Foreign college players

[JohnB]

I am wondering how long it will take for us to level the playing field for our tennis players coming out of hight school and going to college.

There are so many foreign players now that it is beginning to look like they are using the US college system to further their development while getting some college also?

A young man accepting money in this country is not treated the same way
the player from a foreign country is.

This seems to be an unjust situation for our players, and our college students that want to play tennis.

I hope someone can stop this tidal wave!

[johnyandell]

It's a controversial and complex issue. I think there is definitely a place in college tennis for foreign players. It's no different than any other aspect of our society.

One of our editors, Giancarlo Andreani, is a Swiss player who came to Marin county, played at Dominican, and I for one am glad he did.

If you have followed what has been happening in the New York Times, the real issue isn't foreign players, it's who can take what money for what. If a player wins even a small amount of money should that disqualify him? Should it count against expenses? The standard has been varying and involves some of the top college players.

If a college player can come in and compete for a spot on a team and win it my feeling is he should have it. The rules about who can compete for it is the part that might need some revision.

[kurtvanhook]

wertheim article

SI writer John Werthheim writes a compelling opinion piece on this topic in the latest issue of Tennis Magazine. Check it out....

[johnyandell]

Yeah I read it. Just not sure how compelling it is. One question to ask is this: how is it that our juniors are so bad that they can't successfully compete for the scholarships?

I saw Benedikt Dorsch play in person when Baylor won the team title in 2004 in my home town of Tulsa. He's quite a physical speciman, and a great player, but built more like a wrestler. It wasn't superhuman tennis skill that made him dominant in college. He was a grinder, and yeah, maybe older, and more mature.

Doubt he will be top 100 in the pros at this point, and most of the foreign players don't appear to be pro level players at all.

Another point to understand--all these foreign players were totally into the team aspect. I saw more joy in a few days of college tennis than in 5 years going to tour events.

They are either there for the experience or to get an education, because very few of them are going to make any money playing competitive tennis.

The questions I have are: how many of them are actually older? How many of them actually have played pro tennis for money? Is there a real descrepancy across the board with American players? Enough to account for the difference in foreign success? And yeah, there probably need to be some type of limits enforced there about what qualifies for college.

But I keep coming back to the question of American junior tennis--are foreign kids just more determined and hungry than their American counterparts?

I had a kid who played on my high school team who was actually #1 in Norcal and is now playing college tennis at Penn. Her parents were first generation Russian immigrants. She used tennis to create opportunities in her life and she deserves them.

What if she had come here as a 12 year old and a Russian national? Or straight out of the international juniors and into college at age 18? Does it really matter where she was born so long as she competed on a level playing field? That's the question--how level is the field?

I'm going to ask some of my college coaching friends to chime in on this--because I don't really know enough about it to say what the right answer might be.

[GMann]

Dear John, you make some very good points. However, keep in mind a few things. There wouldn't be an issue if we were just talking about allowing foreign players to play. Nobody is advocating the exclusion of all foreign players. The problem is that the foreign players are totally DOMINATING U.S College tennis which is not meant to be international competition. It's a U.S. organization. When you have a team like Baylor winning the NCAA's and virtually the ENTIRE TEAM are foreign nationals which means no scholarships for U.S. kids on that team, now we have a problem. The rosters of the majority of the top college teams are DOMINATED by foreign nationals. Moerover, it's not like U.S. players have the option to play college tennis at the schools in foreign countries as I'm sure they aren't welcoming U.S. Players. It needs to be a two way street.

I thought you'd be interested in the dialogue taking place at www.zootennis.com which is a website devoted primarily to junior and college tennis. I first post excerpts from the blogger Colette Lewis's refutation of Wertheim's article. What follows from that is a poster called "5.0 Player" who I think does a great job of dissecting and refuting all of her points. It's a pretty stimulating debate, including some allusions to Right Wing" politics from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page.

