PDA

View Full Version : NTRP Bump - The hard numbers


JRstriker12
11-30-2009, 02:00 PM
Check it out:
http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/reports/NTRP/FindRating.asp

FWIW- Looks like 4.5 is getting a good infusion with about 11,000 4.0's being promoted. This is something, considering there are a total of 18,000 4.5 to start.

By far the biggest moves were at the 3.0 level, with 35,000 being pushed up to 3.5, and at 3.5 with 36,000 being pushed to 4.0.

Oh, and just for laughs, only one 5.5 was bumped up nationwide out of 143 players. Poor player - must be lonely towars the top. ;)

OrangePower
11-30-2009, 02:42 PM
Threw the numbers into Excel:

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy323/vic94597bucket/levels.jpg

Looks like all they did was redistribute a little from the 'left' side of the curve to the 'right' side. Basically, 3.0 got smaller while 4.0 increased by a roughly similar amount, and 2.5 got smaller while 4.5 increased also by a similar amount. But 3.5 remains virtually unchanged in terms of total number and percentage.

I'm a bit dissappointed - this would have been a good opportunity to also 'flatten' the curve a bit, by making 3.5 less in terms of total percentage.

And as it turns out, the sum of 3.5s and 4.0s after the change is actually more than the sum before the change.

gameboy
11-30-2009, 02:54 PM
I agree with you OrangePower, they really should have made this into a better looking bell curve.

I think the ratings would be much better if they had 20k each 2.5 & 5.0, 80k each at 3.0 and 4.0, and about 100k for 3.5.

raiden031
11-30-2009, 03:00 PM
I agree with you OrangePower, they really should have made this into a better looking bell curve.

I think the ratings would be much better if they had 20k each 2.5 & 5.0, 80k each at 3.0 and 4.0, and about 100k for 3.5.

I don't think this is meant to resemble a curve, it just does naturally. The reality is that the majority of players hover around the 3.5 range.

OrangePower
11-30-2009, 03:18 PM
I don't think this is meant to resemble a curve, it just does naturally. The reality is that the majority of players hover around the 3.5 range.

The rating levels are completely artificial constructs. Meaning, there is nothing inherent about a 3.5, or a 4.5, etc. Really, the levels are just tools used to sub-divide the overall playing population into subsets, in order to ensure a certain level of competitiveness.

So the graph can be made to look like whatever the USTA wants it to look like. Question is, what would provide the greatest degree of overall competition. From a statistical point of view, the answer to that is a normalized distribution with a relatively high standard deviation. That translates to a relatively flat curve so that there is not as much concentration in the 'middle' rating level (in this case, 3.5).

JRstriker12
11-30-2009, 03:28 PM
I agree with you OrangePower, they really should have made this into a better looking bell curve.

I think the ratings would be much better if they had 20k each 2.5 & 5.0, 80k each at 3.0 and 4.0, and about 100k for 3.5.

FYI - there are only about 3,000 5.0 players to start with- there's no way they get 20K in that group as that's a pretty high level of play...

Fedace
11-30-2009, 03:31 PM
what is the difference between computer and Dynamic rating ??

GeoffB
11-30-2009, 03:38 PM
The rating levels are completely artificial constructs. Meaning, there is nothing inherent about a 3.5, or a 4.5, etc. Really, the levels are just tools used to sub-divide the overall playing population into subsets, in order to ensure a certain level of competitiveness.

So the graph can be made to look like whatever the USTA wants it to look like. Question is, what would provide the greatest degree of overall competition. From a statistical point of view, the answer to that is a normalized distribution with a relatively high standard deviation. That translates to a relatively flat curve so that there is not as much concentration in the 'middle' rating level (in this case, 3.5).

There's one possible problem here - ratings are also supposed to correspond to NTRP descriptions of a level of play, which means the distribution isn't completely under the USTA's control. This was also part of the stated motivation behind this big upward adjustment - that the discrepancy between the description of an ntrp category and the level of play observed in that category league had gotten to the point where the descriptions were clearly out of sync with the number.

That said, the USTA could do what you suggest by getting rid of "objective" descriptions of play, and instead defining ntrp levels in purely relative terms. Ie., instead of saying that at 4.0 "You have dependable strokes, including directional control and depth on both forehand and backhand sides on moderate-paced shot..." the USTA would define a 4.0 as someone who usually beats a 3.5 but rarely beats a 4.5.

OrangePower
11-30-2009, 03:53 PM
There's one possible problem here - ratings are also supposed to correspond to NTRP descriptions of a level of play, which means the distribution isn't completely under the USTA's control. This was also part of the stated motivation behind this big upward adjustment - that the discrepancy between the description of an ntrp category and the level of play observed in that category league had gotten to the point where the descriptions were clearly out of sync with the number.

That said, the USTA could do what you suggest by getting rid of "objective" descriptions of play, and instead defining ntrp levels in purely relative terms. Ie., instead of saying that at 4.0 "You have dependable strokes, including directional control and depth on both forehand and backhand sides on moderate-paced shot..." the USTA would define a 4.0 as someone who usually beats a 3.5 but rarely beats a 4.5.

Right, well, except that many (including myself) would argue that the existing USTA descriptions of play levels are so subjective that they might as well be arbitrary :)

Taking the bolded description for 4.0 as an example, could you, using just that description and nothing else, accurately distinguish and differentiate between a 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5?

fe6250
11-30-2009, 04:10 PM
Right, well, except that many (including myself) would argue that the existing USTA descriptions of play levels are so subjective that they might as well be arbitrary :)

Taking the bolded description for 4.0 as an example, could you, using just that description and nothing else, accurately distinguish and differentiate between a 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5?

Well my trick knee does start to ache whenever a 4.5 is present...:)

Al Czervik
11-30-2009, 04:32 PM
SE Michigan here. I have played 3.5 summer league three times. The first two years, they bumped 3-4 guys per team. This year, they did it to 8 guys on our 15 person team. Three or four of those bumps make sense, but not the rest. So, I guess this is not just a local thing, huh?

GeoffB
11-30-2009, 07:47 PM
Right, well, except that many (including myself) would argue that the existing USTA descriptions of play levels are so subjective that they might as well be arbitrary :)

Taking the bolded description for 4.0 as an example, could you, using just that description and nothing else, accurately distinguish and differentiate between a 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5?

Completely on their own, no, but I do think that they become more useful when you combine them with benchmarks. I agree with the USTA that actual play at each level has gotten increasingly out of synch with the descriptions, which means that I don't find the descriptions completely meaningless.

That said, I'd agree that they aren't especially useful and are very subjective. Nobody seems to use them for self-rating - instead, they go by previous experience and observing play. And once you get a computer rating, obviously they don't matter at all. So I think it probably would be a good idea to dispense with the idea that ratings should correspond to a written description of play, and balance out the divisions instead.

raiden031
11-30-2009, 08:32 PM
The rating levels are completely artificial constructs. Meaning, there is nothing inherent about a 3.5, or a 4.5, etc. Really, the levels are just tools used to sub-divide the overall playing population into subsets, in order to ensure a certain level of competitiveness.

So the graph can be made to look like whatever the USTA wants it to look like. Question is, what would provide the greatest degree of overall competition. From a statistical point of view, the answer to that is a normalized distribution with a relatively high standard deviation. That translates to a relatively flat curve so that there is not as much concentration in the 'middle' rating level (in this case, 3.5).

