DQ at Sectionals

[TennisOTM]

I just saw the results for Intermountain 40+ 4.0M Sectionals, and the famous Utah captain's team had a self-rated player get DQ'ed. The DQ'ed player played singles in two of the three team matches, and even with those two lines defaulted, Utah still won the section by the skin of their teeth - looks like it came down to sets tiebreaker.

Sadly, the DQ'ed player had played one singles match during Utah district playoffs, and if that line had been defaulted, a different Utah team would have won the district. Bum deal for that other Utah team, who would've had a good shot at winning Sectionals.

Would other sections have handled this scenario differently? Should the team with the DQ be forced to default their district championship and thus their spot at Nationals? Should the other Utah team be given a shot at Nationals, and how would that work?

 

[Moon Shooter]

I just saw the results for Intermountain 40+ 4.0M Sectionals, and the famous Utah captain's team had a self-rated player get DQ'ed. The DQ'ed player played singles in two of the three team matches, and even with those two lines defaulted, Utah still won the section by the skin of their teeth - looks like it came down to sets tiebreaker.

Sadly, the DQ'ed player had played one singles match during Utah district playoffs, and if that line had been defaulted, a different Utah team would have won the district. Bum deal for that other Utah team, who would've had a good shot at winning Sectionals.

Would other sections have handled this scenario differently? Should the team with the DQ be forced to default their district championship and thus their spot at Nationals? Should the other Utah team be given a shot at Nationals, and how would that work?

The problem with the current system is people who have never played any USTA rated games may think they belong in a level they do not belong in. So USTA shouldn't unduly punish people for getting this wrong if they filled out the USTA form correctly. But it is also true that it is unfair for the teams that get bumped off because teams have players that are clearly not in level.

I think the answer is easy. There should be no self rates or appeals at all. Thus no dqs.

If someone wants to play in a league but has not yet played any rated matches, then USTA should require that they play a few matches against rated players so they get a rating. If someone is going to literally throw games in order to keep their rating low then that's what they will do if they fill out a questionnaire anyway. The questionnaire can still be used to put a floor on their rating. So if someone played d1 college tennis 2 years ago they may be limited to 4.0 or higher. But the upper limit should be based on actual match play.

 

[J_R_B]

I just saw the results for Intermountain 40+ 4.0M Sectionals, and the famous Utah captain's team had a self-rated player get DQ'ed. The DQ'ed player played singles in two of the three team matches, and even with those two lines defaulted, Utah still won the section by the skin of their teeth - looks like it came down to sets tiebreaker.

Sadly, the DQ'ed player had played one singles match during Utah district playoffs, and if that line had been defaulted, a different Utah team would have won the district. Bum deal for that other Utah team, who would've had a good shot at winning Sectionals.

Would other sections have handled this scenario differently? Should the team with the DQ be forced to default their district championship and thus their spot at Nationals? Should the other Utah team be given a shot at Nationals, and how would that work?

I doubt there are any sections where a DQ at sectionals that would have affected the final districts result would allow a different team to come play at sectionals. That's a logistical nightmare, and besides, the player wasn't DQ'd at districts, so there is no reason to reverse those results.

 

[Tiafoe]

I'm shocked that someone on that guy's team got DQ'ed. Oh well, he still has a 18 & Over 4.0 team that blew everyone out at sectionals again. Maybe he'll meet another famous captain at Nationals, the Freeman guy from Texas.

 

[lockbox]

As someone who recently just got DQ'd, it almost became an issue for one of the teams I was on but luckily didn't. I was DQ'd from 4.0 to 4.5 and I can say that I should have been rated a 4.5 to start but the computer didn't allow it. So I was stuck in 4.0 land. Not sure how to get around it without appealing but I wasn't altogether sure I should be in 4.5 anyways.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

As someone who recently just got DQ'd, it almost became an issue for one of the teams I was on but luckily didn't. I was DQ'd from 4.0 to 4.5 and I can say that I should have been rated a 4.5 to start but the computer didn't allow it. So I was stuck in 4.0 land. Not sure how to get around it without appealing but I wasn't altogether sure I should be in 4.5 anyways.

When you wrote "the computer didn't allow it", do you mean you filled out the questionnaire and it gave you a 4.0 rating, you appealed to 4.5 and it denied your request? If so, the DQ certainly wasn't your fault.

 

[tennis tom]

I was DQ'd from 4.0 to 4.5 and I can say that I should have been rated a 4.5 to start but the computer didn't allow it.

Was it an Apple or a Dell computer? If it was an apple go to their genius bar--they're more lenient--or, just play in your age group and their won't be any malarkey.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

I think the answer is easy. There should be no self rates or appeals at all. Thus no dqs.

If someone wants to play in a league but has not yet played any rated matches, then USTA should require that they play a few matches against rated players so they get a rating.

Er, but who should they play these few rated games against? ...do they have to start from the bottom, and work their way up? That's silly. Perhaps the USTA should just provide some guidelines for them to estimate what level they might be, so that the people they play with to get their rating are people they're likely to be competitive with.

...and what format should these games take, who organizes them and who matches up players? Well, there's already this lovely league system, where people of a similar rating group themselves into teams and play matches against each other. Perhaps that's the best place for an unrated player to play a few matches to get a rating!

Seriously, what's the actual proposed alternative to "self-rate and then join a league"?

 

[Vox Rationis]

I'm shocked that someone on that guy's team got DQ'ed. Oh well, he still has a 18 & Over 4.0 team that blew everyone out at sectionals again. Maybe he'll meet another famous captain at Nationals, the Freeman guy from Texas.

I’d put money on them having a rematch of the 2019 finals in the 2021 finals. They both go above and beyond any other captains as far as getting out of level people playing on their teams.

 

[Tiafoe]

I’d put money on them having a rematch of the 2019 finals in the 2021 finals. They both go above and beyond any other captains as far as getting out of level people playing on their teams.

Yeah, I have watched from afar for years and it makes me wonder why they do this. They must get some satisfaction for winning rec titles, regardless of how they do it. Probably have some hall of fame shrines in their houses to show their kids lol. A user on here messaged me several years ago and told me how his team played Utah in a sectional and their players would get up big and then sandbag away games so they didn't win every match 6-0, 6-0.

 

[TennisOTM]

Short of banning self-rates from playoffs, maybe it'd help to raise the required minimum regular-season matches played for post-season eligibility. This guy had played the bare minimum of 2 matches in the regular season, so it was impossible for him to generate 3 strikes until playoffs, where a DQ is most disruptive. The minimum could remain at 2 for computer-rated players, but maybe raised to 4 or 5 for self-rates? It's possible it wouldn't have helped, but at least it would make it harder for the captains who try to use the "hide-and-unleash" strategy for self-rated ringers.

 

[CosmosMpower]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA









good

 

[Vox Rationis]

Short of banning self-rates from playoffs, maybe it'd help to raise the required minimum regular-season matches played for post-season eligibility. This guy had played the bare minimum of 2 matches in the regular season, so it was impossible for him to generate 3 strikes until playoffs, where a DQ is most disruptive. The minimum could remain at 2 for computer-rated players, but maybe raised to 4 or 5 for self-rates? It's possible it wouldn't have helped, but at least it would make it harder for the captains who try to use the "hide-and-unleash" strategy for self-rated ringers.

This is the first suggestion about self-rates that has actually seemed reasonable and feasible to me. All the talk of getting rid of them for playoffs or whatever I’m against since it basically pushes people away from joining usta. I’d rather build tennis up and get more people playing.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Er, but who should they play these few rated games against?

Players with established ratings.

...do they have to start from the bottom, and work their way up? That's silly.

Yes that is silly. I think it would make sense that they would play some people at the level they are looking to join a team at. So if you fill out the questionnaire and you are given a floor of 3.5 and you want to join a 3.5 team you should play some rated matches at the 3.5 and or 4.0 level in order to establish your rating. It could be people on the team you want to join or it could be others. I believe it is something like 3 matches to give you an established rating. But USTA could decide what is required.

...and what format should these games take, who organizes them and who matches up players? Well, there's already this lovely league system, where people of a similar rating group themselves into teams and play matches against each other. Perhaps that's the best place for an unrated player to play a few matches to get a rating!

Seriously, what's the actual proposed alternative to "self-rate and then join a league"?

It could be in a USTA tournament or they could just play some matches against members of a team you hope to join in order to establish your rating. Seriously this is not hard to "organize." Captain: "Jim self rated as a 3.5 and wants to join our 3.5 team. Can we have a few teammates volunteer to play him in a match or 2 so he can get an established rating?" Report the scores to USTA and USTA gives him a rating. This is not hard. Jim plays the number of matches USTA decides on and gets his rating. It may not solve all the problems but it is better than having all these guys play against proven 3.5 players based on their "say so" winning the districts and then oh wow I guess I was playing out of level oops. Sorry to all the teams I knocked out in the process but what could we do? And honestly I do not think many people know. The one guy here who got dqed said he wasn't actually sure if he was a 4.5. So if he played a few matches against other 4.0s he probably would know and so would USTA and they could have rated him higher at the start. No more accusations or any of this rancor between members. If he played his best tennis in those matches establishing his rating as decided by USTA he can have a clear conscience.

In Chess you can't play in a rated section unless you .... have a rating. They have unrated sections where people that do not have an established rating can play. But you can't just say well I think I am just a 1400 level player therefor I will enter this competition as a 1400 player. No, if you want to enter a competition with only people rated below a level you should be required to have a rating below that level.

Perhaps the USTA should just provide some guidelines for them to estimate what level they might be, so that the people they play with to get their rating are people they're likely to be competitive with.

