[2nd_serve]

So Pac-10 => Pac-12.

Anyone hearing how the schedule will be? I read an article that speculated about schedules of some sports but it did not include tennis. I expect and ope that they keep the for and away schedule in tennis for the Bay Area teams against the LA teams.

[Tenniswish]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but doing a cursory research job, I found the following:

If you look at the Pac-10 website, they only count one match against each opponent for the PAC-10 standings. For example, Stanford is listed as having won this year with an 8-0 record. That means that Stanford, USC, UCLA and Cal are just agreeing to play an extra match earlier in the year that doesn't count in the final conference standings. While a single round through the conference will now mean 10 dates instead of 8 (Oregon State doesn't have tennis), there would be nothing stopping those four schools from playing an extra match against each other.

The one thing working against what you want is the NCAA limit on total number of dates of competition which is 25, 7 of which can be multi-day tournaments without team scoring. Add in two dates for the opening weekend of the ITA Team competition, the 10 PAC-10 matches and three double-ups with UCLA/USC/Cal/Stanford, and you are 15 dates of competition without even counting tournaments and the rest of your dual match schedule.

If they keep those extra three matches with each other, three of the mid-majors they played this year are going to likely get dropped from their schedule or they will have to get creative with double headers which only count as one date of competition.

Regardless, the decision will be theirs, not the PAC-10's.

[2nd_serve]

Thanks, I am definitely informed by you referring to the rule of 25 days of competition, and your examples of how the math then works out. Even with your cursory view, it adds a lot of knowledge to possible schedules if they do play a complete conference round robin and keep big rivalry home and away matches.

As far as the new Pac-12 rules effecting the schedule, it seems likely you are right, but unconfirmed that all of the Pac-12 teams will play all of the other Pac-12 teams in a round robin. For example, the article I read stated that in some of the sports, they have discussed a Pac-12 North and Pac -12 South and not playing a conference round robin.

[form]

Possible scenarios:

Top Pac 10 schools drop 2 mid major regulars per year since they will view Colorado and Utah as mid majors for purposes of helping team ranking. It's a push.

If ITA Regionals mercifully die in the new couple years (more and more schools bugging out of it) then that would reopen two matches.

The home and home between So Cal & No Cal Pac schools will always continue. It greatly boosts their team and individual rankings playing each other regardless of whether it is in conference or out of conference.

Other than some boosters getting happy, the Pac coaches rgely doesn't care about the league title. That's why they play Ojai in the format they do. Those that are supposed to get into NCAA (top 6) always do... the others have to fend for themselves.



You can't spell ch'EATERS without UCI EATERS

[Tenniswish]

Completely agree with you on the value to USC/UCLA/Cal/Stanford on doing home-and-home's because of the impact on ranking.

I think this year's Indoor Regional draft showed that the ITA Regional idea is holding, and possibly gaining, steam. Stanford realized it should be taking part and is participating in 2011. Reaching the final 16 event is a huge bonus to top schools because you get 3 or 4 matches that weekend without having to count them towards your 25 dates of competition. The negative is two dates of competition the first weekend - an odd compromise that the NCAA and ITA worked out. But as a result, teams get 5 or 6 (if you are a finalist) matches for only two dates of competition. That greatly increases the opportunities for your players to play over the course of the spring semester.

[form]

Nearly 10 schools waived off.

The travel costs for just two matches is astronomic for mid majors... and there is threat of rain in many places (no indoor courts made available in No Cal and much of south. So you would then have to stay an extra day and pay flight change fees too.

OR you can stay home and play the same teams you already schedule.

It's a bad idea that will eventually die due to costs.



You can't spell ch'EATERS without UCI EATERS

[Tenniswish]

Originally Posted by form

Nearly 10 schools waived off.

The travel costs for just two matches is astronomic for mid majors... and there is threat of rain in many places (no indoor courts made available in No Cal and much of south. So you would then have to stay an extra day and pay flight change fees too.

OR you can stay home and play the same teams you already schedule.

It's a bad idea that will eventually die due to costs.



You can't spell ch'EATERS without UCI EATERS

Definitely disagree. Let's look at the different parties involved.

Many mid-majors need the two dates against top 60 teams because it is one way to get teams 30 spots ahead of you in the rankings and from the biggest conferences to play, and given that you can opt out if the travel cost is prospectively too high when it comes to your draft spot, the mid-majors will never be the reason this goes away. Furthermore, look at how many of those teams regularly between 30-100 in the country already have a weekend trip or two that includes significant travel.

The ITA certainly loves to sponsor an event like this, especially the final 16 event, so they won't want the event to ever go away.

If the NCAA ever took away the exemption for the final 16, that would probably kill the event, but that seems unlikely since the NCAA agreed to the current approach.

The one group of teams that would benefit from a change is the top 10 or 15 teams in the country. They would prefer to save the dates of competitions and just play in a team championship that is exempt from being counted. I believe this was the old way it was done, but going back to that approach would tick off everyone else and also cause the NCAA to probably reconsider the exemption for the finals event if it wasn't widely inclusive.

As it is, Stanford took its shot last year at seeing if it could create momentum among the top teams to boycott the tournament, and at one point in the winter, I had heard a bunch of other schools were considering not participating. Ironically, even though Stanford ended up not being hurt by it, I think Stanford's relatively low seeding in this year's NCAA's actually convinced teams that participating was necessary because of the huge impact on rankings (just look at Northwestern's rankings all-year after winning this year).

Consequently, unless something dramatic changes in the landscape (e.g. 16-team super conferences), I propose it is around for a while.