What changes would you like to see in D1 tennis ?

[dannythomas]

I’d like to throw some things out there for discussion and I’m sure I will be shot down. But here we go :

1. The clinch System should be ended or modified. Reasons: Unfinished matches distort the rankings and result in anti climax outcomes. It also tends to hit players at the top of the line up harder. Almost every D1 team haș at least 1 top player but it is the stronger teams who have strength in depth so those matches at the lower end tend to get finished quicker leaving Number 1 and 2 players the most likely to have unfinished scorelines at the clinch. And while I know it’s in an effort to shorten matches other ways could be found to do that. If still in second sets a match tiebreaker if they split and if they are already in a 3rd set play a match tiebreaker if the scores are even at any stage , be it 1-1, 2-2 etc . If not then play it out. How much extra time would this involve ? An hour maximum in the vast majority of cases. And doubles matches are already short at one regular set so finish those too.

2. Excessive coaching should be banned. Some coaches completely disrupt the flow of matches often deliberately by being on the court giving point by point coaching. Restrict it to coaching on changeovers. Let the players make their own decisions. Otherwise give the racquets to the coaches and let them play instead ….

3. The rankings system is too complicated and illogical. When players rankings move because players they beat earlier in the season go up and down in the rankings months later the question is why ? If you beat a top 10 player you should get credit for that at the time of the win and those points should stay for the season. Same thing with losses against lower ranked players.

4. The new timing of the individual NCAA championships is a mistake. Why fix something that is not broken ? Right now players get in based on their body of work over the whole season not on results in a few fall events. Some players wont even get into those events, especially freshmen. And giving automatic entry to 24 players , 2 per region doesnt make sense either when some regions are clearly stonger than others. The top 64 players in the country should compete in this event. Regional results are irelevant or should be. This in fact makes individual rankings almost irrelevant for the rest of the season and post season. Strong players on weaker teams have little to play for since those teams are unlikely to compete in the final stages of the NCAA team championships.

I’m sure I may have missed some factors in my reasoning or maybe been mistaken in the rules but comments welcome !

 

[silentkman]

I’d like to throw some things out there for discussion and I’m sure I will be shot down. But here we go :

1. The clinch System should be ended or modified. Reasons: Unfinished matches distort the rankings and result in anti climax outcomes. It also tends to hit players at the top of the line up harder. Almost every D1 team haș at least 1 top player but it is the stronger teams who have strength in depth so those matches at the lower end tend to get finished quicker leaving Number 1 and 2 players the most likely to have unfinished scorelines at the clinch. And while I know it’s in an effort to shorten matches other ways could be found to do that. If still in second sets a match tiebreaker if they split and if they are already in a 3rd set play a match tiebreaker if the scores are even at any stage , be it 1-1, 2-2 etc . If not then play it out. How much extra time would this involve ? An hour maximum in the vast majority of cases. And doubles matches are already short at one regular set so finish those too.

2. Excessive coaching should be banned. Some coaches completely disrupt the flow of matches often deliberately by being on the court giving point by point coaching. Restrict it to coaching on changeovers. Let the players make their own decisions. Otherwise give the racquets to the coaches and let them play instead ….

3. The rankings system is too complicated and illogical. When players rankings move because players they beat earlier in the season go up and down in the rankings months later the question is why ? If you beat a top 10 player you should get credit for that at the time of the win and those points should stay for the season. Same thing with losses against lower ranked players.

4. The new timing of the individual NCAA championships is a mistake. Why fix something that is not broken ? Right now players get in based on their body of work over the whole season not on results in a few fall events. Some players wont even get into those events, especially freshmen. And giving automatic entry to 24 players , 2 per region doesnt make sense either when some regions are clearly stonger than others. The top 64 players in the country should compete in this event. Regional results are irelevant or should be. This in fact makes individual rankings almost irrelevant for the rest of the season and post season. Strong players on weaker teams have little to play for since those teams are unlikely to compete in the final stages of the NCAA team championships.

I’m sure I may have missed some factors in my reasoning or maybe been mistaken in the rules but comments welcome !

I would like to get rid of the no-ad scoring too. I'm not a fan of the doubles point for three matches. I'm not sure how the rankings system work, at the pro level you don't get extra credit if you beat the number one player in the world. It should be your body of work correct?

