Court dismisses lawsuit challenging West Virginia prep tennis format change

The lawsuit, filed by attorney Brandon Kroll of Varner & Van Volkenburg PLLC in Clarksburg, had sought an injunction that likely would have sidelined the format change until at least the 2024 season.

But Robinson & McElwee lawyer Stephen Gandee successfully defended the Activities Commission in a hearing that lasted more than an hour Monday before Bedell.

Gandee prevailed by showing that the court didn’t have jurisdiction; the player didn’t first seek a rules waiver through the Activities Commission.

The state Supreme Court has held that courts can preside over issues involving due process, but have made it clear the rule-making function for scholastic sports in the state rests with the Activities Commission.

Gandee also had filed a motion to dismiss showing that a committee had decided the format change back in June, and that by Aug. 26, all tennis coaches registered with the Activities Commission had received email notice of the change.

The new format features a rating system used to seed players for the state tournament. Players can — and some have — boosted their rating by playing matches that have nothing to do with the state high school tennis season, according to Kroll.

He argued the Activities Commission “hastily pushed” to implement the Universal Tennis Rating system “in recent months.”

“Upon information and belief, the WVSSAC intends to implement the UTR into its criteria for qualifying for the WV High School State Tennis Tournament. Tennis coaches of WVSSAC member schools were made aware of this change through videoconferencing on or about February 27, 2023,” Kroll wrote.

Some coaches couldn’t attend and haven’t been furnished a copy of the recording “even though the high school tennis season has already begun,” Kroll wrote.

The new format will put primary emphasis on the new rating system, “followed by head-to-head power rating in regional play, number of regional matches played and won, common opponents, strength of opponents played, and overall record,” according to Kroll.

Some players and teams got a head start by enrolling in the rating system and starting to build their rating ahead of time, according to Kroll.

Other players and teams still haven’t signed up. That’s a problem because if a registered player wins a match against another player whose team isn’t completely signed up for the rating system, the match result doesn’t count toward the victorious player’s rating, according to Kroll.

The lawsuit asserted other problems with the new format, alleging:

— The rating system favors the rich, who can send their children to high-dollar rating events across the country;

— During the sign-up process, the rating system asks players to gauge their abilities; because this change came shortly prior to the season, that could tempt players to fudge this section in hopes of boosting their initial rating beyond what it should be.

— Multi-sport athletes are at a big disadvantage under the new format as they wouldn’t have the time to enter out-of-season rating events.

— The number of qualifiers for the state tournament is expected to be less than it has been in the past.

The prior state tournament system revolved around a seeding format, with teams declaring their No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 seeds. State champions would be crowned at each seeding level. The seeding format is continuing to be used during the regular season, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit contended the format change was made due to a match that lasted about 4 hours between No. 4 seeds at a past tournament. Some also have said coaches would game the seeding system by moving better players down in the order. For instance, a team’s true No. 1 seed might not be good enough to win at that level, but possibly could be a state champion at No. 2.

A message left for Activities Commission Executive Director Bernie Dolan wasn’t returned.