2016 USTA Regs eliminate 2.5 men/mixed nationals

kevrol

Hall of Fame
Just went through the 2016 regulations. Looks like very few changes. One thing that seems way overdue is the elimination of 2.5 men and 2.5 mixed at nationals.

Having seen men that are computer rated 2.5 players they should not be advancing to anything.
 

OrangePower

Legend
Just went through the 2016 regulations. Looks like very few changes. One thing that seems way overdue is the elimination of 2.5 men and 2.5 mixed at nationals.

Having seen men that are computer rated 2.5 players they should not be advancing to anything.
More likely that not it's because there's just not a significant enough pool of 2.5 men to make this worthwhile.

In terms of your comment about their level of play, to play devil's advocate one could argue the exact same thing about 3.0 - 5.5 levels also :)
Let's face it, at the rec level none of us are setting the tennis world on fire. We're all at varying degrees of crapiness.
 

kevrol

Hall of Fame
In terms of your comment about their level of play, to play devil's advocate one could argue the exact same thing about 3.0 - 5.5 levels also :)
Let's face it, at the rec level none of us are setting the tennis world on fire. We're all at varying degrees of crapiness.
Completely agree. However if you're a male who has the ability to walk and swing a racket you are a minimum 3.0 player. A true 2.5 male player is lucky if they don't hit every shot over the fence, let alone in the court. Whereas a 3.0 has at least a 50/50 chance of getting the average weak shot back in play.
 
Completely agree. However if you're a male who has the ability to walk and swing a racket you are a minimum 3.0 player. A true 2.5 male player is lucky if they don't hit every shot over the fence, let alone in the court. Whereas a 3.0 has at least a 50/50 chance of getting the average weak shot back in play.
I agree with Orange: if you're playing USTA, you should have a chance at the same post-season play. To do otherwise is to tell someone that they're not good enough so go home. What kind of message does that send? Not a very encouraging one, to my perception.

Taking that reasoning to its logical conclusion, someone can take that attitude with all rec players [ie anyone not making a living off of winning tournaments; in other words, only the top 100 or so players in the world]. There's always someone better than me who can look down at me and say "well, that's not REAL tennis".
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
More likely that not it's because there's just not a significant enough pool of 2.5 men to make this worthwhile.

In terms of your comment about their level of play, to play devil's advocate one could argue the exact same thing about 3.0 - 5.5 levels also :)
Let's face it, at the rec level none of us are setting the tennis world on fire. We're all at varying degrees of crapiness.
I think it probably has to do with the only 2.5s who are good enough for something like that are clearly cheating.

At least at 3.0 you'll likely find others at their level.
 

OrangePower

Legend
Do 2.5 players even know the rules?
Depends on the 2.5 players in question.

I know a 2.5 that knows more about tennis than I do! He is a 2.5 because he is 87 years old, not because he is new to tennis or ignorant of the game. I can only hope that I will also still be able to play at that age, regardless of what level it's at.

On the other hand, I know quite a few 4.5s who don't know the rules :D
 

kylebarendrick

Professional
I've seen quite a few former high school players sign up at 2.5 "because I haven't played in 10 years". They do know the rules - except the part about self-rating fairly. Eliminating nationals at 2.5 might help curb some of that behavior.
 
I've seen quite a few former high school players sign up at 2.5 "because I haven't played in 10 years". They do know the rules - except the part about self-rating fairly. Eliminating nationals at 2.5 might help curb some of that behavior.
I've never even met one 2.5 let alone known "quite a few". Did they sign up at 2.5 because they were thinking about Nationals? If 2.5 Nationals were eliminated, wouldn't the same thing have happened at 3.0 [albeit less frequently due to increased skill level]?

Interesting again how Startzel's comment is about cheating whereas it didn't occur to me. Not saying either argument is correct, just that it's an interesting difference in thought process.
 

esgee48

Legend
Are there even 2.5 teams in NorCal? I do not recall if the team competitions even go that low. 3.0 IIRC is the lowest.
 
Indeed there are 2.5 teams. Not so many for men - maybe a handful. More for women - about 20 or so.
I did some random sampling on tennisleaguestats and there were a lot of regions with no 2.5 players [although that doesn't account for the unrateds]. In the areas that did have 2.5 Men, maybe they averaged 0.5% of the total. Not much of a group with which to hold Nationals.
 
I didn't know there was a 2.5. I looked it up and the Caribbean won 2.5 mens. They have historically dominated low levels. Texas didn't even have a 2.5 team. I would think a section as big as ours would.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
Here are some stats for 2.5s for you.

2014 year-end 2.5C - 11.7K
2015 year-end 2.5C - 12.7K
2015 18+ 2.5 teams - Over 1,300

Sections with fewest 18+ 2.5 teams:
Northern - 4
Hawaii - 7
SoCal - 8

Sections with the most 2.5 teams:
Southern - 545
******* - 133
Intermountain - 130
 

kevrol

Hall of Fame
Here are some stats for 2.5s for you.

2014 year-end 2.5C - 11.7K
2015 year-end 2.5C - 12.7K
2015 18+ 2.5 teams - Over 1,300

Sections with fewest 18+ 2.5 teams:
Northern - 4
Hawaii - 7
SoCal - 8

Sections with the most 2.5 teams:
Southern - 545
******* - 133
Intermountain - 130

Would be interesting to see the # of 2.5 men's teams since that is what they are eliminating. My guess is of those southern teams probably fewer than 60 of them would be men's teams. Seems to me the reason for eliminating them is there are so few men's teams competing there are so few teams that actually advance to nationals it's probably not a great experience for the teams that go.

Looking at the schedule from 2015 2.5 nationals there were 2 flights of 4 teams each for the men with one of those teams being a wildcard team from NorCal. On the women's side there were 17 teams. Mixed 2.5 Nationals had 4 teams. Seems to me lack of participation probably has as much to do with it as the level of tennis. Southern Sectional only had 3 men's teams compete to advance to Nationals (GA, LA and MS) and only LA had to beat more than 1 team to get to sectionals.
 
Last edited:

IA-SteveB

Hall of Fame
No disrespect meant at all, but I don't get why anyone would want to sandbag and try to play in 2.5 nationals. If you really aren't a beginner, what joy is there in saying you are the best beginner in the nation?
 

OrangePower

Legend
No disrespect meant at all, but I don't get why anyone would want to sandbag and try to play in 2.5 nationals. If you really aren't a beginner, what joy is there in saying you are the best beginner in the nation?
Completely agree, but how is that any different from wanting to sandbag at 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, etc... ?
What joy is there in saying you are the best 'not quite a beginner but not really any good either' player in the nation?
Point is, in terms of nationals, 2.5 players are driven by the same motivations as at any other level, whatever those motivations might be.
 
Top