You cannot answer this question with statistics. The only way to provide the greatest degree of competition is to group all players of similar ability into the same level. If that means 40, 50, or even 60% of players belong at 3.5, then so be it.

The only reason USTA should flatten it out is if they believe the concentration towards 3.5 doesn't reflect true skill levels. This was determined to be the case, but I dont' think its for any other reason other than observations of competition at the championship events and how the players are increasingly better than they were intended to be.

gameboy
11-30-2009, 11:27 PM
FYI - there are only about 3,000 5.0 players to start with- there's no way they get 20K in that group as that's a pretty high level of play...

The ratings are completely arbitrary. It can be whatever USTA wants it to be.

The fact is, the distribution of skill level is going to resemble a bell curve. Most natural things do. It is just like people's height, vast majority are going to fall within a foot of the average.

The same holds for tennis ratings. Most players are going to fall within .5 of the median/average. You should just arbitrarily designate the rating (in this case, 3.5) and assign most of the people within .5 of that rating (3.0 and 4.0) and gradually fan out from there.

They should move people freely in and out of ratings based on their records and that would ensure fair play.

GeoffB
12-01-2009, 05:29 AM
You cannot answer this question with statistics. The only way to provide the greatest degree of competition is to group all players of similar ability into the same level. If that means 40, 50, or even 60% of players belong at 3.5, then so be it.

The only reason USTA should flatten it out is if they believe the concentration towards 3.5 doesn't reflect true skill levels. This was determined to be the case, but I dont' think its for any other reason other than observations of competition at the championship events and how the players are increasingly better than they were intended to be.

I agree - there's a hard limit to how much rebalancing can be done here. Trying to push it any farther (ie., just arbitrarily moving the top 20% of 4.0s into 4.5) might just result in uncompetitive divisions and lots of blowouts. Now, if 95% of players belonged in 3.5, that would probably argue for some kind of restructuring (maybe add divisions or something like that)...

holaturtle
12-01-2009, 05:38 AM
Weird. In my area all players but 5 have been updated. We still have a date earlier in the year with S-status. My teammates were bumped up and I'm better then them so I was expecting a bump also. There seems to be no rhyme or reason on the order these are being updated I assume?? Am I not getting bumped up? or have they just not gotten to me yet since it still shows an earlier date?

Also, if you are bumped up then benchmarked what does that mean? Some are C and some are B after the bump up. Are the B's better than the C's??

:-?

JRstriker12
12-01-2009, 08:28 AM
The ratings are completely arbitrary. It can be whatever USTA wants it to be.

The fact is, the distribution of skill level is going to resemble a bell curve. Most natural things do. It is just like people's height, vast majority are going to fall within a foot of the average.

The same holds for tennis ratings. Most players are going to fall within .5 of the median/average. You should just arbitrarily designate the rating (in this case, 3.5) and assign most of the people within .5 of that rating (3.0 and 4.0) and gradually fan out from there.

They should move people freely in and out of ratings based on their records and that would ensure fair play.

The ratings may be somewhat arbitrary, but if the median is around 3.5 or 4.0 then 5.0 is pretty high up on the scale. There are not that many people who could compete (have competitve matches) at the 5.0 level. The increase in ratings aren't linear - the jump from 3.0 to 4.0 is huge, just as the Jump from 5.0 - 6.0 is huge.

IIRC - people's ratings are updated depending on thier play - so if there were in fact 20K 5.0 players out there, you would see that in the numbers. As it is, there are barely even 20K 4.5 players out there. Even if you were rated lower, you can always play up, but most players are going to stay at a level where they can compete.

drewski711
12-01-2009, 08:35 AM
Does anyone know if the computer takes into account the closeness of matches and/or where people play when they play on league teams? Since I was one of the better guys on my team, I played a lot of 1 singles and stayed in some close matches but lost. The guys who beat my are mostly getting bumped up and the guys on my team who played doubles well are getting bumped up since they had winning records (although I can beat most of them routinely)

KFwinds
12-01-2009, 08:41 AM
Yep; I'm in the Chicago area and the ratings went crazy here as well. The 3.5 leagues really got cleaned out, and a good number of 4.0's got bumped as well.

Being a 4.0 currently and having played a number of years against some of the 3.5's that were bumped I can say that this huge sweep really did nothing to promote a more level playing field in this area. If anything, it's going to be much worse (especially for the "new" 4.0's). If they (USTA) are going to do things this way they would be much better off basing people's ratings on their win/loss records.

DrewRafter8
12-01-2009, 09:00 AM
In my area, they bumped around 35% of 2009 3.0's, 30% of 3.5's, 16% of 4.0's, and 7% of 4.5's. This leads to a question of quality and a massive logjam at 3.5 and 4.0. I am not sure what my feelings are on all of the moving. I just know that we had some very quality tennis at our top level around here. 5.0 is death in East NC and they did not bump enough to make any difference here. I understand what they were trying to accomplish, bump up some of the better players in each division, but I think they failed in terms of the big picture. There are a lot of players in my area that will struggle at the new level. Some needed to be bumped, but there will be more then a few players sitting out next year from what I'm hearing.

ohplease
12-01-2009, 09:11 AM
I agree - there's a hard limit to how much rebalancing can be done here. Trying to push it any farther (ie., just arbitrarily moving the top 20% of 4.0s into 4.5) might just result in uncompetitive divisions and lots of blowouts. Now, if 95% of players belonged in 3.5, that would probably argue for some kind of restructuring (maybe add divisions or something like that)...

There's several people making this argument - that the statistical approach is wrong, there is some real "truth" to a 3.5 vs. 5.5 rating, etc.

Which would be fine if what was actually driving the bump process was the fundamental characteristics of a given level. The problem is, once again, the text descriptions, have literally NOTHING to do with what determines who gets bumped and who doesn't. It's all about who you beat or who you manage to stay close to in terms of score.

In short, the approach that's used to figure out the levels is PURELY numerical and fundamentally based in statistics - so as someone said before, the bell curve can look however the USTA wants it to look. In fact, who says it even has to be a bell curve?

There's also the argument that all this mass movement is bad. I couldn't disagree more. I haven't heard this many people this excited and/or agitated about USTA leagues in a long, long time. If anything, the USTA should adopt the approach taken by Davis Cup, European soccer leagues, and F1, where lots of people/teams move up and down freely, all the time.

The whole problem w/USTA league play is it's stagnated, so the system's loopholes are predictable and easy to hack for people for whom league play means WAY too much. For example, teams that go to nationals now regularly have members that have to drive 50, 100, even 200 miles to get to their teams' "home" matches.

The USTA should do some kind of change-up every year. And they should lose or flatten the bell curve.

JRstriker12
12-01-2009, 09:55 AM
There's several people making this argument - that the statistical approach is wrong, there is some real "truth" to a 3.5 vs. 5.5 rating, etc.

Which would be fine if what was actually driving the bump process was the fundamental characteristics of a given level. The problem is, once again, the text descriptions, have literally NOTHING to do with what determines who gets bumped and who doesn't. It's all about who you beat or who you manage to stay close to in terms of score.

In short, the approach that's used to figure out the levels is PURELY numerical and fundamentally based in statistics - so as someone said before, the bell curve can look however the USTA wants it to look. In fact, who says it even has to be a bell curve?

There's also the argument that all this mass movement is bad. I couldn't disagree more. I haven't heard this many people this excited and/or agitated about USTA leagues in a long, long time. If anything, the USTA should adopt the approach taken by Davis Cup, European soccer leagues, and F1, where lots of people/teams move up and down freely, all the time.

