2021 18+ 4.0M USTA League Nationals Predictions

Creighton

Semi-Pro
I've seen plenty of players go from 3.5 to 4.5 in 3 years. That's called improving. LT plays 5 times a week in multiple Flex leagues and improved. No one said he was a 5.0. 3.5 to 4.5 in 3 years is definitely attainable.
I'm sure you've seen plenty of players cheat by self rating 3.5 when they had no business being there. LT's record speaks for itself. He was unbeaten at 3.5 and 4.0 nationals. He was a 4.5 that self rated as a 3.5 and cheated the system.

There is no point in trying to defend it.
 

Ian10s

New User
I'm sure you've seen plenty of players cheat by self rating 3.5 when they had no business being there. LT's record speaks for itself. He was unbeaten at 3.5 and 4.0 nationals. He was a 4.5 that self rated as a 3.5 and cheated the system.

There is no point in trying to defend it.
You're right. No need to defend it. League is over. He is a good player.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Hall of Fame
Sandbagging issues are inevitable in skill-capped competition.

The only solution is to not take it too seriously. The more everyone hypes up nationals (i.e. this thread), the more motivation there will be for some people to game the system by misrepresenting/concealing their skill level and the levels of their teammates.

Or you could be ruthless and make a rule forcing all nationals participants to automatically get bumped up next year. :happydevil:
That's already a rule, I'm pretty sure.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Gonna shoot you straight here. Your condescension is really appreciated: because what it demonstrates is a very systemic problem within the USTA world. Atlanta cheats Georgia - and so I feel no pity for Atlanta when they “get their behinds handed to them” by Utah. We lost two matches in 3rd set breakers mind you - but that Utah team had a literal cake walk through nationals. Sure we pushed their two weakest doubles lines to third sets - but had no shot to win the other lines.

Any basic understanding of competitive play can draw a distinction between that team and any other team at that tournament. It also has absolutely no comparison so Atlanta against the rest of Georgia unless you believe the tennis community in Utah significantly deeper than any other place in the nation. It’s a ridiculous premise. I’m not even upset we lost: it happens, but to pretend that team had any business playing 4.0 is pretty hilarious.

As for the Texas guy who came in to defend your player - I repeated information provided to me. That guy was other worldly. Good for you guys for getting him into a 4.0 league.
Forgive me for being less than sympathetic to your cause.

Obviously Utah team was created via exploring the self-rating loopholes and not doing it honestly. I do not think anyone argues otherwise (I suppose Utah captain would....) But your team seems to be stretching the rules too. You painted yourself as honest players where "all had 3.5 ratings from junior USTA - and we elected to play 4.0, feeling as if our 3.5 ratings were not accurate " - but no one seems to know how a junior player gets USTA ranking. Then you said "I care that one of my players who has played USTA for 25+ years finally gets his shot at nationals gets disqualified after sectionals. " - which is all great and everything but you failed to mention that the player in question has appealed down, then at that appealed level has ungodly 31:5 record including 19:1 in that league you made the Nationals in - so perhaps him then being disqualified is, I do not know, _a proper thing USTA algorithm did_? And since you were concerned that was a possibility it is fairly clear it was known he should have played at a level USTA computer assigned him and not the appealed down one.

And you conclude that "if USTA doesn't address guys like Utah, just know we are all playing for second. " - which is true. Except that if USTA does address Utah team then everyone will be playing for second behind Texas team. And if USTA takes care of Texas then the teams will be playing for second behind Atlanta team. Sure, it can be argued that Utah team is way, way, way stretching the rules, and Texas only way, way, and Atlanta only a bit - but ultimately perhaps they are all on wrong side of fairness?
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
I'm sure you've seen plenty of players cheat by self rating 3.5 when they had no business being there. LT's record speaks for itself. He was unbeaten at 3.5 and 4.0 nationals. He was a 4.5 that self rated as a 3.5 and cheated the system.

There is no point in trying to defend it.
There really is no defense of Jason Freeman. He's by far the biggest cheater in the USTA. The stuff he's done over the years makes this Utah dude look like a saint in comparison.
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
Forgive me for being less than sympathetic to your cause.

Obviously Utah team was created via exploring the self-rating loopholes and not doing it honestly. I do not think anyone argues otherwise (I suppose Utah captain would....) But your team seems to be stretching the rules too. You painted yourself as honest players where "all had 3.5 ratings from junior USTA - and we elected to play 4.0, feeling as if our 3.5 ratings were not accurate " - but no one seems to know how a junior player gets USTA ranking. Then you said "I care that one of my players who has played USTA for 25+ years finally gets his shot at nationals gets disqualified after sectionals. " - which is all great and everything but you failed to mention that the player in question has appealed down, then at that appealed level has ungodly 31:5 record including 19:1 in that league you made the Nationals in - so perhaps him then being disqualified is, I do not know, _a proper thing USTA algorithm did_? And since you were concerned that was a possibility it is fairly clear it was known he should have played at a level USTA computer assigned him and not the appealed down one.

And you conclude that "if USTA doesn't address guys like Utah, just know we are all playing for second. " - which is true. Except that if USTA does address Utah team then everyone will be playing for second behind Texas team. And if USTA takes care of Texas then the teams will be playing for second behind Atlanta team. Sure, it can be argued that Utah team is way, way, way stretching the rules, and Texas only way, way, and Atlanta only a bit - but ultimately perhaps they are all on wrong side of fairness?
I think what he means is that they self-rated noting the level of their junior play and the system gave them a 3.5 minimum self-rating, and they chose to play 4.0 instead.
 

syshy111

New User
If you did any research at all you'd notice that a lot of non playing Captains get bumped as well. Guess you never looked.
neither the UT or Tx captain that were mentioned got
Forgive me for being less than sympathetic to your cause.

Obviously Utah team was created via exploring the self-rating loopholes and not doing it honestly. I do not think anyone argues otherwise (I suppose Utah captain would....) But your team seems to be stretching the rules too. You painted yourself as honest players where "all had 3.5 ratings from junior USTA - and we elected to play 4.0, feeling as if our 3.5 ratings were not accurate " - but no one seems to know how a junior player gets USTA ranking. Then you said "I care that one of my players who has played USTA for 25+ years finally gets his shot at nationals gets disqualified after sectionals. " - which is all great and everything but you failed to mention that the player in question has appealed down, then at that appealed level has ungodly 31:5 record including 19:1 in that league you made the Nationals in - so perhaps him then being disqualified is, I do not know, _a proper thing USTA algorithm did_? And since you were concerned that was a possibility it is fairly clear it was known he should have played at a level USTA computer assigned him and not the appealed down one.

And you conclude that "if USTA doesn't address guys like Utah, just know we are all playing for second. " - which is true. Except that if USTA does address Utah team then everyone will be playing for second behind Texas team. And if USTA takes care of Texas then the teams will be playing for second behind Atlanta team. Sure, it can be argued that Utah team is way, way, way stretching the rules, and Texas only way, way, and Atlanta only a bit - but ultimately perhaps they are all on wrong side of fairness?
Well i am the player discussed that got DQ'd so I will give you some info you might not thought of. So year end 2018 I was bumped to 4.5, after playing 40+ matches at 4.0 and 8.0 mixed going to Sectionals in both. 2019 I played 18+ 4.5 low as well as 40+ 4.5+. going 1 and 9. In any normal year I would have received a 4.0c but 2019 was the great rerating in the Southern Section when 20+% of 4.0s got bumped to 4.5 with very few getting bumped down. So I ended a 4.5c which I auto appealed down to 4.0. Then no ratings in 2020 stretches the period that I could have gotten strikes to almost 2 years. I had a great run as I did improve my strategy and court positioning which helped me to have a great record at 4.0. I don't argue that I am a high end 4.0, I would argue that I am a 4.5 as I have a huge weakness that gets exposed at 4.5 which is a really weak serve. I can get away with it at 4.0 but it gets pounded at 4.5. I know a lot of you guys on here will still say that since I appealed down I got what I deserved. Maybe you are right. I have played USTA enough to know that the chance of me getting DQ'd after sectionals was a real possibility, so when I got the email from the state coordinator I accepted it without much fuss as I knew what is signed up for. Just FYI I had 3 guys from teams I played at Sectionals reach out to me shocked that I got DQ'd because the eye test says I am a 4.0 Say what what you want but don't confuse me with the 18-21 year old that self rated way below their level and played the minimum amount to qualify. As someone pointed out, I played 35+ matches to help my team get to nationals.
 
