Men's 3.5 National Champs = self raters??
- Thread starter vizsla
- Start date
lostinamerica
Semi-Pro
I think the 3.0 National Champs had 4 players get bumped 1.0. Maybe the USTA is trying to send a message... What that message is, I don't know. If you win Nationals we will punish your team??
Swissv2
Hall of Fame
If you win Nationals then you should be plenty good to play at a much higher level
Maybe its a message to future sandbaggers.
it's not a message, that's how the computer calculated their results.
I believe it because the 4th place 3.5 team consisted of a bunch of self-raters (that were hidden for most of the year).
I doubt you can win 3.5 Nationals by just getting 4.0 players to play on your team. Maybe you'll make it to sectionals that way.
The 3.5 team we played in the finals of sectionals a few years back ended up having 8 guys get bumped to 4.0 after they went to nationals. They didn't even do all that well at nationals and were a loaded team. I was the only one on my team to move to 4.0 that year and that final was the only loss I had that year. I am 4.5 now after 4 more years of tennis.
I was on the 2006 NorCal 3.5 Men's team that won the nationals. On paper we had a 25 person roster but several guys dropped out over the course of the season. We had 4 self rated payers and the rest were computer rated with a couple of adjusted ratings. After we won the overall title most of our players got bumped up to 4.0 for 2007. We did, however, have several players that participated at the national level and still kept their 3.5 ratings in 2007. I'm assuming that was because they lost their matches during the nationals?. I had always heard that if you actually play a match at the national championships then you got bumped up but that turned out to be bad info. Ben/San Jose Ca.
The reason that players that play Nationals usually get bumped up is because they are usually good players to begin with, otherwise how would the team even make it there without several really good players? There are some players who are mediocre but on a solid team and so they may not do well against a solid player at Nationals and will not get bumped up.
The only significance of being a National benchmark player is that your rating is weighted more heavily by your play in the playoffs and also that it is used as a way to level out the NTRP levels across the country, by comparing all the league players against the benchmark players either directly or indirectly.
lostinamerica
Semi-Pro
Regardless, if a team wins Nationals... they need to be bumped up. On its face it is fair to say that team is the best at that division and needs to try the next division. I understand if some player plays there and is beaten (6-0, 6-0) every match then you might look closer but if a team wins the whole thing that probably did not happen.
A national rating is also visually verified. There are verifiers watching the matches, especially the final four matches, and they determine your rating based on your computer rating from all of your match results and then those ratings get tweaked based on the visual verifications. I'm pretty sure that the full level bumps were largely based on visual verifications in an effort to combat the overall trend in the computer system of excessively low computer ratings.
Isn't getting moved up a reward, not a punishment?
lostinamerica
Semi-Pro
Not when you get moved a full 1.0 when you are not ready. I know a couple of players that went to Nationals and got a 1.0 bump and they could not find a team to play on the next year. Also, they were not ready for a 1.0 bump. When they do play at their new level they are getting beaten pretty bad.
Last edited:
So what? You learn more from losing, then you do from winning....
And they couldnt appeal down even one rating? They must of really clobbered some guys if that was the case. Even if they are getting "beaten badly", I doubt that it's not competitive.
lostinamerica
Semi-Pro
When you play a match at nationals, you cannot appeal your rating.
I guess I do not know your definition of competitive but these players are getting beat 6-0, 6-0 (or similar scores). You do not learn more from a 6-0, 6-0 loss than a 6-4, 7-5 win. Getting your brains beaten is not a learning experience. On the flip side, those players will get moved down at ESR and probably at the end of the year.
This is what someone told me as well. But some people on this board claim there is absolutely no visual verification to determine new ratings after National championship play.
kylebarendrick
Professional
I saw no signs of visual verifiers in my matches at Nationals last year. I believe their presence is either very spotty or simply a myth.
This website offers the clearest description that I have seen of how the national benchmark ratings are calculated.
According to Bob Greene USPTA, USTA Certified Verifier & Chairman of USTA NTRP Computer Sub-Committee:
Annually each Section of the USTA will send up to twenty teams at all levels and genders to USA League National Championship Events. Those teams will play against each other in four flights of four or five teams in each flight. The draw is done at random. One event may be Florida, Texas, New England and Hawaii ... the next Eastern, Southern, ******* and Northern California. Before and during these matches, no less than four of the most experienced NTRP Verifiers from different areas of the country will research the players match result history, multi-year rating history and player profile information. They will then observe the players competing against several different teams over a period of three days. All match results are entered into the NTRP Computer during the events. The Verifiers are observing and are more specifically looking for lopsided match results, disparity of level between doubles partners and player improvement over the course of a season. The players who emerge from their respective flights to the semifinal and final rounds are given "absolute ratings". That rating is a number that is static for the purpose of comparison against other players. These "Benchmark Ratings" are entered into the NTRP Computer and the computer program is run calculating ratings for all of the players who competed at the event. Although the NTRP Computer has an excellent track record of being correct, the National Verifiers makes a few adjustments based on reasons stated above. All of these players are National Benchmarks and their Ratings are deemed not changeable by regulation. These National Benchmark Ratings are entered into the NTRP Computer and will filter down in each respective USTA Section and all players competing in NTRP audited and regulated venues will receive a rating if they played two or more matches. The primary goal and purpose of this methodology is to create and maintain uniformity in ratings on a nationwide basis. No matter what the picture appears to be from the bottom looking up, it is painted from the top down.
