Originally Posted by ian2
Cindy, I don't know if you meant to sound snarky, or it just happened to come out that way, but g4 was quite specific in his posts. I see no reason to bullet-point his ideas... the jist of it is obvious: he questions the lack of "standardization" in USTA approach to NTRP ratings. And rightfully so in my opinion. I can see why different sections may want to have different league offerings (due to climate, demographics, facilities availability etc.). But what is the point in, say, counting the same type of league towards NTRP in SoCal and not counting it in Eastern? Or including tournament results into the calculations in Intermountain but not in [some other section]?
Of course it's worth remembering that there is a total of about a dozen people who give a damn about this kind of thing, all of them on this board
This stuff really doesn't matter to the "masses". To think of it, it doesn't matter much to the majority of the paid USTA functionaries/"tennis professionals", nor do most of them know much about how NTRP works, differences accross sections, etc.
No, no snark intended.
I guess I just didn't follow what he is proposing. I got snippets, but mostly it sounded like to me that there should be a ban if someone plays under a fake identity.
Yeah. Sure. Whatever. I can get behind that.
In general, though, I am not persuaded that standardization for standardization's sake is always best. There are certain efficiencies to handling things locally. Take my player who wasn't allowed to appeal down. Maybe she would have been allowed to appeal down had she been in Southwest instead of Mid-Atlantic. I disagree with the decision, but the world didn't tip off of its axis because of it.
Given that league tennis is far from life and death importance, I think the existing system works OK (although I would like to see National USTA set a more strict tone overall about rating offenses).