PDA

View Full Version : 2011-2012 recruiting - "speculation only"


gouci
Dec 22nd, 2009, 08:14 AM
Lynda Xepoleas - blue chip

Rumor has it Lynda Xepoleas took an unofficial visit to Purdue.

fantic
Dec 24th, 2009, 09:03 PM
gouci, do you know anything about Monica Turewicz. I have to confess that I have a certain fondness for her since she was the first junior player I watched at Ojai, against Megan Heneghan..:) At TR she listed so many schools it's not really helpful at all :)

And dunno why Xepoleas visited Purdue, I want to 'watch' her, she should be a good enough recruit for any Pac-10 teams..:)

gouci
Dec 25th, 2009, 12:08 AM
I usually don't hold back on revealing what I know. Why because if you wait too long the info may become public and you can't take credit for it. :lol:

Ex. When I made the post about Xepoleas 2 days ago you looked at her TRN profile and didn't see any schools listed and asked if I was sure about Purdue. Today on her profile Purdue is now listed. So if I had waited just 2 more days to post, that info would have been made public and I couldn't take credit for it. You have to call it before it goes public to claim credit for breaking the news. :lol:

fantic
Dec 25th, 2009, 01:45 AM
I usually don't hold back on revealing what I know. Why because if you wait too long the info may become public and you can't take credit for it. :lol:

Ex. When I made the post about Xepoleas 2 days ago you looked at her TRN profile and didn't see any schools listed and asked if I was sure about Purdue. Today on her profile Purdue is now listed. So if I had waited just 2 more days to post, that info would have been made public and I couldn't take credit for it. You have to call it before it goes public to claim credit for breaking the news. :lol:

:lol:

if she goes to Purdue..boy, Big 10 really could be competitive..:) Although I won't see much of her :tears:

Tennisace
Dec 25th, 2009, 02:12 AM
I'm hoping that Turewicz goes to Cal. She has the Weil connection which has been known as a pipeline to at least the Cal men's team. I also think it helped us recruit Radeva.

At a minimum she will take a visit to Cal, and then its up to the team to wow her (Marino also from Weil took a visit before deciding on Tech)

Tennisace
Dec 25th, 2009, 02:30 AM
We can break down the probability of Turewicz's high interest choices, assuming no transfers and removal of scholarships from current scholarship players.

1. California = 1 spot open
2. Duke = Maybe 1 spot open, I don't know if Plotkin is taking a redshirt year. If she is then there will be no spots open.
3. Harvard = "Unlimited"
4. Northwestern = 2 spots open
5. Notre Dame =1 spot open
6. Princeton = "Unlimited"
7. Stanford = No spots open
8. UCLA = No spots open
9. USC = 1 spot open
10. Yale = "Unlimited"

The Ivies are unlimited because they don't offer tennis scholarships.

fantic
Dec 25th, 2009, 02:47 AM
I'm hoping that Turewicz goes to Cal. She has the Weil connection which has been known as a pipeline to at least the Cal men's team. I also think it helped us recruit Radeva.

At a minimum she will take a visit to Cal, and then its up to the team to wow her (Marino also from Weil took a visit before deciding on Tech)

You're right, I also researched recently and found out that 'Weil Connection' :scared: Too bad Xepoleas, also from Weil, seems to go to Purdue. Since De Simone and Santamaria is heading to USC, Cal really seems to have a chance. It wouldn't be a bad choice, either. ;)

fantic
Dec 25th, 2009, 02:51 AM
We can break down the probability of Turewicz's high interest choices, assuming no transfers and removal of scholarships from current scholarship players.

1. California = 1 spot open
2. Duke = Maybe 1 spot open, I don't know if Plotkin is taking a redshirt year. If she is then there will be no spots open.
3. Harvard = "Unlimited"
4. Northwestern = 2 spots open
5. Notre Dame =1 spot open
6. Princeton = "Unlimited"
7. Stanford = No spots open
8. UCLA = No spots open
9. USC = 1 spot open
10. Yale = "No spots open"

The Ivies are unlimited because they don't offer tennis scholarships.

great analysis! Yeah it makes sense all the more for Turewicz to go to Cal, maybe less competition than USC, she can play at the higher position, I guess (although she IS the current California ranking #1 Junior ;) )

Tennisace
Dec 25th, 2009, 03:02 AM
great analysis! Yeah it makes sense all the more for Turewicz to go to Cal, maybe less competition than USC, she can play at the higher position, I guess (although she IS the current California ranking #1 Junior ;) )

Oh wait I just realized I did this wrong. I based it off of the senior class, but she's a junior. I'll re-do it in a few.

Tennisace
Dec 25th, 2009, 03:06 AM
Scholarship spots open at Turewicz's high interest schools:

1. California = 2 spots open
2. Duke = 2 sports open
3. Harvard = "Unlimited"
4. Northwestern = 1 spot open
5. Notre Dame =1-2 spots open
6. Princeton = "Unlimited"
7. Stanford = 2-3 spots open
8. UCLA = 3 spots open
9. USC = 2 spots open (2 already taken)
10. Yale = "Unlimited"

The only one that didn't change was USC since they have already recruited 3 players for next next year.

fantic
Dec 25th, 2009, 03:10 AM
Scholarship spots open at Turewicz's high interest schools:

1. California = 2 spots open
2. Duke = 2 sports open
3. Harvard = "Unlimited"
4. Northwestern = 1 spot open
5. Notre Dame =1-2 spots open
6. Princeton = "Unlimited"
7. Stanford = 2-3 spots open
8. UCLA = 3 spots open
9. USC = 1 spot open (3 already taken)
10. Yale = "No spots open"

The only one that didn't change was USC since they have already recruited 3 players for next next year.

WHAT WHAT WHAT? 3, NOT 2? WHO WHO??!!! You MUST tell me :help: (I know De Simone and Santamaria)

Tennisace
Dec 25th, 2009, 03:14 AM
WHAT WHAT WHAT? 3, NOT 2? WHO WHO??!!! You MUST tell me :help: (I know De Simone and Santamaria)

Oooops my bad again. It's 2...USC always has a nasty habit of recruiting early which tends to make it confusing although its probably a really smart strategy because they can start focusing on players a lot earlier than other schools.

fantic
Dec 25th, 2009, 03:20 AM
WHAT!!! I can forgive your first mistake but not this one! :( Now I wish Turewicz to come to USC!! :devil:

Tennisace
Dec 25th, 2009, 03:46 AM
WHAT!!! I can forgive your first mistake but not this one! :( Now I wish Turewicz to come to USC!! :devil:

Turewicz is interesting because she is originally from the Illinois (Northwestern, Notre Dame), trained at Weil (UCLA, USC), and I believe is based in Saratoga now (Stanford, Cal). So she has a lot of connections to different schools, but could go to a completely different school.

fantic
Dec 25th, 2009, 04:02 AM
:woohoo::woohoo:Turewicz is interesting because she is originally from the Illinois (Northwestern, Notre Dame), trained at Weil (UCLA, USC), and I believe is based in Saratoga now (Stanford, Cal). So she has a lot of connections to different schools, but could go to a completely different school.

