Format Debate

Collegiate Tennis

Format Debate

Darryl's follow up thoughts concerning the growth and elimination of collegiate tennis:

According to research of the Intercollegiate Tennis Association ("ITA") during the 50 year period from 1930 until 1980, only five varsity college tennis programs in the U.S. were cut. In the succeeding decade (from 1981 to 1991), the elimination rate increased more than five-fold, with 37 known programs being dropped. In the last decade, the program cuts have increased more than four times, with a staggering 151 tennis programs being dropped between 1992 and 2002. In 2003, 25 varsity tennis programs have already been dropped, and there are more to come in 2004. In addition to these fatalities, over the past two decades, 78 other programs were eliminated, with precise years unknown. Since 1981, a staggering 291 varsity tennis college programs have been dropped.

We desperately need to develop a proactive leadership to grow collegiate tennis instead of a reactive approach of responding to the cancellation of a program. We certainly have 291 plus athletic departments to call on to start collegiate tennis.

As I see it we have two methods to protect and to expand collegiate tennis:

1. Funding: Collegiate tennis coaches need to be educated and developed in fundraising. As mentioned in the previous newsletters, endowments are an extremely helpful tool in protecting and expanding tennis programs. It does not need to be done overnight. A program that shows signs of private financial support is looked upon favorable by athletic departments.

2. Team Format: The team format needs to be shorter and more exciting. It is hard to stimulate spectators for four hours. If a tree falsl in the forest and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound? If dual matches have something good going on and nobody is around to watch it, is something good going on. Yes, some schools do well with attendance; however, there seems to be a trend that attendance may be good at the start of the match and then declines greatly by the end of the match. If programs can fundraise enough then who cares, we could play all day. It is important to realize that we are competing against other sports and we have to sell people on our existence.

We have to "play some ball here", if we need to shorten the format then let's do it. How many more programs do we lose before we make a change. Not many college coaches would be able to keep there jobs if the lost 291 players since 1981. Let's not focus on stopping the leaky bucket. Let's fill it back up!

Listed below are some responses from the previous e-mail:

5/19/06

Darryl, we do not get in until Monday afternoon, so we cannot attend the 8 am Monday meeting.

As far as issues:Length of college matches: I believe it must first be identified that time is an issue for college tennis matches. Too many coaches are on the fence with this important issue. Once and if this is decided by the majority as a problem then we can take the next step. I for one believe it is an issue and support the concept of the same format we have now with a few minor changes.

1-Eliminate the ten minutes between doubles and singles; as it is now the 10 minutes is too long and fans become wary. Propose 5 minutes Max and only 1 minute warm-up for singles. Keep the momentum!

2-Each doubles match count as a point; lets make it worth all the time and work. Lets truly put the excitement in the part of a college match that most fans enjoy most and should mean more then one point! Most fans I have spoken to over the years are puzzled by this rule!

3-If we are to keep the one point system then once the doubles point is decided and a match is still on then stop it. This is another major drag in time and interest to fans, and fans are what will either kill or keep this great sport! Too much worry about rankings; if this is the case then make it a rule that if one of the two doubles teams is ranked and the overall doubles point has been decided then have them play a match tiebreaker as soon as the games are equal, similar to now. This will at least eliminate 90% of this major time and interest problem!

4-Super tie breakers for the third set in singles. This is the only fair and reasonable way to go in my opinion. It will save at least 25 minutes to the average team match as well as help in creating more excitement for the fans yet still fair enough without destroying the integrity of the game.

All this creates more exictment,enthusiam,saves times, keeps the flow of the team match moving and most of all helps keep the fans involved and at the matches!

All this has been proposed and talked about for years;I believe the time has come as the interest in the present system is struggling at best.

Finally,the men and women need to be on the same page as far as rules,etc.It is confusing to fans to see the let rule apply to women and not men.