USTA seems to have tried that with coaches evaluating people and they posted videos about it that are still up and it was a bust. Moreover it just confuses what the rating system is. If you want to know what rating you are you should just play matches and have USTA rate those matches.

If people are going to throw games in those matches then ok. But if someone is going to throw games they can do that anyway. Even right now someone could self rate as a 3.0 throw 3 or four matches get their computer rating and then be set for the next year and immune to dqs. So when you get to the point of people literally cheating by throwing games it is something that is much much more difficult to correct. I know schmke says they can police this, and I respect his opinion on much of this stuff. But I would want to see exactly how he would do that. Because I think as a practical matter it would be very easy to throw some games here or there and never get caught. I think we have to recognize that. And that means we should build incentives for people not to want to throw matches - for example having a meaningful rating system.

 

[jmnk]

[...]they could just play some matches against members of a team you hope to join in order to establish your rating. Seriously this is not hard to "organize." Captain: "Jim self rated as a 3.5 and wants to join our 3.5 team. Can we have a few teammates volunteer to play him in a match or 2 [...]

and what exactly prevents anyone from doing this very thing right now? Why do you need some USTA guidance/mandate to do a sensible thing - if you are unsure about your rating then play few matches against computer ranked opponents to see where you are. Just offer them a 12 pack so they are incentivized to play their best.

I admire you for writing short novels on these topics across multiple threads. But there's literally no problem with USTA and ratings _for players that want to have fun and do not cheat_.

The only thing that could potentially be argued is allowing/not allowing self-rated players to play in the post season. And clearly USTA did think of it and they decided that overall banning self-rates from post season would do more harm - because it would prevent the vast majority of honest self-rated players from participating in post season.

You keep bringing the arguments about chess and the number of matches needed for X or Z. That's all good except that an average USTA player completes I believe like around 3 matches per year @schmke please correct me if I'm wrong). Chess players may play that often in a single day. You simply must take this reality into consideration.

Edit: also because you keep saying that chess rating and process is so much better and it does not have a sandbagging problem. from http://www.uschess.org/index.php/Learn-About-Chess/FAQ-Starting-Out.html
" In many tournaments you can only play if you are over or under a certain rating. For instance, there are Under 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000 and 2200 sections in the some of the larger tournaments in America. The prizes are as high as $10,000 for the winner of each section. This leads to occasional "sand-bagging," losing points on purpose to lower your rating artificially in order to play in a weaker level tournament. This is an offense that could get you kicked out of US Chess for life. " Clearly they have the same problem, and they do not have a magical way of preventing it either.

 

[Moon Shooter]

and what exactly prevents anyone from doing this very thing right now? Why do you need some USTA guidance/mandate to do a sensible thing - if you are unsure about your rating then play few matches against computer ranked opponents to see where you are.

USTA prevents it. They hide the dynamic ratings of players and I believe they would refuse to rate the matches themselves.

If you play a 3.5 and win 6-3 6-1 that tells you almost nothing unless you know their dynamic rating. USTA tells us these third party sites are wildly off base.

You keep bringing the arguments about chess and the number of matches needed for X or Z. That's all good except that an average USTA player completes I believe like around 3 matches per year @schmke please correct me if I'm wrong). Chess players may play that often in a single day. You simply must take this reality into consideration.

Maybe the average USTA player plays a few more rated matches than that but I agree it is a very low number and that likely makes the ratings significantly less accurate then they could be. But that is reason for USTA to rate more matches! The problem is USTA refuses to rate many matches. That is why my common sense solution is impossible. If two people are USTA members and they want to play a rated match it shouldn't be all but impossible to arrange.

 

[leech]

As someone who recently just got DQ'd, it almost became an issue for one of the teams I was on but luckily didn't. I was DQ'd from 4.0 to 4.5 and I can say that I should have been rated a 4.5 to start but the computer didn't allow it. So I was stuck in 4.0 land. Not sure how to get around it without appealing but I wasn't altogether sure I should be in 4.5 anyways.

It's been a few years since I went through the self-rating process, but my understanding is that you will be assigned a *minimum* NTRP rating after you complete the self-rating questionnaire. There is nothing to prevent you from appealing up to your appropriate level. For instance, if I'd not played organized tennis at any level, I would be able to self rate at 2.5, but if I knew I belonged at 4.0 level because I play every week with 4.0 guys, I could (and should) appeal up to 4.0S.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Edit: also because you keep saying that chess rating and process is so much better and it does not have a sandbagging problem. from http://www.uschess.org/index.php/Learn-About-Chess/FAQ-Starting-Out.html
" In many tournaments you can only play if you are over or under a certain rating. For instance, there are Under 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000 and 2200 sections in the some of the larger tournaments in America. The prizes are as high as $10,000 for the winner of each section. This leads to occasional "sand-bagging," losing points on purpose to lower your rating artificially in order to play in a weaker level tournament. This is an offense that could get you kicked out of US Chess for life. " Clearly they have the same problem, and they do not have a magical way of preventing it either.

I have played in those tournaments and I am pretty familiar with it. It has lead me to think about this. I encourage you to learn about the differences.

Here is the most important part about chess sandbaggers:

".....tournaments in America. The prizes are as high as $10,000 for the winner of each section."

In chess you can win thousands of dollars in these rating capped levels *in a single tournament.* I tried to win in Vegas and in Minneapolis - no I finished out of the money each time but it was fun.

For the longest time I have asked how much money do you win if you win tennis 3.0 nationals that people are supposedly sandbagging games in order to win? Because I simply could not believe people would tank their rating in order to win a trophy.

In chess communities people would laugh out loud, at you, if you said I tanked my rating so I could win a trophy in an under 1600 tournament. I mean if you are 1700 player that is a much more impressive indicator of your chess skill than winning a 1600 level trophy. Again it is like giving a dollar for 3 quarters.

In chess the ratings are published and create a very well respected pecking order. It would take thousands of dollars for even a few people to purposely lower their rating. And the vast majority of chess players would not even do that for thousands of dollars! The idea that tennis players tank their rating for a trophy seemed absurd to me. But here we have it. So what is going on?

Are chess players just more ethical than tennis players so they are less likely to cheat? No chess players are often caught cheating to try to raise their rating. So why does USTA seem constantly concerned with people trying to cheat to lower their rating even though players *lose* money to travel and play at these events? The answer is chess players and the US chess federation find value in a legitimate and transparent rating system. As a chess player you take pride in your chess skill and that is reflected in your rating.

So what is the difference with tennis? That's the question I have been asking myself. And the answers seem pretty obvious. USTA hides the information about ratings that make it a real and legitimate means of differentiating skill levels. They do not rate enough matches to make the rating as accurate as possible. Etc etc. In other words USTA downplays and hides the significance of ratings and constantly promotes winning a trophy at nationals. Then they say "There is nothing we could do! It is just human nature that adults will cheat to win trophies by throwing games!" No that is nonsense and the chess provides clear evidence that this is not just human nature. The reason this happens in USTA and not chess is due to different decisions USTA and the US chess federation make about ratings.

 

[jmnk]

USTA prevents it. They hide the dynamic ratings of players and I believe they would refuse to rate the matches themselves.

If you play a 3.5 and win 6-3 6-1 that tells you almost nothing unless you know their dynamic rating. USTA tells us these third party sites are wildly off base.

USTA doesn't prevent anything like that. Why are you looking for a problem where there isn't one. If you play let's say three matches against computer rated members of 3.5 team I'm sure you can fairly accurately figure out if you are 3.5, 3.0 or 4.0. You do not need to know their dynamic rating at all. And if you self-rate according to those findings you are going to be correctly rated 99% of the time even if technically it will still be a self rating.

Maybe the average USTA player plays a few more rated matches than that but I agree it is a very low number and that likely makes the ratings significantly less accurate then they could be. But that is reason for USTA to rate more matches! The problem is USTA refuses to rate many matches. That is why my common sense solution is impossible. If two people are USTA members and they want to play a rated match it shouldn't be all but impossible to arrange.

Literally nothing like that exist in any competition I'm aware of. You want a match played outside the USTA league structure to count toward USTA blessed ratings. And you, the person who writes countless posts on unreliability of USTA ratings, think that it would be a good thing? That it would not dilute the meaning of USTA rating even more?

 

[Moon Shooter]

USTA doesn't prevent anything like that. Why are you looking for a problem where there isn't one. If you play let's say three matches against computer rated members of 3.5 team I'm sure you can fairly accurately figure out if you are 3.5, 3.0 or 4.0. You do not need to know their dynamic rating at all. And if you self-rate according to those findings you are going to be correctly rated 99% of the time even if technically it will still be a self rating.

USTA says that in the same level you can have 6-0 6-0 games. So let's say you play 4 matches. You play one 3.5 and win 6-0 6-1 and the second you win 6-4 6-3 and the third you win 6-2 6-1. Then you play a 4.0 and lose in tiebreaks. Are you a 3.5 or a 4.0 player?

Without having an decent idea of the dynamic ratings of these players (And remember USTA tells us third parties are way off base on this! Are we to believe them? ) you might be anywhere from a mid level 4.0 or a higher level 3.5.

The obvious answer is to have USTA rate these matches and give you a rating! Problem solved.

Literally nothing like that exist in any competition I'm aware of. You want a match played outside the USTA league structure to count toward USTA blessed ratings. And you, the person who writes countless posts on unreliability of USTA ratings, think that it would be a good thing? That it would not dilute the meaning of USTA rating even more?

It exists in UTR. It exists in chess. USTA itself already rates tournaments and that are not tied to league play. Some districts also rate play that is played in off season leagues not linked to the whole states and nationals post season stuff.

