They completed the Atlantic Coast Conference Men’s Tennis Tournament Sunday. The winner (Stanford ) is located near the Pacific Coast. The team they beat (Virginia ) had one American starter. Stanford had one international starter.
Scanning the rosters of the four North Carolina teams, I found no North Carolina starers. There were fourteen teams entered. I don’t know of any North Carolina starters on any team. Stanford and Boston College were the only two teams with less than five international players. Boston College was 0-13 in conference matches.
Most iternationals were starters, which probably indicates they recieved most of the 4 and 1/2 scholarships alloted per team. My guess is that currently the portal rules and the “likeness money” are making American college tennis the “minor leagues of professional tennis”: Just as they have in Men’s basketball.
Over the years many North Carolina colleges and universities have dropped men’s tennis programs, or both men and women’s teams. (East Carolina men, Appalachain men, High Point – both, Guilford ?, ). I know of none added.
Many blame Title IX. Me thinks that money is the more rational explanation.
Upon retiring I committed myself to continuing efforts to help tennis players , coaches, and teams. My friend, Jim Toney, and I focused on our local facilities. Then coaches. Frankly, emphasis has been on on the high school level although much extends both up and down levels.
I wrote a guide entitled THE LITTLE GREEN BOOK of TENNIS which was provided freely to all North Carolina coaches and varsity girls and boys players.
Next we formed a group of capable volunteers we called the SHOT DOCTORS (see brochure ) who lent their time and expertise, particulary to their local schools. Soon the NORTH CAROLINA HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS COACHES ASSOCIATION ( NCHSTCA ) became our primary outlet. Included on their new website they created a panel entitled RESOURCES. Membership gave access to exclusive SHOT DOCTORS contributions.
Things change. Certainly tennis does. And while the NCHSTCA website hosts reems of this new information, space dictates limitations.
My intent is to ” leave it all on the court”. This MILESTONES blog is an effort to make more and new instruction available since the book was written and revised (2015 ). And I have selected some repeats, that were most often cited as helpful. THE REST OF THE STORY hopefully shines light the two seismic moments — 1. New technology and data and the truth about international athletes in American colleges (College tennis particularly—-and 2. The upheaval surounding paying athletes ( PORTALS AND POTHOLES ).
Is this not the moment to redesign more reasonable governance of AMERICAN COLLEGE ATHLETICS.
The REST OF THE STORY is VERY LONG. A condensed version is available here. So, too , is the subsequent file, HELPING PART 2 , extremely long and detailed. They are included as evidence of the long these deep seated problems have gone on.
TWO CLOSING COMMENTS: 1. While my “hobby writing” began with my retirment and centers on tennis instruction and sports commentary, there are articles on everything from Bob Dylan to Pickleball . Search the CATEGORIES column ( far right ) on the blog cover page. 2. I plan to keep the blog open and writing short pieces. There is a lot to clean up , edit, categorize.
“Stick with me baby, stick with me anyhow Things should start to get interesting right about now”. (Bob Dylan–MISSISSIPPI )
SHOT DOCTORS The brochure below is an announcement of a new, non- profit group of volunteers to help North Carolina’s high school varsity boys and girl tennis players, their coaches and teams.
It is new leaf time for me. It’s not the writing. Technology wins. Too many unknown buttons. Too much angst, frustration, begging for help, same errors and “can’t finds .” Good luck, AI.
Below are a series of NEW articles available freely. In addition, a second group of selected OLDER articles are included later , as they are some of the best articles on the blog:
Below is a letter to me that states the position of NCAA President Mark A. Emmert on international athletes in American college athletics. And I agree with the content. However, I believe there is another tenable side to this issue. Therefore, in addition to President Emmert letter, I have shared what I believe is another salient side to the issue.
Dr. Mark Emmert President, NCAA PO Box 6222 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Dear Dr. Emmert,
I am appreciative of your letter of March 15, 2017. Earlier this winter I had a long conversation with Timothy Russell , CEO of the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA). I have also pled my case to Paul Lubbers of USTA player development, the Southern district of USTA, (STA) and the North Carolina Tennis Association (NCTA).
And have done so with countless others since 1970. Your response ensures that I have been heard at our highest levels and that is truly fair.
Approaching age 77 with fifty years of coaching, teaching and administering in two small (Barton College) to mid size Division 1 (Elon University), I have watched this issue closely, and while I fully agree with diversity and inclusion and equitable participation, there seems to be more to the issue.
My teams rosters included fifty plus internationals. From about a dozen different countries. Roland Thornqvist, women’s tennis coach at the University of Florida just won the women’s D1 National team tennis indoor title, owning a handful of national titles. I recruited Roland to the USA and he is probably best known of my recruits who are in the athletics arena and have stayed in the country. No less known in the world of orthopedic surgery in America is Dr. Pramote Malisitt, a native of Bangkok, who remains in our country. Dr. Peter Lindstrom, is one of twenty nine Swedes whom I recruited, and who is nationally known as a vital computer expert with our defense department. Neither our schools, nation, nor I would wish they weren’t here.
Never have I suggested we shouldn’t have delved into internationals then or now. But it seems to me to be a half full/half empty issue. Not once have I ever said an international should be prohibited from participation. Or equal admittance. The elephant in the room is scholarships. Never have I suggested internationals should be exempt from a reasonable amount of money. I do believe that the NCAA has a legal right to provide aid to our citizens first. One link to follow allows that about 200 million American dollars go into international men and women tennis players.