The whole problem w/USTA league play is it's stagnated, so the system's loopholes are predictable and easy to hack for people for whom league play means WAY too much. For example, teams that go to nationals now regularly have members that have to drive 50, 100, even 200 miles to get to their teams' "home" matches.

The USTA should do some kind of change-up every year. And they should lose or flatten the bell curve.

IIRC - promotion/relegation in European soccer only happens about once a year. Same as the bump up/down in USTA.

There's qualifying for Davis Cup, but not the same sort of promotion/relegation IIRC.

Only sports that seem to have the free flowing structure where they are moving up and down all the time during the season are tennis and racing where the top "n" players or teams can qualify for certain events and there are events for lower teams and players.

With USTA flex leagues or tournaments, it would be very easy to have that sort of fluid rating. In fact, players currently have that freedom to play at their level or higher.

But with team tennis - it would be a nighmare with players moving in and out of rosters all the time. Win an match - bump to 4.0, lose a match or two, drop to 3.5. You would never have a stable roster.

However, I do agree that limiting appeals and such is a good idea.

The only fare way I could see in shrinking the huge mass of people at 3.5-4.0 is to make the ratings more fine grain - 3.0, 3.25, 3.5, 3.75........ Or to have upper and lower divsions with a "B" divsion for newly promoted players and players at the lower end and an "A" for the better players.

MrTennis
12-01-2009, 10:18 AM
Weird. In my area all players but 5 have been updated. We still have a date earlier in the year with S-status. My teammates were bumped up and I'm better then them so I was expecting a bump also. There seems to be no rhyme or reason on the order these are being updated I assume?? Am I not getting bumped up? or have they just not gotten to me yet since it still shows an earlier date?

Also, if you are bumped up then benchmarked what does that mean? Some are C and some are B after the bump up. Are the B's better than the C's??

:-?

The B's are Benchmark players who are generally top of level because they went to Championships with their team. The local league winners go to e.g. District Championships and may move on to Section and National Championships. The C players are computer rated players in adult or senior leagues on teams that did not advance to Championships.

MrTennis
12-01-2009, 10:20 AM
Does anyone know if the computer takes into account the closeness of matches and/or where people play when they play on league teams? Since I was one of the better guys on my team, I played a lot of 1 singles and stayed in some close matches but lost. The guys who beat my are mostly getting bumped up and the guys on my team who played doubles well are getting bumped up since they had winning records (although I can beat most of them routinely)


The closeness of the match is certainly a factor in the ratings process. The location you play on your team is not. #1 Singles counts as much as $3 Doubles.

kylebarendrick
12-01-2009, 10:46 AM
The B's are Benchmark players who are generally top of level because they went to Championships with their team. The local league winners go to e.g. District Championships and may move on to Section and National Championships. The C players are computer rated players in adult or senior leagues on teams that did not advance to Championships.

The benchmark players are often at the bottom of their level. If you played in a district/sectional championship match in 2009, then you received a "B" rating. You also probably got bumped, so your new B rating is at a higher level than the one you earned it at.

LafayetteHitter
12-01-2009, 11:20 AM
The bump ups are widespread in my area. It's funny because on these forums there is often debate about what a 4.0 looks like (many think form should be perfect). There is a guy from my area that has terrible looking technique and footwork who just got bumped up to 4.0. Interestingly this was his first year at 3.5 and he did not do all that well. There were some others that had similar results that did not move up. This one guy did play on many teams though. Another guy I know did really well at 3.5 and moved up to 4.0 where he will probably do very well.

tennis4josh
12-01-2009, 11:23 AM
Currently there are too many loopholes in the NTRP system and that is why more than often you see player's skills out of sync with text description of his rating. I think skills vary the most at 3.5 level and that is because lot of 3.5 players don't want to move up to 4.0. I think USTA did the right thing this year by moving more people up the NTRP ladder.

Another way to define skill levels would be based on percentile system, where top 5% of players (based on dynamic rating) are rated 5.5, next 10% 5.0, next 15% in 4.5 etc. With this system you could have two equally good players playing at 2 different levels, say 3.5 and 4.0, but you know that one playing at 4.0 has better winning record than the one playing at 3.5.

Rabbit
12-01-2009, 11:33 AM
the USTA would define a 4.0 as someone who usually beats a 3.5 but rarely beats a 4.5.

I don't think this is correct. If a 4.0 can beat a 4.5, then they are more than just competitive and are in fact a 4.5. Remember that a 4.0 player is anyone >3.50 and less than 4.0, once you get to 4.0 or above you're considered a 4.5.

The USTA considers competitive good enough on level. So, if you are competitive at a level, you are that level.

JRstriker12
12-01-2009, 11:56 AM
The bump ups are widespread in my area. It's funny because on these forums there is often debate about what a 4.0 looks like (many think form should be perfect). There is a guy from my area that has terrible looking technique and footwork who just got bumped up to 4.0. Interestingly this was his first year at 3.5 and he did not do all that well. There were some others that had similar results that did not move up. This one guy did play on many teams though. Another guy I know did really well at 3.5 and moved up to 4.0 where he will probably do very well.

NTRP has nothing to do with the "looks" of your strokes. That's why pushers and junkballers after do pretty well at the 3.5-4.0 level while dudes who shadow swing so they look like Fed get crushed. Results, not image, are eveything.

LafayetteHitter
12-01-2009, 11:59 AM
NTRP has nothing to do with the "looks" of your strokes. That's why pushers and junkballers after do pretty well at the 3.5-4.0 level while dudes who shadow swing so they look like Fed get crushed. Results, not image, are eveything.

Absolutely, now head over to the tennis tips forums where people have videos posted and try to convince those block heads.,

Kostas
12-01-2009, 12:02 PM
Let's just agree that NTRP is like the BCS...it's far from perfect, but it's the best we got.

JRstriker12
12-01-2009, 12:05 PM
Absolutely, now head over to the tennis tips forums where people have videos posted and try to convince those block heads.,

Been there. Done that. NOT doing it any more.

raiden031
12-01-2009, 12:09 PM
I don't think this is correct. If a 4.0 can beat a 4.5, then they are more than just competitive and are in fact a 4.5. Remember that a 4.0 player is anyone >3.50 and less than 4.0, once you get to 4.0 or above you're considered a 4.5.

The USTA considers competitive good enough on level. So, if you are competitive at a level, you are that level.

If you get lucky and beat a 4.5 one time and then get blown out by other 4.0s, then chances are you are still a 4.0.

iankogan
12-01-2009, 02:39 PM
Many thanks to OrangePower for crunching the numbers. Makes for an interesting discussion. This spreadsheet http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tr1B0ah6AoaA_rVuJznYFsg&output=html is mostly the same as the one OrangePower posted but it also shows the comparison between Start of Year 2009 vs 2010 in absolute numbers and percentages.

iplaylikeyourgrandma
12-01-2009, 02:59 PM
anyone have last year's numbers?
I would like to compare the percentages moving up this year to last year.

For example, this year they have 30% of the 3.5s moving up. What % of 3.5 players moved up last year?

OrangePower
12-01-2009, 04:06 PM
anyone have last year's numbers?
I would like to compare the percentages moving up this year to last year.

For example, this year they have 30% of the 3.5s moving up. What % of 3.5 players moved up last year?

Yes that would be an interesting comparison. I don't have the numbers from last year but if anyone does, please post them.