Last edited:

ACTG

New User
Anyone that has played competitive level tennis at any point in their lives should not be rating as a 3.5. It’s absurd. Nobody legitimately goes from a 3.5 to a 4.5 in two years. It just doesn’t work that way. Can work yourself into pretzels over it and I get the questionnaire can be read a certain way. But saying some guy magically went from a 3.5 to 4.5 in two years through “improvement” is bs. Unless he’s 12 and getting full time coaching.
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
neither the UT or Tx captain that were mentioned got

Well i am the player discussed that got DQ'd so I will give you some info you might not thought of. So year end 2018 I was bumped to 4.5, after playing 40+ matches at 4.0 and 8.0 mixed going to Sectionals in both. 2019 I played 18+ 4.5 low as well as 40+ 4.5+. going 1 and 9. In any normal year I would have received a 4.0c but 2019 was the great rerating in the Southern Section when 20+% of 4.0s got bumped to 4.5 with very few getting bumped down. So I ended a 4.5c which I auto appealed down to 4.0. Then no ratings in 2020 stretches the period that I could have gotten strikes to almost 2 years. I had a great run as I did improve my strategy and court positioning which helped me to have a great record at 4.0. I don't argue that I am a high end 4.0, I would argue that I am a 4.5 as I have a huge weakness that gets exposed at 4.5 which is a really weak serve. I can get away with it at 4.0 but it gets pounded at 4.5. I know a lot of you guys on here will still say that since I appealed down I got what I deserved. Maybe you are right. I have played USTA enough to know that the chance of me getting DQ'd after sectionals was a real possibility, so when I got the email from the state coordinator I accepted it without much fuss as I knew what is signed up for. Just FYI I had 3 guys from teams I played at Sectionals reach out to me shocked that I got DQ'd because the eye test says I am a 4.0 So what what you want but don't confuse me with the 18-21 year old that self rated way below their level and played the minimum amount to qualify. As someone pointed out, I played 35+ matches to help my team get to nationals.
I mean, you did the right thing. The computer let you appeal, so you did. Then you played all of your matches in good faith and didn't manipulate your results, and the computer moved you back up. Congrats on being a 4.5, that's a pretty high level player. You did everything right and should be commended for it. When people use the system like it's supposed to be used, it works. Imagine that!
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
Things I see you cannot control for leagues:
  1. false self-rating.
  2. sandbagging matches to hide or lower rating to make strong teams
  3. Appealing down - so players who would rather continue to dominate and attend nationals over continuing to play and move up in ratings (this is a personal choice though so it is only based on personal value systems)
Things that can be controlled to keep nationals a bit less suspect:
  1. increase required matches to play nationals
  2. get rid of appeals all together
  3. limit SR players per team
Of course things aren't linear, but in my mind this could benefit the integrity of things and fair play more than few folks it might negatively affect.
 

Vox Rationis

Semi-Pro
I've seen plenty of players go from 3.5 to 4.5 in 3 years. That's called improving. LT plays 5 times a week in multiple Flex leagues and improved. No one said he was a 5.0. 3.5 to 4.5 in 3 years is definitely attainable.
While 3.5 to 4.5 in a couple years is legitimate, we all know that captains history and have a hard to believing any out of level player on his team is legitimate. He and the Utah captain are the only teams I don’t give the benefit of the doubt to. They’ve earned that doubt/suspicion over the years.
 

Moon Shooter

Semi-Pro
Chael
Even though I disagree with what you say I do strongly agree with your approach to try to think about this objectively and in a systematic way.

The views here are not unique to this forum. It is something lots of people think about USTA throughout the rank and file. Namely that the teams they beat are just upset because they are not as good and the teams they lose too are either cheating or at least not playing in the spirit of the rules.

One thing I am certain of is this. If USTA does not change the rules this animosity toward fellow tennis players that participate in USTA will continue. Because the rules lack objectivity and transparency this will continue.

How do you remove incentive to throw games in any system where losing games will result in a lower rating?
By 1)removing additional incentives to throw games and 2)emphasizing the benefits/status of winning games and improving your rating.

Currently players have 2 reasons to throw games:

1) because they do not want to get bumped next year and have to play on a different league next year.

But self rates and appeal rates have the incentive of number 1 and an additional incentive to throw games. they might throw games
2) Because if they don't they get disqualified. And that means they can't play on any team for the rest of the season. They would be too late to join other teams and they might not be able to participate on their own team. Not only that but they will be letting their team down not only because some areas say all your games played up until then count as forfeits but also because the team may have been counting on you to be able to show up and they may not be able to get a replacement later in the season.

I don't think USTA can do much about 1. But they can completely eliminate 2. By requiring players to play matches in order to get a rating and eliminating appeals. No more DQs.

Also I don't think many players care much about 1. I think most people would be fine with getting bumped next year and if there was no appeal then they would just keep playing and move on. The whole idea that maybe you can appeal your rating down just opens the door to this whole warped mindset.

The incentives to gaining ratings could be enhanced in many ways that we have talked about before. I won't go into it again. But suffice it to say USTA specifically tries to minimize the status of increasing your rating. Women are more inclined to want to gain ratings then men but USTA could do much more to encourage people to try to increase their rating similar to the mindset in UTR.

Your suggestion doesn't change anything if your suggestion is to just let the cheaters cheat.
See above about how it would take away a big incentive to cheat. But here is the most important point: Not many people are saying Utah or other teams are cheating by literally throwing games. The claim seems to be that they cheated by self rating too low. My proposal removes that issue and has people initially rated based on objective scores against other players. Just like all the other C players. Might they and the other C players be throwing games to keep their rating down? Yes but that applies to c rated players just as much as self rates. But by and large we don't think that happens so very much with c rated players. If a team is full of c rated players then sure they may have thrown games but by and large we shrug and move on. But when it is appeal and self rates then we know they have addititional incentives to throw games and in the case of self rates we know their rating is completely subjective. That is the main problem people are complaining about here.

But here is how most people I think self rate. Ok the form says I am 3.5. So and so is a 4.0 and he could beat me so I think 3.5 makes sense. Now is the 4.0 at the very top of the rating? Do people realize that
"A typical match result for a player, for example, with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of whom are 3.5s, would be 6-0, 6-0 in favor of the higher rated player."
http://assets.usta.com/assets/646/15/FAQ_on_Dynamic_Disqualification.pdf

Creighton do you realize that? Or do you disagree with this statement from USTA about their own rating system? I mean if we knew what players dynamic rating were then we might be able to self rate much better. But USTA hides this information forcing everyone to make a wild guess! And then they kick you off the team if you guess wrong and fail to "manage your rating"!