Many parents and taxpayers question all foreign rosters, all with grants and many from state schools. (See enclosed latest rankings from Division II) I wouldn’t object to an all international team in any sport if they paid the bill. But to scholarship an all African team, rather than an African American team is bothersome, to say the least. What we have now is foreign aid, not trade. Not once in the many times I asked any international , “Would your native country do what we do?” was the answer yes. And the money is coming from the coffers of the only reasonable financial return for all the expenses encountered: Scholarships. Scholarships can easily amount to a quarter million dollars per student ,over four years. Not to mention the subsequent benefits of quality education. I don’t even mention the rarity of professional player rewards, as we all know the status of American elite players. That is another issue, but giving American college tennis to internationals via disproportionate scholarship is directly related to this demise (again link to follow).
Basketball, golf, and other international sports are making forays into the American college arena. As a young coach I quickly realized if they have a nuclear weapon or two, I had better find some to help me keep my job. This is true today. Witness Duke University’s meteoric rise in Women’s golf. Surely young coaches watched an all international roster ascend to the top. Is this the intent of Title IX for our women? The American college system is the best system in the world to train elite athletes. The best example is surely Women’s Soccer.
Soccer, the most widely played sport in the world ,has never been won by American men. Yet, since the advent of Title IX our women have won three world cups in soccer. All twenty three women were participants in American College Soccer. And I’d bet they all had scholarships. Some one asked me where was the national training center for women on the world cup team? Chapel Hill, I replied. (Anson Dorance’s UNC teams had six of the twenty three players). And his teams influenced all the rest.
Upon accepting the job at Elon University, the then president admonished me, “… we don’t want an all foreign team!” After ten years that included a national team championship, I was concerned that a walk-on international was good enough to shift our team balance to more than 50% international for the first time. A decided shift in attitude was “ Coach we’ve decided that we don’t care where they are from if they are the quality of people you’ve been recruiting.”
And, while this validates your position, I believe a compromise is the answer.
My internationals returned home at about a 90% rate. That money may have brought in any number of our own citizens, equal in every way, except talent in tennis, as a true 18 year old freshman . (see DAY DREAM BELIEVER) on addendum to follow. Without scholarship aid for many American tennis youngsters, the “…pathway to opportunity” does not currently exist.
I have shared a few opinions, mine and others, on Addendum 1.
I intend to include a copy of your letter, and valid position to several interested parties. Knowing I have had my say, I remain sincerely grateful.
Tom Parham
“THE REST OF THE STORY” CONDENSED (Dan Parham and AI)
College Tennis in Crisis: A Briefing on the Dominance of International Players and the Impact on American Athletes This briefing document analyzes the provided sources, revealing a concerning trend in American collegiate tennis: the overwhelming dominance of international players, particularly in scholarship-funded positions and top-ranked teams. The main argument is that this phenomenon has detrimental consequences for American tennis players, limiting their opportunities for college scholarships, high-level competition, and professional development.
Key Themes and Facts: International Player Dominance: Data compiled across multiple NCAA divisions shows that international players constitute a significant majority of players in top-ranked teams and occupy most scholarship positions. This trend is evident in both men’s and women’s tennis. For instance, an analysis of randomly selected top-ranked teams across six divisions in the 2024 season revealed that 92% of the players were international. Limited Opportunities for American Players: The high proportion of international players in college tennis directly limits the number of roster spots and scholarships available to American athletes. This is especially alarming considering the financial burden of developing high-level tennis players in the US, where, unlike in Europe and Asia, government support is lacking. Financial Incentives for Coaches: The current system incentivizes college coaches to prioritize recruiting international players, often overlooking talented American players. This is driven by the pressure to maintain high rankings and achieve winning records, often at the expense of developing American talent. The “Preferred Walk-on” Dilemma: While some American players manage to secure spots on teams as “preferred walk-ons,” this designation often comes with little to no financial aid. This further disadvantages American players compared to their international counterparts who often receive full scholarships.
Supporting Evidence (Quotes and Data): “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.” – Tennis World, August 5, 1999. “In the final match, no American player participated… Americans received less than 5% of the total tennis scholarships awarded.” – Description of the 2001 Big South Conference men’s tennis tournament “Let’s be honest …College tennis is failing American tennis. “ – Luke Jensen, former professional tennis player. “There’s somewhere around 7,000 scholarships available… and there are just not enough American juniors to fill the scholarships.” – Tim Russell, CEO of the Intercollegiate Tennis Association.
Consequences and Concerns: Diminishing American Tennis: The lack of college playing opportunities for American athletes negatively impacts the development of future American tennis stars. This is evidenced by the dwindling number of American players in professional tennis with college experience. Loss of Fan Interest and Support: Teams dominated by international players may face challenges in attracting local fan interest and alumni support. The lack of “homegrown” talent can lead to a disconnect between college teams and their communities. Ethical Considerations: Concerns arise regarding the ethical implications of allocating taxpayer-funded scholarships predominantly to international students, while talented American students are left behind.
Potential Solutions: Scholarship Allocation for American Players: A significant proposal is to reserve a certain percentage of scholarship funds for American players, ensuring they have a fair chance to compete and develop at the collegiate level. Increased Support for High School Tennis: Strengthening high school tennis programs can help cultivate a stronger base of American players and provide them with the necessary experience to compete for college scholarships. Data Transparency and Advocacy: Collecting and analyzing data on the nationality of college tennis players, scholarship recipients, and award winners can raise awareness and encourage action from the USTA, NCAA, and other relevant organizations.