Based purely on my subjective recollection, in my area probably 10% of all 4.0s got bumped to 4.5 last year, as opposed to around 25% this year.

But wait, there's more...

Last year, most of those that got bumped appealed, and most of the appeals were successful. So at the end of the day, I would say that maybe 5% of 4.0s actually ended up at 4.5 for the next season.

This year, appeals are much more restricted. So probably most of those bumped will end up playing at the higher level. At least 20% in my area.

BreakPoint
12-01-2009, 08:45 PM
There's one possible problem here - ratings are also supposed to correspond to NTRP descriptions of a level of play, which means the distribution isn't completely under the USTA's control. This was also part of the stated motivation behind this big upward adjustment - that the discrepancy between the description of an ntrp category and the level of play observed in that category league had gotten to the point where the descriptions were clearly out of sync with the number.

That said, the USTA could do what you suggest by getting rid of "objective" descriptions of play, and instead defining ntrp levels in purely relative terms. Ie., instead of saying that at 4.0 "You have dependable strokes, including directional control and depth on both forehand and backhand sides on moderate-paced shot..." the USTA would define a 4.0 as someone who usually beats a 3.5 but rarely beats a 4.5.
But that's what the NTRP computer rating already does - it's completely based only on match results and not on any written descriptions. That's why the only valid rating is a computer rating. Perhaps they should just get rid of those guideline descriptions altogether.

muddlehead
12-04-2009, 08:53 AM
norcal here. epitome of 4.0. i win a lot at 4.0. lose a lot at 4.5. only play 4.5 cause they need bodies. the successful 3.5 mens team comprised entirely of over 55's saw 8 of their 12 moved to 4.0. interesting, cause as i saw the guidelines and the bell curve graph on this site, both confirmed my suspicions. they were not 3.5 players. they were too good. this move for them is a proper revauluation of the ratings. simply, they are no longer sandbagging, winning 3.5's. they are mediocre 4.0's. what they will eventually learn is, others like them also were moved up. so, they should be playing the same type of players again for the most part.

jserve
12-04-2009, 03:46 PM
Check it out:
http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/reports/NTRP/FindRating.asp

FWIW- Looks like 4.5 is getting a good infusion with about 11,000 4.0's being promoted. This is something, considering there are a total of 18,000 4.5 to start.

By far the biggest moves were at the 3.0 level, with 35,000 being pushed up to 3.5, and at 3.5 with 36,000 being pushed to 4.0.

Oh, and just for laughs, only one 5.5 was bumped up nationwide out of 143 players. Poor player - must be lonely towars the top. ;)

The 5.5 (now 6.0) is one of my good friends. He is pretty ****ed about his new rating. He was at least able to play 10.0 mixed with us last year. Now he isn't eligible for any local leagues.

He kinda did it to himself though. He partnered up with a recently retired professional and won all the doubles money tournaments in the PNW area.

Lakers4Life
12-04-2009, 04:24 PM
I don't think this is correct. If a 4.0 can beat a 4.5, then they are more than just competitive and are in fact a 4.5. Remember that a 4.0 player is anyone >3.50 and less than 4.0, once you get to 4.0 or above you're considered a 4.5.
The USTA considers competitive good enough on level. So, if you are competitive at a level, you are that level.

You are absolutely correct!

The 5.5 (now 6.0) is one of my good friends. He is pretty ****ed about his new rating. He was at least able to play 10.0 mixed with us last year. Now he isn't eligible for any local leagues.

He kinda did it to himself though. He partnered up with a recently retired professional and won all the doubles money tournaments in the PNW area.

The way things are going, the old 10.0 mixed will be the new 11.0. Same goes for any other league. Since a majority of the 3.0s got bumped up, the same guys will be in next years 3.5 leauge. There might not be enough to field a 3.0 team next year, since most of this year players got bumped up.

One thing I did notice is there are more men than women that got bumped up.

Cindysphinx
12-04-2009, 05:03 PM
I wish we had some numbers about whether one gender received more bumps.

Naturally, I am more focused on the ladies than the men. But on my 7.0 mixed team, our numbers were:

Guys: 11 men, 3 3.5s bumped up, 1 4.0 bumped down
Gals: 8 women, 2 3.0s bumped up, 0 bumped down

For all the hysteria about bumps, only 6 of the 19 people received a rating change.

Honestly, I think every one of these bumps would have occurred under the old rating system.

Topaz
12-04-2009, 05:43 PM
The 5.5 (now 6.0) is one of my good friends. He is pretty ****ed about his new rating. He was at least able to play 10.0 mixed with us last year. Now he isn't eligible for any local leagues.

He kinda did it to himself though. He partnered up with a recently retired professional and won all the doubles money tournaments in the PNW area.

Ok, this is what gets me...he went and played and won money tournaments...and he is ****ed? What did he think was going to happen?!?

jserve
12-04-2009, 06:53 PM
Ok, this is what gets me...he went and played and won money tournaments...and he is ****ed? What did he think was going to happen?!?

I play with/against him on a regular basis. He is definitely a strong player, but not a 6.0. He has a right to be disappointed and shouldn't be penalized for having a friend that played professional tennis.

Topaz
12-04-2009, 07:01 PM
I play with/against him on a regular basis. He is definitely a strong player, but not a 6.0. He has a right to be disappointed and shouldn't be penalized for having a friend that played professional tennis.

Ok, but he made the decision to play these tournaments with that friend...just seems like he kinda 'made his bed' IMO. I guess his only options left are open and age group tournies?

fe6250
12-05-2009, 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit
I don't think this is correct. If a 4.0 can beat a 4.5, then they are more than just competitive and are in fact a 4.5. Remember that a 4.0 player is anyone >3.50 and less than 4.0, once you get to 4.0 or above you're considered a 4.5.
The USTA considers competitive good enough on level. So, if you are competitive at a level, you are that level.
You are absolutely correct!

This is NOT the way the system works, but maybe you are discussing what SHOULD be (I can't tell).

Remember that the system keeps track of players to the 100th of a point. So - anyone at a 4.01 level in the system is a 4.5. In theory - it wouldn't be highly unusual for a 3.99 to beat a 4.01 (4.0 beats a 4.5) and still be a 4.0 as these two players are close enough in ability that a 'bad day' or 'good day' could be the difference. Obviously, if this continues with regularity the 3.99 will get bumped up. Doubles complicates this more.

Apologies if I'm missing the point.

SChamp
12-05-2009, 01:45 PM
what is the difference between computer and Dynamic rating ??

Your computer rating is what you see, 2.5-5.5. It generally only changes at the end of the year when the USTA updates the ratings. Your dynamic rating changes after every match and is also tracked to another decimal point, 3.49 for example. Your dynamic rating is calculated in this manner: the USTA has some kind of predictor factor. When a match is played, it looks at each player's dynamic rating and comes up with a predictor of the final score. The dynamic ratings of each player will be adjusted based on the results of the match. If the results of the match are the same as predicted, little change will occur in the dynamic ratings of either player. If the winning player has a better result than predicted, his dynamic rating will increase and the dynamic rating of the losing player will decrease, and so on.

fruitytennis1
12-05-2009, 05:58 PM
They have to make everything so complicated.

raiden031
12-06-2009, 04:19 AM
I wish we had some numbers about whether one gender received more bumps.

Naturally, I am more focused on the ladies than the men. But on my 7.0 mixed team, our numbers were:

Guys: 11 men, 3 3.5s bumped up, 1 4.0 bumped down
Gals: 8 women, 2 3.0s bumped up, 0 bumped down

For all the hysteria about bumps, only 6 of the 19 people received a rating change.