Huh, I didn't know she's at Northern California right now. Well, just so that she stays in California :)

Incidentally I want to brag like gouci :yippee:

it's about the current 3 recruits of USC, KC,SS and De Simone.

I first attended the junior matches at Ojai, but the main event was PAC-10. (There I saw Turewicz, Heneghan, Dai, Ware..)
After NCAA I attended 107th So. Cal Sectional, purely a junior event.
And there I saw those 3 in action, and I was much impressed by them.
AND, I thought USC could recruit them.
AND, later, my wish have become true :bounce::bounce:
I was so happy that I had to tell KC about it at WAATC. :bigcry:
(USC coaches were present in nearly all major tourneys this summer, I know 'cause I was there too :cool: )
Just imagine 2 years from now;

Ramos, Lao, Pulido, Christian, De Simone, Santamaria.

doubles
Christian/Santamaria
Ramos/Lao
Pulido/De Simone

fantastic!! :woohoo:

gouci
Dec 25th, 2009, 05:35 AM
Scholarship spots open at Turewicz's high interest schools:

1. California = 2 spots open
2. Duke = 2 sports open
3. Harvard = "Unlimited"
4. Northwestern = 1 spot open
5. Notre Dame =1-2 spots open
6. Princeton = "Unlimited"
7. Stanford = 2-3 spots open
8. UCLA = 3 spots open
9. USC = 2 spots open (2 already taken)
10. Yale = "No spots open"

The only one that didn't change was USC since they have already recruited 3 players for next next year.
Last I checked Yale was also in the Ivy Leagues. :lol:

If we're talking about options Turewicz may also choose "none of the above" and turn pro. :lol:

fantic
Dec 25th, 2009, 06:11 AM
Last I checked Yale was also in the Ivy Leagues. :lol:

If we're talking about options Turewicz may also choose "none of the above" and turn pro. :lol:

That's quite true, let's all hope that Turewicz choose Californian School :D

gouci
Dec 25th, 2009, 09:03 AM
The Ivies are unlimited because they don't offer tennis scholarships.
The Ivy League really uses this unlimited roster to their advantage.

Brown = has 11 scholarship level players on the roster

Dartmouth = has 10 scholarship level players

Harvard = has 10 scholarship level players

Columbia has had 27 different players on its roster combined from this season and last. :eek:
The Columbia coach is the queen of the mass exodus because 13 of those players have left the team :lol: with only 3 by graduation.

fantic
Dec 25th, 2009, 06:10 PM
I think Cal has a bunch of GOOD players who are blue chips, so am really interested in their college choice.

Turewicz, Tsay, Olmos, Lee, Xepoleas, Guillermo.

They didn't decide yet and I'm quite curious. Hope they all remain in Calfornia :)

gouci
Feb 1st, 2010, 04:26 AM
Sophie Letcher - Australia

I speculate Arizona State has a high chance of getting Sophie Letcher. She has a WTA ranking high of #868. I'm guessing she's related to Arizona St. assistant coach Clint Letcher of Australia.

Coach Letcher has help started a pipeline to Australia for ASU with Michelle Brycki and Ashlee Brown coming from down under.

Embittered
Feb 1st, 2010, 10:52 PM
Sophie Letcher - Australia

I speculate Arizona State has a high chance of getting Sophie Letcher. She has a WTA ranking high of #868. I'm guessing she's related to Arizona St. assistant coach Clint Letcher of Australia.
Why guess? You can find the answer (http://thesundevils.cstv.com/sports/m-tennis/mtt/letcher_clint01.html) on the ASU website (with a little help from Google). Here (http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/local/sport/tennis/letcher-follows-family-tradition/1691991.aspx) is a local news article on the Letcher family.

From her record, Sophie should be good enough to get a good college place without relying on nepotism, if that's what she wants. Playing for your brother sounds a bit icky, but that's probably just me.

gouci
Mar 4th, 2010, 05:49 PM
Haley Martin - 4 star

Rumor has it Haley Martin is going to Oklahoma.

gouci
Mar 22nd, 2010, 08:41 PM
Nicole Kosakowski - 5 star

Rumor has it Nicole Kosakowski has a high interest in Pepperdine where her blue chip older sister Sylvia played.

gouci
Apr 19th, 2010, 06:53 PM
Marie Casares - Ecuador

International rumor has it Marie Casares has a high interest in Clemson. She had a WTA ranking high of #797.

mboyle
Apr 25th, 2010, 02:48 AM
We can break down the probability of Turewicz's high interest choices, assuming no transfers and removal of scholarships from current scholarship players.

1. California = 1 spot open
2. Duke = Maybe 1 spot open, I don't know if Plotkin is taking a redshirt year. If she is then there will be no spots open.
3. Harvard = "Unlimited"
4. Northwestern = 2 spots open
5. Notre Dame =1 spot open
6. Princeton = "Unlimited"
7. Stanford = No spots open
8. UCLA = No spots open
9. USC = 1 spot open
10. Yale = "Unlimited"

The Ivies are unlimited because they don't offer tennis scholarships.

Duke will have 3 spots. We will be losing Plotkin, Reka and Ellah. Also, I doubt this girl goes Ivy. I hope she comes to Duke with Ellen Tsay...

mboyle
Apr 25th, 2010, 02:50 AM
I think Cal has a bunch of GOOD players who are blue chips, so am really interested in their college choice.

Turewicz, Tsay, Olmos, Lee, Xepoleas, Guillermo.

They didn't decide yet and I'm quite curious. Hope they all remain in Calfornia :)

I think we'll get at least one of Turewicz or Tsay...

Amalgamate
Apr 25th, 2010, 03:38 AM
I think we'll get at least one of Turewicz or Tsay...

Granted I haven't spoken to Ellen in a few years, but I would be really surprised if she goes to Duke.

fantic
Apr 25th, 2010, 06:35 AM
Oh Come On, Cal players STAY in California :angel:

mboyle
Apr 25th, 2010, 06:44 AM
Granted I haven't spoken to Ellen in a few years, but I would be really surprised if she goes to Duke.

