Discussion in 'Junior League & Tournament Talk' started by servelefty2233, Nov 29, 2006.
And they are ranked top 30 on your website...just to clarify.
Please email me specifics at email@example.com and I will take a look at this case.
OK, will do.
he could have wins over people outside of his section that are good......u have to remember that points per round and the head-to-head system that tennisrecruiting.net uses are completely different.
is their anything like this for the UK?
Dallas, one thing that I've noticed is, a player that has a short record and has fewer wins but may have played against higher rated players (but has no wins against them) is rated higher than a player with a longer record. So appears that a player can go to a national event and not win a match, lose to seeded players and receive a higher rating.
I was going to ask this. But College tennis doesnt exist in UK, probably coz its not as popular in UK
Then apparently you don't understand how it works. It is a marvelous, detailed website, full of statistics. Read Dallas' posts. Time & time again, I've written down the kids' ranking (as per tennisrecruiting.net) before a tournament and compared it to after the tournament. The results are almost identical because it is a a head-to-head ranking. This is unlike the USTA ranking wherein seeds go down in the 1st or 2nd round -- stupid & inaccurate!
I do understand how it works, and I have gone to Dallas with my questions via e-mail. I still have some issues with the discrepancies though, although Dallas has been great in trying to explain it to me.
And the seeds go down in the 1st or 2nd round? I am not sure what section you are in, but the seedings in the higher level USTA tournaments usually do come out to be rather accurate, not always, but more likely than not. I am not sure where you got that from?
Hi Migjam -
In a nutshell...
- Players are only rewarded for wins - and they are only penalized for losses.
- Wins against players ranked way below you do not help for much.
- Wins against players ranked above you help you a lot.
- Losses to players ranked way above you do not hurt your ranking much.
- Losses to players ranked below you can significantly impact your ranking.
I would be interested to see the case you have. To date, I have not seen any anomalies in our rankings. (Note that I am talking about comparing two players with significantly different rankings - one can often make the case that the #34 and #35 players should be swapped... I am talking more about the difference between, say, #70 and #90 - or better yet, #70 and #120.)
Feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thanks Dallas, I sent an email this morning to you.
Thanks for all the info in this thread. A couple of questions:
1) According to the FAQ, a player is not ranked until he has played at least three tournaments that you pick up, and has four wins over ranked players. My question is whether ranked is different from rated here. Rated means at least a 1-star recruit. There are players who are ranked #1500 in their graduating class who are not ranked high enough to be rated as a 1-star recruit. When you are accumulating four wins over ranked players, does that include wins over players ranked #1200, #1300, etc.? It seems that the answer is yes, from my observations. Otherwise, you would have to beat at least four 1-star recruits just to be a 1-star recruit, which would be tough to crack for new players and delay their entry. I think I see players who do not have four wins over star-rated opponents who are 1-star themselves.
2) The FAQ also describes which tournaments you pick up. I understand that you want a connected set of players. Using graph theory terms, a graph of all players in your system, with players as nodes, and edges being match results between players, needs to be a connected graph with no isolated cliques of players who have no connectivity to the larger graph. You would not know how to rate players in that clique.
However, there are lots of tournaments you don't pick up that could have a high percentage of rated players. For example, some non-national level tournament might not have national players in it (i.e. the players have not competed at national level tournaments), but three of the eight players in a certain age group might be 1-star and 2-star players, and two others might be unrated (star-wise) but with a specific numerical rank below 1000. So, the tournament has good connectivity to the existing graph of players. Any thoughts about having a dynamic criterion that picks up these tournaments? The existing dynamic criterion is based on national players.
I also notice that you pick up one age group from a tournament when it satisfies the criteria, but not another age group from the same tournament when it does not. That makes sense. I am not sure it is clear in the FAQ, though.
Just some questions and ideas. I appreciate the site. By the way, I recently got the Advantage membership and I recommend it to others here who want to get detailed looks at other players' activity, how they got their rating, etc.
Does anyone know what the (3/10) or (2/26) numbers stand for??
2009 Recruiting: 1 (3/10)
TennisRPI: 14 (2/26)
2008 Recruiting: 1 (12/30)
TennisRPI: 13 (1/31)
2007 Recruiting: 2 (12/25)
TennisRPI: 5 (4/26)
2006 Recruiting: 1 (4/4)
TennisRPI: 2 (2/16)
um, the date that the highest ranking occurred
Hey ClarkC -
Good questions. Let me address them below...
P.S. Nice win by your Wahoos today over the Horns!
Actually, all kids who are ranked are also rated - provided that they are in middle school or high school. We (accidentally) rank elementary school kids in part because many of them play 12s and 14s tournaments, but we don't pay any attention to those rankings.
