PDA

View Full Version : USTA Players-do your teams play in order of strength?


Pages : [1] 2

SJS
02-14-2007, 11:13 AM
Just curious. I've been reading posts on this board for a while and keep seeing references to playing #1, etc. I'm captain of two USTA teams and have been told by league coordinators the last couple of years that they can no longer even suggest that teams be played by order of strength. Even after repeatedly telling my own players that #3 can be just as tough as #1 it still hasn't sunk in. Does your section still have rules regarding order of strength or has this just not filtered down?

travlerajm
02-14-2007, 11:30 AM
Just curious. I've been reading posts on this board for a while and keep seeing references to playing #1, etc. I'm captain of two USTA teams and have been told by league coordinators the last couple of years that they can no longer even suggest that teams be played by order of strength. Even after repeatedly telling my own players that #3 can be just as tough as #1 it still hasn't sunk in. Does your section still have rules regarding order of strength or has this just not filtered down?

Some teams play straight up. Some don't. Being able to stack adds a strategy element, but I personally feel it makes more of the matches competitive if there is a no-stacking rule. I really hate it when I'm playing on the #1 team and I end up facing the #3 team, and the match ends up being a mismatch.

Cruzer
02-14-2007, 11:31 AM
I have never heard of a "rule" regarding playing in order of strength. Who is to say what the order of strength is anyway? I have played on teams and against teams that never played in order of strength. This topic has been discussed before and there are some opinions that the "fair" way to play is in order of strength and only unscrupulous captains would not play that way. Personally I disagree. USTA tennis is competitive and the objective is to win the match with the players you have available for that match. If that means putting you strongest singles player in the no. 2 spot and putting your weakest doubles team in the no. 1 spot then that is what you do. Since the vast majority of teams members want to win they will support the idea of inserting a lineup with the best chance to get a win for the team.

raiden031
02-14-2007, 11:33 AM
My team decides who plays which spot at random. Its impossible to determine the best way to lay them out because you have to predict how your opponent will lay them out. Also its not easy to determine strength when USTA doesn't even allow you to know your dynamic ratings.

Netbudda
02-14-2007, 11:38 AM
We use strategy in deciding who plays which line...simply put the objective is to win the match. We look at their roster and their past selection and then make our picks based on that......it adds a nice spin to things not really knowing who you are going to play. Is such a well known practice that sometimes the best strategy is too play straight up.

JLyon
02-14-2007, 11:47 AM
There is no way to do this as 4.5 is 4.5 to a player. I think it is blatant though when captains throw 2 4.0's playing up at #1 against the opposition, but stacking is about as common as tanking matches in USTA League matches.

Cruzer
02-14-2007, 11:55 AM
.... but stacking is about as common as tanking matches in USTA League matches.

Ah, I don't think so. If your team advances to district playoffs and beyond it is almost a given that teams will adjust their lineups to win the match and their is nothing wrong with that. Tanking matches is a whole different matter and applies to those that want to protect their ratings.

Netbudda
02-14-2007, 12:18 PM
There is no way to do this as 4.5 is 4.5 to a player. I think it is blatant though when captains throw 2 4.0's playing up at #1 against the opposition, but stacking is about as common as tanking matches in USTA League matches.

I imagine that according to you the way they keep the lineups secret for Davis Cup is cheating. Same applies for Golf Ryder's Cup.

oldguysrule
02-14-2007, 12:23 PM
There is no such thing as "stacking" in a USTA league match. That is because there is no rule, written or unwritten, that mentions setting your lineup according to the strength of the players. The choice of who plays #1 singles or #2 doubles does not involve an evaluation of the strength or talent of the individual players. It is simply a way of designating what court you are assigned to.

That being said, some teams do follow a pattern when assigning courts and so some strategy comes into play to try to get your team the best matchups. However, who's to say the opposition will cooperate in their court assignments when they play your team.

Please continue to share this with other league players, because obviously there are players that expect the #1 doubles spot to be the best doubles team, etc. This is an assumption that needs to be "nipped" as Barney would say.

lefty10s
02-14-2007, 01:04 PM
Hello. I am Local League Coordinator in Georgia, and we have never suggested that teams should play in order of strength. What we run into here in Atlanta is that ALTA requires that you do that. Called No-sandbagging rule. Which makes sense for ALTA since some teams have varied levels of players. But for USTA, why do it? If you know your opponents have unbeatable #1's, why put your team against them. You are basically forfeiting a point, but the idea is to win majority of matches to take the overall win. But many Atlanta teams still play in order of descending strength. Not doing so brings some strategy into the line-up, but if everyone is doing it, it becomes a roll of the dice.
As someone said in earlier post, all players within a level are supposed to be equal, but we know that is not true. Especially when you have teams with lower level players playing up to higher level(which is whole other story).

Topaz
02-14-2007, 01:15 PM
We use strategy in deciding who plays which line...simply put the objective is to win the match. We look at their roster and their past selection and then make our picks based on that......it adds a nice spin to things not really knowing who you are going to play. Is such a well known practice that sometimes the best strategy is too play straight up.


Ditto...this is what me and my captains do as well.

travlerajm
02-14-2007, 04:18 PM
Doesn't the NCAA have a no-stacking rule? I've never seen a college team stack. I know my high school league did, but most coaches disregarded it.

JLyon
02-14-2007, 05:09 PM
Doesn't the NCAA have a no-stacking rule? I've never seen a college team stack. I know my high school league did, but most coaches disregarded it.


Sorta of once established players may play +1 or -1 position in the line-up.

10sfreak
02-14-2007, 06:33 PM
As the captain of a team here in Georgia, I decide who to play at what position depending on the opposing team's strength. I have been known to "sacrifice" a player to an opposing #1 singles in order to win the overall match. We won our division last fall, and we're now leading our division this spring season. In fact, most of the guys on my team are going to have to schedule some losses this season, just to keep from getting DQed. That's right, we're planning on losing some lines, each in turn, so as to keep from getting DQed. It seems unsavory and dishonest, but that's what the rules of the USTA force upon us. Who wants to win all season long, then get DQed at the end, and have all your matches thrown out? None of us are "self-rated", but we've known people who've been computer-rated at a certain level, but when they keep winning AT THAT SAME LEVEL ASSIGNED TO THEM BY THE COMPUTER, that same damn computer DQs them!! So, part of our strategy now is to lose some matches, in order to win! Crazy...

CrocodileRock
02-14-2007, 06:57 PM
[QUOTE=oldguysrule;1251786]
some teams do follow a pattern when assigning courts and so some strategy comes into play to try to get your team the best matchups.

One of my mantras has been "possession is 9/10 of the law." That is, if you have the best players on your team, you're 90% done. Strategy is almost irrelevant. But what if the players are approximately equal? Strategy and luck suddenly swell to at least 50%. Say your and your opponents' doubles teams are pretty close at 1,2,& 3. The match is a big tossup, with your chances of winning at 50%. Not very encouraging. But what if you play your #3 at #1 (in effect sacrificing them) so that your #1 plays their #2, and your #2 plays their #3. You've now upped your odds to 67%. This is why, in the information age "pattern" teams are easy to beat. You can scour the internet to determine each person's ability, and structure your lineup to place your 3 strongest lines against their 3 weakest lines for a 3-2 win.

I talked with a USTA official about this same question last year. He wants to assign higher point values to the #1 positions, such as 1.5 times the #2, to encourage order of strength, but there is no one in his corner on this matter (fortunately). Imagine a match where you lost #1 singles and doubles, but won the other 3 lines, and the other team is declared the winner. That dog won't hunt.

oldguysrule
02-14-2007, 07:02 PM
As the captain of a team here in Georgia, I decide who to play at what position depending on the opposing team's strength. I have been known to "sacrifice" a player to an opposing #1 singles in order to win the overall match. We won our division last fall, and we're now leading our division this spring season. In fact, most of the guys on my team are going to have to schedule some losses this season, just to keep from getting DQed. That's right, we're planning on losing some lines, each in turn, so as to keep from getting DQed. It seems unsavory and dishonest, but that's what the rules of the USTA force upon us. Who wants to win all season long, then get DQed at the end, and have all your matches thrown out? None of us are "self-rated", but we've known people who've been computer-rated at a certain level, but when they keep winning AT THAT SAME LEVEL ASSIGNED TO THEM BY THE COMPUTER, that same damn computer DQs them!! So, part of our strategy now is to lose some matches, in order to win! Crazy...

It is unsavory and dishonest and it is NOT forced upon you. At least be man enough to admit that your team intends to cheat in order to continue playing at a level that is below your skill level. You cheat the other players because you are not playing your best in a competitive match. And you screw up the computer because false information is used to come up with ratings. You then have the gall to blame it on the computer. Be a man...do your best, respect your opponents, live with honor. You gain nothing by winning if you cheat to win. You just are a loser playing a game that means nothing.

CrocodileRock
02-14-2007, 07:30 PM
When I say "sacrifice" I mean using a weak player against an unbeatable opponent, saving our stronger player to use against their weaker player. It's an effort to split singles, rather than lose both, and there's no guarantee it will work. It's kind of like a sacrifice in baseball... one player goes down, but the team improves its chances to score.

When freak says sacrifice, he means someone intentionally losing a match they could win in order to manipulate the computer ratings.

There is a huge difference in those two.

oldguysrule
02-14-2007, 07:39 PM
When I say "sacrifice" I mean using a weak player against an unbeatable opponent, saving our stronger player to use against their weaker player. It's an effort to split singles, rather than lose both, and there's no guarantee it will work. It's kind of like a sacrifice in baseball... one player goes down, but the team improves its chances to score.

When freak says sacrifice, he means someone intentionally losing a match they could win in order to manipulate the computer ratings.

There is a huge difference in those two.

Hey Croc,
No worries...the difference in what ya'll were saying was obvious.

See you on the court soon.

BigJEFF
02-14-2007, 08:04 PM
[QUOTE=CrocodileRock;1252669][QUOTE=oldguysrule;1251786]
some teams do follow a pattern when assigning comes into play to try to get your team the best matchups.
what if you play your #3 at #1 (in effect sacrificing them) so that your #1 plays their #2, and your #2 plays their #3. or if Your #1 is a Nationally ranked JR it ups your odds by 100% and you can win a National Championship.....

rasajadad
02-15-2007, 04:31 AM
The team I play on usually tries to play in order. However, for home matches, we only have three courts. So two matches go off at 2pm and three matches go off at 4pm. In order to accommodate other commitments, we have to see who on the other team can flip schedules. So sometimes no, we don't play straight up. (But we don't do it to "stack".)

JLyon
02-15-2007, 04:40 AM
As the captain of a team here in Georgia, I decide who to play at what position depending on the opposing team's strength. I have been known to "sacrifice" a player to an opposing #1 singles in order to win the overall match. We won our division last fall, and we're now leading our division this spring season. In fact, most of the guys on my team are going to have to schedule some losses this season, just to keep from getting DQed. That's right, we're planning on losing some lines, each in turn, so as to keep from getting DQed. It seems unsavory and dishonest, but that's what the rules of the USTA force upon us. Who wants to win all season long, then get DQed at the end, and have all your matches thrown out? None of us are "self-rated", but we've known people who've been computer-rated at a certain level, but when they keep winning AT THAT SAME LEVEL ASSIGNED TO THEM BY THE COMPUTER, that same damn computer DQs them!! So, part of our strategy now is to lose some matches, in order to win! Crazy...

If they get DQ'ed then that means they are playing at the wrong level. As for my original post on tanking, I stand by it. I do not have a problem shifting line-ups that is part of the game, but during the regular season when a player who has dominated for the past few years gets bumped, appeals and gets back, then goes out first two matches as 4.5 and loses to 2 Average 4.0 2,2 that is a tank job pure and simple. The same player and his team advances to city/sectionals and subsequently wins all matches.

Another example a 4.5 players plays 4.5 and 5.0 does not lose matches at 4.5, goes .500 at 5.0 then goes out and loses a match to a 4.0 rather easily. Of course again once post-season rolls around that same player does not lose a match. Unfortunately this happens everywhere, Texas, Arkansas, etc..

SJS
02-15-2007, 04:54 AM
There is no such thing as "stacking" in a USTA league match. That is because there is no rule, written or unwritten, that mentions setting your lineup according to the strength of the players. The choice of who plays #1 singles or #2 doubles does not involve an evaluation of the strength or talent of the individual players. It is simply a way of designating what court you are assigned to.

That being said, some teams do follow a pattern when assigning courts and so some strategy comes into play to try to get your team the best matchups. However, who's to say the opposition will cooperate in their court assignments when they play your team.

Please continue to share this with other league players, because obviously there are players that expect the #1 doubles spot to be the best doubles team, etc. This is an assumption that needs to be "nipped" as Barney would say.

Thanks for all your responses. I agree with oldguysrule and field my line-ups accordingly. Last year most of the captains at my level were also fielding teams in random order. But no matter how many times I tell my players that the computer makes no distinction in what line you play and that the strongest team may not be at #1 some are still intimidated at playing #1 or feel slighted at playing #3. That's why I was interested in what other sections do.

oldguysrule
02-15-2007, 06:24 AM
The team I play on usually tries to play in order. However, for home matches, we only have three courts. So two matches go off at 2pm and three matches go off at 4pm. In order to accommodate other commitments, we have to see who on the other team can flip schedules. So sometimes no, we don't play straight up. (But we don't do it to "stack".)

We need to stop referring to "straight up" and "stacking". I know it is ingrained in us to expect the #1 singles spot to be your best singles player, but that is not the way it is done in USTA league tennis. Your players can play any line at anytime and the determination of who plays #1 is not based on skill or ability. It simply is a way of determing what court you play on.

I am sorry if it appears that I am beating a dead horse.

jimmycoop
02-15-2007, 06:28 AM
Once upon a time, local and, I believe, state rules "required" captains to play in order of strength. That was abandoned after a few seasons because so many teams would not follow the "requirement" and because there was no way to enforce it, i.e., no legit way to determine relative skill. Here in Mississippi, all captains do as has been noted elsewhere--research your opponent's history of playing order and player strength and buy into the strategy game. As has also been pointed out, the other capt. is doing the same thing, so it typically gets to be a crap shoot. The problem with players perceiving a slight at playing # 3, etc. is universal--part of the captain's dilemma. Finally, thanks to oldguysrule for saying to 10sfreak what I feel strongly--tanking a match is cheating, pure and simple, and one of the reasons some players get such a bad taste in their mouth about USTA League tennis that they leave and don't come back.

Tennis--cheaper than therapy and more effective.

Lindros13
02-15-2007, 07:15 AM
I'm new to USTA leagues so forgive me for not knowing....
For USTA league matches, does one team (i.e. the away team) first post a line-up and then the other team get to look at it before posting their own line-up? Or do both captains come together and show their line-ups "at the same time"?

From reading this thread, I presume one team shows first. Otherwise, if neither shows first, then it's a complete shot in the dark on who you will match up against, especially if a team mixes up their players at all different spots each match (i.e. John/Bill played 1st doubles last match and they played 2nd Doubles the match before, and 3rd doubles the match before that...)

Thanks in advance for clarifying this.

cak
02-15-2007, 08:29 AM
From reading this thread, I presume one team shows first. Otherwise, if neither shows first, then it's a complete shot in the dark on who you will match up against, especially if a team mixes up their players at all different spots each match (i.e. John/Bill played 1st doubles last match and they played 2nd Doubles the match before, and 3rd doubles the match before that...).

They do swap lineups at the same time. So yeah, it's a shot in the dark.

Cruzer
02-15-2007, 08:55 AM
I'm new to USTA leagues so forgive me for not knowing....
For USTA league matches, does one team (i.e. the away team) first post a line-up and then the other team get to look at it before posting their own line-up? Or do both captains come together and show their line-ups "at the same time"?

From reading this thread, I presume one team shows first. Otherwise, if neither shows first, then it's a complete shot in the dark on who you will match up against, especially if a team mixes up their players at all different spots each match (i.e. John/Bill played 1st doubles last match and they played 2nd Doubles the match before, and 3rd doubles the match before that...)

Thanks in advance for clarifying this.

As stated above the team captains swap lineups at the same time. The captains usually spend some time observing the players on the other team that are warming up to anticipate what the opposing lineup might be. I have played on teams where the captain wanted 10-12 players warming up before the match so the other team could not be sure which 8 people were actually going to be playing in the match. Diligent captains will also review the prior matches of the their opponents to see who the doubles teams are and what positions they play. Some teams are quite predictable where for example one doubles team always plays in the number one spot.

spiderman123
02-15-2007, 08:59 AM
Who wants to win all season long, then get DQed at the end, and have all your matches thrown out? None of us are "self-rated", but we've known people who've been computer-rated at a certain level, but when they keep winning AT THAT SAME LEVEL ASSIGNED TO THEM BY THE COMPUTER, that same damn computer DQs them!! So, part of our strategy now is to lose some matches, in order to win! Crazy...

The rating system is a feedback system. The computer cannot give you a perfect rating but can only provide a base to start. The actual rating will be dynamic results based. So the honest and logical thing to do when you find yourself winning almost all the matches is to try playing at a higher level. If you find yourself losing at that level very badly, then you may appeal to be brought down if that does not happen in the next refresh. Also, people should not play above their levels on a regular basis unless they really feel that they are ready. This may result in false DQs of higher levels.

The system can only work if everyone follows these simple rules.

Still this tanking is pure unsportsmanlike conduct. We need some major changes in the rating algo to prevent such things.

Raiden.Kaminari
02-15-2007, 09:00 AM
I have never heard of a "rule" regarding playing in order of strength.

For High School tennis, you do have to play in order of strength.

For USTA NorCal, the LLAR doesn't specify you have to play in order of strength. For combo and mixed seasons, I usually play straight, but some seasons, I decide the order of the line-up based on what time people show up. For example, for a 6:00pm match that has all 5 individual matches starting at the same time, whoever shows up first chooses the spot they are playing at. It freaks captains out who try to stack their line-up, because my line-ups are totally random.

oldguysrule
02-15-2007, 10:06 AM
.. Also, people should not play above their levels on a regular basis unless they really feel that they are ready. This may result in false DQs of higher levels.

The system can only work if everyone follows these simple rules.

Still this tanking is pure unsportsmanlike conduct. We need some major changes in the rating algo to prevent such things.


Playing up does not result in false DQ's. Everybody listen, the only thing that matters is the actual dynamic rating of each player. It does not matter which line you play or whether you are playing up. The computer just looks at your dynamic rating compared to your opponent. It is programmed with what the scores SHOULD be based on the dynamic rating differential and makes an adjustment to the dynamic rating based on what the ACTUAL score was.

The problem with the dynamic rating system is not in the computer. It is in the people that take advantage of the system. If everyone would spend less time trying to manipulate or change their ratings and more time playing tennis in an honorable and sportsmanlike fashion, the system would work fine.

spiderman123
02-15-2007, 10:57 AM
Playing up does not result in false DQ's. Everybody listen,

Ok, I stand corrected. And basically agree with your points that people should play in sportsmanlike fashion.

cak
02-15-2007, 12:43 PM
For combo and mixed seasons, I usually play straight, but some seasons, I decide the order of the line-up based on what time people show up. For example, for a 6:00pm match that has all 5 individual matches starting at the same time, whoever shows up first chooses the spot they are playing at. It freaks captains out who try to stack their line-up, because my line-ups are totally random.


Can I just say this is the best method ever for determining who plays on what court. Do they all show up early then?

10sfreak
02-15-2007, 12:52 PM
It is unsavory and dishonest and it is NOT forced upon you. At least be man enough to admit that your team intends to cheat in order to continue playing at a level that is below your skill level. You cheat the other players because you are not playing your best in a competitive match. And you screw up the computer because false information is used to come up with ratings. You then have the gall to blame it on the computer. Be a man...do your best, respect your opponents, live with honor. You gain nothing by winning if you cheat to win. You just are a loser playing a game that means nothing.

And how exactly are we cheating? As I wrote previously, THE COMPUTER is what has assigned us our ratings. Then, in the middle of the season, THE COMPUTER DQs the players, making all their matches null and void. How is that fair? If the USTA would stick to a players rating 'till the end of the season, there wouldn't be this problem.

10sfreak
02-15-2007, 12:56 PM
The rating system is a feedback system. The computer cannot give you a perfect rating but can only provide a base to start. The actual rating will be dynamic results based. So the honest and logical thing to do when you find yourself winning almost all the matches is to try playing at a higher level. If you find yourself losing at that level very badly, then you may appeal to be brought down if that does not happen in the next refresh. Also, people should not play above their levels on a regular basis unless they really feel that they are ready. This may result in false DQs of higher levels.

The system can only work if everyone follows these simple rules.

Still this tanking is pure unsportsmanlike conduct. We need some major changes in the rating algo to prevent such things.
Well, our players DO get beaten pretty badly when we play at the 3.5 level, so none of us have ever even been bumped up yet. But, like I wrote in my first post, if you win all your matches in a season, there's a very good chance you'll get DQed, thereby losing all the matches you've already played. Sure, we don't like tanking a match, but again, why should our team be punished just because we're winning? You're right, we do need some kind of revision to the rating algorithm.

Lindros13
02-15-2007, 01:03 PM
Well, our players DO get beaten pretty badly when we play at the 3.5 level, so none of us have ever even been bumped up yet. But, like I wrote in my first post, if you win all your matches in a season, there's a very good chance you'll get DQed, thereby losing all the matches you've already played. Sure, we don't like tanking a match, but again, why should our team be punished just because we're winning? You're right, we do need some kind of revision to the rating algorithm.

If you win all your matches, how does the computer then DQ you? Does it bump a player up to the next rating mid-season (say from 4.0 to 4.5), and then they are not eligible to be in the 4.0 league/team that they started in, thereby forcing a DQ for any match they played? Again, I am new to the USTA leagues so I don't know how this works.

10sfreak
02-15-2007, 01:08 PM
Playing up does not result in false DQ's. Everybody listen, the only thing that matters is the actual dynamic rating of each player. It does not matter which line you play or whether you are playing up. The computer just looks at your dynamic rating compared to your opponent. It is programmed with what the scores SHOULD be based on the dynamic rating differential and makes an adjustment to the dynamic rating based on what the ACTUAL score was.

The problem with the dynamic rating system is not in the computer. It is in the people that take advantage of the system. If everyone would spend less time trying to manipulate or change their ratings and more time playing tennis in an honorable and sportsmanlike fashion, the system would work fine.
That is NOT the way the local league coordinators explained it to us at the captain's meeting two weeks ago. They told us that when you play up, depending on how well you do, it CAN and DOES affect not only YOUR rating, but the rating of everyone you play, AND who THEY play against. The 4th sentence in your post above has it right: "The computer just looks at your dynamic rating COMPARED TO YOUR OPPONENT." The key is the part that I capitalized: "compared to your opponent." That means, if you're playing up, even if you lose, but you do fairly well against them, it does bump your dynamic rating up. Then, when you have a bad day against a lesser opponent on your own level, it bumps his/her rating up. So, it does indeed affect everyone else's ratings when a player plays up.

10sfreak
02-15-2007, 01:10 PM
Ok, I stand corrected. And basically agree with your points that people should play in sportsmanlike fashion.
Spiderman, before you "stand corrected," please read my post above addressed to oldguysrule. (Post # 36).

10sfreak
02-15-2007, 01:13 PM
If you win all your matches, how does the computer then DQ you? Does it bump a player up to the next rating mid-season (say from 4.0 to 4.5), and then they are not eligible to be in the 4.0 league/team that they started in, thereby forcing a DQ for any match they played? Again, I am new to the USTA leagues so I don't know how this works.

Yes, that's exactly what has happened to several players that I know. That's why people (like my team) manipulate the system, 'cause we don't want to wind up forfeiting a whole season's worth of matches. It's not fair to the individual player, nor is it fair to the team.

tennis-n-sc
02-15-2007, 01:14 PM
We need to stop referring to "straight up" and "stacking". I know it is ingrained in us to expect the #1 singles spot to be your best singles player, but that is not the way it is done in USTA league tennis. Your players can play any line at anytime and the determination of who plays #1 is not based on skill or ability. It simply is a way of determing what court you play on.

I am sorry if it appears that I am beating a dead horse.

I swear I just passed a dead horse in the road! ;) I know that there is no definition of stacking or guidelines. However, there is stacking even if implied, especially in the Souther Section and especially when one advances to the state and sectional playoffs. Call it what you like, but in league play, one of the considerations is the team win and it is common to try to juggle the line-up to win 3 of the 5 lines any way it can be done. I don't mind sacrificing my line if it helps the team as long as it doesn't become a regular deal. A great thing about TennisLink is that it gives a history of tendencies of teams and who generally plays at what line. If you know you have a strong team, they likely will want to play the strongest opponents and let the best man (or woman)win. Btu the practice is common and is referred to as stacking. I believe the old horse just up and galloped off.:)

10sfreak
02-15-2007, 01:25 PM
I swear I just passed a dead horse in the road! ;) I know that there is no definition of stacking or guidelines. However, there is stacking even if implied, especially in the Souther Section and especially when one advances to the state and sectional playoffs. Call it what you like, but in league play, one of the considerations is the team win and it is common to try to juggle the line-up to win 3 of the 5 lines any way it can be done. I don't mind sacrificing my line if it helps the team as long as it doesn't become a regular deal. A great thing about TennisLink is that it gives a history of tendencies of teams and who generally plays at what line. If you know you have a strong team, they likely will want to play the strongest opponents and let the best man (or woman)win. Btu the practice is common and is referred to as stacking. I believe the old horse just up and galloped off.:)

Tennis-n-sc, that's exactly right. At least, that's the way it's done here in Georgia. They may not call it "stacking" in other areas of the country, but that's what we call it.

kylebarendrick
02-15-2007, 01:33 PM
10sfreak - how is the computer supposed to assign people an appropriate rating if they are purposefully gaming the system to control their rating? I do agree, though, that computer rated players should have more protection against being DQ'd than self-rated players. But merely winning all of your matches won't necessarily get people disqualified.