Honestly, I think every one of these bumps would have occurred under the old rating system.

In my area this year, roughly 70 men were moved to 4.0. Roughly 25 women were moved to 4.0. At the start of the year there were ilke 280 male 3.5s and like 330 female 3.5.s

There is no doubt that a large number of the bumps that happened this year would not have happened last year. I mean seriously, last year I was pretty much a borderline player, and I would smoke dozens of the new men's 4.0s (I haven't improved at all in the past year either).

Fedace
12-06-2009, 04:32 AM
Your computer rating is what you see, 2.5-5.5. It generally only changes at the end of the year when the USTA updates the ratings. Your dynamic rating changes after every match and is also tracked to another decimal point, 3.49 for example. Your dynamic rating is calculated in this manner: the USTA has some kind of predictor factor. When a match is played, it looks at each player's dynamic rating and comes up with a predictor of the final score. The dynamic ratings of each player will be adjusted based on the results of the match. If the results of the match are the same as predicted, little change will occur in the dynamic ratings of either player. If the winning player has a better result than predicted, his dynamic rating will increase and the dynamic rating of the losing player will decrease, and so on.

How come i don't see the Dynamic Rating anywhere on the USTA site ??????????

Rabbit
12-07-2009, 04:39 AM
This is NOT the way the system works, but maybe you are discussing what SHOULD be (I can't tell).

Remember that the system keeps track of players to the 100th of a point. So - anyone at a 4.01 level in the system is a 4.5. In theory - it wouldn't be highly unusual for a 3.99 to beat a 4.01 (4.0 beats a 4.5) and still be a 4.0 as these two players are close enough in ability that a 'bad day' or 'good day' could be the difference. Obviously, if this continues with regularity the 3.99 will get bumped up. Doubles complicates this more.

Apologies if I'm missing the point.

We see it the same, but the disagreement comes in trying to define "regularity". To wit....3 guys, all on the same team, all play doubles together with one common guy. In other words, Tom played all his doubles matches with either Mike or John. Tom gets bumped to 5.0 but neither Mike or John does. This happened on our 4.5 team this year and has reportedly happened to other teams at different levels as well.

From what I've seen, any win from a lower level (4.0 for instance) over a higher level (4.5) regardless of their actual number results in a bump. The term "competitive" doesn't mean "win". It just means the lower level can hold his own. And, don't forget the out the USTA gave themselves with this "dynamic" crap. In my view, dynamic only gives them more latitude in their decisions.

It's just a mess.

Cindysphinx
12-07-2009, 04:51 AM
In my area this year, roughly 70 men were moved to 4.0. Roughly 25 women were moved to 4.0. At the start of the year there were ilke 280 male 3.5s and like 330 female 3.5.s

There is no doubt that a large number of the bumps that happened this year would not have happened last year. I mean seriously, last year I was pretty much a borderline player, and I would smoke dozens of the new men's 4.0s (I haven't improved at all in the past year either).

I suppose there are several possible reasons for this. Do you think it could be because men, in general over time, were more likely to appeal down, self-rate low or otherwise sandbag than women?

Cindy -- who expects to smoke the new 3.5 women also

raiden031
12-07-2009, 06:34 AM
I suppose there are several possible reasons for this. Do you think it could be because men, in general over time, were more likely to appeal down, self-rate low or otherwise sandbag than women?

Cindy -- who expects to smoke the new 3.5 women also

I think there is more pressure to rate downwards in the men's divisions. Have you ever met a woman who purposely tanked games and matches in order to stay at a lower level? I haven't, but I've met numerous men to do that. This is in line with the latest comments on the other thread.

It is better to want to prove something by reaching a higher rating, then to prove something by gaming the system in order to be the most dominant player possible at the lowest level you can.

Although I think a small minority of players are actually cheating the system, but the attitude that you need to be above-level to be an asset in the league can spread like wild-fire.

lynnc22
12-07-2009, 07:12 AM
I'm not sure what they were thinking! Can someone tell me if the computer makes the bump or is there a person doing the bump? It seems strange that while being a very good 4.5 they have bumped me to 5.0 and while I got beat at States the 2 girls that beat me remained 4.5's. One of them being half my age and played div. 1 college tennis!

Also, the 4.5 div. now has had a huge number of 4.0's to be bumped to 4.5 and more than 1/2 of them should in no way be a 4.5. It seems the Charlotte and Lake Norman area were hit particularly hard while Raleigh/Durham was spared! Wonder why that it is????

I don't understand the rating thing at all, I'm just going by what I've seen out there and who I've played. I've emailed the USTA and have yet to hear back. Really disappointed by this as it takes me out of tennis for a whole year as there are no 5.0 teams, tournaments never have a 5.0 draw, SUCKS!

amarone
12-07-2009, 02:45 PM
I'm not sure what they were thinking! Can someone tell me if the computer makes the bump or is there a person doing the bump? The computer.

Fedace
12-07-2009, 02:57 PM
Is there a way to see the Dynamic rating from match to match to see if you are danger of being bumped up or down ???

sphinx780
12-07-2009, 03:00 PM
I don't understand the rating thing at all, I'm just going by what I've seen out there and who I've played. I've emailed the USTA and have yet to hear back. Really disappointed by this as it takes me out of tennis for a whole year as there are no 5.0 teams, tournaments never have a 5.0 draw, SUCKS!

It's situations like this where I would think it would make sense for the USTA to allow you to play on a 4.5 team as long as opponents were cool with it or have the top division being a 4.5+ to not exclude the players that end up losing their ability to play due to a lack of higher level players.

Geezer Guy
12-07-2009, 03:35 PM
It's situations like this where I would think it would make sense for the USTA to allow you to play on a 4.5 team as long as opponents were cool with it or have the top division being a 4.5+ to not exclude the players that end up losing their ability to play due to a lack of higher level players.

I think that's a good idea. The top level team in any area should be "open".

amarone
12-07-2009, 03:53 PM
Is there a way to see the Dynamic rating from match to match to see if you are danger of being bumped up or down ???No - that would open up far too much opportunity for abuse of the system.

PBODY99
12-07-2009, 04:51 PM
Ok, this is what gets me...he went and played and won money tournaments...and he is ****ed? What did he think was going to happen?!?
Actually, nothing. As I understand it your non-NTRP tournaments do not count towards your rating. Since he had a computer generated rating, his league play is the deciding factor. If not, in Middle States, I know several of the top doubles teams would be leveled up.

Fedace
12-07-2009, 04:58 PM
No - that would open up far too much opportunity for abuse of the system.

I disagree. I think that will actually promote more fair play. If you get too close to upper limit, then guys would play less and let the lesser players play more and it will all even out in the end..

Topaz
12-07-2009, 05:08 PM
Actually, nothing. As I understand it your non-NTRP tournaments do not count towards your rating. Since he had a computer generated rating, his league play is the deciding factor. If not, in Middle States, I know several of the top doubles teams would be leveled up.


Lol, I like the green!

So, then it must have been his NTRP league play...what were his results like?

