Self Ratings Police?

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by sliderserve, Mar 6, 2008.

  1. sliderserve

    sliderserve New User

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    Does anyone out there think that the self rating system needs improvement?
    I play in the Middle States & Eastern Sections and see players coming in on the 2 year plan. That being, they play a couple of meaningless matches in a season for the sole purpose of getting computer rated for the following year.
    These players are still former college players or player with junior rankings high enough that would have necessitated a bump up in their rating?

    Any thoughts or suggestions on how to combat this?
     
    #1
  2. goober

    goober Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,491
    If people are purposely losing matches in order to stay or get rated at a lower level next year, there really isn't that much you can do.
     
    #2
  3. JavierLW

    JavierLW Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,917
    If you notice someone is self rated and you know some information about them (former college player, junior ranking, etc...) that should preclude them from their self rating, you can file a fair play grievence on them.

    Be sure to provide infomation on their player history that leads you to believe that they are not at the right level. (the leagues dont care about perceptions about playing ability, she beat whom, athletic feats, etc....)

    This was done to someone in my league (he played in the 5.0 league in 2001 and then tryed to self rate 3.5 in 2007 and also was #2 in doubles in the state in HS), and it won and they moved his rating to 4.0.
     
    #3
  4. goober

    goober Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,491
    You would have to catch them though in their first season. It is very unlikely if you lose some matches on purpose that the opposing captain is going to file a greivance against you since he will probably think his player just beat you fair and square.

    Once they get a computer rating from what I understand it will be much harder to DQ them through a grievance. Even if you did catch them early on, somebody who is willing to lose on purpose could easily tank a bunch of meaningless matches to get computer rated downward for the following year.
     
    #4
  5. fe6250

    fe6250 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    654
    Location:
    NC
    Somehow I think this thread might wake up the Backboard ;-)

    Seriously - Goober is right. It's pretty difficult to DQ someone unless they do it to themselves OR as Javier points out you have some hard evidence of them playing at a college or other competitive level. You are right in that if someone really wants to cheat the system - there isn't much the system can do. Not sure I have any good ideas on how to fix it, but one idea may be to utilize 'total matches played' somehow into how a computer rated player is treated. For example, someone with less than 10 matches would be treated differently than someone with 50 or something like that.

    Tough to administer perfectly.
     
    #5
  6. JavierLW

    JavierLW Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,917
    I agree, you'd have to catch them in their first season while they are playing under their self rating grievence. (I do believe that if they've played a match though they can get DQ'ed because the langauge in the fair play grievence that I saw suggested how they could lose all of their matches that they played at the lower level)

    In their second season they are playing under their computer rating. However I still think that if you have ample evidence (player history type information) that they dont fit in the self rating system, you should still file a grievence anyway. If they lie about their history when they self rate, they are cheating. It doesnt matter if you did that this year, last year, or two years ago....

    If they dont make it to sectionals, it's really a 3 year plan, because in year 3, they will likely appeal. (if they dont do too good) Well actually they can pretty much do that every single year depending on how much the rules change.
     
    #6
  7. tennisjudge

    tennisjudge New User

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    42
    first you should get their name. Second look under collegetennisonline.com. Third do some praying
     
    #7
  8. robby c

    robby c Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    682
    Just last week, a captain and his self-rated ringer got their signals crossed. The ringer tanked the deciding match. Its a 4 team league with 6 matches total. This was match 3. Now they have to win out to reach State and still qualify all their players with 2 matches each.
    Couldn't have happened to a more deserving captain.
    Robby C
     
    #8
  9. Geezer Guy

    Geezer Guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,792
    Location:
    Big Canoe, GA
    Are you absolutely positively sure of this? Maybe I'm naive, but I find it hard to believe that a captain would tell someone to lose on purpose to protect his rating.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2008
    #9
  10. Geezer Guy

    Geezer Guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,792
    Location:
    Big Canoe, GA
    And the more I think of it, wouldn't it make more sense to win a bunch of matches up front and build up an uncatchable lead, and THEN tank a few matches to protect a rating?

    Still, that sucks. I expect my captain to do everything SPORTING to win our matches, but I wouldn't play for someone who did that.
     
    #10
  11. vizsla

    vizsla Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    261
    robby c:

    Where was this and what level???
     
    #11
  12. robby c

    robby c Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    682
    In a small southern town that was abused by the verifiers for years. A fired club pro who was one of the main verifiers for our district held a grudge(We always beat his club team), and all new singles players to our area couldn't get a fair rating; while other larger cities seemed to have an endless supply. So this Independent captain figures this is his chance to compete at the state level.
    I no longer play that level. I'm too old and slow, but I do have to live and play tennis here so I can't be specific.
    The Solution for Self-raters is to bring back the Strength Sheet.
    At least make the Self-raters all play each other at #1 Singles or #1 Dbls. I always hated stacking. Each match should have a fighting chance to get a win for the team.
    Robby C
     
    #12
  13. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I say it over and over- get rid of the team wins concept and give teams real incentive to take 5 lines every week. Determine who makes the playoffs by total wins. THe problem is that if you have a team strong enough to take all 5 lines, if you want to you can have players lose 2 of them without affecting the team a bit since all that matters is taking 3. Make it so that the total number of lines taken determines who makes the playoffs and teams won't be able to sandbag nearly as effectively.
     
