View Single Post
Old 03-07-2007, 05:02 PM   #12
tennis-n-sc
Professional
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cindysphinx View Post
That's how it was explained to me. If the memberships of the 3.5 and 3.0 teams overlapped too much, this could be a problem at districts and beyond.

I think the rule stinks. If we want to run the risk of defaulting matches because of too much overlap, that's our problem, isn't it? Besides, what are the chances that a 3.5 team with a bunch of 3.0s would make it to districts anyway?
More likely than you would think. Here, if you are on more than one team than advances, you have to elect which team roster you advance on. Can't be both if both are playing in the same championship. It would be a nightmare for the directors to try to work around everyone's schedule. If it didn't happen, there wouldn't be a rule about it. Cindy, as involved as you are, why don't you volunteer for local USTA work? They always need people and you obviously have the interest and energy for it.
tennis-n-sc is offline   Reply With Quote