College help

[aussie]

What is the difference between NAIA and NCAA colleges?

[kennycalhoo]

NAIA schools are incredibly small, and in terms of the tennis competition, is like the boys to the NCAA's men.

[bruddah cy]

actually, the best naia players would be competitive with ncca div. 1 players. look at no. 1 seed ryler deheart's upset at the national indoor by mislav hizak of embry riddle, an naia school. there is definitely more depth in ncaa tennis, but naia and div 2 schools also recruit globally which adds an element of surprise. many foreigners go to smaller schools because they are easier to get in due to less requirements, but as far as tennis skills, many would be comparable to good div. 1 players.

[ovg]

Mislav Hizak is a great player. I saw his matches at that tournament where he upset Ryler Deheart in the first round. I thought that his game was stronger than some of the NCAA guys.
One point though, is that all the schools there were playing foreign players, except maybe stanford and OSU men, who were american
Pepperdine, Baylor, etc. all were foreign players.

[ovg]

Mislav Hizak is a great player. I saw his matches at that tournament where he upset Ryler Deheart in the first round. I thought that his game was stronger than some of the NCAA guys.
One point though, is that all the schools there were playing foreign players, except maybe stanford and OSU men, who were american
Pepperdine, Baylor, etc. all were foreign players.

[bruddah cy]

yes, certain schools recruit exclusively american players such as stanford but thats because of their tradition, they typically get the cream of the crop of american juniors. therefore, they can be very competitive against other schools where they have mostly foreign players. therefore, a school that doesn't have the tennis tradition of a stanford would have to recruit foreign players to stay competitive. i think you saw what may happen when your american recruits don't stack up to the best foreign recruits, stanford had a mediocre season last year. their women's team seems like they just keep rolling though with their dynasty. i believe the best american juniors, especially the men, are turning pro rather than going to college. thus, stanford and schools like them are being hurt but the exodus of talent to the pro tour.

[skipper]

also consider that many of the ncaa div schools have been under title 9 fire to equalize mens & women's sports & the easiest way out was to cut out many non-revenue producing sports, take a look at all the schools who lost men's tennis and men's wrestling. i don't think that happens so much at smaller schools since a lot of private donations and such keep many tennis programs going.

[UNTBOWLER]

NAIA schools typically have less stringent entrance requirements. NAIA is a completely different athletic organization than the NCAA and thus have their own rules, although I believe over the last few years they have begun cracking down on the high number of foreign players and former touring players.
This has hurt many schools look at OKC and OK Christian they both dropped their programs with these changes.
Top schools right now include: Auburn-montgomery and College of Santa Fe.
The top level players in NAIA can usually compete with the top D1 players but depth is the issue.

[The Beast]

The stupid NCAA rules do not allow many foreign players to enter NCAA Div 1 school (rules about prize money are especially retarded). Thus, some excellent players are forced to go to small NAIA or NCAA Div 2 colleges.

[kennycalhoo]

Rules about prize money are not retarded. College athletics in the US are supposed to be about amateur athletics.

[The Beast]

The rules are extremely retarded, because a 17-year old player in Europe or South America, who wins some matches in futures events and gets a couple of WCs to challengers, cannot know that he is not supposed to receive prize money if he ever wants to enter the college in the US. And then when he decides to go to college at 19 or 20, he is ineligible ((((

[UNTBOWLER]

Most players will know if they want to play tennis in college so if they wait until 19-20 then so be it. The U.S. colleges do not have to cater to these players who use College as a fallback.
If they accept money it is pretty set in stone what the rules are and if they are not aware then they better do some reading.
I have no sympathy for these players.

[Cmb]

Rules about prize money are not retarded. College athletics in the US are supposed to be about amateur athletics.

I mean considering you barely break even at 200 in the world I dont think anyone playing in college has made enough money to be considered a pro.

I disagree about the money policy but I do agree about the age of college players, I dont care how high they were ranked as a pro or how much money they made...just dont let them come in at 23 or 24 years old...21 years old maximum.

[tennissux2006]

On topic: NAIA schools are smaller colleges, usually private, I believe. Tennis programs are usually weaker, but that doesn't mean that a few good players won't squeek in. Anyway, if you get a scholarship, take it. You might be able to transfer out after a year if you're good.

Off topic: rules regarding amateur participation ARE retarded. That's the number one reason why tennis players in US aren't as good as Europeans. There's no incentive to play high-level events (whether opens or futures) knowing that you won't be able to take the money if you ever want to play college tennis. I mean, why is it legal to teach tennis for money (you'd be using your tennis skill - therefore, you're a "professional") but not play tournaments and accept prize money?

[G!vEmEdAWeeeD]

yeah the age is important!
But at the moment it's 20 which is retarded because a lot of europeans graduate from high school with 19/20!!

[ICAC]

The eligibility rules for tennis has not been very consistent the last years, right now its even harder to go to D-II than D-I,