As sphinx said earlier, there does seem to be a prevailing problem of 'topping out' at the...well, top...that is punishing players who improve too much or are too good. I agree that it would be great to see some kind of 'open' level that is 4.5+ so that those players don't feel that they either have to sandbag to play or don't get to play at all.

amarone
12-08-2009, 11:59 AM
I disagree. I think that will actually promote more fair play. If you get too close to upper limit, then guys would play less and let the lesser players play more and it will all even out in the end..Nah. Too many players would see that they are close to being bumped and therefore take the opportunity to lose a match that doesn't count.

iplaylikeyourgrandma
12-08-2009, 12:08 PM
solution to the problem is:
post year end ratings down to the hundredth...
no one self rated can play post season, this will prevent self rating sandbaggers, and if someone wants to lose all their matches to get bumped down next season to go to play post season at a lower level so be it.

lethalphorce
12-08-2009, 12:34 PM
solution to the problem is:
post year end ratings down to the hundredth...
no one self rated can play post season, this will prevent self rating sandbaggers, and if someone wants to lose all their matches to get bumped down next season to go to play post season at a lower level so be it.

Since almost all new players would be self rated. . . this would effectively make it so no new players join the USTA.

iplaylikeyourgrandma
12-09-2009, 08:21 AM
New players that are self-rated can play in leagues, but they can't play POST season (i.e. Districts, Sectionals, etc...)
What's wrong with having a computer rating before you can play post season?

raiden031
12-09-2009, 08:38 AM
New players that are self-rated can play in leagues, but they can't play POST season (i.e. Districts, Sectionals, etc...)
What's wrong with having a computer rating before you can play post season?

I kinda agree with this idea. I mean most new players to USTA are not going to be concerned with post-season play. The ones that are concerned with post-season play are the sandbaggers which are not really welcome in USTA leagues anyways.

JoelDali
12-09-2009, 09:39 AM
I kinda agree with this idea. I mean most new players to USTA are not going to be concerned with post-season play. The ones that are concerned with post-season play are the sandbaggers which are not really welcome in USTA leagues anyways.

Every captain I know actively recruits sandbaggers, stop pretending its not welcome because nearly everyone tries to get the best LEGAL players even if it means a few self rated sandbaggas.

No worries as the bumps have decimated league play in nearly every sandbagger heavy city and has all but killed senior 2.0 clinics naionwide. Revenue streams from league play has dried up. Its the end of tennis as we knew it.

The outcry is growing, Arlen better watch out.

:)

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/content/Image/10-30-2008/arlen-podium.jpg

drakulie
12-09-2009, 10:11 AM
^hehehehehehehe

lethalphorce
12-09-2009, 10:33 AM
I kinda agree with this idea. I mean most new players to USTA are not going to be concerned with post-season play. The ones that are concerned with post-season play are the sandbaggers which are not really welcome in USTA leagues anyways.

I will be playing my 1st season of USTA in 2010. I am definitely interested in being able to play in potential post-season matches and I'm not willing to sandbag to get there. If I were not able to participate in my team's post-season, I would rather just stay in my current non-USTA league.

raiden031
12-09-2009, 10:43 AM
I will be playing my 1st season of USTA in 2010. I am definitely interested in being able to play in potential post-season matches and I'm not willing to sandbag to get there. If I were not able to participate in my team's post-season, I would rather just stay in my current non-USTA league.

You sound like a 'bagga to me.

Eviscerator
12-11-2009, 10:31 PM
I was talking to a player today who lost all three of his matches at 4.0 by a wide margin (6-2, 6-1) yet he is being moved up to 4.5
Needless to say this new alignment/system is going to cause some people to stop playing because they will not be competitive at the higher levels.

Eviscerator
12-11-2009, 10:37 PM
I kinda agree with this idea. I mean most new players to USTA are not going to be concerned with post-season play. The ones that are concerned with post-season play are the sandbaggers which are not really welcome in USTA leagues anyways.

I just read this before my last post. I completely disagree with this as the USTA's goal is to have as much participation as possible. If all the sandbaggers were to be weeded out and stopped playing, the USTA would lose a lot of revenue.
In reality the USTA caused this problem by eliminating both on court verification of new players( a move to save money), and having verifiers at the matches(again to save money).

BreakPoint
12-11-2009, 11:49 PM
I just read this before my last post. I completely disagree with this as the USTA's goal is to have as much participation as possible. If all the sandbaggers were to be weeded out and stopped playing, the USTA would lose a lot of revenue.
In reality the USTA caused this problem by eliminating both on court verification of new players( a move to save money), and having verifiers at the matches(again to save money).
I'm not really sure how much money they saved since you had to pay a fee (I think it used to be like $25 many years ago) to get verified by a USTA verifier. It wasn't always accurate anyway as the sandbaggers would just tank their verification session and purposely play as badly as they could just to get a low rating.

OrangePower
12-12-2009, 11:22 AM
I kinda agree with this idea. I mean most new players to USTA are not going to be concerned with post-season play. The ones that are concerned with post-season play are the sandbaggers which are not really welcome in USTA leagues anyways.

I just read this before my last post. I completely disagree with this as the USTA's goal is to have as much participation as possible. If all the sandbaggers were to be weeded out and stopped playing, the USTA would lose a lot of revenue.
In reality the USTA caused this problem by eliminating both on court verification of new players( a move to save money), and having verifiers at the matches(again to save money).

Sorry Eviscerator, I agree with Raiden.

"Weeding out self-rated sandbaggers" doesn't mean that those players don't play at all - it just means that they would self-rate at the appropriate level, because without being able to play post-season the first year, they no longer have an incentive to self-rate too low.

I was personally in this position: When I started playing again 3 years ago, I had the option of self-rating at either 3.5 or at 4.0. I friend who had a very strong 3.5 team was trying hard to recruit me, with the promise of going deep into playoffs with his team. On the other hand I knew that 4.0 would probably be more appropriate for me. I ended up self-rating at 4.0 because I wanted the challenge, but I must admit that it was very tempting to go for 3.5 glory. Three years later I still get occasional comments from my friend that had I joined his team, we would have gone all the way to Nationals.

Anyway, even though in the end I went 4.0, I'm sure there are many who make the other choice. But if there was a rule in place like Raiden suggests, I would never have even considered self-rating at 3.5, and my friend would never have thought to try recruit me to sandbag. And really it's no big deal to be unable to play in playoffs your first year - after all, only a small percentage of players go to playoffs anyway.

DrewRafter8
12-12-2009, 05:22 PM
I'm not really sure how much money they saved since you had to pay a fee (I think it used to be like $25 many years ago) to get verified by a USTA verifier. It wasn't always accurate anyway as the sandbaggers would just tank their verification session and purposely play as badly as they could just to get a low rating.

In NC they would have the verifiers walk around at the state championships. I think they need to start doing this again and DQ on the spot in Pinehurst where we go for spring league state's. I realize people may still tank, but they won't win the NC title this way.

gameboy
12-12-2009, 05:39 PM
I will be playing my 1st season of USTA in 2010. I am definitely interested in being able to play in potential post-season matches and I'm not willing to sandbag to get there. If I were not able to participate in my team's post-season, I would rather just stay in my current non-USTA league.

I am in the same boat. I came back to the game this year after about 10 year hiatus and I am looking to play in a league next year. But personally, I would be fine not playing in the post season. I think that is really the only fair way to go.

I even got rated at my club, but my rater said he can rate me at pretty much any level I wanted (anywhere from 3.0 to 4.0). The head pro is pushing me to go lower since I would be a VERY popular guy at that level, but I would feel uncomfortable.

The only way to really stop that kind of behavior is to take the post season play away.

JoelDali
12-12-2009, 05:52 PM
The head pro is pushing me to go lower since I would be a VERY popular guy at that level.

