25 Comments

  1. OK. They increased the draw, and modified the selection process to include a direct acceptance category, for which I cannot find a description. All well and good. Then I see the Sectional Quotas. We all scratch our heads when a player ranked #800 nationally gets in under the Quota and #100 is left out, yet the USTA still insists on giving 40% weight to a section's membership numbers. I missed the part where having more members imparts the skill necessary to be competitive in the National Championships. We used to pacify the sections by giving them a nominal quota to keep them happy, and made the vast majority of the acceptance based on national rank. While this would always allow in some point-chasers, it also resulted in fewer unqualified players bumping their much more competent contemporaries. If I were to pick the four strongest sections, I'd say So Cal (16), Florida (14), Nor Cal (10), and Texas (13). have a combined 52 quota spots. The Southern (23), Midwest (19) Eastern (13) have 55 quota spots. Anybody want to guess at the result of a 30 member team competition between these two groups? I don't want to disparage the truly talented players at the top of the list for Southern, Midwest, and Eastern. They have some outstanding players. However, there is a steep fall-off in ability when you get outside their top 10-20, whereas the talent pool is still deep for SoCal, FL, NorCal, and Texas at #50-75. I understand that regardless of how deep they go, playing in the national championships is a dream for #800, and I am happy they get to experience it, but I don't think it should be at the expense of #100 who has put in the hard work to get to that position. The USTA is using quotas to pander to the large sections in deference to their membership dues. And maybe buying votes for their initiatives. How will that develop the next great generation of players?

    • Comment via email from a SoCal parent: Good points...While USTA has reverted to 192 draw top 32 national selection list and no qualies due to the silliness of those best players being in the the 2014 Champs qualies.....the new system has even MORE section quotas and still no NSL. The only common denominator of National Matchplay is Natl rankings. In 2014 the 64 qualies selection was from NSL. Its baffling why 64 selection spots or more wouldnt be from NSL lists. Simply have 30-40% NSL selection and less quotas. In REALITY the new system fails its stated goals of quality matches best players playing best players. it favors more players from larger sections with more votes. 2013 there was about 50%? quotas And NSL. NOW quotas are dilluted by 40% section size and mo NSL. SOCAL 2013 B18 22 PLAYERS MAIN 192 IN KZOO 2014 13 PLAYERS IN MAIN 128 2015 15 PLAYERS IN MAIN 192

  2. Honestly the more we get into this Tournament/Ranking, Selection GUMBO, the more I just shake my head and pull further back until we can get to ITFs…. Just had a friend who HATES, I mean HATES the system and has a Top 50 kid just sent me the profile of a BLUECHIP player that is 0-10 against Bluechip and 5 Stars(won no more than 4 games in those matches), and is 16-14 against 4 Stars…….. Neve played or placed in any National Level 1-2-3 event, Eddie Herr, Level 1 A, Never won a Sectional or even more than 2 rounds etc……. BUT is a Bluechip. He firmly believes all this is a SHAM a Con, and we the parents are the Suckers…. Just a thought as we plow thru the NEW (but partly Old) Supernational structure.

  3. SeminoleG I would guess that if you dove into the details of the player in question you might see they playing up in their section. Getting experience by playing tougher opponents without spending the money to travel to "National Level 1-2-3 event, Eddie Herr, Level 1 A,". The Blue Chips and 5 stars he lost to are probably from higher class years. It possible to be blue star in your class year by primarily beating 4 stars several class years ahead. And this doesn't really have anything to do with USTA, It's tennis recruiting thing.

  4. Actually NO they are not playing up. I actually looked at the Rankings of the people they beat and over 50% well over 300! Not one under 200! Plus as I was told if you play up but the level of event is 3-4 stars doesn't equal playing your age against 5 Star and Bluechips. In Mobile lots of folks did not like the whole system, and were EXTREMELY negative withe the whole ranking thing USTA and TRN.

