2012 Year End Ratings

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by SuperLotto, Oct 28, 2011.

  1. Islandtennis

    Islandtennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    205
    I do kind of agree with Cindy. No offense to him, but G4 did offer several ideas and not just one.

    On standardization. If that is done, I assume the National USTA would need to at least initially go with the most conservative model being used. Would G4 be happy for everyone to go to Southern's model? That would be Standardized, but it would not eliminate his concern about the Singles League.

    Then Cindy's and Topaz's Singles League would not count, but it would be standardized. G4 is not helped, but the NTRP configuration is standardized.

    G4 made some very good points, but when he says to comment on his "idea" I, like Cindy, want to know in one paragraph what his idea is.

    As far as cheating. The game of tennis does have a certain amount honor involved. I can beat the head pro at my club if I want to. I just call all of his shots out. In an unofficiated match, he has no recourse. Deterrents can be set up but they cannot eliminate the player or captain who truly want to game the system.
     
    #51
  2. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    I'm with Cindy here... not sure what the specific proposals are that g4 has in mind. "Standardization" is too general. We know some things are not possible to standardize because the sections do not all offer the same leagues and the same calendar.

    So far I've gleaned two specific proposals that g4 has made:

    1. Ban someone playing under a false identity, or other blatent fraud.

    Ok, I agree.

    2. Mandate that Singles league results count towards NTRP.

    Well, this is more tricky. Understand that I don't have a personal stake in this, since Norcal does not offer a Singles league. So if the majority wants Singles to count towards NTRP, hey, I'm fine with that.

    But here would be my hypothetical argument against it, from the perspective of USTA:

    One of the goals of NTRP is to enable correlation of ratings across sections. The representatives of a section at Nationals are used a benchmark for that section, and then adjustments are rippled across the section in part based on how that section compared at Nationals to other sections. Since not every section offers a Singles league, counting it in NTRP would mean that comparing ratings across sections is not apples-to-apples. By the way, this is also the probably reason why Combo results don't count towards NTRP.

    You may not agree with this reasoning, but at least if we focus on specific propositions we can have a reasonable debate on the merits. But just saying we should "standardize" is too broad for discussion.
     
    #52
  3. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,095
    ^Following on to that idea . . .

    Say you include singles league results in NTRP. In Mid-Atlantic we have singles leagues. Let's say that in Middle States, they do not.

    The Mid-Atlantic players who play singles will likely have more singles results in their NTRP calculation than the Middle States players.

    Say I (a player who is stronger in singles than doubles) play winter singles, adult and fall singles. Because of these two additional opportunities to play singles, I might have 15 singles league matches, 3 adult singles matches and 5 adult doubles matches.

    Say we have someone in Middle States who is also stronger in singles. Because there are no singles leagues there, she might have 3 adult singles matches and 5 adult doubles matches.

    If I am the same skill level as the Middle States player, we could nevertheless wind up with different NTRPs. This is because my weak doubles results are diluted by my strong singles play much more than my Middle States counterpart.

    Therefore, if you "standardize" by including singles league results despite the fact that many areas do not have singles leagues, you would not be standardizing at all. You would be doing the opposite of standardizing.

    Which is what often happens in life when you try to standardize things that are not in fact the same.
     
    #53
  4. ian2

    ian2 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    409
    It's an interesting argument but it's not an argument against "standardization". If anything, it's an argument in favor of having separate singles and doubles ratings. Obviously there is no such thing currently; whether it would be desirable is a whole other story. There are players in all Sections who play exclusively (or almost exclusively) singles, and there are those who play exclusively doubles. NTRP algorithm already [attempts to] take this into account, by applying a different model to doubles ratings calculation. In the end, both "categories" end up with a "universal" rating.

    Why not go with the simplest and most obvious approach, and count ALL USTA singles and doubles matches for same-gender leagues and tournaments, in all Sections? These are matches where all parties have a known DNTRP going in... what could be an argument for counting some matches and not counting others? Don't tell me it's the "across Sections re-balancing based on National playoffs": the whole re-balancing idea is demonstrably absurd.

    To be clear, I'm not arguing for inclusion of mixed league/tourney results or other "exotic" formats. I think the existing "mixed-exclusive" rating is a good idea.
     
