Sure, my simple explanation is this. If you know that you are a 3.0 player, then don't go getting on a a-2 team. The rules are transparent as some are saying they want. You know right now if you make the playoffs at a-4, you are going to be a minimum of A-3 next season. If you jump teams you will carry that A-3 ranking to another team. That team knows it can be moved up if you play a level lower than A-3.
It's better than this current USTA system...you could be bumped if "you play on the first tuesday of the month and you play a player that had Ihop pancakes for breakfast..that is unless he had steak 2 nights earlier and there was a full moon that night." The point is no one knows what the hell is going on with USTA. What the lady told me back then may have been complete horse *****, but there was nothing we could do about it. They had already gotten our money...and don't let me get started on that.
You pay one 25 dollar fee or something a year with Alta....it's something like 40 bucks for Usta then you have all the bs league fees that come with it. Do I need to keep going?
Originally Posted by jmnk
if you really think that 'moving up/down' a player based solely on how good/bad the team he is on is doing is in any way, shape or form better than USTA ranking than obviously your idea of what constitutes a 'fair ranking' escapes me. could you kindly explain how is that better? As in -
a) how does it more accurately describes a level of an individual player, and
b) how does it better evaluates players so matches between same-level players are at least somewhat competitive?