Change is in the air, and NCAA tennis may never be the same.

The sport, which has a long and proud tradition, already has begun experimenting with several format changes on the collegiate level. They are aimed at unifying men's and women's tennis in the scoring of dual meets and increasing audience appeal by reducing the length of competition.

The recommendation for experimental formats from the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) operating committee came as a result of a joint ITA/NCAA survey last fall of Division I men's and women's tennis coaches, and a round-table discussion with nearly 150 of those coaches at the ITA coaches convention in December 1999.

Based on the survey results, coaches decided they want the same doubles format used for men and women. Now it's a question of which format and whether it will be shortened.

The experimental formats will be reviewed by the ITA operating committee and general membership during the meetings at the 2000 ITA convention. At that point, the ITA expects to make a final recommendation to the NCAA Division I Men's and Women's Tennis Committee to implement for the 2002 NCAA championships, as well as in all men's and women's dual-meet competition, including all conference championships.

What to do with doubles

Since 1994, Division I men have played a 3-6 format, with three doubles matches played first followed by six singles matches. The system awards one point to whichever team wins two out of the three or all three doubles matches.

Conversely, Division I women have continued using the traditional 6-3 format, with six singles matches played first and one point awarded per win. The three doubles matches are played second with one point awarded per doubles match won.

Therein lies the problem.

The use of a 6-3 format means a meet can be decided before the doubles matches are contested. In the case of a team winning all singles matches or five of the six singles matches, it would be impossible for the losing team to win the meet even if it won all three doubles matches. In such case, the doubles matches often are forfeited, or spectators lose interest and leave.

Therefore, experimental format changes, according to Casey Angle, ITA media coordinator, are really about what to do with doubles. He said doubles is an important part of the rich tennis tradition and coaches realize a format change is needed to preserve its place in collegiate tennis.

Another motivation for the changes, Angle said, was the desire by some in the tennis community to minimize the length of meets and maximize audience interest. "Some people feel tennis matches can be too long," Angle said.

A typical dual meet could last as long as six hours. With these concerns in mind, the experimental formats are intended to make collegiate tennis a blend of quality and efficiency.

Currently, two versions of the 3-6 format are being experimented with at dual meets. One format awards one point for the team that wins two of the three or all three doubles matches. The other format awards one point to the team that wins two of the three matches, and two points for a doubles sweep.

At the core of both formats are three

eight-game, pro-set doubles matches followed by six singles matches. In singles, one point is awarded per match won, and in the case of players splitting sets, a 10-point match "tiebreaker" will be played instead of a deciding third set.

If after all matches have been played, the meet is tied at 4-4, overtime will be played. The three doubles teams for each school go back on the court for 10-point match tiebreakers. The school that wins two of the three tiebreakers wins the meet, 5-4.

Mixed reaction

Match tiebreakers and overtime are two concepts that have never before been used in collegiate tennis. In addition, in this experimentation, there is no longer the traditional warm-up with opponents at the start of each match.

ITA Executive Director David Benjamin said he hopes experimenting with reduced match time and overall length of the dual meets will usher tennis into the 21st century. "The climate is one of embracing new approaches for team competition and making positive changes for our sport," Benjamin said.

In a community that has experienced little change in more than 100 years, the proposed formats are big news.

And they're receiving mixed reactions.

At the 2000 USTA/ITA Women's Indoor National Championships in February, just one match went to overtime where the doubles teams came back out on the court.

The University of California, Berkeley, won the overtime session and defeated Wake Forest University, 5-4.

Wake Forest coach Brian Fleishman said, "I think this format makes women's tennis exciting again. It doesn't allow you to get stale at any point in time."

California coach Jan Brogan had a different perspective. She said, "If it had been traditional, we would already have won the match and as a result we had to win the match twice. I don't know of any sport where you have to win twice."

During the first day of the women's championships, the experimental format reportedly shortened the first four matches to an average of two and a half hours each. By tournament's end, the average length of a singles match was 2:01 and the average length of second-round matches was 3:04, which is exactly what proponents of the change had hoped for.

But with the emphasis on cutting meet time, some coaches are concerned the spirit of tennis is being sacrificed.

Brogan said, "If the sole intention is to cut down the time of the match, I think the experimental formats accomplish that, but I don't know that that's the purpose for playing college tennis.

"I think it changes the integrity of the game. Starting with doubles and ending with singles makes college tennis an individual sport instead of a team sport because the number of times you might go into overtime is rare."

Brogan said that just one of her nine players actually finds the experimental formats "fun."

In addition to the way the experimental formats supposedly affect the spirit of collegiate tennis, there's talk of how the formats affect the players.

In long, close matches, the athlete with the most stamina typically has been in a better position to win. Some coaches believe the new tiebreaker format diminishes the importance of stamina and subsequently changes the game because it changes the type of player who can win the match.

University of Georgia men's coach Manuel Diaz said, "It takes away from conditioning, but more importantly, it takes away from the kid with tenacity; the kid who holds on by a thread throughout a match and eventually wins."

Diaz's defending national champion Bulldogs have twice been on the losing end of the new formats. In early February, the then No. 6 Bulldogs lost to defending Division II champion Lander University. And at the USTA/ITA Men's Indoor National Championships, then-No. 16 Georgia suffered a first-round upset at the hands of No. 36 Indiana State University by losing in overtime.

Brian Boland, coach of the Sycamores, said he was enlightened by his team's surprise victory.

"Initially, I was opposed (to the experimental format); I felt the format changes took away from the endurance needed to play tennis," he said. But after participating in the championships, Boland said, "I'm more of a proponent than I was. Using the new formats, the matches were more exciting and shorter, which is important for college tennis.

"With these formats, you're never really out of the running, which is why our win against Georgia was probably one of the most exciting matches I've ever seen."

Diaz described the overtime match as "helter skelter" and "extremely chaotic."

"Kids already finished from doubles, who have been sitting around for 45 minutes or so, get five minutes to warm up and get back out there," said Diaz. "Our guys were shell-shocked. Five minutes was not enough time to take the momentum away from Indiana State."

He proposed extending the warm-up time for the overtime session.

Diaz also pointed out that in singles, "It almost doesn't matter if you win the first set, because whoever wins the second set has the momentum on his side going into the tiebreaker."

For that reason, Diaz said the use of 10-point tiebreakers instead of a third set might possibly be "the great equalizer" in college tennis, and that "the guy ranked No. 100 or No. 200 in the ITA rankings has a better shot at beating Pete Sampras with these new formats."

Looking ahead

Since the experimental formats are just that, college tennis coaches can expect more changes to come.

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, coach and tennis committee member Kevin Platt said more can still be done to favor the player who is in better physical condition. "We can make recovery time between change-overs less or eliminate change-overs altogether."

He said less recovery time for players might actually make the game more fan friendly. "Right now there still is a lot of down-time, which is a way you lose fans."

Another way to make the game more appealing is by making it easier to understand, which is why Platt said he sees more changes on the horizon for tennis. "I'm glad we're trying something different," he said, "but the formats we came up with in some ways are more complicated than before and harder for the non-tennis person to follow."

Diaz said he'd like to see tiebreakers at seven-all in doubles and five-all in singles. That way, he said, "You can keep it to a three-hour match and preserve the integrity of college tennis."

California's Brogan said she would like to see eight-game pro sets worth a point each.

And Boland, the Indiana State coach, said he is still deciding what he likes and doesn't like about the formats.

"As college coaches, I think we're doing the right thing by experimenting," he said. "We can't have it all, so we have to make some tough decisions."