2021 18+ 4.0M USTA League Nationals Predictions

[J_R_B]

I don't know these players personally, so will have to take your word that these A-rated players are not out-of-level. But here's what I think:

(1) This Middle States team beat the Intermountain team (a team that boasted 12 S- or A-rated players) in the 40+ 4.0 semifinals...and this team WON Nationals, so it seems incongruous to equate a team full of A-rated players as less offensive than a team full of S-rated players.
(2) Players at the very top of a rating typically do well enough at the next level when they get promoted, based on my experience with top 3.5 level guys and how they've fared at 4.0. I've seen how difficult it is for these players to get their ratings low enough to appeal down, and I'm extrapolating to the 4.0/4.5 level, that it takes "work" to get your rating low enough to appeal down.
(3) It seems suspicious that seven such players ended up getting their appeals granted and playing for the same team...seems orchestrated and likely that they didn't give their best efforts in 4.5 league.
(4) A lady from the 40+ Middle States 4.0W team told me that this was the fourth time the core of the Middle States 4.0M team has made Nationals (which explains the gigantic "4X" emblazened on their team shirts). Something doesn't smell right.

They beat the Intermountain team without the 5.0 level ringer kids. There's a big difference. It's not difficult to get your rating low enough to appeal down if you're just not that good at the next level. I got bumped once, played 3 years of 4.5 without throwing or manipulating anything and appealed back down. In fact, the year I was allowed to appeal back down was my most successful season at 4.5, where I was 2-2 including the only time I've ever beaten a 4.5 rated player in singles.

This team is on it's 4th straight trip. There are a couple reasons for that. Their captain is better at marketing than playing. He has a vast network of guys he can call on. Every year, they get a bunch bumped up and a handful bumped back down. This year was special because of Covid. For this year, they had an unusually high number of 2019 bump downs plus no move-up/split-up for their 2019 team plus no one bumped from the 2020 year plus an extra year of guys who could self-rate and appeal expired ratings as well. They had a bunch of S-rates on the team as well as the A-rates. My note was directed only at the A-rated guys.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Honestly I like you a lot less than Utah’s captain. If you must know. I hate that I had a teammate say I needed to look through this again because you couldn’t stop bad mouthing me specifically - but you’re clearly infinitely more obsessed with me than I am team Utah. Not a good look: and inferring everything I said is a complaint or in anger is hilarious. Bud, we finished 2nd at nationals when we went in expecting to get bounced in the round robin play. I’m good. But for the last time: we played comparable teams the whole tournament, except Utah - for the guys at 4.0 it’s fair for them to understand unless they’re recruiting kids who want to play college tennis, they’re playing for second at that level.

I’m horribly sorry my team hurt your ego, but then again I’m really not. I came here without anonymity to provide honest constructive criticism of the things I saw as someone who hasn’t played a ton of USTA (unless 4 seasons counts as “accepting my own stink”). You’re hiding behind an anonymous account to constantly criticize a stranger. Projection is ugly. Have a good one. Go Dawgs.

Maybe my man, but when none of the commentary is really personally laced with “bad faith” and criticism directed at an individual rather than a system, I’m at liberty to take issue with it.

Especially from someone who allegedly “doesn’t play” USTA. I don’t buy that for one second - as I believe this person has played our team directly. Fowkes does a good job beating the system. It’s not against the rules: I’ve already stated that. It is what it is.

Talk about projection! No I have no issue with you personally or anyone on your team. Unlike you, I am not here to post negative things about a captain of a team that beat my USTA team. Lot's of people accuse others of having their own faults, but do you have to be so obvious?

Unlike you I don't have any personal animus toward anyone that plays USTA tennis. Not the Utah Captain, not you, and not the third place captain whoever that might be. My issues are entirely with the system. The USTA rules are so lacking in objectivity and transparency it is practically designed to cause the sort of problems people are complaining about in this thread.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Talk about projection! No I have no issue with you personally or anyone on your team. Unlike you, I am not here to post negative things about a captain of a team that beat my USTA team. Lot's of people accuse others of having their own faults, but do you have to be so obvious?

Unlike you I don't have any personal animus toward anyone that plays USTA tennis. Not the Utah Captain, not you, and not the third place captain whoever that might be. My issues are entirely with the system. The USTA rules are so lacking in objectivity and transparency it is practically designed to cause the sort of problems people are complaining about in this thread.

I think you've encountered an issue with all laws including the tax code, and of course USTA rules. Do you still blame the tax code, the laws, or the usta regulations, or the people?

Does a person in society or in USTA tennis (much less serious than society) receive rules and regulations with the intent to do anything they can that isn't specifically forbidden in very fine detail by the rules or regulations? Or does someone conduct some inner reflection to consider the goal of the rules and try to match their behavior to promote and preserve the spirit of the goal using the rules as simply a guideline, but also imposing self-restraint to avoid doing things that might not specifically be forbidden, but go against the goal or spirit of the system. And yes, everyone is mature enough to know what the goal of the tax code, criminal law, or USTA rules is.

That choice will have to be made because USTA rules really can't anticipate every single kind of sketchy behavior that might occur after they are changed, no matter how silly it might seem for adults to behave, we have enough evidence to know there are people who will do whatever is not specifically forbidden.

 

[Moon Shooter]

yes. With the caveat that an honest player would not self-rate so out of level that he would be DQ later.

Ok so what you are saying is that no honest player would self rate so out of level that they would be DQed is that correct?

Does that also apply to appeal rated players or do you think appeal rated players sometimes get DQed? Do you think when someone clicks the automatic appeal down button they are effectively saying they believe they are not skilled enough to belong in the upper level? Or do you think people can just click the button because they want to stay on the same team with their friends?

so, you want to play on a given team, you want the captain to play you in actual matches - but it is 'awkward to contact a captain and team you don't know and ask him to have some of his teammates play you so you can determine your rating.'? How does it make any sense? You somehow want to join a team _without_ contacting the captain? And like show at the match time at the facility and expect the captain that has never seen you or heard from you to play you? Why are you making it harder than it is? You contact the captain, you ask if they are interested in a new player, if so you show up at the practice/something, someone on that team will hit with you, they will know if you are right fit for that team's level, you self rate then. There's _no problem_.
And it would not be different if _required_ by USTA. Like what is USTA going to do - _require_ that a given dude plays with you so you have that rating-establishing match? And if the dude does not want/does not have time USTA is going to suspend him? Banned him for life? please.......

