THIS JUST IN FROM “SB NATION”.

“International players ruled the draft

There were 14 international players selected in the first round of the 2016 Draft, from Dragan Bender at No. 4 overall to the surprising Georgios Papagiannis pick by the Sacramento Kings near at the end of the lottery. That’s an NBA record for the first round for international players, although six of those 14 were attending colleges in the United States last season rather than playing overseas.

The NBA brags about being a global game as frequently as it can, but if a record-setting international haul doesn’t prove them right, then what will? Basketball is becoming more globally accessible and more young athletes are attempting to make the move into the NBA, which can only be a good thing.”

14 BUMPED AMERICANS. HOW MANY KIDS ARE BOUNCING THE BALL WHO WILL RUN INTO THIS EVENTUALLY.

Is this possible?  From the organizations listed below:

NCAA DIVISIONS I,II,III AND NAIA COLLEGE TENNIS PLAYERS (MEN AND WOMEN).  And the USTA.

Schools and Conferences and National administrators research and compile data from 1980 until this year.  Identify institutions as state or private.

1. Rosters.  Ratio of internationals to American citizens.

2.  International’s position in the lineup.

3.  Scholarship allotment.  % of total to internationals.

4. League and National winners (team, singles, doubles , mvp,  freshman of year, academic awards by internationals.)

5.  National tournaments:  Seeds.  Post tournament final 16 singles, final 8 doubles. By nationality.

6.  Number of Conference and National team members in top six from state the school is located in.

Also comments on:

A.  What American pros have come strictly from the “Academy Process”?

B.  How many international  pros in the last thirty years have gained experience from American Collegiate tennis?

C.  Compare American pros who have had some college experience to those who go “strictly professional”?

D.  How many “players” in the Intercollegiate Tennis Hall of Fame had professional tennis experience?

E.  Compare alumni contributions from Americans to Internationals.

F.  There have been and are being some super college tennis facilities.   Historically and currently, where do major gifts come from?

G.  College tennis constantly deals with limited spectator interest.   Many cite the format.  Would attendance grow or alter if the teams were half American?   Given a lesser ability of many American players, would attendance fall off further?  Stay the same?  Increase?

H.  Which would be the most likely outcome given half  American starters:

—attendance would decrease due to lesser  quality of play.  More losses.

—fellow students, families, friends,fans would accept the lesser play for the familiar faces?

—over a period of time would American juniors react to more opportunities and scholarships  in their choice of sports?   Would the generations of Americans improve more through college opportunities and experience enough to encourage more attendance?

—Compare the American top ten men and women players in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s  to today’s best.  How many “old-timers” played college tennis?   Why are our few top players those with college backgrounds (Isner, the Bryans, Steve Johnson)?

 