Conclusion: The current landscape of American collegiate tennis presents a significant challenge to the development of American players. The dominance of international players in scholarship-funded positions creates an uneven playing field, hindering the growth of future generations of American tennis stars. Addressing this issue requires a concerted effort from the USTA, NCAA, college coaches, and all stakeholders who are passionate about American tennis. Proactive measures such as scholarship allocation for American players, increased support for high school tennis, and data transparency are crucial steps towards a more equitable and sustainable future for the sport.
HEADS UP
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.”
ITA Website, Rankings Data & Nationality
Stunning: In 1970 the National Association of Athletics (NAIA) voted to eliminate restrictions on foreign tennis players. The issue was largely a small college concern, NAIA, NCAA 2, Junior Colleges men and women. From 1970 to 1980 teams went from a maximum of one international player to all six starters being international. A report below from the NCAA sites statistics from the year of 2007 that doesn’t reflect the more important issue. The NCAA report included all the division 3 schools that don’t offer tennis scholarships, plus the total number of teams are included —many of whom don’t recruit anybody. The intensity of the situation for the big schools came later in the ’80’s and 90’s. The NCAA, the ITA and the UTR are good sources of data on college tennis. The best of these is the Intercollegiate Tennis Association. Their website allows you to reach every team, its roster, its schedule, & the national origin of the players. In contrast to the mid ’80’s you can now easily find the nationality and the possibility of scholarship players.
In 1985 I painstakingly uncovered that one 8 team conference had 63 players in the total league, 62 of whom were international. While that took me hours to uncover, that kind of information can be found easily now by researching teams on the ITA website. Check the ranking file, check the roster, and check the schedule for close matches, and the stunning picture is revealed easily.
We randomly picked the 1st, 5th, 10th and 20th ranked teams from each division men and women.
The results speak volumes and suggest any teams picked in each division would show very similar results.
DIVISION 1 MEN’S SINGLES INTERNATIONAL:
Rank 1 Texas Christian University 9 of 9
Rank 5 Kentucky 7 of 8
Rank 10 Florida State 6 of 8
Rank 20 Arizona State 5 of 8
27 of 33 = 87 %
DIVISION 1 WOMEN’S SINGLES:
Rank 1 Texas A & M 3 of 6
Rank 5 Michigan 2 of 6
Rank 10 Cal Berkley 4 of 7
Rank 20 South Carolina 4 of 7
12 of 22 = 54 %
DIVISION 11 MEN’S SINGLES:
Rank 1 Valdosta State 9 of 9
Rank 5 Columbus State 8 of 8
Rank 10 Wingate 8 of 8
Rank 20 Hawaii Pacific 9 of 9
34 of 34 = 100 %
DIVISION 11 WOMEN’S SINGLES:
Rank 1 Nova Southeastern 8 of 8
Rank 5 Emory Riddle 7 of 7
Rank 10 Auburn Montgomery 7 of 7
Rank 20 Mississippi College 6 of 9
26 of 29 = 90 %
NAIA MEN:
Rank 1 Georgia Gwinnett 7 of 8
Rank 5 Reinhardt 6 of 8
Rank 10 Grace 7 of 8
Rank 20 Cumberland (Tenn) 8 of 8
28 of 32 = 90%
NAIA WOMEN:
Rank 1 Georgia Gwinnett 8 of 8
Rank 5 Middle Georgia State 7 of 8
Rank 10 Union 7 of 8
Rank 20 Northeastern Ohio 7 of 8
29 of 32 = 91 %
TOTAL ALL 6 DIVISIONS
156 of 178 (92%) were International
****************************
PROBABILITIES
Win or NFL means “…Not For Long !” (Hank Stram , Coach )
Coaching’s Pox. Winning rules.
2. The best players win—-probably.
3. “ I just rob banks. That’s where the money is !” (Willie Sutton )
Global sports produce a much greater pool than just the USA, or the South, or North
Carolina.
4. Coaches will play the best players.
5. The players who make up the lineup in close, competitive matches ( 4/3 , 5/2 ) will be those with scholarships. Check the rosters and schedules ( “Results”. or “Box Scores”. )
WHY DO IT? ( Jim Toney, late Economics Professor at Elon University and tennis angel )… A fine player and promoter of tennis, Mr. Toney and I zeroed in on High School tennis court construction. Later in his life he developed Parkinson’s. During our last conversation I told how much I appreciated the work he had done for tennis. He leaned forward, peering at me with those steely eyes, and said ” Don’t you quit.”)
RECENT COMMENTS
Harvey Penick—THE LITTLE RED BOOK of GOLF author). “If you read this book you are my pupil. If you play golf you are my friend. “
Robert Bayliss
This is a difficult conundrum. On one hand, having an international player on your team can be a culturally broadening experience for all, as we learn about the history ad culture of others.To deny opportunities to “foreigners” seems unfair. Looking at this from a different angle provides a warning for our sport. One of the incentives driving young players into tennis is the goal of playing on a college team. The travel, life lessons learned, and so much more can provide motivation to commit to tennis in the hopes of gaining a scholarship, roster spot, admissions bump, and more might be exactly what keeps young players involved and committed to tennis. To forfeit that incentive will diminish; ish the number of players and the overall interest and importance of tennis to young Americans. The growth of soccer, lacrosse, and other sports is already eroding tennis’s base, so adding to that problem is problematic.
Looking long-range at this, I believe that we should be careful not to load up our college rosters – and the benefits thereof – with an overwhelming number of international players. Alumni interest and support are also a consideration.