Do you think if USTA rates more matches everyone will sandbag in order to win a trophy at nationals? UTR and Chess make it clear that if USTA published a rating that sorted people's tennis skill in a meaningful way then people would not sandbag in these matches.

 

[jmnk]

USTA says that in the same level you can have 6-0 6-0 games. So let's say you play 4 matches. You play one 3.5 and win 6-0 6-1 and the second you win 6-4 6-3 and the third you win 6-2 6-1. Then you play a 4.0 and lose in tiebreaks. Are you a 3.5 or a 4.0 player?

Without having an decent idea of the dynamic ratings of these players (And remember USTA tells us third parties are way off base on this! Are we to believe them? ) you might be anywhere from a mid level 4.0 or a higher level 3.5.

The obvious answer is to have USTA rate these matches and give you a rating! Problem solved.

you have beaten 100% of 3.5 players and had a close match against 4.0 player. Rate yourself as 4.0, play, and have fun. The rest will take care of itself. Not sure what is unclear here......

Literally nothing like that exist in any competition I'm aware of. You want a match played outside the USTA league structure to count toward USTA blessed ratings. And you, the person who writes countless posts on unreliability of USTA ratings, think that it would be a good thing? That it would not dilute the meaning of USTA rating even more?

It exists in UTR.

that is not correct. UTR allows you to self-report non-sanctioned matches - but they _do not count_ toward your Verified UTR ranking. plus you can search this very forum on posts ridiculing the idea that self-reported matches should/may count toward an official ranking.

It exists in chess.

Could you point me to some USCF article that would explain how I can have a chess game played in my backyard with a neighbor count toward my USCF or FIDE rating? I'm really interested.

USTA itself already rates tournaments and that are not tied to league play. Some districts also rate play that is played in off season leagues not linked to the whole states and nationals post season stuff.

of course - because these are USTA sanctioned tournaments. As opposed to some match two players played on Sunday morning resting a bit after each point while being hanged-over after Saturday party.....

Do you think if USTA rates more matches everyone will sandbag in order to win a trophy at nationals? UTR and Chess make it clear that if USTA published a rating that sorted people's tennis skill in a meaningful way then people would not sandbag in these matches.

I've literally posted a quote from US Chess official web site that acknowledges sand-bagging in chess. You keep saying it does not happen. Is there a way to convince you otherwise?

 

[DCNJ]

I've literally posted a quote from US Chess official web site that acknowledges sand-bagging in chess. You keep saying it does not happen. Is there a way to convince you otherwise?

And for another example, just look at golf; they publish handicaps to the nearest tenth--one still hears about vanity caps and sandbagging just as they do in tennis.

 

[Moon Shooter]

you have beaten 100% of 3.5 players and had a close match against 4.0 player. Rate yourself as 4.0, play, and have fun. The rest will take care of itself. Not sure what is unclear here...

What is unclear is what level player you are. Again USTA could just rate these matches and give you a rating - then you would know. Because USTA knows where in the 3.5 level the people you beat were and where in the 4.0 level the person you lost to was. The problem is USTA wants to keep that information secret so you can play these matches but it still won't tell you what level you belong in.

Sure you can rate yourself too high (which will make people think you have a self inflated tennis ego) and then see if any 4.0 team wants to take you (assuming there is one) and also whether they want to play someone that is perhaps just a 3.5 player. But the most likely result is you rate yourself as a 4.0, look self inflated, don't get on a team or have fun on the bench.


So you start out saying you were unaware of anyone giving a rating outside of sanctioned *league* play.

Literally nothing like that exist in any competition I'm aware of. You want a match played outside the USTA league structure to count toward USTA blessed ratings.

I point out that USTA rates tournaments and UTR and chess rates matches outside of league play.

And now you are saying well sure they can include matches that aren't in league play as long as they are "sanctioned."

That is the issue should USTA sanction more rated matches generally but also specifically in this case in order to establish someone's rating instead of solely relying on a questionnaire.

And the answer is yes to both situations. More data is going to mean the ratings are more accurate at predicting outcomes so the ratings will improve if they rated more matches. But beyond that in this case it is silly to have someone say well I will play at this level based on some vague questionnaire.

that is not correct. UTR allows you to self-report non-sanctioned matches - but they _do not count_ toward your Verified UTR ranking. plus you can search this very forum on posts ridiculing the idea that self-reported matches should/may count toward an official ranking.


Could you point me to some USCF article that would explain how I can have a chess game played in my backyard with a neighbor count toward my USCF or FIDE rating? I'm really interested.


of course - because these are USTA sanctioned tournaments. As opposed to some match two players played on Sunday morning resting a bit after each point while being hanged-over after Saturday party.....

The unverified UTR will almost always be more accurate for adult rec players than the verified rating. That is because it uses more data and lack of a sufficient sample size of matches is a huge problem for UTR and likely a significant problem for NTRP as well. If USTA wants to do some unverified rating that is fine by me. People would see that someone playing in a 3.5 league has an unverified rating of 4.25 which is much closer to his actual playing strength and start to realize USTA should start rating more matches.

I have played in USCF quads that happen every other month at a Barnes and Noble. If you and those you want to play are a members of USCF it is not hard to organize a rated event. The only reason there are not more is there is usually a small fee to have them rate the games and chess players are notoriously cheap. Yes if you and your neighbor were USCF members and you wanted to have an event in your back yard I don't think it would be hard to arrange. You may need to have a TD there but it is easy to be a chess TD. If USTA made it easy to be a tournament director and wanted one at these matches that would be fine be me as well.

I've literally posted a quote from US Chess official web site that acknowledges sand-bagging in chess. You keep saying it does not happen. Is there a way to convince you otherwise?

The quote says it happens for big money tournaments. It does not say chess players are sandbagging in order to win trophies. As a chess player I could not believe tennis players were tanking their ratings even though there was no big money to be won.

Yes chess and tennis are different. But both competitive chess players and tennis players are interested achieving/earing certain "skill signifiers." A trophy and a high rating are both "skill signifiers." It doesn't matter whether it is tennis or chess. The thing is the US chess federation has made decisions that have legitimized their rating system as a meaningful way to differentiate chess strength between players. They give the full rating, they encourage people to play rated matches and rate a huge number of games which in turn helps make the system more accurate. US chess federation has also been very transparent about how the ratings work and so people can test their accuracy! Thus the US chess federation has built up and helped its members understand the value of the rating system. This has lead to a culture where people like me find it extremely odd to have someone ruin the better skill signifier (their rating) so they can win a worse skill signifier (a trophy that would only be awarded to people deemed to be not so good at tennis).

USTA has basically taken the opposite approach and that has lead to this bizzarre USTA culture were people are trying somehow signify they are good at tennis by actually losing games and winning trophies at low rated events. I am not the only one who has observed this is a bizarre culture that the USTA has created here in tennis. But it is not surprising when you see how they refuse to give information that make the ratings very meaningful and give so much misinformation about the ratings many people don't understand how they work. For example you can go to youtube and search "4.0 tennis player" and you will see this

from USTA talking about how a 4.0 tennis player will have these sorts of shots etc. It doesn't say a word about winning matches against other rated opponents. Yet USTA is constantly promoting winning nationals. The thing is it is not an either or issue. You can have a good and fair rating system that meaningfully differentiates players AND have a fair league play and fair rules about post league play that is not rigged against large areas of the country. But the choices they make have lead to this weird creation where people tank their rating in order to get other less rational "skill signifiers".

This bad situation USTA is in compared to US chess is not due to human nature or tennis being so different from chess. It is due to a difference in the deliberate decisions USTA and USCF has made.

 

[jmnk]

Oh boy, where to start, so much wrong here.
Having played chess at a fairly advanced level, in a structured leagues and tournaments, I'm pretty sure I have enough experience to comment.

I have played in those tournaments and I am pretty familiar with it. It has lead me to think about this. I encourage you to learn about the differences.

Here is the most important part about chess sandbaggers:

".....tournaments in America. The prizes are as high as $10,000 for the winner of each section."

In chess you can win thousands of dollars in these rating capped levels *in a single tournament.* I tried to win in Vegas and in Minneapolis - no I finished out of the money each time but it was fun.

Have you noticed players that participated in those tournaments that looked out of level?

For the longest time I have asked how much money do you win if you win tennis 3.0 nationals that people are supposedly sandbagging games in order to win? Because I simply could not believe people would tank their rating in order to win a trophy.

In chess communities people would laugh out loud, at you, if you said I tanked my rating so I could win a trophy in an under 1600 tournament. I mean if you are 1700 player that is a much more impressive indicator of your chess skill than winning a 1600 level trophy. Again it is like giving a dollar for 3 quarters.

In chess the ratings are published and create a very well respected pecking order. It would take thousands of dollars for even a few people to purposely lower their rating. And the vast majority of chess players would not even do that for thousands of dollars! The idea that tennis players tank their rating for a trophy seemed absurd to me. But here we have it. So what is going on?

Clearly your chess friends are exceptions - because sandbagging in chess _is_ a real problem. Being 1700 chess player is not really impressive (relatively speaking of course). Getting $1000 first prize in 1600 and under tournament is at least tangible thing one can use. Chess players most definitely _would_ lower their rating to be able to play at lower level and win a monetary prize.
Which is why most, if not all, chess tournaments have rules like this (from Las Vegas chess festival https://www.kingregistration.com/event/LVOPEN2021 ) " Unrated or provisionally rated players may not win more than $400 in any under section, balance goes to next players in line. " Why would they need to have such a rule if chess players are so honest al the time? Plus - once you ever had rating over X you can never play a tournament in under X-100 (or maybe it is X-200, don't remember) category. Go on any chess forum - you will see as many folks complaining about sand-baggers in chess tournaments as you see in this forum.

