PDA

View Full Version : Bummer. I'm Off The Team Already


Cindysphinx
03-21-2007, 09:37 AM
I'm so bummed! I got on a 3.5 team, and now days later I'm off. Talk about your short 3.5 career. :)

What happened was that I put myself on the list of 3.0 players looking for 3.5 teams, and I got a bite immediately from a 3.5 captain. She offered me a spot without a tryout (one of her players knew me); I accepted and sent in my check. She seemed very nice, and we started feeding each other leads. If she declined a 3.0 for her team, she'd send them my way. I in turn hooked her up with her best 3.5. All was well.

Then we learned about the 2-player rule in our league. If two players are on my 3.0 team, those same two players cannot be on the same 3.5 team. It turned out that 4 of my 3.0 players were interested in this 3.5 team.

Well, OK. The 3.5 captain would just have to decide who she wanted, right? She held a try-out last Friday that all of us 3.0s attended, and she considered me to be the strongest of the group. :fist pump: She gave me the team code.

That's when the wheels came off the bus. She wanted me to sign up and claim my spot right now, but I didn't want to do that if she was also planning to make offers to my three teammates later. If she took all four of us, two of my best 3.0 players would have to leave my 3.0 team. I told her I thought the best resolution was for her to promise to only extend offers only to two of the four of us. After all, these are my existing players; they are not referrals from this other captain. Really now, is her 3.5 team so weak that she has to fill it with the third- and fourth-strongest players on a middling 3.0 team?

So I felt I had to bow out, in an attempt to hang onto 3 of the 4 players. And it's getting late to try to find another 3.5 team willing to take a flyer on a 3.0 like me with a middling record in TennisLink. And I don't have the energy to do any more tryouts anyway.

Oh, well. I guess 3.5 will have to wait until next year. :(

Stoopid 2-player rule!

fbone
03-21-2007, 09:49 AM
...I told her I thought the best resolution was for her to promise to only extend offers only to two of the four of us."

I agree, this sounds fair and makes sense...what was her response to this?

Cindysphinx
03-21-2007, 09:50 AM
Her response was that she'd make the offers and the players could decide who they wanted to play for. After all, if these are top 3.0s, they can find other 3.0 teams easily, right?

jagsv650
03-21-2007, 10:02 AM
You should try to convince your other 3 teammates not to play for her either. That may be easier said then done but I'd try.

That two player rule is bogus also IMO. I know there are reasons for it and am not looking to debate them here.

vllockhart
03-21-2007, 12:10 PM
I dont' see how you can complain. She offered you a spot, you declined and that's the long and short of it.

jagsv650
03-21-2007, 12:29 PM
I dont' see how you can complain. She offered you a spot, you declined and that's the long and short of it.

I think the problem was she was also going to offer spots to three of Cindy's teammates. If she did that and they excepted they two of them would have had to quit her team. The captain of the 3.5 team knew this and didn't care.

Ace
03-21-2007, 12:37 PM
Hate to say it, but I still don't see the problem.
Cindy making a deal with the other captain not allowing her players to get a chance to be offered a spot on the other team seems worse to me.
The players are adults and should be allowed to make the decision on their own...not have Cindy force a decision for them.

I would be ****sed if I wanted to be on another team and that captain wanted me to be on that team, but somebody else made some kind of deal that prevented me from "being allowed" to join.

You also still didn't solve the problem of them joining the other team over yours, if they desired to do so....except I guess now you will only potentially lose one player instead of two if all three players want to join the 3.5 team.

jagsv650
03-21-2007, 12:42 PM
Hate to say it, but I still don't see the problem.
You also still didn't solve the problem of them joining the other team over yours, if they desired to do so.

Well even if all three of the other players joined the team only one of them would have to leave Cindy's team instead of two.

I also go back to the two player rule being dumb. A 3.5 team with that many 3.0 players probably won't be advancing anyway. (no offense Cindy)

vllockhart
03-21-2007, 12:46 PM
I think the problem was she was also going to offer spots to three of Cindy's teammates. If she did that and they excepted they two of them would have had to quit her team. The captain of the 3.5 team knew this and didn't care.

But that problem was there already. Each player had to decide which team she wanted to be on. Then the chips fall where they may. IMHO, nothing good comes of making "deals." If they hadn't been doing that, then the problem most likely would not have popped up. That rule seems like something that a captain should know, or at least look up when she starts dealing with the same players for two different teams.

I just don't empathize.

jagsv650
03-21-2007, 12:56 PM
I just don't empathize.

That's cool, and I see your point. But since they were dealing I have to take Cindy's side here.

