"MTO change?" What's that?
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...
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.
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 I think that it is outdated and needs to be modified, if not altogether eliminated.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.
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
Title IX.. has to go away...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would require all dual matches involving a ranked player (and all #1 singles and #1 doubles matches) to go to completion.
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.
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 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.
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.
Welcome to TT at TW. The only place were the exception becomes the norm.
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
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.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.
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.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.
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/john-mcenroe-calls-injury-timeouts-a-tour-epidemic/
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.
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.
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.
ehh, I guess my point was that i wish coaching was also allowed in the pro game. I favor college tennis where it is allowed. I appreciate the changes that players can make if given the guidance. It also shows what coaches can do in actual situations of the sport and not just their recruiting and practice skills.
Cramping is nothing more than not being in good enough shape and making sure you have enough nutrients and water. I have done 14 marathons and I have only cramped 1 time, the first time, when I didn't train hard enough or eat and drink enough during the race.
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/john-mcenroe-calls-injury-timeouts-a-tour-epidemic/
Regarding medical timeouts, D1 took a good step a couple of years ago by limiting each player/doubles team to one medical timeout per match, not per injury as was the old rule. This significantly cuts back on gamesmanship medical timeouts when a player is down a break and their opponent is serving for the set. It also keeps the door open for a legitimate medical timeout for a rolled ankle or something more serious.
Finally, as was stated before, the coaches make the rules in college tennis, and for the most part, they do a good job at it.
I agree with this. A similar situation arises in college football where defensive players....allegedly...have faked cramps or other injuries to try to slow down hurry-up offenses without having to burn a timeout. The consequences in college football (whether or not the injury is legit) are that the player has to sit out at least one play, which may or may not cause a detriment to the defense. I don't know if it is practical in tennis to charge points/games for multiple cramping claims.
One other point. I think it was mentioned that college tennis is a "short, compressed season" I don't agree with that. The spring regular season thru conference tourney typically is three months. Isn't it the same for soccer, track, cross country, baseball, softball, lacrosse, volleyball etc?
If a player has already received their one medical timeout per match, they only have a couple options if they start cramping or have another injury.
They can receive code violations for delay of game (point and game penalty), but if that doesn't get them to the changeover, they would be defaulted. Or they can retire.
What I would like to see happen is a rule similar to the new professional rules for cramping (Of course in the pros there is no medical timeout allowed for cramping anymore).
If the player has already received their one medical timeout, and they start cramping or have another injury, they should be able to "buy time" by forfeiting any points or games until the next changeover or set break, and then they could receive treatment on the changeover or set break, but only 90 or 120 seconds depending on whether it's a changeover or set break. That way, if someone DOES have two legitimate injuries, they can get to a changeover without being defaulted for delay of game and have a chance to continue the match.