I think you are overhyping the effectiveness of the college system with an enormous number of athletes coming into the system, 120ish NCAA div 1 football colleges, I don't know the number of elite tennis schools but the ACC, PAC 12, SEC, Sunbelt, Big 12 and mountain West colleges will all have decent tennis programmes, thats a lot of takent going in and relatively few fiscally viable players coming out.

My arguments are also around how the resources are generated and who benefits. i would back the LTA s approach in that college tennis is not sometyng they are in anyway accountable for or have control over. For UK players choosing the college route it should remain a choice for the player and their family and not be part of the LTAs plans, arguably the LTA stepping back in to support players that excelling and come out early perhaps should be considered.

US college tennis players are for the most part from decent backgrounds well educated but show relatively little cultural or ethnic diversity; getting into decent programmes is around intense development of young players in academies funded by their parents. A matching scheme with equality of diversity across football, basketball and tennis scholarship recruits would cause an instantaneous change for the better, a minor dip initially but the US would dominate tennis, increase its popularity widen its revenue streams and improve the product. Probably a whole different thread.

I dont think we can in anyway compare the resources the LTA have to fund the development of UK elite players with that of the USTA, their college system has nothing to do with tennis and is a spurious by product of the abuse of elite young athletes who choose to play college football in the hope they will get drafted to the NFL, (and to a lesser extent basketball where the truly elite are one and done) . They produce a fantastic spectacle of sport across the US every saturday generating crowds in stadia of upto 100K with 20 million watching them on primetime TV, for this, they get close to nothing when compared to the incomes of elite sportsmen between the ages of 18-23 generating similar audiences anywhere else in the world.

The best players are from poor backgrounds the majority peak in high school many more who would make a living if the system was even remotely equitably rewarded in college, their scholarships cost the institutions peanuts when considered at cost, even the cost to the best colleges where players get a worthwhile degree is neigible ($20K). Most college players are recruited from elite high quality schools programs in the south, Texas, Florida, California, Alabama and Loiusiana, the schools spend their sparse budgets on football not on books (look at Allen the present Div 6a Texas school champions and where they have spent the last $60 million that came their way) a lot of other children arguably have reduced educational opportunity. It is truely ferocious two kids died in the US this week playing high school football, admittedly many others had a great time and there is imense cultural value around other activities that are sandwiched into or top and tail the game but often the emphasis is wrong.

The present bulge in high quality US recruits is probably the reason Rybakov has chosen the college route, he is very close to the remainder of the group and has insight into the fact he is just behind them. In this respect the US college system is a fantastic opportunity for some individuals like Rybakov but whether the relative costs to others and the inequality of its major drivers are worth the ocassional top 20 player and 5-10 players making a decent living from tennis is questionable.

I also agree it has much less relevance to the ladies game and the money is still coming from the same source (which you could argue is a small change for the good)

A different view I know but one worth considering, in the UK elite athletes who generate an audience get rewarded and the LTAs approach a responsible one, the USTAs back up plan not so they could however improve things significantly by lobbying for equity of access through matching cultural diversity in the money making college sports with the less culturally diverse sports along for the ride.