 

[dannythomas]

I would like to get rid of the no-ad scoring too. I'm not a fan of the doubles point for three matches. I'm not sure how ranking system work, at the pro level you don't get extra credit if you beat the number one player in the world. It should be your body of work correct?

I believe it’s the top 10 highest rank wins ( or is it 5 ? ) which count for rankings points.. With the format of dual matches it pretty much haș to relate to wins against ranked opponents. It’s not the same as the pro tour with very few individual tournaments except in the Fall.
if no ad scoring helps speed up matches it is better than having them unfinished ….

 

[andfor]

I'd change the doubles to an 8 game pro set. I'm okay with no-ad and no warm up between singles and doubles to keep play moving and prevent the 5 hour dual. Yeah, I know, on occasion they still happen, but current no-ad has to be keeping the marathon drawn out duals the exception.

Got mixed feeling about the clinch system. I side on the coaches determining before the match if they will play it out or not. Hidden agendas and stupid reasons aside, ending at a clinch could help the match beat a weather system, catch a plane, protect a player playing with a minor injury from getting worse, etc. I can see a scenario when forced to play out a clinched match where tanking or defaults take place, just another problem altogether.

On the coaching, if they just don't walk on the court between every point that would a positive step forward.

3 and 4 are good.

 

[Clemson_tennis]

I agree that the fall individuals seems like a disastrous change. So much so that I have been trying to ignore that it’s actually happening and haven’t given it much thought analysis.

It basically renders individual rankings during the dual season completely meaningless? Are they trying to make it so every match plays to end on clinch?

It just seems like a stupid change and ruins a big element of the dual seasons.

 

[silentkman]

it's silly to have the extremely water down doubles in D1. Just make it singles since everyone is concerned about the time. The only time college tennis is on TV at the end of the year. if the tennis is entralling, what's the problem with 5 hour dual match? Additionally, the cinch thing is silly.

 

[Sureshot]

it's silly to have the extremely water down doubles in D1. Just make it singles since everyone is concerned about the time. The only time college tennis is on TV at the end of the year. if the tennis is entralling, what's the problem with 5 hour dual match? Additionally, the cinch thing is silly.

I really enjoy watching doubles even in its watered down version. I hope they don’t eliminate it.

 

[SavvyStringer]

I'd change the doubles to an 8 game pro set. I'm okay with no-ad and no warm up between singles and doubles to keep play moving and prevent the 5 hour dual. Yeah, I know, on occasion they still happen, but current no-ad has to be keeping the marathon drawn out duals the exception.

Got mixed feeling about the clinch system. I side on the coaches determining before the match if they will play it out or not. Hidden agendas and stupid reasons aside, ending at a clinch could help the match beat a weather system, catch a plane, protect a player playing with a minor injury from getting worse, etc. I can see a scenario when forced to play out a clinched match where tanking or defaults take place, just another problem altogether.

On the coaching, if they just don't walk on the court between every point that would a positive step forward.

3 and 4 are good.

10 years ago doubles was a pro set. I don't remember when they changed maybe 2015 but when I first started with USC doubles was a proset and I feel like they played regular scoring in singles rather than no ad. Matches used to take forever. BUT a 6 game no ad set in doubles makes it meaningless other than whoever can manage to secure that point. Doubles needs more emphasis since whoever wins doubles wins 70% of the matches on average.

 

[Connor35]

I would like to get rid of the no-ad scoring too. I'm not a fan of the doubles point for three matches. I'm not sure how ranking system work, at the pro level you don't get extra credit if you beat the number one player in the world. It should be your body of work correct?

But isn't the idea that it's ONE match, best of 3 sets, just like any match?

But the 3 sets are just by different players.

 

[andfor]

10 years ago doubles was a pro set. I don't remember when they changed maybe 2015 but when I first started with USC doubles was a proset and I feel like they played regular scoring in singles rather than no ad. Matches used to take forever. BUT a 6 game no ad set in doubles makes it meaningless other than whoever can manage to secure that point. Doubles needs more emphasis since whoever wins doubles wins 70% of the matches on average.