Are chess players just more ethical than tennis players so they are less likely to cheat? No chess players are often caught cheating to try to raise their rating. So why does USTA seem constantly concerned with people trying to cheat to lower their rating even though players *lose* money to travel and play at these events? The answer is chess players and the US chess federation find value in a legitimate and transparent rating system. As a chess player you take pride in your chess skill and that is reflected in your rating.

So what is the difference with tennis? That's the question I have been asking myself. And the answers seem pretty obvious. USTA hides the information about ratings that make it a real and legitimate means of differentiating skill levels. They do not rate enough matches to make the rating as accurate as possible. Etc etc. In other words USTA downplays and hides the significance of ratings and constantly promotes winning a trophy at nationals. Then they say "There is nothing we could do! It is just human nature that adults will cheat to win trophies by throwing games!" No that is nonsense and the chess provides clear evidence that this is not just human nature. The reason this happens in USTA and not chess is due to different decisions USTA and the US chess federation make about ratings.

there's zero difference between chess players and tennis players. A large majority plays fair and has fun. Chess players sandbag to win a thing of value that is apparently more valuable to them than having a true ranking - money. Tennis players sandbag to win a thing of value that is apparently more valuable to them than having a true ranking- a plaque, a picture on the tennis club wall, an article in a local newspaper, etc.

You keep bringing this 'ranking transparency' as if having your ranking known exactly matters. These days I play maybe 7-10 blitz chess games a day. My ranking on chess.org fluctuates daily in like +/- 50 range. I can be 1920 player in the morning and by the evening I'm 1800. Next day I'm 1850. All I know is that I'm around 1900 level player. There's no value in knowing if I'm 1852 or 1865 or 1912.

[...]

USTA has basically taken the opposite approach and that has lead to this bizzarre USTA culture were people are trying somehow signify they are good at tennis by actually losing games and winning trophies at low rated events. I am not the only one who has observed this is a bizarre culture that the USTA has created here in tennis. But it is not surprising when you see how they refuse to give information that make the ratings very meaningful and give so much misinformation about the ratings many people don't understand how they work. For example you can go to youtube and search "4.0 tennis player" and you will see this

from USTA talking about how a 4.0 tennis player will have these sorts of shots etc. It doesn't say a word about winning matches against other rated opponents. Yet USTA is constantly promoting winning nationals. The thing is it is not an either or issue. You can have a good and fair rating system that meaningfully differentiates players AND have a fair league play and fair rules about post league play that is not rigged against large areas of the country. But the choices they make have lead to this weird creation where people tank their rating in order to get other less rational "skill signifiers".

This bad situation USTA is in compared to US chess is not due to human nature or tennis being so different from chess. It is due to a difference in the deliberate decisions USTA and USCF has made.

You are being purposely incorrect. Of course USTA clearly says that rating is based on match results. See https://www.usta.com/en/home/play/adult-tennis/programs/national/usta-league-faqs.html
"
How does the year-end NTRP calculation work?

Computerized ratings are affected by the score of a match as well as the dynamic ratings of a player’s partner and the player’s opponents. Based on player dynamic ratings at the start of a match, the NTRP algorithm expects a particular outcome of a match. The actual outcome is then compared to the expected outcome, and as a result of this comparison, the player’s dynamic rating is adjusted up or down (or there is no change, if the outcome was as expected). Computerized ratings are not directly affected by what position a player played, actual number of wins and losses, age, or team standing.

"

 

[OnTheLine]

@Moon Shooter
Have you now played a season of USTA league? If I recall correctly you are the one who has never been rated, never played league, never even self-rated and played a USTA tournament and yet go on and on about "ratings this and ratings that and here is how to fix the problem ....."

This "problem" is something you have personally never witnessed never dealt with and have no idea of the actual prevalence (very small in most areas).

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

@Moon Shooter
Have you now played a season of USTA league? If I recall correctly you are the one who has never been rated, never played league, never even self-rated and played a USTA tournament and yet go on and on about "ratings this and ratings that and here is how to fix the problem ....."

This "problem" is something you have personally never witnessed never dealt with and have no idea of the actual prevalence (very small in most areas).

Despite his experiences, he has some good insight if you can get past the volume, lol. The problem might be small in most areas, unless that area is city or state tournaments, or nationals, then it is very prevalent. Some may say that is where it matters the most and you could say regular season then is played just to play until you meet up with the self-rate team at some stage of the journey. I like tough competition, but I've seen some pretty negative impacts on those that are introduced that situation and it forms their opinion of the entire USTA program.

 

[Moon Shooter]

@Moon Shooter
Have you now played a season of USTA league? If I recall correctly you are the one who has never been rated, never played league, never even self-rated and played a USTA tournament and yet go on and on about "ratings this and ratings that and here is how to fix the problem ....."

This "problem" is something you have personally never witnessed never dealt with and have no idea of the actual prevalence (very small in most areas).

I have self rated as a 3.0 and have been asking to play in any teams that are available. There are none in my area so I am fully experiencing the problem with USTA. You guys who have plenty of teams in your area are not experiencing the problem with how USTA is run. It is obnoxious for you guys to tell the rest of the country there are very few problems with USTA just because your area is fine.

 

[Creighton]

I have self rated as a 3.0 and have been asking to play in any teams that are available. There are none in my area so I am fully experiencing the problem with USTA. You guys who have plenty of teams in your area are not experiencing the problem with how USTA is run. It is obnoxious for you guys to tell the rest of the country there are very few problems with USTA just because your area is fine.

You’re ignoring the amount of work we all put in to have leagues in our area.

They don’t just magically appear from the USTA. We have to generate interest in the players in our area and get them to sign up on teams.I wish you the best in getting others to sign up in your area.

 

[ChaelAZ]

I have self rated as a 3.0 and have been asking to play in any teams that are available. There are none in my area so I am fully experiencing the problem with USTA. You guys who have plenty of teams in your area are not experiencing the problem with how USTA is run. It is obnoxious for you guys to tell the rest of the country there are very few problems with USTA just because your area is fine.

I am confused what your issue is though. Is it you were rated as a 3.0? Or there just are not enough players in your area at that level?

As far as the whole argument going on about self-rating, cheating, etc, most of what is suggested is to catch a small percentage of players that abuse that system, where new players can go through easily to get their SR and put themselves out in their area to find a team. If you are already having issues finding players how would additional barriers help? Also, is it you believe all the 3.0 players are playing up or you see too many 3.5's sandbagging to play 3.0? I think @FuzzyYellowBalls is right you do have some good suggestions, but you have built a huge mountain out of a mole hill before you have even played an official match. I think that is where @OnTheLine and others are at, where you are worrying about cheating at nationals for all kinds of levels and it sounds like your area can't even get teams together.

I am (and maybe others are) just trying to understand your beef and situation.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Have you noticed players that participated in those tournaments that looked out of level?

I'm surprised you ask this because you can check as much as anyone. In chess when you lose a single game against someone they punish your mistake. Unless you are sure you are not making mistakes at the level you would not know if the player is playing out of level from your game. I believed I was better than my rating as did most people in these tournaments.

The best way to see if someone is out of level is to see if their rating shoots up in tournaments after this one. In chess you can do this. In tennis the differences in level are so big it is almost impossible to tell. But even an sharp increase after the tournament may just show the person has improved. It won't tell you they are throwing games.

I remember after the tournaments I played in I did check some of the players that won. Some did have a big increase in rating after the tournament. But because Chess has transparent ratings I also checked to see if they had a higher rating before the tournament and if it suddenly went down before the cut off date for the tournament. That is someone sandbagging by throwing games. I did not see that. Chess's rating system would show that much more clearly than tennis. Because chess publishes ratings in much finer detail and more often than tennis. So it is easier to see if someone is throwing games before a big event just by watching their rating.

What I saw at the tournament was a variety of players. Some very young kids who likely greatly improved since their last rated game. Other older people like me that likely thought they were better than their current rating and also enjoy playing when there is money on the games to make it more interesting.

Clearly your chess friends are exceptions - because sandbagging in chess _is_ a real problem.... Getting $1000 first prize in 1600 and under tournament is at least tangible thing one can use. Chess players most definitely _would_ lower their rating to be able to play at lower level and win a monetary prize.
Which is why most, if not all, chess tournaments have rules like this (from Las Vegas chess festival https://www.kingregistration.com/event/LVOPEN2021 ) " Unrated or provisionally rated players may not win more than $400 in any under section, balance goes to next players in line. " Why would they need to have such a rule if chess players are so honest al the time? Plus - once you ever had rating over X you can never play a tournament in under X-100 (or maybe it is X-200, don't remember) category. Go on any chess forum - you will see as many folks complaining about sand-baggers in chess tournaments as you see in this forum.

Probably about 1% of rated games in chess come from these big money tournaments. So 99% of the chess games are not effected and when people sign up for big money tournaments they tend to know what they are getting into - unless they are really dumb. But sandbagging is not an issue outside of these events - sandbagging is it is not an issue at all for the other 99% of games. In USTA the percent of rated games that have an effect on post season play is much higher. I am not sure the percentage and I know there are different types of post season play. But it is way way more than 1%. So sandbagging concerns effect a much larger percentage of USTA rated games. The only effect it would have on off season play is if players are dumping rating points during that time.

One of the tournaments I played in had an under 1600 with a first prize of $20,000.

