Playing in 2022 leagues with a 2019 rating?

What a time to be alive.

What happens if you play an early start league and then get bumped at year end?

Is it up to each section/region as to how to handle it?

J

Don't know the exact answer .... I think early start leagues make zero sense ..... but I can tell you just how much fun it is to play league in "7.0 Mixed" league against "8.0 Mixed" teams right now.

My little 7.0 40+ team is actually a 7.0 team. We are playing against nothing but players who should have been bumped a year ago. The scorelines reflect it.

J011yroger said:

What a time to be alive.

What happens if you play an early start league and then get bumped at year end?

Is it up to each section/region as to how to handle it?

J

Click to expand...

yes, you keep your rating for 1 more year

Man, I hope they do a mass adjustment. More so to push the lower players back down than anything sandbaggeryish. We went back to 4.0 league and will see how the competition is now.

J011yroger said:

What a time to be alive.

What happens if you play an early start league and then get bumped at year end?

Is it up to each section/region as to how to handle it?

J

Click to expand...

Section dependent. Some (Southern) let you continue to play at your early start level through Sectionals, others (most) require you play at your new year-end level in the new year. Should you make it to Nationals, they do require you play at your new level.

For example, a 4.0 on an ESL 9.0 Mixed team is bumped to 4.5 at year-end. In Southern, they can continue playing on that team as a 4.0 through Sectionals, but should the team make it to Nationals they would play as a 4.5. Most other sections, they'd have to play as a 4.5 within a few weeks of ratings being released, or 1/1/2022 at the latest.

Note, in Southern, the ESL 4.0 bumped up to 4.5 at year-end is subject to NTRP dynamic disqualification in 2022, basically a fail safe if they are way too good for their prior (4.0) level.

All of this in 2.05B(3) in the regulations: https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/2020-pdfs/DRAFT-2021-National-Regulations.pdf. Specifically:

2.05B3(b) Players who are found to have valid computer ratings, after the appeal process, that place them at a higher level at which they are competing may continue their participation at the lower NTRP level through the conclusion of any Early Start League in progress or until such other date or championship level as determined by the Section. They shall not be permitted to advance to any National Championship at the lower NTRP level. Prior team matches played are valid.

My ESL team had 6 guys bumped in December in 2018 and it decimated the team. You would have thought we won Nationals in the previous year, but no: we lost in Districts. Anyway, in our area those players are ineligible after the new ratings come out causing them to miss roughly half the season. The fee to join a higher level team is waived.

players will be bumped up or down in november. I expect alot bumped up or a few down here in indiana

Is the goal to win or to have competitive matches? I was always under the impression that NTRP was to ensure matches were competitive. Are scores reflecting a non-competitive framework in USTA currently?
If so, sections should have adjusted sooner.

Dartagnan64 said:

Is the goal to win or to have competitive matches? I was always under the impression that NTRP was to ensure matches were competitive. Are scores reflecting a non-competitive framework in USTA currently?
If so, sections should have adjusted sooner.

Click to expand...

Sections cannot adjust independently of the national rating. I also believe that sections recognize the problem.

My section did make an adjustment for our fall non-advancing league.
In years prior it was a strict ratings league (and matches do count towards year-end ratings). One could play "up" but every line had to have at least one player at level and singles had to be played by an at level player as well.

They eliminated that rule this year with the following:

After reviewing the current situation concerning many players' NTRP ratings not being in-line with their actual ability, the USTA Nevada has decided to remove the "AT LEVEL REGULATION" for all Fall Adult Leagues (NTA Fall Adult League and NTA Ladies Fall Weekday League). This adjustment is for the 2021 Fall season ONLY and will be revisited in 2022 based on the publication of 2021 year end NTRP ratings in December. Please know that all match results from the NTA Fall Leagues will impact a players year end rating and it is important that the integrity of the system is still adhered to.

OnTheLine said:

Sections cannot adjust independently of the national rating. I also believe that sections recognize the problem.

My section did make an adjustment for our fall non-advancing league.
In years prior it was a strict ratings league (and matches do count towards year-end ratings). One could play "up" but every line had to have at least one player at level and singles had to be played by an at level player as well.

They eliminated that rule this year with the following:

After reviewing the current situation concerning many players' NTRP ratings not being in-line with their actual ability, the USTA Nevada has decided to remove the "AT LEVEL REGULATION" for all Fall Adult Leagues (NTA Fall Adult League and NTA Ladies Fall Weekday League). This adjustment is for the 2021 Fall season ONLY and will be revisited in 2022 based on the publication of 2021 year end NTRP ratings in December. Please know that all match results from the NTA Fall Leagues will impact a players year end rating and it is important that the integrity of the system is still adhered to.

Click to expand...

Fall non advancing leagues counting toward ratings is the dumbest idea on USTA. It's basically giving people a blank check to cheat.