Preamble:
1. I admit myopia on this topic.
2. I always admit my use of international tennis players to my great advantage.
3. These people and many opponents are stellar players and people.
4. Blog # “XENOPHOBIA” lists blogs written over the years on this subject.
5. The comments below are repeated, new, and a challenge to those with similar feelings
to explore the issue further. I have several questions that I don’t have the resources
or time to verify.
First- some good local news. Going into the 2016 NCAA Championships three Atlantic Coast Conference men’s tennis teams were seeded in the top six, including #1 Virginia who won the championship. UNC-Chapel Hill won the ITA national indoor title. Wake Forest beat UVA for the Deacons first ever ACC men’s tennis title. The women had some very similar accomplishments.
However, the 2016 French Open results were much the same for American pros. North Carolina’s John Isner making the second round. No other men’s singles in sight for the fourth year in a row. Again our best shows came from John and the Bryan Brothers (both college products), and Serena and Venus (who avoided USTA influences early on).  And, of course  Shelby Rogers made the quarters, no small accomplishment.  Shelby, interestingly, was home schooled.
Here are some questions and “food for thought” for anyone concerned about the future of American tennis:
1. Does the USTA realize they are spending $500,000,000 plus for a roof and that when it is done perhaps no Americans will qualify for the USOPEN?
2. Did we actually spend 17 million dollars on USTA Player Development with this kind of results?
3. What are the plans on the horizon to correct this problem? Are we willing to listen to new or valid suggestions?
4. If so, has this been thoroughly thought out: There is a direct correlation starting from 1970 until 2016 between the number of scholarships given to American college tennis players to the current dearth of highly ranked American pros. Further, an examination of the top ten Americans during the 70’s and 80’s reveals the quality of those players compared to the top ten men and women today. My belief is the best elite training system world wide is the American College/University athletic programs.  Ask Isner 1. were you selected for USTA elite programs? 2. Did your participation at GEORGIA prepare you for your best shot at pro tennis? 3. Did you have a scholarship? 4. Would you have selected GEORGIA had they not provided that grant?
5. An e-mail I received from a “tennis person” suggested there was 860 million dollars spent on college tennis programs. Is that true?
6. Want the best rationale for scholarships, from the #1 sport world wide–soccer?  Fact: Our men have never won the World Cup. With the advent of Title IX in 1970 our USA women have won three times! The 23 woman roster this time featured all women with college play and college scholarships. I was asked where the Olympic training camp for women was by a colleague from Elon University. Reply: Thirty five miles east. (Six of the twenty three had played for Anson Dorrance’s UNC Tar Heels.)
7. Change comes fast. In 2015 Duke’s women’s golf team finished 2nd in the NCAA. It was on NATIONAL TV. The BLUE DEVILS roster housed no American women. Coaches depend on winning to keep their jobs. I’ll guarantee young women golf coaches made note of Duke’s roster. (And how many good young Asian players are coming along). While this may be new to some it is not to many, myself included. In 1970 the NAIA voted down a “one only international can play in the NAIA Nationals” rule. A grizzled old coach stood and predicted, “…if you allow this, in about two years a Texas team will bring in an all Mexican team and it’s all over!” He was wrong. The next spring Mercyhurst College (PA.) produced the team winner consisting of six “freshmen” from Finland. Our coaches made note of that. I know I did. And you can’t blame the coaches. Our high schools feature African American men’s basketball players almost exclusively.  Soon the Colleges followed suit. High school girls, then college women. Perhaps no sport changed ethnicities faster than women’s college basketball from mostly white to mostly black.

My guess is that football and basketball will continue to feature more black players.  Not one thing wrong with that.  However it has social and sport implications.  First is the concussion issue that is on the front burner now.   My strong belief is that many black kids join the military because of unfair and limited options.  Is it not wrong to steer any group of young people to war’s dangers and horrors?   It doesn’t stretch the intellect too far to see similarities with the ever growing dangers of football.  Are we forcing some smaller kids into an arena where  they are dangerously over matched?

Back to tennis, and there is a connection.   As bigger and better athletes reject football and maybe even basketball, wouldn’t it be wise for tennis to make a bee-line to recruit them to the tennis court?   I can tell you right now those people are selecting other sports in the South.  Soccer and  now Lacrosse are draining these guys and girls their way.

Want one main reason?  Duh- college scholarships?

A popular and long held notion is that pro tennis youngsters should avoid college.  I believe now more than ever those are rare creatures.   Most of our elites have come out of a basic structure or path.  First the home and the parents:  Chris Evert,  Jim Connors,  McEnroe, the  Bryans,  the Williams sisters, and the most recent ones Isner, Steve Johnson,  and now Shelby Rogers. The best players in the world can be cited (Rafa and Uncle Tony.   The Joker is making a case for “best ever” and he came for a one court Serbian town with a woman pro).  Most Americans  had connections to college tennis, or at least it was in the back of their minds.  The next step was the local pros.  Try Pete Sampras and Dr. Fischer.   Clubs and their pros were a main cog in the wheel.

Another quantum change when so many academies took kids away from their homes too soon.  No  matter who or how much you pay some one , will they pay the same amount of attention as a loving parent.   Some academies were guilty  of throw away kids,  drugs, limited education, and limited help for those other than the ones who could make the academies shine.

Colleges do a much better job at a more mature age.  As academies purport to do, colleges house, feed, train student/athletes with a lot more worthwhile education thrown in.  Both are expensive.   The expense and the value of scholarships all the more reason to motivate tennis as a sport choice for the talented.

