Sponsored by IMG Academy

Monday, September 15, 2014

ITA Operating Committee Votes to Play No-Ad this Fall; ITF Junior Update

Although I haven't received the confirmation I've requested from the ITA, I have heard today's operating committee conference call resulted in a decision to continue to play the no-ad format throughout the fall, including at both ITA majors.  My understanding is that there were three votes taken: for no-ad in doubles (same format as ITF, ATP, WTA) and regular scoring for singles; no-ad in some situations, but not all; and no-ad as originally approved, for both singles and doubles.

When I hear back from the ITA, who has characterized this process as open and transparent one, I will provide the breakdown on each vote, but I do know there were four coaches who voted against the no-ad as currently adopted: Lin Loring(Indiana women), Brian Kalbas(North Carolina women), Brian Boland (Virginia men), and John Roddick(Oklahoma men).

How this impacts the dual match season, I don't know now, but I hope to learn when the ITA provides more information.

In junior news, Sofia Kenin is in Albuquerque, preparing for the altitude of San Luis Potosi Mexico, where the Junior Fed Cup will be held later this month. In qualifying for the $75,000 tournament there, the 15-year-old Floridian defeated No. 2 seed Maria Sanchez(USC) 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 today, and will qualify if she can defeat Nicole Melichar on Tuesday.  CiCi Bellis, also representing the USA in Junior Fed Cup, lost to Stanford sophomore Carol Zhao 7-5, 6-4.  The third member of the Junior Fed Cup team, Tornado Alicia Black, had not completed her second round match against top qualifying seed Sanaz Marand(UNC).

After the US Open, the Junior Fed Cup and Junior Davis Cup, which begin a week from tomorrow, take center stage on the ITF junior calendar.  But lower level tournaments continue, with the Grade 2 in Canada drawing many of the international players who were in New York for the junior championships.

No. 7 seed Destanee Aiava of Australia, who lost in the first round of qualifying to Johnnise Renaud, won the girls singles in Canada, defeating No. 3 seed Kimberly Burrell, also of Australia, 7-6(3), 6-2 in the final.  Aiava, 14, defeated top seed Iryna Shymanovich of Belarus in the quarterfinals.  No. 2 seed Petros Chrysochos of Cyprus won the boys singles, defeating top seed Yunseong Chung of Korea 5-7, 6-0, 7-5. 

Three American juniors made the quarterfinals, No. 5 seed Jessica Ho and unseeded Mwendwa Mbithi and Jack Barber. Jessica Golovin lost in the doubles final, with she and her partner Aiava falling to Gabby Ruse of Romania and Vera Lapko of Belarus 7-5, 6-0.  Alafia Ayeni was another American reaching the doubles final; he and Stefanos Tsitsipas of Greece lost to Chung and Seongchan Hong of Korea 1-6, 6-3, 10-7.

In other parts of the world, Ally Miller Krasilnikov took the singles title in the Togo Grade 4, with the No. 2 seed defeating top seed Nicole Dzenga of Zimbabwe 6-4, 7-5 in the final. Krasilnikov also reached the doubles final.   At the Honduras Grade 5, top John Jorgeson won an all-American final, defeating No. 4 seed Xavier Oshinowo 6-0, 6-1. Jorgeson and Nikola Samardzic, the No. 2 seeds,  won the doubles title.



Having the ITA board vote on this is like asking a Lion if it still wants to eat the young it tried to eat last week.

It's the same people who have tried to railroad their 2 hour agenda twice before.

Sure hope there are 2 fans left that like 1 hour tennis matches.

I just found a lot of free time.

I strongly encourage the coaches (60% of whom are against) to next circulate a NO CONFIDENCE petition to the NCAA President regards the current NCAA Committee and the ITA Board.

Until these folks with private agendas are out, this is a circular argument that will continue.

Greg J said...

Maybe players should consider a boycott of the "ITA" All-American?

It is clear their words are not heard, perhaps action would be more successful?

Again??? said...

Why couldn't you leave this season be? We had peace for about 2 days and you screwed it up all over again.

Are you flippin kidding me? Again with the no-ad? Who are these people voting for this and why are they trying to destroy tennis? Are they just bored middle aged out of touch coaches at insignificant tennis schools? Cause the only "somebody's" on the board seemed to vote against it.

