Another Sectionals cancelled...

[Brilliant]

Due to the C-19, Southern cancelled Sectionals.
http://www.southern.usta.com/Adults/leagues/section_championships_sites/

Our state just sent out a survey asking about local play and if comfortable playing at State. My main question is this...what about year end ratings? If only local Spring is played will there be a year end off of that? I don't think so being YE is calculated using National Championship Benchmark combined with dynamic rating. And also question is if they do have State will they somehow try to have a year end based on it?

 

[Nostradamus]

Due to the C-19, Southern cancelled Sectionals.
http://www.southern.usta.com/Adults/leagues/section_championships_sites/

Our state just sent out a survey asking about local play and if comfortable playing at State. My main question is this...what about year end ratings? If only local Spring is played will there be a year end off of that? I don't think so being YE is calculated using National Championship Benchmark combined with dynamic rating. And also question is if they do have State will they somehow try to have a year end based on it?

it's all the old guys that is worried about the virus and too afraid of walk out the door. this is ridiculous. we will sue USTA

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Due to the C-19, Southern cancelled Sectionals.
http://www.southern.usta.com/Adults/leagues/section_championships_sites/

Our state just sent out a survey asking about local play and if comfortable playing at State. My main question is this...what about year end ratings? If only local Spring is played will there be a year end off of that? I don't think so being YE is calculated using National Championship Benchmark combined with dynamic rating. And also question is if they do have State will they somehow try to have a year end based on it?

I do not have any inside information, but I am expecting that the USTA will not issue a 2020 year end rating and we will go into 2021 spring league with the same rating as now. No bumps up or down.

 

[J_R_B]

We got a letter from Middle States that the whole adult season is cancelled (it hadn't started yet before the lockdown). They will offer "alternative play opportunities" later in the year.

 

[E46luver]

How can you have sectionals when you don't even have a league season?

 

[schmke]

I do not have any inside information, but I am expecting that the USTA will not issue a 2020 year end rating and we will go into 2021 spring league with the same rating as now. No bumps up or down.

I can understand not wanting 2020 year-end ratings to be published because teams never had a chance to play a full season and ratings changes would affect that. But it doesn't feel right to just ignore matches that were played and would give self-rated players a C rating or get other players an appropriate rating, up or down, for their current ability.

Some players got several months of play in and have sufficient matches to get a 2020 rating, and with some areas planning to resume/start play in leagues where matches count towards your rating, more may still be played. Would seem a same to throw that all away.

What should the priority be, getting players at the right level based on their results? Or preserving ratings so 2020 teams can still play together? A case can be made either way, I'd lean towards the former.

 

[denoted]

How can they calibrate rankings without sectionals/nationals? Isn't that usually a big part of the equation for interconnection and adjustment?

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

How can you have sectionals when you don't even have a league season?

I have an idea, USTA should just sell sectional winner merchandise, like t-shirts and bag or towels and the chance to take a photo in front of one of those signs that says Sectional winner. It can be an auction to the highest bidder or it can be a let everyone do it thing. They would make more revenue than any year before and they could use it for more normal times!

 

[schmke]

How can they calibrate rankings without sectionals/nationals? Isn't that usually a big part of the equation for interconnection and adjustment?

They can't really do the benchmarking/adjusting without Nationals, but that doesn't mean every player doesn't have a dynamic rating at year-end and that rating could be used as is or as part of a modified year-end calculation to give players a 2020 year-end rating. Do we really want all players in 2021 to be operating with ratings that are from matches played 20+ months ago if there is data from the past <12 months that could more accurately rate them?

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Do we really want all players in 2021 to be operating with ratings that are from matches played 20+ months ago if there is data from the past <12 months that could more accurately rate them?

But that’s the issue though right? Can it more accurately rate them without adjusting for nationals data?

 

[Vox Rationis]

Maybe they should include results from both last year and this year to make a year-end rating?

 

[schmke]

But that’s the issue though right? Can it more accurately rate them without adjusting for nationals data?

For a self-rate, absolutely. I don't think Nationals date is required to generally say if a self-rate was at the right level. Missing out on giving these players year-end ratings and staying an S for 2021 means that:

• They would have been a C at the same level - No change in what level they play, but they have another year of fearing strikes and DQ. For some that have actually improved since their played matches, being an S might be a good thing as perhaps they are no longer playing at their S and would have been C level, so being an S will allow them to be DQ'd. I think this is pretty rare though.
• They would have been bumped down and given a C but are stuck at a level higher - Since they are still an S, they must play at the same level again and endure the losses the presumably took in 2020 all over again. They very well may decide not to play for this reason.
• They would have been bumped up and given a C but at the next higher level - Since they are still an S, they get to play at the lower level again, albeit subject to strikes. This isn't really fair to their opponents.

Given that ~35% of self-rates fall into the 2nd and 3rd cases (11K players in 2019), it would seem like a good idea to try to avoid these scenarios and give them a 2020 year-end rating so they can play at the right level.

For others, the absence of year-end benchmark calculations won't affect their rating that much. If they had shown improvement and their dynamic rating indicates a bump up was appropriate, that is probably accurate certainly well north of 50% of the time, so it is better to bump them up than let them play at the lower level another year. Similarly, someone whose game is diminishing due to age or whatever factors and had their dynamic drop to the point of a bump down is probably again accurate far more than 50% of the time even in the absence of year-end benchmark calculations and forcing that player to play at the higher level again will likely be the wrong thing to do.