Anyone have a League Coordinator as the worse offender of sandbagging?

[2ndServe]

too much of a conflict of interest to be on a contending team and also the LC.

[floridatennisdude]

What a conundrum. I would never want to be in the position of LC and captain of the local dynasty. Seems too obviously shady. Wouldn't want to live my life knowing that people doubted my integrity.

[goober]

Originally Posted by catfish

Anyone can look at records in TennisLink and come to their own conclusions. LC's don't have contact information in neighboring sections. Anyone can find out contact information if they are industrious enough to take the time.

Well maybe I should have said neighboring district not section. Not always easy to find people's contact info. Sometimes it is easy and sometime it can be pretty hard. But I agree it is not beyond the ability for anybody do this if they were determined to do it. I am not sure if I would want my LC doing it though.

[DeanMacBaine]

Originally Posted by kylebarendrick

Any captain caught instructing his players to lose in order to get/keep a lower rating should be permanently banned. Of course, who's going to do that if they are also the coordinator...

No kidding right. At least his team went 0-2 today at Sectionals. Though Fincher went 2-0 today. He will have to lose badly at least 2-3 more times in the over 40 league to make up for it.

[catfish]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

What a conundrum. I would never want to be in the position of LC and captain of the local dynasty. Seems too obviously shady. Wouldn't want to live my life knowing that people doubted my integrity.

LC's can be as straight as an arrow, but players & captains will make them out to be crooked villains. LC's are like everyone else, some are good and some are bad. But there shouldn't be an assumption that LC's are crooked. Captains and players in my area actually make up lies to make the LC's look bad. If you correct these people with the real story they stop talking to you. Why, because nothing ruins a good story like the truth.

[cknobman]

True catfish, but in this case i can assure you we are not making things up. (At least for the fw mens league)

[TeflonTom]

sandbaggin is the most overused term in league tennis. everybody who gets their *** handed to them is convinced the guy they played was a sandbagger

just gotta look at recent threads in this forum with ppl *****in about 'ringers' at sectionals

[DeanMacBaine]

Originally Posted by TeflonTom

sandbaggin is the most overused term in league tennis. everybody who gets their *** handed to them is convinced the guy they played was a sandbagger

just gotta look at recent threads in this forum with ppl *****in about 'ringers' at sectionals

Sorry but I'm not getting my *** handed to me. I went 6-1 this season plus another 3-1 in playoffs. I even went 1-1 against the great Miller's team. And there are a few others in this very thread that have experience with this guy by playing on his team and they admitted to what goes on. So maybe you should just stay out of a thread if you are only talking out of your ***.

This League Coordinator finds college guys, self rates at 4.0 and tells them to lose a few matches a season to keep their ratings down. His senior team took 4th at Nationals last year and I believe the same core guys won the mixed nationals too. These aren't your typical old guys. They are all very good and if they wanted to compete at 4.5, they would easily be .500 players. But when he has them losing to 2&1 to 3.5 players (or guys that are just flat awful and should be playing 3.5) to keep them from being bumped to 4.5, it's pretty F** up. This isn't just a captain I'm talking about. This is the freaking League Coordinator. He is directly cheating the system that he is put in charge to run.

At the end of the day, he is only doing what he can to compete against the teams from Dallas and Houston that are much deeper and have plenty of guys doing the same thing. And unfortunately, the team I play on is going to have to start doing it too. I just hate that my team is full of true 4.0 players that never throw a match and we have to play against a team that loses on purpose because they don't win enough at their true level.

[catfish]

Originally Posted by cknobman

True catfish, but in this case i can assure you we are not making things up. (At least for the fw mens league)

I believe you. Some people are LC's to gain an advantage if they can. But I don't think most are like that. I know a lot of good ones. And it's a thankless job at times.

[smoothtennis]

Yeah, I hate to say it, but I have direct experience in this league and this is a very sad thing going on. I traditionally am not a complainer of typical sandbagging as I like playing these hot shots (any sandbagger). But this thing going on with the Spring sectionals, then the incredibly laughable Fall tennis losses to extremely weak teams is just, well, not even sure the words to say.