Who can stop this roller coaster? Seriously, what can people do? The confusing messages all this flip flop sends to the players and fans isn't good - quit abusing them and the game ITA! We have zero confidence in your abilities to govern college tennis - step off now! Let this season be.

Pro no-ad said...

I hate that most of you (without knowing your ages) don't realize how wrong you are about no-ad scoring. When it was used in the past, particularly in the 80's, that is exactly when crowds erupted into numbers never seen before in college tennis. That is also when many new programs rose to prominence and challenged the "old guard". But, most of all, that is when the NCAA players built up toughness, enough to be able to succeed in the professional ranks. No-Ad scoring requires a player to develop more mental toughness AND the ability to WIN points, as opposed to not-losing points.....No-Ad scoring didn't seem to hurt McEnroe......

Pond said...

The people against change must not care about the game of tennis. Most of the people pro no ad do not suddenly have the belief that the Game of tennis needs to be changed at the pro level, they know that the format needs to be tweaked so it can SURVIVE at the college level. No ad has been proven NOT to impede development. You could factually say we produced the most pro players during the 15 years we played pro tennis 1973-1988. it has been proven to attract non-tennis fans and grow our sport. We had our biggest crowds during these years.
The fossils that want to look away at the hundreds of programs that have been cut and disappeared, taking opportunities from American kids are the ones that have their heads in the sand.
What was the average attendance at Women's tennis matches at the top 20 schools--about 50 people? Men a little bit more? Do you think we are relevant when ADs are looking at where to cut expenses in an environment where revenues are flat and expenses soaring?
Soccer is getting 2-3,000 fans for every game. Volleyball soared with their new scoring format even the majority of coaches and players were against it. Golf is looking at and experimenting with changes because the game is too slow, expensive and golfers are leaving the sport in droves! Football tweaks their rules each and every year to make the game more exciting...and we think we are pure and still want to play in all-white, worried about change. We had (27?) ATP tour events in the 80's in the USA and now we have 10 that mostly struggle and would not survive if the USTA wasn't propping them up. We need to embrace some change.
The coaches and leadership of college tennis KNOWS what is coming and they are trying to SAVE COLLEGE tennis from fools that do not understand right now. Try to see the big picture, folks. We are on the chopping block!
Its about Saving College Tennis. It's not about TV, It's about growing the game and attracting new fans. It's about NOT asking fans for four hours of their time several times each week. It's about having more excitement throughout the match so we can have less slow buildup, keep people from leaving and going back to sweeping their porch.

Colette Lewis said...

@Pond-- Could you tell me why no-ad was discontinued? I've never heard a definitive answer to that question.

bystander said...

Apparently this must be re-stated. SOMETHING must be done to help college tennis viable in the eyes of athletic directors. I was originally against the proposed changes, but after hearing the reasoning behind them (if we aren't willing to change, we may lose our sport altogether) I am all for doing whatever is necessary. The main issue at hand is"the pay for play model". With the big 5 conferences scrambling to find ways to pay their football and basketball players, AD's will be looking at cutting any Olympic sport they don't feel makes a difference in their athletic department. Tennis, swimming and diving, cross-country, and golf are unfortunately going to be the sports put under this rather large microscope. These proposed changes, while many feel will hurt the sport, have been discussed because coaches are trying to be proactive in ways to help make our sport more marketable to both fans and television. The million dollar question is of course, will the changes help that much? We won't know unless we are willing to try. One last point I want to point out is that the coaching community needs to be united in communication with conference commissioners and athletic directors no matter how they personally feel about the changes. We have to understand we are not negotiating from a position of power. When given the choice of "Be willing to change, or have your sport cut", I know which choice I would choose.

@coachdei said...

Collette if my memory is correct? Back in the 80s during no-ad scoring The Format was 6 singles 2 out of 3 sets, then followed by 3 doubles 2 out of 3 sets. Also the clinch rule and the dnf matches did not really exist. Matches last way over three hours, with no-ad. When the format was changed to play doubles first ( 8 game pro set) followed by singles. The scoring was changed back to regular scoring. The matches were shortened, and the doubles first created a new excitement, to college tennis.

Not just scoring said...

I wish people would stop using the success of McEnroe as a benchmark. Do you know how many people under 50 don't watch tennis because of McEnroe? He is less of an asset to tennis than the old timers think. Most new fans never tune in because of his arrogant manner. He has benefited from tennis, but tennis isn't benefiting from him now. Bring in new announcers and perspectives and you will bring in new fans.