I believe that the full 1.0 bumps are made in an effort to keep the system from getting too distorted because of fast-improving players, which makes sense. I started playing tennis a year ago and started the season as a legitimate, strong 3.0. I ended the season as a strong 3.5. I got bumped up a full 1.0 after 3.0 nationals. I am currently getting my *ss handed to me on a regular basis by 4.0 players. It's not fun, but I understand why they bumped the fast-improving players: they don't want us screwing up the whole computer system and making it less fun for everyone else. All in all, I think that the people organizing the rating system do an admirable job with a difficult task.
According to Bob Greene USPTA, USTA Certified Verifier & Chairman of USTA NTRP Computer Sub-Committee:
Annually each Section of the USTA will send up to twenty teams at all levels and genders to USA League National Championship Events. Those teams will play against each other in four flights of four or five teams in each flight. The draw is done at random. One event may be Florida, Texas, New England and Hawaii ... the next Eastern, Southern, ******* and Northern California. Before and during these matches, no less than four of the most experienced NTRP Verifiers from different areas of the country will research the players match result history, multi-year rating history and player profile information. They will then observe the players competing against several different teams over a period of three days. All match results are entered into the NTRP Computer during the events. The Verifiers are observing and are more specifically looking for lopsided match results, disparity of level between doubles partners and player improvement over the course of a season. The players who emerge from their respective flights to the semifinal and final rounds are given "absolute ratings". That rating is a number that is static for the purpose of comparison against other players. These "Benchmark Ratings" are entered into the NTRP Computer and the computer program is run calculating ratings for all of the players who competed at the event. Although the NTRP Computer has an excellent track record of being correct, the National Verifiers makes a few adjustments based on reasons stated above. All of these players are National Benchmarks and their Ratings are deemed not changeable by regulation. These National Benchmark Ratings are entered into the NTRP Computer and will filter down in each respective USTA Section and all players competing in NTRP audited and regulated venues will receive a rating if they played two or more matches. The primary goal and purpose of this methodology is to create and maintain uniformity in ratings on a nationwide basis. No matter what the picture appears to be from the bottom looking up, it is painted from the top down.
I believe that the full 1.0 bumps are made in an effort to keep the system from getting too distorted because of fast-improving players, which makes sense. I started playing tennis a year ago and started the season as a legitimate, strong 3.0. I ended the season as a strong 3.5. I got bumped up a full 1.0 after 3.0 nationals. I am currently getting my *ss handed to me on a regular basis by 4.0 players. It's not fun, but I understand why they bumped the fast-improving players: they don't want us screwing up the whole computer system and making it less fun for everyone else. All in all, I think that the people organizing the rating system do an admirable job with a difficult task.
They are going to see some of those players when they get moved down anyway. In that way it's a learning experience.
I dont care if you are getting beaten 6-0, 6-0, it's always worth something (unless you are just losing 6-0, 6-0 because you figure you will lose and you dont even try), and they went all the way to nationals to get to that point, so they cant be all that upset.
That's kind of what I wanted to hint at. It's either you have something undesireable happen to a very small amount of players (who did get to go to nationals at least), or you screw up the system for the majority of the rest of the players.
kylebarendrick
Professional
I have a feeling that the information from Bob Greene is a few years out of date. He sites in multiple places that verifiers are used at rating clinics and tournaments. I don't believe this is the case. As an example does this:
line up with anyone's recent experience?
http://www.texas.usta.com/usaleaguetennis/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=479787&itype=1014&icategoryid=206
look at how proud Bob Bender is to be a 3.0 chamion! Congratulations!
look at how proud Bob Bender is to be a 3.0 chamion! Congratulations!
lostinamerica
Semi-Pro
Who is Bob Bender.. doesn't somebodyhave to be crowned champion?
I am guessing you know him.
Yea, he captained a 3.0 team that won in 04, winning the final match 5-0. His senior team (which he captained) also won that year. Then, in '05, his 3.5 team finished fourth at nationals. (note: his 3.0 senior team was also fourth this year at nationals). How does he do it??!!!
