usta tie rules opinions

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by markmdfw, Jun 13, 2010.

  1. markmdfw

    markmdfw Rookie

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    263
    What are you thoughts on these? I am on a team that is tied with one more ind win, and we beat our tied partner 4-1 head to head! this is an interesting focus on the tie break.

    1. Team matches won
    2. Individual matches won/lost
    3. Sets lost
    4. Games lost
    5. Head to head *WHY IS HEAD TO HEAD LAST*


    Is this fair system I only ask because I know that NFL puts alot of weight into head to head.

    Thanks give me your feedback!

    Marcus
     
    #1
  2. Geezer Guy

    Geezer Guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,792
    Location:
    Big Canoe, GA
    I think it's that way because it's easier to program. Sorting the season results by the first four criteria you listed is incredibly easy.
    Throwing in the 5th one would take more logic.

    (I do agree with you, though.)
     
    #2
  3. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    In our area, there was one year where the captains voted to have head-to-head as the tiebreak. The next year, it was changed back to what OP describes (except that head-to-head) was dropped.

    I think the problem was that H2H isn't the best indicator of which is the stronger team. One team might have its strongest players available while the other doesn't, so it introduces an element of chance. The strongest team overall will have won more individual matches during the season, so that is how we break ties now.
     
    #3
  4. markmdfw

    markmdfw Rookie

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    263
    I agree h2h is everyting some players could be non availiable for a match or could have a off day!

    Its just weird that it came down to being so close! same record, they have one more ind win, and we beat them 4-1 and they win! LOL Too close to call maybe I like to see a tie lol I sure i might feel different if it went in my favor! I biased a bit! I admit it LOL

    also I would like to have a rule that strongly penalized teams with a large roster who defaults lines. I would also like to have
    a computer ranking system that keeps the best players in the top lines, lol Wow I got on a role did I LOL

    Any thoughts!

    Marcus
     
    #4
  5. JavierLW

    JavierLW Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,917
    #2 is fair because unlike the NFL, those individual wins are actual MATCHES and not points or touchdowns or goals or anything.

    Im not sure about putting Head to Head last though before Sets and Games won. That doesnt seem right.

    In USTA Tournaments Im pretty sure that Head to Head is before those. (the only time it goes down to those is when there is a 3-way head-to-head tie)

    In our league we value individual wins first and team wins are meaningless and it's like this:

    1) Individual Wins
    2) Head to Head (individual head to head)
    3) Sets Lost
    4) Games Lost
     
    #5
  6. Panic492

    Panic492 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2009
    Messages:
    107
    I totally agree. We finished tied in our mens league with another team, they had one or two more individual wins than we did. Yet we beat them 4-1 head to head. They went on to win states and are moving on to Sectionals :rolleyes:
     
    #6
  7. cll30

    cll30 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    174
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    I don't like #4 games lost.

    If you lose a set 7-6 or 7-5 you are penalized more than if you lose 6-0.
     
    #7
  8. Jim A

    Jim A Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    807
    we were in that boat last year, lost a match to a team we ended up tying without our best squad available yet had quite a few more individual match wins...so in the end I believe the better overall squad won..
     
    #8
  9. JavierLW

    JavierLW Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,917
    Ya but if that's the last and final tiebreaker (and not #4 before head to head), it's still better then flipping a coin.

    They are called "GAMES" after all, not points... (another difference between this and any other sport)
     
    #9
  10. tom10s

    tom10s New User

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    73
    your #2 is incorrect. individual wins is #3
     
    #10
  11. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I prefer

    Individual wins
    Head to Head
    Sets lost
    Games Lost.

    To me having team wins be the primary determining factor just allows for free manipulation of ratings if a team wants to badly enough. IF your team takes 3 points then the other lines can lose matches without affecting the team goals whatsoever. When individual wins are the primary factor then taking all 5 lines has a real advantage over taking 3 and everyone has incentive to push no matter what line they play.
     
    #11
  12. Sherlock

    Sherlock Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    192
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Actually I never thought about that and now that I think about it I completely agree with that. However, do you think the same order should be used for sectional and national tournaments? At this point there is no reason to manipulate things, and team wins followed by head to head record makes the most sense.
     
    #12
  13. spot

    spot Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Atlanta
    No- I think that once you are in playoffs then it should 100% be about team wins.
     
    #13
  14. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,092
    I agree with your analysis, but I'm not on board with the conclusion.

    The problem with having individual wins be decisive over team wins is that it becomes difficult to play your weaker players. I was on a DC team -- where the flight winner is based on individual wins -- and a few players got to play all the matches, pretty much. That's OK, and our captain did what she had to do to get us to sectionals. The upshot, however, was that she was left with a small group of players who were eligible for sectionals -- or were willing to travel to be a sub on a team that didn't value them enough to put them in the line-up.

    Contrast this with my league, where it comes down to team wins. Then I can play all of my players without too much risk. I can play a lot of weaker players against weak opponent and we'll usually win three courts somehow. Or I can put out three crazy strong players and two weaker ones.

