cowboysol

Right off the bat, you can mention John Isner and Steve Johnson, 2 four-year college players that have achieved a pretty successful level of play to this point - I think that we could agree. It is a fact that there is a very strong crop of American juniors that are transitioning into the pro ranks right now, lead by. Noah Rubin, who did play 1 year at Wake Forest last year, reaching the final of the NCAA tournament. A few of the others, who the USTA would probably consider potentially better prospects, are skipping college and going directly to the pros. Several of these kids have indeed competed against each other in the past several junior slams. These are great achievements, but does not guarantee success at the next level. I'm not so sure that any of them will be able to reach the level necessary for the average American sports fan to even take notice. That will require a slam win at least, not to mention a top ranking. Ultimately, it will take far more at this point than a high ranked American to pull the sport out of the depths to which it has declined.

This topic doesn't necessarily have anything to do with college tennis being a next step to the pros, but almost everything to do with the salvation of the sport of tennis as a whole in the US. Right now tennis is on life support at best in the US. The current average age of a tennis player is now 65 years old. The USTA has failed in their project assuming that ROGY would bring in all of these juniors. It has not. They created a whole new set of rules altering the structure of the junior tennis tournament schedule thinking that it would cut back on costs and promote stronger competition at various levels. That plan has now backfired. Now universities are not necessarily using title 9 as an excuse for eliminating men's teams, but using "the current state of the sport" as an excuse for cutting both teams. Most parents and young kids who are going to invest fairly large amounts of money in a sport as a kid do so with the intention of having a long range goal in that sport. Kid's dream of the pros, but in almost all cases, the realistic goal on that pathway is high school and college level participation. They want to earn scholarships and play their sport. Virtually no parent will invest significant amounts of money, which is what it takes to achieve this goal, on what amounts to a hobby. If that realistic end game is eliminated, kids will not play. This is already being demonstrated in that there are more females playing than males. This would be a direct reflection of the fact that title 9, as it has been applied, has lead to the elimination of hundreds of programs already and a disproportionate # of scholarship opportunities for men (4.5 for a fully funded men's team) to women (8 for a fully funded team). Looking ahead another year or 2, when the NCAA drops the required # of sports to maintain a D1 status from 14 to the proposed 12, it will be a bloodbath for tennis at the collegiate level.