2021 18+ 4.0M USTA League Nationals Predictions

[Moon Shooter]

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.

I'm not so sure it is reasonable to interpret my comment as referring to every player in the entire southern region. I think in the context of the message board we might infer that I did indeed mean those here on the message board. But I agree it was vague. It's just a forum post not sure what I need to be careful about.

JOGA said he was from southern. I have no reason to not believe him. Some others have said as much such as Creighton. But it is really Joga and others I think we can strongly suspect as coming from southern such as anonuncle

2021 18+ 4.0M USTA League Nationals Predictions

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...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Utah captain is a **** for the record though.

and ATLwc.

I don't know the Utah captain at all. I just feel like we had Boss Hog, Sherriff Roscoe and Enos all come in for a cameo appearance to tell us how much that darn Utah captain is rotten for doing the same things they do only he somehow he did it better (worse?). I just find it amusing.

 

[Moon Shooter]

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_.

I said the actual rating should be based on games not just whatever you decide. But I wonder what percentage of people do you think self rate up higher than the questionnaire? Of those that do how many end up getting an even higher rating after year end? In other words they were actually 2 levels higher but bumped up one.

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.

Ok so you think it is dishonest to auto appeal unless you really think you should be at that lower level? So if you appeal just to stay on a team with friends even though you think you are just as likely to have the skill of the level above as below that is dishonest as well? See all these rules are very subjective and what one person thinks is fine another would say is cheating.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

I need more stories from 3.5 level tennis, are there any tales of manipulation? The notable captains in Dallas that do the captain for a hobby thing usually are tanking and self rating at 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, mixed, combo, AND tri-level. Does Utah and Southern go the mass team route?

 

[Moon Shooter]

Why would you self rate as a 3.0 and then join a 4.0 - 4.5 group?

I self rated in June. At that point I wanted to be on a team and had not seen anyone with an actual rating play tennis. I honestly still have no idea what rating I am - but I have improved and I am pretty sure at this point I am better than a 3.0 - but maybe not as strong as a 3.0 that would win nationals. I don't think any of the people in the 4.0-4.5 group have a rating either. I joined them because they invited me, and I like to play tennis matches. The people running it know who I am.

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.

I understand and agree. If I am clearly out of my league I will offer to bow out but there are a few guys in the group that I think I can play competitively - one or 2 I think I can beat - so I will give it a try. Its a pretty wide range of players actually. A top d3 player I think will be very different than the lowest d3 player. So I don't know what I am dealing with.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I need more stories from 3.5 level tennis, are there any tales of manipulation? The notable captains in Dallas that do the captain for a hobby thing usually are tanking and self rating at 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, mixed, combo, AND tri-level. Does Utah and Southern go the mass team route?

I feel the same but it's the wrong thread for this. This one is just about 4.0.

 

[ChaelAZ]

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.

Awesome. The biggest thing is as you start to get into the mix of players at any level, and seeing the variety at all levels, some of these conversations will change. I know over the last 10+ years for me as my game evolved, so did my understanding of distinct difference through the levels. Well, and that I most likely will NEVER reach 4.5, but can be a decent 4.0, or get called a cheater/sandbagger in 3.5 if the USTA keeps holding over things.

 

[ChaelAZ]

The team they were on was pretty topped out 4.5's and it could be argued they SHOULD have competed at 5.0, but then again they lost at sectionals so even if ratings show they are pushing 5.0, as often the highest rating players in any rating do, that doesn't always translate to automatic wins, sandbagging, or SR being out of class. This is a good example of it. Go to tennis record and look up 4.5 Brookfield East and you can see they had a heavy top end, including the usual suspect of Ian, Mark, and Scott, but they were not even the tops.

 

[Zman]

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.

Your argument sounds like this: if you flip a coin, it could have gone either way, but it didn't. If that coin landed heads then definitely heads had an unfair advantage.

The point is that the 40+ 4.0 Middle States and 18+ 4.0 GA team played several matches at sectionals and nationals where their seasons were on the line, and they pulled out the match by the narrowest of margins. For instance, MS would have been eliminated in the national semifinals if they had lost a 10-point tiebreaker, or had lost a total of 3 more games combined on all courts. That does not indicate a team that is deliberately keeping the scores close (not that a team would do that in the national semifinals anyway) -- it indicates a team in a dead-even coin-flip match that happened to go their way this time. Likewise, three of GA's four matches in the round-robin portion of nationals were decided by 10-point tiebreakers. So they could easily have missed the national semis if some coin flips hadn't gone their way. The fact that those coin flips happened to go their way this year doesn't prove any general principle, any more than the fact that a single coin flip landing heads proves that heads has an unfair advantage over tails.

It's one thing if a team wins nationals while winning all their matches in straight sets and by lopsided scores on enough courts to clinch the match, like the Intermountain 18+ 4.0 team did this year. That team was so far out of level that no team of C- and A-rated players had a chance against them -- in fact, it's entirely possible that a team of the 8 best C- and A-rated players in the whole country would have no chance against them. It's an entirely different thing if a team wins nationals while having matches decided by 10-point tiebreakers, and losing some matches, and basically not knowing in advance whether they would win a given match. One of these involves good competition for the title, and one doesn't. They should not be treated as being equivalent.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Awesome. The biggest thing is as you start to get into the mix of players at any level, and seeing the variety at all levels, some of these conversations will change. I know over the last 10+ years for me as my game evolved, so did my understanding of distinct difference through the levels. Well, and that I most likely will NEVER reach 4.5, but can be a decent 4.0, or get called a cheater/sandbagger in 3.5 if the USTA keeps holding over things.

