Are things back to the way they were before the mass bumpups in 2010?

[goober]

The great ratings bumpup of 2010 seems to have been completely nullified. Things are back to the way they were as far as I can tell.

If anything that lack of bumpups this year is astonishing. Many players that were nationals and sectionals this fall did not get bumped. I remember the USTA stating that they noticed the same team and players winning districts/sectionals year after year. So they tried to do something about it with the mass bumpups. It appears only to have been a bandaid to the problem. Now at least in my area, most of these dynasties are intact with many of the same players again on teams that were bumped to a higher level previously.

I think what they need to do implement some new changes:

Players on teams in sectionals/nationals should all be bumped and it should be benchmarked for a minimum of 2 years .

Players that made it only to districts should be bumped with a minimum 1 year.

The problem of just applying mass bumpups, is that players can work the system and get back down to their previous level. If these bumpups were for a specified time regardless how they player plays then there would be much less incentive engage in the ratings manipulations.

 

[Darkhors]

What level are you playing? At 4.5 you're not going to see hardly any bump ups because the USTA doesn't have "enough" 5.0's to make it worth while.

The problem though is that it's self inflicting. They don't have enough 5.0's because they won't bump them up. So you get all the 4.5's and a lot of 5.0's playing in the same division. This doesn't bother me too much because I'd rather play against guys that are "better" than me in the rankings. It gives me motivation to continue to work on getting better.

As for the 4.0 division, it seems like this has and always will be a division where the players who can't deal with losing will get rated down so they can win at the 4.0 level. It's pretty sad actually, but to some people it's the Holy Grail of Tennis.

You're always going to have some great/solid/strong teams in each division. We have had a solid 4.5 team for years and it's usually between us and 2 other clubs to get out of Districts. Some years it's them, some it's us. I think it makes you work harder and we all know that we're all about at the same level of play.

If this is something you really can't stand, start playing NTRP level specific tournaments, or play open so you'll at least know where you stand.

DH

 

[Cindysphinx]

I agree that there was not enough upward movement this year.

I used four singles players at Districts. Three did not get bumped. Two of these totally dominated at 3.5 singles, yet did not get bumped. One lady went something like 15-2 during the regular season and 1-1 at Districts -- not bumped.

Oddly, her loss at Districts was to a woman who rolled the entire league in singles and won all of her matches at Districts -- not bumped.

Worse, there was some movement down from 4.5 and not nearly enough movement from 4.0 up to 4.5.

That said, I disagree with the solutions proposed. The mere fact that someone plays at Districts does not mean they should be bumped. One of my ladies played two matches at Districts and went 1-1. She is low 3.5 and should not be bumped (her partner was bumped, which was the correct result).

I would agree that anyone who steps onto a court at Sectionals or Nationals should be bumped up. There will be some injustice, but we can live with that.

Cindy -- feeling a little better about her one 4.0 singles match because the woman who hammered her was bumped up to 4.5

 

[JRstriker12]

The great ratings bumpup of 2010 seems to have been completely nullified. Things are back to the way they were as far as I can tell.

If anything that lack of bumpups this year is astonishing. Many players that were nationals and sectionals this fall did not get bumped. I remember the USTA stating that they noticed the same team and players winning districts/sectionals year after year. So they tried to do something about it with the mass bumpups. It appears only to have been a bandaid to the problem. Now at least in my area, most of these dynasties are intact with many of the same players again on teams that were bumped to a higher level previously.

I think what they need to do implement some new changes:

Players on teams in sectionals/nationals should all be bumped and it should be benchmarked for a minimum of 2 years .

Players that made it only to districts should be bumped with a minimum 1 year.

The problem of just applying mass bumpups, is that players can work the system and get back down to their previous level. If these bumpups were for a specified time regardless how they player plays then there would be much less incentive engage in the ratings manipulations.

One of my friends who went to nationals this year said that there's some sort of requirement that only 3 of the same players who went to nationals this year can be on the same team next year.

That should help break up some of the dynasties. But I do agree, the lack of movement was a bit shocking.

IMHO - it seems like it's much harder to get bumped down. I mean, wouldn't you have to lose a significant amount of matches 0 and 1 or 1 and 2 over the season to get bumped down (maybe I'm wrong).

I wonder if USTA is hesitant to bump people up since its so hard to get moved down. I know at least one guy who got bumped to 4.5, lost almost all his matches and didn't get dropped.