FWIW, if your opponents filed a grievance against you and were able to prove that you tanked matches to maintain a rating, you would be suspended.

spiderman123
02-15-2007, 01:49 PM
Spiderman, before you "stand corrected," please read my post above addressed to oldguysrule. (Post # 36).

I agree with your post too. But then it is legal to increase your dynamic rating by playing against better opponents. This will also help the dynamic rating of the players at your own level as there must be some advantage when a 3.01 plays against a 3.48. That is how it should work IMHO.

I stood corrected only on the false DQ part. I wrote that as I thought if a legit 3.5 beats up a bunch of 2.5/3/0 who are playing at 3.5, the legit guy may get a false DQ and will get bumped up to 4.0. This is not the case as their relative dynamic ratings will be considered.

Cindysphinx
02-15-2007, 01:59 PM
FWIW, our section doesn't have an anti-stacking rule.

Captains handle their line-ups all sorts of ways. Personally, I play it pretty straight most times. I've never once used a weak pair in No. 1 position, but I will sometimes put my second strongest team on court three and my weakest team on court two, just to guard against a stack. I don't feel we've ever lost a team match due to stacking.

Actually, I like the idea of making Court One worth more points. How would that work, exactly?

When I go out on the court, I want a competitive match. I don't want to find that I'm up against weak players on Court One. Anything that encourages competitive matches for all players is a good thing, IMHO. After all, isn't that why we have a rating system in the first place?

10sfreak
02-15-2007, 02:23 PM
10sfreak - how is the computer supposed to assign people an appropriate rating if they are purposefully gaming the system to control their rating? I do agree, though, that computer rated players should have more protection against being DQ'd than self-rated players. But merely winning all of your matches won't necessarily get people disqualified.

FWIW, if your opponents filed a grievance against you and were able to prove that you tanked matches to maintain a rating, you would be suspended.

Well, that's just it. There isn't enough protection against being DQed. A player on my team (he didn't used to be, but he is now) got DQed a year and a half ago, right in the middle of the season, presumably because he's won all his matches (he wasn't playing up at the time, so what else could it have been?), thereby retroactively forfeiting all his matches, hurting not only himself, but his team as well. They didn't get to compete in the state championships that season, 'cause after having his wins taken away, his team was no longer the division winner. (Disclaimer: He was a self-rated 2.5 player, but, he had never picked up a racquet before in his life, and it was his very first season of play). It's in light of these circumstances that we are comtemplating manipulating the system, i.e., tanking on some matches to keep our dynamic rating from getting us DQed.
Btw, he is not the only player this has happened to in our local league. There's a couple of other guys as well, and a girl I know, who've had this happen to them, and they were all computer-rated.

travlerajm
02-15-2007, 02:37 PM
FWIW, our section doesn't have an anti-stacking rule.

Captains handle their line-ups all sorts of ways. Personally, I play it pretty straight most times. I've never once used a weak pair in No. 1 position, but I will sometimes put my second strongest team on court three and my weakest team on court two, just to guard against a stack. I don't feel we've ever lost a team match due to stacking.

Actually, I like the idea of making Court One worth more points. How would that work, exactly?

When I go out on the court, I want a competitive match. I don't want to find that I'm up against weak players on Court One. Anything that encourages competitive matches for all players is a good thing, IMHO. After all, isn't that why we have a rating system in the first place?


I have an idea. Winning on court 1 doesn't count more for the team match, but it usually does count more for your rating because you are more likely to play a stronger player. So a player who goes undefeated on court 1 will end up with a higher rating at the end of the year, since many teams still put the strongest players at number 1.

So here's the plan to discourage stacking:

Instead of making each match count as one point, you could determine who goes to sectionals by taking the average computer rating of each team at the end of the season. Each player would start with a clean slate. After 3 or 4 matches, the computer standings would go up on tennislink, kinda like the BCS.

Since a win over a top player would be worth more than a win over a weak player, there would be incentive to put the best players at number 1. Of course, this would favor a deeper team more than the current format, since the current format allows a team to go undefeated even if there are 2 weak slots in the lineup every week.

It would also generate interest because each player would be aware of his/her real-time rating. And that would be fun! Each player would have a season-ending rating for each league he/she plays in every year.

Then there could even be a rule that your players must play in order of real-time rating. So the order would be predetermined.

10sfreak
02-15-2007, 03:06 PM
I have an idea. Winning on court 1 doesn't count more for the team match, but it usually does count more for your rating because you are more likely to play a stronger player. So a player who goes undefeated on court 1 will end up with a higher rating at the end of the year, since many teams still put the strongest players at number 1.

So here's the plan to discourage stacking:

Instead of making each match count as one point, you could determine who goes to sectionals by taking the average computer rating of each team at the end of the season. Each player would start with a clean slate. After 3 or 4 matches, the computer standings would go up on tennislink, kinda like the BCS.

Since a win over a top player would be worth more than a win over a weak player, there would be incentive to put the best players at number 1. Of course, this would favor a deeper team more than the current format, since the current format allows a team to go undefeated even if there are 2 weak slots in the lineup every week.

It would also generate interest because each player would be aware of his/her real-time rating. And that would be fun! Each player would have a season-ending rating for each league he/she plays in every year.

Then there could even be a rule that your players must play in order of real-time rating. So the order would be predetermined.
Travler, that sounds like an excellent idea! Unfortunately, as explained to us, no one can ever know their dynamic rating, as of now anyway. But having each player's dynamic rating on tennislink could solve a lot of these problems we've been discussing.

kylebarendrick
02-15-2007, 03:26 PM
Travler, that sounds like an excellent idea! Unfortunately, as explained to us, no one can ever know their dynamic rating, as of now anyway. But having each player's dynamic rating on tennislink could solve a lot of these problems we've been discussing.

I've thought about that too. The problem is that if someone sees that their dynamic rating is about to bump them up or earn them a strike, they'll be even more likely to throw games, sets, or matches to protect their ratings.

I don't think there's much that can be done to stop someone who is determined to cheat in a recreational league from doing so.

10sfreak
02-15-2007, 04:58 PM
Yes Kyle, I can see how that would be a big problem. I think the best solution would be this: If, when I created/signed up for my team online back in January, I was accepted by the computer as a 3.0 (especially if I'm a computer-rated 3.0, which I am), then that should be what I remain until the season ends in April, regardless of how well I may do. There should not be any way I can get bumped up/DQed in the middle of the season, even if I win all my matches 6-0, 6-0 (which, believe me, ain't gonna happen, not the way I play!). This would eliminate any need, perceived or otherwise, to tank in a match. Unfortunately, as I've stated several times already, that's not how it's done. Theoretically, I could get bumped up/DQed 2/3 of the way through the season, retroactively forfeiting all my matches, thereby hurting my team's chances of going to the state championships. So unfortunately, in order to avoid any potential DQs, we're going to have to plan on some of my players tanking a match. I don't like it, my players don't like it (hell, who WANTS to lose a match?!), but that's the reality we face...

oldguysrule
02-15-2007, 06:38 PM
And how exactly are we cheating? As I wrote previously, THE COMPUTER is what has assigned us our ratings. Then, in the middle of the season, THE COMPUTER DQs the players, making all their matches null and void. How is that fair? If the USTA would stick to a players rating 'till the end of the season, there wouldn't be this problem.

If you tank a match to manipulate your rating, you are cheating...cheating yourself, cheating your opponent, and cheating the game of tennis.

Have you ever had anyone DQ'd? It actually does not happen often. Why don't you just play tennis, play your best, have fun, and quit worrying about what the computer is doing.

It is fair because, if you do get DQ'd, you shouldn't have been playing at that level to begin with. and as I said, it is a rare occurence.

10sfreak
02-15-2007, 06:40 PM
If you tank a match to manipulate your rating, you are cheating...cheating yourself, cheating your opponent, and cheating the game of tennis.

Have you ever had anyone DQ'd? It actually does not happen often. Why don't you just play tennis, play your best, have fun, and quit worrying about what the computer is doing.

It is fair because, if you do get DQ'd, you shouldn't have been playing at that level to begin with. and as I said, it is a rare occurence.
Read some of my previous posts right before your responses, especially post #44, and you'll know what I'm talking about regarding DQs.

cak
02-15-2007, 06:47 PM
Yes Kyle, I can see how that would be a big problem. I think the best solution would be this: If, when I created/signed up for my team online back in January, I was accepted by the computer as a 3.0 (especially if I'm a computer-rated 3.0, which I am), then that should be what I remain until the season ends in April, regardless of how well I may do. There should not be any way I can get bumped up/DQed in the middle of the season, even if I win all my matches 6-0, 6-0 (which, believe me, ain't gonna happen, not the way I play!). This would eliminate any need, perceived or otherwise, to tank in a match. Unfortunately, as I've stated several times already, that's not how it's done. Theoretically, I could get bumped up/DQed 2/3 of the way through the season, retroactively forfeiting all my matches, thereby hurting my team's chances of going to the state championships. So unfortunately, in order to avoid any potential DQs, we're going to have to plan on some of my players tanking a match. I don't like it, my players don't like it (hell, who WANTS to lose a match?!), but that's the reality we face...

You are in a tough position. Don't throw matches and possibly get DQ'd. Do throw matches and possibly get sanctioned and banned. I'd go with the one that when you explain it, sounds ethical.

oldguysrule
02-15-2007, 07:12 PM
regarding the dead horse....
1. There are some team competitions that require the lineup to be based on the strength of the players...best player plays #1 etc.
2. If you flip or "stack" your lineup in these leagues to get a favorable match up, it is considered illegal or unethical.
3. There is no rule in the USTA leagues regarding the way you must arrange your lineup. You best player can play 1,2,5, or 9....it doesn't matter.
4. If there is no rule or guideline to follow, then there can be no flipping or "stacking".

If there is no right lineup there is no wrong lineup.

If there is no "straight up", there can be no "flipping".

I don't know any other way to explain this to get people to stop thinking that Line 1 doubles is the best doubles team.

oldguysrule
02-15-2007, 07:32 PM
That is NOT the way the local league coordinators explained it to us at the captain's meeting two weeks ago. They told us that when you play up, depending on how well you do, it CAN and DOES affect not only YOUR rating, but the rating of everyone you play, AND who THEY play against. The 4th sentence in your post above has it right: "The computer just looks at your dynamic rating COMPARED TO YOUR OPPONENT." The key is the part that I capitalized: "compared to your opponent." That means, if you're playing up, even if you lose, but you do fairly well against them, it does bump your dynamic rating up. Then, when you have a bad day against a lesser opponent on your own level, it bumps his/her rating up. So, it does indeed affect everyone else's ratings when a player plays up.

Of course it effects everyone. But it doesn't effect them in a negative way. It effects everyone in the same way. The idea is for your dynamic rating to be accurate. The more you play, the more opponents you have, the more accurate the rating is regardless of if you are playing up or not. The only thing that really screws up the rating system is tanking a match, i.e., cheating. Which makes your interest in this ironic to say the least.

You have a twisted idea of what USTA league tennis is all about. In your world, if it doesn't work for you, then it must not be fair. Your solution is to cheat, which is unfair to everyone else. If this solution works for you, great. I guarantee you it doesn't work for your opponents.

CrocodileRock
02-15-2007, 08:44 PM
When I first started playing league about 15 years ago, we were encouraged (but not required) to play order of strength. At some point that fell by the wayside for various reasons, such as captains not knowing the exact pecking order of their teams, not enough league coordinators to enforce "violations", etc. NCAA and high schools still use that system. Also, many people think it's logical for a #1 singles player for example to play #1 in the lineup. Or maybe it's just easier to line up the team that way. It's definitely easier than scouting opponents, discovering their tendencies, and strategizing how to beat them. I have also seen where it's an ego thing - the top doubles team *wanted* to play #1 even if it was a match they couldn't win. So for all of these reasons (and probably more) I think the order of strength is used in the vast majority of league matches, but less so at the championship levels.

Like the saying goes, old habits die hard, and I guess horses do too. I have a feeling this one's gonna be like Terri Schiavo - on life support for decades before it finally passes.

Any naysayers (neighsayers?) out there?

10sfreak
02-15-2007, 11:44 PM
Of course it effects everyone. But it doesn't effect them in a negative way. It effects everyone in the same way. The idea is for your dynamic rating to be accurate. The more you play, the more opponents you have, the more accurate the rating is regardless of if you are playing up or not. The only thing that really screws up the rating system is tanking a match, i.e., cheating. Which makes your interest in this ironic to say the least.

You have a twisted idea of what USTA league tennis is all about. In your world, if it doesn't work for you, then it must not be fair. Your solution is to cheat, which is unfair to everyone else. If this solution works for you, great. I guarantee you it doesn't work for your opponents.

Oldguys, are you a league coordinator, or have you spoken at length to one? 'Cause I HAVE, and like I've written a few times already in this thread, playing up CAN AND OFTEN DOES affect others that you play negatively. Let me spell it out for you real slowly so you can understand:
If I as a 3.0 play up in a 3.5 league, and do well, either by winning outright, or not losing too badly, my dynamic rating goes up. Let's say that two nights later, I play in my 3.0 league against a relatively weak opponent, but for some reason, I don't play too well, and get beat 6-2, 6-2. (No, I'm NOT talking about tanking the match, and yes, I'm talking about someone I would/should regularly beat 6-2, 6-2). Guess what? His dynamic rating goes up, so when he plays a make-up match the next night against a 2.5 player who's playing up and winds up losing, suddenly that 2.5 player's rating is now dynamically 3.0, and viola!, he gets bumped up and DQed in his 2.5 league he was also playing in. Sure, this was a hypothetical situation, but that can/does happen! So to say that "it doesn't affect them in a negative way" is wrong!
I guess in your view of the USTA league tennis, if I "sacrifice" my weakest player to my opposing team's strongest player (one that we felt none of us could beat), then I'm "cheating", since I deliberately "lost" a line in order to win the match.
Are you suggesting that it's perfectly fair to get DQed in the middle of a season, thereby retroactively losing all your matches? Go back and read through my posts, and assuming that I'm not lying, come back and tell me that the things I've seen happen to some of the players in our league is fair.
Y'all think about it this way: What if, because of some of our players getting DQed at the end of the season, we wind up not winning our division, even though we're clearly the strongest team in the division, and our division now has to field a much weaker team at the state championships? Is that fair to the teams from the other divisions in the state? Is our division fielding the strongest possible competition for them to play agaisnt? Clearly, the answer is no.
Like I've said, quit DQing players in the middle of the season, and this wouldn't be an issue.

tennis-n-sc
02-16-2007, 03:51 AM
When I first started playing league about 15 years ago, we were encouraged (but not required) to play order of strength. At some point that fell by the wayside for various reasons, such as captains not knowing the exact pecking order of their teams, not enough league coordinators to enforce "violations", etc. NCAA and high schools still use that system. Also, many people think it's logical for a #1 singles player for example to play #1 in the lineup. Or maybe it's just easier to line up the team that way. It's definitely easier than scouting opponents, discovering their tendencies, and strategizing how to beat them. I have also seen where it's an ego thing - the top doubles team *wanted* to play #1 even if it was a match they couldn't win. So for all of these reasons (and probably more) I think the order of strength is used in the vast majority of league matches, but less so at the championship levels.

Like the saying goes, old habits die hard, and I guess horses do too. I have a feeling this one's gonna be like Terri Schiavo - on life support for decades before it finally passes.

Any naysayers (neighsayers?) out there?

I do believe the derby is coming up.:) A good one.

cak
02-16-2007, 06:34 AM
If I as a 3.0 play up in a 3.5 league, and do well, either by winning outright, or not losing too badly, my dynamic rating goes up. Let's say that two nights later, I play in my 3.0 league against a relatively weak opponent, but for some reason, I don't play too well, and get beat 6-2, 6-2. (No, I'm NOT talking about tanking the match, and yes, I'm talking about someone I would/should regularly beat 6-2, 6-2). Guess what? His dynamic rating goes up, so when he plays a make-up match the next night against a 2.5 player who's playing up and winds up losing, suddenly that 2.5 player's rating is now dynamically 3.0, and viola!, he gets bumped up and DQed in his 2.5 league he was also playing in.

Now this is an amazing hypothetical situation, a 3.0 plays out of his head and beats a 3.5 having a bad day and then that same 3.0 has a horrendous day on the same day a 2.5 is having a great day. And, this amazing hypothetical situation would have to happen three times (Thus the three strikes) to the same 2.5 for them to be DQ'd. The algorithm is actually more complex than that, they average the last three games before posting a DNTRP. The DNTRP has to be above 2.8 three times.(Which is a strong 3.0, Note 2.5 players are 0-2.5, 3.0 players are 2.51 to 3.0) It is easier for 2.5s to get bumped up because so many play up, and so few have long histories to average out their DNTRP.


Sure, this was a hypothetical situation, but that can/does happen! So to say that "it doesn't affect them in a negative way" is wrong!



I guess in your view of the USTA league tennis, if I "sacrifice" my weakest player to my opposing team's strongest player (one that we felt none of us could beat), then I'm "cheating", since I deliberately "lost" a line in order to win the match.

So you are sending these weak players out there and telling them to lose? Or are you telling them this is going to be a really tough match, and if you win you are rockstars? Cheating is only if people go out on the court with no intention of trying to win.


Are you suggesting that it's perfectly fair to get DQed in the middle of a season, thereby retroactively losing all your matches? Go back and read through my posts, and assuming that I'm not lying, come back and tell me that the things I've seen happen to some of the players in our league is fair.
Y'all think about it this way: What if, because of some of our players getting DQed at the end of the season, we wind up not winning our division, even though we're clearly the strongest team in the division, and our division now has to field a much weaker team at the state championships? Is that fair to the teams from the other divisions in the state? Is our division fielding the strongest possible competition for them to play agaisnt? Clearly, the answer is no.
Like I've said, quit DQing players in the middle of the season, and this wouldn't be an issue.

You might want to check your section and see how often this happens to computer rated players that did not appeal their rating down or were using a mixed rating in an adult or senior league. I would be behind a rule that says if you got your computer rating from an adult or senior league from a sample of 10 matches or more, and it is not an appealled rating, you can keep it without getting DQ'd for the season. I do know in our region, the number of people DQ'd with a legitimate (not appealled, not mixed, played more than three matches) computer rating is pretty close to 0.

Lindros13
02-16-2007, 06:58 AM
Based upon most of the comments on this thread, there apparently is no requirement to send out the team in the order of strength (assuming everyone on the team is at the same level such as 3.5). i.e. the #1, #2, and #3 doubles only dictates which court you go to... - so unless the players intensionally lose, then there is nothing unusual going on, right?

But apparently it's not common knowledge amongst team captains that #1 singles does not mean the strongest 3.5 player on the 3.5 team. If that's the case, and most captains just put the strongest guy there, then perhaps a way to correct this system would be to ANNOUNCE TO ALL TEAMS and ALL TEAM CAPTAINS that they should RANDOMLY pick who plays at each spot regardless of their ability level. This way, folks on the opposing team trying to match people up can never be assured it will happen.

However, the slight dilemna I see with that is: I think the rules require lower ranked players (those playing up - i.e. the 3.0 guy playing in the 3.5 league) to play at the end of the roster such as 2nd singles or 3rd doubles, with the actual 3.5-level players "in front" of them in the roster. If that's true, then the teams should just put the lower ranked guys at the end, and then randomly select the remaining portion of their roster - PROBLEM SOLVED, NO???

Since both teams show their rosters at the same time, there's no guarantee that you'll match up the weaker player against the other teams best player. Now if they tank and intentionally lose a match, then there's no way to prevent that...

Cindysphinx
02-16-2007, 07:36 AM
Well, that's just it. There isn't enough protection against being DQed. A player on my team (he didn't used to be, but he is now) got DQed a year and a half ago, right in the middle of the season, presumably because he's won all his matches (he wasn't playing up at the time, so what else could it have been?), thereby retroactively forfeiting all his matches, hurting not only himself, but his team as well. They didn't get to compete in the state championships that season, 'cause after having his wins taken away, his team was no longer the division winner. (Disclaimer: He was a self-rated 2.5 player, but, he had never picked up a racquet before in his life, and it was his very first season of play). It's in light of these circumstances that we are comtemplating manipulating the system, i.e., tanking on some matches to keep our dynamic rating from getting us DQed.
Btw, he is not the only player this has happened to in our local league. There's a couple of other guys as well, and a girl I know, who've had this happen to them, and they were all computer-rated.

Just to be clear, I also think you and your teammates are cheaters. If you don't go out and try to win -- to use your word you try to "manipulate" the system -- then you are flat-out cheating.

Self-rated players are DQ'd after three matches with a result that is "clearly above level." Computer-rated players get far more leeway. I know many computer-rated players who went undefeated and were not DQ'd, including some who went to sectionals.

Come on. Play your level and play honestly. It's a flippin' hobby, man. Are you really willing to toss your personal integrity out the window for something so meaningless as a tennis rating?

Sheez. If people will come right out and admit they're cheating at a hobby that counts for nothing, can you imagine what they might do when there is money or fame or career advancement on the line?

amarone
02-16-2007, 07:38 AM
I think the rules require lower ranked players (those playing up - i.e. the 3.0 guy playing in the 3.5 league) to play at the end of the roster such as 2nd singles or 3rd doubles, with the actual 3.5-level players "in front" of them in the roster. That is not correct - you can play them anywhere.

Cindysphinx
02-16-2007, 07:42 AM
So here's the plan to discourage stacking:

Instead of making each match count as one point, you could determine who goes to sectionals by taking the average computer rating of each team at the end of the season. Each player would start with a clean slate. After 3 or 4 matches, the computer standings would go up on tennislink, kinda like the BCS.

Since a win over a top player would be worth more than a win over a weak player, there would be incentive to put the best players at number 1. Of course, this would favor a deeper team more than the current format, since the current format allows a team to go undefeated even if there are 2 weak slots in the lineup every week.

It would also generate interest because each player would be aware of his/her real-time rating. And that would be fun! Each player would have a season-ending rating for each league he/she plays in every year.

Then there could even be a rule that your players must play in order of real-time rating. So the order would be predetermined.


The proposal is a good starting point, but it is based on an assumption: it assumes all teams give a flying fig about sectionals.

My team, being a group of realists, knows we have zero chance of going to sectionals, so the rule would have no impact on anything we did. To get our attention, an anti-stacking rule would have to affect who wins the team match.

What's wrong with this, which was suggested above? Court 1 is worth three points, Court 2 is two points, Court 3 is one point. Singles 1 is worth three points, Singles 2 is two points. That's 11 points up for grabs.

This also takes care of the problem of captains taking a forfeit on Court 1. Our section has a new rule saying that if there is a default, it must be a default on the lowest court. Those who play strong teams on Court 3 are taking the chance that the strong team will win by default while a weak team sacrificed on Court 1 will get slaughtered.

This rule does seem to suggest that there is a custom or assumption that Court 1 will have the strongest players. So the idea of "stacking" isn't a dead horse and is alive and well in our area.

Cindysphinx
02-16-2007, 07:46 AM
For reference, here's the new rule requiring the lower court to be forfeited:

"If a team must forfeit an individual match, it must be the
lowest numbered position (whether in singles or doubles)
consistent with USTA League Regulation 3.03L. Where
one or both players that constitute the #1 or #2 doubles
team in the match fail to show up by the end of the 10-
minute default period, the remaining doubles teams listed
on the scorecard must move up and play in the vacated
position(s), with no revision of playing partners allowed.
Similarly, if the #1 singles player has not arrived by the
end of the default period, then the #2 singles player on
the line-up must move up to play the #1 position, and #2
singles is forfeited."

cak
02-16-2007, 07:52 AM
Our section has had the rule of defaulting the singles 2, doubles 3rd courts ever since I started playing USTA 4 years ago. They also go through the trouble of mentioning in the "welcome captain" email that court order it just court order, and has nothing to do with how good the players are. So it doesn't matter to NorCal where you put your strongest team/singles player.

amarone
02-16-2007, 08:05 AM
First, let's be clear that the vast majority of players who are bumped up are not DQed and they do not have their match results reversed. It doesn't sound as if 10sfreak is playing around Atlanta, but to give some perspective: there are over 30,000 USTA members in Atlanta. In the men's/women's winter season that completes tomorrow, there were only 6 players DQed during the round-robin stage, I believe. I don't know how many people played in total, but a quick check shows that 984 were on men's 3.0 teams alone.

Players are only DQed if the computer algorithm determines that their ability is substantially above the level at which they are playing, and therefore should not be playing at that level. The principle of that is perfectly sound, to me - you play at the wrong level, you get tossed. The only thing you can quibble about is whether the algorithm is defined fairly and correctly. I think it is - in fact, I think it should be tougher.

Anyone who deliberately plays below their capabilities in order to avoid being bumped up is cheating, plain and simple.

oldguysrule
02-16-2007, 08:06 AM
Oldguys, are you a league coordinator, or have you spoken at length to one? 'Cause I HAVE, and like I've written a few times already in this thread, playing up CAN AND OFTEN DOES affect others that you play negatively. Let me spell it out for you real slowly so you can understand:
If I as a 3.0 play up in a 3.5 league, and do well, either by winning outright, or not losing too badly, my dynamic rating goes up. Let's say that two nights later, I play in my 3.0 league against a relatively weak opponent, but for some reason, I don't play too well, and get beat 6-2, 6-2. (No, I'm NOT talking about tanking the match, and yes, I'm talking about someone I would/should regularly beat 6-2, 6-2). Guess what? His dynamic rating goes up, so when he plays a make-up match the next night against a 2.5 player who's playing up and winds up losing, suddenly that 2.5 player's rating is now dynamically 3.0, and viola!, he gets bumped up and DQed in his 2.5 league he was also playing in. Sure, this was a hypothetical situation, but that can/does happen! So to say that "it doesn't affect them in a negative way" is wrong!
I guess in your view of the USTA league tennis, if I "sacrifice" my weakest player to my opposing team's strongest player (one that we felt none of us could beat), then I'm "cheating", since I deliberately "lost" a line in order to win the match.
Are you suggesting that it's perfectly fair to get DQed in the middle of a season, thereby retroactively losing all your matches? Go back and read through my posts, and assuming that I'm not lying, come back and tell me that the things I've seen happen to some of the players in our league is fair.
Y'all think about it this way: What if, because of some of our players getting DQed at the end of the season, we wind up not winning our division, even though we're clearly the strongest team in the division, and our division now has to field a much weaker team at the state championships? Is that fair to the teams from the other divisions in the state? Is our division fielding the strongest possible competition for them to play agaisnt? Clearly, the answer is no.
Like I've said, quit DQing players in the middle of the season, and this wouldn't be an issue.

