Wilson Collegiate Tennis Camps with David Schilling

Summary

David Schilling — assistant men’s coach at Ohio State for 20 years alongside head coach Ty Tucker — is also the founder and director of Wilson Collegiate Tennis Camps and Premier Sports Camps, running 31 tennis camp locations with over 100 sessions annually at college campuses nationwide. The episode covers why college campuses are the optimal camp environment (recruiting exposure, collegiate lifestyle preview, campus infrastructure), how UTR and Tennis Recruiting have changed the landscape compared to 20 years ago, what coaches actually look for beyond rankings (competitive drive, passion, intangibles), and the structural challenges of camp cost and accessibility. Schilling is explicit that his primary goal is building passion for tennis — and college tennis specifically — not producing immediate technical improvement.

Guest Background

David Schilling played Division III tennis at Tennessee University after transitioning from soccer, then coached at Division III level (Tennessee University, College of Lister, Kenyon College) before joining Ty Tucker at Ohio State 20 years ago as first assistant, where he has remained. His father was both a high-level college tennis player (SMU, 1950s) and dean of admissions at the College of Worcester for decades, instilling in Schilling a belief in education-tennis fit. Schilling started his camp business at his father’s Worcester camp, then built Wilson Collegiate Tennis Camps around 10 years ago by partnering with Wilson as title sponsor and building a network of college coaching partners across all divisions.

Key Findings

1. Information Availability Is the Biggest Structural Change in College Recruiting Over 20 Years

When Schilling was at Kenyon 20 years ago, matching coaches with qualified players — especially at the non-elite level — was nearly impossible. Today, UTR allows universal comparison across international and domestic players, Tennis Recruiting provides historical visibility, and sites like ParentingAces provide family education. Schilling frames this as beneficial to all parties: coaches can identify players earlier, players can self-assess against programs, and the mismatch rate should theoretically decrease.

2. Ohio State’s In-State Recruiting Philosophy Mirrors a Strategic Moat

In their very first meeting, Tucker and Schilling agreed on a “Woody Hayes philosophy” — put a fence around Ohio, get all the best Ohio kids, then supplement with national and international players. The result: players like JJ Wolf, John McNally, and others who grew up as Ohio State fans and were “more willing to bleed scarlet and gray.” Schilling argues local recruiting creates program loyalty and simplifies the sales process — the university’s brand does much of the work. He notes the same dynamic holds for Georgia (UGA) and Georgia Tech in Atlanta.

3. UTR Is a Useful Tool but Cannot Substitute for Watching Players Compete

Schilling is careful to resist reducing recruiting to a UTR number. He emphasizes intangibles that can’t be quantified: competitive drive, passion for year-round training, desire. He offers the example of a player who joined Ohio State without elite rankings but showed raw potential. “There’s no blind stand if you’re not a 14 UTR.” UTR is most valuable for international recruiting — getting a handle on a player from Bolivia or another country where context is completely absent. For domestic players, seeing them compete remains non-negotiable.

4. College Campus Camps Build Passion for College Tennis — That Is the Core Mission

Schilling describes his number-one goal explicitly: “More importantly than what we can teach them in five days is — can I build their passion for college tennis?” He recounts Lisa Stone’s son going to UGA camp at age nine, watching John Isner return-of-serve demonstrations, and coming home saying “This is it — I want to play college tennis at UGA.” That crystallizing moment is what Schilling is engineering at scale across 31 campuses. Technical improvement is secondary.

5. College Players Are the Most Effective Camp Coaches for Junior Athletes

When staffing camps, Schilling finds that college players — not just head coaches — are often the most impactful instructors. They occupy the aspirational near-peer position: junior campers want to be like them, can relate to them, and respond to their instruction. Head coaches set the tone and move through groups, but college players provide the relational texture that makes camps memorable. Schilling hand-selects staff as much for communication personality and warmth as for tennis expertise.

6. Budget Divide Between Power Five and Have-Nots Is Structurally Significant

Schilling has lived on both sides: D3 Kenyon with tiny budgets, asking parents to fund spring break travel; and Ohio State, where the university invests roughly $100,000+ per player per year in travel, coaching salaries, court time, and equipment. He frames this divide clearly for families: a strong coach at an underfunded program will find ways to compete, but the resource gap is real and does affect player experience. He tells ex-players who become coaches: “Brian Bolin won at Indiana State” — great coaches make it work regardless of budget.

