Any rules you would change?

[TennisFan2Day]

Originally Posted by BHSC

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

I agree, nothing worse than watching a #1 or #2 singles player stalling because he knows that he is losing and his teammate is about ready to end the match.

[tennisjon]

Originally Posted by Tennishacker

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

I am an assistant coach. I have been offered head coaching positions before, but for part-time pay (less than a h.s. coach would be paid). That tends to be the norm at many colleges, even D1 programs. Where I coach at, however, all the coaches are full-time and all the sports are treated equally. The sports are funded based on the participants and not because basketball is the alpha sport. Because of this, tennis is somewhat over-funded compared to most comparable schools and basketball (we don't have football) is underfunded.

Getting back to your question and assuming its for the head coach, there isn't a requirement placed on by our AD for the teams. Their basic goal is .500 seasons followed by making the conference playoffs, followed by making nationals by winning the conference. This year men's tennis and baseball were conference champs and are going to nationals. Men's tennis has won their conference 12 straight years without a conference loss. I would guess that if the student-athletes or AD had issues with the coach(es) that would have more bearing on the coach not being rehired vs. having a bad record.

Whether at the D1, D2, or D3 level there are programs that are in competitive conferences and the athletic department expects wins no matter what the sport. Not bringing home the bling after a few years may mean a dismissal. Tennis, though, for most schools in general, is on a lower rung of the totem pole. Its more of don't rock the boat. They need to offer the sport. Winning is a just a bonus.

[Tennishacker]

Originally Posted by tennisjon

I am an assistant coach. I have been offered head coaching positions before, but for part-time pay (less than a h.s. coach would be paid). That tends to be the norm at many colleges, even D1 programs. Where I coach at, however, all the coaches are full-time and all the sports are treated equally. The sports are funded based on the participants and not because basketball is the alpha sport. Because of this, tennis is somewhat over-funded compared to most comparable schools and basketball (we don't have football) is underfunded.

Getting back to your question and assuming its for the head coach, there isn't a requirement placed on by our AD for the teams. Their basic goal is .500 seasons followed by making the conference playoffs, followed by making nationals by winning the conference. This year men's tennis and baseball were conference champs and are going to nationals. Men's tennis has won their conference 12 straight years without a conference loss. I would guess that if the student-athletes or AD had issues with the coach(es) that would have more bearing on the coach not being rehired vs. having a bad record.

Whether at the D1, D2, or D3 level there are programs that are in competitive conferences and the athletic department expects wins no matter what the sport. Not bringing home the bling after a few years may mean a dismissal. Tennis, though, for most schools in general, is on a lower rung of the totem pole. Its more of don't rock the boat. They need to offer the sport. Winning is a just a bonus.

Thanks, there is a false assumption that coaches have to win at all cost, or they will lose their job.

[tball2day]

......................

[Misterbill]

Tennisjon's reply was given in the context of DIII. Yes, many DIII schools de-emphasize competitiveness in sports. And that's fine, I really mean that!

At D1 high-major/BCS schools.....and many D1 mid-major schools its all about winning. Do you disagree, Tennisjon?

Yes, I know there are exceptions. There are the coaches like Jamie Sanchez of Loyola Marymount (a great coach and a great guy) whose W-L records are in the middle of the pack.......and yet who have been there forever. They even named the tennis courts after him.

The legacy coaches, like Jamie, are the exception. Most coaches have tenures less than 10 years. Any of us can check the turnover in coaches that happens each year.

Successful coaches at mid-major schools leave to go to competitive D1 high-major programs (destination jobs). The coaches at competitive D1 programs who are fired are the ones with the poorer records, not the better records, I think

EDIT: Before someone might ask me how Jamie can be a great coach and yet have a so-so W-L record at a school with a great academic reputation right plunk in the middle of SoCal, let me respond. He is not as good a recruiter out of high school as the coaches at the upper-tier schools in the WCC.....such as Pepperdine, USD, St Mary's and Santa Clara, in my amateur opinion. I think it is fair to say that LMU has a higher than average number of transfers-in. Whether this is a good or bad thing for any particular player.....it is something all recruits should take a look at for any school they are interested in

[tball2day]

..............................

[Misterbill]

I agree with that.

If a kid is looking for top-flight competitive college tennis, and he/she does not get an offer from the school of choice because better players (on paper at least) were chosen, I think it is a cop-out for them to complain about foreigners on the roster, or coaches taking bribes (as alleged by at least one other person, not you). Those coaches are paid to win............and in my experience don't have a shred of sentimentality.

