1. Lisa, after reading your post one could be left with the impression that the three options you mention have an equal chance of occurring. I think even the most strident supporters of your position would agree that the third choice is mostly theoretical. There needs to be an appreciation of how hard it is to pass anything in the USTA. The "default" position in the USTA is critical because it is so hard to pass anything. Because Dave Haggerty strongly supports the new modifications that has a reasonable chance of becoming the new rules. Your third choice would be nearly impossible without the USTA President supporting it which he does not. The good news however is that in about a week this whole discussion will reach a conclusion.

  2. So, your argument is for Lisa and the rest of us to be quiet and not raise our voices against an unfair quota system that does the opposite of what the changes were supposed to do? All because politics makes it impossible to change? Again, I'm waiting for somebody to explain why the quotas make sense. In private, every single supporter of the changes, including powerful USTA folks have acknowledged the quotas are inadequate and unfair. Does Dave believe they make sense or is this just about finishing a political process? Are USTA politics more important than fairness?

    • Antonio- why does Florida have the same amount of senators as Wyoming? Why do we only get four (4) tennis players into the Olympics if we have 9 players in the top 64? That isn't fair........Why was George Bush able to win the presidential election when he had less popular vote than Al Gore in 2000? Qouta is the great equalizer in this whole equation and it is what makes this new system so great. Win in your section or go home. Just letting you know, option three is not going to happen. See if Lisa can dig up the last time a section was able to propose a call item with 30% of the membership and then get it passed? Even if Southern wants to try and get things stirred up, all you have to do is count up the rest of the votes, (they AREN"T there). It is funny to see the same small minority of people complaining on this site. If you think this qouta thing is so bad Antonio, why don't you move to a "weaker" section and try to get him qualified? It looks like the new committee threw a few bones to this group and added some of the weaker tournaments back in. Hopefully your kids will be able to qualify out of their sections........

      • Great, Don, at least you're admitting the system is unfair. All I'm arguing is that we should not double the importance quotas and make the system MORE unfair. Also, you again make it personal (as you did on another post) by pathetically suggesting i move to another section. I'm not doing this for my son, but because of what I believe is right (and, by the way, what the rationale for the changes you support says is right: getting the best to play the best). If you'd bothered to do a little research, all things remaining equal in the future, my son is probably among those who are, at most, mildly affected by the changes. And you really think we're a minority? Please. A minority of us may be writing, but we represent what has been ackowledged by the USTA as the overwhelming majority of parents.

      • The number of senators is the same for each state. However, we have the House of Representatives to act as a balance. Under the current jr comp system, we have the NSL to act as a balance for the quotas. Under the 2014 proposals, that balance is eliminated. And, yes, I do have a degree in political science.

      • Don As per your quota examples they are not neccesarily the way of the world Depends on purpose and goals 2 senators/state...states interests House of Reps by population indiviual and national interests Bush wins by electoral college.... states interests Olympics are a team event representing country Selection to Natl Champs is for an individual event thus should include an indiviuals national standing pathway Team events such as Zonals and intersectionals duely are selected by section Our current selection system is better because it has evolved naturally from need of freedom of choice and multi pathways in a global world, not "the way it used to be" Hey we loved Fred Flintstone too but.... As per great value of this blog Thanks Lisa for filling a need for a forum for ideas and feedback by which all parties can openly and transparently communicate After the 2011 changes I suggested that the USTA create an open feed back forum... still waiting

      • Also, Don manages to ignore that pro tennis doesn't have quotas. Following his argument in support of quotas, Lichtstenstein and Andorra should get get some players into Wimbledon. If size of country matters (as does size of section in the 2014 changes), China and India should get 40% of all slots in majors.

    • I want Antonio to answer one more question, why did your "buddies" Kempton and Bellamy get put on the committee, and why were you left off? Why don't we hear anyone else from FL complaining? Seems like to me your "buddies" voted for this new proposal, since it passed unanimously. I don't see them on the blogs anymore would love to see debate point for point with a guy like Mark Bey or Tim Russell who actually know what they are talking about. You and your "buddies" have time and time again proven that you don't understand what you are talking about, and that is why nobody is listening anymore. It is like the little group that cried wolf!! Once Jeff Grant put out his amazing proposal that pretty much told me all I needed to know, you guys had no idea what you were talking about. You thought you could put something together in two weeks, which three committees now have been working on for 6 years. Shows the type of arrogant people we are working with, and the lack of understanding. The only reason you are fighting this is because it is self serving. It is self serving for Kempton, Bellamy, and stone. Let everyone know how the meeting goes where they vote on this, and let me know what the end result. My guess is things are looking pretty bleak for you and your boys....

      • Your arrogance drips off the page, not ours. I know you are smarting from the fact that changes were made to your perfect plan. You are the one displaying ignorance. Six years in the making? So why did the JCC approve the diametrically-opposed 2011 changes? And why were changes that were supposed to be predicated on a "universal ratings system" approved even though the ratings system wasn't? Why aren't Steve and Kevin commenting? JCC members have to sign confidentiality agreements. Again, you pathetically make things personal, by asking why I'm not on the committee. Ask Dave Haggerty. I volunteered. And things are looking pretty bleak for me and "my boys"? Maybe, but we've already gotten opportunities added and had the USTA change course for what I'm told is the first time ever. I'm the only one from Florida complaining? I can send you dozens of letters I've received supporting what I'm saying and, to this day, I have yet to speak to one Florida parent who supports the changes. You are also sadly mistaken about Geoff Grant's proposal. It was far more thoughtful and fair than anything the JCC has come up with (Zoo Tennis among others agrees). The only problem with his proposal for people like you is that it wouldn't fly because of USTA politics. But I guess politics trumping fairness is fine with you because you've already admitted you have no problem with making the quota system more unfair.

  3. I sent my email to voice my concern with the new proposal, especially the quota and L2/L4 concurrent issue. Maybe I am naive, but just can't believe why USTA won't listen. Lisa, Could you send the message to the contact you have with USTA to express these concerns? They do pay more attention when you speak and you can express these in a much clear and logic ways.

    • California Tennis, please be assured that I am in constant communication with my Southern Section contact. And, I suspect that USTA is continuing to read this blog and all related comments, so I'm hoping they are paying attention to all the well-thought-out ideas being shared here.

  4. Lisa, Totally understand... I won't be surprised but will be sad to see Southern and other sections who benefit from this flawed approach taking the approach to support it. USTA only realize by 2014 that how stupid a system they have put in and how big a damage it caused for kids who are impacted by this change.