    #54
  5. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    I don't get your logic. One the one hand, you say to count all same-gender matches, because all parties have a known DNTRP. But then you say you don't want to count mixed results. Why one and not the other?

    Methinks whatever justification you're gonna come up with for not including mixed results could easily be extended to argue for not including combo results for example, which of course contradicts your first proposition.
     
    #55
  6. Maui19

    Maui19 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,659
    Put me in the bullet point camp.
     
    #56
  7. chatt_town

    chatt_town Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,007
    That's too bad...I was about to go out and **** can about 3 matches before the end of the year. :) I'm just kidding. I know some came out in August in Ga.

     
    #57
  8. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,893
    You don't have an example, because you can't come up with one. I never asked you to do anything other than give me one example of how my idea of every Section applying the same standards hurt anyone other than sandbaggers. Don't put words in my mouth.

    If you don't care, don't reply. Evidently you cared enough to type your thoughts on my posts. She's either pregnant or not. You can't have it both ways JRB.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2011
    #58
  9. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,893
    Bullet Points for those who asked:

    1) Have all Sections meet at the USTA National Annual Meeting to discuss then vote on this policy. All USTA Sections will count the same leagues toward NTRP. There are no exceptions.

    --If Sections don't have Single's Leagues, Combo or other leagues, those leagues would not be counted in any NTRP calculations except:

    a) those players playing in these leagues would be subject to strikes against them per current or revised USTA procedures. This solves the problem of sandbaggers at 4.5, who self-rate at 3.5, then bagel, 0&1, and 1-1 4.0C rated players.

    2) The USTA develops and implements one National set of procedures regarding how, what, when and where grievances are filed, and how, what and who will rule on grievances. Standardized policy for vacating wins when players are DQed, and standardized punishment for known and willful violations of USTA rules regarding league play.

    These are two very simple things I think the USTA could and should do to standardize the USTA from x number of Sections "doing their own thing", to a National Organization that applies to everyone.

    I don't see these two bullet points negatively affecting anyone other than those players who choose to manipulate a system with "Honesty" as the primary safe-guard.

    I'm sorry for the delayed post. I didn't look at this board since the last post I made. This is a forum. I can take anyone feedback including those who disagree, but if you are going to disagree, don't put words in my mouth like one guy tried.

    I asked for one example of how a standardized USTA NTRP and grievance procedure hurts any honest player. I am stilling waiting for the example. I am asking the Southern Section to look at my idea. They might say "No thank you", but I can promise you the Self-Rated 3.5 player's stats who beat down the 4.0C players in the Single's League are going to get front and center in the USTA's office with me asking some pointed questions to the apathy that allows this to happen.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2011
    #59
  10. J_R_B

    J_R_B Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,671
    Location:
    Newtown, PA
    Re-read my orginal post. All I did was give my opinion and said I'm OK with differences by section, and then you started badgering me for an example of something. Clearly, there are situations where two sections prefer to have different rules. There have to be reasons why they prefer the rules to be different. THE REASONS FOR THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE THE "EXAMPLES" YOU ARE LOOKING FOR. I'm sure they are good reasons, too, but only the people in charge of the sections who made the different rules can tell you what those reasons are. I'm not going to track them down for your "examples". Go do it yourself if it's that important that you know.
     
    #60
  11. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,893
    OrangePower,

    Thanks for adding back to the discussion. I don't recall ever asking to have Single's Leagues count towards NTRP, but rather have all Sections count the same thing. I could very well be wrong. I haven't reread my own posts. I think I asked why don't Single's League's count towards an NTRP. But I didn't realize that all Sections don't have Single's Leagues.

