Is There Any Good Reason To Appeal Up?

[Cindysphinx]

I'm captaining 7.5 ladies combo again. For the fall, I have a few 4.0s and a bunch of 3.5s who will likely be bumped up in November.

One of the 4.0s suggested a self-rated 3.5 singles player she knew. I checked the lady's record, and she started off losing at 3.5 singles. She also played up at 4.0. She was losing those singles matches, but she did win a few by the end. She has never played a USTA doubles match.

I took her on figuring she could partner with the 4.0 who recommended her. Even if she has improved her singles, her doubles is probably not 4.0 level yet.

Imagine my surprise when I learned the lady appealed up to 4.0 (!).

I have been told by someone else that the reason she appealed up is because she is planning to play a futures event.

Can someone explain this? Does your ability to play a futures event depend on your USTA level? I thought futures had to do with ranking points, not league results. Wouldn't a high 3.5/low 4.0 get eaten alive in a future's event?

I have to say, I remain flummoxed by players who appeal up. It makes no sense to me. Why would someone want to be a weak 4.0 rather than a strong 3.5 given that you can play up as much as you want to?

Cindy -- who thoroughly enjoyed being a strong 3.5 and getting all the best partners this year

[MNPlayer]

The only reason I can think of is if you want to play 2 levels up (e.g. you are presently rated 3.0 and want to play 4.0), which is not allowed in my neck of the woods.

Generally I think this is kooky, as the computer is not going to leave a player that far out of level for very long.

And I agree, I don't think USTA rating has anything to do with eligibility to play futures events. In the absence of ATP/WTA points, I imagine the seeding committees would consider your national/section open ranking.

[sphinx780]

^This is the only reason I see.

They changed this in our section a few years back now but like MNPlayer said, I player that is competitive two levels up ends up having their ranking adjusted properly sooner than later. It's the rare glitch in the system where a player is unintentionally rated lower than they can compete at.

[sphinx780]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I have to say, I remain flummoxed by players who appeal up. It makes no sense to me. Why would someone want to be a weak 4.0 rather than a strong 3.5 given that you can play up as much as you want to?
partners this year

Maybe I can answer this part for you, or at least give you a peek at the other side of the coin even though I don't think one should feel a need to appeal up for this as the rating will take care of itself.

I was bounced between a 4.0 and a 4.5 for a few years while playing with a shoulder injury. I had a 4.0 captain that instantly recruited me once my ESR came in at 4.0...so I figured I might as well be a high level 4.0 and help the team win. I didn't have one challenging match at 1 singles, everything was 2,3 or 3,4 where the only thing that kept them close was me not stepping on the gas. I didn't enjoy it at all, I'd rather lose and play my peak level of tennis or near-peak then to win and not be challenged to play better.

My preference is to find a league where I am winning 50% of the time depending on how I'm playing (hopefully winning more than that of course!). To me that means that I'm at an accurate level where I have to compete well to win. I want to be fighting against players at my same ability where I need to force myself to raise my game. I feel it makes me a mentally tougher player and when I lose it exposes the parts of my game that I need to work on.

So, my preference is to be a middling 4.5 with the hopes of improving well enough to progress and eventually become a high level 4.5 or low level 5.0.

[andfor]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I'm captaining 7.5 ladies combo again. For the fall, I have a few 4.0s and a bunch of 3.5s who will likely be bumped up in November.

One of the 4.0s suggested a self-rated 3.5 singles player she knew. I checked the lady's record, and she started off losing at 3.5 singles. She also played up at 4.0. She was losing those singles matches, but she did win a few by the end. She has never played a USTA doubles match.

I took her on figuring she could partner with the 4.0 who recommended her. Even if she has improved her singles, her doubles is probably not 4.0 level yet.

Imagine my surprise when I learned the lady appealed up to 4.0 (!).

I have been told by someone else that the reason she appealed up is because she is planning to play a futures event.

Can someone explain this? Does your ability to play a futures event depend on your USTA level? I thought futures had to do with ranking points, not league results. Wouldn't a high 3.5/low 4.0 get eaten alive in a future's event?

I have to say, I remain flummoxed by players who appeal up. It makes no sense to me. Why would someone want to be a weak 4.0 rather than a strong 3.5 given that you can play up as much as you want to?

Cindy -- who thoroughly enjoyed being a strong 3.5 and getting all the best partners this year

Why would a 3.5 or 4.0 play Futures events in the first place? Is this person delusional? Also, just like you, I don't understand why someone would appeal up. Why not just find a team, or create your own team to get playing time at the level you want to play?

Having an NTRP rating has nothing to do with being able to play ITF, ATP or WTA events. Most players at even the lowest ranks of pro tennis are likely 6.0 (at the lowest maybe 5.5) if at their best all they can do is win a match here and there in qualifying.

[ian2]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I have to say, I remain flummoxed by players who appeal up. It makes no sense to me. Why would someone want to be a weak 4.0 rather than a strong 3.5 given that you can play up as much as you want to?

A few reasons. Some (myself included) see the NTRP rating as a recognition of their ability/competition results, and want these two things to be "in sync".... and they aren't necessarily.

Aside from vanity, there are practical reasons. One was mentioned already: the prohibition of playing league more than one level up. Another is the "75% in-level rule". I'm not sure if it's USTA rule or the district's (I think USTA), but in any case the rule says that a team must have at least 75% of players on the roster "at level". Let's say a 4.0 team wants to recruit a few strong 3.5 players instead of padding the roster with a few weak 4.0s (we all agree that strong 3.5 > weak 4.0, right?). Well, the 75% rule gets in the way.

[sumari]

Here in Missouri 60% of the team are required to be at level. After the bump ups of the last two years we did not have enough players to field either a 3.5team or a 4.0 team. We had to work very hard to find a way to continue to play together as a team. It would have been nice to have had players that could appeal their ratings up or down just to stay together. Our incentive would have been just having enough players to make a team at either level.

