Tournament with low turnout

raiden031 · Mar 9, 2007

What happens if you sign up for a USTA tournament and only 1 or 2 other people sign up for your division? The reason I ask, is because I looked at the results of the last few NTRP tournaments in my area, and they only had junior player draws (the tournament also had junior divisions). Does this mean they had to cancel the divisions that had low turnout? If so, do they just refund your money? I just signed up for a tournament that is less than a month away, and there is only me for NTRP singles and some junior player registered.

oldguysrule · Mar 9, 2007

raiden031 said:
What happens if you sign up for a USTA tournament and only 1 or 2 other people sign up for your division? The reason I ask, is because I looked at the results of the last few NTRP tournaments in my area, and they only had junior player draws (the tournament also had junior divisions). Does this mean they had to cancel the divisions that had low turnout? If so, do they just refund your money? I just signed up for a tournament that is less than a month away, and there is only me for NTRP singles and some junior player registered.

They will 1.) give you the option of moving to a different draw. Say, 4.0 instead of 3.0 or 40's instead of 50's. or 2) refund your money.

Jracer77 · Mar 9, 2007

You might want to look at last years draw (if they had a tournament) to get an idea of what to expect for this years tournament. Alot of tournaments are well established and have a good turnout every year. Those are the kind I prefer.

CrocodileRock · Mar 9, 2007

Raiden, there is another issue that may be at work here. I don't know where you live, but here in Texas we adopted a "points per round" ranking system a few years ago, whereby your ranking is determined by what round you reach and the point value assigned to that tournament. For instance we have many 100-point tournaments, fewer 200s, still fewer 300s, etc. If you win a 100-point tournament you get 100 points toward your ranking, with fewer points awarded for lower finishes. Likewise, if you play a 300-point tournament, and make the quarters, you get about 125. Quality of opponent is completely ignored.

Well, the results were predictable. Upper level players abandoned the 100s in droves. Why should someone play a tournament, win 5 rounds for 100 points, when they could play a different tournament, win 2 or 3 rounds for 125?

All that to say that if this situation is also occurring in your section, it may be a reason tournaments don't make. It is definitely the reason here.

goober · Mar 9, 2007

I have seen tournaments with as few as 3 people done round robin style. 3.0 in the Men's division generally has the lowest turnout in my experience for NTRP tourneys. Not a lot of 3.0s really get into the tourney scene. 3.5 and 4.0 generally have the largest turn out and 4.5s just below that.

I think you would better off playing 3.5s (if that is not what you are already doing). Get use to the better competition.

Cindysphinx · Mar 9, 2007

Raiden,

They will play a round robin if there are 4 or fewer players.

I won one tournament where there were 4 2.5 ladies playing singles; I beat each one.

I lost another tournament at 2.5 where there were only three ladies. I beat one and lost to one. That was the tournament with the weird tie-break procedure that led to me being declared the winner and then stripped of the title. That result would not have occurred in a single-elimination tournament, so I don't like round robin format.

Many people enter tournaments at the last minute, so don't sweat it yet.

I'll be pullin' for ya!

raiden031 · Mar 9, 2007

goober said:
I have seen tournaments with as few as 3 people done round robin style. 3.0 in the Men's division generally has the lowest turnout in my experience for NTRP tourneys. Not a lot of 3.0s really get into the tourney scene. 3.5 and 4.0 generally have the largest turn out and 4.5s just below that.

I think you would better off playing 3.5s (if that is not what you are already doing). Get use to the better competition.

This tournament only has 3.0 and 4.0 options, and I figured if I'm paying $54 to enter, I'd at least like to make it past the first round. I'll see how tough the 3.0s are, and decide from there whether I play 3.0 or 3.5 the next time around.

raiden031 · Mar 9, 2007

Cindysphinx said:
Raiden,

They will play a round robin if there are 4 or fewer players.

I won one tournament where there were 4 2.5 ladies playing singles; I beat each one.

I lost another tournament at 2.5 where there were only three ladies. I beat one and lost to one. That was the tournament with the weird tie-break procedure that led to me being declared the winner and then stripped of the title. That result would not have occurred in a single-elimination tournament, so I don't like round robin format.

Many people enter tournaments at the last minute, so don't sweat it yet.

I'll be pullin' for ya!

The last few NTRP tournaments I looked up didn't have ANY players in those divisions at all. So I'm not convinced this one will amount to anything. Seems like only juniors and the age groups like to play tournaments, except for the few well-known tournaments each year.

Cindysphinx · Mar 9, 2007

Awwww....

Well, there are some good tournaments on Memorial Day Weekend, Independence Day, and Labor Day Weekend. Maybe wait for those?

raiden031 · Mar 9, 2007

Cindysphinx said:
Awwww....

