USC, Florida Top ITA Final Rankings; Virginia Men and Georgia Tech Women Voted No. 1 Recruiting Classes; Ward-Hibbert to Texas A&M; Title IX Not to Blame?

I'm confessing I'm really tired after those 12 exceedingly long days at the NCAAs in Athens and nothing sounds better to me right now than 10 hours of sleep followed by sitting in front of the television watching the French Open and not writing about it.

I know I've got a lot of junior and pro circuit news to catch up on, and an NCAA recap, notebook and the slideshow/videos to work on, but tonight I am just going to pass along several brief college items.

The ITA's final rankings are out, with the NCAA champion USC men and Florida women at the top.

The Top 10s:

MEN:

1. USC
2. Virginia
3. UCLA
4. Ohio State
5. Georgia
6. Pepperdine
7. Kentucky
8. Duke
9. Stanford
10. Oklahoma

WOMEN:
1. Florida
2. UCLA
3. Duke
4. USC
5. Stanford
6. Georgia
7. California
8. North Carolina
9. Miami
10. Texas

Complete final team rankings can be found at the ITA website. The final individual rankings will be released next week.

The Tennis Recruiting Network released their spring recruiting class ranking polls recently, with the Georgia Tech women and the Virginia men claiming the top spots.

Virginia is followed by Stanford, Duke, Texas A&M and Texas in the men's rankings.  Georgia Tech is followed by Virginia, North Carolina, Vanderbilt and Stanford in the women's rankings.

I'm fairly certain Texas A&M would have finished higher had their newly announced recruit been considered. On Monday, the Aggies announced they had signed Joshua Ward-Hibbert of Great Britain.  Ward-Hibbert just reached the ITF Top 10, winning the Grade A Italian Open with Liam Broady, and there's no question his best junior results have been in doubles.  But he has a huge serve, a strength A&M coach Steve Denton knows well, and he is certainly one of the most sought-after recruits of his 1994 birth year.  The complete release is here.

And finally, last week ESPN W published this column laying the death of many non-revenue college sports not on Title IX, which is the usual suspect, but on the NCAA itself for deciding how many scholarships can go to which sports rather than letting the individual schools decide.  It's a long article, but it explains clearly, with charts, just how much the revenue sports influence the decision the NCAA makes for less popular sports.  With all its marketing of the student-athlete experience, regardless of sport, the NCAA seems to want it both ways. It caters to the sports that generate revenue, but then tells the schools that are able to do that how they should spend that money on sports that don't.