NTRP Questions...

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by leaugeCO, Sep 20, 2012.

  1. J_R_B

    J_R_B Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,670
    Location:
    Newtown, PA
    It's hard to follow what you are referring to, but there were two possible things - that tournament results count (which they can or not depending on the section) or that 6-0 6-0 matches count (which they do but didn't in the past). Both of these things are correct, and if you don't believe it, then you are the one who is wrong.
     
    #51
  2. tenniscasey

    tenniscasey Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Messages:
    427
    Deleted, pointless.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2012
    #52
  3. corbind

    corbind Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,308
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    I hope the LeagueCO comes back...that list of questions is anxious.
     
    #53
  4. tennis tom

    tennis tom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,770
    I see that most of the new questions appearing this morning could have probably been answered by LeagueCO if he/she were still around--but a few nattering nabobs of negativity may have run him/her off. I hope LCO just spent the weekend playing tennis or doing his/her job at a tournament and will be back. I feel LCO is made of tougher mettle then some give him/her credit for and will survive the slings and arrows that are the norm of AlGorerhythm Gore's www.com. LCO is probably just doing research with some Supreme Court Clerks to get more definitive answers from prior rulings in lower district offices. I just hope he/she isn't waiting for input from the 9th Circuit, as they are likely conferencing at some howling at the moon ceremony, up in the Emerald Triangle.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2012
    #54
  5. North

    North Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    937
    Lol. Yeah, I've played baseball and rugby in leagues. Everyone showed up on time - you would just adjust your schedule. And no one ever whined about having to always play by all the rules, whether there was a ref/umpire present or not.
     
    #55
  6. goober

    goober Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,491

    I haven't seen alot of whining about fees around here, but I wouldn't say the costs are trivial. Our court fees+ USTA membership+ league fees to play on one team for fall and spring seasons was $300-350. I am sure there are teams which play in indoor courts or at country clubs that pay much more. If you play mulitple teams it can really add up. I have definitely had people not join the team that couldn't afford it or people I basically had to subsidize for them to play. If it were just $40 and that was it, yeah we would have nobody complaining about it.
     
    #56
  7. ronray43

    ronray43 New User

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    Messages:
    55
    League20, your overview does highlight one of the recurring issues with NTRP. The winners are supposed to win, and the losers are supposed to lose, and because NTRP does not take into account wins or losses, the winners continue to win, and the losers continue to lose. While some movement does occur for newer players, the vast majority of us are stuck where we are, which is great for the winners and not so great for the losers.

    Since every advancement in USTA league play is based on win-loss record vice how close a particular match scored compared to the NTRP prediction, you'd think wins and losses would be factored into the formula.

    Why is USTA so opposed to factoring win/loss into the algorithm? I'm not saying NTRP should be determined soley by win-loss record, but win-loss record should be a part of the computation.

    Thanks,
    Ron
     
    #57
  8. tenniscasey

    tenniscasey Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Messages:
    427
    Clearly leaugeCO has a thick skin. I'm sure they'll come back.
     
    #58
  9. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,371
    As mentioned earlier in this thread, it isn't winning/losing that determines your rating, but the opponents rating and the score of the match. If you play weak opponents and/or win very closely (or perhaps even lose more games than you win), your rating can go down even with a win.

    Also, it depends when early start ratings are calculated and what is included in them. In the PNW for example, they generally come out in June and only include adult results through local playoffs but no sectional/national results nor results from another summer league we have.


    http://computerratings.blogspot.com/search/label/tennis
     
    #59
  10. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,371
    So I'm curious how 6-0,6-0 matches count now. My understanding of the thought process was that such matches couldn't tell you much about how the players compare, e.g. if a 4.0 is supposed to be a 3.5 6-0,6-0, then how does one fairly come up with a match rating for the match? It is possible that the higher rated player could only have their rating drop and the lower rated player rise if the gap between them is large enough. But if someone beats a player with a very similar rating 6-0,6-0 you'd want that to count.

    My thought has always been that a 6-0,6-0 match should count if the gap between the players is small enough that the expected score is closer than 6-0,6-0 but not count otherwise. So is this what is being done now?

    Thanks
     
    #60
  11. COLuv2Play

    COLuv2Play New User

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    NTRP Rating Question

    leagueCO -- I have some questions

    I am in Colorado where everything seems to count -- all of my league participation matches (USTA leagues and CTA leagues) and all of my sanctioned tournament matches. Looking at my record for 2012 so far this year, I believe I am really close to moving up from 3.0 to 3.5. I wondered how much the Benchmark matches figure in to this and how USTA looks at a player who wins over 3.5 benchmark players (sometimes) but loses to 3.0 benchmark players (sometimes). Is it the same kind of math that is applied to any other match, just with maybe a multiplier of 2 or something?