    • CA Tennis, it seems to me that Southern realizes that NO ONE benefits from this new proposal OR the original 2014 schedule and will vote against it next week and do what it can to garner enough support to offer up that call item for a pause. At least, I hope that's what will happen. Now, if SoCal and NorCal do the same, there might be that magic 30% needed . . .

      • That 30% number is simply to propose a call item. Like getting something on the ballot. To pass a call item is an incredible task. I think there was alot of good work on this blog. There were alot of positive changes and no one ever gets everything. I think it has become an error on this blog to define victory as getting a pause or decreasing the number of quota spots that will occur in 2014. With that narrow definition your goal has failed. However using a broader definition to define the work that you have all done I would say you have really made an impression and greatly increased the number of playing opportunities from the 2014 changes.

        • Dennis, yes, I understand and think I made it very clear that the 30% is "simply to propose a call item." To clarify, I'm not looking at any of this as a victory vs. defeat situation. I'm simply doing everything I can to ensure a strong tennis-playing future for our kids. I have spent an inordinate amount of time asking questions and talking to knowledgeable people about the procedures established by the USTA bylaws so that I can use this forum to help educate others on the best way to get a pause on the 2014 changes. Yes, it's a big task, but it's definitely do-able though we need to work quickly. As I've said before, I never intended this blog to be a place for work to be done. I started writing it to share my experiences as a tennis parent so that others going down a similar path could learn from my mistakes (as well as from the few things I've done right). No one will be happier than I am to move beyond this 2014 discussion, especially if we're moving beyond it because we've gotten the USTA Board to agree to a pause on these inane changes.

  5. 18 months ago we were all told by Tim Russell that there was no procedural way for the USTA to back track on the 2013/2014 plan. Lo and behold the 2013 changes ( minor as they were) were paused. We are now debating a significantly revised proposal for 2014. Call me a naive optimist but I'm hoping the section presidents take the time to really understand the proposal on the table ( and it will take time), understand how it will affect the kids in their sections( and not just the quotas) and then have the courage to vote in the best interests and with the wishes of the constituents they represent. If that happens I'm confident a pause will be tabled and approved. There are no winners right now.

    • It is always a bad idea for fictional names to identify real people and then make up quotes about them. Tim Russell led the way for the qualifiers which are now in the amended proposal. By definition the biggest change in the new proposal came from him. If you are going to use a fictional name to quote real people at least have the decency to get it right.

      • Come on "George." You say you don't want anonymity but you are anonymous yourself? Tim and others did say exactly what "tennisforlife" says he did. The qualifiers were proposed by the USTA at our meeting in Chicago. Maybe Tim originated them, but they are far from the biggest change in the new amendments (winter nationals and a whole new weekend of level 2s affect far more players). A far better suggestion would be to keep the draws at 192 and do block seeding so the top 64 players wouldn't have to play the first day. And "Dennis," you keep focusing on the process without addressing the substance. NOBODY has yet to argue why the quotas make sense. NOBODY has refuted that they will make supernats weaker. So why do you keep telling us to give up the fight against something so clearly unfair and that so clearly violates the stated principles of the "best playing the best" and "earned advancement"?

      • Point of clarification . . . Tim Russell was on the previous Jr Comp & Sportsmanship Committee (in fact, he chaired the committee) but is no longer a part of it. So, why is he involved in the creation of the new proposal? Just curious . . .

  6. We all have our perspectives & here's ours: Waiting for the changes or the changes to the changes to arrive on January 1st is a little like camping out on a railroad track & waiting for the train that that's schedule to arrive on January 1. You see it in the distance & you know it's gonna crush you & your fellow campers (those in business to support junior tennis) ... but you just can't do anything about it. The beauty of being self-emplloyed & being your own boss? RIGHT. Talk about anxiety & sleepless nights!! One "positive?" thing is that the constant turmoil & fighting is gonna end in a few weeks & we'll know once & for all what the future is gonna look like. Actually, we'll know it - but will we understand it? RIGHT. We've been adjusting our schedule to eliminate tournaments since 2010... Please - can someone out there address these specific questions? 1. The Spring National Championships are about to kick off for what will effectively be the last year since they'll either be eliminated off the face of the map or replaced by a team event? 2. Are the sectional tourneys (Natl Level 3) in June similar to what is currently known as Summer Southern Closed? 3. Are the Spring, Fall, & Winter Southern Closed (currently Southern Level 1A/National Level 4) being eliminated? 4. Are the Southern Level 2/National Level 5 Designated tourneys currently known as BullFrogs in March, October, November being eliminated? We THINK the changes will be bad for junior tennis; we KNOW they'll be bad for HIGH-TECH TENNIS. Actually, everyone we know is upset about the upcoming changes - for different reasons & from different perspectives. But I can't fully express how stressful / confusing / tiresome it is to run a business in this environment... ANY & ALL RESPONSES ARE WELCOME (except those that bash - please spare us, o.k.). Thank you.

    • Julie, under both 2014 calendars, Spring Nats are gone. The June event will be our Southern Closed. My understanding is that the other events you mention will remain as is. If someone knows otherwise, please correct me!

      • Tournament designations Nat'l level 5's are gone in proposals Their diminished miniscle points points have already minimized their Nat'l points impact. Point changes...higher points for upper rounds of higher level tournamments and reducing points for lower rounds and levels and back draws coupled with reducing 8 to 6 Natl tournaments counted have already helped create real incentives and better determine ability With open inclusive oversight POINT AND RANKING MODIFICATION CHANGES is a better incentive way to guide tournament choices and fairly determine ability or level of player as opposed to eliminating opportunities for players and industry. Here in So Cal the Level 2 section designation and endorsement status will continue the significance of the tournament or turn some into the needed ITF's on West Coast (We have only three

  7. Lisa/Tennisforlife, It sounds great, I will work with the parents from North Cal and our section to vote against this new proposal instead of focus on particular issues. We will need folks from South Cal, Florida, Texas and other place to do the same.

  8. Please note: I will delete any comments that reference any particular junior players. This discussion is meant to improve competitive opportunities for ALL juniors.