Spelling it out slowly doesn't make you right...

1. As Cak said, your hypothetical situation is unrealistic and has probably never happened that way, therefore every conclusion you come to based on it is flawed.
2. Your dynamic rating moves very slowly. You can't all of a sudden be DQ'd. If you get DQ'd, it is because you have exhibited a level of play for an extended period of time that is above the level you are playing on.
3. There is no rule that prevents you from playing your weakest player against the opponents strongest player if you want to try to do that. So that is not cheating. It is cheating if you intentionally try to lose or tank a match.
4. The purpose of the dynamic rating system is to arrive at an accurate rating over a period of time. In order to get DQ'd, you would have to have a rating that is above the one you are playing on 3 times. It could go over once and then come back down the next match you play. But if you are consistenly showing an ability that is higher than the level you are playing on, you will get DQ'd. The purpose of that is to prevent players that have 4.0 skills from playing in a 3.5 league.

You want to focus on what is fair for an individual. The system focuses on what is fair for the community, that is, everyone that is playing in the league. In your example, your team is the strongest team in the division because your players should have been playing at a higher level (If they got DQ'd, it means they were too good for that level). Is that fair to the other teams?

I will grant you one point...I don't think non-appealed, computer-rated players should get DQ'd. When this happens, nobody is happy, but it happens very rarely. The vast majority of the DQ's, which are rare as well, happen to self-raters or those that appealed their rating and should be playing higher.

Before you decide whether to trust my understanding of this system over your league coordinator's, ask him 1. to explain to you how a dynamic rating is calculated for a computer rated player. 2. How is it calculated for a self-rated player?. 3. What happens in the calculation if a 3.0 plays a 4.0? 4. How is the calculation adjusted for doubles? 5. What is used to determine the expected rating differential between two players. (I may not have the terminology exactly right, but he should understand the question)

These are some of the easier questions that I thought of that would begin to help you understand how the system works.

oldguysrule
02-16-2007, 08:33 AM
When I first started playing league about 15 years ago, we were encouraged (but not required) to play order of strength. At some point that fell by the wayside for various reasons, such as captains not knowing the exact pecking order of their teams, not enough league coordinators to enforce "violations", etc. NCAA and high schools still use that system. Also, many people think it's logical for a #1 singles player for example to play #1 in the lineup. Or maybe it's just easier to line up the team that way. It's definitely easier than scouting opponents, discovering their tendencies, and strategizing how to beat them. I have also seen where it's an ego thing - the top doubles team *wanted* to play #1 even if it was a match they couldn't win. So for all of these reasons (and probably more) I think the order of strength is used in the vast majority of league matches, but less so at the championship levels.

Like the saying goes, old habits die hard, and I guess horses do too. I have a feeling this one's gonna be like Terri Schiavo - on life support for decades before it finally passes.

Any naysayers (neighsayers?) out there?

I went to the stable to ask Mr. Ed how to explain myself, but he wasn't much help...

I understand that:
1. Some captains set their lineups with their best players at #1 and so on.
2. Some players assume that their captains do the above even if they don't
3. Some captains follow a pattern, but not neccesarily best players at #1 and so on.
4. The above points create an opportunity for strategy in how a captain sets his lineup.

I do not dispute these points that you guys are making.

The point I am making is this:
Regardless of the above, there is no rule that requires or suggests that captains determine their lineup in anything other than a random way. However, the perception remains among players and captains that the rule does exist and they act accordingly. Therefore, in the spirit of consistency, I am simply saying that we quit referring to our lineup with terms such as "straight up" or "stacking". These terms only have meaning in a situation where the lineups are required to be filled according to ability or strength. If the captains will spread the word that your court assignment is random and line #1 has no different meaning than line #2, then more players will begin to understand this as well.

Can we bury this horse now?

Cindysphinx
02-16-2007, 08:51 AM
No, we can't bury the horse.

You are correct that there is no rule that requires stronger players to be played on higher courts.

We need to retain the terminology "straight up" and "stacking," however. It is a short-cut to referring to the various ways of handling line-ups. Yes, calling one option "stacking" has some mild perjorative connotations, but I can't think of a better option for describing it.

"Sacrifice" also has certain unhappy connotations, but still the term does describe a certain legitimate practice, so we should still retain it, IMHO.

CAK, I take your point that official league policy suggests the league allows any court order.

I find it amusing that the rule I quoted exists, however. What can the purpose possibly be other than to provide an incentive to play your best teams on the higher courts?

I ask the question honestly; I can't think of another reason, but maybe someone else can.

raiden031
02-16-2007, 09:03 AM
I went to the stable to ask Mr. Ed how to explain myself, but he wasn't much help...

I understand that:
1. Some captains set their lineups with their best players at #1 and so on.
2. Some players assume that their captains do the above even if they don't
3. Some captains follow a pattern, but not neccesarily best players at #1 and so on.
4. The above points create an opportunity for strategy in how a captain sets his lineup.

I do not dispute these points that you guys are making.

The point I am making is this:
Regardless of the above, there is no rule that requires or suggests that captains determine their lineup in anything other than a random way. However, the perception remains among players and captains that the rule does exist and they act accordingly. Therefore, in the spirit of consistency, I am simply saying that we quit referring to our lineup with terms such as "straight up" or "stacking". These terms only have meaning in a situation where the lineups are required to be filled according to ability or strength. If the captains will spread the word that your court assignment is random and line #1 has no different meaning than line #2, then more players will begin to understand this as well.

Can we bury this horse now?

I don't think USTA's intentions were for the numberings to be random. USTA's goal is to provide the most competitive matches possible. They created this layout to encourage each team to lay out their players from strongest to weakest, so that matches can be more competitive. Its not a rule, probably because its impossible to enforce. There is no way for a team to know who is stronger, when all they have is a rating that is pretty much the same for everyone.

Obviously this breaks down when one team plays this way and another team stacks up players to increase their chances of winning. Its the teams that turned these numberings into something random, not USTA.

Cindysphinx
02-16-2007, 09:12 AM
For combo play, I proposed at one point that there be a rule requiring captains to put their lowest rated pairings on the lower courts. Say you're playing 6.5 combo. You have doubles pairings of 3.5/3.0, 3.5/2.5 and 3.0/3.0. In that case, the 6.5 pair would have to go on court one and the other two pairs could go on either court.

The league coordinator didn't think this was a good idea, so I didn't pursue it. I think it might help with sandbagging, perhaps. If you know that picking a low self-rating (or cheating to maintain a low rating) means you'll not likely play court one and you'll have dull matches on court 3, maybe players would be less inclined to pick and maintain low ratings?

It was frustrating last season, though, because my No. 1 pair hardly ever had a decent match. They were 5.5 in a 5.5 league, but they were frequently playing "sacrificed" teams of only 5.0, when the opponent fielded other pairs of 5.5 on lower courts in a (failed) attempt to win the team match by stacking.

Lindros13
02-16-2007, 09:16 AM
I don't think USTA's intentions were for the numberings to be random. USTA's goal is to provide the most competitive matches possible. They created this layout to encourage each team to lay out their players from strongest to weakest, so that matches can be more competitive. Its not a rule, probably because its impossible to enforce. There is no way for a team to know who is stronger, when all they have is a rating that is pretty much the same for everyone.

Obviously this breaks down when one team plays this way and another team stacks up players to increase their chances of winning. Its the teams that turned these numberings into something random, not USTA.

So then, perhaps USTA should announce to all teams that they should make their best effort to play the players in their order of strenths, as best they can determine, and rely on the honor system, period, end of discussion, put the horse under..

In order for an honor system to best work, I think USTA, team captains, and league coordinators need to CONTINUALLY emphasize this, and perhaps even take an oath when someone becomes captain. I recall in high school years back, my coach was adamant that you have to play in order and it taught good morals to the kids. We had a challenge system if you wanted to move up and play a higher position.

raiden031
02-16-2007, 09:19 AM
So then, perhaps USTA should announce to all teams that they should make their best effort to play the players in their order of strenths, as best they can determine, and rely on the honor system, period, end of discussion, put the horse under..

In order for an honor system to best work, I think USTA, team captains, and league coordinators need to CONTINUALLY emphasize this, and perhaps even take an oath when someone becomes captain. I recall in high school years back, my coach was adamant that you have to play in order and it taught good morals to the kids. We had a challenge system if you wanted to move up and play a higher position.

As long as nationals exists, there is no incentive to follow this honor system. If you follow the honor system, you are guaranteed not to be a winning team, because you know others won't do the same.

Cindysphinx
02-16-2007, 09:24 AM
Eh, it doesn't matter what USTA does. We used to have an anti-stacking rule, and cagey captains stacked anyway. Making it a custom doesn't help at all; people just blow it off and do what they want.

What could work is a side agreement among willing captains. So if there are 12 teams in a division, perhaps six would agree before the season starts not to stack when they play the other five captains who have made such an agreement. That would be fair and workable.

There would be no enforcement mechanism, just the honor system. Any captain who agreed not to stack and then stacked would be "outed" and other captains could decide she is a snake. :)

oldguysrule
02-16-2007, 09:29 AM
No, we can't bury the horse.

You are correct that there is no rule that requires stronger players to be played on higher courts.

We need to retain the terminology "straight up" and "stacking," however. It is a short-cut to referring to the various ways of handling line-ups. Yes, calling one option "stacking" has some mild perjorative connotations, but I can't think of a better option for describing it.

"Sacrifice" also has certain unhappy connotations, but still the term does describe a certain legitimate practice, so we should still retain it, IMHO.

CAK, I take your point that official league policy suggests the league allows any court order.

I find it amusing that the rule I quoted exists, however. What can the purpose possibly be other than to provide an incentive to play your best teams on the higher courts?

I ask the question honestly; I can't think of another reason, but maybe someone else can.

Why would you choose to retain terminology that has perjorative and unhappy connotations when there is no reason to? Why would you want to tell a teammate that they are sacrificing when you don't have to? Why would you ever refer to a lineup as anything other than random if you don't have to? The best way to conceal any potential strategy is to appear as if you have no strategy.

The reason the rule exists is to provide a structure to handle defaults/no shows/player shortage. There has to be some order to the chaos. Your explanation of it's purpose makes sense if you are trying to justify the belief that line 1 doubles should be your best doubles team and the USTA secretly wants you to do that even though the official rule and policy is the opposite of that.

To me, any impact on the lineup is a result of the rule and not the purpose of the rule.

oldguysrule
02-16-2007, 09:35 AM
Eh, it doesn't matter what USTA does. We used to have an anti-stacking rule, and cagey captains stacked anyway. Making it a custom doesn't help at all; people just blow it off and do what they want.

What could work is a side agreement among willing captains. So if there are 12 teams in a division, perhaps six would agree before the season starts not to stack when they play the other five captains who have made such an agreement. That would be fair and workable.

There would be no enforcement mechanism, just the honor system. Any captain who agreed not to stack and then stacked would be "outed" and other captains could decide she is a snake. :)

Or...We could just remove the anti-stacking rule, recognize that the lineups are (should) be set in a random matter, throw out the terms "straight up" and "stacking" because they are obsolete in this context, and go have fun playing tennis. Oh wait, some of us are already doing this.

raiden031
02-16-2007, 09:42 AM
Playing up does not result in false DQ's. Everybody listen, the only thing that matters is the actual dynamic rating of each player. It does not matter which line you play or whether you are playing up. The computer just looks at your dynamic rating compared to your opponent. It is programmed with what the scores SHOULD be based on the dynamic rating differential and makes an adjustment to the dynamic rating based on what the ACTUAL score was.

The problem with the dynamic rating system is not in the computer. It is in the people that take advantage of the system. If everyone would spend less time trying to manipulate or change their ratings and more time playing tennis in an honorable and sportsmanlike fashion, the system would work fine.

http://decaturtennis.com/genpage.cgi?S1=main_selections&S2=NTRPGuide

An interesting effect occurs when players with a published rating at a lower NTRP level choose to play at a higher NTRP level or attempt to play at a lower level. This can cause big problems in local areas and in entire level/gender files where several players and even whole teams choose to do this. If a top level 4.0 level player, who has a 3.95 rating, decides to play on a 4.5 level team. That player may very well wind up with a rating at the very low end of the 4.5 scale even though they lost all their matches. If this effect takes place continually over a period of two to three seasons in a given local area, the players in the local area may believe that they are at a certain level, because they are having compatible matches locally. When one of those teams arrives at a championship playoff event and gets beaten badly, they often complain about the rating system, but ... it is ultimately those same players who helped to define the rating trends in their area or section. Players and teams who try to willfully enter the NTRP system at a lower level of play, appeal down to a lower level of play or deliberately tank matches, upset the system flow and cause others to get moved to the wrong levels when they should not be. The Verifiers and Local Coordinators are monitoring the match results and problems of this nature are usually rectified on a seasonal basis when discovered. As tennis players, our level of play does vary a bit from match to match and at times within a match itself. Some players ratings may fluctuate up to 2 tenths of a point in either direction. The aim of the NTRP is to assign ratings to players at their median level of play each year. The NTRP Computer rating and verifier observations are the primary factors in accomplishing this task.

oldguysrule
02-16-2007, 09:44 AM
...It was frustrating last season, though, because my No. 1 pair hardly ever had a decent match. They were 5.5 in a 5.5 league, but they were frequently playing "sacrificed" teams of only 5.0, when the opponent fielded other pairs of 5.5 on lower courts in a (failed) attempt to win the team match by stacking.

Maybe if you weren't so predictable the other captains wouldn't have said, "Cindy always plays this team at Line 1, we can't beat that team, so let's put our best at 2 or 3."

Here's an idea, stop setting your lineup "straight up"...mix it up a little. Play your best team at line 3. Did you know there is no rule that prevents you from doing this? Hey, you could even tell your players that Line 1 does not mean #1 player(team). Tell them that the line they play will change from week to week so that the other teams will not be able to apply the strategy of "stacking" against us.

Maybe if enough captains did this we could remove all of the perjorative and unhappy connotations from our tennis life and just have fun playing tennis. That would be cool.

oldguysrule
02-16-2007, 09:59 AM
http://decaturtennis.com/genpage.cgi?S1=main_selections&S2=NTRPGuide

An interesting effect occurs when players with a published rating at a lower NTRP level choose to play at a higher NTRP level or attempt to play at a lower level. This can cause big problems in local areas and in entire level/gender files where several players and even whole teams choose to do this. If a top level 4.0 level player, who has a 3.95 rating, decides to play on a 4.5 level team. That player may very well wind up with a rating at the very low end of the 4.5 scale even though they lost all their matches. If this effect takes place continually over a period of two to three seasons in a given local area, the players in the local area may believe that they are at a certain level, because they are having compatible matches locally. When one of those teams arrives at a championship playoff event and gets beaten badly, they often complain about the rating system, but ... it is ultimately those same players who helped to define the rating trends in their area or section. Players and teams who try to willfully enter the NTRP system at a lower level of play, appeal down to a lower level of play or deliberately tank matches, upset the system flow and cause others to get moved to the wrong levels when they should not be. The Verifiers and Local Coordinators are monitoring the match results and problems of this nature are usually rectified on a seasonal basis when discovered. As tennis players, our level of play does vary a bit from match to match and at times within a match itself. Some players ratings may fluctuate up to 2 tenths of a point in either direction. The aim of the NTRP is to assign ratings to players at their median level of play each year. The NTRP Computer rating and verifier observations are the primary factors in accomplishing this task.

Raiden,
Thanks for sharing this link. The article is a great introduction to how the dynamic system works.

btw, I suspect you quoted me in regards to my statements regarding playing up. There is a hidden objective behind Bob's words on this topic and the "problem" identified is not the real problem. As you think about it, keep in mind that a high 4.0 has a better chance of beating a low 4.5 than a low 4.0 has of beating a high 4.0. Kudos to you if you can identify the "real" problem.

Cindysphinx
02-16-2007, 10:06 AM
I don't usually play my best players on court three without a good reason (injury). The reason is that my highest priority is not winning the team match. It is *getting my players competitive matches* so they can improve. If other teams use that info to "stack" against us, so be it. So long as there are still a few captains out there who will often put their toughest teams on higher courts (and there are), it's worth trying.

I guess I resist your suggestion of random court placement because I really would prefer it if everyone didn't "stack." That would be my idea of a perfect world. If retaining the negative terminology encourages a few more captains to play their line-ups "straight," that's a good thing in my mind.

Please know that I understand that you have a different view, and I respect your view. I understand that the league rules permit what you suggest.

I do, however, think the rule I quoted governing defaults is more consistent with my "anti-stacking" view. Otherwise the league rule could require that Court Two always be forfeited. Or it could state that the non-defaulting captain gets to decide. But no, it's Court Three that gets forfeited no matter what.

Hmmmmmmmm.

kylebarendrick
02-16-2007, 10:24 AM
I would agree that the "default from the bottom up" rule encourages captains not to place their strongest team on the #3 line. Beyond that, though, it is all about strategy. If your strategy is to play strongest to weakest in an attempt to have good matches then go with what works for you.

People who choose otherwise, perhaps in an attempt to beat you, are doing nothing wrong. You can't really fault people for trying to compete in a competetive sport.

Guessing who is going to play where in a given match is really a crapshoot anyway. I wouldn't (and don't) lose any sleep over it.

Geezer Guy
02-16-2007, 10:50 AM
I've not played in a "combo" league, so maybe it's different there. However, in a "regular" league comprised of everyone being at the same level (unless someone is playing "up"), I see no reason to try and determine the strongest teams and play them according to court number. As far as I know, none of the captains around here do that. And as often as we switch doubles partners, it'd be hard to know which team was the strongest any given week anyway.

It's not like you know ahead of time how your opponents are going to line up, so it's impossible to "sacrifice" a weak player for the good of the team.

cak
02-16-2007, 10:50 AM
I suspect the rule governing defaults in NorCal has more to do with simplifying the software implementation of our version of tennislink for entering scores.

On any given day, a high 2.5 could beat a low 3.0. On any given day, any 3.0 could beat any other 3.0. I've beaten my share of undefeated players that on paper I had no chance against. Last year the 2nd best player on our 3.5 team was a 3.0. And in every match I've ever been to, there is much dissension on who exactly played their best players. Do you go by records? Do you go by big forehands? Do you go by best serves? Ratings this year? Ratings last year? I can't blame the sections for not wanting to step into this.

oldguysrule
02-16-2007, 11:35 AM
I don't usually play my best players on court three without a good reason (injury). The reason is that my highest priority is not winning the team match. It is *getting my players competitive matches* so they can improve. If other teams use that info to "stack" against us, so be it. So long as there are still a few captains out there who will often put their toughest teams on higher courts (and there are), it's worth trying.

I guess I resist your suggestion of random court placement because I really would prefer it if everyone didn't "stack." That would be my idea of a perfect world. If retaining the negative terminology encourages a few more captains to play their line-ups "straight," that's a good thing in my mind.

Please know that I understand that you have a different view, and I respect your view. I understand that the league rules permit what you suggest.

I do, however, think the rule I quoted governing defaults is more consistent with my "anti-stacking" view. Otherwise the league rule could require that Court Two always be forfeited. Or it could state that the non-defaulting captain gets to decide. But no, it's Court Three that gets forfeited no matter what.

Hmmmmmmmm.

Please forgive me if you feel I have been trying to change your view. I guess I have, but it is for a reason. I believe you are new to league tennis and you have often expressed a frustration with some of the peculiarities in the system. Your frustration in this context is that your #1 team doesn't always get a competitive match because other teams are "stacking". What I am trying to communicate is that this is a frustration that you create and there is a solution to it. Stop viewing the other teams as "stacking" and get with the program. There is no "stacking" and there is no "straight" except in your mind. The idea that Court 1 should be your best players is gone, obsolete, non-existant, and regressive (I lost my thesaurus, somebody help me).

I don't communicate very well by the written word, and you don't know me, but I really am old and wise. You may not change your point of view because some jerk on the internet told you to, but one day you will...and then you will think, "maybe I should have listened to that old guy"

oldguysrule
02-16-2007, 11:51 AM
..I do, however, think the rule I quoted governing defaults is more consistent with my "anti-stacking" view. Otherwise the league rule could require that Court Two always be forfeited. Or it could state that the non-defaulting captain gets to decide. But no, it's Court Three that gets forfeited no matter what.

Hmmmmmmmm.

I have given you a reason for the default rules.
Cak has given you a reason for the default rules.

What you have given is a result or effect that the default rules cause. Namely, "The other team might have to default a line so I don't want to have my best players on Court 3". This is smart thinking when setting your lineup. However, it is not a logical step to align this result with some sort of anti-stacking view. Why? Because there is no stacking since court assignments are (should be, I should add) random.

Cindysphinx
02-16-2007, 02:03 PM
Please forgive me if you feel I have been trying to change your view. I guess I have, but it is for a reason. I believe you are new to league tennis and you have often expressed a frustration with some of the peculiarities in the system. Your frustration in this context is that your #1 team doesn't always get a competitive match because other teams are "stacking". What I am trying to communicate is that this is a frustration that you create and there is a solution to it. Stop viewing the other teams as "stacking" and get with the program. There is no "stacking" and there is no "straight" except in your mind. The idea that Court 1 should be your best players is gone, obsolete, non-existant, and regressive (I lost my thesaurus, somebody help me).

I don't communicate very well by the written word, and you don't know me, but I really am old and wise. You may not change your point of view because some jerk on the internet told you to, but one day you will...and then you will think, "maybe I should have listened to that old guy"

I hear ya. I do.

I also know that if I put my two weakest players on Court One, they will come to me upset that I've set them up to be slaughtered. I can talk myself until I'm blue in the face that court order means nothing, but they won't believe me.

Keep in mind that these customs vary by region. I think if you were to go to any caption around here and ask, they would say: "The league rules permit captains to put their teams on any court without regard to strength, but most captains reserve the lower courts for their better players by long-standing custom."

Me, I wish more captains would voluntarily abide by the custom, but there's nothing to be done for this. I won't go to random court assignments just yet, though. When my No. 1 pair comes to me disappointed that they won 6-0, 6-1 while a tougher opponent is on court two, I can shrug and say, "Hey, I did what I could to get you a good match by putting you on Court One. I can't control what the other captain did."

10sfreak
02-16-2007, 02:42 PM
Just to be clear, I also think you and your teammates are cheaters. If you don't go out and try to win -- to use your word you try to "manipulate" the system -- then you are flat-out cheating.

Self-rated players are DQ'd after three matches with a result that is "clearly above level." Computer-rated players get far more leeway. I know many computer-rated players who went undefeated and were not DQ'd, including some who went to sectionals.

Come on. Play your level and play honestly. It's a flippin' hobby, man. Are you really willing to toss your personal integrity out the window for something so meaningless as a tennis rating?

Sheez. If people will come right out and admit they're cheating at a hobby that counts for nothing, can you imagine what they might do when there is money or fame or career advancement on the line?
Did you even READ what I wrote?! I just told you that yes, we have had computer-rated players DQed in the middle of the season because they were winning, which messed up the whole friggin' team. Is there some part of that you don't understand? "Computer-rated players get far more leeway." Maybe in YOUR section, but believe me, not around here! Just because you "know many computer-rated players who went undefeated and were not DQ'd, including some who went to sectionals", doesn't mean it doesn't happen around here! Hello?! Did I not specifically state that?!
Cindysphinx, how long again have you been playing? Do you play here in Georgia? Are you a league coordinator? Are you ANY kind of official with the USTA? No? Well, well, well!! How 'bout that? So you've played a few seasons, and you already know all about how the USTA rating/DQ system works, and apparently, you know exactly how things work around in my neck of the woods too, in spite of specific examples I've given to the contrary! Wow, it must be nice to be so omniscient!

10sfreak
02-16-2007, 02:46 PM
So you are sending these weak players out there and telling them to lose? Or are you telling them this is going to be a really tough match, and if you win you are rockstars? Cheating is only if people go out on the court with no intention of trying to win.



.
No, I've sent a guy to play at #1 singles, knowing full well he had no chance of winning, because even our best player hadn't been able to beat him in two tries already. So, my guy was a "sacrifice," so as to enable enough of the rest of the team to win, which we did, 3-2, capturing the division championship.

10sfreak
02-16-2007, 02:52 PM
Spelling it out slowly doesn't make you right...

1. As Cak said, your hypothetical situation is unrealistic and has probably never happened that way, therefore every conclusion you come to based on it is flawed.
2. Your dynamic rating moves very slowly. You can't all of a sudden be DQ'd. If you get DQ'd, it is because you have exhibited a level of play for an extended period of time that is above the level you are playing on.
3. There is no rule that prevents you from playing your weakest player against the opponents strongest player if you want to try to do that. So that is not cheating. It is cheating if you intentionally try to lose or tank a match.
4. The purpose of the dynamic rating system is to arrive at an accurate rating over a period of time. In order to get DQ'd, you would have to have a rating that is above the one you are playing on 3 times. It could go over once and then come back down the next match you play. But if you are consistenly showing an ability that is higher than the level you are playing on, you will get DQ'd. The purpose of that is to prevent players that have 4.0 skills from playing in a 3.5 league.

You want to focus on what is fair for an individual. The system focuses on what is fair for the community, that is, everyone that is playing in the league. In your example, your team is the strongest team in the division because your players should have been playing at a higher level (If they got DQ'd, it means they were too good for that level). Is that fair to the other teams?

I will grant you one point...I don't think non-appealed, computer-rated players should get DQ'd. When this happens, nobody is happy, but it happens very rarely. The vast majority of the DQ's, which are rare as well, happen to self-raters or those that appealed their rating and should be playing higher.

