3s. This year USTA added 5 national 3s (only had one at Notre Dame last year) and increased the draws at several national 2s from 32 to 64. Tomorrow registration ends for the May National 2 and most still have 20+ openings-anyone can get in.with double the draw size. USTA used to schedule the tournaments over Memorial Day but moved them back a week so they conflict with finals, end of school, playoffs, etc. There are UTR 13+ players signed up as well as guys ranked UTR 8-they would only qualify to play dubs on local high school teams but USTA will have them play Nat 2s unless there are rush of signups tonight. The 32 draw February Nat 2s were competitive with a much narrower range, 11.5ish to 13ish. USTA in its attempt to increase participation is weakening the upper levels. Why should a player who has never played or never won a match at national 4s get to play in a National 2? I sure hope college coaches dont stop over to watch. If they see some UTR 8s and 10s play and think that is the cream of US tennis they will rush to sign more internationals.

The higher ranked kids get tired of playing meaningless early rounds, missing school, paying expensive hotel bills, etc. Some seniors quit playing as soon as they sign their NLI. Maybe the coach did not give them much of a scholarship, so they dont want to spend $ on tourneys that they have to spend on tuition. The coaches get what they pay for. If they provide small or no scholarships to the Americans, those players wont have the resources to play and train to be ready for the college season. The ITF route is a much better route than USTA with two big caveats-it is expensive as players have to play overseas as there are limited ITFs in the US and players cant attend regular school. With the ITFs, the players who have not played before can play the Qualifer and if they really are talented, they make it to the main draw. The players who already have proved themselves start in the main draw.

There are a few D1 coaches who do have an American first mentality-try to find Americans at the level they need (e.g. 4 star +, not 1stars) and if the 4 stars are not interested, they go international. Some coaches with almost a completely international roster would like more Americans, but again they are not going to look any lower than almost 4 stars on an upward trend. I heard that from a teaching pro who used to be a D1 assistant. The game keeps getting more competitive.

As far as the coaches who just rely on a pipeline, those coaches are either lazy, understaffed, not interested in development, or some of all of the above. I dont think most parents would want their players to play for a coach like that. There are still plenty of coaches with motivation and vision. They may recruit a mix, may not look for Americans first but will respond to and watch Americans with the appropriate rankings who write them. Recruiting an American may take more than a year. Recruiting an international may be watching a video, asking a few questions to an agency rep, and then making an offer.

Many public colleges will give roster spots to in state students if not $. If a player is a late bloomer and his tennis takes off in college, that player may make it into the lineup. Only 20% who dont make the lineup as freshmen, make it later. Those coaches may drop those walk ons if they dont produce or tell them not to bother to come to practice. I know a couple midlevel midmajor D1 universities who have some Americans on the team that played some tournaments (3star/4 star border) but who mainly played for top state high school teams. Those guys maybe got a chance or two to play dubs or line 6 this spring. One of the players will probably get to play in the lineup next year as his team had many seniors. So to tennisdad99, not all public universities turn their noses up at the 3 star in state kids. However, your son was smart to take the mix of athletic and merit $ to attend a school where he will make the lineup and get a good education.

All sounds about right. When you are talking tournaments what age groups? Sounds like this is happening too late, kids have already stepped away from the game.

One "low hanging fruit" I think that is out there is HS tennis. Its very disorganized currently, and certainly HS's, if they even have a team, pay little attention to it except in a few states. But I think this venue is an opportunity to possibly provide players a different avenue then trying to decipher and pay for everything you described above (which was a lot!). if I'm a new parent to the game I would have no idea everything you described except that it sounded expensive; "so go play baseball Jr, instead of tennis". I was considering that if there was a HS "tournament" schedule, with invites and qualifiers, rankings of players and teams, and some coaching and development at that level, it could provide opportunities for players without having to cross states or even counties. I realize its not something good kids play these day, but its because there is no incentive to play....and it is poorly organized. I would put to paper a full idea but there isn't enough space on here. Do you agree, or is HS tennis a lost cause?

