I fell in love with college tennis at the 2005 men's team championship
match in at Texas A&M, when UCLA came from 3-1 down to defeat
defending champion Baylor. It was thrilling stuff, and my first exposure
to the drama and excitement of the college team game. That was the
last of the NCAA team championships played at separate sites for men and
women; the following year at Stanford it was a combined event and has
remained that way since, and I have covered those in person for nine
straight years. The first two days of the NCAAs are the most grueling of
any for me as a journalist, with eight matches each day from 9 am to
often near midnight, but the chance to see the best 16 men's and women's
college teams in the country over a two-day period makes up for the
fatigue. I am regularly asked which is my favorite tournament and the
NCAAs, team and individual, is always at or near the top.
That's why it's painful for me to say that I won't be covering Division I
college tennis if it uses the current format announced last week by the
NCAA, ITA and USTA. I will not bore you with all the personal and
philosophical reasons I don't like no-ad tennis, which I see regularly
in doubles play at ITF Junior Circuit events. I will just say that the
deuce-ad part of the game is the sport's essence to me, and remains so
at all other levels of the game. (Even in third-set tiebreakers, a
two-point advantage is required). The tense 19-minute game between Marin
Cilic and Roger Federer last week in Toronto, in which Cilic saved six
match points, does not exist in the no-ad format, nor will college
tennis again produce a riveting final game like that of the women's team
championship last year, when UCLA's Kyle McPhillips and North
Carolina's Caroline Price played a 15-minute seven-deuce game, with
Price saving three match points before McPhillips held to deliver the
team title.
The drive to change the NCAA Division I Tennis format has been going on
for more than two years, and the ITA's operating committee's decision to
adopt no-ad is a result of pressure from the NCAA and several
high-profile athletic directors to make college tennis "relevant."
Seeing lacrosse and softball and even college bowling on ESPN, there is a
fear that tennis, especially men's tennis, is threatened with
extinction, so this is the committee's response to that threat.
I am not an expert on the governing structure of the ITA, but I do know,
because I have spoken to them in person, that many coaches, both in Top
10 schools (some of whom are on the operating committee) and
mid-majors, do not feel their concerns and voices were heard in this
process. They believe the choices they were given when surveyed were not
adequate to the gravity of the decision. The women's coaches are
particularly upset with the process, and I was told by the ITA's David
Benjamin that the one women's operating committee vote against the
format was by its chair, Shelia McInerney of Arizona State, who
objected, he said, to the shortening of the doubles.
More than 172 Division I schools (a majority of those offering women's tennis) have signed a petition
asking to delay the implementation of the new no-ad format, the
clinch-clinch, (which will leave many of the top players' matches
unfinished), and the paring of doubles to one no-ad set, with a
tiebreaker at 6-all. Not all of those signing the petition are against
all of these changes, but they do feel their voices were not heard and a
membership vote should be required for such a major change.
It goes without saying that the student-athletes most affected by this
change were not consulted, because they do not have a seat on the ITA's
operating committees, nor on the NCAA's Division I Tennis Committee. I
was told that a survey of players at the ITA men's Indoor in February
revealed 80 percent of the singles participants and 85 percent of the
doubles participants were against no-ad scoring. Ohio State's Ty
Tucker, whose team won its first national team title at the Indoor with
the format, is not a proponent of it, despite that success, and the
obvious advantage it gives a team with a big-serving, indoor-type game.
My question on no-ad to the top amateur junior boys at Kalamazoo produced
a range of responses, from vehemently against to mildly against, but I
fear the format change will provide a reason for top juniors to avoid
college, even when so many positives remain. I spoke to several parents
of top juniors last week and they too are dismayed by the decision,
sharing my position that the standard tennis advantage format is
superior to what one parent referred to as "this watered-down thing."
Having heard the men's Indoor in Seattle was well-received and therefore
seeing this dual match format change coming, I had almost convinced
myself to try covering no-ad for one year. But the decision to play that
format at the individual NCAA tournament and the fall ITA majors, none
of which have any relevance to the length and difficulty of televising
or promoting a dual match, was the last straw for me. I am relieved
that the
American Collegiate Invitational at the US Open September 4-6 will feature traditional scoring, which gives me a chance to see collegians use it one last time.
I spend my own money, earned from your donations, from advertising on my
site, and from freelance work, to attend ITA and NCAA events. Unlike
junior tournaments, where my husband is often provided a hotel room in
exchange for working as a tournament site official, I have no way to
economize at college events, with airfare, food and accommodations all
out of my own pocket. I have subsidized my college expenses with other
work because I loved it, but with no-ad, I will no longer be getting the
product that made me willing to spend so much time and money to cover
it. Division III has retained its traditional-scoring format for many
years, with all three doubles matches played out, making their duals
best of nine points, not seven, and yet somehow they have avoided these
issues. So in addition to continuing, or even increasing, my coverage of
junior tennis, I may add Division III coverage, most likely at the NCAA
championships in May. I will still follow Division I tennis here on
Zootennis, but will not travel to do so, similar to how I cover the ITF
Futures circuit here.
This post should not be construed as a campaign against this change,
although I am in full agreement with Paul(no relation), who left
this comment
on zootennis.com last week. I am not privy to the pressures, both
economic and political, that may have led some coaches to believe a
change this drastic is necessary. I hope against hope that it succeeds
in drawing the casual fans without alienating the serious ones, in
getting more TV or streaming exposure, and in keeping college tennis as
an option for those with professional ambitions. Two of the best coaches
in the country--Manny Diaz at Georgia and Peter Smith at Southern
California--are proponents of the change. A letter they, along with
men's operating committee chair Billy Pate of Princeton, wrote to their
fellow coaches can be found
here. Here is the
ITA's announcement and its
FAQ.
Lisa Stone of Parenting Aces devoted her weekly a call-in internet
radio show to the topic today, and it featured comments from Chuck
Kriese, Lin Loring, Gene Orlando, Rob Hubbard, Peter Smith and me. You
can listen to the show
here. Lisa also has published the email she has written to NCAA president Mark Emmert, with his contact information on
her post on the topic.
The one vote against the change on the ITA men's operating committee
came from Virginia's Brian Boland. I asked him for his comments. I
will close this post with his response:
"I have voted against these absurd changes every single time. It
hurts our game, I am fine with the no-ad in doubles, but this hurts us.
The college coaches want to skip the hard work to get people engaged.
This is not the answer at all. I am beyond disappointed. We need great
leadership in the greatest game on earth. If we locate great
leadership, anything is possible, but changing the traditions of our
great game is not the answer.
Coaches need to get after putting people in the stands like some
of us have through hard work and commitment. If coaches believe
changing the way we play the game is going to put fans in the stands,
they are dreaming. Hard work is going to put fans in the stands, not
changing the great traditions of our game.
To stop matches at 4 (the clinch-clinch change) is absolutely
counterproductive to developing a player. I have never stopped any of
our matches at 4 unless forced, because I do not believe in it. The more
matches these young men play the more productive for their development;
they need to finish their matches even if the team match is over. I am
concerned a couple of my guys will only play 2 or 3 matches to
completion next spring. How is that positive for their development?
I went to the College World Series (in Omaha) to support my good
friend and neighbor and several of the games lasted over four hours,
but I doubt they're looking to go to six innings. They respect their
game and have tremendous leadership. The atmosphere was amazing. The
solution is to find a final site that can accommodate the number of
teams (at the NCAAs). We have a circus-like atmosphere now and this like
swallowing a pill to fix our problems.
I am beyond disappointed and I appreciate your strong stance
against it. I would have been much more vocal, but I have been
overseas."