Before you decide whether to trust my understanding of this system over your league coordinator's, ask him 1. to explain to you how a dynamic rating is calculated for a computer rated player. 2. How is it calculated for a self-rated player?. 3. What happens in the calculation if a 3.0 plays a 4.0? 4. How is the calculation adjusted for doubles? 5. What is used to determine the expected rating differential between two players. (I may not have the terminology exactly right, but he should understand the question)

These are some of the easier questions that I thought of that would begin to help you understand how the system works.
You're just showing your ignorance now. I've told y'all repeatedly, that the things y'all say don't/can't happen, HAVE HAPPENED! Y'all can type at your computers all day long that the scenarios I've outlined can't/don't happen, but it has happened, and has done so to at least 1 player every season in the league I play! I don't care what doesn't happen in your neck of the woods, as I don't play there, but I'm telling all of you, it happens here!

Cindysphinx
02-16-2007, 03:33 PM
Dude, you can call names, scream and yell, whatever you want.

**If you or your players are going out and "tanking" matches on purpose to "manipulate" your ratings, you are CHEATING.**

My 12 year old kid would know that, and she has never played league tennis.

Now, if you are playing players on Court One who are likely to lose, that is perfectly fine so long as they don't tank the match. "Tanking" means that they don't play their best and they lose on purpose to manipulate their rating and avoid a DQ.

If you meant something different, fine. But using words like "tank" and "manipulate" is bound to get you hammered, and you definitely used those words in your posts:

That's why people (like my team) manipulate the system,

Sure, we don't like tanking a match,

10sfreak
02-16-2007, 04:12 PM
Dude, you can call names, scream and yell, whatever you want.

**If you or your players are going out and "tanking" matches on purpose to "manipulate" your ratings, you are CHEATING.**

My 12 year old kid would know that, and she has never played league tennis.

Now, if you are playing players on Court One who are likely to lose, that is perfectly fine so long as they don't tank the match. "Tanking" means that they don't play their best and they lose on purpose to manipulate their rating and avoid a DQ.

If you meant something different, fine. But using words like "tank" and "manipulate" is bound to get you hammered, and you definitely used those words in your posts:
Then apparently, your 12 year old kid can read better than you can. I've stated time and time again, that the things you people keep saying doesn't/can't happen, HAS HAPPENED! On numerous occasions to people that I personally know! Now I've gone back and reread my posts to confirm that I did indeed write them in English, so I really don't know why y'all can't understand that point.
Hey, if you think that I'm actually lying about what I've seen happen, then say so! And if that's the case, why even bother responding to anything I write? Either take what I say at face value, or ignore me completely. So, once again: I've seen 4 different people (3 of whom were computer-rated, 1 was playing tennis for the first time in his life, as a 2.5) get DQed at the end of a season (thereby forfeiting all their matches), for the last 4 seasons! Yep, that thing that y'all keep saying doesn't/can't happen, has happened FOUR SEASONS IN A ROW!!! It may not happen where you play, but I'm talking very specifically about where I play. Hey, if the system is going to screw people like that, what exactly do you expect them to do about it?
And just for the record, since you're so sure that tanking a match is cheating (hell, even your 12 yr. old understands that), could you please refer me to that rule? I haven't been able to find it. Nor can I find it in our online copy of The Code. Thanks!

Cindysphinx
02-16-2007, 06:36 PM
Look, I'm sorry if you don't like how the rules work in your area. Assuming every word you wrote about DQs etc. is the stone cold truth, I say you should go out and play your best in every match and it is unethical to do otherwise.

If your argument is that it is jim dandy to throw matches, to take a dive, to lose on purpose . . . well, good luck with all that.

cak
02-16-2007, 06:38 PM
No, I've sent a guy to play at #1 singles, knowing full well he had no chance of winning, because even our best player hadn't been able to beat him in two tries already.

I (a doubles player) was sent to play number one singles against a player that our singles players hadn't beaten. I won. If you walk on the court there is alway a chance of winning. I don't see sending people out to win against big odds as cheating. I think losing a game those players could have won if they tried is cheating.

10sfreak
02-16-2007, 06:59 PM
I (a doubles player) was sent to play number one singles against a player that our singles players hadn't beaten. I won. If you walk on the court there is alway a chance of winning. I don't see sending people out to win against big odds as cheating. I think losing a game those players could have won if they tried is cheating.
Ok, then cite me the rule about tanking matches. If it's not a violation of the rules, then by definition, it can't be cheating.
Also, in my reply that you qouted, I wasn't implying that sacrificing a player was "cheating." I was just trying to explain to a questioner that I didn't have my player lose on purpose.

CrocodileRock
02-16-2007, 07:48 PM
What's wrong with this, which was suggested above? Court 1 is worth three points, Court 2 is two points, Court 3 is one point. Singles 1 is worth three points, Singles 2 is two points. That's 11 points up for grabs.


Ummm... plenty. Under this scenario, a team could win #1 singles and #1 doubles, winning 6 points to the opponents' 5, even though they lost 3 out of the 5 matches. Something's rotten in Denmark if this were to happen.

Cindysphinx
02-17-2007, 10:02 AM
Ummm... plenty. Under this scenario, a team could win #1 singles and #1 doubles, winning 6 points to the opponents' 5, even though they lost 3 out of the 5 matches. Something's rotten in Denmark if this were to happen.

OK, so maybe the numbers would need to change so the math works out a bit better. What about the overall idea?

Man, has this thread veered all over the place or what?

amarone
02-17-2007, 10:04 AM
Ok, then cite me the rule about tanking matches. If it's not a violation of the rules, then by definition, it can't be cheating.
I'd say it is definitely in violation of this rule, in particular the last 5 words:

All players participating in the USA League Tennis Program, as a condition of their participation, agree to abide and be bound by the USTA Constitution and By-Laws; the USTA Regulations; the Rules of Tennis (unless modified by these USA LEAGUE TENNIS REGULATIONS); the USA League Tennis Regulations and the standards of good conduct, fair play and good sportsmanship.

oldguysrule
02-17-2007, 10:43 AM
Then apparently, your 12 year old kid can read better than you can. I've stated time and time again, that the things you people keep saying doesn't/can't happen, HAS HAPPENED! On numerous occasions to people that I personally know! Now I've gone back and reread my posts to confirm that I did indeed write them in English, so I really don't know why y'all can't understand that point.
Hey, if you think that I'm actually lying about what I've seen happen, then say so! And if that's the case, why even bother responding to anything I write? Either take what I say at face value, or ignore me completely. So, once again: I've seen 4 different people (3 of whom were computer-rated, 1 was playing tennis for the first time in his life, as a 2.5) get DQed at the end of a season (thereby forfeiting all their matches), for the last 4 seasons! Yep, that thing that y'all keep saying doesn't/can't happen, has happened FOUR SEASONS IN A ROW!!! It may not happen where you play, but I'm talking very specifically about where I play. Hey, if the system is going to screw people like that, what exactly do you expect them to do about it?
And just for the record, since you're so sure that tanking a match is cheating (hell, even your 12 yr. old understands that), could you please refer me to that rule? I haven't been able to find it. Nor can I find it in our online copy of The Code. Thanks!

Nobody is saying that players don't get DQ'd. They do. I believe you that 4 players in your section have been DQ'd during the last 4 years. The reason they were DQ'd is because they were playing at a level below their ability level. If they were computer rated, It is hard to accept that result. (Please read post #65 where I acknowledged this). But the unfairness to these teams in these situations is offset by the overall fairness to the multitudes who are playing at their correct level. If I have 4.0 abilities do you want me to compete at the 3.5 level?

Regardless of your answer, we have acknowledged that DQ's happen. HOWEVER, that still does not condone tanking and manipulating the system. This is a far bigger problem to the integrity of league tennis than having a few DQ's every year. Whether you choose to accept it of not, it is unethical and unsportsmanlike. Nobody has agreed with you. Post #95 should answer your rules question. Common sense and integrity dictate that you should never have had to ask the question in the first place.

10sfreak
02-17-2007, 11:32 AM
Actually, post #95 didn't answer anything for me. I still didn't read anything there about tanking matches, or even playing to one's best ability.And the fact that nobody has agreed with me is CERTAINLY going to change my mind - NOT!
I disagree that tanking matches in order not to get DQed at the end of the season is a "far bigger problem to the intregrity of league tennis than having a few DQs every year." In my opinion, signing up for league play, and doing so at your computer-rated level in good faith, playing all season, then getting DQed, making all your matches for naught, THAT is the much bigger problem.
You say that "we have acknowledged that DQs happen." You have, but you still seem to blame the player, and not The Great Computer. I infer from your posts that if a player does get DQed at the end of a season, then that player must have been "playing down," and it's my contention that that has not been the case in the situations that I've been familiar with.
Let me ask this hypothetical question: suppose, as I've written before in my posts, that I send a pretty weak player up against the opposing team's #1 player, in order to try to ensure an overall team win. Since I didn't give the opposing team's #1 singles player an opportunity to play as competetive a match as possible, did I/we cheat? By the same token, if I put my best doubles players at #3, instead of #1, am I cheating? Why not? Sure, I'm not deliberately losing, but I am depriving the other team of the most competetive match possible, right? In other words, shouldn't "stacking" be considered cheating as well?

tennis-n-sc
02-17-2007, 12:31 PM
In the Southern Section, over 85% of DQ's occur to self-rated players. I suspect this holds true nation wide. It is almost unheard of for a computer rated player to be DQ'd during the regular season. It does happen at state, sectional and national playoffs.

volleyman
02-17-2007, 02:17 PM
Just had the captains meeting for the Durham, NC leagues today, and the league coordinator was very clear: there is no such thing as stacking. All courts are considered of equal value: the court numbers are just there to keep the results straight.

However, by numbering the courts, they fall into the cultural expectation that 1 is better than 2 is better than 3. This expectation is particularly rampant in tennis, where many folks bring the expectations from their high school, club and college teams with them to the Adult leagues.

10sfreak
02-17-2007, 02:32 PM
Just had the captains meeting for the Durham, NC leagues today, and the league coordinator was very clear: there is no such thing as stacking. All courts are considered of equal value: the court numbers are just there to keep the results straight.

However, by numbering the courts, they fall into the cultural expectation that 1 is better than 2 is better than 3. This expectation is particularly rampant in tennis, where man folks bring the expectations from their high school, club and college teams with them to the Adult leagues.
Yeah, I know there's really no such thing as "stacking," but I use the term when I'm not playing my best players at the strongest positions. I realize that since there are no rules regarding who must play where, there can be no such thing as "stacking," but, the word is part of tennis jargon, so that's why I use it.

amarone
02-17-2007, 03:39 PM
Actually, post #95 didn't answer anything for me. I still didn't read anything there about tanking matches, or even playing to one's best ability. Can you seriously say that deliberately losing in order to continue playing below your true level in a streamed competition is showing fairness and good sportsmanship?

You are correct that there is nowhere in the rules that specifically forbids tanking. However, you cannot cover every circumstance in the rules and the general rule about fair play and good sportsmanship is always in effect. If a deliberate tanking situation comes in front of me in a grievance, I will rule it to be a breach of the fair play and good sportsmanship rule.

Let me ask this hypothetical question: suppose, as I've written before in my posts, that I send a pretty weak player up against the opposing team's #1 player, in order to try to ensure an overall team win. Since I didn't give the opposing team's #1 singles player an opportunity to play as competetive a match as possible, did I/we cheat? By the same token, if I put my best doubles players at #3, instead of #1, am I cheating? Why not? Sure, I'm not deliberately losing, but I am depriving the other team of the most competetive match possible, right? In other words, shouldn't "stacking" be considered cheating as well? I don't know if you are still addressing me as I never made any comment with reference to all these points. But my answer is "no", stacking is not cheating. There is nothing wrong with arranging your line-up of players any way you like as long as they are all playing at the correct level. It is deliberately playing at the wrong level (and tanking to avoid a DQ is recognition of the fact that the player is at the wrong level) that is cheating. It is like an 8 handicap golfer entering a tournament playing off 14 - or deliberately filing a false score or deliberately missing putts in order to inflate his handicap artificially so he can stand a better chance in the next tournament.

oldguysrule
02-17-2007, 03:55 PM
Actually, post #95 didn't answer anything for me. I still didn't read anything there about tanking matches, or even playing to one's best ability.And the fact that nobody has agreed with me is CERTAINLY going to change my mind - NOT!
I disagree that tanking matches in order not to get DQed at the end of the season is a "far bigger problem to the intregrity of league tennis than having a few DQs every year." In my opinion, signing up for league play, and doing so at your computer-rated level in good faith, playing all season, then getting DQed, making all your matches for naught, THAT is the much bigger problem.
You say that "we have acknowledged that DQs happen." You have, but you still seem to blame the player, and not The Great Computer. I infer from your posts that if a player does get DQed at the end of a season, then that player must have been "playing down," and it's my contention that that has not been the case in the situations that I've been familiar with.
Let me ask this hypothetical question: suppose, as I've written before in my posts, that I send a pretty weak player up against the opposing team's #1 player, in order to try to ensure an overall team win. Since I didn't give the opposing team's #1 singles player an opportunity to play as competetive a match as possible, did I/we cheat? By the same token, if I put my best doubles players at #3, instead of #1, am I cheating? Why not? Sure, I'm not deliberately losing, but I am depriving the other team of the most competetive match possible, right? In other words, shouldn't "stacking" be considered cheating as well?

Ok, we have hammered this one out. The USTA instructs the captains that the assignment of courts is to be random. Line #1 does not mean your best player or team. So no, of course that is not cheating. We have discussed this ad nauseum. There is no "stacking" because there it is supposed to be random.

10sfreak
02-17-2007, 06:25 PM
And some would argue that playing your best doubles team at the #3 line is "unsportsmanlike," and not "not showing fairness." So we're back to square one.
And how would deliberate tanking come before you in a grievance, if it's not specifically against the rules in the first place?
You might as well complain about the opposing team serving underhand to you. (A practice I consider unsportsmanlike).

CrocodileRock
02-17-2007, 06:49 PM
And how would deliberate tanking come before you in a grievance, if it's not specifically against the rules in the first place?


I've been on the grievance committee before, and if it came up, I would vote against the plaintiff for at least 3 reasons:
a. It's not a specific violation of league rules
b. It's impossible to prove
c. There is no specific punishment for it

This is just one of the ways that the NTRP system is flawed. If you want a better system, play open.

btw, i have seen and played against underhanded servers many times. There's nothing unsportsmanlike about it. Someone can serve backwards between their legs if they want, as long as they toss the ball with their feet behind the line.

10sfreak
02-17-2007, 07:18 PM
I've been on the grievance committee before, and if it came up, I would vote against the plaintiff for at least 3 reasons:
a. It's not a specific violation of league rules
b. It's impossible to prove
c. There is no specific punishment for it

This is just one of the ways that the NTRP system is flawed. If you want a better system, play open.

btw, i have seen and played against underhanded servers many times. There's nothing unsportsmanlike about it. Someone can serve backwards between their legs if they want, as long as they toss the ball with their feet behind the line.
Well, I didn't say that underhanded serving was against the rules or cheating, I just personally think it's unsportsmanlike. Just like in mixed-doubles, I don't serve the same to a girl that I do to a guy. Nothing illegal about serving hard to a girl, but I just don't do it. (Unless she's rated higher than I, then I'll serve to her just like I would a guy).
It's nice to finally hear from someone who KNOWS what he's talking about. Thanks for your input!

travlerajm
02-17-2007, 11:47 PM
Well, I didn't say that underhanded serving was against the rules or cheating, I just personally think it's unsportsmanlike. Just like in mixed-doubles, I don't serve the same to a girl that I do to a guy. Nothing illegal about serving hard to a girl, but I just don't do it. (Unless she's rated higher than I, then I'll serve to her just like I would a guy).
It's nice to finally hear from someone who KNOWS what he's talking about. Thanks for your input!

In 3 seasons of competitive USTA league mixed doubles, as well as all the tourneys I've played, I've yet to run into a guy who "holds back" when serving to my partner. There's nothing chivalrous about serving softer than your normal stuff when you are competing.

amarone
02-18-2007, 03:56 AM
I've been on the grievance committee before, and if it came up, I would vote against the plaintiff for at least 3 reasons:
a. It's not a specific violation of league rules
b. It's impossible to prove
c. There is no specific punishment for it

I have adjudicated on something like 30 cases, quite a few of which have been brought under the general rule requiring good conduct, fair play and good sportsmanship. There is no specific rule against calling an opponent a cheating c*nt other than the general rule. Does that mean you would take no action against such a player because you cannot find a specific rule? Anyway, I do regard deliberate tanking as a specific violation of that rule.

It certainly would be difficult to prove except that in this case 10sfreak has admitted it. It was a voluntary confession with no duress, your honor.

Did you ever rule against grievances because you could find no specific punishment? There is usually no specirfic punishment. The grievance committee has wide latitude as to what punishment it can choose to dish out - this is not constrained by "sentencing guidelines".

We had one case where a captain manipulated his line-up in a manner that was not specifically prohibited by the rules but did involve lying and deception. A grievance was raised under the general sportsmanship rule. We upheld the grievance. The result was appealed and the appeals committee upheld our decision.

sue20852
02-18-2007, 05:10 AM
The reason the rule exists is to provide a structure to handle defaults/no shows/player shortage. There has to be some order to the chaos. Your explanation of it's purpose makes sense if you are trying to justify the belief that line 1 doubles should be your best doubles team and the USTA secretly wants you to do that even though the official rule and policy is the opposite of that.

To me, any impact on the lineup is a result of the rule and not the purpose of the rule.

In my region we have used a different default scheme, whereby any single or double match may be defaulted. That is, default can occur at #1 or #2 single, or #1, #2 or #3 double. The players use the warm up minutes to assess the opponent players. If the player is moved to another slot because of a default, he is unable to assess his new opponent.

Order of match line up is solely captains' call.

Sue

tennis-n-sc
02-18-2007, 06:32 AM
In my region we have used a different default scheme, whereby any single or double match may be defaulted. That is, default can occur at #1 or #2 single, or #1, #2 or #3 double. The players use the warm up minutes to assess the opponent players. If the player is moved to another slot because of a default, he is unable to assess his new opponent.

Order of match line up is solely captains' call.

Sue

Must not be USTA. National USTA rules regarding a default dictate that the default lines will be # 2 singles first, then # 1. In doubles, # 3 line first, then # 2, # 1. Sectional and local rules cannot conflict national rules. Local rules cannot conflict sectional rules. Actually, any rule change at the local level must be aprpoved by the state, local and national review committees.

CrocodileRock
02-18-2007, 06:48 AM
I have adjudicated on something like 30 cases, quite a few of which have been brought under the general rule requiring good conduct, fair play and good sportsmanship. There is no specific rule against calling an opponent a cheating c*nt other than the general rule. Does that mean you would take no action against such a player because you cannot find a specific rule? Anyway, I do regard deliberate tanking as a specific violation of that rule.



Hey amarone, thanks for responding. All of the cases I have been associated with were either ratings violations or eligibility violations. Not coincidentally, they are the only ones specifically spelled out in the national grievance rules:

http://www.usta.com/leagues/custom.sps?iType=933&icustompageid=19610

Since I have only seen a fraction of the cases you have seen, I will defer to your superior judicial experience. What are the proper sanctions against unsportsmanlike conduct, once a conviction has been decided? Forfeit the one match? Forfeit all matches? 10-year suspension a la NorCal?

This information should be really helpful to league players and committee members.

Cindysphinx
02-18-2007, 12:43 PM
Regarding "stacking" etc., we have total agreement here on this board that "stacking" is fine. Random order is fine. Putting better teams on higher courts is fine. It's all good. That I wish the rule or custom were something different is just my own view, and I do not believe anyone who doesn't do things the way I would prefer is a cheater.

To the poster who is actually defending the practice of tanking . . . if there's nothing wrong with it, I challenge you to go public. Tell the league coordinator you're doing it, tell the other captains, mention it at the captain's meeting. If it's not wrong, there's nothing to hide, right? Just walk up to the other captain before the match and say "Hey, my doubles team on Court Two is going to tank this one to protect their rating. Just thought I'd mention it." I'd like to hear the reaction you get.

If you're keeping it a secret, then that suggests you know you're doing the wrong thing.

You know, why don't you all just play up, as a team? If you're 3.5s, play 4.0 this year. Then you'd be competing honestly, at least.

amarone
02-18-2007, 01:17 PM
What are the proper sanctions against unsportsmanlike conduct, once a conviction has been decided? Forfeit the one match? Forfeit all matches? 10-year suspension a la NorCal?

This information should be really helpful to league players and committee members.
There are no official guidelines that I am aware of, unfortunately. You have to judge the severity of the case, the extent of any damage, and any history involving the offending player(s). For history, we only take into account previous grievances - not hearsay such as "other captains say that s/he behaves like a jerk". Only accusations made formally that the "accused" has had proper opportunity to rebut are considered.

Most issues of poor sportsmanship involve poor behavior - arguing, profanity, insults, maybe even suggested threats ("let's settle this in the parking lot later"). For most things like that we give a formal warning the first time, then would look to suspend the player for some period if it happened again. Actual violence would be an instant suspension. So does threatening the chair of the grievance committee - some people (well, one person) really can be that dumb.

The committees I have been on have generally shied away from altering match results unless there is evidence that the offense really did affect the original result. In the case I alluded to earlier where a captain manipulated the line-up, we did reverse the result of the match that it affected. In cases of poor behavior, players sometimes claim that their opponents' behavior put them off and made them lose, but that is so difficult to approve. There is an argument that reversing a match result would be a suitable punishment, but then you are potentially penalizing players who played no part in the incident - including players on other teams not involved in the particular match if changing the result affects positions in the whole league.

It is appropriate to change the match result if the offence was directly related to the match - e.g. illegal manipulation of line-ups.

The longest suspension I have given is one year - after a second offence (and threatening the chair of the committee). My memory is a little hazy, but I think that suspensions longer than a year have to go through some extra ratification process.

This makes it sound as if we are some sort of police making verdicts and dishing out punishment. However, the overall aim is to:


maximize the amount of tennis played
get fair results
try nip conflict in the bud


As a level rep., I try get players to resolve issues without it going to the grievance committee.

10sfreak
02-18-2007, 02:25 PM
Regarding "stacking" etc., we have total agreement here on this board that "stacking" is fine. Random order is fine. Putting better teams on higher courts is fine. It's all good. That I wish the rule or custom were something different is just my own view, and I do not believe anyone who doesn't do things the way I would prefer is a cheater.

To the poster who is actually defending the practice of tanking . . . if there's nothing wrong with it, I challenge you to go public. Tell the league coordinator you're doing it, tell the other captains, mention it at the captain's meeting. If it's not wrong, there's nothing to hide, right? Just walk up to the other captain before the match and say "Hey, my doubles team on Court Two is going to tank this one to protect their rating. Just thought I'd mention it." I'd like to hear the reaction you get.

If you're keeping it a secret, then that suggests you know you're doing the wrong thing.

You know, why don't you all just play up, as a team? If you're 3.5s, play 4.0 this year. Then you'd be competing honestly, at least.

We're all 3.0s, who, at various times, both as individuals and as a team, have played up at 3.5 - and we've all gotten killed there. Didn't win a single match. None of us would mind getting bumped up next season, it's getting bumped in the middle of the season, and forfeiting all our matches, that we object to, and are going to try to avoid.
We can't come close to competing at the 3.5 level, yet our team is virtually unbeatable at 3.0. Maybe there's just too big a gap between the two? Maybe there should be a 3.25 level? (We've got a 3.75 level, created recently because of this very same problem). I don't know, but I do know that having our team get DQed at the 3.0, and sending a really weak team to the state championships, is not the answer.
Our region has a really hard time at state, 'cause the Atlanta teams always win. They're just much stronger at every level. Most people in our league think it's because the Atlanta teams "sandbag", but that's not my take. I think it's because the Atlanta area has more tallent to draw from (as they have so many more people playing tennis), matches are more competetive, so it's harder to get bumped up. By the time you get bumped up to 3.5 in Atlanta, you've really been the equivalent of a 3.5 for a very long time, so when you play the other 3.0 teams from other areas at the state championships, you can dominate them. And that's what's been happening. We play at state, and we're playing guys that are easily the equal of our 3.5s. Same thing on the women's side. The only solution I can see to this is to send the strongest possible team to state. That way, maybe our region will be able to give the Atlanta teams a run for their money.

amarone
02-18-2007, 04:09 PM
Our region has a really hard time at state, 'cause the Atlanta teams always win. They're just much stronger at every level. Most people in our league think it's because the Atlanta teams "sandbag", but that's not my take. I think it's because the Atlanta area has more tallent to draw from (as they have so many more people playing tennis), matches are more competetive, so it's harder to get bumped up. There is some sandbagging, but you are right about the sheer numbers effect. Atlanta had their finals yesterday and so we now have winners of the 3.0 level (Roswell Park, if anyone is interested). They came first out of 63 teams entered, which was actually one of the lowest numbers for some time. Normally Atlanta has over 64 teams, allowing them to send two teams to state.

CrocodileRock
02-18-2007, 05:08 PM
That's amazing. We struggle to fill 3 teams. There are always some forfeits due to lack of players.

amarone
02-18-2007, 06:52 PM
That's amazing. We struggle to fill 3 teams. There are always some forfeits due to lack of players. Atlanta is certainly the place to be for tennis. USTA Atlanta is the biggest USTA local league in the country, three times the size of the second place, yet it in turn is dwarfed by ALTA which is nearly three times the size of USTA.

Roforot
02-20-2007, 04:32 AM
The proposal is a good starting point, but it is based on an assumption: it assumes all teams give a flying fig about sectionals.

My team, being a group of realists, knows we have zero chance of going to sectionals, so the rule would have no impact on anything we did. To get our attention, an anti-stacking rule would have to affect who wins the team match.

What's wrong with this, which was suggested above? Court 1 is worth three points, Court 2 is two points, Court 3 is one point. Singles 1 is worth three points, Singles 2 is two points. That's 11 points up for grabs.