She told Ellah she's 50/50 between Duke and Stanford. She had a REALLY good visit and got along really well with everyone...

Amalgamate
Apr 25th, 2010, 06:50 AM
She told Ellah she's 50/50 between Duke and Stanford. She had a REALLY good visit and got along really well with everyone...

Again, I would be shocked to see her go to Duke. Although at the same time I don't really see her fitting in too well with the current Stanford crop. Still though, my bet is Stanford :lol: Sorry.
And if you have ever met Ellen, I bet she tells every school she "doesn't know" and that it's "50/50". :hug: Love you Ellen.

gouci
May 22nd, 2010, 04:52 AM
Jana Cepelova - Slovak Republic

International rumor has it Jana Cepelova has a high interest in Yale. She had a WTA ranking high of 864.

gouci
Jun 15th, 2010, 08:02 AM
Kaitlin Ray - blue chip

Rumor has it Kaitlin Ray has a high interest in UCLA.


.

gouci
Jul 18th, 2010, 08:09 AM
Janet Liu - 5 star

Rumor has it Janet Liu has a high interest in Columbia.

.

Amalgamate
Jul 18th, 2010, 04:33 PM
Girl's that Amalgamte is curious about (i.e. I have no connections :sobbing:)
*Goldfeld (most likely turning pro?)
*Anderson (no idea :scratch:)
*Melichar (Due to recent results I am sure she has turned a lot of coaches' heads)

It should also be noted that as of July 1 coaches can contact this class.

tennisbuddy12
Jul 19th, 2010, 11:14 PM
Girl's that Amalgamte is curious about (i.e. I have no connections :sobbing:)
*Goldfeld (most likely turning pro?)
*Anderson (no idea :scratch:)
*Melichar (Due to recent results I am sure she has turned a lot of coaches' heads)

It should also be noted that as of July 1 coaches can contact this class.

I agree on Goldfeld

I just have this inkling that Anderson will go to school. She has had great itf results this year, but she may take her time to develop into a better player.

Nicole is definitely looking at college and I know that 100% :) One school seems more in the running than others but idk :tape:

Amalgamate
Jul 19th, 2010, 11:42 PM
I agree on Goldfeld

I just have this inkling that Anderson will go to school. She has had great itf results this year, but she may take her time to develop into a better player.

Nicole is definitely looking at college and I know that 100% :) One school seems more in the running than others but idk :tape:

I suspect Robin will go to school as well, I just have no idea where she's looking

gouci
Jul 19th, 2010, 11:49 PM
Alex Martin - blue chip

Rumor has it Alex Martin has a high interest in Clemson and Florida St.

.

gouci
Jul 29th, 2010, 09:47 PM
Alexandra Kolesnichenko - Uzbekistan

International rumor has it Alexandra Kolesnichenko has a high interest in UCLA. She had a WTA ranking high of 577.

.

gouci
Aug 14th, 2010, 10:34 PM
Emina Bektas - blue chip

Rumor has it Emina Bektas has a high interest in Florida State.

.

iliketennis
Aug 16th, 2010, 02:42 AM
I hear that Bektas is looking at UCLA, USC, UNC, Michigan, and I think one or two more.

johnnytennis
Aug 16th, 2010, 03:56 PM
I hear that Bektas is looking at UCLA, USC, UNC, Michigan, and I think one or two more.

I heard the same. FS wasn't even mentioned.

gouci
Aug 22nd, 2010, 05:14 AM
Kaylene Chadwell - 4 star

Rumor has it Kaylene Chadwell has a high interest in UNC Greensboro.

.

gouci
Sep 1st, 2010, 06:31 AM
Nicole Kosakowski - 5 star

Rumor has it Nicole Kosakowski has a high interest in UC Santa Barbara where her older brother Marcin played.

.

gouci
Sep 25th, 2010, 09:21 AM
Molly Wickman - 4 star

- Rumor has it Molly Wickman has a high interest in Michigan State and Indiana.

.

qwerty12
Dec 5th, 2010, 10:27 PM
Natalie Beazant - Great Britain

International rumor has it Natalie Beazant has a high interest in Miami.

.

She has already given a verbal to Rice.

gouci
Dec 6th, 2010, 02:58 AM
She has already given a verbal to Rice.
Well if you know more verbals please don't hold back. :lol:

gouci
Jan 25th, 2011, 04:16 AM
Renata Arshavskaya (Russia) - blue chip

International rumor has it Renata Arshavskaya has a high interest in Columbia. This was before her twin sister Adel recently gave a verbal to Columbia.

.

Embittered
Apr 17th, 2011, 12:14 PM
Has Katie Gater had enough of warming the bench at Virginia: http://www.youtube.com/user/kcg6mc?

gouci
Apr 17th, 2011, 01:18 PM
Katie Gater didn't even play in 1 dual match for Virginia.

The Virginia coach must have told her something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQb_Yx8t_L4&feature=related) that inspired the creation of that recruiting video. :lol:

gouci
May 30th, 2011, 06:03 PM
Rumor has it that Kelsey Sundaram is transferring from Arkansas to Texas A&M. She was a 5-star recruit in the class of 2009 and was ranked #201 ITF.
I'm reposting this here. Thanks for the rumor 10sE. :worship:

paul_masterton
Jun 7th, 2011, 09:38 PM
SHame Katie was frozen out. I thought she'd have a good college career.

Laura Slater also hasn't gotten many games at college.

2nd_serve
Jun 7th, 2011, 09:41 PM
SHame Katie was frozen out. I thought she'd have a good college career.

Laura Slater also hasn't gotten a game at college.

What does "frozen out" mean in this context??:confused:

paul_masterton
Jun 7th, 2011, 09:44 PM
What does "frozen out" mean in this context??:confused:

as in she's been left out the team all season. Can't really see why either, she didn't have a great first 6months, but should be a solid lower end player here at 5 or 6. Just weird she hasn't played a single match, and now appears on a recruiting video. As if she's been told she'll not play for the team again.

tennisbuddy12
Jun 7th, 2011, 10:21 PM
No, I don't think she's being kicked off. I know she is taking visits to other schools, but she loves UVA. The only thing she doesn't like is the tennis (I don't know if it is a team problem or if she isn't happy with the lack of playing time). She probably signed a release so she can talk to other schools (she can change her mind and go back to UVA) and UVA is just helping her get her name out there. Coaches usually help transfers find other schools.

