NCAA college tennis recommendation rationale: Lack of television coverage

In most cases NCAA decisions get attention when they pertain to football or men’s basketball or a violation of some sort that leads to punishment. So a rule change about the structure of tennis championships and the length of matches might not qualify under the criteria for “newsworthiness.” 

Yet, USA Today did run an article about the issue and the tennis blog of New York Times revealed some of the responses from players and coaches. I would contend that it is a relevant topic for this blog as the rule change does have a lot to do with media, fandom and the role of intercollegiate sports in our society. 

The NCAA Division I Tennis Committee is proposing that, at the NCAA Championships, instead of a two-out-of-three set format, singles matches would be decided in a super tiebreaker instead of a third set (super tiebreaker means playing up to 10 points). Doubles would get reduced to a six-game set instead of the eight-game set.

The NCAA is also making recommendations in terms of the post-season NCAA Championships draw sizes and locations.

Just as a side note, super tiebreakers are currently played in college tennis when the match between the teams is already decided. If you ask coaches and players alike, they will tell you that a super tiebreaker is completely useless in terms of determining who the better player is. The third set is very much a mental and physical game and a super tiebreaker is a poor “copy” of the pressure and competitiveness.

The Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) and the United States Tennis Association (USTA) don't seem to think that this is one of NCAA’s most brilliant ideas. In their response, the two organizations wrote: “It is imperative to act immediately to try to persuade the NCAA Tennis Committee to keep two out of three sets in dual meet singles play, and also, if possible, to keep the 8 game pro set for doubles.” (See response here.)

The news also got some social media attention. A Facebook group in opposition to the recommendations has 6000 members and counting, and the conversation on Twitter includes comments such as “the ncaa really wants to ruin tennis,” and “this new NCAA rule for tennis is a joke.” You can find these under hashtags #savecollegetennis and #whatajoke.

First to clarify. These changes would only affect NCAA Championships dual match competition. Not the regular season matches, nor the individual tournaments. The online discourse seems to reflect some misunderstanding about this -- and frankly, at first sight, it is easy to omit the "dual match competition during the championship" specification in the report. (See full report here.)

The rationale that NCAA is giving for the rule change is the following: “by shortening the format and bringing greater excitement to the dual match, programs will be able to attract fan support and attention to tennis.” 

I'm confused. Are we still talking about the championships or is the NCAA talking about "programs" as in institutions, referring to attracting fans to home matches?

If we are talking about institutions and attracting fans to home matches, here is the issue.

At most (all?) Division I schools, tennis is not a revenue-generating sport. The schools that do get high attendance are doing well maintaining their fan base regardless of the format. As for the rest of the schools, I am not sure if the format change would necessarily attract more people. Yes, intercollegiate tennis matches are long. They can, indeed, last more than four hours.

But low fan attendance is less likely affected by the length of matches and more likely the result of facilities with uncomfortable or non-existing seating areas, lack of marketing, lack of transportation to the tennis facility, lack of knowledge about the existence of a tennis team on campus (I’m not kidding) or lack of t-shirt give-aways. Free food also works magic for college students.

If the NCAA wants tennis to get more overall attention and to “increase the popularity of dual matches,” then the on-campus marketing for the sport needs to get better. To do that, you need resources and staff. We'll leave that conversation for some other time.

If the decision, indeed, pertains only to the championships then the question about the role of media is of utmost importance.

Besides proposing shorter matches, the NCAA also made a recommendation regarding the Championship format -- namely, to reduce the number of teams who make it to the “final site.” I won’t get technical here, but one of the reasons behind this recommendation is that “the state of intercollegiate tennis is requiring a change to ensure a relevant future for the sport. Tennis is in a fragile state as the championships recently lost ESPN coverage, attendance is decreasing and the number of institutions able to host the final site is diminishing.”

Yes, it is indeed difficult for institutions to host that many teams and the championships are way too long, so this is a point that needs to be discussed.

But let me pause for a second on the “tennis is in a fragile state as the championships recently lost ESPN coverage.” Does this mean that changes need to happen so that tennis fits into the commercial sports media complex?

I think so, as the report also says:  "The shortened format may provide exposure opportunities through television coverage, live streaming and local media coverage. It is difficult and cost prohibitive for television to air a 4.5 hour college tennis match. In addition, it is very challenging for local media (television or print) to watch and cover an entire dual match. Therefore, the sport lacks local and national coverage, which will be improved with a format that consistently finishes within a three-hour time frame."

