National Collegiate Athletic Association

The NCAA News - News and Features

March 10, 1997

MAGIC NUMBER?

Committee hopes 64-team formats will make I men's, women's tennis championships fairer, more inclusive

BY STEPHEN R. HAGWELL
Staff Writer

Every NCAA sports committee searches for the perfect championship format, and the Division I men's and women's subcommittees of the NCAA Men's and Women's Tennis Committee are no exceptions.

In recent years, the subcommittees have adopted format changes in their quest to devise more inclusive and equitable team championships.

At its May meeting, the NCAA Executive Committee will review a joint recommendation from the subcommittees that they believe will move the Division I tennis tournaments one step closer to becoming the perfect event.

The subcommittees are proposing 64-team tournaments that would feature 16 men's and 16 women's regionals beginning in 1998. Four teams would be assigned to each regional.

Each of the eight Division I men's and six women's regions would be guaranteed at least one regional tournament. Teams would be seeded in four categories (Nos. 1-4), and one team from each category would be placed in the bracket at each regional site.

Currently, the men's championships comprise 64 teams; the women's championships comprise a minimum of 58 teams.

The men compete in eight regional tournaments featuring four six-team and four eight-team fields; the champion of each regional tournament then advances to the finals site. The top eight seeded teams as selected by the men's subcommittee advance directly to the finals site.

The women compete at six regional sites featuring eight teams each. The six regional champions advance to the finals site to join the top 10 teams as selected by the women's subcommittee.

In August 1996, the Executive Committee directed the subcommittees to develop a common format for their respective championships.

Evolutionary process

Adoption of the proposal would be yet another stage in the evolutionary process regarding regional tournaments. Since the inception of regional tournaments as part of the men's championships in 1994 and the women's championships in 1996, the subcommittees have modified the original format several times.

For example, as a means to better balance regional tournaments, both subcommittees amended the original format to permit seeded teams to be assigned to regional tournaments outside their respective regions.

The men's subcommittee also amended selection criteria to consider both regional and national rankings. Under the original format utilized by the men's championships in 1994, teams advanced to the championships based primarily on rankings within their respective region. National rankings had little, if any, impact.

"Ever since the regional format came into college tennis, we've been trying to refine the plan to make it more fair, more inclusive," said John Kreis, men's tennis coach at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and chair of the Division I men's tennis subcommittee. "We believe the new format allows a greater number of teams to compete and also provides some equity from one regional tournament to the next."

Equity is something all coaches have been clamoring for.

Coaches believe the current system, despite recent modifications, still contains flaws that prevent the attainment of balanced team championships. Some coaches contend the system penalizes, albeit to a lesser degree than previously, those regions with a large number of strong teams, while an equal number of coaches state that movement of teams across regional lines negatively impacts teams by reducing competition in that region.

"What we've tried to do with this proposal is put everyone on an equal level," said Cathy Beene, director of tennis at Georgia Southern University and chair of the Men's and Women's Tennis Committee. "By going to a 64-team field, we feel like there will be more representation and definitely more teams involved.

"We also believe everyone needs to play. Teams shouldn't be exempt. Some institutions that have been exempted have come in and said 'We don't play a match for two weeks.' That's a very valid point."

Alleviates concerns

The proposed 64-team draw seemingly would alleviate those concerns.

By designating 16 regional sites of four teams each and guaranteeing each region one tournament, and also eliminating selection for automatic advancement to the finals site, advancement opportunities will be based both upon geographical location and team performance.

In addition, advocates contend that assigning four teams to each regional site will provide institutions with opportunities to host the championships. Currently, many institutions are not able to accommodate an eight-team event.

"Having all regional tournaments the same size is a great benefit, because as teams advance through the draw, they are playing the same number of matches and experiencing the same type of challenge," Kreis said. "Another great thing is that the format allows us to address the strength of different areas of the country. This allows us to make sure there is a regional champion in each of the geographical regions."

While the championships field sizes and the seeding process have been determined, the selection process has not yet been finalized.

Both subcommittees are recommending utilization of conference automatic qualification, with the remainder of teams selected at large. What hasn't been determined is whether all eligible conferences will receive an automatic bid or if criteria will be applied to award automatic bids to a more limited number of conferences. The subcommittees will decide the issue at their annual meeting July 7-10.

The men's subcommittee has developed 10 criteria for automatic qualification, ranging from overall record to championships record in the last four years.

"We're trying to determine how the process will unfold," Beene said. "We get into situations sometimes when people say that selections are political; we're trying to come up with systems that alleviate that as much as possible."

Achieving that goal may be difficult.

Opinions differ

Advocates for conference automatic qualification contend that granting at least one championships slot to each conference champion guarantees that all teams will have access to the championships.

Opponents argue that such a system would unfairly impact stronger conferences, and that awarding berths based solely on conference affiliation would diminish the championships.

"There are certain conferences that may be a little weaker that are going to send a representative to the championship even though that team may not be as competitive as maybe the third or fourth team in a stronger conference," said Andy Brandi, women's tennis coach at the University of Florida. "I don't think that's the best thing. We want the 64 best teams at the national championships."

David Benjamin, men's tennis coach at Princeton University and executive director of the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA), says it is imperative for the subcommittees to consider the ramifications of both options before deciding the issue.

"Obviously, automatic qualification for conferences is a system that works well in certain sports, and it does take some politics out," Benjamin said. "But, we have to be careful that it doesn't then create problems that would be specific to tennis. Most conferences have been developed more along lines of football and basketball than tennis. Possibly, certain conferences that are based on basketball and football don't have a strong enough group of tennis teams to justify being in an NCAA event every year."

Kreis says that regardless of the outcome, the proposal to adopt a 64-team field is the best format for Division I tennis.

"We believe this proposal and the most recent steps are taking us in the right direction," Kreis said. "We're getting closer to the ultimate ideal of what the perfect college national championship should be."