2nd_serve
Jun 7th, 2011, 11:06 PM
I don't know anything about this particular case, but I think it can be a hard blow to the confidence of a player with some ITF and junior success to be slotted at #7 or #8. And then further hurting their game to just sit and watch when the team plays matches.

10sE
Jun 8th, 2011, 03:40 PM
I have heard the UVA coach is very tough and runs a very disciplined, no-nonsense program. A lot of junior players are used to being the boss and since they are paying their coaches, many of them are the boss when it comes to practices and such. Many college coaches are just like junior coaches and simply keep the players happy while trying to develop them at whatever pace they are able to. Other coaches take a different approach. More like "I am the one paying you now so get with the program or get lost".

I don't know the particulars of this case either but I have known several former players of the UVA coach and they either loved him or hated him based on the above. He does have a high turnover and she is not the first player to leave UVA in recent years. It is hard to argue with his results however, both at UVA and Kentucky. One must also remember that coaches want to win and logically unless the girl is a gigantic pain in the rear AND/OR she just doesn't have the talent to help the team out, they will not simply "freeze her out".

I am not implying that she's a brat or that she's no good. I am simply saying it is likely that she either did not buy into his methods or that after evaluating her talent and work ethic up close he didn't believe she had the potential to help the team.

2nd_serve
Jun 8th, 2011, 03:56 PM
I have heard the UVA coach is very tough and runs a very disciplined, no-nonsense program. A lot of junior players are used to being the boss and since they are paying their coaches, many of them are the boss when it comes to practices and such. Many college coaches are just like junior coaches and simply keep the players happy while trying to develop them at whatever pace they are able to. Other coaches take a different approach. More like "I am the one paying you now so get with the program or get lost".

I don't know the particulars of this case either but I have known several former players of the UVA coach and they either loved him or hated him based on the above. He does have a high turnover and she is not the first player to leave UVA in recent years. It is hard to argue with his results however, both at UVA and Kentucky. One must also remember that coaches want to win and logically unless the girl is a gigantic pain in the rear AND/OR she just doesn't have the talent to help the team out, they will not simply "freeze her out".

I am not implying that she's a brat or that she's no good. I am simply saying it is likely that she either did not buy into his methods or that after evaluating her talent and work ethic up close he didn't believe she had the potential to help the team.

Good points, but I'll suggest some more possible explanations, and again say I have no idea if it applies to this particular coach and athlete.

Sometimes, the adjustment to college is hard for any students, including tennis athletes. Some kids become homesick. Some kids get confused with the freedom of drinking on campus. Or maybe a boyfriend / girlfriend problem Other, just may have difficult being on their own, and not having a parent or coach structuring their days. Or maybe, they have trouble managing to do both their school work and tennis practice, and correctly realize that they are going pro in something other than sports.


I don't know if it would get many response, but I'd like to open a thread where we talk about coaches. Do people think that the level of coaching in college tennis is what it should be? Are the coaches paid enough to attract the talent? Different coaching philosophies from different coaches. How could the level of college coaching be improved. etc.
I

10sE
Jun 9th, 2011, 02:40 AM
Yes those are all possibilities but trust me, if a girl is a good enough player the coach will find a way to help her overcome those things. These coaches get paid to win. They aren't going to bend over backwards to get a girl to sign and then bail out on her at the first sign of trouble.

We would really need to know someone closer to the story, but even without the facts, I would be willing to make a large wager that she was either not very dedicated to tennis, not quite good enough, or both.

As far as the thread talking about coaches, that would be an interesting topic and you should start it. It would be much more interesting than "21 year-old freshmen", "100% foreign", and some of the other pathetic threads on here.

Amalgamate
Jun 9th, 2011, 06:04 AM
As far as the thread talking about coaches, that would be an interesting topic and you should start it. It would be much more interesting than "21 year-old freshmen", "100% foreign", and some of the other pathetic threads on here.

I find all of those threads informative and very interesting. I think your post is offensive.

2nd_serve
Jun 9th, 2011, 07:06 AM
Amalgamate,

I agree with you.

I think that the 21-year old freshman thread is very interesting , and has functioned as a good prompt to raise issues of how our junior and college tennis system can be improved. And, I think a team without any Americans is sad, particularly when it is a state funded school.

fantic
Jun 9th, 2011, 07:25 AM
maybe 'pathetic' was a strong word :lol:

but 2ndserve, I think Amal is better than Amal'gate' :lol:

johnnytennis
Jun 9th, 2011, 07:29 AM
Yes those are all possibilities but trust me, if a girl is a good enough player the coach will find a way to help her overcome those things. These coaches get paid to win. They aren't going to bend over backwards to get a girl to sign and then bail out on her at the first sign of trouble.

We would really need to know someone closer to the story, but even without the facts, I would be willing to make a large wager that she was either not very dedicated to tennis, not quite good enough, or both.

As far as the thread talking about coaches, that would be an interesting topic and you should start it. It would be much more interesting than "21 year-old freshmen", "100% foreign", and some of the other pathetic threads on here.

"We would really need to know someone closer to the story, but even without the facts, I would be willing to make a large wager that she was either not very dedicated to tennis, not quite good enough, or both."

First you say you need to know someone that knows more and then you turn around and rip her! Pretty tacky!

2nd_serve
Jun 9th, 2011, 07:30 AM
maybe 'pathetic' was a strong word :lol:

but 2ndserve, I think Amal is better than Amal'gate' :lol:

Thanks Fantic, I've warned that I sometimes make typos and misspell. So I fixed it now.

gouci
Jun 9th, 2011, 12:23 PM
It would be much more interesting than "21 year-old freshmen", "100% foreign", and some of the other pathetic threads on here.

The "17 & 21 year old freshmen" thread on average is one of the top 5 mostly viewed threads on our board. :woohoo:
:hah: NUMBERS DON'T LIE!


If you take "the no. of views" and divide by "the no. of replies + 1" (to include the original post) this gives you a good idea of the "average number of people viewing per post on a given thread.".

Roughly here are the top 6 mostly viewed threads.

6. 2012-13 verbals, high interest & transfers = 110 avg. views
- (just 1 ex. from thread series)

5. Coaching changes = 113 avg. views

4. 17 & 21 year old freshmen = 116 avg. views

3. 2012-13 recruiting - "speculation only" = 127 avg. views
- Everyone wants inside info. (just 1 ex. from thread series)

2. Who will get fired? = 153 avg. views
- Accurately predicts that someone unknown will lose their scholarship on a team.

1. :tape:
- Board's hidden gem.


The popularity of "Teams with 100% foreign players" thread is yet to be determined. There are only 2 teams included with much more to be added over the summer.