We mostly agree that someone should self rate themselves higher if they are 100% sure, at the time they self rate, that they are higher rated than the questionnaire minimum. But that is very rare. How sure do you have to be before you appeal up? Do you have to be 99% sure? What if after you self rate and then as you play in leagues and play tennis generally you improve and it then becomes clear you will likely get a bump or might even be DQed? Are you required to tell your team (that is relying on you to show up) that you can't make it anymore because you have become convinced you are now playing at a higher level than what you originally self rated at?

For example I posted some video of a match I played. And yes I played my best in that match. It was just this summer. And you said I should self rate at a 3.0. I did but now that I am playing I am pretty sure I am a 3.5 and possibly a low 4.0. (although who knows how my area compares to others?) This whole experience where USTA forces you to make a wild guess when you self rate and then you run the risk of people possibly saying you are a cheater over adult rec tennis sucks. And this will continue into next year as well because this is just a mixed league. I would love to just play some matches get my rating and then play in a league that I belong in based on my actual play.

People say that teams should have to play more matches after someone gives their Self rate and is at risk of being DQed. I just say they should play matches to get their initial rating before the league starts. If the players on UTAH would throw games to keep their rating down then having them play the same 5 teams in their league 2 more times will do nothing. It they will know know which teams are weak. They will win head to head against any team that might be a contender and can soften their play for the weaker teams allowing them to keep their rating even lower.


As far as I've encountered, all USTA events are rating restricted. (Which makes sense, because nobody particularly cares to join an event where you might face either a total beginner or a D1 college player). Except open events, but "Open" is treated as "better than the top restricted rating level" so it's not a good way for anybody to get a rating (unless they're above 4.5)
Tournaments can be seeded and if you lose the first match you play others who lost the first match. This way people will end up playing people who performed about as well as they did for most of the tournament. But they will also likely get a mix where some people are better and some worse.

Never publishing the full dynamic rating means tournaments will never be popular in USTA. One of the big reasons people play in tournaments is to gain ratings/rankings. USTA intentionally minimizes the significance of ratings and says it is just for league purposes. This means many players just see the rating as a barrier preventing them from playing on the team they want and thus leads to this warped view where players want to decrease their rating.

But anyway it could be that if an area has some self rates they would want to have a tournament say 4 times per year so they can get on a rated league. Or USTA could just allow those self rates to play some matches with some people with an established rating until the self rates get an established rating. It doesn't have to be in a tournament.
 

JOGA87

New User
Forgive me for being less than sympathetic to your cause.

Obviously Utah team was created via exploring the self-rating loopholes and not doing it honestly. I do not think anyone argues otherwise (I suppose Utah captain would....) But your team seems to be stretching the rules too. You painted yourself as honest players where "all had 3.5 ratings from junior USTA - and we elected to play 4.0, feeling as if our 3.5 ratings were not accurate " - but no one seems to know how a junior player gets USTA ranking. Then you said "I care that one of my players who has played USTA for 25+ years finally gets his shot at nationals gets disqualified after sectionals. " - which is all great and everything but you failed to mention that the player in question has appealed down, then at that appealed level has ungodly 31:5 record including 19:1 in that league you made the Nationals in - so perhaps him then being disqualified is, I do not know, _a proper thing USTA algorithm did_? And since you were concerned that was a possibility it is fairly clear it was known he should have played at a level USTA computer assigned him and not the appealed down one.

And you conclude that "if USTA doesn't address guys like Utah, just know we are all playing for second. " - which is true. Except that if USTA does address Utah team then everyone will be playing for second behind Texas team. And if USTA takes care of Texas then the teams will be playing for second behind Atlanta team. Sure, it can be argued that Utah team is way, way, way stretching the rules, and Texas only way, way, and Atlanta only a bit - but ultimately perhaps they are all on wrong side of fairness?
I think the point you’re missing here is - no one is looking for sympathy. The reality of our experience was that we could have easily lost 3 matches at nationals we managed to pull out. Those teams were, in my estimation, equal to us. Based on the results across the board there, it seems most of the teams at the tournament were in the same position. Close losses/wins everywhere. Except for Utah. So your point of eliminating them and then it’s “the next best manipulator” doesn’t really play in my eyes. Because if you run that event again, my team could go 4-0 again in group play, or we could go 1-3. The margins were razor thin - it’s why I tend to believe while everyone there had players who should likely be 4.5c - that’s very clearly what it takes to make it to that tournament. But Utah had a squad of some borderline 5.0 players. They truly were unbeatable.

There’s no doubt you have to have a group of guys that in nearly every other environment run the table and seem under rated: but ask anyone at our sectional tournament. We won by a razors edge. Something like 7 third set breakers. Even if I was motivated to try and run it back with new players, I don’t think we end up on the right side of that more often than not.
 

Moon Shooter

Semi-Pro
I think the point you’re missing here is - no one is looking for sympathy. The reality of our experience was that we could have easily lost 3 matches at nationals we managed to pull out. Those teams were, in my estimation, equal to us. Based on the results across the board there, it seems most of the teams at the tournament were in the same position. Close losses/wins everywhere. Except for Utah. So your point of eliminating them and then it’s “the next best manipulator” doesn’t really play in my eyes. Because if you run that event again, my team could go 4-0 again in group play, or we could go 1-3. The margins were razor thin - it’s why I tend to believe while everyone there had players who should likely be 4.5c - that’s very clearly what it takes to make it to that tournament. But Utah had a squad of some borderline 5.0 players. They truly were unbeatable.

There’s no doubt you have to have a group of guys that in nearly every other environment run the table and seem under rated: but ask anyone at our sectional tournament. We won by a razors edge. Something like 7 third set breakers. Even if I was motivated to try and run it back with new players, I don’t think we end up on the right side of that more often than not.
So everyone in the 4.0 and under nationals had 4.5 players but the team that was by your wild guess higher in the 4.5 level was clearly out of line! No one has any idea how out of line any of these players were except USTA because USTA hides the dynamic ratings information. But one thing is clear - if you want your 4.0 and under team to get to nationals you need 4.5 players. So are we surprised that captains act like they do when giving self rate advice? Do you see why these subjective rules makes the rest of your state think you are not acting in good faith, just like you think Utah is not acting in good faith? Do you see why these subjective rules encourage these negative views of other tennis players? Or do you still think where you push the subjective rules is ok but any further than that and it is unsportsmanlike or "against the spirit of the rule"!

BTW I am not blaming you or making any accusations against any teams. I am just wondering why people are surprised that this sort of negativity happens when the rules are obviously fubar. Will tennis players ever recognize this wont change, unless the rules become objective and transparent? What I find baffling is the USTA ratings lady suggested that people should have public forums to vent complaints against players and teams based on their subjective impressions! Just making the entire system depend even more on subjectivity and encouraging even more public and unseemly vitriol toward opposing teams!
 

Creighton

Semi-Pro
2. By requiring players to play matches in order to get a rating and eliminating appeals. No more DQs.
You talk about how the current system emphasizes cheating, then you post something like this. This would make cheating even more emphasized knowing I can't get in trouble for self rating incorrectly.

You're literally a typing contradiction.
 

JOGA87

New User
So everyone in the 4.0 and under nationals had 4.5 players but the team that was by your wild guess higher in the 4.5 level was clearly out of line! No one has any idea how out of line any of these players were except USTA because USTA hides the dynamic ratings information. But one thing is clear - if you want your 4.0 and under team to get to nationals you need 4.5 players. So are we surprised that captains act like they do when giving self rate advice? Do you see why these subjective rules makes the rest of your state think you are not acting in good faith, just like you think Utah is not acting in good faith? Do you see why these subjective rules encourage these negative views of other tennis players? Or do you still think where you push the subjective rules is ok but any further than that and it is unsportsmanlike or "against the spirit of the rule"!