One personal guess is that Title IX  was unjustly blamed for some schools who dropped tennis.   I wonder how many Athletic Directors silently came to a conclusion similar to this?

1.  All sports are counted in the standings for our ‘Conference Cup’?
2. We are in a conference with four good tennis teams with all foreign teams and we give 8 girls and 41/2 boys grants to internationals.
3. I can find a better place for that size of budget.

Families, free play, clubs and pros, junior tournaments, to college.  Injury doesn’t take away your education.   Maybe four years of college tennis is the answer.

There is one specific  place I believe American tennis should focus on getting better.  Many  high schools don’t have teams.  Many teams have limited budgets.  Many coaches receive little  or no compensation.   Many local pros could help train new or limited coaches and players.  Some talented players elect to not play high school tennis.  My strong belief is that playing for your team is important.  And I believe a pro and coach working together can be very productive.  The game is the best teacher.  To play an extra twenty matches for your high school can’t hurt.

My book, THE LITTLE GREEN BOOK of  TENNIS  is geared at helping junior and high school teachers, coaches, players and teams.  Private funding provided this guide for all 711 boys and girls high school coaches in North Carolina’s public schools.

I am still wondering about data that a group of “worker bees” or tennis organizations could find out.

1.  I betcha 75% of scholarship aid in tennis goes to internationals.
2. I wonder how many at all levels (NCAA I, II, and III, and NAIA, and Junior Colleges) have an all foreign team.  State schools?
3.  What percentage of awards  go to  predominantly international teams?  All conference, all regional, all americans, outstanding player, outstanding freshman?
4. How many second children  elected another sport after seeing a sibling lose a valuable grant to a first choice school.
5. Isn’t it about time some of our organizations screw up their courage and use their time, money and efforts to make these facts available to American parents and players.  The USTA, NCAA, ITA, NFHSAA, athletic directors, administrators.
6.  What legal statute keeps us from taking care of Americans first.  What does the legal term “state actor” mean to this issue.  What really came down when the ITA voted in an allotment of 50% aid for our kids, then acquiesced to the “big boys”?
7.  Would  anyone foot the bill for a court decision?   How about running a bluff.  Try this:  1.  The NCAA has a ton of money  2. The USTA has a ton of money.  3. The NCAA really cares about the money sports, i.e.foorball and basketball.  Tennis, not so much.  If the USTA, whose first love is tennis , walked to the courthouse with a big of money, who would blink first?

 

 

 

 

Being from the South opens one up to quick criticism. My particular myopia centers around the world of college sports, mostly tennis. This began in 1972. Just this year I’ve made a “comeback”. My blog has 15 articles on the subject(s) published this year. Below I have listed related comments, if anyone is paying attention. If you read only one along with this one, go to #122.
Once again the only two American winners, save the Williams sisters, are college products. John Isner and the Bryan twins won the Davis Cup round.
My strong belief is that the only hope for future top American players, is the allotment of scholarships to our youngsters. Many youngsters are not playing football and basketball for whatever reason. Tennis needs to position itself to attract these youngsters as their next option of choice.
Ah, but the law. The constitution and NATIONAL ORIGIN. I think the Morel Letter (see blog 116)  gives tennis the “out” needed. There again, that Southern thing!
Anyway–to start the new year how about the SIX BY SIX plan? There are six singles players in the standard team format. There are also 6 slots for doubles (2 players per team, 3 teams). How about this: Six of the twelve slots must be filled by Americans?
Bob Burton said the NCAA should be restricted to ten rules. Add one? You have to eliminate one.
So here come the nit pickers: How do you allot scholarships? fill out your lineups? injuries? etc.
Call it the Parham 6×6 plan. But the details and rules? That is for the next Xenophobe.

RELATED ARTICLES BY NUMBER: 111,112,114,116,117,119,120,122,125,126,127,128,132,136,137.

CHICAGO (April 14, 2015, U.S. Soccer) – With 55 days until the USA’s opening match of the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup, U.S. Women’s National Team head coach Jill Ellis has named the 23 players who will represent the United States on women’s soccer’s grandest stage Tuesday. The roster will not become official until it is submitted to FIFA on May 25, which is the deadline for all teams to submit their final squads.