The bottom line is the 2 threads are clearly named. If you don't like them, stop whining :hysteric: and just don't read it. :kiss:

Tennisace
Jun 9th, 2011, 12:28 PM
The "17 & 21 year old freshmen" thread on average is one of the top 5 mostly viewed threads on our board. :woohoo:
:hah: NUMBERS DON'T LIE!


If you take "the no. of views" and divide by "the no. of replies + 1" (to include the original post) this gives you a good idea of the "average number of people viewing per post on a given thread.".

Roughly here are the top 6 mostly viewed threads.

6. 2012-13 verbals, high interest & transfers = 110 avg. views

5. Coaching changes = 113 avg. views

4. 17 & 21 year old freshmen = 116 avg. views

3. 2012-13 recruiting - "speculation only" = 127 avg. views
- Everyone wants inside info.

2. Who will get fired? = 153 avg. views
- Accurately predicts that someone unknown will lose their scholarship on a team.

1. :tape:
- Board's hidden gem.


The popularity of "Teams with 100% foreign players" thread is yet to be determined. There are only 2 teams included with much more to be added over the summer.


The bottom line is the 2 threads are clearly named. If you don't like them, stop whining :hysteric: and just don't read it. :kiss:

Just because I do measurements for a living...don't you need to factor how long the thread has existed as well?

gouci
Jun 9th, 2011, 12:45 PM
Not really. The "Pac-10" thread for example was started in Dec. 2009 and it only averages 36 views per post. There's a big gap between the series of threads mostly viewed and everything else.

The majority of people who view this board are guests. The threads they like to view are not necessarily the same as the threads the regulars on this board like to post on.

A few times a year I'll check the avg. number of views out of curiosity and for those 5 listed and roughly they pretty much have stayed constant. Except the 2012-13 threads have heated up since that's what's in season for recruiting.

10sE
Jun 9th, 2011, 03:25 PM
Yes you're right Pathetic is too strong of a word. I should have said "threads with agendas", which is more accurate. I believe GOUCI starts these threads to highlight how great UCI is, what with their all-American team full of appropriately aged girls. It thinks that it can make its own candle burn brighter by blowing out the ones around it.

As far as the comment on the girl transferring from UVA, the part you consider "ripping" is my opinion. The disclaimer is because I have no idea if my opinion is accurate and I didn't want to insinuate that my opinion was based on anything other than speculation. Opinions are what these boards are about, or so I thought.

form
Jun 9th, 2011, 04:48 PM
Yes you're right Pathetic is too strong of a word. I should have said "threads with agendas", which is more accurate. I believe GOUCI starts these threads to highlight how great UCI is, what with their all-American team full of appropriately aged girls. It thinks that it can make its own candle burn brighter by blowing out the ones around it.

As far as the comment on the girl transferring from UVA, the part you consider "ripping" is my opinion. The disclaimer is because I have no idea if my opinion is accurate and I didn't want to insinuate that my opinion was based on anything other than speculation. Opinions are what these boards are about, or so I thought.


Agenda is great word

As far as the UVA thing and coaches, it is so hard to analyze coaches depending on the situation they are in. The coach at UVA has delivered whereever he has been so I applaud him. Clearly there is high expectation but also very high skill level needed. Whether it is skill or culture, if the young lady is not playing or uncomfortable how can you fault either party.

Having said that, I think there are a variety of reasons for transfers:
a) Coach with high expectation... it is a well paying job for 18-23 year olds
b) Athlete who has achieved goal of getting scholarship but does not desire further pressure
c) Athlete not happy. This is big problem with these really early commits or where so many tennis kids want the big name school. But get there and realize the pressure or their ability just is not the level it takes. May be in line up but their not happy losing a lot.
d) Athlete struggling academically or prefers a better academic opportunity.
e) Athlete is # 7-8 and does not want to sit on the bench (in 95% of cases, I certainly hope so... in other team sports this is the # 1 reason for transfers). No athlete should be satisfied sitting; if they realize they just are not going to be able to break into line up then they should be seeking other options.
f) Program/coach with low expectation and the athlete wants better. Yes, there are a good number of tennis coaches who previously were those local teaching pros. Not much talent and it is an easy pay check.
g) And one reason that really p*sses me off: The int'l athlete that thinks this is a four year vacation and wants to experience several parts of the country. I know of at least one placement firm that sells kids on 'going here and then transfer someplace else so you can experience ...'. This one is just wrong.

I am sure there are more. Is there really a right or wrong... unless there is proven abuse.

That Wisconsin situation seems to encompass so tough coaching, some serious accusations but potentially one or more girls who have failed to meet expectations and are lashing out. Who knows.

Comparing transfers are like comparing coaches. Coaches have so many differenct environments that it's difficult to compare. The Stanford coach does not recruit, she chooses. UCLA, Duke, UNC, Florida have such different levels of resources, ability to attract kids regardless of their own ability and strong cultures where the athletes coming in know what is expected. How do you compare those to mid majors or even the partially funded/no scholarship programs. I guess you look at those that have improved their programs but there is not really an apples to apples comparison between Stanford and # 323.

Having said that, I do raise my own eyebrow when a pattern develops of many transfers out... or many transfers in.

I know of one Pac 10 program right now where I have heard (2nd hand) that multiple other Pac 10 coaches are fed up with one particular program who has an assistant that is constantly trying to get kids to transfer in... either directly or sending his players to do the work. That is wrong. Others have pointed out a couple of Texas schools that have a high pattern of incoming transfers also.

But I will add that it's not just one or two, but a pattern that would make me go hmmmmmmmmm?

fantic
Jun 9th, 2011, 06:46 PM
Agenda is great word

As far as the UVA thing and coaches, it is so hard to analyze coaches depending on the situation they are in. The coach at UVA has delivered whereever he has been so I applaud him. Clearly there is high expectation but also very high skill level needed. Whether it is skill or culture, if the young lady is not playing or uncomfortable how can you fault either party.

Having said that, I think there are a variety of reasons for transfers:
a) Coach with high expectation... it is a well paying job for 18-23 year olds
b) Athlete who has achieved goal of getting scholarship but does not desire further pressure
c) Athlete not happy. This is big problem with these really early commits or where so many tennis kids want the big name school. But get there and realize the pressure or their ability just is not the level it takes. May be in line up but their not happy losing a lot.
d) Athlete struggling academically or prefers a better academic opportunity.
e) Athlete is # 7-8 and does not want to sit on the bench (in 95% of cases, I certainly hope so... in other team sports this is the # 1 reason for transfers). No athlete should be satisfied sitting; if they realize they just are not going to be able to break into line up then they should be seeking other options.
f) Program/coach with low expectation and the athlete wants better. Yes, there are a good number of tennis coaches who previously were those local teaching pros. Not much talent and it is an easy pay check.
g) And one reason that really p*sses me off: The int'l athlete that thinks this is a four year vacation and wants to experience several parts of the country. I know of at least one placement firm that sells kids on 'going here and then transfer someplace else so you can experience ...'. This one is just wrong.