In today’s world of collegiate athletics, coaches are fired for performance at increasingly higher rates. If I lose matches to teams stacked with international players there is the possibility that I might similarly load up my own roster internationally. The domino effect would be disastrous for American tennis This is balanced against the competitive benefit for American players as they compete against outstanding foreigners. While rushing to judgment should be avoided, we cannot continue to ignore anything that threatens the strength and significance of American tennis. The time for action is now.
Respectfully
Bobby Bayliss
*****************************
Charles Hassell:
“Tom-
Those are interesting questions but I confess ignorance in this area. I could be wrong but I believe colleges can award scholarships to anyone they please, particularly private schools, subject to eligibility requirement imposed by the schools, athletic conferences, and maybe the NCAA- at least for the time being. I don’t think that organization will be around much longer, at least not in its present form and with the current level of control we have seen up to now. I do not know what we will end up with but the myth of amateurism has clearly been exposed. And, of course, public colleges and universities have limitations peculiar to the schools and the laws of the respective states in which they reside.
To the extent that your questions ask what “should” be done, as in what is most fair, what is best for tennis, best for the young athletes, and do all agree it is desirable to favor U.S. kids? Is it a question of trying to prevent coaches from recruiting the best players regardless of their nationality? Is that a desirable aim? I don’t know enough about any of these problems as they relate to tennis to offer a useful opinion. Sorry.
We had a great show last Sunday after a brief shaky start from a quick cloudburst. Big crowd who seemed to like the music. Wish you could have been there.
-Pud”
*****************************
James Haslam:
“A FOREIGN PLAYER’S VIEW ON CAPPING SCHOLARSHIPS FOR FOREIGNERS
I am from Tasmania, Australia and received a full tennis scholarship to Wake Forest University commencing Feb 1969. It was the biggest and best break of my life and I am very thankful to the ‘system’ that made it possible, and to Wake coach Jim Leighton, who not only was a marvelous man and tennis teacher, but, when I fell in love with teaching tennis, taught me how to teach the game, despite that being at the expense of my playing for him.
I have keenly followed the evolution of NCAA sports, in particular college tennis. I fully support the rights of college athletes to sell their services to the highest bidder, or in individual sports to earn and keep whatever prize money and endorsements they can. I believe a college athlete earning money in professional sports brings glory and recognition to the college and enhances alumni and donor contributions to the school, athletic & tennis programs.
I believe it may take a decade for the rules and regulations relating to NIL, transfers, athlete payments, to reach an equitable status. It has eliminated some of the hypocrisy of the NCAA.
I also believe that American education (part funded by American taxpayers) should first and foremost be for the benefit of American students. Also part of that education and college experience comes from intermixing with students from all over the world…that America in general has lately drifted too far towards isolationism.
College athletics should also be first and foremost for the benefit of American students.
I note that my sport, tennis, has the highest % of foreign scholarship athletes of any sport.
To reconcile the competing interests, I suggest that 50% of all tennis scholarships be reserved for American athletes. That the number of scholarships in tennis (whether athletic or need or whatever) be either 10 or 12; meaning the number of foreigners on scholarship be 5 or 6. A team or squad can be larger, but any extra spots go to Americans. A foreigner marrying an American after arrival and gaining American citizenship would, for the purpose of the scholarship cap, be classified as a foreigner.
I accept that some coaches will find loopholes in any system, will break any rule they think they can get away with, but it is the role of the governing bodies (ITA, NCAA, US Govt) to close loopholes and penalize rule breakers.
I have spent the past 26 years in retirement as a volunteer donating my time (50-60 hours per week) to tennis, about equally between Tasmania and North Carolina. The NC time is partially as thanks for the opportunities the US and Wake Forest afforded me, and partially for the American people who helped me along the way.
Sincerely
James G Haslam”
*****************************
Dan Parham – A Proposal to Invest in American Tennis:
Please summarize the key concepts of international tennis recruiting from Tom Parham
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Tom Parham, a renowned tennis coach and author, has shared insights into international tennis recruiting, particularly in the context of college tennis in the United States. Here are some key concepts from his perspective:
Global Talent Pool: Parham emphasizes that college tennis recruiting has become increasingly global. Coaches now scout talent from all over the world, not just domestically, recognizing that many international players bring high levels of skill and experience.
Cultural Adaptation: Recruiting international players requires understanding their cultural backgrounds and helping them adapt to life in the U.S. This includes not only on-court performance but also academic expectations and social integration.
Academic and Athletic Balance: Parham stresses the importance of balancing academics with athletics. International recruits must meet academic standards while also contributing to the team, which can be challenging given the differences in educational systems.
Communication and Expectations: Clear communication about expectations, both athletically and academically, is crucial. Coaches need to ensure that international recruits understand the commitment required and that they can handle the dual responsibilities.
Visa and Eligibility Requirements: Navigating the visa process and NCAA eligibility requirements can be complex for international recruits. Parham notes that coaches must be well-versed in these areas to avoid potential pitfalls.
Scholarship Management: International recruiting often involves managing scholarship budgets effectively. Coaches must decide how to allocate scholarships between domestic and international players, ensuring a competitive team while staying within budget constraints.
Long-term Development: Parham advocates for a focus on the long-term development of international players, not just immediate performance. This includes mentoring them through their college careers and preparing them for life beyond tennis.
These concepts highlight the complexities and strategies involved in successfully recruiting and integrating international tennis players into U.S. college teams.
You said:
what are the negatives of so many intrenational athletes in American colleges?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Having a large number of international athletes in American colleges brings both benefits and challenges. Here are some potential negatives:
1. Resource Allocation
Financial Strain: Scholarships and resources dedicated to international athletes can limit the availability of funds for domestic students.
