Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Adult League & Tournament Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   Ever had another captain/team get shady? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=446790)

bobbything 11-28-2012 07:44 AM

Ever had another captain/team get shady?
 
A number of years ago, we were in line to win our 4.5 league. However, someone complained about one of our players so the USTA kicked him out with one match remaing and subsequently, all his match wins were reversed. So, going into the last match, we were still in 1st place. We had our bye the final week, so we didn't play. However, if the 2nd place team won their final match, 4-1, they would have had the tiebreaker over us.

The next day I looked at the scores to see if the 1st place team won or lost. Well, they won 5-0. However, they won every match 6-0, 6-0. I thought that was strange so I asked a guy that I knew on the losing team what happened. Turns out that the two captains (who were pretty good friends with one another) got together and worked out a side deal. The losing team agreed to (essentially) default all 5 courts.

This was the first year I had played USTA (circa 2004) so I didn't know what to do. I friend of mine's wife worked for the USTA at the time and looked into it. The day before the playoffs they gave us 1st place and ruled what the other team did unsportsmanlike. We went to the playoffs won, and got to the finals of Sectionals.

The day of that playoff, the captain of the team that tried to cheat their way in was screaming and yelling obscenities at the tournament director for reversing everything.

It was glorious.

goober 11-28-2012 07:57 AM

The current rules are if you default all 5 courts in a match you default all matches for the entire season.

The 2 captains that got together were not very smart in planning this out. They still could have lost 5-0 by actually playing the match and have one team put out the weakest possible line up and maybe just default a line or 2.

I have seen cases where it was important for a weak team to get a certain number individual wins in the final match of the season in order for another team to get to playoffs. The captain offered the other captain some players he got from his club and one he found off craigslist (lol) to play in the final match to make sure they got enough wins.

bobbything 11-28-2012 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober (Post 7036201)
The current rules are if you default all 5 courts in a match you default all matches for the entire season.

The 2 captains that got together were not very smart in planning this out. They still could have lost 5-0 by actually playing the match and have one team put out the weakest possible line up and maybe just default a line or 2.

Yeah, I guess the thing was that they actually entered scores and had lineups entered in as well. But they put 6-0, 6-0 for every result. You're right, not very smart. At least make up reasonable scores. Furthermore, you can't just not play the match. Someone will spill the beans.

sureshs 11-28-2012 08:57 AM

What kind of people are these? Were only the captains involved? Did the team members know what had happened?

Cindysphinx 11-28-2012 09:14 AM

That would never, ever work with the ladies I play with.

If I make so much as one error in inputting a score, my players are all over me. They would never agree to have any phony results put in, especially if they were the losing players.

I hope the two captains will be suspended or banned. Did you file a grievance later?

blakesq 11-28-2012 09:39 AM

Is the shady part the fact that you were using such a disqualified player on your team that the USTA had to kick him out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbything (Post 7036188)
A number of years ago, we were in line to win our 4.5 league. However, someone complained about one of our players so the USTA kicked him out with one match remaing and subsequently, all his match wins were reversed. So, going into the last match, we were still in 1st place. We had our bye the final week, so we didn't play. However, if the 2nd place team won their final match, 4-1, they would have had the tiebreaker over us.

The next day I looked at the scores to see if the 1st place team won or lost. Well, they won 5-0. However, they won every match 6-0, 6-0. I thought that was strange so I asked a guy that I knew on the losing team what happened. Turns out that the two captains (who were pretty good friends with one another) got together and worked out a side deal. The losing team agreed to (essentially) default all 5 courts.

This was the first year I had played USTA (circa 2004) so I didn't know what to do. I friend of mine's wife worked for the USTA at the time and looked into it. The day before the playoffs they gave us 1st place and ruled what the other team did unsportsmanlike. We went to the playoffs won, and got to the finals of Sectionals.

The day of that playoff, the captain of the team that tried to cheat their way in was screaming and yelling obscenities at the tournament director for reversing everything.

It was glorious.


bobbything 11-28-2012 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blakesq (Post 7036374)
Is the shady part the fact that you were using such a disqualified player on your team that the USTA had to kick him out?

Eh, I'm claiming ignorance on this. Back in 2004 the self-rating guidelines were much different and it was my very first run at USTA. He fell within the guidelines but had a "big name". So, someone *****ed about it. He filled out a background check form and they DQ'd him. We were fine with it and it actually benefited everyone else because we lost all his matches. On top of it, he lost a match legitimately; so I'm not necessarily sure it was completely warranted.

Either way, to answer your question...no. We didn't intentionally try and do anything shady.

gmatheis 11-28-2012 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbything (Post 7036420)
Eh, I'm claiming ignorance on this. Back in 2004 the self-rating guidelines were much different and it was my very first run at USTA. He fell within the guidelines but had a "big name". So, someone *****ed about it. He filled out a background check form and they DQ'd him. We were fine with it and it actually benefited everyone else because we lost all his matches. On top of it, he lost a match legitimately; so I'm not necessarily sure it was completely warranted.

Either way, to answer your question...no. We didn't intentionally try and do anything shady.

