Bad Self Rate(s)

[nmstennisplayer]

I'm captaining a 6.0 mixed team this season. A few weeks ago, we ran across a team of college aged kids. Within minutes, it became clear that most of them had self rated WAY below what they should have.
We've all run across sandbaggers before, but what made this particularly upsetting is that our league coordinator had told us all at the captain's meeting to watch our self rates given the mass bump-ups that went on in December.
In the meantime, I found out that one girl on their team was a college softball player. She had self rated at 2.5! I filed a grievance against her, but she ended up bumping herself up to 3.0 so she could play on a 7.0 team with a 4.0 guy. She's very easily a 3.5.
Now, I've been told there's nothing that can be done because 3.0 is the minimum rating even if you have college experience in another sport.
I can understand this if you played college sports 10 years ago or even five years ago, but one year ago? And you're young?
My team is mad and I feel like I should fight harder for their benefit.
What do yall think?

[Turbo]

I really don't see the big deal about her playing softball in college. Sure she's good - at softball! There might be some athletic ability that will carry over, but it's not like it will be natural for her. I'm sure if most college athletes were given a racquet they'd start below a 3.0.

It might be a good idea to fight about it, but not with that reasoning. If you saw they were clearly 3.5's then go with that, not with the college argument.

[autumn_leaf]

there's really no correlation that i know of that suggests good softball players make good tennis players. tennis is a very technical and strategic sport, if she's truly new to it 2.5/3.0 is where she belongs.

as for the other players. lets see how their matches go. just hitting around and then playing a match is completely different.

[BobFL]

Originally Posted by nmstennisplayer

I'm captaining a 6.0 mixed team this season. A few weeks ago, we ran across a team of college aged kids. Within minutes, it became clear that most of them had self rated WAY below what they should have.
We've all run across sandbaggers before, but what made this particularly upsetting is that our league coordinator had told us all at the captain's meeting to watch our self rates given the mass bump-ups that went on in December.
In the meantime, I found out that one girl on their team was a college softball player. She had self rated at 2.5! I filed a grievance against her, but she ended up bumping herself up to 3.0 so she could play on a 7.0 team with a 4.0 guy. She's very easily a 3.5.
Now, I've been told there's nothing that can be done because 3.0 is the minimum rating even if you have college experience in another sport.
I can understand this if you played college sports 10 years ago or even five years ago, but one year ago? And you're young?
My team is mad and I feel like I should fight harder for their benefit.
What do yall think?

And how is that of any relevance for tennis? My friend is a professional basketball player in Europe and outstanding athlete but that does not help him a bit in tennis. Furthermore, how do you know that someone is not overestimating his/her abilities? Why immediate call for "sandbagger"? Just my $0.02...

[Jim A]

We have a guy out here who self-rated as a 3.5 and well he has a nice teaching practice going

[welcome2petrkordaland]

i'm certainly not suggesting that self-rates should not be watched. I'm also not saying athleticism necessarily makes you a good tennis player. But i think ppl are underestimating athleticism here.

if someone has substantial collegiate experience -meaning he/she actually played most of the 3 or 4 years- in any sport (not golf . . . please), his/her learning curve in tennis will be sharper than most. There is no substitute for speed, agility, and coordination in sports, even in tennis.

[autumn_leaf]

Originally Posted by welcome2petrkordaland

i'm certainly not suggesting that self-rates should not be watched. I'm also not saying athleticism necessarily makes you a good tennis player. But i think ppl are underestimating athleticism here.

if someone has substantial collegiate experience -meaning he/she actually played most of the 3 or 4 years- in any sport (not golf . . . please), his/her learning curve in tennis will be sharper than most. There is no substitute for speed, agility, and coordination in sports, even in tennis.

this is true, and they'll be more likely to hit out more because they are used to competition and hopefully won't choke/be tense. otherwise if they don't know the strokes they will be very hard to beat pushers running everything down.

[West Coast Ace]

Originally Posted by Turbo

I really don't see the big deal about her playing softball in college.

Others who post on this board, who know the USTA rules very well, have said in other threads that college sports experience does affect the minimum rating a player can have. It's one of the questions in the self-rating process - you the USTA apparently doesn't agree with you. And it makes sense if you think about it: making a college team at pretty much anything makes you a little more than 'just someone who's coordinated.' And these people will also be more experienced in overall competing.

[benasp]

Hand-eye coordination will be above the average tennis player, these girls hit ball with sweet spot of about 4 string on a tennis racquet and the ball travel faster than tennis ball (at contact). Also the backhand have pretty simmilar mechanic, given that she is in position.

[nmstennisplayer]

Originally Posted by Turbo

I really don't see the big deal about her playing softball in college. Sure she's good - at softball! There might be some athletic ability that will carry over, but it's not like it will be natural for her. I'm sure if most college athletes were given a racquet they'd start below a 3.0.