First, Colette Lewis's refutation of Wertheim's article:

"..Usually I agree with Jon, but I think he’s mostly wrong on this topic. He demands outrage, but any I feel is reserved for the NCAA’s lackadaisical enforcement of their rules for amateur status...But beyond that, he loses me.

..I don’t support quotas...I consider myself a free-trade sort, brainwashed no doubt from reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page daily in my previous career, but I believe erecting barriers to competition stifles excellence...If Division I college tennis limits the opportunities for foreign amateurs to a certain scholarship number or dollar amount, it is the quality of tennis that will suffer...

Wertheim wonders why the USTA and ITA have been strangely mum on this issue. Well, they haven’t. They have published a thorough Q & A that I’ve linked to in the past...

Nor do I agree that American universities supported by taxpayers have any special obligation to avoid foreign athletes. Should the University of North Carolina reserve a starting position on the basketball team for the best Tar Heel state product?..

And when he brings up the European Basketball leagues and their quotas, it leads to comparisons that Wertheim might be better off avoiding. Which title conveys more prestige, theirs or the NBA’s? It’s the NBA’s precisely because they DON’T limit who can play on their teams based on nationality...

...I’ll end this post with an excerpt...
"I played college tennis for my hometown university in florida...Our top 5 were consistently international students.. Obviously, it was a bit unfair.

That said,...[i]n terms of tennis my play improved dramatically...In terms of life, I made some really good friends from all around the world. They were a cool bunch of guys..."

Now, here is "5.0 Player"'s reply to her arguments.

"That was an impressive defense, Colette...However, there are several flaws to your points as well as your logic. First of all, you attack our ideas as “quotas” but that term implies that we propose the EXCLUSION of foreign athletes from COMPETITION. However all we are proposing to limit is the scholarship money. The foreign athletes would be free to compete as much as they’d like, we just propose a limit to two scholarships per team for foreign players.

The term “quota” is also a highly-charged and pejorative term that connotes racial discrimination. However, nobody is advocating limitations based upon race, skin color, gender or ethnic background. Therefore, I believe that this is an inappropriate characterization.

Later you imply that the USTA and ITA are dealing with the issue, but all you do is cite the same Q&A that you’ve linked to in the past... This document that they put out is just a lame public relations tool that tries to minimize the extent of the problem and basically concludes that they won’t and can’t do anything about it.

I don’t know whether this was intentional or not, but your statement next regresses into the exercise of a rhetorical device called “false analogy.” For those of you not familiar with this term, “false analogy” is basically a debate trick...The way it works is that you compare something else to the relevant subject to illustrate your point, but that something else is fundamentally different from the subject matter. In this case, you bring up the National Basketball Association as an example...such a move makes the organization more competitive. However, the NBA could not be more different from United States college tennis. The NBA is a PROFESSIONAL organization that’s goal is to include, represent and showcase the best basketball players in the WORLD. It is professional and international. In stark contrast, U.S. college tennis is an amateur organization, representing U.S. colleges only. If college tennis was either professional or if its U.S. teams competed against colleges outside the U.S. and all over the world, then it might have been appropriate..

Your other analogy comparing our proposition to the idea of limiting college teams to in-state players is also a false analogy. First of all, while U.S. NCAA college tennis is not an international competition between colleges all over the world as I discussed above, it is certainly a NATIONAL -- not a state -- organization. Therefore, when you go into your analogy about how it would be unfair to limit the players of each college to the state that the college resides in, this is totally off the mark. And, by the way, AGAIN no one is talking about limiting foreign players’ opportunities to PLAY college tennis..limiting the number of scholarships. We’re only talking about a financial matter and actually state colleges do charge out-of-state students more tuition than they charge in-state students and I don’t recall any complaints about this as it has been going on for 100 years.

For the reasons that I’ve laid out in my previous paragraph, all of your rhetorical questions presented in the fourth paragraph of your posting about state colleges reserving starting positions is intellectually dishonest...