  9. I gained a little insight into how the sections and voting work. In our section, our center was named a new regional training center. Thanks to the coach very involved in USTA. Therenis no way in heck, that the coach lobbying for this center was going to disagree with the USTA, and be the voice of his kids parents overwhelmingly over ruling this. Who's voice do you think win out? The coach, wanting his center to get the money by beig designated as an RTC. This guy is a consummate politician, but speaks for himself, not the parents, yet the the vote goes the way of the USTA. I have to believe this is the way it's played out all over the country. Think of all the centers wanting to be RTC, do you think those coaches voiced the opinions of the parents or themselves? In fact, the guy NEVER asked, and sort of dismissed the issue.

  10. While it is hard to get the USTA to change course it is even harder to get the USTA to change course once it has begun down a path. I like the idea of the third option. Leave things as they are and study more. In the end I would like to see what Coach Chuck Kriese said to everyone at the meeting in Atlanta happen--"If we do nothing else as far as developing players in the USA we should have a tournament structure here in the USA which works to bring about the best players in the world!"--I paraphrase there but that was the main idea he was putting forth in his comments. For this to work it begins with the schedule and how it is set up. With regard to Steve Bellamy being on the committee--he is a perfect fit. He ought to chair it. Now--this group on the committee has been properly groomed and readied by the USTA. They have probably been lectured about the important work they are doing and as such, they have themselves--just like the committee before them--lined up one behind another and will defend this new proposal because it is their baby. I think this latest versions tends to be mishmash and a supreme compromise. I still am not a fan of it. I still would like to see imput from more coaches on these matters. I am not really interested in the opinion of some of the younger coaches as I am in the opinion of some of the older coaches who work with junior players. There are a few older coaches throughout the USA who have over time brought forth player after player thru the system time and again. When they do it over time as they have and they have done it for 30 years or more they might be the best people to consult about how to tweak the system. They know what works. The older guys would be interested in helping and giving back after so many years of service. They need to be involved in the formation of this policy. From what I see of the committee this is not the case. One other sector of the industry has an enormous amount of influence on the committee. It is the "tournament directors". I would like to see them have less influence in the final outcome. Finally, I wish they could work toward a solution that is done with pen and paper. Get rid of the computers and sit down with legal pads and come up with something simple and clean. Once they have that in place--then use the computers to get it to get it out to the people. But what they have now is too convoluted.

  11. In deciding viable and or best options and courses of action my first thought was the classic strategy principle RISK and REWARD...how much do you go for? Nobody wants the existing changes option 2 other than to facilitate the pause option 3 which would be set up in place(by sections heads) before voting down proposal In any case we should continue to contact sections heads and letusknow@usta.com with suggestions option 1 and if inclined suggest a pause for review.

  12. Lets analyze the goals set by the proposal: Goal #1: ***"Is fair to all the sections" *** First of all, it should be re-worded as "Is fair to all players". It is the players who play this competitive sport, not the sections. One should not play politics using the name "sections". Under the proposal, some weak sections would be able to send their 3-star players to a Supernational while other sections won't be able to send their 5-stars. Would this be fair? Goal #2:***"Allows for a logical progression from sectional to national to super-national play"**** The quotas make top sectional players automatically qualify for super-national. There is no progression in the middle. There is no need for national open or regional tournaments in order to play super-nationals. Goal #3:***"Results in the best players competing against the best players in the country"*** Some sections are able to send poor quality players to L1s as guaranteed by section quotas. This can happen when a section is weak. It can also happen for other sections where players are less desired to play a L1 due to various reasons. For example, east players may choose not to play Winter National, which is a favorite for west players. Therefore, some east sections does not always send their best players to the WN, while the west sections need those quotas to send better quality players. The quota based system work very poorly and is very counter-productive for the above goal. Goal #4:***"Is accessible, easy to understand, and cost-effective"*** It is not refined enough to be practical. For example, it does not separate ages and genders when the quotas are assigned. There are a lot of questions and controversies. Goal #5:****"Most importantly, promotes true earned advancement"******* When a large number of players compete by quotas, not by their abilities, guess what will be promoted? Politics.

  13. What all of these plans fail to address is the single most basic need of every tennis parent with children of a National capacity - choice! We can't be beholden to a 9 or 10 tournament National Calendar. We have vacations. We have kids aging up. We have injury. We have kids getting sick. We have varied school schedules. We have varied test schedules. We have periods of mental and physical exhaustion when competing at the top levels. We have siblings playing other sports and activities. We need 20 options to be able to pick 10 as opposed to just 10. There are people in tennis who are for quickstart and those against it. There are people for tie-breakers for the 3rd set and those against. There are people for 8 game pro sets in doubles and those against. But these 2014 changes and the new addendum are the most unanimously opposed things I have ever seen in all my years in this sport. They look like they were created by people without even a mild understanding of what it takes to be a junior tennis player and what the needs of the parents who are providing this opportunity for our children. If there are any USTA influencers out there who really care about the kids, then please do what you can to instigate a permanent pause.

    • Tennis Parent is exactly right and further....changing to only best 6 tournaments counting and point incentives, point reduction, already goes a long way to not need to play all tournaments, IF there plenty to choose not to play

    • Lets cal it the Woody Allen Schedule - He did say "Eighty percent of success is showing up"

  14. I think Tennis Parent makes some very, very valid points.

  15. With the extra level 1and 1A tournaments for the top players (there are now 10; it's the kids who aren't in the top 32 who are getting hurt by the changes), kids who make quota will never again have to play sectionally, doing the opposite of what the changes intended. Of course, sections can force play in the sections through tough endorsement rules, but you didn't need to change the whole national system.

  16. Word is that in about 5 days all sections including Southern will be voting for the proposed changes. Southern will be voting yes because to vote no means they are voting for the original proposal that they so despised. Therefore vote will be unanimous. For what its worth some of you make some good points and I would not refute them. In fact if I were voting you have convinced me. The problem is that I am not voting and convincing me is meaningless. I look forward to next week when we can join forces again on a new topic.

  17. Sorry Neal, but I don't know where you are getting your information. There are some sections that are on board with pushing for a pause. Lisa explained the procedure above. I'm not saying it will happen, but support for the changes is nowhere near unanimous right now. People who believe these changes are detrimental to America's tennis kids should email their section heads and make their feelings known. It's hard to believe that's necessary after all the petitions, meetings and Facebook pages, but we should make a final push,

  18. My information is correct but you certainly have every right to press forward. In any case by late Saturday it will be done.