Thanks for the encouragement Chael. As much as everyone keeps saying people know their ntrp level I really have very little idea. I am starting to think I am mid 3.5 to lower 4.0 but there are other 3.0 self rates that are really close to my skill as well. I think if I ever get a really strong serve I will be able to play much better. With the doubles matches (even if I am the weakest player) I can team up with the strongest and we should still have fun. The singles games are more concerning. I'll play my best but I do think some of the players will frump me like road kill. I have worked on my conditioning and if I can sit for 60 seconds at changeovers I should be fine. But I have only played a handful of singles matches since I mostly have just done clinics. I played two singles matches two weekends ago and did ok - I think - one lady had played 2.5 women's and the other guy has no rating.

I posted highlights of two or three matches I had with one of the players this summer. Creighton said he was a 3.0 to 3.5 but he has since improved a bit. I have as well since those videos - except my serve and serve receive hasn't really improved much.

 

[Creighton]

I need more stories from 3.5 level tennis, are there any tales of manipulation? The notable captains in Dallas that do the captain for a hobby thing usually are tanking and self rating at 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, mixed, combo, AND tri-level. Does Utah and Southern go the mass team route?

I tried. Had 7 4.0s on my 3.5 team and we were below average at southern sectionals.

I needed a self rate singles guy, because the best singles guys there were all self rates. We had one in local area too that would have gotten us to nationals. But we made a huge mistake not getting him on our team at all cost.

Here is hoping I somehow survive one more season at 3.5 after getting battered at sectionals by those ringers.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Your argument sounds like this: if you flip a coin, it could have gone either way, but it didn't. If that coin landed heads then definitely heads had an unfair advantage.

The point is that the 40+ 4.0 Middle States and 18+ 4.0 GA team played several matches at sectionals and nationals where their seasons were on the line, and they pulled out the match by the narrowest of margins. For instance, MS would have been eliminated in the national semifinals if they had lost a 10-point tiebreaker, or had lost a total of 3 more games combined on all courts. That does not indicate a team that is deliberately keeping the scores close (not that a team would do that in the national semifinals anyway) -- it indicates a team in a dead-even coin-flip match that happened to go their way this time. Likewise, three of GA's four matches in the round-robin portion of nationals were decided by 10-point tiebreakers. So they could easily have missed the national semis if some coin flips hadn't gone their way. The fact that those coin flips happened to go their way this year doesn't prove any general principle, any more than the fact that a single coin flip landing heads proves that heads has an unfair advantage over tails.

It's one thing if a team wins nationals while winning all their matches in straight sets and by lopsided scores on enough courts to clinch the match, like the Intermountain 18+ 4.0 team did this year. That team was so far out of level that no team of C- and A-rated players had a chance against them -- in fact, it's entirely possible that a team of the 8 best C- and A-rated players in the whole country would have no chance against them. It's an entirely different thing if a team wins nationals while having matches decided by 10-point tiebreakers, and losing some matches, and basically not knowing in advance whether they would win a given match. One of these involves good competition for the title, and one doesn't. They should not be treated as being equivalent.

I agree with some of what you are saying. I agree that teams are going to play their best at nationals.

But I also think lots of teams at nationals are out of level and, especially this year, c level players could be very far out of level. I think the appeal level players can also be pretty far out of level if they are willing to manage their rating. I think the national 3.5 team was mostly computer rated players.

But there is no question that a statistically significant number of teams use self rates and appeal rated players to make it to, and compete at nationals. Utah just did the same tactic "even harder".

 

[Creighton]

Your argument sounds like this: if you flip a coin, it could have gone either way, but it didn't. If that coin landed heads then definitely heads had an unfair advantage.

The point is that the 40+ 4.0 Middle States and 18+ 4.0 GA team played several matches at sectionals and nationals where their seasons were on the line, and they pulled out the match by the narrowest of margins. For instance, MS would have been eliminated in the national semifinals if they had lost a 10-point tiebreaker, or had lost a total of 3 more games combined on all courts. That does not indicate a team that is deliberately keeping the scores close (not that a team would do that in the national semifinals anyway) -- it indicates a team in a dead-even coin-flip match that happened to go their way this time. Likewise, three of GA's four matches in the round-robin portion of nationals were decided by 10-point tiebreakers. So they could easily have missed the national semis if some coin flips hadn't gone their way. The fact that those coin flips happened to go their way this year doesn't prove any general principle, any more than the fact that a single coin flip landing heads proves that heads has an unfair advantage over tails.

It's one thing if a team wins nationals while winning all their matches in straight sets and by lopsided scores on enough courts to clinch the match, like the Intermountain 18+ 4.0 team did this year. That team was so far out of level that no team of C- and A-rated players had a chance against them -- in fact, it's entirely possible that a team of the 8 best C- and A-rated players in the whole country would have no chance against them. It's an entirely different thing if a team wins nationals while having matches decided by 10-point tiebreakers, and losing some matches, and basically not knowing in advance whether they would win a given match. One of these involves good competition for the title, and one doesn't. They should not be treated as being equivalent.

Every team is out of level at nationals. So that’s a poor comparison.

Look at how the Atlanta team did at districts. They blew threw everyone at districts without a challenge. GA is a big enough tennis state there should be a semblance of parity in that district.

 

[Moon Shooter]

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

I love you too Creighton.

