Player re-rated himself under a new number

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by RobFox68, Jul 31, 2011.

  1. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,058
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Jim, I think this particular point of yours is specious.

    It's much harder to sandbag over a 2 year period and takes real effort and determination on the part of the captain... which kinda defeats the purpose of cheating (i.e. winning without putting in the effort). It also takes great cooperation and patience on the part of the player.

    Plus, the bar for getting bumped up is lower than the bar for getting DQ'd - meaning, you can avoid being DQ'd but still get bumped at the end of the year. So the 2-year sandbagging plan requires a much higher level of tanking that the 1-year plan.

    No doubt about it, making self-rates ineligible for playoffs will reduce sandbagging.

    Whether you think the result is worth the other potential negatives is the only real argument.
     
    #51
  2. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,070
    Regarding playing up . . .

    I had matches against 3.0 players who were playing up. It didn't bother me. Some of those matches were more competitive than matches against computer-rated 3.5s. As a captain, I love having opponents with lots of people playing up. I get to work my weaker players into the line-up, and they get to feel good about getting a win for the team.

    Regarding the idea of making self-rates ineligible for playoffs . . . let's consider the big picture.

    If the USTA adopted such a rule, the overall impact on the membership would be positive. Players wouldn't whine as much about sandbagging because everyone would know there is no pot of gold at the end of the sandbag rainbow. Even if it didn't have any impact whatever on captains, it would make the membership *feel* better and think the system is more fair.

    That alone outweighs the hypothetical disadvantages, IMHO.
     
    #52
  3. West Coast Ace

    West Coast Ace G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    13,503
    Location:
    So Cal
    I'm with Orange on this one. When signing up to play in a league, with distinct levels, there is an implied contract that the USTA is providing competition at your level. If you don't mind playing the occasional match against people clearly below your level, I'm sure you can find them at your local park or club - no need to pay money and join a league team.
     
    #53
  4. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,070
    Well, the only set I dropped this spring season on the team I captain was to a doubles pair that had a 3.0 playing up.

    My only mixed 7.0 loss this year was to a 3.0 player playing up.

    One of my singles players lost in straight sets to a 3.0 playing up (and my player was mortified, let me assure you).

    I had some upsets and some competitive matches at 4.0 this year. I have had 4.0 players request me as their partner even though I am just 3.5, rather than play with a 4.0.

    I will agree with you that there is the occasional person who plays way, way above her level and thus wastes everyone's time. That's no fun. But I think most people who play up believe they are at or close to the next playing level, and most have judged the situation correctly.
     
    #54
  5. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,058
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Let's assume that you're correct in that most people playing up are really at the next playing level. In this case, how is it fair that they also get to play at their rated level, where presumably they are measurably better than those not also playing up?

    Can't have your cake and eat it also...
     
    #55
  6. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,070
    Of course you can have your cake and eat it too.

    I mean, would you say that someone who plays tournaments and also plays league is having their cake and eat it too?

    Everyone who plays league has the same options -- play their level and/or play up. How is that unfair?

    I wouldn't mind putting more limits on playing up. I mean, if you are a 3.0, you have no business playing 4.0. (Yes, I know someone who did that). So the rule should be that you may only play up one level.

    And I think the rule for combo should be no more than .5 separation between doubles partners for combo. For mixed, all players must be such that their ratings add up to the appropriate level. So the only players who can play 7.0 mixed are 3.5 players, only 4.0s can play 8.0 mixed, etc.

    JMHO.
     
    #56
  7. Angle Queen

    Angle Queen Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    838
    Location:
    On the deuce side, looking to come in
    Emphasis mine.

    Apparently, according to USTA, we are not measurably better. Else we'd be at that higher level, I suppose.

    Still, as stated previously, Orange, I could live with the "not playing up"...or even "play at only one level...presumably USTA's."

    Two things merely for discussion's sake: Would it be appropriate to "declare" oneself (at the higher level) even if that doesn't mesh with your prior suggestion to not play up? What's the worse evil? Risk having players not being competitive at the higher level or continue the feasting on fellow rates?

    And...do you feel similarly that those who play Seniors shouldn't play Adult too? Isn't that having and eating your cake too?
     
