Volleying.
By David Kjeldsen

Term Limits

I think a two year term for President is best in almost any volunteer organization. I don't see any arguments that would necessitate a longer term for the APTA President.
Sue Emme

Term limits are useless and should be eliminated in favor of the old system of simply nominating Directors each year for a one year term.
Bob Brown

As to your article on length of a President’s time limit in office really goes back to who is willing to step up and become the new President.
I was on the Board for 16 years as treasurer and it was very hard to find a person to step up. That’s why some of the past Presidents have been in office for more than 2 years. There were no candidates ready to take the job. It’s a very time consuming job with a great deal of very important pr work.
Hope Kerr

(R)egarding your articles on term limits, would it be as much an issue if the APTA had a board AND a staffed organization, with most of the work being done by a paid staff?  I realize the budget does not permit for much in the way of salaries.  Salaries would need to be small stipends and some existing board members may want to assume a role in the organization.  The current structure makes it impossible to distinguish between what the board does and what the organization does.  A staffed organization would allow the board to get back to the job of governance.
Ann Ruocco

Regarding your article titled "Term Limits - APTA President - Time to go back to the future?" I have a mixed reaction.  As the first President to serve more than two years after the initial service by one of the founders of the sport, Fessenden Blanchard, from 1934 to 1938, I am pleased to admit that, in spite of some difficult times in the beginning, I was not "burned out".  But my situation was, I believe, very different from most of the prior Presidents.  I no longer had full time employment, which I suspect most, if not all, of them did.  I had the time to devote to even the routine work of the Association.  I also had an outstanding Executive Director, Ginna Ohlmuller.  This enabled me to serve for four years and do so joyfully.

However, at the close of my fourth year in 1992, I understood that it was appropriate to have new leadership.  But, like many of my predecessors, I did continue as a Director.  The Vice President was Brian L.P. Zevnik, who was still employed full time when he was elected President.  He needed a replacement for work he did for the APTA as editor of the newsletter.  Since I worked closely with him in that assignment while I was President, I accepted the position.  It was an easy transition.  I point this out because I believe our situation was unique.
However, I believe that you are correct that some limit to the service of the President is in order.  I differ, however, in the length of time you suggest.  I believe, if the person holding the post has the time, ability and desire to continue, a maximum service of four years would be more appropriate.  The difficulty is often finding a willing and capable replacement.  I think this will be even more difficult under the by-laws, which have a six-year term limit for Directors.  An individual might only be on the Board for two years when asked to serve as the President, otherwise the person would be unable to serve as President for the full four years.  During his service of seven years, John Horine, had several Vice Presidents, none of whom were willing to move up to the top position and it fell to him to continue.

I offer that just having a term limit for the President will be helpful in producing a new individual to fill that post.  Both present and past Board members will be aware of a current President's inability to continue to serve.  With a strong nominating committee, a qualified individual should be able to be found to take the leadership role.
Chuck Vasoll

Back draws, by Chuck Vasoll

I don't know who the former National Champion was who quit playing tournaments "because of the backdraw rule", but he had better get his priorities straight.  To abandon his family for a main draw match but not for a back draw match is still, well, "abandoning" his family.  The implication that as long as he keeps winning in the main draw it’s ok to miss little Johnny's soccer game is ludicrous.  Its not OK to skip out on your family and it’s not OK to commit to a tournament and then just bail because you lost in the main draw.  Playing a tournament requires a commitment to your partner and any opponents that you might be playing that day.  If you cannot commit for the day than you should not play.  In a few years my daughter will be at that "soccer game" age and my main draw and back draw days will be over and it will have nothing to do with the back draw rule.  

The back draw rule should be strictly enforced.

Rusty Wright

=========================

I love the back draw!!  Without it you wouldn't be able to fill a tournament for one, and secondly, in paddle, it enables most teams to play the level they belong. Third, it gives us more games and an opportunity to meet new people. And finally, there's still a chance for you to 'win' at each level!

I have 5 children so I know what it's like to juggle schedules. If I enter a tournament I commit to the rules and that means I am there for the haul. If one of my kids has something I need to attend then I DONT play. It is very selfish and unfair of a team to forfeit just because they can't win or don't feel like playing in a match that doesn't 'mean' anything.  Wanting to be with your kids is a good thing. If you can't do both, then stay home. Simple!

Now if there was just a way to prevent a handful of people to not 'fake' an injury to avoid playing in the backdraw!!

Colleen Baker

--------------------------------------

From Art Williams, 1994 National Champion

I wrote this in 2002, but it was never published. It was in response to an article by then APTA President John Horine on back draw participation.

I enjoyed reading John Horine’s article on the issue of “back draw” defaulting.  Under certain circumstances, back draw defaulting can be rude and poor sportsman like. However, is there another side of the story?

