View Single Post
Old 11-29-2012, 11:41 AM   #20
Hall Of Fame
beernutz's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: expanding my Ignore List
Posts: 4,351

Originally Posted by bobbything View Post
In full disclosure, I was joking. The guy on our team was just a local guy who everyone knew that played at Wake Forest. At the time I didn't think much of it because there were several former D1 players in 4.5. A guy that played at KU, another at American University, one from Texas A&M. But those guys had been thru the system long enough to establish themselves as 4.5s.

Whatever. The self rate guideline are strange. It lumps a lot of factors into one broad group. Like this...

NAIA, Div. 2 & 3 unranked college team player (commited to, playing, or played ) program with no scholarships (not much stronger than High School tennis);

They're saying that (1) these levels are all equal, which is absurd (2) that these levels don't have scholarships (only D3 applies), (3) they're not much stronger than high school tennis. This is laughable.

I know there are many factors and not all of them can be taken into consideration but the matrix, as it currently stands, sucks. It needs to be fixed. I'd start with breaking down this particular section a little better.
I will acknowledge the thread hijack first off. I disagree with your interpretation of the specific self-rate guideline you posted. I don't believe the USTA is saying players who fit the criteria they list (what you call levels) are equal since the guidelines specify only a minimum rating level and a player who fits that description but feels they are at the top end of that NTRP level or above it are free to self rate at a higher level. In my 6 years of league play and from many discussions with league players from various levels, the problem of players self rating at levels which are higher than their actual ability is almost non-existent. I personally know of only one case where an older guy at my club who had 3.0 skills initially self rated as 4.0. He appealed and was moved to 3.5 where he played for a year until he got computer rated back down to 3.0.

My biggest beef with the guideline criteria is that they aren't comprehensive enough and consequently leave loopholes that even people trying to honestly rate may fall through but especially help those who are trying to game the system.

For example, besides the criteria you quote, the only other one which mentions NAIA, D2, and D3 players is
"NAIA, Div. 2 & 3 college team or player ranked in top 25".

So if I was a current or former NAIA, D2, or D3 player I have my choice of the above or:
"NAIA, Div. 2 & 3 unranked college team player (commited to, playing, or played ) program with no scholarships (not much stronger than High School tennis)"

which don't together comprehensively cover all NAIA, D2, or D3 players. What about an unranked college player in a program with scholarships? What about a player in a program with no scholarships who is ranked outside the top 25? Even using ranking is problematic since does the above mean the player who was EVER ranked in the top 25 or who was in the top 25 when they finished their playing career?

For high school, the omission of a criteria for having played varsity doubles creates a loophole I've personally seen teams we faced at state take advantage of by taking really good doubles players and having them self rate as 3.0s. It made a joke out of the expectation that players were rated to their actual ability level imo.

It may add a little bit of extra data to that document ( but I think would help solve one of the biggest problems in league play namely self-rated players rating too low. </soap box>
Thanks TW for the version reversion and Xenforo FTW!

Last edited by beernutz; 11-29-2012 at 11:44 AM.
beernutz is online now   Reply With Quote