Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by MPC37, May 25, 2006.
How good are division II college tennis players?
Big range. They can be as good as DI players, but usually without the good grades. They can also be quite average.
who here at the boards plays college tennis?
A few guys including me.
The top D-2 guys can hang with almost anybody in D-1 except for the very very best ones. The top D-2 teams can hang with any D-1 team that aren't in the top 50 or so. Here's how the 18th ranked D-2 team did against the 49th ranked D-1 team, both teams from San Diego.
I've played a few Division II womens players. Let's just say I got wooped and fairly easily. I haven't played any men Division II players but I can only imagine how good they are; I'd probably get blown off the court.
Just incredibly solid hitters that can hit the lines if they are given ANY ball to attack. It's a whole 'nother level; it's incredible. It's hard to explain... other than imagine playing a brick wall that hits back harder.
The thing is the anticipation... I had a hard time setting up for a lot of my shots and they were there everytime just ready and taking full swings and just hitting the spots they needed. I'm used to pace but they were flat shots with no spin so if I was just a second late in anticipation it would fly by me. Tough stuff. Hard to explain, go out and play a few college players if you get a chance.
I play DIII tennis and we have played some DII schools before and beaten a lot of them. I don't see any difference between II and III except those brats get scholarships. Just kidding, but seriously, i don't see a big difference. There are amazing kids and there are kids who really need to take a few more lessons in both divisions.
i want to play ucsd tennis
im about a 4.5
anyone have any information?
im going this fall
Hmm it looked like UCSD was not really hanging with SDSU. They lost pretty convincingly and only one guy got a set off a SDSU player.
From this it's fair to say there's about 0.5 NTRP points separating the average ability level of each team - one team is about 5.5 and the other is about 5.0.
The number 1 ranked D-3 team played the number 17th ranked D-2 team: results here. I would guess the number 1 D-3 team is about the same as the number 25 to 30th D-2 team. D-2 is not just better, but much deeper. In D-2, the number 25 team could take some points off the number 1 team, but in D-3 such a matchup would result in a clean sweep for the number 1 team.
Two guys went three sets, and a third guy lost 6 and 3. The number one lost 5 and 1. Not bad for the 18th ranked D-2 team. If you just look at the final team score, they got smoked, but, to me, the individual match scores indicate to me the D-2 teams can hang. It wasn't a waste of time for the SDSU.
All them guys are at least 5.5. Their top players are 6.0. I've easily beaten a guy who wins many 5.5 tournaments in So Cal, and I was way below my college form. Those guys on the San Diego team would be feeding me bagels and breadsticks.
Sorry, sometimes I forget that I live somewhere that doesn't have rating inflation like they do in California. In Washington, unlike a lot of places, there are no 5.5 tournaments or leagues, so a 5.0 in Washington is about the same as a 5.5 in California. I say this because I would not have won an NTRP national title if the rating systems were equivalent. In that tournament, I played a guy with an above-.500 record in the SoCal 4.5s, and it was an easy double bagel. He would have been a 4.0 or lower in Washington.
Also, when I moved to Boston 10 yrs ago and got rated by the pro at the local club, he told me I was a 5.8. Yeah right. I was more like 4.8.
I'm at UCSD and I'd say the team players are anywhere between 5.5 (the top 3 players or so) and 4.5 or worse (the bottom 3 or so).
The lower guys might be 5.0, but I'd be surprised if they were truly 4.5. I've seen teams that have guys who are 3.5 to 4.0 on their team, so I'm not saying it's impossible, just that they're ranking and results would indicate they're much better.
So how did you determine which place was accurate? I just want to know how you arrived at this. Maybe the 5.0 in your area are truly 5.5, but you seem certain they're not.
So you assume therefor that every rating in So Cal is equally unreliable? You could be right, but I was rated a 5.0 nearly 10 years ago in Michigan right before my freshmen year of college, after not having touched a racket in 2 years. I'll try to look up some ratings based national competition to see if there is in fact a trend of So Cal players getting beaten at their respective levels.
.8? Never heard of that.
