Originally Posted by JavierLW
This is all well and good if you believe that someone cant possibly win 80% or more of their matches and still be within the correct rating.
I think changing the system just because some people happen to be sandbaggers doesnt make a lot of sense. Sandbaggers aside the system works fine for most people in the league.
If the league wants to do something about these people who are only there to cheat the system, they should send some people to the matches or do something specifically to target them, rather than ruin it for everyone else in the league.
A good majority of players dont even play enough matches every year (here the average is like 5-6) to even be considered under any sort of 80% win rule, so you have to go by games to get more granular.
And besides the games factor your precious 80% rule doesnt factor in where people are within their own rating. If they just happen to play weaker 3.5's should they be punished for that? It doesnt make any sense to me.
I think this is just a simplistic approach that doesnt consider what the skill ratings really mean or what winning a tennis match is all about for that matter. (for most people, not counting the sandbaggers)
Im sure this isnt perfect either, but I think a better sceniro would be to "reward" the teams that move on to districts by using some form of the "move up / split up" rule on them like if you finish in the top four in nationals. Because think about it, why do players want to sandbag?
Some of them are sick and twisted and only want to win matches no matter who they play, but others simply want to win the league which is fair (it is a league after all and your goal is to win it.....). So maybe if your team moves on, more people should get rated up than if not (versus how it seems to work now where you are less likely to get rated up because you got spanked by the bigger sandbaggers from some other district/section).
Then maybe some win percentage rule is in order, or some variation of it. But to just institute a win percentage for everyone is not a good idea in my opinion.
If you think people should be zipping up and down from 4.5 to 2.5 from year to year, you really dont have a realistic idea of what skill ratings really mean.
Skill ratings mean just that - a complete separation from results, including games. Even allowing the input of games, score differentials, or my precious winning percentage - ALL are results based metrics.
Skill rating would be everybody against a ball machine, radar gun, and targets. Crunch some numbers - hey look - you're a 4.0. Now let's see how people with similar "skills" do against one another.
In fact, the USTA has already abandoned the traditional skills test (in the form of visual verification) for a results based metric - only the results based metric they chose are wrong. Roll the consequence into the incentive, and you'll force the people who want to win to take the part they don't want (being bumped up), too.