PDA

View Full Version : At What Point Does the USTA System Move Someone Up


heninfan99
02-23-2009, 03:58 PM
How many benchmarks, tournament and playoff runs before a player gets bumped up?

In my area there's a team that's been dominant for years. The Captain has benchmarks but hasn't been forced up.

Is it purely computer based? Can you whine about someone else gaming the system?

JavierLW
02-23-2009, 04:06 PM
How many benchmarks, tournament and playoff runs before a player gets bumped up?

In my area there's a team that's been dominant for years. The Captain has benchmarks but hasn't been forced up.

Is it purely computer based? Can you whine about someone else gaming the system?

It's purely computer based.

Yes you can whine if you want to.

Other than that though, there isnt much you can do about it unless it's a brand new player and you know of some player history that would preclude them from being at your level. (player history is like their former tennis experience, like if they were a pro, or nationally ranked or a top college player, etc...)

Being a benchmark is meaningless, that just means you were in the playoffs. It doesnt mean they are any higher or lower then a regular computer rated player.

Just because someone is winning a lot doesnt necessarily mean they are out of level, it's when they are clobbering everyone by an obcene score that they tend to get moved up. (especially if they beat people who happen to beat everyone else)

heninfan99
02-23-2009, 04:21 PM
Well, this guys has 7 sets that are either 6-1 or 6-0. I think algorithms need to be changed on the system. He also plays & wins in a higher league. What do you think?

ESP#1
02-23-2009, 04:28 PM
Well, this guys has 7 sets that are either 6-1 or 6-0. I think algorithms need to be changed on the system. He also plays & wins in a higher league. What do you think?

how many seasons have they been at that level? they should be getting moved up soon if its to that point, till then enjoy playing against them, its always more fun playing better players:)

heninfan99
02-23-2009, 04:42 PM
how many seasons have they been at that level? they should be getting moved up soon if its to that point, till then enjoy playing against them, its always more fun playing better players:)

7 seasons and it seems both our county coordinators are on his teams. Very corrupt system.

JavierLW
02-23-2009, 05:07 PM
Well, this guys has 7 sets that are either 6-1 or 6-0. I think algorithms need to be changed on the system. He also plays & wins in a higher league. What do you think?

The system is tweaked here and there from year to year. It may be a bit differenet even in different sections but we dont have evidence of that.

What typically happens is the team that wins first place goes on to the playoffs. At some point they meet a team that is even more under-rated then they are and they get killed.

50% of your rating is based on on your highest level of play, so it causes the phenemon that a lot of those "benchmark" players sometimes never get moved up, but if you have some players on your 2nd or 3rd place team that do well against them in local competition they actually have a better chance of getting moved up.

That's the part of the system that I think is screwed up, but it's because the league puts a emphasis on what happens in the playoffs over what happens in local play.

So until they change that, you'll see the same teams win year after year after year after year.

From that team's perspective (and Ive heard this point of view many times), they are probably not making it past some level of play, so they will just claim that the rest of their entire local league is just rated too low. So these teams pretty much play for the playoffs, and the rest of the local season (which is what most of us sign up for) is just sort of a formality for them.

It's a common debate on whether the league as a whole is rated too high or too low, but I think if you follow it down to the lowest levels of play, you can find tons of players who would otherwise belong at that lowest level, but they are not competitive because everyone else is rated too low. (not the other way around)

I used to complain about things like this. In my area there are always teams that win every year. We have one team that's never not made the playoffs in like 20 years. (I even heard about how there was a big USTA League meeting in our area and their stupid club coordinator actually admited that they encourage their players to doctor the scores so they dont get moved up)

But now it's just a joke. This will be my sixth year running the same team, and rather than whining about those single teams who always win first (we know who they are), we enjoy the rest of the season and it's still a fun league. As long as there are plenty of other teams to play it's not a big deal. Sometimes we recruit certain players who's only purpose is to play against those certain teams as well to make it a little more interesting.

(sometimes it's always a hidden goal for us and some other teams to work together to try to knock one of them off, but it usually doenst happen)

We beat the 2005 State Champions in 2006 in a local match though, so that was pretty cool. Unfortuanlly also in our same division was the team that eventually took 4th in the nation in 2007.

heninfan99
02-24-2009, 06:16 AM
What typically happens is the team that wins first place goes on to the playoffs. At some point they meet a team that is even more under-rated then they are and they get killed.

50% of your rating is based on on your highest level of play, so it causes the phenemon that a lot of those "benchmark" players sometimes never get moved up, but if you have some players on your 2nd or 3rd place team that do well against them in local competition they actually have a better chance of getting moved up.

That's the part of the system that I think is screwed up, but it's because the league puts a emphasis on what happens in the playoffs over what happens in local play.

It's a common debate on whether the league as a whole is rated too high or too low, but I think if you follow it down to the lowest levels of play, you can find tons of players who would otherwise belong at that lowest level, but they are not competitive because everyone else is rated too low. (not the other way around)

But now it's just a joke. This will be my sixth year running the same team, and rather than whining about those single teams who always win first (we know who they are), we enjoy the rest of the season and it's still a fun league.

Ahhhhhhhhh, I see. "50% of your rating is based on on your highest level of play" Allowing a team to have a monopoly on the playoffs year after year is BS and takes some of the excitement away from it all. Getting to the playoffs looks like a lot of fun. If any team wins three years in a row maybe an actual human being --an impartial USTA pro should assess the team. Either move those guys up a level or mix up the players throughout the level.

So basically the only way to challenge these dominant teams is to build a new team and load it tennis coaches that haven't played USTA in three years? hehehehe

"It's a common debate on whether the league as a whole is rated too high or too low" If someone complains a league is rated too low and they win every year, they can petition to move up if they truly want better competition.

It IS a joke and people can get crazy with this stuff as they do in local soft ball leagues.

Thanks for the info. It clears up a lot. :)

heninfan99
02-24-2009, 09:23 AM
We beat the 2005 State Champions in 2006 in a local match though, so that was pretty cool. Unfortuanlly also in our same division was the team that eventually took 4th in the nation in 2007.

Congrats on your 2006 win. Musta been sweet.

Jim A
02-24-2009, 09:38 AM
What do people think would be solutions for this?

Around here there was a player who had nearly equal number of points in both 3.0 and 3.5 but stayed @ 3.0, while players underneath him (he was top 5/10 in the state) ranked through #30 were mostly moved up

Being new to it all myself, its tough for me to find a solution at this point but it seems the system is based on overall points and not a pts per tournament average? There are tons of people who play 1-2 tournaments a year, get to the quarters/semi's but at the end don't have a slough of points so they don't get moved up. it seems if you want to move up you play quite a bit, win some key matches and have a decent amount of points at the end of the year (I think its top 5 tournaments?)

Just not a big fan of computers having a large say in rankings whether it be the BCS or USTA.

Nellie
02-24-2009, 09:46 AM
I think the USTA is really trying to address this through the rule change to prevent Benchmark players from appealing back down. For example, I know a 4.0 guy who went to nationals 9 times in 4.0 mens/8.0 doubles. He is a good 4.0, bad 4.5 (no weapons but never misses) and appealed down every year dispite never losing matches. He is now bitter because he is a benchmark 4.5 and cannot appeal back down, so he is starting to take losses.

raiden031
02-24-2009, 09:56 AM
What matters is the match score differential and the rating of your opponent. If you beat a lower-rated player 6-0, 6-1, it will not raise your rating like it would if you beat someone at the top of the level with the same score. In fact a blowout score may even lower your rating. My belief through some research is that 6-0, 6-1 is equivalent to about a 0.35 NTRP differential. So someone at 3.36 is supposed to beat a 3.01 player by that score, otherwise the 3.35 player's rating will go down after the match.

People only get moved up when 1) they get disqualified because their rating surpasses a threshold 3 times and they are self-rated or appeal-rated or 2) at rating calculations at the year end their new rating crosses into the next level.

goober
02-24-2009, 09:59 AM
I think the USTA is really trying to address this through the rule change to prevent Benchmark players from appealing back down. For example, I know a 4.0 guy who went to nationals 9 times in 4.0 mens/8.0 doubles. He is a good 4.0, bad 4.5 (no weapons but never misses) and appealed down every year dispite never losing matches. He is now bitter because he is a benchmark 4.5 and cannot appeal back down, so he is starting to take losses.

I don't get the bitter part. I mean how many more times does he feel like he needs to go to Nationals? Sounds like is only having fun if he is winning. Tennis is suppose to be recreation. He sounds like he is in a similar situation to me. I don't mind taking my lumps though. I am going to try my best and if I don't do well eventually I will get moved back down.

LuckyR
02-24-2009, 10:57 AM
What do people think would be solutions for this?

Around here there was a player who had nearly equal number of points in both 3.0 and 3.5 but stayed @ 3.0, while players underneath him (he was top 5/10 in the state) ranked through #30 were mostly moved up

Being new to it all myself, its tough for me to find a solution at this point but it seems the system is based on overall points and not a pts per tournament average? There are tons of people who play 1-2 tournaments a year, get to the quarters/semi's but at the end don't have a slough of points so they don't get moved up. it seems if you want to move up you play quite a bit, win some key matches and have a decent amount of points at the end of the year (I think its top 5 tournaments?)

Just not a big fan of computers having a large say in rankings whether it be the BCS or USTA.


IMO the majority of the problem would be solved by a simple formula:

1- If you make it to Nationals, you get moved up.

2- If you make it to Sectionals or Regionals and you individually have a winning record (> 50% wins) at Sectionals/Regionals, you get moved up.

kylebarendrick
02-24-2009, 11:03 AM
...how about if you beat someone in local league play that went to nationals?

...or if you are the worst player on your team that went to nationals and you lost your only nationals match 0-0?

The simple formulas break down in the details.

LuckyR
02-24-2009, 11:26 AM
...how about if you beat someone in local league play that went to nationals?

...or if you are the worst player on your team that went to nationals and you lost your only nationals match 0-0?

The simple formulas break down in the details.

If you beat someone who went to Nationals earlier in the season, we'll let that one go on the assumption that the other guy improved over the season (that's why he did so great at Sectionals and Regionals), so your win in the regular season won't count against you.

If you make it to Nationals that puts you in about the best 0-3% of teams in the nation. My guess is the rest of the team selected you for a reason, not randomly, so my guess is you'll do fine in the next half level. Not a world beater but you won't get smeared either.

I'm not seeing the "breakdown".

heninfan99
02-24-2009, 12:01 PM
They should stop self-rating all together and go back to getting rated by a pro, NTRP style. Also, its obvious to everyone involved in a county who is gaming the system. After a few years of dominance it should be automatic.
Shooting from the hip here: Maybe if you have a winning percentage of 75% or greater over 20 or more matches you get moved up automatically. The local coordinator should have the power to move someone up.

goober
02-24-2009, 12:24 PM
They should stop self-rating all together and go back to getting rated by a pro, NTRP style. Also, its obvious to everyone involved in a county who is gaming the system. After a few years of dominance it should be automatic.
Shooting from the hip here: Maybe if you have a winning percentage of 75% or greater over 20 or more matches you get moved up automatically. The local coordinator should have the power to move someone up.