    I want to do everything I can in the little time that is left to make sure I move up. I basically have decided that playing against 3.0 players whether I win or lose is a lot riskier for me than playing 3.5 -- especially if I am pretty sure I can post a competitive score at 3.5.

    Your thoughts?
     
    #61
  12. Orange

    Orange Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    209
    I cannot point you to a particular source, but I have researched NTRP using every source on the internet because I captained 3 teams this year, and I do not believe that matches against benchmark players count any more or less than matches against other players. A benchmark rating is one based on playoff results.

    It is possible to beat 3.5 benchmark players and lose to 3.0 benchmark players because those benchmark ratings are based on results from last year. A 3.0 player who is rapidly improving could have a higher dynamic rating that is not reflected in his 3.0 rating that is visible to the public.
     
    #62
  13. COLuv2Play

    COLuv2Play New User

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Orange -- I don't lose to 3.0 Benchmark players because they are better than 3.5 Benchmark players. They definitely are not! I lose to them because I don't play as well. The better my opponents are, the better I play.

    The question really has nothing to do with why I lose to 3.0s and win over 3.5s, it has to do with how the USTA views that.
     
    #63
  14. Orange

    Orange Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    209
    I'm sorry I misunderstood your question.

    Also, I should have said that benchmarks are based on post-season play, not playoffs.
     
    #64
  15. tennis tom

    tennis tom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,770
    I don't think LeagueCO is in any hurry to come back here, if ever. I may try to contact him to ask him to return if he left an email address.
     
    #65
  16. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,371
    It isn't so much that benchmark ratings count more than other results, but that once the benchmark players are identified and their ratings calculated, recalculations are done that could change your and other players ratings from just the regular Dynamic NTRP that is calculated throughout the year. I've seen mentions that this benchmark calculation may be 50% of the year end rating with the other 50% the normal Dynamic NTRP.
     
    #66
  17. Mongolmike

    Mongolmike Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    Messages:
    996
    Location:
    Ohio
    My understanding is by virtue of being a benchmarked player- (which means they have advanced in post season matches, right?) - that in itself raises their rating because they are at the top of the pyramid for their rating... so if you've played against a benchmark (win or lose) that factors into the computer system as a tougher opponent.

    In other words, many players who advance in post season will get benchmarked and they also have a higher chance of being bumped up... they and their team have shown by being in the post season (to a certain degree) that they are the best at their rating.... so if you've played against a benchmarked player, that figures in the computation as a tougher match, win or lose.

    During the season, it doesn't matter as much because the opponent is not benchmarked yet... but at some point during their playoff run they will be benchmarked, and at that point that changes the factors into how it affects your rating/your match vs them months earlier... right?
     
    #67
  18. dizzlmcwizzl

    dizzlmcwizzl Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,178
    Location:
    DE
    NO, NO, NO .... Being bench marked itself has nothing to do with your rating. It just means you played in the postseason.

    However, if you played in the postseason, the chances are greater that you are a good player and at the top of your band ... otherwise you would have not been in the lineup presumably. But this is not always the case for obvious reasons.

    None of us actually know the algorithm but this is my conjecture as to why the USTA cares at all about the benchmarks ...

    I played in sectionals for Middles States at 4.0. When I played our section's national representative I lost in doubles in a third set match tiebreaker. This was considered a tie because even though they won the match we split games.

    Now if the guys we played go out to nationals and get smoked then the USTA will say "Dizzl, yall are about the same as these guys and they got smoked so we are gonna dial you back" (and other guys that played against these dudes) to keep the sections as equal as possible. However, if our guys go out and dominate Nationals, the USTA will raise us a little and lower some other sections.

    Being benchmarked does not make you more likely to get bumped, performing better than your peers is what drives the bump...

    In fact, last year in our district 10 folks were early start bumped. All were benchmarked and after the team from our section performed poorly at nationals every single one was moved back down at year end. However, 3 players that were not benchmarked were moved up at year end even though they were not early start bumps.
     
    #68
  19. kylebarendrick

    kylebarendrick Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Location:
    Northern California
    Having a benchmark rating does NOT mean that someone is at the top of their level. If someone plays at Districts as a 3.5 and then gets bumped at the end of the year. Their new rating will be 4.0b - even though they have never played a match at 4.0.

