Originally Posted by spot
This is the best way for me to explain why nationals are a bad idea. I think that most of us can agree that someone winning nationals at 2.5 is sort of ridiculous. An award for being the best terrible tennis players in the nation? There is no doubt that the team that wins 2.5 would do just fine at 3.0 but they were simply the team that managed their levels the best.
But really every other level is the same. Its not that you are the best at anything other than being able to manage your ratings the best to keep good players from being bumped up. I really don't see the point and I think it causes a TON of problems across USTA tennis.
I completely agree with this, but for some strange reason the concept of having a winning team is fun. I've been personally going through this thought experiment recently as I am an unintentional C rated sandbagger who played much higher levels when I was younger and in shape. It might be fun going far in the playoffs, but at the end of the day making it a long way into the playoffs at a level 2-3 notches down from you old level is kind of depressing in some ways.