atatu
Legend
I'm thinking more like a national petition, asking USTA to consider changing the Nationals format back in 2021 (for men's leagues) ?
Only 1 singles for Nationals 40+ :(
- Thread starter OnTheLine
- Start date
I'm thinking more like a national petition, asking USTA to consider changing the Nationals format back in 2021 (for men's leagues) ?
USTA is full of buffoons imo. They chose to hold nationals for several weeks at one of the rainiest destinations they could. I've had them send out full emails in sections CC about 200+ people, who is so stupid to CC 200+ people with all their emails in full view to strangers. Luckily I use a throwaway email for this garbage but even that throwaway email gets more spam now. For $45 a year or whatever you literally get nothing, for $25 a league you get a computer that can spit out a schedule. The only way it survives is because it's basically a monopoly and hopefully UTR can change that. If it had any competition everyone would have ditched it. It's like a bad cable/internet provider in your area, you use it not because it's good but because it's the only option for now.
Another consequence is that there will be no singles spot for a 4.5 player on 4.5+ because the 5.0's HAVE to play the #1 position. With 4 lines, you can still play (2) 5.0's, so if you are a 4.5 singles player, the chance that you get an actual match in 40+ is low when there are 5.0's on the roster.
schmke
Legend
Natonal regulation changed to make it so 4 court matches can only have one plus player. I think NorCal is still allowing 2 plus players with 4 courts, not sure about other sections.
So Nationally, the one plus player (5.0) must play 1S or 1D, if the 5.0 is a singles player, yeah, no chance for 4.5's to play singles. And in NorCal, if two 5.0s play, the only way a 4.5 gets a singles match is if both 5.0s play doubles.
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
Oh, good, that makes sense.
Much better to cut 4.5 singles players and all 5.0 players opportunities in half.
Equal opportunity and all.
Jerks.
J
atatu
Legend
Here's the response I got from USTA Texas:
There was a lot of discussion on how this would affect the 4.5+ division. That is why the National League Committee also approved two other amendments. One, a local area can choose to play the 5 line format and if they choose this, then two 5.0 players can play each match (at the #1 position). If an area is using the 1/3 format, only one 5.0 player can play in a match and it must be at #1 singles or #1 doubles.
You are correct, at the first vote of changing the format, 39% of the players voted to keep it at 2/3, but over 50% thought it should be changed to a 1 single format, they just didn't agree on the format. Ultimately, the National League Committee votes on all rule changes.
We will play Sectionals using the same format as Nationals. I do believe that some of the big cities will continue to play 2/3 locally.
There was a lot of discussion on how this would affect the 4.5+ division. That is why the National League Committee also approved two other amendments. One, a local area can choose to play the 5 line format and if they choose this, then two 5.0 players can play each match (at the #1 position). If an area is using the 1/3 format, only one 5.0 player can play in a match and it must be at #1 singles or #1 doubles.
You are correct, at the first vote of changing the format, 39% of the players voted to keep it at 2/3, but over 50% thought it should be changed to a 1 single format, they just didn't agree on the format. Ultimately, the National League Committee votes on all rule changes.
We will play Sectionals using the same format as Nationals. I do believe that some of the big cities will continue to play 2/3 locally.
schmke
Legend
Creative survey results interpretation there. Using the same logic, over 60% thought it should remain 5 courts yet they didn't do that! :O
These guys can't even add correctly, so now it's going to be 4 lines and soon it'll be fast 3 next, so when they choose a raining location they can clear nationals out in an hour and be done with it.
Few years later it'll be 3 lines and just a sudden death point.
If that is the case you should only be charged 4/5ths the going rate of a season and we pay court fees by the season so I assume I'll get a discount and only pay 4/5ths (I doubt this will happen). Last year at arlington tx they refunded people the $55 nationals fee, they should refund everyone again for another rained out nationals this year. Nobody spent a thousand dollars for a trip and fly a few thousand miles to play fast 4.
Few years later it'll be 3 lines and just a sudden death point.