  5. What rankings did you look at ? I'm sorry but your post is very confusing, you are mixing USTA rankings with TRN stars and chips, oranges and apples. You can have a high TRN with a relatively low USTA ranking by only playing sectional events and not national events, which you seemed to indicate this player was doing. TRN doesn't care about tournament levels/points, only who you beat. For all the dumb things USTA does, they are not responsible for TRN or TRN rankings. If by playing up the level of event you mean USTA level, yes, that has no effect on TRN rankings. By Playing Up I mean higher age groups, it's by graduation year. So if a 5-star freshman beats a 4 star senior, yes that helps their ranking. Please read the information on the tennis recruiting website.

    • Here is my article on how the TRN rankings work: http://wp.me/p3iWxf-138

  6. So, here is a comment from my kid, when I told him they increased the quota for clay and hard courts. "I am going to get in!" Me: "Maybe, hopefully your sectional ranking is high enough." He:"It doesn't matter, I have high enough national ranking." Me "Well, it actually matters because....." Makes it obvious kids don't understand these rules whatsoever. And for playing up in stars, I've already mentioned what I find a huge offense to honest players who do not "repeat" a grade as it counts for tennis recruiting that many kids maintain their stars or blue chip status by repeating a year, many of them because of the TRN ranking. I have verified information on at least 6 kids just where my kid trains who are all of a sudden the same grade as last year. Couple of them openly said, they did it to maintain their stars and are taking classes the year ahead just in a slower fashion. Is it playing up then for these kids?

  7. My son was excited that he would get in as he has a high national ranking, and thought that it would be the same as 2013!!!! "Yeah!!!!!!!!" Well, obviously, my son should not be a lawyer as he doesn't read that small fine print. And most adults are bewildered by all the ridiculous,changing rules that are never posted anywhere. This is not how you run a federation, we are not some new pharmaceutical product that the FDA can put on the market, and then take off a few years later as everyone has a heart condition. I showed him the details that Zoo tennis ( Colette conjectured on it) had put up on how it would be, and he was pretty disappointed. He will not be getting in. The sectional quotas are pure nonsensical garbage. When a young man is ranked above 600, 700, 800 national and gets to play in Kalamazoo, you know the whole system is broken beyond repair. In addition, you can not compare apples to oranges. The sections are not all operating under the same rules of what can be included. California is the Gold standard of letting their players play anything and including all results for sectionals. So, a player in California who only plays nationals will have all those results included in their sectional ranking. Or they might have a player play all sectionals and that will count. Or play ITFS in this country and that will count. What a novel idea, let the kids play what they want instead of how some sections are forcing down their players limits on what will count. Do we have unlimited funds? We don't... We are not the USTA. All the sectional quotas look fine to me, but Southern. Sorry, Lisa, but I am beyond baffled by Southern's quota numbers,and how consistently some 3 star player from Southern will get into Kalamazoo over a 5 star from a smaller quota section. Is the USTA trying to drive tennis out of this country? The best players skipped the Team Gold ball in Alabama this year, and instead traveled in South America. Before they got rid of March Nationals, over 40 blue chips played in it in 2013. Now, this year, we had 3 stars playing in the March Team Gold Ball event. What do you think is cheaper for the US parent? Flying down to Mobile for a big National event in 2013 or flying around South America to ITF"s. This bring back to 192 at first blush looks like they went back to August 2013, but it is the bs from the USTA protecting their players. Folks are not stupid, if they don't realize what is going on now, they will. Having a guy who is ranked 700 in Kalamazoo dilutes the whole tournament. Zero sense. Em - yes, going back a grade does INITIALLY HELP. But, and here is the kicker, I see more kids burned out and injured who stayed back. So, it is not as magical as it appears.