Maybe my limited experience with the US rating system is to blame and maybe you're right... but BTW when I say the bottom 3 are 4.5 or worse, I'm not talking about guys that actually play competitively for the university. There's only about 6-7 guys on the team that are in the active line-up. The team as a whole has maybe 14 guys. So I'm talking about the bottom 3 out of the entire 14-man squad. All of the guys in the active roster are 5.0 or 5.5 for sure, more like 5.5.
Oh, that sounds very possible. The last man on our squad of 11 was 4.5, and arguably a weak one at that.
A player with a record just above .500 in SoCal 4.5s possibly was a 4.0 rated player. There are alot of 4.0's playing in the 4.5 draws and most of the players playing in the 5.5 draws down here are rated 4.5. Players rated 5.0 and above usually play in the Open division.
The NTRP ratings of the guys playing for UCSD and SDSU can be found here for some of them.
Stephan Timu - 5.0
Robert Sabo - 5.0
Eugenio Romero - 5.0
Billy Timu - 5.0
Brent Molden - 5.0
Erik Oijala - 5.0
Blake Meister - 5.0
Eric Rubens - 5.0
Ramesh Thondapu - 5.0
Kazumi Negishi - 5.0
Hope this helps.
Timu plays #4 and Sabo plays #6 for the 49th ranked team in the country. Timu played in the qualies for the Miller Light Hall of Fame tournament in 2003, losing in 3 sets. Not sure if this was his highest ranking, but at one point he was 173 in the ITF junior rankings. He's by definition NOT a 5.0.
Robert Sabo was ranked 86 in D-1 singles as recently as January. He's by definition NOT a 5.0. Both these guys are both very formidable Open level players.
They're both in this draw for the D-1 Men's ITA Regionals. Timu got smoked by Ben K of UCLA, who is currently number 1 in the country, and Sabo took out the 5th and 9th seeds in succession to reach the quarters where he lost to the 2nd seed.
The USTA needs to do something to end the confusion over ratings.
When Blake played at Harvard, did that make him a D-III player?
My team played a D2 school this year, and their abilities were varied. Their top two guys were very good and could hang with our top two guys. After that, their level started dropping off pretty considerably. Their depth was just not quite as good as ours.
Harvard is D-1. He was the number 1 D-1 player in the country his last year.
I see that it’s been awhile since anyone has posted about this topic but I just came across the page and have some things to add. I started for UCSD at #4, 5 and mostly 6 last year and played against SDSU. Obviously a 7-0 looks bad overall but whether you believe me or not, each match, at least in singles, was fairly close.
The primary question “how good are D-II players” is difficult to answer simply. I believe the general differences between D-I and D-II starters is that D-I players can hit the ball stronger more consistently, have less prevalent weaknesses or shots that don’t breakdown as much, and they can finish points off better. As I said these are general differences. There are D-II players and even D-III players who are better than D-I players.
As for the NTRP rating systems they are misleading to say the least. I laughed when I saw them. Every one of those players listed is at least a 5.5 on a bad day.
Two side notes:
1) It is true we had quite a drop off at number 13 or 14 this last year but that is definitely going to change next year. The lowest member will be a weak 5.5 or strong 5.0 by those wonderfully accurate NTRP standards.
2) UCSD is the only D-II school not to give any athletic scholarships.
We've discussed ratings many times before, but one of the major flaws in the rating system is its inability to distinguish players at higher levels. After all, the difference between Nadal and some guy ranked 150 can often be attributed to what happens on the 10th stroke of a rally. Is the rating system capable of such fine gradations? I think not.
Among lower ranked players, the issues are decidedly different, but the rating system still operates with very marginal efficiency. It is little more than the currently popular illusion dressed in the "white" reality of the USTA.
Interesting thread ... again. (Yes. It's been discussed before.)
I played #2 NAIA-II for a "rinky-dink" college ... then transferred to a very good NCAA-III, where I played #4. (This was 30 years ago.) I was suprised at the lack of consistency within Associations ... and within Divisions.
So I say "All the answers given here are correct -- and not correct." The real answer is "It depends...."
(The biggest difference I'm seeing today is the predominance of non-USA players. This is the case in both Associations.)
Actually the worse UCSD player is 5.5... no one is 4.5 in the UCSD team, I know this for fact. The top 3 are 6.0 not 5.5. You can look at their USTA results using www.tennisinformation.com to see where they're place in USTA tournaments.