He's a solid player, but he plans on not playing USTA next year since he felt we was running up against a lot of guys that should be 5.0 at the 4.5 level. It's one thing to lose a competitive match, it's another thing to pay to play in matches where you have no chance.

I don't know. Maybe leagues need to go at .25 intervals? There's a pretty big gap between someone who may be a 4.0 and someone whose exact computer rating is 4.4.

 

[Mingan]

One of my friends who went to nationals this year said that there's some sort of requirement that only 3 of the same players who went to nationals this year can be on the same team next year.

That should help break up some of the dynasties. But I do agree, the lack of movement was a bit shocking..

Yes, it's called move-up/split-up. A team that advances to nationals can stay together and move up a level, regardless of whether or not the team or any of its members got bumped. Or, they can split up and stay at the same level, if they didn't get bumped. It's USTA Rule 2.06.

 

[SweetH2O]

I don't know. Maybe leagues need to go at .25 intervals? There's a pretty big gap between someone who may be a 4.0 and someone whose exact computer rating is 4.4.

We do that in the Atlanta area and some other parts of Georgia. The leagues run 3.0, 3.5low, 3.5, 4.0low, 4.0, 4.5low, 4.5. There are enough players in the 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5 levels to split people up based on if they are at the low or high end of their rating. Low teams don't advance past the state/district level I don't believe since not all areas have them.

It has made it an easier transition for my 3.5 team to move up as a group when a few of our players got bumped up last year. Not everyone would have stuck with the team if they would have had to start playing borderline 4.0-4.5 players.

I don't think that would fly nationwide though with some areas not being able to support further fragmenting the available player base.

 

[OrangePower]

The great ratings bumpup of 2010 seems to have been completely nullified. Things are back to the way they were as far as I can tell.

I don't think this is correct, at least from the numbers I'm seeing. True there were very few bump ups this year, but there were not many bump downs either, meaning that the status quo of the 'shift' that happened last year and the year before has been preserved. The net effect is that there are more 4.0s than three years ago, slightly more 4.5s, about the same number of 3.5s, and slightly fewer 3.0s.

If anything that lack of bumpups this year is astonishing. Many players that were nationals and sectionals this fall did not get bumped. I remember the USTA stating that they noticed the same team and players winning districts/sectionals year after year. So they tried to do something about it with the mass bumpups. It appears only to have been a bandaid to the problem. Now at least in my area, most of these dynasties are intact with many of the same players again on teams that were bumped to a higher level previously.

The mass bump-ups were a one-time deal (spread over two years), so I was not expecting many bump-ups this year. But I agree that they were maybe too conservative this year, because some top players should have been bumped and were not.

 

[JRstriker12]

We do that in the Atlanta area and some other parts of Georgia. The leagues run 3.0, 3.5low, 3.5, 4.0low, 4.0, 4.5low, 4.5. There are enough players in the 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5 levels to split people up based on if they are at the low or high end of their rating. Low teams don't advance past the state/district level I don't believe since not all areas have them.

It has made it an easier transition for my 3.5 team to move up as a group when a few of our players got bumped up last year. Not everyone would have stuck with the team if they would have had to start playing borderline 4.0-4.5 players.

I don't think that would fly nationwide though with some areas not being able to support further fragmenting the available player base.

Interesting to know.

I'm pretty sure we have enough players in the VA/DC/MD area to support something like this. Our men's 4.0 league was so full this year in Northern Virginia that we had to split the league into 3 groups with 8-10 teams each. Found that each group had 2-3 very strong teams and the rest were pretty weak.

 

[SweetH2O]

Interesting to know.

I'm pretty sure we have enough players in the VA/DC/MD area to support something like this. Our men's 4.0 league was so full this year in Northern Virginia that we had to split the league into 3 groups with 8-10 teams each. Found that each group had 2-3 very strong teams and the rest were pretty weak.

I'm not sure if there is a required number of teams/players, but it's worth asking the league coordinator about if you are interested enough in it. As a comparison, Atlanta has 5 groups with 7-8 teams at 4.0low, and 8 groups of 7-8 teams at regular 4.0.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I don't think this is correct, at least from the numbers I'm seeing. True there were very few bump ups this year, but there were not many bump downs either, meaning that the status quo of the 'shift' that happened last year and the year before has been preserved.

You've made an assumption. It may be a correct one or incorrect one, but it is there.