I am sure there are more. Is there really a right or wrong... unless there is proven abuse.

That Wisconsin situation seems to encompass so tough coaching, some serious accusations but potentially one or more girls who have failed to meet expectations and are lashing out. Who knows.

Comparing transfers are like comparing coaches. Coaches have so many differenct environments that it's difficult to compare. The Stanford coach does not recruit, she chooses. UCLA, Duke, UNC, Florida have such different levels of resources, ability to attract kids regardless of their own ability and strong cultures where the athletes coming in know what is expected. How do you compare those to mid majors or even the partially funded/no scholarship programs. I guess you look at those that have improved their programs but there is not really an apples to apples comparison between Stanford and # 323.

Having said that, I do raise my own eyebrow when a pattern develops of many transfers out... or many transfers in.

I know of one Pac 10 program right now where I have heard (2nd hand) that multiple other Pac 10 coaches are fed up with one particular program who has an assistant that is constantly trying to get kids to transfer in... either directly or sending his players to do the work. That is wrong. Others have pointed out a couple of Texas schools that have a high pattern of incoming transfers also.

But I will add that it's not just one or two, but a pattern that would make me go hmmmmmmmmm?

Good post. And I SO agree with the bolded part (which I bolded :lol: )
I've been to some junior tourneys, and have NEVER seen STAN coaches. Ever. USC, UCLA, CAL, ASU, MICH, Purdue and etc., but not STAN. Athletes COME to Stanford, so Stanford doesn't need to scout :lol:

Tenniswish
Jun 10th, 2011, 01:33 AM
Having said that, I think there are a variety of reasons for transfers:
a) Coach with high expectation... it is a well paying job for 18-23 year olds
b) Athlete who has achieved goal of getting scholarship but does not desire further pressure
c) Athlete not happy. This is big problem with these really early commits or where so many tennis kids want the big name school. But get there and realize the pressure or their ability just is not the level it takes. May be in line up but their not happy losing a lot.
d) Athlete struggling academically or prefers a better academic opportunity.
e) Athlete is # 7-8 and does not want to sit on the bench (in 95% of cases, I certainly hope so... in other team sports this is the # 1 reason for transfers). No athlete should be satisfied sitting; if they realize they just are not going to be able to break into line up then they should be seeking other options.
f) Program/coach with low expectation and the athlete wants better. Yes, there are a good number of tennis coaches who previously were those local teaching pros. Not much talent and it is an easy pay check.
g) And one reason that really p*sses me off: The int'l athlete that thinks this is a four year vacation and wants to experience several parts of the country. I know of at least one placement firm that sells kids on 'going here and then transfer someplace else so you can experience ...'. This one is just wrong.

I am sure there are more. Is there really a right or wrong... unless there is proven abuse.



Many of your reasons for transferring are based on the athlete coming up short in some way. I don't necessarily think that coaches are as little to blame as you portray. I think across the country you see a trend of a lot of #7 and #8 players transferring out of a program. Unfortunately, that may be from being forced out a lot of the time. Coaches who recruit a player, realize she isn't good enough to break into the line-up, see a better recruit than they can get, and then push her out the door. At that point, what good does it do to fight to keep your scholarship? Even if the school decided in your favor, then you are staying at a place you know you aren't wanted.

Would you have wanted to leave your college, your friends, maybe a boyfriend after a year or two to go be a new student at a school where all your peers already knows one another?

10sE
Jun 10th, 2011, 01:45 AM
Tennis wish is right on.

2nd_serve
Jun 10th, 2011, 02:09 AM
Many of your reasons for transferring are based on the athlete coming up short in some way. I don't necessarily think that coaches are as little to blame as you portray. I think across the country you see a trend of a lot of #7 and #8 players transferring out of a program. Unfortunately, that may be from being forced out a lot of the time. Coaches who recruit a player, realize she isn't good enough to break into the line-up, see a better recruit than they can get, and then push her out the door. At that point, what good does it do to fight to keep your scholarship? Even if the school decided in your favor, then you are staying at a place you know you aren't wanted.

Would you have wanted to leave your college, your friends, maybe a boyfriend after a year or two to go be a new student at a school where all your peers already knows one another?

Its got to be a mix of reasons, but your position doesn't address why the tipping point is at #7. Your arguments that the coach sees a better player, and wants to force out an existing player would also apply to #5 and #6 players. But the cutoff you name is at the #7 players. #7 does not get to play, and if one doesn't play then one's game gets rusty, and one's conditioning suffers as well. Or maybe the Miami example shows that there is no dividing line for transfers at #7.

Tenniswish
Jun 10th, 2011, 02:27 AM
Its got to be a mix of reasons, but your position doesn't address why the tipping point is at #7. Your arguments that the coach sees a better player, and wants to force out an existing player would also apply to #5 and #6 players. But the cutoff you name is at the #7 players. #7 does not get to play, and if one doesn't play then one's game gets rusty, and one's conditioning suffers as well. Or maybe the Miami example shows that there is no dividing line for transfers at #7.

Pushing out a #7 or #8 has no risk. Pushing out a #5 or #6 can actually make your team worse.

Coaches don't push out their #5 and #6 for the same reason that they are pushing out their #7 and #8 - they aren't perfect at judging how good a player is going to be when she comes in. This is especially true recruiting internationally where coaches don't get to see players play over several years and in big events - a lot of international recruits are brought in sight unseen.

Players leaving that play in a top four or five position are not being forced out unless there is an academic or behavioral issue. Most likely, they are choosing to leave.

gouci
Jun 10th, 2011, 11:47 AM
Tenniswish personally I agree with you about players being forced out a lot of the time. But let me play referee here and stop you and Form from coming to blows. :boxing:

Many of your reasons for transferring are based on the athlete coming up short in some way. I don't necessarily think that coaches are as little to blame as you portray. I think across the country you see a trend of a lot of #7 and #8 players transferring out of a program. Unfortunately, that may be from being forced out a lot of the time. Coaches who recruit a player, realize she isn't good enough to break into the line-up, see a better recruit than they can get, and then push her out the door. At that point, what good does it do to fight to keep your scholarship? Even if the school decided in your favor, then you are staying at a place you know you aren't wanted.