USTA is a service organization, its not the authority on tennis; just a monopoly on it. States like Texas have figured out the HS aspect to some degree with success and there are players coming from that state.

 

[jcgatennismom]

There are 4 and 5 star players playing on high school teams in CA, FL, SC, GA, OH, IL, etc. There are a handful of interstate tournaments-one in Pensacola, one in So Cal, and one in Chattanooga that attracts teams from the South, Florida, and the *******. There are D1 commits that played that tournament. Yes to save $ and missed school, players could play high school tennis if their state/region has it at a high level, play USTA large draw open tournaments in the summer, ITA Circuit and be recruited to D1. We know one player who only plays 4-6 USTA tournaments a year during the summer (vs most 4/5 stars play 20+), was a state HS individual tennis champ, played one of the top sectional tournament 128 draw+ as a nonseed and finished 3rd or 4th, finished 2nd in an ITA circuit in a close match vs a current Power 5 player and was recruited to that Power 5 team. So yes it can happen cheaply without a lot of school year tournament travel. Players must be selective in choosing tournaments and go deep in each one. Definitely the exception and not the rule. Now that gets a player on the roster-still does not mean he will get to play.

USTA has the largest draws at 16s/18s tournaments. Makes sense to have a 200+ draw at one site for Kzoo-the biggest national tournament that everyone who can get in attends (due to US Open, Future WCs). Does not make sense to expect 256 elite players to sign up for Nat 2 tournaments on a random weekend during the school year hosted at sites not near airports, a long drive from other sections, or outside tennis hubs. The May 18s nationals are in Florida Keys-almost everyone would have to fly except Boca and Bradenton kids, Missouri (???), Rome-close to Atlanta and brand new courts (same site as one hosting ACCs) but a long rental car drive for anyone flying into Hartsfield, and Pennsylvania-good choice for the *******/MidAtlantic/Eastern kids. The PA one is close to full, but these tournaments should be selective. 32 kids at each site would have attracted mostly higher level players-with a 64 draw, there will be some brutal first rounds.

 

[Nacho]

There are 4 and 5 star players playing on high school teams in CA, FL, SC, GA, OH, IL, etc. There are a handful of interstate tournaments-one in Pensacola, one in So Cal, and one in Chattanooga that attracts teams from the South, Florida, and the *******. There are D1 commits that played that tournament. Yes to save $ and missed school, players could play high school tennis if their state/region has it at a high level, play USTA large draw open tournaments in the summer, ITA Circuit and be recruited to D1. We know one player who only plays 4-6 USTA tournaments a year during the summer (vs most 4/5 stars play 20+), was a state HS individual tennis champ, played one of the top sectional tournament 128 draw+ as a nonseed and finished 3rd or 4th, finished 2nd in an ITA circuit in a close match vs a current Power 5 player and was recruited to that Power 5 team. So yes it can happen cheaply without a lot of school year tournament travel. Players must be selective in choosing tournaments and go deep in each one. Definitely the exception and not the rule. Now that gets a player on the roster-still does not mean he will get to play.

USTA has the largest draws at 16s/18s tournaments. Makes sense to have a 200+ draw at one site for Kzoo-the biggest national tournament that everyone who can get in attends (due to US Open, Future WCs). Does not make sense to expect 256 elite players to sign up for Nat 2 tournaments on a random weekend during the school year hosted at sites not near airports, a long drive from other sections, or outside tennis hubs. The May 18s nationals are in Florida Keys-almost everyone would have to fly except Boca and Bradenton kids, Missouri (???), Rome-close to Atlanta and brand new courts (same site as one hosting ACCs) but a long rental car drive for anyone flying into Hartsfield, and Pennsylvania-good choice for the *******/MidAtlantic/Eastern kids. The PA one is close to full, but these tournaments should be selective. 32 kids at each site would have attracted mostly higher level players-with a 64 draw, there will be some brutal first rounds.