Creighton said:

Fall non advancing leagues counting toward ratings is the dumbest idea on USTA. It's basically giving people a blank check to cheat.

Click to expand...

Could be ... but in ladies' league world ... everyone wants to be bumped UP and no one wants the shame of being bumped down ... at least until the 4.5 level.

I do not think I have seen an actual sandbagger in women's league. I have seen people who self rated too low from time to time, but most self-rate too high. Most years it corrects itself in either a DQ or a bump up/down at EOY.

Creighton said:

Fall non advancing leagues counting toward ratings is the dumbest idea on USTA. It's basically giving people a blank check to cheat.

Click to expand...

But, on the other hand, it gives people more rated matches, hopefully making their rating more accurate, and giving unrated players a chance to check if they're at the right level before they play at an advancing league!

Max G. said:

But, on the other hand, it gives people more rated matches, hopefully making their rating more accurate, and giving unrated players a chance to check if they're at the right level before they play at an advancing league!

Click to expand...

This is correct. Not every section has the same number of players/captains willing to blatantly work the system. Some, by and large, have honest folks just wanting to play tennis, and yes, some even want to improve and have their rating reflect it.

It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Men - Why do women try so hard to play up so that they can lose a lot in a league that is too good for their level?
Women - Why do men try so hard to sandbag and play at a level that is below their actual skill level?

OnTheLine said:

Could be ... but in ladies' league world ... everyone wants to be bumped UP and no one wants the shame of being bumped down ... at least until the 4.5 level.

I do not think I have seen an actual sandbagger in women's league. I have seen people who self rated too low from time to time, but most self-rate too high. Most years it corrects itself in either a DQ or a bump up/down at EOY.

Click to expand...

LOL. We just played a sectional tri level tournament thing and this one team clearly had 3.5 guys playing 3.0 and 4.0 guys playing 3.5, etc.

They straight up said it was because of Covid which is fine I guess. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

On the one hand it is frustrating but on the other hand I rather enjoy playing up than playing down or at my 'level'. I am too busy with work and all the other BS going on that I don't really care about winning or losing in league unless I am playing singles. Just play as well as I can and enjoy the fresh air, being outside and trying to get better.

I feel USTA needs to rid of crossover playing-meaning no playing 3.0 and 3.5 leagues. Pick one!! They need to get rid of this it promotes sandbagging at its worst. Same with 2019 rating!!! Don’t abuse system!!! USTA ratings are a joke. They need to redo this!!! And you wonder why people as well I don’t like the USTA? This is why!!!

NTRP_3.75_Patrick_Rafter said:

LOL. We just played a sectional tri level tournament thing and this one team clearly had 3.5 guys playing 3.0 and 4.0 guys playing 3.5, etc.

They straight up said it was because of Covid which is fine I guess. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

On the one hand it is frustrating but on the other hand I rather enjoy playing up than playing down or at my 'level'. I am too busy with work and all the other BS going on that I don't really care about winning or losing in league unless I am playing singles. Just play as well as I can and enjoy the fresh air, being outside and trying to get better.

Click to expand...

There's going to be some seismic shifts in ratings at the end of the year. Ran into 4.0 self rates who went undefeated at 4.5 regular and undefeated 5.0 line in combo. Also just played a self rate 3.5, early 30's in age, in shape, played division 2 line 1 and 2 singles in college.

PK6 said:

I feel USTA needs to rid of crossover playing-meaning no playing 3.0 and 3.5 leagues. Pick one!! They need to get rid of this it promotes sandbagging at its worst. Same with 2019 rating!!! Don’t abuse system!!! USTA ratings are a joke. They need to redo this!!! And you wonder why people as well I don’t like the USTA? This is why!!!

Click to expand...

Seems like the ratings would be more accurate if everyone played up.

PK6 said:

I feel USTA needs to rid of crossover playing-meaning no playing 3.0 and 3.5 leagues. Pick one!!

Click to expand...

Tough call because basically they are limiting their income. While I am not a fan of allowing players to play up, I have also played up quite often. So as much as I hate playing competitive matches with a large skill differnce, I know I did that a few times myself. Just based on the addtional income the USTA wouldn't touch that, methinks.

PK6 said:

I feel USTA needs to rid of crossover playing-meaning no playing 3.0 and 3.5 leagues. Pick one!! They need to get rid of this it promotes sandbagging at its worst. Same with 2019 rating!!! Don’t abuse system!!! USTA ratings are a joke. They need to redo this!!! And you wonder why people as well I don’t like the USTA? This is why!!!

Click to expand...

How does playing up promote sandbagging?

Moon Shooter said:

How does playing up promote sandbagging?

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking.

Moon Shooter said:

How does playing up promote sandbagging?

Click to expand...