  19. Everyone has made excellent points here and I certainly don't know many of the folks who post on this blog, but I don't think anyone who posts here has a vote at the USTA Annual Meeting. I think Neal is more right than wrong. Sections can vote yes or no for the changes. As I understand it, if the no votes carry the day, we get 2014 as originally approved. While it is certainly possible that someone could propose a complete rejection of the original 2014 plan, it appears to me that it would not be heard at the meeting on procedural grounds. New items need 90 days notice before it can be considered by the USTA membership (USTA By-Law 64). If one reviews USTA Regulation XIX.C., a proposal to consider a complete rejection of 2014 could not be heard until the 2013 Semi-Annual Mtg. It could not be voted upon until the 2014 Annual Meeting to take effect on January 1, 2015. By then, of course, 2014 would be in full effect and the whole thing would be moot. Is the appropriate strategy to prepare now for the 2014 schedule as approved at the 2012 Annual Meeting???? Who knows.

  20. Neal, who are you? You sound like a USTA insider, but there's nothing I can find that connects a "Neal Payne" to the USTA. Maybe you're an insider posting under a false name? Please prove me wrong about you. On the other hand, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. This will not be done by Saturday night. Nothing will be final until a USTA board meeting in April. And trust me, there is some serious dissension in the ranks at the highest levels, no matter how hard you want it to be otherwise. It's time to pause this.

  21. George, I'm told by people far more knowledgeable about USTA procedures than I am that this can be paused. If it can't, what kind of organizational structure would be silly enough to allow a committee to approve something in a mad rush and then have no way of overturning it?

  22. Antonio, I admire your persistence but you are wrong in essentially everything that you are saying. Lets resume this discussion on Monday. If you are correct we will be able to do this. If I am correct you will be whistling past graveyards. See you Monday.

  23. I don't see how Florida could have ever voted for this proposal. We lose half of our spots at Super Nats in this ax chop to Florida junior tennis. Why are we messing around with a system that no one was complaining about to change it to a system that everyone is complaining about? I just don't get it. But I do know droves of talented Florida tennis players who have been playing Super Nats for years, who will now be out. There is not a person in Mobile right now who is not upset about this. Our kids are dominating and next year, many of them wont even get in the level 1s. Makes no sense.

  24. The fact that you won't identify yourself speaks volumes. If you think some section heads aren't now opposing the changes, you are dead wrong. As I've said, I am no expert on the USTA's procedures. I was told by someone more knowledgeable than I that USTA procedures will not allow a final vote on anything this weekend, that any vote to table or approve any changes will happen at the April board meeting and that any such vote could be ratified at the September USTA meeting. Also, I am a lawyer and I have never heard of an organization that does not have by-laws that allow for a special meeting to be called to address specific issues. It absolutely defies belief that there would be no procedural way to stop an unpopular plan that was amended in a huge, less than 48-hour rush last week. We are more than nine months away from that unpopular plan's effective date. If there is no procedural way to stop it, the USTA is in even more dire need of reform than I thought.

  25. That was addressed to "Neal Payne," not "Fla Mom" with whom I wholeheartedly agree.

  26. Antonio gets so paranoid. I can see him on his laptop looking up Neal Payne. Anyone who is against is an insider. Neal how dare you be opposed to these changes. Neal maybe you can buy Antonio a drink after the vote at this meeting. I look forward to seeing what the sections come up with. I think this new structure will get more kids playing and help raise the level of play in the sections. Everything that old players say is that this is like the old system. Some of the toughest matches they played was to get to nationals. Even Wayne Bryan said this. Get more play in sections. Even lawerence Rodick and the mom said this on the radio show. 128 players is the right number. Lisa what will you write about when this is over on Monday? I think it should be about the different pathways and how to get recruited by colleges. Just like when there was a 128 draw and no tennis recruiting. Make sure college coaches get to sectional championships.

  27. Ah, we'd missed your arrogance, "no pause,". Note that neither you nor Neal are identifying yourselves. Why are you so invested in pushing an unpopular plan? Identify yourself as a non-USTA person and prove me wrong. And please, stop the BS about pushing play back to the sections. That can easily be done with more strenuous sectional endorsement procedures without having to impose an unpopular national plan. Also, ironically, the original plan with all its wildcards and boutique events and now the amended plan with ten level 1s and 1As does the OPPOSITE of pushing play to the sections: kids who make quota never have to play in their sections again.

  28. Please explain how they don't have to play in their sections. I want a good laugh....

  29. Show us how smart you are Antonio...can't wait to hear this one. I think this whole site should make you login w Facebook. Don't hear you asking Tmom to id herself.

  30. Interesting back and forth between Neal and Antonio. The truth is they are both correct. Antonio is correct that technically the board cannot vote until April. Neal however is practically correct which is more important in this case. There will be a vote on Monday morning from the board and sections and all people eligible to vote. If this passes then the idea that the board would change their vote from the time the vote took place Monday until the official vote in April is a true flight in fantasy. This is therefore done by Monday. This is no doubt what Neal meant by renewing this discussion on Monday. The entire dynamic will have changed by then.

  31. Ah, arrogant and ignorant. Interesting how those two so often go hand in hand. The reality is that once you get into supernats and win a couple of rounds, you get as many state points, at least in Florida, as kids who get very deep in sectionals and designateds. Make it to the round of 16 and you need to win a sectional to get more points. If you are a kid who has made it to the Sweet Sixteens, Grand Masters or th new level 1 team event, you will have accumulated so many points n your section that you have no need to show up at a sectional. Again, if you want to push play to the sections, why not do it through tough sectional endorsement procedures? I guess that would be too easy. Finally, I wish Tmom and others would identify themselves. I have said so before. But, the reality is that people are afraid of th USTA, and after my experience in this battle over the 2014 changes, I sure as hell can't blame them.

  32. That was for Neal.

  33. The fact still remains if you want to play 18s in San Diego usta hard courts you will have to qualify through sectional endorsement. Meaning play in the section. Did you ever think that you are using a Florida plan or points table that is geared for a whole different system like the current 2013 system younare playing in currently? Do you think they might change? Sections will make changes based on what is passed. They will close the loopholes in the system. Just like the current committee is doing by passing this plan. Please explain to this blog the ways a player will get into the Level 1s under the new system? There are 2 right?

  34. OK, so you admit I was right? No good laugh, huh? If you'd bothered to read carefully, I specifically said that once you get into supernats (make quota) you can say bye-bye to sectional play. Once you get make quota, you can earn enough sectional points to remain highly ranked enough in your section to keep making quota without ever stepping on a local court. Again, you don't bother to answer the simple question: if pushing play to the sections is so important then why not do it the easy way? After I proved you wrong, you retreat into saying basically that I'm right but that the sectional points tables will need to change. Fair enough. But, ironically, I know Florida was discussing giving MORE not less importance to national and regional play. Currently, you get no Florida points if you win a level 2 or 3 unless it is played in Florida. With the new system and the super-regions, that would make little sense.

