Former College Players ranking themselves at 3.5

[lskater]

I'm a 3.5 singles player. Last year, one of the teams in my region played a former college player at 3.5. I never played her, but I heard some other people played her and she was reported and subsequently, disqualified for 3.5 and moved up to 4.0 because of her former college experience. I am under the impression through the grapevine that she had been encouraged NOT to list her college experience on the self-rating form for USTA. OK, so no big deal...the system worked in this case....onto the next season.

Today, I just played another match against a different team (same club). She was also a former college player ranking herself at 3.5. Once again, I find that she played in College all 4 years and I suspect since it's the same club that she again, was encouraged NOT to list her college experience on the self-rating form.

So now I'm not sure what to do. I feel like "waiting it out" to see what happens. Am I naive? Do clubs regularly tell people not to list their college experience, and are people really dishonest enough to follow through with that?

Trying to figure out what the right thing to do is.....she's going to destroy the other 3.5s in my area.

Thanks.

 

[mad dog1]

I think they read on here that 3.5s hit harder than Nadal. 4.0s hit bunty strokes and 4.5s have strokes that look just like pros so 3.5 actually sounds like it could be too high.

 

[OnTheLine]

Although you may not have been around the board enough to get @mad dog1 's humor .... that is too true!

When it comes to the guidelines, depending on the player's age and what level of tennis she actually played in college, she may be properly a 3.5

Here are some guidelines as published by the USTA based on experience:

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/pdfs/10013_experience_player_ntrp_guidelines.pdf

Played JC college and current age over 26 .... lowest level is 3.5
Played DII, DIII or NAIA current age over 36 ... lowest level is 3.5

So she may have played by the rules and the computer let her rate at 3.5 after honestly answering the questions. Unless she played at a DI school of course.

If the other player was DQ'ed it wasn't for simply playing all 4 years in college, it was for being dishonest about it or it was a dynamic disqualification, unless the DQ'ed player was on a DI roster.

In general putting in a grievance is not worth the $75 or the aggravation. (or the reputation you will gain)

If she is out of level and will actually "destroy" the 3.5s in the area, the computer will sort it out very quickly and she will be dynamically DQ'ed and put up at 4.0. If she is merely competitive at level and perhaps towards the top of the level .... well, now you have something to shoot for.

On your other question .... there are of course some clubs, some captains and probably some pros that encourage people to cheat the system. That will be the case in every aspect of life. (taxes, traffic laws, marriage vows, college applications ....). There are cheaters out there. But the vast majority play within the rules and this is RECREATIONAL tennis .... we play to have fun, to test ourselves, to improve and for many other individual reasons. Don't sweat the drama and I would say trust the system.

Clearly out of level S rates get DQ'ed relatively quickly.

 

[OnTheLine]

In your newest thread you just stated that you yourself played college tennis, both singles and doubles ..... And yet you are a 3.5 yes? So what is the problem with this other lady being a 3.5?

Color me confused.

 

[winchestervatennis]

In your newest thread you just stated that you yourself played college tennis, both singles and doubles ..... And yet you are a 3.5 yes? So what is the problem with this other lady being a 3.5?

Color me confused.

Maybe by played in college she just means that she only played recreationally in college instead of on the team.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Maybe by played in college she just means that she only played recreationally in college instead of on the team.

When most people say they played X in college, it typically means they were on the school team. If they were on the club or intramural team, they would always follow up their statement with this caveat.

 

[winchestervatennis]

When most people say they played X in college, it typically means they were on the school team. If they were on the club or intramural team, they would always follow up their statement with this caveat.

*most people

 

[dunlop_fort_knox]

I'm a 3.5 singles player. Last year, one of the teams in my region played a former college player at 3.5. I never played her, but I heard some other people played her and she was reported and subsequently, disqualified for 3.5 and moved up to 4.0 because of her former college experience. I am under the impression through the grapevine that she had been encouraged NOT to list her college experience on the self-rating form for USTA. OK, so no big deal...the system worked in this case....onto the next season.