It is pretty easy to game the system with a pro rating you too. If you are a 4.5 and you want a 3.5 rating, just shank balls, barely move for them, ect. Also from what I understand in the days when they had that system you basically could pay the pro and get whatever rating you wanted in many cases.

Whatever system you devise people will figure away around if they are intent on it. The only system I could see working is taking the incentives away in the first place (i.e Nationals)

cak
02-24-2009, 03:25 PM
I'd say the system is pretty good as it is. The one change I might make is there are enough players shooting for nationals they could safely say that if you play at Nationals you can never go back to nationals for that same league and rating. For instance, if you played at Nationals as a M3.5 you can't ever again go to Nationals for a M3.5 team. You can go for a SM3.5 team, or a Mixed 7.0 team, or a M4.0 team, but not the same level and league. Time to give someone else a chance. It would encourage people to move up if they really want to try again. And discourage people who are only playing to go to Nationals over and over again. Perhaps to make those traveling teams happy they could start traveling team tournaments in lovely destinations around the country. So you could take your M3.5 team to say, Arizona, in say March to play against teams from around the country.

raiden031
02-24-2009, 06:17 PM
I'd say the system is pretty good as it is. The one change I might make is there are enough players shooting for nationals they could safely say that if you play at Nationals you can never go back to nationals for that same league and rating. For instance, if you played at Nationals as a M3.5 you can't ever again go to Nationals for a M3.5 team. You can go for a SM3.5 team, or a Mixed 7.0 team, or a M4.0 team, but not the same level and league. Time to give someone else a chance. It would encourage people to move up if they really want to try again. And discourage people who are only playing to go to Nationals over and over again. Perhaps to make those traveling teams happy they could start traveling team tournaments in lovely destinations around the country. So you could take your M3.5 team to say, Arizona, in say March to play against teams from around the country.

I don't get why this would be necessary. If someone goes to Nationals and doesn't get moved up, then they are playing at the correct level because they probably did poorly there. If they do well at Nationals though its a lock they will move up and cannot appeal down.

The new rule that benchmarks cannot appeal is probably the best rule change they have done in years.

heninfan99
02-25-2009, 04:58 AM
I don't get why this would be necessary. If someone goes to Nationals and doesn't get moved up, then they are playing at the correct level because they probably did poorly there. If they do well at Nationals though its a lock they will move up and cannot appeal down.

The new rule that benchmarks cannot appeal is probably the best rule change they have done in years.


"At some point they meet a team that is even more under-rated then they are and they get killed."

Seems the consensus is that the Nationals are a bunch of teams/players that underrate themselves so that they can dominate year after year.

It can take a season before you realize what's going on.

I do see that the problem could be top down. In other words, not even enough players for a 5.0 league so the very best (including some teachers) play at 4.5 or even 4.0. So the real 4.0s want to win so they go to the 3.5s.

BUT...they gotta bumping perennial winners up a level after a few years.
I still like having a human being judging your rating, maybe even every year.

raiden031
02-25-2009, 05:16 AM
"At some point they meet a team that is even more under-rated then they are and they get killed."

Seems the consensus is that the Nationals are a bunch of teams/players that underrate themselves so that they can dominate year after year.

It can take a season before you realize what's going on.

I do see that the problem could be top down. In other words, not even enough players for a 5.0 league so the very best (including some teachers) play at 4.5 or even 4.0. So the real 4.0s want to win so they go to the 3.5s.

BUT...they gotta bumping perennial winners up a level after a few years.
I still like having a human being judging your rating, maybe even every year.

When a team is successful at Nationals, most of the contributing players WILL get bumped up at the year's end. I played 6 matches at Nationals and my team won and not only did all of our team get moved up (except the captains who don't play really, and two of us got moved up 2 levels), but all of my opponents did as well. So we killed most of our competition and many of them still got moved up so its not like we caused sandbaggers to get stuck at the same level because we were super-sandbaggers.

So it is a myth that the same teams dominate and make it to Nationals year after year. It might be the same captain whose team dominates, but not the actual players. For the most part a Nationals-calibre captain has to rebuild their team from scratch each year because they find self-rated players who are above level, then they get moved up afterwards. That is alot of effort, I know this because I've seen what my captains went through to build and manage our team.

It is not logical that someone could dominate and do well at Nationals and not get moved up because a large percentage of players at Nationals are self-rates who are at the next level anyways.

cak
02-25-2009, 07:18 AM
In NorCal, the senior 2009 league started in September. Right now, as we speak, there are quite a few 4.0B ladies playing in the playoffs for senior women's 3.5. One of them in the lineup last week earned her 4.0B from going to Nationals last year in 3.5. They can't appeal this year, but can, and plan to appeal next year after the end of the year ratings come out. If their appeals win they can again play 3.5 for the last month of the season, and go to Nationals next year too.

I just think if the be all/end all of USTA league tennis is to get people around the country together to play Nationals we should give that chance to as many folks as possible, not the same people over and over again.

Nellie
02-25-2009, 08:12 AM
People getting beaten by better players always complain about sandbagging, but for the most part, most of the players who go to nationals simply work very hard to improve their games. After improving, these players are temporarily better than their rated level and do well for while before the computer re-adjusts the ratings. The USTA should encourage players, like Raiden, to improve and do well.

heninfan99
02-25-2009, 08:30 AM
It is not logical that someone could dominate and do well at Nationals and not get moved up because a large percentage of players at Nationals are self-rates who are at the next level anyways.

You're the only person exclusively talking about Nationals. You can dominate a local league year after year after year by going to the districts all the time.

If you made it to the Nationals in the current system(and the way it works) you probably rated yourself too low for whatever reason. ;-) You were probably a 4.0 all along playing as a 3.5. :shock: Hopefully the new changes will help fix these problems.

Jim A
02-25-2009, 08:35 AM
I've had to deal with this in other sports but where there are larger groups of talent (ie. Platinum, Gold, Silver) most of the good gold teams could play Platinum, but without the computer issues.

thoughts on the following (which would apply to me)
-no appeal for self-rated players following their first ranking
-any sort of limit on how far a self-rated player can play (i.e. no nationals?) to help curb the 'baggers?
-point system, includes tournaments & league play with a *bump* automatically at certain levels, points would be weighted but someone who hides in doubles and does well in 1-2 singles events that would normally not move him up would be found out a bit more, and you could see if people were hiding/bagging by all of a sudden stopping play (again my 3.5/3.0 buddy here...plays all the 3.5 ladders is top 50 in state in 3.5 but rated 3.0 and top 10, )

agree that most of the people who go are trying to better themselves and improve, however we live in a time when people hold their kids back in school a year from the start so they will be among the more physically developed and mature, and who will do almost anything for a t-shirt sportsmanship be dammed

heninfan99
02-25-2009, 08:38 AM
People getting beaten by better players always complain about sandbagging,

That's actually not true in my case. I was undefeated in the last league I was in, have nice trophy. I don't want to play in that league in again. To me that would be useless. I MOVED UP ON MY OWN for the upcoming season. With tennis link & knowing what goes on the local tennis community it's no secret whose gaming. :)

JavierLW
02-25-2009, 08:48 AM
When a team is successful at Nationals, most of the contributing players WILL get bumped up at the year's end. I played 6 matches at Nationals and my team won and not only did all of our team get moved up (except the captains who don't play really, and two of us got moved up 2 levels), but all of my opponents did as well. So we killed most of our competition and many of them still got moved up so its not like we caused sandbaggers to get stuck at the same level because we were super-sandbaggers.

So it is a myth that the same teams dominate and make it to Nationals year after year. It might be the same captain whose team dominates, but not the actual players. For the most part a Nationals-calibre captain has to rebuild their team from scratch each year because they find self-rated players who are above level, then they get moved up afterwards. That is alot of effort, I know this because I've seen what my captains went through to build and manage our team.

It is not logical that someone could dominate and do well at Nationals and not get moved up because a large percentage of players at Nationals are self-rates who are at the next level anyways.

I think the OP is mainly talking about the experience in each local league.

In many local leagues it is NOT a myth that the same team advances year after year.

Typically they go on and get clobbered by a team that is even more under-rated then they are (from their perspective).

So you are right in Nationals it varys who ends up there, but at the local level it's rarely like that.

And it's those teams that dominated the local level that tend to not get moved up as often although that changes sometimes from year to year as they tweak the rules.

Even at Nationals, if you look at the teams that got slaughtered there (took last place in their flights) they dont always all get moved up. 50% of their rating is still based on Nationals so that keeps them where they are at sometimes.

Obviously if you do well at Nationals it works the other way (you get moved up).

JavierLW
02-25-2009, 08:57 AM
You're the only person exclusively talking about Nationals. You can dominate a local league year after year after year by going to the districts all the time.

If you made it to the Nationals in the current system(and the way it works) you probably rated yourself too low for whatever reason. ;-) You were probably a 4.0 all along playing as a 3.5. :shock: Hopefully the new changes will help fix these problems.

Actually he was playing as a 3.0 I think.

But in his defense, I think his is a case of someone who legitimately improved enough, had the right lessons, worked on his game, whatever....

If someone is skilled enough and they are taught the right way it's not impossible to believe that they are not even 3.0 at any point realistically. And I dont think you can fault them for whatever rating they started out in.

I think what you are complaining about (which I dont believe is raiden's case) are the teams and players that are at the same level year after year after year even though they can go 10-0 and better in their local league and probably dont lose until they get to some level of the playoffs, and they appealled like nuts when they got moved up. (although you have to blame the system for that more then anything)

So they waste the whole entire summer clobbering everyone just for the playoffs, when they could be challenged by playing the higher level for more of a majority of their season.

I know a team that took 4th in Nationals and they were the biggest cheater's on the face of the earth when it came to manipulating the rules. They openly told me they were looking for 4.5 players for their 3.5 team, and they even got a player eliminated before the season even started.

So it's hard to imagine that any of those other teams "just got better". We'll never know either way, Im sure there are some in raiden's situation, but I doubt "most" of them are like that. (but that's besides the point anyway, who cares what happens in Nationals?, 98% of the players who they brag about when they tout the numbers could care less)

raiden031
02-25-2009, 09:23 AM
You're the only person exclusively talking about Nationals. You can dominate a local league year after year after year by going to the districts all the time.

If you made it to the Nationals in the current system(and the way it works) you probably rated yourself too low for whatever reason. ;-) You were probably a 4.0 all along playing as a 3.5. :shock: Hopefully the new changes will help fix these problems.

No there were some posts regarding Nationals. If someone dominates their local league year after year and does not get moved up, then it means that their local league is filled with players whose dynamic rating is generally at the bottom of the level. A strong 3.5 player should not *dominate* a well-distributed 3.5 league but instead should win more than they lose. The only players that should dominate are those that need to be bumped up.

