Gender neutral rating for usta

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
I think this would benefit usta in many ways. It would allow gender neutral competition which would help for less dense tennis areas form teams. It would make the rating system more accurate. By using the women’s brackets the levels would be narrower so the competition would be better. And it would make mixed doubles much better for many reasons that have been discussed.

Here is a blog schmke did:


He was just using the .5 rule of thumb and that is not entirely accurate. And since there are currently no national men’s 2.5 leagues I think that has an effect on why we see so few men at 3.0 and 2.5.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
To understand the potential pros and cons I think it is helpful to think about whether USTA should go in the opposite direction. What if they further divided the rating system and players.

For example everyone has a USTA number. What if they said we will not only divide people by gender but also even of the same gender people with an odd USTA number can only join teams and leagues with others with an odd USTA number. And people with an even number can only joins teams and leagues with people with even numbers. And so they had 4 rating systems and sets of leagues and teams for each level. E.g., you had odd men 3.5, even men 3.5, odd women 3.5, and even women 3.5.

Certain areas would be fine they may even like the fact that they double their chance to win state or nationals. So places like FYB describes might say ok no problem sounds great. But there will be other areas that would suffer pretty significantly. Areas that only have 2 or 3 teams in a league would have a hard time accommodating this new restriction and would likely fold up.

So what if you had like 4 teams? Well in our 3.5 mens league we have a team 1 hour 2 hours and 50 minutes away. So we could at least in theory just say two locals will be even teams and the other two would be odd teams. But would people want to play with people from different areas? It would just become harder to form teams unless you were able to go to those areas. So even areas that had flights of 4 teams would often fold. Generally speaking even if the league didn't fold entirely accommodating this new restriction would mean fewer teams and fewer USTA members.

Fewer teams and players means fewer matches. This means the rating system is even more starved for data and less accurate.


Now in this system USTA might allow odd and even teams to play together in unrated matches like they do with mixed. And certainly you would see that in many areas odd and even mixed doubles matches would become more popular just like mixed doubles is more popular in less dense tennis areas. But if the rating systems got significantly out of sync where say the odd team was almost .5 better than the even teams I think that would significantly dampen enthusiasm for mixed even within the same gender. So even if you are not going to have a coed league it would still be a good thing for mixed doubles to have the rating system not be out of whack.


I realize this is not exactly what is happening now with USTA dividing players by male and female. There may be some advantages to the separation by gender. But many if not all of these disadvantages of having this big divide are obviously happening in many areas. And I am not saying all leagues must be coed. I would encourage USTA to continue to have all men and all women's leagues. But allowing the *option* to have coed leagues would obviously boost league participation in many areas and make the entire system better.
 

ThinkPad

Rookie
I think this would benefit usta in many ways. It would allow gender neutral competition which would help for less dense tennis areas form teams. It would make the rating system more accurate. By using the women’s brackets the levels would be narrower so the competition would be better. And it would make mixed doubles much better for many reasons that have been discussed.

Here is a blog schmke did:


He was just using the .5 rule of thumb and that is not entirely accurate. And since there are currently no national men’s 2.5 leagues I think that has an effect on why we see so few men at 3.0 and 2.5.
In the blog posted above, Schmidt asked: would you be interested or willing to play in a gender neutral league? Or do you like things the way they are now with Mixed the only league where men and women play and then only as pairs against each other?

My answer is I would have no interest in a gender-neutral league. In fact, a few years ago I quit my membership at a TC because they converted Men's Night into Player's Night. The weekly event which was previously fun, with generous doses of ball-busting, was gone. It immediately devolved into a very PC, low-level, unforced error mess.

Moreover, two men I know told me they entered a UTR singles tournament. Each of them played against young girls, 13 and 14 years old. This was simply too woke for these amigos. There was no upside for them. They couldn't act pleased if they won (they'd be shamed to death for doing so). But, they'd be shamed to death if they lost too. They each said they felt emasculated by the experience and never registered again.

Regarding Mixed, I tried it once and didn't enjoy it. My female partner encouraged us to win, which seemed reasonable. But when I lit up our female opponent hovering over the net, they both started screaming at me like I physically assaulted them. It was beyond ridiculous because, on the Men's court, when a player lofts in a serve, I habitually tee off on the net player. It's a legit return strategy, I frequently win the point and it pushes the net player back.

So, I'm down to play with men only.
 
Let's not assume women really want to play with men, most don't and frankly 60% of women or more are playing during the week, during the day.

I was proudly destroyed by a russian girl who was 14, while her mother, nutritionist, fitness coach, and tennis coach watched. It was a privilege to play against someone that good.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Let's not assume women really want to play with men, most don't and frankly 60% of women or more are playing during the week, during the day.

I was proudly destroyed by a russian girl who was 14, while her mother, nutritionist, fitness coach, and tennis coach watched. It was a privilege to play against someone that good.
Mixed doubles is like dating. 4.5 women don’t really want to play with 3.5 guys, just like 45yo men don’t want to date 45yo women. The tried and true 4.5M/3.5W ntrp stagger in mixed is kind of like the tried and true 45M/35W age stagger in dating mixers.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Thinkpad

Thanks for the response. I think there are legitimate reasons for men and women to want to play only with their own gender. I think the tennis related issues you have with playing with women (unforced errors and not understanding legitimate tactics returners can take with weak serves) are due to them being weaker players, not women. But even so I would feel worse if I gunned a ball and accidentally injured a female player than if I did it to a guy. The same is true if I did it to a young kid or an elderly person. So all things being equal I too would likely rather just play tennis with a bunch of guys. For example, you can call guys the C word.

So I am not saying we should do away with same gender leagues or replace replace them.

But would having a shared Rating system and an additional league that allowed both genders to be on a team be a problem?

I would still run my guys team but also a coed team that hopefully would have more teams overall. Right now mixed leagues are common but when the current advantage goes to teaming up the strongest guy you can, with the weakest female, I just don't enjoy it. In general I don't like playing tennis doubles where in order to win you keep trying to hit the ball to one person and avoid the other.