 

[jmnk]

Your argument sounds like this: if you flip a coin, it could have gone either way, but it didn't. If that coin landed heads then definitely heads had an unfair advantage.

The point is that the 40+ 4.0 Middle States and 18+ 4.0 GA team played several matches at sectionals and nationals where their seasons were on the line, and they pulled out the match by the narrowest of margins. For instance, MS would have been eliminated in the national semifinals if they had lost a 10-point tiebreaker, or had lost a total of 3 more games combined on all courts. That does not indicate a team that is deliberately keeping the scores close (not that a team would do that in the national semifinals anyway) -- it indicates a team in a dead-even coin-flip match that happened to go their way this time. Likewise, three of GA's four matches in the round-robin portion of nationals were decided by 10-point tiebreakers. So they could easily have missed the national semis if some coin flips hadn't gone their way. The fact that those coin flips happened to go their way this year doesn't prove any general principle, any more than the fact that a single coin flip landing heads proves that heads has an unfair advantage over tails.

It's one thing if a team wins nationals while winning all their matches in straight sets and by lopsided scores on enough courts to clinch the match, like the Intermountain 18+ 4.0 team did this year. That team was so far out of level that no team of C- and A-rated players had a chance against them -- in fact, it's entirely possible that a team of the 8 best C- and A-rated players in the whole country would have no chance against them. It's an entirely different thing if a team wins nationals while having matches decided by 10-point tiebreakers, and losing some matches, and basically not knowing in advance whether they would win a given match. One of these involves good competition for the title, and one doesn't. They should not be treated as being equivalent.

No, that is exactly what the argument is NOT. that MiddleStates team with mostly appealed down players _won_ 40+ 4.0 Nationals, and went to 18+ 40 Nationals missing the semifinals on tiebreakers. It's interesting that you point out that 40+ team _would have_ missed the semifinals if some scores went differently - but you do not mention that _they would advance to semifinals in 18+_ if some scores went differently.

If you wanted to use coin flipping analogy it would be more in the line of: each match is a flip coin (i.e. supposedly close) but somehow _a lion majority of those coin flips ended up in that teams' favor_. Luck - sure, possibly. But then, because that team is loaded with appealed down players, it is as if those coin flips were happening with somewhat weighted coin, not much, but still.

And everyone is in agreement that Intermountain team was not competing in the spirit of the rules. Saying that MiddleState team is 'not equivalent' is not exactly a ringing endorsement of fairness however. You should not strive to be a bit better than a known cheating team, that's not enough.

 

[Moon Shooter]

BTW here is some actual data done by Schmke about how accurate people were at self rating themselves. Given that most people are likely thinking it is one of 2 levels hitting 50% should be easy. It's not that much higher. In other words, I would say a considerable number of people self rate incorrectly. Now it is true that people may have improved during the year. But their rating will include the early games as well for that first year.

Do USTA League self-rated players self-rate correctly? Do men sandbag and women over rate?

2016 USTA League Nationals are going on in full force, and unfortunately that means a few cases of questionable self-rated players comes up...

computerratings.blogspot.com

 

[schmke]

BTW here is some actual data done by Schmke about how accurate people were at self rating themselves. Given that most people are likely thinking it is one of 2 levels hitting 50% should be easy. It's not that much higher. In other words, I would say a considerable number of people self rate incorrectly. Now it is true that people may have improved during the year. But their rating will include the early games as well for that first year.

Do USTA League self-rated players self-rate correctly? Do men sandbag and women over rate?

2016 USTA League Nationals are going on in full force, and unfortunately that means a few cases of questionable self-rated players comes up...

computerratings.blogspot.com

Thanks for the link to my blog.

For men, the 3.5 and higher levels all have over 70% of players end up the same level they self-rated which is significantly higher than 50%. Considering in many years that 80-85% of C rated players remain the same level, low to mid-70s for self-rates isn't a whole lot lower than C rated. Certainly some of this is due to incorrect self-rating, but some portion is also certainly due to new players improving. Yes, their early games count for their rating but the algorithm is biased towards what you've done lately so the better results at the end of year do influence things more.

So one can interpret the data however you wish, but I don't see "just" 70+% of self-rates remaining the same level as an indication that incorrect self-rating is a rampant problem.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Thanks for the link to my blog.

Thanks for running the numbers and sharing the data on your blog it's excellent.

For men, the 3.5 and higher levels all have over 70% of players end up the same level they self-rated which is significantly higher than 50%.

When you consider that if the choice is between 2 options for most people, throwing darts will get 50% wrong. Having them think about it lowers it from 50% to 30% getting it wrong. Yes its significant but is it really great? I am not so sure.

And that is only for 3.5 and above. That is only @22,000 of the self rates and leaves out about 14,000 people that self rated at 3.0 or 2.5. They do considerably worse with only 61% and for 2.5s and only 65% for 3.0s getting it correct.

Considering in many years that 80-85% of C rated players remain the same level, low to mid-70s for self-rates isn't a whole lot lower than C rated.

Are you comparing apples to apples or are you now including the 3.0 and 2.5 players? Yes of course the 3.0c and 2.5c players will improve more often and leave their level. But you didn't include their worse self rate level to get your 70%. If the 80-85% remaining the same are all 3.5c and 4.0c players then I think that is a valid comparison.

But even if the numbers are correct we are saying about 12.5% or about one in 8 self rates are getting it wrong. I think that is a significant number. One in 8 self rates will either be ringers on a team or dragging their team down if they get played.