I made it to 3.0 Nationals but skillwise I had no business whatsoever playing at that level. I did follow the USTA rules exactly in good faith (and was computer-rated after a mediocre season the previous year). The best you can say is that I should have removed myself from 3.0 league play once it was no longer a challenge, but instead i took advantage of a unique opportunity.

javier,

Getting crushed in districts/sectionals/nationals should not cause a dominant local team's players not to move up. See my first paragraph. If the area has alot of weak players, then dominating at a local league means nothing within the big USTA picture. If they aren't competitive with players of the next level outside of their league, then they don't deserve to be moved up to that next level just to appease the players in their local league.

JavierLW
02-25-2009, 09:33 AM
javier,

Getting crushed in districts/sectionals/nationals should not cause a dominant local team's players not to move up. See my first paragraph. If the area has alot of weak players, then dominating at a local league means nothing within the big USTA picture. If they aren't competitive with players of the next level outside of their league, then they don't deserve to be moved up to that next level just to appease the players in their local league.

It does cause them not to get moved up because the rules on how much of their rating is affected by it.

That's the common debate around here. Whether the local area's players are really rated too high or whether those teams that win every single year are rated too low.

It's the common debate in my area as well.

I believe it's the players in the local leagues in most cases that are where they should be. The way I justify that is if you follow it all the way down to the lowest level (which is 3.0 for men in most areas) you'll find a lot of real 3.0 players that are not even competitive in that league.

You yourself admits that you were not really a 3.0 player. So if someone does get crushed by you at a higher level it does not mean they werent over-rated themselves.

You are right about how the picture looks in the USTA or at least how the system is working, but it's debatable on whether it should be that way.

The playoffs are really less important then the local league in my opinion, and the fact that they put all the attention and emphasis on something that happens to less then 5% of the players is misplaced.

Most people sign up for the league in general and the regular season may take 2 or 3 months, versus the few weekends that account for the playoffs. It's ******** to go year after year spending months clobbering everyone just for a chance at a plastic waterbottle or a pen, and it shouldnt be such the award that someone wants to do that (if they are good enough to play at the next level)

And the sure fact that you were in the 3.0 playoffs and you admit that you had "no business being there", proves that there is some illegitimacy to those playoff results. (regardless of whether you're justifyed or not in being there) So you cant say that someone getting clobbered at a higher level somehow deserves to not get moved up. (maybe they should not move two levels up....)

raiden031
02-25-2009, 09:56 AM
It does cause them not to get moved up because the rules on how much of their rating is affected by it.

That's the common debate around here. Whether the local area's players are really rated too high or whether those teams that win every single year are rated too low.

It's the common debate in my area as well.

I believe it's the players in the local leagues in most cases that are where they should be. The way I justify that is if you follow it all the way down to the lowest level (which is 3.0 for men in most areas) you'll find a lot of real 3.0 players that are not even competitive in that league.

You yourself admits that you were not really a 3.0 player. So if someone does get crushed by you at a higher level it does not mean they werent over-rated themselves.

You are right about how the picture looks in the USTA or at least how the system is working, but it's debatable on whether it should be that way.

The playoffs are really less important then the local league in my opinion, and the fact that they put all the attention and emphasis on something that happens to less then 5% of the players is misplaced.

Most people sign up for the league in general and the regular season may take 2 or 3 months, versus the few weekends that account for the playoffs. It's ******** to go year after year spending months clobbering everyone just for a chance at a plastic waterbottle or a pen, and it shouldnt be such the award that someone wants to do that (if they are good enough to play at the next level)

And the sure fact that you were in the 3.0 playoffs and you admit that you had "no business being there", proves that there is some illegitimacy to those playoff results. (regardless of whether you're justifyed or not in being there) So you cant say that someone getting clobbered at a higher level somehow deserves to not get moved up. (maybe they should not move two levels up....)

I have never heard of a player dominating a local league and not getting moved up. I have never seen it at 3.0 and never seen it at 3.5 in my area. I would like someone to provide an example of a player that crushes all their opponents year after year at the same level.

In my case I stayed at 3.0 after I did crappy in 2007. In 2008 I did good and got moved up. The system did what it was supposed to. I simply improved during the off-season which the system does not account for.

Its true that the top teams might win the division year in and year out, but those players are not sandbaggers, they are just the strongest at the division in the local league. For instance I am currently a weak 4.0 (truly) and I can beat any of the players who won the 3.5 division in my local league in 2008. I might not win every time, but I am capable of beating every single one of those players (even those that got bumped to 4.0), so worst case is that a few are bordering the 4.0 level, but none clearly should be at 4.0. There are a handful of self-rated players in the league from last year that might own me, but they definitely did not remain at 3.5 if that is the case.

SlapShot
02-25-2009, 10:27 AM
You're the only person exclusively talking about Nationals. You can dominate a local league year after year after year by going to the districts all the time.

If you made it to the Nationals in the current system(and the way it works) you probably rated yourself too low for whatever reason. ;-) You were probably a 4.0 all along playing as a 3.5. :shock: Hopefully the new changes will help fix these problems.

Or, you could end up in my situation, where I went to Nationals as a 3.5, won one match, was in it for the entire match for another against a guy who was winning local matches 6-2,6-2 in SoCal, and lost a not-so-tight doubles match, and am currently a 3.5B player, despite being 5-2 at 4.0 this year and having advanced to the finals in an 8.0 tourney this weekend, beating a couple of good teams on the way.

The USTA system is not flawless, and people sometimes do "slip through the cracks" with regard to the ratings.

tykrum
02-25-2009, 09:11 PM
Or, you could end up in my situation, where I went to Nationals as a 3.5, won one match, was in it for the entire match for another against a guy who was winning local matches 6-2,6-2 in SoCal, and lost a not-so-tight doubles match, and am currently a 3.5B player, despite being 5-2 at 4.0 this year and having advanced to the finals in an 8.0 tourney this weekend, beating a couple of good teams on the way.

The USTA system is not flawless, and people sometimes do "slip through the cracks" with regard to the ratings.

Got to the finals playing with a 4.5! Well, I'm not an amazing 4.5, but still. Lost to two good 4.0s where at least one of the was "treeing" a little bit.

No, the USTA system isn't flawless, but when you are trying to create a system that rates hundreds of thousands of amateur tennis players across the country, you'd be asking quite a bit for it to be. I'd say it does a pretty darn good job for what it has to work with. 'SlapShot', in your situation, your poorer results from 2007 are still in your rating, although obviously your more current results are more heavily weighted.

OrangePower
02-25-2009, 10:46 PM
How many benchmarks, tournament and playoff runs before a player gets bumped up?

In my area there's a team that's been dominant for years. The Captain has benchmarks but hasn't been forced up.

Is it purely computer based? Can you whine about someone else gaming the system?

Definitely there are players (and teams) who year after year manage to end up at or near the top of their level. But that does not necessarily mean that the system is flawed when it comes to level promotions.

Remember that the 'levels' are just arbitrary cutoff points in what is really a continuous distribution of ratings. And sooner or later, each player is going to get to a personal peak where further improvement is very slow or just not possible. So there are going to be players whose true rating really is right at the cutoff point between levels.

For example, there will be players who peak with a rating of say 3.95. That makes them strong 4.0s who will consistently beat other 4.0s. But it doesn't make them a 4.5, and there is no way such a player would be even remotely competitive at the 4.5 level. And they will not get bumped up despite winning consistently at 4.0.

On the other hand, there will be players who peak at 4.05, at which point they are considered too strong to play at 4.0 but at the same time are really too weak to ever have a chance at playoffs at 4.5.

Maybe that's not fair but there you go - the levels are arbitrary. The bottom line is that the system is not intended as a way to give everyone an equal shot to make playoffs, but rather as a way to group people so that you ensure relatively competitive matches during the course of a season. And I think it does that pretty well for the most part. So don't worry about who is or is not making playoffs in your league, and instead just enjoy your matches.

saram
02-25-2009, 11:13 PM
Just remember we are talking about a national rating system--not a local one.

I sense sour grapes here.

heninfan99
02-26-2009, 05:19 AM
I think what you are complaining about (which I dont believe is raiden's case) are the teams and players that are at the same level year after year after year even though they can go 10-0 and better in their local league and probably dont lose until they get to some level of the playoffs, and they appealled like nuts when they got moved up. (although you have to blame the system for that more then anything)


Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Most players will never see the Nationals but are looking for some competitive seasons on the local level and a real shot at entering the playoffs. :-)

I heard the USTA made some changes recently so I'm excited about that. Hopefully the system will be better this year.

heninfan99
02-26-2009, 05:23 AM
Just remember we are talking about a national rating system--not a local one.

I sense sour grapes here.

National rating system? Thanks for the tip Sherlock.
Of course I'm sour. Its a lot of work to run a team. You don't do all that to play cheaters.

equinox
02-26-2009, 06:27 AM
Does it really matter?
It's not like you are playing real tennis below 4.5 level.

Moz
02-26-2009, 07:23 AM
The system is essentially flawed because it doesn't incentivise people to improve their rating.

Until it does that no change to the rules or algorithms will address the issues on this thread.

Not to mention using scorelines (rather than results) as determinants is a foolish way of doing it.

The USTA must be the only system in the world where so many people dread official comfirmation that they have got better. Everywhere else people are embarrassed by their own low ratings and are desperate to improve them.

heninfan99
02-26-2009, 07:33 AM
The USTA must be the only system in the world where so many people dread official comfirmation that they have got better. Everywhere else people are embarrassed by their own low ratings and are desperate to improve them.

That nails it.

cak
02-26-2009, 07:35 AM
My biggest problems with the system is the huge loopholes. Right now there are about 10 players between two teams that are rated 4.0B playing in the 3.5 playoffs. It's an early start league, and in the fall these players appealed their 4.0 early start ratings to play 3.5. (Note, they got the early start 4.0 ratings from cleaning up in that same 3.5 league last year.) They can't appeal the 4.0 ratings this year, but they don't have to, they can still play as 3.5. So they have two years of blowing through local leagues before their ratings kick in. And if they don't make sectionals and receive the b rating next year, they will appeal and play the last half of the early start season to make another run at 3.5, though the computer tagged them as 4.0 two years prior. The new rule that prohibits appealing benchmark ratings won't really affect leagues that span the end of the year.

dgordon
02-27-2009, 12:03 PM
The computer has an algorithm for the ratings which has a predictive index. So, if you are a 4.49 playing singles against a 4.0, it predicts the result, perhaps you ought to win 6-1, 6-1. Any variance from the prediction will increase or decrease both ratings, i.e. you win 6-4, 6-4. You do down, he goes up.

For doubles, the team is averaged.