FYB

I know lots of women that are fine playing with men. It may not be for everyone but it would make it easier to form teams.

Travelerajm

I'm happily married so I don't see these tennis interactions with women as a stepping stone to other things. I think I am like the women - I would rather play with stronger players and I don't care about their age.

I agree that because the rating systems with men and women are FUBAR it may be that 4.5 men playing with a 3.5 female is the strongest team you can get for 8.0. But I think it is very suboptimal. Many men are like me and not interested in playing tennis with people that are basically 3 levels weaker. And many women are not interested in playing tennis with guys that hit the ball so fast they spend the whole match flinching. Its growing because it is easier to get teams when you don't have to exclude half of the players. But most people I know prefer playing tennis where everyone is fairly competitive with each other.
 
Thinkpad



FYB

I know lots of women that are fine playing with men. It may not be for everyone but it would make it easier to form teams.
I just am not sure you are in touch with tennis reality if you are playing in the middle of Illinois. You mention there are 3.5 teams where you are, but one is an hour away, one is 30 minutes away. In a normal tennis city or atmosphere, there are more than 40 3.5 teams all within 20 miles of each other with 20 players on each team. Then there are full blown women's tennis organizations that aren't USTA that have over 2,000 women playing in them. Those women are perfectly happy just playing women, drinking at the club after, or going to lunch together. They want to get away from men. I'm sure you know some women who don't mind, but the number of women who don't mind playing with men are dwarfed by the 4,000 or so female players in a large city that don't even want to do drills where men are present.
 

ThinkPad

Rookie
I just am not sure you are in touch with tennis reality if you are playing in the middle of Illinois. You mention there are 3.5 teams where you are, but one is an hour away, one is 30 minutes away. In a normal tennis city or atmosphere, there are more than 40 3.5 teams all within 20 miles of each other with 20 players on each team. Then there are full blown women's tennis organizations that aren't USTA that have over 2,000 women playing in them. Those women are perfectly happy just playing women, drinking at the club after, or going to lunch together. They want to get away from men. I'm sure you know some women who don't mind, but the number of women who don't mind playing with men are dwarfed by the 4,000 or so female players in a large city that don't even want to do drills where men are present.
I've heard women share similar sentiments at my TC. I've even heard some say they don't even relish coed health clubs. It's not that they don't like men, it's just that they don't want to interact with men as they try to get some exercise before they go to their jobs. When men are present, they feel like they need to do their hair, and makeup and wear their best outfits. That's a lot of unnecessary bs to deal with at 7 am! They would prefer to do their classes and workout routines without men present and socialize with men in settings where they feel more comfortable. Seems perfectly reasonable.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
I just am not sure you are in touch with tennis reality if you are playing in the middle of Illinois. You mention there are 3.5 teams where you are, but one is an hour away, one is 30 minutes away. In a normal tennis city or atmosphere, there are more than 40 3.5 teams all within 20 miles of each other with 20 players on each team.

Ok you think normal tennis reality in all of America is like Dallas. I don't. You also equate tennis reality with USTA participation reality.

Why ignore the actual data published by USTA?

21 million Americans played tennis in 2020. What percent played USTA? How low does the percentage have to get before you will admit maybe USTA is not really offering services of value that work for the vast majority of tennis players? Is there any percentage that will get you to at least cause you to question it? Or as long as you personally can get on a team you are going to insist everything is fine?

And you just keep talking about large cities. And if the USTA wants to only be the tennis organization for large cities in America that is fine. But then they should allow a different organization that will represent the whole country. Look at any county population heat map. I am not saying central Illinois is Chicago or Dallas but it is not exactly barren either. The expression "will it play in Peoria?" was created because it is a test market for the whole country. National politicians and marketing companies don't ask "will it play in Dallas"

Then there are full blown women's tennis organizations that aren't USTA that have over 2,000 women playing in them. Those women are perfectly happy just playing women, drinking at the club after, or going to lunch together. They want to get away from men. I'm sure you know some women who don't mind, but the number of women who don't mind playing with men are dwarfed by the 4,000 or so female players in a large city that don't even want to do drills where men are present.

Sure it may even be that most people prefer to play with their same gender all things being equal. But markets have proven that what is more important then "same gender" is "same skill level." Some markets are large enough they can have clinics that are of specific skill levels and only one gender. But most clubs don't have the numbers to fill clinics with both requirements so they have to choose. They may have enough men and women to have a clinic of only one gender but it would be all skill levels. Or they can have clinics of specific skill levels but they will have to include men and women. I have never heard of a clinic choosing the gender as being more important. Why? Because the players overwhelmingly think skill level is more important.

I have never seen a clinic that only allows one gender but allows all skill levels. Every clinic I know allows both genders but has skill level requirements. In areas where you can't divide by both (gender and skill level) skill level wins out - except according to USTA. They insist that dividing by gender be more important, even though we all know the vast majority of players care more about skill level.
 
Ok you think normal tennis reality in all of America is like Dallas. I don't. You also equate tennis reality with USTA participation reality.

Why ignore the actual data published by USTA?

21 million Americans played tennis in 2020. What percent played USTA? How low does the percentage have to get before you will admit maybe USTA is not really offering services of value that work for the vast majority of tennis players? Is there any percentage that will get you to at least cause you to question it? Or as long as you personally can get on a team you are going to insist everything is fine?

And you just keep talking about large cities. And if the USTA wants to only be the tennis organization for large cities in America that is fine. But then they should allow a different organization that will represent the whole country. Look at any county population heat map. I am not saying central Illinois is Chicago or Dallas but it is not exactly barren either. The expression "will it play in Peoria?" was created because it is a test market for the whole country. National politicians and marketing companies don't ask "will it play in Dallas"



Sure it may even be that most people prefer to play with their same gender all things being equal. But markets have proven that what is more important then "same gender" is "same skill level." Some markets are large enough they can have clinics that are of specific skill levels and only one gender. But most clubs don't have the numbers to fill clinics with both requirements so they have to choose. They may have enough men and women to have a clinic of only one gender but it would be all skill levels. Or they can have clinics of specific skill levels but they will have to include men and women. I have never heard of a clinic choosing the gender as being more important. Why? Because the players overwhelmingly think skill level is more important.