  35. Where did I say you are right? You are wrong. 100 percent wrong. How do you say bye bye to sectional play once you meet qouta? Please explain to those who are "ignorant" in your words....I guess I don't have an Emmy so I must not know what I am talking about. Please explain how you will advance to 2014 Easter bowl out of Florida? I bet they have consulted you since you have all the answers.

  36. Will you be going to this upcoming meeting? Have they asked you to speak to represent the "99.9%". Maybe they will give you an honorary vote ... And according to Neal be the only one voting against.

  37. Wow! Kudos for you Antonio Mora for having the guts to put your name out there and say what you think! I don't know who is right or wrong because as I am not that familiar with the situation, but it is clear that a lot of people have something to hide here. To the person who is using the name The reality...no pause, why don't you just say who you actually are? What do you have to hide?

  38. Wow, you are dense. Once you make quota (as I've said three times now) through sectional play, you will be able to earn so many sectional points through national play that you will never have to play sectionally again in that age division. Do I need to add the points for you? Spell it out in a graph? I guess I'll give you a simple example. The #11 boy in the FL 14's has 2244 points. Make the FIC quarters twice in a level 1 and you have way more than that in FL points. This top kid never looks back as he plays 10 level 1s and 1As. You say that kid is an exception? Well, make the FIC qualifying quarters twice and with a few more points you're there. And that is ONLY level 1 play. Add a level 2 or a level 3 and so long sectional play without even going deep in a level 1. Again, I answer all your questions, get attacked personally because you know who I am while you hide cowardly in your anonymity, and you don't bother to answer the simple question I have repeatedly asked: IF THE GOAL WAS TO PUSH PLAY TO THE SECTIONS, WHY NOT DO IT THE SIMPLE WAY THROUGH TOUGH SECTIONAL ENDORSEMENT REQUIREMENTS? I capitalized in case you didn't see it the three other times I asked.

  39. Dude you are dense I get your backwards logic buddy. That player who is 11 in Florida never gets into the nationals because you only have 10 quota spots genius. You are also assuming smart guy that this player who is 11 (and we know he doesn't get in because he isn't part of your quota) but we will assume he gets in. Last time I checked there were only 9 level 1 and 1a. That would mean the 11th ranked Florida player is top 16 in country (nope sorry) that takes one of those away. He isn't top 4 so he isn't getting into the masters. Lets take another away. He isn't top 6 in the section so won't be playing intersection alas. Whelp this another tournament he doesn't qualify for. So we have already eliminated 3 level 1s. He maybe top 32 in country so he could play team but I would still say that is a push so let's take that off the schedule. Prob won't qualify for doubles as only 32 teams So that leaves Easter bowl, clays, hards, and winter nats. That is only 4 level one mr dense guy. But you failed to calculate that number 11 doesn't even get into 3 of 4 tournament due to not being in top 10 of Florida. He can get cheap points at winter nats as you get 11 quota there. So in all reality he only plays all but one.

  40. Sectional Play • Emphasizing sectional play makes a lot of sense and is "good". No one disagrees that most development occurs locally. However ALL development does not occur locally. • Shifting the entry criteria back to the sections while providing a safety net (providing that wild cards are used for this) for those who for whatever reason cannot meet sectional requirements is, in my opinion, somewhat good. • Rather than slashing the numbers of national events, then creating new "regionalized" events, and developing new selection processes, the following standards would have restored reliance on sectional play, while leaving the current structures in place: o All players must be endorsed by their home section for admittance into National Championships. o A player endorsed by his/her home section in any age division shall be considered to be endorsed for all younger age divisions. o Wild cards should be retained and used to admit deserving players, who were unable to gain sectional endorsement. • In a nation as large as the United States there is no "one size fits all" tournament and/or competitive structure that meets the needs of every player in every section. Climate, player density, geographic variations, sectional size, and a host of other factors make each section's needs unique. Allowing each section to determine how best to encourage, develop, and endorse its players would be the way to return power to the sections. If the section's endorsement were required for National Championship play, there would be no need to eliminate any National events. • Restoring Sectional play as the staple of U.S. tennis is as simple as empowering the sections by handing them the reins to the National carriage by requiring sectional endorsement for Level 1 USTA National Championship and team play. • As long as sections must endorse players for Nationals, they will have all the sectional play they want.

    • Robert, thank you for sharing your well-thought-out analysis. I hope everyone following this discussion takes the time to read and digest it.

  41. Dude, you're the ignorant one. If you bothered to read the changes, Florida gets 11 for winter nats, 11 for hard courts (10 plus the sectional champion) and only gets 10 for clays. Amazing, you call me dense when it takes two seconds to prove you're the one who's wrong. Your whole theory is idiotic. All the kid needs to o is retain his #11 spot. Stefan Kozlov did forever with out coming anywhere near a sectional for years. And I only brought up #11 for the hell of it. More important are the top few who will never have to play because they get to rack up points at all the boutique events too. But #11 will not have to either, especially when you take 2s and 3s into account which he will get into. Finally, sorry, but look at the calendar and there are 10 1s and 1As, not 9.

  42. I agree with what Robert is saying and it's I've said all along: it is very easy to make kids play in their sections by having strict endorsement rules. "Dude" has refused to address that. There is no need to change the national tournament structure for that.

  43. I'll grant that there are 9 not 10. There are 10 dates for 1s and 1As, but no individual category has more than 9.

  44. Thanks. You are so kind. Sorry I was one off on the hards. If you read i said 11 for winters. Forgot about the section champion. I just know that you are fundamentally wrong in your statement that players won't play sectionally. Just because there are 9 events doesn't mean they will play all. The changes to the national schedule revolve around fundamental differences in what constitutes a national championship. 192 is too many. Not everyone gts to play in the nationals. People from my section said that jack sharpe and tom walker used to say 64 easter bowl was too many. If you agree based on your last comment to rob that play should be driven to the section then you agree in the new system. You can't drive play back to the section and then say we will advance off NSL. The NSL rewards people w money who can travel all over and scrape points. That is why you MUST have quota to level the playing field for people w means and without. This way my child could play our sectional events and choose not to play any other national events and advance to play hard and clays. The system you are arguing for is an elitist system. Play everything that has max points get the ranking up and now you will qualify based on NSL. I read Jim Courier flew back from Jr French to play FL sectionals so he could qualify for Hard courts. If he was in main draw of French he was top 50 ITF. My guess is FL will adjust to make it equitable and not create a system that defeats the purpose of the national changes.