You've assumed that the natural order of things is for the numbers/percentages of players at each rating level should be stable.

I think that assumption is incorrect.

As people play more tennis, they tend to compete and play better. All things being equal, you would expect any given player to improve over time. Sure, there will be older players who decline slowly over time, but they shouldn't account for many bumps down.

If the rating system has the same number of people at each level year after year, then the rating system is not reflecting the improvement of individuals adequately.

That is the problem I am seeing. People who should have been bumped up because they are improving are not being bumped. This leads to the overall quality of play at a given level (say, 3.5) going up, making it more difficult for those at the bottom of the 3.5 level.

I think the computer should be tweaked to make it a tad more likely that people at the margins will be bumped up so there can be an overall trend of people being bumped up, year in and year out.

 

[gameboy]

If the rating system has the same number of people at each level year after year, then the rating system is not reflecting the improvement of individuals adequately.

Cindy, that doe not make sense at all. If that was true, there would be a trend up on NTRP ratings every year. Soon enough, you are going to have the majority at 5.0 and 6.0 and keep moving upward every year.

It does not matter if some small percentage of people get better every year, they will be balanced out by people who get worse or by people who did not belong in the upper level.

Most people hit a wall after they improve. It can be 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 or whatever, but everyone hits a wall. People who improve more than .5 over the years is relatively small minority.

 

[ian2]

Most people hit a wall after they improve. It can be 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 or whatever, but everyone hits a wall. People who improve more than .5 over the years is relatively small minority.

Gameboy, I agree. But I also agree with Cindy's statement: "I think the computer should be tweaked to make it a tad more likely that people at the margins will be bumped up". One does not contradict the other. One of the problems with NTRP algorithm is that it works in a way that makes movement up (or down) at the margins less fluid than it should be. In other words, the players who "deserve" being bumped up are not, and to an even larger extent, the players who "deserve" being bumped down, are not. So every few years, USTA is forced to do a re-alignment, aka "mass bump-ups". It would probably be better if they instead adjusted the algorithm to facilitate up/down movement on the margins.

 

[Topaz]

I stayed a 3.5 throughout the past three years. Went to districts each if those years, sectionals this year and still haven't budged. I have no clue anymore.

 

[Topaz]

And I wouldn't say things are back to what they were because very few got bumped back down. I know of one bump down. So the mass bump ups are still there along with the bump ups of this season, which while not as numerous seem just as screwy in many cases.

 

[ian2]

And I wouldn't say things are back to what they were because very few got bumped back down. I know of one bump down. So the mass bump ups are still there along with the bump ups of this season, which while not as numerous seem just as screwy in many cases.

Topaz, if you feel that you've outgrown 3.5, find a place on a 4.0 team and play up. Just leave 3.5 behind... it sounds like your results warrant this. You'll play stronger competition and will become a better player, and as a bonus you'll be virtually guaranteed to be bumped up next year.

 

[dizzlmcwizzl]

We do that in the Atlanta area and some other parts of Georgia. The leagues run 3.0, 3.5low, 3.5, 4.0low, 4.0, 4.5low, 4.5. There are enough players in the 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5 levels to split people up based on if they are at the low or high end of their rating. Low teams don't advance past the state/district level I don't believe since not all areas have them.

How do folks know they belong in the low division? Or is this just based to individual discretion?

 

[SweetH2O]

How do folks know they belong in the low division? Or is this just based to individual discretion?

They release a list of active players eligible for the low divisions for each rating based on people's dynamic rating. You have to have played USTA league within the past year I think to make the list and be eligible for low divisions. I believe new self-rated players can also play.

 

[OrangePower]

You've assumed that the natural order of things is for the numbers/percentages of players at each rating level should be stable.

Yes, absolutely

If the rating system has the same number of people at each level year after year, then the rating system is not reflecting the improvement of individuals adequately.

Um, no. How to explain this...

See, levels are arbitrary. There's nothing magical about 3.5, or 4.0 or 4.5. It's just a way to slice up the tennis playing population into categories so that players within each category are somewhat competitive with each other.

For example, we could decide that the bottom 10% of players get lumped together and let's call that 2.5, the next 15% we'll call 3.0, then next 30% 3.5, the 30% after that 4.0, then the next 10% are 4.5, and the final 5% are 5.0+.