Of course some of the self rates will continue to manage their ratings and those are not included in that figure. I wonder if the number of players staying at their c level increases significantly after their first second and third years after they self rate.

Certainly some of this is due to incorrect self-rating, but some portion is also certainly due to new players improving. Yes, their early games count for their rating but the algorithm is biased towards what you've done lately so the better results at the end of year do influence things more.

So one can interpret the data however you wish, but I don't see "just" 70+% of self-rates remaining the same level as an indication that incorrect self-rating is a rampant problem.

Well that is thousands of players that are out of level. And you just need one or two on a team to give you a big advantage. That seems to be exactly what we see on quite a few teams that win state, regionals and nationals. Is it "rampant"? Ok maybe not. But it does seem to be a real significant problem for a league that promotes post season play as much as USTA does.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Speaking of data I think it would be interesting to get some data on how the ratings compare to predicted median ratings. The "predicted median rating" would depend on the level. Since the 3.0 level is below the average player you would expect more players to be at the upper end of the rating level. Maybe the predicted median rating would be 2.87 or something. But since a 4.0 is above average you would expect more players to be in the lower half of the rating range maybe 3.68 or something. Once you have that then you can get some interesting information. How do the actual median ratings relate to the predicted median ratings? That would give us some information about the extent of rating management. So for example if based on the general player distribution you would expect the median rating of a 4.0 to be 3.68 but it is actually 3.78 then you would have pretty good evidence people are managing their ratings. If the predicted median 3.5 was a 3.22 but the actual median rating was a 3.32 that would also indicate some significant manipulation. Or it could also be that players that are at the lower end of a rating level drop out. But either possibility would indicate a substantial problem.

I think it would be interesting if there was significant variation of certain regions/sections as far as how the actual distribution varied from the predicted distribution. So what is the average dynamic rating of a southern 3.5 player compared to the average dynamic rating of a Northern 3.5 player. If we see that the average on the Northern player is higher than the average on the southern team that would seem to suggest sandbagging is more prevalent in the northern regions. But it is also possible that the predicted median dynamic rating of a region differs from the national predicted median - I don't think that is likely but it probably should be checked. So for example it might be that Southern has a higher proportion of higher rated rather than lower rated players compared to the national average. Perhaps where the national median rating for all players is 3.22 in the south it is 3.26 or something. If that is the case then that would slightly throw off the predicted median player for each level.

Also it would be interesting to also see how the distribution of actual matches played tracks the predicted dynamic rating. If you count every match as a data point (instead of every player) what is the average rating of players in a match. This would let us know if people may have an incentive to sandbag just so that they get to play. So for example if the predicted median player in a 3.5 league would have a rating of 3.22 and the average match rating level is a 3.22 then it would seem that players there would not have an incentive to sandbag - in order to get more playing time. But if the average rating of a match was higher than the predicted median dynamic rating for that level then people would likely know if they want to play more matches they should manage their rating so they do not end up in a level where they are in the lower end.

If everyone is honest then you would expect just as many 3.5 players to be below the median player rating as above it. If people are honestly trying to use the appeal process to give them the correct rating then you would think we would have just as many people trying to appeal up as down right?

 

[jmnk]

I think it would be interesting ...[....]

I think it would be interesting ....[...]

Also it would be interesting ....[...]

judging from overwhelming response it does not seem to be _that_ interesting.....

 

[J_R_B]

judging from overwhelming response it does not seem to be _that_ interesting.....

It was sort of interesting the first time. Less so the 315th time Moony says the same overly verbose tripe.

 

[jmnk]

It was sort of interesting the first time. Less so the 315th time Moony says the same overly verbose tripe.

well, let's not go overboard here. I've counted only 308 posts on this subject by @Moon Shooter . But I see your point.......

 

[Racquet Scientist]

Two years ago, his singles ringer, Jihoon Noh, was a 3 star on tennis recruiting - a top 2 Utah rated junior, top 5 sectional player, and top 300 national player. I understand he walked on BYUs team, then ended up playing club at BYU and played at club nationals before playing on Fowkes 4.0 team. Look at his self rate matches during the regular season how the kid played the minimum matches and dropped a lot of games in doubles, then was hidden and protected until nationals where he was unleashed and destroyed everyone (except for the other 4.5 ringer he played on one leg while fighting cramps the during the match) giving Utah a clear 1-0 advantage over EVERYONE they played. And that 1-0 advantage with a player who should have been self rated a 5.0, gave Utah the title that year.

Bottom line - a kid who is younger than 25 without serious physical injury who played juniors representing “Team Utah” and zonal competition representing the Intermountain Section should not be allowed to play 4.0 league. Not only was the captain complicit in this, but the state and section was as well.

I just stumbled on this thread and am not connected to anyone who has posted. I could not agree more with what tennis tater posted. I am a random league player with an interest in data analysis who decided to look more into some of these teams who win Nationals.

As more evidence:
1) Jihoon Noh was ranked the #258 player in the United States for his senior class in 2013: https://www.tennisrecruiting.net/player.asp?id=714899
2) He was a state champion, and the local paper decided to write up an article about him possibly walking on at BYU, a Division I tennis team: https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56339450&itype=cmsid
3) He played at the Tennis on Campus national championships: http://play.nirsa.net/wp-content/uploads/tennis-2019-program.pdf. The player experience guide said (not sure when this was changed) one has to self-rate at 5.0 if one played in this event, which is competitive to qualify for, having to win Sectionals, etc.
"Men who played in national championship"

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/ExperiencedGuidelines_02142011_V2pdf.pdf

4) As tennis tater noted, he lost a lot of games in doubles during the regular season, with those matches being at #3 dubs. I will also note he was playing against 3.5 competition in some of these matches. And then he was "unleashed" at Nationals, double bageling his opponent in the finals.
5) The next year, this captain wins Nationals again, and as has been noted, three players were disqualified a couple of days after Nationals completed. And this year this captain again has two "super teams" that look primed to win Nationals again.

