National Collegiate Athletic Association

Comment

June 22, 1998

Student-athlete view -- Foreign influences hurting college tennis

By Blake Clifton
Davidson College

As in any NCAA Division I men's program, those involved in tennis feel pressure to win. Athletics directors, alumni supporters, students and players want to win.

Coaches must win. They must win this year so they can get ranked. They must get a good ranking so they can get a good recruiting class. They must get a good recruiting class in order to win next year. And if coaches do not win next year and the year after that, they may lose more than a match; they may lose their jobs.

The immediate pressure to win is great. Moreover, recognition of collegiate men's tennis has increased and programs have grown. More teams exist. The line between winners and losers shrinks constantly. And competition is growing with the speed of a blistering serve.

When a coach needs this quick win, there is a quick answer: foreign recruiting. "In tennis, unlike most other sports, college coaches have picked liberally from the talent pool of countries outside the U.S. in order to achieve that bottom line," Carol O'Hare wrote in Tennis magazine. "Today, many college teams are made up predominantly of foreign players."

Out of the top 100 players ranked in a recent polling by the Intercollegiate Tennis Association's national tournament committee, 59 are from outside the United States. Only 11 of the top 50 doubles teams possess two Americans. And every team ranked in the top 15 posts foreign players on their roster - every team but one. Stanford University, coached by Dick Gould, voted the 1980s' ITA Coach of the Decade, has no foreign players in its lineup. Gould, coach of 16 national championship teams in his 31 years at Stanford, never has recruited any foreigners.

Foreign tennis players give coaches a quick win while costing little time and money. Once the coach finds a foreign player who wants to play in the United States, the rest is easy. And much cheaper. To recruit a foreign player, the coach must only make a phone call.

The ease of recruiting foreign tennis players contrasts directly with the difficulty of recruiting Americans. Recruiting Americans takes more time and costs more money. It takes much more than a phone call. American players expect coaches to watch their tournament matches, spending more time and money. A coach may have to meet the athlete's parents. With this comes a coach's trepidation of running into the infamous "tennis parent." Imagine recruiting Mary Pierce out from her father's grasp.

Also, American players, unlike their foreign counterparts, know the differences between schools. Many American players require a recruiting trip before they will even contemplate a school. They must love not only the coach but also the team, the facilities and the school - aspects a foreign player does not even consider.


Experience edge

Foreign players' more developed games present another reason they provide a quick fix. Although Stanford's Gould states that on the court, "There is no difference I have seen between 18-year-olds," he points out that "some foreigners have been out on the circuit for a couple of years - they are more advanced in terms of experience."

A coach needing an instantaneous winning season does not have time to develop a younger American player. Part of their higher development comes from their training. Foreign players tend to practice more often on clay courts, giving them a more well-rounded game than Americans. They also spend more time in competition, strengthening their mental game and enabling them to adapt to various conditions.

Jim Boykin, coach at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, attributes much to their focus while studying and playing abroad. "I do feel that a foreign player is more goal-driven in that he doesn't want to waste his time while he is studying and playing abroad," Boykin says.

Some foreign players are more mature on this count than their American counterparts - largely because of age. Many international players are older and have had more tournament experience. Time taken between high-school graduation and college is the main cause of their higher age.


Training ground

These players do not directly enter the college ranks. Many of them have been competing on the professional tour and, unable to find success on the tour, come to the U.S. for free training before returning to the tour. These players are the most detrimental to the college game.

These players often use college simply as a training ground. They have no desire to graduate and see college as an opportunity to spend one or two years in the United States for free while also receiving gratuitous training. They have little devotion to the school.

Many coaches believe limiting the number of scholarships available to foreign players would help slow the influx. Men's coaches from a number of universities agree that two would be a workable number. Why should these athletes enjoy the benefits of American taxes? They may be bringing an abundance of tennis talent to the university, but learning should be the highest priority.

When these players leave, they take away their tennis talent and their American learning. Giving scholarships to foreign players keeps young Americans from receiving these benefits and furthering their own country.

David Benjamin, president of the Intercollegiate Tennis Coaches Association and the men's varsity coach at Princeton University, says a quota would be unconstitutional and suggests the "USTA offer incentives to colleges that win with all-American rosters."