If that's the distribution we want, then it should slice up the same way every year. Some people will improve in absolute terms, but that's irrelevant. We care only about improvement relative to all other players, since this is all about creating competitive situations. So if a player has improved enough relative to other players then that player should move into the next higher category. But by definition, if you become part of the 1%, than means someone else drops out of the 1% and becomes part of the 99% So the overall balance is preserved.

I'm not saying that the USTA manages this perfectly and gets it right in all individual cases, but I am saying that under normal circumstances, we should expect the % of people in each level to stay the same, with the best people in each level getting promoted to the next level, and in equal numbers, the worst people in each level getting demoted to the next level down.

Now sometimes, the USTA might figure that the distribution itself can be improved. For example, instead of having 10% at 2.5 and 15% at 3.0, they could decide that only the bottom 5% should be at 2.5 and then the next 20% should be at 3.0. When such a realignment happens, you get mass movement, like in 2009 and 2010. But this is rare.

 

[OrangePower]

Gameboy, I agree. But I also agree with Cindy's statement: "I think the computer should be tweaked to make it a tad more likely that people at the margins will be bumped up". One does not contradict the other. One of the problems with NTRP algorithm is that it works in a way that makes movement up (or down) at the margins less fluid than it should be. In other words, the players who "deserve" being bumped up are not, and to an even larger extent, the players who "deserve" being bumped down, are not. So every few years, USTA is forced to do a re-alignment, aka "mass bump-ups". It would probably be better if they instead adjusted the algorithm to facilitate up/down movement on the margins.

Yes. Percent of players at each level should be constant, but there should be more movement between levels than is currently the case. I wonder how much of this is political - reluctance on the part of USTA to bump people down so as not to hurt their feelings and dissuade them from playing?

 

[Topaz]

Topaz, if you feel that you've outgrown 3.5, find a place on a 4.0 team and play up. Just leave 3.5 behind... it sounds like your results warrant this. You'll play stronger competition and will become a better player, and as a bonus you'll be virtually guaranteed to be bumped up next year.

Thanks Ian. I plan to, and I actually did play a few matches up last season.

It also seems a bit lopsided in my area. I know quite a few 3.5 women (three of which went to Nationals) that did not get bumped. I only know two 3.5 men who did NOT get bumped.

 

[SweetH2O]

Yes. Percent of players at each level should be constant, but there should be more movement between levels than is currently the case. I wonder how much of this is political - reluctance on the part of USTA to bump people down so as not to hurt their feelings and dissuade them from playing?

That is my thinking. Getting bumped up or down makes people find new teams and is generally harder for them to deal with than keeping the status quo. It's more likely that a bumped player may get discouraged and not play as much, or have trouble adjusting to a new level, or not be able to find a new team.

So being 4.01 or 3.99 dynamic rating may not be enough to be bumped, as they figure it's better to keep borderline cases where they are at. It would suck to bounce back and forth between levels each time new ratings come out. Maybe you have to get to, say, 4.05 or 3.95 to be bumped up or down respectively, which becomes harder to do while playing players at your established level.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Thanks Ian. I plan to, and I actually did play a few matches up last season.

It also seems a bit lopsided in my area. I know quite a few 3.5 women (three of which went to Nationals) that did not get bumped. I only know two 3.5 men who did NOT get bumped.

Yes, 3.5 ladies singles had several women who dominated at 3.5 but who didn't bump up. You are one. The lady from my team who played you in that rain-interrupted match is another, as well as the lady who beat her at Districts. My other strong singles player was a third who didn't move up.

What you all had in common was that you played a *lot* of matches. My singles players who did move up were one lady who didn't play much, and another lady who played a lot of 4.0 also.

 

[Cindysphinx]

If that's the distribution we want, then it should slice up the same way every year. Some people will improve in absolute terms, but that's irrelevant. We care only about improvement relative to all other players, since this is all about creating competitive situations. So if a player has improved enough relative to other players then that player should move into the next higher category. But by definition, if you become part of the 1%, than means someone else drops out of the 1% and becomes part of the 99% So the overall balance is preserved.
. . . .
Now sometimes, the USTA might figure that the distribution itself can be improved. For example, instead of having 10% at 2.5 and 15% at 3.0, they could decide that only the bottom 5% should be at 2.5 and then the next 20% should be at 3.0. When such a realignment happens, you get mass movement, like in 2009 and 2010. But this is rare.

Are you saying that this is what happened in 2009? That USTA decided the percentages in each level should be changed?