Oh maybe because...
Berco Neiman, Joseph N. Hevey, Ulrich H. Lorscheider and Wyatt D. Sharp got bumped a whole pint to 4.0 this year from his 3.0 team.
Oh maybe because...
Berco Neiman, Joseph N. Hevey, Ulrich H. Lorscheider and Wyatt D. Sharp got bumped a whole pint to 4.0 this year from his 3.0 team.
Some of the information, e.g. the info about the verifier clinics is definitely out of date, but I believe that the national benchmark calculation portion is still accurate. I've read a similar description on regional USTA pages of how rating are calculated at nationals.
fe6250
Semi-Pro
Was Backboard on this team (He won a 3.0 national championship this year)? If so - who is he? Interesting that he hasn't weighed in on this thread.
Probally because the thread title states that we are talking about the sandbaggers who won 3.5, not the sandbaggers who won 3.0.
fe6250
Semi-Pro
Probally because the thread title states that we are talking about the sandbaggers who won 3.5, not the sandbaggers who won 3.0.
GOOD POINT!
Only by reputation.
Berco looks serious in that picture as well. I think the headband alone is worth a .25 bump
Bob Bender reminds me of the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer's inspiring everyone with how he rises to the top of a dojo, and then when Elaine sees him, she finds out he's sparring against 11 year olds!
I played for Bender in 2007. I can't talk about 2004 or 2005. He captains out of a large public facility with a ton of players. Each year he holds team tryouts for new players. Team tryouts are held at a local college and involve a large number of interested players. Only the best are added to his roster. Players not making the cut are usually picked up by other teams.
Last year he held tough and frequent team practices sometimes with local Pro's helping with strokes & strategy. He also organized a team singles "ladder" and doubles "ladder" with intense challenge matches throughout the year. This forced everyone to compete for their spot on the team.
He always told everyone to play hard and guys never tanked matches. But nearly everyone improved and some improved dramatically. He is very organized and coordinates team activities well. Bottom line _ serious, competitive players love to play for him and want to be on his team. Social players find other teams.
I hope to play on his 3.5 team this year (if I make the cut!)
Last year he held tough and frequent team practices sometimes with local Pro's helping with strokes & strategy. He also organized a team singles "ladder" and doubles "ladder" with intense challenge matches throughout the year. This forced everyone to compete for their spot on the team.
He always told everyone to play hard and guys never tanked matches. But nearly everyone improved and some improved dramatically. He is very organized and coordinates team activities well. Bottom line _ serious, competitive players love to play for him and want to be on his team. Social players find other teams.
I hope to play on his 3.5 team this year (if I make the cut!)
New Kid On the Block
Rookie
Isn't it a bit stupid when the team that wins get three guys bumped up two levels. That is blatently cheating. SoCal should be DQ'd and the team from Intermountain should be the National champions.
fe6250
Semi-Pro
How many of these players are self-rated? If the players are all computer rated players, fine. But to hold a tryout and then rate people is what most teams have to do in order to compete at Nationals on the lower levels. That method is generally considered a common form of sand-bagging for these lower levels of tennis.
I disagree with this. Not that these particular guys weren't purposely playing too low, but I don't think a double bump automatically means someone is cheating. I think USTA made an adjustment this year because there were too many skilled players in the lower levels. From the posts of people on this board across different sections, there seems to be a consensus that alot of people got bumped up this year compared to other years.
Also, I think its possible for someone to improve enough to get a double bump. Lets say someone self-rated in January for winter mix. By Nationals, 10 months will have gone by for them to improve. Someone with athletic ability and/or good instruction could go up by two levels. If someone is computer-rated, then they have even longer to improve before their next year-end rating is generated.
REGARDING SO CAL MENs 3.5
I do not know the team nor any of the players. But checking TennisLink it looks like a lot of teams were competitive with them at Nationals. So CAL beat Inter-Mtn 4 -1 in the finals but only beat Southern 3 - 2 in the semi-finals. In their round robin they beat Nor CAL only 3 - 2 and they beat Hawaii only 3 - 2. That's pretty competitive.
My guess is that Sou CAL put together a strong team and got better as the year went on. They also got some breaks along the way. To call them cheaters is just a cheap shot. It is always easier to criticize the winners than to be successful in your own right. The name callers are largely ignorant individuals who have never been successful in their own right.
NEW KID,
Grow up and get a life of your own. Try to be successful at something yourself. Stop the whining and the name-calling. When another team is successful have the COMMON DECENCY to congratulate them.
fe250,
I'm not sure. I play but I do not captain. I attended one tryout and I think both computer and self-rated players were there. My guess is most were self-rated. I was told the tryout was for level 3.0 players and if I thought I was better than 3.0 the captain said he would help me find another team.