Again this just shows how different things are in different areas. Yes I wanted to be on a team with a captain I never met. I have still never met the captain of the 3.5 team that I wanted to play on. I was unaware of any leagues until I looked at tennis record and saw there were some leagues in my area - albeit very few. I reached out to the district manager and asked if there were any teams.

Again as far as I know I have seen the play of only one male player that has an established rating in the 3.0, 3.5 or 4.0 level. He is a 3.5A. There is an established 3.5 on the team I am on now but I have not seen him play because I was playing matches at the same time he played. The other males on my team are all self rates at 3.0.

At the second match I showed up to I saw a guy there that I never saw before. I asked him if he was on the Decatur team. And he didn't even know. He was from a different town but, of course, the captain knew. I ended up playing him in doubles and he was a nice guy. He self rated as a 3.5 but had been on a team that went to nationals years ago.

players at Nationals are out of level _because they are the best players at a given level_. It is expected that they are at the very top or a bit over the edge for a given level. That is expected and not a problem. The problem are players that self rated way, way below the level, and managed not to get DQ during the year.


none of it applies to honest players. USTA allows re-self rate and appeals to address folks that had legitimate reasons to do so: injury, being out of game for years, etc. It is assumed that folks act in good faith and don't abuse it.

We both agree that people that are dishonest enough to throw games will almost certainly not get DQed. So requiring more games before nationals will not change anything that requiring games to be played before you get on a team would not solve. It is just that if you require the games to be played before someone gets on the team then they will not ruin the season for their own team or other teams in their league.

However, we do disagree about whether new players are so sure about where they are supposed to rate. So I do not necessarily agree with you or Creighton that anyone that gets a DQ was dishonest. I think that is because you guys are from areas with a much more pronounced USTA presence.

Creighton says the vast majority rate correctly. But I would like to see some actual data. That is how many that self rate end up with a computer rating at least a level higher when they get it? How many end up a level lower? I do agree that a large number of people do know where to rate (maybe they are in communities like yours and Creighton's) and by and large people will be trying to choose between 2 levels. So they should be correct more than 50% of the time. But I would not be surprised if 10-20% end up with computer ratings that are different than their self rate. What do you think?

judging from the discussion here it is fairly obvious that 'Objective rules and transparency would NOT greatly help here'. You started this post with a statement that the main problem is with honest new players not knowing how to rate. But ended with an example of a team that has players with 25 years of USTA experience, that know very, very well all the rules. You need to make up your mind as to what you are arguing.

Some people are suggesting that self rates should be required to play more matches before they get to regionals or nationals etc. I am saying that it would be better if they had to play the matches before they even joined the league. If they are inclined to cheat by throwing games then neither proposal will work. But if they are not going to cheat by throwing matches having them play the matches before the league starts will prevent them from getting their team to nationals. In every situation where playing more matches will help prevent abuse of the self rating system having those matches played before the league starts should work better.

 

[jmnk]

They beat the Intermountain team without the 5.0 level ringer kids. There's a big difference. It's not difficult to get your rating low enough to appeal down if you're just not that good at the next level. I got bumped once, played 3 years of 4.5 without throwing or manipulating anything and appealed back down. In fact, the year I was allowed to appeal back down was my most successful season at 4.5, where I was 2-2 including the only time I've ever beaten a 4.5 rated player in singles.

This team is on it's 4th straight trip. There are a couple reasons for that. Their captain is better at marketing than playing. He has a vast network of guys he can call on. Every year, they get a bunch bumped up and a handful bumped back down. This year was special because of Covid. For this year, they had an unusually high number of 2019 bump downs plus no move-up/split-up for their 2019 team plus no one bumped from the 2020 year plus an extra year of guys who could self-rate and appeal expired ratings as well. They had a bunch of S-rates on the team as well as the A-rates. My note was directed only at the A-rated guys.

Now that I think of it - how is that possible? Isn't it that every player that plays in post-season gets B type ranking and that _cannot be appealed down_? If players on that team went to post-season for 4 years in a row - how could they even get an A type ranking? @schmke ?

 

[Moon Shooter]

And districts and sections want to brag about how their team does at Sectionals or Nationals, so this also creates an incentive for them to look the other way, or at least not go out of their way to DQ players, so the team that advances is as strong as possible. It isn't nearly as fun to say "we sent a legit 4.0 team to Nationals and they went 1-3 and finished 14th, yea!"

Are you saying the USTA doesn't even have objective standards of when people get disqualified?

My own view is it would be fun and nice to play in nationals at your level. The problem is nationals/state and regionals is the only goal USTA really promotes. Because it is the only goal it gains a hugely warped sense of importance.

I have proposed in the past that it would be much healthier and better for the vast majority of adult players if USTA promoted its rating system as a way for adult rec players to set goals.

I think my exchange here with Creighton illustrates my point:

@Moon Shooter is actually on the other side of the spectrum. He doesn’t want to cheat. What he really wants is a vanity rating. He would rather be a very bad 4.0 and claim he’s a 4.0 instead of being a decent 3.0.

To which I responded:

"I would rather be a low level 4.0 than a "decent 3.0" because an honest low 4.0 will be a better tennis player than an honest "decent 3.0." Is it "vanity" that I would rather be a better tennis player rather than a worse tennis player? If you say so."


Adult rec tennis players are like everyone else. They will be more inclined to keep at an activity if they feel they are making progress and working toward goals. The USTA state regional and nationals are very nice programs but for the vast majority of people the ratings provide a much better and healthier way to set goals. USTA should really start treating the rating system as a valuable service and independent reason to play USTA instead of just a tool of the regional and national championship leagues.

 

[Creighton]

Are you saying the USTA doesn't even have objective standards of when people get disqualified?