This also takes care of the problem of captains taking a forfeit on Court 1. Our section has a new rule saying that if there is a default, it must be a default on the lowest court. Those who play strong teams on Court 3 are taking the chance that the strong team will win by default while a weak team sacrificed on Court 1 will get slaughtered.

This rule does seem to suggest that there is a custom or assumption that Court 1 will have the strongest players. So the idea of "stacking" isn't a dead horse and is alive and well in our area.

This is a very useful post as it tries to provide a solution or alternative. I was thinking about it and had another solution that may be easier, which is to use the records (or sets won) at #1 singles and #1 doubles as tie breakers at the end of the season if two teams are tied w/ the same record. This would be a small change but would certainly encourage people to put their best players in line 1. I suppose however once a team is out of competition then they could switch it up to try to get a win esp. against a competitive team...

cak
02-20-2007, 05:21 AM
I'm trying to think of a team I've ever been on where the number one doubles team is obvious. Nope, can't think of one. The good teams have enough good doubles teams to take on any one of our doubles teams. And when we are having a good year we have three to four doubles teams that are fairly interchangable. Maybe singles is easier to tell, we don't have many singles players at our club.

I don't think the system is broke. So I don't think it needs fixing.

If you are really interested in getting close matches you give points for close matches. A 3-2 win or loss is worth more than a 5-0 win or loss. A three set match is worth more than a win in straight sets. A 7-5 set is worth more than a 6-0 set. Captains will work together to make sure their matches are set up so the most competitive matches possible are out on the courts. And the team with the most close matches goes to Nationals.

Cindysphinx
02-20-2007, 09:56 AM
I'm trying to think of a team I've ever been on where the number one doubles team is obvious. Nope, can't think of one. The good teams have enough good doubles teams to take on any one of our doubles teams. And when we are having a good year we have three to four doubles teams that are fairly interchangable. Maybe singles is easier to tell, we don't have many singles players at our club.

I don't think the system is broke. So I don't think it needs fixing.

If you are really interested in getting close matches you give points for close matches. A 3-2 win or loss is worth more than a 5-0 win or loss. A three set match is worth more than a win in straight sets. A 7-5 set is worth more than a 6-0 set. Captains will work together to make sure their matches are set up so the most competitive matches possible are out on the courts. And the team with the most close matches goes to Nationals.

Another interesting idea!

I do worry that it gives an incentive to tank matches, especially in areas where singles matches start after doubles matches. Singles often takes longer, so if the captain knows her three doubles teams won, she could signal to the singles players to take a dive. Yuk.

Having the tie-breaker be performance on Court One would be an interesting twist. This has a better chance of getting the attention of teams at the bottom also. Even if I'm poised to finish 11th of 12 teams, I'd definitely pay attention to a tiebreak that might make me fall to 12th place.

I should have that put on a T-shirt: "Gotta avoid 12th place, gotta avoid 12th place." :)

Roforot
02-21-2007, 12:56 AM
I'm trying to think of a team I've ever been on where the number one doubles team is obvious. Nope, can't think of one. The good teams have enough good doubles teams to take on any one of our doubles teams. And when we are having a good year we have three to four doubles teams that are fairly interchangable. Maybe singles is easier to tell, we don't have many singles players at our club.

I don't think the system is broke. So I don't think it needs fixing.

If you are really interested in getting close matches you give points for close matches. A 3-2 win or loss is worth more than a 5-0 win or loss. A three set match is worth more than a win in straight sets. A 7-5 set is worth more than a 6-0 set. Captains will work together to make sure their matches are set up so the most competitive matches possible are out on the courts. And the team with the most close matches goes to Nationals.

Interesting, I'll agree that who the number 1 doubles team is can vary during the season especially if players are trying different combinations of partners. That being said, on game day, we pretty much know who is the best doubles team and singles player, and I can usually tell while playing and looking at the other courts if we're playing against the #1 opponent or if they switched.

I'm somewhat against the idea of pushing the team that won 3-2 above the team that won 4-1. I feel that would introduce even more manipulation and tanking as Cindysphinx suggests. I would rather see more straight up matches though I'm against any complicated Anti-stacking rule. I think using the records at #1 as a tie-breaker would be a subtle and non-intrusive mechanism to head in that direction.

In this season, I'm enjoying playing much more b/c we are getting better quality matches and have been facing the opponents best doubles team. My record isn't quite as good but I'm learning.

CrocodileRock
02-21-2007, 03:55 AM
I'm somewhat against the idea of pushing the team that won 3-2 above the team that won 4-1. I feel that would introduce even more manipulation and tanking as Cindysphinx suggests.

No kidding. I think that the best scoring system is one that is based on individual matches, i.e., 5 points per week rather than one. A 5-0 win is better than a 4-1 win which is better than a 3-2 win, and should be reflected in the standings. Granted, this could lead to two different outcomes at the end of the season. One team could be 9-0 with 27 match wins, while another could be 8-1 with 30 match wins. Personally, I think counting [I]all[I] of the matches played paints a clearer picture of a team's ability than just counting the three matches won each week. I'm sure some others see it differently.

It's kind of like the presidential elections. Do we use # of votes cast, or electoral college votes? Using the electoral college causes candidates to ignore some states, and only concentrate on the swing states - Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004. Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000, but lost the electoral college by one vote. Hmm... maybe we should just leave things alone on second thought.

oldguysrule
02-21-2007, 05:43 AM
Hmm... maybe we should just leave things alone on second thought.

Agreed...It's not broken, so let's go play tennis.

cak
02-21-2007, 12:13 PM
I'm somewhat against the idea of pushing the team that won 3-2 above the team that won 4-1.

The idea would be that not the best, or worst team would go to Nationals. The most average 3.0 teams would be playing at Nationals. Since going to Nationals means you are average, you may well get people attempting to move up to the highest level they can, as the trip to Nationals doesn't mean they are the best players. It does mean they have the captain most into getting close, friendly games.

I'm only suggesting this for folks that really think play order should not be random, because they want competitive matches. That's not what the system is set up for right now.

10sfreak
02-21-2007, 07:31 PM
In 3 seasons of competitive USTA league mixed doubles, as well as all the tourneys I've played, I've yet to run into a guy who "holds back" when serving to my partner. There's nothing chivalrous about serving softer than your normal stuff when you are competing.
Well down here in Georgia, or at least in the league I play in (which IS NOT in Atlanta!), guys generally don't serve as hard to the girls as we do to other guys. To do so would be kind of frowned upon, as down here, it IS considered chivarlous to hold back a little when serving to the ladies. Of course, Atlanta doesn't count, as it is not really even considered a "Southern" city anymore!

Roforot
02-22-2007, 02:50 AM
Agreed...It's not broken, so let's go play tennis.

Broken may be too harsh. However the system needs a tweak and good kick.

migjam
03-03-2007, 06:25 AM
So what I'm hearing is, you play and lose to a team who is loaded with very good players and you have to play them a second time. You as a coach aren't allowed to do anything to help your team win? As long as you are playing as a TEAM and keeping a TEAM score, then a coach should be allowed to line up or coach his team in the order he wants to. It's ridiculous to tell a coach you have to play your lineup a certain way. What other team sport do you know of that does this?

amarone
03-03-2007, 06:53 AM
So what I'm hearing is, you play and lose to a team who is loaded with very good players and you have to play them a second time. You as a coach aren't allowed to do anything to help your team win? As long as you are playing as a TEAM and keeping a TEAM score, then a coach should be allowed to line up or coach his team in the order he wants to. It's ridiculous to tell a coach you have to play your lineup a certain way. What other team sport do you know of that does this? I don't know how you have got that impression from this thread. Many people, if not all, have stressed that there is no such thing as "stacking" and you can line up your players in any order you like.

migjam
03-03-2007, 08:34 AM
I don't know how you have got that impression from this thread. Many people, if not all, have stressed that there is no such thing as "stacking" and you can line up your players in any order you like.

I'm addressing those (and yes there are a few if you read back through this thread) that think stacking is wrong.

TriCitiesTennis
03-06-2007, 09:41 AM
As the captain of a team here in Georgia, I decide who to play at what position depending on the opposing team's strength. I have been known to "sacrifice" a player to an opposing #1 singles in order to win the overall match. We won our division last fall, and we're now leading our division this spring season. In fact, most of the guys on my team are going to have to schedule some losses this season, just to keep from getting DQed. That's right, we're planning on losing some lines, each in turn, so as to keep from getting DQed. It seems unsavory and dishonest, but that's what the rules of the USTA force upon us. Who wants to win all season long, then get DQed at the end, and have all your matches thrown out? None of us are "self-rated", but we've known people who've been computer-rated at a certain level, but when they keep winning AT THAT SAME LEVEL ASSIGNED TO THEM BY THE COMPUTER, that same damn computer DQs them!! So, part of our strategy now is to lose some matches, in order to win! Crazy...

YOUR THE REASON TENNIS RATING IN THE USTA SYSTEM IS A JOKE.

IF YOUR PLAYERS ARE TOO DAMNED SCARED TO STEP UP AND PLAY SOME REAL COMPETITION, THEN THAT'S YOUR OWN DISHONESTY WITH YOURSELF.

YOU WON'T GET ANY SYMPATHY FROM ME OR ANYONE ELSE. HAVE YOUR GUYS PLAY AT THE LEVEL THEY SHOULD PLAY AT AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT CHEATING.

Roforot
03-06-2007, 11:19 AM
So what I'm hearing is, you play and lose to a team who is loaded with very good players and you have to play them a second time. You as a coach aren't allowed to do anything to help your team win? As long as you are playing as a TEAM and keeping a TEAM score, then a coach should be allowed to line up or coach his team in the order he wants to. It's ridiculous to tell a coach you have to play your lineup a certain way. What other team sport do you know of that does this?

Sure you can do a lot to help your team! You can organize team practices and can suggest different strategies the next time they play.

I agree w/ you that an anti-stacking law would be unenforceable.
My suggestion was that the USTA should tweak their system to make #1 matches count a little more by being a tie-breaker at the end of season. Teams could still make whatever line-ups they wanted.

zzzbrianxxx
03-08-2007, 02:52 PM
I can't believe what I'm hearing. This sounds blatantly like cheating. I play varsity HS tennis, and it is a mandatory rule that your 2 best players MUST play #1 and #2, and your 1st dubs MUST be able to beat 2nd dubs. This of course allows for a little strategizing and mixup when you make your line, but to have your #1 play at the 3rd singles spot is crazy, and to think that any of you would condone such an action makes me seriously question your morality in tennis.

migjam
03-08-2007, 03:13 PM
I know in Southern California (Palm Springs area). They play six matches (1 set each) and each singles player 1-3 plays the other teams singles players 1-3. Same with doubles. Stacking isn't an issue because everyone plays each other.
To be honest, how does the #1 player/power house prepare for the sub-district if all he ever plays is the other teams power houses? In my opinion, it is better for them to prepare to play all types of players because generally it is the pushers that give them trouble. And, if they never play the pushers and meet up with them in the tournament thats where the problems are.

cak
03-08-2007, 03:55 PM
I can't believe what I'm hearing. This sounds blatantly like cheating. I play varsity HS tennis, and it is a mandatory rule that your 2 best players MUST play #1 and #2, and your 1st dubs MUST be able to beat 2nd dubs. This of course allows for a little strategizing and mixup when you make your line, but to have your #1 play at the 3rd singles spot is crazy, and to think that any of you would condone such an action makes me seriously question your morality in tennis.

I'm not sure where you think this was posted, but this is NOT high school tennis. Thus the "Adult League" heading. Rules are different. A small percentage of the teams might be able to tell you if the team they have at first dubs could beat the team they have at second dubs, but most have no way of knowing. That's the problem with NTRP tennis, when the theory is having a whole league of people who are the same level, deciding who is better is pretty moot.

zzzbrianxxx
03-08-2007, 04:07 PM
I understood that it was adult league tennis, but what I guess I didn't understand was that it's difficult to arrange matches between the team members. You guys NEVER have practices?

Cindysphinx
03-08-2007, 05:32 PM
I understood that it was adult league tennis, but what I guess I didn't understand was that it's difficult to arrange matches between the team members. You guys NEVER have practices?

It's a totally different kettle of fish, Brian (I hope you don't mind if I call you Brian :) ).

On our team, it is not unusual for two doubles partners to play their first time together in a match. This is because people work for a living and have significant obligations other than tennis. A high school team would practice 5 days a week, no? My league team practices 2 hours a week, and even then only half the players can attend any particular practice. If it rains or we can't find an outdoor court, we don't practice at all.

So I can guess who can beat whom, but it is only my guess.

Mainly, the rules allows stacking or random court assignment or whatever you want to call it is because there is no enforcement mechanism. My No. 1 player is a terror, but she's not a terror when her chronic back troubles kick in. So how could anyone accuse me of cheating if she plays on Court 3 after being up half the night with a bad back?

Now, losing on purpose to achieve a lower rating -- I still say *that* is cheating.

10sfreak
03-08-2007, 05:47 PM
I can't believe what I'm hearing. This sounds blatantly like cheating. I play varsity HS tennis, and it is a mandatory rule that your 2 best players MUST play #1 and #2, and your 1st dubs MUST be able to beat 2nd dubs. This of course allows for a little strategizing and mixup when you make your line, but to have your #1 play at the 3rd singles spot is crazy, and to think that any of you would condone such an action makes me seriously question your morality in tennis.
ZZZ, we're not talking about HS tennis - we're talking about recreational tennis, played in the USTA. There is no rule that the two best players on the team MUST play #1 and #2, etc. There are no rules governing line-ups AT ALL, so to call us "cheaters" and to question our "morality in tennis" regarding the issue of how we line our players up is just a bit over the top. Have you not read through the entire thread?

10sfreak
03-08-2007, 05:55 PM
It's a totally different kettle of fish, Brian (I hope you don't mind if I call you Brian :) ).

On our team, it is not unusual for two doubles partners to play their first time together in a match. This is because people work for a living and have significant obligations other than tennis. A high school team would practice 5 days a week, no? My league team practices 2 hours a week, and even then only half the players can attend any particular practice. If it rains or we can't find an outdoor court, we don't practice at all.

So I can guess who can beat whom, but it is only my guess.

Mainly, the rules allows stacking or random court assignment or whatever you want to call it is because there is no enforcement mechanism. My No. 1 player is a terror, but she's not a terror when her chronic back troubles kick in. So how could anyone accuse me of cheating if she plays on Court 3 after being up half the night with a bad back?

Now, losing on purpose to achieve a lower rating -- I still say *that* is cheating.

Cindy, assuming that the last sentence was aimed at me, please note: I was never talking about losing to "achieve a lower rating." Rather, it was to avoid getting DQed for the season - big difference, IMO. In any case, it doesn't look like any of my guys will have to deliberately tank a match, 'cause several of them just got beat by some pushers who've been playing less than a year each! I still have a couple of guys who may be in danger of getting DQed, but we'll see how the season unfolds. As for myself, I seriously doubt I'm in any danger of getting DQed, so that's not really an issue for me - the way I play, I don't have to try to tank a match to get beat! LOL!

Sakumo
03-08-2007, 06:15 PM
Cindy, assuming that the last sentence was aimed at me, please note: I was never talking about losing to "achieve a lower rating." Rather, it was to avoid getting DQed for the season - big difference, IMO. In any case, it doesn't look like any of my guys will have to deliberately tank a match, 'cause several of them just got beat by some pushers who've been playing less than a year each! I still have a couple of guys who may be in danger of getting DQed, but we'll see how the season unfolds. As for myself, I seriously doubt I'm in any danger of getting DQed, so that's not really an issue for me - the way I play, I don't have to try to tank a match to get beat! LOL!

They got beat by pushers? So I'm guessing you run a 3.5 team? And then play in a 3.0 league? I'm still a little lost on how you cheat the computer. If you win all the time it's not like you would get DQed.

andfor
03-08-2007, 06:28 PM
Cindy, assuming that the last sentence was aimed at me, please note: I was never talking about losing to "achieve a lower rating." Rather, it was to avoid getting DQed for the season - big difference, IMO. In any case, it doesn't look like any of my guys will have to deliberately tank a match, 'cause several of them just got beat by some pushers who've been playing less than a year each! I still have a couple of guys who may be in danger of getting DQed, but we'll see how the season unfolds. As for myself, I seriously doubt I'm in any danger of getting DQed, so that's not really an issue for me - the way I play, I don't have to try to tank a match to get beat! LOL!

Nice save, some call it back peddling. You're trying to rationalize your "little strategy". In the real world it's called cheating. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Stacking your line-up to achieve a team win (while still trying to win all 5 matches) verses purposely scheduling a player to lose (and you are hoping for a loss) is a huge difference. I would be very surprised if you could look everyone in the eye and deny having ever told one of your players to lose. That may or may not be the case but we know your intent. However this is the Internet, heck you can say whatever, no one knows who anyone is anyway. And you're lucky your league coordinator has not read what you posted and knows who you are. At this point you have lost credibility here. I wish you luck getting it back and participating in life with honor and dignity. I also wish you and your team luck winning all your matches and being placed rightfully though honest wins and losses in the NTRP rating.

Ronaldo
03-08-2007, 06:48 PM
Stacking's been legal locally for the past 15 yrs, why is this an issue now?

CrocodileRock
03-08-2007, 07:02 PM
I think it's only an issue for those new to the USTA leagues, the most recent of which is Brian. They don't understand its legality or its usefulness.

For the record (again) it is perfectly legal, and also very useful. A team that always plays order of strength is predictable, and therefore, easier to beat than a team that always mixes things up. The object of the game is to be hard to beat.

Also, apologies to oldguys for awakening this thread from its coma. I was ready to administer last rites, when it suddenly resurrected.

cak
03-08-2007, 07:07 PM
I don't blame the lack of defined first versus second doubles on no practice. I think it's meant to be that way. On the average HS varsity tennis team around here the players range from the junior equivalent of a 5.0 or better (as defined by they can beat 5.0 adults...) to a low 3.5. It is a given that the best player on the team will bagel the worst player on the team every time they play. The idea of these NTRP USTA teams are the best players on a 3.5 team are high 3.5s, and the worst are low 3.5s. So the best players will beat the worst players maybe 70 to 80 percent of the time, but not every time. On our teams it is not uncommon for the top three doubles teams to play each other absolutely even. My first year as captain I tried making doubles and singles ladders. The top 4 doubles teams and top two single players stayed the same, but their positions against each other changed pretty much everytime they played.

10sfreak
03-08-2007, 07:12 PM
Nice save, some call it back peddling. You're trying to rationalize your "little strategy". In the real world it's called cheating. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Stacking your line-up to achieve a team win (while still trying to win all 5 matches) verses purposely scheduling a player to lose (and you are hoping for a loss) is a huge difference. I would be very surprised if you could look everyone in the eye and deny having ever told one of your players to lose. That may or may not be the case but we know your intent. However this is the Internet, heck you can say whatever, no one knows who anyone is anyway. And you're lucky your league coordinator has not read what you posted and knows who you are. At this point you have lost credibility here. I wish you luck getting it back and participating in life with honor and dignity. I also wish you and your team luck winning all your matches and being placed rightfully though honest wins and losses in the NTRP rating.
Where in my post am I trying to rationalize anything?! "Back pedalling"? I'll freely admit that if my players hadn't lost, I would instruct them to do so at some point in the future to avoid getting DQed. But, it probably won't be necessary, since they wound up losing to a couple of newbies. Does any of that sound like I'm rationalizing anything? Have you even read through all the posts?
Let me paint you a scenario:
There's been a rule change in USTA, and your dynamic rating is now available for you to know. You are a computer-rated 3.0 player, playing in the league the USTA computer has deemed you belong in. You're playing in the last match of the season. You and your partner have won all your matches. Your team has won all of its matches 3-2. Going into this last match of the season, your team has the division sewn up, leading the second-place team by 2 matches. Now, since by the new rule change re your dynamic rating, you KNOW that if you win tonight, you're going to get DQed, thereby forfeiting all your previous matches this season, which means your team now retroactively loses all its matches 2-3. You and your teammates have practiced 3 hours/week and worked really hard to get to this point, and are now on the brink of either going to the state championships, or losing all their previous matches, depending on whether you and your partner lose or win. If you're telling me that you or anyone else on this board wouldn't tank the match, you are a LIAR!! Period.

Cindysphinx
03-08-2007, 07:12 PM
Cindy, assuming that the last sentence was aimed at me, please note: I was never talking about losing to "achieve a lower rating." Rather, it was to avoid getting DQed for the season - big difference, IMO. In any case, it doesn't look like any of my guys will have to deliberately tank a match, 'cause several of them just got beat by some pushers who've been playing less than a year each! I still have a couple of guys who may be in danger of getting DQed, but we'll see how the season unfolds. As for myself, I seriously doubt I'm in any danger of getting DQed, so that's not really an issue for me - the way I play, I don't have to try to tank a match to get beat! LOL!

Gah! :slams head on desk:

10sfreak, you seem like *such* a nice guy. Honestly, you do.

But you have a huge blind spot on this thing.

**There is no difference -- none -- between deliberately losing a match to achieve a lower rating and deliberately losing a match to avoid a DQ.**

If you tank to avoid a DQ, then you have -- yes, you guessed it -- *achieved a lower rating* than you would have had if you had played the game honestly. 'Cause if you get DQ'd, you get moved up a level, see?

I am absolutely floored that you're still defending this little practive. I do understand your reasons for tanking, but that doesn't make it right. Hey, I'd like to be 2.5 so I could beat up on all the 2.5 players too. I'd just have to tank some matches to avoid a DQ, is all.

10sfreak
03-08-2007, 07:18 PM
Ok, by tanking a match, you DO achieve a lower dynamic rating, but I thought you meant to actually drop down a rating. Part of the confusion on my part was that you wrote to achieve a "lower" level. See, if you tank a match and avoid a DQ, you don't achieve a "lower" level, you STAY at your present level, and that was the intent. Sorry, my mistake. Again, for the 10th time, none of us would even blink at getting bumped up to 3.5 this summer, we just don't want to retroactively lose our matches by getting DQed, as we've seen happen to others in our league every season for the last 2 years! See my post directed to "Andfor".

Cindysphinx
03-08-2007, 07:19 PM
Where in my post am I trying to rationalize anything?! "Back pedalling"? I'll freely admit that if my players hadn't lost, I would instruct them to do so at some point in the future to avoid getting DQed. But, it probably won't be necessary, since they wound up losing to a couple of newbies. Does any of that sound like I'm rationalizing anything? Have you even read through all the posts?
Let me paint you a scenario:
There's been a rule change in USTA, and your dynamic rating is now available for you to know. You are a computer-rated 3.0 player, playing in the league the USTA computer has deemed you belong in. You're playing in the last match of the season. You and your partner have won all your matches. Your team has won all of its matches 3-2. Going into this last match of the season, your team has the division sewn up, leading the second-place team by 2 matches. Now, since by the new rule change re your dynamic rating, you KNOW that if you win tonight, you're going to get DQed, thereby forfeiting all your previous matches this season, which means your team now retroactively loses all its matches 2-3. You and your teammates have practiced 3 hours/week and worked really hard to get to this point, and are now on the brink of either going to the state championships, or losing all their previous matches, depending on whether you and your partner lose or win. If you're telling me that you or anyone else on this board wouldn't tank the match, you are a LIAR!! Period.


What the -- ??

I'll tell you right here, right now, that there is no set of circumstances I can imagine where I would tell any of my players to tank a match. You gonna call me a liar?

And I highly doubt that a computer-rated player who wins all of her matches would get DQ'd. I mean, people go undefeated in our league all the time, and they don't get DQ'd.

One of our mixed players was a self-rated 3.5 last year. He got quickly DQ'd after destroying his 3.5 opponents, so this year he is computer-rated 4.0. Everyone was astounded that the computer didn't move him to 4.5, but it didn't. The guy is currently *23-0* in mixed 7.0, mixed 8.0 and combo 7.5.

He is going to play 4.0 this spring. And you know what? I will let you know if he gets DQ'd. I bet he won't. The computer understands that *someone* has to be the top 4.0 player, and this guy is apparently it.

10sguy
03-08-2007, 08:25 PM
FOLKS!! What is of UTmost significance here is this: When players win by a lesser margin than they really should or lose when they should really win . . . the result is pollution of the ratings of EVERY player in their league, level, division, etc. It tends to keep better player's ratings lower and lesser player's ratings higher than they should be. This has the effect of keeping most of the best players at the same level and thus winning year after year. But the worst effect of this, to me, is that the lesser player (whose rating may likely otherwise have migrated down a level) may well get tired of losing year after year . . . and just drop out of either league tennis play or possibly drop tennis entirely. In the 2006 National USTA Player Survey, the following question was posed: "Rate the USA Regulations." Well over 40 percent (approximately four of of every seven) of the Comment Responses were NEGATIVE remarks - specifically regarding self-rating, ratings or sandbagging. That is VERY significant. I believe the basic root cause of the discontent though lies with sandbagging. I further believe the solution is a league standings determination methodology which incents players and teams to play their best. There is simply far too much "wiggle room" for players/teams to manage score/ratings within the current system of team wins/losses determining league winners.

Bottom line: By selfishly trying to manage ratings (yes, that "works" within the current system), you are depriving MANY others of the level playing field which is the ultimate objective of NTRP. We need something better!

Sakumo
03-08-2007, 08:57 PM
What the -- ??

I'll tell you right here, right now, that there is no set of circumstances I can imagine where I would tell any of my players to tank a match. You gonna call me a liar?

And I highly doubt that a computer-rated player who wins all of her matches would get DQ'd. I mean, people go undefeated in our league all the time, and they don't get DQ'd.

One of our mixed players was a self-rated 3.5 last year. He got quickly DQ'd after destroying his 3.5 opponents, so this year he is computer-rated 4.0. Everyone was astounded that the computer didn't move him to 4.5, but it didn't. The guy is currently *23-0* in mixed 7.0, mixed 8.0 and combo 7.5.

He is going to play 4.0 this spring. And you know what? I will let you know if he gets DQ'd. I bet he won't. The computer understands that *someone* has to be the top 4.0 player, and this guy is apparently it.