    • You can't take the money out of tennis. The rich kids will always be able to afford more lessons, better coaches, and more court time. They can afford to travel more. They can spend a summer in Spain at clay court tennis academies, or live full time in Bradenton or Ojai. However, as someone in a geographically remote section, who cannot afford to travel a lot, I appreciate the fact that there is one aspect of their spending that benefits me too: Instead of us having to travel to play new players, they come to us. And if my player wins, great. The point chaser gets nothing for all their expenditures, becuase ultimately it takes money and talent. And if the '"point chaser" wins, good for them, the proved they were the better player, they should benefit from it. Money is going to be spent on tennis, regardless of these changes. Instead of seeing the glass half empty and making decisions based on envy, you need to realize that the current system the ability to travel to tournaments is the one area where everyone benefits from the expenditures of the "rich". You say you are not happy with a PPR system and there should be a head to head component, like a significant wins or such. But a H2H system doesn't work unless there is a significant amount of inter-sectional play. So, you can't seriously argue for schedule that virtually eliminates any potential for inter-sectional competition outside the top 100, and then say you want a H2H system, that makes no sense. We have a great H2H system - tennis recruiting - but tennis recruiting actually only works because USTA has PPR system. PPR forces them to play, and TNR measures the results. Under the new system, it's not even clear that TNR works anymore. You say "You must have quotas to level the playing field for people w means and without". I emphatically agree with this, but that's irrelevant, because that's not what is under discussion. There have been quotas, and we expect there always will and always should be quotas. Noone has argued that they be eliminated, the issue is should the system be 100% quota based, and not 75% quota based, or 50%, or whatever. We have already proven that the quotas can never, ever, be correct, for all ages groups, all events, all geographies. That's just math. Quotas will always be imperfect, there is seriously no arguing that, so the question is, do you have an alternate method for advancement recognizes this and tries to determine the "best of the rest" or do you say screw'em if the can't take a joke? USTA seems to have chosen the latter. The saddest thing about all this is the provincialism that USTA seems to have embraced, which is such the antitheses of tennis as a global sport. Watching Indian Wells with my kids is like geography lesson. However, USTA is moving in the exact opposite direction of where it should be moving, this is all so insane. Tennis should be our kids ticket to the world, to make friends, to bond over a common passion with other kids there own age with a similar passion, to compete with them.

      • Rich American kids aren't worth a dime for world class tennis anymore. And world class American kids is my arrogant concern. ;)

      • Marty, You wrote "Rich American kids aren’t worth a dime for world class tennis anymore. And world class American kids is my arrogant concern." Thank you for posting this. Seriously, when all is said and done, no matter which way the pendulum swings(or axe falls, pick your metaphor, only time will tell which is more appropriate), this should clarify everything for everybody, on who and what kind of person you are, as well as the other cockroaches infesting the JCC: bitter, petty, ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic. I actually suspect you will "win" when this is all done, if SoCal and FL, who control the vote, have a suicide wish for their kids national advancement chances, then everyone is screwed. In that case, thank you for screwing over my daughter to playing the same 5 girls over and over and over again, the same 5 girls she freaking practices with. Really, you are such an arrogant douche bag it cannot be expressed in words. You have no clue what it's like in other sections, outside of the you echo chamber, your bubble, but that does not stop you from wanting to impose your arrogant vision upon them. You have no idea what you are doing. No goddamn clue. Under your bullshit "vision", the freaking fantasy world you live in, kids don't need to travel, they should play in their section, against college kids, and in adult leagues, play up etc. Well, my daughter used to hit with the college player at the local university, until the NCAA said they were not allowed to do that. I thought about signing her up for adult leagues. but the local "adults" got tired of getting the shit kicked out of them by 11 year olds, so they passed a rule saying all adult leagues are now 18 and over. Kids want to play against their PEERS, their own age group, that is so critical. What is so hard about this to understand, they don't want to play adults or college kids or "play up", The older kids dont want to play them : this is not a win-win situation : the older kids have no incentive to play the younger kids, if they lose, they get embarrassed, if they win, they just beat a little kid. In fact, our JTT league passed a rule prohibiting a kids from playing up. So, they can't play up in JTT, and they can't play in adult leagues, and they can't play college kids, so where the freak are these increased sectional opportunities you keep barking about : I'll tell you where : they are non-existent and decreasing.

  45. Maybe the one thing we do agree on is that the points are not the best way to rank. We need a combo of both. If you put as much energy into changing the points as u did to this proposal then American tennis would be a lot better. There has to be a quality win component to the rank system then the NSL would be more of a level playing field.

  46. So, you're Mark? I thought you might be Lew. Maybe he's Neal Payne. I have repeatedly asked for someone to show me examples of kids who get into the top 50 or even top 100 from chasing points. It's not happening, or certainly not happening often. Much bigger issues are: 1) the fact that a kid from Northern gets the same points in sectional play as a kid from SoCal; and 2) that a system that's based on the rationale of "best playing the best" is now guaranteeing that won't happen with a quota system that will block many of the nation's best from playing. 22 kids from Florida are playing Spring Nats right now. 17 won their first round, and most who lost did so to seeds. 5 are in the round of 16, and their might have been more if four of Floridians hadn't lost to other Florida boys in the round of 32 (so 9 of the round of 32 were Floridians). Next year only 10 or 11 even get into the tournament. How does that achieve the "best-vs.-best" goal? What happened to "earned advancement"? I admit that the wealthy have an advantage. But now the weaker sections will have an even bigger advantage. Supporters of the changes have complained ad nauseam about "entitled kids." Now we are entitling whole sections. And, again, I have yet to be shown how many wealthy kids are getting an advantage. Even if there were 5 per category, does that really make it an elitist system? Your JCC has made it so that traveling for points doesn't work unless you win. Please show me kids who are winning and don't somehow deserve their ranking. Why aren't the current quotas enough? 61 kids get into the 16s spring nats off quotas after the 24 who get in from the NCSL (top 16 in the country, so they deserve it) and the 8 finalists in the last national opens (they deserve it too). Isn't your Midwest quota of 9 enough in that context? Isn't that plenty for kids to get in from sectional play alone? That's based on your Midwest rankings and endorsement procedures... no need to travel the country to get into nationals. The current quotas already level the playing field and they already lead to massive unfairness (the now infamous example of the boy ranked 89 in Southern and 955 in the country making quota to get into winter nats ahead of almost 90 kids ranked higher on the NSL). How does that make sense? How does doubling quotas in the new system make sense? Is this is all about social justice, not improving and promoting tennis? You quote Jack Sharpe and Tom Walker. They both oppose the changes. Finally, we do agree on the points issue, but your criticism of me there is unfair. There needs to be a quality component. But you should not imply that I have not put energy into arguing for that. My first analysis of what were then proposed changes back in March of last year specifically referred to that as did my response to Tim Russell that Sean Hannity published on his website. I have repeatedly talked about the issues with PPR on this blog (you can go look) and I have spoken out about it on the Parenting Aces radio show. I would happily work to come up with something that is more fair. Going to bed. You can get my number from Robert Gomez so we don't have to keep typing. It takes too long.