BTW I am not blaming you or making any accusations against any teams. I am just wondering why people are surprised that this sort of negativity happens when the rules are obviously fubar. Will tennis players ever recognize this wont change, unless the rules become objective and transparent? What I find baffling is the USTA ratings lady suggested that people should have public forums to vent complaints against players and teams based on their subjective impressions! Just making the entire system depend even more on subjectivity and encouraging even more public and unseemly vitriol toward opposing teams!
Everyone at Nationals had players who will be disqualified. Everyone at Nationals had teams that destroyed their city and state tournaments. If you think team Macon goes to sectionals/nationals and isn't largely humiliated by every other state/section, you've got another thing coming. There is more nuance to this than you're willing to concede, and while you're not directly blaming me, the tone you've taken here is representative of why USTA leagues are far more hostile/negative than ALTA and the like. You again are deliberately misinterpreting what I have said for your own diatribes rather than recognize I'm not angry at anyone here. There isn't an ounce of hostility on my end - I loved our experience. The kids from Utah were DELIGHTFUL - exceptional sports. The two I played recognized that myself and my partner could give them trouble if they didn't focus, and they treated every point like they should have. My team as a whole came away from the loss with nothing but superlatives for the kids - the issue is not the players, the issue is the captain. Fowkes helps fill out rating forms for these kids, supervising them, coaching them on how to beat the system for his own enjoyment. But for him, these kids are not playing 4.0 USTA leagues, I know this first hand because my high school players are largely disinterested; to them it is old man rec tennis. That, is the difference between him and everyone else. I may even have had guys who were not 100% transparent on their self rates (even though I don't think my roster had a single one at nationals) but I let them go be adults and fill it out themselves. And to that end I've had players attempt to join us that fill out their self rates, and be 4.5 - they didn't play for us and I helped them find a 4.5 team. That is how it should work: I don't feel like that behavior is pat on the back worthy, it should be the standard. It should also be noted there was chirping all over the grounds about these kids early in the tournament - enough so that their parents took issue with a few of the other teams players stating that their kids worked hard to get here and they were tired of hearing that they were unfairly rated.

The beauty of the system when done correctly is, you won't have to deal with us at 4.0 anymore. We are playing 4.5 this Winter, despite many of us retaining a 4.0 rating. We did our thing, we had our fun, it is someone elses turn now. I know our team never deliberately threw matches, we played things straight up - hell, it is why one of mine was DQ after sectionals. I do know one team from Atlanta did deliberately throw matches at state once they were knocked out of finals contention. That is where the issues hide: those sort of clear tanks should be monitored by USTA. They too had their shot at State, and should be with us at 4.5 this next season. The system isn't flawed because it rewards people who tank, it is flawed because it can be manipulated at all: and can punish those who play within the letter of the law, but find ways to win. I candidly don't really care what the rest of Georgia thinks of our team or any team from Atlanta: I was genuinely shocked how easy state was for us, when we had to fight tooth and nail to win our City championship. But that is more representative again, of how deep Atlanta is, and how many players exist within certain levels. Having Columbus or Macon or Athens consistently dominate our state would be far more red flag worthy. I think if USTA wants to kick some of the BS out of these leagues, they should do a better job monitoring matches at State/Sectional/National events. A scorecard can be very disingenuous, but the eye test is pretty telling. If you think my guys that played team Macon were rough on you guys, you should've seen the two kids we played in the finals: they're another type of monster entirely.
 

Anonuncle

New User
It’s obvious Moon Shooter has got it all figured out. He probably has 3 natties behind his computer, idk what you’re talking about Creighton lol.

Until the end of time, this will always be an issue. USTA isn’t going to come with a solution that satisfies everyone. People are always going to be looking for a competitive advantage regardless the situation and level of play.

All I want is that USTA address the blatant and obvious players that are head and shoulders above everyone else at a National tournament. Eyes don’t lie and they should empower the employees running the tourney to step in. Instead of saying oh it’s out of our hands bc nothing happened locally for them to get here but we agree they shouldn’t be in this level. (We don’t know how much tennis would be taken away from them for them to report another team. This may be the only tennis center in Utah for all I know.) Looking at records is kind of silly but really the only metric to rate players without actually seeing players play.

Syshy has a great attitude and based upon comments it seems like anyone watching him play would think he’s fairly rated as a 4.0. He acknowledged he worked on the inner game and that allowed him to succeed even greater. Probably bc most 4.0 players aren’t thinking about those same things. Why should he then be punished for smart strategy and have to play players far more skilled than him? But hey go get your ass beat at 4.5 and you can come right back. Don’t you dare appeal though because us as tennis community don’t think it’s right as it diminishes our chances of winning.

Competitive tennis is the goal and I think it was successful with the exception of one outlier. (The team that had a dress code)

TLDR: Utah is the worst. Moon Shooter for USTA commish
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
It’s obvious Moon Shooter has got it all figured out. He probably has 3 natties behind his computer, idk what you’re talking about Creighton lol.

Until the end of time, this will always be an issue. USTA isn’t going to come with a solution that satisfies everyone. People are always going to be looking for a competitive advantage regardless the situation and level of play.

All I want is that USTA address the blatant and obvious players that are head and shoulders above everyone else at a National tournament. Eyes don’t lie and they should empower the employees running the tourney to step in. Instead of saying oh it’s out of our hands bc nothing happened locally for them to get here but we agree they shouldn’t be in this level. (We don’t know how much tennis would be taken away from them for them to report another team. This may be the only tennis center in Utah for all I know.) Looking at records is kind of silly but really the only metric to rate players without actually seeing players play.

Syshy has a great attitude and based upon comments it seems like anyone watching him play would think he’s fairly rated as a 4.0. He acknowledged he worked on the inner game and that allowed him to succeed even greater. Probably bc most 4.0 players aren’t thinking about those same things. Why should he then be punished for smart strategy and have to play players far more skilled than him? But hey go get your ass beat at 4.5 and you can come right back. Don’t you dare appeal though because us as tennis community don’t think it’s right as it diminishes our chances of winning.

Competitive tennis is the goal and I think it was successful with the exception of one outlier. (The team that had a dress code)

TLDR: Utah is the worst. Moon Shooter for USTA commish
Moonie's problem is that he thinks the 153rd time he regurgitates the same wall of text, surely this time will make him right.
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Hall of Fame
Everyone at Nationals had players who will be disqualified. Everyone at Nationals had teams that destroyed their city and state tournaments. If you think team Macon goes to sectionals/nationals and isn't largely humiliated by every other state/section, you've got another thing coming. There is more nuance to this than you're willing to concede, and while you're not directly blaming me, the tone you've taken here is representative of why USTA leagues are far more hostile/negative than ALTA and the like. You again are deliberately misinterpreting what I have said for your own diatribes rather than recognize I'm not angry at anyone here. There isn't an ounce of hostility on my end - I loved our experience. The kids from Utah were DELIGHTFUL - exceptional sports. The two I played recognized that myself and my partner could give them trouble if they didn't focus, and they treated every point like they should have. My team as a whole came away from the loss with nothing but superlatives for the kids - the issue is not the players, the issue is the captain. Fowkes helps fill out rating forms for these kids, supervising them, coaching them on how to beat the system for his own enjoyment. But for him, these kids are not playing 4.0 USTA leagues, I know this first hand because my high school players are largely disinterested; to them it is old man rec tennis. That, is the difference between him and everyone else. I may even have had guys who were not 100% transparent on their self rates (even though I don't think my roster had a single one at nationals) but I let them go be adults and fill it out themselves. And to that end I've had players attempt to join us that fill out their self rates, and be 4.5 - they didn't play for us and I helped them find a 4.5 team. That is how it should work: I don't feel like that behavior is pat on the back worthy, it should be the standard. It should also be noted there was chirping all over the grounds about these kids early in the tournament - enough so that their parents took issue with a few of the other teams players stating that their kids worked hard to get here and they were tired of hearing that they were unfairly rated.

