US College Signings 2016 (and general college tennis chat)

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

RE: US College Signings 2016 (and general college tennis chat)

Kenneth · Lower Club Player

The Optimist wrote:
Added Jasmine A to the list on P1

Don't know anything about NJCAA, Is the choice of school probably to do with eligibility/education?

Spectator · All-time great

As I was listening to the swimming results, it seemed as if every US woman swimmer was at Stanford. So I went through and checked (there is, it turns out, a Stanford in Rio page). And lo and behold, if all the team members wore all their medals to the first practice, there would be 8 golds, 5 silvers, and a bronze. Ms Arbuthnott will have plenty of company as an elite athlete!

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Kenneth wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Added Jasmine A to the list on P1
Don't know anything about NJCAA, Is the choice of school probably to do with eligibility/education?

It's junior college. Two years and done. Far less rigorous academic entry requirements than Div 1. Graduates from junior college can transfer into Div 1 for their final 2 years. Jasmine certainty won't have met the Div 1 requirements as a freshman. In tennis terms Tyler is one of the best junior colleges and their graduates rarely struggle to find a good place for their last 2 years.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Stanford generally functions at the level of a medium to large sized European country at the Olympics.

But that's nothing, and most will be quickly forgotten (until their off spring turn up on campus!) they should all be thankful to Stanford's best athletes who aren't Olympians although the likes of Andrew Luck, Zac Ertz, Andrus Peat, David Decastro, Ty Montgomery, Coby Fleener, Ed Reynolds , Richard (the mouth) Sherman, Ryan Whalen etc... all played 4 years for nothing generating enormous revenues to pay for the other programs. The names mentioned are some of the lucky ones ( about half) you can watch on any given Sunday from September through to February.

Please keep an eye out for Christain McCafferry back for his fourth year, why? Because it's Stanford stupid! after being the associated press college player of the year last year. He looks fairly average 6ft 90kg, He has a fairly boring Stanford football parents, Dad played in the NFL, mum captained the soccer team, grandad ah now it gets interesting! won the silver medal at the Rome Olympics, held the WR for the 100yds and 220 yds anchored the U.S. Team to gold in the relay but then got disqualified and carried out a CIA mission on the side trying to get a soviet long jumper to defect. He was selected in the first round of the NFL draft but chose medical school instead! He according to wiki then pioneered intra ocular lens transplantation (well not really a chap called Harold Ridley popped one in at St Thomas' in 1950) but I am sure he did his bit as his family was all about walking the walk not necessarily talking the talk.

As stated Emily has done fantastically well to get in for many reasons and I could not be more excited for her. Indeed she like Cam at TCU is now entering one of a few college programs that may prepare her for, a good stab at the WTA.

It does continue to frustrate me a little that College tennis is held up as a way into the main tour, and by that I mean a top 150 player able to make a semblance of a living. It may be but there are only a few programs equipped to do this, obviously TCU has for good reason had excellent feedback on this site and Stanford on the ladies side is fit for purpose.

I do feel US college tennis generically has limitations in this respect as the standard week in week out is variable as is the depth on each team. It is unrealistic (although not impossible) to expect development to a level compatible with progress to the challenger let alone main tour unless the player is a highly ranked ITF junior ( <30) at 18. Generally this is a good measure of the quality going in if the player is coming from the UK where our top juniors fully engage in the ITF junior tour.

I know other posters will refer to the rapid progress of Lloyd Glasspool who within 12 months is progressing on the Challenger tour, following great progress while at Texas. My impression is from the limited information is that Lloyd played relatively little ITF junior tennis, ? Injured, and was in sixth form in a mainstream comprehensive playing other sports, so an all round athlete which is different from playing loads of ITF tennis and just tennis, ie there is less potential to realise.

For those 30-100 ish it maybe a good relatively low cost way (now the LTA bonus scheme has been abruptly severely curtailed , which was particularly harsh for stronger players who had committed to futures that would have fallen into the super elite college programs eg. Johnny O'Mara ) of trying to keep the dream alive and indeed those in the top ITF junior top 250 will get very attractive scholarships and indeed be strong contributors to their programs while being able to test the waters of local futures tournaments, I suppose at least you go into futures at 22 with your eyes fully open, managed expectations and no student loan!

Let's face it 30,000 student athletes do something other than sport and have an absolutely amazing time at college.

Kenneth · Lower Club Player

Oakland, I sort of get everything you are saying and it all adds up. What I would say on that is that the college system gives those that are not chosen ones by the LTA or the super rich, the chance to train/play with minimal cost at the same time as studying. Lots of juniors waste their education years chasing ITF points that then mean what? Unless exceptional will any of our current juniors make a decent living? I doubt it but who knows. Maybe Katy Swan but then she's had talent (a lot of it), LTA backing and lots of cash!

