self rating question
- Thread starter jk175d
- Start date
*sigh* this is actually a serious question. Thanks.
tennis_tater
Semi-Pro
The chart stays that any domestic adults ranked in the top 20 nationally or in a section top 10 must rate at 5.5.
Also, many of the top sectional or national players, at some point in their junior career, play a Futures qualifying event, or some sort of ITF juniors, that may be near their hometown. When the computer asks about player history, if they answer that question honestly, they may get put at the 6.0 level, regardless of the fact that they never played college.
close... 4.5
tennis_tater
Semi-Pro
Was he in the national 150 in Boy's 18? If he's a young kid, there's going to be a lot of stuff on the player on-line if he was a state's #1 and section top 10. 5.0 would be the lowest I would think he could get a away with rating. If he tries to rate at 4.5, once someone files a grievance, he will get DQ'd and then probably double or triple bumped for lying.
floridatennisdude
Hall of Fame
He's a 5.5 that might not get in trouble saying he is a 5.0. A player of that caliber is probably not an NTRP league player. His competition level is more in local-pro leagues (some big cities have these) or Open tournament draws. There just aren't enough players at that level to have an established league.
Then it should be a cut and dry grievance, the questionaire asks what was highest Sectional rank, so there appears to be some questions that need to be brought up, sounds like you have proof of a high ranking, so should be cut and dry and DQ should be forth coming.
These are incorrect. These are the guidelines:
http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/ExperiencedGuidelines_02142011_V2pdf.pdf
This player falls under the category:
Former Junior who had a national or sectional ( foreign or domestic) ranking but did not tour or play in
college
This has a 4.5 minimum for players under 35, so 4.5 is the correct minimum level for this person.
Loose Cannon
Rookie
4.5.....or if he is ambitious.....5.0......but he can expect alot of beatings.....
we are talking about what he USED to be......How good he WAS....., correct?
Since those years of his National ranking.....he more than likely became a binge drinker, got an interest in women....and put tennis on the back burner. I say he should still be able to compete at 4.5.
Gone are the days when we just battle whoever is across from us at the net. We seem to be spending more time doing background checks that the time it takes to play-prepare for these devious sandbaggers. YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME(S)!!!!!!!!
we are talking about what he USED to be......How good he WAS....., correct?
Since those years of his National ranking.....he more than likely became a binge drinker, got an interest in women....and put tennis on the back burner. I say he should still be able to compete at 4.5.
Gone are the days when we just battle whoever is across from us at the net. We seem to be spending more time doing background checks that the time it takes to play-prepare for these devious sandbaggers. YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME(S)!!!!!!!!
tennis_tater
Semi-Pro
Sorry, but you disregarding a portion of the chart. 2 or 3 lines above the section you quote says:
Domestic or foreign Junior 18's ranked in top 150 nationally or Domestic or foreign Adults ranked in the top 20 nationally or in a section in the top 10 who are under a certain age must self-rate as 5.5.
That language is from the guidelines you linked. These provisions were also cited in the grievance decision from my section concerning two players similarly situated to the player referenced by the original poster. If the player answers the questions truthfully, he will be a 5.5. He will then have to try and appeal down to 5.0. No way can he be a 4.5, nor should he.
tennis_tater
Semi-Pro
Most sections have divisions for 5.0 and 5.5. There is also an Open division for Nationals. This player has options for league if he is looking for something more than playing Open tournaments.
The two categories are somewhat contradictory. The second seems to give an out to people who quit training and playing full time after juniors. A person's level could easily slide to 4.5 if they gave up training and playing at a high level for a couple years.
maggmaster
Hall of Fame
Oddly the self rate question, "Did you ever attain a sectional or national ranking foreign or domestic" appears to default you to a minimum of 4.0 which is different than the chart.
Well if you put together your team fairly and honestly and have to deal with obvious sandbaggers it takes some of the fun out of competing for the league championship.
In this case the player in question is only 4 yrs out of high school and opted not to play for the varsity team of the top 10 D-1 school that recruited him. But he maintains his game on the club team.
Yeah that contradiction makes me wonder if there's enough wiggle room for a grievance to be unsuccessful.
I've seen this kid play. he's definately been staying in shape and maintaining his game. 5.5 looked about right to me. I've only played a 5.5 twice in doubles, but this kid looked at least as good.
Depends on age. The "was ranked in juniors but didn't tour or play in college" category falls back to a 4.0 minimum at age 36.
Well, if he's really that high, then hopefully he's just unaware of it and not sandbagging and gets bumped or voluntarily moves up to 5.0 on his own.
this is without doubt a case of his captain bringing him in as a ringer (mid-season I should add) because he needed him to have a chance to win the league. Not really the kid's fault, though maybe he should know better. The captain I'm sure knows exactly what's going on.
Loose Cannon
Rookie
I know, you are right.....
