Spectator I agree there are definitely conferences and programs to choose if you have aspirations of using college tennis as a stepping stone to the pro tour, realistically a significant proportion of even the blue chip indigenous players will still be some way off and I see the Ivy League guys and girls to have a slightly different plan A so not so relevant as the professional sporting powerhouses of the SEC, PAC 12 , ACC and perhaps Big 10.

The best overseas players really fill things out and there is a handful of very highly ranked junior ITF players 15-40 going who will impact college tennis nationally as Freshman (the on the cusp cohort). This group will undoubtedly have a crack at going pro and as mentioned earlier are already capable of winning futures events while in college. This is where Cam sits as does Emily starting 2016.

Looking at the present cohort of players entering or entered college tennis in 2016, realistically 2/16 boys and 3/17 girls are admitted to programmes that given their recent history would give them an opportunity to play consistently strong opposition, practice with high quality team mates and significantly grow their game. i.e. gain added value. If they can become one of the top 15-20 college players in the US this will facilitate a full time go on the main tour with a realistic expectation of decent ITF progress.

Lloyd managed this and has done superbly well to progress as he has, I think he may have missed some junior tennis at 16-18 through injury and perhaps entered college tennis a little under ranked with more potential for development than most. That is where I think there is definitely added value and the potential to make a living on tour. I think you still have to have the potential to have been an on the cusp player. In that respect it was such a shame for Evan H that he missed the opportunity because of the NCAA regulations as he may have had even more to gain.

Yes, there are plenty of coaches with good reputations outside the 'Power 5' whose players leave them playing significantly better than they arrived.  And whilst there is always the exception to prove the rule, most of those players will not transition into professional tennis.  Outside of the big leagues what the coaches cannot provide is really tough competition, week in week out.  There are opportunities to come up against the big guns in regionals, nationals, kick-off weekend etc but during the main conference season (when you are only really playing other members of your own conference), teams in the SEC, PAC12 and ACC will be competing all the time at a level well above the rest.  There are also a couple of conferences with one or two really strong teams who always win their conference by a country mile.  Players on those teams will certainly get good internal competition against their team-mates, if not tough external matches.  I guess it's horses for courses....a player really does need to be tough in the top conferences and maybe that is the ingredient that helps them transition into the pros better than the others.

Also added Georgia L and Edward C to the list on P1.

Well aware there is a whole industry geared around getting scholarships for young athletes to US universities.  Tennis Smart and Stars and Stripes between them handle more Brits aiming at tennis than other companies which is why they are mentioned rather than others on here.  Also I am aware that they both have a good reputation.  Others may as well but I do not know one way or the other so wouldn't want to post anything that might lead a reader into the arms of a shark (and some of these outfits peddle unrealistic dreams for a high fee - not of course suggesting your own recommendation falls into this category).  Have heard plenty about others planning to go but, as explained in an earlier post, I don't want to accidentally sabotage a younster's scholarship negotiations by jumping the gun so I wait until I have seen it announced somewhere publicly.

Sorry to interrupt. Sometimes I read this thread but I lack the context to understand it from a professional tennis perspective. Please could someone give me an indication of how highly Sam Murray and Ed Corrie were ranked in the US College system when they played ? Put another way, how high do you have to be ranked to have a reasonable chance of competing for a place in the top 300 or so at ATP or WTA level, within say 2 or 3 years of leaving College ?

MaryPoppins471 wrote:

---

Then maybe it would only be fair for you to do some investigating into TSUSA, one thing I was told by a friend that using them at the moment is that they are anything but A SHARK , apparently they visit every potential players personally , the only company to be side by side with the players right through their college years with no extra charge if have to transfer and also they don't limit the amount of time they communicate with a college basing on what packet a player takes out but also don't think Nottingham Tennis Centre would be signing them up if they come under Shark catagory 

---

 If you read my post again you will see I specifically do not suggest your recommendation is a shark, merely point out that there are some in the industry and thus I cannot recommend any that I have no knowledge of.  But feel free to tell us of your experience of them.

kundalini wrote:

---

Sorry to interrupt. Sometimes I read this thread but I lack the context to understand it from a professional tennis perspective. Please could someone give me an indication of how highly Sam Murray and Ed Corrie were ranked in the US College system when they played ? Put another way, how high do you have to be ranked to have a reasonable chance of competing for a place in the top 300 or so at ATP or WTA level, within say 2 or 3 years of leaving College ?

---

 Quite hard to track down their highest rankings whilst in college but Sam M finished her career ranked 36, Lloyd G 29 and Ed C 42