Today, I just played another match against a different team (same club). She was also a former college player ranking herself at 3.5. Once again, I find that she played in College all 4 years and I suspect since it's the same club that she again, was encouraged NOT to list her college experience on the self-rating form.

So now I'm not sure what to do. I feel like "waiting it out" to see what happens. Am I naive? Do clubs regularly tell people not to list their college experience, and are people really dishonest enough to follow through with that?

Trying to figure out what the right thing to do is.....she's going to destroy the other 3.5s in my area.

Thanks.

i would go back to college and try out for the team. then come back and rate yourself 3.0

 

[OnTheLine]

*most people

I can't imagine anyone would say "I played college [insert sport here]" that didn't mean the college team. I suppose a tiny percentage of people might say it that way ... but only in order to attempt to mislead.

 

[kevrol]

In your newest thread you just stated that you yourself played college tennis, both singles and doubles ..... And yet you are a 3.5 yes? So what is the problem with this other lady being a 3.5?

Color me confused.

She also talked about playing with a lady who had hip surgery and couldn't move so it's very likely she's over 36.

 

[OnTheLine]

She also talked about playing with a lady who had hip surgery and couldn't move so it's very likely she's over 36.

Yup. Exactly the point. Women over a certain age can according to USTA guidelines self rate at 3.5 if they played college tennis (non D1) so nothing to put in a grievance for.

 

[struggle]

Yes, some college players are merely 3.5 players, but we're not talking about D1 tennis.

 

[R1FF]

Sandbagging sucks.

There are only 2 solutions imo...

1) lifetime ban from the sport. Scare people into erroring on the side of caution rather than pushing the limits. It will cost USTA 10-20 members a year and in turn save many more from quitting sanctioned play.

Or

2) get rid of the skill divisions. Keep rankings for seeding. Give better seeds the byes. Let the lowet ranked players fight it out in the opening rounds. Eventually you advance and get beat by someone slightly better than you. Great bang for your buck. Consumer had fun, is happy, returns. Anyone sandbagging does so at their own peril because they run the risk of getting knocked out early AND they’re wasting energy on matches they’d be better off skipping if they were a higher seed.


Personally, I like option 2.

In the tournaments Ive won at skill level, versus the times Ive been sandbagged, neither were as fun as the open style format in which i got a few matches in, advanced, and eventually got knocked out.

This offers no solutions for league play but I dont do leagues. They appear to be non stop drama from what I read on these forums LOL.

 

[winchestervatennis]

I can't imagine anyone would say "I played college [insert sport here]" that didn't mean the college team. I suppose a tiny percentage of people might say it that way ... but only in order to attempt to mislead.

Agreed, but I’ve heard folks say “i played in college” meaning recreationally or socially rather than on the varsity team.

 

[Cawlin]

So there is a woman on my wife's mixed team, about age 30, played varsity tennis in high school and won a state championship. Now bear in mind that her school was TINY and was grouped with other TINY* schools. She went to a huge D1 college (was not recruited), but either didn't try out for, or couldn't make the varsity or JV tennis program at her D1 school but wound up playing intramural tennis there - some mixed, some women's dubs, some singles... I have played with this woman in ALTA tennis and seen her play another dozen ALTA matches besides the ones she and I played together - she is probably a strong 3.5 on her "good" days (1 in 10) and a strong 3.0 on her "bad" days (3 in 10)... with the reest of the time playing between those two points... so basically, a pretty middle of the pack 3.5 player.

She was looking to get into some other tennis leagues and signed up for USTA, which forced her to self rate as a 4.0. She would have gotten SLAUGHTERED at 4.0 (presuming the 4.0 competition is legitimately 4.0). She appealed that and they bumped her down to 3.5 if I am not mistaken.

* - Maybe to put high school size into perspective - I'm not even sure how they group high schools for athletics anymore - but my HS graduating class had 181 people and we were "AA" rated. Our girl's field hockey team won two state championships - one in my junior year, one in senior year - and most of them could not make D2 college field hockey teams, and none of them were recruited for, nor even tried out for any D1 programs.