We don't have that 2 player rule here in Hilton Head so it's a little different but it's pretty common for captains of different levels from the same clubs or general locations to work together like this.

Cindysphinx
03-21-2007, 02:44 PM
All I can think is what I would do had the tables been reversed. I wouldn't mess with someone else's team like that. Period.

Telling her to take the best two players seemed like a fair compromise to me. She used a pro to run this little try-out, and he's the one who said I was the strongest. Now the strongest player has turned her down. That's what happens when you get greedy.

jagsv650
03-21-2007, 03:24 PM
Telling her to take the best two players seemed like a fair compromise to me.


I agree, especially if it's a captain that seems to be trying to work with you...ie: giving each other leads.

tennis-n-sc
03-21-2007, 04:08 PM
Hate to say it, but I still don't see the problem.
Cindy making a deal with the other captain not allowing her players to get a chance to be offered a spot on the other team seems worse to me.
The players are adults and should be allowed to make the decision on their own...not have Cindy force a decision for them.

I would be ****sed if I wanted to be on another team and that captain wanted me to be on that team, but somebody else made some kind of deal that prevented me from "being allowed" to join.

You also still didn't solve the problem of them joining the other team over yours, if they desired to do so....except I guess now you will only potentially lose one player instead of two if all three players want to join the 3.5 team.

I agree Ace. Part of the problem is playing on two teams, period. Committ to one or the other and go for it. As a captain, I hate having players on two teams, especially when the matches are on the same day. that'll drive a captain crazy and I just won't do it anymore. We have a lade here that is a solid 3.5. She quit our club because the 4.0 team didn't ask her to play. Now she plays on a 3.5 team, a 4.0 team and a 4.5 team. I think they all play on the same day of the week. Crazy.

jagsv650
03-21-2007, 04:56 PM
I agree Ace. Part of the problem is playing on two teams, period. Committ to one or the other and go for it. As a captain, I hate having players on two teams, especially when the matches are on the same day. that'll drive a captain crazy and I just won't do it anymore. We have a lade here that is a solid 3.5. She quit our club because the 4.0 team didn't ask her to play. Now she plays on a 3.5 team, a 4.0 team and a 4.5 team. I think they all play on the same day of the week. Crazy.

I don't see any problem with playing on two teams as long as the player is open and honest with the two captains. Communication is the key. If both teams play on the same days the player needs to tell the captains in general which team is their priority. A player should be able to look at the schedule ahead of time and figure out when there will be a problem and which team they will play for on that day.

This season and last year we had players on two teams and it was fine. We went to states last year for 6.5 and one of our players also went for his 7.5 team. He played four matches, 2 for each team, it was fine.

Ace
03-21-2007, 05:54 PM
She used a pro to run this little try-out, and he's the one who said I was the strongest. Now the strongest player has turned her down. That's what happens when you get greedy.

Yeah, but the only one who got screwed is you. You really wanted to play on that 3.5 team. You should have just said you would play on it. The worst that could have happened was you might have lost two other people on your 3.0 team. So what...at least you would have gotten the 3.5 experience.

jagsv650
03-21-2007, 07:38 PM
The worst that could have happened was you might have lost two other people on your 3.0 team. So what...at least you would have gotten the 3.5 experience.

It's one thing to get experience at another level, it's another to possibly torpedo your first team to do it. Since she's the captain she did what was in the best interest of her team. It makes sense.

Cindysphinx
03-22-2007, 01:45 AM
My 3.0 team is my priority, so I "took one for the team."

Eh. There will be other 3.5 captains. Hopefully ones who understand working together and compromise and teamwork and stuff rather than "every man for himself."

tennis-n-sc
03-22-2007, 03:22 AM
I don't see any problem with playing on two teams as long as the player is open and honest with the two captains. Communication is the key. If both teams play on the same days the player needs to tell the captains in general which team is their priority. A player should be able to look at the schedule ahead of time and figure out when there will be a problem and which team they will play for on that day.

This season and last year we had players on two teams and it was fine. We went to states last year for 6.5 and one of our players also went for his 7.5 team. He played four matches, 2 for each team, it was fine.

The problem comes when the player can't commit to practice with both teams, can't play a match when needed because of playing for the other team and other little inconveniences like those. It was very frustrating for me as captain to try to arrange a entire team schedule and line-up around the two-team player's schedule. Wasn't worth it to me. In the Southern Sectional, a player cannot go to the state playoffs on two rosters. They must declare for one team or the other prior to going. Seems the state playoff people dont' want to take the time trouble to work around a two-player's schedule either. If the playoffs occur at differetn times, no problem unless the teams both advance. Then there is the same issue.