Six former University of North Carolina Tar Heels have been named to the team – the most from any university program. The Tar Heel contingent includes Heather O’Reilly, playing in her third World Cup, Lori Chalupny and Tobin Heath, playing in their second World Cups, and Ashlyn Harris, Meghan Klingenberg and Whitney Engen all playing in their first World Cups. Chalupny is the most veteran Tar Heel in the group, having last competed at UNC in 2005. O’Reilly’s last season was 2006 while Engen, Harris and Heath finished in 2009 and Klingenberg in 2010.

Broken down by alma maters, the team includes six players from North Carolina, two each from UCLA, Stanford, Penn State and Virginia and one each from Washington, Santa Clara, Monmouth, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Portland, California, USC and Florida.

Stole the information above! Below, it’s mine.
* Soccer is the most popular sport in the world.
* The USA men’s team has never won the World Cup.
* Title 1X became law in 1970. Most widely known beneficiary? Women’s sports.
* No other country enforces such a law.
* July 5, 2015, USA women win third World Cup title, since Title 1X.
* Now is the time to wave a flag. An American one.
We watched the game on TV. With pride. We were joined by guests from Burlington, NC, one of whom asked “… where is their national training center?”
My reply? The largest is thirty miles from you. UNC-AT Chapel Hill. Of the 23 roster members above, all 23 went to college. Anson Dorance, Coach at UNC is legend.
College athletics are the most productive training center for elite athletes and teams anywhere in the world.
Is tennis watching? All the soccer girls probably had sizable scholarships. And without the scholarships how many would been where they are now?
Tennis has cut this foundation off. Our funding is “foreign aid”, shipped all over the world, while we can’t seem to find a fair and legal way to reserve money for our own children.
Americans want top level players. People are searching for help. I repeat: Restore reasonable college scholarships funding for tennis. And the foundation for player development in our country.

In an earlier comment, I suggested that American collegiate sports seemed to be following college tennis in giving scholarships in startling amounts to international players. And, I speculated that women’s golf might be on the verge of doing the same thing. Duh!
Last week the Raleigh News and Observer ran an article about how many women golfers in the southern USA regional NCAA qualifier were international. Duke is ranked 3 in the nation. Their roster lists seven players, one from France, one from South Korea, two from Ireland, one from Nova Scotia, one from India, and one from China.
I hear “diversity” often, as justification for this. For diversity, why doesn’t the coach mix in an American girl?
Any way you slice it, its still baloney.
1.If you give them a scholarship its foreign aid. If they pay the rate at Duke (60k annually?) it is foreign trade. How many do that?
2. Title 1X was intended to be fair to American women. For every grant issued internationally an American girl loses and opportunity for a Duke education. Probably because she scores 3 shots a round more than an international.
3. It is spreading like kudzu.
MY high school football team, playing in the homecoming game, gave up a quick touchdown. Then we fumbled on the first play on offense. In our defensive huddle our captain concluded, “…we better get a toe-holt on this son of a bitch.”
(See blog article 120 (THE WORLD CUP–March 29, 2015.)

