History of the NCAA wild card and why the USTA should grant it to all NCAA champions
A few weeks ago, the Tennis Channel aired a segment with Andy Roddick discussing the recently announced 2021 US Open wild cards. Venus Williams, the 7-time major champion, headlined the list of otherwise mostly rising American stars. Included in that list were 2021 NCAA singles winners Emma Navarro of UVA and Sam Riffice of Florida. After the segment, and without giving it much thought, I asked Roddick (via Twitter) if he thought non-American NCAA winners should receive a US Open wild card. Here was his response:
I wasn’t surprised by his stance; I understand the argument that the US Open wild cards should be reserved for Americans. With that said, I was disappointed in his reasoning. There are only 4 countries who host major tournaments: Australia, England, France, and the US. Firstly, I don’t think precedence for how other countries handle their wild cards should determine how the US operates, and, secondly, it’s a total strawman argument. There is no equivalent to college tennis in other countries; the US is the only country that plays host to promising, young international players who enroll in university to develop their tennis skills. In light of Navarro and Riffice playing their first rounds at the US Open today, I thought it was timely to explore the NCAA wild card topic more robustly...and off Twitter.
Before I dive deeper into why I disagree with Roddick, and why I believe all NCAA winners, regardless of their nationality, should receive a US Open wild card, it’s worth outlining the history of the NCAA wild card (spoiler: the USTA used to give every winner a wild card!), and why only American NCAA winners get to now play in Flushing Meadows.
The NCAA and USTA: A decades-long marriage
The USTA has a long history of awarding US Open wild cards to the NCAA champions. From the introduction of the NCAA team-bracket format (1977 for the men, 1982 for the women) through 2000, every NCAA singles winner, regardless of their nationality, either received a wild card or already had direct entry into the US Open (John McEnroe was seeded 15th and made the semi-finals in 1978!). While the vast majority of winners during this time were American, 8 non-Americans (6 men, 2 women) were granted wild cards.
Non-American US Open Wild Card Recipients
A non-American NCAA winner has not received a US Open wild card since Zuzana Lesenarova in 1999.
The divorce (“flexibility” = irreconcilable differences)
"The USTA and US Open have made several changes in our wild card policies this year. One of those changes is directly related to the NCAA Championships. The US Open Wild Card Committee will seriously consider offering a wild card to singles and doubles winners of the NCAA Men's and Women's Championships. That offer, however, will no longer be automatic."
At the time, US Open Tournament Director, Jim Curley, said they made this decision because “We wanted to give the US Open wild card selection committee as much flexibility as possible in making the selections." (Source)
Essentially, this policy change and rationale was a nicely-worded euphemism for “college tennis has become less American, and we don’t like giving wild cards to non-Americans.” You didn’t have to look very far for evidence supporting this deduction. The following year, Boeker won the NCAA singles title again, changed his nationality to represent the United States, and swiftly received a US Open wild card that year. Additionally, since this policy change in 2001, there have been a total of 40 NCAA singles winners (all can be found below, with their US Open results, if applicable): 26 Americans, 14 non-Americans. All 26 Americans received a US Open wild card; all 14 did not.
I would like to see the 2001 policy reversed; all 14 of those players should’ve received a US Open wild card. Let’s break it down.
Proposing a second marriage
The USTA’s goal is to grow tennis in the US
The USTA is the national governing body for the sport of tennis in the United States, and it’s also the largest tennis organization in the world. It states clearly that its goal is to “promote and develop the growth of tennis.” As a self-proclaimed “progressive and diverse” organization, and given its strength within the global tennis landscape, it has a responsibility to look at tennis -- an increasingly geographically diverse sport -- through a more holistic, global lens. In other words, the growth of tennis in the US depends on the game’s growth and development outside its own borders. Venus and Serena inspired young girls around the globe to pick up a racket; junior boys across the US chose their racket based on what brand their favorite “Big 3” player used. I reject the notion that, just because the USTA serves the interest of the US first, that it can’t broaden its scope to support systems that provide opportunities to all players globally, which, in turn, would further grow and support the game within the US.