I've talked to my attorney and we agree you are being recruited to sand bag and should report this pro to the USTA Sandbagga Hotline(tm).

Fedace
12-12-2009, 05:57 PM
I've talked to my attorney and we agree you are being recruited to sand bag and should report this pro to the USTA Sandbagga Hotline(tm).

If i played 4.0 and go for the line every single time, i may lose due to unforced errors. but then i maybe on like Hot magma and hit lines every time. so i can dump a match to a lower level guy this way and it wouldn't look suspicious...:)

JoelDali
12-12-2009, 06:21 PM
Effective Sandbagging Techniques

By

Fedace

Eviscerator
12-15-2009, 11:08 PM
Sorry Eviscerator, I agree with Raiden.

"Weeding out self-rated sandbaggers" doesn't mean that those players don't play at all - it just means that they would self-rate at the appropriate level, because without being able to play post-season the first year, they no longer have an incentive to self-rate too low.

I was personally in this position: When I started playing again 3 years ago, I had the option of self-rating at either 3.5 or at 4.0. I friend who had a very strong 3.5 team was trying hard to recruit me, with the promise of going deep into playoffs with his team. On the other hand I knew that 4.0 would probably be more appropriate for me. I ended up self-rating at 4.0 because I wanted the challenge, but I must admit that it was very tempting to go for 3.5 glory. Three years later I still get occasional comments from my friend that had I joined his team, we would have gone all the way to Nationals.

Anyway, even though in the end I went 4.0, I'm sure there are many who make the other choice. But if there was a rule in place like Raiden suggests, I would never have even considered self-rating at 3.5, and my friend would never have thought to try recruit me to sandbag. And really it's no big deal to be unable to play in playoffs your first year - after all, only a small percentage of players go to playoffs anyway.

The trouble with your position is you are applying the way you feel about things and extrapolating that others would think the same way. Depending on how a sandbagger is defined, they can make up a decent % of players, say 10%-15%. Even if it were only 5%, that still would equate to a sizable amount of lost revenue in memberships and league fees. So while I am not saying true sandbaggers are good for the league, the USTA has no vested interest in reducing them if it meant they would stop paying membership and league fees.
`

raiden031
12-16-2009, 03:28 AM
The trouble with your position is you are applying the way you feel about things and extrapolating that others would think the same way. Depending on how a sandbagger is defined, they can make up a decent % of players, say 10%-15%. Even if it were only 5%, that still would equate to a sizable amount of lost revenue in memberships and league fees. So while I am not saying true sandbaggers are good for the league, the USTA has no vested interest in reducing them if it meant they would stop paying membership and league fees.
`

Its funny how USTA has all these tricks up their sleeve to reduce sandbagging, yet the one thing that might actually work they won't do.

OrangePower
12-16-2009, 08:24 PM
The trouble with your position is you are applying the way you feel about things and extrapolating that others would think the same way. Depending on how a sandbagger is defined, they can make up a decent % of players, say 10%-15%. Even if it were only 5%, that still would equate to a sizable amount of lost revenue in memberships and league fees. So while I am not saying true sandbaggers are good for the league, the USTA has no vested interest in reducing them if it meant they would stop paying membership and league fees.
`

Not disputing that there are sandbaggers; I'm saying that most would still play even if the option of sandbagging was taken away from them.

But let's say that you're right and there are 10% of players who would choose not to play if they could not sandbag their way into post-season play. Yes, if that's true then the USTA would lose revenue on them.

But I would argue that the presence of such sandbaggers causes even more 'regular' (non-sandbag) players to drop out of league tennis out of anger or frustration. Eliminating the sandbaggers I think would result in a net increase in revenue because more players would return to league tennis than the potential sandbaggers who might no longer play.

OroDeSantoro
12-25-2009, 01:21 PM
They were embarrassed that there were initially more 2.5s than 4.5s, so they took drastic measures...

Eviscerator
12-25-2009, 07:48 PM
Not disputing that there are sandbaggers; I'm saying that most would still play even if the option of sandbagging was taken away from them.

But let's say that you're right and there are 10% of players who would choose not to play if they could not sandbag their way into post-season play. Yes, if that's true then the USTA would lose revenue on them.

But I would argue that the presence of such sandbaggers causes even more 'regular' (non-sandbag) players to drop out of league tennis out of anger or frustration. Eliminating the sandbaggers I think would result in a net increase in revenue because more players would return to league tennis than the potential sandbaggers who might no longer play.

You may be correct regarding local people dropping out because of sandbaggers. However many of them do not realize how much variation there is within a particular rating. They think that because they are 3.5 that every match they play will be close. In reality a person can be a 3.99 playing a 3.51 and even though both are rated 3.5 it will typically not be a close match. Furthermore the local guys who never get to the regionals or above have no idea how much better the competition is even without sandbaggers.
So I think many of the ones you think become disillusioned with the system will do so regardless of the sandbaggers or not.

After having given the % more thought, it might even be higher than 10% depending on how one defines a sandbagger. To me it is a person who could easily play at the top of the next level, not just a person who might win 20% of their matches at the higher level.
There was a guy I instructed part time who thought of himself as a sandbagger playing 4.0, but felt he was a solid 4.5
So last season he was bumped up and lost his appeal and was forced to play 4.5, yet he was killed losing 13 of 14 matches. He appealed his year end rating and was denied. So he says he is quitting USTA league tennis because it is no fun. Obviously he is motivated by winning, and if he has to play at a level he will lose at most of the time, he has no motivation to get better. The moral of the story is that he is no sandbagger, yet he and others thought of him as such.
`

Cody
12-26-2009, 01:29 AM
I declare that all sandbaggers must wear this t-shirt to warn fellow players

http://rlv.zcache.com/i_sandbag_tshirt-p23562778238381529730x9_400.jpg

ALten1
12-26-2009, 05:39 AM
I was bumped up to 3.5 right before the overhaul. Now the better players I was looking forward to playing are moved up, the lesser skilled players are back and im not any better off. So I will do what most do and that is play on a team at my level and play up on another team. First time poster here. Enjoy reading the threads and will probably screw up this post and others before I catch on.

GrandBanana
01-09-2010, 03:09 PM
Well, with everyone and his brother complaining about too many people getting moved UP in the NTRP ratings, I'm complaining that not enough did...specifically ME!

I was a 3.5 last year and had a half-decent set of numbers, both in my men's 3.5 league and also in my 7.0 mixed and 8.0 mixed leagues --- didn't win everything, but who does? Did have an injury during the year that prevented me from playing at full speed and might have caused some of the results to be a little lower than I expected, but not by too much.

Basically, I was FLOORED to see that almost all of the people in my leagues got moved up from 3.5 to 4.0 except me. I'm totally ticked about being the only one left behind when I play better than and have beaten most of the people who got moved up! The system totally s**ks!!

I auto-appealed my rating and got denied (at least 0.05 away from moving up, so denied --- probably 0.06 away). Wrote to my regional coordinator, who never answers emails on a good day. Even wrote to the USTA HQ itself --- no dice. Looks like I'm stuck playing 3.5 for the next year whether I like it or not.

What really stinks is that this summer, I won't be able to play on a 4.0 league to have USTA pit my ratings up against what they now call a 4.0 because there won't be enough 4.0 leagues to accommodate a 3.5...most likely they'll be filled up with ONLY 4.0s and there will be no coaches taking provisional 3.5 players to give them a chance to move up. This s**ks all around.

