Oh, it always is. I just start nationally and then drill down. But my point was if nationally the 4.0 bump up rate went from <5% to >7%, that uneven distribution may be pretty high in places like we are seeing anecdotal evidence of.
Probably some interesting numbers based on 18's vs 40's as well.
| Female | % just bumped up | % just bumped down |
| 3.0 | 10.0% | 5.63% |
| 3.5 | 5.49% | 5.27% |
| 4.0 | 5.21% | 2.43% |
| 4.5 | 5.13 | 1.28 |
| Male | % just bumped up | % just bumped down |
| 3.0 | 8.5% | 3.1% |
| 3.5 | 14.4% | 1.8% |
| 4.0 | 16.9% | 7.3% |
| 4.5 | 28.0% | 0.0% |
for sure, I saw a local player self-rated this year, went 0/3 in 4.5 40's league and got bumped to 5.0, never won a set and of the 6 sets one was 6/4 that was the closest
computerratings.blogspot.com
I speculated that there could be a readjustment coming in Southern Section. This is mainly because our bell curve was out of whack compared to the other sections. This is from another thread:Here's the link. Southern men and Texas men were specifically targeted. I almost want this to be it's own thread. Any speculation why?Analyzing 2019 USTA NTRP year-end ratings - Section bump rates by gender
2019 year-end ratings have been published , and my analysis has begun. I already took a look at bump rates by level comparing to past year...
Well, in TX, everyone's favorite cheater had a 3.5 team that could have competed at 4.5 nationals. So there's that...Here's the link. Southern men and Texas men were specifically targeted. I almost want this to be it's own thread. Any speculation why?Analyzing 2019 USTA NTRP year-end ratings - Section bump rates by gender
2019 year-end ratings have been published , and my analysis has begun. I already took a look at bump rates by level comparing to past year...
It's pretty common for teams that do well, on a national scale, to get more aggressively bumped.
The large scale adjustments aren't necessarily meant to correct for cheating. Before I go any further, I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'll take their supposition that the distribution didn't match the national curve to be true. Combine that with solid showings at national events, and the USTA may've felt it safe to make more aggressive adjustments to try and align the numbers with the other regions.
Southern section is so big that it looks shocking when you see the amounts of people at each level. It just seemed to me that they were due to shift some of the middle of that janky bell curve towards 4.5 and 5.0. Plus, we keep on seeing the exact same guys at the state tournament and at least at 4.0 level in SC. I think we haven’t sent a team to sectionals in a couple of years, so as a result we were avoiding playing the best of the best and stayed insulated from the little readjustments that trickle down from nationals and sectionals.
Unless you have a before and after list there's no way for you to tell. I always download everyone in my area around mid november. That way when new ratings are out it takes all of about 2 minutes in excel to see who was bumped and who wasn't.
Well, in theory, the year-end calculations that are done are meant to normalize things across the country, that has always been the case. I doubt the bumps this year that are in the chart I showed above are due solely to normal year-end calculations and some other adjustments were done to either compensate for what they thought were insufficient bumps from the normal calculations, or a desire to redistribute players among levels for presumably participation reasons.
Where do you get a master list from? I'd be happy to look at a new one and figure out the bumps just by looking.
This is a bit tedious but this is what I have done. Someone else probably has a better way.
Well, I presume it's censored because it's part of a competitor's name... a wildly overzealous bit of censorship.
This is correct. Having a larger population to pull from gives an advantage to a point, but unless super teams are being formed from across the section, it is really the pool of players in a given city and perhaps nearby areas that matters. We regular see teams from mid-size cities making it to Nationals and they predominantly (usually entirely) have players from their city, so any other city of similar size with a similar player pool should have as good a shot at advancing.
Correct. My hypothesis is that being bigger has diminishing returns. Compared with a section like Northern, yes, all that Southern has to offer from the larger pool of players to being more tested will result in Southern beating Northern at Nationals the majority of the time. But other sections like Eastern Mid-Atlantic, Middle States, Middlewest, Texas, SoCal, NorCal, Florida, and PNW are all large enough that given how teams are formed locally, can compete with Southern toe to toe in most years.
Been awhile since I took college statistics but if I remember correctly it would be really hard prove anything statistically given the limited number of events at nationals.
Completely agree with that. Know you'll sleep better tonight knowing that.