My own view is it would be fun and nice to play in nationals at your level. The problem is nationals/state and regionals is the only goal USTA really promotes. Because it is the only goal it gains a hugely warped sense of importance.

I have proposed in the past that it would be much healthier and better for the vast majority of adult players if USTA promoted its rating system as a way for adult rec players to set goals.

I think my exchange here with Creighton illustrates my point:



To which I responded:

"I would rather be a low level 4.0 than a "decent 3.0" because an honest low 4.0 will be a better tennis player than an honest "decent 3.0." Is it "vanity" that I would rather be a better tennis player rather than a worse tennis player? If you say so."


Adult rec tennis players are like everyone else. They will be more inclined to keep at an activity if they feel they are making progress and working toward goals. The USTA state regional and nationals are very nice programs but for the vast majority of people the ratings provide a much better and healthier way to set goals. USTA should really start treating the rating system as a valuable service and independent reason to play USTA instead of just a tool of the regional and national championship leagues.

But you wouldn’t actually be a low level 4.0. You would be a high level 3.0 that just has a 4.0 vanity rating.

 

[Chalkdust]

I always suggest rating lower and playing at the level you intended. In other words, if you want to play 4.0, rate 3.5 and play 4.0. If in your first 2 4.0 matches, you get absolutely smoked in non-competitive matches, you can always fall right back to 3.5, but only if you rated there in the first place.

That makes a lot of sense in the abstract, but as usual there is a small minority who would think 'competitive' means 'I win'.
So then we have, rate 3.5, play a couple of 4.0 matches where you lose say 2&3, and then conclude that winning easily at 3.5 is the better way to go.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I think you've encountered an issue with all laws including the tax code, and of course USTA rules. Do you still blame the tax code, the laws, or the usta regulations, or the people?

If people could "self rate" as wealthy, middle class or poor the government would collect very little in taxes! The tax code tells people write down exactly how much you made and then they sort out how much you have to pay. I know you are a lawyer. I am as well. So we both know laws can not always cover every single fact pattern clearly. But some laws are so vague they are unconstitutional. Let's just say if I were on the supreme court I would strike the USTA self rate rules down as unconstitutionally vague.

Does a person in society or in USTA tennis (much less serious than society) receive rules and regulations with the intent to do anything they can that isn't specifically forbidden in very fine detail by the rules or regulations? Or does someone conduct some inner reflection to consider the goal of the rules and try to match their behavior to promote and preserve the spirit of the goal using the rules as simply a guideline, but also imposing self-restraint to avoid doing things that might not specifically be forbidden, but go against the goal or spirit of the system. And yes, everyone is mature enough to know what the goal of the tax code, criminal law, or USTA rules is.

That choice will have to be made because USTA rules really can't anticipate every single kind of sketchy behavior that might occur after they are changed, no matter how silly it might seem for adults to behave, we have enough evidence to know there are people who will do whatever is not specifically forbidden.

Sports generally try to make the rules as objective as possible or there will, unsurprisingly, be perceptions of corruption. We think basketball players should dribble the ball when they move significant distances. They don't just say "if you move a significant distance without dribbling you will be called for travelling" and leave it to players to argue whether running half the court is "significant" and when it might be significant. No they set a specific number of steps and then people try to watch the tape in slow motion to see if the actual player violated the rule by lifting a foot etc. That way everyone knows they are playing by the same rules.

 

[Moon Shooter]

But you wouldn’t actually be a low level 4.0. You would be a high level 3.0 that just has a 4.0 vanity rating.

I don't understand.

How could I actually be a 3.0 if my computer rating puts me at the 4.0 level?

If someone wins enough tennis games to be a 4.0 player they are not a high level 3.0 player with a 4.0 vanity rating are they?

Oh! Are you saying I would like a system where I could get my rating by having my friends throw games they play against me in order for me to get an inflated rating?

 

[Creighton]

I don't understand.

How could I actually be a 3.0 if my computer rating puts me at the 4.0 level?

If someone wins enough tennis games to be a 4.0 player they are not a high level 3.0 player with a 4.0 vanity rating are they?

Oh! Are you saying I would like a system where I could get my rating by having my friends throw games they play against me in order for me to get an inflated rating?

That’s the problem with these discussions, you don’t actually understand how the rating system works.

 

[Brian11785]

Are you saying the USTA doesn't even have objective standards of when people get disqualified?

I'm not sure how you gathered this from what he said above. He's saying that local chapters have an incentive to brag about their people making or winning Nationals and that might lead to their turning a blind eye to questionable captain activity. What does this have to do with objective standards?

Did you quote the wrong thing? Because what you're talking about has nothing to do with what you're replying to (par for the course in this thread).

 

[Moon Shooter]

The simple answer is to tighten up the thresholds for strikes. When a player has to be closer to a double bump than the level they are playing at to get a strike, the situation we see happens.

If they "Tighten up the thresholds" of DQ it still allows out of level self rates to help their team. So how far out of level should they allow Self rates to be in your opinion? Appeal rates are by definition out of level just not that far out of level. I don't understand why they let anyone out of level play in a league that is supposed to be level limitted.

If a player is dishonest enough to throw games you are not going to be able to catch them. If the player is honest enough that they won't throw games why not just have them play games before they join the league and give them a rating?

First draft of a proposal I am planning to submit:

Explanation of Problem

In recent years, captains have exploited the lack of any USTA-imposed limitation on self-rated (“S”) or appeal-down (“A”) players to load up on such players, to a degree that makes it feel like teams that were constructed organically cannot compete with these engineered super-teams. This was egregiously evident at the 4.0 men’s Nationals this year, where the winners of the two events had the following number of S- or A-rated players:

• 40-and-over 4.0M champion: 13
• 18-and-over 4.0M champions: 14

While the experience of traveling to Nationals is enjoyable in and of itself, a lot of the joy subsides when it is evident that there was never a realistic chance for teams that were constructed of mostly C-rated players to challenge for the National Championship. Since there is currently no cap on the number of S- or A-rated players, captains that want to compete for a National title will have to adopt that winning formula…which I believe will be a detriment to the overall health of USTA leagues.