I don't know how he handled ratings nor what discussions took place. But I think most guys were going to self-rate 3.0 anyway. Most guys that did not make the cut ended up on other 3.0 teams. Personally, I had a second team that would have taken me but I wanted to play for this captain. He did get a lot of good players for the team and he made them better as the season progressed.
I don;t think that's sandbagging. I think it is building a strong team and then driving guys hard to improve. Also, I can also tell you I never had so much fun on a tennis team.
fe6250
Semi-Pro
A team full of 3.0 self-raters that win Nationals is going to take some heat. Having played at the state and sectional levels a couple of times, it would be highly unusual for someone to go from a first year self-rate (recognizing that 3.0 is a starter level) to National Championship caliber just on practicing hard. Almost impossible to develop the experience necessary to compete, no matter how hard you might have practiced.
Only you and your team mates will know for sure whether it was sandbagging or not and of course winning is fun. If you had players with prior competitive tennis experience of any kind (high school tennis, other league play, etc...) on your team, then they shouldn't have been on a 3.0 team. If you can honestly say that you held tryouts with guys who had never played other than recreationally and developed the skills and the experience all in one season.. then congratulations. If your team was built otherwise - then is an amateur championship at the lowest level of tennis worth it?
fe6250
Semi-Pro
You really didn't answer the question. How would one know that they had high-end 3.0 players if they were all self-rated? The real question is whether or not they had prior experience before self-rating. If the answer is 'yes' then the case is weak for self-rating as a 3.0.
I played on Backboard's team. Very few of our players had any measurable tennis experience. We had some really good athletes but limited with tennis experience. Both singles players were very good soccer players but relatively new to tennis. One had only played tennis for one year (but he was young and could run). Both could push (and push and push and push) the ball and run alot of balls down. Both have no pace pancake serves (if you would like to call them a serve) but they are both tenacious competitors. Anybody who believes we were a bunch of high level ringers are simply wrong. We were a competitive group but not highly skilled. If you counted every ace the combined team had during the year... you would not have take more than one glove off to count them.
Few of us had any measurable experience and I had not touched a racket in almost 20 years (I wasn't any good when I put it down 20 years ago anyway) but I did have some experience (not anything noteworthy but I had played some when I was young). I dropped 30 pounds (at a doctor's request to lose weight) because I played five times per week. From playing so much, I improved dramatically and most players on our team played at least 4 times per week; as a result the improved too. We played together and really developed a chemistry. Those who think we sandbagged are wrong; most here will not believe that but I am unable to change that perception. Had anyone watched us from beginning to end, they would have seen two distinctly different products. We were a vastly improved product in July from when we started practicing together in the prior October.
At Nationals I can assure you that we were a well liked team. In the finals, everybody not from Puerto Rico was cheering for us. All of our opponents thanked us for being such good sports and how we were one of the few teams that called the lines fair. Our opponents in the finals did not receive such great reviews from their opponents.
I will duck back out now and return to being a lurker.
On a serious note, if what you say is exactly as you have painted it, then that sounds like a good trip.
If anything you should be annoyed at your teammate Backboard.
By constantly posting on the same subject and ragging about some people who called you guys sandbaggers, he's making you look like a bunch of whinny tools who probally are sandbaggers.
Maybe you are not, but that's the impression that it gives us.
(sort of like in football when the cornerback throws his arms up in the air to complain that he didnt commit pass interference when in most cases it means that he did)
And especially when he jumps on the bandwagons of other teams as well that he doesnt even know anything about.
(this thread isnt even about you guys)
It's a useless argument on both sides. Unless you give me a bio on every player on your team, you cant prove that you are not a bunch of sandbaggers. And why would you even care to do that???
And nobody else can necessarily prove you and sandbagging as well unless they know all of you guys, I'll admit that.
So let it go already. You won the National Championship for ~3.05, as much as you want to feel good about that, fame always comes with a price.
(if the price is someone calls you a sandbagger, Im sure you as an adult can live with that, right???)
Feel free to be suspicious (yet another thing I cannot change) but I lurk around here quite a bit but I am not one to post messages. I joined and I posted. It would not allow me to post until I joined. At this point I think I will return to lurking.
goober
Legend
Hah I didn't know one became famous after winning 3.0 nationals. I would have never known or cared about a 3.0 team if it weren't for the repeated threads on how they are not cheating or calling everybody losers and jealous, ect who thinks they are sandbaggers.
fe6250
Semi-Pro
How true that is!
fe6250
Semi-Pro
Just a little. If what you posted is acurate then you guys did it the right way. Despite what Backboard may think - this is not the normal way it gets done (at any level) at Nationals. Congratulations.