I think your close on when they changed the doubles from a 8 game pro set to 6 games. With the foremast already watered down with no-ad and no warm up for singles (sometimes a MTB for the 3rd set), all to help shorten the dual match time length, I'm not sure what the extra few games matters.

It's hard enough to come back from a break down in a 8 game pro set let alone a 6 game set. The additional 2-4 games would at least give another chance or two to even the score. If time is the coaches issue, then play a TB at 7-7.

 

[Wild Card]

The doubles match in D1 college tennis should absolutely be kept as part of the game. Doubles play is not only exciting to watch for fans, but it also offers a different dynamic and strategic challenge for players. Doubles requires teamwork and communication, qualities that are valuable in both sports and life in general. Additionally, doubles matches allow more players to participate and showcase their skills, providing more opportunities for athletes to contribute to their team's success. Overall, doubles play adds variety and depth to college tennis competitions and should therefore be preserved as an integral part of the game. I do hate the no ad scoring though!!

 

[silentkman]

The doubles match in D1 college tennis should absolutely be kept as part of the game. Doubles play is not only exciting to watch for fans, but it also offers a different dynamic and strategic challenge for players. Doubles requires teamwork and communication, qualities that are valuable in both sports and life in general. Additionally, doubles matches allow more players to participate and showcase their skills, providing more opportunities for athletes to contribute to their team's success. Overall, doubles play adds variety and depth to college tennis competitions and should therefore be preserved as an integral part of the game. I do hate the no ad scoring though!!

C'mon man it probably takes 30 mins to play a doubles match now. i would love actual D1 players could comment anonymously. I guess fast four will be next.

 

[dannythomas]

i just think the doubles matches should be played out . To finish a 3rd doubles match probably only makes a difference of 15 minutes in most cases. Leaving matches unfinished whether in singles or doubles is so unsatisfactory.

 

[andfor]

C'mon man it probably takes 30 mins to play a doubles match now. i would love actual D1 players could comment anonymously. I guess fast four will be next.

I don't think there's even remotely any proposal to eliminate or further shoten doubles. I'm advocating for an 8 game pro set. Like you it would be insightful to hear from some D1 players or coaches regarding the current scoring, format and clinch rules.

My understanding is ultimately any changes to the format, rules, etc., are up to the coaches and their vote.

 

[silentkman]

I don't think there's even remotely any proposal to eliminate or further shoten doubles. I'm advocating for an 8 game pro set. Like you it would be insightful to hear from some D1 players or coaches regarding the current scoring, format and clinch rules.

My understanding is ultimately any changes to the format, rules, etc., are up to the coaches and their vote.

I just rewatched the 2023 DIv 1 final. The doubles took 35 minutes. Doubles can be great when it's played correctly. They need to stop with this TV stuff for college tennis. yes, a pro set with regular scoring would work. I don't see how you can get emotionally invested in a a no ad set.

 

[Clemson_tennis]

The 6 game no-ad set is very quick. I saw several doubles points this year finished in 20-30 minutes. But they can stretch to as long as an hour if it goes 7-6. The format is so quick that it can often be a crapshoot of which team just starts with more energy and is more crisp in the first 5-10 minutes.

I do think there is still an issue in dual matches of the end of doubles/start of singles emotional letdown. The peak of doubles excitement and then the fairly slow first few games of singles. It can take as long as 30-45 mins for excitement to pick back up again at the end of singles 1st sets. That can be a damper for casual fans who are getting used to college tennis. Like I have been to a few UGA matches where the UGA football team comes and they always leave right after doubles.

 

[andfor]

The 6 game no-ad set is very quick. I saw several doubles points this year finished in 20-30 minutes. But they can stretch to as long as an hour if it goes 7-6. The format is so quick that it can often be a crapshoot of which team just starts with more energy and is more crisp in the first 5-10 minutes.

I do think there is still an issue in dual matches of the end of doubles/start of singles emotional letdown. The peak of doubles excitement and then the fairly slow first few games of singles. It can take as long as 30-45 mins for excitement to pick back up again at the end of singles 1st sets. That can be a damper for casual fans who are getting used to college tennis. Like I have been to a few UGA matches where the UGA football team comes and they always leave right after doubles.