Regardless of no-ad stance, tennis has to bring in younger fans and that won't happen with the Buick crowd running things. Maybe him and his brother can take their bags of money to the golf course or vacation homes.

Colette Lewis said...

The phrase "college tennis" is a reference to Division I college tennis, correct? There is no indication that programs are in danger in Division III (I'm not that familiar with the other levels of college tennis).

phantom said...

Bystander... something must be done? Why? Nobody has given an actual viable legitimate reason.

Being on TV or having 30 or 100 more fans is not going to change the budget reality at some schools that are going to shuffle more money to football.

Not one legitimate reason has been given. You could pay fans to show to some matches and if an AD is only concerned about funding up football than the tennis and other smaller men's teams are in trouble anyway.

Aside from 'they might cut us since we have fewer fans' give us one legit reason?

NEWS FLASH: Fans aren't gonna change budget realities now that the NCAA has taken limits off funding football/basketball. But Title IX still protects women's teams.

Relevance comes from winning and/or actually working your community and campus.

'We have to be relevant' is not a definable goal. It's a phantom statement.

CHANGING THE SCORING AWAY FROM THE NORM WILL 'DESTROY' INTEREST IN COLLEGE TENNIS. Next up: 200 foot walls at baseball so they can interest fans with 20-18 scores.

And these 'educators' need to learn how to conduct legitimate research and surveys.

LoveTheGame said...

Pond....you are the only person who gets it. There are already rumblings from athletic departments that tennis needs to make changes to attract fans, reduce time, etc. or more major cuts are possible. Tennis requires a lot of resources and fund raising and AD's need to get their bang for their buck. Women's tennis will probably always be fine bc of Title IX, but men's tennis is slowly eroding. Just look at the Big 12....Many of the schools DO NOT have programs. And that is one of the Power conferences. Change is inevitable in life. The scoring format will be trivial to development. And once again, college tennis has proven over the last 20 years that it is NOT a training ground for the pros. Of course, there are outliers. But if your only goal in life is to be a top 100 pro, the statistics say you should not go to college. It is a fantastic experience and is a ton of fun to play college tennis, but people who are fighting change have to realize they may be helping to jeopardize that experience for others down the road. Another point Pond alluded to.....football changes the game every single year. They make minor changes to tweak the game. Other sports have attracted fans by making changes. Let's learn something for once and give something new a try. The current system will slowly erode men's tennis. Just look at the numbers.


Whether you were talking Johnny Mac or Pat Mac…"no ad develops mental toughness…" J.Mac spent one season at Stanford….with his "mental toughness"…ref: on court demeanor and antics: the USTA used this as an example for the reason they started the Point Penalty System in Juniors. As for P.Mac….USTA Player Development…need I say more….bad examples…You Can't be Serious!

Bystander said...

@ Collette, yes sorry, I was just referring to Division 1 tennis. The general public has to understand that coaches didn't get together one day and decide "hey, let's screw with D1 tennis by changing the scoring system just for the hell of it". Conference commissioners like Larry Scott of the Pac-12 have gone on record saying "tennis would be one of the sports on the chopping block" if we don't find a better way to market our sport. More fans at matches and tournaments would make it much more difficult for them to cut us. Does it necessarily mean that we have to change our scoring system? No, but the casual fan does not want to sit through a 5 hour dual match. Heck, most AD's have never sat through a complete match. You are correct with your statement that relevance comes with winning and working your community. However, it is easier said than done for many underfunded programs. IF WE ARE NOT WILLING TO CHANGE, THEY (AD'S) WILL DO IT FOR US. If this is not a definable enough goal for you, I'm sorry I don't know how else to spell it for you.

Colette Lewis said...

I think you missed the subtext of my D-III comment. Why would college tennis be able to survive at the D-III level and not D-I? Are the expenses that much greater at D-I?

Steven said...

"No, but the casual fan does not want to sit through a 5 hour dual match."

I HATE this statement because it's the answer to the wrong question.

Discounting the fact that as we all know 5 hour matches are very, very, very rare (assuming adequate court availability/weather), if instead, you asked fans if they would stay for the final hour of a dual match tied at 3 with one deciding match in the 3rd set, I assume most would say yes - it's like overtime in football or basketball, and you don't see fans piling out then.

