Dude, he has two losses to Appalachian State! We all know that if you lose to that school, you are pretty much worthless... :-o
Anyway, you say that this player was in the singles lineup for Davidson and that they were in the top 75. However, if you check the stats at
www.collegetennisonline.com, you will see that he only played three singles matches in four years (with a 1-2 record) and that Davidson was never even close to being ranked in the top 75 at that time (they had a losing record every year he was there). He did have a nice 54-38 record in doubles, but it should be noted that all of these "matches" were pro sets (which is how they play doubles in the NCAA), and none of the wins were over a ranked player or team. In my experience as a former college player and coach, this type of background would indicate that this player probably was on the high end of the 4.5 range, or lower 5.0. If he was better than that, he would have been playing more singles matches and had a winning record. As it stands, it looks like he was never higher than 7th or 8th on his team's ladder (which would be a walk-on player for a school of this level).
The USTA self rate chart does show that he should be set at a 5.5 based on being playing at a Division I school and being under 30. However, these are only
guidelines, not
rules. Some USTA sections follow these guidelines strictly, some don't. In my section a couple years ago, we tried to get a 36 year old doctor to play on our 4.5 team. He hadn't picked up a racquet since starting medical school (over 10 years earlier), and several of us were taking sets off him in doubles (but he was solid none-the-less). Anyway, it turned out that he had played on the BYU tennis team and was ranked in singles back in the late 80s... and when the league coordinator saw this on his background form, she wouldn't let him play as anything less than a 5.5 (as the guidelines state), even though he was playing no where near that level (and probably never will again). In contrast, another player I know in our section had never played high school or college tennis, and had very little tournament experience. However, he was an unbelievable athlete, was taking personal lessons with a good coach twice a week, and was beating 5.0 players regularly in practice. By the USTA guidelines, with his lack of background, he was eligible to self rate as low as 3.0. In reality, he is playing much better than the former BYU player, but was able to play 4.5 (and got DQ'ed at that level in 3 matches!).
My point is that some section coordinators understand that the USTA self rate chart is a guideline, and will allow for exceptions. I think that they believe that if a person ends up rating too low, the system will catch them and bump them to the next level through dynamic disqualification. I personally believe that abuse of the system with self rated players is the biggest problem within the USTA League. Therefore, I wish there was more uniformity across the nation in the USTA with how they deal with these type of players. However, after several in-depth conversations about this with the coordinators in my section, I have realized that it will never happen. Therefore, be aware of this... and take it or leave it for what it is.
