Make pro tennis more competitive - ban racket re-stringing during matches

Are you like me, watching the pros in the French Open and noticing how most of them are sending rackets back to be re-strung during each match?

Photo Credit: A younger Ace at Vic Braden's Tennis College

Jeezuz, I play tennis 1-3 times a week and if I restrung my racket more than twice a year it's probably because my dog was chewing on it! I bet most of you fellow players are the same!

Anyway, I understand I am not a pro player and neither are most of you. A lot of you will say, hey, they're pros. They have exceptional feel and can tell when the racket tension decreases even a miniscule amount and that affects their game. 

To which I say - SO WHAT?

Wouldn't it make it more interesting and more competitive, if the pros didn't have a bunch of stringers in the wings waiting to get them a newly restrung racket in 20 minutes or so?

Here's what I think should happen. A new rule that prohibits racket restringing during a match. Furthermore, the number of rackets allowed on court should be limited as well, say, 4 or 5 at the most.

IMHO, this will make the matches more interesting and more competitive.

I asked Meta AI about this and it appears to agree with me, saying the following:

Meta AI:

What strategy changes would occur?

1. Increased emphasis on adaptability: Players would need to adapt to playing with the same racket for an extended period, which could lead to a greater emphasis on developing skills that aren't racket-dependent.

2. Racket selection becomes crucial: With a limited number of rackets allowed on court, players would need to carefully choose which rackets to bring, considering factors like string type, tension, and racket characteristics.

3. More conservative stringing: Players opt for more durable strings or lower tensions to minimize the risk of breakage, potentially affecting their overall game.

4. Shift in player profiles: Some players might thrive in the new environment, while others might struggle, potentially leading to a shift in the rankings and player profiles.

5. Tactical timeouts and racket swaps: Players might strategically time their racket swaps to coincide with timeouts or between sets, potentially disrupting their opponent's momentum.

6. More emphasis on endurance: Players would need to develop the endurance to play with a racket that's not perfectly suited to their game, which could lead to a greater emphasis on physical conditioning.

These changes could lead to a more unpredictable and strategic game, with players needing to think on their feet and adapt to the rackets they're working with.

So, what do you think? Do you agree or not? (And don't get me started about changing balls every 9 games!)

 

How to make housing more affordable for regular folks - eliminate real estate agent commissions!

 There are a lot of things in the world that piss me off and this is one of them. Outrageous housing costs.

Photo credit: Google Gemini AI

The cost of housing for people who weren't already fortunate enough to buy when housing was cheaper is out of reach for most people today.

You want to know one of the reasons why? Commissions paid to real estate agents. 

Here's why. They generally get a commission of around ±5% of the sale price. This is the same percentage regardless of the final sale price of the house. 

For example, they get a 5% commission if the house sells for $200,000 or if the house sells for $400,000. From an agent's standpoint, this encourages them to sell the house for as much as they can, because they get more money that way.

In addition, and this is what I think really is the problem, the actual work that an agent does to sell a $200,000 house versus a $400,000 house, or even a $1 million house, is exactly the same!!! They list the house, they show it to potential buyers, they help handle the necessary paperwork, etc. None of that changes if the price of the house is different. The work they do is exactly the same!!!

So, why is this? Why isn't there a law that sets a fixed fee or rate for agents per house? I mean, getting licensed to be a real estate agent isn't rocket science. You don't need to be a genius to learn to do that. 

For example, suppose we set a base fee of $10,000 per house. (That would be equivalent to 5% of a $200,000 sales price.) Suppose an agent sells 1 house per month. That's 12 x $10,000 = $120,000. If the agent sells 2 houses a month, that's $240,000. You telling me an agent can't live on that?

Do you disagree with me? Do you have any other suggestions, maybe an hourly rate like a plumber or an electrician or a lawyer (although that might get outrageous too!).