While his suggestion is admirable, the USTA president, David Markin, has not responded. However, in a USTA committee report entitled "Problems and Solutions to College Tennis Scholarships and the Foreign Player," Al Varoski claims, "Restriction of foreign tennis players is not prohibited by the law, and this should not be an issue to keep" a quota policy from being implemented. His report is accompanied by an opinion from an attorney that quotas would be legal in such cases.


However, more positive solutions exist.

Raising a more competitive and higher quality pool of American players is the first priority. Young American players have become too caught up in the credit-card syndrome - winning now, paying later. They do not develop their games as do foreign players.

While Americans are stuck with age-old drills, the elite foreign players are maturing. Foreign players congregate at academies to experience a wider variety of stylistic and mental tennis challenges.

American players need to spend more time developing their game than continuously drilling in their flaws. More American tennis academies need to be developed. When foreigners assemble in tennis academies or clubs, they gain a mental advantage lost among Americans trying to sprout too fast.

Coach Jim Choboy of Florida believes more inner-city programs would expand the game's availability "to more people who otherwise would not be able to play." North Carolina-Charlotte's Boykin says, "Sell the idea that tennis should be one of the best sports to introduce to a child. It requires most of the skills that a child would need to successfully play other sports." Both of these are valid suggestions, and many more exist. But where does the responsibility lie for pursuing them?


Players must give back

The United States Tennis Association was established in 1906 to enhance youth tennis in America. Since then, it has implemented numerous programs to further develop and produce young American talent. But once a player reaches the top of the USTA ladder, only one more rung exists: USTA Area Training Centers. But this final stage does not reach enough talented juniors.

More available training centers would expand the number of juniors trained while expanding the talent pool. The USTA is pulling more than its load, but more must be done to increase the level of collegiate play.

For American collegiate tennis to grow, those directly involved must participate, especially coaches and touring professionals. Currently Michael Jordan is to the United States what Boris Becker is to Germany. And although Pete Sampras never played one college match, if he wants the world's next number one to be his countryman, then he must give back, as do his foreign counterparts.

Foreign professionals constantly give back to the game through appearances and clinics and as spokespeople. American professionals must do the same. Sampras may never have Jordan's notability, but he can make a difference. He must advocate the American college game as a training ground to those who want to become professionals. He must inspire American youth to play tennis.


Coaches' role

Finally, coaches must take over, especially collegiate coaches. If an American feels we need to "have more qualified coaches in the parks and recreational programs, not working on lesson commissions, thus making the sport more accessible to the general public," great! But where are all the college coaches?

If they complain about foreign talent being more developed with a certain desired savvy, then get out in the parks and teach it. Simply organizing competitive challenge ladders that allow juniors the opportunity to find new opponents would help immeasurably. Donating time at awards banquets. Giving a speech on collegiate tennis and motivation. Arranging free clinics for those lacking decent teaching and training. A college coach's time is remarkably and exponentially beneficial to young American tennis players.

As a young junior, I participated in the USTA Player Development Program. I was 14 years old and extremely excited about the next clinic three weeks away. A real college coach was going to be a guest. During the morning workout, he pulled me aside and rolled my volley grip to a more versatile position. Running back toward the drill line, I overheard him tell another coach that I had the potential to play top-level collegiate tennis. I had never been more confident or worked harder than in the remainder of that session.

No one expects college coaches to spend all their time teaching 14-year-old juniors desire and savvy, but if college coaches want Americans to win later, they must pay now.



Letters to the Editor -- Sportsmanship is better today, not worse

Once again (in a three-part series, no less) the sportsmanship horse is pulled from the stall and beaten into an unrecognizable condition.

Like the ongoing crisis in education (that dates back to Dewey and beyond), we can find the "decline of sportsmanship" long before the idea of professional sports was an accepted idea.

A brief historical outline of poor sportsmanship:

c. 1872 -- Before the "Football Association" codifies the rules of soccer for the first time, there is a spirited debate about whether the practice of "hacking" (or kicking the opponent as a means to getting the ball) should be banned. It was a narrow and divisive vote that led to the development of rugby as a separate game.

1870s-1890s -- Gambling on baseball games is so accepted that mechanisms are developed for umpires and players to get in on the wagering that goes on during the game.

