Are these people eligible for nationals?

[dode]

I was doing some looking into the teams we will be playing at 3.5 Nationals in a couple of weeks. When I pulled the the tennislink pages for two of their players, they are shown to be 4.0 year end rated players, one a B and one a C. So I am thinking, how on earth are they playing 3.5. Well, their team is an early start league. I pulled their section's early start league listings, and they are both listed as 4.0. Ok, so I get to reading in that it basically says that their early start ratings are just a suggestion (this year it says you are required to play at your early start rating or above). Ok, so upon further reading on their section website, I find the following:

"Players in “Early Start” Leagues Players participating in “early start” leagues, where play begins prior to January 1 of the year in which they would progress to National Championships, who are found to have valid year-end computer ratings that place them above the level at which they are competing may continue their participation at the prior level with their early start team UNLESS their year-end rating reaches the “clearly above
level mark.”

If it does, they too must adjust to that new level. If a player’s rating does not reach the “clearly above level mark”, the player may continue to participate at the prior level with their early start team including the remainder of the early start local league season and related championships competition. However, such players will be subject to immediate promotion at all levels through Section Championships, and such players shall register at
their year-end rating level for league play beginning after January 1 of the year in which they would progress to National Championships.

“Clearly above level” means the rating reaches the disqualification level. Disqualification thresholds vary based on NTRP level. Dynamic ratings are calculated to the hundredth of a point and when a player generates a dynamic result at least .2 (For 4.0 - 5.5 players) or .3 (for 3.0 & 3.5 players) above level, a strike is given. Three strikes trigger a disqualification."

So basically their section rules state that even if they get bumped at the end of the year, they can still play. However, the information for nationals says:

"All individual team members must be from the appropriate level of play in accordance with the NTRP system."

Wouldn't that overrule the section's allowance to continue play at 3.5 even though they were year end 4.0 players? The benchmark rated player played in the section finals as well.

On a related note, when I was looking at the section final match, they lost 3-2, but one of the players on the other team was DQ'd, so they won. When I pulled up his stats he was a self-rated 3.0 that had only played 3 matches all year. WTF. Well I googled his name (not a common name) and come to find out he was a USPTA teaching pro!! WTF! Self rate as a 3.0 figuring if he got bumped it would be to 3.5? The lengths some people will go to win I guess.

Anyone have any input here? Thanks, and sorry for the book.

John

[J_R_B]

The "appropriate level of play" referenced in the national guidelines is clearly defined in the Sectional guidelines and the player clearly conforms to the sectional guidelines.

Teaching pros are a minimum 4.0 according to the self-rating guidelines, so I think there would have been a valid self-rating grievance if he wasn't DQ'd.

Self-rating at 3.0 and then playing exclusively at 3.5 doesn't save you from being DQ'd at 3.5. You don't inherit your self-rating level as a dynamic NTRP. Your dynamic NTRP is defined by your match results, and if your matches are all at 3.5, then your dynamic rating will reflect a 3.5 rating regardless of what your self-rating level is (so if you played a couple 3.5 matches then tried to play 3.0, you'd be immediately DQ'd by your 3.5 results...).

[tennis tom]

Sorry I can't comment on this since I've never clerked for a Supreme Court justice. Is this part of the national health care act?

[NTRPolice]

If that is true that a "teaching pro" must self-rate 4.0 and you can provide a reference to that, I would file the grievance. But, just to be clear, check all your facts before you file the grievance.

I wouldnt put anything in there about him "being too good" or mentioning it at all. I would just point out the discrepancy between him being a USPTA teaching pro (provide his webpage, because each USPTA pro has one I believe) and questioning the minimum self-rate.

When filing a grievance, never mention "scores" or "player ability". Just stick to the facts. There is "action" right now on a 7.0 team because they have a 3.0 self-rate girl who played college and I have a feeling she is going to be DQ'ed because you can see her ITF history when you google her LOL. 3.0 "S". LOL.

[dode]

Oh the 3.0 self rated teaching pro was on the team that lost in sectionals because of his DQ, so he will not be attending nationals, and yes he did have a web page. I just googled him to try and find out why he was DQ'd.