    Anyone with a 4.0b is either a 3.5 that played in the post season and got bumped or a 4.0 that played in the post season and didn't get bumped. Those are the only conclusions that you can draw.
     
    #69
  20. Mongolmike

    Mongolmike Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    Messages:
    996
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ok, you said it a bit differently... the point is the same tho...

    -IF you play in the post season you will get benchmarked.

    -IF you play in the post season you are presumably a good player and near the top of your band. You will be benchmarked AND your dynamic rating will improve as you advance. Your dynamic rating can change match by match even.

    -IF I played a player in the regular season who later played successfully in the post season, this will have an upward effect on my end of year rating.

    So you can get a benchmark if you do well in the post season... so its not the benchmark that effects ratings, but the fact you advanced in the post season.

    Post season matches=change in your dynamic rating and a benchmark= change in your regular season opponent's end of year algorithm
     
    #70
  21. dizzlmcwizzl

    dizzlmcwizzl Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,178
    Location:
    DE
    Just to be clear ... playing well in the postseason did not necessarily "help" my rating. Last year during the regular adult season I went 19-1 and then in district and sectionals I went a combined 7-2. I was early start rated up to 4.5 at the end of the season. However, one of the the two teams I lost to at sectionals got smashed at nationals ... their results moved me back down. Of course I don't know, but I suspect if I had not played at sectionals last year I would have been moved up at year end. Therefore playing in the postseason actually likely "hurt" my rating.
     
    #71
  22. Islandtennis

    Islandtennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    205
    One thing to remember is that the primary use of benchmarks is to equate NTRP levels across local areas. The district, sectional, and national playoffs is the only time (in league play) that people play out of their local area. It attempts to do the impossible of making a 3.5 in CA similar to a 3.5 in NY; or a 3.5 in one part of GA similar to a 3.5 in another part of GA. While not perfect, it does work better than having no equalizing in place.
     
    #72
  23. dizzlmcwizzl

    dizzlmcwizzl Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,178
    Location:
    DE
    It could be a 4.5 player that played in playoffs and then was moved down. Seems implausible but I know of exactly this case ... where a player played 4.5 districts this year and was bumped down at early start rating time.
     
    #73
  24. Spokewench

    Spokewench Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    588
    This is how I understand Benchmark - it means if you go on to advance to post season play; say you have a dynamic rating of 3.466 you are a benchmark for that dynamic rating. Not, that you are at the height of your rating level, not that you are at the low end. You set the benchmark for that particular dynamic rating.

    I have been to sectionals several times, but I am also from a very small district so I have also gotten my butt kicked each and every time I have gone to sectionals (i was not at the top of the rating level).
     
    #74
  25. ian2

    ian2 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    409
    Great discussion! My thoughts are very much in-line with what dizzlmcwizzl's was saying, and I agree with the above as well. But to me, "not perfect" is the key here: I feel that NTRP's attempt to "equate levels across local areas" is based on a faulty premise. A set of faulty premises actually: the algorithm makes statistical determinations based on a sample size that is too small to support such determinations; on top of that, the sample itself is likely to be NOT representative of the "average" level of play in a given area. Then the problem is compounded by giving this questionable "denominator" too much weight.

    I'm actually not sure that this works better than having no equalizing in place, even for the stated purpose of equating NTRP levels across local areas. As for the role this plays in calculating individual year-end DNTRP: while benchmark recalculation produces a ripple effect for all players, it almost certainly affects players who happened to play directly against benchmarks in a non-linear way, and can result in some odd NTRP outcomes for such players. It appears that one blow-out loss (or win... it goes both ways) against a benchmark player might outweigh a player's entire record during the year.
     
    #75
  26. Orange

    Orange Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    209
    This was the case with a player on my team. She was bumped down at year-end (not early start) after losing badly in the playoffs last summer. I am, of course, thrilled to have her on my team.
     
    #76
  27. J_R_B

    J_R_B Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,670
    Location:
    Newtown, PA
    If you didn't at least TRY to normalize the ratings across areas, then you would definitely get the ratings "drift" that people constantly claim on here in stronger tennis areas but really doesn't actually exist and a bias towards larger areas at nationals. The normalization isn't perfect for sure, but it does do as good of a job as it can of at least eliminating the creation of hot spots whose teams win nationals every year.
     
    #77
  28. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,976
    Couldn't agree more. I live in a tennis "hotbed" and we have had teams advance to, and win, nationals over the years. However, our chances of having a team accomplish this are only increased by volume of competitors. We don't get a team to nationals every year, but we are in the hunt at sectionals because captains have tons of players to choose from.