I have never seen a clinic that only allows one gender but allows all skill levels. Every clinic I know allows both genders but has skill level requirements. In areas where you can't divide by both (gender and skill level) skill level wins out - except according to USTA. They insist that dividing by gender be more important, even though we all know the vast majority of players care more about skill level.
True, it's unfair for me to expect everywhere to be like Dallas or LA or Atlanta, but that's basically what the USTA is focused on, more bang for the buck, more impact in large areas like that, more opportunity for rule changes and incentives to actually move the needle on participation. It's much harder to try and make sweeping USTA changes to improve participation in rural Illinois and expect those same changes to increase participation in rural everywhere, since rural everywhere is so different. (rural Texas, Arizona, Washington, Vermont, South Dakota, all would need different specially focused changes to boost participation, and even if it worked, what's the maximum payoff, not much, there just aren't enough human beings there to matter).

At the same time, you can't really share that you've never seen a clinic that only allows one gender or allows all skill levels AND expect that to be the norm in super huge tennis areas. About 40 all women teams from Dallas travel to New Braunfels, Mexico, Florida, or even overseas for tennis camps together before every season. They also schedule special clinics with their teams with pros. These women don't want to play with men and sometimes not with anyone not on their team. This kind of tennis activity just doesn't happen in rural areas, people don't play that much and no USTA rule change are going to supercharge tennis in small population areas.

The good news is, if you live in a rural area, it's much easier to volunteer for your local USTA and make any change you see fit for your local rural area, just takes time and a little effort. That's a benefit of living in a smaller tennis population.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Ok you think normal tennis reality in all of America is like Dallas. I don't. You also equate tennis reality with USTA participation reality.

Why ignore the actual data published by USTA?

21 million Americans played tennis in 2020. What percent played USTA?

That's the wrong question, IMO. The correct one is "What does the time series show?". If % is increasing or at least staying constant, the USTA won't be as worried compared to if it was dropping, especially if the total # is rising.

Due to the pandemic, a lot of people started/resumed playing tennis but I'm not sure how many joined USTA [or whatever national equivalent in other countries]. Because during the pandemic, USTA events were also shut down. You'd figure it was a golden opportunity for the USTA to do outreach to try and capture some of that delta but I don't know if they did and if so, how successful they were.

How low does the percentage have to get before you will admit maybe USTA is not really offering services of value that work for the vast majority of tennis players? Is there any percentage that will get you to at least cause you to question it? Or as long as you personally can get on a team you are going to insist everything is fine?

It doesn't matter what I admit. It matters what the USTA admits. I don't have access to their data so I have no idea what the ROI is for various markets.

And you just keep talking about large cities. And if the USTA wants to only be the tennis organization for large cities in America that is fine. But then they should allow a different organization that will represent the whole country. Look at any county population heat map. I am not saying central Illinois is Chicago or Dallas but it is not exactly barren either. The expression "will it play in Peoria?" was created because it is a test market for the whole country. National politicians and marketing companies don't ask "will it play in Dallas"

From a cost/benefit standpoint, the large metros generate the lion's share of the revenue so that's naturally where they are going to concentrate on their efforts. I'm sure their marketing dept has detailed stats on outreach expenditures vs membership changes. I can't blame the USTA for following that path although that might not be the best long-term strategy.

Sure it may even be that most people prefer to play with their same gender all things being equal. But markets have proven that what is more important then "same gender" is "same skill level." Some markets are large enough they can have clinics that are of specific skill levels and only one gender. But most clubs don't have the numbers to fill clinics with both requirements so they have to choose. They may have enough men and women to have a clinic of only one gender but it would be all skill levels. Or they can have clinics of specific skill levels but they will have to include men and women. I have never heard of a clinic choosing the gender as being more important. Why? Because the players overwhelmingly think skill level is more important.

I have never seen a clinic that only allows one gender but allows all skill levels. Every clinic I know allows both genders but has skill level requirements. In areas where you can't divide by both (gender and skill level) skill level wins out - except according to USTA. They insist that dividing by gender be more important, even though we all know the vast majority of players care more about skill level.

Agreed on the clinics. But I've heard women express the opinion that, at least sometimes, they'd prefer playing with other women.

Even if they came up with gender-neutral rating, the potential weakness would be the same as with UTR: the less the two groups mix, the less accurate the relative ratings will be. UTR claims to be universal but how often do juniors play adults? Or men play women [other than MXDs]?
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
True, it's unfair for me to expect everywhere to be like Dallas or LA or Atlanta, but that's basically what the USTA is focused on, more bang for the buck, more impact in large areas like that, more opportunity for rule changes and incentives to actually move the needle on participation. .

I agree USTA is only focused on a few small areas of the country. And I think if they want to do that fine but then say they are the organization for Tennis in Atlanta LA and Dallas rather than claim to be the tennis organization for the whole country.

I disagree that focusing on such a small percentage of the overall American population is a good idea or provides more bang for the buck. Less congested areas have lots of tennis courts indoor and outdoor. It is not getting more bang for the buck by ignoring the majority of the country.

It's much harder to try and make sweeping USTA changes to improve participation in rural Illinois and expect those same changes to increase participation in rural everywhere, since rural everywhere is so different. (rural Texas, Arizona, Washington, Vermont, South Dakota, all would need different specially focused changes to boost participation, and even if it worked, what's the maximum payoff, not much, there just aren't enough human beings there to matter).


This would increase USTA participation in every area because it would allow more options to play. It is like saying USTA shouldn't have a 4.5 league because most tennis players are not at that level.

And again look at a county population map Central Illinois is not that rural.

