How do some teams stay so good in tennis every year?

[jpjohnsonmc]

I was thinking about this topic as a fan having been out of the game for a few years.  It seems that when there are supposedly "no athletic scholarships" allowed at the D3 level, how do good teams stay good for so long.  I would think the lack of scholarships would add more parity to the sport.

I hate to pick Emory and Trinity out but they are a pretty good examples (since I'm from the South).  I cannot remember them not being in the top 20 nationally.  I know there are several other schools nationally that maintain this status as well.

Is it b/c of their location and the fact they can draw from the best players in the country who just happen to go to their school for "educational" purposes?  Is it coaching?  If so, I would have hired one of these coaches already at the D1 level based on their past success.

I lived just North of the San Antonio area for a couple of years, and I was not overly impressed with Trinity's facilities or the amount of competitive juniors tennis I saw in the San Antonio area, especially when compared to other cities of a similar size.

Let's be honest here, most D3 schools have academics as their top priority and are fairly competitive from an academic perspective.  What is it that these top tennis schools offer that other schools are missing?  It's not like they're in the national news all the time like the UGA tennis program. 

D3 schools are generally only well-known in a region, have small enrollments (and alumni ***ociations), and have limited athletic budgets.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this...

[d3tennis]

GREAT TOPIC JP!!!

From my personal experiences all the things you mentioned are big factors. Location is a factor b/c some schools are in large cities like Washu, Emory, Chicago, NYU. Also some schools are in tennis hotbeds, like all the California schools, Texas, etc, etc. Academics are a huge factor. Some of these schools rival many Ivy league schools so they really are not limited to certain level of player. The coaches at several of these schools use that to there advantage and spend several hours recruiting against some strong D1 teams. The downside is that the tuition is high but you are dealing with tennis players. Tradition is a big part of it as well. Trinity use to be a big time D1 tennis program and have had several legends of the game play for them back in the day. Also the opportunity to go to one of these schools and win a national championship.

I am curious to what others think

[Iguana1980]

It is a good question, and a very complicated answer. Reputation is a large part of success, as success breeds success. Legendary coaches (Hansen, Butch at Trinity, Wilkinson, etc.) and prominent programs (Trinity, Emory, Williams, UCSC) attract players in themselves. Kids do a great deal of research on their own in terms of finding a program that fits their goals. Smaller schools draw particular kids, and tennis players naturally gravitate to academic institutions that can offer them more individualized attention. There are some coaches who are very aggressive on the recruiting end and pull kids from D-I (CMS, Emory, etc). These days, with the influx of foreign players to D-I, many good Americans are looking at D-III, and will naturally look at successful programs first. There are some programs that because of what they can offer academically, or climate-wise, can make a great pitch to get solid players. I think the most important part of it, is that the most successful programs are that way for a reason. They generally have some of the best coaches, facilities, academics, etc. or some combination of those. Good coaching takes many forms. Some are great teachers, others are phenomenal recruiters, some possess the entire package. I think that there is a major difference in philosophy between D-I and D-III, and for the most part, these great coaches choose to be where they are, not because they aren't better coaches than their D-I counterparts, but because they love where they are.

[d3tennis]

Great post Iguana47 and I agree 100%....I think a factor that keeps some great coaches in D3 opposed to D1 or D2 is that the fact that they are recruiting American players, for the most part. Not to take anything away from the foreign players but its hard to build a relationaship long term with a player and his/her family when they are from another country.

[enthusiast]

Second that about Iguana1980's post! I think also that school support plays a big role. I think all the NESCAC schools are "sporty" by nature, and so the financial resources/administrative/admissions part of college gives weight to student-athletes and cares about their programs' success. Similarly, I don't think Gustavus is very good at pretty much any other sport, but they have a great facility, which is very much a financial donation's part.

[British10s]

There are really 3 factors that make a Div. III team successful year after year.  As covered by Iguna.  The main factor in Div. III is the academic reputation of the institution.  Look at the top 8 schools at Nationals last season.  6 of the 8 are all ranked in the top 35 schools in the country academically.  Gustavus and Mary Washington are not in this elite academic group, but they have great coaches and superb facilities.  Look at the Newsweek academic rankings and then look at the top 30 schools in the tennis rankings.  Looks very similar.  A few schools don't fall into this category.  If they don't then look at coaches, facilities, and weather.  Very little will change these rankings.

[jpjohnsonmc]

I guess one thing we can derive from this is that tennis players are some of the only true "student-athletes."  They do not fit the generic college athlete mold. 

I guess that comes from the fact that tennis is a country club sport, so people who play it are generally wealthier...just look at the cost of tennis lessons.   Kids from wealthier families tend to want to follow in their parents success and parents can afford to educate their children at the top institutions in the country.  Scholarships also don't mean as much, so they can choose any school if their grades are good enough.

