NTRP Questions...

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Couldn't agree more. I live in a tennis "hotbed" and we have had teams advance to, and win, nationals over the years. However, our chances of having a team accomplish this are only increased by volume of competitors. We don't get a team to nationals every year, but we are in the hunt at sectionals because captains have tons of players to choose from.

Overall though, we are pretty equal from a talent perspective with any other area of the country. Not like we can take our local league champ on a tour of the country and dominate city-by-city. That's why I see NTRP being reasonably effective at providing balanced competition. Not perfect, but pretty good.

I still feel that self rates should be ineligible for post season. They need a C to confirm their level to keep it the most fair it can be.

Good post. I'm in NorCal Bay Area, so similar situation. Our 4.5s are not 'better' than other 4.5s, but there is a greater density of them within a manageable geographical area to choose from.

The NorCal 4.5 team that is going to Nationals is a good example. Looking at the roster, seems they are all legitimate 4.5s - no sandbaggers or self rates. But also looking at where the players are from, it looks like the captain pulled together the strongest players from several districts. You can do that when the districts are relatively close together.

And completely agree on the no self rates in playoffs. Realistically, who would that affect? Most self rated players are just happy to be playing organized tennis again, enjoy the regular season, and are not even thinking about playoffs before the season begins. The ones who would be impacted are... the intentional sandbaggers and their captains. Too bad.

[schmke]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

Good post. I'm in NorCal Bay Area, so similar situation. Our 4.5s are not 'better' than other 4.5s, but there is a greater density of them within a manageable geographical area to choose from.

The NorCal 4.5 team that is going to Nationals is a good example. Looking at the roster, seems they are all legitimate 4.5s - no sandbaggers or self rates. But also looking at where the players are from, it looks like the captain pulled together the strongest players from several districts. You can do that when the districts are relatively close together.

And completely agree on the no self rates in playoffs. Realistically, who would that affect? Most self rated players are just happy to be playing organized tennis again, enjoy the regular season, and are not even thinking about playoffs before the season begins. The ones who would be impacted are... the intentional sandbaggers and their captains. Too bad.

I don't disagree that a blanket rule of no self rates in playoffs would address the intentional sandbaggers, but it would also punish those that are still legitimate players at level. Why not just tighten the rules on DQs to err more on the side of keeping it fair for the masses rather than erring on the side of letting the self-rate keep playing? The USTA admits that the threshold for DQ is not just the top of the level and there is a buffer to allow for natural improvement, just reduce or eliminate that buffer and the problem is likely solved.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by schmke

I don't disagree that a blanket rule of no self rates in playoffs would address the intentional sandbaggers, but it would also punish those that are still legitimate players at level. Why not just tighten the rules on DQs to err more on the side of keeping it fair for the masses rather than erring on the side of letting the self-rate keep playing? The USTA admits that the threshold for DQ is not just the top of the level and there is a buffer to allow for natural improvement, just reduce or eliminate that buffer and the problem is likely solved.

Because it's a simple solution, and there's much to be said for simplicity.

Plus, I don't think it's much of a punishment to the legit self rates. Most legit self rates are typically not thinking about playoffs, they are just happy to be playing organized tennis again, and are content with enjoying the regular season. Also, what percentage of players (self rated or not) make playoffs at all? Certainly a minority. So the 'punishment' affects only a minority of a minority of a minority (the subset of legit self rates who would genuinely be upset at not being able to play in playoffs, within the subset of self rates, within the subset of players making playoffs).

Basically, you're saying that a larger number of honest players would be disadvantaged by such a rule versus the number of dishonest players prevented from sandbagging. And I respectfully disagree and think it's the other way around.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by schmke

I don't disagree that a blanket rule of no self rates in playoffs would address the intentional sandbaggers, but it would also punish those that are still legitimate players at level. Why not just tighten the rules on DQs to err more on the side of keeping it fair for the masses rather than erring on the side of letting the self-rate keep playing? The USTA admits that the threshold for DQ is not just the top of the level and there is a buffer to allow for natural improvement, just reduce or eliminate that buffer and the problem is likely solved.

I guess the "tightening of the DQ rules" would be unnecessary in our scenario. Less grey area for folks to complain about. It would provide less incentive to fudge the self rate questions and the "masses" are less likely to be mis-rated from the get go. If they know they can't participate in post season until year 2, they won't even know that they are missing out on something.

But, realistically, we all pretty much know that teams that advance to nationals get bumped up by and large because they have become that good. So, if a self rate makes it to nationals, how do you say that they weren't cheating or, at least, talked into it?

[kylebarendrick]

I'd say that, almost by definition, any self rated player good enough to make a difference at Sectionals/Nationals self-rated lower than they should have. That definition is provided by the self-rating guidelines that state "when in doubt, choose the higher level" - guidance that is almost always ignored.

I do support the clean solution of banning self-rates from playoffs. I'd be willing to settle for the compromise solution of running their dynamic ratings at the end of the local league season and immediately bumping everyone who's dynamic is at the next level.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by kylebarendrick

I'd say that, almost by definition, any self rated player good enough to make a difference at Sectionals/Nationals self-rated lower than they should have. That definition is provided by the self-rating guidelines that state "when in doubt, choose the higher level" - guidance that is almost always ignored.