What's a "big name" mean? was he roger federer or something ?

sureshs 11-28-2012 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmatheis (Post 7036532)
What's a "big name" mean?

Kittipong Wachiramanowong

bobbything 11-28-2012 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmatheis (Post 7036532)
What's a "big name" mean? was he roger federer or something ?

We had a brokedick Marc Rosset on our team.

NLBwell 11-28-2012 12:07 PM

Back in the early days of USTA, they pretty loose about when and how the scores were put in.
We were tied with another team and they had to win all their matches in straight sets against another very good team to beat us. Amazingly, they did this. A couple months later I talked to one of the guys on the team they beat and though the team that beat us out of the playoffs did win the matches, 3 of them went three sets. Therefore, the other captain cheated and went to the playoffs instead of us.

beernutz 11-28-2012 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NLBwell (Post 7036617)
Back in the early days of USTA, they pretty loose about when and how the scores were put in.
We were tied with another team and they had to win all their matches in straight sets against another very good team to beat us. Amazingly, they did this. A couple months later I talked to one of the guys on the team they beat and though the team that beat us out of the playoffs did win the matches, 3 of them went three sets. Therefore, the other captain cheated and went to the playoffs instead of us.

Was there ever a time when scores entered by one captain didn't have to be confirmed by another? Just wondering if somehow the other captain of the losing team was in on the collusion.

Cindysphinx 11-28-2012 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beernutz (Post 7036808)
Was there ever a time when scores entered by one captain didn't have to be confirmed by another? Just wondering if somehow the other captain of the losing team was in on the collusion.

Scores don't have to be confirmed. If you don't confirm or dispute within 48 hours, the scores stand.

luvn10is 11-28-2012 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbything (Post 7036609)
We had a brokedick Marc Rosset on our team.

Yeah, that's a pretty decent name to have to run across in league play. I mean, he's no Roger but he isn't Louie the Human Resources guy either.

In Atlanta you wouldn't have had any of these problems because that guy wouldn't have played a match. We have this chick here who plays AA ALTA. Her claim to fame is she played Serena around the turn of the century and took a set off her. When USTA's self-rating was a joke, she signed up for a 4.5 team. I don't think her name stayed on the roster a day before another captain found out and had it pulled. We take tennis way too serious here. A good captain keeps watch on them rosters.

But when it comes to under-rating, the shadiest thing I've seen happened a few years ago, after USTA started getting stricter. One of the local juniors graduated and moved home from a college where she'd been a scholarship player for 4 years. An 8.0 captain saw her hitting one day and talked her onto her team with a 3.5 rating. The young woman dressed down her game best she could and finished that season with no complaints. She had made it halfway through the ladies' season before somebody decided to look her up.

USTA did not take this lightly. Determined that the 8.0 captain was just as guilty they tried to suspend her but the player took full responsibility. The player was kicked out for a year and bumped up to 5.5. She appealed when her suspension was over but no dice.

Somebody told me they saw her hitting and asked why she wasted her talents on 3.5. She said that after playing competition tennis for most her life, she liked those particular teams because there was no stress plus they partied hard. It made tennis fun again.

gmatheis 11-28-2012 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvn10is (Post 7037186)
Yeah, that's a pretty decent name to have to run across in league play. I mean, he's no Roger but he isn't Louie the Human Resources guy either.

In Atlanta you wouldn't have had any of these problems because that guy wouldn't have played a match. We have this chick here who plays AA ALTA. Her claim to fame is she played Serena around the turn of the century and took a set off her. When USTA's self-rating was a joke, she signed up for a 4.5 team. I don't think her name stayed on the roster a day before another captain found out and had it pulled. We take tennis way too serious here. A good captain keeps watch on them rosters.

But when it comes to under-rating, the shadiest thing I've seen happened a few years ago, after USTA started getting stricter. One of the local juniors graduated and moved home from a college where she'd been a scholarship player for 4 years. An 8.0 captain saw her hitting one day and talked her onto her team with a 3.5 rating. The young woman dressed down her game best she could and finished that season with no complaints. She had made it halfway through the ladies' season before somebody decided to look her up.

USTA did not take this lightly. Determined that the 8.0 captain was just as guilty they tried to suspend her but the player took full responsibility. The player was kicked out for a year and bumped up to 5.5. She appealed when her suspension was over but no dice.

Somebody told me they saw her hitting and asked why she wasted her talents on 3.5. She said that after playing competition tennis for most her life, she liked those particular teams because there was no stress plus they partied hard. It made tennis fun again.

Yeah he's definitely no Roger ... I mean Roger never got a gold medal in singles ... oh wait we're arguing that Roger would be the stronger player lol :)

I think a 40ish yr old former gold medalist playing as a 4.5 may get the sandbagger of the year award :)

bobbything 11-29-2012 06:03 AM

In full disclosure, I was joking. The guy on our team was just a local guy who everyone knew that played at Wake Forest. At the time I didn't think much of it because there were several former D1 players in 4.5. A guy that played at KU, another at American University, one from Texas A&M. But those guys had been thru the system long enough to establish themselves as 4.5s.