Well, there are some good tournaments on Memorial Day Weekend, Independence Day, and Labor Day Weekend. Maybe wait for those?

I could always wait for the big ones, but they are inconveniently scheduled at times that my wife probably won't let me come out and play.

LoveThisGame · Mar 9, 2007

There was a day when age bracket tournaments had good turnouts, but that slipped. One club started having simultaneous multiple age bracket tournaments, such as 45s, 50s, 55s, and 60s. That just made things worse, IMO.

The entries were low in a division and it wasn't likely that folks signed up for two divisions. I suggested one weekend to hold 45s and 55s and a few weeks later to have 50s and 60s, but that was ignored. I finally stated to enter me only if there were least 5 other entries in my division. Never was.

Today there are some age bracket tournaments with decent draws in this section, but league play took over a long time ago.

In my 30s (long ago), I enjoyed one exhilerating and exhausting weekend of playing 3 indoor events (M, MD, and MxdD). On Saturday I played 16 sets, finishing at 1 or 2 a.m. with too many 3 setters. I did show up for my 9 a.m singles semi against a guy who had my number, because I felt I owed him a warmup.

tennismike33 · Mar 10, 2007

In my 30s (long ago), I enjoyed one exhilerating and exhausting weekend of playing 3 indoor events (M, MD, and MxdD). On Saturday I played 16 sets, finishing at 1 or 2 a.m. with too many 3 setters. I did show up for my 9 a.m singles semi against a guy who had my number, because I felt I owed him a warmup.[/QUOTE]

When I travel to a tournament I try to enter as many events as I can, I feel it is my obligation to the TD to make him earn his money by making sure my schedule can work. One tournament last Labor Day I played in the open, NTRP 4.5, age group 45's single's and double's, what a great weekend.

I will rest when they put me in the box!!!!

BiGGieStuFF · Mar 10, 2007

Here is an OT question. Do you get points if you advance to a round with a bye? Not a default, withdraw, or retire but a bye?

migjam · Mar 10, 2007

CrocodileRock said:
Raiden, there is another issue that may be at work here. I don't know where you live, but here in Texas we adopted a "points per round" ranking system a few years ago, whereby your ranking is determined by what round you reach and the point value assigned to that tournament. For instance we have many 100-point tournaments, fewer 200s, still fewer 300s, etc. If you win a 100-point tournament you get 100 points toward your ranking, with fewer points awarded for lower finishes. Likewise, if you play a 300-point tournament, and make the quarters, you get about 125. Quality of opponent is completely ignored.

Well, the results were predictable. Upper level players abandoned the 100s in droves. Why should someone play a tournament, win 5 rounds for 100 points, when they could play a different tournament, win 2 or 3 rounds for 125?

All that to say that if this situation is also occurring in your section, it may be a reason tournaments don't make. It is definitely the reason here.

See, thats exactly what I've been trying to point out for years in the PNW. Here they don't do points per round but who you beat. So, they give a certain weight to a player. Using this approach, many tournaments get low turnouts because it may not be worth a player to go to a tournament and win it when all of the weighted players are off somewhere else playing. I think it's ridiculous. Each tournament match won should give you points and thus making every tournament meaningful.
Now, our junior tournaments are run this way, so why not our adults.

moonshine · Mar 10, 2007

In the Mid-atlantic, the only NTRP tournaments I have seen make draws take place in the summer. NTRP championships (MCTA held one last year in Rockville, and Leesburg P&R held one in Loudoun county) draw the most players and divisions. I played last year and had a blast in the Rockville tournament. There were a couple more that were slightly smaller, but they were fun too. West Winds tournaments and the ones in Baltimore usually don't make draws, so I wouldn't get your hopes too high if you are scheduling yourself for one of those two. Good Luck and keep trying.

migjam · Mar 10, 2007

BiGGieStuFF said:
Here is an OT question. Do you get points if you advance to a round with a bye? Not a default, withdraw, or retire but a bye?

You don't get points if you advance with a bye but if you win your round you'll get more points than the bye round.

CrocodileRock · Mar 10, 2007

migjam said:
Here they don't do points per round but who you beat. So, they give a certain weight to a player. Using this approach, many tournaments get low turnouts because it may not be worth a player to go to a tournament and win it when all of the weighted players are off somewhere else playing. I think it's ridiculous. Each tournament match won should give you points and thus making every tournament meaningful.
Now, our junior tournaments are run this way, so why not our adults.

I guess the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. I like your way better, and you like mine.

My problem with points per round is that it's just too easy to game the system. I know, because I did it about three years ago, and got ranked 3rd, when I shouldn't have even been top 20. I just played the high point value tournaments, especially the "stepchild" tournaments and built up a lot of points. If the upper-level players dont enter an out-of-the way tournament, players like me can advance farther, and get more points.