Many of us who enjoy playing in paddle tennis tournaments have to make choices on the proper use of our time.  This is especially true for those of us who are married and have kids.  Thus, the issue often is family versus paddle.  For example, Pete Gruenberg and I were the top ranked team in the nation for four of five years in the 1990s. To get to number one, we had to play in the most important tournaments, four of five of which were on the east coast (Greenwich, Rye, Short Hills and then usually the nationals).  Since I live in Chicago, this often meant that I would see my family on Thursday night, go to work on Friday morning before they woke, leave from work on Friday evening to go to the airport, and arrive on the east coast late Friday evening.  Next I would play paddle all day on Saturday and well into the late afternoon on Sunday, fly back to Chicago late Sunday night, go to work on Monday and then see my family again on Monday night.  Note that I just went four days without seeing my family just for a “weekend” paddle tournament!

Even though I am now all washed up, I would still like to play in tournaments.  But I cannot make the case in front of my family that I should stick around for the unnecessary matches on Sunday that, to be perfectly honest, are not worth my time if the trade off is being away from my kids.  Playing in the main draw on Sunday is worth my time.  Playing in the round of 16 reprieve on Sunday is not.  Why can’t tournaments be one day for those who lose?  Where does it say that simple tournaments need to be two full days?  What is wrong with playing several matches on Saturday and then being out of a tournament when one loses?  It would be better if paddle tournaments were organized so that the first day is the main event.  And for those who want to play on Sunday, another tournament can be organized for those who want to play additional matches.

The round of 16 reprieve should be optional -have it as an option on the entry form so it can be organized in advance.  There should never be a quarters reprieve.  Besides, the difference between winning in the main consolation round, or even the round of sixteen and quarters, is inconsequential.  Award points for national rankings and seedings based on Sunday’s results in one giant optional consolation round.

We all know teams can throw a match if they do not want to or cannot justify playing on Sunday.  That doesn’t do anybody any good.  Other players simply fake an injury.  The U.S. Open doesn’t make players play additional matches, why should the APTA?

The APTA is losing participants for their tournaments because people who are busy with their families cannot justify a second day.  Thus, players don’t sign up at all.

Single guys can afford the time to play on Sunday; many of us who are married cannot.

Is this position snotty?  I don’t think so.  Players who want to play on Sunday can.  Players who can’t justify a game 700 miles from where they live shouldn’t have to.

Think of it this way: It is better for me to fly home at 6:00 AM on Sunday morning after losing on Saturday, teach Sunday School and see my family than it is for me to play a match that is not necessary.

John’s letter has the right “spirit”.  However, his views on the back draw are not practical for those of us who travel a long way from home to enjoy the game or who don’t want to play paddle all weekend long.  .  Let people play on Sunday if they want.  Let those of us who can’t justify it go home.

And a response:
Artie:

The prospective that I received from the "former National Champion" was exactly the reason I wrote the article.  I can understand, with reservations, why a player may not want to stay an extra day to play in the backdraw.  However, in most cases, I have come to the conclusion that it is really a poor excuse, particularly in National Championships.  The impression is made that "family" is only important if you lose but not important if you win.  I think that there is something amiss in that approach.

It was suggested in one of the "volleys" I received from the "Platform Tennis News " article that the backdraw should be formed only from those willing to participate in it.  As you point out in your article, the entry form could have a question to the effect, "Are you willing to participate in consolations and reprieves?"  I replied that I thought this would create "chaos"  for the Tournament Directors.

Except for the National Championships, I believe we have come to respect the players interest in confining tournaments to a single day.  As for the National Championship, are we willing to reduce the draw to a more manageable number of teams (thus reducing revenue also) and make the rankings serve as a qualification for entry?  That will not eliminate the backdraw question but it can reduce the number of matches and the time to play them.
Chuck Vasoll

I think it is essential that losers be compelled to play in the back draws.

Your 40 year old who prefers to be with his children, is saying, I'll sacrifice my kids to win at paddle, and I wonder for what other activities.

Most of us who play in tournaments know ahead of time that we are not going to "win".  We play for fun, the camaraderie, the exercise, and to see how we stack up against others, but seldom only to win.

I'm not paying large entry fees for the lunch and tee shirt.  I already weigh more than I should, and have too many paddle shirts.  I enter to get at least three matches, even if I got a bye in the first round.
John Stoffel

I believe the backdraw should be optional and the backdraw should be  created randomly after all first round losers have told the director  whether or not they wish to participate.  This will get willing  participants -- what's the point of coercing people to play when then  don't want to?

I believe the goal of non-professional sports is willingness  participation.  There is no "fan base" that you will lose.
Jeffrey Holland

what do you think? let me know! info@platformtennisnews.com

Click HERE to Return to November ’s articles