Sounds like the one player your referring too has some Savvy parents who understand how to get around the system without going broke....Its just too hard I think. And traveling all over to get decent competition just isn't happening. Its really something someone needs to drive, I just don't think the USTA is going to. Jr tournaments are like the wild west meets the city. Just aren't coordinated real well and they are forced to fit in a certain mold. I think people are too dependent on the USTA....maybe something else needs to determine the right process for evaluation. No reason for the lack of talent. They are touting a few youngsters right now, but it is only a few....comparatively to other countries, we were passed long ago and are way behind.

A guy I work with, his son loved tennis, picked it up at age 12 and became really good. But he just didn't want to pay for the lessons or drive him around to tournaments outside the city, too expensive....And, he wasn't a tennis player himself he liked football, so he pushed him into playing football. His son wanted to play tennis, but dropped out of tennis at age 16 even though he had promise. Too expensive and time consuming for the parent....and difficult to understand verses football practice and Friday night games. It frustrated me to watch...Tennis isn't convenient to grow in, and expensive (too much equipment, too much for lessons, too much to go play tournaments). Plus, I think people have a hard time with losing on their own. You lose in tournaments more then you win, its tough to swallow for a generation built on giving their kids awards....but its truly the beautiful thing about the sport, the learning and passion piece....its why I hate no-ad so much.

 

[ClarkC]

As far as the coaches who just rely on a pipeline, those coaches are either lazy, understaffed, not interested in development, or some of all of the above.

Going to American tournaments requires a recruiting budget. When you get beyond the really good tennis programs, e.g. when you get down to a mid-major program, there might be almost no recruiting budget. I don't think that qualifies as laziness. Tennis is not a budget priority at many colleges.

 

[OZ88]

For the sake of discussion, I have to admit I do college placement where most of my clients are internationals. College Coaches will recruit the best player possible regardless of nationality. Obviously that they will go for the American close by first, but what can they do if they do not show interest? International students in most cases (unless they work with someone as myself) will go to a school that if he/she was an American will not go to. Coaches from Low-tier schools will recruit easily international students that if had someone guiding them will not choose to go there. CPOA, NCSA, AGM and those recruiting companies have a lot of expenses; therefore, do not care as much for their clients and rather they go to a school faster to work less.

 

[jcgatennismom]

For the sake of discussion, I have to admit I do college placement where most of my clients are internationals. College Coaches will recruit the best player possible regardless of nationality. Obviously that they will go for the American close by first, but what can they do if they do not show interest? International students in most cases (unless they work with someone as myself) will go to a school that if he/she was an American will not go to. Coaches from Low-tier schools will recruit easily international students that if had someone guiding them will not choose to go there. CPOA, NCSA, AGM and those recruiting companies have a lot of expenses; therefore, do not care as much for their clients and rather they go to a school faster to work less.

OZ88 I think you were the poster that posted a link to a UTR chart with scholarship %s last summer or fall. I think you also run showcases in Florida; glad you try to find the right fit for your attendees, not just the first offer. Let me ask you this question, if an American and an international player have the same UTR, is the international player still likely to get 2-3x the scholarship? The reason I ask is because I looked at your UTR chart last summer and the American players we know who were ranked around 12.5 were only getting offered 5-20% last fall from D1 schools ranked 25-75 while your chart shows that an international player would expect to get 50-60%. Even if merit was counted in, the best we heard was 20% athletic and 30% merit-that is why so many US players #40-100 for their class year are choosing D3 or midmajor. I assume your chart will change this year. It seems like all the college player rankings across the board have gone up .5-.75. It appears that the only way US juniors can keep up in the UTR rankings is to mix in some ITFs or Future Qualis which is hard if they go to regular school and/or dont live in Florida. Glad there are the Dec showcases in Florida and the summer showcases in Florida and the NE; my son never attended any showcases as he played Kzoo, but in retrospect, attending a showcase would have been cheaper than playing all the tourneys to get into Kzoo.