Bingo. Someone has to be #1 and it's going to be that person who dominated. They won't be disqualified, they will be moved up next year.

vinouspleasure
03-08-2007, 10:04 PM
Here are my thoughts:
- There is an unwritten rule that teams should not stack. This is not professional tennis. People's livelihood and future are not on the line. The goal of usta adult league tennis is to provide competitive matches for every player in a match. Playing your #3 doubles team against the number one doubles team of the other team does not result in a competitive match for those players.
- Let me give an example of the point above. A couple of years ago I was playing first doubles. I left work early to get to the match. I drove 15 miles from my home to get there. I paid court fees to play the match. I spent 45 minutes on the court beating the other team's 3rd doubles team 0 and 1. I would rather have not played. I can't imagine the other team had all too much fun...
- The usta should incent teams to not stack by awarding more points to the team thats wins #1 singles, #1 doubles and #2 doubles. I haven't thought through a sound system but for example, you receive 2 points for #1 singles, 1 point for #2 singles, 3 points for #1 doubles, 2 points for #2 doubles and 1 point for #3 doubles. Which ever team has the most points wins the match.
- our league coordinator has told teams that stacking will not be tolerated.
- Playing for a loss to manage your rating hurts yourself and your opponents. You don't get to play against the best competition. Your opponents are overmatched. This is an unethical practice...actually, I;m sure everyone realizes this..if everyone did this, there would be no need to have ratings as they;d be meaningless.

Raiden.Kaminari
03-09-2007, 12:32 AM
I can't believe what I'm hearing. This sounds blatantly like cheating. I play varsity HS tennis, and it is a mandatory rule that your 2 best players MUST play #1 and #2, and your 1st dubs MUST be able to beat 2nd dubs. This of course allows for a little strategizing and mixup when you make your line, but to have your #1 play at the 3rd singles spot is crazy, and to think that any of you would condone such an action makes me seriously question your morality in tennis.

While H.S. AND College teams are required to put their #1 at #1, their #2 at #2, and with coaches having to provide the challenge ladder results as well as match results, USTA league tennis is very different.

What I like about H.S., College, and junior tennis is that EVERYONE plays open. There is no rating system, although coaches can tell (well, most certified instructors can) what the NTRP level players are at, and then place them on a challenge ladder based on their experience.

The players themselves can then challenge up/down.

Anyway, back to league tennis ... as many have already posted, there is no such thing as "stacking" in league tennis. I usually play straight (ie. #1 at #1, #2 at #2), since I don't want to waste time as a captain figuring out what the other captains do. The rare exception is when I'm ticked off at my players being late, and play them based on what spot they want to play depending on who arrived first. In contrast, some captains spend incredible amounts of time trying to analyze opponent line-ups.

I can understand some captains telling players to lose a match (with close scores) to help determine which teams reach playoffs, but tanking matches in order to prevent a DQ ... well, that's just lame.

USTA is indeed broken though. We have college grads (former 6.0) playing 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5, depending on how their captain wanted them to self-rate. Personally, I wish USTA would suspend the captain, the player, and all the player's doubles partner. Imagine how quickly NTRP would clean up then.

Cindysphinx
03-09-2007, 03:36 AM
Yes, I AM calling you a liar then.


Wow.

Nah, I'm neither a liar nor a cheat. I (and all other captains and players) have plenty of opportunities to do unethical things to increase the chances of winning, but I do not. For instance, I promise all of my players a minimum number of matches. I can assure you that it is awfully tempting to blow off this promise and bench the weak players when I feel the stronger players might be able to secure the win. You know why I don't?

Because doing that would be unethical, and it would make me a liar. So no, I won't do something that is *wrong* to win a league match which, in the final analysis, means *absolutely nothing.*

As for why I keep answering you . . . I dunno. It's just so difficult to keep quiet in the face of blatant, unabashed, unapologetic cheating in a sport I love so much. Maybe you should start a poll to see if there is anyone in all of TW who thinks what you're doing is defensible.

10sfreak
03-09-2007, 09:51 AM
I can understand some captains telling players to lose a match (with close scores) to help determine which teams reach playoffs, but tanking matches in order to prevent a DQ ... well, that's just lame.
Huh?! Not sure I understand that statement...

10sfreak
03-09-2007, 09:52 AM
Wow.

Nah, I'm neither a liar nor a cheat. I (and all other captains and players) have plenty of opportunities to do unethical things to increase the chances of winning, but I do not. For instance, I promise all of my players a minimum number of matches. I can assure you that it is awfully tempting to blow off this promise and bench the weak players when I feel the stronger players might be able to secure the win. You know why I don't?

Because doing that would be unethical, and it would make me a liar. So no, I won't do something that is *wrong* to win a league match which, in the final analysis, means *absolutely nothing.*

As for why I keep answering you . . . I dunno. It's just so difficult to keep quiet in the face of blatant, unabashed, unapologetic cheating in a sport I love so much. Maybe you should start a poll to see if there is anyone in all of TW who thinks what you're doing is defensible.
I would start such a poll IF I cared even a little bit about others' opinions...but I don't, so I won't. You're welcome to though!

10sfreak
03-09-2007, 10:00 AM
I think one of the big problems here is that we in our local league must be playing by totally different rules than the rest of y'all, 'cause once again, there's a poster above who claims that people who play in their computer-rated level don't get DQed. That may very well be where the rest of y'all play, but that is not the case around here. Evidently, none of y'all have ever encountered a situation wherein someone playing at their computer-rated level gets DQed if he/she wins too much. Unfortunately, I have witnessed this every season for the last 2 years.
So, not ever having encountered the problem we have here, I guess I can see why so many of you would be so incredulous that such a thing could happen. Oh well...

CrocodileRock
03-09-2007, 10:17 AM
I'm a little incredulous over it too freak. In my fifteen years of league play, I have seen only a few grievances filed by other players, all of which were rejected, and *never* have I seen a computer-rated player DQ'd. Maybe your computer is trigger-happy, and that's why you are walking on eggshells.

andfor
03-09-2007, 10:17 AM
As the captain of a team here in Georgia, I decide who to play at what position depending on the opposing team's strength. I have been known to "sacrifice" a player to an opposing #1 singles in order to win the overall match. We won our division last fall, and we're now leading our division this spring season. In fact, most of the guys on my team are going to have to schedule some losses this season, just to keep from getting DQed. That's right, we're planning on losing some lines, each in turn, so as to keep from getting DQed. It seems unsavory and dishonest, but that's what the rules of the USTA force upon us. Who wants to win all season long, then get DQed at the end, and have all your matches thrown out? None of us are "self-rated", but we've known people who've been computer-rated at a certain level, but when they keep winning AT THAT SAME LEVEL ASSIGNED TO THEM BY THE COMPUTER, that same damn computer DQs them!! So, part of our strategy now is to lose some matches, in order to win! Crazy...

This is you admitting you're a cheater. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Everything you have said after is you in CYA mode.

As for you calling me and everyone else a liar you can' t prove it. But if it make you feel better just like the way you have tried to rationalize this it would not suprise me.

Cindysphinx
03-09-2007, 10:21 AM
I think one of the big problems here is that we in our local league must be playing by totally different rules than the rest of y'all, 'cause once again, there's a poster above who claims that people who play in their computer-rated level don't get DQed.

What league is it?

andfor
03-09-2007, 10:26 AM
What league is it?

Good question.

10sfreak,

I'd like to see on the USTA website the 3-4 examples you say you have seen where a team at the end of the season lost their league championship due to a season ending DQ. Can you show us those please?

Thanks,

Andy

Ronaldo
03-09-2007, 10:45 AM
Our captain, to get a player bumped on another team the next season, deliberately lost to this player luv n luv in singles. Machiavellian bologna at its best/worst, eh?

zzzbrianxxx
03-09-2007, 03:11 PM
Am I of the opinion that if you are KNOWINGLY "stacking", then you are cheating. It was brought to my attention that sometimes you can't know cause of limited practice times and equal levels. But, if you DO know of a difference, and you stack, then it is blatant cheating.

Raiden.Kaminari
03-09-2007, 03:20 PM
I think one of the big problems here is that we in our local league must be playing by totally different rules than the rest of y'all, 'cause once again, there's a poster above who claims that people who play in their computer-rated level don't get DQed. That may very well be where the rest of y'all play, but that is not the case around here. Evidently, none of y'all have ever encountered a situation wherein someone playing at their computer-rated level gets DQed if he/she wins too much. Unfortunately, I have witnessed this every season for the last 2 years.
So, not ever having encountered the problem we have here, I guess I can see why so many of you would be so incredulous that such a thing could happen. Oh well...

I have witnessed computer rated players get DQ'd for playing their computer rated level. They fell into the falling categories:

1. Many of these players appealed their year end rating, so they were already on the edge.

2. Some of these players improved a lot, and deserved to get moved up.

3. Some of them originally self-rated too low, played too well against other computer rated players, and eventually had their average DNTRP move into the strike zone.

Players who manage their ratings are cheating. Computer rated players who get DQ'd are really above level and should be playing at the higher NTRP level, not trying to be the "top" of the lower NTRP level. If players are managing their ratings, not only do they get bumped up, they get a suspension since it's unsportsmanlike behavior.

Anyone can beat up on a beginner. If you're an advanced player, you can easily beat up intermediates. And if you're elite, you can beat up on the advanced players. It all comes down to what you're trying to do to tennis.

If you're a trophy hunter, get a life. Ten years from now, few will know that you went to Nationals, Sectionals, Districts, etc. Nobody except for you and maybe a friends (and opponents) may care. But in the scheme of things, it's so trivial.

Want to accomplish something? Play open. Win. Get a National ranking. Go play world wide.

oldguysrule
03-09-2007, 03:51 PM
Am I of the opinion that if you are KNOWINGLY "stacking", then you are cheating. It was brought to my attention that sometimes you can't know cause of limited practice times and equal levels. But, if you DO know of a difference, and you stack, then it is blatant cheating.

Brian,
I know you are young, but this has been explained to you. There is no stacking in USTA adult league tennis. This is a league where everyone is the same level. Sure, some are a little better but we are all really close. That is how the league is designed and setup. We are instructed as captains that there is no distinction between court #1 and Court #2 in terms of the ability level of the players. The numbers are there to keep track of the matches. It is not high school tennis or college tennis. It is a recreational league created to have fun. Please open your mind, put aside your preconceived ideas, and learn about a concept that is different from what you are used to.

The only reason I am responding is because you are calling people cheaters when you have no idea what you are talking about. Tennis is a sport that prides itself on sportsmanship and integrity. You should not throw out insults as easily as you have in this thread.

10sfreak
03-09-2007, 03:59 PM
Good question.

10sfreak,

I'd like to see on the USTA website the 3-4 examples you say you have seen where a team at the end of the season lost their league championship due to a season ending DQ. Can you show us those please?

Thanks,

Andy
No, a team hasn't lost their league championship due to a season ending DQ (that's what I'm trying to avoid), but PLAYERS have lost their games retroactively due to getting DQed. It's in the Southern Section (USTA), here in Georgia.
Just this past fall, we and another team were neck and neck going into the final w/e, and the top player on the other team got DQed, giving us the division championship. Although, in all likelihood, we would've won anyway, 'cause we were playing a fairly weak team, while they were playing a little bit stronger team. We would have had to lose 1-4, AND the other team would have had to win either 5-0 or 4-1 (I'm not sure - been a while) for that other team to have won the division. Still, the chance was taken away from them by the DQ and subsequent forfeiture of all the matches their top player had already won. That's the most recent example. Yeah, I know, all of you are going to say that that was perfectly fair, because the ALL KNOWING, ALL BENEVOLENT COMPUTER is always right, blah, blah, blah, but it just ain't so. Although it was to my team's benefit, none of us liked the way it happened.
Last November, something similar happened to a girl I know. She had played as a 2.5 on a 5.5 combo team in late fall of '05 (it was the first time she'd ever played tennis, and this was after hip-replacemetn surgery). They won the division and qualified for state, which was played in Nov. '06. In the meantime, she had been bumped up to 3.0, had been winning in that league, and was even playing/competing well in 3.5. A few weeks before state, their captain submits the roster, it's approved. The team, consisting of only 6 girls, 3 2.5s and 3 3.0s goes to compete. They make it through to the final without losing a line, winning all their matches 3-0. Two hours before the final, she gets DQed!! Fortunately, they didn't make the team forfeit the matches she had played, but she was not allowed to play in the final. So the team went into the final already down a line. They were so tore up about it, none of them played worth a crap, and they got beat pretty badly. Left a pretty bitter taste in everyone's mouths.
Last spring, the captain of a 3.0 ladies team got DQed a week before the last match. She had played as 2.5 the spring of '05, got bumped up to 3.0 in the year-end ratings, and was captaining the 3.0 team in spring of '06. Her team had won enough of their matches handily enough that they were still able to win their division, even with the forfeiture of all of her matches. They went on to state last year, but the captain couldn't even play. Keep in mind, she was a computer-rated 3.0 a few months before the adult league season began, yet she got DQed.
One of the guys on my team (he's one of the players that got beat by the pushers the other night) got DQed his second season playing tennis (Fall '05)He had never played before, even recreationally, until spring '05. Near the end of that season (fall '05), he got DQed, and his team retroactively lost all his matches. His team would have won the division had his matches not been retroactively forfeited.
That's four examples right there. You can believe me or not, but that is why we're even comtemplating tanking some matches. If you don't believe me, fine. But it's the the perspective of all those DQs that we were/are thinking about "manipulating" the computer ratings.

10sfreak
03-09-2007, 04:03 PM
Brian,
I know you are young, but this has been explained to you. There is no stacking in USTA adult league tennis. This is a league where everyone is the same level. Sure, some are a little better but we are all really close. That is how the league is designed and setup. We are instructed as captains that there is no distinction between court #1 and Court #2 in terms of the ability level of the players. The numbers are there to keep track of the matches. It is not high school tennis or college tennis. It is a recreational league created to have fun. Please open your mind, put aside your preconceived ideas, and learn about a concept that is different from what you are used to.

The only reason I am responding is because you are calling people cheaters when you have no idea what you are talking about. Tennis is a sport that prides itself on sportsmanship and integrity. You should not throw out insults as easily as you have in this thread.
Oldguysrule, although we don't see eye to eye on the other topic of this thread, that was a well-reasoned explanation to the young lad, and I agree wholeheartedly.

10sfreak
03-09-2007, 04:06 PM
Some of these players improved a lot, and deserved to get moved up. - Raiden. Kaminari

Ok, I can see these players getting moved up, but NOT DQed for playing at the level they were computer-rated to play. That's my/our team's biggest fear/complaint.

10sfreak
03-09-2007, 04:13 PM
This is you admitting you're a cheater. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Everything you have said after is you in CYA mode.

As for you calling me and everyone else a liar you can' t prove it. But if it make you feel better just like the way you have tried to rationalize this it would not suprise me.

No, I can't "prove" you're a liar, but I know it to be true (if you say you still wouldn't tank a match in the hypothetical scenario I gave in post # 144). No one on here has "proven" the illegality of tanking a match either, have they? Like I've written before, I think an underhand serve is "unsportsmanlike," but it's not against the rules, and no matter how much I would hate to see such a thing, since it's not explicitly forbidden in the rules, it's not cheating.

vinouspleasure
03-10-2007, 08:55 AM
Brian,
I know you are young, but this has been explained to you. There is no stacking in USTA adult league tennis. This is a league where everyone is the same level. Sure, some are a little better but we are all really close. That is how the league is designed and setup. We are instructed as captains that there is no distinction between court #1 and Court #2 in terms of the ability level of the players. The numbers are there to keep track of the matches. It is not high school tennis or college tennis. It is a recreational league created to have fun. Please open your mind, put aside your preconceived ideas, and learn about a concept that is different from what you are used to.

The only reason I am responding is because you are calling people cheaters when you have no idea what you are talking about. Tennis is a sport that prides itself on sportsmanship and integrity. You should not throw out insults as easily as you have in this thread.

oldguy, I know you are old, but this has been already stated in this thread. This is not a league where everyone is the same level. There are significant differences between first singles players and third doubles players. There is stacking in usta tennis. Please open your mind and put aside your preconcieved ideas and learn about a concept that is different from what you are used to.

Since in our usta league we are told that stacking is not allowed and not going to be tolerated, your all-inclusive assertion that "there is no stacking in usta" is specious. Perhaps a more correct statement is that there is no stacking in your usta league.

The only reason I am responding is because in our league, we do consider people that stack cheaters. Tennis is a sport that prides itself on sportsmanship and integrity. Playing your best players at third doubles and your worst player at first singles is not an act of sportmanship or integrity.

cak
03-10-2007, 10:23 AM
Since in our usta league we are told that stacking is not allowed and not going to be tolerated, your all-inclusive assertion that "there is no stacking in usta" is specious. Perhaps a more correct statement is that there is no stacking in your usta league.

Is this one of the leagues that sends people to Nationals? How do they reconcile this local rule with the National rule that court assignment is random? (I'd ask which region this is, but I wouldn't want them to be sitting ducks when they get to Nationals...)

Also, do you have to publish your ladder? Or how is this policed?

cak
03-10-2007, 10:42 AM
No, I can't "prove" you're a liar, but I know it to be true (if you say you still wouldn't tank a match in the hypothetical scenario I gave in post # 144). No one on here has "proven" the illegality of tanking a match either, have they? Like I've written before, I think an underhand serve is "unsportsmanlike," but it's not against the rules, and no matter how much I would hate to see such a thing, since it's not explicitly forbidden in the rules, it's not cheating.

You can tell that to the Backstero Park NorCal team. They've been sanctioned time and time again for things that weren't specifically in the rules. (What, you can't just sign everyone up as captain so no one has to pay team fees...or okay, where is the specific rule that the people on the lineup sheet are the ones you have to put on the court.) Now to many people those things seem obviously wrong. But it wasn't to them. Now they have been banned from USTA tennis for 5 years. We are just telling you, purposely tanking matches to most people is obviously wrong. And I'm telling you, the reason most people don't get banned for purposely tanking is it that is extremely hard to prove, unless, say, someone was proud to admit to it in public in front of witnesses. I've seen grievances filed, and they were only denied because no one could prove it, not because tanking is okay.

As for underhand serves, they are a mainstay of people with back and shoulder problems, so of course they aren't illegal. Next you'll be telling us the second bounce in wheelchair tennis is unfair.

10sfreak
03-10-2007, 12:55 PM
You can tell that to the Backstero Park NorCal team. They've been sanctioned time and time again for things that weren't specifically in the rules. (What, you can't just sign everyone up as captain so no one has to pay team fees...or okay, where is the specific rule that the people on the lineup sheet are the ones you have to put on the court.) Now to many people those things seem obviously wrong. But it wasn't to them. Now they have been banned from USTA tennis for 5 years. We are just telling you, purposely tanking matches to most people is obviously wrong. And I'm telling you, the reason most people don't get banned for purposely tanking is it that is extremely hard to prove, unless, say, someone was proud to admit to it in public in front of witnesses. I've seen grievances filed, and they were only denied because no one could prove it, not because tanking is okay.

As for underhand serves, they are a mainstay of people with back and shoulder problems, so of course they aren't illegal. Next you'll be telling us the second bounce in wheelchair tennis is unfair.
Don't know anything about wheelchair tennis, so I didn't bring it up. I wish more people would follow that rule - if you don't know what you're talking about, just shut up! (for instance, if you don't know that people do get DQed, even though they're playing in their computer-rated league, then quit telling someone who's witnessed it numerous times, that it doesn't happen!)
As for the underhand serve, I personally think it's cheap, but you don't see me caterwauling about it.

Ronaldo
03-10-2007, 01:03 PM
Whenever I experienced the underhanded serve, it traveled with knees-a-knockin', hearts-a-flutterin', can't get the 1st or 2nd serve in, 3rd set tie-breaker match on the line, got a handfull of nothing blues.

10sfreak
03-10-2007, 01:27 PM
I've never had anyone try an underhand serve to me, but I've seen it done to others, and thought, "what a chicken-**it thing to do!".

vinouspleasure
03-10-2007, 01:28 PM
Is this one of the leagues that sends people to Nationals? How do they reconcile this local rule with the National rule that court assignment is random? (I'd ask which region this is, but I wouldn't want them to be sitting ducks when they get to Nationals...)

Also, do you have to publish your ladder? Or how is this policed?

I have no idea if this league has sent teams to the nationals...but if the winner of the league continues to win, they are eligible to be sent to the nationals.

We do not publish a ladder. But, since there are significant differences in play, it can be very easy to spot the teaching pro playing second singles and the hacker playing first (this is not an academic example, this has happened). Or the undefeated first doubles team playing a critical match in third. In our league, many of us have played against each other for years and its easy to spot this. Typically 1-2 teams stack and the rest play it straight up. In the end, it is hard to police, and the league is considering going to the weighted point system I described in an earlier post in this thread.

Could you point me to the National rule that court assignment is random? How is this policed? Names out of a hat? If there is a rule that it should be random assignments, then it does sound like stacking is against the rules nationally since its surely not random.

10sfreak
03-10-2007, 02:13 PM
vino, I don't know this for sure, but I would guess that they don't really mean "random" in the truest sense, but random in the sense that it's up to the captain's discretion as to where to place his/her players. If someone knows differently, please let us know...

Cindysphinx
03-10-2007, 03:08 PM
(for instance, if you don't know that people do get DQed, even though they're playing in their computer-rated league, then quit telling someone who's witnessed it numerous times, that it doesn't happen!)


You are acting as though your anecdotal evidence of DQ's of computer-rated players means you have somehow justified what you are doing. Not so fast.

Tanking is cheating even if I accept your assertion that your section is unusual and DQs for computer-rated players are so common as to be a scourge.

Why?

Because every player in your section is operating under a certain set of rules. There is no bias; if your NTRP shows you are playing at too low a level, you will be DQ'd.

Every single computer-rated competitor in your section labors under these rules, and every computer-rated competitor must accept the same risk of being DQ'd.

Except you.

You have decided that you are special, that you will not accept the same DQ risk as everyone else in your section who is in a similar position.

Your deliberately tanking advantages you and your teammates compared to others who do not manipulate the system. This is not fair; it is no longer a level playing field because your competitors may be DQ'd and have their wins stripped from them, but you do not run that risk.

Play up if you're worried about being DQ'd. Or play fair and take the risk that you'll be DQ'd -- like all the rest of us do. If you have to tank matches to keep your rating low enough to be eligible at your current level, then you really should accept the challenge of playing up.

Your comparison of the underhand serve to tanking matches is beyond silly. That's like complaining about lobs or drop shots. The underhand serve is a perfectly fine shot; it just happens not to work well so people don't use it without good reason.

Cindysphinx
03-10-2007, 03:12 PM
I have no idea if this league has sent teams to the nationals...but if the winner of the league continues to win, they are eligible to be sent to the nationals.

We do not publish a ladder. But, since there are significant differences in play, it can be very easy to spot the teaching pro playing second singles and the hacker playing first (this is not an academic example, this has happened). Or the undefeated first doubles team playing a critical match in third. In our league, many of us have played against each other for years and its easy to spot this. Typically 1-2 teams stack and the rest play it straight up. In the end, it is hard to police, and the league is considering going to the weighted point system I described in an earlier post in this thread.

Could you point me to the National rule that court assignment is random? How is this policed? Names out of a hat? If there is a rule that it should be random assignments, then it does sound like stacking is against the rules nationally since its surely not random.


Do you mind telling us what section you are in? Like CAK, I thought the anti-stacking rule had been rescinded nationwide.

If you're right, I'm dying to know how they enforce it, if they enforce it.

While I'm here, I'll mention one quick solution to all of this.

It seems to me that some captains feel strongly that everyone should do their line-up according to strength, but some captains do not with to do this.

Why not just have the anti-stacking captains get together and agree among themselves not to stack when they play each other? Just a voluntary honor code; no enforcement mechanism beyond personal honor and reputation. When the anti-stacking captains play the other captains who do not agree, then random order will prevail and all bets are off.

I thought about proposing this in my section, but I chickened out.

cak
03-10-2007, 03:52 PM
I still don't see how you can enforce non-stacking rules without published ladders. For instance, last year I was captain of B interclub, a non-USTA fun league where games are fun, scores are tossed, and we all get lunch. It has a honor based no stacking rule. I cannot tell you how many times I'd set lineups I was sure were in order, and yet some people got blown out while the team right after them had a blow out in the other direction. Some days people are on fire, and some days they aren't. Even with best intentions, sometimes the matches just aren't going to be even. That doesn't even take into account the mercenary teams built for Nationals where just about anyone on the team can beat anyone on your average team, so someone, and more likely, everyone is going to get blown out. (And not surprisingly, they always play in order of strength, because they can.)

CrocodileRock
03-10-2007, 04:02 PM
Ok, this is for vinous, Cindy, Brian, and anyone else who thinks that order of strength is required, encouraged, preferred, or somehow more honorable than random court assignment.

The link is to a pdf file, so I can't just cut and paste, but if you go to page 18 of 24, the question of requiring play in the order of strength is answered in no uncertain terms:

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_15309.pdf?11/30/2006%207:40:46%20PM

Cindysphinx
03-10-2007, 05:37 PM
I still don't see how you can enforce non-stacking rules without published ladders. For instance, last year I was captain of B interclub, a non-USTA fun league where games are fun, scores are tossed, and we all get lunch. It has a honor based no stacking rule. I cannot tell you how many times I'd set lineups I was sure were in order, and yet some people got blown out while the team right after them had a blow out in the other direction. Some days people are on fire, and some days they aren't. Even with best intentions, sometimes the matches just aren't going to be even. That doesn't even take into account the mercenary teams built for Nationals where just about anyone on the team can beat anyone on your average team, so someone, and more likely, everyone is going to get blown out. (And not surprisingly, they always play in order of strength, because they can.)

How can you enforce it?

Well, there is one way. Say I have a 3.0 team with some 2.5s on it. I can't put a 2.5 at No. 1 singles and put a 3.0 at No. 2 singles. Nor can I put a 3.0 and a 2.5 on court one, but put 6.0 combos on the remaining courts.

