AI makes data accessible. Please acknowledge 1. What is the % of International players playing in the starting singles and doubles positions on the top fifty ranked men and women’s tennis American college tennis players : NCAA 1 and 11, NAIA, and JUCOS. 2. Assuming the starters get the lion’s share of scholarships, what is true % of tennis scholarships awarded to Americans?
Pete Janny
July 21, 2025
Kent also cited the foreign influence on college tennis, and he believes the financial stressors in 2025, like revenue sharing, may lead to an even larger proportion of international players on rosters. According to an NCAA report released in 2022, 61 percent of men’s tennis players and 66 percent of the women are from outside the United States, marking a large increase from the 38 percent and 50 percent, respectively, reported in 2006-07. The 2025 national championship-winning Wake Forest men and Georgia women both follow this trend; 63 percent of the Wake Forest men are internationals, along with 58 percent of the Georgia women.
August 5th, 1999 From TENNIS WORLD by Beth German:
“The NCAA is also to be blamed for not keeping tennis specific numbers. It is impossible to find out how many international players take roster spots, scholarships or Graduate from college.”
*****( COMMENT ON THESE “EXCERPTS”)
I support the Pete Janny article, adding this: He, as others in the past ( the USTA, ITA , etc), have cited the % of internationals on American college tennis rosters including all members of all rosters. Above it is 61% for men, 66% for women.
While acknowledging a significant increase, it doesn’t give a complete picture of the real situation.
Technology makes research easier. Embedded below is a “jackleg “ effort I made —studying the top college teams in 2025. Bottom line: All divisions (NCAA 1, 11, NAIA, JUCOS, men and women averaged about 90% of starters. And most probably “scholarshipped “ players. Only NCAA 111 (non- scholarship ) and NCAA 1 women were less than 90%.
Wake Forest featured 11 of 12 international singles and doubles participants . Georgia’s Women 10 of 12.
Admitting readily my amateur study is questionable, most of my coaching “veterans” concluded, “…that’s about right. “
For 50 plus years any allotment or quota that saved scholarships was dismissed by a lawsuit feared; a threat based on “ discrimination based on national origin. “ Ironically the current administration is taking a strikingly similar position on EDUCATION. Is higher education awarding too many of the best slots to brighter international students ?
How would the current judiciary rule on that? Just saying!
For the MISSING CHART click on the link below or MILESTONES https://littlegreenbookoftennis.com/2025/02/25/milestones/
Scroll to THE REST OF THE STORY, then on down to THE MISSING CHART.
It’s a system built on dreams, but powered by delusion.
(Copied from NATIONAL MEN’S TENNIS ASSOCIATION ( President’s letter, July 2025)
A follow-up idea stemming from yesterday’s post about the economic inequities between junior and senior tennis is a related micro-topic. It centers around the illusion of return on investment. The junior tennis ecosystem is largely fueled by a powerful fantasy. Parents (and sometimes even the players themselves) believe that with enough money, sacrifice, and hard work, tennis greatness and a lucrative professional career are within reach. Failing that, at least there is the potential of a college scholarship.
Junior tournaments are populated by families burning vacation days to stand on blistering hot sidelines, pouring resources into private lessons, national travel, custom stringing, fitness trainers, and sometimes even homeschool tutors. It adds up—quickly. And while few say it out loud, the intentions are clear. The hope of a future payoff. Framed that way, junior tennis isn’t an indulgence, but rather an investment.
The emergence of NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) deals has clouded the dynamic for college tennis. In marquee sports like football and basketball, NIL opportunities have turned collegiate athletics into quasi-professional ventures. However, for “minor” sports like tennis, it is starting to show the opposite effect. Athletic departments and third parties are directing resources toward programs that generate visibility and revenue. Meanwhile, tennis slips further into the background. The money is flowing, just not toward tennis. All that to say, players who earn college scholarships for tennis receive far less in financial remuneration than what was poured into their junior development.
If you watch “King Richard” or read Ben Rothenberg’s “Naomi Osaka: Her Journey to Finding Her Power and Her Voice,” you can see the same haunting story of staggering costs and financial strain that comes with chasing tennis greatness. In both stories, the results are extraordinary. However, the outcomes were more likely to be ruinous for all but the most statistically improbable outliers. For every Serena or Naomi, there are thousands of families who went all in, only to come up empty-handed. It’s a system built on dreams, but powered by delusion.