    #57
  8. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,070
    AngleQueen, if folks were limited to playing one level or declare up and playing only the higher level, I don't think anyone would "declare" up.

    As you know, when you are at the top of your rating level, the world is your oyster. You get the best teams, the best partners, the best playing slots, the pressure matches, a shot at playoffs.

    When you are playing up, you take what you can get.

    Who would choose the latter? Me, I would just enjoy my little victory lap at the lower level, let the computer move me up, and then suffer whatever happens at the higher level.
     
    #58
  9. Angle Queen

    Angle Queen Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    838
    Location:
    On the deuce side, looking to come in
    ^^

    Agreed, Cindy. But there are some gluttons for punishment out there. And I do know of someone who "auto-appealed" their (lower than expected) year-end rating..only to have it granted (by the computer)...then panic...and beg the LCs to lower it. :rolleyes:
     
    #59
  10. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,058
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    I guess my objection is more philosophical than anything else, because practically speaking I agree that for the most part USTA matches are competitive and most people playing up are realistic about their ability and not horribly outmatched at the higher level.

    But I think it's hypocritical to be complaining about sandbaggers on the one hand (because you don't want to be beaten when playing at your level), but then think it's ok to play up (thereby thinking you're good enough for the next level, but hey, it's still ok for you to be beating all the other players at your own level too).

    Not calling out anyone on this thread, just saying that to me there seems to be a fundamental logic problem with encouraging people to play at multiple levels while at the same time decrying sandbaggers. If a person is playing up because they believe themselves to be competitive at the higher level (and therefore better than their actual rating), then playing at level is equivalent to sandbagging in that they are 'inflicting' themselves upon weaker opposition.

    Anyway, to your specific questions:

    1. I think it would be consistent to allow players to 'declare' at a higher level than their rating. They could then play at this higher level, but not at their original rated level. This would be equivalent to auto-approving all appeals up I guess. I would follow Cindy's suggestion to limit this to just 0.5 level up. I think allowing players to declare 0.5 level up just acknowleges the reality that the lines between levels are somewhat blurred, and some people straddle 2 levels, so they should be able to choose which level to compete at.

    2. Regarding Seniors vs Adult, I don't think this is a comparable situation, because the distinction there is not based on skill or competitiveness.
     
    #60
  11. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,070
    You know, this has been an interesting year for me. It is the first year where I was obviously at the tip top of my playing level. (My prior move-up from 3.0 to 3.5 came as more of a surprise).

    This has been the most fun year for me since I started playing. Yeah, the winning is nice. But that's not the main reason I am having fun.

    It's because I am not overmatched all the time. Instead, I feel like I can incorporate many of the things I am learning in lessons without feeling a huge amount of stress. I have some breathing room. I feel like I am not being carried (even in mixed) and I am making a contribution.

    Still . . . I wouldn't want to continue playing 3.5 next year (or perhaps I should say I wouldn't want it to be my focus). I am developing some *awful* habits that are going to kill me next year. I hardly every come to net or hit an overhead anymore because, hey, why should I?

    To bring this back to the issue of playing up . . . one of the big benefits of playing up is that it helps smooth the transition when the computer catches up to your playing level. Yet had I not played 3.5 and had only played 4.0 this year, I wouldn't have had the confidence or opportunity to introduce some of my new skills into competitive play.

    So. We shall see what happens in November. It would be quite a hoot if I stay at 3.5 for another year . . . :)
     
    #61
  12. Angle Queen

    Angle Queen Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    838
    Location:
    On the deuce side, looking to come in
    Guess I've complained a bit about sandbaggers...not necessarily ones I've personally run across...just those that I know of...and they were self-rates.

    I'd like to think I kinda got caught in the middle by circumstances not necessarily my own. I played for two 3.5 teams last year -- one (a weekday team) that was wildly successful, going all the way to Sectionals....and one (weekend team) that was middle-of-the-pack. I have played with both of those captains (and much of both teams) for many years. More than half of the weekday team got bumped and we all made the decision to move together. As a 4.0 team, we finished, go figure, middle-of-the-pack. Not bad in my opinion, especially since we lost our two best singles players (one to injury, the other for job-related reasons).

