Southern California Rankings

[PowayPride21]

In USTA national rankings and every other state the USTA uses a point based ranking system. With every round you win you get a certain amount of points.

In the So. California rankings it's very different. There is no display of points just your record. They use a "seeding list" for the rankings. I realize that if you beat players better than you you move up, but i don't understand how much you move up. Do they take an average of your ranking and the player's you beat?

Please respond

[kctennis1005]

In USTA national rankings and every other state the USTA uses a point based ranking system. With every round you win you get a certain amount of points.

In the So. California rankings it's very different. There is no display of points just your record. They use a "seeding list" for the rankings. I realize that if you beat players better than you you move up, but i don't understand how much you move up. Do they take an average of your ranking and the player's you beat?

Please respond

for socal rankings they use a complex algorithm(similar or exactly the same as tennisrecruiting.net) to calculate your rankings....wins over higher ranked opponents move u up and losses to lower ranked players move you down..its very complex, but thats the jist of it

[tennismom42]

In USTA national rankings and every other state the USTA uses a point based ranking system. With every round you win you get a certain amount of points.

In the So. California rankings it's very different. There is no display of points just your record. They use a "seeding list" for the rankings. I realize that if you beat players better than you you move up, but i don't understand how much you move up. Do they take an average of your ranking and the player's you beat?

Please respond
no, not off the top of my head. But you may not remember that the USTA use to use this system for all national rankings. They only started using the PPR systems about 3 or 4 years ago. You are lucky that you have your ladder system. Everyone I know hates the PPR system.

As I recall, the winner & loser move half way toward each other. However, the player plays several matches, there's a lot of fractional movement.

[Tennisprov1]

no, not off the top of my head. But you may not remember that the USTA use to use this system for all national rankings. They only started using the PPR systems about 3 or 4 years ago. You are lucky that you have your ladder system. Everyone I know hates the PPR system.

As I recall, the winner & loser move half way toward each other. However, the player plays several matches, there's a lot of fractional movement.

Not everyone hates the PRR system. True, there may be many who don't like the system because it does not work for their own situation AND they were not active tennis players during the days of the STAR system.

Those of us who did play and coach under the STAR system tend to like the PPR system much better. Under the STAR system, a bad loss would keep you ranked lower than your true ranking for an entire year, until that loss came off your record. Therefore, if you are the number one seed in an event, there was no incentive to play the event, since te only way your ranking would go is down, even if you won the entire tournament.

The true winners of the STAR system were those who never played. That is why many players would go have a good tournament and then not play much the rest of the year. Many of the nationally-ranked players would only have 30-40 matches on their yearly tournament record.

While I agree the PPR needs some tweaking, it is a much better overall system than the old STAR system.

[slicekick95]

what does STAR stand for

[tennismom42]

what does STAR stand for
On the TRN system (Tennisrecruiting.net), they rank the Jrs with stars. It is neither a points-per-round system nor a ladder system. It is a head-to-head system, then kids are separated into graduating classes (i.e. 2009, 2010, etc)

[PowayPride21]

Thanks for the replies.

The STAR system just sometimes seems unfair. Everyone I know including myself defaults from any So. Cal tournament when seeded one. There is just so much to lose and nothing (but to improve your winning record) to gain.

It's arguable to say the PRR system is also inaccurate because you could win a whole tournament over highly ranked players and still not be close to lower level players that compete in more events than you. I just don't see why the USTA system doesn't use the same ranking for every state. Don't they want to encourage players to compete in as many events as possible?

[baseline08thrasher]

Thanks for the replies.

The STAR system just sometimes seems unfair. Everyone I know including myself defaults from any So. Cal tournament when seeded one. There is just so much to lose and nothing (but to improve your winning record) to gain.

It's arguable to say the PRR system is also inaccurate because you could win a whole tournament over highly ranked players and still not be close to lower level players that compete in more events than you. I just don't see why the USTA system doesn't use the same ranking for every state. Don't they want to encourage players to compete in as many events as possible?

I feel the same way, I'd rather be chasing points, and feel encouraged to go out there and play in a lot of tournaments.
With this system you can get away with being lazy, and some players do just that.
You could go without playing a tournament for the longest time, and still have your ranking be really good if you have beaten a top player.

It really sucks, but it gets the competition flowing, and the quality of each round is continuously better as the stakes go up for your ranking.


It's like here: go and beat the number 1, now your number 1.

That is so stupid.
What if these players kept beating each other.

The positives are that: people with bad rankings have nothing to lose.
Negatives are that: People with high rankings have a bunch to lose, and little to gain off of playing more.
So they just come out of their shells and play the big tournaments.
Which usually offer some sort of award, or prize of some sort.
Like going off to Europe and competing and such.

If the USTA likes what they see they usually will pay for a lot of your expenses.