The richest open tournament in chess history

Welcome to the HB Global Chess Challenge, to be held in Minneapolis from May 18–22, 2005. It is the brain-child of GM Maurice Ashley, who revealed yesterday that the prize fund would be an unprecedented US $500,000 ($50,000 in cash for the winner). You can register today. We bring you <a...

en.chessbase.com

They may have stopped giving these prizes because it wasn't profitable. I am not sure. But the big money tournaments I played in were bigger money than the one you posted.

You seem to misunderstand the difference between sandbagging/throwing games and being unrated. If you are unrated you did not necessarily throw games. You have not played enough games to get a provisional rating. If you are provisionally rated you have not played enough games to get a full rating. So maybe you won 3 games against an 800 a 700 and a 900 rated player. You might be a 1000 level player or you might be a grandmaster. But there is no reason to think anyone was cheating by throwing games.

But this is exactly my point. Before these chess players can play in tournaments with bigger consequences the tournament organizers makes sure they have played enough rated games to be sure their rating is valid (assuming they play honestly). Chess doesn't have players fill out a vague questionnaire about whether you played on a team in high school or whether you think you are good at openings or endings. It sensibly has you play rated games and get a rating before you play in a section that gives prizes to people who should all be below a certain rating. This is so painfully obvious it is hard to even call it a "solution." The solution is not to inflict the problem on yourself by entirely relying on "tennis strength according to a questionnaire."

As far as the ratings never dropping below 200 of your peak that is up to the organizers to have that rule. In chess, unlike USTA, the USCF organizes very few tournaments. The USCF just rates the games if everyone is a member. It is almost exclusively the big money organizers that implement that sort of rule. They did lobby USCF to have some rules like that as well and it may have passed. But again the issue was big money tournament organizers.

 

[Moon Shooter]

there's zero difference between chess players and tennis players. A large majority plays fair and has fun. Chess players sandbag to win a thing of value that is apparently more valuable to them than having a true ranking - money. Tennis players sandbag to win a thing of value that is apparently more valuable to them than having a true ranking- a plaque, a picture on the tennis club wall, an article in a local newspaper, etc.

Again you miss the key difference. It is one thing for a chess player to say I will trade off my chess strength signifier (my rating) for a completely different thing of value (money). But they do not trade a better signifier of chess strength (rating) for a lesser signifier of chess strength (a plague or newspaper write up showing they are low rated player). That is trading one thing that has more value for the something that has the same type of value for something with less value. That is why in chess you don't see players tanking their rating in order to win a plague or get a write up in the paper for winning the under X rating class. It would be like giving a dollar for 3 quarters.

Part of the reason tennis players do this is because the significance of the ratings has been purposefully diminished and obfuscated. If you win 3.5 nationals people may very well think you are a 4.0 or better player. Moreover the differences between top 3.5 players and 4.0 players is pretty difficult to see.

You keep bringing this 'ranking transparency' as if having your ranking known exactly matters. These days I play maybe 7-10 blitz chess games a day. My ranking on chess.org fluctuates daily in like +/- 50 range. I can be 1920 player in the morning and by the evening I'm 1800. Next day I'm 1850. All I know is that I'm around 1900 level player. There's no value in knowing if I'm 1852 or 1865 or 1912.

Try opening a chess playing site where you have 7 ratings 1-7. Only publish the whole numbers and see how many players will value your chess playing website. Have it so you can beat a level 3 player 12xs in a row but your rating may still show you as being the same as him. See how many chess players value that site. A good rating system has value that is why almost all chess playing sites do give you the full rating.

Online chess can vary. My rating may vary because I am playing in a place where I am constantly interrupted, had a few drinks etc. You might find someone who is perhaps playing on someone else's account etc etc. But even so if you are 50 points better than someone else you are not supposed to beat them 12xs in a row! 50 points in chess ratings is similar to .1 in tennis. Are you not interested in knowing if you are 250 points different than another chess player?


Also by transparency I don't only mean the full rating. I also mean these sites give a basic understanding of what the ratings are predicting in terms of outcomes so players can see if they work. Chess players have come to see the value of chess ratings and understand they work quite well. USTA's system is very hard to check because it has such huge gaps between published differences it can be hard to see what is going on under the hood.

You are being purposely incorrect. Of course USTA clearly says that rating is based on match results. See https://www.usta.com/en/home/play/adult-tennis/programs/national/usta-league-faqs.html....
"

Did you see the video I posted?

I gave you a link from USTA with a video from USTA saying something different. I did not publish the video USTA did. I am not being purposely incorrect, USTA is being purposely incorrect. I understand what they are saying in your link but it is not the same as what USTA is posting on youtube is it? Do you think they accidently posted that video to youtube or do you agree it was deliberate? If it was deliberate they are purposefully confusing people about what their rating system means. That is my point. By deliberately confusing people on what the rating even means it diminishes the value of the rating.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I am confused what your issue is though. Is it you were rated as a 3.0? Or there just are not enough players in your area at that level?

I don't care that I self rated as a 3.0. The problem is USTA is the official organization for tennis in this country and they specifically choose to do little of value for the many tennis players in my area. (which is actually a pretty typical area in the US) The ratings could be valuable but they purposefully ruin them. The leagues and post game could be fun but they rig it against areas like mine. These decisions have lead to the unsurprising result that the many players in my area see diminished value in USTA membership thus there are few (if any) leagues to play in. I wish USTA would just admit that they are only catering to certain areas and let a different organization be in charge of tennis for the rest of the country.

As far as the whole argument going on about self-rating, cheating, etc, most of what is suggested is to catch a small percentage of players that abuse that system, where new players can go through easily to get their SR and put themselves out in their area to find a team. If you are already having issues finding players how would additional barriers help?

The barrier is USTA will not rate the games to let us know what our rating is supposed to be. Only having players that have a rating (based on actual results) play in the leagues where people are supposed to be rated below a certain level would make the league more legitimate and increase participation. USTA insists on having you guess your rating and then if you guess to low you might get shamed with DQ. If you guess to high you might not get to play.

The percentage of players is not important. The lady from USTA made that clear that just a few players can really disrupt the whole league. What percentage of teams have won regionals or nationals without having a self rate or appeal rate on their team? If the percentage is over 90% then sure it is a small problem. But if it is under 50% of the teams can win without a self rate or appeal rate on their team then can you at least see perhaps it is not just a mole hill? Maybe it is not a mountain but it is significant if over 50% of the teams seem to need a self rate or appeal rate to win wouldn't you agree? Why does USTA choose to continue with this? This just lowers the overall credibility of the league system and this has lead people to find it less valuable. Maybe in your area that has not gone past the threshold of having no teams to play on. But in many areas - including mine it has passed that threshold. So, of course, you think no big deal where as I can't find a team and so yes I say it is a big deal.

Also, is it you believe all the 3.0 players are playing up or you see too many 3.5's sandbagging to play 3.0? I think @FuzzyYellowBalls is right you do have some good suggestions, but you have built a huge mountain out of a mole hill before you have even played an official match. I think that is where @OnTheLine and others are at, where you are worrying about cheating at nationals for all kinds of levels and it sounds like your area can't even get teams together.

I am (and maybe others are) just trying to understand your beef and situation.

Fair enough and again my beef with them and you is that the bad decisions have not effected you guys because you still have plenty of teams to choose from. Therefore, you have no experience with the problems of USTA's bad decisions because you can find teams without a problem. Try living where I live and then you will see that the bad decisions have consequences for tennis players. Because they don't effect you personally you act like they are not real.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

You’re ignoring the amount of work we all put in to have leagues in our area.

maybe you do, but the whole reason I play leagues is because of how little work it takes on my part, just sign up and fill out availability and show up…

 

[BallBag]

@Moon Shooter, some of the problems you mentioned with the USTA are necessary to run a national program, others are local to your area. I would say 95% of the work done the USTA is done by unpaid volunteers who give up their time and sanity to make the leagues posible. If you don't have people in your area who are willing to organize a league, then be the change you want to see in the world. If the USTA does not offer the infrastructure that you need to run a program, then there are other alternatives. You can run a WTT league or a flex league through UTR or TLN, or you can just do a local ladder through your club or you can set up a local meetup for tennis.

The people running USTA leagues are not stupid or evil. They are doing their best with the resources they have and they cant make all people happy all the time, then all those unhappy people endup on this forum.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

I think this discussion goes in these circles because MoonShooter has a legitimate problem - there's just too few people in his area to run a USTA league. For a team that plays 3 doubles/2 singles, you probably want at least 12-14 people per team, you need at least 4 teams to have a reasonable flight, so that's 50 people of a similar level who live within reasonable driving distance of each other and want to play league tennis. If you don't have that many people interested in a league of a similar level, getting a league together is like pulling teeth. I just don't think fiddling with the rating system or making the levels wider (or allowing out-of-level people to play on teams) really gets you there.

...there's also some sociology magic that goes into kickstarting a good league, and I haven't the faintest idea of what it is. In my area, there's always a lot of USTA league teams. Several flights of 5-6 teams. And then UTR decided to run a league. It was even a smaller format - 1S/2D instead of 2S/3D. In the same geographic area. It was at a great time - no competing league going on at that time. ...and it was a total bust. Trainwreck. Got like 6 teams that covered an area where USTA would have had at least 12 and probably more teams of double the size, and even those 6 teams didn't have enough people to field lineups. I think less than a third of scheduled matches actually got played across that whole league.

I really don't think UTR could have changed anything with their rating system specifically to make that work better. It's just people's habits. There's a bunch of established USTA captains, running leagues out of the same clubs and public courts each season, everyone knows them and their teams. Then this new thing comes along and tries to get set up and it's just a blank slate, and getting that kickstarted is hard. I certainly imagine there's the same challenges in getting a USTA league set up in a place where it's not established.