  8. Well, let's see. Here are the sections, and the TOP 100 TRN for Seniors Boys. HOW DID THE TOP 100 BOYS FROM TRN FALL OUT AMONG THE SECTIONS: --------------------------------------------------------- Caribbean -Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands - *** 0 TRN BOYS **** --------------------------------------------------------- Eastern - **** 12 TRN BOYS ****** New York, the other part of NJ, part of CT ( Greenwich, CT) . Schalet, Wasserman, Benjamin, Mautner, Sec, Tishman, Lebedev, Lin, Cuba, Schick, Chen, Turchetta, --------------------------------------------------------- Florida - Florida - *****15 TRN***** (BOYS - Opelka, Rybakov, Perez, Losev, Cerrini, Stefan, Bendeck, Salgado, Haushammer, Link, Deautriell, Gabay, Shisler, Foshey, Otero) Opelka could probably count as two boys! --------------------------------------------------------- Hawaii - * 0 TRN BOYS * --------------------------------------------------------- Intermountain - * 0 TRN BOYS * Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Southern Nevada, Utah --------------------------------------------------------- Mid Atlantic - **** 4 TRN BOYS**** D.C, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia Dennis, Wang, Tubert, Kros --------------------------------------------------------- Middle States - ***** 5 TRN BOYS***** Delaware, Central Penn, Eastern Penn, Philly, (the other part of NJ) Seelig, Lieb, Kissell, Lieb ( Liebs are twins in case you are wondering), Dickerson --------------------------------------------------------- Midwest - ***********11 TRN BOYS*********** Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin Kumar, Lin, Joyce, Hirsch, Grabill, Ross, Wang, Rayl, Vandixhorn, Lorenzini, Griffin ( Best sportsmanship here - .. must be a Midwest thing) . --------------------------------------------------------- Missouri Valley - * 1 TRN BOY * Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Boykin --------------------------------------------------------- New England - * 1 TRN BOY * New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, Mass. other part of CT Seidman --------------------------------------------------------- Northern - * 1 TRN BOY * MN, ND, SD Boyer --------------------------------------------------------- California ( lumped Southern and Northern together) - **** 21 TRN Boys ***** Smith, Boyd, Genender, Pham, Chamdani, Klinger, Zhou, Lenhard, Stalder, Cressy, Shen, Gu, Gealer, Borchenko, Ortlip, Ko, Pei, Kolachalam, Hafezi, Young-Smith, Liu --------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Northwest - * 1 TRN BOY * Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, BC, Washington Garnett --------------------------------------------------------- Southern - ****12 TRN BOYS ***** Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Miss., N & S Carolina, Tenn. Duncan, Kessler, Reinberg, Kodali, Boyden, Hamilton, Karlawish, Galush, Chintham, Andry, Lancaster., Richey) --------------------------------------------------------- Southwest - * 1 TRN BOY * Arizona, New Mexico Seby --------------------------------------------------------- Texas ***** 13 TRN BOYS **** Caruana, Rutledge, Hansen, Gordon, Pierce, Sheehy, Broadus, Tan, Llamas, Brown, Hussey, Markes, Haynes --------------------------------------------------------- Did not include Tommy Paul ( NJ) or Catalin Mateas ( MA) as they have not lived in their states for years, and get a wild card. 1 (1) Reilly Opelka FL 10 2 (2) Tommy Paul NJ 10 3 (4) Walker Duncan GA 16 4 (3) Alex Rybakov FL 12 5 (5) Alfredo Perez FL 10 6 (7) Logan Smith CA 8 7 (6) Sameer Kumar IN 19 8 (8) Kalman Boyd CA 10 9 (9) McClain Kessler GA 12 10 (10) Michael Genender CA 11 11 (12) Vincent Lin IL 13 12 (11) Emil Reinberg GA 30 13 (13) Liam Caruana TX 25 14 (15) Mark Epshteyn-Losev FL 7 15 (16) Victor Pham CA 7 16 (14) Yancy Dennis MD 7 17 (19) Anudeep Kodali NC 17 18 (17) Adrian Chamdani CA 9 19 (18) Cameron Klinger CA 15 20 (20) Eric Rutledge TX 17 21 (21) Kyle Seelig PA 10 22 (23) Dennis Wang MD 6 23 (22) Myles Schalet NJ 14 24 (24) Andy Zhou CA 6 25 (26) Ezequiel Cerrini FL 3 26 (25) Dan Stefan FL 6 27 (28) Jacob Hansen TX 14 28 (27) Catalin Mateas MA 20 29 (29) Rafael Lenhard CA 17 30 (30) Martin Joyce IL 9 31 (32) James Wasserman NY 9 32 (33) Jordan Benjamin NY 13 33 (31) Robert Seby AZ 8 34 (34) Reese Stalder CA 16 35 (37) Kyle Mautner CT 14 36 (35) Asher Hirsch OH 10 37 (36) Henry Gordon TX 16 38 (38) Blaine Boyden NC 12 39 (40) Jimmy Bendeck FL 9 40 (39) Afonso Salgado FL 16 41 (41) Christian Haushammer FL 11 42 (42) Max Cressy CA 6 43 (44) Eddie Grabill IL 10 44 (43) Ryan Shen CA 11 45 (45) Grey Hamilton NC 10 46 (46) Andrew Gu CA 7 47 (51) Hunter Tubert WV 13 48 (49) Daniel Gealer CA 22 49 (47) Nicholas Borchenko CA 22 50 (50) Spencer Richey TN 12 51 (52) Oliver Sec NY 19 52 (53) Gabe Tishman NY 13 53 (55) Alex Ross IL 19 54 (48) Aron Pierce TX 6 55 (57) Joshua Sheehy TX 16 56 (54) Timothy Wang MI 9 57 (56) John Karlawish NC 15 58 (60) Alexander Lebedev NY 27 59 (61) Connor Garnett WA 10 60 (58) Maverick Lin NJ 25 61 (59) Daniel Rayl IN 12 62 (70) Toby Boyer MN 13 63 (62) Joel Link FL 6 64 (64) Lubomir Cuba NY 20 65 (63) Zachary Lieb PA 7 66 (67) Joshua Ortlip CA 14 67 (66) Grayson Broadus TX 12 68 (65) Chad Kissell PA 12 69 (69) Brandon Lancaster KY 3 70 (68) Sean Ko CA 5 71 (71) Tyler Schick NJ 19 72 (72) Jonathan Deautriell FL 20 73 (76) Jake Gabay FL 21 74 (74) Benjamin Lieb PA 9 75 (73) William Shisler FL 10 76 (75) Michael Chen NJ 21 77 (77) Charles Tan TX 11 78 (78) Charles Pei CA 14 79 (80) Emanuel Llamas TX 22 80 (79) Trevor Foshey FL 7 81 (82) Jack Turchetta NY 13 82 (87) Matthew Galush NC 19 83 (84) Kenneth Boykin OK 11 84 (88) Ben Vandixhorn IL 12 85 (83) Michael Lorenzini IL 14 86 (89) Cameron Andry LA 10 87 (85) Sreyas Kolachalam CA 12 88 (86) Ryan Dickerson NJ 9 89 (90) Nathan Brown TX 8 90 (91) Austin Hussey KY 8 91 (96) Oliver Otero FL 7 92 (93) Colin Markes TX 15 93 (98) Arash Hafezi CA 7 94 (92) Tillman Haynes TX 14 95 (97) Jason Kros VA 14 96 (95) Nathan Griffin OH 10 97 (94) Ethan Young-Smith CA 14 98 (81) Jason Seidman CT 7 99 (99) Max Liu CA 12 100 (100) Jayanth Chintham GA 16