Your other main points sound good to the casual observer but they similarly use flawed logic. In summary, you mention the benefits of the current system to support your position which strongly insinuates that all of those benefits will be lost if they adopt our proposal. But those benefits will not be lost so it is inappropriate for you to bring them up...Then you quote some anonymous former college player who says that while it was “obviously unfair” to have foreign players on his team, it did make it more competitive and they were “a cool bunch of guys.” That’s great Colette, but since we are still encouraging international players and only advocating LIMITING, not EXCLUDING, the foreign scholarships to TWO per team, under our proposition, there will still be PLENTY of foreign players which will mean plenty of opportunities for our U.S. athletes to compete with and meet “cool guys” from other countries...

...the situation has now gotten RIDICULOUS where -- as Jon Wertheim and Craig Tiley point out -- you have a U.S. College NCAA championship team at a U.S. university like Baylor where virtually the ENTIRE TEAM was composed of foreign athletes. Not one or two players or even half the team, we are talking about the ENTIRE FREAKING TEAM!...This is UNITED STATES COLLEGE tennis, not a professional or international competition!

I will also say that your primary mantra that “the more competition the better for everyone” is absurd. First of all, there will be more than enough competition with two scholarships for foreign players per team and many more additional scholarships for U.S. players. Second, you make it sound as if the vast majority of Division 1 college players expect to have a pro career which implies that they always need to compete with the best tennis players in the world as part of their college experience. The ones that feel that way can always get any increased competition from the futures and satellite tournaments; this doesn’t NEED to be part of college athletics all the time...don’t give us that crap that the USTA/ITA Q&A tries to lay on us that there are lots of opportunities to play college tennis in Div. II and Div. III schools when we all know that schools in those divisions cannot offer scholarships.

...Without knowing anything about you personally, I am willing to bet that you don’t have a son who is presently competing for these opportunities. I’m also willing to bet that if you had a son in a similar position, your opinion on this subject would change. ... It must be nice to be a pure “tennis fan” who can just sit back and enjoy the show as these boys try to battle it out (and usually lose out) against the best international players in the world to play varsity tennis and/or gain a scholarship at a U.S. college. Such a goal would still be a very challenging -- yet not impossible -- task without this dominance of international players. For parents like us and our kids, we don’t have that luxury of being purely a spectator...While I know that your “extreme right wing” Wall Street Journal editorial page does not encourage the concept of empathy, I encourage you to “grow a little” and put yourself in the shoes of our children and try to see things from their perspective."

[johnyandell]

The last part sounds like a dad whose underlying motive is that he has a kid that can't get a scholarship. Not sure that's much of a basis for an argument. Again, how many foreign players really have an "advantage" in age or pro experience, that's my question.

[GMann]

Well, you might be right about the last part, but what about the other 90% of it as well as Wertheim's article? Wertheim and Tiley don't have children who are trying to get scholarships as far as I know and they see the problem.

We do know for sure that a lot of the foreign players are a lot older. Many are 25 or 26 at least before they graduate. They are 21 or 22 year old freshman that have already competed on circuits while most of the U.S. kids were still in high school. Just take a look at the University of Washington Varsity Tennis team which is usually ranked in the top 15. Their present number one player Slovic was about 21 years old when he was a Freshman. Similarly, the guy from Tulane who was runner-up at the NCAA last year was about 25 or 26 years old (and balding) in his senior year. And, this is typical of most of the top college teams.

The fact that there are so many foreign players in college tennis does not necessarily mean that they are competing better than U.S. players, it's probably more of a function of their age advantage as well as the fact that the U.S. is only one country and we are talking about players from many countries such as Germany, England, Israel, France, Belgium, Sweden, etc. The U.S. probably competes well against any particular country but it's hard for one country to compete against all of them.

Are you against any limits to the foreign domination? As "5.0 Player" points out, U.S. College Tennis is not a professional nor international organization. Many of the universities are subsidized by U.S. tax payer money. Would you be just as happy with the situation if the USTA junior High Performance program started recruiting top foreign players on the logic that we should always give the opportunity to the best qualified no matter where they presently reside?