That was also something I thought about proposing for combo play this fall.

10sguy
03-10-2007, 05:40 PM
Ok, this is for vinous, Cindy, Brian, and anyone else who thinks that order of strength is required, encouraged, preferred, or somehow more honorable than random court assignment.

The link is to a pdf file, so I can't just cut and paste, but if you go to page 18 of 24, the question of requiring play in the order of strength is answered in no uncertain terms:

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_15309.pdf?11/30/2006%207:40:46%20PM

Note: The above is dated January 13, 2000 . . . so it's OBVIOUSLY been around for a while. Also of note, this wasn't anything new; Just a reassertation/confirmation of what has been for a LONG time.

10sguy
03-10-2007, 05:44 PM
Note: Copy/pasting my last post in the "Does Stacking Really Work?" thread.

How about this? Captains put each singles player and each doubles team on separate slips of paper; Both captains do this and then proceed to draw the slips out, one at a time. The first two singles players drawn for each team play each other as do the other two . . . same for doubles. Simple and sane!

Cindysphinx
03-10-2007, 05:44 PM
Ok, this is for vinous, Cindy, Brian, and anyone else who thinks that order of strength is required, encouraged, preferred, or somehow more honorable than random court assignment.

The link is to a pdf file, so I can't just cut and paste, but if you go to page 18 of 24, the question of requiring play in the order of strength is answered in no uncertain terms:

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_15309.pdf?11/30/2006%207:40:46%20PM

Here's the text:

"Can a Section or District require
play in order of strength? An individual
team in the 8.0 Division which has a
combined NTRP of 7.5 would play
below other individual teams with an 8.0
NTRP."

The question is answered "No." Sections are instructed to delete any such rule. Apparently, this change was done in 2000.

So, uh. That doesn't tell us anything new. I have stated over and over that I know there is no rule prohibiting stacking. That doesn't mean captains in a particular area can't agree to something else.

CrocodileRock
03-10-2007, 06:18 PM
I have stated over and over that I know there is no rule prohibiting stacking. That doesn't mean captains in a particular area can't agree to something else.

Ummm... yes it does. You didn't quote the whole text, so allow me to finish it?

" A local rule requiring playing in order of strength is in violation of the national regulations. Any rule dealing with this issue needs to be removed from your section, area or local rules."

Cindysphinx
03-10-2007, 06:38 PM
Ummm... yes it does. You didn't quote the whole text, so allow me to finish it?

" A local rule requiring playing in order of strength is in violation of the national regulations. Any rule dealing with this issue needs to be removed from your section, area or local rules."

Right. So we would not have a section, area or local rule. No siree bob. The section would not have a rule and it would not enforce any side agreements captains may choose to have.

If 10 of 12 captains agreed on their own to play their teams in order of strength, this would be perfectly permissible, IMHO. Same result if 10 captains agreed to play all their players in long pants instead of skirts. It wouldn't be enforceable by the league, but otherwise OK.

Raiden.Kaminari
03-10-2007, 06:59 PM
Some of these players improved a lot, and deserved to get moved up.

Ok, I can see these players getting moved up, but NOT DQed for playing at the level they were computer-rated to play. That's my/our team's biggest fear/complaint.

I know about many real examples of players that took the risk and ended up getting DQ'd either during league, play-offs, districts, and even sectionals.

You never know when the 3rd strike occurs, so tanking one match doesn't really matter. If you're on the edge, you're on the edge.

Back to the players that I knew that got DQ'd. The basic problem is that players themselves knew they were at the top of (or even above) a particular level. The players themselves decided the trophy is worth the risk getting disqualified.

It is honorable to play at a particular level just to play and occasionally do well. But it is dishonorable if you play at a particular level just to win a trophy, if you're higher.

What's to stop a 6.0 to 7.0 level player self-rating 3.5, get a few matches under his belt, and then being able to say, "hey, I'm a computer rated 4.0." Believe it or not, this has happened.

Cheating is cheating. Tanking a match to control your NTRP is cheating.

Raiden.Kaminari
03-10-2007, 07:02 PM
I've never had anyone try an underhand serve to me, but I've seen it done to others, and thought, "what a chicken-**it thing to do!".

Hey! Don't mess with my best serve.:grin:

Mark Jensen
03-10-2007, 07:07 PM
Hey, pardon a lurker for jumping in here unannounced.
There are certainly a lot of different questions being asked here.
All good, or at least informative. ;)

I looked into what happens when a player DQs?
and is it different depending on what Section you're playing in?

I went to the National reg's and looked.
Nationally we know that "3 strikes" and you're DQ'd.

From the National Reg's:
3.04D Scoring Procedures.
3.04D(1) Local....In the event of a disqualification from a particular level of play the section (my bold) shall determine and publish in their regulations what matches, if any, shall be considered losses. The disqualified matches shall be considered 6-0, 6-0 wins for the opposing player or doubles team.

So I went to the 17 Sectional websites and looked again:

5 Sections have the "worst case" scenario...
Both Self and Computer rated players will have ALL their matches reversed.
(Florida,Southwest, Mid-west, NorCal, SoCal)

5 Sections begin to show some mercy to the computer rated player...
The Self rater still loses ALL matches, the Computer rated player loses only the last match (which caused the 3rd strike).
(South, Texas, PacificNW, Alaska, MiddleAtlantic)

2 Sections are pretty mild about it...
Selfers get their last three reversed, Computer raters...none reversed
(Middlestates, MissouriRiverValley)

2 Sections are pretty sweet about it...
Self and Computer raters only have their last match reversed.
(Eastern, Northern)

& 3 Sections were hard to guess...
NewEngland (Selfers reverse ALL, Computer rated unclear?)
Intermountain (couldn't find Sectional Rules on their site?)
Carribean (en espanol?)

So, after doubting stories of computer rated players DQing and having all their league matches reversed..I believe it happens in some sections. How awful.

BUT, that said, I don't feel that can ever justify not playing your hardest in a match. If you DQ, maybe ALL your matches will be reversed, maybe fewer...doesn't matter. If you play, play hard. If you fear losing matches retroactively for your team, step aside. Or better yet, work with your section's regulation committee to get a more copacetic rule.

Hey free advice...you know what that's worth.

Newbie out.

CrocodileRock
03-10-2007, 07:14 PM
Good work on the research Mark, and welcome to the forum.

Don't be a stranger. :)

Mark Jensen
03-10-2007, 07:28 PM
Thanks...
I've gotten a lot out of the TW forums.
Some insightful people here, for sure.
Hope to keep the dialogue going.

See you on the courts :p

10sfreak
03-10-2007, 07:58 PM
You are acting as though your anecdotal evidence of DQ's of computer-rated players means you have somehow justified what you are doing. Not so fast.

Tanking is cheating even if I accept your assertion that your section is unusual and DQs for computer-rated players are so common as to be a scourge.

Why?

Because every player in your section is operating under a certain set of rules. There is no bias; if your NTRP shows you are playing at too low a level, you will be DQ'd.

Every single computer-rated competitor in your section labors under these rules, and every computer-rated competitor must accept the same risk of being DQ'd.

Except you.

You have decided that you are special, that you will not accept the same DQ risk as everyone else in your section who is in a similar position.

Your deliberately tanking advantages you and your teammates compared to others who do not manipulate the system. This is not fair; it is no longer a level playing field because your competitors may be DQ'd and have their wins stripped from them, but you do not run that risk.

Play up if you're worried about being DQ'd. Or play fair and take the risk that you'll be DQ'd -- like all the rest of us do. If you have to tank matches to keep your rating low enough to be eligible at your current level, then you really should accept the challenge of playing up.

Your comparison of the underhand serve to tanking matches is beyond silly. That's like complaining about lobs or drop shots. The underhand serve is a perfectly fine shot; it just happens not to work well so people don't use it without good reason.
IN YOUR OPINION, comparing an underhand serve to tanking is beyond silly, but to me, the underhand serve is WORSE!
As for the rest of your rant, blah, blah, blah.. not even worth responding to, as I've done so already on numerous occasions.

10sfreak
03-10-2007, 08:07 PM
I know about many real examples of players that took the risk and ended up getting DQ'd either during league, play-offs, districts, and even sectionals.

You never know when the 3rd strike occurs, so tanking one match doesn't really matter. If you're on the edge, you're on the edge.

Back to the players that I knew that got DQ'd. The basic problem is that players themselves knew they were at the top of (or even above) a particular level. The players themselves decided the trophy is worth the risk getting disqualified.

It is honorable to play at a particular level just to play and occasionally do well. But it is dishonorable if you play at a particular level just to win a trophy, if you're higher.

What's to stop a 6.0 to 7.0 level player self-rating 3.5, get a few matches under his belt, and then being able to say, "hey, I'm a computer rated 4.0." Believe it or not, this has happened.

Cheating is cheating. Tanking a match to control your NTRP is cheating.
Raiden, in your example above re the 6.0 or 7.0 player etc., yes, that would be cheesy, but that's NOT what I'm talking about. Those guys would be "self-rated", not computer-rated. The guys on my team have been at the 3.0 level for a couple of seasons, so they're computer-rated. It's not as if these guys are a bunch of ringers who came in to play 3.0 just to win the division, these are guys who've been bumped up from 2.5, and haven't been able to get bumped to 3.5 yet. NONE of us would mind getting bumped up, we just don't want it to happen in the middle, or at the end of, the season and get DQed. Is it a "lock" that my guys would get DQed? No, but we don't want to take that risk. Although, the loss the other night has probably taken care of that for some of them...

10sfreak
03-10-2007, 08:10 PM
Hey, pardon a lurker for jumping in here unannounced.
There are certainly a lot of different questions being asked here.
All good, or at least informative. ;)

I looked into what happens when a player DQs?
and is it different depending on what Section you're playing in?

I went to the National reg's and looked.
Nationally we know that "3 strikes" and you're DQ'd.

From the National Reg's:
3.04D Scoring Procedures.
3.04D(1) Local....In the event of a disqualification from a particular level of play the section (my bold) shall determine and publish in their regulations what matches, if any, shall be considered losses. The disqualified matches shall be considered 6-0, 6-0 wins for the opposing player or doubles team.

So I went to the 17 Sectional websites and looked again:

5 Sections have the "worst case" scenario...
Both Self and Computer rated players will have ALL their matches reversed.
(Florida,Southwest, Mid-west, NorCal, SoCal)

5 Sections begin to show some mercy to the computer rated player...
The Self rater still loses ALL matches, the Computer rated player loses only the last match (which caused the 3rd strike).
(South, Texas, PacificNW, Alaska, MiddleAtlantic)

2 Sections are pretty mild about it...
Selfers get their last three reversed, Computer raters...none reversed
(Middlestates, MissouriRiverValley)

2 Sections are pretty sweet about it...
Self and Computer raters only have their last match reversed.
(Eastern, Northern)

& 3 Sections were hard to guess...
NewEngland (Selfers reverse ALL, Computer rated unclear?)
Intermountain (couldn't find Sectional Rules on their site?)
Carribean (en espanol?)

So, after doubting stories of computer rated players DQing and having all their league matches reversed..I believe it happens in some sections. How awful.

BUT, that said, I don't feel that can ever justify not playing your hardest in a match. If you DQ, maybe ALL your matches will be reversed, maybe fewer...doesn't matter. If you play, play hard. If you fear losing matches retroactively for your team, step aside. Or better yet, work with your section's regulation committee to get a more copacetic rule.

Hey free advice...you know what that's worth.

Newbie out.
Good post, Mark. Welcome to the board.

10sfreak
03-10-2007, 08:20 PM
Right. So we would not have a section, area or local rule. No siree bob. The section would not have a rule and it would not enforce any side agreements captains may choose to have.

If 10 of 12 captains agreed on their own to play their teams in order of strength, this would be perfectly permissible, IMHO. Same result if 10 captains agreed to play all their players in long pants instead of skirts. It wouldn't be enforceable by the league, but otherwise OK.
In our last mixed-doubles season, I made an agreement with the opposing captain to put my weakest players out there, as her team was composed of really weak players. The guys on my team are pretty much interchangeable, but I've got two really weak girls on my team. I had them play (the opposing team had to forfeit a line), but they still were able to win. Funny thing is, I don't play those two girls on the same match day, 'cause it's like automatically giving away one of our matches, but I did that day, and they both won! That has NEVER happened before! LOL!
So agreements between captains can be worked out, outside the rules of the local or national league. So Cindy, if you can get most of the other captains to agree to play in order of strength, more power to you, and good luck!

vinouspleasure
03-11-2007, 03:48 AM
Ok, this is for vinous, Cindy, Brian, and anyone else who thinks that order of strength is required, encouraged, preferred, or somehow more honorable than random court assignment.

The link is to a pdf file, so I can't just cut and paste, but if you go to page 18 of 24, the question of requiring play in the order of strength is answered in no uncertain terms:

http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_15309.pdf?11/30/2006%207:40:46%20PM

here is the link:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:S0YDmV76SM8J:dps.usta.com/usta_master/eastern/doc/content/doc_27_438.pdf%3F12/6/2005%25209:27:39%2520PM+stacking+in+usta+leagues&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Here is the quote:
Teams are encouraged to field their players for each team match in order of strength. Local regulations may require a point system for scorekeeping to discourage stacking.

In the captains meeting, teams were told that stacking would not be tolerated and they were thinking about a scoring system for matches.

CrocodileRock
03-11-2007, 04:37 AM
here is the link:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:S0YDmV76SM8J:dps.usta.com/usta_master/eastern/doc/content/doc_27_438.pdf%3F12/6/2005%25209:27:39%2520PM+stacking+in+usta+leagues&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Here is the quote:
Teams are encouraged to field their players for each team match in order of strength. Local regulations may require a point system for scorekeeping to discourage stacking.

In the captains meeting, teams were told that stacking would not be tolerated and they were thinking about a scoring system for matches.

vinous, that is from the Eastern Section rules. Since your rule is obviously in conlict with USTA national rules, surely the national rules will supercede.

Let me quote the very first paragraph of Eastern rules:

"USTA Tennis Leagues in USTA Eastern , Inc. shall follow the regulations set forth in the USTA LEAGUEREGULATIONS and in addition be governed by USTA Eastern , Inc. and the local league regulations. All Local LeagueRegulations must be submitted to and approved by the Eastern League Committee. At all Championship levels, the USTARegulations override and replace both the Eastern Regulations and all local league regulations."

It seems like Eastern has a rule that USTA national says you can't have. Should you bring this up to your section coordinator or Eastern's board of directors?

Cindysphinx
03-11-2007, 05:43 AM
As the captain of a team here in Georgia, I decide who to play at what position depending on the opposing team's strength. I have been known to "sacrifice" a player to an opposing #1 singles in order to win the overall match. We won our division last fall, and we're now leading our division this spring season. In fact, most of the guys on my team are going to have to schedule some losses this season, just to keep from getting DQed. That's right, we're planning on losing some lines, each in turn, so as to keep from getting DQed. It seems unsavory and dishonest, but that's what the rules of the USTA force upon us. Who wants to win all season long, then get DQed at the end, and have all your matches thrown out? None of us are "self-rated", but we've known people who've been computer-rated at a certain level, but when they keep winning AT THAT SAME LEVEL ASSIGNED TO THEM BY THE COMPUTER, that same damn computer DQs them!! So, part of our strategy now is to lose some matches, in order to win! Crazy...


OK. This is 10sfreak's original post that caused all the kerfluffle. I have added the boldface.

10sfreak has told us that his intent isn't to play at a level that is too low so he can beat up on weaker players. No, the rationalization for tanking is that he doesn't want to wake up one morning and find that he or one of his players has been DQ'd and all of their wins converted to losses.

Georgia is in "South" section, which Mark has demonstrated is one of the places where a computer-rated player's last match is converted to a loss.

Let's think this through. If 10sfreak has his player tank a match to avoid a DQ, the player takes a loss. If the player does not tank and is DQ'd, the player would lose that last match. Same result.

The only thing tanking gains you is . . . wait for it . . . *you continue to be allowed to compete at a level that is too low for you.*

10sfreak, now that Mark has set your mind at ease and established that you and your players won't have your season turned upside down if you play the game honestly, how about it? Will you reverse your position?

Cindysphinx
03-11-2007, 05:51 AM
here is the link:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:S0YDmV76SM8J:dps.usta.com/usta_master/eastern/doc/content/doc_27_438.pdf%3F12/6/2005%25209:27:39%2520PM+stacking+in+usta+leagues&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Here is the quote:
Teams are encouraged to field their players for each team match in order of strength. Local regulations may require a point system for scorekeeping to discourage stacking.

In the captains meeting, teams were told that stacking would not be tolerated and they were thinking about a scoring system for matches.

What an interesting issue! Croc, I'm not so sure the Eastern rule violates the National one.

Here again is the national rule: "A local rule requiring playing in order of strength is in violation of the national regulations. Any rule dealing with this issue needs to be removed from your section, area or local rules."

Clearly, Eastern can't prohibit stacking. It hasn't done this.

Clearly, Eastern can encourage teams to play in order of strength, as this is not a "rule."

But can Eastern develop a point system to discourage stacking?

Is there anything in the national rules that requires the winner be the team that wins 3 of the 5 matches? Or can sections decide the winner based on other criteria?

Mark Jensen
03-11-2007, 06:11 AM
Let's think this through. If 10sfreak has his player tank a match to avoid a DQ, the player takes a loss. If the player does not tank and is DQ'd, the player would lose that last match. Same result.

The only thing tanking gains you is . . . wait for it . . . *you continue to be allowed to compete at a level that is too low for you.*

Cindy, you cut to the chase, right there!

Fedace
03-11-2007, 06:55 AM
we usually play in order of strength, cause they all know which position everyone plays so it is hard to fool the other team captain, unless you have a brand new team.

cak
03-11-2007, 07:28 AM
How can you enforce it?

Well, there is one way. Say I have a 3.0 team with some 2.5s on it. I can't put a 2.5 at No. 1 singles and put a 3.0 at No. 2 singles. Nor can I put a 3.0 and a 2.5 on court one, but put 6.0 combos on the remaining courts.

That was also something I thought about proposing for combo play this fall.

But what if your 2.5 is better than your 3.0? Ratings are from end of the year. What if the 2.5 has been improving and the 3.0 is recovering from injury. (Or perhaps the end of the year ratings weren't all that accurate.) And do you count self rated players at face value? I have often heard the advice to self rate one level lower than you think you are, and then play one level up (the level you thought you would be). Last year one of our best players on our 3.5 team was a 3.0.

10sfreak
03-11-2007, 09:39 AM
OK. This is 10sfreak's original post that caused all the kerfluffle. I have added the boldface.

10sfreak has told us that his intent isn't to play at a level that is too low so he can beat up on weaker players. No, the rationalization for tanking is that he doesn't want to wake up one morning and find that he or one of his players has been DQ'd and all of their wins converted to losses.

Georgia is in "South" section, which Mark has demonstrated is one of the places where a computer-rated player's last match is converted to a loss.

Let's think this through. If 10sfreak has his player tank a match to avoid a DQ, the player takes a loss. If the player does not tank and is DQ'd, the player would lose that last match. Same result.

The only thing tanking gains you is . . . wait for it . . . *you continue to be allowed to compete at a level that is too low for you.*

10sfreak, now that Mark has set your mind at ease and established that you and your players won't have your season turned upside down if you play the game honestly, how about it? Will you reverse your position?
No, I will not, as that has NOT been the experience of the players I've written about in previous posts. Besides that, if a player gets DQed, he/she is no longer eligible to play in the state championships, so all the matches they've played that season would still be for naught...

10sguy
03-11-2007, 02:18 PM
But what if your 2.5 is better than your 3.0? Ratings are from end of the year. What if the 2.5 has been improving and the 3.0 is recovering from injury. (Or perhaps the end of the year ratings weren't all that accurate.) And do you count self rated players at face value? I have often heard the advice to self rate one level lower than you think you are, and then play one level up (the level you thought you would be). Last year one of our best players on our 3.5 team was a 3.0.

The level at which one self-rates has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on what their eventual computer rating may become. All a self-rating does is establish the MINIMUM level at which the player may START league play; In reality the self-rater starts out with a DNTRP of 0.00, period . . . the computer develops a rating based upon the self-raters match results against computer-rated players.

cak
03-11-2007, 03:28 PM
The level at which one self-rates has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on what their eventual computer rating may become. All a self-rating does is establish the MINIMUM level at which the player may START league play; In reality the self-rater starts out with a DNTRP of 0.00, period . . . the computer develops a rating based upon the self-raters match results against computer-rated players.

That's true. But if you self rate at 3.0, and start playing on a 3.5 team and start getting bageled, you can then go join a 3.0 team that season, without waiting a year. If you actually are a 3.5 the computer will verify it by the end of the year. If you were wrong, and you are actually a solid 4.0 you will still be DQ'd. It just gives you an out if you think you are better than you are.

andfor
03-11-2007, 05:11 PM
No, I will not, as that has NOT been the experience of the players I've written about in previous posts. Besides that, if a player gets DQed, he/she is no longer eligible to play in the state championships, so all the matches they've played that season would still be for naught...

Classes offered in 2007 by 10sfreak:

Tanking 101 - The art of losing a match on purpose while not bringing attention to your premeditated loss.

How to get to state with all your sandbaggers - Tanking 200 - Strategies to employ during the season to hide your out of level players. You'll arrive at state with full squad in tact and ready to battle the unsuspecting.

Cheating without a conscious - How to rationalize cheating when it's only in the moral sense. Many forms of cheating are those of which no rules are written. Although they may be considered crimes of moral behavior only counseling is included for those suffering personal guilt.

Peeking at your opponents scorecard - A must attend for those who will do anything to win. Covert methods of obtaining your opponents lineup prior to the match. This is great for those wanting to place their own players against opponents who you are sure they can't beat when a loss is in order.

How to use technolgy to cheat - This is a follow up to "Peaking at your opponents scorecard." Use of, listening devices, mirrored sunglasses and more will be covered so you'll never get busted and always know your opponents lineup before you fill out your scorecard.

How to register your new team members under aliases to avoid their existing NTRP rating - Name variations and new USTA numbers, How to and when to best employ this dastardly scenario. Also references to NorCal and mistakes they made an how to avoid the same fate.

More classes to come as 10sfreak thinks of them.

andfor
03-11-2007, 05:11 PM
double post

10sfreak
03-11-2007, 06:23 PM
Classes offered in 2007 by 10sfreak:

Tanking 101 - The art of losing a match on purpose while not bringing attention to your premeditated loss.

How to get to state with all your sandbaggers - Tanking 200 - Strategies to employ during the season to hide your out of level players. You'll arrive at state with full squad in tact and ready to battle the unsuspecting.

Cheating without a conscious - How to rationalize cheating when it's only in the moral sense. Many forms of cheating are those of which no rules are written. Although they may be considered crimes of moral behavior only counseling is included for those suffering personal guilt.

Peeking at your opponents scorecard - A must attend for those who will do anything to win. Covert methods of obtaining your opponents lineup prior to the match. This is great for those wanting to place their own players against opponents who you are sure they can't beat when a loss is in order.

How to use technolgy to cheat - This is a follow up to "Peaking at your opponents scorecard." Use of, listening devices, mirrored sunglasses and more will be covered so you'll never get busted and always know your opponents lineup before you fill out your scorecard.

How to register your new team members under aliases to avoid their existing NTRP rating - Name variations and new USTA numbers, How to and when to best employ this dastardly scenario. Also references to NorCal and mistakes they made an how to avoid the same fate.

More classes to come as 10sfreak thinks of them.
Uh, actually moron, only the first three apply. As for the remaining ones, if you can come up with some way I can get a peek at my opposing captain's line-up, I sure would appreciate it. That could come in real handy! I'm willing to learn all the new-fangled technology, but I'll need someone to teach me, so if you're available, come on down!
Now the registering under aliases, nah, I'll pass on that. None of us want to win under someone else's name - we all want the glory, the ticker-tape parade, the money, the endorsement deals, etc., none of which we could reap if we play under a pseudonym.
But I do appreciate your suggestions, and if you know anyone who wants to sign up, I'll let you be an assistant teacher - you seem to know an awful lot about it.

Ronaldo
03-11-2007, 06:31 PM
Hide your best players in doubles and only let them play 2 matches to qualify for playoffs. That is a way to recruit players from out of state.

Cindysphinx
03-11-2007, 07:04 PM
For an advanced degree (Doctorate of Sleaze), be sure to poison the drinking water of unsuspecting opponents so they become ill and are forced to retire.

Exchange program available for students willing to travel to France and study with Christophe Fauviau, who will be released from prison in 8 years.

andfor
03-11-2007, 07:35 PM
Uh, actually moron, only the first three apply. As for the remaining ones, if you can come up with some way I can get a peek at my opposing captain's line-up, I sure would appreciate it. That could come in real handy! I'm willing to learn all the new-fangled technology, but I'll need someone to teach me, so if you're available, come on down!
Now the registering under aliases, nah, I'll pass on that. None of us want to win under someone else's name - we all want the glory, the ticker-tape parade, the money, the endorsement deals, etc., none of which we could reap if we play under a pseudonym.
But I do appreciate your suggestions, and if you know anyone who wants to sign up, I'll let you be an assistant teacher - you seem to know an awful lot about it.


Your credibility gets better with each key stroke. Keep it up.

10sfreak
03-12-2007, 03:19 PM
Your credibility gets better with each key stroke. Keep it up.
And your "credibility" is high? Huh? And who comes on to this website looking to validate their "credibility"? I'd say that very few of us know each other in person, so to even bring up someone's "credibility" in an online message board is quite hilarious. Dude, you crack me up!

10sfreak
03-12-2007, 03:21 PM
For an advanced degree (Doctorate of Sleaze), be sure to poison the drinking water of unsuspecting opponents so they become ill and are forced to retire.

Exchange program available for students willing to travel to France and study with Christophe Fauviau, who will be released from prison in 8 years.
Actually Cindy, I was thinking something a little less drastic, like the old Exlax trick. That'll do it! LOL!
Tony

vinouspleasure
03-12-2007, 03:33 PM
"be hard on the issues, soft on the person". I think you guys have moved beyond the issues to personal attacks. If you want to continue to bash each other, why not exchange email addresses and have at it? In the mean time, you are cluttering up an interesting thread with non-material posts.