However, being a two-sport recruit, I can confirm that I was offered $35,000 in "leadership" money by one D3 school b/c of the fact I was going to play tennis and run cross country.  I will not mention the name of that school and I did not end up attending it, but it just goes to show that not everyone plays by the rules.

Speaking of rules.  Is there a rules compliance committee or whatever at the D3 level?  You hear of D1 schools getting in trouble all of the time.  I've never heard of D3 getting in trouble.

[jameybaxter]

also, you have to look at population base and player proximity, as well as college opportunity availability.

For instance, the California and Georgia regions of the USTA are HEAVILY populated with tennis players.  Atlanta is a HOTBED for talented juniors.  There is a great deal of opportunity for players there to compete in both the d-2 and d-3 and NAIA levels. 
California has a good number of small colleges and universities.  Also, think of it as a warm-weather sport.  You will see that historically, the best teams are all from sunny, warm states.  They get a better start to the "outdoor" part of the spring season, and are better acclimated to "the elements" than teams that spend time indoors.

There is also some luck involved.  I know that while I was in college I had 3 of the last 4 top 18yr olds in our state (all who were HIGHLY ranked in the southerns section), and a set of twins that were #2 and #3, and a highly ranked doubles player that walked our campus.  None of the #1 18's even played tennis - they were there for school and were burnouts.  The #2 and #3 guys transferred to U of South Alabama.  Doubles guy transferred to juco and then went d-1 (indiana).  We also got a french guy that just happened to wander onto our courts after a soccer practice.  He was a GOD on the court.  However, he left after a semester to go home.  Jeez, how good would we have been if we had all those d-1 guys on our team?  Mind you, they were all #5 or #6 d-1 guys, but they would have been legit d-3 studs.  Some schools get those guys, and they happen to play.

[jpjohnsonmc]

I had a guy like that at my school.  He went to my college b/c he wanted to go to med school and we had high acceptance rates.  The guy decided to come out for tennis his senior year after a 3 year hiatus.

I have not seen many players in D3 as dominant as him since.  He easily made the quarters of the Southern regional ITA defeating a high seed from Emory before he fell in 3 sets in the semis to the eventual champion.  His downfall being that he was out of shape from not having played in 3 years and the tournament can be strenuous if you advance.

In conference individuals, he asked us what we wanted the match score of the finals to be (6-0,6-1) and he produced exactly that.  The one loss being b/c we had a rule you couldn't win at love in the state of Texas (apparently, that was a state law)

It really sucks b/c I'd kill to have that kind of talent.  Shame on parents who burn their kids out in HS by forcing them to enter so many tourneys.

[jameybaxter]

yeah, one of the #1 state guys played baseball...he tied the NCAA mark for consecutive games with a hit.

I hated the fact that the other guys didn't play ANY sport.  At least the other guy played baseball. 

The reason most of the guys transferred from us is that our coaching was TERRIBLE.  4 coaches in 5 years.  One coach left at Christmas and quit with no notice.  Our team got raided and pillaged by numerous college programs when that happened, and the really good players took the opportunity to leave. 

[sree333_d]

From my personal experiences all the things you mentioned are big factors. Location is a factor b/c some schools are in large cities like Washu, Emory, Chicago, NYU. Also some schools are in tennis hotbeds, like all the California schools, Texas, etc, etc. Academics are a huge factor. Some of these schools rival many Ivy league schools so they really are not limited to certain level of player. The coaches at several of these schools use that to there advantage and spend several hours recruiting against some strong D1 teams. The downside is that the tuition is high but you are dealing with tennis players. Tradition is a big part of it as well. Trinity use to be a big time D1 tennis program and have had several legends of the game play for them back in the day. Also the opportunity to go to one of these schools and win a national championship.

It is a good question, and a very complicated answer. Reputation is a large part of success, as success breeds success. Legendary coaches (Hansen, Butch at Trinity, Wilkinson, etc.) and prominent programs (Trinity, Emory, Williams, UCSC) attract players in themselves. Kids do a great deal of research on their own in terms of finding a program that fits their goals. Smaller schools draw particular kids, and tennis players naturally gravitate to academic institutions that can offer them more individualized attention. There are some coaches who are very aggressive on the recruiting end and pull kids from D-I (CMS, Emory, etc). These days, with the influx of foreign players to D-I, many good Americans are looking at D-III, and will naturally look at successful programs first. There are some programs that because of what they can offer academically, or climate-wise, can make a great pitch to get solid players. I think the most important part of it, is that the most successful programs are that way for a reason. They generally have some of the best coaches, facilities, academics, etc. or some combination of those. Good coaching takes many forms. Some are great teachers, others are phenomenal recruiters, some possess the entire package. I think that there is a major difference in philosophy between D-I and D-III, and for the most part, these great coaches choose to be where they are, not because they aren't better coaches than their D-I counterparts, but because they love where they are.

