I've heard that letters have gone out to superintendents and AD's about adding more tennis teams to the post-season. Any opinions supporting or against the idea?

I can see people supporting it, because more kids get to experience post-season play, and there are some teams in the DFW area that have 3-4 teams that are ranked in the top 25.

On the other hand, would having that many teams per district in the playoffs water down the accomplishment of making
it out of district?

If they take 3 teams to post-season play, I'm guessing that they would have to have an "area round" of dual matches between the 2nd and 3rd place teams before the regional tournament, so they can keep the regional tournament to 16 teams.

I think in the end, this will end up making the regional tournament tougher, because those ranked 3rd place teams that are in great districts will take the place of a weak 2nd place team from a weaker district.

I think the first step is getting 2 team from each region to State. In homage to Highland Park, they book their reservation in September in August. Richardson Pearce, Ennis, Coriscana, and Texas High have had good teams over the years that never had an opportunity to experience the state tourney. Region II has been considered the strongest region in the state. The #2 team in the region would likely be the #3 team in the state.

A case in point was last years spring tourney for boys where the #1 and #2 boys came out of region II. Increasing the pool from four to 8 teams would not significantly stretch the tourney. Now the locations may change.

I think if you go from 2 teams per district to 4 teams, you are going to get the same disparity at the regional tourney. 4 teams means 32 teams. 13-4A has a hard time fielding two competitive teams much less four. I think the same could be said for 14-4A after 2 teams. Districts like Frisco, Mckinney, and Hiighland Park can field 4 good teams.

But 32 team tourney is too big. You would have to probably have a tourney between district and regionals. Not sure how many superintendents would vote for another overnight trip for the tennis team.

I have mixed feelings. Don't like the disparity between tennis (only 2 teams advance) and many other sports (4 advance). With Texas High's dominance in 13-4A, the other teams compete for one playoff spot. But at least it's still an accomplishment to reach the tennis post-season.

I do feel for a ranked team stuck in Highland Park/Pearce's district. They might win most districts, but can't even advance to the playoffs. But my guess is that's the exception. I expect there is a significant dropoff at 3rd place in most districts.

I could make the same argument about the 4th place team in other sports (13-4A football might be an exception). That team will have the thrill of experiencing post-season play (good), but likely will serve as a 1st round tune up for another district's champion (not always good).

No matter how they slice it in any sport, some undeserving teams advance and some deserving teams stay home. I would not be opposed to adding a 3rd team. But given where tennis probably falls in the UIL sports pecking order, I wouldn't expect significant pressure to change the current playoff format.

I agree with your point about taking 2 teams to state. With our region being so strong, teams like Pearce would more than likely do very well at the state tournament. Looking at your statement about last years spring tournament, boys singles wasn't the only final that was region 2 final rematch. Boys doubles, Boys singles, Girls Doubles, and Mixed Doubles were all rematches of the region 2 final. One of the girls singles was from Highland Park. That means that 9 of the 10 spots in the state championship matches were occupied by region 2 players. That's what you call dominance.

I made the #2 Region II team 3rd because I was not sure if Newcombe's Tennis Academy was still 4A.

No, Newcombe High went 5A last year, and won state in 5A.

Happened to come across a recent UIL media release (partially copied below). Apparently, adding tennis teams to the post-season was recently proposed, but not approved.

UIL Legislative Council Meeting Results
Media Contact: Chris Schmidt
Phone: 512) 471-5883
Fax: (512) 471-6589
Email: uilpr@mail.uil.utexas.edu
Date: 10/26/2009



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AUSTIN, TX—
Council members rejected, tabled or took no action on the following:
• Allowing school coaches to coach their teams in the summer;
• Adding two additional teams to the playoffs in team tennis;
• Adding bowling.

I had seen the expansion to 4 teams failed. I think the tennis coaches need to expand the state entries from a Region prior than the number of teams from a district. The issue is the "cost to the UIL".

You don't have to yell "What cost?". I know the school have to supply the ####, but I believe the UIL supplies the monitors at each site. Assuming the play the monitors $400 each, the regional tournament costs the UIL $25,600 (32 districts x 2 teams X 2 classifications [4A/5A]/ 2 teams per court x $400]. Adding 2 more teams would double the cost.

If I were a high school coach wanting to expand the team tennis playoffs, I would have to understand it must be cost neutral to the UIL because you are a non-revenue generating sport.

My proposal is

1) Increase the number of schools in 4A & 5A to 128 teams (from 64 each)
2) An area round is created at 16 sites (4 per region) - 8 teams each (4 set of courts - locations in East Texas are limited) (13-4a & 14-4A)
3) Each participating school pays a fee of $100 each to cover the cost of a tournament director and site monitors
4) Top 2 teams from each area advance to regionals (8 teams per Region)
5) Top 2 teams from Regionals advance to State (8 teams)

If the UIL is underwriting the cost of the Regional Tournaments, you would be decreasing the cost of the sport to the UIL.