Dale Short
Director of Tennis
Middle Tennessee
Box 465
Murfreesboro,Tn. 37132
(o)615-898-2957
(c)615-631-9556
fax-615-904-8439



4/19/06
Hey Daryl, I am all for changing the college tennis format. Probably the biggest controversy in college tennis is the issue of a team playing its lineup out of the proper order (stacking or matching up). With my format, that would no longer be a concern. Here's my proposal: Before the meet starts, each coach exchanges doubles lineups. However, each coach may list their doubles teams in any order they desire. There is no rule stating they must be listed in the order of strength. The first teams listed play each other, the second teams listed play each other, and the third teams listed play each other. Each doubles match consists of a total of 16 games. Thus the score of the match could be 16-0, or any combination of games that total 16, including 8-8. Immediately following the doubles matches, the coaches’ exchange singles lineups. The same format is followed, in that each coach may list their singles players in any order they desire. Once again, the first players listed play each other, the second players listed play each other, and on down the line. The singles matches also consist of a total of 16 games. The team that wins the most total games wins the meet. I realize a meet could end in a tie, 72-72. I don't have a problem with a meet ending in a tie. However, it would be easy to implement a tiebreak system if need be. With our present format, I believe there are way too many teams out there playing their lineup in the wrong order, some intentionally, some out of ignorance. Unfortunately, it does in many instances result in a different outcome in the meet than what would have been, had the lineups been in the proper order. With my proposed format, the stacking issue no longer comes into play. This format also urges a stronger player matched up against a weaker player to play hard, since the meet is determined by the total amount of games won. For the same reason, it gives the weaker player incentive to win as many games as possible, even if the player has little chance of actually winning the match. I know this format will sound far-fetched to many coaches and players, but I think it would catch on quickly. I also believe it would be more interesting for spectators. The length of meets would likely be much more predictable. It would also provide a certain amount of suspense, not knowing what the match-ups would be. It also gives the doubles a little more prominence than what it currently has. If the idea of playing a total of 16 games does not set well, the current format of 8 game pro sets for doubles and 2 out of three set in singles could probably be modified to work instead. I definitely believe there is a better format than the one we are currently using!!! Doug Stursma, Head Tennis Coach
Central College Pella, IA

4/12/06 From Paul Scarpa (Furman men's tennis)
Darryl.... as you know i am for the present format for i was the one who suggested it... it has served tennis well but it could be better and if you were at the fla meeting david brought up my thought and the coaches took a baby step in the right direction... first why? do we need 10 minutes between the singles and the final doubles when some player have been sitting around for 20 min... much like the start of a match before and after the introduction you probably use 5 mim at the most... so once the doubles point is won and the non-countable thrid match is still on have them play tie breaker the second the game score is tied... they have already played to 5 all probably by the time the others have finished... we voted to do it at 7 but why not 5 are even 6.. but you are at least adding an exciting dimension as in a track race, swim meet, basketball overtime.. now if you are playing and the match is not won and a few go to the third.. but all of a sudden the match is descided then you dooon't stop the match, you let the match continue but should the leading opp. get caught at 2-2 are 3-3 and so on they will then bring about a breaker.....again you have brought the track and swimming excitment into play.. your players will generate the excitment for they want to leave , want to hit the road, want to go to supper are what ever but so they will be pulling for their team mate to catch the opp. are they will be encouraging their team mate to make a run to the finish line... on the other hand he is working to catch the opp. are trying to keep his distance... it works ..... last i can tell you we have hugh crouds and our problem is keeping them after the doubles much as was the case after singles used to be... 10 mim intermission is to long much like the old sit down rule on change overs... player warm up play 4 - 6 point snd wants to sit and have a water break -- not necessary... if you hayed 10 are more games of doubles you pllayed enough get on with the match... ttry it in practice are in your fall event snd you will see it is fair and everyone feel he had a fair chance you will shorten the match by at least aa 1/2 hr. an what ever happen to the no warm -up rule with the opponet... i actually told a player of mine who love to hit out on every ball to get that out of his system when warming up with his teammate before the match and simply keep the ball in play in the warmup showing no power.. that plaayer turned two direct losses inton a 6-0, 6-2 win.... we played with the same player unde the on warmup rule and won at no.1 position... when was the last time an opposing team threw batting practice to the opponent.... and why in the world do we warm up straight up the line for doubles when you play crosscout for doubles.? why not cross court...? simply allow a player to finish but play a breaker once he is caught and tied... and forget tryiig to be like basketball coachs where the head coach call time out to tell his team something and 4 coaches spread ..one to show the coach his shot chart, one to the off. table to see how many time outs are left ... one to see how many fouls are on their players and team and one acting like he is telling the head coach what they should do..... why did he call time out ? maybe he want the game to last longer? are does he want everyone of the fans to think he needs five coaches to coaches 5 players on the floor.? i know my suggestions work but it takes coaches making players use them on a trial basis to get imput... thanks for asking for imput, paul scarpa furman university
Darryl thoughts: Paul, thanks for the e-mail... I am very appreciate of the Scarpa format. It is much improved from the old 6-3 format with all matches being 2 out of three sets. I am also aware that you get solid turnouts for spectators; however, many of the people are probably your friends and since you have been there for a remarkable 36 years I bet you have a lot of friends :) You are obviously very passionate about collegiate tennis and an extremely innovative coach. I fully support all of you point that you made in regards to shorting the format. I am concerned about us taking "baby steps" if we continue to move slowly in enhancing the collegiate game then we may loose another 25 plus programs.