Tenniswish be very careful because you're entering dangerous territory. :scared:
Long Beach St. had 13 players leave its program over 7 years. Now in Form's mind, each time it was the player's fault/choice for leaving da Beach. Tenniswish if you even imply that head coach classy Jenny forced even 1 of those 13 players out then be prepared to feel the WRATH OF FORM! :armed::armed::armed:


Coaches don't push out their #5 and #6 for the same reason that they are pushing out their #7 and #8 - they aren't perfect at judging how good a player is going to be when she comes in. This is especially true recruiting internationally where coaches don't get to see players play over several years and in big events - a lot of international recruits are brought in sight unseen.
Tenniswish don't you know classy Jenny is the exception to this rule. She's perfect at judging how good a player is going to be just based on tracking results and watching recruiting video. Tenniswish if you imply that even 1 of those 13 players that exited Long Beach St. was a recruiting bust by classy Jenny then be prepared to feel the WRATH OF FORM! :armed::armed::armed:


Now Form admires Jenny's class greatly BUT if you get Form mad :shout: he becomes a hypocrite who will turn around and do the exact opposite of what classy Jenny would do publicly. Form will transform from Dr. Jekyll into a classless Mr. Hyde. Tenniswish you can make all the sense in the world, but if you blame classy Jenny for ANYTHING then be prepared to feel the WRATH OF FORM :armed::armed::armed::armed::armed:

Tenniswish
Jun 10th, 2011, 04:00 PM
Tenniswish be very careful because you're entering dangerous territory. :scared:



Clearly there is a whole school rivalry thing going on that I want to publicly announce that I know little to nothing about nor do I want to get in the middle of it! :help::help::help: I meant to insinuate nothing other than what I wrote about transfers from across the entire landscape of college tennis. You guys can feel free to continue to get after it - I'll just be like Switzerland or, if you need it, the Red Cross. :)

form
Jun 10th, 2011, 04:57 PM
Tenniswish personally I agree with you about players being forced out a lot of the time. But let me play referee here and stop you and Form from coming to blows. :boxing:



Tenniswish be very careful because you're entering dangerous territory. :scared:
Long Beach St. had 13 players leave its program over 7 years. Now in Form's mind, each time it was the player's fault/choice for leaving da Beach. Tenniswish if you even imply that head coach classy Jenny forced even 1 of those 13 players out then be prepared to feel the WRATH OF FORM! :armed::armed::armed:


Tenniswish don't you know classy Jenny is the exception to this rule. She's perfect at judging how good a player is going to be just based on tracking results and watching recruiting video. Tenniswish if you imply that even 1 of those 13 players that exited Long Beach St. was a recruiting bust by classy Jenny then be prepared to feel the WRATH OF FORM! :armed::armed::armed:


Now Form admires Jenny's class greatly BUT if you get Form mad :shout: he becomes a hypocrite who will turn around and do the exact opposite of what classy Jenny would do publicly. Form will transform from Dr. Jekyll into a classless Mr. Hyde. Tenniswish you can make all the sense in the world, but if you blame classy Jenny for ANYTHING then be prepared to feel the WRATH OF FORM :armed::armed::armed::armed::armed:

Tenniswish, can I go to Switzerland with you. Having a nice chat and Mr. Agenda pops up again.

(Again clarifying tilted slander: Yes, 7 scholarship 'transfers' out in 11 years. For a variety of reasons... including one at # 8 who went on to happily play # 1 for 3 years at a lesser program; another for some significant disciplinary reasons. Three others quit tennis and returned to home countries to study (2) or get married (1). Any others in your count were walk ons and those rarely make it four years on a squad. I mean really, you are counting walk ons? :haha::facepalm: Jeesh...

How many scholarship athletes quit your team after your asterisk year (2)? :bounce:).

It is either mystifying or flattering that Mr. Agenda spends so much time on this Forum concentrating on one mid-major program. Again, sorry to all but just feel one has to defend false or misleading info.

14-1-1*

mboyle
Jun 10th, 2011, 05:26 PM
I find all of those threads informative and very interesting. I think your post is offensive.

Oh Amal, go easy on the guy. He's a junior poster. Do you remember your first days on the forum? I remember mine. My first ever thread was something ridiculous like "Monica Seles is burnt out and Jelena Dokic is sooooo much better wooooo". We just need to teach the newbies etiquette. :) To 10serveace or whatever your name is, please do be considerate and remember that most threads like 21 yo freshman require a lot of work and effort to start. If you give them a chance, they can be quite interesting!

10sE
Jun 10th, 2011, 06:36 PM
10se - shouldn't be that complicated for a Duke grad.

Yes of course the 18-21 and who will be fired and 100% international threads surely do take a lot of time (and obsession) to compile. I read them too - I'm as curious as anyone else. If they weren't so agenda-driven then I would actually enjoy them but I feel that GOUCI's only purpose on the forum is to show that anything other than "All USA, All 18 year-old, and keeping players for four years no matter if they earn their scholarship or not" is wrong...just because that's what UCI does. Other than that, guilty - I enjoy the information.

As far as "newbie", I am a former player and have been around womens college tennis for 20 years. I feel that makes my opinion informed, if nothing else. Maybe a newbie on here, but not a newbie to college tennis...and certainly not a groupie! :facepalm:

2nd_serve
Jun 10th, 2011, 06:44 PM
I don't see GOUCI posting that way, even that it is true that some of the postings are agenda driven and annoying. But no doubt, he has added to this forum with solid information and enthusiasm. And, I'm going to be inclined to excuse the postings of an old hand because he had contributed alot. But when someone, come in still wet behind the ears, and starts laying down lots of smack, its a different matter.

10sE
Jun 10th, 2011, 07:49 PM
But no doubt, he has added to this forum with solid information and enthusiasm.

Completely agreed. I could do without the xenophobia, but other than that GOUCI is a great contributor.

gouci
Jun 25th, 2011, 05:52 AM
Jenny Hois - 5 star

Rumor has it Wisconsin #1 sophomore Jenny Hois has transferred to Tulane.

The Wisconsin head coach may have survived the player mutiny in the short term but will his win-loss record survive this in the long term?

gouci
Jun 25th, 2011, 05:05 PM
Having a former #1 player exit a team is very rare in college tennis. And I'm not talking about those #1's who flunked out because of bad grades. How unbearable must a coach be for a former #1 to bail?



This made me curious which school holds the record for most former #1's exiting. :o



This distinction belongs to Long Beach State.
Da Beach sets another infamous national record.