  9. Section - BOYS 18'S - TOP 100 TENNIS RECRUITING ( TRN) VERSUS KALAMAZOO How does it look to you - the Top 100 boys per TRN week of March 16th, 2014 ( see above) divided by their section versus the sectional allotment for Kalamazoo. ——————————————————— Caribbean 0 TRN BOYS - GET 2 SPOTS ——————————————————— Eastern – 12 TRN BOYS - GET 11 SPOTS ——————————————————— Florida – Florida - 15 TRN BOYS - GET 12 SPOTS ——————————————————— Hawaii – 0 TRN BOYS - GET 2 SPOTS ——————————————————— Intermountain – 0 TRN BOYS - GET 5 SPOTS ( REALLY????) ——————————————————— Mid Atlantic – 4 TRN BOYS - GET 7 SPOTS ——————————————————— Middle States – 5 TRN BOYS - GET 5 SPOTS ——————————————————— Midwest – 11 TRN BOYS - GET 17 SPOTS ( WOW.) ——————————————————— Missouri Valley – 1 TRN BOY - GET 4 SPOTS ——————————————————— New England – 1 TRN BOY - GET 5 SPOTS ——————————————————— Northern – 1 TRN BOY - GET 3 SPOTS ——————————————————— California ( lumped Southern and Northern together) – 21 TRN Boys - GET 23 SPOTS ——————————————————— Pacific Northwest – 1 TRN BOY - GET 3 SPOTS ——————————————————— Southern – 12 TRN BOYS - GET 21 SPOTS ( WOW, WOW) ——————————————————— Southwest – 1 TRN BOY - GET 4 SPOTS ——————————————————— Texas 13 TRN BOYS - GET 11 SPOTS ——————————————————— KALAMAZOO 18 BOYS SECTIONAL SPOTS : Caribbean 2 Eastern 11 Florida 12 HawaiiPacific 2 Intermountain 5 Mid-Atlantic 7 MiddleStates 5 Midwest 17 Mo.Valley 4 NewEngland 5 Northern 3 NorCal 9 PacificNW 3 Southern 21 SoCal 14 Southwest 4 Texas 11