The beauty of the system when done correctly is, you won't have to deal with us at 4.0 anymore. We are playing 4.5 this Winter, despite many of us retaining a 4.0 rating. We did our thing, we had our fun, it is someone elses turn now. I know our team never deliberately threw matches, we played things straight up - hell, it is why one of mine was DQ after sectionals. I do know one team from Atlanta did deliberately throw matches at state once they were knocked out of finals contention. That is where the issues hide: those sort of clear tanks should be monitored by USTA. They too had their shot at State, and should be with us at 4.5 this next season. The system isn't flawed because it rewards people who tank, it is flawed because it can be manipulated at all: and can punish those who play within the letter of the law, but find ways to win. I candidly don't really care what the rest of Georgia thinks of our team or any team from Atlanta: I was genuinely shocked how easy state was for us, when we had to fight tooth and nail to win our City championship. But that is more representative again, of how deep Atlanta is, and how many players exist within certain levels. Having Columbus or Macon or Athens consistently dominate our state would be far more red flag worthy. I think if USTA wants to kick some of the BS out of these leagues, they should do a better job monitoring matches at State/Sectional/National events. A scorecard can be very disingenuous, but the eye test is pretty telling. If you think my guys that played team Macon were rough on you guys, you should've seen the two kids we played in the finals: they're another type of monster entirely.
Just so you now, and this doesn't diminish Moon SHooter's ideas, but he doesn't or hasn't ever played USTA, he posted that somewhere else. Just so you know he isn't representative of even a USTA participant. Not an attack on Shooter, just thought you would like to know.

Also, don't discount the different world that BYU and Utah is, fantastic university and place to live, but I bet some of the 'high schoolers" or BYU guys Fowkes recruits are already married and settled down. It's a different world than most "kids".

It's awesome even you're 4.0s are going to play up at 4.5, that's the way it should be, kudos to your group.
 

Brian11785

Hall of Fame
I've personally concluded is that the best course of action for me is to stay away from the USTA leagues and let the weekend warriors have their glory. Let the fifth graders revel in their ability to win first grade spelling bees and complain when another captain brings seventh graders to Nationals.

I admit it's a personality flaw of mine that my sense of fairness and sportsmanship is upset and I get worked up about this stuff more than I should when it hasn't really impacted me personally for years. The few times I've played in the past couple years was when socially pressured to do so and by captain acquaintances desperate for players in general, not captains making playoff runs.

My cynicism comes from my very first foray into USTA many years ago and involved a midseason "tryout" for a 3.5 team captained by what I found out later was a Nationals regular. He told me I wasn't good enough to be on his 3.5 team but he was building a 3.0 team to take to Nationals (which he subsequently did win that next year.) I ended up turning down his offer to sandbag at 3.0 and eventually joined another team across town that needed players. We ended up getting a wild card to Sectionals and a lot of the guys couldn't play, leading to me getting to play four matches and winning two of them. So good enough to win matches at Sectionals but not good enough to even be on this guy's 3.5 team.
 

CosmosMpower

Hall of Fame
Usta what a joke. You let D1 college players play in nationals ‍♂ Come on. Also great job on the shirts. Paper thin and bad colors. I’m still giving big credit to that Northern men’s team. Way to go guys. Oldest team hung in there with the kids.
LOL D1 again? Geez was this Intermountain or Noho?
 

Moon Shooter

Semi-Pro
You talk about how the current system emphasizes cheating, then you post something like this. This would make cheating even more emphasized knowing I can't get in trouble for self rating incorrectly.

You're literally a typing contradiction.
You wouldn't "self rate" at all anymore. Just like you don't "self rate" in UTR or chess or any other rating system I know of. You would report your match scores and USTA would give you a rating just like computer rated players. You could still fill out a form to give you a floor but the actual rating would be based on your match play.

Doing this and eliminating appeals and therefore DQ's entirely would also eliminate another reason people might throw games or "manipulate" their rating down.

And I said because the system lacks objectivity and transparency this fuels the natural inclination to think those that beat us somehow played unfairly.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
I think what he means is that they self-rated noting the level of their junior play and the system gave them a 3.5 minimum self-rating, and they chose to play 4.0 instead.
That's not what he said. He stated:
"
As for our ratings, for whatever reason a few of us had attached computer ratings and did not need to fill out the questionnaire despite having not played any adult USTA leagues. I suspected that was carry over from junior leagues.
"
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
neither the UT or Tx captain that were mentioned got

Well i am the player discussed that got DQ'd so I will give you some info you might not thought of. So year end 2018 I was bumped to 4.5, after playing 40+ matches at 4.0 and 8.0 mixed going to Sectionals in both. 2019 I played 18+ 4.5 low as well as 40+ 4.5+. going 1 and 9. In any normal year I would have received a 4.0c but 2019 was the great rerating in the Southern Section when 20+% of 4.0s got bumped to 4.5 with very few getting bumped down. So I ended a 4.5c which I auto appealed down to 4.0. Then no ratings in 2020 stretches the period that I could have gotten strikes to almost 2 years. I had a great run as I did improve my strategy and court positioning which helped me to have a great record at 4.0. I don't argue that I am a high end 4.0, I would argue that I am a 4.5 as I have a huge weakness that gets exposed at 4.5 which is a really weak serve. I can get away with it at 4.0 but it gets pounded at 4.5. I know a lot of you guys on here will still say that since I appealed down I got what I deserved. Maybe you are right. I have played USTA enough to know that the chance of me getting DQ'd after sectionals was a real possibility, so when I got the email from the state coordinator I accepted it without much fuss as I knew what is signed up for. Just FYI I had 3 guys from teams I played at Sectionals reach out to me shocked that I got DQ'd because the eye test says I am a 4.0 Say what what you want but don't confuse me with the 18-21 year old that self rated way below their level and played the minimum amount to qualify. As someone pointed out, I played 35+ matches to help my team get to nationals.
Kudos for coming here and providing additional details.
That being said nothing you stated changes my view. You ended as 4.5 at the end of 2019. That was your correct ranking based on the results. It does not look like you had an injury/significant event - you appealed solely based on your expectation that you will be lower range 4.5. That talk about having weakness that gets exploited at 4.5 - sure, everyone has a weakness. @GSG plays at 4.5 in Atlanta with almost no serve whatsoever. Let's be clear here - you appealed to play at 4.0 because you may not be winning as much at 4.5. You then continued to play at 4.0 for _two more years_; 2020 and 2021, surely improving. If you had doubts about whether you belong in 4.5 at the start of 2020 you surely knew you were at 4.5 at the start of 2021. But you continued to play at 4.0 because USTA technically allowed you to do so since no rankings were updated at the end of 2020. I'm not confusing you with "8-21 year old that self rated way below their level". But you, and your captain, also exploited a loophole. Sorry.

Disclaimer. I know _none_ of the teams and players mentioned here. I do not even play on USTA team. I'm just a casual third party observer.
 

Creighton

Semi-Pro
You wouldn't "self rate" at all anymore. Just like you don't "self rate" in UTR or chess or any other rating system I know of. You would report your match scores and USTA would give you a rating just like computer rated players. You could still fill out a form to give you a floor but the actual rating would be based on your match play.

Doing this and eliminating appeals and therefore DQ's entirely would also eliminate another reason people might throw games or "manipulate" their rating down.