Another challenge about broadcasting college tennis is that you have 6 matches going on at the same time. So if we are going to talk about difficulties in coverage, that would be one to consider.

In the proposals the NCAA suggests that the “estimated budget impact” for both of these recommendations would be “none.” Perhaps for tennis not to be “in a fragile state,” the focus should be on how cut unnecessary costs rather than how to make the sport marketable to ESPN.

And while these decisions are collaboratively discussed among coaches, administrators, university leaders and the NCAA, who will ultimately decide about the future and the purpose of a (non-revenue) intercollegiate sport, I cannot help but conclude:

This recommendation is not about tennis, nor about participation opportunities, nor about student-athlete welfare and even less about higher education. This is about the sports media complex.

-- Dunja Antunovic

Franklin and the NCAA: Amateur or pro?

Missy Franklin won four gold medals at the London Olympic Games, but she does not want the endorsements or the sponsorships, thank you very much.

At least, not yet. Franklin stated, according to a number of media outlets, that she wants to preserve her amateur status in order to be able to go to college.

Franklin said that the decision will be a tough one, but that she would love to experience college life. In an ESPN interview, she enthusiastically stated that she would particularly "love the team aspect" of intercollegiate competition.

Jane McManus from ESPNW pointed out that it's "four years of earning potential that she will be missing out on." A blogger on BleacherReport, on the other hand, commended Franklin on her decision.

Just to be clear, Franklin will be allowed to accept a certain amount for her accomplishments -- contrary to what the catchy ESPNW video title "Don't show Missy the money" suggests. How much exactly that is before she loses a year of eligibility, that will be the job of the famous NCAA Eligibility Center to figure out.

A number of reasons can be named for both why she should pursue a college swimming career, but also why she should not.

As a former Division I athlete, who loved her college career, I am happy to hear that Franklin wants to experience an individual sport in a team setting because the team aspect does add a different dimension to competition even if you are still alone in the pool (or on the court).

What I also find important to mention is that swimming is one of those sports in which college level competition is strong enough that college swimmers can, and do often, pursue professional careers after enrolling in school or even after graduation and they do that very successfully. This is not a trend for all sports. In tennis, for instance, you will hardly find a top professional/Olympic player who is a former college athlete.


So, we can certainly analyze and talk about Franlkin's decision. And, just as she said, there are many factors to consider.

But one thing is for sure: If she decides to go pro now, she will be giving up on NCAA swimming for good. (Note: Not college swimming altogether -- the NAIA could be an option later)

If she, on the other hand, decides to stay an amateur, she will not be giving up the hopes of another Olympic participation.

She also would not be giving up endorsements and sponsorship. She would merely be delaying them.

-- Dunja Antunovic

Acknowledging the price of college athletes

ESPN the Magazine recently teamed up with MIT researchers to determine the value of college athletes at Florida University. (The article can also be found here through ESPN’s Insider service.)

The results shouldn’t be surprising to anybody who knows the realities of college athletics: the football players were worth substantially more than any other athletes, and the men’s basketball players were the only other athletes in the positives. In other words, athletes from other sports, including all women’s sports, are costing the university money.

At first glance, a story like this might seem problematic; quantifying young collegiate athletes, especially in dollar amounts, seems directly contrary to the purpose of college athletics.

But, as a member of the media – not of the NCAA, ESPN is well within its rights to criticize the institution of college sports. In fact, it may even be helpful.

While it seems that monetizing collegiate athletes would be completely antithetical to the health of college sports, that is what the NCAA does every year with things like bowl games and March Madness. And this is potentially a much bigger problem. As an outsider, ESPN is simply bringing light to the financial realities of collegiate athletics.

It might seem that this article tacitly reinforces the monetization of student-athletes, but it also provides valuable knowledge and insight into that process for a larger population. Importantly, it also points to a wide imbalance in the relative value of certain athletes under the current system.

This sort of tangible proof is important ammunition for critics of the NCAA. If the NCAA and its member institutions are well aware of the financial benefits that they receive from student-athletes, their opponents should be as well. Defining these benefits, as ESPN has, should only help to clarify and solidify any anti-NCAA arguments.