    As far as the USTA's NTRP algorithm works, if it were truly accurate system the benchmarks the USTA uses already in the Adult League would carry over to the other Leagues, including Mixed, Combo and Singles. The USTA already averages averages which a math no-no, so why the USTA doesn't follow accepted mathematical logic shows a flawed system. It is a combination of a bad algorithm and non-standardized inputs that flaws the USTA NTRP.

    e.g. Some players only play Mixed and get a Mixed Exclusive Rating. They then play the following spring season starting with a "M" rating, but that rating seems to be the starting point for the new DNTRP. 1/2 of last year's rating and the first match of the new spring season = the new DNTRP, and the next matches will content to update the DNTRP as the old match in the spring "waterfalls" out of the equation. The problem is the first match is 1/2 of the new DNTRP. Tank that match and your DNTRP rating will drop. Win big and your DNTRP rating will rocket up. This is completely and utterly flawed math. But hey, that is the USTA. At least the USTA knows they have a problem. Why else would they have put out a survey about a new rating system? I am not alone telling the USTA their math is flawed. I got paid good money to write algorithms and while the USTA likes to think their NTRP algorithm is secret, parts of it have been leaked all over the internet.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2011
    #61
  12. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,893
    JRB,

    I have read and reread your posts. Great I get it. Your ok with Sections "Doing their own thing", you can't come up with one example of how my idea hurts honest people and I don't need you to tell me to ask each section.

    I am starting my local level, then state, then to the National USTA. It's called the chain of command, and I am marching up it with facts not opinion.

    I simply asked you if you, username "JRB", if you could give me an example of how my idea hurt any honest player. You can't therefore I will continue my quest to fix what I do care about and have enough facts to at least prove to the USTA that their "Self-Rate" policy is being abused by a handful of players/Captains since the USTA relies on honesty from it's players/Captains.

    It's great that you don't care. I never asked you to do any research. I've got a list of names and records that I will present to the SC USTA and I will asked some very direct questions in front of an audience. Part of the problem IMO, is there are too many people who have what I would call "NASA", or N/A on SA or low Situational Awareness. They don't have a clue where they are, or what is going on around them.

    Not a dig at them. They just see a guy as a uncommonly good "3.5" player, when I see him for what he is - a cheater, at least a 4.0, and probably a 4.5. I care in principle and in practice and I've chosen to do something about it. I might fail in my goal, but I at least know I tried to argue my case, instead of standing on the sidelines like a coward complaining about something, yet choosing to do nothing.

    Hope this makes my agenda crystal clear to you.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2011
    #62
  13. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,095
    Let me ask you some questions, if I may.

    You wrote:

    Question 1: Say Hawaii vacates all wins of a self-rate player who is DQ'd, and Mid-Atlantic only vacates the last win. How does this affect someone in Southern section? Why would a player in Hawaii care if Mid-Atlantic would have handled this differently? Either way, the player is not eligible for the post-season and is forced to play at a more appropriate and higher level, and that is mostly what National cares about.

    Question 2: Say Mid-Atlantic, having a small budget, charges everyone who files a grievance $50. Say Southern, having a huge budget, charges nothing to file a grievance. Say Eastern, having a moderate budget, charges $100 to file a grievance with a refund if the grievance is upheld. What is the harm in allowing this local variation in grievance procedures?

    You wrote:
    Question 3: How is this different from the existing three strikes system for self-rated players? In your example, the self-rated player played only two matches and so could not have accumulated three strikes. If he beats down another 4.0 C-rated for a third strike, presumably the computer would have the results it needs to DQ him. How does your proposal differ from the existing system?
     
    #63
  14. catfish

    catfish Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    792
    G4driver, it sounds like you put a lot of time and energy into this. I’m really curious as to why this is so important? I’ve played USTA league tennis for about 11 years now. In general, I find it a great way to have competitive matches in an organized setting. The opportunity to advance to post season championships and compete against players from other areas is also a nice perk. IMO, the NTRP rating system does a pretty darn good job considering the number of people involved. I know that there are sandbaggers and cheaters out there, but no matter what the system is they will find a way to sandbag and cheat. Some people are like that.

    What I’ve never figured out is, why do people become so obsessed with changing the rating system and criticizing the USTA league program as a whole? Sometimes I wonder how many hours some people spend on such things. What drives you g4driver? I’m not trying to pick on you, but I see a lot of people like you and I don’t know where the get the time or energy.
     
    #64
  15. ian2

    ian2 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    409
    OrangePower, my preference would be to include every "official" USTA match where each player involved had a known DNTRP before the match was played. The main reason I'm opposed to including mixed/combo results is that I don't trust the NTRP algorithm to come up with "equitable" ratings if everything was thrown in. As is, they can barely manage to keep up with the more homogeneous scenarios (same gender singles/doubles). The basic DNTRP algorithm is somewhat flawed (g4driver's post #61 in this thread touches on some of the reasons) but in the end, in my opinion, the algorithm comes up with "reasonable" outcomes most of the time for most of the players. I'm not at all certain this would continue to be the case if mixed/combo results were included.