College does all the things you say and it gives many the best shot at both options if they are good enough, if not then they've got a college education and had 4 years of great experience for life that lies ahead. Does someone who's ground it out on the ITF junior tour and then moved onto the lower reaches of the pro tour have that as well? Just a great experience and loads of debt and then maybe become a coach? (Which is still great but not that different really?)

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

"I do feel US college tennis generically has limitations in this respect as the standard week in week out is variable as is the depth on each team. It is unrealistic (although not impossible) to expect development to a level compatible with progress to the challenger let alone main tour unless the player is a highly ranked ITF junior ( <30) at 18. Generally this is a good measure of the quality going in if the player is coming from the UK where our top juniors fully engage in the ITF junior tour."

But the level of ITF tennis is very variable. And that's only one or two matches a week (about 4-5 hours per week). And there's no harm in having variable levels - many highly ranked French players play low level team tennis - it's a fallacy (particularly gone on about by British players) that you need to constantly play against better players in order to progress (even apart from the 'how would Djoko manage in that case?' argument...)

More importantly, the level that British ITF players have available to them when NOT playing 10ks (i.e. about 50% of the time) is not actually very variable but simply just really low. Jonny O'Mara has posted about how he can't find any playing partners. I was part of a conversation a while back where George Davies (aged about 20, ATP about 1600 or so) said he could not find people to play with, for love nor money.

US college tennis obviously runs the whole range of levels. And many are just using it as an enjoyable way to provide for fees - most of our players are on 100% of 85% scholarships. But what it provides all the way down - and what is NOT provided here in practically any shape or form - is free week-in week-out coaching, training, gym access, physio and medical care, playing partners, matches etc. etc. As well as a chance to mature as a person, and a player, under relatively little stress, in a sport where you can hit the ground running in your early 20s just as easily as 18.

Obviously not many will make it as top tennis players. But not many who don't go that route will make it as top tennis players either.

Kenneth · Lower Club Player

Coup Droit wrote:
"I do feel US college tennis generically has limitations in this respect as the standard week in week out is variable as is the depth on each team. It is unrealistic (although not impossible) to expect development to a level compatible with progress to the challenger let alone main tour unless the player is a highly ranked ITF junior ( <30) at 18. Generally this is a good measure of the quality going in if the player is coming from the UK where our top juniors fully engage in the ITF junior tour."

But the level of ITF tennis is very variable. And that's only one or two matches a week (about 4-5 hours per week). And there's no harm in having variable levels - many highly ranked French players play low level team tennis - it's a fallacy (particularly gone on about by British players) that you need to constantly play against better players in order to progress (even apart from the 'how would Djoko manage in that case?' argument...)

More importantly, the level that British ITF players have available to them when NOT playing 10ks (i.e. about 50% of the time) is not actually very variable but simply just really low. Jonny O'Mara has posted about how he can't find any playing partners. I was part of a conversation a while back where George Davies (aged about 20, ATP about 1600 or so) said he could not find people to play with, for love nor money.

US college tennis obviously runs the whole range of levels. And many are just using it as an enjoyable way to provide for fees - most of our players are on 100% of 85% scholarships. But what it provides all the way down - and what is NOT provided here in practically any shape or form - is free week-in week-out coaching, training, gym access, physio and medical care, playing partners, matches etc. etc. As well as a chance to mature as a person, and a player, under relatively little stress, in a sport where you can hit the ground running in your early 20s just as easily as 18.

Obviously not many will make it as top tennis players. But not many who don't go that route will make it as top tennis players either.

This

paulisi · Tennis legend

However, I would suggest that the depth is increasing on the women's side.

Very few female Brits have gone on to have a go on the pro circuit after US, but I'm guessing the numbers may increase given the abilities of some of the girls signed up for next year.
I'm expecting a few more GB girls to be high up the college rankings next year.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Kenneth, your point about college tennis being an opportunity to potential restablish an education in part lost chasing ITF points is a very good one.

CD on the ladies side the average top 20 college player (the best the college system can offer) at the start of their college career when I last looked would have a rank comparable with Elizabeth Maloney when she was just turned 15. i.e. Competitive at Grade 5 junior level making progress at grade 4. If the agenda is to be a top 150 player and I accept for many it is not and that is fine, one is going to have to be very selective as to which programme you choose. Stanford would be a good one, however 4 years in Fresno less so.

When looked about 6 months ago 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.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Friday 19th of August 2016 04:20:14 PM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

paulisi wrote:
However, I would suggest that the depth is increasing on the women's side.

Very few female Brits have gone on to have a go on the pro circuit after US, but I'm guessing the numbers may increase given the abilities of some of the girls signed up for next year.
I'm expecting a few more GB girls to be high up the college rankings next year.