And I said because the system lacks objectivity and transparency this fuels the natural inclination to think those that beat us somehow played unfairly.
How would you determine which players to play in these initial matches?
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Everyone at Nationals had players who will be disqualified. Everyone at Nationals had teams that destroyed their city and state tournaments. If you think team Macon goes to sectionals/nationals and isn't largely humiliated by every other state/section, you've got another thing coming. There is more nuance to this than you're willing to concede, and while you're not directly blaming me, the tone you've taken here is representative of why USTA leagues are far more hostile/negative than ALTA and the like. You again are deliberately misinterpreting what I have said for your own diatribes rather than recognize I'm not angry at anyone here. There isn't an ounce of hostility on my end - I loved our experience. The kids from Utah were DELIGHTFUL - exceptional sports. The two I played recognized that myself and my partner could give them trouble if they didn't focus, and they treated every point like they should have. My team as a whole came away from the loss with nothing but superlatives for the kids - the issue is not the players, the issue is the captain. Fowkes helps fill out rating forms for these kids, supervising them, coaching them on how to beat the system for his own enjoyment. But for him, these kids are not playing 4.0 USTA leagues, I know this first hand because my high school players are largely disinterested; to them it is old man rec tennis. That, is the difference between him and everyone else. I may even have had guys who were not 100% transparent on their self rates (even though I don't think my roster had a single one at nationals) but I let them go be adults and fill it out themselves. And to that end I've had players attempt to join us that fill out their self rates, and be 4.5 - they didn't play for us and I helped them find a 4.5 team. That is how it should work: I don't feel like that behavior is pat on the back worthy, it should be the standard. It should also be noted there was chirping all over the grounds about these kids early in the tournament - enough so that their parents took issue with a few of the other teams players stating that their kids worked hard to get here and they were tired of hearing that they were unfairly rated.

The beauty of the system when done correctly is, you won't have to deal with us at 4.0 anymore. We are playing 4.5 this Winter, despite many of us retaining a 4.0 rating. We did our thing, we had our fun, it is someone elses turn now. I know our team never deliberately threw matches, we played things straight up - hell, it is why one of mine was DQ after sectionals. I do know one team from Atlanta did deliberately throw matches at state once they were knocked out of finals contention. That is where the issues hide: those sort of clear tanks should be monitored by USTA. They too had their shot at State, and should be with us at 4.5 this next season. The system isn't flawed because it rewards people who tank, it is flawed because it can be manipulated at all: and can punish those who play within the letter of the law, but find ways to win. I candidly don't really care what the rest of Georgia thinks of our team or any team from Atlanta: I was genuinely shocked how easy state was for us, when we had to fight tooth and nail to win our City championship. But that is more representative again, of how deep Atlanta is, and how many players exist within certain levels. Having Columbus or Macon or Athens consistently dominate our state would be far more red flag worthy. I think if USTA wants to kick some of the BS out of these leagues, they should do a better job monitoring matches at State/Sectional/National events. A scorecard can be very disingenuous, but the eye test is pretty telling. If you think my guys that played team Macon were rough on you guys, you should've seen the two kids we played in the finals: they're another type of monster entirely.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention at all.

All I'm saying is that to the casual third party observer that was not involved in any of these matches, and has exactly zero preference as to who won, the handling of players/appeals/ranking on your team can _also_ be seen as being less than 100% within the spirit of the system. Is it as bad as Utah or Texas team - no. Can one see why other teams may look at a player that continues to play at 4.0 (and frankly dominate) due to appealing down and ranking not being updated at 2020 year end as stretching the rules - yes.

Could you please elaborate on where I 'deliberately misinterpreted' what you have stated?
 
Last edited:

Moon Shooter

Semi-Pro
Just so you now, and this doesn't diminish Moon SHooter's ideas, but he doesn't or hasn't ever played USTA, he posted that somewhere else. Just so you know he isn't representative of even a USTA participant. Not an attack on Shooter, just thought you would like to know.

Also, don't discount the different world that BYU and Utah is, fantastic university and place to live, but I bet some of the 'high schoolers" or BYU guys Fowkes recruits are already married and settled down. It's a different world than most "kids".

It's awesome even you're 4.0s are going to play up at 4.5, that's the way it should be, kudos to your group.
I finally got on a league and played a few matches this month. But I certainly do not speak for USTA.

After playing a few matches it is even more clear that the problems are due to a lack of objectivity and transparency in the rules.

Everyone at Nationals had players who will be disqualified. Everyone at Nationals had teams that destroyed their city and state tournaments. If you think team Macon goes to sectionals/nationals and isn't largely humiliated by every other state/section, you've got another thing coming. There is more nuance to this than you're willing to concede, and while you're not directly blaming me, the tone you've taken here is representative of why USTA leagues are far more hostile/negative than ALTA and the like.
My attitude is just that of an observer. I see captains blaming captains that beat them of being unfair or against the spirit of the rules. But when the teams they beat make that claim against them they say they are just angry that they lost etc.


I'm not angry at anyone here. There isn't an ounce of hostility on my end - I loved our experience..... the issue is the captain. Fowkes helps fill out rating forms for these kids, supervising them, coaching them on how to beat the system for his own enjoyment.
What coaching is he giving on how to beat the system? And what is the source?

But for him, these kids are not playing 4.0 USTA leagues, I know this first hand because my high school players are largely disinterested; to them it is old man rec tennis. That, is the difference between him and everyone else. I may even have had guys who were not 100% transparent on their self rates (even though I don't think my roster had a single one at nationals) but I let them go be adults and fill it out themselves.
What do you mean by not 100% transparent? The questions are mostly yes or no. One question was difficult because it asked "which best describes you?" and all the answers clearly did not describe me. But as I recall they are not essay questions.

The beauty of the system when done correctly is, you won't have to deal with us at 4.0 anymore. We are playing 4.5 this Winter, despite many of us retaining a 4.0 rating. We did our thing, we had our fun, it is someone elses turn now.
That's nice of you guys.

I know our team never deliberately threw matches, we played things straight up - hell, it is why one of mine was DQ after sectionals. I do know one team from Atlanta did deliberately throw matches at state once they were knocked out of finals contention. That is where the issues hide: those sort of clear tanks should be monitored by USTA. They too had their shot at State, and should be with us at 4.5 this next season.
Do you think everyone on that team that lost state should be 4.5? What basis do you think USTA should use to determine if someone is "clearly" tanking games?

USTA has said they don't think they can do that just by watching a match. Do you think you could watch a match and publicly call someone a cheater just based on what you saw? Are you willing to call anyone out by name and reference a specific match that you saw at state? Do you see why making the general claim "some teams were throwing matches at state" is different than publicly making the allegation against an individual person that they in fact threw games in a particular match which would possibly lead to slander claims?

My own view is that USTA should publish the dynamic ratings throughout the year. So people can see that after a team is eliminated they are suddenly turning in performance ratings that are well below what they were in tight matches when they were in the running. They might also see that some teams consistently perform better when they are playing strong competition but somehow manage to lose many more games then expected when it is a lower rated team they would typically beat 6-0 6-0.

The system isn't flawed because it rewards people who tank, it is flawed because it can be manipulated at all: and can punish those who play within the letter of the law, but find ways to win.
I honestly do not know what you are saying here. Are you saying you played within the letter of the law and were punished but found a way to win? Or are you saying that of Utah? Do you have reason to think Utah played outside the letter of the law - that is they violated a rule? If so what rule?

Personally, I think the system is flawed because it lacks objective rules and transparency. If USTA said that they were no longer going to have self rates and that anyone on a team would have to play some matches against people with an established rating, so they would get a rating for themselves before they could play in a league, would that be a problem for you? If USTA said they would no longer allow appeal downs would that be an issue for you?

