The Business Behind the Coaching Business Pt. 2

Summary

In the second installment of their series on the tennis coaching business, Todd Whittom and Lisa Stone focus on how coaches and academies market their players — specifically the claims of “X internationally ranked players” and “100% college placement” — and what those claims actually mean when examined carefully. Whittom dissects the scholarship reality at D1 programs (4.5 scholarships split across 6+ players on the men’s side; 8 full scholarships on the women’s side), explains how parents can independently verify what a coach’s players actually achieved in college lineups, and describes what questions to ask an academy to determine where your specific child will fit — not where the academy’s best players train.

Guest Background

Todd Whittom is a former ATP professional turned South Florida junior coach with seven years of experience coaching competitive junior players. He is a repeat guest on the podcast and the anchor of this two-part series on the business of tennis coaching. He writes articles on tennis development in addition to his coaching work.

Key Findings

1. “100% College Placement” Is a Meaningless Claim

Whittom is categorical: almost any academy can claim 100% college placement because if a player is academically eligible (which he hopes is universally true), they can go to a college that has a tennis team. The claim says nothing about whether the player is playing, what line they play, how much scholarship they received, or whether they stayed in the program for four years. Parents must ask: what school, what lineup position, what scholarship, and did they stay?

2. The D1 Men’s Scholarship Math: 4.5 Scholarships for 6+ Players

The NCAA permits fully funded D1 men’s programs to provide 4.5 scholarships total, distributed across a roster that typically includes 8–10 players competing for 6 singles slots. In practice: the #1 and possibly #2 players may receive full rides; #5 and below receive partial scholarships or are walk-ons. A scholarship could be “a couple thousand dollars worth of books.” Academic scholarships can supplement athletic money but are a separate negotiation. Parents who assume “D1 scholarship” means a full ride are frequently disappointed.

3. Women’s Programs Are Significantly Better Funded

D1 women’s programs receive 8 full scholarships — nearly double the men’s 4.5. While women’s rosters also have 8–10 players, the scholarship-to-roster ratio is far more favorable. Scholarship offers on the women’s side are less likely to be fragmented into small partials. This disparity is a material financial factor that families should account for when weighing program decisions.

4. Verifying Player Outcomes Is Free and Public

University tennis team websites publish rosters, match schedules, and line-by-line results for every match. Parents can click on any listed alumni, find what school they attended, search that school’s roster and match history, and determine: (a) what line the player competed at, (b) what their win/loss record was, (c) whether they stayed for four years. This free public research directly validates or refutes a coach’s claim that they send players to D1 tennis programs.

5. What “Internationally Ranked” Actually Means

An academy’s claim of having “25 internationally ranked players” likely means those players have played ITF junior events and accumulated any points on the ITF junior ranking. It does not mean they are competitive with top American juniors — many low-level ITF events in the Caribbean or other regions are weaker than regional USTA events in South Florida. International does not mean elite.

6. Tournament Selection Matters for College Visibility

College coaches attend primarily US domestic tournaments. Playing low-level ITF events abroad — particularly in the Caribbean — does not provide meaningful exposure to college coaches who are evaluating recruits. Whittom is specific: “I don’t think [college coaches] are going to the Caribbean for low-level ITF tournaments.” American players who travel internationally for weak ITF events may actually be reducing their visibility to the coaches who matter most for their college pathway.

7. The Coach-Stability Question Is Critical and Underasked

When parents ask about their child’s placement at an academy, one question is routinely skipped: “Who specifically will coach my child for the next 2–3 years, and are they likely to stay?” Coaches leave academies, take other positions, and move on. A family signing up for an academy based on a relationship with a specific coach has no contractual guarantee that coach will remain. The day-to-day development relationship is the product — and that relationship is with a specific human being, not a brand.

Actionable Advice for Families

• When an academy cites “college placement” data, ask for the names of recent graduates, then spend 30 minutes on university athletics websites verifying what line those players competed at — this is the only honest performance signal available
• Request in writing which specific coach will be working with your child and ask how long that coach has been at the academy and what their plans are — coach turnover is the single most underacknowledged risk in junior tennis development
• If your son is considering D1 tennis, understand explicitly that 4.5 scholarships across 6+ starting players means substantial probability of receiving a small partial scholarship or no athletic scholarship at all — plan financially around this reality, not the full-ride exception

INTENNSE Relevance

• Scholarship math as player pipeline driver: The severe limitation of men’s D1 tennis scholarships (4.5 for potentially 10 players) means that a large population of high-caliber college players graduate having received minimal financial support and with full professional ambitions intact. INTENNSE’s compensated team tennis format reaches exactly this demographic — players who were talented enough to play D1 but not funded well enough to feel financially valued
• Transparency as brand differentiator: Whittom’s core argument — that parents deserve honest, verifiable data — applies directly to how INTENNSE should present player statistics, contract terms, and league performance data. A league that commits to full transparency differentiates itself from the opacity that characterizes junior tennis’s business practices
• Coach retention as culture signal: The coach-stability risk Whittom identifies in academies is the mirror image of what INTENNSE should build into its team structure — multi-year coach contracts, public coach profiles, and a culture where coach-player relationships persist across seasons rather than being reshuffled annually
• Player evaluation beyond rankings: Whittom’s methodology for evaluating players (look at their lineup position, not their ranking) parallels how INTENNSE should scout talent — examining competitive performance in context (who did they beat, at what position) rather than relying on ATP/ITF ranking as a proxy for ability

Notable Quotes

“I mean, I have 100% college placement as well. Many academies have 100% college placement. Also, the child hopefully did well enough academically to go to college. I would really hope so.”

“There are four and a half scholarships on the men’s side to cover six lines in the lineup minimum. So obviously not everybody in the lineup is getting a full athletic scholarship.”

“Maybe the first player gets a full ride, and then the scholarships get cut up for the rest of the five starters, or your first four players are on full rides, but then the fifth guy receives a half a scholarship and the sixth, seventh, eighth guy and so on are all walk-ons.”

“A scholarship may only mean that you’re receiving maybe a couple thousand dollars worth of books.”

“When you walk into a tennis system or an academy, the best players are going to be on the front courts. If they’re going to have your business, they’ll try to put your child on a higher court than they really deserve to be on.”