    On a somewhat related note, I'd like to see a move towards a more transparent and more information-rich system. I don't want to open a new can of worms here (or more likely, a dozen new cans) but personally, I'd like to:
    1. know my exact DNTRP... ideally, in real-time; at the very least, once a year when year-end ratings are published
    2. along with the overall rating, know my separate rating in singles, doubles, and mixed.
     
    #65
  16. ian2

    ian2 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    409
    catfish, some of it is "professional"... In my case, I see an algorithm that works OK but (I think) could work better, and feel a compulsion to discuss. Some people are like that :) I do agree that overall, NTRP system works - despite some obvious algorithm problems, the necessity to "adjust" the ratings periodically (2009 en-masse bump-ups?), etc.
     
    #66
  17. catfish

    catfish Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    792

    Perhaps the algorithm hasn't changed too much because of costs involved. I think that not allowing benchmarked players to appeal their year end ratings was a good move. It ended some "team dynasties" that had been winning at their level for years. I know in my local leagues there are not near as many repeat winners.

    I'm not so sure I like the en-masse bump-ups. Maybe I got used to what I think of as the "old ratings". But now, seems like everyone moved up one level except not many 4.5's moved to 5.0. I'm a 4.5, and don't especially want to get moved to 5.0 due to limited league play opportunities. But so many 4.0's moved up to 4.5 in the last couple of years that a lot of the match results are very lopsided. Many 4.5's kept their ratings and a whole slew of 4.0's moved up. There is a huge gap in the levels within the level.
     
    #67
  18. Islandtennis

    Islandtennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    205
    Very good insight about this subject catfish. I agree that the NTRP system is not perfect but overall it accomplishes what it intends to do except when people intentionally try to manipulate the system.

    The intention is not rank everyone in a local area on a 1000 person "ladder", it is to give people of similar ability the opportunity to have a competitive match and to allow a 3.5 in GA to play 3.5 in CA and it be enjoyable. The system is doing this. Sure there are some 3.5 rated players who play at a 4.0 level and vice versa, but these are the minority and will usually get bumped up or down in time.

    Everyone looking for an overhaul of the system needs to study how the system works at present. For instance, using Mixed or Combo for benchmark ratings (as mentioned a few posts up) would cause your 2011 ratings not to come out until Spring of 2012 (as Nationals are complete). Counting every match played would give you more data to use, but it would be flawed because of the different type of leagues in different areas.

    For G4, Standardization would do little to make the ratings in your local area more accurate.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2011
    #68
  19. SuperLotto

    SuperLotto New User

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    30
    When are the new NTRP's coming out? December 31st? If I played 14 3.5 level matches and only lost one...the first one of the season, will I get bumped up to 4.0?
     
    #69
  20. kylebarendrick

    kylebarendrick Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Location:
    Northern California
    Ratings usually come out around December 1. I say you have a good chance of being bumped, but you never know for sure.
     
    #70
  21. dizzlmcwizzl

    dizzlmcwizzl Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,178
    Location:
    DE
    They always come out the Monday after thanksgiving about 5:00.
     
    #71
  22. bruce nissenbaum

    bruce nissenbaum Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    289
    Seems like it should happen, but not necessarily. As I understand it, if the computer model predicted that you should have won all those matches easily (i.e. 6-1, 6-2) and your wins were real close (i.e. 6-4, 7-6), it is very possible that your DNTRP could actually decline and your EOY rating could remain at 3.5!
     
    #72
  23. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Your intentions are good, but...

    You say that you trust the algorithm in scenarios where the players are close to one another in DNTRP, but not when they are further apart. And as a result, you propose that all same gender singles/dubs should count, but combo/mixed should not.

    The flaw is that you assume DNTRPs will be consistently closely grouped in singles/dubs, and not closely grouped in combo/mixed. That's probably a good generalization, but is not correct under multiple scenarios:

    1. Players playing up in singles/dubs leagues: What if a 3.5 plays a 4.0 in a 4.0 singles league? Should that count despite the disparity in DNTRP?