[sree333_d]

I guess one thing we can derive from this is that tennis players are some of the only true "student-athletes."  They do not fit the generic college athlete mold. 
I guess that comes from the fact that tennis is a country club sport, so people who play it are generally wealthier...just look at the cost of tennis lessons.   Kids from wealthier families tend to want to follow in their parents success and parents can afford to educate their children at the top institutions in the country.  Scholarships also don't mean as much, so they can choose any school if their grades are good enough.

However, being a two-sport recruit, I can confirm that I was offered $35,000 in "leadership" money by one D3 school b/c of the fact I was going to play tennis and run cross country.  I will not mention the name of that school and I did not end up attending it, but it just goes to show that not everyone plays by the rules.

Speaking of rules.  Is there a rules compliance committee or whatever at the D3 level?  You hear of D1 schools getting in trouble all of the time.  I've never heard of D3 getting in trouble.

I was thinking about this topic as a fan having been out of the game for a few years.  It seems that when there are supposedly "no athletic scholarships" allowed at the D3 level, how do good teams stay good for so long.  I would think the lack of scholarships would add more parity to the sport.

I hate to pick Emory and Trinity out but they are a pretty good examples (since I'm from the South).  I cannot remember them not being in the top 20 nationally.  I know there are several other schools nationally that maintain this status as well.

Is it b/c of their location and the fact they can draw from the best players in the country who just happen to go to their school for "educational" purposes?  Is it coaching?  If so, I would have hired one of these coaches already at the D1 level based on their past success.

I lived just North of the San Antonio area for a couple of years, and I was not overly impressed with Trinity's facilities or the amount of competitive juniors tennis I saw in the San Antonio area, especially when compared to other cities of a similar size.

Let's be honest here, most D3 schools have academics as their top priority and are fairly competitive from an academic perspective.  What is it that these top tennis schools offer that other schools are missing?  It's not like they're in the national news all the time like the UGA tennis program. 

D3 schools are generally only well-known in a region, have small enrollments (and alumni ***ociations), and have limited athletic budgets.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this...

[sree333_d]

There are really 3 factors that make a Div. III team successful year after year.  As covered by Iguna.  The main factor in Div. III is the academic reputation of the institution.  Look at the top 8 schools at Nationals last season.  6 of the 8 are all ranked in the top 35 schools in the country academically.  Gustavus and Mary Washington are not in this elite academic group, but they have great coaches and superb facilities.  Look at the Newsweek academic rankings and then look at the top 30 schools in the tennis rankings.  Looks very similar.  A few schools don't fall into this category.  If they don't then look at coaches, facilities, and weather.  Very little will change these rankings

It is a good question, and a very complicated answer. Reputation is a large part of success, as success breeds success. Legendary coaches (Hansen, Butch at Trinity, Wilkinson, etc.) and prominent programs (Trinity, Emory, Williams, UCSC) attract players in themselves. Kids do a great deal of research on their own in terms of finding a program that fits their goals. Smaller schools draw particular kids, and tennis players naturally gravitate to academic institutions that can offer them more individualized attention. There are some coaches who are very aggressive on the recruiting end and pull kids from D-I (CMS, Emory, etc). These days, with the influx of foreign players to D-I, many good Americans are looking at D-III, and will naturally look at successful programs first. There are some programs that because of what they can offer academically, or climate-wise, can make a great pitch to get solid players. I think the most important part of it, is that the most successful programs are that way for a reason. They generally have some of the best coaches, facilities, academics, etc. or some combination of those. Good coaching takes many forms. Some are great teachers, others are phenomenal recruiters, some possess the entire package. I think that there is a major difference in philosophy between D-I and D-III, and for the most part, these great coaches choose to be where they are, not because they aren't better coaches than their D-I counterparts, but because they love where they are.

[shorifkhands]

The USTA Adult leagues have already begun.  As the USTA ratings were released several months ago, the biggest surprise was the “bump” up of player’s ratings that swept across the country.  As all of you already know, so many players were rated “up” in this area, thus creating more opportunities for some, and less for others.   I know individuals/teams were scrambling to get on a team or set one up.  Going on the USTA site, I was able to total up participation in our region for the Women, Men, and Mixed Leagues for 2009 & 2010.



Mazda MX6 Parts

[planety55]

It has a lot to do with the way they recruit their players.  It is similar to a Duke coming to recruit a basketball player.  When you are a major team, people tend to want to play in your college tennis program.