They need to serve the pizza at the start of singles. No carry outs! HAHA

 

[jhick]

I'd change the doubles to an 8 game pro set. I'm okay with no-ad and no warm up between singles and doubles to keep play moving and prevent the 5 hour dual. Yeah, I know, on occasion they still happen, but current no-ad has to be keeping the marathon drawn out duals the exception.

Got mixed feeling about the clinch system. I side on the coaches determining before the match if they will play it out or not. Hidden agendas and stupid reasons aside, ending at a clinch could help the match beat a weather system, catch a plane, protect a player playing with a minor injury from getting worse, etc. I can see a scenario when forced to play out a clinched match where tanking or defaults take place, just another problem altogether.

On the coaching, if they just don't walk on the court between every point that would a positive step forward.

3 and 4 are good.

I might be a bit doubles biased, but I'd really like to see 10 game pro sets. But certainly 8 game is better than the current format.

 

[LOBALOT]

I am biased to D3 as my son plays and all these changes I think need to be applied there as well. It was not smart when they changed the rules for D3 to mirror the other divisions.

Anyone that has been to a college baseball or football game knows that if those sports handle their length of play then certainly tennis can as well. Get rid of No Ad.

D3 teams are rarely traveling across country for a match and when they do they usually do so on spring break or group the matches against multiple teams making the match length argument moot in this division.

 

[mikej]

(1) eliminate Stanford's program

(2) agree with restricting coaching to changeovers (or things that coaches are willing to shout from the bench during games, such that both the player and opponent can hear) - I'm tired of them walking all over the court between points and telling the players where to hit individual serves as if they're some brilliant pitching coach

 

[bobleenov1963]

(2) agree with restricting coaching to changeovers (or things that coaches are willing to shout from the bench during games, such that both the player and opponent can hear) - I'm tired of them walking all over the court between points and telling the players where to hit individual serves as if they're some brilliant pitching coach

This example was so blatant in the Women ACC championship final

 

[armchair]

I agree that coaching should be confined to changeovers; I too think coaches walking on the court all the time is absurd and needs to stop.

I too think that doubles matches should be 8-point and not 6. One set to 6 is just too short. You get broken early and you can easily lose. It just doesn't seem
a proper match. Eight points is short, too, but at least gives the players a tiny bit more time to get into the match.

 

[coach bard]

-For the doubles, either 8 game pro set or 2/3 fast four. The doubles point is pretty much the decider in many matchups so it's kind of crazy that entire seasons can come down to a coinflip
-totally agree on on court coaching. they also clearly do it to break opponent's rhythm. so lame. no issue with it on change-overs but point by point is crazy.

 

[silentkman]

I agree that coaching should be confined to changeovers; I too think coaches walking on the court all the time is absurd and needs to stop.

I too think that doubles matches should be 8-point and not 6. One set to 6 is just too short. You get broken early and you can easily lose. It just doesn't seem
a proper match. Eight points is short, too, but at least gives the players a tiny bit more time to get into the match.

At least in d3 it's a pro-set. Who thought the coaches giving instruction every single point was a good idea? craziness

 

[andfor]

At least in d3 it's a pro-set. Who thought the coaches giving instruction every single point was a good idea? craziness

The coaches.

 

[Clemson_tennis]

At least in d3 it's a pro-set. Who thought the coaches giving instruction every single point was a good idea? craziness

Was probably too much of headache to try to monitor and limit when the coaches can say things to the players. They would sneak signals and things anyway. But eliminating the physically walking on the court stuff would be a good start.

 

[jmnk]

They need to serve the pizza at the start of singles. No carry outs! HAHA

That's _exactly_ what they do at Northwestern matches. Both boys and girls. It's actually genius. People calm down a bit after doubles eating pizza, and after 20 minutes or so they are back engaged. Just in time for crucial stretch of first sets.

 

[stoxtrader]

The NCAA Individuals shouldn't start the day after the Team Championship. Moving it a week later would be fair for everybody. I think this put some of the best players in the sport at an unfair disadvantage even though many of the women ended up going deep anyways.

 

[jcgatennismom]

The NCAA Individuals shouldn't start the day after the Team Championship. Moving it a week later would be fair for everybody. I think this put some of the best players in the sport at an unfair disadvantage even though many of the women ended up going deep anyways.