Reasons for Change

For many, the allure of playing in USTA leagues is the chance to compete against players within your general skill level. It’s understood that the NTRP ratings are not perfect, but does provide a reasonable framework in which teams can compete at a local, Regional, Sectional, and National level amongst their athletic peers. The USTA has done an amazing job of creating a structure where teams from each of the 17 Sections can compete with each other and feel like they have a realistic chance of prevailing.

Yet when the layers are peeled back and the noise is filtered, it becomes very apparent that the deck is stacked against most teams. The single most reliable factor in predicting a National champion is the number of S- or A-rated players on the roster. That’s it. For 18+ 4.0M, the arithmetic mean for the number of S- or A-rated players was three…. The number of such players for the four semifinalists? Seven, nine, 12, and 13!

Some captains are making a mockery of the rating system by filling their rosters with out-of-level S- and A-rated players, simply because the USTA has not proscribed a limit on such players. These captains are not to blame because they are not breaking any rules, but they helped make it clear that limits need to be put in place in order to restore competitive balance.

Limits on S- and A-rated players are not without precedent. For years, the TriLevel Nationals has adopted a rule that excludes S- and A-rated players completely from that invitational tournament. Presumably, the organizers did not want to see a tournament featuring the biggest sandbaggers, and felt the Nationals experience would be better preserved by allowing only computer-rated players to participate.

We do not want to stifle the growth of the sport or discourage new players from joining USTA leagues, so completely excluding S- and A-rated players from postseason would be too extreme. However, a limit of three S- and A-rated players who are eligible for postseason could be a reasonable compromise. (Under such a rule, a team could have more such players on the roster, but the captain would have to designate up to three that could participate in postseason play.)

Effective for 2022, USTA will require S- and A-rated players to play in a minimum of four matches for a team to be eligible to play at Nationals. While that is a good rule intended to allow more opportunity for the dynamic disqualification process to work, real life experience tells us that captains and players are sophisticated and motivated enough to meet this threshold without any problem. Let’s take a look at the 40-and-over 4.0 men’s champions from this October, and track how many matches each of their S- and A-rated players who participated in the semifinals or finals played in this season: 15, 13, 12, 11, 10, and 10 matches.

You can understand why captains seeking this rule change capping the number of S- and A-rated players have no confidence that the four-match requirement for Nationals eligibility of S- and A-rated players in 2022 will accomplish anything to prevent a recurring theme of teams loading up on such players.

Recommendation

Limit the number of self-rated (“S”) or appeal-down (“A”) players eligible for postseason to three per team.

So if an area has no league at a certain level but wants to start one they will not be eligible for post season play? How will their ratings be balanced with the rest of the country?

 

[Moon Shooter]

I'm not sure how you gathered this from what he said above. He's saying that local chapters have an incentive to brag about their people making or winning Nationals and that might lead to their turning a blind eye to questionable captain activity. What does this have to do with objective standards?

Did you quote the wrong thing? Because what you're talking about has nothing to do with what you're replying to (par for the course in this thread).

Because USTA does the math to give a dynamic rating. It is the dynamic rating combined with your performance rating at an event determines if you get a strike. How can the local chapter decide to "turn a blind eye to it"? It would seem to suggest that districts can set their own thresholds or they have some discretion to not punish people even if they go over thresholds set by USTA.

That’s the problem with these discussions, you don’t actually understand how the rating system works.

I understand how rating systems work. If you understand rating systems so well, why are you being evasive instead of answering the questions I put to you?

 

[Moon Shooter]

I'm sorry, I do not see it that way. When you have a team where a number of A rated players outnumbers C rated players by like close to10:1 ratio (at least counting those that actually played in the playoff rounds) then that is part of a problem too. Sure, each one of those A rated is 'just a hair' over the threshold. Collectively though they make that entire team way out of a normal/top 4.0 level team.

Why allow anyone to be out of level for their league?

What the upper limit of a 4.0 player is already hard to know since most teams do not go to nationals and USTA keeps the data secret. Then USTA says well we will allow self rates and appeals to be out of level but "not too much" out of level. And then we all act surprised when self rates and appeal rated players end up helping a large percentage of teams into and through regionals.

 

[Brian11785]

Because USTA does the math to give a dynamic rating. It is the dynamic rating combined with your performance rating at an event determines if you get a strike. How can the local chapter decide to "turn a blind eye to it"? It would seem to suggest that districts can set their own thresholds or they have some discretion to not punish people even if they go over thresholds set by USTA.

Example: captain is blatantly managing scores of his team during local play to keep his players out of strike territory. Let's say he's doing it shamelessly. If we're going strictly by the computer rating (be it public or not), he's done nothing wrong. But, hypothetically, if a bunch of other captains got together and lodged a complaint to the local chapter, the course of action becomes inherently and necessarily more subjective. That's where the perverse incentives discussed above come into play.

 

[ChaelAZ]

I don't understand.

How could I actually be a 3.0 if my computer rating puts me at the 4.0 level?
If someone wins enough tennis games to be a 4.0 player they are not a high level 3.0 player with a 4.0 vanity rating are they?

Did you get a rating yet? With all the long posts in the thread I had not seen if you SR'd and are playing leagues, and how you are doing at that level? I know i saw some match play, but I do not recall if it was league matches, flex, or just practice.

 

[jmnk]

Why allow anyone to be out of level for their league?

What the upper limit of a 4.0 player is already hard to know since most teams do not go to nationals and USTA keeps the data secret. Then USTA says well we will allow self rates and appeals to be out of level but "not too much" out of level. And then we all act surprised when self rates and appeal rated players end up helping a large percentage of teams into and through regionals.

You are misunderstanding my post. I was merely responding to @J_R_B post where he was justifying why it is OK for a number of appealed-down players to be on a given team. In his eyes it is OK because each one is only a hair above the level.

In general I would have no problems with eliminating auto-appeals (where a player that is just above the level gets to still play play at the lower level for really no other reason other than that he wants to. Read: he wants to keep winning). You still probably want to have appeal system to allow injured players, or players coming back to a league play after not playing for years, to appeal their computer ranking because it no longer reflects their true abilities.