There are some new terms floating around on the American college/university sports scene. Two that are linked are “The autonomy movement” and “The Power Five”. Perhaps a clarification is in order. Boiled down in simple terms, these will mean money is now in charge of college sports. Who knows how it will all unfold. Speaking for my sport, tennis, and others non-revenue sports, (aka everything other than football and men’s basketball) this may not be all bad. Here is another disguised new term: “Preferred Walk-on”. Simple definition? “We prefer not to give you a scholarship”! Or, “does not play”. Rare exceptions granted, those six to seven guys at the end of the bench don’t play much basketball, and get less money than that playing time. The same is true in college tennis. The money goes to the top six or seven players. And more to the one player than the sixth. Stated simply again, the aid flows to the top of the lineup. At the end of this article there is a link to recent column from the New York Times. It professes a commitment on the part of the USTA to college tennis. What is not included in the column is the enormity of American college tennis scholarship aid given to international players. Though I am somewhat encouraged by the mood today, it is late in coming and almost surely related to the abysmal lack of top pro Americans. This, in turn, affects the whole health of the game of tennis in the USA. I have fought this imbalance since 1970. Look the recent blog articles and the books I have written. But I’m about “out of gas”. I am firing me last bullets. And I write this hoping some younger tennis enthusiasts will jump in the fray. It ain’t easy. But youth is a great advantage. AND TECHNOLOGY. My sons say I’m on the other side of the digital divide. But I’m savvy enough to know the data is there to expose just how rampant the discrepancy is. The college season is drawing to a close for 2014/2015. All divisions (NCAA 1,2,3 and JUNIOR COLLEGES, and the NAIA) have playoffs with a conference, then regional, then national tournament. Here are some technology available data worth examining: 1. Remember the “preferred walk-ons of tennis (most often Americans) get little aid. Therefore when examining the percentage of aid given to internationals check school websites for hometowns of the top six people that play in “big matches”. Example: Four of the top six are international? 2/3 of the aid goes to those guys! 2. What are those percentages for the top ten teams in all divisions. Want a real shocker? Check that stat for the last ten years. Women too. 3. What are those percentages for the conference, then, regional, then national winners. The higher you go, the higher the percentage. Betcha so! 4. Here is another kicker: Conference,Regional, and National tournaments will have awards (team champs, runner-up, all-conference, all-regional, all american, mvp, freshman of the year. Check where these hail from. Americans rarely are on those lists There is a lot to be learned. I don’t have any skin in the game now. Just a love for the game and our kids. Hoping for a “worker-bee” disciple. LET ME KNOW AND GOOD LUCK. nytdirect@nytimes.com (REMEMBER TO CHECK THIS)

America anointed its new hero yesterday in Augusta. What a jewel Jordan is. Know where he was June 3, 2012? Helping his college teammates from the University of Texas win the NCAA golf championship. Yep–he went to college for 3 semesters before going pro. Guess what—he had a golf scholarship. Would he have gone to college without a scholarship? Ask him. Lots of Longhorns in the crowd at Augusta. Suppose that year and a half did him any good? Didn’t keep him from a pro career, did it?

Good guess is how long before America has its Jordan Tennis. Might take a while when 80% of the top tennis team’s tennis scholarship aid goes overseas.

DUH

CHECK OUT THE ARTICLE OR LINK BELOW.
THE USTA LEADERSHIP PROFESSES THE WORTH OF COLLEGE TENNIS. HAS IT SUNK IN THAT THERE IS A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DWINDLING OF OUR TOP PLAYERS FROM WORLD RANKINGS, AND THE MASS EXODUS OF TENNIS SCHOLARSHIPS FROM AMERICAN YOUNGSTERS AND THEIR FAMILIES TO INTERNATIONAL PLAYERS?

http://nyti.ms/1lCAAXd  (FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES)

NORTH CAROLINA’S JOHN ISNER IS THE TOP MALE TENNIS PLAYER IN THE NATION. NO ONE ELSE IS CLOSE. SADLY.
NOT LONG AGO THE WORD ON THE “TENNIS STREET” WAS “…IF YOU WANT TO BE A PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYER, DON’T GO TO COLLEGE?
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS:
1. IF JOHN HAD NOT GONE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA AND MATURED AS A PLAYER AND PERSON OVER THOSE 4 YEARS, WOULD HE HAVE BECOME THE QUALITY OF PLAYER HE IS TODAY? ASK HIM.
2. IF HE HAD NOT RECEIVED A SCHOLARSHIP WOULD HE HAVE PLAYED THOSE FOR YEARS AT GEORGIA?
3. CHECK THE HISTORY OF OUR TOP TEN PLAYERS. WHAT PERCENTAGE HAD COLLEGE EXPERIENCE?
4. HOW MANY INTERNATIONALS WHO HAD AMERICAN TENNIS SCHOLARSHIPS ARE NOW PLAYING PROFESSIONAL TENNIS?

I CHECKED NUMBER 3 RECENTLY. BEST GUESS? 75%
I CHECKED NUMBER 4 ALSO. BEST GUESS? ABOUT 40.
‘