If that is the case you should only be charged 4/5ths the going rate of a season and we pay court fees by the season so I assume I'll get a discount and only pay 4/5ths (I doubt this will happen). Last year at arlington tx they refunded people the $55 nationals fee, they should refund everyone again for another rained out nationals this year. Nobody spent a thousand dollars for a trip and fly a few thousand miles to play fast 4.
Papa Mango
Professional
Is the new format confirmed for NorCal? The league rules (from September) still say 2S/3D for norcal.
schmke
Legend
I think those rules may be dated now. The date on the document seems to be 9/4, before I think National published these changes. And this document list the format at a National level as 2S/3D which we know is wrong.
Someone sent me a snippet from I'm guessing an updated regulations document a few days ago saying:
Papa Mango
Professional
schmke
Legend
Found it: https://www.usta.com/en/home/play/adult-tennis/programs/northerncalifornia/adult-40-league.htmlThanks for the clarification. I assumed as much.
I guess the new doc is Top Secret ...
One thing that is consistently wrong in the Norcal guidelines is the 40+ 5.0+. For several years that has been run as three doubles lines and Open with players playing at any position at any level (despite what has been written in the local league rules). This is because the winner advances to the NIT 40+ in Vegas which is 3 lines of doubles and Open. There isn't a league per se but a weekend tournament that leads to the winner getting a sponsored berth in Vegas the last weekend in September.
schmke
Legend
Just wrote a piece on my blog speculating that Points Per Position is what may be a direction some sections go for determining standings for this format. It avoids having to deal with 2-2 ties, whether the tie-breakers are equitable, and the chance they don't decide it. And with some court weighting they can discourage stacking if you think that is an issue.
schmke
Legend
Thanks.
FWIW, PNW did confirm we will use 1/3 for all 40+ league play, and LC's are starting to populate TennisLink so teams can start registering players, and it does appear Points Per Position is going to be used as the standings are showing the teams with the column headers for PPP.
Yeah, not as much urgency down here since our 40+ leagues won't start until February. Although registration opens up in December I think. I wonder how other Areas in Georgia are going to handle this. Most of them already play the 2/3 format. I'm betting they go to the new 1/3 format for league play as well. I'd usually want consistency across the board but at least the 1/4 format will allow more people to play each week.
dannywilliams10s
New User
If #1 doubles becomes worth two poibts in the PPP format that may eliminate teams splittingvthe 5.0s unless they have a really strong 4.5 to play at 1 doubles.
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
schmke
Legend
Remember, the other change for 2020 is 4-court formats can have only one plus player. So since 40+ is a 4-court format, 4.5+ can have only one 5.0 in the line-up. So this very well may make it so 5.0s are more likely to play 1D to go after that 2 points and more 4.5s will play singles.
CHtennis
Rookie
Here is the article on the this format: http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2019/11/breaking-news-pnw-changes-40-over-to.html
So the PPP format will be one for each court other than 1d which is 2? Does that mean in the playoffs you would win head to head if you had more points than the other team?
So the PPP format will be one for each court other than 1d which is 2? Does that mean in the playoffs you would win head to head if you had more points than the other team?
schmke
Legend
Excellent question. I believe come playoffs where it is any kind of draw format, you have to go back to team wins and dealing with the tie-breakers should the teams tie 2-2. But if a playoff flight is round-robin, you could still use PPP to determine the flight winner/standings.
I will try to find out what PNW is going to do, but in local playoffs most districts do have a draw to determine who advances to Sectionals, so I'd think team wins/losses would be used. But at Sectionals, there are two flights of teams, with the flight winners advancing. They could elect to use PPP for the flights to determine the flight winners, but of course the final would need to use the match winner and potentially involve the tie-breakers.
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
This is a rehash of ideas that are already in this thread and that I have expressed in my Nationals recap, but this is what I wrote to both the National USTA office and to the USTA League Coordinator in the PNW about this subject:
For 2020, I am super disappointed with the decision to change the format of 40s to be 1 singles and 3 doubles. The effect on 4.5+ is disastrous and ruins the league.