 

[Zman]

I don't know these players personally, so will have to take your word that these A-rated players are not out-of-level. But here's what I think:

(1) This Middle States team beat the Intermountain team (a team that boasted 12 S- or A-rated players) in the 40+ 4.0 semifinals...and this team WON Nationals, so it seems incongruous to equate a team full of A-rated players as less offensive than a team full of S-rated players.

It's not incongruous -- the Middle States team had lots of close matches at sectionals and nationals that could have gone either way, so their team was not wildly out of level in the way the Intermountain 18+ 4.0 team was. It just happens that this was a down year in 40+ 4.0 for the two captains who abuse S-rating the most, so that teams made up of strong but legit 4.0's had a chance at the title -- and even so, Intermountain likely would have won the national championship if their way-out-of-level singles ringer hadn't gotten dq'ed at sectionals.

 

[Zman]

In general I would have no problems with eliminating auto-appeals (where a player that is just above the level gets to still play play at the lower level for really no other reason other than that he wants to. Read: he wants to keep winning).

The desire to keep winning is not the only reason players appeal. Often players have played with their group of friends for ages, and want to keep doing so, whereas they don't have any friends at the next level. Then they want to appeal for social reasons.

 

[jmnk]

It's not incongruous -- the Middle States team had lots of close matches at sectionals and nationals that could have gone either way, so their team was not wildly out of level in the way the Intermountain 18+ 4.0 team was. It just happens that this was a down year in 40+ 4.0 for the two captains who abuse S-rating the most, so that teams made up of strong but legit 4.0's had a chance at the title -- and even so, Intermountain likely would have won the national championship if their way-out-of-level singles ringer hadn't gotten dq'ed at sectionals.

They had close matches - but they won them. It's funny like they could have gone either way - but they didn't. Same argument GA team used - and for that GA team those close matches also somehow ended up in their favor. I suppose we could argue how a team consisting of almost entirely appealed down players is '4.0 level legit'. Technically - sure. In the spirit of friendly competition - not so sure.

 

[jmnk]

The desire to keep winning is not the only reason players appeal. Often players have played with their group of friends for ages, and want to keep doing so, whereas they don't have any friends at the next level. Then they want to appeal for social reasons.

sure. However it is entirely allowed to have _that close group of guys where most of them are at higher level play at, well, higher level_. And take those weaker players with them on that higher level team. Clearly socially they will be together. Same amount of fun. Oh wait, they may not be winning so much. Yeah, I can see that being a problem......

 

[Creighton]

I understand how rating systems work. If you understand rating systems so well, why are you being evasive instead of answering the questions I put to you?

You don't understand how overrating(or underrating) yourself in the beginning will inflate (or deflate) your rating. You realize you'll get a higher rating 1-6, 1-6 to a 4.0 than losing 1-6, 1-6 to a 3.5 right?

 

[syshy111]

No the 5.0 boys (the current division 2 HS State singles champ and the current division 1 singles runner up) were only on the TN team. They weren’t on the GA at all. But the TN captain and his partner were both on the GA team too. They didn’t play much. Interesting but not too noteworthy, IMO.

We played our local league season almost a year before that TN team was formed. They had actually played another one of our teams the year before. One lives in Atlanta half the year.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

This is kind of what I was trying to say, the goal is to communicate the USTA rating rules aren't vague when you also consider the spirit of the ratings, to place someone in competition. People who are 4.5s have played enough tennis and know enough tennis players to not self rate at 4.0 as an "oopsie" I'm in the wrong rating, guess I made a mistake. There's not much else I would add to the ratings questions, that's why I wrote my little essay on the spirit of the rules. I think it's hard to blame the rules and think self-raters that end up on super teams made a mistake. So my opinion is the rules aren't vague, but you need to really put yourself in the shoes of an ex-collegiate tennis player, a soon to be one, or a near state champion at high school tennis.

 

[ACTG]

They had close matches - but they won them. It's funny like they could have gone either way - but they didn't. Same argument GA team used - and for that GA team those close matches also somehow ended up in their favor. I suppose we could argue how a team consisting of almost entirely appealed down players is '4.0 level legit'. Technically - sure. In the spirit of friendly competition - not so sure.

Exactly. Those types of guys tend to have a ton of “close” matches. It’s all BS. Put wins and losses into the algorithm. Guys winning literally all their matches like 4 and 4 is absurd and statistically improbable to put it kindly.

 

[schmke]

First, writing letters is more than I will do, so I can't fault anyone for trying, but here is the reality of what happens to letters....

A person at the USTA reads them, a person that may or may not play tennis, a person that works a lot of hours for not a lot of pay, and a person who is busy doing scheduling, preparing marketing, meetings, coordinating all the sectionals and yada yada. The letters will be read, the pre-written for them response by their boss will be sent out in response. It will be discussed at a meeting, in general. Most of the meeting will be spent on increasing participation or planning. Not much will change.

The amount of work it would take to implement change would be hard to calculate, but it would take, first off, people in every section of the USTA getting elected to your local competition/captains committee groups, believe me, it takes a ton of time and effort. We once tried to do it to get matches scheduled later in the day instead of early every weekend, had to get 5-6 people elected to a special board to just do that. And these committees will involve female leaders trying to change things for their leagues and mixed, it's a lot more complicated than a letter to national USTA. And we were just trying to change things for Dallas only!

This.

Even when it is more than a letter, for example a regulations change proposal that is sponsored by a Section Coordinator and submitted following all the procedures, it will get reviewed, but likely, like happened to mine, even when it is pointing out a plain as day flaw in the regulations, it will be shelved as interesting but not ready to actually make a change.

 

[schmke]

Now that I think of it - how is that possible? Isn't it that every player that plays in post-season gets B type ranking and that _cannot be appealed down_? If players on that team went to post-season for 4 years in a row - how could they even get an A type ranking? @schmke ?

If one has a large enough network of players, it can work.

Not this team specifically, but consider:

2018 - Lose 5 to bump ups that can't appeal down, but can use 3 from that team along with 12 other players in network plus a few new ones that are found and you have a roster for 2019.

2019 - Lose 5 more to bump ups, but perhaps some of the 2018 bump ups come back down or now can appeal and are now eligible for the team again.