I thought the problem they wished to address was that players had become congested into a few rating level, bunching at the lower end of the various rating levels. Bunching could never happen if the system were designed as you describe (predetermined percentages for each level). Right?

 

[Topaz]

Yes, 3.5 ladies singles had several women who dominated at 3.5 but who didn't bump up. You are one. The lady from my team who played you in that rain-interrupted match is another, as well as the lady who beat her at Districts. My other strong singles player was a third who didn't move up.

What you all had in common was that you played a *lot* of matches. My singles players who did move up were one lady who didn't play much, and another lady who played a lot of 4.0 also.

I bet I know who is trying to snatch up that player who beat me!

 

[OrangePower]

Are you saying that this is what happened in 2009? That USTA decided the percentages in each level should be changed?

I thought the problem they wished to address was that players had become congested into a few rating level, bunching at the lower end of the various rating levels. Bunching could never happen if the system were designed as you describe (predetermined percentages for each level). Right?

Yes, that's basically what I think happened in 2009 - USTA realized the % in each level needed to change pretty drastically. At that time I think I actually graphed what the distribution looked like before and after. Probably I could find it if I searched my old posts, but I'm too lazy Anyway, ideally from a statistics point of view you want a standard normal distribution - which has a nice symmetrical bell shape. But the actual distribution (before the Grand Realignment of 09) had become skewed towards the left (lower levels).

Why did this skewing happen? Because in theory you're right, if the USTA maintained exact percentages at each level from year to year, the % would not change, and the distribution would always keep the same normal shape. Well, my theory is that although the goal is to keep the percentages constant, there is always going to be some error margin and wiggle room from year to year. If this is not managed well over time, the small error margins can accumulate, and that's what I think happened. 'Error creep' is a common issue in algorithm design... think of it like rounding errors, where the more operators you apply to a formula, the larger and larger the rounding error gets. Bottom line is that it takes time (many years) for the distribition to get out of shape like that, but once it happens, mass realignment is the only solution to get it back in line.

I think partly the yearly error margin was much larger than it should have been because the USTA got progressively more and more lenient with appeals, which meant that the algorithm wasn't really allowed to do it's job. For example, let's say the algorithm was perfect, and always promoted and demoted an equal number of people from/to each level. Those that got demoted rarely appealed, but it became very fashionable for those that got promoted to appeal, and the automated appeal process approved more and more of those appeals. The end result was that fewer people were effectively promoted than should have been, because of the meddling of the appeal process. Note that the appeal process has now been tightened up considerably in conjunction with the Grand Realignment (otherwise it would just all happen again). So at least the USTA tries to learn from its mistakes

 

[Cindysphinx]

I bet I know who is trying to snatch up that player who beat me!

Really? I thought she would go to the captain who is taking over my old team, MR. Your mixed captain.

I didn't invite her because she doesn't want to be a singles player anymore and because I had a 2-player problem if she went to MR.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Why did this skewing happen? Because in theory you're right, if the USTA maintained exact percentages at each level from year to year, the % would not change, and the distribution would always keep the same normal shape. Well, my theory is that although the goal is to keep the percentages constant, there is always going to be some error margin and wiggle room from year to year. If this is not managed well over time, the small error margins can accumulate, and that's what I think happened. 'Error creep' is a common issue in algorithm design... think of it like rounding errors, where the more operators you apply to a formula, the larger and larger the rounding error gets. Bottom line is that it takes time (many years) for the distribition to get out of shape like that, but once it happens, mass realignment is the only solution to get it back in line.

Now, you understand that I don't do math, right?

Still, I don't see how the part in bold can be right. If you decide that there will be a fixed percentage of players in each rating level, then you should be able to achieve that with precision every year. There should be no rounding that prevents it. The results would be quite arbitrary at the margin, but that isn't a problem that needs addressing because the results will always be arbitrary at the margin if the distribution is continuous rather than discrete.

How's that from someone who detests math?

Anyway, I would think the effect of appeals would be fairly small. For the number of appeals to throw everything off, you'd have to have more appeals at the higher levels that are not balanced by appeals at the lower level. Is there evidence that this happened?

Is there evidence that the number of appeals was large enough to skew any of the rating levels?

If there were a large number of appeals in a particular year, wouldn't those players most likely earn ratings that were outside the appeal range in the next year?

