"Why not," I?d ask them.

"It?s soooo boring," they?d say.

Yeah, well, so is baseball.

Now, while I like to watch baseball, you have to admit that it can be utterly mind numbing at times, unless we?re talking about Boston Red Sox vs. New York Yankees, Chicago Cubs vs. St. Louis Cardinals, or the Los Angeles Dodgers vs. San Francisco Giants, when we?re either treated to first class baseball or last class basebrawl.

Regardless, there?s something about the game that has kept bringing fans back by the millions year after year, decade after decade. That?s why it?s dubbed "America?s Greatest Pastime."

Tennis, however,? is not.

Ever heard the expression "you had to be there." Well, take it from me -- nothing better describes tennis.

Like golf, one of the biggest things one has to do to appreciate tennis, with any sport really, is play it. If not play it, be around it at least. For many, all that tennis is is hitting a ball over a net. They don?t understand the strategy behind the serve and volley, the crosscourt-shot, the down-the-line-shot, the how?s and why?s of the kick serve, and the when?s and where?s of heavy topspin.

Then again, one doesn?t need to know the details of a safety blitz or a 2-3 zone to appreciate football or basketball. Those games are just simply more exciting to a greater number of people. Who?s ever heard of a 100,000 plus packing it in to watch one tennis game?

A big problem with tennis is that there are no rivalries anymore. Rivalries are huge for the success of any sport. The days of Ken Rosewall vs. Rod Laver, John McEnroe vs. Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Bjorg vs. John McEnroe, McEnroe vs. Mats Wilander, Martina Navratilova vs. Chris Evert, Steffe Graf vs. Monica Seles, and Pete Sampras vs. Andre Agassi are over, at least for the moment.

Matches today resembling that of the 1969 Wimbledon first-rounder between Pancho Gonzales and Charlie Pasarell -- which lasted 112 games -- or the one in the 1982 Davis Cup quarterfinal between McEnroe and Wilander -- which lasted 6 ½ hours -- are these days so few and far between that viewers often don?t know about them until long after they?ve finished.

Couple that with the fact that the matches may?ve been played by players you?ve never even heard of, and you?ll most likely find that those you actually watched the match were of the die-hard category who actually pay for the Tennis Channel.

But even if you had rivalries, in my opinion, tennis?s ratings would still rest far below that of the more marketable sports today. Granted, while the TV audience that watched Laver play Rosewall in Dallas?s Moody Coliseum in 1972 grew to 21 million before the last point was played, such numbers were far from the norm.

Everybody loves to see athletes spar, regardless of the sport.

Maybe that?s why cockfighting is so popular in other parts of the world.

But such events don?t happen every day. Tennis?s TV ratings have been up and down over the last 20 years. I suppose you could say that professional tennis is a victim unto itself when it comes to marketing.

The tournament structure of any tennis event makes it difficult to get the word out about a good upcoming match. You can?t market an Agassi vs. Sampras US Open final a month in advance like you could, say, the Super Bowl. A -- either one of them might not play, or B -- either one of them might lose before they reach the finals.

Not to mention tennis tournaments occur all over the world, during every hour of every day. Someone living in South Texas may want to watch the ATP sanctioned TATA Open in Chennai, India, provided they know when it?s taking place and that they?ll have to get up at 3 am to actually view it.

The Australian Open, though a Grand Slam, is often over before it began. And while a tournament may actually be happening within our borders, most of the matches occur during the day, when most are at work. That, combined with the fact that the game can be very boring to watch on television, even for a player.

Fans of the NBA, NFL or MLB often identify with the teams that play near where they live. Professional tennis has no such qualities, for it is made up of players, not teams. The USTA tried professional team tennis on a broad scale years ago and it failed. The only team tennis the game really has now is the Davis Cup.

Moreover, the NBA, NFL, and MLB schedules are known months in advance, plus a majority of their games occur at night, both making it much easier for league?s to market their teams.

Another thing hurting tennis is the lack of attention at the college ranks. There?s no Bowl system in place of tennis, is there? Not only is college tennis nonexistent on TV, but there?s also a lack of funding for college tennis programs. I mean, Division III football programs get more money. My alma mater just this past year cut both men?s and women?s tennis from its athletic department. Young tennis players who want to develop their abilities don?t wait until college. Parents will send there kids to tennis camps like Nick Boliteri?s, which combine tennis training with scholastic studies.

It?s much more difficult for a game like tennis that is made up of individual players and not teams to market the players, seeing as how they are all over the world. When was the last time you were able to leave work, go see Andy Roddick play, and then make your way home a mere three hours later like you could an NBA game? When was the last time Lleyton Hewitt was signing autographs at your local supermarket?

But one thing that tennis has going for it is that it?s a "gentleman?s game." It?s generally a quiet one, and its players are typically law-abiding, a welcome alternative. The Williams sisters aren?t constantly being suspended for substance abuse, Lindsay Davenport isn?t boycotting the Legg Mason Tennis Classic because of contract negotiations, and last time I checked, Lleyton Hewitt isn?t asking for time off to promote his new rap album.

For tennis officials to rely on television as its gauge for success would be foolish. I mean, if horseracing is still on TV, I see no reason why tennis can?t linger. The only tennis tournaments that draw the most attention are the Grand Slams, and even the spoils from television ratings that are reaped must be treated like the profits from 4th of July and New Years Day fireworks sales.

They?re nice, even if they don?t happen every day.

But I digress. The game of tennis will always be more of a "niche" sport compared to other sports, which means that it must be nurtured from the grassroots level. The number of USTA memberships continues to grows year after year, and just about every weekend there?s a tournament for just about any player of any skill level to play. Fans of tennis are most likely those who actually play the sport, either recreationally or competitively, and you don?t have to be young to play it. They?re the ones who are going to travel all the way to England to watch Wimbledon or to Roland Garros to watch the French Open.

And isn?t that the type of fan you want, anyway?