2020/2021 - This team can have the 3 from 2019, but effectively the whole 2018 team that isn't still bumped up is now eligible

So one just needs enough players to alternate back and forth between a couple groups of players.

 

[schmke]

Are you saying the USTA doesn't even have objective standards of when people get disqualified?

No, there are. And I believe the objective rules (strikes and DQs) are enforced (although once in awhile there are some odd delays).

But it is the subjective aspects that districts/sections may drag their feet on. Staff aren't going to seek out and DQ improper self-rates, even though I believe the regulations allow them to do it, instead they will require that someone file a grievance, and even if one is filed they may find a way to deny the grievance. Or self-rate appeals are subjective and may be granted more than perhaps appropriate. And medical or other manual appeals are subjective too.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Did you get a rating yet? With all the long posts in the thread I had not seen if you SR'd and are playing leagues, and how you are doing at that level? I know i saw some match play, but I do not recall if it was league matches, flex, or just practice.

I self rated as a 3.0 in June so I could try to get on a team. I finally got on a mixed 6.5 team this fall and I played three mixed doubles matches and will play 2 more this sunday. That will do it unless we end up advancing to regionals. I think My game has improved quite a bit since the matches I posted over the summer but my serve and serve receive is no better.

I also signed up for an informal 4.0-4.5 group which i am afraid I will get blown out in - but should be a learning experience either way. I don’t think anyone in it has an actual usta rating but they are a variety of interesting men and women players from recent d3 men to somewhat recent d1 females, some strong female high school players and generally quite a few other different tennis backgrounds. I’m pretty nervous/excited to play in it. It has.both singles and doubles. I can post about it if you are interested. The guy I played matches against is in it as well.

 

[Moon Shooter]

You don't understand how overrating(or underrating) yourself in the beginning will inflate (or deflate) your rating. You realize you'll get a higher rating 1-6, 1-6 to a 4.0 than losing 1-6, 1-6 to a 3.5 right?

Of course I understand that. Rating systems don’t just look at scores but also the rating of your opponent.

if what you are saying is that because usta has very hard lines where you might only play your own level (and wide gaps btween levels where a 6-0 6-0 can be a typical score between players of the same level.) so it is hard to be bumped up or lowered down even if you play your best, then ok that seems at least theoretically possible. But I would like to see the data. I think I may have asked schmke about that before and he said enough people are playing up that it didn’t seem to be an issue.

 

[J_R_B]

That makes a lot of sense in the abstract, but as usual there is a small minority who would think 'competitive' means 'I win'.
So then we have, rate 3.5, play a couple of 4.0 matches where you lose say 2&3, and then conclude that winning easily at 3.5 is the better way to go.

This is a recipe for DQ, though. If you're playing competitively at 4.0, those are likely strikes or near strikes at 3.5, so if you go down and dominate, you'll be right back up in no time. In terms of self-rating DQs, the biggest danger is your first two matches. If you put up big match ratings in your first two matches, DQ is almost inevitable. If you're going to play up in your first two matches and then go down, those match ratings need to be bump down levels of low at the higher level or going down will be futile.

 

[Moon Shooter]

sure, of course, any honest player would do that. But the idea of ' a player who could be competitive at either of two levels should self-rate at the higher level' cannot work since who is to judge if a given player could be competitive at a higher level? The said player - that's who.

Also remember that USTA has explicitly said not everyone at the same level is "competitive." They have said a typical result of two people at the extremes of the same level will be 6-0 6-0. They have changed the language to say they are supposed to be "compatible." Which I suppose means something looser than "competitive" but honestly who knows?

So yes you beat that 3.5 6-0 6-0 but that doesn't necessarily mean you are not a 3.5 yourself. So when you also play a 4.0 and lose 6-1 6-2 and think that match wasn't competitive either then sure you may feel justified in rating at 3.5. And indeed you might be correctly rating yourself as a 3.5 with those results!! If the 4.0 is a middle of the road 4.0 and the 3.5 you beat at the very bottom - let alone possibly not having a good day. Then indeed you likely would earn a computer rating of 3.5 if you played those matches repeatedly until you obtained an actual computer rating. USTA knows the full dynamic rating so they could sort this out fairly easily but they keep that information secret and won't help players sort it out. That is why I think players should be able to simply play matches against rated players and have USTA give them a rating. The questionnaire can provide a floor so a d1 player doesn't sand bag and end up as a 3.0 but the questionnaire should only provide that floor.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Oh, there I go over-reacting again, I'll fade back into the shadows for now. But was the TN captain (who I guess lives in TN or lives in Georgia or is trying to start a boy band made up of high school tennis players in TN?) role playing as the Utah captain with an experiment in TN, what's going on, ahhhh!?!?!

It is all smoke and mirrors. But the Utah smoke and mirrors worked better this year, so Southern is mad and wants USTA to do something!

 

[Moon Shooter]

Example: captain is blatantly managing scores of his team during local play to keep his players out of strike territory. Let's say he's doing it shamelessly. If we're going strictly by the computer rating (be it public or not), he's done nothing wrong. But, hypothetically, if a bunch of other captains got together and lodged a complaint to the local chapter, the course of action becomes inherently and necessarily more subjective. That's where the perverse incentives discussed above come into play.

So what exactly do you mean "blatantly managing scores of his team." We have had several views of how this would work so lets go through them:

1) Playing a self rate on court 3 with a high rated partner. What is the district coordinator supposed to do? Tell the captain what line up he has to use?

2) If you mean having a good singles player play doubles so their rating drops and they can still play singles again what is the coodinator supposed to do? Say that guy is better at singles so you can only play him at singles until he gets dqed?

3) If the player is throwing games. Is the coordinator supposed to go and try to film the guy and try to determine if the guy intentionally missed that down the line shot? Or if he intentional double faulted two balls in the net? Do you really think USTA is going to accuse someone of cheating based on this sort of subjective evidence? This would do nothing but make people think yeah no thanks I'm not interested in USTA. I may want to play some adult rec tennis but the last thing I need is to have a good day or bad day on the court and end up with USTA publicly calling me a cheater over it. That is crazy. So people should just stop thinking that will be effective.


