Chael
Even though I disagree with what you say I do strongly agree with your approach to try to think about this objectively and in a systematic way.
The views here are not unique to this forum. It is something lots of people think about USTA throughout the rank and file. Namely that the teams they beat are just upset because they are not as good and the teams they lose too are either cheating or at least not playing in the spirit of the rules.
One thing I am certain of is this. If USTA does not change the rules this animosity toward fellow tennis players that participate in USTA will continue. Because the rules lack objectivity and transparency this will continue.
How do you remove incentive to throw games in any system where losing games will result in a lower rating?
By 1)removing additional incentives to throw games and 2)emphasizing the benefits/status of winning games and improving your rating.
Currently players have 2 reasons to throw games:
1) because they do not want to get bumped next year and have to play on a different league next year.
But self rates and appeal rates have the incentive of number 1 and an additional incentive to throw games. they might throw games
2) Because if they don't they get disqualified. And that means they can't play on any team for the rest of the season. They would be too late to join other teams and they might not be able to participate on their own team. Not only that but they will be letting their team down not only because some areas say all your games played up until then count as forfeits but also because the team may have been counting on you to be able to show up and they may not be able to get a replacement later in the season.
I don't think USTA can do much about 1. But they can completely eliminate 2. By requiring players to play matches in order to get a rating and eliminating appeals. No more DQs.
Also I don't think many players care much about 1. I think most people would be fine with getting bumped next year and if there was no appeal then they would just keep playing and move on. The whole idea that maybe you can appeal your rating down just opens the door to this whole warped mindset.
The incentives to gaining ratings could be enhanced in many ways that we have talked about before. I won't go into it again. But suffice it to say USTA specifically tries to minimize the status of increasing your rating. Women are more inclined to want to gain ratings then men but USTA could do much more to encourage people to try to increase their rating similar to the mindset in UTR.
Your suggestion doesn't change anything if your suggestion is to just let the cheaters cheat.
See above about how it would take away a big incentive to cheat. But here is the most important point:
Not many people are saying Utah or other teams are cheating by literally throwing games. The claim seems to be that they cheated by self rating too low. My proposal removes that issue and has people initially rated based on objective scores against other players. Just like all the other C players. Might they and the other C players be throwing games to keep their rating down? Yes but that applies to c rated players just as much as self rates. But by and large we don't think that happens so very much with c rated players. If a team is full of c rated players then sure they may have thrown games but by and large we shrug and move on. But when it is appeal and self rates then we know they have addititional incentives to throw games and in the case of self rates we know their rating is completely subjective. That is the main problem people are complaining about here.
But here is how most people I think self rate. Ok the form says I am 3.5. So and so is a 4.0 and he could beat me so I think 3.5 makes sense. Now is the 4.0 at the very top of the rating? Do people realize that
"A typical match result for a player, for example, with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of whom are 3.5s, would be 6-0, 6-0 in favor of the higher rated player."
http://assets.usta.com/assets/646/15/FAQ_on_Dynamic_Disqualification.pdf
Creighton do you realize that? Or do you disagree with this statement from USTA about their own rating system? I mean if we knew what players dynamic rating were then we might be able to self rate much better. But USTA hides this information forcing everyone to make a wild guess! And then they kick you off the team if you guess wrong and fail to "manage your rating"!
We mostly agree that someone should self rate themselves higher if they are 100% sure, at the time they self rate, that they are higher rated than the questionnaire minimum. But that is very rare. How sure do you have to be before you appeal up? Do you have to be 99% sure? What if after you self rate and then as you play in leagues and play tennis generally you improve and it then becomes clear you will likely get a bump or might even be DQed? Are you required to tell your team (that is relying on you to show up) that you can't make it anymore because you have become convinced you are now playing at a higher level than what you originally self rated at?
For example I posted some video of a match I played. And yes I played my best in that match. It was just this summer. And
you said I should self rate at a 3.0. I did but now that I am playing I am pretty sure I am a 3.5 and possibly a low 4.0. (although who knows how my area compares to others?)
This whole experience where USTA forces you to make a wild guess when you self rate and then you run the risk of people possibly saying you are a cheater over adult rec tennis sucks. And this will continue into next year as well because this is just a mixed league. I would love to just play some matches get my rating and then play in a league that I belong in based on my actual play.
People say that teams should have to play more matches after someone gives their Self rate and is at risk of being DQed. I just say they should play matches to get their initial rating before the league starts. If the players on UTAH would throw games to keep their rating down then having them play the same 5 teams in their league 2 more times will do nothing. It they will know know which teams are weak. They will win head to head against any team that might be a contender and can soften their play for the weaker teams allowing them to keep their rating even lower.
As far as I've encountered, all USTA events are rating restricted. (Which makes sense, because nobody particularly cares to join an event where you might face either a total beginner or a D1 college player). Except open events, but "Open" is treated as "better than the top restricted rating level" so it's not a good way for anybody to get a rating (unless they're above 4.5)
Tournaments can be seeded and if you lose the first match you play others who lost the first match. This way people will end up playing people who performed about as well as they did for most of the tournament. But they will also likely get a mix where some people are better and some worse.
Never publishing the full dynamic rating means tournaments will never be popular in USTA. One of the big reasons people play in tournaments is to gain ratings/rankings. USTA intentionally minimizes the significance of ratings and says it is just for league purposes. This means many players just see the rating as a barrier preventing them from playing on the team they want and thus leads to this warped view where players want to decrease their rating.
But anyway it could be that if an area has some self rates they would want to have a tournament say 4 times per year so they can get on a rated league. Or USTA could just allow those self rates to play some matches with some people with an established rating until the self rates get an established rating. It doesn't have to be in a tournament.
