At What Point Does the USTA System Move Someone Up

[heninfan99]

How many benchmarks, tournament and playoff runs before a player gets bumped up?

In my area there's a team that's been dominant for years. The Captain has benchmarks but hasn't been forced up.

Is it purely computer based? Can you whine about someone else gaming the system?

[JavierLW]

Originally Posted by heninfan99

How many benchmarks, tournament and playoff runs before a player gets bumped up?

In my area there's a team that's been dominant for years. The Captain has benchmarks but hasn't been forced up.

Is it purely computer based? Can you whine about someone else gaming the system?

It's purely computer based.

Yes you can whine if you want to.

Other than that though, there isnt much you can do about it unless it's a brand new player and you know of some player history that would preclude them from being at your level. (player history is like their former tennis experience, like if they were a pro, or nationally ranked or a top college player, etc...)

Being a benchmark is meaningless, that just means you were in the playoffs. It doesnt mean they are any higher or lower then a regular computer rated player.

Just because someone is winning a lot doesnt necessarily mean they are out of level, it's when they are clobbering everyone by an obcene score that they tend to get moved up. (especially if they beat people who happen to beat everyone else)

[heninfan99]

Well, this guys has 7 sets that are either 6-1 or 6-0. I think algorithms need to be changed on the system. He also plays & wins in a higher league. What do you think?

[ESP#1]

Originally Posted by heninfan99

Well, this guys has 7 sets that are either 6-1 or 6-0. I think algorithms need to be changed on the system. He also plays & wins in a higher league. What do you think?

how many seasons have they been at that level? they should be getting moved up soon if its to that point, till then enjoy playing against them, its always more fun playing better players

[heninfan99]

Originally Posted by ESP#1

how many seasons have they been at that level? they should be getting moved up soon if its to that point, till then enjoy playing against them, its always more fun playing better players

7 seasons and it seems both our county coordinators are on his teams. Very corrupt system.

[JavierLW]

Originally Posted by heninfan99

Well, this guys has 7 sets that are either 6-1 or 6-0. I think algorithms need to be changed on the system. He also plays & wins in a higher league. What do you think?

The system is tweaked here and there from year to year. It may be a bit differenet even in different sections but we dont have evidence of that.

What typically happens is the team that wins first place goes on to the playoffs. At some point they meet a team that is even more under-rated then they are and they get killed.

50% of your rating is based on on your highest level of play, so it causes the phenemon that a lot of those "benchmark" players sometimes never get moved up, but if you have some players on your 2nd or 3rd place team that do well against them in local competition they actually have a better chance of getting moved up.

That's the part of the system that I think is screwed up, but it's because the league puts a emphasis on what happens in the playoffs over what happens in local play.

So until they change that, you'll see the same teams win year after year after year after year.

From that team's perspective (and Ive heard this point of view many times), they are probably not making it past some level of play, so they will just claim that the rest of their entire local league is just rated too low. So these teams pretty much play for the playoffs, and the rest of the local season (which is what most of us sign up for) is just sort of a formality for them.

It's a common debate on whether the league as a whole is rated too high or too low, but I think if you follow it down to the lowest levels of play, you can find tons of players who would otherwise belong at that lowest level, but they are not competitive because everyone else is rated too low. (not the other way around)

I used to complain about things like this. In my area there are always teams that win every year. We have one team that's never not made the playoffs in like 20 years. (I even heard about how there was a big USTA League meeting in our area and their stupid club coordinator actually admited that they encourage their players to doctor the scores so they dont get moved up)

But now it's just a joke. This will be my sixth year running the same team, and rather than whining about those single teams who always win first (we know who they are), we enjoy the rest of the season and it's still a fun league. As long as there are plenty of other teams to play it's not a big deal. Sometimes we recruit certain players who's only purpose is to play against those certain teams as well to make it a little more interesting.

(sometimes it's always a hidden goal for us and some other teams to work together to try to knock one of them off, but it usually doenst happen)

We beat the 2005 State Champions in 2006 in a local match though, so that was pretty cool. Unfortuanlly also in our same division was the team that eventually took 4th in the nation in 2007.

[heninfan99]

Originally Posted by JavierLW

What typically happens is the team that wins first place goes on to the playoffs. At some point they meet a team that is even more under-rated then they are and they get killed.

50% of your rating is based on on your highest level of play, so it causes the phenemon that a lot of those "benchmark" players sometimes never get moved up, but if you have some players on your 2nd or 3rd place team that do well against them in local competition they actually have a better chance of getting moved up.

That's the part of the system that I think is screwed up, but it's because the league puts a emphasis on what happens in the playoffs over what happens in local play.