I don't think many coaches or these committees understand how fans think because if they did they might do a better job of engaging them. For starters provide live streaming, *working* live scoring, updates on the team/players, media availability, *timely* results from fall tournaments, just for a few ideas. Tennessee is a school who I've been particularly impressed with in some of these areas. If the fans don't CARE, they won't come no matter what the scoring system is.

And have these people ever tried to watch a dual match on TV? Let's just say it's already not a good look for college tennis. And with 6 deciding points at once, good luck.

Gotta start somewhere said...

What about some basic marketing first as mentioned above - how about promotion of the matches at the schools - particularly versus rivals, how about food at the matches (always draws a much bigger crowd when they do and football has refreshments...people like to be comfortable), how about promoting the tennis athletes at school, let people know they are someone to watch, have a working scoreboard, an online scoreboard that is accurate, online viewing of matches. It's a start at getting interest generated. This "The Sky is Falling" extreme approach and flip flopping daily is only making people more suspect of motives.

LiveTheGame said...

Collette, the expenses at the DIII level are much lower than DI. First, there are no scholarships to fund. Second, most DIII facilities are not as expensive to maintain. (Although, there are some very nice d3 facilities). And lastly, most d3 schedules are regional in nature. Driving to most matches by van or bus are very common. Air travel is not common. A retired D1 national championship coach once told me that his fear would be that all tennis programs would go the way of club tennis or D3 and not have any scholarships bc of the costs.

LiveTheGame said...

I'll add one last thing. D3 athletic directors, while they want to win, are not judged by the Sears Cup, or whatever they call it nowadays. AD's at the D1 level are largely judged by how well their schools are doing and what are the costs associated with that success. If they can fund another sport cheaper and get similar or better results, they will do it. D1 athletics is a business first and foremost now.

Scanlon said...

I heard baseball will be experimenting next season with the “2 strikes and you’re out” idea, to speed things up.

They’re calling it a “tweak”.

Colette Lewis said...

@But why would he fear that? What is the negative result of not having any D-I scholarships? Not having any scholarships has not had any impact on the viability of D-III tennis, has it?

LiveTheGame said...

Collette, not the end of the world, but for a high level junior player who has dreamed of playing college tennis at the highest level, it could be taken away. How is that good for tennis in America? Personally, as a kid, I would have never played tennis had I not known there was a chance I could play college tennis. DIII tennis is a great avenue for some, surely.

Want to save a bundle$$$ said...

Everything here is about $. And you know what, they are right. Once college football and basketball players start taking a salary, there is no money left for the other sports. EASY FIX. Let's get rid of scholarships for foreign players. That should free up a ton of $$$.

Pond said...

Collette--no ad came to a halt when the newly formed USTA player development placed enormous pressure on the ITA to change.
On another note, the Women's programs are nuts if they still think they're untouchable just because of title IX. They can be gone in the blink of an eye. They're facilities and land will be much better used for the next Chemistry building. Sand volleyball, equestrian, crew and other sports are much cheaper and utilize a lot more number which are helpful to balance numbers and expenses. Wake up Women's coaches. There is a reason why nobody comes to your matches other than five close friends and family.
Pay for Play is here and it's not going away. Somebody has to balance the books.

Pond said...

On the other side of the equation, I am equally of the opinion that limits for foreign students are the biggest problem for American tennis players. Nothing against foreigners, as they raise the level and provide a nice cultural component but all foreign teams should not be tolerated in our American college system. Period.

Marin Bilting said...

The reality is that changing to no ad scoring will have absolutely no impact on the marketability of college tennis at all. At best it will be a time savings of 10% to 15% which is irrelevant. The fact that so many people are worked up and have chosen sides about a change that wont do anything anyway is SO tennis industry!

bystander said...