Recruitment Focus: A strong focus on recruiting internationally might divert attention from developing local talent, leading to fewer opportunities for American athletes.
2. Cultural and Social Integration
Cultural Barriers: International athletes may face difficulties integrating into the broader student body due to language and cultural differences, which can affect their academic and social experiences.
Isolation: There is a risk of international athletes forming insular groups, which can limit their engagement with the broader college community.
3. Academic Concerns
Academic Preparedness: The varying educational backgrounds of international athletes may create challenges in adapting to the academic rigor of American institutions.
Language Barriers: Non-native English speakers may struggle with coursework and communication, potentially impacting their academic performance.
4. Perceived Inequality
Unfair Advantages: There can be perceptions that international athletes receive preferential treatment, such as leniency in admissions or academic expectations, which might foster resentment among domestic students.
Competitive Imbalance: The influx of international talent can create a competitive imbalance, making it harder for local athletes to secure spots on teams.
5. Compliance and Eligibility Issues
NCAA Regulations: Navigating NCAA rules and regulations regarding international athletes can be complex, leading to potential eligibility issues or compliance risks for colleges.
Visa and Immigration Challenges: Ensuring that international athletes have the correct visas and maintain their status can be administratively burdensome and risky.
6. Impact on College Identity
Erosion of Local Identity: A heavy presence of international athletes might dilute the local or regional identity of a college’s athletic program, potentially alienating local fans and alumni.
Shift in Athletic Focus: Colleges might prioritize sports that attract international talent, which could lead to less support for traditional American sports.
These challenges require careful management to ensure that the presence of international athletes enriches rather than disrupts the college environment.
The Intercollegiate Tennis Association ( ITA ) has just released a video on the history of American college tennis. It can be seen on YouTube. Seven minutes of the production deal with the complex issue of International players ( beginning at minute 53 to minute 60 ). David Benjamin gives an accurate and fair summary of this conundrum.
Personally I am grateful for the concern I have expressed starting in 1972 is history.
I have concluded that some amount of tennis scholarship money should go first to Americans. How much ? 50% ? As the film suggests–”…that is the question”!
In 1982, having been voted down by the NAIA , I exited the meeting only to hear the NAIA CEO (Dr. Charles Morris ) whisper to me “….you are right, don’t quit “!
Once I questioned my own persistence to a respected professional. His adamant response was “… worth the effort? You’re damn right it is worth it. It’ s our children. Child advocacy !”
The one point I take issue with is the suggestion only parents were concerned and disappointed. Young Americans are eliminated . 300 schools have dropped men’s teams for reasons Coach Benjamin cites. Many Coaches throughout the nation had nice local programs rendered unacceptable. Fans and students say who cares?
Still American Parents and citizens write the checks.
To have Parents and youngsters dismissed to go hunting for a fifth option for their higher education is not acceptable .
As mentioned the video can be accessed on YouTube. Or you can show it from the ITA website below:
I viewed with pride and appreciation the new video. Everyone in College tennis in general, and small divisions in particular, owes gratitude to David Benjamin.
The NAIA, Division II, and JUCOS were where the influx of international tennis players began. From 1970 to 1980 was our boom.
Early on many of us wondered if this was the best thing for our schools and students and their families. Many of us still do.
We lost the argument even though a majority of ITCA coaches supported limitations. Fear of a lawsuit frightened some. The diversity issue merited influence.
I do take issue with the video on several points.
The suggestion that there are many opportunities for American youngsters at high quality Universities and colleges ( with a sizable scholarship) is flawed. Division I schools number in the hundreds before most of those have Americans with large grants for tennis. Division II is almost totally international among its elite institutions. Ditto for JUCOS. Women too. Don’t mention DIII with no grants, just price tags that create family debt for even wealthy families and students. The ITA website now makes data available that refutes earlier USTA numbers.
Paying the players will attract more and better internationals. They will bump more good American kids and lesser internationals. Will the same happen with basketball with losers being mostly Black kids? Really all “Global Sports” ( Golf, Soccer, Volleyball, Track. Etc.)?
Don’t we have a right to take care of our own?
Links below are lengthy articles I wrote on scholarships, portal and payments, Artificial Intelligence and college tennis , colleges to pros.
Please relay my sincere regards to David Benjamin. Tom Parham.
INTERNATIONALS PLAYING COLLEGE BASKETBALL IN AMERICA
1998
Mr. Rudy Washington, Editor-in-Chief The BCA Journal
P. O. Box 4040
Culver City, CA 90231-4040
Dear M.r Washington:
I’ve coached college tennis for 30-plus years and I have been dismayed by the preponderance of international players who have usurped many tennis scholarships from American youngsters.
There seems to be a trend toward this in basketball. Has the BCA addressed the danger to American student athletes this poses, in particular college basketball. Should there be a limit to this?
If your Journal has addressed this issue, please let me know. It seems basketball is a game that this should concern.
