Discussion of College Tennis Format Changes

Summary

Lisa Stone hosts a multi-guest roundtable debate on the ITA’s adoption of no-ad scoring and shortened formats for Division I college tennis beginning the 2014–2015 season. Coaches Chuck Creasy (The Citadel), Lynn Moreng (Indiana University women’s), and Gene Orlando (Michigan State) argue that the change was pushed through without genuine coach input — citing a 21-19 vote on the men’s side and a flawed survey process on the women’s side. Tennis journalist Colette Lewis (ZooTennis) explains that no-ad scoring strips tennis of its essential drama: the need to win by two, the pressure of deuce, the 36-point game that can decide a match. All guests warn of trickle-down effects on junior development. The episode surfaces deep tensions between governing bodies optimizing for broadcast time and coaches who believe format authenticity is inseparable from player development quality.

Guest Background

Chuck Creasy is the head men’s tennis coach at The Citadel and also hosts a college tennis show on the UR Tennis Network. He brings historical perspective on how ITA governance works and argues that the change lacked a two-thirds majority mandate.

Lynn Moreng is the head women’s tennis coach at Indiana University. She organized a petition signed by 172 women’s tennis programs opposing the scoring change and calling for a legitimate vote before implementation.

Gene Orlando is the head coach at Michigan State. He was present at the ITA convention where the vote occurred and provides a firsthand account of the atmosphere and the process he characterized as coaches being told to “just accept” the outcome.

Colette Lewis is a veteran college tennis journalist at ZooTennis. She attended Kalamazoo and spoke with multiple coaches during that period. She explains why she will no longer cover Division I tennis if no-ad scoring becomes permanent.

Key Findings

1. The Change Was Pushed Through Without Adequate Coach Consent

Coach Moreng gathered 172 school signatures — well over half of all Division I women’s programs — on a petition whose core request was simply to delay the change until a proper vote could be held. The ITA’s survey methodology was disputed: women were asked whether they preferred a tiebreaker to a third set, and whether men and women should play the same format, but were never directly asked: ad scoring or no-ad scoring? The jump from “women want to match the men’s format” to “women want no-ad scoring” was, in Moreng’s words, a “flawed conclusion from limited questions.”

2. No-Ad Scoring Fundamentally Alters Tennis’s Drama Architecture

Colette Lewis articulates the most analytical case against the change: traditional ad scoring requires a player to win three consecutive points from deuce, requires winning by two, and creates “separation” rather than “leading.” A single point at deuce can swing two games in value — you gain one and deny your opponent one they would have held. She cites Marin Cilic saving six match points against Federer in a 19-minute game as the exact kind of drama that no-ad eliminates. Creasy frames it as “the scoring system has been around for over 100 years for good reason.”

3. Broadcast and Revenue Logic Drove the Decision, Not Player or Coach Benefit

Coach Orlando identifies a shifting rationale from ITA leadership: the shortened format was first justified by TV broadcast windows, then by ADs complaining about match length, then by claims of saving programs from being cut, then finally by “excitement.” He argues that none of these reasons holds up — community engagement by coaches matters more for attendance than match duration — and that the true agenda was never clearly stated or made accountable.

4. Trickle-Down Effect on Junior Development Is the Central Concern

Creasy opens by framing this as “a huge moment not just for college tennis but maybe for tennis for the whole United States,” because whatever format college plays, the junior system mirrors it. No-ad scoring and 10-point tiebreakers have already filtered into junior tennis from earlier college experiments. Coaches fear that junior players will never learn how to close out deuce games — a skill critical to surviving pressure in professional and international competition.

5. Governance Accountability Was Absent From the Change Process

Lisa Stone presses all three coaches on a multi-part accountability question: what is the stated goal and timeline? Who tracks attendance, revenue, and competitive impact? Where will results be reported? None of the coaches can answer, because those commitments were never extracted from ITA leadership. Creasy argues that the moral authority of ITA representatives to push such a fundamental change through their own organizational constitution is itself questionable — and that any legitimate change should require a two-thirds majority.

6. The Irony: Short Formats Don’t Attract New Fans

Coach Orlando makes the case that the premise driving the change — shorter matches equal bigger audiences — is empirically unsupported. He argues that community engagement by coaches, not match duration, determines whether people show up. Lewis echoes this: she fell in love with college tennis watching a UCLA-Baylor comeback from 3-1 down — the length and tension of that match were the draw, not a liability.

7. NCAA Authority Is Limited to the Tournament; Conference Play Is a Gray Zone

A clarification that emerges mid-episode: the NCAA sports cabinet only has jurisdiction over the NCAA tournament. Conferences can run any format they choose during dual match season. However, programs with legitimate championship aspirations will align their regular season format with tournament format — making the NCAA tournament ruling effectively the de facto standard for the entire season.

Actionable Advice for Families

• Junior players should understand the difference between ad scoring and no-ad scoring, and train specifically for deuce situations — the pressure management skill of “winning by two” is essential for international competition even if their college will use no-ad
• Parents following the college tennis landscape should engage their local college programs directly — showing up at matches matters more than format changes for the financial survival of tennis programs
• Families evaluating college tennis programs should ask coaches directly about their stance on format governance and whether their coaching philosophy is built around authentic match-length development

INTENNSE Relevance

• Format innovation as a strategic choice, not a concession: INTENNSE’s decision to use rally scoring, one serve, and unlimited subs is a deliberate format architecture. This episode illustrates that when format changes are imposed top-down without stakeholder buy-in, they generate backlash that undermines the sport. INTENNSE’s formats are built into the league identity from inception — a very different posture
• Drama is the product: Lewis’s description of why she loves college tennis — a 19-minute deuce game, a comeback from 3-1 — is a direct brief for why INTENNSE’s 7-bolt arcs and rally scoring need to be designed to produce those same high-stakes moments, not eliminate them
• Broadcast pressure vs. game integrity: The ITA’s stated rationale for no-ad scoring was TV viability. INTENNSE will face the same pressure and this episode is a warning: optimizing for broadcast time at the expense of match tension is a losing trade if the tension was the thing fans came to see
• Governance accountability: The coaches’ frustration at having no stated goal, no timeline, and no one tracking outcomes should inform how INTENNSE structures its own rules evolution process — with clear metrics, stakeholder votes, and public accountability
• College-to-pro pipeline: The trickle-down effect means that junior players training for college under no-ad conditions will arrive less prepared for traditional scoring in any pro context. INTENNSE, operating outside the USTA/NCAA axis, can define its own scoring system and use that differentiation as a developmental tool
• Community engagement over format engineering: Orlando’s point that coaching community presence drives attendance more than match length is directly applicable to INTENNSE’s team-in-community model — coaches and players visible in Atlanta matter more than any format tweak

Notable Quotes

“It’s about drama. The scoring system has been around over 100 years and for good reason. It’s not about leading, it’s about separation — you have to cause separation.” — Chuck Creasy

“We were never asked: if you had to choose between ad or regular, which would you pick? That’s a very different question from what they actually asked us.” — Lynn Moreng

“I think it all boils down to the shortened format isn’t going to bring more fans into the stands. It comes down to the coaches being involved in the community.” — Gene Orlando

“When Marin Cilic and Roger Federer were playing a game that took 19 minutes and Cilic saved six match points — that kind of thing is what makes tennis the sport it is.” — Colette Lewis