@ Colette. I do believe that D1 budgets are quite larger than at D3 schools (especially those schools in the power 5 conferences). Travel budgets at those universities can be north of 75,000/yr. Add in another 20,000-30,000 in recruiting budget, another 100,000-150,000 in coaches salaries (head and assistant) and that becomes somewhat significant. The bigger issue isn't so much the actual budgets of tennis programs, but rather where do schools come up with the money to pay their football and basketball players. Let's lay out some numbers for the general public. There are roughly 125-130 players on a football team and another 20 or so on a basketball team. To comply with Title IX, schools have to pay the equivalent number on the women's side as well. That number comes out to around 300 student athletes that will be getting monthly stipend. While nothing has been determined, a round number that has been thrown around is 5,000/year per student athlete. Quick math tells us that schools will be tasked with coming up with an additional 1,500,000/year to help pay the aforementioned "student" athletes. That is significant amount of money many universities are going to have to figure out a way to come up with year after year. Sure they could go out and try and raise that money, but unfortunately some athletic directors will take the road of least resistance and look to cut sports that are not adding to their bottom line. Both men's and women's tennis will definitely be put in harm's way. Another small back story, in the last decade or so women's volleyball was really struggling with attendance as well as keeping their sport afloat at the collegiate level (several programs were cut and more were on the chopping block). The reason was because of their scoring system (had to have an advantage in order to score a point) which sometimes could on for minutes before a team actually tallied a point. They decided to do away with the ad scoring system as well as shorten the score in the final fifth set (now played to 15, where the other games are played to 25). Games are now much more exciting and fans and administrators now know they can come to a game and it will last a maximum of 1.5-2 hrs. Schools now cannot add volleyball fast enough to their menu of sports. Tennis fans don't want to believe this but casual fans and administrators do not want to sit through a 3.5 hr dual match that can actually go on for upwards of 4 hrs. Why do you think so many people leave after doubles? It's exciting, fast paced and someone is declared a winner. Hence, why coaches have brought about the possibility of shortening matches.

tennisbob said...

To piggyback on what @bystander said, people have to realize that athletic directors (most who have no background in tennis nor have they ever been to a tennis match) are the ones that are making the decision whether to keep our sport or not. Take the men's tennis program at Bradley University. They had a huge benefactor in David Markin who donated a significant amount of money to that program. When the school ran into financial issues this summer, which sport did they look to cut first? You guessed it - Men's Tennis. And that's in spite of everything Mr. Markin did for that program. We need to stop kidding ourselves thinking that tennis won't be a cut. It is unfortunately a harsh reality. Finally, all you need to know about AD's competence in tennis is to look at some of their absurd hires that were made for many of the vacant college jobs this summer.

Colette Lewis said...

I just keep returning to the same question. Division III has NO revenue generating sports. How does tennis survive and thrive there?

Pond said...

Great points by Bystander and Tennisbob. On top of those, don't forget about the million plus $ in expenses due to the new unlimited meals rule by the NCAA. Plus every time the NCAA loses a court battle it millions more that have to be accounted for.
Collette D3 has no scholarships and much smaller budgets. They are small private schools and most of them are endowed and have plenty of need based aid.there is no comparison. Most coaches at D3 have other duties and sometimes teach.

tennisbob said...

Collete. D3 tennis is a pure numbers game. If you look at many of the rosters of D3 programs, their numbers tend to be quite large. I believe Amherst was carrying 20+ players the last couple of years. Coaches are required to carry a minimum number on their roster (usually over 10) and not allowed to cut as each student is a full paying student (minus any academic scholarships they are receiving) that adds to the bottom line of the university. Also, most D3 programs have very small operating and travel budgets. If you look at CMS' schedule last year, they hardly traveled at all.

Scanlon said...

Other college sports may tweak their rules, but you don’t see them deviating from the basic scoring structure of the (pro) game. College football, basketball, baseball, hockey, golf, soccer, all have scoring structures that don’t deviate much at all (if any) from the pro game. I believe NCAA volleyball changed their scoring to match the changes imposed by the international body.

Do you think college football fans/coaches/media would be pleased if they went to a 5 point touchdown and 2 point convert, without a consensus? How about a 4 point line in basketball? Par 3 golf, to speed things up? “Win by 2” is a basic premise of how tennis is scored. No-ad scoring is not a tweak, it’s a fundamental change to the nature of the game, which should demand a consensus from the major stakeholders in the sport.

American tennis in the 70s and 80s was in a much better state, don’t forget. The better crowds in college tennis in those days might have had something to do with the US being a dominant tennis nation. The US women won 7 Fed Cups in a row. No-ad scoring probably had very little impact on the relative success of college tennis in those days.

I’ve stated my opinion elsewhere. The current format has too many matches to follow, too many players on the roster, far too much capital outlay. No-ad scoring is a bandaid fix, and when budgets get even tighter in a few years, college tennis will be searching for another tweak.

Paul said...