Obviously, something fishy went on. I put all this in my USTA league survey that year.

Player Record for 2019

Player Name	City/State	NTRP Rating
jihoon Noh	South Jordan, UT	5.0

Local League Results
Section	District	League
USTA/INTERMOUNTAIN	UTAH	2019 Winter League-Saturday
Match ID	Match Date	Winning Player	Opponent	Score	Match Type	Level
1007017362	3/9/2019	Adam Peterson jihoon Noh	Ryne Hazen Serdar Akkor	6-3, 6-2	#3 Doubles	4.0
1007017370	3/23/2019	jihoon Noh Spencer Ellis	Andrew Whittle Aaron Gleave	7-5, 6-4	#3 Doubles	4.0
Section	District	League
USTA/INTERMOUNTAIN	UTAH	2019 USTA Adult 18 & Over
Match ID	Match Date	Winning Player	Opponent	Score	Match Type	Level
1007145469	4/25/2019	Spencer Ellis jihoon Noh	Cameron Willes Don Allred	6-2, 6-3	#3 Doubles	4.0
1007145471	5/2/2019	Scott Hinton jihoon Noh	Mitch Long Joshua Freeman	6-3, 6-3	#3 Doubles	4.0

Championship Results

Section	District
USTA/INTERMOUNTAIN	UTAH

Championship	Level	League Type/NTRP/Gender
18 & Over M 4.0	District	Adult 18&Over / 4.0 / M

Match ID	Match Date	Winning Player	Opponent	Score	Match Type
2736272	6/27/2019	jihoon Noh	Paul Dyreng	6-4, 6-1	#2 Singles

Championship / SubFlight	Level	League Type/NTRP/Gender
Men's 4.0 / Nationals	National	Adult 18&Over / 4.0 / M

Match ID	Match Date	Winning Player	Opponent	Score	Match Type
2762990	10/18/2019	jihoon Noh	Johnny Ung	6-0, 6-0	#1 Singles
2762997	10/18/2019	jihoon Noh	Kristopher Liptak	6-0, 6-1	#1 Singles
2763012	10/19/2019	jihoon Noh	Kyle Truong	6-4, 7-6	#1 Singles

Championship / SubFlight	Level	League Type/NTRP/Gender
Men's 4.0 / Semi-Finals/Finals	National	Adult 18&Over / 4.0 / M

Match ID	Match Date	Winning Player	Opponent	Score	Match Type
2769375	10/20/2019	jihoon Noh	Sherif Mohamed	6-0, 6-0	#2 Singles

There was a similar formula for ringer Justin Stohlton the next year, having him also play at #3 dubs during the regular season. Come on, USTA officials. It would not be much effort to check these players out by doing a quick Internet search before everyone pays to travel to Nationals. Otherwise, some people are not interested in paying fees to support this type of activity.

Other examples abound. For example, in the Southwest 4.0 18+ Sectionals, the Phoenix teams won three years in a row from 2017-2019, with players being disqualified each year in the same year after the team won Sectionals. Two of those players "crushed" at Nationals and were 5.0's shortly thereafter. I find it hard to believe that these players were 4.0 skill level at the time they completed their self-rates. Players most often know what level they should be playing at. Yes, these players were disqualified, but they were allowed to get so far, and harsh penalties were not assessed.

This situation also highlights that only using a computer to monitor has potential problems: You can ask a player to play regular-season matches with his offhand or something like that, but we all know why one would be asking someone to do that.

I spoke with a USTA full-time staffer, and he told me that for the previous year, only around 30% of matches at Nationals were "competitive," which he defined as a match in which the loser gets at least seven games. One suggestion he had was to just simply get rid of Nationals altogether and emphasize UTR-type tournament play more that was based on a published dynamic rating. Another possibility would be to bring back human evaluators. I know this is a tough job, but I think having the possibility to use human judgment to disqualify players could lend some threat to punish blatant cheating.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Amazing research, shouldn't someone just casually posr this to Utah or Arizona Usta facebook or national Usta facebook lol?

 

[atatu]

Can someone please start a "Post your craziest sandbagging story" thread ? I have a good one.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Can someone please start a "Post your craziest sandbagging story" thread ? I have a good one.

I mean, go for it, start a thread with yours.

 

[Racquet Scientist]

Amazing research, shouldn't someone just casually posr this to Utah or Arizona Usta facebook or national Usta facebook lol?

Thank you. We could post it, and maybe it would get USTA regional officials to do something, particularly about the Utah team that is active in their "dynasty" now.

Overall, I agree with what Jack the Hack wrote here:
"Having been around this for as long as many of us have, we have seen all of the changes implemented in the USTA League over the years. Nearly every season, the USTA tweaks one rule or another for better or worse. The self-rating situation arose around 2003 or 2004, when the USTA changed to that system instead of the visual verifiers and rating clinics that existed before. However, in the almost 20 years since then, many unscrupulous captains and players have used loopholes and manipulation of the self-rating system to win “national championships” and the USTA has done little to resolve the problem. Many of us have written proposals and suggested changes to USTA leadership over the years, and folks like @schmke have been blogging about it for at least a decade. It sucks that the USTA ignores this feedback, but I’m here to tell you that they don’t really care that much about League because it’s not a big money maker for them. Juniors and professional tennis is where it’s at, so us whiny adults can go pound sand as far as the USTA is concerned."

