Can a player be DQ'd (from 4.0) if he's self rated as 1 level below (3.5)?

[J_R_B]

Woah this is a great story. Is this in middle states? Seems like a match that will have a lot of fireworks this year! Just out of curiosity, how did you find players you think could beat him again? Are you going the high school route as well or do you just have a lot of faith in your 4.0 guys?

Last year, a bunch of my friends started a 4.5 team. The team had a couple guys who were bumped up off my 4.0 team plus a couple other 4.5 friends, and then was backfilled with me and some other 4.0 players. The team was never going to be super competitive at 4.5, but the way the league worked, there was a team that was apparently fairly underrated at the start of the year that eventually went to nationals in 4.5 last year. They beat the tar out of us repeatedly while they were still fairly low rated in dNTRP before they emerged as sectional winners later in the season. I think those beatings resulted in several of the 4.5 guys that joined my friends' team getting year end bump downs. If I can get everyone in the lineup at the same time, I have more or less a full lineup of guys in their 20s who could easily be 4.5s. They're all still playing 4.5 and won't be available for me all the time, but I can play against the rest of the league with my actual 4.0 guys anyway.

 

[schmke]

Matches will only get reverse if a double bump occurs - ie 3.5 to 4.5.

Perhaps true in your area (what area is it?), but not a general rule for USTA League. What matches get reversed is up to each section and some don't reverse any, some reverse all, some reverse only the strikes, etc.

 

[time_fly]

I play in a USTA 40+ 4.0 league and one guy from one of the teams is self rated as a 3.5.

He has no previous USTA history prior to 2022 and so far he has only played in the 4.0 level and won every one of his 5 matches, only losing 1 set in the process.

His record looks like this:

Total Matches: 5
Total Wins: 5 (100%)

Total Sets: 11
Sets Won: 10 (90.9%)

Games Played: 90
Games Won: 61 (67.7%)

Match 1: 6/4 - 6/3
Match 2: 6/2 - 6/2
Match 3: 7/5 - 6/2
Match 4: 5/7- 6/1 - 1/0
Match 5: 6/1 - 6/2

I haven't been playing USTA for long enough to know the rules, but it seems pretty clear that this guy is not even 4.0 and maybe self rated as a 3.5 to not have the risk of being dq'd if he rules do not allow a 3.5 to be dq'd from a 4.0 league.

Anyone ever seen something like this?

I see stuff like this quite a bit. It is intended as a shield against a DQ. The guy will be moved from 3.5 to 4.0 before he is DQed as a 4.0, so he will have ample warning to manage his rating if necessary and until he gets "DQed" as a 3.5 (which will have no effect since he doesn't play 3.5) he can just play without worries. Often the guy will also play one or two 3.5 matches. It's hard to get DQed from 3.0 and 3.5 because the strike threshold is quite high, and having those lower-rated opponents will help keep his rating down even if he wins them easily, again so he can play 4.0 and win all his matches without worry.

Another trick I've seen a couple times is to sign up a self-rated player and only play him at D3. Because the opposition will have low-end ratings for the level, even if he wins every match easily he generally will not get DQed. Then he can play his real level / court in the playoffs. This is a nice way for a playoff-oriented team to carry some extra above-level players.

 

[Chalkdust]

Another trick I've seen a couple times is to sign up a self-rated player and only play him at D3. Because the opposition will have low-end ratings for the level, even if he wins every match easily he generally will not get DQed. Then he can play his real level / court in the playoffs. This is a nice way for a playoff-oriented team to carry some extra above-level players.

That's very amateurish. Putting the self-rate in dubs just introduces another variable into the mix (his partner). Much better to put the self-rate in at singles and have him manage his scores.

 

[J_R_B]

That's very amateurish. Putting the self-rate in dubs just introduces another variable into the mix (his partner). Much better to put the self-rate in at singles and have him manage his scores.