 

[OnTheLine]

* - Maybe to put high school size into perspective - I'm not even sure how they group high schools for athletics anymore - but my HS graduating class had 181 people and we were "AA" rated. Our girl's field hockey team won two state championships - one in my junior year, one in senior year - and most of them could not make D2 college field hockey teams, and none of them were recruited for, nor even tried out for any D1 programs.

Absolutely! that is the truth for both HS and colleges.
I had a HS grad class of over 1000 and played varsity sports ... then went D1 for soccer to a school with just shy of 50,000 undergraduates.

In grad school met a woman from a small town in the mwest .... had a HS grad class of 4. Entire school K-12 in 1 small building. She went to a college that had a student body of around 500. She played soccer on the college team. We had some classes together and she learned I played soccer.

She tried out for my women's rec team ... nothing but former college players. Hmmmm, no. Nice lady ... not a college level player.

 

[Cawlin]

Absolutely! that is the truth for both HS and colleges.
I had a HS grad class of over 1000 and played varsity sports ... then went D1 for soccer to a school with just shy of 50,000 undergraduates.

In grad school met a woman from a small town in the mwest .... had a HS grad class of 4. Entire school K-12 in 1 small building. She went to a college that had a student body of around 500. She played soccer on the college team. We had some classes together and she learned I played soccer.

She tried out for my women's rec team ... nothing but former college players. Hmmmm, no. Nice lady ... not a college level player.

Right, so if things are like they were when I was in HS, you would have been a AAAA school... maybe AAAAA(?) not sure if 5A existed back then anywhere else but Texas...

Also, I guess that there aren't so many hard and fast rules for USTA self-rating questions, eh?

Given what I've heard and seen lately with the USTA rating setup, I am not terribly convinced that these self-rating rules are as useful as people think.

The woman in my story above had a big problem with the 4.0 rating, not only because she would have been slaughtered (which she knew), but also because there were no 4.0 teams conveniently located to her (within 30 minutes drive) that were looking for players. She initially told someone at USTA about this issue and they said "Well why don't you play a bunch of tournaments and see where you stand with your rating." When she told me this, I told her it sounded like a way for the USTA to get several hundred bucks out of her in tourney entrance fees... I told her to officially appeal - which she did - and which (I believe) resulted in her getting bumped down to 3.5 which, if it happened, opened up possibilities for her for quite a few more USTA teams in the much more local area.

Meanwhile, my wife played her second season on a USTA 3.0 team at lines D1 and D2, with about a 50-50 record, maybe 5 or 6 matches overall, and was bumped to 3.5 along with her partner and a couple other people on the team, despite the fact that her team overall was not really in the running for post season play. Meanwhile, their S1 player on this 3.0 team is a MUCH better tennis player than my wife or any of the other folks who got bumped and really anyone else on the team, with a much better win/loss record (legit 4.0 player in my opinion) and she did NOT get bumped up.

My guess is that USTA is trying to fill out the ranks of 3.5 dubs players in the local area, because I can see no other reason for this seemingly capricious activity.

 

[OnTheLine]

Right, so I guess that there aren't so many hard and fast rules for USTA self-rating questions, eh?

Given what I've heard and seen lately with the USTA rating setup, I am not terribly convinced that these self-rating rules are as useful as people think.

Here I disagree. They are an 80% solution. For 80% of folks the questionnaire puts them at the right level. For the other 20% there are avenues to have it corrected. Our LLC when contacted and gets the real information is quick to listen and make an adjustment.

It is certainly better than the old rating clinic days. That was rife with all sorts of problems.

 

[Cawlin]

I think that if I were to consider USTA and I had a playing history like the woman on my wife's team, I'd just keep my mouth shut about it and self rate where I thought I ought to be and then if I turned out to be a big ol' sandbagger, would let the USTA sort me out... instead of blowing a whole season waiting for an appeal to come through.

 

[OnTheLine]

Meanwhile, my wife played her second season on a USTA 3.0 team at lines D1 and D2, with about a 50-50 record, maybe 5 or 6 matches overall, and was bumped to 3.5 along with her partner and a couple other people on the team, despite the fact that her team overall was not really in the running for post season play. Meanwhile, their S1 player on this 3.0 team is a MUCH better tennis player than my wife or any of the other folks who got bumped and really anyone else on the team, with a much better win/loss record (legit 4.0 player in my opinion) and she did NOT get bumped up.