Also, a win over Awesome Andy is a better accomplishment than a win over Mediocre Mike, and should be reflected in the rankings in my opinion. But it won't happen with points per round. Instead, you see equal rankings for unequal accomplishments, which is just plain wrong to me.

Another problem is that a win over Tough Ted in the first round of tournament X is worth much fewer points than the same win in the fourth round of tournament Y. That's unequal points for the same accomplishment. I just can't go along with that.

Maybe someone could develop a hybrid system that takes both quality of opponent and round reached into account.

moonshine · Mar 10, 2007

CrocodileRock said:
I
Maybe someone could develop a hybrid system that takes both quality of opponent and round reached into account.

In the junior ranks, you get points per round PLUS significant win points if you beat someone who is highly ranked. To me this is a fair way to run things because it encourages players to play often and to play in events with the top players.

OrangeOne · Mar 10, 2007

moonshine said:
In the junior ranks, you get points per round PLUS significant win points if you beat someone who is highly ranked. To me this is a fair way to run things because it encourages players to play often and to play in events with the top players.

Can't remember which - but one of the ATP / WTA (think WTA) did a similar thing for a while - if a player beat a top-ten player (I think) they received bonus points? Seemed pretty fair to me, a bit of a bonus if someone managed to win a tough early round....

migjam · Mar 10, 2007

CrocodileRock said:
I guess the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. I like your way better, and you like mine.

My problem with points per round is that it's just too easy to game the system. I know, because I did it about three years ago, and got ranked 3rd, when I shouldn't have even been top 20. I just played the high point value tournaments, especially the "stepchild" tournaments and built up a lot of points. If the upper-level players dont enter an out-of-the way tournament, players like me can advance farther, and get more points.

Also, a win over Awesome Andy is a better accomplishment than a win over Mediocre Mike, and should be reflected in the rankings in my opinion. But it won't happen with points per round. Instead, you see equal rankings for unequal accomplishments, which is just plain wrong to me.

Another problem is that a win over Tough Ted in the first round of tournament X is worth much fewer points than the same win in the fourth round of tournament Y. That's unequal points for the same accomplishment. I just can't go along with that.

Maybe someone could develop a hybrid system that takes both quality of opponent and round reached into account.

Well with the juniors they get points per round and then points for a significant win. So you do have a little of both worlds with this format.

The problem I have with the weighted system that tournaments where the weighted players don't play, really mean nothing. Which I don't think is good and I'm sure the tournament directors don't either.

tennismike33 · Mar 11, 2007

There are a lot of systems out there for people to play under. I think if you play every tournament let someone else sort things out.

MIGJAM does have a point, he is undefeated but there are players listed ahead of him with 1 loss. At the end of the year if you play enough those players will fall away. After playing tournaments for the past 4-5 years, there are players out there that don't play a lot of tournaments and show up for the "big" t-ments, they are the ones who screw up the system. I think that t-ments such as the State opens should have a qualifying system. If you haven't played in any t-ments why should you be able to compete for a State title?

migjam · Mar 11, 2007

Case in point. There is a tournament in Portland, and there are currently no players ranked above me entered. What benefit, other than a tournament played, would this tournament be to me to warrant making the trip down to Oregon, when any wins that I could have, would essentially do nothing for my ranking.
Here is another point to my case. Player A, wins a big season opening tournament, is given #1 in the standings list. He could now just play low level local tournaments and ride the rest of the season out and take the #1 ranking at the end of the season. Thats ridiculous.

tennismike33 · Mar 11, 2007

migjam said:
Case in point. There is a tournament in Portland, and there are currently no players ranked above me entered. What benefit, other than a tournament played, would this tournament be to me to warrant making the trip down to Oregon, when any wins that I could have, would essentially do nothing for my ranking.
Here is another point to my case. Player A, wins a big season opening tournament, is given #1 in the standings list. He could now just play low level local tournaments and ride the rest of the season out and take the #1 ranking at the end of the season. Thats ridiculous.

No worries, leave some scrapes for us lower ranked player, we greatly appreciate it!!!

migjam · Mar 11, 2007

tennismike33 said:
No worries, leave some scrapes for us lower ranked player, we greatly appreciate it!!!

My point is, it won't even help you because so far, there is nobody ranked in the standings above you either. But, it could hurt your ranking/standings by losing to someone lower than you.
Now, if the tournaments were worth points, all of this wouldn't matter.

Tournament with low turnout

Legend

Semi-Pro

Rookie

Rookie

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Professional

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Professional

New User

Professional

Rookie

New User

Legend

Professional

Semi-Pro

Professional

Semi-Pro

Professional

Similar threads