ETP:1h
Sincerely,
Tom Parham
Men’s Tennis Coach
****************************
2025– AI REPORT
Estimate of Non-American Starters in 2024 NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball
International Player Representation in 2023-24
The 2023-24 season saw a record influx of international (non-U.S.) players in Division I men’s basketball. According to FIBA’s analysis of NCAA data, 826 male international players competed in Division I during 2023-24 (2024 Migration Report highlights ongoing surge in International Transfers | About FIBA). This marked a 5.8% increase from the previous season and a substantial jump from a few years prior (for context, there were about 663 international players in 2018-19 (The Global Game: An Overview of European Players in College Basketball – BasketballNcaa)). The presence of foreign talent is widespread across schools: most Division I programs (78.5%) had at least one foreign-born scholarship player on their roster as of 2018, and nearly 30% of teams had three or more international players that year (The Global Game: An Overview of European Players in College Basketball – BasketballNcaa). With the continued growth in international recruits (Canada and Europe being top sources), it’s likely that an even higher percentage of teams carry multiple non-American players today.
International Players in Starting Lineups
Not all 826 international athletes are starters, but many play significant roles. By 2024, the majority of Division I teams have at least one international player, and in many cases that player is a starter or key rotation member. It’s common for teams to start one foreign player, and some programs even feature two international players in their starting five (given that roughly 30% of teams had 3+ internationals on roster in 2018 (The Global Game: An Overview of European Players in College Basketball – BasketballNcaa), those teams often start more than one). This trend has only grown as coaches actively recruit overseas talent for impact roles.
Estimating the Number of Non-American Starters
With approximately 350–360 Division I teams (each with five starting spots, ~1,750+ total starters), we can estimate how many of those starters are non-American. If we assume around 70–80% of teams start at least one international player, that alone would account for roughly 250–280 foreign starters (0.7–0.8 × ~350). In addition, a number of teams likely start two international players, which could add a few dozen more to the count. Considering these factors, a reasonable estimate is that around 300 (give or take) of the starting players in Division I men’s basketball for the 2024 season were non-Americans. In percentage terms, this is on the order of 15–20% of all starters. This figure aligns with the proportion of international players in the sport (roughly 16% of D1 men’s players in recent years) and reflects the significant global influence on college basketball.
The Intercollegiate Tennis Association ( ITA ) has just released a video on the history of American college tennis. It can be seen on YouTube. Seven minutes of the production deal with the complex issue of International players ( beginning at minute 53 to minute 60 ). David Benjamin gives an accurate and fair summary of this conundrum.
Personally I am grateful for the concern I have expressed starting in 1972 is history.
I have concluded that some amount of tennis scholarship money should go first to Americans. How much ? 50% ? As the film suggests–”…that is the question”!
In 1982, having been voted down by the NAIA , I exited the meeting only to hear the NAIA CEO (Dr. Charles Morris ) whisper to me “….you are right, don’t quit “!
Once I questioned my own persistence to a respected professional. His adamant response was “… worth the effort? You’re damn right it is worth it. It’s our children. Child advocacy !”
The one point I take issue with is the suggestion only parents were concerned and disappointed. Young Americans are eliminated . 300 schools have dropped men’s teams for reasons Coach Benjamin cites. Many Coaches throughout the nation had nice local programs rendered unacceptable. Fans and students say who cares?
Still American Parents and citizens write the checks.
To have Parents and youngsters dismissed to go hunting for a fifth option for their higher education is not acceptable .
As mentioned the video can be accessed on YouTube. Or you can show it from the ITA website below:
I viewed with pride and appreciation the new video. Everyone in College tennis in general, and small divisions in particular, owes gratitude to David Benjamin.
The NAIA, Division II, and JUCOS were where the influx of international tennis players began. From 1970 to 1980 was our boom.
Early on many of us wondered if this was the best thing for our schools and students and their families. Many of us still do.
We lost the argument even though a majority of ITCA coaches supported limitations. Fear of a lawsuit frightened some. The diversity issue merited influence.
I do take issue with the video on several points.
The suggestion that there are many opportunities for American youngsters at high quality Universities and colleges ( with a sizable scholarship) is flawed. Division I schools number in the hundreds before most of those have Americans with large grants for tennis. Division II is almost totally international among its elite institutions. Ditto for JUCOS. Women too. Don’t mention DIII with no grants, just price tags that create family debt for even wealthy families and students. The ITA website now makes data available that refutes earlier USTA numbers.
Paying the players will attract more and better internationals. They will bump more good American kids and lesser internationals. Will the same happen with basketball with losers being mostly Black kids? Really all “Global Sports” ( Golf, Soccer, Volleyball, Track. Etc.)?
Don’t we have a right to take care of our own?
Links below are lengthy articles I wrote on scholarships, portal and payments, Artificial Intelligence and college tennis , colleges to pros.
Please relay my sincere regards to David Benjamin. Tom Parham.
Next Sunday concludes the 2023 season of tennis grand slams. TV tennis (save Disney vs Spectrum ) provides many viewing possibilities. Particularly THE TENNIS CHANNEL. Here are a few observations, plus this reminder: There many LEVELS to the game ( The pros are are many levels beyond beginners. They too break through barriers one at a time.) : There is a CLASSIC METHOD of Tennis instruction . A method that is best for most people. Viariations that work are ok ( “… if a flaw works, don’t change it !”)
GOOD NEWS
All kinds of improved play on the home front. Men and Women.
Vindication of College Tennis as a valid developmental pathway .
Tremendous high levels of African/American play by many.
There were so many comments like “… for the first time since—–” , it was almost routine. Not quite.
There were 25 plus players in the men and women’s singles draws that were involved, at some point, college players. The same was true of the 2023 French Open and Wimbledon. Many Americans, but also many internationals. Humans attain maximum physical ability at about 27 years of age. Think football and “red-shirting” for the worth of an extra year (one year ! ) of growth.
GIANT STEPS!