1. Jaklin Alawi - former #1 exits LBS in 2011-12

2. Alena Kovalchuk - former #1 exits LBS in 2003-04

3. Anastasia Dvornikova - former #1 exits LBS in 2002-03

All these players were juniors with 2 years eligibility left.
Anything to add Form?


...

But I will add that it's not just one or two, but a pattern that would make me go hmmmmmmmmm?Form words of wisdom. :worship::worship::worship:

form
Jun 25th, 2011, 05:29 PM
Having a former #1 player exit a team is very rare in college tennis. And I'm not talking about those #1's who flunked out because of bad grades. How unbearable must a coach be for a former #1 to bail?



This made me curious which school holds the record for most former #1's exiting. :o



This distinction belongs to Long Beach State.
Da Beach sets another infamous national record.

1. Jaklin Alawi - former #1 exits LBS in 2011-12

2. Alena Kovalchuk - former #1 exits LBS in 2003-04

3. Anastasia Dvornikova - former #1 exits LBS in 2002-03

All these players were juniors with 2 years eligibility left.
Anything to add Form?

Form words of wisdom. :worship::worship::worship:


Can one get a 'restraining order' for a web stalker?

Former # 1 who had fallen to # 5
Was # 1 but cut for disciplinary reasons
Was # 1 but turned pro (stupidly; as she was told by many at the uni... foolish kids)

Jeesh... can you come up with better? Oh wait, see the next post.

Da Beach has this infamous record against the vaunted chEATERS: 14-1-1* in last decade

Please Mr. Moderator... I would be thrilled to knock off the back and forth with Mr. Agenda if you would simply restrict his on going incorrect rants about LB. Otherwise you force a couple of us to respond with facts to his slander?

form
Jun 25th, 2011, 05:36 PM
Having a former #1 player exit a team is very rare in college tennis. And I'm not talking about those #1's who flunked out because of bad grades. How unbearable must a coach be for a former #1 to bail?



This made me curious which school holds the record for most former #1's exiting. :o



This distinction belongs to Long Beach State.
Da Beach sets another infamous national record.

1. Jaklin Alawi - former #1 exits LBS in 2011-12

2. Alena Kovalchuk - former #1 exits LBS in 2003-04

3. Anastasia Dvornikova - former #1 exits LBS in 2002-03

All these players were juniors with 2 years eligibility left.
Anything to add Form?

Form words of wisdom. :worship::worship::worship:



Let us review the 'former # 1' record for Mr. Agenda:

2000 - current # 1 Maureen Diaz transfers out after just one season.

2010 - head coach sacrifices his injured '# 1' playing her unethically in a cast for 4 matches... and the poor young lady then misses 50 consecutive weeks of tennis before she is cleared to even hit another ball. This horrid act of irresponsibilty for the poor girl's welfare likely makes her forever the 'former # 1'.

Infamous UCI is 1-14-1* in the last decade against one particular program.

:lol:

2nd_serve
Jun 25th, 2011, 11:05 PM
Having a former #1 player exit a team is very rare in college tennis. And I'm not talking about those #1's who flunked out because of bad grades. How unbearable must a coach be for a former #1 to bail?



This made me curious which school holds the record for most former #1's exiting. :o



This distinction belongs to Long Beach State.
Da Beach sets another infamous national record.

1. Jaklin Alawi - former #1 exits LBS in 2011-12

2. Alena Kovalchuk - former #1 exits LBS in 2003-04

3. Anastasia Dvornikova - former #1 exits LBS in 2002-03

All these players were juniors with 2 years eligibility left.
Anything to add Form?

Form words of wisdom. :worship::worship::worship:

This is something to comment on, but how do you know that it is the most of any College teams? It does sound like a lot, but how do you know it is the most, Is there a list somewhere, or what?

gouci
Jun 26th, 2011, 10:06 PM
The list is in my head. ;)

2nd_serve you would be hard pressed to even find another ranked team who lost 2 former #1's, not related to grades, in a span of a decade. :help:

gouci
Jul 12th, 2011, 07:24 AM
In the Summer Circuit West End tournament draw (http://www.itatennis.com/Assets/ita_assets/pdf/Summer+Circuit/2011Results/Results/West+End+ITA+Summer+Circuit+2011.pdf) only 2 current college players didn't have their team from last season listed next to their name.

I wonder if Haley Dixon of Boston College and Julia Blakely of George Washington both Southern California players who went to the East Coast are looking to transfer closer to home. :scratch:

form
Jul 12th, 2011, 03:58 PM
The list is in my head. ;)

2nd_serve you would be hard pressed to even find another ranked team who lost 2 former #1's, not related to grades, in a span of a decade. :help:


2nd Serve.... one foolishly turned pro (everyone but she and her sister knew it was a mistake)... the other was dismissed for disciplinary reasons (amongst other reasons, refused to travel with team but rather with her husband; also once refused to go on road trip because her husband would not let her travel without him. It was a mess but that team did beat UCI :lol:).


Hmmm... two # 1'2 in span of a decade: I'll take a shot though it's does not completely correlate since the # 2 in 2010 should have been # 1 (see BW Tourney results, subsequent transfer position and history of stacking being questioned by other BW coaches at this school)

2000 UCI # 1 (transferred to USC) and 2010 UCI # 2 (who was in fact their # 1 if played where she should have been) :haha:


2nd Serve - My Question: Which is worse - talented girls bailing out for other programs or girls leaving that never play college tennis again?

1-14-1*

gouci
Jul 13th, 2011, 12:59 AM
Form have you tried reading on Page 3 of this board. :kiss:

I think there are a few posts over a year old that you haven't responded to yet. :happy:

Embittered
Aug 14th, 2011, 12:03 PM
Noticed that Niriantsa Rasolomalala of Madagascar was playing in the Universiade, and Google turned up this old article from January.

http://www.starafrica.com/fr/de-sport/detail-news/view/tennis-madagascar-american-dream-for-143345.html
The young talent Niriantsa Rasolomalala (18 years) ranked third at the last Masters which gathered the best eight players of Madagascar could attend in August the University of Maryland or California.

(Inicdentally, the significantly classier Malagasy player, Zarah Razafimahatratra, mentioned US college tennis as an option in an interview at, I think, the French Open, where she was competing in the juniors.)

For what it's worth, the US team at the Universiade is Krista Damico, and Courtney Collins (Memphis); they were knocked out of the doubles draw by the Mexican team of Urbina and Pulido today. Natasha Marks is representing us, but only selected for doubles. http://match.sz2011.org/Scheduledetail2/TEENG.htm