Thus, if a 4.0 guy is winning a lot of singles matches in the 4.0 adult league by lopsided scores, but his opponents are 3.5 guys playing up, he's not going anywhere.

boilerfan
02-27-2009, 01:31 PM
I have never heard of a player dominating a local league and not getting moved up. I have never seen it at 3.0 and never seen it at 3.5 in my area. I would like someone to provide an example of a player that crushes all their opponents year after year at the same level.

In my case I stayed at 3.0 after I did crappy in 2007. In 2008 I did good and got moved up. The system did what it was supposed to. I simply improved during the off-season which the system does not account for.

Its true that the top teams might win the division year in and year out, but those players are not sandbaggers, they are just the strongest at the division in the local league. For instance I am currently a weak 4.0 (truly) and I can beat any of the players who won the 3.5 division in my local league in 2008. I might not win every time, but I am capable of beating every single one of those players (even those that got bumped to 4.0), so worst case is that a few are bordering the 4.0 level, but none clearly should be at 4.0. There are a handful of self-rated players in the league from last year that might own me, but they definitely did not remain at 3.5 if that is the case.

I am not sure if this counts as crushing, but I did a quick tabulation of 5 guys from our team. We have all played together pretty much since 2003. Went to states every year winning states in 2003 and going to nationals in 2007. At no point was any of the 5 moved up. All play mostly doubles with a few singles matches in there. The singles guys from 2003 and 2007 were moved up though.

Totals from 2003-2008(local play only):
Player 1: 36-1...lost 3 sets total
Player 2: 48-3...lost 10 sets total
Player 3: 38-5...lost 15 sets total
Player 4: 29-6...lost 15 sets total
Player 5: 27-6...lost 15 sets
Total - 178 - 21

The numbers were hurt a little by players 4 and 5 going 1-7 in 2008 as they didn't play much after going to nationals. The numbers were helped a bit by Player 1 and 2 winning states again in 2008 on a different team and combining to go 14-1 in local play.

So, for reference Players 1 and 2 are 84-4 in local play and won states in 2003, 2007 and 2008 going to nationals in 2007. At least those 2 should constitute "crushing" the local league.

Not saying any of them need to be bumped as they would be mostly lower level 5.0's, just showing that you can pretty much dominate the local level every year without being bumped.

raiden031
02-27-2009, 03:54 PM
I am not sure if this counts as crushing, but I did a quick tabulation of 5 guys from our team. We have all played together pretty much since 2003. Went to states every year winning states in 2003 and going to nationals in 2007. At no point was any of the 5 moved up. All play mostly doubles with a few singles matches in there. The singles guys from 2003 and 2007 were moved up though.

Totals from 2003-2008(local play only):
Player 1: 36-1...lost 3 sets total
Player 2: 48-3...lost 10 sets total
Player 3: 38-5...lost 15 sets total
Player 4: 29-6...lost 15 sets total
Player 5: 27-6...lost 15 sets
Total - 178 - 21

The numbers were hurt a little by players 4 and 5 going 1-7 in 2008 as they didn't play much after going to nationals. The numbers were helped a bit by Player 1 and 2 winning states again in 2008 on a different team and combining to go 14-1 in local play.

So, for reference Players 1 and 2 are 84-4 in local play and won states in 2003, 2007 and 2008 going to nationals in 2007. At least those 2 should constitute "crushing" the local league.

Not saying any of them need to be bumped as they would be mostly lower level 5.0's, just showing that you can pretty much dominate the local level every year without being bumped.

How did they do against players who did get bumped up? Since you have been playing with these guys for years, would you say they are head and shoulders better than the rest?

I figure it is more the exception than the rule that a overly strong player would remain at a level too low year after year. If it was so common like people here might imply, then why have i never seen it? Never seen a 3.0 or 3.5 who went more than one year at a level too low for them.

JavierLW
02-27-2009, 05:38 PM
How did they do against players who did get bumped up? Since you have been playing with these guys for years, would you say they are head and shoulders better than the rest?

I figure it is more the exception than the rule that a overly strong player would remain at a level too low year after year. If it was so common like people here might imply, then why have i never seen it? Never seen a 3.0 or 3.5 who went more than one year at a level too low for them.

How many years have you been playing?

From most of your posts it sounds like live in bizarro world or at least some very special place that is not the norm. (although I just figured your perspective just came from your unique situation, most "3.0 players" are not making it to Nationals and playing 4.0 a year later)

Ive been running a team or playing continually from 2002 to 2009, and I ran a team 1999 as well.

Before DNTRP what the OP describes was common place, and even up to the National level I think there was a definate pecking order. (for example whichever team made it out of my state always got crushed by everyone in the Mid_West Sectional, and whatever team made it out of the Mid_West got crushed at Nationals, which was obviously screwed up because a 3.0 player in Illinois shouldnt be that much different then a 3.0 player in Arizona)

I think since DNTRP began at least in the playoffs you're seeing at least more parity there. (different teams make it every year)

At the local level though, they introduced the appeal system so in my state for example 80% of the players that got moved up, appealed.

Now that's not as likely starting this year because of the new rules.

So I guess my point is what the OP is observing may not be the case in many areas over the past few years, but anyone who's been playing for a long time probably has that perception.

In the future if they dont wimp out on the rules again, it may disapear everywhere since players wont be able to appeal if they make the playoffs and that may very well fix it.

Then it's just a matter of who gets moved up and who doesnt which seems to at least change in some areas from year to year.

What also happens sometimes (which happened in my team's case) is if you have a 2nd place team or a 3rd place team and your player does really well against the first place team, your player will get moved up, and their player will not. (because they eventually got crushed in the playoffs)

Topaz
02-27-2009, 05:51 PM
Does it really matter?
It's not like you are playing real tennis below 4.5 level.

Awww crap!!! Have I been playing fake tennis all this time!?!?

:roll:


The USTA must be the only system in the world where so many people dread official comfirmation that they have got better. Everywhere else people are embarrassed by their own low ratings and are desperate to improve them.

Well, again, I do think that is the case for a lot of people...but there are plenty of people in USTA working hard to improve and move up as well. In my case, I always worry that I don't play up to the potential of my rating! I suppose I'm a bit backward!

Moz
02-28-2009, 01:21 AM
Well, again, I do think that is the case for a lot of people...but there are plenty of people in USTA working hard to improve and move up as well. In my case, I always worry that I don't play up to the potential of my rating! I suppose I'm a bit backward!

Agreed, the difference being plenty rather than all.

raiden031
02-28-2009, 03:59 AM
How many years have you been playing?

From most of your posts it sounds like live in bizarro world or at least some very special place that is not the norm. (although I just figured your perspective just came from your unique situation, most "3.0 players" are not making it to Nationals and playing 4.0 a year later)

Ive been running a team or playing continually from 2002 to 2009, and I ran a team 1999 as well.

Before DNTRP what the OP describes was common place, and even up to the National level I think there was a definate pecking order. (for example whichever team made it out of my state always got crushed by everyone in the Mid_West Sectional, and whatever team made it out of the Mid_West got crushed at Nationals, which was obviously screwed up because a 3.0 player in Illinois shouldnt be that much different then a 3.0 player in Arizona)

I think since DNTRP began at least in the playoffs you're seeing at least more parity there. (different teams make it every year)

At the local level though, they introduced the appeal system so in my state for example 80% of the players that got moved up, appealed.

Now that's not as likely starting this year because of the new rules.

So I guess my point is what the OP is observing may not be the case in many areas over the past few years, but anyone who's been playing for a long time probably has that perception.

In the future if they dont wimp out on the rules again, it may disapear everywhere since players wont be able to appeal if they make the playoffs and that may very well fix it.

Then it's just a matter of who gets moved up and who doesnt which seems to at least change in some areas from year to year.

What also happens sometimes (which happened in my team's case) is if you have a 2nd place team or a 3rd place team and your player does really well against the first place team, your player will get moved up, and their player will not. (because they eventually got crushed in the playoffs)

I have been playing league for 2 years, however I've become a tennislink junkie for my local area. I've gotten to know who most of the 3.0 and 3.5 players are at least enough to put a name to the face. I watch who gets moved up and who doesn't, and we of course have our overly dominant teams. But the more dominant a team is, the more of its players get moved up after each year. My former 3.0 captain has advanced far into the playoffs several times over the past 5 years or so. He basically has to rebuild his team every year from scratch.

I think the reason some areas do better year in and year out is because they are in popular tennis areas where it is easier to find players who they can recruit into the league to play at a level too low.

I think the fallacy I often see on this board is that people here judge an area's strength (meaning the actual skill level of a particular rating) by its representation in the USTA league championship events. The most important thing to look at for any such team is how many of those players are self-rated. Another fallacy I think is to assume that an appeals player is head and shoulders above everyone else. They are only .05 above the top, which is not a lot. They might still beat the bottom players easily, but they will still be competitive with the strong players, and will likely struggle in the post-season against the self-rated players.

As for my rating, it seems impossible to me. When the appeal-email exploit still existed to determine your exact rating, I found mine was a 3.60, which means even if I wasn't a benchmark player, that I was out of appeal range. How can you become a 4.0 beyond appeal range after playing 11 3.0 matches in a row? This makes me believe there is human intervention at Nationals. They either blanket raise everyone's rating at year's end or they raise ratings on an individual basis.

JavierLW
02-28-2009, 07:04 AM
I have been playing league for 2 years, however I've become a tennislink junkie for my local area. I've gotten to know who most of the 3.0 and 3.5 players are at least enough to put a name to the face. I watch who gets moved up and who doesn't, and we of course have our overly dominant teams. But the more dominant a team is, the more of its players get moved up after each year. My former 3.0 captain has advanced far into the playoffs several times over the past 5 years or so. He basically has to rebuild his team every year from scratch.

I think the reason some areas do better year in and year out is because they are in popular tennis areas where it is easier to find players who they can recruit into the league to play at a level too low.

I think the fallacy I often see on this board is that people here judge an area's strength (meaning the actual skill level of a particular rating) by its representation in the USTA league championship events. The most important thing to look at for any such team is how many of those players are self-rated. Another fallacy I think is to assume that an appeals player is head and shoulders above everyone else. They are only .05 above the top, which is not a lot. They might still beat the bottom players easily, but they will still be competitive with the strong players, and will likely struggle in the post-season against the self-rated players.

As for my rating, it seems impossible to me. When the appeal-email exploit still existed to determine your exact rating, I found mine was a 3.60, which means even if I wasn't a benchmark player, that I was out of appeal range. How can you become a 4.0 beyond appeal range after playing 11 3.0 matches in a row? This makes me believe there is human intervention at Nationals. They either blanket raise everyone's rating at year's end or they raise ratings on an individual basis.

I believe you, if people are looking at nationals to try to figure out which areas are better, they would be mislead these days. Because different areas seem to have a successful team every year now. (in the past it wasnt like that)

You probably beat a bunch of players decently that also beat a bunch of other players (so their rating was pretty high for a 3.0).

I think when you get to National's and you do really well the reverse affect applys. You beat a bunch of players who were going to get moved up to 3.5 themselves and the number that resulted from that is 50% of your rating.