 

[OZ88]

OZ88 I think you were the poster that posted a link to a UTR chart with scholarship %s last summer or fall. I think you also run showcases in Florida; glad you try to find the right fit for your attendees, not just the first offer. Let me ask you this question, if an American and an international player have the same UTR, is the international player still likely to get 2-3x the scholarship? The reason I ask is because I looked at your UTR chart last summer and the American players we know who were ranked around 12.5 were only getting offered 5-20% last fall from D1 schools ranked 25-75 while your chart shows that an international player would expect to get 50-60%. Even if merit was counted in, the best we heard was 20% athletic and 30% merit-that is why so many US players #40-100 for their class year are choosing D3 or midmajor. I assume your chart will change this year. It seems like all the college player rankings across the board have gone up .5-.75. It appears that the only way US juniors can keep up in the UTR rankings is to mix in some ITFs or Future Qualis which is hard if they go to regular school and/or dont live in Florida. Glad there are the Dec showcases in Florida and the summer showcases in Florida and the NE; my son never attended any showcases as he played Kzoo, but in retrospect, attending a showcase would have been cheaper than playing all the tourneys to get into Kzoo.

Correct. I did posted that. The reality is that my table was based not just on internationals but on my past experiences with clients. I will assume that since I have experience and have worked on this in the past, my clients tend to get a higher scholarship since we help clients negotiate a lot (by NCAA bylaws we are not supposed to do so ourselves). Also, in most cases internationals give us a clear budget to work with and we play around that as one of the first filters. About your question, for whether internationals or Americans will get more scholarship if they have the same utr, i think some coaches just try to save money with Americans. Since they know a lot of them may come from good families (either by reference from coaches or simply by doing some research on the family) they will try to save the buck on them. Is up to the family to know the worth of their student-athlete and that's why using past references may have their worth or working alongside a reputable company to advise you just as you would in any other negotiation. To give you an example this year, I had a female itf 300 client with a 9.9 utr and her family had resources to pay for cost of attendance on every team. Her brother had walked on a D1 team and the women's coach was very much aware that they did not need the scholarship and only offered her a walk on spot. When I got involved, i told her that even if she didnt need it, she was worth it and she would need to be offered to be part of the team. The family trusted me and are now saving a cool 65k a year. Coaches are tennis people but at th same time need to budget a team and will low ball most people. Is just part of the business. About Showcases, I like them (may be biased) but always stress attendees to do research, making sure their desired school is gonna be part either by asking the organizer, we actually give you access to the coaches info a couple of months ahead as they sign up after they pay us a registration fee in a personalized dashboard, or just by asking them. People also confuse camps with showcases. At camps coaches are paid to be there and will not do much or none recruiting. Lastly, at showcases you need to be realistic. Just because Harvard is at an event that doesn't mean they will look at you if you have a 10 utr. Be realistic is very important.

 

[jcgatennismom]

i think some coaches just try to save money with Americans. Since they know a lot of them may come from good families (either by reference from coaches or simply by doing some research on the family) they will try to save the buck on them. Is up to the family to know the worth of their student-athlete Coaches are tennis people but at th same time need to budget a team and will low ball most people. Is just part of the business. .

I think part of it is timing too. A US player and a coach may have talked for a year, the coach wants the player, the player likes the coach and team, but it's a young team, and no one in the line up is graduating-there just isnt going to be much $. International students and agencies are upfront about the $ or % needed. US players are afraid to bring up $ early in the process; then they find out 9 months or a year later when the offer comes, the school is too expensive with the aid offered or they get much better offers elsewhere and cant justify paying 2-3x more to attend that school even though the first school might be higher ranked tennis wise, academic wise or both. Sometimes the US guys who take lowball offers stop playing tournaments-know of guys who got an offer in the fall and the last tournament they played before summer was in October. Most coaches of ranked teams can even find some 4 star to walk on for free.