And I do agree there might be things to improve there. More support for flex leagues where there aren't enough people to form teams? Some sort of smaller-team format when there's people interested in team competition but not enough for 2S/3D? Basically how to create a "USTA league culture" in a place where it doesn't currently exist. I don't think USTA knows how to do that. ...but based on my one experience with UTR, I'm not sure anybody knows how to do that, everyone just sort of bumbles around and sometimes things work out and sometimes they don't.

 

[Chalkdust]

I think this discussion goes in these circles because MoonShooter has a legitimate problem - there's just too few people in his area to run a USTA league. For a team that plays 3 doubles/2 singles, you probably want at least 12-14 people per team, you need at least 4 teams to have a reasonable flight, so that's 50 people of a similar level who live within reasonable driving distance of each other and want to play league tennis. If you don't have that many people interested in a league of a similar level, getting a league together is like pulling teeth. I just don't think fiddling with the rating system or making the levels wider (or allowing out-of-level people to play on teams) really gets you there.

Completely agree with pretty much all your points. And there may enough players in his area, but for whatever reason they are not participating in USTA. Goes to you point re the 'magic/culture' that is needed for people to want to participate in league.
My personal experience:
I used to live in an area where the 'catchment' population for local league is about 1.2M. And this supported 8-10 4.5 teams, about 15-20 4.0 teams, and same at 3.5. Granted this was in CA where tennis is popular.
Now I live in an area with about 900K population, so not that much less. And, lucky if there are 2 teams at each level. Often there are none. This is FL, so not exactly a tennis desert. And there are plenty of players around - lots of clubs, lots of people on the courts.
Don't know what makes league popular in one area but not in another. Part of it is history and inertia I guess, since USTA doesn't actually do much to grow league.

 

[ChaelAZ]

I don't care that I self rated as a 3.0. The problem is USTA is the official organization for tennis in this country and they specifically choose to do little of value for the many tennis players in my area. (which is actually a pretty typical area in the US) The ratings could be valuable but they purposefully ruin them. The leagues and post game could be fun but they rig it against areas like mine. These decisions have lead to the unsurprising result that the many players in my area see diminished value in USTA membership thus there are few (if any) leagues to play in. I wish USTA would just admit that they are only catering to certain areas and let a different organization be in charge of tennis for the rest of the country.

Have you reached out to your LC and the District? As typical as you believe your area is, there might be some limiting factors for growth and opportunity. I know we are an embarrassment of riches in Arizona in that we have a large population of retirees and year long playing seasons, but that also creates some issues with aged sections and ratings, so everyone has something they have to get involved with.

The barrier is USTA will not rate the games to let us know what our rating is supposed to be. Only having players that have a rating (based on actual results) play in the leagues where people are supposed to be rated below a certain level would make the league more legitimate and increase participation. USTA insists on having you guess your rating and then if you guess to low you might get shamed with DQ. If you guess to high you might not get to play.

I self rated as a 3.0, kinda accidentally my first seasons, but I was playing some local rec programs and the coaches there let me know I should be playing at least 3.5 If your SR form put you at 3.0, but you believe you are a 3.5, find the 3.5 team and ask to play some practice matches with them. They can get to know you and your play, and if it works out you play up that first season and you will bump quickly. The survey seems to rate most people fine except at the lower levels where fitness can't be accounted for and can move players up a notch, or if people outright cheat the system. In any case, finding other players at your level maybe you can assemble a team from that and already have some chemistry.

The percentage of players is not important. The lady from USTA made that clear that just a few players can really disrupt the whole league. What percentage of teams have won regionals or nationals without having a self rate or appeal rate on their team? If the percentage is over 90% then sure it is a small problem. But if it is under 50% of the teams can win without a self rate or appeal rate on their team then can you at least see perhaps it is not just a mole hill? Maybe it is not a mountain but it is significant if over 50% of the teams seem to need a self rate or appeal rate to win wouldn't you agree? Why does USTA choose to continue with this? This just lowers the overall credibility of the league system and this has lead people to find it less valuable. Maybe in your area that has not gone past the threshold of having no teams to play on. But in many areas - including mine it has passed that threshold. So, of course, you think no big deal where as I can't find a team and so yes I say it is a big deal.

Sorry this is what confounds me. You keep mixing your perceived cheating of SR's and Appeals with your area not having enough teams for you to play on. I am seriously missing the connection. And then tying that all to the USTA not doing enough for you.

I think this discussion goes in these circles because MoonShooter has a legitimate problem - there's just too few people in his area to run a USTA league.

Right, but what exactly does that have to do with self-rating, DQ's or preceived rampant cheating in the USTA. Again, it just seems to be all mixed up into one big ball.

 

[socallefty]

You need enough captains to have good participation in USTA leagues at each level up to 4.5. If a captain starts a team and recruits players, there is usually no shortage of interested players for weekend leagues. But, if a captain moves away at a club or decides to stop doing it for some reason, there can be a many-season gap before someone else decides to captain a team. The USTA needs to recruit people who want to captain, give captains bigger incentives and have training programs for captains if they want a healthy league in many areas.

For example, I stopped captaining a Men‘s team after COVID happened and since then, no one else has stepped up to captain and so, my club has no team at that level. I know that there are probably 15-20 guys who will sign up to play if someone else captains. Captaining takes a lot of effort and hassle with few rewards if you don’t have a team of league-contending caliber.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I am not trying to bash anyone that works at USTA. I realize that just about everyone I talked to is just volunteering their time. I would never be anything but appreciative to them. But USTA is the Tennis association that is supposed to be for tennis all over the US not just a few places in the US. It should be obvious that the USTA is failing in large areas of the country and I wish they would at least recognize that maybe they could change some things which would add some value and make tennis more fun in other areas. I do not feel that USTA offers much to people in my community.

I think some of you might understand where I am coming from a bit more if USTA just said your district can not compete in any any state, regional, or national post game play. They just didn't offer it at all for your district they just allowed it and promoted it in other districts. (because for all intents and purposes it may as well not exist in my area because of the way the post season is structured) Sure some people in your area would still do USTA. But the fact that USTA is spending so much of their promotional time on this post season aspect of the league and it doesn't even apply to your district might start to grate a bit. And not as many people would participate in USTA. And there is a threshold. Once you cross that threshold you no longer even have a league that works for your skill level. My community is on the bubble. I think I will be able to play on a 3.5 or 3.0 team eventually but we have very limited options.

Have you reached out to your LC and the District?

Yes I have. I still hope to be on a team.

I self rated as a 3.0, kinda accidentally my first seasons, but I was playing some local rec programs and the coaches there let me know I should be playing at least 3.5 If your SR form put you at 3.0, but you believe you are a 3.5, find the 3.5 team and ask to play some practice matches with them. They can get to know you and your play, and if it works out you play up that first season and you will bump quickly. The survey seems to rate most people fine except at the lower levels where fitness can't be accounted for and can move players up a notch, or if people outright cheat the system. In any case, finding other players at your level maybe you can assemble a team from that and already have some chemistry.

Yes this is good advice. I figure I would leave the self rate at 3.0 so teams will have the most flexibility to play me during the combo league season. I am still not sure if a team will materialize. I have offered to play on every team that is available.

I have been trying to figure out who a few of the guys from the 3.5 team are and have been trying to see how I stack up.

Sorry this is what confounds me. You keep mixing your perceived cheating of SR's and Appeals with your area not having enough teams for you to play on. I am seriously missing the connection. And then tying that all to the USTA not doing enough for you.



Right, but what exactly does that have to do with self-rating, DQ's or preceived rampant cheating in the USTA. Again, it just seems to be all mixed up into one big ball.

It all goes to reducing the value of league play and USTA membership. I mean I am just making up percentages here but lets say if USTA did everything right, and they had a great league and rating system that everyone appreciated and valued. Maybe in that case 40% of tennis players (however we want to define that) would join USTA. In that case my community and many others would have many tennis league options and events going on and things would be great. And indeed through their efforts and the legitimacy of their league and rating system tennis as a whole would be growing in the USA! But then maybe USTA is making decisions that are not great regarding legitimacy issues with their league, and rating system and only 20% join. Well then a community like mine is just on the bubble but other communities will no longer have leagues at all. In that case tennis will stagnate and USTA will not be growing tennis. But then if they make more bad decisions and it is only 10% of players well lots of areas will have no USTA and people will look for other activities that have their act more together. USTA will be failing at their job to promote tennis throughout the USA.

People in Florida and Arizona and California may say well USTA seems fine here as long as they have opportunities to play as much as they want. I may say oh no USTA is terrible because I can't even join a league. But can we agree to any sort of objective measures as to how USTA is doing? The number of USTA matches were dropping as of 2019 before covid. Is that an indicator that maybe they should reconsider some of the way they operate to promote tennis? If not what would be? In other words I am wondering what it would take before some of you might agree that maybe USTA should change how they are running the ratings and league for adult rec tennis. Can we agree that if it gets so bad that Surprise Arizona, itself, doesn't have a usta league we will be acting too late? If so then let's both stop looking at our subjective experience and try to get some objective indicators/data.

For example, some people say Self rates and appeals are a big problem. Other people say it is just a small problem. I just hear this and wonder - how many teams can make it to and through state regionals and nationals without self rates or appeal players? I don't know the answer. But I think it is a valid question to ask. If a substantial number of teams need to have self rates and appeal players in order to make it through to the post season play (that USTA spends so much time promoting) then can we at least say it is a substantial problem? I would certainly say that if the vast majority of teams that make it to and through these post season playoffs, either have all computer rated players or if they have self rates or appeal players the self rates or appeal players lost more than they won it is not a big deal. I am just saying lets look at some objective data before we decide it is or it is not a big deal.