  47. Since there seems to be a discourse on selection criteria, let me address: Sectional Quotas • Quotas were originally created because there was little National play, so sections sent their best players to National events. • Once air travel and inter-sectional individual play became commonplace, quotas have evolved to a mechanism that allows good athletes who are disadvantaged by climate or population challenges to get the developmental benefits of "national" play. • Balancing the need to provide exposure to those challenged by geography and demographics with the equity of admitting players of proven accomplishment is never easy. The 192-draw was a way to make room for both those with local challenges and those of proven accomplishment. • Contracting the summer Nationals to 128 players, while expanding the number of players admitted via quotas, qualifiers, and fiat, has created a talented "underclass" whose only hope is to gain admittance via a qualifier, if one exists at all. • In the early 1980's the 128 draw was composed of 100 quota players plus the best remaining 28 sectionally endorsed players. Quota players were selected first. The remaining 28 spots provided the tournament the opportunity to admit talented players who fell outside their section's quota. • In the proposed regulation modifications, there is no haven for the really good player from the strong section who falls outside of his/her quota. There are no remaining vacancies unless in the unlikely event that a section's quota is not filled or a wild card goes unused. • Admitting most players into National events via quota will eventually serve to create a self-fulfilling order. If players are admitted to National events in set proportions, the points and players nationally ranked in the top 150 will tend toward a steady state. Regardless of the achievement level of players from any section vs. that of another, it will matter not at all for selection purposes, as long as the top 150 proportions remain the same. • Qualifiers in the 16's and 18 will become the refuge for players from strong sections, if they have been lucky enough to acquire enough National points to be admitted. • The total number of spots pre-assigned to sections via quota and those determined by wild card and qualifier (if applicable) should be limited to allow deserving players from smaller stronger sections to have direct entry rather than rely on the qualifying events (if they exist at all). • For a draw of 128 no more than 100 players should be allocated to sectional quotas, including winners of sectional championships and wild cards. • If sectional endorsement is required of all players being accepted, players may not bypass sectional play to gain entry.

  48. Antonio, Last year I was coaching the best 18 year old girl in Florida. She played no Sectionals No State Closed....nothing for 10 months..... When Summer came around, we decided to try and play Clays and HardCourts one last time. She only had two tournaments on her ranking Clays and Hards from year before...I thought we might have to ask for a wild card?? Nope... She got in!! If you are ranked high enough the so called Florida Endorsement meant nothing! I was like wow!! This System of playing in your own Section is great!!!! If everybody I mean everybody is forced to play a certain amount of tournaments in their own section. But.. This does not happen because the National points are so large... If a player has one very good Super National .. Then they are set for the whole year!! The National points at Sectionals Stink! Winning one match at a National Open is 50 National points? Winning a Sectional tournament the whole tournament in Florida and you get 100 national points? You know how hard it is to win a sectional in Florida? This is NOW under the current old system....The NEW System is going to be worse....way worse. If you have a bad Birthday you will be locked out ... If you get hurt you will be locked out.....If you are aging up making that transition... You better Win!! Your chances are very few... The few who get in early... They will be locked in!!! If the fish are not swimming through the same gates up stream....how is the school strengthen??? I have said all along... The way to make American tennis stronger is to strengthen many not a few. Top 10 Top 100 Top 200 same rules! If you are going to eliminate National Tournaments, have smaller draws, provide fewer chances to gain precious National points to fewer players. Then you Better have fewer Wildcards!!! And your sectional quotas better be minimal!!!! When I say minimal I'm talking like a range of ( 1-5 ).. National Standing Lists should be the only list....and everyone should have to play by the same rules. No back doors! In a perfect world with no politics... I would vote for a pause...unfortunately...the USTA might be more political and less transparent... To figure any of this out. I will email Bob from Florida and hope for the best.

  49. Remember........ Balancing the need to provide exposure to those challenged by geography and demographics with the equity of admitting players of proven accomplishment is never easy. The 192-draw was a way to make room for both those with local challenges and those of proven accomplishment. Larger Draws and more National event opportunities are the way to accommodate the competing needs of both quota players and "NSL" players. One sacrificed at the altar of the other is illogical when we already have a system in place that with minimal modification will serve the needs of both constituencies.

  50. Antonio, I wish I could reveal, but won't jeopardize my girls.1 gets invites and ops every now and then, and with new pared down system will not risk messing up wild card ops for all. If you haven't guessed, I'm not a pandering parent, which seems to pay off for others. I will say I'm probably fairly representative of many, most parents, and have been around the block with this operation. Rich kids will always have more opportunities, no matter what sport, or whatever you are talking about. It's the way it is. My middle kid is on a soccer team here 2 kids regularly receive private trainer sessions. And have an English coach sent in twice a year for 2 weeks...for the team. Tennis will never be an affordable sport. Ever. Just look at the cost of shoes during hard courts national, 2 or 3 pair for competition time only. Stringing., rackets which even fully sponsored can't keep up with. MOST importantly, it goes a lllllllll year. It does not stop. The expenses don't stop. All other sports have a defined season. So, my advice is, know it's expensive and don't look to the USTA for any help, unless you are in the .0002 percent of junior players playing.

  51. I’m Back . . . | ParentingAces

  52. this should clarify everything for everybody, on who and what kind of person you are, as well as the other cockroaches infesting the JCC: bitter, petty, ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic. You must be kidding...bitter? At what? Petty? Regarding? Ignorant? Hardly. Arrogant. Maybe. Narcissistic. Yes, I do think I am attractive in my middle age. Take look in the mirror.