    2. Players playing up in combo leagues: Say two 4.0s are playing against two opponents who are also both 4.0s in a 8.5 combo match. Shouldn't this count using your reasoning?

    3. The arbitrary nature of the cutoff between rating levels: DNTRPs are calculated using a continuous function. Breaking this up into levels introduces an artificial discontinuity. This leads to situations where players at different levels can be closer in DNTRP than players at the same level. For example, at 4.0 dubs you might end up with four 4.0s having DNTRP of {3.51, 3.63, 3.75, 3.99}. At 8.5 combo you could have two 4.0s and two 4.5s with DNTRP of {3.99, 3.99, 4.01, 4.01}. The DNTRPs in the latter case are much more tightly clustered than in the former, despite the fact that there is a mix of rating levels.

    I'm sure one could come up with another layer of rules to include/exclude scores under scenarios depending on DNTRP spread and so on. But then this is getting much more complicated and will in turn introduce more issues.


    I think separate ratings for singles vs doubles is a good thing.

    About revealing exact DNTRP: Personally, I would like that. It would give me a more accurate way to gauge my progress (or most likely, lack thereof). However I do think it will lead to more and better sandbagging. I happen not to care that much - if people want to sandbag, that's their problem not mine. But most people on this board will care.
     
    #73
  24. ian2

    ian2 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    409
    I think we agree on nearly everything... I'm not at all in favor of complicating the system any further. Ideally, I'd like every eligible match count. By "eligible" I mean a match where a) all players have DNTRP and b) the match is in a USTA league/tournament. I just don't trust the existing algorithm to handle well the additional level of disparity that mixed/combo introduces.
     
    #74
  25. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Yeah, I agree that the rating algorithm could be better, although it kinda works ok. I'm not sure how the USTA decided on it and why. Part of the complexity (and resulting issues) is because the algorithm looks at scores rather than simple win/lose.

    If I was in charge, I would investigate a simpler approach, based on the ELO algorithm applied to each set played. What this means is that each set won/lost would cause your rating to go up/down, with the amount of the adjustment depending on the difference between your DNTRP and the DNTRP of your opponent. The actual score within each set makes no difference using this approach. Players without a DNTRP would be assigned one based on their self-rating. Doubles results can be computed in exactly the same way, by using the combined DNTRPs of each team. Also, this algorithm is able to accommodate broad variation in the ratings of each person/team, so that every single sanctioned match can be considered.

    The ELO algorithm is tried and trusted, and has been used successfully for calculating ratings in other sports/activities where there can be a wide range in the skill levels of players. Its most well-known application is for Chess ratings.
     
    #75
  26. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,095
    Oh, dear God. Let's not release exact ratings. I cannot imagine the backtalk I would get from my players.
    "How come I don't get Superstar as a partner? My rating is closer to hers than anyone else on the team!"

    "Why do I have to play Line 1? She has a higher rating by .02. Don't sacrifice me!"

    It is bad enough that folks with a higher NTRP think it is some sort of validation, regardless if it was a fluke. Let's not make it worse.
     
    #76
  27. dizzlmcwizzl

    dizzlmcwizzl Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,178
    Location:
    DE
    ^^^ I agree with the sphinx that while I personally want to know see every ones exact ratings, if that were true I would spend many more hours on tennis link. I would spend hours comparing my ratings and results to my opponents and who they played etc. I would probably spending hours trying to duplicate the USTA algorithm just for fun. I do not need that level of information.

    However, with the new sign in feature on Tennis Link I would not mind if I were able to know my exact rating and not see any others.
     
    #77
  28. cak

    cak Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,013
    A few years back NorCal tried adding in a new system where you could see your, and everyone else's DNTRP out to three places. The idea was you enter your daily practice matches to get more data points to make the ratings better reflect reality.

    Other than the obvious "no one wants to enter scores everyday" and "some times I just go out for fun and the scores don't matter", the whole experiment was a huge disaster.

    There was a ridiculous amount of whining, just as Cindy predicted. From the first day you could see ratings it was obvious the system was flawed. (When lining up people whose games you know, the ones that were very good were sometimes below those that weren't so good.)

    And there was one guy entering scores for himself even though he was injured and hadn't played in months...