If the self rates are a substantial problem then why is it so terrible to have someone actually play a few rated matches so that they have an established computer rating before they start playing league play?

Also maybe it is a net negative to have an appeal process because that is just leading to more distortions than corrections in the rating system. Can we at least look at some data to see how often appeal rated players end up below the middle of their level as opposed to above the middle of their level? I mean if someone says they really belong as a 3.5 what does that mean? Does it mean that if they can manage their schedule of matches so they end up with a 3.49 that season and thus a computer rating of 3.5 then this was a good thing and more of a correction than a distortion? If those players were to play in 4.0 and lose like no tomorrow does that not suggest that maybe setting up the league where only players at the very top of the level bring value to a team should be looked at? It seems USTA is content to pile error on top of error which detracts from the legitimacy instead of getting a clean and fair system of play that deals with issues in a transparent way.

I don't have anything against USTA. The people I have interacted with personally from it seem wonderful. It just seems some of these issues are due to decisions USTA is making. I do not buy the view that all these problems are just inevitable due to human nature. These problems are happening because USTA is allowing and even encouraging (although likely not intentionally) these problems through the way they set up the leagues and rating systems.

edit:

MaxG I agree with much of what you said but obviously I think a decent rating system is a valuable tool that no tennis organization has fully developed to its full potential for adult rec tennis. UTR has treated adult rec tennis as an afterthought with the way they designed their rating system. And so it is not surprise it is a trainwreck. Would it be better if they really made it work for adult rec tennis? Yes I think UTR would pass up USTA in a matter of 7 years if they got it sorted out. (Although USTA would likely finally start to make changes to keep people in their system) People in my area and others would love to have a decent objective rating system that really worked at sorting people out. If every match not only told me where I stood for the person I was playing but also helped tell me where I stand nationally that would be a huge selling point.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

I think some of you might understand where I am coming from a bit more if USTA just said your district can not compete in any any state, regional, or national post game play.

I really don't think so. I know I personally wouldn't find this any different. I've never played in state or national post season play and am not really interested in it. I probably wouldn't go even if a team I was on qualified.

Did play at districts once, captain convinced me they needed me, I wanted to sit that one out too, it's too far to drive to play some tennis...

If so then let's both stop looking at our subjective experience and try to get some objective indicators/data.

The objective indicators won't tell you WHAT to do though. You can, objectively, show whether popularity of USTA tennis (or of tennis overall) is going up or down. It is really hard (maybe impossible?) to get objective indicators of whether a hypothetical rule change would increase or decrease popularity of USTA tennis. That's why it's just online arguments.

If the self rates are a substantial problem then why is it so terrible to have someone actually play a few rated matches so that they have an established computer rating before they start playing league play?

Two obvious reasons.

One - because it's one more barrier to joining. Adding more things people HAVE to do before joining a league would, naturally, decrease the number of people willing to do these things to join a league. Thus, adding this requirement would DECREASE league participation rather than increase.

Two - because it's circular. The point of a league is to get matched up against opponents to play some rated matches. So you're saying to play some rated matches somebody first has to play some rated matches...

You could, of course, establish some OTHER format to match up people to play rated matches. It would have the same issue where when someone first joins, they have to self-rate so their initial matches are reasonable too. You have to start *somewhere*.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Yes you are correct. Being able to objectively identify the problems does not mean we can objectively identify a good solution. But I think we should at least try to objectively see if there is a problem because 1) we are getting disagreement about whether there is a problem. And 2) subjective views vary quite a bit. This forum is for people that play in Adult league tennis so by and large it will be people who find USTA league tennis valuable. But there are other people like me that can't find leagues in their area even though the vast majority won't post here. So even if we can objectively identify problems that would be a big first step.

I think we should be objective and look at the percentage of teams that seem to have had to rely on a self rate or appeal rated player in order to advance.

You say you are not interested in post season play. And I know many people are not. But some players are interested in it and USTA promotes it quite a bit. So I think it is reasonable to assume that without it participation would drop somewhat. How much? I am not sure everyone can answer that for themselves. I also do not claim that if post season play was more fair there would be a huge increase in participation from my district. But it would help.

Two obvious reasons.

One - because it's one more barrier to joining. Adding more things people HAVE to do before joining a league would, naturally, decrease the number of people willing to do these things to join a league. Thus, adding this requirement would DECREASE league participation rather than increase.

Two - because it's circular. The point of a league is to get matched up against opponents to play some rated matches. So you're saying to play some rated matches somebody first has to play some rated matches...

You could, of course, establish some OTHER format to match up people to play rated matches. It would have the same issue where when someone first joins, they have to self-rate so their initial matches are reasonable too. You have to start *somewhere*.

As for the two "obvious" reasons:

If it is too much of a barrier to play rated matches then why is the person joining a league to play rated matches to begin with?

As for your second comment it is not circular. If you want to play in a league that only allows people below a certain rating, then you should be rated below that rating before you are allowed to play in that league. If you want to have an unrated catagory that is fine but when you let unrated people in based on a vague questionnaire you are of course begging for problems. This is common sense and it is why chess tournaments do not let unrated players play in events that are supposed to have people rated below a certain level in. I am not sure why USTA doesn't see that.

You say requiring people to actually be rated at the level they want to play at will decrease participation in the league because it is another step. But I think it will do the opposite. I think more people would participate in USTA league play if it didn't seem like you have to have self rates that are playing out of level to have a competitive team. I mean if a self rate wants to play out of level, they may not be thrilled about this barrier. But do you know anyone that would refuse to do play a few matches (to get a rating) other than those trying to play out of level? I would think players looking to join leagues want to play matches - or they wouldn't join leagues.

 

[lockbox]

It's been a few years since I went through the self-rating process, but my understanding is that you will be assigned a *minimum* NTRP rating after you complete the self-rating questionnaire. There is nothing to prevent you from appealing up to your appropriate level. For instance, if I'd not played organized tennis at any level, I would be able to self rate at 2.5, but if I knew I belonged at 4.0 level because I play every week with 4.0 guys, I could (and should) appeal up to 4.0S.

While there was nothing to prevent me from doing so, I wasn't sure what the appropriate level was for me regardless of the people I normally played with. I think the system worked out well and, perhaps in the future, when 5.0 is around the corner i'll appeal rather than wait for a DQ again.

 

[leech]

While there was nothing to prevent me from doing so, I wasn't sure what the appropriate level was for me regardless of the people I normally played with. I think the system worked out well and, perhaps in the future, when 5.0 is around the corner i'll appeal rather than wait for a DQ again.

Got it. The wording you used threw me off. Agree; if you're on the fence about which level is appropriate for you, you should err on the lower rating and let the computer sort things out (which is exactly what happened in your case).

 

[J_R_B]

While there was nothing to prevent me from doing so, I wasn't sure what the appropriate level was for me regardless of the people I normally played with. I think the system worked out well and, perhaps in the future, when 5.0 is around the corner i'll appeal rather than wait for a DQ again.

The system actually works really well 99% of the time if you're not trying to deliberately manipulate it. You self rated, played your matches in good faith, and the computer sorted out what level you really should be. That's how it's designed to work for honest people.

If you keep playing, you'll have a C-rating and won't be subject to a DQ anymore, just promotion at the end of the year if you progress to 5.0.

 

[Moon Shooter]

The system actually works really well 99% of the time if you're not trying to deliberately manipulate it. You self rated, played your matches in good faith, and the computer sorted out what level you really should be. That's how it's designed to work for honest people.

I don't fault Lockbox at all. He likely did what I and just about anyone would do. But are you including his case in a case where the system worked? I mean presumably he played matches which helped prevent other teams from advancing before he was DQed. And no you can't just say his team won by more than one or two matches. Because if he wasn't there then someone else that didn't play at all would have had to play on his team. And unless we know this one person would have always taken the same spot he took - which is unlikely - we really don't know what would have happened on these other courts. So this "system" seems to encourage teams to have people to self rate and appeal rate out of level if they want to advance.

I admit I have just anecdotally looked at this and would love to see a bigger sample size. But when I look at the number of teams that have advanced I see, they more often than not, have/had at least one appeal or self rate helping them along as a top player. If the majority of teams that advance require players that are playing out of level how can we say the system is working well 99% of the time? Do you think all those other 49% of teams are "deliberately manipulating" the system in a much different way than what happened here? Its unclear what "deliberately manipulating" the system even means. Let me ask you:

Is requesting an automatic appeal down even though you think there is no good reason your rating is too high "deliberately manipulating" the system?

He said he wasn't sure of his rating when he self rated - well how sure do you have to be before you are deemed to be "deliberately manipulating."?

Is it like a line call where even if you are 99% sure you belong in a lower level you should go with the higher level if there is a 1% chance you are wrong? Are we supposed to say if you 51% sure you belong in that upper level you should go up? What if there is no higher level team in your area and thus you would not be able to play at all? Then can you play at the lower level that you are only 49% sure you belong at? So what is "deliberately manipulating" the system depends on where you are in the country? This is only the beginning of the swamp of vague rules that lead to manipulation of all sorts. It doesn't even touch all the different forms of manipulation that self rates, appeals and the thus necessary DQ system encourages by adding conflicts of interest for players.

If you keep playing, you'll have a C-rating and won't be subject to a DQ anymore, just promotion at the end of the year if you progress to 5.0.