I do support the clean solution of banning self-rates from playoffs. I'd be willing to settle for the compromise solution of running their dynamic ratings at the end of the local league season and immediately bumping everyone who's dynamic is at the next level.

I like that too. Shouldn't be an issue for a section to run DNTRP before playoffs and send the local coordinators a list of ineligibles.

However, many get the DQ at districts/sectionals because that is when they hit a third strike. It would probably be feasible that the player would cross their threshed at that time too. That's why I'd just prefer the blanket - no self rates in the post season.

[NTRPolice]

Self-rates dont even matter.

You can always just play one adult season and get a "C" rating after sandbagging all your matches.

All banning "S-rates" from playoff's does is delay it for a year.

And before anyones says it... that's not what I did, not intentionally, anyway.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

Self-rates dont even matter.

You can always just play one adult season and get a "C" rating after sandbagging all your matches.

All banning "S-rates" from playoff's does is delay it for a year.

And before anyones says it... that's not what I did, not intentionally, anyway.

I already addressed this in post #80.

If any human being wants to plan their cheating 1 year in advance...congrats, you are an awesome cheater.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by kylebarendrick

I'd say that, almost by definition, any self rated player good enough to make a difference at Sectionals/Nationals self-rated lower than they should have. That definition is provided by the self-rating guidelines that state "when in doubt, choose the higher level" - guidance that is almost always ignored.

I do support the clean solution of banning self-rates from playoffs. I'd be willing to settle for the compromise solution of running their dynamic ratings at the end of the local league season and immediately bumping everyone who's dynamic is at the next level.

Ahahahahahaaaaa....

That's like creating loopholes in the tax code and then expecting wealthy people with smart accountants not to exploit them

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by NTRPolice

You can always just play one adult season and get a "C" rating after sandbagging all your matches.

Anyone who is that dedicated to sandbagging deserves to get a pen at Nationals.
Seriously, who would play a whole season tanking matches at a sucky lower level just to get an artificially low "C" rating?

[NTRPolice]

All im saying is that prohibiting "S" rates from advancing to playoffs isnt a good idea, that's all. It will do nothing but encourage cheaters to sandbag a year first, giving them an iron clad "C" rating and prevent any (more or less) legitimate "S" rates from advancing.

Right now you have people who sandbag a year for a "C" rating, but you also have "good intentioned" S-rates advancing, and you have "bad intentioned" S-rates advancing. By prohibiting all S-rates from advancing you just encourage cheating for those who want to cheat and are even helping them by changing their "S" into a "C".

Originally Posted by OrangePower

Seriously, who would play a whole season tanking matches at a sucky lower level just to get an artificially low "C" rating?

A lot of people man... a lot of people. There are people who play adult league and dump to keep their rating low for mixed and these teams make it to the playoffs every year at least.

I see a lot of it at the 3.0 to 4.0 level here. By the time you get to 4.5's and above people are too competitive to sandbag more or less. At the 3.0 to 4.0 level though, you see it all the time. It's the reason why NTRP's are so FUBAR. You have 4.0-able people dumping for YEARS to keep their rating at 3.0 or 3.5 and all they play (for serious) is USTA mixed and other leagues that use NTRP.

[floridatennisdude]

Well, if they're going to have years of this ahead of them...why would you give a damn about them in their first year? If they are life time cheaters, boom...they win. We can't solve that. It takes a lot of strategy to manipulate a season (nonetheless, multiple consecutive seasons). That guy can have at it all he wants. That's just who he is.

Nothing you said makes me think sitting self rates from playoffs is anything but a good idea. What I don't want to see at 4.5 Districts is a legit D1 roster squaring off with all players, coincidentally, in their first USTA season ever. And then that team can't play at Sectionals because half the squad got DQ'd.

[SLW]

I'm a newb, can someone explain to me what they mean by "benchmark"? What does it mean if you say "player X is a benchmark player now"?

[schmke]

Originally Posted by SLW

I'm a newb, can someone explain to me what they mean by "benchmark"? What does it mean if you say "player X is a benchmark player now"?

This simply means that they are a player that advanced to sectionals and/or nationals. By advancing to that point, they will end up playing matches against other areas/districts/sections and establish a comparison point between those areas/districts/sections. As such, they become a benchmark to compare other players from their own local league against.

The idea is that by using the ratings of these players as a "benchmark", recalculations can be done at the local league level and the players that played the benchmark player and by extension, the league as a whole is adjusted accordingly to keep the meaning of a "4.0" (or any level for that matter) in one section similar to the meaning of a "4.0" in another.

[Orange]

Originally Posted by schmke

This simply means that they are a player that advanced to sectionals and/or nationals. By advancing to that point, they will end up playing matches against other areas/districts/sections and establish a comparison point between those areas/districts/sections. As such, they become a benchmark to compare other players from their own local league against.

A benchmark rating is given to a player who advances to post-season play. This can be local playoffs between teams in two different flights; it doesn't have to be sectionals, nationals or even districts. One of my players has a benchmark rating after losing in the local playoffs and being bumped down a level.

[tennisplayer1993]

for me i based NTRP on players i can beat. I can keep it very competitive with my Division 3 college tennis friend. usually our matches end up with scorelines such as 6-4 7-6 or something of that sort.

While playing my Division I college tennis friend (one of the less prestigious ones) can straight set me pretty easily 6-2 6-1 ish.