: CoCo ROCKS ! Semi finalistsMadison, Ben –Big Foe in quarters. Sloane Stephens, Chris Eubanks, Michael Mmoh, On Arthur’s court ! Yeah Serena, Venus and Richard Williams and to the black families that paid a big price in a difficult arena. And yet– how many atypical superstars could have made the leap with a college scholarship awarded to an international?
P.S. The ACADEMY pathway may well be best for early blooming world class players. Academy programs house them, feed them. and hopefully provide education , and teach them tennis. Actually good colleges do the same thing–and maybe more wisely at a more mature age..
Why not empasize high school tennis as it is the only place an average kid can get inexpensive, invaluable , match play experience? Can’t we find good coaches for our kids?
Technology in coaching! Heard of SWING/VISION?
TROUBLE
Medvedev d. Rublev 6/4, 6/3, 6/4. 29 games. Had they played the max or 5 sets of 7/6 (12 games times 5 =60 games—– plus 5 seven point tiebreakers. At a minimum, that would be 65 games. If Russians could survive that we do need to fear them!
HEAD, HEAT, HEART–the real dangers in sports. US OPEN casts spotlight on hotter weather!
Heat illnesses vary in danger. HEAT CRAMPS ( SYMPTOMS ARE OBVIOUS ), HEAT EXHAUSTION (SWEATTY, PALE SKIN , SICK AND WEAK ), HEAT STROKE ( HOT, RED, DRY SKIN AND POTENTIAL KILLER ).
The weather dictates change (s). Shorter formats, longer breaks, air condtioned venues, etc, “Tme for a cool change.” Spectators are avoiding 95degrees on aluminum bleachers. SAW = SALT (ELECTROLYTES ), ACCLIMITIZATION, AND WATER. PS –Ice is the best tool you have.
Lots of tools to fight heat problems. Learn them , have them , use them.
*Parity dictates change too. There are few pushover matches now, Intense points cause injury. Fatique, back to back 7/6 in the fifth, demand study. Tennis has to protect the health of it’s product. Chris Evert won 90 plus tour matches in a row on clay courts. Rarely did she have to play a deuce set until the semis.
“THINGS HAVE CHANGED “( B. DYLAN )
HACKALOOSKIS, POSSIBILES, AND QUESTIONS .
A HACKALOOSKI IS A BAD PLAYER TELLING A GOOD PLAYER HOW TO PLAY.
I asked Coach Roland Thornqvist , University of Florida’s Women’s Tennis, what he emphasized ? ” Hit it hard and run fast!”
I found magic in coaching college players to know how to play when ahead. Special moments are points 30-0 and 40-15. Up a service break ?—get a second break. I watched even Roger Federrer thinking he could benefit from that advice . ( The ultimate hackalooski ).
How to beat Serena ? Serena with a drop shot! How to beat Serena with a dropshot ? Serena with a drop shot and solid defensive technique against a dropshot.
THE TALENT CODE by Daniel Coyle says myelin is the answer. Or “deep practice” ( 10,000 hours ), plus ‘Ignition ” or the HSE (“holy shit effect “) when one committs to an arena. And find a good coach.
An example : There are 4, not 2, corners on your side of the net. The resurrection of the dropshot has pointed out the two corners up at the net! However, many don’t like to practice developing the different footwork, shots , defense against the drop shot, and volleying that crosscourt “dink” that most good players have perfected as the best choice responding. You have to establish myelin or motor memory, or entrenched synapses to master these different ploys.
You can’t drop shot on a hard court? Tell Carlito. You can’t lob a pro ? Here again another old ability, the topspin lob, is proven that “wrongy, dongy”. Hint: Refer back to practicing all these shots.
Again–levels of play : While even at a high level, crosscourt is the tactic of choice, As is the admonition “Don’t change the line of the ball ” ( or “don’t change from crosscourt to down the line “.) At least not until you are sure you can make the shot. Hit one more dependable crosscourt until then.
The problem with this advice at the top levels is you have to be able to hit these shots. And they can. Nine of 10 players are right handed. This demands concentrated crosscourt practice. Again the modern pro often defends 2/3 of the court with the forehand. It is common now that in certain situations pros will move to the exteme backhand corner , not only returning the crosscourt shot with a forehand–but creating a new and more exteme angle and a new winner.
Even great players have weaknesses. This year a rehabilitated Zverev looks like he corrected his 2nd serve dilema. I’m not sure about Sabalenka. The weakest link in tennis is the second serve. Teach a reliable second serve first. Hell is sitting blind folded and hearing the sound of a second serve hitting the net.
Hackalooski #2 —Tommy Paul ! Perfect the offensive and defensive intracacies of the drop shot and the topspin lob . P. S. North Carolina loves you.
Chris Eubanks Questions: I spent a lot of the early spring watching you with interest. Eariy on, your backhand looked suspect. Then I watched with amazement the shift to a great one hand top spin bomb. How did that happen so fast? Between you and me , when Medvedev finally moved up on the service return, did that cause you problems with the return volley? Or did that rush you on the serve?
You are capable of restoring the serve and volley as a big time advantage. Work on the time and technique between the serve and the first volley. ” Balance is the clue to good tennis and footwork is the clue to good balance.” ( Welby Van Horn ). *
This was Hackalooski #3. And p.s. we love you too, Chris!
2022 offered some silver linings in the American efforts in elite player development. 2023 ( French Open starts the rock throwing again : No Americans in the running! )
Forgive the pilvering: I can’t find the true author of a recent attempt to identify American shortcomings and causes in player development. Several systemic flaws listed are capsuled : Inadequate care of player’s injuries—lack of parental involvement—motivation and mental toughness—lower birthrate—lots of other attractive sports.
