We will have to agree to disagree, but on a warts and all analysis the system in Europe is much fairer than in the U.S. where the best college players legitimately drop in all over the place. All are underanked because of process and the opportunity to spend a couple of years practicing compliments of the ill gotten gains of their colleges.
I agree it's disappointing when a 16 year old trying to make their first steps gets wiped out in qualifying before they get started, but it is a very tough career and to be frank it is good to experience the ups and downs early, so if you do go for it you do so with your eyes open.
But I don't think that just because it's better than the US system, that makes it OK.
And I don't hold with the tough love argument of 'give people blips in life to toughen them up'.
If a pro-player who is top 300 or top 400 cannot enter on time (which is hardly tricky and you can always withdraw - so just enter and then take yourself out later if you change your mind), then too bad. There is a system. With deadlines. For a reason. A pro should be able to manage it according to the rules. Indeed, if you want to go with the 'it is a very tough career' argument and it's 'good to experience the ups and downs' then why shouldn't that apply to the pro? It's tough - so enter on time and get over it.
There is a difference between an underranked player in qualifying and a player who forgot to enter in time. Qualifying wildcards should only be issued to players on the acceptance list or who are currently ranked within the cut off for qualifying. The rules need looking at.