And then I also agree with what Chalkdust wrote: " Most of us are saying, the food could be better, but it's generally passable and at times good, and kept us fed when there were few other options." I think this is what USTA is counting on. Enough people are still paying league fees to not do anything more about situations like with the Utah team.

Personally, I got fed up and live in an area where I have other good tennis playing options. I determined that the "food" with USTA leagues was not "generally passable" enough for me to continue to pay and participate.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Thanks for the link to my blog.

Thanks for posting the data. We can disagree about how to interpret the data but it is very good and valuable that you at least collect and publish the data.

For men, the 3.5 and higher levels all have over 70% of players end up the same level they self-rated which is significantly higher than 50%.

Why do you limit it to 3.5 and higher? About 33% of male players are 3.0 players.

Considering in many years that 80-85% of C rated players remain the same level, low to mid-70s for self-rates isn't a whole lot lower than C rated.

Even when we use your select data that ignores 33% of all male players and a much higher percentage of self rates, when you go from 15-20 % to 30 percent you just increased the number of out of level players by 50-100%. If that is not a "whole lot" of an increase then ok thats your opinion. What sort of increase would you consider significant, 200%?

Certainly some of this is due to incorrect self-rating, but some portion is also certainly due to new players improving. Yes, their early games count for their rating but the algorithm is biased towards what you've done lately so the better results at the end of year do influence things more.

So one can interpret the data however you wish, but I don't see "just" 70+% of self-rates remaining the same level as an indication that incorrect self-rating is a rampant problem.

You only considered 3.5 and over players. I think the whole improving argument would work better if you were talking about 2.5 and 3.0 level players but you left them out entirely. When the average age is over 40 and the player already got to a point where they have played for years we should start to see declines as often as improvement. But ok even there I think the question is how many players get bumped the next year? That would help us understand if these players are just rating wrong or truly improving. If year 2 is similar to the first year then I think we can say it is improvement. But if the second year has a steep drop off of number of bumps up or down then I think we can say it is self rating is failing to work as well as the algorithm. Do you agree?

 

[ChaelAZ]

Other examples abound. For example, in the Southwest 4.0 18+ Sectionals, the Phoenix teams won three years in a row from 2017-2019, with players being disqualified each year in the same year after the team won Sectionals. Two of those players "crushed" at Nationals--Shane Bullock and Joel Robison--and were 5.0's shortly thereafter. I find it hard to believe that these players were 4.0 skill level at the time they completed their self-rates. Players most often know what level they should be playing at. Yes, these players were disqualified, but they were allowed to get so far, and harsh penalties were not assessed.

Most likely PTC, and they always the strongest, or one of the strongest teams in our CAZ 4.0. That particular area has an embarrassment of riches in players within their ratings, so they can assemble those fringe players and when you look and see top guys all in the 3.9 range, you know you have work cut out. When we face them, we just focus on the challenge of it. That said, a lot of those guys will or have bounced between 4.0 and 4.5 over a lot of years. Not saying there haven't been a few I have seen compete and win some open tournament matches, but it isn't always cut and dry sandbagging or anything of the sort.

For me, gives me a goal to beat them some day, if possible.

 

[Racquet Scientist]

@ChaelAZ Yes, big cities have advantages when it comes to recruiting players computer rated at the top of their respective level. Schmke provides great information on this and many other rating topics on this forum and his blog. His thread entitled "What are acceptable tactics when assembling/running a team?" includes the tactic of recruiting 3.9ish players for a 4.0 team, and from what I have read on this forum, people do not have a problem with this.

What I and many others have a problem with is recruiting a player llike Jihoon Noh as the Utah captain and others of his ilk do and having them self-rate for a 4.0 team built to win Nationals. You have the Salt Lake Tribune (https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56339450&itype=cmsid) writing the following about him:

"Dedication and discipline are required. To find success on the tennis court or in the concert hall, it takes countless hours of practice and a single-minded focus to excel... Whether bursting through grueling wind sprints or hitting an extra basket of balls to improve on his powerful serve, Noh earned the captain's job by earning the entire team's respect, something expected from a player who already has enrolled at Brigham Young and plans to try walking onto the men's team next year... 'Overall, I love everything about the sport," Noh said. "Practice lets me work with everyone to improve, and the matches give me a chance to challenge myself and prove what I've learned.'... His résumé includes a state title at No. 1 doubles his freshman year and advancing far into the next three tournaments as a singles player. 'They told me it's worth it to coach at Highland because Jihoon is a stud," Epperson said.'... Epperson said that Noh is every coach's dream and expects him to find success at the next level. 'He's the hardest worker of any kid I've coached," Epperson said. "He lives up to a lot of expectations. The kid is going to be a winner in life no matter what he does... Meet Jihoon Noh. Noh plans to attend Brigham Young University next fall and try walking on to the men's tennis team. He plans on serving an LDS mission after one year in school before focusing on tennis and a career in medicine."