The first and main problem listed is described this way:
“… if you don’t start out with a trust fund, you’re stuck, especially for a sport like tennis that requires years of youth investment. This is a major, fatal disadvantage for American tennis. In Europe, South America and lately in Asia, kids from all social classes have a shot at a tennis career. If they show sufficient talent and motivation, there are numerous community organizations, government programs and general social assistance systems to help build up their careers, in part because these other societies strongly support investment in their youth. “
My inclination is to cite #1 as the core flaw to be dealt with.
“After all is said and done, more is said than done~” a.k.a. –What can we do?
Here are two starting suggestions:
Reserve a large portion (50 % ? ) of college tennis scholarship aid for Americans.
2. Support Hgh School boys and girls varsity teams.
High School teams are one place that participation is relatively inexpensive,
The coach is the key.
Team play adds a whole new element to the process. And teammates share the pressure.
A tremendous wealth of knowledgable people could help the coaches. players, teams, and parents.
This is not going to be easy. Money, Time, and effort are “musts”.
There have been a couple of documentaries lately about LITTLE RICHARD. He was a leader in the Rock and Roll “Boom” in the mid to late 50’s . Fats Domino, Chuck Berry, Ray Charles, Ruth Brown, LaVern Baker, Marvin Gaye. Many other “greats”. I think Little Richard was the first to claim he was The King of Rock and Roll, but others entered the show by wearing a king’s crown and dancing down the aisle once the red carpet was laid down for this “king”.
About ten years later (1968 )there was another BOOM—-“Open Tennis ! The professionals could now enter the tournaments. The timing could not have been better. One reason was television. Tennis fit the screen perfectly. The Australians led the way, Borg and the Swedes, Spaniards. Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Evert, Austin’. Tons of Americans fueled the craze, Craze ? Boom? You Bet!
And it wasn’t just the players . A whole new market developed. Sure enough everyone needed some lessons and a green Yonex. When the USTA hosted a coaches clinic along with the USOPEN, would be “Kings of Tennis Teaching” cropped up from everywhere with “the way, the truth and the light ! From Elmer Gantry to Dennis Van Der Meer. Spreading like Kudzu or Pickleball.
So—1968 until 2023 —Who is the King ( or Queen ) of Tennis Coaching/Teaching ?
Good News: By and large the boom created an intense ,competitive, effort to learn, to earn, to win.
One high school coach proclaimed “…I can earn more teaching tennis in the summer than painting the classrooms or teaching Driver’s Ed”.
The surge of interest caught the attention of science, particularly sports
oriented scientists. Diet, psychology, —-all of a sudden winners thanked “my team “
Technology is about to radically improve the game.
Still there is BAD NEWS.
Where did you go Joe Dimaggio?
French Open 2023 (last week) ROUND OF 16 WOMEN- American Women ? One —CoCo.
American Men ? zip, zero , nada.
With the exceptions of Venus and Serena there has been no USA in “winning “ for decades.
As the old saying goes “… if we so smart, why ain’t we rich? “
Where did we go wrong? What can be done about it? What can I do about it ?
Last year several American men gave us a glimmer of hope. Tommy Paul, Francis Tiafoe, Taylor Fritz , Sebastian Korda provided impressive “shining moments”. Their training included the THE ACADEMY method of living, lodging, and practicing with master teachers. The latest French Open Draws had 11 men and 6 women in singles who played some college tennis. The COLLEGE method is strikingly like an academy that houses, feeds, finances, with professional coaches and hopefully education too boot. Even one season of college play affords an often needed extra year to develop one’s game. Think “redshirting”.
John Isner Is a North Carolina product of the FAMILY METHOD. John stayed at home, played high school, then college team tennis. Scholarshipped to the University of Georgia, John is quick to credit those 4 years as gateway to our finest player’s success.
And, historically , the FAMILY METHOD produced a large portion of elite American players.
There is no limit on the number of internationals playing college tennis.
And the number of and percentage of internationals awarded scholarships is staggering. We have paid for their training, while abandoning our own. And quite often at tax-payer’s expense. Many of these go from college play to the pro circuit.
My guess is that some form of this conversation has repeated itself between internationals: Player 1—“My country would not scholarship non-citizens like America!” Player 2. “Mine either. Can you believe how they simply gave college tennis to us?”
What should we do? One suggestion is to reserve at least half of our scholarship money for our kids.
Player development is expensive. Profitable playing careers are truly rare. Scholarship aid is the only reasonable way to recoup expense.
What can I do?
Having quit a job that I wasn’t suited for, I was advised to “ Do what you can do!”
I payed on every team that would give me a uniform. Little league, high school, two varsity college teams. Coached basketball and 40 years of small college tennis.
Along the way there were tons of hours on the court. And most with fine college players. Yet camps, recreation classes , club pro and public tennis, yielded a laboratory for all levels of players.
A lifelong North Carolinian, retired at the beach, The “what can I do “question was answered by —-HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS.
I believe in TEAMS. Team play. Sacrifice for my mates. Playing for my school.
I know that the coaches need help that we can give. Some schools can’t find anyone to coach teams. THE ARE MORE GIRLS PLAYING HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS THAN BOYS—yet finding girls teams a good coach is particularly tough. “The route to the most improvement is through coaching the coaches”.
I dream we will scholarship our kids first.
I suspect scholarships are the best bet to motivate our people to invest what is needed to
The Little Green Book of Tennis 