Can't believe they did this to the NTRP --- they should have let well enough alone!!!
:cry::evil::evil::mad:

Cindysphinx
01-09-2010, 03:45 PM
^Can you just start a new 4.0 team and captain it?

Nellie
01-09-2010, 05:27 PM
Yes - the answer I have gotten is that you can always play up - the NTRP level works as a floor to prevent you from playing down.

Fedace
01-09-2010, 05:37 PM
WHAT is up with MAssive number of Bump ups in December ?? I have never seen so many guys get bumped up a Level in my life ...

pushing_wins
01-26-2010, 10:16 PM
bump or no bump

looks like a normal distribution

is tennis a microcosm of life?


probably not, 5.0+ players are usually eccentric

JRstriker12
01-27-2010, 05:34 AM
Well, with everyone and his brother complaining about too many people getting moved UP in the NTRP ratings, I'm complaining that not enough did...specifically ME!

I was a 3.5 last year and had a half-decent set of numbers, both in my men's 3.5 league and also in my 7.0 mixed and 8.0 mixed leagues --- didn't win everything, but who does? Did have an injury during the year that prevented me from playing at full speed and might have caused some of the results to be a little lower than I expected, but not by too much.

Basically, I was FLOORED to see that almost all of the people in my leagues got moved up from 3.5 to 4.0 except me. I'm totally ticked about being the only one left behind when I play better than and have beaten most of the people who got moved up! The system totally s**ks!!

I auto-appealed my rating and got denied (at least 0.05 away from moving up, so denied --- probably 0.06 away). Wrote to my regional coordinator, who never answers emails on a good day. Even wrote to the USTA HQ itself --- no dice. Looks like I'm stuck playing 3.5 for the next year whether I like it or not.

What really stinks is that this summer, I won't be able to play on a 4.0 league to have USTA pit my ratings up against what they now call a 4.0 because there won't be enough 4.0 leagues to accommodate a 3.5...most likely they'll be filled up with ONLY 4.0s and there will be no coaches taking provisional 3.5 players to give them a chance to move up. This s**ks all around.

Can't believe they did this to the NTRP --- they should have let well enough alone!!!
:cry::evil::evil::mad:

You can always play up a level.

If you already know eveyone that got bumped up and beat most of them, you couldn't make the case to these people you know to include you on thier 4.0 team? Such as - "Look at my results on tennislink - I beat player A. Player B. and Player C. who are all on your team. I can play at this level, I just didn't get bumped."

Also, since so many people have been bumped - at least in my area - there are a bunch of new teams forming and looking for players. I some cases 2-3 teams are combining to create a new team. One of those newer teams without an estabilished roster will have room for you, you just have to do a little searching and asking around.

If you realy want to play up, form your own 4.0 team.

Really there's nothing to cry about not getting bumped.

GrandBanana
01-27-2010, 09:14 AM
You're right...I should quit b**ching about it...I was just spouting off when I got my initial rating and was really ticked. I may end up starting my own 4.0 league because, believe it or not, the men's 4.0 league at the club I belong to is already closed for this summer (kinda cliquish there). Had a lot of difficulty in even finding a mixed doubles league for this spring...had to send a mass email out to every club in a 50-mile radius in order to broadcast how I'm looking for a team to play on (the regional coordinator is no help here in this region).

Hopefully this summer, I'll play 3.5 and be King of the BottomFeeders like everything thinks I will be, and maybe I'll play on (or start my own) 4.0 league and at least play with the people who challenge me.

Regardless, I want to make sure I play at 4.0 level and actually get the rating I feel I deserve --- it's more of a personal accomplishment for me than anything, as I view it as a measure of athletic prowess, which I have, but never get recognized for. This would be a small feather in my cap and an ego booster...not getting moved up when everyone else did was kind of a slap in the face. Oh well, I'll just talk to my therapist about it (hehehe).

JRstriker12
01-27-2010, 09:19 AM
You're right...I should quit b**ching about it...I was just spouting off when I got my initial rating and was really ticked. I may end up starting my own 4.0 league because, believe it or not, the men's 4.0 league at the club I belong to is already closed for this summer (kinda cliquish there). Had a lot of difficulty in even finding a mixed doubles league for this spring...had to send a mass email out to every club in a 50-mile radius in order to broadcast how I'm looking for a team to play on (the regional coordinator is no help here in this region).

Hopefully this summer, I'll play 3.5 and be King of the BottomFeeders like everything thinks I will be, and maybe I'll play on (or start my own) 4.0 league and at least play with the people who challenge me.

Regardless, I want to make sure I play at 4.0 level and actually get the rating I feel I deserve --- it's more of a personal accomplishment for me than anything, as I view it as a measure of athletic prowess, which I have, but never get recognized for. This would be a small feather in my cap and an ego booster...not getting moved up when everyone else did was kind of a slap in the face. Oh well, I'll just talk to my therapist about it (hehehe).

Yeah, it's a lot better to take action rather than be passive. In fact, your 3.5 rating may give your an advantage as I know some 8.0 mixed teams are looking for strong 3.5's to play with 4.5 partners.

Another thought is to play some 4.0 tournaments. You win on of those and I'm pretty sure you get bumped.

Another thought - you could also pla

HayWarD510s
01-29-2010, 07:38 PM
F(*&* the system!!! 2009 was my first year playing 3.5 and i ended with a 2-4 record. I played one match in districts and lost in 3 sets. Now i'm benchmarked at 4.0 WTF!?!? I totally sucked-*** last season this doesn't make sense!

JRstriker12
01-30-2010, 09:34 AM
F(*&* the system!!! 2009 was my first year playing 3.5 and i ended with a 2-4 record. I played one match in districts and lost in 3 sets. Now i'm benchmarked at 4.0 WTF!?!? I totally sucked-*** last season this doesn't make sense!

If you sucked, why did you get to play in districts?

You went to districts and had a very competitive match (lost in 3 sets). That indicates you are on he high end of 3.5, then with the redistribution where a lot of 3.5's got bumped then yes, you would be moved to 3.5. Don't worry, if you're not competitive at 4.0 you'll drop to 3.5.

J-Mac
01-31-2010, 07:43 AM
It seems like everyone wants to be at the top of of their level so they win most of their matches. After getting bumped up, it's also fun to see your game improve from the increased competition.

The TennisTour (http://www.tennistour.org) |What's your Tour Rank?

West Coast Ace
01-31-2010, 11:29 AM
But I would argue that the presence of such sandbaggers causes even more 'regular' (non-sandbag) players to drop out of league tennis out of anger or frustration. Eliminating the sandbaggers I think would result in a net increase in revenue because more players would return to league tennis than the potential sandbaggers who might no longer play.I agree with your logic. Smacking down hard on sandbaggers would help grow tournament and league play. The # of bump ups is encouraging.

I declare that all sandbaggers must wear this t-shirt to warn fellow players

http://rlv.zcache.com/i_sandbag_tshirt-p23562778238381529730x9_400.jpgAwesome!

GrandBanana
02-10-2010, 02:30 PM
[QUOTE=J-Mac;4356091]It seems like everyone wants to be at the top of of their level so they win most of their matches. After getting bumped up, it's also fun to see your game improve from the increased competition.
QUOTE]

...not me...I don't want to dominate the league at the my new level "LO-CAL 3.5"

I'd rather improve my game after getting bumped up...if that ever happens....

Geezer Guy
02-10-2010, 08:08 PM
I'd rather improve my game after getting bumped up...if that ever happens....

Usually happens the other way around.