    #13
  14. robby c

    robby c Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    682
    In case you didn't play during the Strength Sheet era it worked something like this. At the start of the season each captain had to submit a list for singles, and a list for doubles with his players in order. For each match the assigned number of each singles player or doubles team had to be higher than the previous one.
    Eg.- Bill(1) and Ted(2) at 1dbls(total of 3). Bob(3) and Dave(4) at 2 dbls(total of 7). Dan(5) and Steve(6) at 3dbls(total of 11).
    You could submit a new one before each round of playoffs.
    Where it got tough was if Bob at 2 dbls had to play singles at State because of injury to your 2 singles player. Then you had to come up with a line-up that fit the Strength Sheet, and still gave you 3 good chances to win at Dbls.
    But it did prevent stacking, and sped up superior players getting bumped up.
    Robby C
     
    #14
  15. robby c

    robby c Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    682
    Spot may have a better idea.
    The Strength Sheet was a royal pain.
    I'm all in favor of making every match count. My 3dls wins were as important as the 1dbls to my old team's lone State title. We swept Dbls in each match.
    Robby C
     
    #15
  16. Geezer Guy

    Geezer Guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,792
    Location:
    Big Canoe, GA
    No offense, but I really don't see how that would change anything. It'll still come down to who wins the most, and teams can still throw in some managed losses if that's what their intent is.
     
    #16
  17. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Geezer guy- It comes down to who wins the most and EVERY line would count. Right now there are almost always at least 1 line that is absolutely irrelevant. You change it so that teams have incentive to steamroll opponents and take 5 lines and then there just won't be as much room to sandbag. SImply give teams a reason to put their best lineup out top to bottom and they will start doing it more.
     
    #17
  18. Geezer Guy

    Geezer Guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,792
    Location:
    Big Canoe, GA
    Yes, but after steamrolling a few teams they can then throw in some losses. The could even tank an entire "tie" (or whatever it's called) and win the league.

    I'm not AGAINST the idea - I'm just not sure it will help. ANY system can be gamed.
     
    #18
  19. Geezer Guy

    Geezer Guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,792
    Location:
    Big Canoe, GA
    Spot - you better post in a hurry. You're on "THAT" number.

    (I have to drive my wife's car for a hundred miles because she's approaching 66, 600 miles. sheez!)
     
    #19
  20. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    But in a 7 week regular season think about how far ahead you ahve to be before you woudl feel comfortable putting together a weak lineup. Its tough to get up 5 lines on the rest of the division in a short season. Maybe by weeks 6 and 7 you can feel comfortable, but thats still SO MUCH better than the current system where you can work the ratings all season long. When you count every line its just easier for teams to make up ground on you.
     
    #20
  21. fe6250

    fe6250 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    654
    Location:
    NC
    Another wrinkle in the 'system' that I tripped over in my match tonight is that of the 'injury'. We were destroying this team when my partner came up lame with a muscle pull. We ended up winning the match, but what should have been a 6-2, 6-2 kind of outing went to a 3rd set tie-breaker. The system is definitely not 'good' enough to detect that kind of scenario, but certainly enough of that could keep someone from being bumped who should have been.
     
    #21
  22. JavierLW

    JavierLW Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,917
    Im not sure that it should. What if you are playing injured every week but normally would dominate? Should the system adjust for you then?

    If you play injured week after week and your results are somewhat lower then they might of been if you hadnt been injured, that's just part of the game.

    Having a legitimate sub-par performance due to injury or because you are just not at your best on a given day is way different then someone who's tanking games and sets on purpose just to tool the system.

    Anyways you are rated on your results from the actual matches, not your perceived strength of what you "should of" done. So if you have an off day, it still should count.

    My reasoning is, Im not going to complain about the computer rated players who "didnt" get rated up. It's the ones who appealed, and the ones who just self rated too low, that are more of an issue. (and a lot of times they self rate so low that an injury wont necessarily slow them down a ton anyway in reality, a 4.5 player playing a couple 3.0 players isnt even going to have to move much and they can hit shots that are pretty much unreturnable)
     
    #22
  23. jc883

    jc883 New User

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    35
    The self-rating system definitely needs improvement. It is quite normal in some areas to have players self-rate a level or two below for the sole purpose of forming strong enough teams to advace to sectionals.
     
    #23
  24. Raiden.Kaminari

    Raiden.Kaminari Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    744
    This is a problem that all sections are having. I've seen some teams with players on a five year plan :( I don't know why these guys think winning is so important.

    I do have to point out that besides self-rating, the worst case scenario I have seen is that former junior players get minimum computer ratings of 4.5, even though they are playing on college teams at the 5.5+ level. They start playing USTA at the 4.5 level (because of a greedy captain and the fact they have computer ratings), but when year end ratings come out, they are finally moved to 5.0 or 5.5, where they should have been.
     
    #24
  25. robby c

    robby c Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    682
    Justice.
    Self-rated, match throwing sandbagger got bumped.
    Not DQ'd, so his team gets to keep their wins with him in the line-up.
    They will go to State, but without a singles hoss, it will be tough.
    Thought yall would want to know that the system caught up with him, and his scheming captain.
    Robby C
     
    #25
  26. LuckyR

    LuckyR Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,404
    Location:
    The Great NW

    Unfortunately the ability of jerks to dream up strategies to job any system you might come up with is infinite. If you take a step back and really think about what these sad individuals are doing, they are basically admitting they are afraid of competition and are willing to stoop to the lowest rung for a $7 plastic "trophy". They need your pity, not your wrath.
     
    #26
  27. fe6250

    fe6250 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    654
    Location:
    NC
    I agree with your logic for the most part, but remember this is doubles and the other player gets rated down - even though they were not injured. I'm not expecting the system to be perfect, but it can't detect that a healthy player played out of their mind to compensate for an injured player.
     
    #27

Share This Page