    Overall though, we are pretty equal from a talent perspective with any other area of the country. Not like we can take our local league champ on a tour of the country and dominate city-by-city. That's why I see NTRP being reasonably effective at providing balanced competition. Not perfect, but pretty good.

    I still feel that self rates should be ineligible for post season. They need a C to confirm their level to keep it the most fair it can be.
     
    #78
  29. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,371
    Agreed as well. We all know the NTRP isn't perfect and some people manipulate it or take advantage of how it works, but it is better than nothing and trying to normalize across sections is certainly better than not trying. Could it be improved? Sure, but let's not just throw it out or not try to normalize.

    I also agree that self-rates are an issue, but not because they are allowed to play post-season, but more because the thresholds the USTA sets for DQs are too high and/or that they don't DQ a player after a certain point. I have seen numerous cases where my estimated DNTRP has indicated a player has 3+ results in excess of what I'd expect the threshold to be, but they don't get DQ'd. It appears, at least at the 3.5 level where I've observed this primarily, but perhaps other levels too, the room the USTA gives for "natural improvement" is too large and allows self-rates who are clearly above level to continue to play at a level.

    http://computerratings.blogspot.com/search/label/tennis
     
    #79
  30. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,976
    ^^^great post

    My opinion on self rates not playing post season is simple. Most people join a competitive league to win. Very few would be psychologically capable of ranking matches for an entire year, just to possibly dominate in year 2. But, if a few sneak through that way...all the power to them.

    I just think you'll end up with far fewer sandbaggers in year 2 than year 1 if you get a year of data on them. To me, it just seems simple. I don't care if self rates are in a local league, but soooo many get DQd at districts and sectionals that it makes me wonder...what team would've been here that played by the rules instead of this team that cheated?
     
    #80
  31. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,085
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Good post. I'm in NorCal Bay Area, so similar situation. Our 4.5s are not 'better' than other 4.5s, but there is a greater density of them within a manageable geographical area to choose from.

    The NorCal 4.5 team that is going to Nationals is a good example. Looking at the roster, seems they are all legitimate 4.5s - no sandbaggers or self rates. But also looking at where the players are from, it looks like the captain pulled together the strongest players from several districts. You can do that when the districts are relatively close together.

    And completely agree on the no self rates in playoffs. Realistically, who would that affect? Most self rated players are just happy to be playing organized tennis again, enjoy the regular season, and are not even thinking about playoffs before the season begins. The ones who would be impacted are... the intentional sandbaggers and their captains. Too bad.
     
    #81
  32. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,371
    I don't disagree that a blanket rule of no self rates in playoffs would address the intentional sandbaggers, but it would also punish those that are still legitimate players at level. Why not just tighten the rules on DQs to err more on the side of keeping it fair for the masses rather than erring on the side of letting the self-rate keep playing? The USTA admits that the threshold for DQ is not just the top of the level and there is a buffer to allow for natural improvement, just reduce or eliminate that buffer and the problem is likely solved.
     
    #82
  33. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,085
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Because it's a simple solution, and there's much to be said for simplicity.

    Plus, I don't think it's much of a punishment to the legit self rates. Most legit self rates are typically not thinking about playoffs, they are just happy to be playing organized tennis again, and are content with enjoying the regular season. Also, what percentage of players (self rated or not) make playoffs at all? Certainly a minority. So the 'punishment' affects only a minority of a minority of a minority (the subset of legit self rates who would genuinely be upset at not being able to play in playoffs, within the subset of self rates, within the subset of players making playoffs).

    Basically, you're saying that a larger number of honest players would be disadvantaged by such a rule versus the number of dishonest players prevented from sandbagging. And I respectfully disagree and think it's the other way around.
     
    #83
  34. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,976
    I guess the "tightening of the DQ rules" would be unnecessary in our scenario. Less grey area for folks to complain about. It would provide less incentive to fudge the self rate questions and the "masses" are less likely to be mis-rated from the get go. If they know they can't participate in post season until year 2, they won't even know that they are missing out on something.

    But, realistically, we all pretty much know that teams that advance to nationals get bumped up by and large because they have become that good. So, if a self rate makes it to nationals, how do you say that they weren't cheating or, at least, talked into it?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2012
    #84
  35. kylebarendrick

    kylebarendrick Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Location:
    Northern California
    I'd say that, almost by definition, any self rated player good enough to make a difference at Sectionals/Nationals self-rated lower than they should have. That definition is provided by the self-rating guidelines that state "when in doubt, choose the higher level" - guidance that is almost always ignored.