Lol these are all jacked up rankings and probably don't exceed 5.0.
Molden, Rubens, Miester, Timu's, and Sabo are all well above 5.5 and only play USTA Opens, not even 5.5s. They usually a high seed in the opens bracket as well.
I would consider these all 6.0 players, the ones I just named.
According to USTA guidelines, the minimum rating for Div 1, top 75 ranked team or player under age 30 is 6.0. The minimum rating for a Div 1 unranked team or player or NAIA, Div 2 or Div 3 top ranked team or player is 5.5. So, by definition these players are at least a 5.5, and would remain so until they lose enough in USTA (not college) play to get bumped down.
http://dps.usta.com/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_13_7372.pdf?12/6/2004 4:12:22 PM
S. Timu beat his brother B Timu and also won the Opens level.. And most the players in the opens would win the 5.5 bracket easily.
You may have gone to the same Boston club that my friend plays at. They rated him a 4.7 or so, and he is more like a 3.7.
But the point is they know about the inflation within the club. I wouldn't consider Boston ratings inflated simply because clubs like to give their members inflated ratings.
The same kind of inflation exists in a New Jersey Tennis center where I play. The members know to drop levels by about 1.0 if they participate in USTA leagues.
The same thing happens here in Cincinnati. Some guys who play 4.5/5.0 interclub play 4.0 USTA. I played 4.0 for two years here before the computer finally bumped me to 4.5
I also played college tennis in the early 90's at a NAIA school (which is now DII and gets crushed). My first year there we beat a DI school, lost 5-4 to another, and lost 6-3 to a DIII school. The difference was the DI schools did not put much emphasis at the time on tennis (I believe both have started to pay more attention to it now) and the DIII school consistantly produces very good teams and probably plays in one of the better DIII conferences in the nation.
I play D-II tennis and I'd rate myself at 4.5-5.0, depending on who I'm playing against.
I think that the NTRP does not need to and was not intended to rate players on higher levels. There is something that already does that job and is pretty accurate- it is called the ATP/WTA rankings . If you are 6.5-7.0 you should be definition having a ranking which will tell you exactly where you are relative to another ranked person...
NTRPs are more relevant at the club level. I personally think there are too many divisions with too many people trying to game the system. Having broad divisions such as A,B, C or beginner, intermediate and advanced would work for me.
Last year the USTA came out with the self rating guidelines for experienced players. It states that players under the age of 35 that played college tennis even at an unranked college should self rate no lower than 4.5. If an opposing captain finds out they are playing against a former college player (and the site helpfully gives a link to a site where you can search for all college players on rosters in the last 10 years or so...) they can file a petition and have your wins reversed. So good thing you got bumped to 4.5 before they caught up with you.
I didnt self rate, I was rated 4.0 when you went to the clinic back in 2000. I hadn't played hardly in the previous 3 years and was very rusty. My play those couple years really warranted me playing at 4.0 and not 4.5. Once I moved here in 2003 I started playing more and with better people so my game started improve again.
You may remember that back in the '70s A, B (and sometimes C) was just how it was done in the USTA. Frankly, I liked that better, too.
IIR, once you made more than one Final in a B tourney, you were automatically an A player. It was a fairly simple system ... but it, too, got abused by the sandbaggers and cheats. (But it was just easier....)
That's cool. Do you know the link?
Umm actually I don't remember since I was a toddler and in early grade school for that whole decade
I know several people that this happend to. In fact when I first joined the my current club some guys on the 4.0 team for my club wanted me to play for them. I was like dude, there is no way they would let me pass for 4.0. But that apparently is the way to get a really good team to go to nationals with. I know some of the guys from this 4.0 team and no way are all of them 4.0 players. I have personally hit and played with a few of them. Yes some of them are true 4.0 players but there some guys who do not belong on that team. I guess the secret is to self rate at a 4.0 when you obviously are not, then you get yourself a free year. If you dominate then you get booted up to 4.5 but not before you take your team to nationals, like the 4.0 team at my club has done. They are going to nationals in Hawaii.
Hmm, I wonder if I am on it.
Separate names with a comma.