Put the S-rate in doubles with an A-rated partner for his first two matches. The A-rate will be at the very top of level DNTRP, which is advantageous for the S-rate's first two match ratings. At D3, they will often play guys playing up a level, which would make it virtually impossible for the S-rate to get a strike even with a double bagel.

This happened in Middle States 2 years ago. There was a guy who was a former mid-major D1 player (so D1, but not like Stanford or Ohio St or anything like that) who had gotten obese over the years (~400lbs) and was getting back into tennis as part of a whole health and diet program. The section let him appeal down to 4.0 (based on age, his minimum self-rating was 4.5). 6 months later when the men's season came around, he had lost 50 pounds and was playing 20 hours a week. He was actually 4.0 when the appeal was granted but was already bordering on 4.5 when the season started. In his first match, he was paired with a mid level 4.0C player who hadn't picked up a racket all through the pandemic and was on a court for the first time in 2 years. They played two 3.5C players who were very low 3.5 level players. The rusty 4.0 struggled but they won fairly worry free anyway, but it was like 6-3 6-2 or something. That generated a match rating so low that it was listed as 3.0 level (i.e. 2.95) in TR.

After that, he started playing with a group of 4.5 guys and joined two 4.5 teams, while still a 4.0S playing 4.0 matches as well and while continuing to lose weight and get in better match shape as the season progressed. After losing his first two 4.5 matches, he won 7 4.5 matches in a row, including 4 singles matches (1 against a recent 5.0 bump down) all in straight sets, and still wasn't DQ'd from 4.0, all because of that first anomaly rating against the 3.5s in his first match that established a 3.0 baseline for him that took forever to self-correct because of the averaging in the DNTRP formula as his actual playing level quickly advanced well beyond 4.0. At the point where he won 7 4.5 matches in a row and was one of the top players on a sectionals-caliber 4.5 team, he voluntarily appealed up to 4.5 and quit playing 4.0. He was 3-3 in 4.5 districts and sectionals matches.

 

[Ustatennis13]

Last year, a bunch of my friends started a 4.5 team. The team had a couple guys who were bumped up off my 4.0 team plus a couple other 4.5 friends, and then was backfilled with me and some other 4.0 players. The team was never going to be super competitive at 4.5, but the way the league worked, there was a team that was apparently fairly underrated at the start of the year that eventually went to nationals in 4.5 last year. They beat the tar out of us repeatedly while they were still fairly low rated in dNTRP before they emerged as sectional winners later in the season. I think those beatings resulted in several of the 4.5 guys that joined my friends' team getting year end bump downs. If I can get everyone in the lineup at the same time, I have more or less a full lineup of guys in their 20s who could easily be 4.5s. They're all still playing 4.5 and won't be available for me all the time, but I can play against the rest of the league with my actual 4.0 guys anyway.

Gotcha. Having players in their 20s is always helpful. Guess your team won't lose any singles matches then haha. Looks likes you did it the fair way unlike that other team. I'll be rooting for you guys!

 

[Chalkdust]

Put the S-rate in doubles with an A-rated partner for his first two matches. The A-rate will be at the very top of level DNTRP, which is advantageous for the S-rate's first two match ratings. At D3, they will often play guys playing up a level, which would make it virtually impossible for the S-rate to get a strike even with a double bagel.

Yes, that's a good way to go also. But not as good as putting the S rate in at singles with clear expectations re the desired score.

 

[Creighton]

Yes, that's a good way to go also. But not as good as putting the S rate in at singles with clear expectations re the desired score.

Yeah but this one feels more like cheating even though the outcome is the same

 

[Chalkdust]

Yeah but this one feels more like cheating even though the outcome is the same

Well, the context of my initial post was as reply to someone describing how to protect "above-level" self rates.
Seems to me if you are willing to accept / encourage players knowingly self-rating too low, may as well embrace some preventative score management also.
I don't see much moral difference here.

 

[Creighton]

Well, the context of my initial post was as reply to someone describing how to protect "above-level" self rates.
Seems to me if you are willing to accept / encourage players knowingly self-rating too low, may as well embrace some preventative score management also.
I don't see much moral difference here.