As usual.....I tend to give a worse case scenario to keep things in proper perspective. Its a cruel world
It's still not a conspiracy until the captain tells the kid to tank games/sets/matches to keep his DNTRP low to avoid DQ and he does it. Otherwise, the captain is either only going to use him in tough matches where it might be competitive or is going to let him win big and if he strikes out, he strikes out. Are you the team that this guy is competing with for the league title? As a captain, if I have a guy who I'm worried about DQ, I'd go for the former plan (play him only in tough matches), so unless you're the alpha dog of the league, who usually has several out-of-level players of their own anyway, then you wouldn't have anything to worry about.
yeah, we are the other top team. Though ours are all computer rated players, and we've been playing courts straight up all season, no gaming or managing players. We just have a solid team. This guy in question was added mid season and has only played one doubles match and 2 singles, beating two otherwise dominantly undeafeted players. The captain has played his ringer to perfection, I will give him credit for that. (ringers, plural, actually. He has a two other self-rated mid season pickups, but this one is by far the most egregious of the three)
This is just a part of USTA tennis I know but it still sucks. And I'm sure EVERY league has that one captain who has no hesitation about gaming the system.
If you're the other top team, then you should take it as a sign of respect that they need to bring this guy in to beat you. He can only win one court. Go win the rest.
kylebarendrick
Professional
If you have documentation that he had a top 10 rating in the section, then I'd go ahead and file the self-rate grievance.
If people answer the self-rate questions honestly and play every match to the best of their ability, then I am happy to let the chips fall where they may - even if they really don't belong at that level. But if someone misrepresented their experience when self rating then that is no different than hooking on line calls or any other form of cheating.
If people answer the self-rate questions honestly and play every match to the best of their ability, then I am happy to let the chips fall where they may - even if they really don't belong at that level. But if someone misrepresented their experience when self rating then that is no different than hooking on line calls or any other form of cheating.
At minimum a 4.5 and here is my reasoning for that
1. He WAS a junior player
2. 5 years removed
3. playing club tennis
4. 5.0 and up players are filled with recent COLLEGE players who plays at 5.0 because there are nothing higher for them to play in.
5. Many 4.5 leagues will have 5.0 players playing.
With that being said, 4.5 at a min. and if he is good he will get bumped up. Club tennis is nothing like USTA. 4.5 club players are 3.5 or 4.0 players in USTA leagues. He should try to play in with some of the 4.5 USTA teams and see how he fairs against them. If he is having very little trouble beating them then he should go to 5.0.
1. He WAS a junior player
2. 5 years removed
3. playing club tennis
4. 5.0 and up players are filled with recent COLLEGE players who plays at 5.0 because there are nothing higher for them to play in.
5. Many 4.5 leagues will have 5.0 players playing.
With that being said, 4.5 at a min. and if he is good he will get bumped up. Club tennis is nothing like USTA. 4.5 club players are 3.5 or 4.0 players in USTA leagues. He should try to play in with some of the 4.5 USTA teams and see how he fairs against them. If he is having very little trouble beating them then he should go to 5.0.
kylebarendrick
Professional
Your reasoning is all well and good, but the USTA's guidelines have him at 5.5.
Again, I don't know that's the case for sure. The guidelines are contradictory, and the one is worded like it's intended to give an out to people who were top juniors who stopped training/playing full time. Someone would have to take the self-rating questionnaire and answer Sectional Top 10 and also Never Played in College or Pro and see if it says 4.5 or 5.5 at the end.
tennis_tater
Semi-Pro
I don't really see how the two provisions are contradictory. To begin with, if you are simply a HS player, you have to rate as a 3.0 or 3.5.
If you are simply a HS player who went to a State championship level for your HS team, you have to rate no lower than a 4.0.
Regardless as to what you did in HS, if you played junior USTA tournaments and got a sectional or national ranking, no matter how low you were ranked and no matter what age group you were in when you got the ranking, you have to rate no lower than a 4.5 if you are below a certain age.
Regardless as to what you did in HS, if you played junior USTA tournaments and got a sectional top 10 ranking or national ranking in the top 10, regardless of age group, you cannot rate any lower than a 5.5. This provision does not contradict any of the foregoing provisions. Basically, if you were a blue chip or five star national recruit in 12's, 14's, 16's, or 18's, and somewhere along the way you quit tennis and didn't play thereafter and want to pick up league again, you are a 5.5 per the chart.
Regardless as to what you did in HS, or the fact that you may have had a sectional ranking outside the top 20 + or outside the nationally top 10 + ranking in 12's, 14's, or 16's, (meaning you could self-rate at the 4.5 level), if you played Boy's 18's and had a USTA ranking in the natinonal top 150, you have to rate higher at the 5.5 level as well.
The chart seems pretty easy to me to read.