But I still haven't heard of the harm to your area if USTA allows coed leagues. If people in your area don't want to play in coed leagues they wouldn't have to. They could still play in the gender divided leagues and in their gender divided clinics.

At the same time, you can't really share that you've never seen a clinic that only allows one gender or allows all skill levels AND expect that to be the norm in super huge tennis areas. About 40 all women teams from Dallas travel to New Braunfels, Mexico, Florida, or even overseas for tennis camps together before every season. They also schedule special clinics with their teams with pros. These women don't want to play with men and sometimes not with anyone not on their team. This kind of tennis activity just doesn't happen in rural areas, people don't play that much and no USTA rule change are going to supercharge tennis in small population areas.

The good news is, if you live in a rural area, it's much easier to volunteer for your local USTA and make any change you see fit for your local rural area, just takes time and a little effort. That's a benefit of living in a smaller tennis population.



I am agreeing "same gender" can be a preference but that preference is not as important as "same level."

I never said I haven't seen a clinic that "only allows one gender or allows all skill levels." I said never saw one that "only allows one gender and allows all skill levels." I'm not saying such clinics don't exist, but if you have a team doing a clinic they would presumably be all of comparable level.

But here is my point that I am not sure you are getting. Do you think there are more clinics that are single gender but allow all skill levels, then there are clinics that restrict skill level but allow both genders? There are many times more clinics in America that restrict by skill level but allow both genders. The reason for that is clinics want to provide services that players want. They are private sector so they act according to the wishes of consumers/players. And players put a priority on playing with people of the "same skill level" over playing with people of the "same gender." This is obvious from the market forces that lead to so many more clinics restricting by level but not gender as compared to clinics that restrict by gender but allow any level.

USTA ignores this preference of players to prioritize skill level. They force a division by gender even if that means you will have leagues where the typical match can be 6-0 6-0 between players of the same level. This is not in line with the priorities of players. Hence we should not be surprised that very few Tennis players are interested in USTA leagues.
 
I agree USTA is only focused on a few small areas of the country. And I think if they want to do that fine but then say they are the organization for Tennis in Atlanta LA and Dallas rather than claim to be the tennis organization for the whole country.

I disagree that focusing on such a small percentage of the overall American population is a good idea or provides more bang for the buck. Less congested areas have lots of tennis courts indoor and outdoor. It is not getting more bang for the buck by ignoring the majority of the country.




This would increase USTA participation in every area because it would allow more options to play. It is like saying USTA shouldn't have a 4.5 league because most tennis players are not at that level.

And again look at a county population map Central Illinois is not that rural.

But I still haven't heard of the harm to your area if USTA allows coed leagues. If people in your area don't want to play in coed leagues they wouldn't have to. They could still play in the gender divided leagues and in their gender divided clinics.





I am agreeing "same gender" can be a preference but that preference is not as important as "same level."

I never said I haven't seen a clinic that "only allows one gender or allows all skill levels." I said never saw one that "only allows one gender and allows all skill levels." I'm not saying such clinics don't exist, but if you have a team doing a clinic they would presumably be all of comparable level.

But here is my point that I am not sure you are getting. Do you think there are more clinics that are single gender but allow all skill levels, then there are clinics that restrict skill level but allow both genders? There are many times more clinics in America that restrict by skill level but allow both genders. The reason for that is clinics want to provide services that players want. They are private sector so they act according to the wishes of consumers/players. And players put a priority on playing with people of the "same skill level" over playing with people of the "same gender." This is obvious from the market forces that lead to so many more clinics restricting by level but not gender as compared to clinics that restrict by gender but allow any level.

USTA ignores this preference of players to prioritize skill level. They force a division by gender even if that means you will have leagues where the typical match can be 6-0 6-0 between players of the same level. This is not in line with the priorities of players. Hence we should not be surprised that very few Tennis players are interested in USTA leagues.
I like a little Moonshooter discussion from time to time...
OK, they aren't going to abandon parts of the country verbally, but for sure if I gave you a job as USTA member guru and then just $100,000 to boost membership, what population areas would you spend that money on, cities or tiny towns?

Nothing congested about Dallas, plenty of land to build out on in every direction, the area is now larger than the state of Connecticut, stretches all the way to the Oklahoma border, and there are about 600 different places to play tennis, not courts, but actual facilities (if you count school tennis courts) plus thousands of new people moving there every month. There's a better chance of holding a beginner tennis clinic and having people show up in this kind of environment than say, South Dakota.

There's no harm in co-ed leagues, I just don't think the reasoning you are using which I assume is based on what you see on a daily basis, matches up with the reality of the large population centers. There are already co-ed UTR events every weekend, between 4-8 every weekend, mixed USTA, mixed Tennis Competitors of Dallas, mixed club events, it just kind of already exists in so many varieties, I'm not sure there would be a huge increase in participation if yet another co-ed league was offered.

It's close, there are quite a lot of weekday morning and afternoon clinics that are female only, there are fewer male only just because traditionally men are daytime workers. I'm not really sure about there being many more co-ed clinics than only women, you'd be surprised how many there are at clubs that are women only. Your theory of market forces is solid, but you conclude that in America clinics are this one way, how do you know? Your assumptions don't match up with reality in larger tennis cities. There are 15 clinics to choose from every morning, afternoon, and night in a big tennis city.

The conclusion that clinics and USTA are somehow tied together so that leagues are not competitive, seems like a different discussion than co-ed leagues or clinics. USTA has little to do with clinics, they are very hands off, that's a club and professional ball feeder thing. The typical match is not 6-0 6-0.

There's too many broad statements you make and conclusions that are just huge leaps in logic. I appreciate the interest you have in tennis in your area, but your area isn't typical.
 

Roforot

Hall of Fame
I guess it's the advantage UTR has over NTRP in that it doesn't factor age or gender. I don't care if it's a little girl or a wily senior, it's nice having a rating be what it is.
Because of mobility, I was a solid level weaker in singles than doubles this year. It was perhaps a blessing in disguise because as I've gotten my singles game closer to doubles and improved my fitness, I find my doubles may be levelling up.
I know it complicates things but I wonder how things would shake up if we had singles and doubles ratings...