I candidly don't really care what the rest of Georgia thinks of our team or any team from Atlanta: I was genuinely shocked how easy state was for us, when we had to fight tooth and nail to win our City championship. But that is more representative again, of how deep Atlanta is, and how many players exist within certain levels. Having Columbus or Macon or Athens consistently dominate our state would be far more red flag worthy. I think if USTA wants to kick some of the BS out of these leagues, they should do a better job monitoring matches at State/Sectional/National events. A scorecard can be very disingenuous, but the eye test is pretty telling. If you think my guys that played team Macon were rough on you guys, you should've seen the two kids we played in the finals: they're another type of monster entirely.
I didn't see anything regarding the Georgia state championship. You may have thought so because it seems like the same sort of complaints are everywhere.
 

Moon Shooter

Semi-Pro
How would you determine which players to play in these initial matches?
USTA could take a few different approaches. I think schmke might have a better idea of how many games and of what type of game would be best to sort this out.

But I would think the best scenario would be for the person to play a range of players. I mean if you have a woman beat the same 2.5 player 6-0 6-0 three times that will not be all that informative. The new player could be a 7.0 or a low 3.0. (possibly even a 2.5 if the 2.5 she played was a very low 2.5.) Just off the cuff it would probably be good to play at least two people in singles at the level you hope to play and one singles at the level above. I would prefer some singles games, but if it was solely with doubles they might play 5 matches but each match the new player would have a different partner and throw the lowest performance rating out (or diminish its relevance) - just in case one partner was trying to throw the ratings down.


I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention at all.

All I'm saying is that to the casual third party observer that was not involved in any of these matches, and has exactly zero preference as to who won, the handling of players/appeals/ranking on your team can _also_ be seen as being less than 100% within the spirit of the system. Is it as bad as Utah or Texas team - no. Can one see why other teams may look at a player that continues to play at 4.0 (and frankly dominate) due to appealing down and ranking not being updated at 2020 year end as stretching the rules - yes.

Could you please elaborate on where I 'deliberately misinterpreted' what you have stated?
I think he was responding to me.
 

CTaylor

New User
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention at all.

All I'm saying is that to the casual third party observer that was not involved in any of these matches, and has exactly zero preference as to who won, the handling of players/appeals/ranking on your team can _also_ be seen as being less than 100% within the spirit of the system. Is it as bad as Utah or Texas team - no. Can one see why other teams may look at a player that continues to play at 4.0 (and frankly dominate) due to appealing down and ranking not being updated at 2020 year end as stretching the rules - yes.
I don't know the Southern 4.0./4.5. guy who appealed down or the captain, but ratings not being updated at the end of 2020 was a USTA decision so I don't see how that's on the captain or player. Being able to appeal down means you're within striking distance of a lower level, according to the rating algorithm. As long as you aren't tanking/throwing matches to get to an appeal down, it's not as egregious as self-rating incorrectly.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
I don't know the Southern 4.0./4.5. guy who appealed down or the captain, but ratings not being updated at the end of 2020 was a USTA decision so I don't see how that's on the captain or player. Being able to appeal down means you're within striking distance of a lower level, according to the rating algorithm. As long as you aren't tanking/throwing matches to get to an appeal down, it's not as egregious as self-rating incorrectly.
sure. It's not 'as egregious as self-rating incorrectly', agreed.
 

JOGA87

New User
Clearly multiple people on here believe I am directly replying to them. Classic internet.

I'm going to go back to the shadows of captaining a successful team (or maybe an unsuccessful one at 4.5): guys, try to see the big picture here. It is rec tennis - guys like Fowkes clearly need love so don't be too mean, but I don't think there is much disagreement that someone who continually recruits, and plans recurring victories at the same level at nationals needs some oversight. But hey since its cool - Southern team is recruiting bodies for a sick 4.5 team that drinks beer and actually likes one another: so if you're in the area feel free to stop by.

Y'all have a good winter season.
 

mhj202

Rookie
Clearly multiple people on here believe I am directly replying to them. Classic internet.

I'm going to go back to the shadows of captaining a successful team (or maybe an unsuccessful one at 4.5): guys, try to see the big picture here. It is rec tennis - guys like Fowkes clearly need love so don't be too mean, but I don't think there is much disagreement that someone who continually recruits, and plans recurring victories at the same level at nationals needs some oversight. But hey since its cool - Southern team is recruiting bodies for a sick 4.5 team that drinks beer and actually likes one another: so if you're in the area feel free to stop by.

Y'all have a good winter season.
I was in Surprise for the Nationals and, though my team didn't make the semis/finals, we came to watch the finals on Sunday. Totally agree with your assessment - the number 1 doubles line-up for Utah was ridiculous. The taller Utah player, Justin, served every bit of 120 mph and was hitting spots. You guys also had a strong D1 line, and your guys hung tough for a few games, but after that I don't think the result was ever in doubt (which I believe you agreed with earlier). Congratulations on a fantastic season!
 

Creighton

Semi-Pro
USTA could take a few different approaches. I think schmke might have a better idea of how many games and of what type of game would be best to sort this out.

But I would think the best scenario would be for the person to play a range of players. I mean if you have a woman beat the same 2.5 player 6-0 6-0 three times that will not be all that informative. The new player could be a 7.0 or a low 3.0. (possibly even a 2.5 if the 2.5 she played was a very low 2.5.) Just off the cuff it would probably be good to play at least two people in singles at the level you hope to play and one singles at the level above. I would prefer some singles games, but if it was solely with doubles they might play 5 matches but each match the new player would have a different partner and throw the lowest performance rating out (or diminish its relevance) - just in case one partner was trying to throw the ratings down.
It boggles my mind you don't understand why this can't work. If a 4.5 beats a new player 0,0 then the next match a 4.0 beats that same new player 0,0. What information does the computer rating get out of this beat down? More importantly, why would the 4.5 and 4.0 want to play in these matches?
 

Moon Shooter

Semi-Pro
It’s obvious Moon Shooter has got it all figured out. He probably has 3 natties behind his computer, idk what you’re talking about Creighton lol.

Until the end of time, this will always be an issue. USTA isn’t going to come with a solution that satisfies everyone. People are always going to be looking for a competitive advantage regardless the situation and level of play.

All I want is that USTA address the blatant and obvious players that are head and shoulders above everyone else at a National tournament. Eyes don’t lie and they should empower the employees running the tourney to step in. Instead of saying oh it’s out of our hands bc nothing happened locally for them to get here but we agree they shouldn’t be in this level. (We don’t know how much tennis would be taken away from them for them to report another team. This may be the only tennis center in Utah for all I know.) Looking at records is kind of silly but really the only metric to rate players without actually seeing players play.

Syshy has a great attitude and based upon comments it seems like anyone watching him play would think he’s fairly rated as a 4.0. He acknowledged he worked on the inner game and that allowed him to succeed even greater. Probably bc most 4.0 players aren’t thinking about those same things. Why should he then be punished for smart strategy and have to play players far more skilled than him? But hey go get your ass beat at 4.5 and you can come right back. Don’t you dare appeal though because us as tennis community don’t think it’s right as it diminishes our chances of winning.

Competitive tennis is the goal and I think it was successful with the exception of one outlier. (The team that had a dress code)

TLDR: Utah is the worst. Moon Shooter for USTA commish
Hello anonuncle. I think you and the recently departed joga both think I am some sort of usta hack. Both you and joga seem most interested in coming in here and defending players on the 4.0 southern team (nothing against syshy but how would you know his tennis looks like fairly rated 4.0 based on comments?) and bashing that dirty rotten Utah captain! Because he …. he….. well he did something and whatever it was it was something worse than I ever did! And you both think usta should go and watch him.