  10. Sorry, I meant 3/16/2015 above - So, this is the top 100 senior year boys ( 3/16/2015 list) graduating this year per TRN by section ( highest first) with their corresponding Kalamazoo sectional allotment. California is lumped together Northern and Southern for TRN boys and spots given per section. Florida - home to the PD location (Boca for today, Orlando tomorrow) does get some WC. So, you can see how bizarre this is, Eastern and Southern have the same number of TRN boys in the top 100, 12 TRN boys each, but Eastern gets 11 spots and Southern gets 21 spots? Or California has 21% of the top TRN boys, but only gets 17% spots. 5 sections have 1 boy in the top 100 TRN, and 3 sections have 0 boys in the top 100 TRN, but they take in a total of 28 spots. This is how a boy ranked 800 nationally or is a 3 star gets into Kalamazoo. TRN TOP 100 SENIOR BOYS: California- 21 TRN BOYS - 23 spots Florida - 15 TRN BOYS - 12 spots Texas 13 TRN BOYS - 11 spots Eastern - 12 TRN BOYS - 11 spots Southern 12 TRN BOYS - 21 spots ( wow, just wow). Midwest 11 TRN BOYS - 17 spots MiddleStates 5 TRN BOYS – 5 spots Mid-Atlantic 4 TRN BOYS - 7 spots Missouri Valley 1 TRN BOY – 4 spots New England 1 TRN BOY – 5 spots Northern 1 TRN BOY – 3 spots Pacific NW 1 TRN BOY – 3 spots Southwest 1 TRN BOY – 4 spots Caribbean 0 TRN BOYS - 2 spots Hawaii 0 TRN BOYS - 2 spots Intermountain 0 TRN BOYS - 5 spots ( are you kidding me?) TOTAL 98 BOYS ( 2 were left off as they haven't lived in their states for years). TOTAL 135 SECTIONAL SPOTS https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.197/b97.e4e.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015-NJTS-Summary.pdf