College tennis is a vehicle for the USTA to grow tennis
One of the systems in which the USTA promotes and develops the growth of tennis is through college tennis. For those who have followed college tennis closely for the past few decades, you know that the USTA’s position on college tennis has vacillated (is it a “pathway” to professional tennis or not?) -- but all signs indicate that, currently, the USTA’s support for college tennis is stronger than ever. Not only is collegiate tennis called out in the USTA’s broader mission statement, but they also built a 12-court facility dedicated to college tennis at the new USTA National Campus in Orlando, which has now hosted two NCAA championships and several other tent-pole college events, like College Match Day and the Club Tennis National Championships. Additionally, in March 2021, the USTA entered into a strategic alliance with the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) that “formalizes the two organizations’ ongoing collaboration to strengthen and elevate collegiate tennis.” Notably, the two organizations believe that this alliance will “not only benefit college tennis, but the entire tennis ecosystem.” Let’s talk about that ecosystem.
College tennis relies on international student-athletes
The only reason college tennis is a viable pathway to professional tennis for US juniors is because of the strong competition from international players. As we’ve seen in professional tennis, the game is being played in many more corners of the globe, and it’s far more common for the best international athletes to pick up the sport than it is for our best athletes in the US. The season-ending top 20 of the 2021 ITA rankings was made up of 16 non-American men and 9 non-American women; 9 of the top 10 on the men’s side were non-American. Without international players, promising American juniors wouldn’t choose to develop their games in college because they wouldn’t get the necessary high-level competition week-in, week-out.
Let’s take three examples of US players who spent 4 years in college and had extremely successful pro careers: John Isner (UGA ‘07), Steve Johnson (USC ‘12) and Danielle Collins (UVA ‘16). None of these three were ready for professional tennis at 18-years-old; they needed the training, development, and competition that college tennis -- buoyed by international talent -- provided.
I believe it’s short-sighted for the USTA to only reward US players who emerge successful from a system that is only as strong as it is today because of its international talent. By rewarding the NCAA winner, regardless of his or her nationality, with a US Open wild card, the USTA:
Makes college tennis more enticing for players globally, thereby increasing the quality of a system (part of the “competitive pathway” that the USTA refers to in their mission statement) seemingly critical to prepare US juniors for a successful professional career
Makes good on its goal of “elevating college tennis” by showcasing the full-spectrum of talent that our college tennis programs produce on a global stage; without the wild card incentive, many of our top players choose to sit out of the NCAA individual tournament because most of them are international students -- I see this as a missed opportunity for the USTA to demonstrate the true strength of our college programs to a global audience that is more likely to tune-in for players from their home country (thereby, further encouraging international junior players to come play college tennis and strengthening the competition for US players)
Reconciliation
Ultimately, beggars can’t be choosers; I’m grateful the US Open recognizes any success in college tennis, which, based on recent US Open results, is not something to be taken for granted. Since 2001, the NCAA winner has lost in the first round 22 times out of 24 appearances. Only Bea Bielik (Wake Forest) in 2002 and Steve Johnson (USC) in 2012 got out of the first round. Given that, it’s very unlikely that we see my proposal come to fruition and the US Open reverses their 2001 policy; it’s actually much more likely that they downgrade the American NCAA winner to a qualifying wild card instead of direct entry to the main draw.
As mentioned, I think it’s important for the health of college tennis, and therefore US tennis overall, to incentivize and reward all players for collegiate success. Today, other than a name in the history book (which is important!), a non-American NCAA winner doesn’t receive anything of value. Even if a US Open main draw wild card will never again be on the table, they should still receive some reward of value -- and there are many channels through which that could be achieved. Here are some examples of ideas I’d like to see explored to recognize non-American NCAA winners:
US Open qualifying wild card
Reciprocal Slam MDWC: In the event that the NCAA winner is from one of the four slam host countries, arrange for a reciprocal wild card between the two tournaments. Example: Paul Jubb of England wins the 2019 NCAA title and receives a US main draw wild card in exchange for the US getting a WC of their choice into Wimbledon
ATP/WTA/Challenger wild card: Surely the NCAA or ITA can negotiate a MDWC or QWC for the NCAA winner to one, or several, tour-level events
NIL deal(s): Maybe a tennis-focused company can give a brand deal to the NCAA winner. Example: Solinco, a popular string company, provides the winner with a $25K deal to be featured in promotional materials
If neither the USTA, ITA, or NCAA steps up to recognize international student-athletes, I hope other entities (looking at you, Universal Tennis!) find ways to reward these athletes who make college tennis the great product it is today.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the topic! Do you think non-Americans should receive a wild card? What other ways could these players get rewarded? Sound off in the comments or tweet me @JTweetsTennis.
Women’s NCAA Singles Winners at the US Open
**McDowell was the only American NCAA winner to receive a QWC instead of a MDWC
Comments
Post a Comment