If you were just a HS kid without extensive junior tennis training for USTA tournaments, you rate between 3.0-4.0 depending on how you did for your HS team in playoffs/State.
If, on the other hand, you were a junior tennis player who played exclusive your State's USTA tennis tournaments and didn't garner a sectional ranking, you would likely be a 4.0
If you had extensive training as a junior and played sectional and/or national tournaments and quit tennis somewhere along the way before the college level, your rating would range between 4.5 - 5.5 depending on your age, your ranking, and your last level of play.
The original poster asked about a kid who played through Boy's 18's and had a top 10 sectional ranking. With a sectional ranking that high, odds are he was also a top 150 national player thereby triggering another provision in the chart. However, whether the second provision is triggered or not is irrelevant. There is a specific provision in the chart which addresses this particular kid and says he is a 5.5 if he in fact had a top 10 sectional ranking. As one of the responding posters said, this grievance would be simple and cut and dry.
Two or three years ago when the chart read different, maybe there would be some wiggle room and there would be some arguments to be made for a lower rating. However, the chart has been changed and the change addresses this kid's self-rating requirement.
Actually, check the link again.
These are the three categories:
1. Domestic or foreign Junior 18's ranked in top 150 nationally
There is no mention of the kid's national junior ranking. If he was in the top 10 in the section, maybe he was top 150 nationally, but this is not FL or TX or CA, where the overwhelming najority of the nationally ranked kids play. The top 150 natiional ranking would have to be verified.
2. Domestic or foreign Adults ranked in the top 20 nationally or in a section in the top 10
The top 10 provision is for Adult sectional rankings. In other words, if you are a top 10 in the USTA Men's Open tournament rankings in your section, then you are a 5.5. This provision is a little ridiculous since tournament rankings are more often based on how many tournaments you played, not how good you are. For example, I played a guy last year who plays tons of tournaments. He has a 4.5C rating and I am a 4.0. I beat him. He ended the year ranked in the top 10 just by playing so many tournaments. Neither of us are anywhere near 5.5. But whatever, this stipulation does not refer to junior rankings. It refers to adult rankings.
3. Former Junior who had a national or sectional ( foreign or domestic) ranking but did not tour or play in college
Unless it can be verified that the kids national ranknig was in the top 150, THIS is the category that will determine the kid's minimum self-rating NTRP. Sorry, but this grievance will fail.
Last edited:
That's kind of what I'm seeing as his way out too. But ironically enough, I've got a girl I've asked to join my 9.0 mixed. We've played and I think she's a legit 4.5 so I don't feel bad about her rating there. but when she tried to self-rate the system told her 5.0 min based on her answers to the questionnaire. He background is remarkably similar to this other kid except she was never ranked quite as high as him. She also did not play in college and is about the same age. So I'm thinking the other kid must not have answered the questions truthfully to even be allowed to self rate 5.0 if she wasn't. She even tried to appeal down and was denied.
Well, I don't know what to tell you about this. 5.0 isn't even a choice with these categories. It's either 5.5 from the national junior guidelines or the adult sectional guidelines or 4.5 from the junior-that-never-played-college guidelines. I'm guessing the 5.0 had to come from one of her other answers.
good point, there is nothing at all on the guidlines that makes 5.0 a possible minimum for a player under 25 except NAIA, DIV 2 or 3 player. Which she is/was not. The only thing to be sure of is the system is flawed.
maggmaster
Hall of Fame
Like I said earlier, somehow my guy got rated 4.0 after answering the juniors question accurately. No idea how that happens.
tennis_tater
Semi-Pro
You are right. I misread the "Adult" part. Doesn't really make sense as the same should apply to a junior. There is a number of former junior players playing in our local league between 18-25 years old, as well as some older guys. There's a huge difference between the ones that were ranked outside the top 75 and those top 20 or so. Those guys outside the top 75 or so I find are pretty much on even footing with the other 4.5's, and to some extent, some of the high level 4.0's. But the two players in our local league who were top 30 in our section as juniors pretty much just destroy everyone in league and beat most of the local 5.0 players who played small college pretty easily. Self-rate chart aside, these former top 20 Southern sectional players who did not play college/quit for a period of time are high 5.0's/5.5 players once they knock the rust off.
Again, all that aside, I'd be surprised if a former number 1 ranked player in a state and former top 10 sectional player didn't play the qualifying round of a "futures" or ITF juniors that was somewhere close to his location at some point in his career. Most top "national" prospects like that do, especially in today's junior circuit. This alone would likely disqualify him from 4.5. Then there is also the top 150 ranking, which is easy to verify on Tennis Link, especially if he is a recent junior. Other than that, looks like he is a possible 4.5, unless there is some glitch in the system with his responses.
What age? The junior-who-never-played-college provision drops to 4.0 at 36.
maggmaster
Hall of Fame
Ah maybe thats what it is. I don't know how old he is, I assumed he was younger than me.