[goober]

Originally Posted by kylebarendrick

Any captain caught instructing his players to lose in order to get/keep a lower rating should be permanently banned. Of course, who's going to do that if they are also the coordinator...

Even if he were just a captain and not a coordinator it would be impossible to prove. That is why I think the only viable solution is to bump entire teams and benchmark them for 3 years if they make it to sectionals. Instead of the ridiculous cycle where only a handful of players get bumped from a sectional/nationals team and they work their ratings down in year and rejoin their old team. Every year it is slighly different versions of the same teams going to playoffs.

[bradfordt]

I also play USTA in Fort Worth, and agree with the comments about the coordinator and that the current USTA system is being exploited. It points out a flaw in the USTA ratings that a team can go to sectionals/nationals every year, yet no one on the team gets bumped up. Yes, I've had my butt kicked by players on his teams, but this is supposed to be a fair fight....

[anubis]

If I get bumped up to 4.0 next year (which I won't BTW) then my computer rating is actually 3.9, correct? The closer my opponents get to 4.40 (the number in which they will likely be bumped up to 4.5), they will be steadily better than I am.

It perfectly makes sense that the playoffs are the place where the competition is most fierce. You're playing people that are the best at being 4.0s, which means they are likely as close to 4.40 as possible.

Now, whether they are artificially tanking matches to keep their rating at 4.40, or if they got there "naturally" through practice and hard work, what difference does it make? They're still the best of what 4.0 tennis has to offer -- and that's what you should be expecting going into that match. If you yourself are not the best of what a 4.0 has to offer, then you probably won't make it that far in the playoffs.

It's the difference between really good, and really, really good. Frankly, I'd be happy to make it to the playoffs. I know I'll never get that chance.

[smoothtennis]

Originally Posted by anubis

If I get bumped up to 4.0 next year (which I won't BTW) then my computer rating is actually 3.9, correct? The closer my opponents get to 4.40 (the number in which they will likely be bumped up to 4.5), they will be steadily better than I am.

It perfectly makes sense that the playoffs are the place where the competition is most fierce. You're playing people that are the best at being 4.0s, which means they are likely as close to 4.40 as possible.

Now, whether they are artificially tanking matches to keep their rating at 4.40, or if they got there "naturally" through practice and hard work, what difference does it make? They're still the best of what 4.0 tennis has to offer -- and that's what you should be expecting going into that match. If you yourself are not the best of what a 4.0 has to offer, then you probably won't make it that far in the playoffs.

It's the difference between really good, and really, really good. Frankly, I'd be happy to make it to the playoffs. I know I'll never get that chance.

Yeah, that's all fine and good, and our team plays straight up - and we certainly competed well and did better at sectionals than the team not to be named...LOL. However, we have guys getting the mid season bump of course. Now do we start doing the same BS so we can compete again, or do we let our guys go, and keep the top legit 4.0 talent watered down so the-team-that-shall-not-be-named can dominate once again. It's like Ground Hog Day I swear.

We can make it more fair, but we don't want to cheat either.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by anubis

If I get bumped up to 4.0 next year (which I won't BTW) then my computer rating is actually 3.9, correct? The closer my opponents get to 4.40 (the number in which they will likely be bumped up to 4.5), they will be steadily better than I am.

It perfectly makes sense that the playoffs are the place where the competition is most fierce. You're playing people that are the best at being 4.0s, which means they are likely as close to 4.40 as possible.

Now, whether they are artificially tanking matches to keep their rating at 4.40, or if they got there "naturally" through practice and hard work, what difference does it make? They're still the best of what 4.0 tennis has to offer -- and that's what you should be expecting going into that match. If you yourself are not the best of what a 4.0 has to offer, then you probably won't make it that far in the playoffs.

