1. Wow guys, thanks for throwing Hawaii under the bus....

    • AJT, I certainly don't think that was the intention of the folks creating this schedule. Like I said, it is a work in progress and will certainly benefit from your input. If you're so inclined, please share your thoughts here or via email so I can pass them along. The proposal is simply a jumping off point for more in-depth analysis and work. You have offered so many useful insights over the past several months, and I'm sure you have more to offer here - our kids need you to stay engaged in the process!

  2. What a joke....I am pretty sure this is going nowhere. Sections will not go for old starr for starters. Good luck explaining your good will hunting formula to the parents when they cNt figure out how their player got this ranking. If we want to have FUN FUN FUN then create a recreational circuit and make the real nationals a 32 draw for the players. Just like Coach Kriese said in ATL, we shouldn't have a 192 draw so the players can get a Nats at the Zoo t-shirt. If the USTA was smart they would just provide more funding to these events to make them better events and to help pay for expenses. If people think the passed system is flawed this plan would never get to a vote at the board table. Why don't we focus on truly cutting costs by having the USTA spend more on making the new tournaments better and providing the benefits to the players who earn their way to these events.

  3. The Usta is killing our kids future progress in tennis by stop our kids from competition fairly. How many more time the Usta will making changes ? The last Southern California designate tournament Gene Jung Whittier Mid Winter 2nd weekend conflict schedule with regional tournaments (Upland & Desert) the Usta/SCTA did not allow those kids lost in the 1st weekend from designate tournament to be on waiting list to get in regional tournaments. This is stupid especially these kids trying to earn point base on point per round system and the worst thing is the designate tournament such as Gene Jung mid winter run Sat/Sun while Monday is Martin Luther King holiday but the regional tournament need that extra Monday Holiday does not happen caused players who had to travel far long distance had to miss school ( it is also mid term and final tests) it also caused these poor tournaments directors making no money or not enought to run these tournaments such as regional in Upland California only have 1 single division girl 14's. This problem will happen again with Southern California South Bay Designate tournament coming up conflict with National tournament but January is worst due to weather problem.

    • This was a problem for many sections. The sectional conflicted with the regional...... I just don't understand who plans these schedules. And now coming into Feb, why oh why.......... can't the regional be over President's Day weekend? It is almost like the USTA folks don't have a school calendar???

  4. A couple of observations - any "new" system needs buy in from tournament directors - part of the problem in our section is that facilities do not want to hold tournaments unless they are held in a way that does not interfere with their recreational/paying members use of courts which can create scheduling nightmares or not hold tournaments at all. As a result our section has almost no tournaments outside of the sectional "requirement" and the same three or four venues hold all the tournaments. Qualifying tournaments sound like a good idea but again will tournament directors hold them and if so why an 8 game pro set, why not 2 out of 3 sets with a 10 point set tiebreak for the third set. Talking entrants "at random" from the host section will benefit only those kids in the host sections - what about the kids in those sections that are are not hosting and never host,

    • sandra, great points! you're right - it would be great to hear from some other tourney directors as to their thoughts on this stuff!

    • Its not just buy in from Tournament directors...in reality, the availability of facilities becomes a determining factor...lots of the current L3's an L2's are held at the same locations becuase those are the facilities that exist. The physical infrastructure just does no exist in smaller sections to accommodate 64 or even 32 draws for all four age groups in both sexes...I know many parents would like to have multiple, if not all age divisions, at same location at same time(I'm listening Tmom), but the ability to accommodate that many players simultaneously severely restricts the number of potential locations.

  5. The spots reserved for kids from the host section would be filled from the host sections ranking list - so the 10 highest ranked kids from the section not already accepted would take those places. Each section would have the opportunity to host at least one level 2 and one level 3 event a year and hopefully there would be pressure from players and parents for all sections to take advantage of this.

  6. And I agree any structure would have to have buy in from the TD's - It doesn't feel like the 2014 proposals have much buy in at the moment.

  7. Most tournament directors run multiple National tournaments. Probably all of them will get draw sizes cut And or tournaments eliminated. I would also be against this plan if it cut my business revenue. Points per round and having national tournaments are the best way for tournament directors to collect over $100 per entrant. Check out the price of sectional tournaments versus national tournaments.

    • Perry, I have never seen a tournament director drive up in a Aston-Martin,. But maybe they are just more clever than I am and don't bring it to the tourney. I honestly hope some of them are making some money running these tournaments, they deserve to. You couldn't pay me to do it. But rather than worry about how much money they are making, I prefer to look at the value I am getting. My daughter is < 14, so if she qualifies for a L1, this summer or winter, it will be a compass draw. She'll get at least 3 matches, probably more, experience of playing best players in the country, finding out where she's at with her game vis-a-vis a large world, etc. Alternatively, or in addition to, we'll go to Zonals where she will get 12 matches, six singles and six doubles. Entry fee for both events : $102.50. Seriously, I think this is much more valuable experience than a week at IMG( current retail appx $2,000). Sorry, in the 'big picture' of tennis expenses, I can't get worked up about entry fees.

  8. It's a small thing, but I have changed K.I.S.S. to keep it simple SMART. I like keeping things positive! :)

  9. I tend to agree this proposed Ranking approach may be too complicated to institute (and may cause confusion and be perceived to be biased in some way). The best solution may be for the USTA to partner with TennisRecruiting Network and simply use the most current college recruiting national ranking lists to select and seed national draws. There may need to be exceptions made for top juniors (as determined by PPR rankings) who play ITF's predominantly (which are not captured by TR) - but this would ensure that the best players in the country would be selected into the these tournaments and the opportunities to "point chase" or "game the system" would be drastically reduced.

  10. The problem with qualifiers is it makes the tournament more expensive for some... and causes more work for the TD. I don't think it will fly. I appreciate all the work that folks put into above suggestions, but I would rather just go back to the 2012, 2010 or pre 2010 schedules. The tennis parents all have day jobs, we can not figure out another new tennis schedule.

Share Your Thoughts

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