Yes, I agree, it's an interesting point, paulisi - maybe we'll see more tennis interest coming out from our female players : Sam Murray is our only player of any real note at the moment. Of course, women players tend to mature and peak a little earlier so the college route is not quite so important to them in terms of filling in that gap.

But with quite a few top US girls going that way it will be interesting. And the great thing about the system is that obviously you can 'bank' your credits and use them towards your degree later - Cici Bellis may well not complete more than a year but she'll get her 180 credits (or however much she chooses to do) and get some of the benefits while she decides when is the optimal time for her to commit to the pro tennis tour fulltime.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Cici Bellis is an exception and doesn't represent a flood of elite girls into college tennis, she lives round the corner. She will do a Tiger or a McEnroe (John) quit after a year and then be much too successful to ever graduate. If she does 4 Yrs at Stanford I will eat my A's hat!!

Kenneth · Lower Club Player

Oakland2002 wrote:
Kenneth, your point about college tennis being an opportunity to potential restablish an education in part lost chasing ITF points is a very good one.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Friday 19th of August 2016 04:20:14 PM

Also those kids who never chased the ITF points by making the choice to study properly, or couldn't afford it as it's very expensive to do lots of ITF events so most that do are either LTA funded or rich. as nationals has shown this week there are a number of kids that are just as good who have a low ITF ranking as some of those who have travelled extensively. Who knows how good they really are just now, college gives them that chance as its fully funded.

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Kenneth wrote:
Oakland2002 wrote:
Kenneth, your point about college tennis being an opportunity to potential restablish an education in part lost chasing ITF points is a very good one.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Friday 19th of August 2016 04:20:14 PM
Also those kids who never chased the ITF points by making the choice to study properly, or couldn't afford it as it's very expensive to do lots of ITF events so most that do are either LTA funded or rich. as nationals has shown this week there are a number of kids that are just as good who have a low ITF ranking as some of those who have travelled extensively. Who knows how good they really are just now, college gives them that chance as its fully funded.

Great post Kenneth. Looking down the lists, the bulk of those going or currently at US uni have played tennis from an early age, competed regularly within the UK with the odd foray abroad and largely kept up their education. There is a a notable sub-category of those whose parents compromised their education at a young age, realised in their mid teens that a tennis career wasn't a given and who have gone back to school or worked like mad at distance learning to gain a college place. There are also several like Jasmine who realised too late that college was their best option and who have gone the junior college route. Emily Arbuthnott is quite simply in a group of one!

To judge how successful the Brits will be in college by using their ITF career high, is to miss the point about who goes and why. Playing a full ITF schedule is expensive and difficult for young Brits. First, it requires time out from school to travel. Given the current rules on missing school, this is rarely given in state schools (time out to play BTs is treated just the same). Private schools are much more accommodating. Generally, they treat things outside the main curriculum such as sport, music and drama as having some importance and also a high achieving athlete adds kudos to their school and helps attract new pupils. Secondly it is really expensive. It generally requires a flight somewhere (continentals can just hop in their cars) and an adult to accompany the player. The big academies often run trips in the school holidays with the cost of the coaches shared amongst the players, but to build up a decent ranking play during term time is essential. Then a family is faced with either paying for an individual coach or one of the parents taking time of work to go along.

So many of the young Brits who head to college (although clearly not all) are perfectly decent young players whose parents have been unable to give them much international exposure. They may well lag a bit behind their peers who have wealthy parents or those who were picked up at a young age by the LTA and given everything on a plate but in many cases they have plenty of potential to develop and see college as an affordable way to do so.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Agree.

And the problem is that the LTA's approach is completely close-ended and therefore a self-fulfilling prophecy.

i.e. if you're going to use Junior ITF rankings to assess whether players deserve funding or not, then all players have to have equal (-ish) access to ITF events.

Which, of course, for reasons given above, they don't.

So the LTA ends up detecting a few young players, giving them a lot of attention (trips, coaching etc.) which will, almost by definition, give them decent ITF rankings and so this will 'justify' the ongoing LTA support.

As said, it's no wonder that many youngsters will just do their tennis, 'on the cheap', out of the limelight, and then thank the stars for college tennis to give them the opportunity to chance their arm, take it a bit further, while enjoying themselves and maturing.

It should be noted that the French players do not just nip in their cars and go and play ITFs; they can't afford it either, in terms of time nor money.

But the point here is that the FFT basically do not use junior rankings. Federation support is based primarily on domestic ranking and performance at the Nationals: this is open to anyone.

(However, more and more young French players are also going down the US college route (not a huge number but significantly more that 10 years ago): there's a lot to be said for it).