 

[OrangePower]

^^^^^

Let me try an analogy: Let's say you are a university admissions department, and as a general rule you want to admit 50% males and 50% females. One way to do this would be to actually rank all your male applicants, rank all your female applicants, then admit the top x of each gender to ensure 50/50 split. But that's a lot of work (creating a precise ordering). So generally admissions departments use guidelines, like GPA and SAT scores. So lets say we are using only GPA for simplicity. And let's say it turns out that females are smarter than males. So if we admit everyone with 3.6 GPA and above, we will get more females than males. So we look back at some historical statistics, and determine that if we set the bar for males at 3.5 GPA, and for females at 3.7 GPA, then we will admit an equal number of each, in average years. Now there might be a year with an unusually smart crop of females, so maybe our guidelines will result in a few more females being admitted than men, and then maybe some years the reverse is true, but overall we expect roughly 50/50. However, the small yearly variances can over time accumulate so that our alumni is not exactly 50/50.

Now let's look at the impact of appeals on the error. Let's say we allow some iniitially rejected male applicants to appeal, and we generally grant the appeal. Imagine this being 'appealing down'. But we don't allow female applicants to appeal ('appealing up'). Over time this is going to cause the distribution to skew such that we end up with significantly more males alumni than female.

That is part of what I think happened. Prior to the Grand Realignment, practically everyone bumped up appealed down, and most appeals were granted. This significantly and artificially depressed the movement of players from lower levels to higher levels. This means that player numbers at higher levels were not being sufficiently replenished over time.

Note that players 'leave' a level not only because they are bumped up, but also because they quit playing league, quit tennis, die, etc. So for example if very few 4.0s get promoted to 4.5 because of the appeal process, but meanwhile a few 4.5s get demoted, a few quit league for various reasons, etc, then over several years, the numbers at 4.5 dwindle in comparison to the numbers at 4.0, and so on down the line.

And I do think there were significant numbers of appeals prior to 2009. At that time, it was a pretty common thing to see entire top teams composed primarily of 'n.nA' rated players. I bet even a search of this board for threads in Nov/Dec 2008 will show all sort of questions / complaints about people appealing down... and you don't see that any more since they changed the process.

BTW, I have no concrete evidence of any of this - it's not like USTA is exactly forthcoming with information and statistics. But I do have some background in this kind of stuff, and I think my understanding of the model fits what we're seeing in practice.

 

[Cindysphinx]

OK, that makes sense. I think.

 

[Angle Queen]

The great ratings bumpup of 2010 seems to have been completely nullified. Things are back to the way they were as far as I can tell.

I'm with you here, goober. The old 3.5 is the new 4.0. BUT, I always thought many of the 3.5s should have been 4.0s...at least based on the admittedly vague "descriptions" USTA provides in its Guidelines.

Most people hit a wall after they improve. It can be 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 or whatever, but everyone hits a wall. People who improve more than .5 over the years is relatively small minority.

I believe this as well. I've seen few rec players who've made such dramatic improvements in their games to warrant more than a 0.5 jump over a series of years.

One of the problems with NTRP algorithm is that it works in a way that makes movement up (or down) at the margins less fluid than it should be. In other words, the players who "deserve" being bumped up are not, and to an even larger extent, the players who "deserve" being bumped down, are not. So every few years, USTA is forced to do a re-alignment, aka "mass bump-ups". It would probably be better if they instead adjusted the algorithm to facilitate up/down movement on the margins.

Bolded part is one of my major beefs with the system.

Here are some numbers from our area. They're not official but I'm reasonably certain they're fairly close.

2.5W ==> 132 unchanged, 0 down, 90 up
3.0W ==> 426 unchanged, 6 down, 99 up
3.5W ==> 708 unchanged, 7 down, 82 up
4.0W ==> 372 unchanged, 10 down, 22 up
4.5W ==> 122 unchanged, 15 down, 22 up

Now, would I expect to see more upward movement from the lower levels? Absolutely. But there in the middle, at 3.5, the up-to-down ratio is over 10:1. That seems somewhat off-kilter.

I'll say this, though, the few women I know who moved up deserved it. They did well in regular season play, and, often killed the Seniors division. But I can also think of a few more who "deserved" it too (like their partners who did not play Seniors but played and won the same matches in regular league).

Of the 7 3.5s who got moved down: 2 were self-rates, 1 a super senior, and 2 recent 3.0 bump-ups who got slaughtered (often winning less than a set's worth of games over multiple matches). I just find it hard to believe that only 1% of the 3.5 crowd were no longer representative of what the level should be.