I actually agree with you on that.

 

[J_R_B]

Yes, that's a good way to go also. But not as good as putting the S rate in at singles with clear expectations re the desired score.

Well, the context of my initial post was as reply to someone describing how to protect "above-level" self rates.
Seems to me if you are willing to accept / encourage players knowingly self-rating too low, may as well embrace some preventative score management also.
I don't see much moral difference here.

I don't tell people to manipulate scores, ever. The difference may not be morally, but once you're telling people they need to lose on purpose, whether it's games, sets, or matches, the whole thing sucks for everyone involved (both the player who has to throw points and the opponent watching a player hit balls into the fence on purpose). I will never do that. I look for ways to get people in matches where strikes are unlikely if it's someone I know may be vulnerable to DQ.

I don't recruit guys who I know are way out of level, either, but I do look for guys who are borderline (the kid who I recruited to outringer the shady team in our league was the closest I've ever come to that, but he was there for a specific purpose to send a message). If you have someone who is a full level or more out of level, it's really hard to create matchups where they won't generate strikes without telling them to manage scores, so my strategy is more useful to ensure that people who are more borderline between levels but you know might get strikes in the wrong matchups don't actually get strikes. There is no one on any of my rosters who would be a winning player at 4.5, but there are several who play 4.5 at least competitively (they're C and A rates this year, though). With the overlap between levels, those people aren't inappropriate for 4.0.

 

[jmnk]

[...] I have more or less a full lineup of guys in their 20s who could easily be 4.5s. They're all still playing 4.5 and won't be available for me all the time, but I can play against the rest of the league with my actual 4.0 guys anyway.

I don't tell people to manipulate scores, ever.[...] There is no one on any of my rosters who would be a winning player at 4.5, but there are several who play 4.5 at least competitively (they're C and A rates this year, though). With the overlap between levels, those people aren't inappropriate for 4.0.

ok, if you somehow believe that what you are doing is fair and per spirit of USTA competition then I do not know what to tell you. You are as much part of the sandbagging problem as the other captains this forum complains about. Sorry. Of course that is just my opinion.

 

[J_R_B]

ok, if you somehow believe that what you are doing is fair and per spirit of USTA competition then I do not know what to tell you. You are as much part of the sandbagging problem as the other captains this forum complains about. Sorry. Of course that is just my opinion.

These are guys from a 4.5 team that came in last place and they got bumped down. If you don't think it's OK for them to play 4.0, too, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Chalkdust]

I don't tell people to manipulate scores, ever. The difference may not be morally, but once you're telling people they need to lose on purpose, whether it's games, sets, or matches, the whole thing sucks for everyone involved (both the player who has to throw points and the opponent watching a player hit balls into the fence on purpose). I will never do that. I look for ways to get people in matches where strikes are unlikely if it's someone I know may be vulnerable to DQ.

I don't recruit guys who I know are way out of level, either, but I do look for guys who are borderline (the kid who I recruited to outringer the shady team in our league was the closest I've ever come to that, but he was there for a specific purpose to send a message). If you have someone who is a full level or more out of level, it's really hard to create matchups where they won't generate strikes without telling them to manage scores, so my strategy is more useful to ensure that people who are more borderline between levels but you know might get strikes in the wrong matchups don't actually get strikes. There is no one on any of my rosters who would be a winning player at 4.5, but there are several who play 4.5 at least competitively (they're C and A rates this year, though). With the overlap between levels, those people aren't inappropriate for 4.0.

Understood, and you are not the person to whom I was responding in my original post.
Glad we agree on the shadiness of recruiting above level players who self-rated lower than warranted.
My point is that if going shady, may as well go full shady and get maximum efficacy.

Your strategy seems good for keeping borderline players safe from DQ, although one might also argue the morals of this kind of purposeful 'misdirection' of the rating algorithm.

