Any rules you would change?

[jaggy]

Inspired by the let cord thread and the fact that there may be more attention to this section in the next weeks I thought I'd start a thread on ideas for change.

I would like the doubles to be no-ad. It is already exciting but this could make it even more so.

Comments?

[JLyon]

you fail to realize the inmates run the asylum in College Tennis. Usually if an SEC or Big 12 coach do not like a rule or want a new rule it will get passed, hence the MTO change, the no let rule for D1 men, 4 balls for doubles, new can each set, etc... It filters down and hurts the smaller schools in the wallet.

[ClarkC]

"MTO change?" What's that?

[tennisjon]

I would like to see doubles go back to best two out of 3 sets with a super-breaker for the third set. In D3, each court is 1 point in D1 the doubles is worth 1 point whether you win 2 or 3 of the courts. I think doubles should be emphasized more, but with only a pro-set, it seems like its over-emphasized now in D3. Therefore, by making it best two out of 3 sets (I would also do no-ad in doubles) with a super-breaker for the 3rd set (like they do in the pros) the doubles should then count as 1 point per court.

Additionally, there is a lot of strategy and coaching involved with doubles. Which side people serve from after the first set,the order of serving, and the switching of return sides are taken out of the equation when only a pro-set is played.

[JLyon]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

"MTO change?" What's that?

Medical Time Out: D1 went to one per match and then retirement, rather than allow an MTO for each individual injury

[SoCal10s]

limit all teams to have maximum 3 foreign (non-US RESIDENT) on the roster ..give the men's team the same amount of scholarships as women's teams get...

[tennisjon]

Originally Posted by SoCal10s

limit all teams to have maximum 3 foreign (non-US RESIDENT) on the roster ..give the men's team the same amount of scholarships as women's teams get...

I would change that to 3 starters or 3 foreigners with scholarships. Men should be allowed to have the same number of scholarships as women. If the school doesn't have football, this should be much easier to do.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by SoCal10s

limit all teams to have maximum 3 foreign (non-US RESIDENT) on the roster ..give the men's team the same amount of scholarships as women's teams get...

How do you think these changes would affect the college game? Upgrade? Downgrade? More parity? Less parity? Help the high-major (BCS) schools? Help the mid-major schools? Help/hurt DIII?

There is the attraction of symmetry in suggesting that mens' teams get 8 fulls like the women do. One reason for the disparity is Title IX. Women's tennis allows schools to build up the balance of opportunities for women, in light of all the scholarships that are allocated to football in particular.

If more scholys are allocated to men's tennis, they would probably have to come out of some other men's sport. If not, then the rich athletic programs wouldn't care because they would probably be able to handle the cost, but other programs might have budget problems.........exacerbating divides between rich and poor.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by tennisjon

I would change that to 3 starters or 3 foreigners with scholarships. Men should be allowed to have the same number of scholarships as women. If the school doesn't have football, this should be much easier to do.

How would this work? During a recruit's senior year he/she is offered a conditional scholarship based on whether he/she is in the starting lineup next fall? Next spring? In the first match? In more than 50% of matches?

Right now athletic scholarships are one-year commitments and are usually renewed in the spring. For tennis, that would be changed until the next starting lineup is decided?

I don't see how a coach could commit to offering a scholarship to anyone unless there was the case of a superstar committing to East Armpit U (apologies to whoever coined this before me).

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

How do you think these changes would affect the college game? Upgrade? Downgrade? More parity? Less parity? Help the high-major (BCS) schools? Help the mid-major schools? Help/hurt DIII?

There is the attraction of symmetry in suggesting that mens' teams get 8 fulls like the women do. One reason for the disparity is Title IX. Women's tennis allows schools to build up the balance of opportunities for women, in light of all the scholarships that are allocated to football in particular.

If more scholys are allocated to men's tennis, they would probably have to come out of some other men's sport. If not, then the rich athletic programs wouldn't care because they would probably be able to handle the cost, but other programs might have budget problems.........exacerbating divides between rich and poor.

Wow Mrbill, I actually disagree on Title 9. I think that it is outdated and needs to be modified, if not altogether eliminated. If I had a say, if a school offered a sport, it would need to fund the exact same number of scholarships for the male version as it does for women. The NCAA minimum per sport needs to be at least a starting roster plus one.

If there is no female equivalent (ie football), so be it. I would set a minimum number of sports a school must fund at 16 to be considered D1, 14 for D2 or D3 so that schools wouldn't eliminate non revenue altogether. To be BCS eligible, they would have to fund 20 teams.