I think we've been thru this before, but it's even possible those players already had ratings over what's considered 3.0 (but didnt get DQ'ed yet because they didnt have 3 strikes).

A lot of teams hide self rated players during the local league as well so when they get into the playoffs they have a small sample of matches (that they are crushing) so they can have a very high rating without getting DQ'ed.

That's the "problem" with looking at Nationals as some sort of a benchmark in a skill rated system. If you continue to play one level and then the next and then the next and then the next, eventually there is no way (mathmatically at least) that you'll have 3.0 players in the final outcome.

Again, the OP's talking about a perspective from the local league, not from the Nationals. Everyone who goes to Nationals at least gets moved up, that's not a big deal. It's what happens to those players who get crushed along the way in the playoffs that's debatable. (because they dont always get moved up)

raiden031
02-28-2009, 07:58 AM
A lot of teams hide self rated players during the local league as well so when they get into the playoffs they have a small sample of matches (that they are crushing) so they can have a very high rating without getting DQ'ed.


This is really the only part of the system that I think is broken. Its when players tank matches or partner with a weak doubles partner to weigh their rating down. There is nothing they (USTA) can do though, other than to restrict self-rated players more in league play (ie. no playing at Nationals). But then its unfair to an honest self-rated player who works their tail off to play well and isn't allowed to play at Nationals after getting their team there.


Again, the OP's talking about a perspective from the local league, not from the Nationals. Everyone who goes to Nationals at least gets moved up, that's not a big deal. It's what happens to those players who get crushed along the way in the playoffs that's debatable. (because they dont always get moved up)

Since Nationals has a significant effect on the local league ratings, I think its relevant. I really think people need to look at the quality of the players the person beat before saying the person is overly dominant for going 10-1.

For example, I've seen in tennislink where people who played up at the next level and won more than half their matches, but did not even get moved up to that level at the year's end. Then I click on their opponents and many of them are playing up as well. I see this a lot with women and with doubles players, because it seems women are more likely to play up than men.

My take is that a win-loss record doesn't mean a whole lot, and even the score differential doesn't mean as much either. What means a lot to me is the win-loss of players you beat who were top-level players and not bottom-level players.

There's a guy I play a lot and lately we almost always go into 3 sets, yet I win the third set like 9 out of 10 times. From USTA's standpoint we are equals, but if that were true we'd split the wins nearly equally.

Jim A
02-28-2009, 08:10 AM
[QUOTE=raiden031;3171602.

My take is that a win-loss record doesn't mean a whole lot, and even the score differential doesn't mean as much either. What means a lot to me is the win-loss of players you beat who were top-level players and not bottom-level players.
[/QUOTE]

I wish that differential didn't mean much, but it probably helps me being self-rated. I'm not tanking matches but for the most part if I'm in control, not going to beat someone 0-0, and I'm guilty for keeping the 2nd set a bit closer as I work on weaknesses, so what should be a 1-0 could wind up 1-3 or 2-4 without trying to alter my rating. I'll make it a point to hit more backhands, work on coming to the net, nothing but 2nd serves, etc .My rating is about where it should be as my results against those who do well in tournaments around here is about 50/50

JavierLW
02-28-2009, 10:42 AM
For example, I've seen in tennislink where people who played up at the next level and won more than half their matches, but did not even get moved up to that level at the year's end. Then I click on their opponents and many of them are playing up as well. I see this a lot with women and with doubles players, because it seems women are more likely to play up than men.

My take is that a win-loss record doesn't mean a whole lot, and even the score differential doesn't mean as much either. What means a lot to me is the win-loss of players you beat who were top-level players and not bottom-level players.

There's a guy I play a lot and lately we almost always go into 3 sets, yet I win the third set like 9 out of 10 times. From USTA's standpoint we are equals, but if that were true we'd split the wins nearly equally.

Ive had the same scenerio. There was a guy that I had tons of 6-7, 6-7 losses to and a lot of 3rd set matches. But he was on a run where I lost every single time for the better part of a year.

In my thinking since the NTRP is supposed to be a skill rating (not a ranking), I am definately at the same level of play as that guy, even though he apparently had a mental edge in ultimately winning all of those matches.

So I would agree with the USTA in your case, as far as skill (at least the skill it takes to actually be in a match with someone where if you stubbed your foot and played bad you would of lost) it doesnt matter who wins those matches.

If you were a whole level ahead of him, you should not have close matches with the guy and certainly he shouldnt be any threat of beating you, much less even winning too many games.

That's why they go by games because that's the closest thing they can go by to gauge whether it's "competitive" or not. (and even that's not too accurate sometimes but I guess you cant go too crazy with that idea)

So you're right anyway about some part of that, I dont think we can just rattle off win-loss records, it all depends on who we are talking about.

I know some players who win all the time and they truely just have what it takes to win. Ive been up on them in doubles 5-1, and you can tell they arent the least bit concerned because they are used to winning.

But that's not always the case. I had a player last year that in every match he played except for one, he only lost 3 games or less in the match (singles or doubles).

In the match against the first place team (doubles) he lost in 3 sets along with one of my best doubles players.

My player got moved up (beyond where he could appeal even), one of their players did not because they eventually went to districts and got crushed by some brand new team from some small town in our state.

I believe that my player will do awesome at 4.0 (we will see this year), and I admit that playing 3.5 was sort of a stretch for him (although he hadnt touched a racquet in 4 years), however the fact that the first place team guy didnt get moved up is another example of the weird anamolys that happen with this system when they account for what happens in the playoffs (which I still say for the most part are illegitimate results as far as a skill rating) 50% of your overall rating.

Again the way I gauge that by is that the whole purpose of the USTA League originally was to get new players involved in playing tennis. (it sort of went that the more players that play the more popular the sport will become and their kids will play and we'd have a better chance of seeing the next Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi someday)

Also the league makes money when it gets new players.

But where do most of these new players play? They play at 3.0 (at least in men's tennis in areas that dont have a 2.5 men's).

Well in the current environment in some areas those players will get slaughtered at 3.0.

It's easy for someone in 4.5 to cry that it's full of 4.0 players, but when you follow that all the way down to 3.0, it's a silly argument to cry about the same thing. There is no other place for those players to go.

(that and I believe unless they are in the unique situation like you seem to have, most of them are the REAL 3.0 players, you certainly were not, and there are a lot of players that are not even as good as you that dont belong there either)

I have to be honest though, until this thread, Ive been getting really tired of this arguement. It's fun to speculate on what should and shouldnt happen and as the captain I do try to figure out who the better players are and I notice if they "never lose".

But as a player I dont think anyone should think anything about that sort of thing. Just go out and play tennis and if you play well you can beat anyone. I dont know how many times I see someone lose probably just because they sat around yelling out "wow!!! that guy is so good!!! wow!!!" (usualy followed up by them hitting the ball into the net on the next 10 shots)

So I think it's kind of silly if someone's only motivation is to go to playoffs.(it's cool to go to playoffs, and it's cool to try to go, but if that's the ONLY reason you have to be out there then that's ********). But I think that goes for the rest of us as well. There has to be some other reasons for playing in this league otherwise it's not really worth it.

I use this whole argument more as a suggestion of what the league could do to improve the experience for everyone and allow themselves to continue to easily gain new participants. It's not so we can whine because "it's not fair we lost" or anything.

(although as a captain I would of liked to see that one guy get rated up. :-) )

raiden031
03-01-2009, 04:15 AM
So I think it's kind of silly if someone's only motivation is to go to playoffs.(it's cool to go to playoffs, and it's cool to try to go, but if that's the ONLY reason you have to be out there then that's ********). But I think that goes for the rest of us as well. There has to be some other reasons for playing in this league otherwise it's not really worth it.

I use this whole argument more as a suggestion of what the league could do to improve the experience for everyone and allow themselves to continue to easily gain new participants. It's not so we can whine because "it's not fair we lost" or anything.

(although as a captain I would of liked to see that one guy get rated up. :-) )

I'm in a unique situation where all I wanted to do was play a higher level of tennis, but ended up winning a National championship. Then I ended up finally on a higher level team I dreamed of, only to find myself being a benchwarmer on a first-place mixed team, being the only player not to be scheduled a match yet after 8 out of 14 matches have been played. It is definitely a double-edged sword because you can go from being important on a playoff team to being lucky to even get put in a lineup at all at the higher levels.

I think it would be far better for me to play at 3.5 (I would appeal in a second at this point) because at least I get scheduled for matches to gain experience. I can't even get a 4.0 player to practice with me. Its lame.

JavierLW
03-01-2009, 08:10 AM
I'm in a unique situation where all I wanted to do was play a higher level of tennis, but ended up winning a National championship. Then I ended up finally on a higher level team I dreamed of, only to find myself being a benchwarmer on a first-place mixed team, being the only player not to be scheduled a match yet after 8 out of 14 matches have been played. It is definitely a double-edged sword because you can go from being important on a playoff team to being lucky to even get put in a lineup at all at the higher levels.

I think it would be far better for me to play at 3.5 (I would appeal in a second at this point) because at least I get scheduled for matches to gain experience. I can't even get a 4.0 player to practice with me. Its lame.

Well, that's because they are being lame, it's not because you shouldnt be at 4.0.

Dont play on a first place team then, go find another team that probably isnt going to do so hot and maybe they will let you play more.

And if you think your situation is bad, that's the exact same thing that happens to tons of players at the lowest level (only they may not even find a team). And there are way more of them then there are of you.

raiden031
03-01-2009, 08:44 AM
Well, that's because they are being lame, it's not because you shouldnt be at 4.0.

Dont play on a first place team then, go find another team that probably isnt going to do so hot and maybe they will let you play more.

And if you think your situation is bad, that's the exact same thing that happens to tons of players at the lowest level (only they may not even find a team). And there are way more of them then there are of you.

Well when you don't know anybody at the level, you take the first team that offers a spot. I didn't know they were this good until a couple matches into the season and that's where I realized I was the odd ball who didn't belong. Now I'm stuck on a team where I'm a liability at best.

Anyways the whole point is that its not that the players all rate low to win in the playoffs, but there is a lot of pressure to rate downward caused by the captains wanting to have playoff teams. Most players I think just go along with it to maximize their playing time.

heninfan99
03-01-2009, 09:06 AM
Another fallacy I think is to assume that an appeals player is head and shoulders above everyone else. They are only .05 above the top, which is not a lot. They might still beat the bottom players easily, but they will still be competitive with the strong players, and will likely struggle in the post-season against the self-rated players.

The computer system may say an appeals player is only .05 better but the reality is that if a player is serving up begals & bread sticks to most everyone in the league they are .5 better which is, of course, a big difference in skill level. As Javier noted earlier, players with records like these two:
Totals from 2003-2008(local play only):
Player 1: 36-1...lost 3 sets total
Player 2: 48-3...lost 10 sets total

Now a 3.5 league in California or Florida could better than a 3.5 team in Maine but if a player is dominating on a local level you should get moved.