In announcing this change, the PNW section sent an email that said:
“For the past 5 years, players have been surveyed as to the preferred 40 & Over League “team match” format. In the 2018 player survey, players were asked if they preferred 2S/3D or 1S/4D for this league and it revealed that 60% preferred 1S/4D. This survey did not offer the 1S/3D option. In April 2019, a survey was sent to players age 39 and over, asking which “team match” championship format they preferred, and results showed 25% for 1S/4D; 26% for 1S/3D; 39% for 2S/3D.”
So, what would a reasonable person infer out of these statistics?
First, that the most recent survey shows that a majority of league participants prefer the 2S/3D format by a margin of 13 percentage points over the next option. Second, that 64% of the participants prefer to have 5 lines for a match, either 1S/4D (25%) or 2S/3D (39%).
But what does the USTA do instead?
They choose the most unpopular option, of course. One that only 26% of the people voted for. And I understand that this is being pushed forward no matter what negative feedback the USTA is getting. So basically, the 40 and over league has the 2nd highest participation rate, and a majority of the players do not want this change, but you are doing it anyway. That really does not make me feel valued.
I just don’t understand why the USTA would make such a stupid, uninformed, and unpopular change like this and refuse to listen to what the players are saying. At the very least, I think the USTA could revert 4.5+ to the original 2 singles and 3 doubles format for 2020, and play the 1S/3D for the other levels if that is where the problem with recruiting singles players is found. It's not like the USTA doesn’t already have different formats for different levels and age groups.
I feel so disheartened by this and it seems like the only response the USTA might understand is a boycott of the league. But at the end of the day, I don’t think you care about that either. It seems the USTA is going to do what they want to do no matter what and the members powerless to change anything. That said, I’m thinking about sitting out of League next year and just playing tournaments (preferably non-USTA ones, if possible). And this is coming from one of your most passionate (and successful) League advocates, who has spent over 20 years invested as a player and captain.
I have received no responses. Obviously, I am very pessimistic that the USTA will do the right thing.
For 2020, I am super disappointed with the decision to change the format of 40s to be 1 singles and 3 doubles. The effect on 4.5+ is disastrous and ruins the league.
In announcing this change, the PNW section sent an email that said:
“For the past 5 years, players have been surveyed as to the preferred 40 & Over League “team match” format. In the 2018 player survey, players were asked if they preferred 2S/3D or 1S/4D for this league and it revealed that 60% preferred 1S/4D. This survey did not offer the 1S/3D option. In April 2019, a survey was sent to players age 39 and over, asking which “team match” championship format they preferred, and results showed 25% for 1S/4D; 26% for 1S/3D; 39% for 2S/3D.”
So, what would a reasonable person infer out of these statistics?
First, that the most recent survey shows that a majority of league participants prefer the 2S/3D format by a margin of 13 percentage points over the next option. Second, that 64% of the participants prefer to have 5 lines for a match, either 1S/4D (25%) or 2S/3D (39%).
But what does the USTA do instead?
They choose the most unpopular option, of course. One that only 26% of the people voted for. And I understand that this is being pushed forward no matter what negative feedback the USTA is getting. So basically, the 40 and over league has the 2nd highest participation rate, and a majority of the players do not want this change, but you are doing it anyway. That really does not make me feel valued.
I just don’t understand why the USTA would make such a stupid, uninformed, and unpopular change like this and refuse to listen to what the players are saying. At the very least, I think the USTA could revert 4.5+ to the original 2 singles and 3 doubles format for 2020, and play the 1S/3D for the other levels if that is where the problem with recruiting singles players is found. It's not like the USTA doesn’t already have different formats for different levels and age groups.
I feel so disheartened by this and it seems like the only response the USTA might understand is a boycott of the league. But at the end of the day, I don’t think you care about that either. It seems the USTA is going to do what they want to do no matter what and the members powerless to change anything. That said, I’m thinking about sitting out of League next year and just playing tournaments (preferably non-USTA ones, if possible). And this is coming from one of your most passionate (and successful) League advocates, who has spent over 20 years invested as a player and captain.
I have received no responses. Obviously, I am very pessimistic that the USTA will do the right thing.
schmke
Legend
I have asked about the missing 10%, no response to that.