Yea, there are probably loopholes in my plan that would need ironed out. But, I hate when reverse discrimination becomes acceptable.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Wow Mrbill, I actually disagree on Title 9. I think that it is outdated and needs to be modified, if not altogether eliminated. If I had a say, if a school offered a sport, it would need to fund the exact same number of scholarships for the male version as it does for women. The NCAA minimum per sport needs to be at least a starting roster plus one.

If there is no female equivalent (ie football), so be it. I would set a minimum number of sports a school must fund at 16 to be considered D1, 14 for D2 or D3 so that schools wouldn't eliminate non revenue altogether. To be BCS eligible, they would have to fund 20 teams.

Yea, there are probably loopholes in my plan that would need ironed out. But, I hate when reverse discrimination becomes acceptable.

What are you disagreeing with?

How do you know what I think about Title IX? I stated the fact that the reason for the disparity between mens' and womens' tennis scholarships is Title IX.

And I'm standing by it

[SoCal10s]

Title IX.. has to go away...

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

What are you disagreeing with?

How do you know what I think about Title IX? I stated the fact that the reason for the disparity between mens' and womens' tennis scholarships is Title IX.

And I'm standing by it

Maybe I misunderstood or misinterpreted. Can't recall ever disagreeing on a view so I was shocked thinking that you had a pro title 9 stance.

Facts are facts and you are correct that other male sports will suffer if others were to gain.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by SoCal10s

Title IX.. has to go away...

Dilemma is, if it goes away altogether why would schools fund any non revenue sports? I could totally see sports getting slashed left and right and college sports becoming football and basketball only down the road.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Maybe I misunderstood or misinterpreted. Can't recall ever disagreeing on a view so I was shocked thinking that you had a pro title 9 stance.

Facts are facts and you are correct that other male sports will suffer if others were to gain.

Well, this is a first..........because clearly we disagreed about whether we disagreed.

Truth to tell, I happen to agree that Title IX "is outdated and needs to be modified, if not altogether eliminated"

[jaggy]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Dilemma is, if it goes away altogether why would schools fund any non revenue sports? I could totally see sports getting slashed left and right and college sports becoming football and basketball only down the road.

There are strong arguments for this, that all other sports should be nothing but club sports. Not sure I agree much with it myself but financially I do see the point made.

[Tennishacker]

Originally Posted by tennisjon

I would like to see doubles go back to best two out of 3 sets with a super-breaker for the third set. In D3, each court is 1 point in D1 the doubles is worth 1 point whether you win 2 or 3 of the courts. I think doubles should be emphasized more, but with only a pro-set, it seems like its over-emphasized now in D3. Therefore, by making it best two out of 3 sets (I would also do no-ad in doubles) with a super-breaker for the 3rd set (like they do in the pros) the doubles should then count as 1 point per court.

Additionally, there is a lot of strategy and coaching involved with doubles. Which side people serve from after the first set,the order of serving, and the switching of return sides are taken out of the equation when only a pro-set is played.

Agree, college should adopt the pro style of doubles, plus have every doubles match count for 1 point.

Why should doubles (collectively) have less importance than a singles match.

[tennisjon]

Originally Posted by Tennishacker

Agree, college should adopt the pro style of doubles, plus have every doubles match count for 1 point.

Why should doubles (collectively) have less importance than a singles match.

With the changes I propose it would make doubles take a little longer, but with no-ad scoring, it shouldn't add that much overall time.
Although it would take less than singles, with it being the same amount of sets it would then deserve the same amount of points in the match score.

[Tennishacker]

Originally Posted by tennisjon

With the changes I propose it would make doubles take a little longer, but with no-ad scoring, it shouldn't add that much overall time.
Although it would take less than singles, with it being the same amount of sets it would then deserve the same amount of points in the match score.

As one of the few coaches on here, can you tell me what are the requirements placed on you by your AD regarding your job requirements?
(winning season, graduation rate etc.)

Thanks in advance

[BHSC]

I would require all dual matches involving a ranked player (and all #1 singles and #1 doubles matches) to go to completion.

These matches should not be DNFs, regardless of team scores. (except the NCAAs b/c of the heat).

This change would increase the accuracy of the rankings.
Tennis fans would benefit (Don't most want to see what happens at #1 singles?) and Don't most players want to see how they measure up against the other best guys? Win or lose it seems like it would be beneficial to a player's improvement.



Regarding the doubles suggestions above: Making the doubles matches longer and count for 3 points as in the old days may be more accurate.

However, I think the most exciting, fan friendly part of a dual match is the 8 game pro set for just 1 point.