I just think it is odd that sections have the ability to set rules that would give them advantages over others in head to head competition against other sections.

John

[kylebarendrick]

Norcal used to have early start mixed leagues, that often resulted in people playing at nationals the following year with higher computer ratings than would otherwise be allowed. Mixed league would start in the winter before year-end ratings and finish early the following year. Anyone bumped by the new ratings was allowed to continue in the league at their previous level. National USTA pushed Norcal hard to rework the league calendar to eliminate the early start precisely because it wasn't fair.

[SlapShot]

I'm just taking a wild guess here and thinking that you're looking at Northern. I went to 3.5 Nationals in 2009 with one of the guys who is going this year, and that captain is notorious for putting together either top of level 3.5 players or freshly bumped down 4.0 players to get a team to Nationals. I believe he took a team in 2010 or 2011 as well - a couple of guys from my 4.0 team played on it.

For some reason I remember that the rule about early starts was that you could play at your registered level even if your year-end level was changed all the way through nationals unless you were DQ'd. I am guessing that the players who are 4.0 now aren't beyond the "clearly out of level" threshold that is mentioned in your post, but without the USTA showing their dynamic, it's anyone's guess.

[dode]

Hey good guess there SlapShot! That is exactly who I was talking about. This is my first year playing USTA, so I am not well versed in some of the nuances. I know in our section, if you get bumped at the year end, you must move up the first of the year and you can't continue playing. I also saw that for 2013, it appears that USTA is saying that you must play at your early start rating (it appears that some sections were always that way), not that it was merely a suggestion.

Got any good insider information that you want to share?!?

We are just a bunch of guys that kinda came together at sectionals and got hot. Heck we didn't even win our local league.

John

[goober]

ESR bumped downs are one the ways top teams keep their dynasty going. The scenario is usually they get bumped at end of year. Then play mixed in the spring and a couple matches at their higher level which they lose. They get an ESR of a lower rating for fall. Then they "manage" their rating for fall season by dropping sets or entire matches. They get their C rating at the end of the year at their lower rating and then are all set for their run at sectionals/Nationals again the following year with no risk of DQ.

To get rid of this loophole, they should only allow ESR bump ups. Everbody else must play at their current level to the end of the year.

[SlapShot]

Originally Posted by dode

Hey good guess there SlapShot! That is exactly who I was talking about. This is my first year playing USTA, so I am not well versed in some of the nuances. I know in our section, if you get bumped at the year end, you must move up the first of the year and you can't continue playing. I also saw that for 2013, it appears that USTA is saying that you must play at your early start rating (it appears that some sections were always that way), not that it was merely a suggestion.

Got any good insider information that you want to share?!?

We are just a bunch of guys that kinda came together at sectionals and got hot. Heck we didn't even win our local league.

John

In looking at the lineup, the only person I know is the one with the initials PHJ. I played on a team with him for several seasons, and played him in mixed a year or so ago. He has been between 3.5 and 4.0 since 2008 or so, so he's easily at the top of the 3.5 level at the very least. Big serve, strong FH, but he misses a lot. I think a lot of their players are seniors who are more consistent than anything else.

[Angle Queen]

We don't have an ESR leagues here in the Richmond area and I'm glad we don't. There'd be even more gaming of the system than there already is. Shame it's all such a sham.

[rtl11]

In my area, someone that was self rated 2.5, got disqualified and bumped to 3.5 directly.

[Winning Ugly]

Slap Shot got it right. A number of Middle States 3.5 senior players got an "early start" bump to 4.0, but that just means they have to play as 4.0's in the mixed doubles and mixed ratings winter leagues. The team going to Nationals are legit 3.5's, just right at the "edge" which is pretty much what you have to be to make Nationals. They did not look like 3.7's to me, though, so I'd be shocked to see them DQ'd even though some of them will be moving up next year.

Also, I know of two USPTA pros who were 3.5's on merit. One can barely walk, having had a lifetime of tennis turn into trashed knees, and the other somehow barely passed the certification while being a 3.5 player based on match records. The 3.0 is tough to figure, however.