Yes and if you ever end up with a Self rate or appeal rating again you can play some doubles matches with a very high rated partner against a team that likely has a lower dynamic rating per your level. That way you can get yourself a bit of a margin even if you win 6-3 6-3. You don't have to deliberately hit the ball out. Indeed you should absolutely try your best. But if you need some practice on your overhead or want to try a more aggressive second serve or ground stroke technique, or formation in a tournament setting that would be a good time to work on those weaknesses. That way you can get your computer rating and you are set for the next year.

Yes it is true that all players have a small amount of this incentive not just appeal or self rates. But the DQ system means that appeals and self rates have a much larger incentive to manipulate the system this way.

Of course if players valued the rating system as seems to be the case for younger players using UTR then this manipulation would greatly decrease across the board. Because if all the tennis players are trying to improve their rating in order to signify their tennis strength then you want to do anything you can to win every game. But USTA chooses to demotivate people from using their rating as a signal of tennis strength.

 

[ChaelAZ]

It is crazy to think that all SR's are somehow gaming the system to sandbag. Annecdotally, this last season we saw a huge number of SRs in central AZ, or it seemed like it was more than usual. Or maybe I just noticed more. I suppose if there was, it is part of the new pandemic hobbies people are taking on - getting into tennis and then making the obvious track to leagues. Overall for us, we found most the SR people and teams were trying to play up though. I doubt we will have many, if any DQs in the whole of the state or section. Will be interesting when the big adjustment comes with the EOY ratings in a few months. I am so curious how USTA is going to handle all of it.

 

[BallBag]

I don't fault Lockbox at all. He likely did what I and just about anyone would do. But are you including his case in a case where the system worked? I mean presumably he played matches which helped prevent other teams from advancing before he was DQed. And no you can't just say his team won by more than one or two matches. Because if he wasn't there then someone else that didn't play at all would have had to play on his team. And unless we know this one person would have always taken the same spot he took - which is unlikely - we really don't know what would have happened on these other courts. So this "system" seems to encourage teams to have people to self rate and appeal rate out of level if they want to advance.

I admit I have just anecdotally looked at this and would love to see a bigger sample size. But when I look at the number of teams that have advanced I see, they more often than not, have/had at least one appeal or self rate helping them along as a top player. If the majority of teams that advance require players that are playing out of level how can we say the system is working well 99% of the time? Do you think all those other 49% of teams are "deliberately manipulating" the system in a much different way than what happened here? Its unclear what "deliberately manipulating" the system even means. Let me ask you:

Is requesting an automatic appeal down even though you think there is no good reason your rating is too high "deliberately manipulating" the system?

He said he wasn't sure of his rating when he self rated - well how sure do you have to be before you are deemed to be "deliberately manipulating."?

Is it like a line call where even if you are 99% sure you belong in a lower level you should go with the higher level if there is a 1% chance you are wrong? Are we supposed to say if you 51% sure you belong in that upper level you should go up? What if there is no higher level team in your area and thus you would not be able to play at all? Then can you play at the lower level that you are only 49% sure you belong at? So what is "deliberately manipulating" the system depends on where you are in the country? This is only the beginning of the swamp of vague rules that lead to manipulation of all sorts. It doesn't even touch all the different forms of manipulation that self rates, appeals and the thus necessary DQ system encourages by adding conflicts of interest for players.




Yes and if you ever end up with a Self rate or appeal rating again you can play some doubles matches with a very high rated partner against a team that likely has a lower dynamic rating per your level. That way you can get yourself a bit of a margin even if you win 6-3 6-3. You don't have to deliberately hit the ball out. Indeed you should absolutely try your best. But if you need some practice on your overhead or want to try a more aggressive second serve or ground stroke technique, or formation in a tournament setting that would be a good time to work on those weaknesses. That way you can get your computer rating and you are set for the next year.

Yes it is true that all players have a small amount of this incentive not just appeal or self rates. But the DQ system means that appeals and self rates have a much larger incentive to manipulate the system this way.

Of course if players valued the rating system as seems to be the case for younger players using UTR then this manipulation would greatly decrease across the board. Because if all the tennis players are trying to improve their rating in order to signify their tennis strength then you want to do anything you can to win every game. But USTA chooses to demotivate people from using their rating as a signal of tennis strength.

Having all players enter with a correct rating 100% of the time is not and shouldn't be USTA's top priority. It does mean that some players, deliberately or by chance, enter with the wrong rating. This is frustrating to some people that have post season aspirations but it also helps to "grows the game", which is a USTA charter goal.
Having few restrictions on self-rates lowers the barrier to enter, it incentivized captains to seek out new players and those players get to enjoy a healthy win rate which is more likely to get them hooked. I think it's a fair tradeoff, you probably disagree and that's ok.

 

[J_R_B]

I don't fault Lockbox at all. He likely did what I and just about anyone would do. But are you including his case in a case where the system worked? I mean presumably he played matches which helped prevent other teams from advancing before he was DQed. And no you can't just say his team won by more than one or two matches. Because if he wasn't there then someone else that didn't play at all would have had to play on his team. And unless we know this one person would have always taken the same spot he took - which is unlikely - we really don't know what would have happened on these other courts. So this "system" seems to encourage teams to have people to self rate and appeal rate out of level if they want to advance.

I admit I have just anecdotally looked at this and would love to see a bigger sample size. But when I look at the number of teams that have advanced I see, they more often than not, have/had at least one appeal or self rate helping them along as a top player. If the majority of teams that advance require players that are playing out of level how can we say the system is working well 99% of the time? Do you think all those other 49% of teams are "deliberately manipulating" the system in a much different way than what happened here? Its unclear what "deliberately manipulating" the system even means. Let me ask you:

Is requesting an automatic appeal down even though you think there is no good reason your rating is too high "deliberately manipulating" the system?

He said he wasn't sure of his rating when he self rated - well how sure do you have to be before you are deemed to be "deliberately manipulating."?

Is it like a line call where even if you are 99% sure you belong in a lower level you should go with the higher level if there is a 1% chance you are wrong? Are we supposed to say if you 51% sure you belong in that upper level you should go up? What if there is no higher level team in your area and thus you would not be able to play at all? Then can you play at the lower level that you are only 49% sure you belong at? So what is "deliberately manipulating" the system depends on where you are in the country? This is only the beginning of the swamp of vague rules that lead to manipulation of all sorts. It doesn't even touch all the different forms of manipulation that self rates, appeals and the thus necessary DQ system encourages by adding conflicts of interest for players.




Yes and if you ever end up with a Self rate or appeal rating again you can play some doubles matches with a very high rated partner against a team that likely has a lower dynamic rating per your level. That way you can get yourself a bit of a margin even if you win 6-3 6-3. You don't have to deliberately hit the ball out. Indeed you should absolutely try your best. But if you need some practice on your overhead or want to try a more aggressive second serve or ground stroke technique, or formation in a tournament setting that would be a good time to work on those weaknesses. That way you can get your computer rating and you are set for the next year.

Yes it is true that all players have a small amount of this incentive not just appeal or self rates. But the DQ system means that appeals and self rates have a much larger incentive to manipulate the system this way.

Of course if players valued the rating system as seems to be the case for younger players using UTR then this manipulation would greatly decrease across the board. Because if all the tennis players are trying to improve their rating in order to signify their tennis strength then you want to do anything you can to win every game. But USTA chooses to demotivate people from using their rating as a signal of tennis strength.

There is a lot of the same of your "blah, blah, blah blah blah" in here, but it's worth it to point out that appeal rated players are not "out of level", they're in between levels and allowed to compete at the top of the lower level for that season.

 

[Moon Shooter]

It is crazy to think that all SR's are somehow gaming the system to sandbag. Annecdotally, this last season we saw a huge number of SRs in central AZ, or it seemed like it was more than usual. Or maybe I just noticed more. I suppose if there was, it is part of the new pandemic hobbies people are taking on - getting into tennis and then making the obvious track to leagues. Overall for us, we found most the SR people and teams were trying to play up though. I doubt we will have many, if any DQs in the whole of the state or section. Will be interesting when the big adjustment comes with the EOY ratings in a few months. I am so curious how USTA is going to handle all of it.

I think a significant number of SRs are likely from the pandemic. And just to be clear I am not saying all SRs are sandbagging.

It may be that in general SRs overrate as much as underrate themselves. That would be an additional reason to have them get an actual rating before joining a team. As far as whether anyone is "gaming the system" - it is impossible to even know what that even means. I asked a few basic questions in my last post that no one defending the current system seems to want to answer.

The issue I have is the percentage of advancing teams that just so happen to have SR and appeal rated players as one of the top players on their team. If the SRs or appeal rated players are mid level or lower that is not a concern.

There is a lot of the same of your "blah, blah, blah blah blah" in here, but it's worth it to point out that appeal rated players are not "out of level", they're in between levels and allowed to compete at the top of the lower level for that season.

No, appeal level players are players that would have been moved up (or down) based on the normal algorithm, but have then have successfully appealed that determination. If they appealed down, they are allowed to play in the lower level as long as their dynamic rating does get too high and lead to 3 strikes. If it does they will be disqualified! So appeal rated players have increased incentives to make sure they do not have their rating go up too much as compared to computer rated players. Once they learn how to manage their rating they can stay at the top of their rating class for years - and likely most years have a c rating.

 

[JRW911]

After not playing league tennis for many years, I decided to join a team and self rated a few years ago. I answered every single question with 100% honesty. The computer rated me at 3.0. Knowing that rating was well below my actual level, I immediately appealed and manually rated myself at 4.0. I've won about 75% of my league matches at 4.0, so I think I'm where I need to be.

That being said, if I had no previous USTA league experience, I may have kept that 3.0 rating the computer came up with which would have likely lead to me getting DQ'd at some point.