See my blog where I wrote a bunch on this subject and how the USTA interpreted the survey results. I can't post the link, but you can Google "schmidt computer ratings usta bad math" and it should come up.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
good good,, Old guys can't play singles si this is a plus
schmke
Legend
I have seen responses from the PNW coordinator and the National coordinator where they insist there was overwhelming sentiment and desire for a change, and "something had to be done". They also assert that while they admit they are getting negative reaction to this change, if they were to change back they would get equal negative reaction to that. So they are asking that we keep an open mind and give it a shot and they (at least PNW) promises to survey players after the 40+ season to see how it went.
I do give PNW credit for trying to address some of the short-comings of the 4-court format, one change being a switch to points per position (see my blog again for a write-up on that, subject "PNW changes 40 & Over to use Points Per Position for standings for 2020"). But my opinion still is that they are only putting a bandaid to make up for what is a bad decision.
I don't doubt that some of what the USTA claims is true. I'm sure there are some teams/captains that have trouble fielding two singles courts in 40+. I also think there are some facilities that either don't have 5 courts and can't accommodate a complete 5-court match at one time slot or just prefer to not have a USTA match use that many courts. I'm sure the combination of these two have voiced their opinion to the USTA for several years and the USTA feels they "have to do something" as a result.
The problem is I think even though these two groups were vocal, they represent a small minority of all players and facilities. As with most any feedback that any organization gets, you get very little from the happy folks saying "I love the current format, please keep doing it", and instead one predominantly gets feedback from those complaining about some aspect of the status quo, and even if the complaints are from a small minority of the population, if it is the only feedback they get they feel they have to do something. This is where properly performed surveys are important to tell you if those complaining represent a majority or not, and while the USTA did a survey, they completely misinterpreted the results to force them to match the conclusion they wanted.
I am not anti-USTA and would not encourage players to boycott just to do so, but I also believe that if players genuinely don't like the new format and don't feel they will get playing time or to play singles and they have an alternate venue to satisfy their tennis bug, the only way the USTA will get the message is if the division that has been growing were to suddenly shrink. Of course, they may still misinterpret these stats to suit some other desired result they want ...
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
You are correct - it is a plurality, not a majority. Words matter to me, so thank you for pointing that out.
As Kevin stated, the USTA has not explained where the missing 10% went in the survey. However, doesn't that make the case even more compelling? In other words, of the people that chose a formatting option, 39 out of 90 chose the 2S/3D format. That's 43% for 2S/3D, 29% for 1S/3D, and 28% for 1S/4D, and a combined 71% that wanted 5 lines of play. If more than 2/3rds of a group want something, isn't that a "super majority" in voting terms? Even without dismissing the 10% of unknown responses, 64% chose 5 lines of play over 4 lines at 26%, and that for sure is a majority.
Anyway, my biggest issue in all of this is the reduction from 5 lines to 4 lines. I'm not happy about losing an opportunity for singles play, but I acknowledge the fact that the 1S/4D format requires 9 players instead of 8, which means more opportunity overall per team match. That's in contrast to the 1S/3D format, which is 7 players and shafts both the over 40 singles players and the 5.0s in 4.5+.
The PNW USTA's answer to this is to propose the elimination the 4.5+ league and seperate out the 40s 4.5 and 5.0. From what I've heard, nobody likes that option either, and I'm wondering where their justification for that proposal even came from. In fact, the PNW experimented with a 40s 5.0 league in 2015, and very few people participated. I know because I captained one of those teams, and we won the local league because at least half of the other teams quit mid-season and defaulted to us. And even though PNW had a Sectionals for it, that was cancelled as well because there were only 2 interested teams and nobody else wanted to travel for it.
SaltyDDDog
New User
Apologies if already posted. I've been following this thread, and received confirmation from the Missouri Valley Adult League Coordinator that our upcoming 40+ Season would also be reduced to 4 total courts. When the official announcement was made last week, the wording was "interesting", and the scoring system/tie breakers was NOT what I expected (different that PNW, for example). Thoughts?
Email text (emphasis added):
Hey guys, it is time to sign up for the 40s League for 2020. There is some great news (at least I think it is) that we will be playing only one court of singles as well as three courts of doubles. Please sign on, or pass this on to anyone who would like to be captain.