1890s -- The legendary Baltimore Orioles win the National League championship through hard play, brilliant strategy and a variety of cheating schemes that lead to an increase in the number of umpires to keep up with their uses of hidden balls in the outfield, base-runner interference, illegal changes to the field, etc. (including, quite possibly, bribery of umpires).

In the 20th century, before 1960 unless noted:

  • The use of foreign substances to give baseball players an advantage is widely accepted, despite the fact that it is against the rules, and those who cheat are so admired that when there is a crackdown, they are "grandfathered" so they may continue to cheat until they retire.

  • During Ivy League football games, players are sent onto the field with direct instructions to injure their opponents and force them out of the game.

  • The cheating and roster fraud by college football teams leads to the development of eligibility rules.

  • A baseball team "throws" the World Series after being thoroughly mistreated by the ownership.

  • Black athletes are widely prohibited from competing, well into the 1960s and beyond.

  • Hockey players are killed on the ice by illegal "checks."

  • England refuses to compete in the first World Cup.

  • Sports clubs in South America and Asia, founded by Europeans and Americans, prohibit participation by native citizens.

  • Women are excluded from most sports participation until court orders lead to integration.

    This is an admittedly futile attempt to bring some kind of perspective to the hypocritical, maudlin funeral being held for something that is quite a bit stronger than ever before.

    Much like censorship committees that got together to study pornography in depth, purportedly so they know about what they are condemning, we have a seemingly infinite number of woeful tales recounting the "transgressions" and moments of weakness of our athletics "heroes." One certainly has trouble seeing these articles and TV documentaries as anything other than one more chance to air footage of chaos and mayhem that rate so well with TV's Nielsen households.

    But our own experiences make these testimonials to the "death of sportsmanship" the height of hypocrisy. To wit, were all Little League games before 1965 out of a Norman Rockwell painting? The parents in our community who started a youth soccer program to counter what they felt were the excesses of Little League did not think so. Programs that provide for full participation and a focus on skill development, like AYSO soccer and Capitano Hoops basketball, shine a whole new and meaningful light on sportsmanship. Are not adults who work to increase the success of all participants good sports and good role models?

    Is our definition of sportsmanship too narrow to differentiate between things a person does well and things he does not? For example, while Bobby Knight is a dangerous example to youth coaches everywhere, he clearly requires a different standard from his teams -- and his players comply 100 percent. Certainly Isiah Thomas, Steve Alford and Quinn Buckner would be considered outstanding sportsmen. How do we credit Knight on this? The denizens of "sportsmanship" seem to feel we should not credit him at all.

    But do we castigate Bill Frieder for the reprehensible conduct of Michigan's "Fab Five," which continues to this day with Juwon Howard's illegitimate children, Chris Webber's drug-related arrests, etc.? Can we credit "good sports" for the quality of the lives they touch? I hope so.

    Are we right to quibble with Charles Barkley when he rebukes a reporter by saying there are much better role models for kids -- starting with their parents? Do "hero worshippers" have any responsibility for choosing their heroes wisely? What can the NCAA do to promote the ambassadors and heirs to Hobey Baker, Paul Robeson, Grant Hill (not to mention Calvin Hill) and Rebecca Lobo?

    Finally, why would we try to equate yelling coaches and poor sportsmanship? Isn't the content of the speech more important than the volume? What about an administration that tells a coach to win or be fired? What about officials who are arbitrary, capricious and incompetent? Is it "sportsmanlike" to dispute officials' judgment on behalf of the athlete in your care? What responsibilities do officials and those who administer and oversee their behavior have?

    Why do we refuse to see the tensions, triumphs and possibilities we have before us clearly?

    Dave Morris
    Men's Soccer Assistant Coach
    Frostburg State University

    Creatine safety established

    In the opinions section of the June 8 NCAA News, Dave Boling (from the Tacoma News-Tribune) is quoted regarding creatine.

    He correctly states that "studies have cleared creatine as a factor in the deaths of three wrestlers" but follows by saying that those athletes were using creatine. The reason creatine was found not to play a role in their deaths is that none of these athletes were using it.