Whatever. The self rate guideline are strange. It lumps a lot of factors into one broad group. Like this...

NAIA, Div. 2 & 3 unranked college team player (commited to, playing, or played ) program with no scholarships (not much stronger than High School tennis);

They're saying that (1) these levels are all equal, which is absurd (2) that these levels don't have scholarships (only D3 applies), (3) they're not much stronger than high school tennis. This is laughable.

I know there are many factors and not all of them can be taken into consideration but the matrix, as it currently stands, sucks. It needs to be fixed. I'd start with breaking down this particular section a little better.

Alchemy-Z 11-29-2012 07:07 AM

Had a guy who I have beat in every meeting (tournament or season) match show up to play see me and go to his captain to check the line up...

we overhead him say I know you already switched the line up but my shoulder is bothering me so I really need to play doubles.
Our captain being nice let him swap the line up around so I played someone different in singles and that guy got to play doubles.

we still won 5-0 and the poor dude that basically sacrificed to court 1 lost 6-0 6-1

all because the guy could not handle losing to me again?

My teammate thought it was funny and I guess it is but I normally look forward to playing players I haven't beat as a chance to turn the table...not run with the tail tucked between my legs.

blakesq 11-29-2012 07:40 AM

so, are you a doctor that diagnosed there was no problem with the guy's shoulder?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alchemy-Z (Post 7037846)
Had a guy who I have beat in every meeting (tournament or season) match show up to play see me and go to his captain to check the line up...

we overhead him say I know you already switched the line up but my shoulder is bothering me so I really need to play doubles.
Our captain being nice let him swap the line up around so I played someone different in singles and that guy got to play doubles.

we still won 5-0 and the poor dude that basically sacrificed to court 1 lost 6-0 6-1

all because the guy could not handle losing to me again?

My teammate thought it was funny and I guess it is but I normally look forward to playing players I haven't beat as a chance to turn the table...not run with the tail tucked between my legs.


Alchemy-Z 11-29-2012 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blakesq (Post 7037889)
so, are you a doctor that diagnosed there was no problem with the guy's shoulder?

He very well could have actually had a problem but it was just a little odd he waited till the line up was switched and he was told who he was playing to make the comment he needed to play doubles.

beernutz 11-29-2012 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbything (Post 7037757)
In full disclosure, I was joking. The guy on our team was just a local guy who everyone knew that played at Wake Forest. At the time I didn't think much of it because there were several former D1 players in 4.5. A guy that played at KU, another at American University, one from Texas A&M. But those guys had been thru the system long enough to establish themselves as 4.5s.

Whatever. The self rate guideline are strange. It lumps a lot of factors into one broad group. Like this...

NAIA, Div. 2 & 3 unranked college team player (commited to, playing, or played ) program with no scholarships (not much stronger than High School tennis);

They're saying that (1) these levels are all equal, which is absurd (2) that these levels don't have scholarships (only D3 applies), (3) they're not much stronger than high school tennis. This is laughable.

I know there are many factors and not all of them can be taken into consideration but the matrix, as it currently stands, sucks. It needs to be fixed. I'd start with breaking down this particular section a little better.

I will acknowledge the thread hijack first off. I disagree with your interpretation of the specific self-rate guideline you posted. I don't believe the USTA is saying players who fit the criteria they list (what you call levels) are equal since the guidelines specify only a minimum rating level and a player who fits that description but feels they are at the top end of that NTRP level or above it are free to self rate at a higher level. In my 6 years of league play and from many discussions with league players from various levels, the problem of players self rating at levels which are higher than their actual ability is almost non-existent. I personally know of only one case where an older guy at my club who had 3.0 skills initially self rated as 4.0. He appealed and was moved to 3.5 where he played for a year until he got computer rated back down to 3.0.

My biggest beef with the guideline criteria is that they aren't comprehensive enough and consequently leave loopholes that even people trying to honestly rate may fall through but especially help those who are trying to game the system.

For example, besides the criteria you quote, the only other one which mentions NAIA, D2, and D3 players is
"NAIA, Div. 2 & 3 college team or player ranked in top 25".

So if I was a current or former NAIA, D2, or D3 player I have my choice of the above or:
"NAIA, Div. 2 & 3 unranked college team player (commited to, playing, or played ) program with no scholarships (not much stronger than High School tennis)"

which don't together comprehensively cover all NAIA, D2, or D3 players. What about an unranked college player in a program with scholarships? What about a player in a program with no scholarships who is ranked outside the top 25? Even using ranking is problematic since does the above mean the player who was EVER ranked in the top 25 or who was in the top 25 when they finished their playing career?

For high school, the omission of a criteria for having played varsity doubles creates a loophole I've personally seen teams we faced at state take advantage of by taking really good doubles players and having them self rate as 3.0s. It made a joke out of the expectation that players were rated to their actual ability level imo.

It may add a little bit of extra data to that document (http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/E...2011_V2pdf.pdf) but I think would help solve one of the biggest problems in league play namely self-rated players rating too low. </soap box>


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse