2012 Year End Ratings

[g4driver]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

^^^^

I'm not sure I completely follow what you're saying. I'll retry. It's a National Organization. A National Tennis Rating Program. What Norcal wants or what SC wants should get brought up at a National Meeting, discussion, then a vote and one rule for everyone, hence National, regarding NTRPs, grievance procedures, and standardized punishments.

It seems your grievance is that your section does not count Single's league matches towards NTRP, and you want a national rule to force all sections to count all leagues towards NTRP. No I don't. I don't want all leagues counted toward your NTRP. I want everyone on the same page. That's all. I just want everyone standardized.

Q: If the program is truly National, why should each Section cut and paste and pick and choose what parts of a National program they want to implement? That's not National.

How does that affect me in Norcal? Well, mabe in Norcal we don't want Mixed results to count for NTRP, because over here we don't believe Mixed is real tennis? Just kidding... kinda... point is, if there was a national rule such as you suggest, it has implications on other sections also.
A National program, that doesn't include Mixed Ratings would never affect you, me, Cindy, or anyone. My suggestion would simply let all the sections have a vote on each topic and the majority would be the National rule. Does Mixed Doubles count for anyone who plays Adult/Senior/Super Senior? It's my understanding, that Mixed only counts if you don't have a rating, and if you only play Mixed, then you get an "M" rating. Mixed Exclusive Rating. Is there any Section that counts Mixed Doubles towards and NTRP? I am not aware of any.

Ok, so you might say, allow Norcal 'override' that rule, if we here feel a particular league shouldn't count. To which I say, well, if you in (whereever you are) feel Singles league should count, then why don't you and all the others who feel the same way just pressure your specific section to make it count? I will be at the State Annual Meeting and will make these very points. My argument and theory is this should NOT be decide at a state or Sectional Level, but rather have all the Sections discuss together and then have a vote for everyone. There would be NO overrides. The program would stop Sections from picking and choosing and turning a National Program into a Sectional Program. It would NOT affect your league's tailoring to your players and your demographic needs.

On a different note, and about your concern that a self-rated 3.5 could just play 4.0 singles forever without ever getting bumped up... what do you care? Why I care is this. I had several friends on the team who lost to what I and many other players saw as a team with cheaters. Did it affect me personally? No, but it did affect my friends on the team.

Question back to you: So if a team played against your kids and cheated with a few 15 year olds in a 12 year old softball team, would you just "accept it and move on", or would you have the balls to stand up and say "Can someone show me those kids birth certificates.? The team that beat my friends cheated, whether you recognize or not. Whether you care or not, I do. It doesn't affect you or me, so I guess I have enough passion to look up the guy who beat down multiple 4.0s in a 4.0 Singles League at the same time he and his 3.5 Team were advancing in the playoffs. I will bring up the player's name, his record at 4.0 Singles and his record on his 3.5 Team in at the State Annual Meeting as evidence to a broken USTA National NTRP system. And yes, this did affect which teams advanced in the playoffs. The system is broken. The problem is finding people with enough guts to stand up in front of crowd with scores and evidence to ask pointed questions. If the self-rated "3.5" player I am referring had the 4.0 matches counted towards his NTRP, he would have be DQed at 3.5 on strikes, and possibly moved to 4.5. The players he beat were 4.0C rated players. But the USTA National System allows him to play and beat down 4.0Cs without penalty, and allowed him as a 3.5S to play doubles or throw games to avoid the DQs at 3.5. If you don't think the system is broken, you are blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. But, have solace, you have plenty of company.

There is always going to be a small percentage of sandbagger players who get their kicks out of beating weaker players, and they are always going to find a way to bend the rules to achieve their sandbagging dreams. Just accept it and move on. Most of your matches are going to be competitive and fun, and that's really the only point of NTRP. The system can change, but it takes passion, not apathy.

Part of the problem with the USTA is the apathy of the management. Roger Goodell is a leader. He gets it. The USTA is void of leaders IMO. And yes, I understand it's a volunteer group. I volunteer too. I've had multiple discussion about "Self-Rated" players with our local President and he too agrees with the call to Ban "Self-Rated" players from playoffs. The message has fallen on deaf ears. I will go to the State Annual Meeting with as much data as I can to prove my point. The local president told me "I know you 8itch about this and that, but with every complaint, your offer a solution. You bring up strong arguments. "

No malice toward you OrangePower. If I didn't make my early arguments clear, I apologize. I hope my thought process is clearer now. I understand local needs and demographics and am not advocating making any changes that would affect local play. My goal is to get a truly National System with the same rules for everyone. Wow, what a concept.

[OrangePower]

^^^^^

I would never claim the USTA is perfect, and so I appreciate folks like you who are willing to fight the good fight to make it better for all of us.

But in general I have to agree with what Angle Queen said:

Originally Posted by Angle Queen

It's the abuses of said system, though, that I think are what rankles people most. But bottomline, I think it does what it's supposed to do -- give similarly rated players a competitive match. And I think that remarkable given the number and skill-level ranges of players involved.

Yes, there are some cheaters. Very few, given the number of people playing. The cheating bothers me in principle. In practice, I don't care - my goal in recreational tennis is to enjoy the tennis, not to win the competition of being the best of the worst. At the end of the day, it's the cheaters who have a problem, not me.

[J_R_B]

Guys who are going to throw games and cheat the system to avoid DQ are going to do that anyway. In this guy's case, I'm guessing he wouldn't have played singles leagues at all if he knew those matches would jeopardize his 3.5 adult rating since it's clear he was willing to go to great lengths to preserve that rating.

You make it sound so simple, but the crux of the matter is that you can't control cheaters no matter what you do, and most of the penalties that are put in place end up catching people who are playing honestly rather than those that are willfully manipulating the system. The manipulators are too smart to get caught.

I really have no problem with Sections wanting to do their own thing.

[g4driver]

Originally Posted by J_R_B

Guys who are going to throw games and cheat the system to avoid DQ are going to do that anyway. In this guy's case, I'm guessing he wouldn't have played singles leagues at all if he knew those matches would jeopardize his 3.5 adult rating since it's clear he was willing to go to great lengths to preserve that rating. And the 4.0C guys he beat would NOT have had those loses on their record. Maybe then, one of their teams goes to the playoffs. So my idea at least stops the "4.0/4.5 from sandbagging at 3.5. Having Sections "Do their own thing" doesn't hurt other sections, but it sure protects those in sections like the Southern section who have loopholes that are easy to manipulate.

You make it sound so simple, but the crux of the matter is that you can't control cheaters no matter what you do, and most of the penalties that are put in place end up catching people who are playing honestly rather than those that are willfully manipulating the system. I get that people will cheat. But when you have a bunch of non-standardized policies with "Honesty" as the lock, the USTA seems to stop just shy of encouraging cheating. They don't even censor people for doing what the sandbagger from the upstate of SC did. The USTA just looks the other way. Apathy rules. Pathetic IMO. Cowards. I told one of the guys on my team, it doesn't affect me, but the system is so flawed to allow this to happen, that I for one am willing to bring it up with evidence at the state annual meeting with my idea of how to at least stop the guy from playing in a single's league. If the USTA refuses to ban self-rated players from the playoffs, the very least the USTA could do, is not allow guys like this to play singles at 4.0 and beat down the 4.0Cs. If the USTA is ok with sandbagger wrecking one league with their "Honesty safeguards" , at least prevent guys from doing the same thing in Single's Leagues. Again, this hurts you or anyone how JRB or OrangePower?

One of the penalty I was looking for was a ban from USTA play for a period of one to two years for people who knowing register with a new USTA number, and a new name at a level one or two levels below their current level. How does that hurt honest people?

Please explain to me how my idea of every Section having the same procedures hurts any other Section? Neither you nor OrangePower have done that. I've asked several times to be enlighten, but the fact remains, that neither you nor OrangePower can give one example. It really is that simple to have a NATIONAL TRP.

The manipulators are too smart to get caught.

I really have no problem with Sections wanting to do their own thing.

Please tell me how my idea is flawed. Give me one example. I understand why people are afraid of change. It's different. People like stability. Last night all I heard from and over 50 crowd was the complaining about the new 40+, 55+ 70+ Age Brackets for the USTA Leagues.

I spoke up and said "Everyone of you can play in two leagues, many of you in three leagues". A 43 year old can play in one league. Under the new system, every one of you can still play in two leagues if you are 49, three leagues if you are 55. How does this hurt you again?" Crickets. Nothing. Not a word.

All I read from you and others is "The system isn't perfect, but it's good enough, and I don't care enough to change it since it really doesn't affect me." All I can gather from the naysayers is they fear doing something that implements a National NTRP, national grievance procedures, and makes the most basic elements of the USTA standardized. There would be no change to any local leagues.

I'm just asking for one example of how my idea hurts anyone but those who manipulate? Where does it hurt honest people? Bueller? Bueller?

[J_R_B]

Originally Posted by g4driver

Please tell me how my idea is flawed. Give me one example. I understand why people are afraid of change. It's different. People like stability. Last night all I heard from and over 50 crowd was the complaining about the new 40+, 55+ 70+ Age Brackets for the USTA Leagues.

I spoke up and said "Everyone of you can play in two leagues, many of you in three leagues". A 43 year old can play in one league. Under the new system, every one of you can still play in two leagues if you are 49, three leagues if you are 55. How does this hurt you again?" Crickets. Nothing. Not a word.

All I read from you and others is "The system isn't perfect, but it's good enough, and I don't care enough to change it since it really doesn't affect me." All I can gather from the naysayers is they fear doing something that implements a National NTRP, national grievance procedures, and makes the most basic elements of the USTA standardized. There would be no change to any local leagues.

I'm just asking for one example of how my idea hurts anyone but those who manipulate? Where does it hurt honest people? Bueller? Bueller?

The answer is because what's right for one section might not be right for another. Why? I don't know, go ask the sections that do it differently. I'm sure they have thier reasons. Many people have said this. You don't accept it, but that's not our problem.

And I agree that people who re-register with a different number to self-rate at a lower level should face severe punishment. That is blatant cheating, and that's an entirely different issue.

[g4driver]

Two or three people certainly isn't many. And again, you can't offer one example, but that's not by problem.

I've asked for honest feedback, and I can't get one example of how my idea hurts honest people. Just one example. I will be asking the Southern Section. I've never asked the question directly to the USTA but I will ask, in person and via email.

Not picking at you JRB, and I appreciate your response, but neither you, OrangePower, Cindy or anyone else has offered one example of how my thought process is flawed. Not one example. All you can offer is "Many people have said this. You don't accept it, but that's not our problem.

You're right on one account. I don't accept the lack of examples or evidence as a reason to let it go.

If one person could offer just one example of where my idea hurts honest people I won't bring it up at the Annual SC meeting. That isn't a very big request. The problem is not one person can do that.

[Cindysphinx]

I'd be happy to tell you what I think of your proposal, but I am not sure what it is.

Can you bullet-point it, please?

[ian2]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I'd be happy to tell you what I think of your proposal, but I am not sure what it is.

Can you bullet-point it, please?

Cindy, I don't know if you meant to sound snarky, or it just happened to come out that way, but g4 was quite specific in his posts. I see no reason to bullet-point his ideas... the jist of it is obvious: he questions the lack of "standardization" in USTA approach to NTRP ratings. And rightfully so in my opinion. I can see why different sections may want to have different league offerings (due to climate, demographics, facilities availability etc.). But what is the point in, say, counting the same type of league towards NTRP in SoCal and not counting it in Eastern? Or including tournament results into the calculations in Intermountain but not in [some other section]?

Of course it's worth remembering that there is a total of about a dozen people who give a damn about this kind of thing, all of them on this board This stuff really doesn't matter to the "masses". To think of it, it doesn't matter much to the majority of the paid USTA functionaries/"tennis professionals", nor do most of them know much about how NTRP works, differences accross sections, etc.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by ian2

Cindy, I don't know if you meant to sound snarky, or it just happened to come out that way, but g4 was quite specific in his posts. I see no reason to bullet-point his ideas... the jist of it is obvious: he questions the lack of "standardization" in USTA approach to NTRP ratings. And rightfully so in my opinion. I can see why different sections may want to have different league offerings (due to climate, demographics, facilities availability etc.). But what is the point in, say, counting the same type of league towards NTRP in SoCal and not counting it in Eastern? Or including tournament results into the calculations in Intermountain but not in [some other section]?

Of course it's worth remembering that there is a total of about a dozen people who give a damn about this kind of thing, all of them on this board This stuff really doesn't matter to the "masses". To think of it, it doesn't matter much to the majority of the paid USTA functionaries/"tennis professionals", nor do most of them know much about how NTRP works, differences accross sections, etc.

No, no snark intended.

I guess I just didn't follow what he is proposing. I got snippets, but mostly it sounded like to me that there should be a ban if someone plays under a fake identity.

Yeah. Sure. Whatever. I can get behind that.

In general, though, I am not persuaded that standardization for standardization's sake is always best. There are certain efficiencies to handling things locally. Take my player who wasn't allowed to appeal down. Maybe she would have been allowed to appeal down had she been in Southwest instead of Mid-Atlantic. I disagree with the decision, but the world didn't tip off of its axis because of it.

Given that league tennis is far from life and death importance, I think the existing system works OK (although I would like to see National USTA set a more strict tone overall about rating offenses).

[J_R_B]

Originally Posted by g4driver

Two or three people certainly isn't many. And again, you can't offer one example, but that's not by problem.

I've asked for honest feedback, and I can't get one example of how my idea hurts honest people. Just one example. I will be asking the Southern Section. I've never asked the question directly to the USTA but I will ask, in person and via email.

Not picking at you JRB, and I appreciate your response, but neither you, OrangePower, Cindy or anyone else has offered one example of how my thought process is flawed. Not one example. All you can offer is "Many people have said this. You don't accept it, but that's not our problem.

You're right on one account. I don't accept the lack of examples or evidence as a reason to let it go.

If one person could offer just one example of where my idea hurts honest people I won't bring it up at the Annual SC meeting. That isn't a very big request. The problem is not one person can do that.

I don't have an example because I don't care why Southern doesn't want to include singles league matches in its NTRP while NorCal does when I live in Middle States and we don't even have singles leagues. If you want an explanation of why it is advantageous for each side to want it the way they do, go ask them. I'm sure there is a good reason for each. You're asking me to do research about somethng that you clearly care deeply about and I don't. Go do the research yourself.

[Islandtennis]

I do kind of agree with Cindy. No offense to him, but G4 did offer several ideas and not just one.

On standardization. If that is done, I assume the National USTA would need to at least initially go with the most conservative model being used. Would G4 be happy for everyone to go to Southern's model? That would be Standardized, but it would not eliminate his concern about the Singles League.

Then Cindy's and Topaz's Singles League would not count, but it would be standardized. G4 is not helped, but the NTRP configuration is standardized.

G4 made some very good points, but when he says to comment on his "idea" I, like Cindy, want to know in one paragraph what his idea is.

As far as cheating. The game of tennis does have a certain amount honor involved. I can beat the head pro at my club if I want to. I just call all of his shots out. In an unofficiated match, he has no recourse. Deterrents can be set up but they cannot eliminate the player or captain who truly want to game the system.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I'd be happy to tell you what I think of your proposal, but I am not sure what it is. Can you bullet-point it, please?

Originally Posted by ian2

Cindy, I don't know if you meant to sound snarky, or it just happened to come out that way, but g4 was quite specific in his posts. I see no reason to bullet-point his ideas... the jist of it is obvious: he questions the lack of "standardization" in USTA approach to NTRP ratings.

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

No, no snark intended. I guess I just didn't follow what he is proposing. I got snippets, but mostly it sounded like to me that there should be a ban if someone plays under a fake identity. Yeah. Sure. Whatever. I can get behind that.

I'm with Cindy here... not sure what the specific proposals are that g4 has in mind. "Standardization" is too general. We know some things are not possible to standardize because the sections do not all offer the same leagues and the same calendar.

So far I've gleaned two specific proposals that g4 has made:

1. Ban someone playing under a false identity, or other blatent fraud.

Ok, I agree.

