View Single Post
Old 10-10-2012, 08:31 AM   #18
Mitch Bridge
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 145

"a) Back in the late 80s and into the 90s, rankings were based on the Star Computer System. It was the quality of your wins and losses that mattered on the computer. If you beat #7 in your Section it was given much more weight than if you beat the #83 player in your Section. If you beat a player that was #4 in the Nation, it was given more weight than if you beat a player that was #63. College Football has a very similar system. The rankings were very, very accurate that way."

I agree with a the bulk of this letter, however in the star system players didn't play enough matches. The top players from the best sections played 100 matches because of the depth of their sections and going deep into nationals, but most of the other players were not playing enough to maximize their development. Chasing level 3s around the country allowed them the 100 match luxury. Let the sections decide if they want points or star system based on their individual needs. An accurate system would be great, but all systems are only accurate at the top.
Southern California Tennis Academy
Mitch Bridge is offline