Gotcha but neither you or that other guy, joga, are mad. And I’m not amused. Bye now! And remember what that joga guy said, look at the big picture, it’s rec tennis.
 

Moon Shooter

Semi-Pro
It boggles my mind you don't understand why this can't work. If a 4.5 beats a new player 0,0 then the next match a 4.0 beats that same new player 0,0. What information does the computer rating get out of this beat down? More importantly, why would the 4.5 and 4.0 want to play in these matches?
They would play the matches because they want him on their team. If the new player was thinking he should be on a 4.0 or 4.5 team why would you expect him to get double bagled?
 

Creighton

Semi-Pro
They would play the matches because they want him on their team. If the new player was thinking he should be on a 4.0 or 4.5 team why would you expect him to get double bagled?
You honestly keep blowing my mind you can't comprehend the problem with your suggestions.

So if I want to be on a 3.0 team I'll just go play a couple 3.0s and prove I'm aligned with them? You really don't see how much easier it would be to self rate incorrectly than under the current system?
 

FuzzyYellowBalls

Hall of Fame
I was in Surprise for the Nationals and, though my team didn't make the semis/finals, we came to watch the finals on Sunday. Totally agree with your assessment - the number 1 doubles line-up for Utah was ridiculous. The taller Utah player, Justin, served every bit of 120 mph and was hitting spots. You guys also had a strong D1 line, and your guys hung tough for a few games, but after that I don't think the result was ever in doubt (which I believe you agreed with earlier). Congratulations on a fantastic season!
Ok, I like having an eyewitness account, piqued my interest. \ But, anyway, Justin is a UTR 8 with a mild, but not totally unsuccessful record playing men's open. Now, anyone who isn't delusional (as in after experiencing open level they keep going back for more despite being a real 4.0) and enters open mens tournaments shouldn't be playing 4.0 while honestly feeling they are getting a level of competition they are accustomed to or should be playing against.

But, within the rules, you can dablle in open tourneys during the covid years and stay 4.0. Return from mission trip, self rate, giddy up for 2 years of no bumps.
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
Clearly multiple people on here believe I am directly replying to them. Classic internet.

I'm going to go back to the shadows of captaining a successful team (or maybe an unsuccessful one at 4.5): guys, try to see the big picture here. It is rec tennis - guys like Fowkes clearly need love so don't be too mean, but I don't think there is much disagreement that someone who continually recruits, and plans recurring victories at the same level at nationals needs some oversight. But hey since its cool - Southern team is recruiting bodies for a sick 4.5 team that drinks beer and actually likes one another: so if you're in the area feel free to stop by.

Y'all have a good winter season.
Good luck, dude.
 

Moon Shooter

Semi-Pro
You honestly keep blowing my mind you can't comprehend the problem with your suggestions.

So if I want to be on a 3.0 team I'll just go play a couple 3.0s and prove I'm aligned with them? You really don't see how much easier it would be to self rate incorrectly than under the current system?
You play matches and get a rating. That is how ratings work and they work well. In no way would
1)questionnaire plus actual matches,
be a worse indicator of strength than
2) questionnaire alone.
Why do you think 2 is going to lead to more accurate self rates than 1?
 

Creighton

Semi-Pro
You play matches and get a rating. That is how ratings work and they work well. In no way would
1)questionnaire plus actual matches,
be a worse indicator of strength than
2) questionnaire alone.
Why do you think 2 is going to lead to more accurate self rates than 1?
You literally said there was no self rating when I asked you about this system earlier. Now you're adding in a self rating questionnaire.

I think 2 will be harder to cheat than 1, because in scenario one I could have to self rate a 3.5 on your questionnaire. But if I really want to play on a 3.0 team I'll just schedule matches against a weak 3.5 and lose 0,0 or 1,1 on purpose and get bumped to 3.0 by the computer.
 

Moon Shooter

Semi-Pro
Ok, I like having an eyewitness account, piqued my interest. \ But, anyway, Justin is a UTR 8 with a mild, but not totally unsuccessful record playing men's open. Now, anyone who isn't delusional (as in after experiencing open level they keep going back for more despite being a real 4.0) and enters open mens tournaments shouldn't be playing 4.0 while honestly feeling they are getting a level of competition they are accustomed to or should be playing against.

But, within the rules, you can dablle in open tourneys during the covid years and stay 4.0. Return from mission trip, self rate, giddy up for 2 years of no bumps.
The Utah team the beat joga had a 8.10 and a 6.98. Joga’s team had a 7.20 and a 7.29.
 

Moon Shooter

Semi-Pro
You literally said there was no self rating when I asked you about this system earlier. Now you're adding in a self rating questionnaire.

I think 2 will be harder to cheat than 1, because in scenario one I could have to self rate a 3.5 on your questionnaire. But if I really want to play on a 3.0 team I'll just schedule matches against a weak 3.5 and lose 0,0 or 1,1 on purpose and get bumped to 3.0 by the computer.
Creighton
I don’t blame you if you don’t want to read my long posts. But if you don’t read them don’t then say how clued out I am. Several times I said the questionnaire would work as a floor but then you get a rating based on actual play. I think it would avoid many problems. Have self rates play matches and get a rating before they play in a league that is for people of a certain rating. Rather then after. Usta is the only place I know that does this in reverse and it is unsurprising it causes so much controversy.
 

Creighton

Semi-Pro
Creighton
I don’t blame you if you don’t want to read my long posts. But if you don’t read them don’t then say how clued out I am. Several times I said the questionnaire would work as a floor but then you get a rating based on actual play. I think it would avoid many problems. Have self rates play matches and get a rating before they play in a league that is for people of a certain rating. Rather then after. Usta is the only place I know that does this in reverse and it is unsurprising it causes so much controversy.
Again you’re refusing to admit your suggestion does nothing. So if the matches won’t lower my rating, it’s no different than the current process.

You refuse to address anything that points a flaw in your argument.

The current system works fine those who do it in good faith. Nothing about your system changes it for the bad faith actors.
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
Again you’re refusing to admit your suggestion does nothing. So if the matches won’t lower my rating, it’s no different than the current process.

You refuse to address anything that points a flaw in your argument.

The current system works fine those who do it in good faith. Nothing about your system changes it for the bad faith actors.
All it does is put an unnecessary impediment in the way, which is scheduling a bunch of non-league matches with random people before you can start, up to FIVE if you're a doubles player.
 

Moon Shooter

Semi-Pro
Again you’re refusing to admit your suggestion does nothing. So if the matches won’t lower my rating, it’s no different than the current process.

You refuse to address anything that points a flaw in your argument.

The current system works fine those who do it in good faith. Nothing about your system changes it for the bad faith actors.
1) Having people play matches and using the scores of those matches to determine their rating (beyond a questionnaire based floor)
is the same as
2) Having people just say what their rating is (beyond a questionnaire based floor).

Let's just agree to disagree.

All it does is put an unnecessary impediment in the way, which is scheduling a bunch of non-league matches with random people before you can start, up to FIVE if you're a doubles player.
That is not all it would do. It would give you an actual rating based on actual match scores rather than one you pull from your rear end.

I know many tennis players that actually like playing matches. Many of the new players and existing players looking to join a league agree to pay USTA extra money so they can play matches. I played 2 matches last weekend with 2 different people just because I like playing tennis matches. I guess where you and creighton come from playing tennis matches is a burden and an "impediment." Your perspective is just odd.
 
Last edited:
Top