View Single Post
Old 12-14-2012, 09:46 AM   #51
schmke
Professional
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
As you said this would affect a very small number of people. Only 1-2 teams usually have a shot at playoffs and those teams are most likely to have under-rated self rates. The remainder of the 90% or so self rates would not be affected.

Multiple year bump is the only way to make sure people don't manipulate the system to get back down to their prior level in on year or less. Maybe 3 years is a long penalty but I don't think 2 years is unreasonable. I have yet to meet a player that played in Nationals that could not hold their own reasonably well at the next level. If they are lower end of the next level for several years so what? Where is it written that it is unfair unless you are at the top half of your level? All the players that I see that didn't get bumped from nationals are still are top end players for regular local league play. Currently they just form their core from these players and then fill in from players that worked their way down from the level above and get a couple new under-rated self rates. This is how teams form their dynasties that go to playoffs year after year. The whole point of the mass bump ups by the USTA from several years ago was to address this problem. The problem is that this mass bump up only temporarily alleviated the problem and actually more players that were legitmate at the lower level probably should not have been bumped. It was an inelegant solution that was a temporary fix. But still if they wanted to go that route and say do the mass bump ups every other year it would be better than what they are doing now.
I don't mind the idea of being more aggressive with bumping players that go to sectionals/nationals, my issue is with the locking them in. With the young guns that you are after, this probably works. But there are a host of others that aren't so young and may be peaking to get to nationals and if they simply get a bit older or don't play quite as much their play declines, but you have them locked in at a level up now. Is it really fair to have a 54 year old on a 40+ team that goes to nationals at 3.5 locked in at 4.0 for 3 years as his skills decline?

Yes, you could vary the lock-in period based on the age division, but then you are just starting to add more and more exceptions and rules, and IMHO, a good system doesn't require a bunch of exceptions like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
I like this idea of counting your best wins more heavily and throwing out poor results, but I think this would get too complicated. If they just counted your best wins against the highest rated opponents much more significantly I could see that positively affecting the ratings.
Well, this is what the benchmark calculation is supposed to address, giving more weight (50% of your year-end rating) to those matches played against benchmark players. And since everyone in playoffs is benchmark, 50% of your rating comes from your post-season results.

This benchmark calculation is also how the system today provides for being more aggressive with bump ups for those that play post-season play. But if you get to the post-season and don't do well, that factors in too and is part of the reason why some that go to nationals don't get bumped. Someone does lose there, and sometimes pretty bad.
schmke is offline   Reply With Quote