It's a common debate on whether the league as a whole is rated too high or too low, but I think if you follow it down to the lowest levels of play, you can find tons of players who would otherwise belong at that lowest level, but they are not competitive because everyone else is rated too low. (not the other way around)

But now it's just a joke. This will be my sixth year running the same team, and rather than whining about those single teams who always win first (we know who they are), we enjoy the rest of the season and it's still a fun league.

Ahhhhhhhhh, I see. "50% of your rating is based on on your highest level of play" Allowing a team to have a monopoly on the playoffs year after year is BS and takes some of the excitement away from it all. Getting to the playoffs looks like a lot of fun. If any team wins three years in a row maybe an actual human being --an impartial USTA pro should assess the team. Either move those guys up a level or mix up the players throughout the level.

So basically the only way to challenge these dominant teams is to build a new team and load it tennis coaches that haven't played USTA in three years? hehehehe

"It's a common debate on whether the league as a whole is rated too high or too low" If someone complains a league is rated too low and they win every year, they can petition to move up if they truly want better competition.

It IS a joke and people can get crazy with this stuff as they do in local soft ball leagues.

Thanks for the info. It clears up a lot.

[heninfan99]

Originally Posted by JavierLW

We beat the 2005 State Champions in 2006 in a local match though, so that was pretty cool. Unfortuanlly also in our same division was the team that eventually took 4th in the nation in 2007.

Congrats on your 2006 win. Musta been sweet.

[Jim A]

What do people think would be solutions for this?

Around here there was a player who had nearly equal number of points in both 3.0 and 3.5 but stayed @ 3.0, while players underneath him (he was top 5/10 in the state) ranked through #30 were mostly moved up

Being new to it all myself, its tough for me to find a solution at this point but it seems the system is based on overall points and not a pts per tournament average? There are tons of people who play 1-2 tournaments a year, get to the quarters/semi's but at the end don't have a slough of points so they don't get moved up. it seems if you want to move up you play quite a bit, win some key matches and have a decent amount of points at the end of the year (I think its top 5 tournaments?)

Just not a big fan of computers having a large say in rankings whether it be the BCS or USTA.

[Nellie]

I think the USTA is really trying to address this through the rule change to prevent Benchmark players from appealing back down. For example, I know a 4.0 guy who went to nationals 9 times in 4.0 mens/8.0 doubles. He is a good 4.0, bad 4.5 (no weapons but never misses) and appealed down every year dispite never losing matches. He is now bitter because he is a benchmark 4.5 and cannot appeal back down, so he is starting to take losses.

[raiden031]

What matters is the match score differential and the rating of your opponent. If you beat a lower-rated player 6-0, 6-1, it will not raise your rating like it would if you beat someone at the top of the level with the same score. In fact a blowout score may even lower your rating. My belief through some research is that 6-0, 6-1 is equivalent to about a 0.35 NTRP differential. So someone at 3.36 is supposed to beat a 3.01 player by that score, otherwise the 3.35 player's rating will go down after the match.

People only get moved up when 1) they get disqualified because their rating surpasses a threshold 3 times and they are self-rated or appeal-rated or 2) at rating calculations at the year end their new rating crosses into the next level.

[goober]

Originally Posted by Nellie

I think the USTA is really trying to address this through the rule change to prevent Benchmark players from appealing back down. For example, I know a 4.0 guy who went to nationals 9 times in 4.0 mens/8.0 doubles. He is a good 4.0, bad 4.5 (no weapons but never misses) and appealed down every year dispite never losing matches. He is now bitter because he is a benchmark 4.5 and cannot appeal back down, so he is starting to take losses.

I don't get the bitter part. I mean how many more times does he feel like he needs to go to Nationals? Sounds like is only having fun if he is winning. Tennis is suppose to be recreation. He sounds like he is in a similar situation to me. I don't mind taking my lumps though. I am going to try my best and if I don't do well eventually I will get moved back down.

[LuckyR]

Originally Posted by Jim A

What do people think would be solutions for this?

Around here there was a player who had nearly equal number of points in both 3.0 and 3.5 but stayed @ 3.0, while players underneath him (he was top 5/10 in the state) ranked through #30 were mostly moved up

Being new to it all myself, its tough for me to find a solution at this point but it seems the system is based on overall points and not a pts per tournament average? There are tons of people who play 1-2 tournaments a year, get to the quarters/semi's but at the end don't have a slough of points so they don't get moved up. it seems if you want to move up you play quite a bit, win some key matches and have a decent amount of points at the end of the year (I think its top 5 tournaments?)

Just not a big fan of computers having a large say in rankings whether it be the BCS or USTA.

IMO the majority of the problem would be solved by a simple formula:

1- If you make it to Nationals, you get moved up.