    Boling also states that since anabolic steroids have been shown to be unsafe (despite beliefs to the contrary several decades ago), creatine should not be assumed to be safe. There are several problems here:

    1. Creatine is not a steroid (or hormone of any kind).

    2. Even before any signs or symptoms appear, there are clinical markers indicating the problems with steroids whereas there are no such indications during creatine use. Kidney and liver function remain normal during creatine supplementation, as would be expected given the simplicity of the compound and physiologic role that it plays.

    3. There is a misperception that creatine has not been around very long and that little is known about it. In fact it has been used in the United Kingdom since the early 1980s without any problems, as well as throughout Eastern Europe since the 1960s (although admittedly they would have done anything that worked, clean or otherwise). In any case, a large volume of research has been conducted on this compound as can be seen in the following on-line reviews:

    http://www.css.edu/users/tboone2/ asep/jan3.html

    http://www.sportsci.org/traintech/creatine/rbk.html

    As long as these types of statements continue to be printed in respected publications, misunderstanding and controversy will keep spreading like wildfire. We are heading for a situation where fact and reason will lose out to political agenda and ignorance -- and all the while, coaches' jobs will be on the line as they continue to be held accountable for winning. It is time for the editors of those publications to hold writers accountable for checking their facts before such information is put in print.

    Steven Scott Plisk
    Director of Sports Conditioning
    Yale University

    Editor's note: The Food and Drug Administration has been reviewing the potential role of diet supplements in the deaths of the three wrestlers. Behaviors associated with rapid weight loss were cited in a report by the Centers for Disease Control as the primary contributing factors in the deaths. There is no evidence to date that would implicate diet supplements or creatine.

    Opinions -- Too much specialization works against young athletes

    Hubie Bryant, high-school track and field coach
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

    "Many of the kids don't get a chance to concentrate on the sport they are playing when it is in season. You can't be in football season in the fall, then go play volleyball that night or play in basketball tournaments. Your body has to get some rest.

    "We are producing great football players and great basketball players, but we are producing very few athletes any more because we don't allow the kids to play one sports season at a time.

    "When volleyball is over, let them play basketball. When basketball is over, let them run track. You can get them back in the summer. That's plenty of time to get ready for the next varsity season.

    "That's what you do with good athletes. You allow them to have some flexibility, to have some fun. It's hard to see this anymore. People don't want to let the kids go. They want their top players to specialize in their sport. And in doing that, you may produce a proficient player in a particular sport, but you don't produce an athlete.

    "I think you have to let an athlete go from season to season, and let each play that sport only when it's time for that season. I think kids get burned out doing the same thing for 10, 11 or 12 months a year.

    "If I had to do things the way they are now, I would probably hate competing in sports. I was lucky to be able to play football in the fall and basketball in the winter, then run track in the spring and, in the summer, play baseball all the way up to American Legion. I didn't get tired of any sport. I enjoyed all of them. I knew football was going to be my choice (to get a college scholarship).

    "What is really the worst thing to happen for a kid nowadays is when he or she picks just one sport and sticks with it exclusively through high school. I hate to see kids put all of their eggs in one basket in hopes of someday getting an athletics scholarship.

    "What happens if the schools you are shooting for don't come calling? Why should anyone be limited to one sport? If you are a good enough athlete and you show potential in a particular sport, the college coaches will find you."

    Apparel company sponsorships

    Wayne M. O'Leary, research associate
    University of Maine, Orono
    Bangor Daily News

    "For its money, Nike gets the athletics department's cooperation and involvement in company advertising and marketing ventures, unrestricted use of its logo on campus, and exclusive adoption of its products by school teams. The university, nominally a public institution, is now little more than a corporate subsidiary.

    "Corporatized sport does something even more insidious; it uses the popularity of athletics to inculcate corporate values: nothing matters but winning, material success is the ultimate goal, company loyalty supersedes all other loyalties, cutthroat competition is the essence of life. In particular, it teaches young people -- those to whom sport is most important -- that they live in a world dominated exclusively by the profit motive, a world where everything is for sale. That's simply a bad message."

    I-A football

    Lee Fowler, director of athletics
    Middle Tennessee State University
    Street and Smith's Business Journal

    Discussing the motivation for an institution to sponsor football in Division I-A:

    "A major part of the perception of a university is its athletics department. Our university president used to work at Alabama, and he said that 90 percent of incoming freshmen said the reason they chose Alabama was the athletics department."