2. Mandate that Singles league results count towards NTRP.

Well, this is more tricky. Understand that I don't have a personal stake in this, since Norcal does not offer a Singles league. So if the majority wants Singles to count towards NTRP, hey, I'm fine with that.

But here would be my hypothetical argument against it, from the perspective of USTA:

One of the goals of NTRP is to enable correlation of ratings across sections. The representatives of a section at Nationals are used a benchmark for that section, and then adjustments are rippled across the section in part based on how that section compared at Nationals to other sections. Since not every section offers a Singles league, counting it in NTRP would mean that comparing ratings across sections is not apples-to-apples. By the way, this is also the probably reason why Combo results don't count towards NTRP.

You may not agree with this reasoning, but at least if we focus on specific propositions we can have a reasonable debate on the merits. But just saying we should "standardize" is too broad for discussion.

[Cindysphinx]

^Following on to that idea . . .

Say you include singles league results in NTRP. In Mid-Atlantic we have singles leagues. Let's say that in Middle States, they do not.

The Mid-Atlantic players who play singles will likely have more singles results in their NTRP calculation than the Middle States players.

Say I (a player who is stronger in singles than doubles) play winter singles, adult and fall singles. Because of these two additional opportunities to play singles, I might have 15 singles league matches, 3 adult singles matches and 5 adult doubles matches.

Say we have someone in Middle States who is also stronger in singles. Because there are no singles leagues there, she might have 3 adult singles matches and 5 adult doubles matches.

If I am the same skill level as the Middle States player, we could nevertheless wind up with different NTRPs. This is because my weak doubles results are diluted by my strong singles play much more than my Middle States counterpart.

Therefore, if you "standardize" by including singles league results despite the fact that many areas do not have singles leagues, you would not be standardizing at all. You would be doing the opposite of standardizing.

Which is what often happens in life when you try to standardize things that are not in fact the same.

[ian2]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

^Following on to that idea . . .

Say you include singles league results in NTRP. In Mid-Atlantic we have singles leagues. Let's say that in Middle States, they do not.

The Mid-Atlantic players who play singles will likely have more singles results in their NTRP calculation than the Middle States players.

Say I (a player who is stronger in singles than doubles) play winter singles, adult and fall singles. Because of these two additional opportunities to play singles, I might have 15 singles league matches, 3 adult singles matches and 5 adult doubles matches.

Say we have someone in Middle States who is also stronger in singles. Because there are no singles leagues there, she might have 3 adult singles matches and 5 adult doubles matches.

If I am the same skill level as the Middle States player, we could nevertheless wind up with different NTRPs. This is because my weak doubles results are diluted by my strong singles play much more than my Middle States counterpart.

Therefore, if you "standardize" by including singles league results despite the fact that many areas do not have singles leagues, you would not be standardizing at all. You would be doing the opposite of standardizing.

Which is what often happens in life when you try to standardize things that are not in fact the same.

It's an interesting argument but it's not an argument against "standardization". If anything, it's an argument in favor of having separate singles and doubles ratings. Obviously there is no such thing currently; whether it would be desirable is a whole other story. There are players in all Sections who play exclusively (or almost exclusively) singles, and there are those who play exclusively doubles. NTRP algorithm already [attempts to] take this into account, by applying a different model to doubles ratings calculation. In the end, both "categories" end up with a "universal" rating.

Why not go with the simplest and most obvious approach, and count ALL USTA singles and doubles matches for same-gender leagues and tournaments, in all Sections? These are matches where all parties have a known DNTRP going in... what could be an argument for counting some matches and not counting others? Don't tell me it's the "across Sections re-balancing based on National playoffs": the whole re-balancing idea is demonstrably absurd.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for inclusion of mixed league/tourney results or other "exotic" formats. I think the existing "mixed-exclusive" rating is a good idea.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by ian2

Why not go with the simplest and most obvious approach, and count ALL USTA singles and doubles matches for same-gender leagues and tournaments, in all Sections? These are matches where all parties have a known DNTRP going in... what could be an argument for counting some matches and not counting others? Don't tell me it's the "across Sections re-balancing based on National playoffs": the whole re-balancing idea is demonstrably absurd.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for inclusion of mixed league/tourney results or other "exotic" formats. I think the existing "mixed-exclusive" rating is a good idea.