Most people would feel differently if there were such opportunities at foreign universities for U.S. players to compete, develop and get educated. Right now it appears to be a one-way street.

[johnyandell]

I don't really understand it from the inside to tell you the truth. Not sure all the players are older with pro experience. And also not so sure the analogy to USTA holds either.

[GMann]

A Current Event Makes the Point

I don't intend this to be a scientific survey but thought the following current event was worth noting in furtherance of my position. Pepperdine has just won the NCAA's this year with a team that is predominantly foreign. The starting line-up includes several players from Spain, Australia, Germany (at least two), Yugoslavia (the guy is listed at 6 ft. 5 in.) and England. Their top player is a 6 ft. 3 in Spaniard who will turn 26 years old this year (2006).

[johnyandell]

I think the sentiment among the coaches is that the age factor needs to be dialed out of it. One coach suggested that 20 would be the latest to start. It would be interesting to know, though, the average age comparisions--everyone is pointing at a few players at the very top that are older. My good friend Vince Westbrook has a great young Spanish player at #1 at the University of Tulsa--he's a 20 year old sophomore.

I was down at Stanford and I saw Pepperdine play. Their players are good but I wouldn't say it's like watching pros vs amateurs. Matt Bruch, a Stanford freshman, tuned a 23-24 year old Slovenian player who played #2 for Baylor and clinched the title for the Bears in 2004.

Another common sentiment is that the problems with the American players is that they all want to go the same 2 schools--Stanford and UCLA. I was told there are more than enough scholarships for the American players if you consider all the schools offering them.

A final point. Even the coaches who are losing to teams with foreign players think they are good for tennis and raising the level of college tennis significantly. Maybe 27 year old expros should be barred but the potential to help develop our young players is actually enhanced by the higher levels of college tennis.

As for the family that invests $200,000 and their kid can't get into UCLA, well,
I just think when you put your eggs in one basket like that you are risking too much--you can't blame everything on outside forces.

[GMann]

A final point. Even the coaches who are losing to teams with foreign players think they are good for tennis and raising the level of college tennis significantly.

I'm sure that coaches appreciate that the participation of foreign players enhances the level of U.S. college tennis, but I'm willing to bet that most do not think that it's a good thing that foreign players are dominating college tennis. And again, I don't oppose foreign players, I oppose the fact that there are no limits and that they are truly DOMINATING U.S. college tennis, not just enhancing it.

Nobody could be a greater authority on U.S. college tennis than Craig Tiley, arguably the most successful college tennis coach in modern times because he turned a weak program around with no great tennis tradition (Univ. of Illinois) and made it into the top NCAA Division I team and used no foreign playes. Tiley is quoted in Wertheim's essay as saying: "If you want one or two foreigners on your team, OK. But it's gotten way out of control." He is also quoting as saying that "I love college tennis, but this totally disillusioned me."

It is worth noting that Tiley himself is not an American citizen and yet still felt that it was logical to limit the number of foreign players on his, and other, American college tennis teams.

[johnyandell]

You know what Gmann, I think it's pretty clear we don't entirely agree. And I'm not sure it matters. My hunch is there are going to be some changes.

I'm just not a quota kind of guy. Could be personal--my wife is from Guatemala. I can see it from the other side of the fence, so to speak.

And I wouldn't risk the mortgage on that bet. Tennis players and coaches are pretty color/country blind. They respect good tennis and there is a respect and comraderie among the coaches and players even on competing teams that sort of transcends who is from where.

Not sure what would have happened if Craig had repeated his title in 2004. He had two great American serve and volley players! In fact you can see them in the NCAA music video playing doubles.

If I get some more feedback from NCAA coaches I'll post it, but other than that I'll just agree to disagree.

[GMann]

That's fair enough, John. We will agree to disagree. Just a couple final points of clarification. I'm not a "quota kind of guy" either and I would feel a lot differently if the NCAA was, like the ATP, WTA or even ITF, an international organization. It is instead, however, a U.S. college organization. Also, the proposals are a limit on the number of scholarships to 2 international players per team. This doesn't bar any foreign players from participation it just might limit the scholarship money.