NetMaster70
03-02-2009, 09:15 AM
RAIDEN YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP
"all I wanted to do was play a higher level of tennis but ended up winning a National championship"

When you won your 3.0 National championship you KNEW you were playing at too low a level and so did your teammates. You all WANTED to play at a low level to have your shot at Nats. If you wanted to play at a higher level you would have played 3.5 last year or higher. It's never an accident when teams win Nats. It takes a bunch of guys that are playing at too low a level. Hell you were DOUBLED BUMPED to 4.0. (And now you are whining about it.)

Bloggers on this site are not as dumb as you think they are.

dataseviltwin
03-02-2009, 09:18 AM
http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/
Click on the stick figure...

JavierLW
03-02-2009, 09:21 AM
Anyways the whole point is that its not that the players all rate low to win in the playoffs, but there is a lot of pressure to rate downward caused by the captains wanting to have playoff teams. Most players I think just go along with it to maximize their playing time.

I agree. I always fault the captain's more then the players. (and the league for allowing it when it's obvious or brought to their attention)

We had one team calling up players where they even admitted it here. "We're looking for a bunch of 4.0 players for our 3.5 SuperTeeem...."

raiden031
03-02-2009, 09:27 AM
RAIDEN YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP
"all I wanted to do was play a higher level of tennis but ended up winning a National championship"

When you won your 3.0 National championship you KNEW you were playing at too low a level and so did your teammates. You all WANTED to play at a low level to have your shot at Nats. If you wanted to play at a higher level you would have played 3.5 last year or higher. It's never an accident when teams win Nats. It takes a bunch of guys that are playing at too low a level. Hell you were DOUBLED BUMPED to 4.0. (And now you are whining about it.)

Bloggers on this site are not as dumb as you think they are.

I only played at the level usta's computer algorithm put me at. The whole point is that people say that you are supposed to play higher, but then you end up not playing at all because nobody gives you the time of day at the higher levels. Last year when I was on this 3.0 team, I didn't even have credibility in the 3.5 league. Everyone assumed I was a strong 3.0 (not a strong 3.5) because of what my rating in the system. 3.5 players didn't think I was that good, because I wasn't even considered a key player while playing on a mediocre 3.5 team.

So you are saying I should have sat out of 3.0 league play, and gotten my 4 matches at 3.5 to conclude the year?

Topaz
03-02-2009, 11:08 AM
^^^But, you have said many times on here, that you joined the 3.0 team because the captain pretty much assured you of a trip to Nationals. Yes, you played at your computer level, but you did it knowing that your actual skill level had changed.

Why do you assume that a 3.5 team wouldn't have played you? If you had joined a weaker 3.5 team, you probably would have had plenty of playing time, though no trip to post season. There are always play-ups teams desperate for bodies. You didn't want to risk it, I get it, but be honest about the choice that you made instead.

Did you do anything wrong? No. Did you play at the level that you honestly knew yourself to be? No. So, you got your trip to Nationals, had a ball, had great success...an experience to remember for a long time, for sure.

Honestly, I know you really wanted the double bump, but I wonder if it is only going to frustrate and hurt you more in the long run...there's a lot of great players and playing experience to be had at 3.5, and you basically skipped it. But you are also young and athletic, so there's a good possibility that you would have been at a 4.0 level after one year of 3.5 anyway.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda...no way to know for sure!

raiden031
03-02-2009, 01:31 PM
^^^But, you have said many times on here, that you joined the 3.0 team because the captain pretty much assured you of a trip to Nationals. Yes, you played at your computer level, but you did it knowing that your actual skill level had changed.

Why do you assume that a 3.5 team wouldn't have played you? If you had joined a weaker 3.5 team, you probably would have had plenty of playing time, though no trip to post season. There are always play-ups teams desperate for bodies. You didn't want to risk it, I get it, but be honest about the choice that you made instead.

Did you do anything wrong? No. Did you play at the level that you honestly knew yourself to be? No. So, you got your trip to Nationals, had a ball, had great success...an experience to remember for a long time, for sure.

Honestly, I know you really wanted the double bump, but I wonder if it is only going to frustrate and hurt you more in the long run...there's a lot of great players and playing experience to be had at 3.5, and you basically skipped it. But you are also young and athletic, so there's a good possibility that you would have been at a 4.0 level after one year of 3.5 anyway.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda...no way to know for sure!

I actually told my captain that I was hesitant about playing for him, but instead wanted to play up. He talked me into it and said its a rare opportunity and and they would have a good chance this year. I knew that the playoffs would be a great challenge to look foward to, so I decided to do it. I figure I had nothing to lose and would get some extra matches because I was unsure how 3.5 would go.

As for 3.5, I only knew one captain at the time so I played on his team, and as far as he knew, I was just a mediocre player. Alot of these 3.5 guys only knew me from doubles, and I'm still not really better than them. I still can't dominate when I'm with a group of 3.5 doubles players, but from what I've found, I can hang just fine in 4.0 doubles. Really I'm only as good as the players around me in doubles. In singles I was still establishing myself as well during this time.

I didn't know what my options were in 3.5 because I didn't know any of the people who could hook me up with a team where I would get alot of matches. If you don't know the right people, its very hard because your only options are 1) have the coordinator tell the captains whose available and the captains seek you out or 2) you get referred to a captain by one of their team members.

Its frustrating because I want to play high level tennis, but its very hard to establish yourself in their social community to where people to want to play with you, or get to where a captain has confidence that you will win matches on their team and want to put you in the lineup. Its difficult to pick the right team when you don't know most of the players or captains.

I wanted to be a 4.0 until recently where now I want to be a 3.5. I almost wrote a letter to my section complaining about my rating but decided not to.

NetMaster70
03-02-2009, 02:55 PM
Raiden,
You INTENTIONALLY played down in order to make a run at Nationals. And so did your teammates. I DONT FAULT U FOR THAT.

But PLEASE spare us all the ridiculous excuses. (u were just trying to get better; 3.5 teams didnt want u; it was your captains fault; it was a big accident, etc.)

You were NOT really trying to just get better. You KNEW what u were doing. It was no accident that your team won Nats. It was not all your captains fault.

You intentioanlly played below your true level in oder to make a run at Nats. You trying to explain that all away is crap. Just man-up and stop the BS.

Topaz
03-02-2009, 03:02 PM
I actually told my captain that I was hesitant about playing for him, but instead wanted to play up. He talked me into it and said its a rare opportunity and and they would have a good chance this year. I knew that the playoffs would be a great challenge to look foward to, so I decided to do it. I figure I had nothing to lose and would get some extra matches because I was unsure how 3.5 would go.

.......


Its frustrating because I want to play high level tennis, but its very hard to establish yourself in their social community to where people to want to play with you, or get to where a captain has confidence that you will win matches on their team and want to put you in the lineup. Its difficult to pick the right team when you don't know most of the players or captains.

I wanted to be a 4.0 until recently where now I want to be a 3.5. I almost wrote a letter to my section complaining about my rating but decided not to.

Well, and I don't necessarily fault you for your decision...really I don't. So many people don't get the chance to go to Nationals and never will...you took an opportunity and really made the most out of it. I can't say I wouldn't have made the same decision in your shoes.

I know you want to play at a high level, but it takes *time* to get there...don't be in such a hurry! :) And the longer you play, the more people you will get to know and you'll find enough contacts to help you with finding a team. And again, it may take a while. I'm switching indoor teams yet again this season, but it takes *time* to find a good fit and the position you want (I'm *gulp* going to be taking a singles spot for the team).

Well, if it turns out that 4.0 is not the place for you, then the computer will take care of it. Honestly, I don't think you'll get bumped down, I just think that you are very used to winning, and that will probably not happen as much after a double bump. And, like I said before, there are plenty of good, competitive matches to be had at 3.5. Not too much under your control there...take this season one match at a time, and learn something from each match!

raiden031
03-02-2009, 03:28 PM
Raiden,
You INTENTIONALLY played down in order to make a run at Nationals. And so did your teammates. I DONT FAULT U FOR THAT.

But PLEASE spare us all the ridiculous excuses. (u were just trying to get better; 3.5 teams didnt want u; it was your captains fault; it was a big accident, etc.)

You were NOT really trying to just get better. You KNEW what u were doing. It was no accident that your team won Nats. It was not all your captains fault.

You intentioanlly played below your true level in oder to make a run at Nats. You trying to explain that all away is crap. Just man-up and stop the BS.

Ok what do you want me to say? I was a COMPUTER-RATED 3.0 at the end of 2007 because I got my *** kicked a few times in 3.0 tennis...in fact I lost two singles matches in straight sets to guys who are *currently* 3.0 rated players. So I was 100% accurate when I filled out the USTA league self-rate questionaire in 2007. From the viewpoint of USTA, I had every right to keep playing at that level of play because they suggested it by assigning me that rating.

So I don't know what I said that makes me "full of crap". I have been honest about my own playing ability and motivations and always acknowledge the difference between fact and my opinion. For 2 years I have been posting about my ambitions to become a better player, not to win Nationals. I did it first as a favor to my captain because he was nice to me and took me in on his summer combo team in '07 and played me alot. I did it second because I enjoy the added competitiveness associated with championship events, and wanted to travel to play tennis.

How is what I'm saying excuses? I was on one 3.5 team and played 4 matches. If I didn't play 3.0, then that would've been my usta season right there from April til June and thats it. Am I supposed to magically find the perfect team to give me the match experience I want without even knowing any of the captains?

You say you don't fault me but you are attacking me. What should have been my course of action back in early '08?

raiden031
03-02-2009, 03:33 PM
I know you want to play at a high level, but it takes *time* to get there...don't be in such a hurry! :) And the longer you play, the more people you will get to know and you'll find enough contacts to help you with finding a team. And again, it may take a while. I'm switching indoor teams yet again this season, but it takes *time* to find a good fit and the position you want (I'm *gulp* going to be taking a singles spot for the team).

Well, if it turns out that 4.0 is not the place for you, then the computer will take care of it. Honestly, I don't think you'll get bumped down, I just think that you are very used to winning, and that will probably not happen as much after a double bump. And, like I said before, there are plenty of good, competitive matches to be had at 3.5. Not too much under your control there...take this season one match at a time, and learn something from each match!

I don't really care about winning matches. I just want to get some match experience at the level in which I'm rated. But its hard being at the low end because you are competing against your teammates who 1) are good friends with the captain and 2) have been playing at the level for years and may be better than you anyways.

That was really my whole point in this thread, and it went off on a tangent. The fact is there is lots of pressure to play downwards regardless of what the individual player wants.

JavierLW
03-02-2009, 03:49 PM
You say you don't fault me but you are attacking me. What should have been my course of action back in early '08?

Quit tennis and concentrate on golf? :-) You're too good at tennis, it's not fair!!!

I dont think you did anything wrong. You had a 3.0 rating, and unlike most people we hear about you legitimately did get better within a very small period of time.