But there are lots of great college tennis opportunities at D1, D2, D3, NAIA etc schools where there are varying degrees of emphasis put on winning. Gotta check out each program. Heck, I think there are a few D3 schools that are probably more competitive than a few scholarship-offering D1 schools.

If a kid is looking for competition, and loses out in the competitive recruiting rat-race, how can the kid complain? You can't want and not want competitiveness at the same time. There are lots of alternatives.

EDIT: One amendment to the statement above, that competitive-program coaches will always take the better of two players. If two players are equal or one is a little better than the other, and the better player is the child of "one of those parents", my limited experience indicates that this player will get left by the wayside either in the recruiting process, or if the kid is recruited, after he/she is on the roster. Particularly if the kid is from the area where the school is located

[Alohajrtennis]

Talk about thread spill over...I wasn't going to go there...

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by 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.

I love the 8 game prosets. I generally know that they will last an hour and therefore if I show up an hour and a half late, I'm right at the start of singles.

[TennisFan2Day]

I would like to see them eliminate coaching except on change overs. I was pretty disappointed this year watching a match with a top ten player on a top ten team and his coach was standing there telling him where he should serve after every point in one game.

Eliminate the medical time out. If you are not in good enough shape to make it through a match without cramping then that is your problem. If you are going to play injured, then that is the chance you take. Unless there is blood involved then there should be no reason to delay the match.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by TennisFan2Day

I would like to see them eliminate coaching except on change overs. I was pretty disappointed this year watching a match with a top ten player on a top ten team and his coach was standing there telling him where he should serve after every point in one game.

Eliminate the medical time out. If you are not in good enough shape to make it through a match without cramping then that is your problem. If you are going to play injured, then that is the chance you take. Unless there is blood involved then there should be no reason to delay the match.

Pro tennis is the only sport in the world that restricts coaching...why is it? Golfers talk to their caddy between every shot. Team sport coaches have zero restrictions on when they can call out plays. Even in sports like swimming, track & CC, or gymnastics the coaches aren't limited on shouting tot heir athletes. I kind of dislike that tennis has coaching restrictions and I like that they are allowed to coach in the college game.

Wow, eliminate a medical time out? Makes me think about the player at the Open that was agonizing in pain from cramping and they had to sit and watch until he was defaulted and then carted off the court. Pretty sure that wouldn't be favored by athletic trainers.

[tennisjon]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Tennisjon's reply was given in the context of DIII. Yes, many DIII schools de-emphasize competitiveness in sports. And that's fine, I really mean that!

At D1 high-major/BCS schools.....and many D1 mid-major schools its all about winning. Do you disagree, Tennisjon?

You would think that at those schools it would be, but its not always the case. A friend of mine coaches D1 at a BCS school and he is part-time. The program is barely funded. If the school isn't willing to pay a coach a full-time salary, how can they expect him or her to devote a significant amount of time to recruiting? When I am talking part-time, we are talking about making less than a high school coach would make. If you don't recruit good players and don't offer scholarships (many D1 programs offer no scholarships at all), you can't be expected to be competitive.

Sports are essentially meant to generate money in that they get kids to the school that would not have ordinarily have gone. If you only partially fund a non-competitive program, you can still make out way ahead financially compared to schools that fully fund. After all, schools are a business. Sports leads to more successful students who are likely to give back to the school upon graduation.

[andfor]

Welcome to TT at TW. The only place where the exception becomes the norm.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by tennisjon

You would think that at those schools it would be, but its not always the case. A friend of mine coaches D1 at a BCS school and he is part-time. The program is barely funded. If the school isn't willing to pay a coach a full-time salary, how can they expect him or her to devote a significant amount of time to recruiting? When I am talking part-time, we are talking about making less than a high school coach would make. If you don't recruit good players and don't offer scholarships (many D1 programs offer no scholarships at all), you can't be expected to be competitive.

Sports are essentially meant to generate money in that they get kids to the school that would not have ordinarily have gone. If you only partially fund a non-competitive program, you can still make out way ahead financially compared to schools that fully fund. After all, schools are a business. Sports leads to more successful students who are likely to give back to the school upon graduation.

That's gotta be a Big East non-football team...........like Providence or something. But maybe I'm wrong and you are talking about a Texas or Clemson or Ole Miss or the like.

So........not intending to put words in your mouth.........my take-away from your post is that your message to parents and juniors is that winning isn't everything for some high-major/BCS tennis schools, coaches at these schools do not have a motivating incentive to win, therefore there is no pressure to get the best players, whether they be American or non-American.

EDIT: Just saw andfor's post. Yeah, maybe that's why I am confused!

[tennisjon]

Originally Posted by andfor

Welcome to TT at TW. The only place were the exception becomes the norm.

