Talk is cheap. It’s easy to be a keyboard warrior and lament the state of tennis and the way it is governed, especially in relationship to the four major tennis tournaments. If an issue is problematic, it’s worth trying to actually do something about it.
I talk a lot about NCAA brackets in tennis. I lamented the fact that NCAA brackets weren’t used at Roland Garros, where the longstanding random draw format did not serve the sport’s best interests — mostly by putting Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal in the quarterfinals while Casper Ruud, ranked several places lower than both men, had a dream draw into the final. That is obviously not how seeded tournaments are supposed to work. Higher seeds — higher-ranked players — have earned their position and should be rewarded with better draws. This did not happen in Paris.
On the women’s side, the big-name players in the top 10 keep losing early. This is partly the product of a deep and balanced tour, but it is also the product of a draw system in which quality players play each other in Round 1, not later in the tournament. This reduces ticket sales and prevents big-name rivalries from happening as often as they could. That’s not good for the sport’s TV visibility. I wrote about both issues during the second week of Roland Garros here at Tennis With An Accent.
It’s time to take all this frustration and disapproval and channel these energies into an actual plan.
Here is that plan, which tennis would do well to consider as it tries to reward top players and also improve its bottom line as an entertainment business.
We start with the simple change of using NCAA brackets. The No. 1 principle of an NCAA bracket is that in an any given round of a multi-round tournament, the highest seed plays the lowest seed and the middle seeds play each other. That rewards the highest seed for being the highest seed. It pits the middle-tier competitors against each other. This is always how seeded tournaments should work.
It’s ridiculous that Naomi Osaka and Amanda Anisimova, both top-40 players, should meet in Round 1, as they did at Roland Garros. They earned world rankings which should give them much easier opponents in the first round.
Anisimova was seeded No. 27 in Paris. In an NCAA bracket system, she would play the No. 102 seed in Round 1. Osaka, ranked 38 going into Roland Garros, would have played the No. 91 seed. You can instantly see that top WTA players are likely to play deeper into tournaments — and therefore sell more tickets — under an NCAA bracket system.
Just so everyone can actually see what this looks like in full, here it is for the first round of a 128-player major tournament, with a dividing line between each 16-player section of the bracket:
1 vs 128
64 vs 65
33 vs 96
32 vs 97
17 vs 112
48 vs 81
49 vs 80
16 vs 113
9 vs 120
56 vs 73
41 vs 88
24 vs 105
25 vs 104
40 vs 89
57 vs 72
8 vs 121
4 vs 125
61 vs 68
36 vs 93
29 vs 100
20 vs 109
45 vs 84
52 vs 77
13 vs 116
12 vs 117
53 vs 76
44 vs 85
21 vs 108
28 vs 101
37 vs 92
60 vs 69
5 vs 124
6 vs 123
59 vs 70
38 vs 91
27 vs 102
22 vs 107
43 vs 86
54 vs 75
11 vs 118
14 vs 115
51 vs 78
46 vs 83
19 vs 110
30 vs 99
35 vs 94
62 vs 67
3 vs 126
7 vs 122
58 vs 71
39 vs 90
26 vs 103
23 vs 106
42 vs 87
55 vs 74
10 vs 119
15 vs 114
50 vs 79
47 vs 82
18 vs 111
31 vs 98
34 vs 95
63 vs 66
2 vs 127
That is how a 128-player bracket would look with an NCAA-style bracket. You can see that each seed is rewarded with an appropriate first-round matchup. The highest seeds are rewarded for their hard work and achievement with low seeds. A modestly good seed — 35 — is not forced to play World No. 40 or 50, but gets a player seeded 94. In turn, a player seeded 84 is forced to play a top-50 player. That serves as incentive for a No. 84 player to get better.
Now, let’s get to the rules and regulations. Obviously, players might be tempted to tank matches and re-engineer seeds.
The easiest solution here: Re-seed each half of the draw after every round. Boom. That instantly prevents a good amount of manipulation.
Also: Tournaments can require players to play and/or win a certain number of matches before their tournament in order to justify their ranking-based and formula-based seed. If they don’t meet those qualifications, the tournament can lower their seed by a predetermined number agreed upon by all parties.
One note brought up by skeptics of NCAA brackets is that draws will all look the same at each tournament. This is where surface- and tournament-specific formulas can be used to shake things up. I hasten to add that re-seeding each half of the draw after every round also works as a preventive measure in this case as well. It’s the easiest soution to a number of problems and concerns.
Finally: wild card seeding.
The obvious solution here is that wild cards can’t receive a top-tier or bottom-tier seeding. In a 128-player draw, wild cards would be seeded 40-49 on the high end and 80-89 on the low end, so that they don’t get a privileged seed but also don’t play any of the top 10 seeds in the early rounds of a tournament. High-end versus low-end wild cards could be determined based on previous rankings, achievements, and other obvious measurements.
It is always good to take a general argument and turn it into an actual plan. Now you — and all the major tennis tournaments — can see what the plan actually looks like.
Tennis with an Accent 