[tennis tom]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Why would someone want to be a weak 4.0 rather than a strong 3.5 given that you can play up as much as you want to?

Ego, ego, ego.

[Cindysphinx]

I thought National USTA had a rule that no section or district could put any restrictions on a player's ability to play up. This killed local rules like X% of a team had to be rated at the level the team was playing, or players could play no more than X levels above their USTA rating.

I have only seen one instance when a player genuinely needed to appeal up. I captained a 5.5 combo team, so I had 2.5 self-rates. After a season of play, one of the 2.5s had the skills of a 3.0. She needed to appeal up to 3.0 so she could play 7.0 mixed with a 4.0 guy.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by sphinx780

My preference is to find a league where I am winning 50% of the time depending on how I'm playing (hopefully winning more than that of course!). To me that means that I'm at an accurate level where I have to compete well to win. I want to be fighting against players at my same ability where I need to force myself to raise my game. I feel it makes me a mentally tougher player and when I lose it exposes the parts of my game that I need to work on.

Yes, but why not just stay 4.0 and play up? Then if a sweet opportunity (e.g. 9.0 mixed) comes along, you can partner with a 5.0.

I guess I see this from a captain's perspective. I don't like it when players do things that limit my ability to pair them. This lady's decision to appeal up means I can't get the pairings I wanted.

[sumari]

We also had a rule that for a league with doubles only you could have up to 10 players on the team, no more. For an adult league with 2 singles and 3 doubles you could have no more than 14 players. Another killer is that we live right on the border of four states and play with the players from those states 60% of the team had to come from Missouri.

We have a lot of restrictions and very few players so making acceptable teams is difficult.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I thought National USTA had a rule that no section or district could put any restrictions on a player's ability to play up. This killed local rules like X% of a team had to be rated at the level the team was playing, or players could play no more than X levels above their USTA rating.

I have only seen one instance when a player genuinely needed to appeal up. I captained a 5.5 combo team, so I had 2.5 self-rates. After a season of play, one of the 2.5s had the skills of a 3.0. She needed to appeal up to 3.0 so she could play 7.0 mixed with a 4.0 guy.

The first two major National regulation changes this past year limit the number of players who can play up in leagues of two or less and the other limits playing up to only one level:
1. If an Adult or Senior League consists of only two teams in a level of play, each team must maintain its roster with at least 60 percent of its players at the designated NTRP
level of play.
2. A player may play only one NTRP level above the player’s current NTRP level in the Adult and Senior Divisions.

[michael_1265]

I'll play the gender card here, although it's hard to know if it is applicable to this particular situation. In my limited experience, the vast majority of players like to play at level and have competitive matches. Of the minority who don't play at level, men tend to stay below so that they can dominate lesser players, an ego boost. Women, on the other hand, see the higher ranking as a social/personal validation, and tend to play up. JMO

[origmarm]

While I'm not sure this is particularly applicable in this situation the only person I knew that ever appealed up was a chap who self rated on arriving in the US and was winning all his matches handily (i.e. 10-12 bagels in a row). He appealed as he quite simply wasn't having any fun playing at the lower incorrect level and didn't want to wait to be moved up.

[NoQuarter]

My Wife is going to appeal up next year so that she and I can play mixed doubles together. She is a 2.5 and I am a 4.0....and right now we are more than a point apart so if she appeals up to 3.0 we will be able to play in the 7.0 mixed league next summer. We practed with the 7.0 team all season and hardly lost a game. I am not a big fan of why the USTA wanted to make the more than 1 point apart thing. But this is another reason why someone would appeal up.

[aurelius]

I've appealed up twice this year.

I self-rated as a 2.5 last fall and played 5.5 combo (with only 2.5's on our team). After winning all my games, I wanted to play 3.0 adult league this past spring. We had a hard time getting a team together and had a mix of 2.5 and 3.0, however, we needed more 3.0s to qualify for a required ratio. I still had a 2.5s as combo doesn't change your rating so I started the year as my 2.5s from last fall. I appealed up to 3.0s so we could hit the required 3.0 ratio. I won all my singles matches handily.

Since then I've been playing in a competitive ladder with 3.5-4.5's (though I tend to play the 3.5/4.0s). For the fall combo league I thought I might play 7.5 combo but there is a FL USTA rule for only a 0.5 difference in combo league. So as a 3.0s I can't play with a 4.0 in the 7.5 combo, but if I rate up to 3.5s I can play with the 4.0 in the 7.5 combo...ridiculous. Plus next year, I'm not sure if I'll play in the 3.5 or 4.0 adult league (maybe both?). But the USTA rules prevent a 3.0 from playing up in the 4.0 league. I probably would have been bumped at the end of this year to 3.5c anyway but I just decided to appeal up again now to be a 3.5s.

[sphinx780]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Yes, but why not just stay 4.0 and play up? Then if a sweet opportunity (e.g. 9.0 mixed) comes along, you can partner with a 5.0.

I guess I see this from a captain's perspective. I don't like it when players do things that limit my ability to pair them. This lady's decision to appeal up means I can't get the pairings I wanted.

Outside of wanting to play in a league a full rating above being some sections cannot play as high as they want to still, I see no reason to appeal up, the rating will take care of itself.

My point here was directed to: "Why would someone want to be a weak 4.0 rather than a strong 3.5" Just more of an off topic view on this portion of the question...not intended to justify or condemn appealing up.

As a captain I would be frustrated too when the player in question gets no benefit other than satisfying their ego to appeal up.

[evw]

Originally Posted by tennis tom

Ego, ego, ego.

agree, funny thing too is every person I've ever met that appealed up I would suggest they go back down.