Re: Your perspective on the experimental format
I guess I will be in the minority regarding the experimental format because I like it. With the exception of doubles which I think they should play an 8 game pro set (tiebreaker at 7-7). I have a number of thoughts, but here are a few:
1. It's college tennis. This isn't pro tennis and let's face it, college tennis is not a training ground for the pros. If you have the talent to go pro, you will be able to go pro whatever the match format is. What a student-athlete does in a dual match will not determine if they make the pros, it is what they do in practice on a daily basis that will have a much greater effect.
2. I would have loved to be at the Texas A&M/UNC match. Imagine the excitement. #2 match is in a super breaker at 9-9, 10-10, 11-11....UNC (Carter) had match points and chances to win but Texas A&M pulled it out. However, that wasn't the match, UNC still had a chance in the final match at 5-5 in the super breaker. What drama!!!! Let's say they played out the final set. There would have been a very good chance that it would have been anti-climatic. A 6-2 or 6-3 or worse set.
3. I have seen the Oklahoma/Alabama argument a couple of times. Oklahoma would definitely lost 4,5, & 6 if they play out the third set. I guarantee Alabama had them figured out on the second. Having to play a super tiebreaker hurt Alabama. The match came down to Daines at 1 and Jansen at 3. Chances Alabama wins 1 of those matches I would think were greater than 70%. They split them and Alabama won. In my opinion, experimental format had no effect on that match. However, it probably gave Oklahoma a better chance at pulling the upset.
When my child started playing tournaments with match tiebreaks to decide the third set, I hated it. I still think in an individual event a full third set should still be played. However, it is a college "team" event and it definitely adds excitement.
This is just my opinion and I respect and understand the people who feel differently.