Let's say you were a 3.5 that just got bumped up to 4.0. You enjoy the actual tennis better at 4.0 level, but you also enjoy crushing 3.5s like the cockroaches that they are. With the current system you can appeal, and then have the best of both worlds, since as a 3.5A you can still play on a 4.0 team while pursuing 3.5 Nationals glory. If forced to pick, you'd be forced to pick.

Moon Shooter said:

How does playing up promote sandbagging?

Click to expand...

The larger NTRP spread between a strong rated player and someone playing up will allow you to throw a bunch of games and depress your rating much more than someone at level. So if you are playing at 3.85 dNTRP. The lowest C rated player you could play is 3.51. However you could possibly get a 3.0C at 2.55 dNTRP playing up.

Just like there is a threshold whereby you can appeal down - maybe there should also be a threshold for someone to be eligible to play up.

All the reasons to quit playing

Doan said:

The larger NTRP spread between a strong rated player and someone playing up will allow you to throw a bunch of games and depress your rating much more than someone at level. So if you are playing at 3.85 dNTRP. The lowest C rated player you could play is 3.51. However you could possibly get a 3.0C at 2.55 dNTRP playing up.

Just like there is a threshold whereby you can appeal down - maybe there should also be a threshold for someone to be eligible to play up.

Click to expand...

Ok but in this example the 2.55 3.0 player playing up is helping someone on the opposing team sandbag right? The person playing up - the 3.0 will get a considerable and unjustified ratings increase not decrease. So playing up will have the opposite effect of sandbagging for him right?

Chalkdust said:

Let's say you were a 3.5 that just got bumped up to 4.0. You enjoy the actual tennis better at 4.0 level, but you also enjoy crushing 3.5s like the cockroaches that they are. With the current system you can appeal, and then have the best of both worlds, since as a 3.5A you can still play on a 4.0 team while pursuing 3.5 Nationals glory. If forced to pick, you'd be forced to pick.

Click to expand...

Ok that makes some sense. But it could cut the other way. If you can appeal down then you are barely in the 4.0 category and will likely lose quite a bit at the 4.0 level if Schmke's analysis still holds. This may mean people who are forced to choose will often choose to to stay at the 3.5 level. I suspect your overall game will improve more if you push to play others that are better than you so that would be an additional reason to play up even though you would be losing more often. So it may work as you suggest.

I think it may be easier to be promoted than demoted when the rating gaps are so large. Perhaps there is a point where people let up when they are much better than the other player. So if you are low level 4.0 even if you lose 6-1 6-2 against a very high level 4.0 you should still gain some rating points. And to some extent those are inflated rating points right? Because if you were really seen as a threat the opponent wouldn't "ease up" so to speak. They would continue to chase every ball they could and they wouldn't save energy for the next match. Of course perhaps the loser chooses to let up more often than the winner. But that is the loser's choice. If you simply got in at 4.0 and determined you would just play every game at full intensity you could stay at that level as long as you were even close. I admit this is speculation but do you think it makes sense? It would also explain why UTR is often saying even if you are winning or losing a match easily you should give full effort every game. If people were doing that naturally then I don't think they would need to say that as often.

So if what I say above is true then a borderline 3.5-4.0 player that is playing in 3.5 only can easily shed rating points by giving a few games away to low level 3.5's even as they win matches. But when they play at 4.0 unless they allow themselves to get blown off the court they are going to gain rating points.

Moon Shooter said:

Ok that makes some sense. But it could cut the other way. If you can appeal down then you are barely in the 4.0 category and will likely lose quite a bit at the 4.0 level if Schmke's analysis still holds. This may mean people who are forced to choose will often choose to to stay at the 3.5 level. I suspect your overall game will improve more if you push to play others that are better than you so that would be an additional reason to play up even though you would be losing more often. So it may work as you suggest.

Click to expand...

In my experience, 'A' rated players would be quite competitive at their pre-appeal level. Not dominant or maybe not even average, but not bottom of the barrel either. This is because they are typically on an 'upward trajectory', and so are likely even better than their exact rating (which got them into the next level but still within appeal range) would suggest. I do think many would choose to play at the higher level if they had to pick, because of the better tennis available. The exception is where the higher level puts them in a spot where they have very few actual playing opportunities.

ChaelAZ said:

Tough call because basically they are limiting their income. While I am not a fan of allowing players to play up, I have also played up quite often. So as much as I hate playing competitive matches with a large skill differnce, I know I did that a few times myself. Just based on the addtional income the USTA wouldn't touch that, methinks.

Click to expand...

Beyond the money, many areas need those players to sustain leagues. My metro area is somewhere around 150th in population, and we're down to only a 4.0 league for men that's loaded with 3.5s.

I firmly believe that people playing up provides more benefit to the rating data than any potential skullduggery might generate.