  11. Ryan - Outstanding level of research. I applaud the effort it took to compile all that data. I am sure the USTA would say that your results are invalid, because your numbers are predicated on TRN, whereas the quotas are based on USTA ranking. Technically they are correct, but I would bet your analysis would obtain regardless of which ranking system you used. Probably no chance if them chiming in regardless, as they take the same attitude as Fortune 100 companies, of not responding to uncomfortable analysis in any public forum. If they ignore it, it will go away. However, junior tennis is different from a complaint against IBM. IBM just needs to remain silent until the concern du jour goes away. With junior tennis, there is a continuous (if decreasing) flow of new parents and players, who will also have complaints with a poorly constructed system. This won't go away unless they fix it, or the system implodes and people stop contributing. I don't suppose you have similar data for girls 18s? I'd love to see the information, but am not willing to devote the time. I am somewhat ashamed to admit that my player has committed, and I am so happy to put the junior world in my rear-view, that I am not motivated to carry the torch any further. I did pester, prod, and cajole my Section as well as White Plains for a decade, but have only received small support at the Sectional level, and absolutely none from White Plains. The National staff have universally put forth an attitude of "you don't know what you're talking about and I'm much smarter than you, so don't bother me." Of course, now I am facing the same "sit down, shut up, and do what you're told" attitude from the ITA, so I guess there is just a different dragon to slay. At least now I have the support of my kid's coach, as we seem to be like-minded in our views of what makes college tennis worthwhile.

  12. Ryan, Thanks, good data. Some thoughts: I think analysis of 16's is actually more important, and then 14's. By 18's a lot of kids already have their college commitments and have stopped playing. Some have committed and are just trying to impress their coach. Under the current system the potential pros have already left the sections and are playing itf's, futures, etc. With regards to small sections especially, but even some 'medium' size sections, the issue is statically insignificant data sets. In a small section, they may have 3 kids in top 100 1 year, and 0 the next, Just the way the cookies crumbles. One of the biggest mistakes is looking at performance in current age group in small sections and then adjusting quotas for the next year based on that. Too late, missing the target

  13. ajt -I understand your reasoning, but would offer that I have done similar analysis on the girls side for many years, and the results are consistent year after year. Some sections will certainly have fluctuations in the number of top players, but the ones whose membership is the main determinant of the number of quota spots, are always over-represented. The USTA places 40% weight on size of membership, regardless of the depth of talent. Some sections consist of several states because of the lower per capita participation, which results in less tournament availability, or lower population per square mile so distance is a factor. However, the fact that they have more dues-paying USTA members should not justify adding quota spots when it invariably results in top players being displaced by others who will be blown out in the first round. In fairness to those lower ranked players, I don't fault them. In their position I would also take advantage of the opportunity, because it is a wonderful experience, and can be highly motivating to the player. Just as I do not begrudge those who accept WCs received by virtue of a relationship rather than quality of play. I fault the decision makers who knowingly implement a system that produces these politically-based quota assignments.

  14. I decided to do analysis for the 16s. I took the top 100 TRN players for the freshman and soph class which totaled 200 which would be a fairly reasonable comparison to the 192 that would be selected for 16s. Sure some of these will play 18s, and some playing 16s will come from younger classes. Then I took the quotas by section, added the 17 from sectional championships to get an actual quota for 168 players excluding the top 16 and the PD players. I multiplied the TRN %'s by section by the 168 to compare actual quotas to what the quotas would be if TRN was used. Guess what guys-Southern is not the bad guy! Actually despite its high quotas, the section is not getting the numbers it deserves. Florida is the section that is really shafted. Mid Atlantic and California also are not getting the quotas they deserve. Midwest, Texas and the small sections have quotas higher than they would have based on ranking. It is interesting to note that the top 100 by section vary significantly year to year-look at the difference between the California soph and freshman class. I hope these columns line up so they can be read. This analysis also shows how difficult it would be for USTA to come up with a fair quota based on sections since there is significant variance between years. Texas' quota is probably fair-maybe their soph class was weaker than other years. TRN top 100 by sect fair % actual Fresh Soph TOTAL % quota quota Diff California- 14 24 38 19% 32 27 -5 Florida 15 14 29 15% 24 15 -9 Texas 8 5 13 7% 11 14 3 Eastern 8 6 14 7% 12 14 2 Southern 20 16 36 18% 30 24 -6 Midwest 11 9 20 10% 17 20 3 Mid States 3 6 9 5% 8 6 -2 Mid-Atlantic 8 6 14 7% 12 9 -3 Mo Valley 4 1 5 3% 4 6 2 New England 3 6 9 5% 8 7 -1 Northern 1 1 2 1% 2 4 2 Pacific 1 3 4 2% 3 4 1 Southwest 3 1 4 2% 3 5 2 Caribbean 0 0 0 0% 0 3 3 Hawaii 0 0 0 0% 0 3 3 Intermountain1 2 3 2% 3 7 4 100 100 200 1 168 168 0 168 is quota by section + 17 sectional champions. Negative numbers are sections who have a lower quota than TRN would predict. Positive numbers are for sections who may have too high a quota. I could have errors between NE, Eastern and Middle States as there may be players who live in Connecticut or NJ would play or train in NY for Eastern. I just grouped players by state of residency. Southern had almost as many top 100 players over those two years as both sections of California so dont bash us. Even our large quota may be understated 20%. I hope PD gives most of the wild cards to Florida as that section is the most significantly underrepresented in the quota. Some of these inquities will be somewhat reduced as the top 16 players will come from the sections who should have a larger quota. The 16s is a good age to analyze as those players are still playing most of the national and top sectional tournaments even though some are playing ITFs too. Since each section's champion gets in Kalamazoo, it seems like some of the small sections should have a section quota of just 1 so that they would have two total at KZoo. Now at a minimum all sections have 3 at KZoo. Any unused Caribbean spots should go to Florida and any unused Hawaii spots should go to California