NCAA singles and dubs have been moved to fall for 2024 and 2025. It’s a 2 year pilot plan. Nov 19-24 at at Baylor for 2024

 

[stoxtrader]

NCAA singles and dubs have been moved to fall for 2024 and 2025. It’s a 2 year pilot plan. Nov 19-24 at at Baylor for 2024

Not sure I like that either as it was cool as an end of season playoff event for the best players. I wonder if the USTA will still give the winner a spot in the U.S. Open in this case. However, I kind of feel it should go to the #1 player at the end of the year anyways, looking at the entire body of work, not just one tournament (even though showing the ability to compete under the most pressure is also important). Not that the NCAA has control over this.

 

[aaron_h27]

I like the clinch system, there's nothing worse than watching a match that's already decided. The energy is just so dead.

 

[mikej]

I like the clinch system, there's nothing worse than watching a match that's already decided. The energy is just so dead.

there are opinions all over the place on this - with some wanting all matches played out entirely - but i like the current balance of truncating the remaining matches (though admittedly sometimes a team clinches when a remaining court is at 1-0 in the 3rd, and that can be painful)

 

[10S-NE1?]

How about playing singles first and if necessary, doubles thereafter? Sure would've saved time with those later start times at the NCAAs.

 

[dannythomas]

The NCAA Individuals shouldn't start the day after the Team Championship. Moving it a week later would be fair for everybody. I think this put some of the best players in the sport at an unfair disadvantage even though many of the women ended up going deep anyways.

Realistically these are trained athletes. Playing a maximum of 3 matches in the team event before the individuals shouldn’t exhaust them. When they play pro events they will often play qualifying rounds immediately followed by the main draw.This time it’s only 2 players who will have played 3 matches assuming even that none of their matches were unfinished. If at all have a 1 day gap between team and individuals or just have doubles on day 1.
Unfortunately someone came up with this new plan to move the individuals to November. I see no advantage in that whatsoever. Selection for the individuals should be based on the players performance over the entire year not on how they perform in 2 or 3 events in the fall and some ridiculous regional qualifications. . Now the rankings will be meaningless and the individual tournament will not feature the top 64 players in the country. It will no longer be the climax of the season and feels just like another national fall event.
I heard that the USTA said that when the tournament is held in Orlando they cannot make their courts available for 2 weeks. If that’s the case then dont host it. They offer minimal support for college tennis anyway and their indoor courts cannot even accommodate spectators when there is bad weather.

 

[Clemson_tennis]

Yeah the individuals in November really makes no sense from any perspective of you think about all the details. The only argument for it is that the players are tired after team finals now. Which is not good enough imo.

 

[mikej]

Yeah the individuals in November really makes no sense from any perspective of you think about all the details. The only argument for it is that the players are tired after team finals now. Which is not good enough imo.

Good enough for me - trailing the team event, both the players are tired (and unequally tired, which is even worse) and the fans are tired and leaving - it’s too long an event with everything together - I look forward to more enthusiasm from players and fans in the Fall

 

[andfor]

Good enough for me - trailing the team event, both the players are tired (and unequally tired, which is even worse) and the fans are tired and leaving - it’s too long an event with everything together - I look forward to more enthusiasm from players and fans in the Fall

The selection process will be interesting. Mostly I see the freshman having a hard time qualifying. A wildcard exception for the top 1 or 2 freshies would be good. Conversely, I could see a top freshmen more often forgoing the fall semester to play pro then show up in the spring.

The last few years there's been numerous main draw participants pull out which will stop when the individuals play this fall. Just one example, but I believe the women's runner up this year was the 9th alternate, #4 in in UGA's singles line up and ranked #70 going into the singles tournament.