4/12/06 From Dee Stevenson, Head Coach Saint Mary College
Is collegiate tennis played for the spectators, for money, or for the players. All anybody talks about is shortening the length of dual matches. If they are exciting the spectators will stay. If they are not exciting the match will be effectively over and then use the third set super tie breaker. We still play best two out of three doubles in our dual matches and they are over in four to five hours. The players prever the two out of three doubles. I played Div. I tennis on an NCAA Championship team and I abhor what has happened to the dual match format as it is now, let alone some of these absurd suggestions.

Darryl thoughts: Dee thanks for the e-mail and your thoughts. I am not against the purist point of view of playing everything out and your thoughts; however, we have lost 291 programs. Yes, I do believe it is important to have spectators and money to protect our collegiate game. If not we many programs may be reduced to a club sport. I have never really admired musical artist who sell out there own musical sound for money, fame and fortune; however, sometimes we need to give them what they want to keep our own existence.

4/12/06 From Ron Christman, Head Tennis Coach Waynesburg College
The answer is so simple that none of us can see it. Reverse everything. Play six doubles and three singles (if necessary). Why?

1. Doubles play is much faster. No sitting around, quick net exchanges, balls moving fast, players moving quickly, less time between points. . .

2. Doubles play is much more exciting to watch, especially to the uninitiated college student. We have football players who hoot and holler when one of our women puts an overhead between the feet of an opponent at the net. Give me a 'knockdown' or two and watch the crowd get into it.

3. Doubles is a 'team' game that better fits the concept of collegiate sports. Two players who own more than baseline strokes and really work together can beat a couple of Andy Roddicks any day of the week.

4. Nobody minds if there's cheering and screaming in doubles. See #2. I love the doubles first because it really gets the crowd into the match. Give me six doubles any day for fan participation. . .

5. Everyone's spouse or friend at the country club will want to watch also, so they see how 'big hitters' do it. It's the game that is played socially and the game the hit and giggle crowd can relate to. I don't care what Charlie Parcells says, I always see full crowds on the outer courts watching dubs in the late afternoon while the stadium is 1/4 full waiting for the evening 'corporate' crowd at Indian Wells, Cincinnati, Toronto, Montreal, Flushing Meadow. . . .

The format:

Six doubles matches - best of three sets with match tie-break for the third.
Put out three singles for eight-game pro-sets if the match is tied after the doubles for a "shoot-out". No sitting on change-over, just a quick towel-off, drink, and quick step to the opposite baseline. Just one big tie-breaker with a rowdy crowd that's still juiced up by the doubles play. The players are hyped, the fans are hyped. . . It would make South American Davis Cup matches look like kindergarten kick-ball.

The downside:

Juniors will have to learn to transition from the baseline to the net and play the whole court, which means:

1. Us teaching pros will actually have to teach more shots, more footwork, more tactics, . . .
2. Us coaches will actually have to coach instead of just recruiting the big hitters.

Darryl's thoughts: Ron thanks for the e-mail and thoughts. I do agree that doubles is very exciting and it may be the most exciting part of our current format; however, 6 doubles matches would require 6 more players than the current format. I am not sure if the collegiate coaches are ready for such a drastic change; however, we continue to lose programs then we all might have enough players to play 6 doubles? On a personal not I would not vote for this because I have Peter Daub in my CAA conference and he is a much better doubles coach than me:)