It's the difference between really good, and really, really good. Frankly, I'd be happy to make it to the playoffs. I know I'll never get that chance.

Actually your boundaries are a bit off:

The range for 4.0 is from 3.51 - 4.00.
If you are currently a 3.5, that means you are 3.01 - 3.50.

Ratings change dynamically through the course of the season, so it's possible (common actually) that the person you are playing in the playoff has already crossed the threshold into the next level, but the bump is not made official or public until final ratings come out.

So at 3.5 for example, you might be 'only' be a 3.45 (which is a very strong 3.5), but be playing someone who is currently at 3.65, which would get them bumped to 4.0 at the end of the year assuming their rating is still at that level by then.

[smoothtennis]

Originally Posted by anubis

Now, whether they are artificially tanking matches to keep their rating at 4.40, or if they got there "naturally" through practice and hard work, what difference does it make?

Because one of your two choices there is blatant bald face cheating. I didn't say we don't enjoy trying to beat these guys, because we absolutely do. BTW, everybody that gets to 4.4+ got there with tons of hard work. The question is ---- do they cheat to STAY there?

Two years ago, I was playing a typical MZ 4.0 tourney, and came up against the #1 rated 3.5 bump up in the state of TX from the previous season. I beat him straight up, winning 9 consecutive games to end it. Now...imagine 4-5 guys like me tanking down all on one 3.5 team - seriously how fair would that be? That's just a tad unfair don't you think?

In any case, 'ain't really a big deal to me, but it is what we all know it is.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by smoothtennis

Yeah, that's all fine and good, and our team plays straight up - and we certainly competed well and did better at sectionals than the team not to be named...LOL. However, we have guys getting the mid season bump of course. Now do we start doing the same BS so we can compete again, or do we let our guys go, and keep the top legit 4.0 talent watered down so the-team-that-shall-not-be-named can dominate once again. It's like Ground Hog Day I swear.

We can make it more fair, but we don't want to cheat either.

confused again. If you claim the 'other' team is full of sandbaggers, and yours is presumably not - how is it possible you did better than the other team? It makes no sense?? Are you suggesting they are intentionally losing at Sectionals? What would be the point?

[twos]

All this talk about sandbagging but they were one of the weaker teams in their pool and all of sectionals?

[DeanMacBaine]

Originally Posted by twos

All this talk about sandbagging but they were one of the weaker teams in their pool and all of sectionals?

Wild Houston and Wild Austin were both pretty good teams and handed them their first two losses on Day 1.

Fincher and Johnson both got bumped to 4.5 so after the team was 0-2 on the first day, I was told they lost the 2nd day on purpose (just like they have done all season in the Senior 4.0 matches). Andras Boscani somehow missed the mid season bump but he had to be very close since he played almost every match with Johnson or Fincher (I think Boscani was like 18-1 heading into sectionals and has suddenly started getting killed in the Senior league against less than stellar competition). Stetzer is another one that is always right on the borderline but probably the weakest of the four. He and Fincher have been sandbagging together for years.

[twos]

Originally Posted by DeanMacBaine

Wild Houston and Wild Austin were both pretty good teams and handed them their first two losses on Day 1.

Fincher and Johnson both got bumped to 4.5 so after the team was 0-2 on the first day, I was told they lost the 2nd day on purpose (just like they have done all season in the Senior 4.0 matches). Andras Boscani somehow missed the mid season bump but he had to be very close since he played almost every match with Johnson or Fincher (I think Boscani was like 18-1 heading into sectionals and has suddenly started getting killed in the Senior league against less than stellar competition). Stetzer is another one that is always right on the borderline but probably the weakest of the four. He and Fincher have been sandbagging together for years.

Sounds like you were there. If fw were a bunch of serious sandbaggers, I assume you think those other teams up there were too? I See that Houston won all the men's division. 4.0 4.5 5.0 and 5.5. That's pretty impressive. Is Houston the Mecca of sandbaggers too? I'm not being sarcastic, just wanted your take since you were most likely there.