When advancing to the championships site becomes a marathon for student-athletes and requires fans to make a commitment the length of some people's relationships, talk of change might have merit. But in a sport steeped in history and tradition, sometimes change is as welcome as a double fault.

The NCAA Division I Men's and Women's Tennis Committee understands the situation when it comes to change: Proceed slowly, check out all the angles, and gather facts and figures to support a decision.

That's how the committee is handling the latest topic being volleyed about, which is whether the Division I championships format is too cumbersome. Based on discussions at the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) Convention in December, and a continuing dialogue in the coaching community, the committees are evaluating several format possibilities for future championships.

But before the future is considered, perhaps a little history is in order.

College tennis has existed in some form for 118 years. Its origins are with the men's game, where champions were determined by the number of points each player earned (one per match win). An institution could enter as many players as it wanted and, based on the performance of its top four players, could win the team title, too.

In 1977, the concept of a team tournament was introduced in men's tennis. Sixteen teams played for the title, and singles and doubles competitions followed the team competition. The NCAA began sponsoring tennis championships for women in 1982 and followed the same championship format. Through the years, the team tournament expanded.

Then, as ITA President David Benjamin pointed out, what developed next was "spreading the event out with regional venues and having regional tournaments feed into a finals site."

The top eight teams went straight to the finals site while the other eight teams had to earn their spots through regional play.

Eventually, all teams had to play in all rounds. The bracket expanded to its current format of 64 teams. Through it all, the number of players participating in the singles and doubles remained the same with 64 singles and 32 doubles players selected.

The increased participation opportunities for student-athletes since 1977 is a benefit few question, but the logistics of running a 10-day tournament are now under scrutiny.

Regionals would be 'super'

At the forefront of the discussion is a concept that mirrors the progression in the 64-team basketball brackets. After first- and second-round play, teams would compete in "super regionals" at four sites. The four winning teams would advance to a predetermined site the next week. The individual championships still would occur after the team championship ends.

The anticipated benefits are a reduction in both the overall length of play at the championship site and missed class time. Student-athletes would have fewer matches to play at the championship site and would be better rested for the individual championships.

Even with fewer teams at the final site, Betty Werner, chair of the men's and women's tennis committee, said, "I don't think any of the excitement would be lost. The regional sites would broaden the base of exposure for collegiate tennis."

And hopefully ticket sales.

For those who have not attended a Division I tennis championship, the team event attracts tailgaters, cheerleaders and pep bands. Werner said the festive atmosphere surprised her when she attended her first championships. Spreading the event out to other parts of the country would help build excitement and interest.

Pros equal cons

Some of the sport's veteran coaches see the pros and cons of the proposed format, especially as it pertains to their nationally ranked teams.

Dick Gould, head men's coach at Stanford University, contends that lengthening the overall tournament will not preserve class time. "If we're traveling three weekends in a row, factoring in the time it takes to get there and practice, it would be as much, if not more, time missed," he said.

Arizona State University coach Sheila McInerney said that with the current format, "It's hard to do a really good job at any site with 16 teams. It's tough for the host. You've got eight matches to run in one day. For the teams that have an 8 a.m. start time, who comes to watch at 8 a.m.?"

McInerney also said that since some matches continue late into the evening, fans sometime leave without knowing who advanced for the next day. A Final Four format "makes it easier for everyone -- the fans, the host and the players," she said.

She envisions a championship much like the Grand Slam events popular on the pro circuit, where men and women play at the same site. Fans would have an additional week's lead time to travel to the event.

"It's got to be a joint venture. Spectators like to go see men's and women's tennis played at the same site," McInerney said.

Werner and the Division I tennis committee will tackle the idea at their annual meeting in July and will likely test the waters with the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet. A formal recommendation would not be made until the following year for a format change that would take effect several years after that.

Right now, Benjamin said, "(The ITA) feels it would be good for the NCAA to explore all options to see if

any of these formats are even viable."

Other proposals to improve the championship experience are to move the doubles and singles championships to the fall or eliminate them entirely.

Proponents of both argue that the length of the tournament presents a physical strain on players who play deep into the team tournament and singles and/or doubles rounds. Those same athletes miss crucial class time, especially since the championships are held when many institutions are preparing for or are administering final exams.

"Right now, it's pretty long; if you're one of the best players, that's a lot of tennis," Benjamin said.

'No right or wrong'

The University of Georgia's Matias Boeker proved to be the Iron Man of the 2001 men's championships. He helped his team to the title and then won the singles and doubles crowns, too. Boeker was the third player since 1977 and 15th overall to win all three titles.

Still, McInerney said, "I've never had a kid tell me 'I'm too tired.' If it's too long, the players don't have to enter it."

From a fan standpoint, few hosts can keep the crowds coming in the latter part of the championships. Werner said part of the reason that occurs is because the two halves of the championships "are entirely different animals." The team championship has a team-sport atmosphere, while singles and doubles play appeals more to tennis aficionados.

Agreeing that "singles and doubles are as viable a part of the championship as the team competition," Werner said eliminating them is unlikely for now.

As for a move to the fall, one of the potential roadblocks is the ability of the committees to select athletes based on just a few results. Also, as McInerney pointed out, "Incoming freshman would barely have two months of collegiate tennis before they would qualify for the individual championships."

The fall would quickly become a second full season, packed with tournaments, leaving little room for coaching or developing players' skills, she said.

Gould said, "The fall is too cluttered. Now we have something every other weekend. The recruiting period is jam-packed."

Currently, the ITA Riviera Women's and ITA Men's All-American Championships, and the National Indoor Intercollegiate Championships are in the fall. Werner said that if the move was made, the ITA likely would work with the NCAA to alleviate some of the clutter.

In making its decision, Division I might want to consult Division II, which went to a men's and women's team championship format in 1995. Werner said the committee is trying to listen to all viewpoints and gather information.

"The reality is there is no right or wrong in this," Benjamin said. "I think the arguments are pretty valid on both sides. The bottom line is saying that what has evolved and developed since 1976 is a huge improvement -- everyone agrees that what has evolved is good -- but most people feel it could be better."