 

[jmnk]

These are guys from a 4.5 team that came in last place and they got bumped down. If you don't think it's OK for them to play 4.0, too, then I don't know what to tell you.

well, I have a bit hard time understanding how players that, per your own statement, "play 4.5 at least competitively" or "[play on] The team was never going to be super competitive at 4.5 [but it means they are not entirely hopeless at 4.5 either]" can be bumped down if those players weren't trying to get bumped down. It's not _that_ easy to get bumped down.

 

[schmke]

There are varying degrees of what some may consider "cheating". The farther down you go on this list, the more consensus there probably is, but the top of the list depends on the person.

First, some roster construction items:

• Have too many self-rates on the team - The idea being that a lot of self-rates is an indication the captain is trying to form a super team with questionable new players. But at some levels, self-rates are unavoidable as you don't want to turn away new players.
• Have players that were bumped down - Some consider any bump down suspicious. And if any of the tactics below were used to get bumped down, there could be truth to it.
• Have players that appealed down - Someone that appeals down is arguably more suspicious than a bump down as they actually were deemed a level higher by the USTA, just close enough to appeal down. Also, how did they get close enough to appeal down? May be legit, but may not be too.

Next, line-up construction:

• Protect self-rates and appeal downs from "unfair" strikes by having them play lower courts so they likely play weaker opponents, or play a self-rate in doubles with a high rated partner - This can be legit as a low rated partner that has a good day will perhaps unfairly benefit the S/A, or high rated opponents having a bad day also unfairly benefits the S/A, so guard against it.
• Play an S/A in their weaker discipline - The USTA calculates a single rating from all matches (doubles and singles) so you can protect a strong doubles player from a high rating by playing him in singles, or vice-versa.
• Play an S/A player the bare minimum to qualify for the post-season to reduce the chance of accumulating strikes.

Note, none of the above call for someone to throw games/sets/matches (although they don't preclude it), but just use knowledge of the system to one's advantage. But continuing:

• Have a player/pair keep a match close but still win by just not going all out once they get ahead.
• Have a player/pair lose a set to make the result look even closer - May risk losing the match of course so sometimes done against weaker teams where the other courts are likely wins for the team so the risk is ok.
• Have a player/pair lose a match to offset some good results - This can risk the team win of course, so is also often done against weaker teams where the team win is not in question.
• Have a player play in another league (another age division, or in a neighboring area) where any of these line-up or match result tactics are used to offset good results on the main team.

Are the roster construction ones fine as long as no lying on the self-rate form and no shenanigans in getting the bump down or A?

Are the line-up construction fine because the USTA has no rules against it?

I think most would consider any score management to be cheating, but it is hard to prove so nothing is ever done about it, but some justify it by saying the competition is doing it and isn't penalized, so they have to do it to keep up.

 

[Chalkdust]

There are varying degrees of what some may consider "cheating". The farther down you go on this list, the more consensus there probably is, but the top of the list depends on the person.

First, some roster construction items:

• Have too many self-rates on the team - The idea being that a lot of self-rates is an indication the captain is trying to form a super team with questionable new players. But at some levels, self-rates are unavoidable as you don't want to turn away new players.
• Have players that were bumped down - Some consider any bump down suspicious. And if any of the tactics below were used to get bumped down, there could be truth to it.
• Have players that appealed down - Someone that appeals down is arguably more suspicious than a bump down as they actually were deemed a level higher by the USTA, just close enough to appeal down. Also, how did they get close enough to appeal down? May be legit, but may not be too.

Next, line-up construction:

• Protect self-rates and appeal downs from "unfair" strikes by having them play lower courts so they likely play weaker opponents, or play a self-rate in doubles with a high rated partner - This can be legit as a low rated partner that has a good day will perhaps unfairly benefit the S/A, or high rated opponents having a bad day also unfairly benefits the S/A, so guard against it.
• Play an S/A in their weaker discipline - The USTA calculates a single rating from all matches (doubles and singles) so you can protect a strong doubles player from a high rating by playing him in singles, or vice-versa.
• Play an S/A player the bare minimum to qualify for the post-season to reduce the chance of accumulating strikes.