2- If you make it to Sectionals or Regionals and you individually have a winning record (> 50% wins) at Sectionals/Regionals, you get moved up.

[kylebarendrick]

...how about if you beat someone in local league play that went to nationals?

...or if you are the worst player on your team that went to nationals and you lost your only nationals match 0-0?

The simple formulas break down in the details.

[LuckyR]

Originally Posted by kylebarendrick

...how about if you beat someone in local league play that went to nationals?

...or if you are the worst player on your team that went to nationals and you lost your only nationals match 0-0?

The simple formulas break down in the details.

If you beat someone who went to Nationals earlier in the season, we'll let that one go on the assumption that the other guy improved over the season (that's why he did so great at Sectionals and Regionals), so your win in the regular season won't count against you.

If you make it to Nationals that puts you in about the best 0-3% of teams in the nation. My guess is the rest of the team selected you for a reason, not randomly, so my guess is you'll do fine in the next half level. Not a world beater but you won't get smeared either.

I'm not seeing the "breakdown".

[heninfan99]

They should stop self-rating all together and go back to getting rated by a pro, NTRP style. Also, its obvious to everyone involved in a county who is gaming the system. After a few years of dominance it should be automatic.
Shooting from the hip here: Maybe if you have a winning percentage of 75% or greater over 20 or more matches you get moved up automatically. The local coordinator should have the power to move someone up.

[goober]

Originally Posted by heninfan99

They should stop self-rating all together and go back to getting rated by a pro, NTRP style. Also, its obvious to everyone involved in a county who is gaming the system. After a few years of dominance it should be automatic.
Shooting from the hip here: Maybe if you have a winning percentage of 75% or greater over 20 or more matches you get moved up automatically. The local coordinator should have the power to move someone up.

It is pretty easy to game the system with a pro rating you too. If you are a 4.5 and you want a 3.5 rating, just shank balls, barely move for them, ect. Also from what I understand in the days when they had that system you basically could pay the pro and get whatever rating you wanted in many cases.

Whatever system you devise people will figure away around if they are intent on it. The only system I could see working is taking the incentives away in the first place (i.e Nationals)

[cak]

I'd say the system is pretty good as it is. The one change I might make is there are enough players shooting for nationals they could safely say that if you play at Nationals you can never go back to nationals for that same league and rating. For instance, if you played at Nationals as a M3.5 you can't ever again go to Nationals for a M3.5 team. You can go for a SM3.5 team, or a Mixed 7.0 team, or a M4.0 team, but not the same level and league. Time to give someone else a chance. It would encourage people to move up if they really want to try again. And discourage people who are only playing to go to Nationals over and over again. Perhaps to make those traveling teams happy they could start traveling team tournaments in lovely destinations around the country. So you could take your M3.5 team to say, Arizona, in say March to play against teams from around the country.

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by cak

I'd say the system is pretty good as it is. The one change I might make is there are enough players shooting for nationals they could safely say that if you play at Nationals you can never go back to nationals for that same league and rating. For instance, if you played at Nationals as a M3.5 you can't ever again go to Nationals for a M3.5 team. You can go for a SM3.5 team, or a Mixed 7.0 team, or a M4.0 team, but not the same level and league. Time to give someone else a chance. It would encourage people to move up if they really want to try again. And discourage people who are only playing to go to Nationals over and over again. Perhaps to make those traveling teams happy they could start traveling team tournaments in lovely destinations around the country. So you could take your M3.5 team to say, Arizona, in say March to play against teams from around the country.

I don't get why this would be necessary. If someone goes to Nationals and doesn't get moved up, then they are playing at the correct level because they probably did poorly there. If they do well at Nationals though its a lock they will move up and cannot appeal down.

The new rule that benchmarks cannot appeal is probably the best rule change they have done in years.

[heninfan99]

Originally Posted by raiden031

I don't get why this would be necessary. If someone goes to Nationals and doesn't get moved up, then they are playing at the correct level because they probably did poorly there. If they do well at Nationals though its a lock they will move up and cannot appeal down.

The new rule that benchmarks cannot appeal is probably the best rule change they have done in years.

"At some point they meet a team that is even more under-rated then they are and they get killed."

Seems the consensus is that the Nationals are a bunch of teams/players that underrate themselves so that they can dominate year after year.

It can take a season before you realize what's going on.

I do see that the problem could be top down. In other words, not even enough players for a 5.0 league so the very best (including some teachers) play at 4.5 or even 4.0. So the real 4.0s want to win so they go to the 3.5s.

BUT...they gotta bumping perennial winners up a level after a few years.
I still like having a human being judging your rating, maybe even every year.