10sfreak
03-12-2007, 03:58 PM
"be hard on the issues, soft on the person". I think you guys have moved beyond the issues to personal attacks. If you want to continue to bash each other, why not exchange email addresses and have at it? In the mean time, you are cluttering up an interesting thread with non-material posts.
Believe it or not vinous, I agree with you!
Tony

andfor
03-12-2007, 04:55 PM
Believe it or not vinous, I agree with you!
Tony

If there's nothing wrong with tanking or the way you go about it why don't you invite your league coodinator to the thread? Does your local league endorse your "scheduling losses"? Is your practice of "scheduling losses" out in the open in your league and division?

vinouspleasure
03-12-2007, 04:58 PM
Believe it or not vinous, I agree with you!
Tony

Tony,

While I don't agree with what your views, I think you have the right to express and defend them without be called a cheater.

10sfreak
03-12-2007, 05:00 PM
Tony,

While I don't agree with what your views, I think you have the right to express and defend them without be called a cheater.
Thank you vinous, I really appreciate that.

10sfreak
03-12-2007, 05:02 PM
If there's nothing wrong with tanking or the way you go about it why don't you invite your league coodinator to the thread? Does your local league endorse your "scheduling losses"? Is your practice of "scheduling losses" out in the open in your league and division?
As a matter of fact, there are players from other teams who know about our dilemma/intentions, including other captains. And they don't blame us for it: see, they too, have seen what's happened to other players in our league re getting DQed. Which is more than I can say for anyone else on this board.

andfor
03-12-2007, 05:31 PM
Tony,

While I don't agree with what your views, I think you have the right to express and defend them without be called a cheater.

So using one word to describe his "views" what would you call it?

andfor
03-12-2007, 05:36 PM
As a matter of fact, there are players from other teams who know about our dilemma/intentions, including other captains. And they don't blame us for it: see, they too, have seen what's happened to other players in our league re getting DQed. Which is more than I can say for anyone else on this board.

So you sort of answered one of my 3 questions. You claim other players know of your pracitce of "scheduling losses". OK I'll take that as your answer, thanks. But you still have not answered my other 2 questions. If you won't invite you local league coodinator to this thread how does he/she feel about your "scheduling losses"? Does your league endorse "scheduling losses".

10sfreak
03-12-2007, 05:41 PM
So you sort of answered one of my 3 questions. You claim other players know of your pracitce of "scheduling losses". OK I'll take that as your answer, thanks. But you still have not answered my other 2 questions. If you won't invite you local league coodinator to this thread how does he/she feel about your "scheduling losses"? Does your league endorse "scheduling losses".
Have you ever thought that maybe "scheduling losses" might be something he/she can certainly understand, but because of his/her position, might not want to know about it? And that, as the nice, considerate, tactful man that I am, I wouldn't want to put him/her in that kind of position? Have you no tact at all man?

Btw, for the record, what IS this to you, anyway? Why are you SO tore up about this? Or are you jawing at me just to be able to keep insulting someone? What's your motive? Hmmm?

andfor
03-12-2007, 06:22 PM
Have you ever thought that maybe "scheduling losses" might be something he/she can certainly understand, but because of his/her position, might not want to know about it? And that, as the nice, considerate, tactful man that I am, I wouldn't want to put him/her in that kind of position? Have you no tact at all man?

Btw, for the record, what IS this to you, anyway? Why are you SO tore up about this? Or are you jawing at me just to be able to keep insulting someone? What's your motive? Hmmm?

OK, don't ask them to judge you smart guy, ask them to honestly judge the practice of "scheduling losses". Saying that they would not give and honest answer and secretly condone it is ludicrous. This is basic rationalization of behavior that is problematic.

You brought it up by, explaining your method, which is wrong, and claim it's not cheating because it's not in any rule book. Many things not in rule books are wrong and people with morals know what they are. Any credible person representing the USTA and Team Tennis would find the practice of tanking any tennis match on any level reprehensible. No reason supports it. I find it fascinating to engage someone who tries to defend a position such as yours. Typically they avoid the hard questions about the issue and try to turn in back on the person they are debating with.

Your turn to defend "scheduling losses" again.

vinouspleasure
03-12-2007, 06:26 PM
So using one word to describe his "views" what would you call it?

first, why do I have to use one word to describe his views? If asked to describe his views, I would say they are different from my views. In my league, stacking is considered cheating by most people. We've learned from this thread that's not the case in other leagues. Perhaps what he is doing is acceptable in his league.

whats important is to explore differences and learn, not to call each other names.

10sfreak
03-12-2007, 06:33 PM
OK, don't ask them to judge you smart guy, ask them to honestly judge the practice of "scheduling losses". Saying that they would not give and honest answer and secretly condone it is ludicrous. This is basic rationalization of behavior that is problematic.

You brought it up by, explaining your method, which is wrong, and claim it's not cheating because it's not in any rule book. Many things are not in rule books are wrong and people with morals know what they are. Any credible person representing the USTA and Team Tennis would find the practice of tanking any tennis match on any level reprehensible. No reason supports it. I find it fascinating to engage someone who tries to defend a position such as yours. Typically they avoid the hard questions about the issue and try to turn in back on the person they are debating with.

Your turn to defend "scheduling losses" again.
My "turn to defend scheduling losses again"?! Have you not read my posts?! Those posts, which you apparently haven't read, ARE my defenses of "scheduling losses"! What more can I write about it? I've stated it over and over, that my players do not want to get DQed for winning while playing at their COMPUTER-RATED level, which is something we've seen happen every season for the last two years to some other players in OUR league, not yours (I don't claim to know a single thing about YOUR league, and I would hope that you would extend me that courtesy as well). Period.

andfor
03-12-2007, 06:39 PM
first, why do I have to use one word to describe his views? If asked to describe his views, I would say they are different from my views. In my league, stacking is considered cheating by most people. We've learned from this thread that's not the case in other leagues. Perhaps what he is doing is acceptable in his league.

whats important is to explore differences and learn, not to call each other names.

Huh, can't think of one word, that's what I thought cause you know what it is. You just a nicer person than me. I'll help you with a word. His practice of "scheduling losses" is, get ready, "different".

Get real. No one condones the practice of tanking. If they did they certainly would not admit to doing it to their opponent or at the least to an official with USTA.

I stack my line-ups every week in a different order. You can call me a cheater all you want. The big difference here is if you turned me in for "stacking" and could prove it the USTA would do nothing. If you turned me in for "tanking" or scheduling losses and could prove it I would receive some kind of sanction.

I'll take back calling him a cheater if he takes back calling everyone here a LIAR and calling me a Moron.

vinouspleasure
03-12-2007, 06:49 PM
Huh, can't think of one word, that's what I thought cause you know what it is. You just a nicer person than me. I'll help you with a word. His practice of "scheduling losses" is, get ready, "different".

Get real. No one condones the practice of tanking. If they did they certainly would not admit to doing it to their opponent or at the least to an official with USTA.

I stack my line-ups every week in a different order. You can call me a cheater all you want. The big difference here is if you turned me in for "stacking" and could prove it the USTA would do nothing. If you turned me in for "tanking" or scheduling losses and could prove it I would receive some kind of sanction.

I'll take back calling him a cheater if he takes back calling everyone here a LIAR and calling me a Moron.

first, I didn't call you a cheater. I said that in my league, its considered cheating. Clearly, in your league its not.

second, no one has to "take back" anything. What do you hope to accomplsih here? I think you've made your points, he's made his. All we have to do is move on to another thread and get on with our lives.

Anyhow, I've tried to help and now its time to take my own advice. See you in another thread.

10sfreak
03-12-2007, 07:12 PM
Andfor, let's check your honesty here. Go back to post #144, the one in which I laid out a particular scenario. Now let's modify the scenario a little bit, shall we?
1. Your dynamic rating is now know-able to you through a rules change
2. You CAN be DQed at state, sectionals, or nationals, even in the FINALS
3. You're in the finals at Nationals
4. Your team has won 2, lost 2 in these finals, so the whole season is on your racquet, and how well you do.
5. You KNOW, because of how well you've done this season, and throughout the state, sectional, and national playoffs, that if you beat this last opponent by better than 6-4, 6-4 (that is, if he doesn't win at least 8 games off of you), that you'll be DQed, and your entire team loses the Nationals, and comes in second place.
6. You've already won the first set 6-4.
7. You're now serving for the second set and the match, at 5-3.
What do you do? Do you go ahead and beat this guy 6-3, thereby getting DQed, and losing the National championship not only for yourself, but for your teammates as well? Or, do you let him win 1 more game to ensure you don't get DQed?
Your answer is going to tell me all I need to know. Either you're going to be honest, or you're going to lie through your teeth. Your choice.

Ronaldo
03-12-2007, 07:13 PM
Locally, the only team to win the National Championship finished 4th in our league that season. Getting DQ'd, cheating, stacking, and tanking never was an option.

andfor
03-12-2007, 07:14 PM
first, I didn't call you a cheater. I said that in my league, its considered cheating. Clearly, in your league its not.

second, no one has to "take back" anything. What do you hope to accomplsih here? I think you've made your points, he's made his. All we have to do is move on to another thread and get on with our lives.

Anyhow, I've tried to help and now its time to take my own advice. See you in another thread.


I said you can call me a cheater for stacking. What I meant is that I would not be offended because there is nothing wrong with stacking. If folks in your league don't like it stacking that's fine. I would kindly advise you as I advised another to be careful of those who accuse others of stacking in your non-stacking league. A healthy does of skepticism of how others are indirectly trying to manage the league may not be a bad thing. There is no true formula available to measure one teams strength of line up. Not one offered by the USTA that I know of that would work across the masses. Only way to judge line-up strength are subjective and open to individual opinion and interpretation.

Thanks and good luck this season.

andfor
03-12-2007, 07:18 PM
Andfor, let's check your honesty here. Go back to post #144, the one in which I laid out a particular scenario. Now let's modify the scenario a little bit, shall we?
1. Your dynamic rating is now know-able to you through a rules change
2. You CAN be DQed at state, sectionals, or nationals, even in the FINALS
3. You're in the finals at Nationals
4. Your team has won 2, lost 2 in these finals, so the whole season is on your racquet, and how well you do.
5. You KNOW, because of how well you've done this season, and throughout the state, sectional, and national playoffs, that if you beat this last opponent by better than 6-4, 6-4 (that is, if he doesn't win at least 8 games off of you), that you'll be DQed, and your entire team loses the Nationals, and comes in second place.
6. You've already won the first set 6-4.
7. You're now serving for the second set and the match, at 5-3.
What do you do? Do you go ahead and beat this guy 6-3, thereby getting DQed, and losing the National championship not only for yourself, but for your teammates as well? Or, do you let him win 1 more game to ensure you don't get DQed?
Your answer is going to tell me all I need to know. Either you're going to be honest, or you're going to lie through your teeth. Your choice.

Before I answer your question show me where I can find my individual NTRP rating you say is available. I'll answer your question as soon as you provide me a link. At the very least show me somewhere on the USTA website that says your moving in season Dynamic NTRP is available for all to see. I'm not talking about a players rating from last year. I can not find anywhere on the USTA website where you can view player NTRP ratings and see how close a player would be to moving up or down.

JLyon
03-13-2007, 05:08 AM
Before I answer your question show me where I can find my individual NTRP rating you say is available. I'll answer your question as soon as you provide me a link. At the very least show me somewhere on the USTA website that says your moving in season Dynamic NTRP is available for all to see. I'm not talking about a players rating from last year. I can not find anywhere on the USTA website where you can view player NTRP ratings and see how close a player would be to moving up or down.

There is no way to view someone's dynamic rating. As for tanking matches, that is cheating plain and simple. If anyone on your team is worried about being DQ'ed then they are probably playing at the wrong level. As for the scenario presented earlier, there is no way in Hell someone will be DQ'ed in the final match at Nationals unless they had won their other matched 1,1 or similar and they would have been DQ'ed well before the final.
As for the stacking that is a non-issue since technically everyone in the league is of the same rating (4.0, 4.5, etc...).

Cindysphinx
03-13-2007, 05:24 AM
Andfor, let's check your honesty here. Go back to post #144, the one in which I laid out a particular scenario. Now let's modify the scenario a little bit, shall we?
1. Your dynamic rating is now know-able to you through a rules change
2. You CAN be DQed at state, sectionals, or nationals, even in the FINALS
3. You're in the finals at Nationals
4. Your team has won 2, lost 2 in these finals, so the whole season is on your racquet, and how well you do.
5. You KNOW, because of how well you've done this season, and throughout the state, sectional, and national playoffs, that if you beat this last opponent by better than 6-4, 6-4 (that is, if he doesn't win at least 8 games off of you), that you'll be DQed, and your entire team loses the Nationals, and comes in second place.
6. You've already won the first set 6-4.
7. You're now serving for the second set and the match, at 5-3.
What do you do? Do you go ahead and beat this guy 6-3, thereby getting DQed, and losing the National championship not only for yourself, but for your teammates as well? Or, do you let him win 1 more game to ensure you don't get DQed?
Your answer is going to tell me all I need to know. Either you're going to be honest, or you're going to lie through your teeth. Your choice.


I know exactly what I'd do, up 5-3 and serving for the match.

I'd go for four aces in a row.

andfor
03-13-2007, 06:20 AM
There is no way to view someone's dynamic rating. As for tanking matches, that is cheating plain and simple. If anyone on your team is worried about being DQ'ed then they are probably playing at the wrong level. As for the scenario presented earlier, there is no way in Hell someone will be DQ'ed in the final match at Nationals unless they had won their other matched 1,1 or similar and they would have been DQ'ed well before the final.
As for the stacking that is a non-issue since technically everyone in the league is of the same rating (4.0, 4.5, etc...).

Thanks J. That's what I thought about viewing dynamic ratings. Freak has implied they are for all to view NTRP ratings which I have not heard of and doubt although I am waiting for his answer. Secondly I would alway try to win any match I play no matter what some rating computer may or may not do afterwards. Who gives a **** about what a computer says about yours or my tennis anyway. Third in his (unlikely) match senario where I knew if I won it may hurt my team, I would most likely just not play in the match in the first place. Like you said his scenario is most likely one that would not exist.

Cindysphinx
03-13-2007, 06:26 AM
10sfreak's scenario was a hypothetical based on facts that do not exist today. It, like most hypotheticals, was designed to prove a point.

The point is that all of us would cheat like he does under the right circumstances, and anyone who says they are not a cheater because they have too much personal integrity is a liar.

Just wanted to clear that up! :)

andfor
03-13-2007, 07:37 AM
10sfreak's scenario was a hypothetical based on facts that do not exist today. It, like most hypotheticals, was designed to prove a point.

The point is that all of us would cheat like he does under the right circumstances, and anyone who says they are not a cheater because they have too much personal integrity to play fair is a liar.

Just wanted to clear that up! :)

The hypothetical example is a dumb one. Anyone close to that situation with a brain would not play in a match in the first place if their individual winning of a match would jepordize the team outcome. That's why I have 15 players on my team. Does this make me a liar? I don't think so, it just makes me a smarter captain than Freak.

10sfreak
03-13-2007, 06:29 PM
I know exactly what I'd do, up 5-3 and serving for the match.

I'd go for four aces in a row.
Yeah, and I just fell off a turnip truck!

10sfreak
03-13-2007, 06:30 PM
10sfreak's scenario was a hypothetical based on facts that do not exist today. It, like most hypotheticals, was designed to prove a point.

The point is that all of us would cheat like he does under the right circumstances, and anyone who says they are not a cheater because they have too much personal integrity is a liar.

Just wanted to clear that up! :)
Yep Cindy, you just hit the nail on the head with that! Although I don't believe you'd go for the win in that situation, and think that you're simply lying to prove how "ethical" you are in tennis, at least YOU were smart enough to recoginze a hypothetical situation, which is more than I can say for SOME people, right Andfor?

Topaz
03-14-2007, 02:42 AM
Actually, it DOES make you a liar! What if only 8 players on your team could make it? Duh! You're not only a liar, you're a dumbass to boot! Btw dude, how old are you, like 13 or something?

Why are you so hostile? Why can't you just accept that others do things differently than you, and it doesn't mean you are better or they are better...just *different*? There's more than one way to captain a team.

Cindysphinx
03-14-2007, 05:30 AM
Why are you so hostile? Why can't you just accept that others do things differently than you, and it doesn't mean you are better or they are better...just *different*? There's more than one way to captain a team.

People are frequently hostile and defensive when they know they are doing the wrong thing.

andfor
03-14-2007, 06:02 AM
Actually, it DOES make you a liar! What if only 8 players on your team could make it? Duh! You're not only a liar, you're a dumbass to boot! Btw dude, how old are you, like 13 or something?

You are so angry about this. Nice name calling. You are showing your intelligence. Now you are adding additional criteria to your hypothetical situation. Now only 8 folks are avialable to play? Why did you not come up with that in the first place?

BTW, I would still not play someone who would jeopordize the overall standing of the team. I would take a default under your scenario as it is the only smart thing for a captain to do.

If I had a player who under your scenario who would lose by DQ if they won, then why whould I play them in the first place?

Ronaldo
03-14-2007, 06:16 AM
10sfreak, at our state playoffs yrs ago, watched a 4.0 player kill our singles player in the 1st set. When a verifier watched his match during the 2nd set, he put on the goggles and took a high dive, lost it. Third set, King Kong was back on the bldg, crushing our guy at will.

10sfreak
03-14-2007, 06:21 AM
People are frequently hostile and defensive when they know they are doing the wrong thing.
No, people tend to get hostile when others keep calling them names. Read my response to vinouspleasure. He doesn't agree with my position, but he's also NOT calling me names. Do you detect any hostililty in my responses to him?

10sfreak
03-14-2007, 06:30 AM
Why are you so hostile? Why can't you just accept that others do things differently than you, and it doesn't mean you are better or they are better...just *different*? There's more than one way to captain a team.
Hey, I DO accept that others captain differently than I do: I just wish some of these other posters could extend the same courtesy to me. Read vinouspleasure's responses. He doesn't agree with me, but he's civil about it, and doesn't call names.
See, some people apparently consider "stacking" to be cheating or playing dirty. And I can kinda understand that feeling, 'cause when you play your weakest player at #1 singles for instance (when you know that your opponent's #1 singles player is virtually unbeatable), you're not giving your opponents the "most competetive" match possible. But, I "stack" my players, and even if I didn't, I wouldn't think of calling teams that do, cheaters. Is it too much for me to ask for the same courtesy? Someone may not agree with my team's plans, but there's NOTHING in the rules against it, so how can those other posters call me a cheater? THAT is why I'm "so hostile"! If you'll note, I haven't been hostile to Cindy, 'cause she at least has the mental faculty to understand what I'm getting at, even if she vehemently disagrees with my position.

10sfreak
03-14-2007, 06:37 AM
You are so angry about this. Nice name calling. You are showing your intelligence. Now you are adding additional criteria to your hypothetical situation. Now only 8 folks are avialable to play? Why did you not come up with that in the first place?

BTW, I would still not play someone who would jeopordize the overall standing of the team. I would take a default under your scenario as it is the only smart thing for a captain to do.

If I had a player who under your scenario who would lose by DQ if they won, then why whould I play them in the first place?
Damn dude, can you not read? Read my hypothetical situation again.
Done? Ok, I wrote that his opponent has to win at least 8 games. Did you miss that? Let me spell it out for you again: He can't win by a better margin (go look that word up if you're having trouble with it) than 6-4, 6-4, so if he wins 6-4, 6-3 he gets DQed.
Daggone, Cindy didn't have ANY problem understanding the hypothetical situation. I guess she's showing her intelligence as well, huh?
"Nice name calling"?!?! That's a joke, right? Dude, even another poster, one who doesn't agree with me, called you on the name-calling. But I guess in your eyes, calling someone a cheat isn't REALLY name-calling, right? Like I asked earlier, what are you, 13 or 14 years old?

10sfreak
03-14-2007, 06:44 AM
10sfreak, at our state playoffs yrs ago, watched a 4.0 player kill our singles player in the 1st set. When a verifier watched his match during the 2nd set, he put on the goggles and took a high dive, lost it. Third set, King Kong was back on the bldg, crushing our guy at will.
How did he know the guy was a verifier? Until reading some of the other posts, I didn't know there were any verifiers at the playoffs!
Don't really know the situation you're referring to, whether that guy was a sandbagger or not (sounds like he might have been, specially since he could turn it on at will, rather than just having a really good day), but my guys aren't killing our opponents, but we are winning most of our matches. Although, we all know that we're going to have a hell of a time at state against the Atlanta teams. Oh well...

10sfreak
03-14-2007, 06:49 AM
Andfor, when reading a scenario, read it AS IT IS. Don't speculate that there are 6 or 7 other available players. I gave a HYPOTHETICAL situation, the purpose of which, was to see what people would do in such a situation. I wanted to see how many of you people criticizing me would be honest enough to admit that, under certain conditions/situations, you WOULD take a dive for the good of the team. Evidently, none of my fellow posters are HONEST enough to admit that they would lose ONE FREAKIN' GAME in order for their team to win the National championship. Now that's sad...

andfor
03-14-2007, 06:59 AM
Damn dude, can you not read? Read my hypothetical situation again.
Done? Ok, I wrote that his opponent has to win at least 8 games. Did you miss that? Let me spell it out for you again: He can't win by a better margin (go look that word up if you're having trouble with it) than 6-4, 6-4, so if he wins 6-4, 6-3 he gets DQed.
Daggone, Cindy didn't have ANY problem understanding the hypothetical situation. I guess she's showing her intelligence as well, huh?
"Nice name calling"?!?! That's a joke, right? Dude, even another poster, one who doesn't agree with me, called you on the name-calling. But I guess in your eyes, calling someone a cheat isn't REALLY name-calling, right? Like I asked earlier, what are you, 13 or 14 years old?

Since I called you a cheater that gives you the greenlight to call me name after name? You're cool. It's hypothetical, I understand that. What I don't understand is how you as a captain can know that winning 1 more game is going to get you defaulted. Help me understand that. Is that hypothetical also? If I new that before the match I would not play.

Let me ask you this question again for the 2nd time. If I knew before the match started that my win would jeoprdize the team then why would I play in the first place, even if I only had 8 players?

Ronaldo
03-14-2007, 07:01 AM
How did he know the guy was a verifier? Until reading some of the other posts, I didn't know there were any verifiers at the playoffs!
Don't really know the situation you're referring to, whether that guy was a sandbagger or not (sounds like he might have been, specially since he could turn it on at will, rather than just having a really good day), but my guys aren't killing our opponents, but we are winning most of our matches. Although, we all know that we're going to have a hell of a time at state against the Atlanta teams. Oh well...

15-20 yrs ago we had USTA officials roaming the courts during State playoffs and could red flag players by sight that were obviously out of range. Haven't been to state and sectional playoffs in 3 yrs, maybe that has changed. If you have a team capable of reaching Nat'ls, losing a few games along the way to keep everyone eligible is not much to ask. Is it ethical?

10sfreak
03-14-2007, 07:12 AM
Since I called you a cheater that gives you the greenlight to call me name after name? You're cool. It's hypothetical, I understand that. What I don't understand is how you as a captain can know that winning 1 more game is going to get you defaulted. Help me understand that. Is that hypothetical also? If I new that before the match I would not play.

Let me ask you this question again for the 2nd time. If I knew before the match started that my win would jeoprdize the team then why would I play in the first place, even if I only had 8 players?
HELLO!!!!! YES, THE WHOLE SCENARIO WAS HYPOTHETICAL!!!!! Don't you get that?! Dude, do you UNDERSTAND what the word "hypothetical" means? It means it's not real, but given certain circumstances, it COULD happen. The captain, the players, everyone "knows" that my player could get DQed, because, HYPOTHETICALLY, the dynamic ratings are now know-able to each player. Dude, again, it was a HYPOTHETICAL situation. Please go run this by an adult you know, and listen to what he/she says about it.
Ok, one more time for ya. My player would have to win by NO BETTER THAN a 6-4, 6-4 margin. Get it? In other words, if he wins 6-4, 6-3, he gets DQed. If he wins 6-4, 7-5, he's ok, and our team wins the money, the glory, the ticker-tape parade, the women, etc. (Ok, before you respond to this, that's a JOKE!)
Dude, if you don't understand this HYPOTHETICAL situation by now, I'm afraid someone else will have to explain to you, 'cause I've done all I can.

andfor
03-14-2007, 07:53 AM
HELLO!!!!! YES, THE WHOLE SCENARIO WAS HYPOTHETICAL!!!!! Don't you get that?! Dude, do you UNDERSTAND what the word "hypothetical" means? It means it's not real, but given certain circumstances, it COULD happen. The captain, the players, everyone "knows" that my player could get DQed, because, HYPOTHETICALLY, the dynamic ratings are now know-able to each player. Dude, again, it was a HYPOTHETICAL situation. Please go run this by an adult you know, and listen to what he/she says about it.
Ok, one more time for ya. My player would have to win by NO BETTER THAN a 6-4, 6-4 margin. Get it? In other words, if he wins 6-4, 6-3, he gets DQed. If he wins 6-4, 7-5, he's ok, and our team wins the money, the glory, the ticker-tape parade, the women, etc. (Ok, before you respond to this, that's a JOKE!)
Dude, if you don't understand this HYPOTHETICAL situation by now, I'm afraid someone else will have to explain to you, 'cause I've done all I can.

Where on the USTA website can I see NTRP ratings down to the hundreth of a point? You say they can be viewed, where are they? This is the second time I have asked this question. Is this hypothetical also?

Ronaldo
03-14-2007, 08:47 AM
Where on the USTA website can I see NTRP ratings down to the hundreth of a point? You say they can be viewed, where are they? This is the second time I have asked this question. Is this hypothetical also?

Also curious, is there a way to view actual NTRP ratings? My appeal was denied and I want to see the actual number.