-Brett Sherrick

The NCAA's position of power

In the college sports landscape, the NCAA typically positions itself as a judicious, morally sanctified, student-athlete protection system. But many have questioned this position for the non-profit organization that generates millions of dollars of revenue each year. Taylor Branch is the latest to do so – in an article for the October issue of The Atlantic, and he does it with a critical perspective and honesty that might change a few minds.

It’s important to recognize, first, that Branch ultimately calls for payment of college athletes, a proposal that will certainly ruffle a few feathers, some fur, and even a couple of scales. Branch argues that the popular call for amateurism is based on sentimentality rather than logic or, frankly, reality. To prove the value of eliminating the amateurism mystique, he draws a parallel between the NCAA and the Olympics. The Olympics rescinded its amateurism rules in 1978, a move that eventually improved the Olympics’ reputation, according to Branch.

While Branch’s argument that college athletes should be paid will certainly be met by a lot of deserved skepticism, his underlying stance that the NCAA is unnecessary, manipulative, and exploitative is sure to stimulate the minds of even the most stubborn college-sport-amateurism purists. And this is the main thrust of his argument.

To show the NCAA’s dark side, Branch relies on the organization’s own history of back-room deals, student-athlete-generated litigation, and seeming hypocrisy. To drive this point home, Branch uses a particularly effective source: Walter Byers who, after nearly 40 years as the NCAA’s first president, has become one of its most biting critics.

Byers, Branch, and many others argue that the student-athlete is the ironic victim of the NCAA’s position of power, which Byers created and shored up during his tenure. From there, Branch arrives at his argument that payment is necessary to balance the scales. Again, that might be too far for some readers, but Branch’s article should convince readers that the NCAA and its member universities have not and are not really protecting the student-athletes who ultimately create this multi-billion dollar industry.

-Brett Sherrick

A global sports event for the student-athlete

Every other year thousands of athletes from all over the world gather in one city to compete in various sport disciplines. These athletes have at least one more thing in common: they are all university students.

The International University Sports Federation (FISU) organizes the World University Games both for winter and summer sports once in two years with a goal to "promote sporting values and encourage sporting practice in harmony with, and complementary to, the university spirit."

Most recently, Shenzen hosted 10,603 participants from 151 countries - yet, this event passed quietly in the mainstream media. Except for the occasional news releases regarding the success of the women's basketball team (USA won the gold medal), the coverage was predominantly done by college papers and websites of the participants' institutions.

Perhaps that's a good sign. After all, we are talking about students here.

Since in most countries there is no "amateurism" requirement in regard to the student-athletes, which stems from the limited or non-existent intercollegiate athletics system, don't be surprised if you see a name that also appeared at the Olympic Games or World Championships or any other professional international event.

What's subtracted from the World University Games, however, is the highly commercialized nature of professional sports. The focus is not on "selling" sports. Rather, the focus is on the celebration of intellect and physical health.

That celebration certainly occurs -- even if the competition is not live on ESPN, the athletes do not appear half-naked in Sports Illustrated, or Yahoo! does not post a thread about it ever day.

Huang Guoqiang, vice secretary general of the Shenzhen Universiade Organizing Committee, said upon the closing of the Games at the end of August that the first emphasis of the Games is friendship. Huang added that the event "enables athletes with different backgrounds to gather together and share not only sports experience and passion in competition, but also the joy and culture of competition."

That experience is shared when student-athletes from different countries and different sports sit crammed in a coffee shop in the athletes' village watching the Wimbledon finals; the experience is shared when student-athletes from one nation start a dance and the passers-by join in as if it were their national dance as well; the experience is shared when language is not a barrier in understanding a sport that might not be popular in your country, yet you learn the rules because you want to be able to cheer for your new friend.

More importantly, the real shared experience happens when the student-athletes go back to their respective countries, or respective universities (which often means the United States) and become better students, better scholars, better workers and better human beings due to the newly acquired perspectives.

The mission of FISU is also to contribute to the "full humanistic development of the individual and, thus, of society at large."

We know this. We know that, somewhere deep down, the purpose of intercollegiate athletics is similar. Among the NCAA's core values, we find concepts such as "sense of community," "sportsmanship," "respect,"and "integrity."

We also know from the NCAA's video that there are "380,000 student-athletes and most of them will go pro in something other than sports."

