You’re ignoring the amount of work we all put in to have leagues in our area.
They don’t just magically appear from the USTA. We have to generate interest in the players in our area and get them to sign up on teams.I wish you the best in getting others to sign up in your area.
Yes. I played a 4.5 as a 3.5 and it was miserable. It should be obvious that would be more likely to happen in your scenario where you're talking about rating averaging.
You never seem to look at the second and third level effects of your argument. Yes, there isn't an incentive to play 3.01...
You seem unable to understand, what do you do if none of your bad players can play? Then you have all these good players who you can’t average underneath your arbitrary threshold?
You would have to have 20-25 players on a roster under your system to ensure you had enough players to average.
Sure they could, but you just have to accept it would ruin the local leagues which is what the majority of players pay the USTA for each year.
Most of us don't need our rating to 100th point to know if I'm better than Dave who also plays at my club.
But that isn't the purpose of the ratings. You continue to ignore that reality. The ratings exist so when I show up to play a match against someone from another club or town that we are relatively similar.
If you know two people, there is no need for a rating. You'll know how good each player...
I've tried to look it up, but confused about the graduate student situation.
I just started graduate school after a few years out of undergrad. My understanding is that you have 10 semester to play at the D3 level so the gap wouldn't matter. But there may be a difference for graduate students...
How often do you realistically get these matchups within a level? Probably not often. And when they do occur, both players probably know they’re at two extreme ends of the spectrum.
The problem is when I go to districts as a 3.64, and I lose 1,0 to a 3.5. That probably shouldn’t happen.