    I do support the clean solution of banning self-rates from playoffs. I'd be willing to settle for the compromise solution of running their dynamic ratings at the end of the local league season and immediately bumping everyone who's dynamic is at the next level.
     
    #85
  36. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,976
    I like that too. Shouldn't be an issue for a section to run DNTRP before playoffs and send the local coordinators a list of ineligibles.

    However, many get the DQ at districts/sectionals because that is when they hit a third strike. It would probably be feasible that the player would cross their threshed at that time too. That's why I'd just prefer the blanket - no self rates in the post season.
     
    #86
  37. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    553
    Self-rates dont even matter.

    You can always just play one adult season and get a "C" rating after sandbagging all your matches.

    All banning "S-rates" from playoff's does is delay it for a year.

    And before anyones says it... that's not what I did, not intentionally, anyway.
     
    #87
  38. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,976
    I already addressed this in post #80.

    If any human being wants to plan their cheating 1 year in advance...congrats, you are an awesome cheater.
     
    #88
  39. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,085
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Ahahahahahaaaaa....

    That's like creating loopholes in the tax code and then expecting wealthy people with smart accountants not to exploit them :)
     
    #89
  40. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,085
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Anyone who is that dedicated to sandbagging deserves to get a pen at Nationals.
    Seriously, who would play a whole season tanking matches at a sucky lower level just to get an artificially low "C" rating?
     
    #90
  41. NTRPolice

    NTRPolice Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    553
    All im saying is that prohibiting "S" rates from advancing to playoffs isnt a good idea, that's all. It will do nothing but encourage cheaters to sandbag a year first, giving them an iron clad "C" rating and prevent any (more or less) legitimate "S" rates from advancing.

    Right now you have people who sandbag a year for a "C" rating, but you also have "good intentioned" S-rates advancing, and you have "bad intentioned" S-rates advancing. By prohibiting all S-rates from advancing you just encourage cheating for those who want to cheat and are even helping them by changing their "S" into a "C".

    A lot of people man... a lot of people. There are people who play adult league and dump to keep their rating low for mixed and these teams make it to the playoffs every year at least.

    I see a lot of it at the 3.0 to 4.0 level here. By the time you get to 4.5's and above people are too competitive to sandbag more or less. At the 3.0 to 4.0 level though, you see it all the time. It's the reason why NTRP's are so FUBAR. You have 4.0-able people dumping for YEARS to keep their rating at 3.0 or 3.5 and all they play (for serious) is USTA mixed and other leagues that use NTRP.
     
    #91
  42. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,976
    Well, if they're going to have years of this ahead of them...why would you give a damn about them in their first year? If they are life time cheaters, boom...they win. We can't solve that. It takes a lot of strategy to manipulate a season (nonetheless, multiple consecutive seasons). That guy can have at it all he wants. That's just who he is.

    Nothing you said makes me think sitting self rates from playoffs is anything but a good idea. What I don't want to see at 4.5 Districts is a legit D1 roster squaring off with all players, coincidentally, in their first USTA season ever. And then that team can't play at Sectionals because half the squad got DQ'd.
     
    #92
  43. SLW

    SLW New User

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6
    I'm a newb, can someone explain to me what they mean by "benchmark"? What does it mean if you say "player X is a benchmark player now"?
     
    #93
  44. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,371
    This simply means that they are a player that advanced to sectionals and/or nationals. By advancing to that point, they will end up playing matches against other areas/districts/sections and establish a comparison point between those areas/districts/sections. As such, they become a benchmark to compare other players from their own local league against.

    The idea is that by using the ratings of these players as a "benchmark", recalculations can be done at the local league level and the players that played the benchmark player and by extension, the league as a whole is adjusted accordingly to keep the meaning of a "4.0" (or any level for that matter) in one section similar to the meaning of a "4.0" in another.
     
    #94
  45. Orange

    Orange Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    209
    A benchmark rating is given to a player who advances to post-season play. This can be local playoffs between teams in two different flights; it doesn't have to be sectionals, nationals or even districts. One of my players has a benchmark rating after losing in the local playoffs and being bumped down a level.
     
    #95
  46. tennisplayer1993

    tennisplayer1993 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2012
    Messages:
    703
    Location:
    All Around The World
    for me i based NTRP on players i can beat. I can keep it very competitive with my Division 3 college tennis friend. usually our matches end up with scorelines such as 6-4 7-6 or something of that sort.

    While playing my Division I college tennis friend (one of the less prestigious ones) can straight set me pretty easily 6-2 6-1 ish.
     
    #96

Share This Page