Its not the norm. Nor is it an exception. Its just much more common than you think. Tennis is not basketball or football. It is not seen as something that grabs national attention that aids in getting kids to come to the school. Schools in ACC, SEC, Pac-10 are super-competitive in nearly every sport. Schools are trying to win the President's Cup and win as many titles in as many sports as possible. Other conferences have teams that are there just to hold down a spot and a winning record is a bonus. Producing happy successful people who donate money back to the school is just as important to them. Most schools have greater expectations than this, but again, most conferences have schools at the bottom and they are always there because the program isn't funded and cared for by the school.

[Misterbill]

OK. After sorting thru all this, here are my conclusions for others to shoot down.

These are the super-competitive conferences, where I would advise juniors and parents that winning is everything, coaches are incentivized (is that a word?) to win, programs are fully-funded, and coaches will try to get the best players regardless of nationality

Big Ten
ACC
SEC
Pac-12
Big-12
Big East--football schools only

[tennisjon]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

OK. After sorting thru all this, here are my conclusions for others to shoot down.

These are the super-competitive conferences, where I would advise juniors and parents that winning is everything, coaches are incentivized (is that a word?) to win, programs are fully-funded, and coaches will try to get the best players regardless of nationality

Big Ten
ACC
SEC
Pac-12
Big-12
Big East--football schools only

I agree. I have other friends in fully-funded non-BCS programs and they are super-competitive in their conference. The top 4 schools or so are constantly trying to one-up each other and get to nationals, but once again, there are school at the bottom of their conference who know they can't compete because they aren't fully funded and can't attract top level talent. A coach can have a losing record for years and as long as there aren't other issues with the team, can hold onto his or her job.

[TennisFan2Day]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Pro tennis is the only sport in the world that restricts coaching...why is it? Golfers talk to their caddy between every shot. Team sport coaches have zero restrictions on when they can call out plays. Even in sports like swimming, track & CC, or gymnastics the coaches aren't limited on shouting tot heir athletes. I kind of dislike that tennis has coaching restrictions and I like that they are allowed to coach in the college game.

That is why it should be eliminated. If they are training to be professionals, they why shouldn't they play by the same rules. If they allowed coaching in the juniors and pros then I wouldn't have any problem with it at all.

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Wow, eliminate a medical time out? Makes me think about the player at the Open that was agonizing in pain from cramping and they had to sit and watch until he was defaulted and then carted off the court. Pretty sure that wouldn't be favored by athletic trainers.

The MTO has evolved in a way that it wasn't intended for. There are top academies telling players they should take them if they are down it a set and need more time to mentally prepare.

Could you imagine a boxer asking if he can wait a few minutes until he catches his breath? Maybe a swimmer can take a break between laps because they are cramping. It is a sport, you either tough it out or take up knitting.

This article is from a few years ago.

JOHN MCENROE CALLS INJURY TIMEOUTS A TOUR EPIDEMIC

http://gototennis.com/2009/08/19/joh...tour-epidemic/

[andfor]

Originally Posted by TennisFan2Day

That is why it should be eliminated. If they are training to be professionals, they why shouldn't they play by the same rules. If they allowed coaching in the juniors and pros then I wouldn't have any problem with it at all.

The MTO has evolved in a way that it wasn't intended for. There are top academies telling players they should take them if they are down it a set and need more time to mentally prepare.

Could you imagine a boxer asking if he can wait a few minutes until he catches his breath? Maybe a swimmer can take a break between laps because they are cramping. It is a sport, you either tough it out or take up knitting.

This article is from a few years ago.

JOHN MCENROE CALLS INJURY TIMEOUTS A TOUR EPIDEMIC

http://gototennis.com/2009/08/19/joh...tour-epidemic/

Not all D1 tennis players are training to be pros. The WTA allows coaching. The NCAA and ITA do not always see eye-to-eye. The college tennis rules are set by the coaches. Your article, while I understand the premise, will be considered dated and thus not relevant by some here.

[Tennishacker]

Originally Posted by TennisFan2Day

I would like to see them eliminate coaching except on change overs. I was pretty disappointed this year watching a match with a top ten player on a top ten team and his coach was standing there telling him where he should serve after every point in one game.

Eliminate the medical time out. If you are not in good enough shape to make it through a match without cramping then that is your problem. If you are going to play injured, then that is the chance you take. Unless there is blood involved then there should be no reason to delay the match.

There are coaches that will coach on every point, I feel bad for the player, and it makes it difficult to watch the match.
Yes, coaching should be limited to change overs.

I'm not sure about eliminating the MTO.
College tennis is a short, compressed season, if a player gets a minor injury early in the season, they have to play the remainder of the season injured.