    So, the 3.5 weekend team...stayed 3.5...and with the other bump-ups, we were able to rise a bit within the pack. That team made it to Districts this year. It'll be interesting to see what happens at year-end. Again, I suspect a good portion of that team will be bumped but not sure if/how many of those who don't...would even want to play up.

    Kinda makes long for the good ole days when bump ups were the exception and some serious skill improvement was involved. Now it seems (and I think even USTA has acknowledged it bit), there's just been an en masse raising of the masses' NTRPs. 4.0 now...looks a lot like 3.5...two years ago. :-|

    Hmmm. I'll let that sleeping hound snooze. That's another thread entirely. :)

    Nice, civil discourse folks (like, like, like it)...but the weekend calls. Will check in when possible....cheers, everyone!
     
    #62
  13. kylebarendrick

    kylebarendrick Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Location:
    Northern California
    I wouldn't ban self rated players from playoffs. I would make it more difficult for them to qualify. I would require that they play more matches during the local league to be eligible (five perhaps) and then calculate their dynamic rating at the end of the local league. If their rating is below a reasonable threshold, then they can play in the playoffs. If it is above that, then they are immediately promoted to the next level and no longer able to play. Simple.

    As for people (like in the OP) that are caught in the act of outright cheating (false information on the self rate form, creating new USTA identity, etc.), the national USTA (these seem to be routinely covered up by the sections) needs to enforce multi-year bans for the players and captains involved. In a rating based league like USTA, I don't believe you can prevent people from gaming the system. However you do need to make sure that the cheaters are severely punished - it would at least make people question whether cheating is worth the risk.
     
    #63
  14. athiker

    athiker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,656
    This is the 2nd case this season I've heard about where the USTA falls back on "its too late" when in fact the season (counting playoffs) is not even over much less some time period after the season is over! In both cases the facts are obvious and not even in dispute but no one pays a cost for blatant cheating.

    The NCAA seems to have no issue with reaching back in time and stripping wins and titles...why does the USTA have a problem with it?

    The whole issue of policing rec tennis certainly doesn't rise to the level of extreme importance so I won't lose sleep over it, but the lengths some go to trying to "win" is pretty laughable (I mean we are talking 3.5 and 4.0 tennis here! :roll: ) and does make for some good reading and story telling. :)
     
    #64
  15. athiker

    athiker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,656
    Just to be clear, I'm not belittling 3.5 and 4.0 tennis...that's me. I'm also a very competitive person and want to win each time I step on the court. I want to win b/c I'm improving faster than the other people I'm grouped with though, then moving up to the next group to play that competition, not by dropping down and playing 2.5 and 3.0s...its really not that hard to find someone to beat if that's the only goal...its just not that much fun playing 6-1, 6-1 tennis.

    I'm just saying I kind of understand when a lower level pro gets busted for illegal substances...he's on the cusp of something big, he can almost touch the brass ring. I don't agree with it but understand their perception of the risk/reward. I just can't understand the 3.5/4.0 sandbagger/cheater risk reward at all...I'd be mortified to be caught cheating to play a lower level than I am known to be....and for what? What's the big reward?
     
    #65
  16. Limibeans

    Limibeans Rookie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Messages:
    162
    People re-apply for ratings and USTA numbers all the time. I know this thread is mostly about the USTA ruling on the re-rated player, but its going to be hard to prove "the team captain knowingly played a fraudulent player" because enforcing such a ruling on the large scale would be too hard.

    I still think people should be required to use their FULL LEGAL NAME as is printed on their drivers lic. (or equivalent) and ID should be presented before each match if one is requested.

    I personally know people who play under very similar names, with different USTA #'s, which they use specifically for different leagues. It's kinda BS when you tennislink them and you see....

    John Doe 4.5 C 2008 (NY/NY)
    John A. Doe 3.0 M 2011 (Albany/NY)
    Johna Doe 3.0 S 2011 (Albany/NY)

    :/

    But, in all honesty, USTA makes money off each of those active memberships. We cant honestly expect them to enforce one # per person even though its more than possible to do.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2011
    #66
  17. b33rfairy

    b33rfairy New User

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    54
    Location:
    Florida
    Cheaters

    I think local league coords. should should have the authority to ban these losers for a period of time, based on solid evidence. And local members should just expose these people for what they are. And then shoot them...
     
    #67

Share This Page