And yet… that delusion is part of what keeps the junior tennis engine running.
The first link is hot off the press from NIL /WIRE.
WHOA NELLY is a blog I wrote in October.
I asked ChatGPT to ” analyze, critique, summarize my total blog (www.tomparham.wordpress.com).” In less than a minute the link below popped up, followed quickly by several add-ons offered. Several personal reactions include:
3. In earlier writings I used the word POINT to describe the hit moment. Coach Jim Leighton advised that a pupil might misunderstand this terminology. Several of these references slipped by intended editing.
https://chatgpt.com/c/687a677d-cc00-800e-ad0b-b91574b6925f
“People get ready, there is a change coming. “
A fellow tennis coach recently made this comment about YouTube tennis instruction: “there is mostly junk out there. ”
Here is a suggestion for intermediate players and backhand overheads.
Classic instruction has tradtional advice much like this–
“…If you don’t like jelly there is always jam.
If you don’t like turkey there is always ham.
But there ain’t no substitute for love!” (JOE ROBINSON )
Two comments on the French Open:
To CoCo: Well done. You did it right. Most impressive to me was your emotional control.
2. The evolving tactics of the drop shot. Carlos used this several times—He showed preparation for a drop shot but at the last second hit a firm under spin elongated volley down the line. Effective!
Next move? How to defend against this new element? Best guess–To volley his shot crosscourt. You now have to caution against in too far, too quick. A fine line . He has upped the ante !
Watch tomorrow.
Charlie Owens convinced many of the virtues of the drop shot. Years ago! (See MAESTRO and MAESTRO REVISITED ). I listened with amusement yesterday as commentators at the French Open extolled these virtues as if the drop shot was new.
What is new is the level of skill that the players have developed, the frequency of use, and how to defend against it. Carlos and the Joker most noticably.
Drop shots, drop shot defense, swinging volleys–“adapt or perish”!
Homework? Someone will soon add a most killer TOPSPIN LOB “.
AI rules ! Access to data gives new insight to college tennis. See link:
I repeat this observation of the recent tournament
“Wake Forest University won the 2025 NCAA Men’s Team Tennis Championship. They beat Texas Christian University 4-2. Both are elite private, protestant schools. In the title match both teams played only the same six team members in singles and doubles. There was one American that played for WFU. One for TCU.
The unitiated might think this 5:1 ratio favoring international starters is unusual or new. Sadly the truth is it is a typical formula among men and women, NCAA Divisions 1 and 11, NAIA , JUCOS. Often total rosters and six starters is just as common.”
Here is some more amateur research:
Sixty two teams qualified.
Ten players was the average squad size. About 600 squad members.
Men are allowed 4 and1/2 scholarships. About 270 grants.
Assuming sholarships are awarded to the players that actually play ( 6 or 7), rosters and box scores reveal that about 80 grants of the 270 go to Americans.
While there were exceptions ( Stanford started 5 Americans ), the “typical ” squad of 10 listed 7 international members. The average ratio of starters was 5:1 international.
Thirty three of the 60 teams had zero or only one American starter.
2025 NCAA MEN’S D1 CHAMPIONSHIPS –MEDIA GUIDE
I’ll follow you down ’til the sound of my voice will haunt you
(SILVER SPRING ) by Fleetwood Mac.
Most college spring sports are over. Baseball never quits . Anything emerge with all the changes this year?
I played and coached college basketball and college tennis.
Here is an earlier quote that panned out:
It is pretty obvious some fundamental changes occurred in the 2025 FINAL FOUR college basketball tournament : No Cinderella, all four top seeds make it. Best bet is a large state University that can pay em, a seasoned and proven coach, some internationals to augment big, fast dudes. No need to recruit high school aspirants other than the rare Cooper. 18 years old—need not apply.
This a link to the whole article:
Wake Forest University won the 2025 NCAA Men’s Team Tennis Championship. They beat Texas Christian University 4-2. Both are elite private protestant schools. In the title match both teams played only the same six team members in singles and doubles. There was one American that played for WFU. One for TCU.
The unitiated might this 5:1 ratio favoring international starters might be unusual or new. Sadly the the truth is it is a typical formula among men and women, NCAA Divisions 1 and 11, NAIA , JUCOS. Often total rosters and six starters is just as common.
The Little Green Book of Tennis 