Yet, when we talk about student-athletes, we so often forget about the "student," the individual.

The World University Games remind us of these values, even if they are not all over the media.

-- by Dunja Antunovic

Emmert on student athletes and commercialization

New NCAA President Mark Emmert reasserted the top priorities of his predecessor, Myles Brand, in an interview Friday where he emphasized the need to focus on the welfare of student athletes while addressing thorny issues involving commercialization of college athletics.
Emmert was interviewed by Penn State President Graham Spanier for the Big Ten program "Expert Opinion" today at the Newseum. Emmert came to the job from the University of Washington and has been dealing with a number of high-profile issues since moving to Indianapolis in October, including an investigation into rumors of "pay-to-play" involving Auburn quarterback Cam Newton.
Spanier's interview with Emmert generally avoided specific controversies but instead focused on providing an overview of the NCAA. Emmert said student athlete welfare has been --and will be-- a key focus.
"We have to make sure we protect the collegiate model of athletics," Emmert said. "It's frankly the only way we can protect the brand." Related to that is the issue of paying student athletes--an idea that has been the subject of debate. Emmert didn't leave room for speculation.
"Student athletes will never be paid as long as I'm president of the NCAA," he said. Fewer than 20 schools break even on collegiate sports, he added. "It is grossly inappropriate for universities to even talk about paying student athletes."
It's the perception of wealth in big-time programs that is likely driving the discussions about paying athletes. So is the commercialism, which Emmert said presents the most pressing ethical issues he's facing. More revenue is a "good thing," Emmert said, but the model can't compromise the collegiate model. Protecting that balance will be a Herculean effort.
Emmert promised he would also be "very focused" on enforcing NCAA rules. "We have to do enforcement in a way that is fair and honest and transparent," he said. The NCAA has no subpoena power -- and the process is slow and cumbersome. Emmert said he wants to expedite the process--but can't risk getting it right. He also promised to look at organization's rules to make sure focus is on the "bigger issues."
Other issues:
On agents: "I'm very pleased with the level of conversation we're having," Emmert said. "I think we're going to have some good progress there." Emmert said he won't address it just as an enforcement issue but will look at modifying the NCAA's rules, hinting that they could be changed.
On the hiring of African-American football coaches: Football is behind basketball and other sports in mentoring and bringing up minority coaches through the ranks. Emmert said the NCAA needs to use the "bully pulpit" with university presidents and ADs; last year saw some improvement.
On NCAA focus on Div. 2 and Div. 3 schools: These smaller divisions are important --they involve large numbers of student athletes. But Emmert justified the NCAA focus on Division 1. "We have to recognize that Division 1 sports are the revenue drivers...Their (smaller divisions) future is tied to Division 1."
On universities cutting non-revenue sports: "We're probably not done with that."



The program will air Monday on the Big Ten network.

Will the AVP's end hurt an emerging sport for the NCAA?

If media coverage is any indicator, football is the only college sport under way for the 2010-2011 academic year. But the volleyball -- indoor volleyball, that is -- season has also started. College volleyball fans and aspiring players may have more opportunity to take in the sport in future years if schools take up the NCAA's newest "emerging" sport, sand volleyball.
Sand volleyball -- better known as beach volleyball, has gained in popularity thanks to players like Misty May and Kerry Walsh. Coverage and marketing of the sport has been criticized, however, for using players' sexual attractiveness to attract spectators (and rightly so: one study found that almost 40% of televised shots of players were of chests and buttocks).
NCAA member schools have the opportunity, now that the NCAA has approved the sport, to offer it for intercollegiate competition. But it's difficult to know whether they will. The AVP -- the professional tour for beach volleyball in the U.S. and the pipeline for Olympic players -- announced in mid-August that it was closing shop.
What will this mean for U.S. prospects at the London Olympics in 2012? It's hard to say, but the most talented, experienced players will likely still make a good showing for the U.S. as they stay active in international play.
The bigger question -- depending on how long it takes for the AVP to revive itself financially -- is in the implications for the development of young talent and interest in the sport. The NCAA's approval of sand volleyball as an emerging sport will likely keep the pipeline open, depending on the number of schools that choose to pursue it.
In light of past marketing strategies for beach volleyball, it will also be interesting to watch how the sport will be covered and promoted at the college level. --Marie Hardin