Early start 4.0 forced to play as 4.5

[jservoss]

We have an early start 4.0 player who got year end rated 4.5 in November. He played as a 4.0 all year for 9 months and 3 weeks before sectionals our sectional league coordinator says he cannot play in sectionals as a 4.0 anymore because his year end rating (Nov 2011) was too high.

Typically when you are early start rated you can continue to play at that level for the entire season. If his early start rating was too high back in November, why didn't she say something then? Why wait until after the season when we can no longer adapt to changes and qualify a partner for him at a new rating? Why wait until 3 weeks before sectionals when he has already booked housing and now can't play? Why let the problem persist until it royally ****s over a team?

This just seems like it was mishandled so badly.

 

[ABtennis]

because the PNW division is run by morons who make up rules at will.

 

[rabidturtle]

http://assets.usta.com/assets/646/15/USTA-PNW League Regs for 2012.pdf

Check out 2.2 it states that if a players year end rating is "clearly above level," they should adjust to the new rating.

I agree that the timing is very unfair since the local season and playoffs have been completed and your trip to Sunriver has been planned.

I would check with Sheila Banks to see if she used the year end computer rating or the current dynamic rating. Some of the other players bumped/not bumped by this ruling conflict.

 

[jservoss]

http://assets.usta.com/assets/646/15/USTA-PNW League Regs for 2012.pdf

Check out 2.2 it states that if a players year end rating is "clearly above level," they should adjust to the new rating.

I agree that the timing is very unfair since the local season and playoffs have been completed and your trip to Sunriver has been planned.

I would check with Sheila Banks to see if she used the year end computer rating or the current dynamic rating. Some of the other players bumped/not bumped by this ruling conflict.

I already wrote the PNW about this ruling and specifically about 2.2.

The response from Sheila basically blamed an unnamed scapegoat:
"We made a transition this year from one staff to another staff member and in the process of the training, this was not mentioned for the new person to do. It was not until I mentioned to the new assistant that we need to check the rosters thus realizing that it is far better to do it as soon as discovered than to wait."

I also suggested that a time frame be placed on rule 2.2 that limits the effectiveness to only 2-3 months after the year end ratings came out. She gave an ambiguous response to the suggestion stating that "we are working on a process that would solve this in the future."