After having all this documented about him, he can get away with self-rating at 4.0? You cannot be serious. I found the information about him on the first page of a Google search. And then he goes on to play Tennis on Campus Nationals? Having participated in the Tennis on Campus program myself, I know you have to be in the top four of your college's team to play in this event, and this is the next level of organized tennis after the varsity team. You have to beat other good schools at Sectionals to qualify to go to Nationals, etc. He has benefited from some of the best tennis opportunities the U.S. can offer and was very successful at them, and then he self-rates at an intermediate level of tennis, aka 4.0. He and his captain wanted to take that trophy home, too--and did. And then the next Nationals a similar pattern is repeated with this team winning Nationals and having three players disqualified a few days later. And USTA wants me to pay league fees to help subsidize experiences at Nationals for people like this?

Even if this player and all the others were 4.0's at the time of self-rating, which I and others find very hard to believe, the self-rating guide says that one should rate at the next level higher if one has a tennis background and is going to be playing regularly.

As tennis tater wrote, "Bottom line - a kid who is younger than 25 without serious physical injury who played juniors representing 'Team Utah' and zonal competition representing the Intermountain Section should not be allowed to play 4.0 league. Not only was the captain complicit in this, but the state and section was as well."

And the players I mentioned in the Southwest were also disqualified after having made it to Nationals, etc.

 

[ChaelAZ]

@ChaelAZ And the players I mentioned in the Southwest were also disqualified after having made it to Nationals, etc.

Yeah, I played some of them and it still happens here and there. I know and I have been there.

We played a team last year and this one young player was INSANELY good, so we did our best to pick on his partner, and made a match of it losing close, but you could just tell this kid was just too good. That was Dubs 2, and we watched the Dubs 1 absolutely dismantle our top guys like 0 and 1. Went home to find the college record of the young man we played, and I guess the other two Dubs 1 players were also of too solid a tennis pedigree, because a week or so later all three were DQ'd. Now, I just happen to look at the young man we played and he competed in April in a tourney in the 5.0's and also played another open tournament this year. He didn't do too well, so probably NOT a true 5.0 as the SR might have lead him to, but he most certainly wasn't a 4.0.

 

[Racquet Scientist]

You may be referring to the team out of Paseo Racquet Center that had the two Tovar brothers, who played at Glendale CC, disqualified. And then Brock Higley was disqualified from 4.0 to 5.0 as his college experience came to light. Good job, USTA, for catching them. This captain did not hide his players though like the Utah captain does. I think there should be more measures in place to detect unethical behavior, and I think that would most likely involve a human element to evaluating players and punishing offenders.

I guess I just still care some as USTA is the backbone of adult tennis and the largest entity for playing organized tennis.

 

[ChaelAZ]

You may be referring to the team out of Paseo Racquet Center that had the two Tovar brothers, who played at Glendale CC, disqualified. And then Brock Higley was disqualified from 4.0 to 5.0 as his college experience came to light.

Exactly.

 

[J_R_B]

I just stumbled on this thread and am not connected to anyone who has posted. I could not agree more with what tennis tater posted. I am a random league player with an interest in data analysis who decided to look more into some of these teams who win Nationals.

As more evidence:
1) Jihoon Noh was ranked the #258 player in the United States for his senior class in 2013: https://www.tennisrecruiting.net/player.asp?id=714899
2) He was a state champion, and the local paper decided to write up an article about him possibly walking on at BYU, a Division I tennis team: https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56339450&itype=cmsid
3) He played at the Tennis on Campus national championships: http://play.nirsa.net/wp-content/uploads/tennis-2019-program.pdf. The player experience guide said (not sure when this was changed) one has to self-rate at 5.0 if one played in this event, which is competitive to qualify for, having to win Sectionals, etc.
"Men who played in national championship"

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/ExperiencedGuidelines_02142011_V2pdf.pdf

4) As tennis tater noted, he lost a lot of games in doubles during the regular season, with those matches being at #3 dubs. I will also note he was playing against 3.5 competition in some of these matches. And then he was "unleashed" at Nationals, double bageling his opponent in the finals.
5) The next year, this captain wins Nationals again, and as has been noted, three players were disqualified a couple of days after Nationals completed. And this year this captain again has two "super teams" that look primed to win Nationals again.

Just one clarification. The version of the self-rating guidelines that you linked to is an old version. The Tennis on Campus guidelines were eliminated a couple years ago. This is the current one:

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/pdfs/10013_experience_player_ntrp_guidelines.pdf

This doesn't really invalidate your point, though. There were plenty of red flags about Noh that indicated that the captain had to know he wasn't anywhere even close to 4.0 even if he was allowed to rate there by the guidelines.

BTW, the USTA added a question after the question about "committed to or playing for a college" that says "walk-on or practice player who hasn't made the team". If you answer yes to "committed to a college" but also yes to the second question, the minimum rating is 4.0, not 5.0. I do like this. It allows high school kids who are going to a small school (i.e. no scholarship) but are listed as "committed" in TennisRecruiting when really they just talked to the coach and said they'd go out for the team when they get there and the coach listed a "commitment" in TR for recruiting purposes to play 4.0. I just got a kid like that who is the son of one of my teammates. He's NOT a 3-star recruit (certainly not a state champion, who are all 5.0+ in PA), he's listed as the #845 in his class on the TR site (ranked ~3300 in USTA 18s), and his UTR is right around 7.00, which is the border between 4.0 and 4.5. Forcing a kid like that to 5.0 would be unfair. He'll be 5.0 in four years if he plays all four year at college, but he clearly isn't now.