I suspect 80% women would have only doubles ratings, and 50% of men.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
I guess it's the advantage UTR has over NTRP in that it doesn't factor age or gender. I don't care if it's a little girl or a wily senior, it's nice having a rating be what it is.

It's only "universal" to the extent that the various groups mix: the less mixing, the less universal the rating [ie juniors playing adults, men playing women, etc]. if the groups never mix, the accuracy is only hypothetical; there's no real-world results to back up the claim.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
That's the wrong question, IMO. The correct one is "What does the time series show?". If % is increasing or at least staying constant, the USTA won't be as worried compared to if it was dropping, especially if the total # is rising.

Ok I think that is perhaps a better question but both are good questions. Either way it looks like there is cause for concern because total numbers of players was rising but participation in USTA is dropping.


Due to the pandemic, a lot of people started/resumed playing tennis but I'm not sure how many joined USTA [or whatever national equivalent in other countries]. Because during the pandemic, USTA events were also shut down. You'd figure it was a golden opportunity for the USTA to do outreach to try and capture some of that delta but I don't know if they did and if so, how successful they were.

Agreed. Given what Schmke posted about 2022 so far I think it doesn't look good but perhaps 2023 will be better.


It doesn't matter what I admit. It matters what the USTA admits. I don't have access to their data so I have no idea what the ROI is for various markets.

From a cost/benefit standpoint, the large metros generate the lion's share of the revenue so that's naturally where they are going to concentrate on their efforts. I'm sure their marketing dept has detailed stats on outreach expenditures vs membership changes. I can't blame the USTA for following that path although that might not be the best long-term strategy.

We are both members of USTA. I also talk about what USTA is doing but I am a member so it is in part my own fault. We are not major decision makers but we are members. If we care about tennis we should speak up.

I doubt they did any analysis. But the thing is if you decide you will only provide services that people in large metro areas will want then of course your income will only come from large metro areas. It is hard to see what big drawback there is to having a neutral rating systems and allowing coed leagues.


Agreed on the clinics. But I've heard women express the opinion that, at least sometimes, they'd prefer playing with other women.

Even if they came up with gender-neutral rating, the potential weakness would be the same as with UTR: the less the two groups mix, the less accurate the relative ratings will be. UTR claims to be universal but how often do juniors play adults? Or men play women [other than MXDs]?

UTR has severe weaknesses due to the volatility that I think mostly stems from the unrelated 12 month cut off UTR artificially imposes. The fact that it is gender neutral does not make the system less accurate. USTA does not try to be accurate between genders, but ntrp is still less accurate than UTR between genders at least when it comes to doubles. (UTR singles can be a real disaster due to the unrelated 12 month cliff UTR imposes) But I certainly agree that after they incorporate the men into the women's rating system they would want to have at least some coed events in some areas. They wouldn't want to continue the complete separation they have now or the ratings would start to drift apart. That is a problem with UTR and WTN now. Its just that neither is worse than NTRP in being inaccurate between men and women.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
I guess it's the advantage UTR has over NTRP in that it doesn't factor age or gender. I don't care if it's a little girl or a wily senior, it's nice having a rating be what it is.
Because of mobility, I was a solid level weaker in singles than doubles this year. It was perhaps a blessing in disguise because as I've gotten my singles game closer to doubles and improved my fitness, I find my doubles may be levelling up.
I know it complicates things but I wonder how things would shake up if we had singles and doubles ratings...

I suspect 80% women would have only doubles ratings, and 50% of men.

I think the ratings should build in a modifier depending on how many matches someone has in each category. By and large all of the tennis rating systems are data starved. (perhaps not WTN - it seems to have some sort of issue but I am not sure what it is) If I tell you someone is a UTR 9.67 singles player after 30 singles matches you may not know exactly what level they are at doubles. But it is not like you have absolutely no idea either. UTR pretending that they are completely unrelated and therefore they don't know if that person is a 2.4 singles player, a 16.2 doubles player or anywhere in between is too much. When you combine that with the fact that many adult rec players might only play a few total matches per year and the UTR 12 month cut off you get some crazy results. Like people with a 6.X in one type of game and a 2.X in the other.

I think the results of the other category should count until you get a certain number of matches in that catagory. So maybe your doubles matches should influence your singles ratings heavily if you only have one singles match and 30 doubles matches. But it should only have a very slight influence if you only have 8 singles matches. And it should have no influence if you have over 12 singles matches or something like that.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
We are both members of USTA. I also talk about what USTA is doing but I am a member so it is in part my own fault. We are not major decision makers but we are members. If we care about tennis we should speak up.

I can vote with my wallet, yes. But that doesn't force the USTA to admit anything unless an appreciable # do likewise.

I care about tennis but, from a selfish perspective, I care more about my tennis than tennis in other markets.

I doubt they did any analysis. But the thing is if you decide you will only provide services that people in large metro areas will want then of course your income will only come from large metro areas. It is hard to see what big drawback there is to having a neutral rating systems and allowing coed leagues.

I'm pretty sure they did the analysis: they have limited resources to expend and want to get maximum return. I wouldn't be surprised if they have some big data analytics [you can set up such a thing in a cloud provider in short order] tracking just how much of an effect any given move has had [and likely to have].

UTR has severe weaknesses due to the volatility that I think mostly stems from the unrelated 12 month cut off UTR artificially imposes. The fact that it is gender neutral does not make the system less accurate. USTA does not try to be accurate between genders, but ntrp is still less accurate than UTR between genders at least when it comes to doubles. (UTR singles can be a real disaster due to the unrelated 12 month cliff UTR imposes) But I certainly agree that after they incorporate the men into the women's rating system they would want to have at least some coed events in some areas. They wouldn't want to continue the complete separation they have now or the ratings would start to drift apart. That is a problem with UTR and WTN now. Its just that neither is worse than NTRP in being inaccurate between men and women.