I don't get your logic. One the one hand, you say to count all same-gender matches, because all parties have a known DNTRP. But then you say you don't want to count mixed results. Why one and not the other?

Methinks whatever justification you're gonna come up with for not including mixed results could easily be extended to argue for not including combo results for example, which of course contradicts your first proposition.

[Maui19]

Put me in the bullet point camp.

[chatt_town]

That's too bad...I was about to go out and **** can about 3 matches before the end of the year. I'm just kidding. I know some came out in August in Ga.

Originally Posted by SuperLotto

Is there a cut off date for matches played that will impact 2012 ratings? I thought last year the cut off was 10/31 for calculations which came out end of November. Also, will there be a big bump this year. Has anyone heard anything'

[g4driver]

Originally Posted by J_R_B

I don't have an example because I don't care why Southern doesn't want to include singles league matches in its NTRP while NorCal does when I live in Middle States and we don't even have singles leagues. If you want an explanation of why it is advantageous for each side to want it the way they do, go ask them. I'm sure there is a good reason for each. You're asking me to do research about somethng that you clearly care deeply about and I don't. Go do the research yourself.

You don't have an example, because you can't come up with one. I never asked you to do anything other than give me one example of how my idea of every Section applying the same standards hurt anyone other than sandbaggers. Don't put words in my mouth.

If you don't care, don't reply. Evidently you cared enough to type your thoughts on my posts. She's either pregnant or not. You can't have it both ways JRB.

[g4driver]

Bullet Points for those who asked:

1) Have all Sections meet at the USTA National Annual Meeting to discuss then vote on this policy. All USTA Sections will count the same leagues toward NTRP. There are no exceptions.

--If Sections don't have Single's Leagues, Combo or other leagues, those leagues would not be counted in any NTRP calculations except:

a) those players playing in these leagues would be subject to strikes against them per current or revised USTA procedures. This solves the problem of sandbaggers at 4.5, who self-rate at 3.5, then bagel, 0&1, and 1-1 4.0C rated players.

2) The USTA develops and implements one National set of procedures regarding how, what, when and where grievances are filed, and how, what and who will rule on grievances. Standardized policy for vacating wins when players are DQed, and standardized punishment for known and willful violations of USTA rules regarding league play.

These are two very simple things I think the USTA could and should do to standardize the USTA from x number of Sections "doing their own thing", to a National Organization that applies to everyone.

I don't see these two bullet points negatively affecting anyone other than those players who choose to manipulate a system with "Honesty" as the primary safe-guard.

I'm sorry for the delayed post. I didn't look at this board since the last post I made. This is a forum. I can take anyone feedback including those who disagree, but if you are going to disagree, don't put words in my mouth like one guy tried.

I asked for one example of how a standardized USTA NTRP and grievance procedure hurts any honest player. I am stilling waiting for the example. I am asking the Southern Section to look at my idea. They might say "No thank you", but I can promise you the Self-Rated 3.5 player's stats who beat down the 4.0C players in the Single's League are going to get front and center in the USTA's office with me asking some pointed questions to the apathy that allows this to happen.

[J_R_B]

Originally Posted by g4driver

I never asked you to do anything other than give me one example of how my idea of every Section applying the same standards hurt anyone other than sandbaggers. Don't put words in my mouth.

If you don't care, don't reply. Evidently you cared up to type your thoughts on my posts. She's either pregnant or not. You can't have it both ways JRB.

Re-read my orginal post. All I did was give my opinion and said I'm OK with differences by section, and then you started badgering me for an example of something. Clearly, there are situations where two sections prefer to have different rules. There have to be reasons why they prefer the rules to be different. THE REASONS FOR THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE THE "EXAMPLES" YOU ARE LOOKING FOR. I'm sure they are good reasons, too, but only the people in charge of the sections who made the different rules can tell you what those reasons are. I'm not going to track them down for your "examples". Go do it yourself if it's that important that you know.