 

[Racquet Scientist]

Thank you for your comment--I enjoy and appreciate the dialogue.

I am not sure when the Tennis on Campus guidelines were replaced. The Utah team we are talking about won in 2019 (and 2021...and probably 2022)), so I am not sure whether Noh was subject to that guideline.

I am not stating anything here new for you I am sure: You have done your research, clearly, on your new recruit and understand well what metrics to look for. I will note that there are many 4.5's I know in my section with a 6 UTR rating--I would say the majority even. I do think there is a good chance that your recruit could very well be a 4.5 by the end of the season if he takes it seriously, and he would probably be a 4.5 on skill level now in my section. Of course, the self-rate guidelines advise one to rate at the higher level if there is doubt where one will be at the end of the season. As this individual will be right around the cutoff between 4.0 and 4.5, it seems best to put the player at #1 singles or #1 doubles as well, which would most likely subject the individual to greater risk of DQ, but that will also be the most competitive/appropriate match for him I would think. I don't know your team's personnel. But having a quality team member like this play #3 dubs against a 3.5 opponent with a high-rated partner for only a couple of regular-season matches does not seem to be in his best interest for getting the most out of organized, competitive play. This is why many advocate for the establishment of a computer rating before allowing participation in playoffs.

The USTA questionnaire, as others have pointed out in this forum, has flaws--as any such questionnaire will have. There is bias in the questions, etc. A foreign player, for example, would fall outside many of the questionnaire items, and could likely very easily rate lower than the true skill level. I also know players who are higher than their level should be based on their junior record by playing Tennis on Campus events for four years, which are now not subject to having questions asked. I think there needs to be more human intervention without just relying on a flawed algorithm and unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of the system in place. I am by no means stating that you are such an individual: It sounds like a good opportunity to involve a son of a player on your team. I just question if he is a bit too good as a self-rate at 4.0--sounds like he could self-rate at 4.5 and be just fine.

 

[J_R_B]

Thank you for your comment--I enjoy and appreciate the dialogue.

I am not sure when the Tennis on Campus guidelines were replaced. The Utah team we are talking about won in 2019 (and 2021...and probably 2022)), so I am not sure if Noh was subject to that guideline or not.

I am not stating anything here new for you I am sure: You have done your research, clearly, on your new recruit and understand well what metrics to look for. I will note that there are many 4.5's I know in my section with a 6 UTR rating--I would say the majority even. I do think there is a good chance that your recruit could very well be a 4.5 by the end of the season if he takes it seriously, and he would probably be a 4.5 on skill level now in my section. Of course, the self-rate guidelines advise one to rate at the higher level if there is doubt where one will be at the end of the season. As this individual will be right around the cutoff between 4.0 and 4.5, it seems best to put the player at #1 singles or #1 doubles as well, which would most likely subject the individual to greater risk of DQ, but that will also be the most competitive/appropriate match for him I would think. I don't know your team's personnel. But having a quality team member like this play #3 dubs against a 3.5 opponent with a high-rated partner for only a couple of regular-season matches does not seem to be in his best interest for getting the most out of organized, competitive play. This is why many advocate for the establishment of a computer rating before allowing participation in playoffs.

The USTA questionnaire, as others have pointed out in this forum, has flaws--as any such questionnaire will have. There is bias in the questions, etc. A foreign player, for example, would fall outside many of the questionnaire items, and could likely very easily rate lower than the true skill level. I also know players who are higher than their level should be based on their junior record by playing Tennis on Campus events for four years, which are now not subject to having questions asked. I think there needs to be more human intervention without just relying on a flawed algorithm and unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of the system in place. I am by no means stating that you are such an individual: It sounds like a good opportunity to involve a son of a player on your team.

Yeah, he is really borderline 4.0/4.5, probably low 4.5 in singles and 4.0 in doubles. He plays like a junior (and like I did as a junior). There is no nuance to his game at all. He's very fast and athletic and definitely doesn't get cheated in his swings, but the key to playing him is shot tolerance. If you can withstand big topspin groundstrokes and get 2 or 3 in a row back with enough depth and placement that they are not sitters for him, he'll miss eventually. That type of game will get smoked by good 4.5s, where there are an abundance of former college players and former high level juniors who have no issues playing against a player like that. If he learns to control his game in college, he has the raw ability to be a very good player eventually. I'm not going to hide him in D3. I had him in D2 this weekend because I had my true #1 doubles team in the lineup and I already had singles guys lined up (my S1 was up 6-0 2-0 when his opponent rage quit, LOL). We're playing the defending sectional champs this week, so that will be the true test of how good he is.

The UTR conversion chart has 4.0 as a core range of 5-7 with outliers 4-8, where the core UTR for 4.5 is 7-8 with outliers 6-9. this aligns pretty well with our league. Maybe a little higher for the top of 4.5 because the top players are definitely 9s in that league. There are 7s in the 4.0 league, but they are the top guys. There are 6s in 4.5, but they are guys who could potentially get bumped down.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.freshdesk.com/data/helpdesk/attachments/production/9131257275/original/TCEedNjIzpT46fGF4YA67YmCN_Gu-Ra6_g.png?1622679660

For league conversion, 7.00 is the break point between 4.0 and 4.5:

Universal Tennis Adult Leagues - United States

Universal Tennis Adult Leagues - United States Universal Tennis Adult Leagues are for all adult players from social to competitive level and are more economical, flexible, and fun than other leagues. Leagues will be based on the UTR Rating, th...

support.universaltennis.com