We've had this discussion before: all of them have pros and cons and all of them have given me competitive matches, for the most part, so I'm less inclined to want to fix anything for fear of breaking something even more important.
 

TennisOTM

Professional
The hypothetical chart in @schmke's linked blog post seems quite plausible for how gender-neutral leagues would look at different levels, and it's interesting to imagine would the different league levels would be like:

Seems the new "2.5" league would be exactly the same as the current 2.5 women's leagues, although on the @schmke chart it does look like there is a tiny sliver of men - does that mean there are actually a few men who currently receive 2.0C ratings?

The new "3.0" league would also be nearly entirely women. The (current 2.5) men playing in this league would be true hardly-ever-played beginners who perhaps would appreciate having a place to compete where they currently do not.

The new "3.5" league would be about 80% women. This league might have a weird dynamic. The massive number of current 3.5 women include many 3.5-for-lifers who have settled in at this level. Not sure how they'd feel having their party crashed by current 3.0-level men, especially the subgroup of 3.0 men who are athletic beginners who improve quickly.

The new "4.0" league, consisting roughly of current 4.0 women and current 3.5 men, would have a massive pool of available players and be about half/half men and women. This would be an interesting one, and I'm enjoying imagining how the dynamics of such a league could play out. Many teams would have a mix of men and women, but some captains would perhaps choose to create all-men or all-women teams, and there could be some excellent Riggs/King-style grudge matches. Imagine the entertaining response on this message board if an all-woman team made a run to the National title.

The new "4.5" league would be about 25% women, current 4.5 women playing with current 4.0 men. As a 4.0 man I would happily join this league. I've played in level-based clinics that include 4.5 women and it's been nothing but enjoyable. I also don't see why the minority of women who are good enough to reach 4.5 would object to the opportunity to test themselves against a larger pool of players?

The new "5.0" league would basically be the current 4.5 men's league with a few very-good women allowed to join in if they want to. Who would object?
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
I like a little Moonshooter discussion from time to time...
OK, they aren't going to abandon parts of the country verbally, but for sure if I gave you a job as USTA member guru and then just $100,000 to boost membership, what population areas would you spend that money on, cities or tiny towns?

I think areas like my own are low hanging fruit. I don't think my area is tiny towns or big cities.

I am trying to put teams together and it is not easy some things would make that much easier.

1) Making the ntrp gender neutral and allowing a line of coed teams would increase the number of usta adult rec players by at least 30% in five years.

2) As far as the fee I think they should consider waiving the national fee at least for the first year. If USTA needs some national fee to cover the costs of this it should be paid by returning members. The paying members might have to pay a bit more but they will get many more players in the system. The $44 is not much but when you are the captain and tell someone you can only promise two matches and then they also have to pay for gas and the $22/team fee the ask is not nothing. Sure that person might get asked to be on other teams (which would dilute the $44 annual spend) but I can't speak for those other captains so I can't make any promises. Waive the fee the first year. If they like it they will pay the money next year. If they don't ok at least paying members had another player to play against for one year.


Nothing congested about Dallas, plenty of land to build out on in every direction, the area is now larger than the state of Connecticut, stretches all the way to the Oklahoma border, and there are about 600 different places to play tennis, not courts, but actual facilities (if you count school tennis courts) plus thousands of new people moving there every month. There's a better chance of holding a beginner tennis clinic and having people show up in this kind of environment than say, South Dakota.

That's great so why would a gender neutral rating system and allowing a coed league hurt any of this tennis activity that is happening in Dallas? This is what I am not hearing. What is the big drawback to allowing people the option to play in a coed league?

I don't know about South Dakota, but most national campaigns and marketing companies do not exclusively focus on urban buyers. They do want to appeal to a larger cross section of the country. I am not sure why tennis would be different. Like the other poster said we have a lot of tennis courts in central Illinois and they get filled up.




There's no harm in co-ed leagues, I just don't think the reasoning you are using which I assume is based on what you see on a daily basis, matches up with the reality of the large population centers. There are already co-ed UTR events every weekend, between 4-8 every weekend, mixed USTA, mixed Tennis Competitors of Dallas, mixed club events, it just kind of already exists in so many varieties, I'm not sure there would be a huge increase in participation if yet another co-ed league was offered.

I think it is pretty clear that what I am saying is not relevant to Dallas. It sounds like you guys have every sort of league you want. And I am willing to concede or at least assume that most people would prefer same gender leagues. So it seems like coed leagues would not increase USTA numbers in Dallas at all. Because although there would be coed teams those people would already have been playing USTA tennis anyway.


It's close, there are quite a lot of weekday morning and afternoon clinics that are female only, there are fewer male only just because traditionally men are daytime workers. I'm not really sure about there being many more co-ed clinics than only women, you'd be surprised how many there are at clubs that are women only. Your theory of market forces is solid, but you conclude that in America clinics are this one way, how do you know? Your assumptions don't match up with reality in larger tennis cities. There are 15 clinics to choose from every morning, afternoon, and night in a big tennis city.

I don't know. But do those same gender clinics allow people of any skill level? My point is that if you have to choose people would rather play with someone of their skill level rather than their same gender. I think you agree. It sounds like in your area you are not forced to choose at all. You can have any sort of clinic you want.
The conclusion that clinics and USTA are somehow tied together so that leagues are not competitive, seems like a different discussion than co-ed leagues or clinics. USTA has little to do with clinics, they are very hands off, that's a club and professional ball feeder thing. The typical match is not 6-0 6-0.

I'm not saying they are tied together. I am just saying that private clubs are sensitive to what players want and they recognize that same skill level is more important than same gender. USTA on the other hand throws all the men from beginner to the equivalent of a top female 4.0 into two categories - 3.0 and 3.5. This demonstrates to me that they are not prioritizing getting men into competitive matches. And it is not surprising to me that men are less enthused with USTA then women.
There's too many broad statements you make and conclusions that are just huge leaps in logic. I appreciate the interest you have in tennis in your area, but your area isn't typical.