My guess is that USTA is trying to fill out the ranks of 3.5 dubs players in the local area, because I can see no other reason for this seemingly capricious activity.

Usually when one actually looks at the records the bump/no bump is not capricious at all. It is all just math. It could be that your wife played against very strong 3.0s whereas the singles player ended up playing against weaker 3.0s. That in and of itself can make a difference.

Could also be that your wife ended up winning or playing strong matches against players that went on to either sectionals or nationals. Perhaps the singles player did poorly against those who went to post season play. That too can be a huge factor.

But at no point would the USTA magic NTRP calculator leave a legit 4.0 level player in 3.0. The difference between 3.0 and 4.0 is insanely wide.

 

[Cawlin]

Usually when one actually looks at the records the bump/no bump is not capricious at all. It is all just math. It could be that your wife played against very strong 3.0s whereas the singles player ended up playing against weaker 3.0s. That in and of itself can make a difference.

Could also be that your wife ended up winning or playing strong matches against players that went on to either sectionals or nationals.

She lost all the matches against the stronger players and once against some real scrubs, but both she and her partner had their heads up their butts that day (my wife's words, not mine, though I agreed), cleaned up against the weaker players - I don't have too big of a beef with her being bumped up - I think that's where she belongs when she is playing at the level she's capable of. My wife was going to quit this USTA team (long story - she has issues with the captain) and this bump saved her an awkward conversation, so I have even less of an issue with my wife being bumped.

Perhaps the singles player did poorly against those who went to post season play. That too can be a huge factor.

But at no point would the USTA magic NTRP calculator leave a legit 4.0 level player in 3.0. The difference between 3.0 and 4.0 is insanely wide.

While I agree with you that the difference between 3.0 and 4.0 is insanely wide, I have no visibility on what happened with the singles player's opponents, but I know the following is true (you may recall that I support her and watch nearly all of my wife's matches) though she's only played in 5 or 6 USTA matches over the past two seasons, so my sample set for below are those 5 or 6 matches:

• The woman played at the HS and college level, not sure about division or how much success she had, but she and the captain have stated this - she has "academy" strokes and is around age 35, MAYBE 40, but I would be very surprised if she were that old - she is very fit, and very young looking, and has lovely strokes - though she does hit particularly hard - just well placed, and she covers the court like a spider monkey.
• I've also seen the singles player in question play ALTA mixed matches at line 1 - she is formidable there, as she was on the USTA singles court against other women.
• She formerly (within the past 7 years) played A-level ALTA (usually the lower ranks of A level is around the dividing line between 3.5s and 4.0s though outliers exist due to ALTA's system).
• I watched her mop the court with most of her opponents (usually 1, 2, or at worst 3, 3) and saw one match that went to 3 sets against another woman who also had OBVIOUSLY had serious tennis instruction up to that point - younger middle aged woman with "academy" strokes but not enough fitness to stay competitive through 3 sets in the summer heat.
• The captain loves this woman at S1 and has said to me: "X is a lock there, so I never have to worry about that line"

If she's not a 3.5 AT LEAST, then I don't know what end of the racquet to hold - I still say legit 4.0 woman. I am not sure how this woman has seemingly slipped through the cracks unless she's lost every other match that I didn't see - but that seems like a slim chance to me.

An additional factor in this is that the team in question (particularly due to the captain) is known around the county as a bunch of sandbaggers - I think I've discussed this in a previous thread - I could give you details again, but you'd likely get bored reading them... anyway, the captain got what was coming to her - almost half her team got bumped, though she got to hold on to her "lock" S1 player somehow - the first one that, IMO, should have been bumped.

 

[norcal]

In your newest thread you just stated that you yourself played college tennis, both singles and doubles ..... And yet you are a 3.5 yes? So what is the problem with this other lady being a 3.5?

Color me confused.

OP suddenly got too busy to post.