[SoCalDominates]

ok i havent been on this thing in a long time but i feel like i have to comment this thread. I HATE the Socal system. I had 2 horrendous losses last march to guys in the 130s in the 16s and now even when i beat guys in the 40s and 30s my ranking wont go beyond 60-55 cuz of 2 bad matches. I also dont like PPR very much but I think the perfect system is somewhere in between. I like PPR better and I am in the 300s in the nation ahead of many of the people who are ahead of me in Socal. I still dont fully understand the socal system but I do know that it is highly complex and punishes u way too much for 1 or 2 bad matches

[ClarkC]

Maybe the compromise system in southern Cal would be to say that if a player plays X number of rated matches, he gets to drop his worst single match result. If he plays 1.5X or 2X rated matches, he gets to drop 2 bad results. Then there is an incentive to play more rather than a fear of losing, but you still get your ranking high only by beating good players, not by getting lucky draws in a points per round system.

[PowayPride21]

Wow, that's a great idea.

I'd feel much more comfortable playing tournaments when being seeded if your idea came into play.

[10isDad]

Maybe y'all should show a little sack and just play whoever you're paired up against. Play your best, don't whine and cry about having to play a seed, etc. If you're talented, you'll come out alright. If not, you don't deserve a high ranking.

People worry way too much about rankings. As noted here, all the systems are flawed in some way, so: play, have fun, try your hardest - that's it.

[SoCalDominates]

hey 10is dad i have some big cahones but everyone has bad matches and the point is the Star punishes them too much for that one match. zi played a match after throwing up 2 times that morning ended up losing to a guy 120 when i was 70 most people woulda retired. I didnt. that loss has killed my ranking ever since. so dont come on here questioning my manhood and sayin im too scared to play someone.

[10isRocs]

Plus, with the STAR system, if the top ranked kids stop playing in their age group in So Cal tourneys (as most do), it very hard to get into the top 10-20 until they have aged out.

[jt2007]

ok I didn't read most of the posts but I know generally what your talking about. basically all these systems are awful. Theres no perfect way to do it their all flawed. I actually think points is the most flawed, because if you play enough tournaments unless your absolutely awful your gonna end up incredibly high.

[10isDad]

so dont come on here questioning my manhood and sayin im too scared to play someone.

Listen kid, my statement was generic to everybody. I never singled anybody out and I never claimed people were "scared".

I shouldn't need to clarify but since you have shown people participate in selective reading: as a general rule, juniors (generic) are far too caught up in the rankings game. Perhaps if they didn't worry about what their ranking or the ranking of their opponents is and, instead, worried about training their hardest, getting in the best physical shape they can, getting their mental side of the game in check, playing their best, etc. they would be better off.

[SoCal10s]

everyone has bad matches and the point is the Star punishes them too much for that one match. ended up losing to a guy 120 when i was 70 most people woulda retired. that loss has killed my ranking ever since. .
SoCal ranking system doesn't punish you for losing 1 match to a lower ranked player,it takes the overall win/lost record.. and if to retire after just playing one point,that would still count as a lost..

Plus, with the STAR system, if the top ranked kids stop playing in their age group in So Cal tourneys (as most do), it very hard to get into the top 10-20 until they have aged out.

a bit true but they still need to play at least 2 tournament and beat someone high ranked to get those rankings in the first place.. and I have never seen a player get into the top 10 playing and beating 2 players ... they'd have to maybe play at least 1 tournament and beat a few high ranked players on the way..and still they need a super high win/lost ratio or beat someone really high ranked to get top 10...

for socal rankings they use a complex algorithm(similar or exactly the same as tennisrecruiting.net) to calculate your rankings....wins over higher ranked opponents move u up and losses to lower ranked players move you down..its very complex, but thats the jist of it

I don't know about that the loses moves you down,I think it moves you down slightly in relationship to your matches won and matches lost ratio ...but I know it rewards you big time if you beat someone really high ranked and they have a high percentage of win/lost ..for example: take a look at SoCal girls 14 rankings the girl who's #2 just beat the #1 girl who was 47-0.. that win moved her up to #2 right away even though she lost to the #9 girl..and I think if that #2 girl doesn't play a 14 and under tournament in SoCal by April ,her 14 and under ranking will totally disappear by the April ranking schedule..

all in all I think it's not a bad system.. maybe they can tweek it little bit more by forcing players to play and finish more tournaments in order to receive a ranking ,so instead of 2 tournaments ,maybe 5 tournament every calender year ...this way those high ranked kids can't run and hide in the higher age division .. but then again in SoCal we're a bit different because we have so many great players who gets recruited by the USTA to go to their own training program and participate in the international competition representing USA,so those kids need a special case exemption to still maintain their rankings...it's tough call..

[ClarkC]

I actually think points is the most flawed, because if you play enough tournaments unless your absolutely awful your gonna end up incredibly high.

There is a limit in the points per round systems. At different age groups, you only count the top 5 results or the top 8 results. You cannot add up 25 results.