  15. "I could have errors between NE, Eastern and Middle States as there may be players who live in Connecticut or NJ would play or train in NY for Eastern. I just grouped players by state of residency. " You can't group by state for NE, Eastern, and Middle States. Eastern is all of NY, but it is a good chunk of NJ, and Greenwich, CT ( which has the best players). Looking at Ryan's numbers, he did a good job as he knew all the players to know the background and state. This can really only be done if you actually know the players, I think. And grade 11 is a crap shoot, as some boys will play 16's still and others are playing 18's. So, I think looking at senior year for the boys TRN is accurate for Kalamazoo. The Grade A and Grade 1 ITF events show up on TRN ( that they do play). I see two mistakes of boys that moved from 5 stars to blue chips and didn't play one tournament since the beginning of August, but other than that Ryan did it as a class of 100, so it still makes sense. And sorry, but Southern for the boys 18's is a joke. The numbers don't lie... and the next 100 on TRN for the seniors isn't any better. Southern 12 TRN BOYS top 100 and they have 21 spots. They have ZERO boys that are playing futures that are not already in the top 100. So, Walker Duncan who is playing futures is in that number. Southern's quota should be the same as Texas and Eastern - 11 spots. Or... they need to take 7 spots from Southern and spread them among: Florida, Texas, and Eastern. Texas 13 TRN BOYS – 11 spots Eastern – 12 TRN BOYS – 11 spots Southern 12 TRN BOYS – 21 spots Last year, the Boy's 18's Kalamazoo number had those ridiculous kids playing in it with 600 -800 rankings and they were from the Southern section. THESE SECTIONS SHOULD GET 1 SPOT EACH, NO MORE: Missouri Valley 1 TRN BOY – 4 spots New England 1 TRN BOY – 5 spots Northern 1 TRN BOY – 3 spots Pacific NW 1 TRN BOY – 3 spots Southwest 1 TRN BOY – 4 spots Caribbean 0 TRN BOYS – 2 spots Hawaii 0 TRN BOYS – 2 spots Again, when someone is 800 ranked nationally, and someone else is top 100 nationally, and the top 100 national boy doesn't get to play, this system is broken beyond repair. Until they also include the top 192 NATIONAL players in the calculation, it just doesn't make sense. Period.

    • My numbers were freshmen and sophomore. The southern freshmen class is pretty strong.