I think asking someone to police themselves in those circumstances is a little much.

Some people (like in my area) play a short season, they stay at their level and they work on their game thru the whole winter. They may be WAY better by the time the next season rolls around but they dont always know. (even if they say they are)

So I dont think there is anything wrong anyway with experiencing some success if they've improved (whether that just be winning matches or getting your picture taken with your shirt).

I think complaints still need to remain with the people who purposely game the system, and people who go out of their way to circumvent the rules.

And it should be directed at the league if they are looking the other way or in some local areas they actually encourage having players play under their level. (because they look good if they go on to nationals or whatever....)

I think it's fair now though, you got moved up to 4.0, you are a benchmark and you cant appeal. If you complained and somehow got them to move you down to 3.5 now then I think that's kind of silly.

The fact that you ended up on some team that may not play you isnt any reason why you should be 3.5, because there are probably 3.5 players on 3.5 teams that go thru the same deal if they end up on some team that turns out to not put them in an ideal situation. (even worse there are 3.0 men who probably cant even find a team because they are full of 4.0 players who want to compete with the likes of your team)

kylebarendrick
03-02-2009, 04:06 PM
There is definitely a lesson to be learned in this...

If you want to play regularly, then you need to reach an agreement with the captain before joining a team. I've made the same mistake. Raiden's 4.0 rating is not the reason why he isn't getting played. Being a weaker player on a strong team is - especially if the captain wants to go deep into the playoffs.

As we move up and down in ratings, many of us will find ourselves at the top or bottom of a level at different times. When you are the top of a level, you will be in high demand and you can get plenty of playing time on ambitious teams. When you are at the bottom, you'll generally only get playing time on bad teams.

FWIW getting four matches last year as a 3.0 on a 3.5 team is about as good as you can generally hope for. I'd have done the same thing you did in your position (and in fact I did a few years ago).

Topaz
03-02-2009, 04:09 PM
When you are at the bottom, you'll generally only get playing time on bad teams.

FWIW getting four matches last year as a 3.0 on a 3.5 team is about as good as you can generally hope for. I'd have done the same thing you did in your position (and in fact I did a few years ago).

But even if your team is at the bottom, you can individually play well enough to catch another captain's attention, or your results can speak for themselves.

When I played up at 3.5 as a 3.0 I had a lot of matches...it was a 'play-up' 'for fun' team, about half 3.5s and half 3.0s, and if I was available, I got played. All depends on the individual situation you can find for yourself, I suppose.

raiden031
03-02-2009, 04:22 PM
There is definitely a lesson to be learned in this...

If you want to play regularly, then you need to reach an agreement with the captain before joining a team. I've made the same mistake. Raiden's 4.0 rating is not the reason why he isn't getting played. Being a weaker player on a strong team is - especially if the captain wants to go deep into the playoffs.

As we move up and down in ratings, many of us will find ourselves at the top or bottom of a level at different times. When you are the top of a level, you will be in high demand and you can get plenty of playing time on ambitious teams. When you are at the bottom, you'll generally only get playing time on bad teams.

FWIW getting four matches last year as a 3.0 on a 3.5 team is about as good as you can generally hope for. I'd have done the same thing you did in your position (and in fact I did a few years ago).

I agree with this and that is why I am not bitter towards anyone but the system for being the way that it is, and myself for not being more selective. I don't blame a winning captain for benching players when they haven't promised anything to those players.

But my whole thing was I didn't know if I even had a chance to get on any other team because I knew none of the captains and I only knew like 1 person in the division who had committed to a team at the time, and they referred me to this one and I took it. It was the only team I had any contact with. I didn't do my homework and now I'm wasting away valuable experience during the mixed season and who knows what will happen on my men's team.

But it still sucks when you're caught up in that situation because it makes you want to quit usta altogether. I've met a few people in my journeys who have quit USTA tennis for various reasons and I never understood why until now.

NetMaster70
03-02-2009, 07:11 PM
Raiden,
I repeat I Do not blame u for playing down. I blame you for all the lame, ignorant excuses you are making to try to justify it. How much clearer can I get?

raiden031
03-03-2009, 03:59 AM
Raiden,
I repeat I Do not blame u for playing down. I blame you for all the lame, ignorant excuses you are making to try to justify it. How much clearer can I get?

So what is the point that you've been trying to make. You started off by attacking my post about wanting to become a better player and winning a Nationals title in the process. To prove what? You want me to *admit* that my only goal in tennis is to win National titles at beginner levels? That I thrive on doing this? Thats not true.

For 2.5 years I have been doing everything I can to become a better player. Then in the middle of this, I was presented an opportunity to play on a dominant team that had potential for Nationals, so I took it. I was not proactive in finding this team, the captain asked me to join because he knew I had potential. I didn't join because I saw myself winning a trophy, I joined because I saw myself getting competitive experience where there is more pressure because there is something at stake. I chose to maximize my usta experience instead of minimize it. I don't see any lame, ignorant excuses there.

That doesn't take away from my *real* goal which is to eventually reach 4.5.

EDIT: Let me make another thing clear. I comitted to play on that team in February 2008 and Nationals occured in late October 2008. We're talking 8 months that went by. If I had not played those matches at Nationals, I would be a 3.5 in the system right now. During that time I spent 6 months hitting with a ball machine 2-3 days a week. I played about 40 singles matches outside of usta competition. So my game jumped considerably between the start and finish of the season.

NetMaster70
03-03-2009, 09:46 AM
blah, blah, blah, blah . . . .

JavierLW
03-03-2009, 10:26 AM
blah, blah, blah, blah . . . .

No, not "blah, blah, blah, blah...". He's making a valid point.

It's only an "excuse" when he's using it to justify something that he didnt wrong, and he knows he didnt do anything wrong.

You have to be careful who you attack, because if you go around attacking every single person who was at nationals then it destroys any argument you have over the people WHO DID CHEAT.

Raiden was in a very unique situation. It's not an excuse it's just a fact.

NetMaster70
03-03-2009, 12:44 PM
Raiden INTENTIONALLY played below his appropriate level in order to win trip to Nationals. AND THAT IS A FACT. It is also a fact that EVERY person playing down can site "special" circumstances.

Again, in case you have trouble remembering what u read. I dont fault him for playing down. Plenty of guys do it and I've done it as well. I fault him for lame and ignorant excuses which he uses to try to justify and explain what happened.

Lame & Ignorant Excuses:
1) The captain pursued me (so what?)
2) I had a 3.0 computer rating (so what?)
3) I really JUST wanted to get better (A lie. If that was true he would have played 3.5.)
4) I couldn't find any 3.5 teams (Total BS)
5) Winning Nats "just happened". ( A lie. Winning Nats never just happens. It takes a bunch of our of level players.)
6) He didnt do it to win a trophy. (Total BS. He played on that team BECAUSE he wanted a shot at Nats and certainly he wanted it win it.)

He was one of a group of guys, all way out of level, that wanted to take a shot at Nats. And he was one of the biggest offenders on the team He was DOUBLED bumped to level 4.0. He KNEW he was too good to play 3.0 but he played anyway.

So, Raiden, just be truthful and say that. We are all sick of the BS excuses and your explanations are just a very poor attempt to avoid criticism.

Raiden's comments make him look like a fool. Javier, your comments make you look like one also. I know he's your pen pal but he intentionally played down to take a shot at Nationals. All the rationalizations are nothing but BS.

If I was Raiden I would have done exactly the same thing he did. But I wouldnt later blow smoke up everyone's butt.

Jim A
03-03-2009, 01:22 PM
A lot of people are in similar situations to Raiden, even if it doesn't include a trip to Nationals. I put myself in the same boat

*I'm a self-rated 3.0, played in a ladder that was supposed to have a sanctioned 3.0 tournament at the end. However the majority of players weren't USTA members so they just scrapped that part of it. Cost me some points and a 3.0C rating
*Coming back from a 13 year layoff, so i rated down 0.5 from my past experience being that I'm older, fatter, slower and didn't even touch as tennis ball during that time other than to throw one to my dog
*The only person who has offered me a spot on a team is someone I met through a club league, who is taking over a 3.0 team that did well last year, only loss was to the eventual champions. We should be ok
*I put all my info looking for Adult & Mixed teams in TennisLink and have not heard one response back. This includes 3.0/3.5 and 6.0/7.0 levels. Every opportunity that has come to me is through people I've met (a couple offers on the Mixed side). So I can see how Raiden hasn't found a team, I only know so many people at the moment.
*I'm about to have quite a bit more time to work on my game, the weather is getting nicer I'm in another ladder (3.5 with mostly 3.0's playing up unfortunately) so I expect my game to improve

the biggest issue with the USTA leagues though is that, around here at least, you put your team together in Jan/Feb, register in March, 9 week season May-early July, then Nationals if you make it isn't until OCTOBER, the time between the end of season and Nationals is longer than the actual season. What does the USTA expect? People are going to train their asses off being that close to the championship. I'm sure my team would be doing drills, cut back on the social (a little) etc to give ourselves the best chance.

Giving someone 3 months to prepare for a couple matches is like the MLB saying they won't drug test after July 4th through the World Series. Everyone should be much improved and by that point any chance of being dynamically bumped should be out the window since the 9 week season takes up the majority of the year.

A league that has play from May-July, should be wrapped up by the end of that month with Nationals in early August. But then that interferes with the nice contract that is likely signed by the USTA to hold them in AZ and who wants to play in 115 heat even if it is *dry*

JavierLW
03-03-2009, 01:29 PM
Raiden INTENTIONALLY played below his appropriate level in order to win trip to Nationals. AND THAT IS A FACT. It is also a fact that EVERY person playing down can site "special" circumstances.

Again, in case you have trouble remembering what u read. I dont fault him for playing down. Plenty of guys do it and I've done it as well. I fault him for lame and ignorant excuses which he uses to try to justify and explain what happened.

Lame & Ignorant Excuses:
1) The captain pursued me (so what?)
2) I had a 3.0 computer rating (so what?)
3) I really JUST wanted to get better (A lie. If that was true he would have played 3.5.)
4) I couldn't find any 3.5 teams (Total BS)
5) Winning Nats "just happened". ( A lie. Winning Nats never just happens. It takes a bunch of our of level players.)
6) He didnt do it to win a trophy. (Total BS. He played on that team BECAUSE he wanted a shot at Nats and certainly he wanted it win it.)

He was one of a group of guys, all way out of level, that wanted to take a shot at Nats. And he was one of the biggest offenders on the team He was DOUBLED bumped to level 4.0. He KNEW he was too good to play 3.0 but he played anyway.

So, Raiden, just be truthful and say that. We are all sick of the BS excuses and your explanations are just a very poor attempt to avoid criticism.

Raiden's comments make him look like a fool. Javier, your comments make you look like one also. I know he's your pen pal but he intentionally played down to take a shot at Nationals. All the rationalizations are nothing but BS.

If I was Raiden I would have done exactly the same thing he did. But I wouldnt later blow smoke up everyone's butt.