Note, none of the above call for someone to throw games/sets/matches (although they don't preclude it), but just use knowledge of the system to one's advantage. But continuing:

• Have a player/pair keep a match close but still win by just not going all out once they get ahead.
• Have a player/pair lose a set to make the result look even closer - May risk losing the match of course so sometimes done against weaker teams where the other courts are likely wins for the team so the risk is ok.
• Have a player/pair lose a match to offset some good results - This can risk the team win of course, so is also often done against weaker teams where the team win is not in question.
• Have a player play in another league (another age division, or in a neighboring area) where any of these line-up or match result tactics are used to offset good results on the main team.

Are the roster construction ones fine as long as no lying on the self-rate form and no shenanigans in getting the bump down or A?

Are the line-up construction fine because the USTA has no rules against it?

I think most would consider any score management to be cheating, but it is hard to prove so nothing is ever done about it, but some justify it by saying the competition is doing it and isn't penalized, so they have to do it to keep up.

Good list.
There's also self rating at the lowest level allowed based on correctly answering all the questions, but while knowing that the player is actually one or more levels better.
Not sure which category that would go under.

 

[PK6]

ok, if you somehow believe that what you are doing is fair and per spirit of USTA competition then I do not know what to tell you. You are as much part of the sandbagging problem as the other captains this forum complains about. Sorry. Of course that is just my opinion.

Totally agree with you!!! This is cheating and he/team must be banned from USTA forever!!! This is why USTA is dying

 

[J_R_B]

There are varying degrees of what some may consider "cheating". The farther down you go on this list, the more consensus there probably is, but the top of the list depends on the person.

First, some roster construction items:

• Have too many self-rates on the team - The idea being that a lot of self-rates is an indication the captain is trying to form a super team with questionable new players. But at some levels, self-rates are unavoidable as you don't want to turn away new players.
• Have players that were bumped down - Some consider any bump down suspicious. And if any of the tactics below were used to get bumped down, there could be truth to it.
• Have players that appealed down - Someone that appeals down is arguably more suspicious than a bump down as they actually were deemed a level higher by the USTA, just close enough to appeal down. Also, how did they get close enough to appeal down? May be legit, but may not be too.

Next, line-up construction:

• Protect self-rates and appeal downs from "unfair" strikes by having them play lower courts so they likely play weaker opponents, or play a self-rate in doubles with a high rated partner - This can be legit as a low rated partner that has a good day will perhaps unfairly benefit the S/A, or high rated opponents having a bad day also unfairly benefits the S/A, so guard against it.
• Play an S/A in their weaker discipline - The USTA calculates a single rating from all matches (doubles and singles) so you can protect a strong doubles player from a high rating by playing him in singles, or vice-versa.
• Play an S/A player the bare minimum to qualify for the post-season to reduce the chance of accumulating strikes.

Note, none of the above call for someone to throw games/sets/matches (although they don't preclude it), but just use knowledge of the system to one's advantage. But continuing:

• Have a player/pair keep a match close but still win by just not going all out once they get ahead.
• Have a player/pair lose a set to make the result look even closer - May risk losing the match of course so sometimes done against weaker teams where the other courts are likely wins for the team so the risk is ok.
• Have a player/pair lose a match to offset some good results - This can risk the team win of course, so is also often done against weaker teams where the team win is not in question.
• Have a player play in another league (another age division, or in a neighboring area) where any of these line-up or match result tactics are used to offset good results on the main team.

Are the roster construction ones fine as long as no lying on the self-rate form and no shenanigans in getting the bump down or A?

Are the line-up construction fine because the USTA has no rules against it?

I think most would consider any score management to be cheating, but it is hard to prove so nothing is ever done about it, but some justify it by saying the competition is doing it and isn't penalized, so they have to do it to keep up.