  16. Freshman classes aren't strong predictors of future performance. Most results in the U12-14s are due to error management, not aggressive play. Heck, in the 10s-12s if you can keep 8 balls in play, you win every point. No winners or tactics needed. There are very few kids that stay in the top 25 from freshman through senior year, and a lot who fall off the map when consistency just isn't enough anymore. On a different note; I was looking at the ordered alternates in a recent Women's ITF Pro Circuit event and saw that the national ranking they use for players without WTA, or ITF rank i.e. USTA rank, are all incorrect. Some were for players that had aged out of the system two years ago, but still showed as having a USTA rank. I queried the ITF and they say that the USTA is supposed to send them updated lists on a regular basis so they can properly order the applicants. Obviously that isn't happening, or maybe the regular basis is every few years. Why this should be important to the USTA is that players who have risen in the ranks, and would be better representatives of our country in international competition, aren't getting in because their current ranking is not being correctly reported to the ITF.

  17. Freshman class is not accurate as you have a bunch of kids in there that are really 8th graders and you also have 8th graders who are in 9th grade. A lot of kids ( parents) don't have it listed correctly and some on purpose have their 9th grader listed as an 8th grader to get more scholarship money from their academy.

  18. Hey Tennis5 - I have heard of that, but am still flummoxed by the mindset of parents that will go to that extreme for a temporary boost to a TRN position. Doesn't the NCAA still start the 4-year clock at the beginning of 9th grade? If so, the only time you could repeat a year and derive any benefit would be 8th grade. I guess being a year older would give an advantage, but you'd still have to be pretty good to be a 5-star or Blue Chip by Junior year. My kid has a July B-day so she always played older kids in ITF's, and she started school early so she's graduated HS at 17. It never occurred to me to repeat a year to get a better ranking, and wouldn't have done it if someone had suggested it. At some point you have to ask yourself "what is the moral and ethical thing to do?" Maybe the parents are living vicariously through their child's rank/status and feel personally diminished if it's not high enough. Hope the kids can see past the poor example.

  19. Some of the players who are repeating 8th grade to move up on TRN from a 4 star to a 5 star will turn 19 during their senior year of high school and wont be able to play USTA junior tournaments. i guess they plan to have their NLI senior year before they age up and cant play juniors anymore. It's not just the summer birthdays repeating grades. I know one player who will turn 19 in the fall of his senior year.

    • Just to clarify, there are plenty of juniors who opt out of USTA Junior tournaments before their senior year of high school and choose to play ITFs and Futures instead. Those events can be much better preparation for the rigors of college tennis. Even many younger seniors choose this route. Given that UTR is becoming a much wider-used tool by college coaches, it makes sense for a player to pit him/herself against a broader pool of opponents to get ready for college competition.

  20. From a Junior Players perspective(Midwest 215 ranking boys 16s currently 15), I disagree with them still using the system based on sectional rankings. It basically is saying that you dont even need national level experience to attend one of the most premier National Masters tourney in the Nation. Plus there is a downfall. National level tournaments(selection tourneys and regional closed/open events) barely give you more national points then sectional points so you could have a top 192 ranking in the nation but not qualify for the tournament because of being a lower rank in your section. This is a completely ridiculous structure. hope it gets fixed

  21. Example of how the quota system fails the younger Florida kids: L2 National Selection in Ft. Meyers, Florida Memorial Day Weekend 2015 19 out of 32 girls (59%) were from outside Florida. 6 out of the 8 seeds were not from Florida. In reality, this should actually be 5 out of 8 since one of the seeded girls moved to south Florida about 8 months ago and has been in Florida since then, so let’s count her as Florida. If we do this, 4 out of 5 of the seeds from out of state lost in the 1st or 2nd rounds to unseeded girls from Florida—and only one of these matches was even close. 3 out of 4 girls in the main draw semis are from Florida, and all of the girls in the backdraw QFPs are from Florida. More equitable is that 4 out of 8 of the girls in the backdraw QFs are from Florida. What does this say about section strength and the quota system (which I have stated in previous posts hurts Florida kids more than other sections)? Also, has anyone heard of abandoning only the backdraw QFP matches? The tournament directors took it upon themselves to cancel only these matches (for all age groups) and let the rest of the backdraw play out. I felt bad for the kids who actually won a few main draw matches only to be denied the opportunity to play out the QFP backdraw matches and lose out on potential points, while kids who lost in the first round can still play out matches on the last day.

Share Your Thoughts

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