If USTA really wanted to discourage sandbagging they should publish the full rating like UTR does. That way players would see oh yes this guy really has great performance ratings when a match must be won and they are playing against high rated opponents. But when they are lined up against weak players (or play in matches that don't matter for advancement) somehow they always have lower than expected performance ratings! Schmke has said he believes USTA could find sandbaggers and I suspect he might be thinking of them using data like that. But he has not actually disclosed exactly how he thinks they could identify them. I would be interested to hear though.

 

[Creighton]

This is a recipe for DQ, though. If you're playing competitively at 4.0, those are likely strikes or near strikes at 3.5, so if you go down and dominate, you'll be right back up in no time. In terms of self-rating DQs, the biggest danger is your first two matches. If you put up big match ratings in your first two matches, DQ is almost inevitable. If you're going to play up in your first two matches and then go down, those match ratings need to be bump down levels of low at the higher level or going down will be futile.

Once you start managing ratings, is it really any different than other types of cheating?

 

[Moon Shooter]

This.

Even when it is more than a letter, for example a regulations change proposal that is sponsored by a Section Coordinator and submitted following all the procedures, it will get reviewed, but likely, like happened to mine, even when it is pointing out a plain as day flaw in the regulations, it will be shelved as interesting but not ready to actually make a change.

I think the main issue here is that the adult league is such a minor part of USTA financials. Yes they want to list how they run this adult rec program as a feather in their cap but they really just want it to sit in the corner and not draw attention to itself. So nothing will be done from a few letters. Until the public consistently calls out the problems with transparency/corruption concerns, to the extent that it actually reflects poorly on them, they will not do anything to draw attention to the ugly adult rec child that dwells in the basement.

 

[Moon Shooter]

There is a big difference between S and A. A rated players played a full year and got a rating that is within a whisker of either getting bumped down organically or not getting bumped up. I don't see a problem with letting these players compete. If it's an A rating because the players are throwing matches at the higher level or managing scores to get within the appeal range, those players are cheaters, which is a problem that has no solution yet, but people who are allowed to appeal because they are very close to the threshold after playing a full season fairly are not really out of level and are not the people who you see and say man, that player really shouldn't be at that level. I am very familiar with the Middle States 40+ team. Most of the A rated players fall into this category: Bosch, Bowers, Dratch, Grosso, Miller, Sassa, and Siegal are all players like that. If you watch any of them, they look like nothing better than really good 4.0s (which is of course an overlap with low level 4.5s). Pascale is a guy who is a legit 4.5 who got down into the appeal range by some strange algorithm anomaly, but he is not a ratings manager and continued to play 4.5 this year as well (he didn't play at 4.0 sectionals or nationals anyway). The problem with the MS team is definitely not the A rates.

Once you appeal then you need to be careful not be DQed. So even if we say it is fine to have people that are only out of level a bit to play - the appeal system as a whole with DQ's builds in additional incentives to cheat. USTA should eliminate incentives to cheat not add them. So the appeal system should go.

It also makes players think they should be able to choose/control their rating level as opposed to have it assigned to them. That is exactly the opposite of the mindset players should have.

 

[Moon Shooter]

You are misunderstanding my post. I was merely responding to @J_R_B post where he was justifying why it is OK for a number of appealed-down players to be on a given team. In his eyes it is OK because each one is only a hair above the level.

In general I would have no problems with eliminating auto-appeals (where a player that is just above the level gets to still play play at the lower level for really no other reason other than that he wants to. Read: he wants to keep winning). You still probably want to have appeal system to allow injured players, or players coming back to a league play after not playing for years, to appeal their computer ranking because it no longer reflects their true abilities.

So if someone is an auto appeal rated player and they get DQed are they dishonest? Do you think someone that does the auto appeal down is representing that they really think they belong at that lower level?

I don't think players should just self rate because they have been not played USTA for 3 years and removing ratings due to injuries should be extremely limited. People should have their ratings change through match play not questionnaires.

 

[J_R_B]

Once you start managing ratings, is it really any different than other types of cheating?

I wasn't referring to anyone managing ratings, just trying to figure out what is their actual correct level. The answer to your question is no, managing scores to generate a rating is cheating just like any other, but that's a different issue.

 

[J_R_B]

Once you appeal then you need to be careful not be DQed. So even if we say it is fine to have people that are only out of level a bit to play - the appeal system as a whole with DQ's builds in additional incentives to cheat. USTA should eliminate incentives to cheat not add them. So the appeal system should go.

It also makes players think they should be able to choose/control their rating level as opposed to have it assigned to them. That is exactly the opposite of the mindset players should have.

Cheaters are cheaters no matter what. 99% of the players are not. Why punish them because of a small minority?

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

It is all smoke and mirrors. But the Utah smoke and mirrors worked better this year, so Southern is mad and wants USTA to do something!

I don't know of anyone who is mad, most people in Southern don't even know much about what is going on or went on at sectionals or nationals. I bet the Atlanta community is plugged in and maybe some of the other Georgia sections that are looking at ATL to see what they are doing. Otherwise, southern is kind of spread out and disconnected.

Texas knows alot about what Texas is doing in all the cities. To contrast, Dallas city playoffs is longer and larger (there is a playoff to get into the playoffs spanning multiple weekends) than TN state finals, travel to Texas section finals is fewer miles than travelling to TN state finals, hence many adults don't even make the trip, hindering some teams. I can't imagine what it's like to travel to large section finals, when Texas can be a short day trip at most before needing to go make big plans to nationals. It leads to more introspection I think and transparency/gossip. Of course Lubbock is screwed, but we don't consider them in Texas, no one is going to drive to Lubbock they have to come to civilization.

I wonder if Utah is isolated geographically like Southern "pods" are.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I don't know of anyone who is mad, most people in Southern don't even know much about what is going on or went on at sectionals or nationals. I bet the Atlanta community is plugged in and maybe some of the other Georgia sections that are looking at ATL to see what they are doing. Otherwise, southern is kind of spread out and disconnected.