    If the goal is to keep people participating in the sport of tennis, I think most rules and policies should encourage wide-spread participation rather than concentrating play among the elite few on a team. And if a league wants the strongest team to represent them at nationals, teams need depth.

    Regarding the risk that two players will throw their matches . . . I don't think that happens much. Even if that is the plan, the two who throw their matches can never be sure that an upset isn't happening on another court or a match will be lost through retirement.

    Cindy -- who got each of her players at least three matches this season
     
    #14
  15. JavierLW

    JavierLW Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,917
    You also try this logic on this same question.

    But so what?, you can play those players 3 times a season in the individual system as well. You just may sacrifice taking first and getting your free pen or towel, but that's life.

    Just because you can allow some people in for some meaningless matches is really not a huge bonus.

    And if everyone is of similar level, you really shouldnt have people that are so weak that they cant win anyway, or people who are so strong that you can rely on them for your 3 wins.

    Even in the team wins system, if you have your 4 strongest players and they are really in the right level, you cant guarantee they will win every single match anyway so if the pen is so important to you, you STILL cant afford to put people in that just simply wont win the match.
     
    #15
  16. amarone

    amarone Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    514
    Location:
    Atlanta
    What do you think is number 2 then? I think the OP's list is correct.
     
    #16
  17. tom10s

    tom10s New User

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    73
    OP is wrong.

    1) team wins
    2) team losses
    3) individual wins
     
    #17
  18. amarone

    amarone Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    514
    Location:
    Atlanta
    The OP's list matches exactly that in 3.03I of the National regulations. No mention is made of team losses.
     
    #18
  19. tom10s

    tom10s New User

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    73
    so what happens if one team is 9-3 and the other is 9-2 due to rained out match that is never played?
     
    #19
  20. Islandtennis

    Islandtennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    205
    USTA rules do not allow that. In your example, that final match would be a double default.

    On another note, round robins have to be complete and not partial. With this rule team A and B play the exact same teams the exact same number of times. This is one reason why head to head has less relevance. In the NFL, two teams tied for their division have played different teams, therefore head to head has more significance.
     
    #20
  21. JavierLW

    JavierLW Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,917
    Actually in our leagues, round robins are not always complete.

    In certain cases like if there is 8 teams, we play everyone once, but then we split the division up into 2 4 team halfs and you play the other 3 teams in your "half" another time around. (so that equals 10 matches)

    But they made a rule that if you end up in the bottom (loser's) half of the flight, you CAN not win your division or go onto the playoffs no matter what crazy math anomaly would occur so I suppose that still amounts to your 4 eligible contenders playing the same exact teams the same number of times.

    Otherwise I agree with you, individual wins should be more important then head to head because of your reasoning.

    Besides that though, these "individual wins" are ACTUAL TENNIS MATCHES, they are not merely points like in a baseball game, or touchdowns or baskets or anything.... So they should be a lot more important, at the least they should be the 2nd thing you'd consider.

    (if you want to do team wins first at all which in some cases like a playoff make sense, but in some cases like a local league it's a matter of preference)
     
    #21
  22. Islandtennis

    Islandtennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    205
    Thanks for the input Javier. That is a way around the USTA rule. So you play part of the season as a single flight, and then split up to sub flights, then there is a playoff between the subflights?

    I admit, I never heard it done like that. We will sometimes break the flight unevenly. For instance if you have 15 teams, have a flight of 9 and 6 with the 6 playing two round robins and the nine playing one.

    Are the subflights determined randomly or do initial standings affect anything? Is it a whole new flight name? I am just asking from an LLC standpoint, it seems like a lot of work; and I'm trying to understand how its done without the teams re registering.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2010
    #22
  23. JavierLW

    JavierLW Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,917
    Here's how it works for 8 teams:

    You play everyone once which is your first 7 matches.

    Then depending on where you are in standings you get split into two "sub-flights". (that's probably a good name for them except that there is such a thing as a real sub-flight and our coordinators dont use that feature)

    Winner's Round Subflight -> #1, #2, #3, and #4
    Loser's Round Subflight -> #5, #6, #7, #8

    Then you play everyone else in your subflight which accounts for your final 3 matches.

    And the rule is if you are in that "loser's" end of it, you are not allowed to advance to any post season play, so that eliminates the need for any playoff between subflights. (sometimes teams in that round will end up as high as 3rd place visually in tennislink but I feel because of this rule Id say they still finished in 5th)

    It also keeps with your idea that teams 1-4 will of technically played the same exact teams as each other.

    It has some logistically issues though. Since you dont really know who or where you are playing for the final 3 matches, you dont get a schedule for that until the day after that 7th match.

    And then you're off on a mad dash to find tennis courts at the last minute, especially if you have a home match in week 8. (if you played a team away the first time, you play them at home the 2nd time around and vice versa, but since you dont know who you are playing you dont know if you need courts, etc....)

    But that's the best we can do, because our stupid Mid_West section playoffs are so unnecessarily too early, it only gives us a 10-11 week window of good weather to get the season in, and it's better then playing only 7 matches.

    And Ideally I always hope they can split the flights up into 6 teams divisions which works a lot nicer, but sometimes the numbers just dont add up that way.
     
    #23

Share This Page