[SoCalDominates]

[QUOTE=SoCal10s;3098964]SoCal ranking system doesn't punish you for losing 1 match to a lower ranked player,it takes the overall win/lost record.. and if to retire after just playing one point,that would still count as a lost..

it actually does. it goes by who u have beaten/lost to not overall record

[tenniscrazed]

ok I didn't read most of the posts but I know generally what your talking about. basically all these systems are awful. Theres no perfect way to do it their all flawed. I actually think points is the most flawed, because if you play enough tournaments unless your absolutely awful your gonna end up incredibly high.

"complex algorithms", STAR, PPR, Seeds, non seeds. I have a brilliant idea "win your matches.

[PowayPride21]

maybe they can tweek it little bit more by forcing players to play and finish more tournaments in order to receive a ranking ,so instead of 2 tournaments ,maybe 5 tournament every calender year

You do have to play 5 tournaments to be ranked eligibly in a calender year.

[SoCal10s]

You do have to play 5 tournaments to be ranked eligibly in a calender year.

this form the SCTA official site:

"In order to be on the seeding list for singles, players must have participated in at least two tournaments in that age division, as well as had at least one match win. You also must be age-eligible for that division in the month following the publication of the list."

but to get into the year end rankings you have to play in that age division in the sectionals in which you want to get ranked plus additional tournaments...and the # is 2 as stated above,not 5..

[SoCalDominates]

miscellanious question. im gunna def. doubles this weekend. in order to keep my national points do i have to play a point or can i just call up and WD

[SoCal10s]

miscellanious question. im gunna def. doubles this weekend. in order to keep my national points do i have to play a point or can i just call up and WD

you need to play at least a point or you will not get credit for the tournament.. you can try sweet talking the tournament director,some will let you slide ...

[SoCalDominates]

ya thats what i thought. hopefully it rains saturday cuz i can play sunday (= Its supposed to, too so....

[tennismom42]

miscellanious question. im gunna def. doubles this weekend. in order to keep my national points do i have to play a point or can i just call up and WD
1st, you can withdraw without penalty IF the draw has not been posted. So go check.

If you do a Def No show, you can & should get 5 suspension points (sectional + national if it's a national tournament). After 10 points you're done playing USTA for 3 months.

So, don't do a def n/s. Call the TD and see if you can get out w/o penalty, thus allowing someone else the opportunity to get in and compete

[SoCal10s]

New So Cal Rankings came out... they can't be serious... boys 16s D. McCall moved from NorCal to So.Cal and played zero designated tournaments in So Cal,played to Nat's 16 that were played in So Cal area ,he has a record of 1-3 and he's ranked #2 ... go figure.. this shows how a guy can do absolutely nothing to enhance the division to promote sectional play and still get a high ranking.. he most likely will not play a designated 16 this year but will still keep his 16 ranking until March or April.. and look at the girls 16,14, 12 and boys 18,14,12.. the #1 rank ... same...

[10isRocs]

New So Cal Rankings came out... they can't be serious... boys 16s D. McCall moved from NorCal to So.Cal and played zero designated tournaments in So Cal,played to Nat's 16 that were played in So Cal area ,he has a record of 1-3 and he's ranked #2 ... go figure.. this shows how a guy can do absolutely nothing to enhance the division to promote sectional play and still get a high ranking.. he most likely will not play a designated 16 this year but will still keep his 16 ranking until March or April.. and look at the girls 16,14, 12 and boys 18,14,12.. the #1 rank ... same...

He only played one So Cal kid, Denis who was ranked 4...go figure. It has him listed as living in Santa Monica, where is he training...USTA Center...just wondering?

[SoCal10s]

He only played one So Cal kid, Denis who was ranked 4...go figure. It has him listed as living in Santa Monica, where is he training...USTA Center...just wondering?
he moved from Northern Calif... I don't understand this at all ... I thought they went by win/lost ratio but this guy has 1 win and 3 loses.. and he's #2 ...

[10isDad]

Hate to nitpick, but that's not a ranking - that's the seeding list.

The notes state: The SCTA counts head-to-head results between Southern California players at any tournament on the National Junior Tournament Schedule (NJTS) held outside Southern California.

What it doesn't state is how many of these wins that occurred when he was still in NorCal count toward his SoCal seeding placement. Probably shouldn't be any, but if that high, they've got to be using some or the win over #4 is really overshadowing everything else. The fact that his losses are to people ranked that high probably isn't hurting him, either.

[10isRocs]

Hate to nitpick, but that's not a ranking - that's the seeding list.

The notes state: The SCTA counts head-to-head results between Southern California players at any tournament on the National Junior Tournament Schedule (NJTS) held outside Southern California.

What it doesn't state is how many of these wins that occurred when he was still in NorCal count toward his SoCal seeding placement. Probably shouldn't be any, but if that high, they've got to be using some or the win over #4 is really overshadowing everything else. The fact that his losses are to people ranked that high probably isn't hurting him, either.

Head-to-Head matches out of the So Cal area need to be reported to So Cal USTA to count and then they show up as Head-to Head in the rankings...none show up for him.