 

[dblsplayer]

I suggested to our Area Coordinator to eliminate the desire to sandbag self rates, self rates ship not be eligible for USTA League playoffs or sectionals in their first year. Not a perfect solution but it could stem the desire of Captains who want to win so badly they recruit and have players sandbag their rating.

 

[kevrol]

I suggested to our Area Coordinator to eliminate the desire to sandbag self rates, self rates ship not be eligible for USTA League playoffs or sectionals in their first year. Not a perfect solution but it could stem the desire of Captains who want to win so badly they recruit and have players sandbag their rating.

Wouldn't stop captains from cheating. It would just be a 2 yr cycle instead of one.

 

[dblsplayer]

Wouldn't stop captains from cheating. It would just be a 2 yr cycle instead of one.

This is America dammit, we don’t want to wait two years. Instant gratification only

 

[kylebarendrick]

Wouldn't stop captains from cheating. It would just be a 2 yr cycle instead of one.

If someone is willing to invest two years of cheating in order to win a plastic trophy for a recreational adult tennis league, then more power to 'em.

 

[am1899]

If someone is willing to invest two years of cheating in order to win a plastic trophy for a recreational adult tennis league, then more power to 'em.

I got a glass ball and a hat this year. Moving up in the world...

 

[am1899]

OP suddenly got too busy to post.

Yeah, where is OP?

 

[Vox Rationis]

If someone is willing to invest two years of cheating in order to win a plastic trophy for a recreational adult tennis league, then more power to 'em.

They already do. The most notorious cheaters have always tanked matches for a year to get bumped down and then dominated their way to a top finish at nationals. Barring self-rates from playoffs doesn't stop that in the slightest.

 

[R1FF]

They already do. The most notorious cheaters have always tanked matches for a year to get bumped down and then dominated their way to a top finish at nationals. Barring self-rates from playoffs doesn't stop that in the slightest.

I hate the USTA for not policing this stuff. This would be so easy to fix at nationals. Send them home DQ’d upon arrival.

 

[am1899]

I suggested to our Area Coordinator to eliminate the desire to sandbag self rates, self rates ship not be eligible for USTA League playoffs or sectionals in their first year. Not a perfect solution but it could stem the desire of Captains who want to win so badly they recruit and have players sandbag their rating.

For some leagues, I believe this is already the case - at least it is in my section and region. In men’s tri-level, for example, self-rated players are not permitted to play beyond the local level (not eligible for regionals or sectionals). At the same time, this is not the case for mixed - self rated players may compete in the playoffs.

(It’s beyond me why the policy is not the same across the board. In my section, sand bagging is particularly pervasive in mixed).

 

[schmke]

For some leagues, I believe this is already the case - at least it is in my section and region. In men’s tri-level, for example, self-rated players are not permitted to play beyond the local level (not eligible for regionals or sectionals). At the same time, this is not the case for mixed - self rated players may compete in the playoffs.

(It’s beyond me why the policy is not the same across the board. In my section, sand bagging is particularly pervasive in mixed).

Tri-Level, not being a normal advancing league, is not used for calculating ratings in all sections meaning someone could play Tri-Level and never get a rating, and thus whether through self-rating too low or improving from where they self-rated, could be a huge loophole for sandbaggers to exploit. Note that Tri-Level also doesn't have a normal Nationals but has an invitational not run by the USTA (I believe) and it is possible it is the folks running the invitational (Indian Wells I believe) have mandated they will not invite a team with self-rates on it and that is driving the rule, not the USTA.

This rule is apparently not deemed necessary/appropriate for advancing leagues/Nationals as players will get a year-end rating after one year so I guess the USTA doesn't think it is a problem. Also, advancing leagues have 3-strike DQs which the USTA considers the way abuses are caught while Tri-Level does not generate strikes and so that can't be the safety net there.

 

[am1899]

@schmke as always thanks for the detailed explanation. Evidently mine was a poor example - bringing up tri-level. I was not aware that USTA may not even run nationals for tri-level. I believe you are correct on the site - that’s the one at Indian Wells.

 

[lskater]

Sorry, Usually I get emails that my post has been responded to but I hadn't received any and just got back to the board today.