The first two categories are not cheating, assuming the self-rating is always accurate and the bumps/appeals are not the result of the third category shenanigans. Line-up strategies are perfectly legit and one of the best tools to avoid unnecessary strikes, and only work if the player is borderline anyway and not so far out of level that playing fairly in any spot will generate strikes. The third category is clearly cheating. I would also add reporting false or completely made up scores to that as well.

 

[ChrisJR3264]

I have a question bc I’ve seen it in leagues here and from folks who asked me to play their usta team. What if you’re a 4.0-4.5 player but play on a 3.5 level team? Played a 4.5 level Rec doubs league and then playoffs. Lost to these guys in the final. They told us they play 3.5 usta. My jaw dropped. Definitely not 3.5 level.

 

[PK6]

I have a question bc I’ve seen it in leagues here and from folks who asked me to play their usta team. What if you’re a 4.0-4.5 player but play on a 3.5 level team? Played a 4.5 level Rec doubs league and then playoffs. Lost to these guys in the final. They told us they play 3.5 usta. My jaw dropped. Definitely not 3.5 level.

That’s cheating/sandbagging at its worse!!!! These players need to be banned forever from USTA.

 

[J_R_B]

That’s cheating/sandbagging at its worse!!!! These players need to be banned forever from USTA.

There's no way you're not a bot.

 

[J_R_B]

I have a question bc I’ve seen it in leagues here and from folks who asked me to play their usta team. What if you’re a 4.0-4.5 player but play on a 3.5 level team? Played a 4.5 level Rec doubs league and then playoffs. Lost to these guys in the final. They told us they play 3.5 usta. My jaw dropped. Definitely not 3.5 level.

Local rec leagues are often underrated compared to USTA ratings. When I first moved to NJ, I joined a singles league at a local park. They had levels from "3.0" to "5.5". I knew I was a 4.0 level player, but I hadn't played for a couple years due to knee surgery and moving and starting a new job. I contemplated joining "3.5" to ease back into it, but decided instead to challenge myself going straight to 4.0. Surprisingly, I crushed everyone in my group in the league, and only lost one set in the finals of the league playoffs to another guy who just signed up under the same pretenses. I then played a guy in the annual tournament in the end of the summer. He beat me in a close match, but in talking to him, he said he plays 4.0 USTA but plays in the "5.5" league at the park. That's when it clicked. A true 5.5 league would basically consist of the Princeton varsity roster. I corrected to the "5.0" league for the next summer even though I've never sniffed 5.0 level tennis in my life.

 

[Creighton]

Local rec leagues are often underrated compared to USTA ratings. When I first moved to NJ, I joined a singles league at a local park. They had levels from "3.0" to "5.5". I knew I was a 4.0 level player, but I hadn't played for a couple years due to knee surgery and moving and starting a new job. I contemplated joining "3.5" to ease back into it, but decided instead to challenge myself going straight to 4.0. Surprisingly, I crushed everyone in my group in the league, and only lost one set in the finals of the league playoffs to another guy who just signed up under the same pretenses. I then played a guy in the annual tournament in the end of the summer. He beat me in a close match, but in talking to him, he said he plays 4.0 USTA but plays in the "5.5" league at the park. That's when it clicked. A true 5.5 league would basically consist of the Princeton varsity roster. I corrected to the "5.0" league for the next summer even though I've never sniffed 5.0 level tennis in my life.

Agreed. Park ratings are at least half a level to a whole level higher than they would be in actual USTA matches. Everyone remembers a match they played their best versus their average play.

 

[PK6]

There's no way you're not a bot.

This is why USTA is dying. Too much sandbagging/cheating!!! All if not most of you are wack jobs/train wrecks-sooo glad I quit this crap organization/league called USTA

 

[J_R_B]

This is why USTA is dying. Too much sandbagging/cheating!!! All if not most of you are wack jobs/train wrecks-sooo glad I quit this crap organization/league called USTA

There's no way you're not a bot.

 

[PK6]

Your right I am-your one of those USTA wack jobs