It might be a good idea to fight about it, but not with that reasoning. If you saw they were clearly 3.5's then go with that, not with the college argument.

Clearly being good at softball DOES carry over here, if she swares she's never played tennis before now. She had spin, pace, ball control, all things the NTRP says you should have at the 3.5 level.
And trust me, I would have gone with the "they were clearly 3.5s argument" if there were any way to prove that. When I spoke to someone in our state association with that argument, they told me it was just my opinion and could not be proved.

[goober]

Originally Posted by nmstennisplayer

Clearly being good at softball DOES carry over here, if she swares she's never played tennis before now. She had spin, pace, ball control, all things the NTRP says you should have at the 3.5 level.
And trust me, I would have gone with the "they were clearly 3.5s argument" if there were any way to prove that. When I spoke to someone in our state association with that argument, they told me it was just my opinion and could not be proved.

Not clear at all to me. This particular player may be a natural at tennis, but that is independent from being a college softball player. I have actually played against a college softball player who took up tennis 6 months prior and she was easily a 2.5 and had a losing record at a 3.0 flex league. In the end I agree with your state association- it is your opinion of her play and if she really is that good she will be bumped up at season's end. 3.0s have many beginning players that are easily capable of being 3.5 or even 4.0 in one year just by virtue of practice/ability, ect.

[HitItHarder]

Originally Posted by nmstennisplayer

Clearly being good at softball DOES carry over here, if she swares she's never played tennis before now. She had spin, pace, ball control, all things the NTRP says you should have at the 3.5 level.
And trust me, I would have gone with the "they were clearly 3.5s argument" if there were any way to prove that. When I spoke to someone in our state association with that argument, they told me it was just my opinion and could not be proved.

Honestly, my experience is that unless you can show an out right lie on the self-rate questionaire, nothing is likely going to happen. Case in point, this year there was a guy self-rated as a 3.0. He was a college sophomore at a local Div. 2 school. He was an all-state basketball player in high school, but no tennis because his school didn't have a boys team. As a college freshman he walk-on to the tennis team at the college. He was a member of the team his freshman year and played in the pre-season ITA regional tournament for the college. He was listed on the college team's roster. All of this was documented.

He was added to a local 3.0 USTA team for the final four matches of the season as that team was trying to win the local league. He went undefeated at Number 1 singles for those 4 matches. A team filed a grievance saying he should not be able to self rate a 3.0 for USTA league.

The response from the USTA was - he didn't play in high school, he was only on the college team roster one year and only as a walkon, he never played a regular season match, and he isn't on the team now. Therefore, his 3.0 self-rate was considered fine. Just seems to be the way things typically work.

But no worries, if these people are truely out of level, the computer will catch up with them after a year or so. You see this at every level to some degree every year. It is just part of USTA league tennis. Eventually the computer gets it right for the most part. So in the mean time, just do your best and tell your team to go have fun. Look at the positive, playing stronger opponents will make your team better.

the entire rating system is flawed. you'll always get ringers. it's human nature.

[vandre]

Originally Posted by HitItHarder

The response from the USTA was - he didn't play in high school, he was only on the college team roster one year and only as a walkon, he never played a regular season match, and he isn't on the team now. Therefore, his 3.0 self-rate was considered fine. Just seems to be the way things typically work.

But no worries, if these people are truely out of level, the computer will catch up with them after a year or so. You see this at every level to some degree every year. It is just part of USTA league tennis. Eventually the computer gets it right for the most part. So in the mean time, just do your best and tell your team to go have fun. Look at the positive, playing stronger opponents will make your team better.

that response is BOGUS! i was automatically rated as a 4.0 for playing div 3 tennis as a walkon 10 years ago (and having not touched a racquet in those 10 years). the only way a corrected ranking of 3.5 was by having my pro and others call the district coordinator and appeal on my behalf.

so apparently, they have gone to the other extreme now.

you are right, though, playing against better opponents does make you better...and some day i'm gonna be absolutely amazing because almost everyone is better than me!!!!

[amarone]

Originally Posted by West Coast Ace

Others who post on this board, who know the USTA rules very well, have said in other threads that college sports experience does affect the minimum rating a player can have. It's one of the questions in the self-rating process - you the USTA apparently doesn't agree with you. And it makes sense if you think about it: making a college team at pretty much anything makes you a little more than 'just someone who's coordinated.' And these people will also be more experienced in overall competing.

Correct - the self-rating minimums are in this document (pdf).

It states that someone with competitive experience in other sports (although it does not mention college level) should not rate below 3.0.

I have had it explained that someone self-rating should not rate themselves at the level they are right there and then, but where they expect to be in a few months' time. Hence natural athletes should not be rating at 2.0 or 2.5 because they will rapidly improve beyond that level, even within one USTA season.