To answer the questions. I am 51. I played in College my freshman year (1986), I played in HS Sophomore and Junior years.

My college was a small private university of about 2500 total. I'm not sure what division we were because I forgot what it was called.....

After college, I stopped playing and took up volleyball and then ice skating. After knee injury, I went back to tennis in about 2015.

I FILLED OUT THE USTA SELF-RATING SHEET AND RECORDED MY COLLEGE EXPERIENCE HONESTLY...I was rated a 4.0 because of my college experience (as small as the college was). I appealed down because of how long it had been since I played, my knee surgery and my age and the fact that I had been playing at 3.5 and was about 50-50 at that level.

My appeal was accepted. I was moved down to 3.0 about three years ago because I lost a bunch of matches. I am now back up to 3.5. My record last season was 13 wins, 18 losses.

My issue is that this person just graduated in 2009 and played college all 4 years. I sincerely doubt that if she filled out the USTA form honestly, like I did, that it would have put her at 3.5. I graduated in 1990 and it put me at 4.0, so I can only assume that she either did not fill out the form at all, or did not list her college experience.

 

[mad dog1]

If someone is willing to invest two years of cheating in order to win a plastic trophy for a recreational adult tennis league, then more power to 'em.

I got a glass ball and a hat this year. Moving up in the world...

I, too, heard it was a glass paper weight of sorts. Plastic trophy is not worth sandbagging for. Glass paper weight? Now that is worth sandbagging for!

 

[OnTheLine]

Sorry, Usually I get emails that my post has been responded to but I hadn't received any and just got back to the board today.

To answer the questions. I am 51. I played in College my freshman year (1986), I played in HS Sophomore and Junior years.

My college was a small private university of about 2500 total. I'm not sure what division we were because I forgot what it was called.....

After college, I stopped playing and took up volleyball and then ice skating. After knee injury, I went back to tennis in about 2015.

I FILLED OUT THE USTA SELF-RATING SHEET AND RECORDED MY COLLEGE EXPERIENCE HONESTLY...I was rated a 4.0 because of my college experience (as small as the college was). I appealed down because of how long it had been since I played, my knee surgery and my age and the fact that I had been playing at 3.5 and was about 50-50 at that level.

My appeal was accepted. I was moved down to 3.0 about three years ago because I lost a bunch of matches. I am now back up to 3.5. My record last season was 13 wins, 18 losses.

My issue is that this person just graduated in 2009 and played college all 4 years. I sincerely doubt that if she filled out the USTA form honestly, like I did, that it would have put her at 3.5. I graduated in 1990 and it put me at 4.0, so I can only assume that she either did not fill out the form at all, or did not list her college experience.

If she graduated in 2009 that puts her at the youngest 31/32 likely older. If she didn't play division 1 then the guidelines allow her to both answer honestly and be rated as low as a 3.5.. She too may have received a 4.0 then appealed down .... perhaps she took 10 years off, perhaps she too had an injury.

You may not like the guidelines but there they are.

If the player is indeed out of level trust that the computer will either DQ her in season or bump her in only 2 months time ...

 

[lskater]

"You may not like the guidelines...but there they are"......wow...I wasnt saying I dont like the guidelines.......I was explaining that this club has a pattern of encouraging players to Not list their college experience on their forms. And I suspect it has happened again in this case. Sure...in a year she'll probably move up.....the following year it may happen again.....its a repeating pattern. I'm fine with guidelines if they are followed.

 

[badmice2]

There is a slight loophole in this discussion, and I found out the hard way...

If a player holds a USTA rating and played league prior to playing any colleague, technically their rating can be upheld.

I found this out when I played a 4.0 tournament where I played against a JC player (auto 4.5 according to USTA). Grievance filed and their explanation was exactly that...rating was established prior to their colleague eligibility. That said, I don’t know if circumstance changes if they played for D1. Will never know...

 

[Vox Rationis]

That said, I don’t know if circumstance changes if they played for D1. Will never know...

They don't.

 

[innoVAShaun]

Maybe it's the ex-college player's goal to be the #1 Ranked 3.5