TIEBREAK PROCEDURE
3 Individual matches won wins the Match.
If tied 2-2, the tie shall be broken by the first of the
following methods to do so:
A) Sets: Loser of the fewest number of sets
B) Games: Loser of the fewest number of games C) Game Winning Percentage:Total games won
Email text (emphasis added):
Hey guys, it is time to sign up for the 40s League for 2020. There is some great news (at least I think it is) that we will be playing only one court of singles as well as three courts of doubles. Please sign on, or pass this on to anyone who would like to be captain.
TIEBREAK PROCEDURE
3 Individual matches won wins the Match.
If tied 2-2, the tie shall be broken by the first of the
following methods to do so:
A) Sets: Loser of the fewest number of sets
B) Games: Loser of the fewest number of games C) Game Winning Percentage:Total games won
schmke
Legend
That is the "stock" National set of tie-breakers per the 2020 regulations. The problem is that:
- (C) is meaningless, it will never offer any greater differentiation between the teams - If teams are tied on games lost, then they are tied on games won and GWP will both be 50%.
- It is possible, albeit not likely, that matches are still tied after the above tie-breakers are applied. Then what? There is no provision for determining the winner at this point, and TennisLink doesn't have a way to show ties in standings.
I encourage you to ask what happens if a match is still tied after the tie-breakers are applied.
Also, why does your LC think dropping a singles court is great news? Has there been a problem in your area fielding a second court of singles? What area are you in?
I wrote much more on this subject on my blog. Go check it out if you like.
Note, PNW recognized these issues with ties (perhaps because I offered all the details to the section coordinator ...) and that is why they elected to use Points Per Position for 40+ this year.
atatu
Legend
"I just don’t understand why the USTA would make such a stupid, uninformed, and unpopular change like this and refuse to listen to what the players are saying. At the very least, I think the USTA could revert 4.5+ to the original 2 singles and 3 doubles format for 2020, and play the 1S/3D for the other levels if that is where the problem with recruiting singles players is found. It's not like the USTA doesn’t already have different formats for different levels and age groups. "
Yes, exactly !
Yes, exactly !
This seems even worse. Now, you're going to have a league that can't support itself AND put PNW at a huge disadvantage compared to sections that still have 5.0 players on their rosters. The level of incompetence on the USTA side at every point in this change is just staggering.
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
To clarify, the PNW is proceeding with 4.5+ in 2020 with the 1S/3D format like other Sections. To deal with tiebreakers, I understand they are instituting a Points Per Position formula where a #1 doubles win gets 2 points, and all other matches get 1 point, so you'd still have 3-2 scores. They are asking for us to be patient and just try it out, and that there will be a survey at the end of 2020 to provide feedback. However, I don't think this addresses the fact that the 1S/3D format only allows for 7 players per match (less playing opportunity overall), kills singles for many over 40 4.5 and 5.0 players, and because only one 5.0 can play per match in this format, screws those guys. The PNW's answer is that they are proposing to National that in 2021, 4.5+ be eliminated in favor of seperate 4.5 and 5.0 divisions for over 40, with the 1S/3D format. I don't think that is what people want. The 4.5+ format is a lot of fun and was fine the way it was. I don't understand why they are messing with a good thing there, and believe they should just revert to the 2S/3D format for that level, immediately. I don't have any faith that waiting until the end of 2020 to provide feedback in a survey will change anything when the USTA is already willfully misinterpreting the data they have from the previous surveys, and are ignoring the negative responses they are already getting to the new format.
schmke
Legend
To be clear, with Points Per Position there is no win or loss, only accumulation of points. So the 3-2 score simply gives 3 points to that team and 2 points to the other, there is no win tallied, just the satisfaction of a "win" at the time of the match.
In fact, it is possible for a team to "win" every one of their matches 3-2 and not win (or even be second) in their flight.
I'm not sure this distinction has fully set in with all of the players yet.
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
So by making #1 dubs worth 2 points, everyone is going to put their lone 5.0 in dubs sabotaging the 5.0 singles players once more.
