Originally Posted by Angle Queen
If you think about, it does actually make some sense. The "ruler" needs a start and stop point. New to an NTRP and still B...probably sets the bottom of that level...in that they were good enough to be on a team to go to playoffs and had a personal record to back up that collective success. A "B" that remains at-level, is likely to be the high end of that level (setting the top of the lower level)...in that they played well enough to be on a team that went to playoffs but didn't have the personal record to push them to the next level.
Not sure if I'm explaining that well but let's try with some names.
Able, Baker, Charlie and his Dog all play on a 3.5 team. They make the playoffs, all of them play at least one match in the post-season. ALL of them will be "B" players next year, regardless of their NTRP.
Able has a good season and wins in playoffs. He becomes a 4.0B.
Baker has a so-so season and wins in playoffs. He stays a 3.5, albeit a 3.5B.
Charlie has a so-so season and loses in playoffs. He's like Baker and stays a 3.5 but also with a B.
Dog had an awful season and loses in playoffs. He drops down to 3.0...but with the B tag...3.0B.
Now let's say Earl also played on this same 3.5 team but couldn't make the playoffs due to a prior obligation. He had a great season. It's very possible he'll also be bumped to 4.0...but he'd be a 4.0C.
Now, is Earl better than Able. Maybe, maybe not. But from the computer's perspective, it's easier to evaluate Able since he played opponents outside his region and, ostensibly, would be a better benchmark....against which to judge future opponents at the follow year's ratings computation, even if it's at the bottom end.
Clearly, however & from the computer's perspective, both Able and Earl are 4.0s. Baker and Charlie are 3.5s...probably at the upper end since they were good enough to play for a playoff-bound team (which is, after all, the sum of its parts).
Dog needed to move down...but again, is probably the top of his now lower NTRP...since he'd most recently played a level up.
Does that help any?
Good scenario and description AQ.
The one thing I'd add is that I "think" that Able, Baker, Charlie, and Dog becoming Bs causes them to be used as benchmarks for 2012 instead or as well as 2013, i.e. the benchmark part of the year-end rating has players that played against ABCD being adjusted based on how they did in their matches against ABCD or any other benchmark they played. I don't do any benchmark calculations in my estimated ratings in large part because I haven't fully figured out how the USTA does it, so any confirmation of this one way or the other would be great.