I wonder how much of this is political - reluctance on the part of USTA to bump people down so as not to hurt their feelings and dissuade them from playing?

Maybe so. PC but not the Real World. Or maybe it is, and I'm the one off-base.

I'm still so all confused. Why the gender- and age-based leagues if it's all supposed to be about skill level? And why so little weight (apparently) given to actually winning the match? Ah, questions that'll probably never be resolved.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I believe this as well. I've seen few rec players who've made such dramatic improvements in their games to warrant more than a 0.5 jump over a series of years.

Really?

This warrants a thread. Stay tuned . . .

2.5W ==> 132 unchanged, 0 down, 90 up
3.0W ==> 426 unchanged, 6 down, 99 up
3.5W ==> 708 unchanged, 7 down, 82 up
4.0W ==> 372 unchanged, 10 down, 22 up
4.5W ==> 122 unchanged, 15 down, 22 up

To me, these numbers show the problem I'm trying to complain about.

23% of the 3.0s moved up.

11% of the 3.5s moved up.

5% of the 4.0s moved up.

Is there any wonder why players bunch up too much at 3.5 and 4.0?

 

[dizzlmcwizzl]

23% of the 3.0s moved up.

11% of the 3.5s moved up.

5% of the 4.0s moved up.

Is there any wonder why players bunch up too much at 3.5 and 4.0?

Around here ... for the 10 years before the mass bump-ups there were 5 teams in the 4.0 division that owned the league. 4 of the 5 teams made the playoffs every year and no one else ever competed. When we had the bumps the door opened in the 4.0 division. Our team formerly was an also-ran but now we have won the last 2 state titles. None of us were bumped this year making a run for a three-peat possible.


In the 4.5 division one team won the state title 16 out of 18 years. This year that team lost to the eventual national champions that came out of our local league.

The bump ups changed who the top dogs were but now there will be a log jam again if the bumps cease to happen.

 

[Topaz]

Really? I thought she would go to the captain who is taking over my old team, MR. Your mixed captain.

I didn't invite her because she doesn't want to be a singles player anymore and because I had a 2-player problem if she went to MR.

Oh! MR is taking over your team? I didn't realize that. She did mention something to me about it but again...finals. Ha. I just don't have the brainpower to devote to it right now.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Oh! MR is taking over your team? I didn't realize that. She did mention something to me about it but again...finals. Ha. I just don't have the brainpower to devote to it right now.

I don't know how much of the old team she is taking, but yeah, many of my former teammates are possibilities.

You aren't headed back to AS? She always captains. Or you could go to TH . . . .

 

[Topaz]

I don't know how much of the old team she is taking, but yeah, many of my former teammates are possibilities.

You aren't headed back to AS? She always captains. Or you could go to TH . . . .

Oh yeah, I'm going back to AS. But MR had checked with me. And it seems TH no longer is interested or she knew I was staying with AS.

But in my neck of the woods...nada. I have the same 4.0 team but I'm shopping around for a 3.5 team. The one I really want...already full.

 

[rainman007]

in my area this would have to be considered the year of the mass bump downs..
about 94 percent stayed the same 3 percent bumped up and 3 percent bumped down.. i'd say it is the year of the mass bump downs because the 94 percent that stayed the same a great number should have gotten bumped and didn't so its equivalent to a bump down..

 

[Maui19]

Can someone lend me a decoder ring?

 

[rainman007]

The great ratings bumpup of 2010 seems to have been completely nullified. Things are back to the way they were as far as I can tell.

If anything that lack of bumpups this year is astonishing. Many players that were nationals and sectionals this fall did not get bumped. I remember the USTA stating that they noticed the same team and players winning districts/sectionals year after year. So they tried to do something about it with the mass bumpups. It appears only to have been a bandaid to the problem. Now at least in my area, most of these dynasties are intact with many of the same players again on teams that were bumped to a higher level previously.

I think what they need to do implement some new changes:

Players on teams in sectionals/nationals should all be bumped and it should be benchmarked for a minimum of 2 years .

Players that made it only to districts should be bumped with a minimum 1 year.