7. Camp Cost and Accessibility Is a Structural Equity Problem

Schilling receives emails from families who cannot afford the camp experience. NCAA compliance rules prevent Wilson Collegiate camps from administering scholarships directly — they must route through USTA sections to avoid any appearance of preferential recruiting. Each USTA section has scholarship programs available, but the process is non-obvious and some scholarship winners never attend. Schilling acknowledges the camps being “a little expensive” as one of his genuine regrets: “I wish everybody could be exposed to it.”

8. Camp Attendance Is Not a Recruiting Prerequisite — But It Opens Specific Doors

Schilling is honest: most players on most college rosters never attended camp at that school. But attending a school’s camp creates genuine advantages: direct coach exposure during allowed contact periods, firsthand campus experience (dorms, food, facilities), and mutual relationship-building. He notes it functions more like a job interview than a technical training session. For sports like lacrosse and soccer, campus camp attendance carries even higher recruiting weight; tennis falls somewhere in the middle.

Actionable Advice for Families

• If you are seeking USTA camp scholarships, go directly to your USTA section website — search under camps and look for scholarship application links; the scholarships are real but not prominently advertised
• Attending a camp at a specific college campus is not a recruiting requirement but is a low-cost, high-value opportunity to get on a coach’s radar and experience the campus before an official visit
• When evaluating camps, distinguish between passion-building goals (best served by campus environment, peer social experience, and inspiring instructors) and technical development goals (better served by intensive personal coaching); Wilson Collegiate Camps are designed primarily for the former
• For high-level junior players considering whether to use a summer week for camp versus tournament: Schilling’s honest recommendation is whatever builds more passion — if competition drives them, play the tournament

INTENNSE Relevance

• College-to-pro bridge: Schilling’s camp philosophy — building passion for college tennis at the junior level — is a direct model for how INTENNSE could build passion for professional team tennis at the college level. Campus visits, exposure events, and pro-player interaction could crystallize a college player’s interest in INTENNSE the same way Isner’s serve demonstration crystallized Lisa Stone’s son’s interest in college tennis
• Near-peer coaching in broadcast: Schilling’s finding that college players are often more effective camp coaches than head coaches for juniors directly validates INTENNSE’s mic’d coach format — younger coaches or recently-retired players who occupy a near-peer relationship with current players may communicate more effectively than authority-figure coaches
• Ohio State’s in-state recruiting moat: The “fence around Ohio” philosophy maps directly to INTENNSE’s Atlanta-based league identity. Building deep relationships with ACC and SEC college programs, recruiting Georgia and Southeast players who grew up at local events, and making INTENNSE “the Atlanta league” for players who bleed local could create the same organic loyalty structure
• Resource divide as league differentiator: The budget gap Schilling describes between Power Five and mid-major programs — where some coaches spend energy fundraising for spring break travel — is exactly the instability that makes the lower professional ranks unsustainable. INTENNSE’s salary model and team infrastructure resolves this for post-college players
• Passion-building as player development strategy: INTENNSE needs to build passion for its format and league at the junior and college level before expecting players to aspire to it. Camp-style exposure events, open practices, college player visits to INTENNSE matches, and broadcast accessibility all serve this mission
• UTR as recruiting tool: Ohio State’s use of UTR to evaluate international players is applicable to INTENNSE roster construction — UTR provides a universal baseline for evaluating players from international circuits, college pipelines, and independent training environments against each other

Notable Quotes

“More importantly than what we can teach them in five days — if I can build their passion, if I can put a great camp program together where they have social and recreational activities off the court and the tennis on the court is fun as well as instructional — then they’ll build a passion for tennis.”

“When you’ve got a kid like JJ Wolf or John McNally you kind of get spoiled — you tell these kids one time to do something and they can do it and you’re like ‘oh god look how big a coach I am.’”

“The best coaches will find a way — but it sure is more fun to be a have than a have-not.”

“It is you know there’s there’s no substitute for going out and seeing kids play and see how they compete.”

“I got a nice email from a young lady who said ‘I absolutely love tennis, it’s my favorite thing in the world, but there’s absolutely no way my family could afford to send me to camp — do you have any scholarships?’ And that kind of breaks my heart.”