I didn't mean everyone in the whole region is mad. Just the guys coming here posting how USTA should do something about the Utah captain.

Cheaters are cheaters no matter what. 99% of the players are not. Why punish them because of a small minority?

No one is clear about what is or is not "cheating." See my post above about 3 different ways people can "manipulate" their ratings. Are they all "cheating" in your book? If so then more than 99% of people at regionals and nationals are "cheaters."

Just because I think we should have clear rules that does not mean people will be "punished." Just because you have to play in your level does not mean you are being punished.

Once you start managing ratings, is it really any different than other types of cheating?

How is hitting the auto appeal button not managing your rating?

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

I didn't mean everyone in the whole region is mad. Just the guys coming here posting how USTA should do something about the Utah captain.

Well, be careful with your phrasing, "southern is mad", tends to mean the whole of southern is mad, rarely would that mean just 2 or 3 people on a message board, the guys coming here and posting, maybe just 1 is from southern, maybe none really, not sure.

 

[iNeverSlice]

I self rated as a 3.0 in June so I could try to get on a team. I finally got on a mixed 6.5 team this fall and I played three mixed doubles matches and will play 2 more this sunday. That will do it unless we end up advancing to regionals. I think My game has improved quite a bit since the matches I posted over the summer but my serve and serve receive is no better.

I also signed up for an informal 4.0-4.5 group which i am afraid I will get blown out in - but should be a learning experience either way. I don’t think anyone in it has an actual usta rating but they are a variety of interesting men and women players from recent d3 men to somewhat recent d1 females, some strong female high school players and generally quite a few other different tennis backgrounds. I’m pretty nervous/excited to play in it. It has.both singles and doubles. I can post about it if you are interested. The guy I played matches against is in it as well.

Why would you self rate as a 3.0 and then join a 4.0 - 4.5 group? If I was a recent D3 player and had to play a 3.0 I'd be very upset. Just a total waste of time.

 

[Creighton]

Why would you self rate as a 3.0 and then join a 4.0 - 4.5 group? If I was a recent D3 player and had to play a 3.0 I'd be very upset. Just a total waste of time.

He only thinks about himself. As evidenced by his long diatribes trying to drastically change systems affecting thousands of people for his own whims.

 

[jmnk]

If one has a large enough network of players, it can work.

Not this team specifically, but consider:

2018 - Lose 5 to bump ups that can't appeal down, but can use 3 from that team along with 12 other players in network plus a few new ones that are found and you have a roster for 2019.

2019 - Lose 5 more to bump ups, but perhaps some of the 2018 bump ups come back down or now can appeal and are now eligible for the team again.

2020/2021 - This team can have the 3 from 2019, but effectively the whole 2018 team that isn't still bumped up is now eligible

So one just needs enough players to alternate back and forth between a couple groups of players.

oh, yeah, that would work. I was just surprised how a team that went to Nationals 4 years in a row could have A players on the team, and these were the very players that went to those Nationals. Perhaps the fact there was no playoffs in 2020 means that "in a row' actually means 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, and by the time 2021 league started they could appeal down their 2019 ranking.

 

[jmnk]

This is a recipe for DQ, though. If you're playing competitively at 4.0, those are likely strikes or near strikes at 3.5, so if you go down and dominate, you'll be right back up in no time. In terms of self-rating DQs, the biggest danger is your first two matches. If you put up big match ratings in your first two matches, DQ is almost inevitable. If you're going to play up in your first two matches and then go down, those match ratings need to be bump down levels of low at the higher level or going down will be futile.

And why would that be a problem? That's how USTA league is supposed to work.

 

[jmnk]

Also remember that USTA has explicitly said not everyone at the same level is "competitive." They have said a typical result of two people at the extremes of the same level will be 6-0 6-0. They have changed the language to say they are supposed to be "compatible." Which I suppose means something looser than "competitive" but honestly who knows?

So yes you beat that 3.5 6-0 6-0 but that doesn't necessarily mean you are not a 3.5 yourself. So when you also play a 4.0 and lose 6-1 6-2 and think that match wasn't competitive either then sure you may feel justified in rating at 3.5. And indeed you might be correctly rating yourself as a 3.5 with those results!! If the 4.0 is a middle of the road 4.0 and the 3.5 you beat at the very bottom - let alone possibly not having a good day. Then indeed you likely would earn a computer rating of 3.5 if you played those matches repeatedly until you obtained an actual computer rating. USTA knows the full dynamic rating so they could sort this out fairly easily but they keep that information secret and won't help players sort it out. That is why I think players should be able to simply play matches against rated players and have USTA give them a rating. The questionnaire can provide a floor so a d1 player doesn't sand bag and end up as a 3.0 but the questionnaire should only provide that floor.

I have no idea what your argument is. The highlighted part is _exactly_ what USTA does today. The self-questionnaire indeed gives you the minimum you can rate at (i.e. floor). And self-rate is not really a 'true' ranking anyway, it is what a given player 'thinks' he is. Then you play USTA league matches against rated players and USTA computer gives you a true ranking.

I'm glad we arrived to a common conclusion. That current USTA system does _exactly what you want from that system_.

 

[jmnk]

So if someone is an auto appeal rated player and they get DQed are they dishonest?

actually yes. If you got DQ after auto-appeal then it is fairly obvious you belong at the higher level, and you knew that, and you only auto-appealed down so you could win more often. A player that appealed due to injury/etc is very unlikely to be DQ because he indeed is not as good post-injury.

Do you think someone that does the auto appeal down is representing that they really think they belong at that lower level?

Some that appeal due to injury/being away from the game - yes. But those that appeal only because they are within the margin for auto-appeal know they are good enough to play at higher level - but do not want to because they would not win as much.

I don't think players should just self rate because they have been not played USTA for 3 years and removing ratings due to injuries should be extremely limited. People should have their ratings change through match play not questionnaires.

If you had been away from a game for over 3 years it is not unreasonable to think your more-than-3-year-old ranking does not reflect your ability anymore. Same with injury. And of course these appeals are extremely limited. The point is that they do need to exist to address those limited cases.

Again, glad that we clarified that current USTA system works as you want it to.