    • #winning too AJT

    • Hey Marty, People are writing protest songs to protest your changes " http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=vQtLMSAp6uc&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvQtLMSAp6uc". Serioulsy. But you're #winning. And that's all that matters, right ? Because you are smarter the all of us. But not arrogant.

  53. #delusionalmartywinning #tennislosing #kidslosing Rhetoric and personal attacks aside, the facts remain, you're trying to build a junior tennis system based on a fantasy world that doesn't and will not ever exist. You respond to my personal attacks on you, but you don't address the substantive parts of my post, because these are inconvenient facts you have no answers for. But you're not one to let facts and details get in the way with your mission, are you ?. And this is not the first time. You post about out your vision over and over and I demolish it every time as the fantasy it is, and you have no answers for that, other than you don't like rich kids. Brilliant.

  54. The biggest concern I have is the reduction in the number of Level 3 Nationals or regionals. I felt that those opportunities really allowed my son to grow both his game and as a person. He started playing these at age 10 and found success and made it several qf by traveling west or south while struggling on the fast indoor cts. within our own Midwest section. By playing these out of section tourneys his game improved at a faster rate than if I had kept him in the section. Playing outdoors pts. lasted longer and he developed point construction and utilized spins better. These facets of the game are very difficult to develop if you're limited to playing indoors for 8 months out of the yr. and balls fly and points are shorter. Sure, we had the financial resources to travel but realistically, you cannot say its point chasing because with the current points per round you have to get to semis to get the top points. He has made it to top 35 nationally and that doesn't happen by point chasing or winning one or two rounds. Limiting the number of National level 3's is a mistake. Also, it's harder to break into the next age group on fast indoor cts where points are often over after 1 or 2 shots and a big serve can take you a long way. As he's 12 now, we're once again traveling south and west while playing 14's to break into the next age group.

  55. Absolutely right, Raj. From 1032 national opportunities a year we go to 192 in the new plan. Ridiculous. To the AJT/Marty discussion, Marty and nobody else has faced up to the challenge I put out there almost a year ago to show me any "rich kids" who had undeservedly made the top 50 on the NSL or to prove in any serious way that he current system leads to "social injustice." Do some kids who are good players not get to play nationally as much? Yes, but that is an easily fixable problem. In fact, the USTA already helps many of those kids with grants so they can attend. We have also suggested ways of cutting costs and raising more money for them. You don't slash opportunities for everyone just because a few can't make it to national tournaments. You figure out a way to help those few. And Marty, if fairness is the issue, then why aren't you delving into exactly how the USTA is allocating its $$$ for kids? Just one of those millions that go to player development would take care of all the money needed for tournament travel for deserving kids who need the monetary help. Why don't you go check and see whether dollars are going to undeserving kids just because of their affiliation to USTA folks? And did you see the Sports Business article that showed how four USTA execs made more than $1 million and three others made more than $800 thousand in 2011? An awful lot of money that could support kids is going instead to support the highest salaries in the world of non-profit, national governing boards. But doing that would mean standing up and fighting city hall. It seems that you and others would rather fight "rich kids" and take away opportunity for everyone.

  56. TIME IS SHORT--POST THIS EVERYWHERE!! http:// www. youtube. com/ watch?v=vQtLMSAp6uc

    • I've posted and tweeted the link. Thanks, Julie!

  57. As we begin the USTA/Section leadership meeting, we wonder what will happen? Pause? More changes? In any case the USTA”Board” will vote on the resolution in a Few months. USTA /sectional leadership now knows what the parent/coaches and tennis industry wants and preferences are. What will the leadership do? As a So Cal Parent /coach I received an email position from a Nor Cal parent group expressing anti quota only and a pause preference similar to SoCal parents positions and across the country Here is their Position paper Dear USTA North Cal Board of Directors and Junior Tennis committee members, We, a group of parents from Nor Cal junior tennis players, write this email to express our deep concerns with the pending 2014 USTA Junior competition structure change proposal. We strongly ask you to vote against this change to protect both the junior tennis competition in this country and the interest of our Nor Cal tennis players. Here are the major concerns we have with the current proposal: The change will dramatically reduce the opportunities for our junior players to compete at National level. Even it is better than the original proposal, but it still have a big decrease from the current structure. USTA junior competition committee never provide a convincing reason to reduce the national level competition, and from our personal experience, it will dramatically discourage junior players, especially the late boomer to get into the game and becoming a college level tennis player. The newly proposed system has a lot of holes and unfairness in it, especially the qualification process for the three most important super national tournaments. This unfairness of the quota system will hurt the NorCal section even more due to its calculation is based on both strength and size instead of strength only (which is the only thing that are relevant to L1 tournament). Due to its other flaw of not age and gender based quota calculation, Nor Cal has couple age division that are not hurt as bad, but the majority of the age/gender divisions will only send around half of the players who should be able to make it to the tournaments if they are NSL based. Many other items in this new proposal looks like mishmash compromises that will create a worse situation than the existing one. For examples, Adding 64 draw qualify match for Hard and Clay championship will still requires 192 players to travel, the seeded players will play exactly the same number of matches, while the qualify players either have to make the travel without get into the main draw or be at the tournament even longer. The new proposal is not better for anybody but more difficult and less rewarding for a lot of the other….. I don't mean to provide detail modification to the proposal here, but to illustrate that we really need more time and input with this complex but important proposal. We applaud USTA to take the input from its members and made this compromised proposal, but it just created a lot of issues and confusions that will hurt the junior tennis game in US and damage the credibility of USTA. We strongly ask your support to vote against this new proposal and put a pause to the 2014 change. It will give USTA more time to study all the situations and put forward a proposal that is fair, simple and helpful for US junior tennis.

  58. It seems hopeless, Mike. NorCal seems to be ignoring its parents, just as Florida has chosen to ignore us. Only SoCal seems to be standing up for fairness. Even Southern, which had expressed its support for a pause, seems to have backed off. I was going to head up there this weekend, but it is clear that politics have trumped fairness, egos are more important than kids, and exercising a little power is more important than the will of the overwhelming majority of the USTA's constituents. The irony in all this is that most of the people on the JCCare the same ones who adopted the 2011 changes they now vilify. Let's see what happens in two years.

  59. So unbelievable and sad. If you tennis magazine latest edition, haggerty used to work at Prince, which is now pretty much defuncted. Now the USTA, wants this guy. Enough said

Share Your Thoughts

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.