The Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet, in its review of student-athlete time demands, has undertaken a study of the current playing and practice seasons legislation and has asked various NCAA constituencies, including coaches associations, for feedback.

In December, the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) surveyed coaches and student-athletes online to determine objectively what they believe is important and fair in the sport of college tennis.

The response to our survey was quite high, with 370 Division I tennis coaches (138 who coach men's teams, 167 who coach women's teams and 65 who coach both programs) and 1,312 Division I tennis student-athletes (about 40 percent male and 60 percent female) responding.

The feedback from our coaches and student-athletes clearly indicates that the current set of rules and policies work well and should not be changed. Further, if current policies were to be amended, both groups expressed a strong desire for an increase in practice and competitive opportunities and flexibility of scheduling.

The prevailing notion from Division I college and university presidents seems to be that playing and practice seasons should be reduced in all sports in order to allow student-athletes to concentrate more on their academic pursuits. Indeed, the Division I Board of Directors has been outspoken about finding alternatives for reducing current time demands on student-athletes, including possible reductions in playing and practice seasons.

But reductions in the playing and practice seasons don't automatically translate into less stress on student-athlete time demands. Interestingly, the ITA survey asked for information about grade-point averages and found (1) that the overall grade-point averages for tennis student-athletes tend to be high (more than 60 percent of student-athletes responding indicated a GPA of at least 3.000) and (2) there was little difference in student-athlete GPA between the fall and spring semesters, even though the latter is a far more intensive period of practice and competition. In other words, the overall academic profile of the varsity tennis players is very positive and hardly needful of remedial attention or reconstruction through reduction.

The obvious question, then, which is asked repeatedly by our tennis coaches and tennis student-athletes (and undoubtedly by coaches and student-athletes in a number of other NCAA sports as well, especially those with individual/team components similar to tennis, such as golf and swimming), is why should there be a "mandate for reduction" from the Division I Board of Directors?

With all due respect, it should be considered essential for associations such as the ITA to help in determining whether such reductions make sense and whether they would be positive for the student-athlete experience. To this point, 69.7 percent of coaches and 60.7 percent of student-athletes responding to our survey felt that the playing and practice seasons should remain as is, and 24.3 percent of coaches and 23.2 percent of student-athletes indicated there should be an increase in the practice and playing season.

We should not be presented with a fait accompli involving further reductions and restrictions in a sport that neither needs nor deserves such measures. We urge the cabinet's playing and practice seasons subcommittee to take the overwhelming evidence that we have compiled into serious consideration as it examines these critical issues.

For 26 years, I served as a Division I men's tennis coach at Princeton University. I also have served as chair of the Division I Men's and Women's Tennis Committee, and I have been the executive director of the ITA for more than a quarter of a century. In those roles, I have worked closely with NCAA officers, committee members and staff administrators on a number of important issues. I have witnessed a number of NCAA policy decisions that have had a major impact on Division I tennis, and that almost always were made in an "across-the-board" manner for all (or almost all) NCAA sports, a "cookie-cutter" approach.

In 1990, I met with NCAA Executive Director Dick Schultz at the Division I Men's Tennis Championships. At that time, certain restrictions had been passed that were very hard on a number of college tennis programs and our student-athletes. I explained to Schultz, who was early in his tenure as NCAA CEO, that tennis had been affected by a generic policy that was not reasonable or fair. Schultz reassured me that the NCAA was in the process of restructuring its procedures, and that soon there would be more of a "sports-specific" approach. We needed to remain patient, as remedies were definitely ahead.

Thirteen years later, it certainly is time to look at issues such as reduction of practice and playing seasons on a sport-specific basis. Any other approach would be unfair to our student-athletes, to our coaches and to our sport.

David A. Benjamin is the executive director of the Intercollegiate Tennis Association.