The problem of just applying mass bumpups, is that players can work the system and get back down to their previous level. If these bumpups were for a specified time regardless how they player plays then there would be much less incentive engage in the ratings manipulations.

my solution to the the ratings would be to count ALL matches.
There is adult league, mixed, tri-level, combo, usta sanctioned tournaments, and seniors if your old enough.. if you play @ least 2 or 3 matches out of the 6 different leagues only 1 counts adult.. if you skip adult only mixed count if you play combo only nothing counts.. we pay money for the ratings to play similar level players.. count them all for more accuracy in ratings.. if people want to sandbag let them do it ALL year
I know someone will say tri-level/combo tournaments do not have a nationals but they can still change your rating based on your comparison of your opponents and the margin of victory/defeat

.and No self rated players allowed @ state unless its a 2.5 league

and if you make it to nationals and your year end rating stays the same somehow you get an automatic 0.5 additon to your rating

 

[rainman007]

goober, players on a national or sectional team should not automatically get bumped .. i could play on a state team 1 match lose 0 and 1 locally and the team i'm on still win state.. i do like the 2 year thing though if you make it to nationals if you a part of the reason your team won sectionals.. but if you never won u shouldnt get the mandate..

 

[storypeddler]

I really believe you all are missing the point of what is happening. There is no reaasonable way to forever continue to bump up people in the numbers that were bumped up the last two years. Very quickly you end up with top-heavy leagues where far too many people have been bumped up past their competitive level. The problem is that all the real growth in USTA leagues occurs AT THE BOTTOM. Because of this, people enter as a 2.5 or a 3.0 and quickly a few begin to dominate. It takes a bit for new players to settle into the level they belong at. Unless you are continually bumping as many people down as you are bumping up, there has to be a stopping place. The last two years served as a correction for divisions that had too many players who were better but had played themselves back down beneath their appropriate level. Once that correction righted the ship again, it NEEDED to stop. It does no one any good if all the 3.5 players move up to 4.0, and all the 4.0 players move up to 4.5, and the 4.5's to 5.0. After a couple years of that, all leagues would be very heavy at the top and very shallow at the bottom. The system works well overall with an occasional correction needed. We just had one. Give the thing a chance. Besides, if people played where their talent placed them instead of where they think they can dominate, there wouldn't be an issue anyway. The system isn't the problem; the problem is too many players who would rather try to dominate at one level than simply be in the mix at a higher level. Some would rather win a lot at 3.5 than go .500 at 4.0. THAT'S the problem.

 

[storypeddler]

I'm with you here, goober. The old 3.5 is the new 4.0. BUT, I always thought many of the 3.5s should have been 4.0s...at least based on the admittedly vague "descriptions" USTA provides in its Guidelines.

I believe this as well. I've seen few rec players who've made such dramatic improvements in their games to warrant more than a 0.5 jump over a series of years.

Bolded part is one of my major beefs with the system.

Here are some numbers from our area. They're not official but I'm reasonably certain they're fairly close.

2.5W ==> 132 unchanged, 0 down, 90 up
3.0W ==> 426 unchanged, 6 down, 99 up
3.5W ==> 708 unchanged, 7 down, 82 up
4.0W ==> 372 unchanged, 10 down, 22 up
4.5W ==> 122 unchanged, 15 down, 22 up

Now, would I expect to see more upward movement from the lower levels? Absolutely. But there in the middle, at 3.5, the up-to-down ratio is over 10:1. That seems somewhat off-kilter.

I'll say this, though, the few women I know who moved up deserved it. They did well in regular season play, and, often killed the Seniors division. But I can also think of a few more who "deserved" it too (like their partners who did not play Seniors but played and won the same matches in regular league).

Of the 7 3.5s who got moved down: 2 were self-rates, 1 a super senior, and 2 recent 3.0 bump-ups who got slaughtered (often winning less than a set's worth of games over multiple matches). I just find it hard to believe that only 1% of the 3.5 crowd were no longer representative of what the level should be.

Maybe so. PC but not the Real World. Or maybe it is, and I'm the one off-base.

I'm still so all confused. Why the gender- and age-based leagues if it's all supposed to be about skill level? And why so little weight (apparently) given to actually winning the match? Ah, questions that'll probably never be resolved.

Look---the reason so many more people move up at the lower levels is because beginning players improve much faster. Even a little improvement in a 2.5 player makes a great deal of difference and requires a bump-up. The higher up you go, though, the harder it is to continue to improve. That's why lots of 2.5 and 3.0 players go up, some 3.5 players do, fewer 4.0 players do, and even fewer 4.5 players. They don;t continue to improve forever, you know. Most players top out around 4.0, hence a greater number there.