    But most importantly, people would spend energy manipulating their scores by sandbagging matches or lining up matches so they wouldn't affect ratings. If you know you are close to getting DQ'd, and it would mean your team would drop out of playoff contention, there are quite a few people willing to drop a few games or a set for the team.
     
    #78
  29. ian2

    ian2 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    409
    Practice matches?! Self-entered scores?! No one here is advocating this. I find it hard to believe that NorCal would introduce such system... it's just nuts. Are you sure this was an official NorCal thing, and not someone's "simulation" website? Kind of like simulation stock trading, to explore "what if" scenarios?
     
    #79
  30. SweetH2O

    SweetH2O Rookie

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    353
    Location:
    Powder Springs, GA
    Sounds a lot like what would happen if USTA went with a Tencap system, which it seemed like they were considering with the questionaire they sent out a few months back.
     
    #80
  31. Maui19

    Maui19 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,659
    If it is any consolation, tennis rating/handicapping is way way way way way better than golf rating/handicapping.
     
    #81
  32. cak

    cak Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,013
    I believe it was called TPI, and you were required to use it if you wanted to play combo league that year.

    NorCal tends to like to think of itself on the bleeding edge. Our front end to tennislink is pretty awesome. But sometimes the powers that be go a little wild.
     
    #82
  33. goober

    goober Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,491
    That is because in amateur golf a lot of people play for money- either side bets or money tournaments with handicaps. Once you introduce money into the situation, the incentive to cheat is huge.

    In NTRP you are paying out money to play. The only real money events on the rec level are some open tournaments where ratings do not matter.
     
    #83
  34. ian2

    ian2 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    409
    Thanks for the info! Wild indeed. Sounds like they aimed in the right direction but overshoot but quite a bit... can't blame them too hard for trying though.
     
    #84
  35. jonnyjack

    jonnyjack Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    381
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    dizzlmcwizzl is right, just saw this...

    http://tennislink.usta.com/LEAGUES/Common/Default.aspx
     
    #85
  36. rainman007

    rainman007 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    150
    all matches should count period.. ratings should be ran every 6 months
     
    #86
  37. Jim A

    Jim A Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    816
    #87
  38. azentropy

    azentropy New User

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    15
    I'm betting before that as everyone will be checking to see if they are posted early.
     
    #88
  39. Angle Queen

    Angle Queen Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    839
    Location:
    On the deuce side, looking to come in
    USTA's timing stinks. You'd think they could pick a day different from Cyber Monday. :rolleyes:
     
    #89
  40. Topaz

    Topaz Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,812
    ^^^Lol AQ....I never thought of that!
     
    #90
  41. kylebarendrick

    kylebarendrick Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Location:
    Northern California
    As it works out (and it makes sense when you think about it), ratings are released about a week after the last national tournament. That just happens to be right around the Monday after Thanksgiving each year.
     
    #91
  42. Playtennis

    Playtennis New User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    82
    Does this apply for 2012 ratings? Anyone know if this is another bump up year? So many people I know got bumped up ly.
     
    #92
  43. goober

    goober Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,491
    As far as I know that bump up was a one time thing. The USTA didn't announce they were going to do it a regular deal although I wouldn't mind if they did it every 2 years just because things are pretty much back to the way they were before.
     
    #93
  44. njsigman

    njsigman Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    215
    One more week until the year end ratings come out. Let the madness begin!! :)
     
    #94
  45. bruintennis

    bruintennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Messages:
    450
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Was 11/1/2012 the cutoff for the 2013 ratings?
     
    #95
  46. dizzlmcwizzl

    dizzlmcwizzl Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,178
    Location:
    DE
    who knows .... I think so, based on what others out of the loop have said.
     
    #96
  47. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,976
    So simple, so logical. It'll never happen.
     
    #97
  48. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Come on people, don't you know how much computing power costs these days? USTA could never afford that. Think about those poor cute hamsters running around frantically inside their little wheels in order to power everything.
     
    #98
  49. Topaz

    Topaz Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,812
    My understanding is that the cutoff was 11/1.
     
    #99
  50. tennis_tater

    tennis_tater Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    456
    I think it depends on the what leagues the player played in. If the player played in Mixed Only and played at the national championships during November, I would think that the mixed matches during the month of November count for that player's ratings.
     

Share This Page