 

[optimaltennis]

Good enough for me - trailing the team event, both the players are tired (and unequally tired, which is even worse) and the fans are tired and leaving - it’s too long an event with everything together - I look forward to more enthusiasm from players and fans in the Fall

The number of coaches who said something to the lines of "I wish the individuals were in the fall right now" the first day of individuals is very high. The same ones complained when individuals were moved to the fall. We will soon see which of their thoughts prevail

 

[dannythomas]

Good enough for me - trailing the team event, both the players are tired (and unequally tired, which is even worse) and the fans are tired and leaving - it’s too long an event with everything together - I look forward to more enthusiasm from players and fans in the Fall

Have to disagree with this. Have you looked at the selection criteria ? 24 players selected at 2 per region to begin with . Why ? Then freshmen will find it difficult to even qualify for some of the fall events whereas right now they have as much chance as anyone else to get in to individuals. And at the other end of the scale seniors will have little to play for in their final year once the individuals are over . Only a few teams are realistic contenders to even reach the last 8 let alone win it. Up until now the strong players competed until the end of their college careers to push up their rankings to earn a place in the individuals. No such goals any longer. And taking it 1 step further it will make it harder for the other teams to recruit top players since all they have to play for in the rest of the season will be the team events.

 

[dannythomas]

The number of coaches who said something to the lines of "I wish the individuals were in the fall right now" the first day of individuals is very high. The same ones complained when individuals were moved to the fall. We will soon see which of their thoughts prevail

Let’s face it. The college coaches are paid for their teams to win. They mostly don’t care about the individuals. But the players do.

 

[andfor]

Have to disagree with this. Have you looked at the selection criteria ? 24 players selected at 2 per region to begin with . Why ? Then freshmen will find it difficult to even qualify for some of the fall events whereas right now they have as much chance as anyone else to get in to individuals. And at the other end of the scale seniors will have little to play for in their final year once the individuals are over . Only a few teams are realistic contenders to even reach the last 8 let alone win it. Up until now the strong players competed until the end of their college careers to push up their rankings to earn a place in the individuals. No such goals any longer. And taking it 1 step further it will make it harder for the other teams to recruit top players since all they have to play for in the rest of the season will be the team events.

Some good points here. Change something like this and it's inevitable there will be unintended consequences. I can see a player winning the NCAA's in the fall and turning pro right away thereafter.

With the appearance of a few players in this week and next weeks challengers, makes me wonder how many are focused on finishing the season healthy by skipping the NCAA individuals so they can play a summer of pro tennis.

Let’s face it. The college coaches are paid for their teams to win. They mostly don’t care about the individuals. But the players do.

Something tells me George Husak disagrees. LOL

 

[jcgatennismom]

Have to disagree with this. Have you looked at the selection criteria ? 24 players selected at 2 per region to begin with . Why ? Then freshmen will find it difficult to even qualify for some of the fall events whereas right now they have as much chance as anyone else to get in to individuals. And at the other end of the scale seniors will have little to play for in their final year once the individuals are over . Only a few teams are realistic contenders to even reach the last 8 let alone win it. Up until now the strong players competed until the end of their college careers to push up their rankings to earn a place in the individuals. No such goals any longer. And taking it 1 step further it will make it harder for the other teams to recruit top players since all they have to play for in the rest of the season will be the team events.

Having 26/64 of selection from Regionals gives equal weight to Regions like Mountain which only hosts one P5 team Utah vs Regions that have 4+ top 30 teams. Two of the later qualifying tourneys-the Sectional (24) and the Masters (4) are held in Nov and conflict with challengers/futures. I can possibly understand excluding spring results from fall 2024 NCAAs since those counted towards May NCAAs but I hope they use a different selection criteria for fall 2025 that gives some weight to spring results for returning players-eg maybe guarantee top 16 returners get in.

Also the ITA fall championship task force didn’t include any coaches from SEC the biggest conference. This spring OSU had 4 players in NCAA singles and some other schools had 3-4. With the new selection policy will be hard for any college to have more than 2.

 

[ClarkC]

there are opinions all over the place on this - with some wanting all matches played out entirely - but i like the current balance of truncating the remaining matches (though admittedly sometimes a team clinches when a remaining court is at 1-0 in the 3rd, and that can be painful)

Sometimes coaches agree that a third set tiebreaker will be played as soon as the third set is even. So, if 1-0 becomes 1-1, play a tiebreaker.

 

[mikej]

Sometimes coaches agree that a third set tiebreaker will be played as soon as the third set is even. So, if 1-0 becomes 1-1, play a tiebreaker.

I like that, haven’t personally seen it but like it