I would be curious to see someone who is ranked but not rated... could you email me an example? (dallas at tennisrecruiting dot net)
Good point, but we have a purpose behind our "national player" criteria. If we use the criteria you specify above, the pool of ranked players will be ever-growing. There is a relatively fixed number of national players (i.e., players who compete in national or designated sectional events) - so this criteria limits the explosion of ranked kids.
That being said, we do try to pull in as many other "good" tournaments as we can - so long as they fit the criteria of having a minimum number of national players.
Correct - and I am not sure it is in the FAQ.
Thanks for the kind words. We are trying to provide a strong product, and we have many ideas for how it will be better in the future.
This was probably a mistake on my part. I think that at one time I picked up the idea that the 1-star rating only went down to player #1000 in a graduating class, so it would be possible to be ranked #1200 or so but not be a 1-star. Now I see that there are 1-star players who are ranked far below #1000 in their class. I had previously assumed that these players would no longer be 1-star if their ranking stayed below 1000 when next October 1 rolls around.
Is it the case that every player with three ranked wins or more, with three tournaments in the database, becomes a 1-star even if his ranking is #1500? If so, then I just misunderstood.
Thanks for the info.
When you look under a player's record, it lists the ranking for that player; however it does not list the year, so if I am ranked 110 as a freshman but I lose to a Junior ranked 210 it looks like I lost to a player lower ranked than me.
You need to designate a system where you can see what the the player is in, like 110-J for senior the Class year, 110-(2010)...
This would make the lists more accurate
Thanks for letting me give you my two cents
I already see this frequently. Do you have any examples where it is not shown? I just checked a Virginia women's recruit for next year, Erin Vierra, as an example. When I look at her detailed record vs. 3-stars, 4-stars, etc., it gives the graduation year unless the year is the same as hers.
Sorry, I should have said this does not show up under the "Activity" when you look at a particular tournament played, not the "Activity Overview"
when you just look at the players record by *'s.
So if you look at a tourney that a player was in and TR lists the results for that tourney in "Activity", it is hard to tell the year of the player in that only the ranking shows...it should translate like in "Activity Overview"
how do you rate the monthly top 100 ? is it done by win/lose ratio ? and ranking against other kids out of the age group.. for example if a kid plays up in an age group and wins...
Hi 10isRocs -
Thanks for the feedback. This is something that we have noticed in the past, but 210-J or 210-(2010) both seem like a mouth-full. Will think about this one some more.
Hi SoCal10s -
We have a points-based system that is described in our FAQ:
Let me know if you have more questions.
i agree it sounds like a mouthful, but maybe this is something u can do instead on the recent activity....where at the top it says round, wins, losses, score u can add a tap that says "year" in between round and win so that it reads
Round Grade Wins Losses Score
128 2009 Kevin Cox ( 208 ) 6-0, 6-0
I agree Dallas , this would really help clarify results on your site...especially for kids who play up...also Kevin, I like your 6-0 6-0 example..lol
When a coach looks at your profile, can that coach see the other coaches that have also looked you profile?
Good question. The answer is no - coaches cannot see what other coaches have looked at your profile page. Coaches do have access to an additional page for all players with their contact and academic information.
Coaches do have an analagous feature when it comes to statistics... They can see which players have looked at their team pages. Many coaches have told us that they ended up making contact with players who they noticed were checking them out.
I hope this helps.
Wow, I didn't know that and I don't think most players who use your site known that either...I better start logging into those team pages!!
When you look at the page with Coaching Visits, how come some coaches are listed by "Name" and "School" and others by "Men"s Coach: and "Division"?
Dallas....I agree with a post listed above in somehow providing allowances to those players playing older players. Currently, I believe the system does not allow for that. I currently coach a player who is the Class of 2014, but has been playing sectional 18s for the past year for developmental reasons. Of course, her ranking continues to drop because she has some losses to lower level players who happen to be 4-5 years older than her.
She is now top 100 in the section in USTA rankings and beginning to compete against higher ranked players and getting some wins, but it will still bring her tennisrecruiting.net ranking down.
Any thoughts on that? Just curious. Her name is Kirsten Ward if you want to look at her specifics. That may help in providing some allowances for that. Thanks.....
they only change your star once a year
I see Quinzi is no longer ranked, any reason why? Thanks.
this site would be great if they updated the star system more, and if they actually got all the tournaments it says I am 17-19 when on usta i am 55-32
Hey Taxi -
We allow coaches to determine how they show up on the statistics. They can opt to show up as anonymous - e.g., "Men's Coach, XYZ League, Division III".
I will try to address this in more detail after Signing Week - we have a lot going on until then.