J
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
Hmm... it certainly hadn't sunk in with me yet... I'm still confused...
Over the years, I have been the winning player in the deciding match of a 3-2 score to send our team to Sectionals three different times. Those are the most exciting matches I can remember and have been the highlight of League for me as a player. The same goes as a spectator for both the the 3-2 wins our team had at Nationals this year. There's nothing like the drama of it being 2-2, and coming down to a 3rd set tiebreaker for everything. And with this new format, that excitement is gone. (I'm imagining the scenerios now where it's 1-2 and your player just won to tie it at 2-2, and everyone is confused and breaking out their calculators to trying figure out which team actually won the match.)
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
schmke
Legend
Correct. PPP can't be used once you get to an elimination draw, you can only use it for round-robin. Now, un-flighted round-robin is increasing in popularity in playoffs, but many use that to identify the teams to advance to an elimination draw where there must still be a head-to-head winner. And Nationals has not said they will use PPP so even the un-flighted round-robin there as the potential for 2-2 ties.Hmm... it certainly hadn't sunk in with me yet... I'm still confused...
Over the years, I have been the winning player in the deciding match of a 3-2 score to send our team to Sectionals three different times. Those are the most exciting matches I can remember and have been the highlight of League for me as a player. The same goes as a spectator for both the the 3-2 wins our team had at Nationals this year. There's nothing like the drama of it being 2-2, and coming down to a 3rd set tiebreaker for everything. And with this new format, that excitement is gone. (I'm imagining the scenerios now where it's 1-2 and your player just won to tie it at 2-2, and everyone is confused and breaking out their calculators to trying figure out which team actually won the match.)
One could say that should a match be tied at 2-2 and the published tie-breakers not decide a winner, that you then break the tie using whomever won 1D, but I have not heard any inkling that this is what will happen or be documented. I think PNW considered doing this instead of PPP, but TennisLink isn't equipped to determine a winner using this tie-breaker so PPP was the decision.
And yes, this significantly changes the dynamic of watching a match. You are now having to count games and figure out if as the team down 2-1 you need to just win the 4th match or win that second set 6-4 or 7-6, and it makes the strong pair playing on 3D against a weak pair, that finishes first, have to make sure they win 6-0,6-0 rather than 6-1,6-1 lest those games be important for breaking the tie.
PPP is OK, but it should be something like 6-6-5-4, not 1-2-1-1 (until you get to an elimination round at least). Making the D1 court worth twice as much as every other one is too heavyhanded.
OnTheLine
Hall of Fame
I agree ... something like 3-3-2-1 seems more balanced and still gives you the total odd number .... gives equal weight to 1S and 1D ...
I wish all districts would switch to weighted courts as also discourages stacking and less likely at 1S or 1D to suddenly be facing the sacrificial lamb(s). That is a no fun match for anyone.
kylebarendrick
Professional
No, it does matter because those weightings are for where cumulative points determines the final standings, not where it's W or L in a match. The 1 in 3D would give you 1 point in the cumulative standings. For elimination matches where a team W or L is required, then the 1-2-1-1 would be applied (i.e. 1D is the tiebreaker for 2-2 matches). 3-3-2-1 still devalues 3D quite a bit, though, because it is worth 1/2 or less of any other line and only 11% of the total points. In a 6-6-5-4 scheme, 3D is still worth 2/3 of the value of the top courts in a cumulative standing and almost 20% of the total points in the match.
BeyondTheTape
Semi-Pro
Welp...no more Mobile AL for 2020 as it is not a site for any age/rating level for 2020 Nationals. Only a location for Southern Combo Sectionals in 2020. Everyone raise a glass for our unbeloved tennis facility.
Last edited:
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
Welcome, Tupelo MS
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
I have to say I had a fabulous time in Alabama, and the one side was incredibly favorable to my game (non pro shop side.)
But we did luck out with the weather.
Where are you seeing the 2020 sites?
J
I would assume so but by changing the format Southern got screwed even more with a ton of 40+ bumps to 5.0 and 50% less playing opportunities.
Typical National Office with no transparency.
atatu
Legend
You should probably read this thread....
Similar threads
- Poll