Listen buddy, take it down a notch will you?

If you want to talk about lame? How about continually saying you "dont blame" someone for something, but then you go on and on and on and on writing a novel where you paint a picture of someone laying out all the reasons why they should look bad.

Listen Im the first guy on here that is going to REAM someone if they are cheating, and that's happened quite a few times.

But what the heck is your point? You seem to be trying to prove that raiden's a cheater, yet you acknowledge that you are one as well because you would do the same thing?

But you're supposed to feel better about yourself because you didnt offer up "lame excuses"????

Why do we care??? Trust me if "everyone was sick of his excuses", there would be more then me, you and raiden on this post, this thing would be 20 pages long by now. (check out some of the other dandys from a year ago after the 2007 nationals when some of the cheaters posted on here)

You're just not making any sense. Im sorry but it just doesnt. You say you would do "the exact same thing", but any reason he's given is a "lame excuse".

So which is it? Are you a cheater as well then? Or do you think it was okay that he did what he did? And if you think it was okay, then why is there such a big deal that he's given some reasoning behind it? (personally I think it's a miscommunication problem, at first the way I read it he was just explaining the situation and later on it was just in reply to your goofy out of the blue posts)

And as far as your character assasination on me, that makes you look even more foolish and childish about it and it also destroys your argument. Im not even going to waste my time defending myself against that.

It also makes me feel glad that you are not running the USTA League... You would not be running it for very long if I had anything to do with it.

If you cant see why any of these are valid excuses yet you say you would do the same thing, that seems to me that you will find it hard to actually do anything to anyone when they really do break the rules.

You have to be impartial and you have to be able to consider the facts, you cant get all emotional about them because it "seems lame" or "seems wrong" to you.

NetMaster70
03-03-2009, 02:40 PM
I dont know anything about 2007. But I'll bet the only difference here is that Raiden is your pen pal _ so you defend him. He intemtionally played at too low a level. But he's not a cheat because he is your buudy. The special circunstances are pure crap and you know it.

JavierLW
03-03-2009, 02:53 PM
I dont know anything about 2007. But I'll bet the only difference here is that Raiden is your pen pal _ so you defend him. He intemtionally played at too low a level. But he's not a cheat because he is your buudy. The special circunstances are pure crap and you know it.

No, I dont know raiden, not that I needed to answer that question.

Im making a big deal about it because I reserve the right to accuse, riducule, make fun of, demonize, etc...., people WHO ACTUALLY CHEAT.

Your goofy illogical comments make everyone who wants to accuse someone else of cheating look bad.

It's important because the league claims that nobody cheats, or at least they dont want to acknowledge it. They used to claim that the self rating system would be awesome because supposably from the rating clinics "most people play at the level they belong at". (which wasnt really true and there are probably more existing problems from cleaning that mess up then any of the newer rules they put in place)

So if you come off looking like some kind of irrational ning-ka-poop they will just ignore you and then they spend more energy defending themselves against the prospect of all the people coming out of the woodword to cry "cheater! cheater! cheater!", then they will addressing real problems.

(the fact that you "arent even blaming him for anything" makes it all that much more weird and pointless)

You cant say "He intentionally played at too low a level", and then say "you are not blaming him....". Either you are or you or not.

What is your point? You claim you are "not blaming him", but "you would do the same thing". Yet you critize me for not thinking he's a cheat?

Listen maybe in your world it's all about how people look and what your perception is, but that's not how it is everywhere.

Why are we wasting our time listening to you complain about how someone else is perceived because they are "making excuses" for something that you "dont blame them for"???? What is this, the Ann Lander's message board or something???

raiden031
03-03-2009, 03:10 PM
Raiden INTENTIONALLY played below his appropriate level in order to win trip to Nationals. AND THAT IS A FACT. It is also a fact that EVERY person playing down can site "special" circumstances.

Again, in case you have trouble remembering what u read. I dont fault him for playing down. Plenty of guys do it and I've done it as well. I fault him for lame and ignorant excuses which he uses to try to justify and explain what happened.

Lame & Ignorant Excuses:
1) The captain pursued me (so what?)
2) I had a 3.0 computer rating (so what?)
3) I really JUST wanted to get better (A lie. If that was true he would have played 3.5.)
4) I couldn't find any 3.5 teams (Total BS)
5) Winning Nats "just happened". ( A lie. Winning Nats never just happens. It takes a bunch of our of level players.)
6) He didnt do it to win a trophy. (Total BS. He played on that team BECAUSE he wanted a shot at Nats and certainly he wanted it win it.)

He was one of a group of guys, all way out of level, that wanted to take a shot at Nats. And he was one of the biggest offenders on the team He was DOUBLED bumped to level 4.0. He KNEW he was too good to play 3.0 but he played anyway.

So, Raiden, just be truthful and say that. We are all sick of the BS excuses and your explanations are just a very poor attempt to avoid criticism.

Raiden's comments make him look like a fool. Javier, your comments make you look like one also. I know he's your pen pal but he intentionally played down to take a shot at Nationals. All the rationalizations are nothing but BS.

If I was Raiden I would have done exactly the same thing he did. But I wouldnt later blow smoke up everyone's butt.

You are a real piece of work.

I don't see where I am full of BS or lying in this thread. I have probably stated for the past 1 1/2 years that I thought my true skill level exceeded my computer rating. Is this the confession you are looking for?

What smoke did I blow up anyone's butt? I simply pointed out that I went from being an important member on a National championship team to a benchwarmer who doesn't know anybody in my skill division.

raiden031
03-03-2009, 03:18 PM
*I put all my info looking for Adult & Mixed teams in TennisLink and have not heard one response back. This includes 3.0/3.5 and 6.0/7.0 levels. Every opportunity that has come to me is through people I've met (a couple offers on the Mixed side). So I can see how Raiden hasn't found a team, I only know so many people at the moment.


I put ads in with our league coordinator and never heard from any of the captains regarding my ads.

Let me get it straight though that I did find teams for 8.0 mixed and 4.0 men's, but because I didn't know people I had a limited selection (both of which were referrals from someone on that team) and so I really took the first teams that I got in contact with to avoid not getting a team at all. I couldn't afford to waste much time not knowing if any other teams would find me (They don't give out the captain's contact info but instead the league coordinators send the captains a list of players who are looking for teams and the captains reach out to players).

JavierLW
03-03-2009, 03:34 PM
You are a real piece of work.

I don't see where I am full of BS or lying in this thread. I have probably stated for the past 1 1/2 years that I thought my true skill level exceeded my computer rating. Is this the confession you are looking for?

What smoke did I blow up anyone's butt? I simply pointed out that I went from being an important member on a National championship team to a benchwarmer who doesn't know anybody in my skill division.

Dont you get it? :-)

He said he would do the EXACT SAME THING that you did, but you "sound lame" to him.

That's what this is all about. (apparently.....)

Maybe when we post we should check in with him to make sure we are not "being lame". (since obviously according to him he doesnt blame you for your actual actions)

raiden031
03-03-2009, 04:15 PM
Dont you get it? :-)

He said he would do the EXACT SAME THING that you did, but you "sound lame" to him.

That's what this is all about. (apparently.....)

Maybe when we post we should check in with him to make sure we are not "being lame". (since obviously according to him he doesnt blame you for your actual actions)

Did you see the stunt he just pulled? I can't believe he's not banned yet. How can someone have that much anger for a complete stranger.

Topaz
03-03-2009, 04:20 PM
^^^Report his post Raiden...click on the little triangle sign with the exclamation point on it.

raiden031
03-03-2009, 04:22 PM
^^^Report his post Raiden...click on the little triangle sign with the exclamation point on it.

I'm talking about the entire thread he created that was already deleted.

Topaz
03-03-2009, 04:24 PM
^^^Oh, missed that...kinda glad I did. Again, let the admins know...they might not catch everything.

raiden031
03-03-2009, 04:25 PM
^^^Oh, missed that...kinda glad I did. Again, let the admins know...they might not catch everything.

Yeah it was the "Sandbagger of the Year" with my first & last name and location in the topic of the thread.

Topaz
03-03-2009, 04:27 PM
Whoa!!!! Well, that should take care of him pretty quick!

What...did you make some enemies at Nationals last year? My goodness!

SlapShot
03-03-2009, 04:29 PM
You are a real piece of work.

I don't see where I am full of BS or lying in this thread. I have probably stated for the past 1 1/2 years that I thought my true skill level exceeded my computer rating. Is this the confession you are looking for?

What smoke did I blow up anyone's butt? I simply pointed out that I went from being an important member on a National championship team to a benchwarmer who doesn't know anybody in my skill division.

I have been very much in your shoes, except at the 3.5 level. Luckily, I've gotten to know a lot of 4.0 captains and am now playing 4.0 exclusively. Had I not known a captain, I would have been mired at 3.5 until I got my bump, regardless of where my actual level of play is.

raiden031
03-03-2009, 04:30 PM
Whoa!!!! Well, that should take care of him pretty quick!

What...did you make some enemies at Nationals last year? My goodness!

The guy is nuts. Notice how he kept emphasizing that he would do the same thing, yet he is trashing me the whole time about it. Somehow I must have pushed his buttons to make that thread but I was trying to be polite despite his abuse.

JavierLW
03-03-2009, 07:13 PM
The guy is nuts. Notice how he kept emphasizing that he would do the same thing, yet he is trashing me the whole time about it. Somehow I must have pushed his buttons to make that thread but I was trying to be polite despite his abuse.

For the record, he tryed to put the post back again around 9:15 tonight.

He apparently has some pent up issues which forces him to be way too overly concerned about how he perceives others.

Like I said, I see people like this all the time. All they care about is how others are perceived and what other people are doing, usually because they are insecure about themselves.

That's EXACTLY why I think when discussing sandbagging it ought to be a discuss on what the league can do to make the experience better for everyone, or it can be about whether ratings are valid or not or if the system is working but not about attacking people who are there.

(or even worse attacking them because they "sound lame"...)

heninfan99
03-04-2009, 09:53 AM
The guy is nuts. Notice how he kept emphasizing that he would do the same thing, yet he is trashing me the whole time about it. Somehow I must have pushed his buttons to make that thread but I was trying to be polite despite his abuse.

Why do decent threads get clogged with this petty stuff? :-) Raiden, you said your peace and re-phrased it about 30 times. We get it. You love the system and you never purposely sandbagged and you made it to the Nationals. Congrats!

raiden031
03-04-2009, 11:24 AM
Why do decent threads get clogged with this petty stuff? :-) Raiden, you said your peace and re-phrased it about 30 times. We get it. You love the system and you never purposely sandbagged and you made it to the Nationals. Congrats!

I was defending my side of the story from personal attacks. I'm not trying to force anything on anyone but him. The guy was a moron and accomplished what he wanted. Then he trashed me by my full name on other threads and the mods did nothing about it. He won that battle but I am certainly done arguing on the subject. So don't worry I will spare you from any more.