But in short - our ranking system is designed to give credit to players for "playing up". Our system assigns rank values to all players independent of graduation year, so beating the #200 senior generally gives you a lot more credit than beating the #200 eighth-grader.
Now, our system does need your player to record some wins, of course. But the College Recruiting List ranking system is designed to handle exactly the case you describe - it is a principal design point.
I'll try to write more on this later - but there is probably material in our FAQ on this.
He's only played one tournament year to date.
Short answer - not enough junior tournaments that we count in our rankings. It looks like he has not been playing much in the U.S., and while we do include some tournaments on foreign soil, we only include ITF-sanctioned tournaments with significant US participation.
We actually use a superset of the tournaments that the USTA uses in its national ranking. Are you 55-32 on the USTA national list? Or 55-32 on your USTA Section or District list? I'll bet it's a local list rather than the national list. If I'm wrong, please emal me directly at
dallas at tennisrecruiting dot net
You can see the tournaments we include here:
As for updating the Stars more frequently - it is on our radar - and something we do plan on doing at some point... but the ratings are very expensive for us to do from a time perspective... they absorb all our company resources for an entire month to make sure all the data is correct. (Believe me, we have to get it right by doing many manual checks - people have threatened us with lawsuits for getting things wrong, and it is difficult for us to make changes after the fact for the same reason!)
With all of our other efforts (e.g., regular content, Countdown to Signing Day, etc.), we don't have a second quiet month to do a second rating right now. Hopefully we can bring on some additional help in the future so that we can do a second rating, but our revenues need to grow more before that will be possible.
I hope this helps... Believe be, more frequent ratings is a request we hear all the time!
If a Junior plays in a Men's Open, do those results show up on TRN?
hey dallas i got a question
how am i a two star when theres kid that are 4 and 3 stars and i have a better national and sectional ranking then them?
I'm almost sure those results are not included in any of TRN's data.
hey dallas i got a question
how am i a two star when theres kid that are 4 and 3 stars and i have a better national and sectional ranking then them?
1) National and sectional rankings are generally on a points-per-round basis, not head-to-head.
2) Star ratings are updated yearly.
If these reasons don't explain it, maybe you could give specific examples, although that reveals identities.
yeah i dont want to say like im a 2 star and i have a winning record over 1, 2, and 3 stars and okay over 4 i just think they should at least update it more then once a year
The other posters beat me to it and are correct... we do not include results from Men's Opens and the like at TennisRecruiting.net. We only include junior tournaments in the USTA 12s, 14s, 16s, and 18s divisions and a selection of ITF events. There is a link to the FAQ about exactly which tournaments a few posts up.
Why don't we include those tournaments? Because our system is a head-to-head system that needs significant cross-play to determine the quality of the opponents. For example, suppose Players A and B both win tournaments where NONE of the other players are juniors. Maybe one of the tournaments is a Men's Open tournament and the second is a local club event... but our ranking system cannot possibly know that. So we end up just throwing these events out.
By restricting ourselves to USTA and ITF tournaments where man of the participants are juniors in our ranking system, we ensure significant cross-play.
I hope this helps. Let me know if you have more questions.
Hi sliderman -
There are many reasons why, and Clark got two of the most important.
(1) Our rankings are independent of the USTAs... and do not always line up with the USTA rankings because the two ranking systems (USTA points-per-round and TRN head-to-head system) are very different.
(2) The ratings are based on the College Recruiting List rankings at a specific point in time - at the end of August. So in this case, the ratings are based on the rankings from August 2008. As time goes on, the ratings do not line up with the current rankings.
(3) We rank by graduation year. Are you comparing yourself with other people in your class? Or maybe people in a class below you? Typically, the #300 player in the sophomore class is better than, say, the #295 in the freshman class.
These are just a few general comments... if you send me an email, I can compare specific kids.
As always, I hope this helps.
While I agree with you, we just don't have the resources to do this right now. As I mention in an earlier post...
Again, we REALLY WANT to do two ratings a year - it would be good for business and address a concern our users have. But we simply don't have the time and bodies to do it right now. To do it would probably involve dropping Countdown to Signing Day... or the Recruiting Class Rankings... or some other feature that we currently provide. We really don't want to go there.
I hope this helps.
dallas, i recently purchased the recruiting advantage and noticed that i had 1 coach visit. intreaged, i checked who it was.Where the name of the coach's school was supposed to be it just said "CCC". When i clicked on it, it brought me to the CCC conference page on the website. is there away for me to check what team the coach was for who checked my profile..... thanks!!
It was from "Spell U"... intrigued?
OK, play nice.
From what I know, on TRN some coaches opt to only show up by conference and not as the school they represent.
Separate names with a comma.