It is not the typical area that USTA has chosen to pay attention to. But that is what I am taking issue with. My area is more typical of America than Dallas. USTA is supposed to be Americas tennis association not just an Urban tennis association. But everything they do is geared to favor urban areas.
 

ThinkPad

Rookie
That's the wrong question, IMO. The correct one is "What does the time series show?". If % is increasing or at least staying constant, the USTA won't be as worried compared to if it was dropping, especially if the total # is rising.

Due to the pandemic, a lot of people started/resumed playing tennis but I'm not sure how many joined USTA [or whatever national equivalent in other countries]. Because during the pandemic, USTA events were also shut down. You'd figure it was a golden opportunity for the USTA to do outreach to try and capture some of that delta but I don't know if they did and if so, how successful they were.



It doesn't matter what I admit. It matters what the USTA admits. I don't have access to their data so I have no idea what the ROI is for various markets.



From a cost/benefit standpoint, the large metros generate the lion's share of the revenue so that's naturally where they are going to concentrate on their efforts. I'm sure their marketing dept has detailed stats on outreach expenditures vs membership changes. I can't blame the USTA for following that path although that might not be the best long-term strategy.



Agreed on the clinics. But I've heard women express the opinion that, at least sometimes, they'd prefer playing with other women.

Even if they came up with gender-neutral rating, the potential weakness would be the same as with UTR: the less the two groups mix, the less accurate the relative ratings will be. UTR claims to be universal but how often do juniors play adults? Or men play women [other than MXDs]?
Moon Shooter wrote: "Even if they came up with gender-neutral rating, the potential weakness would be the same as with UTR: the less the two groups mix, the less accurate the relative ratings will be. UTR claims to be universal but how often do juniors play adults? Or men play women [other than MXDs]? "

I think you nailed it. I've suspected the UTR ratings between adult men and adult women, or between extreme age groups, are askew. I suspect you just identified the reason. Hence, the gender-neutral, age-neutral claims are effective marketing hype. But, pragmatically speaking, they're not effective for ratings comparison between such groups.
 

cks

Hall of Fame
As far as the fee I think they should consider waiving the national fee at least for the first year.

I like this idea. I just started USTA league for the first time in January 2022. Having to pay the annual USTA on top of the league fees and (court/ball costs) could be lot just to "try out" USTA league play.
 
1) Making the ntrp gender neutral and allowing a line of coed teams would increase the number of usta adult rec players by at least 30% in five years.

2) This is what I am not hearing. What is the big drawback to allowing people the option to play in a coed league?

3) I don't know about South Dakota, but most national campaigns and marketing companies do not exclusively focus on urban buyers. I am not sure why tennis would be different. Like the other poster said we have a lot of tennis courts in central Illinois and they get filled up.


4) My area is more typical of America than Dallas. USTA is supposed to be Americas tennis association not just an Urban tennis association.
I added numbers above to help match the answers here:

1) These kind of statements, just don't use them, it's just a wild guess and makes everything else you write seem flemsy

2) None, other than USTA isn't going to want to deal with the hassle of setting it up, local league coordinators don't want to do it. You could step up though and do it for your area, might want to try it.

3) Tennis is different because weather, available courts, population. Tennis isn't a product like a TV or a car.

4) Your area has more cousins or twins in the united states, but a city like Dallas still has 30 times the potential customers, just like if we put Atlanta, Miami, LA, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, lump it all together in a City v rural or town comparison, the potential for tennis growth is just so much larger. And, people are moving to warm weather cities by the thousands everyday, it's the shifting demographics of america in general.
USTA is far from perfect, but even they throw their limited resources where they "think" it will do the most.
 

cks

Hall of Fame
And, people are moving to warm weather cities by the thousands everyday, it's the shifting demographics of america in general.
Austin's USTA league participation numbers are "up", but I guess that has more to do with folks moving to the Austin metro area, rather than existing people joining USTA.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
I added numbers above to help match the answers here:

1) These kind of statements, just don't use them, it's just a wild guess and makes everything else you write seem flemsy

I understand why you say that. But the thing is I am actually trying to get teams together and a 30% increase is only like 70k more people across the entire country of 21 million players. That is a very conservative estimate. Doubling the number of players you can put on a team would be a massive change for many communities.

So lets say USTA decided they would have completely separate leagues for even and odd numbered players. It may not effect Dallas very much. You guys might say it would not change a thing since you have so many teams anyway doubling up the number of national champs might actually help. But for most of the country it would be devastating. That is reality about how these leagues work outside of Dallas.

2) None, other than USTA isn't going to want to deal with the hassle of setting it up, local league coordinators don't want to do it. You could step up though and do it for your area, might want to try it.

I am not so sure what you mean. My local coordinator is pushing every sort of league she can. She is pushing tri level and combos and 55 and over etc etc etc. I am trying to help her by pulling everyone I can. I do not know why you think she would not want USTA to allow a coed league.


3) Tennis is different because weather, available courts, population. Tennis isn't a product like a TV or a car.

Ok but why does this mean fewer options is better?


4) Your area has more cousins or twins in the united states, but a city like Dallas still has 30 times the potential customers, just like if we put Atlanta, Miami, LA, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, lump it all together in a City v rural or town comparison, the potential for tennis growth is just so much larger. And, people are moving to warm weather cities by the thousands everyday, it's the shifting demographics of america in general.
USTA is far from perfect, but even they throw their limited resources where they "think" it will do the most.

My USTA district created Madison Keyes. Has Dallas created Madison Keyes x 30???? I'm not claiming we are some tennis Mecca but I'm also getting a bit tired of you disrespecting the tennis players in my area. We have tennis players and we shouldn't be ignored by USTA.
 
1) I understand why you say that. But the thing is I am actually trying to get teams together and a 30% increase is only like 70k more people across the entire country of 21 million players. That is a very conservative estimate. Doubling the number of players you can put on a team would be a massive change for many communities.