1. Changing scoring won't help market the sport of tennis.
2. You can't develop players by stopping matches before they are finished. This won't help market the sport.
3. Doubles is the most exciting part of tennis matches and cutting it short won't help market the sport.
4. ADs will cut the sport whether you change scoring or not.

I have spent a lot of money and time marketing tennis at high level DI schools. What works best? Regular communication with the students and community along with free food. Most good coaches are good on court, but have no marketing skills. They do not want to spend time connecting with the students and community. They do not want to spend part of their budget for food, prizes, etc. that will attract students.

Those of you who think that scoring will change things have no common sense about how to market the sport.

Unknown said...

Collette - DIII is less threatened due to the financial position of private schools that compromise most D three programs, income of parents willing to support tuition and those programs at the d 3 level as well as lack of football and basketball pressing on athletic budgets. Tennis is a major sport activity at D3 level converse to D1 level.

Colette Lewis said...

@ Martyn Collins:
Those are certainly likely reasons, but I keep hearing D-I tennis programs are supposed to be grateful they have football, basketball to generate revenue for them. Seems like that's not exactly how it worked in the past and it's certainly not going to be the case going forward, so this may be a good time to put that notion to rest.

Unknown said...

Collette - It is correct that for certain d1 schools football and basketball is a boon to be non traditional sports supported on campus. However where there is d1 football and basketball and those teams are not in the money, non traditional sports are under great threat because football and basketball will not be cut but they will be reformed to make money. Non traditional or Olympic sports will be cut to shore up football and basketball

Unknown said...

I think the future of choosing a college for tennis will become an even more complicated and sophisticated venture. One thing that I think will happen is increase prominence of tennis programs where there is no football but there is a popular well attended basketball team. Possible schools are Loyola Marymount University and Pepperdine. Wake First too but they have football also.

Unknown said...

the dirty secret at the d1 level is that many many football teams do not make money. High revenue, lots of dollars and TV exposure but not making money.

Growing the fan base is easy said...

The most exciting part of watching college tennis is doubles. If you cut that, you cut your loyal fans.
If you want to increase the fan base,
sell beer, popcorn, hot dogs and ice cream at the games. Sounds crazy, but people like to eat.

ClarkC said...

Collette: The point about D-I tennis becoming like D-III tennis is that it would kill junior tennis. Most D-III players go to a D-III school because the only D-I schools for which they could get playing time are mid-major schools with less than full funding, and many of the D-III schools have much better academic reputations than those schools. USC, UCLA, Georgia and Virginia are not losing recruits to D-III schools right now. D-III is a consolation prize, athletically.

If D-I goes non-scholarship, then tennis families can spend a fortune playing junior tennis with nothing to look forward to. There might be fewer than ten American men making a good living in pro tennis, and that is including the top doubles players like the Bryans. That means no more than one 18 year old each year, on average, will make a living in pro tennis. Take away the possibility of college scholarships, and the sport goes kaput.

Take a look at lacrosse, where the fight to get noticed by college coaches is intense as early as 8th grade, because there is no pro career option to speak of. Now, picture taking away all college lacrosse scholarships. Result? Players are steered to other sports.

With very little chance for even a top 10 junior to make a good living in pro tennis, take away college money and the sport collapses in the U.S. We have a lot of college-oriented parents in our youth sports here, unlike other countries.

Shawn said...

Clark, no offense, but have you been living under a rock for the past few years? Most Americans get a smaller piece of the scholarship money ( except for the 4 schools you named) as the foreigners get the bigger piece of the pie.

Facts said...

1) NCAA tennis is NOT under threat of elimination.
2) The kids could play naked and draw thousands but if a school wants to move men's tennis money to football/basketball under the new 'non limitations' it won't mater.
3) Any 'little league' version of a game looses 'relevance' on campus and that could bring college tennis down.
4) Mid Major men's tennis coaches use the 'change or die' argument because they are worried about their funding.
5) SEC and the men's coach at Cal really want short matches because they believe they might get on TV. That's maybe 30 out of 300 schools.
6) 6 weeks later I note that nobody from the CHANGE side are using their original justifications (athlete welfare, pressure teaches great lessons...). When you are not willing to state your true justifications (men's coaches panic and some want TV) then you lose all credibility. You should resign.


7) Never in my life have I seen a governing body (ITA/NCAA tennis committee) so righteously ignore membership and secretly try (twice; now third time) to impose their will on a majority firmly against and not believing the cover stories.