Furthermore, I don't think that there would be any objections to the number of foreign players if the rosters weren't so often ridiculously dominated by foreign players and where the line-ups at schools like Baylor are often almost entirely players who live in foreign countires.

Finally, I'm sure you didn't intend the implication, but your comment about coaches being "color blind" and even the term "quota" might have implied that I or the many advocates of this position are not color blind. In no case have I or Tilley or Wertheim and the many other proponents EVER suggested limitations based upon race, color, ethnic origin or even national origin. State universities in the U.S. almost always give preference for admission to their in state residents and also charge much more to out of state residents. Our proposal is quite analogous to this practice which has been going on for about 100 years in this country. I don't recall anyone challenging this as being a "quota" or not being "color blind."

Thanks for keeping us informed as to what the college coaches are saying.

Best Regards,

GMann

[tanker]

I guess I have to join in and give my thoughts, this one is way to close to home. The ITA (Intercollegiate Tennis Association) which is the organization that represents the coaches has been trying to get a handle on this for 15 + years. Actually 15 years ago we proposed a rule that would limit half of our scholarships to international players, but a court somewhere said that we were opening ourselves up to a lawsuit for discrimination. We have since proposed 3 rules that the NCAA have adopted trying to curb international students but really none of them have worked, they have in some cases brought more international players here. College tennis is very proactive in this area but really nothing has worked, but I think we are gaining ground finally.
The question is not whether or not they played pro events, we could care less about that. The USTA is encouraging all of our juniors to play more and more Futures so really are players are getting more and more similiar. Two things separate international kids from American kids. Age and attitude. The only unfair thing about have an international kid here is that they are older, it is not fair for a 20 year old junior to play against a 25 year old junior, it is just not and that has happened to many times in the past. The other is attitude, the foreign kids cherish their opportunity to play college tennis and generally speaking the American kids are all about ME! What can college tennis do for my game, what can this team do for me, what can this college do for me. That is just not an attitude that works too well on a team.
I have coached both and really coaching foreigners is just so much easy, but really in the long run it is not nearly as rewarding. The American kids need you and if they are willing to listen (not all of them are) then you can really build a tennis player and hopefully a man.
The funny thing about all of this is that it wasn't till Baylor won it that a foreign dominated had won it. The feeling was that foreigners didn't care as much as Americans, didn't care enough to go the extra mile which is what it takes at the NCAA's to get over the hump and win. Now in the last 3 years that has changed. Why has that changed. Really you can see it in how we are raising our kids and that is now hitting college tennis.
What is happening in junior tennis is not really the best thing in building a person, today's American kids are from the studies I have seen around 2 years less mature than the kids a decade ago and what is happening in junior tennis is not helping the situation. College today is serving as a high school experience for these kids because they are home schooled or at an academy. The best juniors in the US are not interested in college tennis, they don't dream about and really they don't want to have anything to do with going to school and playing tennis. Generally speaking most of the best kids are home schooled and they are not learning the life lessons needed to help them be good people and good tennis players. It seems like there are more and more kids turning pro but it has never been harder to make it. I think one of the reasons these kids are doing this is that they are so used to life just filled with tennis and it is very hard for them to share all of this with teammates, schedules, classes, homework and being accountable to some people in college. They want life simple and they want to be able to devote all of their time to tennis ( and all of the other foolishness that this world has for them, internet, cell phones, video games). They could care less about helping someone else, getting more well rounded and having a great life experience in college.
The NCAA has to get the house in order a little (not as much as everyone thinks) and we are in the process of limiting the age of college tennis players and making the rules more equal to Americans but lets not forget to do our part and put good products on the court representing the US.

[johnyandell]

In case you guys don't know Tanker is Peter Smith--sorry to out you like that Pete!

He wrote a great article for us on the Sampras volley and as the coach at USC he certainly has the insight about this complex issue--from firsthand experience...

Thanks Pete I learned from this post.