Cindysphinx
03-22-2007, 03:28 AM
Oh, wow. I learned that the second-best player is also going to decline the 3.5 team, and she just registered for my 3.0 team. We had a 4-way e-mail discussion about the problem after it became clear the 3.5 captain planned to invite all of us. The second-best player's view was that while she wanted to play up for the experience, she wasn't interested in "crushing anyone else's dream" to do so.

Cool. It looks like we'll be able to avoid the dreaded 2-player rule after all. :)

Yeah, it's certainly true that players who play on multiple teams present extra scheduling and practice issues. I'm more than willing to put up with it, though. At our level, those who play mixed or play up get better much more quickly, so if they never come to practice I'm OK with it.

jagsv650
03-22-2007, 04:23 AM
In the Southern Sectional, a player cannot go to the state playoffs on two rosters. They must declare for one team or the other prior to going. Seems the state playoff people dont' want to take the time trouble to work around a two-player's schedule either.

I'm in the Southern Section and last year for 6.5 combo and 7.5 combo we had a player play on both teams at states on the same weekend. It was no extra problem for the state playoff people. The two captains received the match schedule, the player was with them for the captains meeting and they decided which matches he would play in for each team. It never effected the state playoff people.

Islandtennis
03-22-2007, 04:51 AM
A player can go to states on two teams in Southern. As JAG said, just no accommodation is given to that person. The two teams that they are on can be scheduled to play at the same time. At Sectionals, then the person can only play on one team.

tennis-n-sc
03-22-2007, 05:03 AM
I'm in the Southern Section and last year for 6.5 combo and 7.5 combo we had a player play on both teams at states on the same weekend. It was no extra problem for the state playoff people. The two captains received the match schedule, the player was with them for the captains meeting and they decided which matches he would play in for each team. It never effected the state playoff people.

In South Carolina you can't do it. Can't do it the sectionals either. Read the rules.

tennis-n-sc
03-22-2007, 05:14 AM
3.01H(5)d Players who qualify for South Carolina State Championships may advance on more than one Adult or one Senior team in the 2007 league season.

They changed it. I am wrong about state.

Topaz
03-22-2007, 06:58 AM
I will be playing on 3 teams, a 3.0 indoor team, a 3.0 outdoor team, and a 3.5 indoor team. We don't usually have any kind of a problem since there are so many players to choose from. I also make it quite clear that my 'allegiance' is to my 3.0 outdoor team, the one I co-captain.

kevhen
03-22-2007, 12:04 PM
I don't think we have the 2 player rule here as the local women's team has a 3.5 team and 4.0 team made up of mostly all the same players.

You should play 3.5 if you want the experience to see what you need to do to get better.

Caswell
03-23-2007, 04:49 AM
I don't think we have the 2 player rule here as the local women's team has a 3.5 team and 4.0 team made up of mostly all the same players.

You should play 3.5 if you want the experience to see what you need to do to get better.

It's a shame (IMHO) that any place has the two player rule.

Playing up has been great experience for me as someone at the bottom end of the NTRP scale, especially in doubles. Singles seems to me to have a much more linear progression through the ratings, but wow, if you get used to playing doubles at one level and then play a strong team the next level up it's like a different sport. Very eye opening.

Cindysphinx
03-23-2007, 06:43 AM
The plot thickens.

The 3.5 captain wrote to say she saw my name on the list of available players. She wanted to know what the deal is.

I said I didn't feel I could join her without knowing what was going to happen with my teammates.

She replied that she had given me the team code, so what's the problem?

I think I know what the disconnect is. Her view is she is going to give the team code to the four of us, and the first two to register with her are in, so what am I waiting for? My view is I can't jump onto her team until my three teammates register with my team, and one still hasn't.

Weird, huh?

kevhen
03-23-2007, 08:12 AM
Just join her team already and work things out from there. She has invited you to join and now you are sitting on the fence. Gain some 3.5 experience. Don't be chicken or so worried about the 2 person rule. She might not ask you again in the future.

sue20852
03-23-2007, 08:30 AM
Just join her team already and work things out from there. She has invited you to join and now you are sitting on the fence. Gain some 3.5 experience. Don't be chicken or so worried about the 2 person rule. She might not ask you again in the future.

Ditto. Go for the chance.

Raiden.Kaminari
03-23-2007, 09:31 AM
Cindysphinx don't be a drama queen ;)

I have to agree with the others; just join the team. I know you're thinking about the team, but many players act selfishly and won't be thinking of you.