The NCAA News - News and Features

April 21, 1997

On the same page?

Their recent decisions have reflected a meeting of the minds, but I men's and women's tennis are struggling with the request for common scoring

Finding common ground on issues in Division I men's and women's tennis used to be more difficult than returning a 100-mile-per-hour serve.

"Used to be" is the key phrase.

In recent years, the Division I men's and women's subcommittees of the NCAA Men's and Women's Tennis Committee have come together to find common solutions in various issues affecting Division I tennis.

For instance, the two subcommittees recently submitted to the NCAA Executive Committee a joint recommendation proposing 64-team tournaments that would feature 16 men's and 16 women's regionals.

The subcommittees will attempt to find common ground again at this year's Men's and Women's Tennis Committee meeting in July, when they respond to the Executive Committee's request to seek a common scoring system for the championships' team competition.

"We've taken a lot of positive steps in the last two years to come together on some issues," said Cathy Beene, director of tennis at Georgia Southern University and chair of the NCAA Men's and Women's Tennis Committee. "In the past, the two (subcommittees) never met on common issues. Now, we are going to be identical in terms of tournament format and automatic conference qualification. We're on the same page with just about everything, with the exception of scoring."

6-3 and 3-6 formats

In August 1996, the Executive Committee directed the subcommittees to develop a common scoring system as it approved the women's subcommittee's recommendation that a 6-3 scoring format be used to determine the winner of the team championship at the 1997 Division I Women's Tennis Championships.

The men's championships since 1994 have used a 3-6 scoring format, in which three eight-game pro-set doubles matches are played for a total of one team point, followed by six best-of-three-sets singles matches, each worth one team point. The maximum number of points that can be scored in a match is seven.

The women's championships will implement its 6-3 format this spring. Six singles matches worth one team point each will be played, followed by three eight-game pro-set doubles matches worth one team point each. The maximum number of points in a match is nine.

From 1982 through 1996, the women's championships used the traditional format -- six singles and three doubles matches, each best-of-three sets, worth one point each.

The Division III men's and women's championships also use different formats.

"I'm sure that if I'm an administrator looking at this, it doesn't make any sense," said Steve Bietau, women's tennis coach at Kansas State University and a member of the Division I women's subcommittee. "Logically, it makes sense to have similar formats. However, we based our recommendation upon what our coaches indicated they wanted through the survey.

"We have some coaches who feel strongly that the 6-3 format is the system we should use. We looked at the men's format very carefully, but felt as a committee that the 6-3 format was the best for women's tennis.

"At this point, we plan on discussing the issue at our meeting and will try to decide what's the best way to make the decision."

Coaches like different formats

Finding common ground on a scoring system may be something that the subcommittees can't attain. Coaches on both sides are for the most part pleased with their current formats and have expressed dismay over the need to adopt common scoring formats.

Coaches contend that using different scoring systems for team-championship competition does not change the essence of the game. They say that decisions on scoring -- especially decisions about how team points are awarded -- are administrative in nature and do not alter the playing rules by which all divisions are governed.

"We were completely baffled as to why there needed to be any sort of commonality to (the scoring system), given the number of rules in the different sports that are different between men and women," said David R. Fish, men's tennis coach at Harvard University and a member of the Division I men's subcommittee. "Given the differences from sports that seem to exist now with no problem, why suddenly do we have to create a scoring system that we all agree on?"

Coaches contend that they have explored both formats and after lengthy consideration and discussion have, for different reasons, opted for their respective format.

Men's coaches say the 3-6 format was adopted in part to ensure that doubles matches would be played. Further, awarding one point instead of three for doubles prevents a team from building what could be an insurmountable lead by winning the equivalent of only three doubles sets.

Women's coaches contend that the 6-3 format is better suited for championships competition because it maintains an emphasis on doubles play. They point out that playing doubles last and awarding one point for each match puts more focus on team play.

"Although I was not an original supporter of (the 3-6 format), I'm pretty happy with it," said Larry Easley, men's tennis coach at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and a member of the men's subcommittee. "I suppose there's a chance the doubles could go to three points instead of one, but I'm not too excited about making any more changes."

"Both sides feel that they have some very strong reasons for choosing their format," said Jan Brogan, women's tennis coach at the University of California, Berkeley, and a member of the women's subcommittee. "I'm really hoping that if our coaches and (subcommittee) choose to maintain the system we have that we won't have to change the format just because the men use a different system."

Need minimized

Coaches say the need for a common system is minimized because the men's and women's championships are held at different sites. And they stress that, except for the scoring systems, the championships formats are similar.

"We don't understand the need for consistency, other than someone deciding that we need to be consistent," Fish said. "I don't think anyone wants to tinker with the system we have and if the women feel equally strongly about it, I can't think of any single compelling reason why there should be an insistence administratively that they be the same.

"I don't think that it will take you long if you go to a women's match to find out that they score three points for doubles."

Whether or not the subcommittees are able to reach a consensus on a common scoring system, Bietau says that it's imperative that the issue be put to rest.

"From the coaches I've talked to, there's a very strong sentiment to get it decided," Bietau said. "I've had a lot of coaches come to me and say, 'We've experimented long enough, we've been surveyed enough times. There are advantages to both. We want to get the thing locked in so we know how it's going to be and it's going to stay that way.'"