2) So lets say USTA decided they would have completely separate leagues for even and odd numbered players. It may not effect Dallas very much. You guys might say it would not change a thing since you have so many teams anyway doubling up the number of national champs might actually help. But for most of the country it would be devastating. That is reality about how these leagues work outside of Dallas.



3) I am not so sure what you mean. My local coordinator is pushing every sort of league she can. She is pushing tri level and combos and 55 and over etc etc etc. I am trying to help her by pulling everyone I can. I do not know why you think she would not want USTA to allow a coed league.




4) Ok but why does this mean fewer options is better?




5) My USTA district created Madison Keyes. Has Dallas created Madison Keyes x 30???? I'm not claiming we are some tennis Mecca but I'm also getting a bit tired of you disrespecting the tennis players in my area. We have tennis players and we shouldn't be ignored by USTA.
1) Ok, did you actually do the math when you first posted or are you just stubbornly trying to prove you didn't make up some % halfhazardly?

2) I'm confused

3) That's cool, seems like you can achieve your goal next year, report back

4) No, I'm not making a point here, I'm simply showing that your example of "do marketers ignore the rural parts of the US" doesn't really equate to how one would market and grow the sport of tennis. Has nothing to do with more or fewer options, just that your example was not very applicable to tennis.

5) No, the Chris Evert academy in Florida created Madison, she arrived there as a very young child and really what does she have to do with tennis players in your area? She was just born there, didn't learn tennis there and left asap. The tennis players in your area aren't as good as quite a few tennis meccas, it's just is what it is.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
1) Ok, did you actually do the math when you first posted or are you just stubbornly trying to prove you didn't make up some % halfhazardly?

Not a precis mathematical forumula. More like a rough estimate along the lines of if we we offer things that appeal to wider audience - which is not really contested - we will get more customers. I think 30% is conservative. How many more customers do you think offering a coed league bring?


2) I'm confused

Its a thought experiment to help you consider the cost halving the total tennis pool that people can draw players from is having on USTA leagues. Of course it is a stupid idea when you think of it. Yet that is what USTA is doing.
3) That's cool, seems like you can achieve your goal next year, report back

You said local coodinators do not want coed leagues. I said I don't know what you are talking about. My local coodinator pushes any sort of options that she can. Why do you think she would not love to have some coed leagues? I am not sure USTA will combine ratings and allow coed leagues next year.


4) No, I'm not making a point here, I'm simply showing that your example of "do marketers ignore the rural parts of the US" doesn't really equate to how one would market and grow the sport of tennis. Has nothing to do with more or fewer options, just that your example was not very applicable to tennis.

I am not sure what you mean. My example of offering a league that is not restricted to gender is directly applicable to tennis.

5) No, the Chris Evert academy in Florida created Madison, she arrived there as a very young child and really what does she have to do with tennis players in your area? She was just born there, didn't learn tennis there and left asap. The tennis players in your area aren't as good as quite a few tennis meccas, it's just is what it is.

Ok I think you make a good point because she went there at the age of 10. But she turned pro at 14. If she wasn't exposed to tennis at a young age here in Central Illinois she would not have done that. We have many tennis playing adults that are passing the sport on to younger players. Whether after that they have the top academy in Florida Chicago or Peoria is irrelevant.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Ok I think you make a good point because she went there at the age of 10. But she turned pro at 14. If she wasn't exposed to tennis at a young age here in Central Illinois she would not have done that. We have many tennis playing adults that are passing the sport on to younger players. Whether after that they have the top academy in Florida Chicago or Peoria is irrelevant.

My view of reality is that distributions are highly asymmetrical and unequally concentrated: income, author popularity, tennis professionals, etc. That seems to be the way the fabric of reality is constructed.

What you're suggesting goes against that seemingly natural tendency [I'm making no value judgment on this] which means you are swimming against the tide and gives you an idea of how tough it might be.
 

Creighton

Professional
I understand why you say that. But the thing is I am actually trying to get teams together and a 30% increase is only like 70k more people across the entire country of 21 million players. That is a very conservative estimate. Doubling the number of players you can put on a team would be a massive change for many communities.

So lets say USTA decided they would have completely separate leagues for even and odd numbered players. It may not effect Dallas very much. You guys might say it would not change a thing since you have so many teams anyway doubling up the number of national champs might actually help. But for most of the country it would be devastating. That is reality about how these leagues work outside of Dallas.



I am not so sure what you mean. My local coordinator is pushing every sort of league she can. She is pushing tri level and combos and 55 and over etc etc etc. I am trying to help her by pulling everyone I can. I do not know why you think she would not want USTA to allow a coed league.




Ok but why does this mean fewer options is better?




My USTA district created Madison Keyes. Has Dallas created Madison Keyes x 30???? I'm not claiming we are some tennis Mecca but I'm also getting a bit tired of you disrespecting the tennis players in my area. We have tennis players and we shouldn't be ignored by USTA.

Why don't you actually just run a co-ed league and let us know how it works out?

You're just continuing to ignore that there really isn't a demand by either gender to have such a league.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
My view of reality is that distributions are highly asymmetrical and unequally concentrated: income, author popularity, tennis professionals, etc. That seems to be the way the fabric of reality is constructed.

What you're suggesting goes against that seemingly natural tendency [I'm making no value judgment on this] which means you are swimming against the tide and gives you an idea of how tough it might be.

Nothing I say suggests I’m swimming against the tide you describe. I’m just saying usta could do some fairly easy things that would make usta leagues more viable in many areas.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Why don't you actually just run a co-ed league and let us know how it works out?

You're just continuing to ignore that there really isn't a demand by either gender to have such a league.


usta won’t allow them and the rating systems are not coherent.

There is demand for coed clinics.
There is demand for mixed doubles even though it is a mess with the rating system.

But somehow we are to believe there would be no demand coed leagues. I bet you would say there is no demand for mixed doubles if usta did not allow that.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
usta won’t allow them and the rating systems are not coherent.

Do it outside of USTA.

There is demand for coed clinics.

There is a demand for clinics. I can't verify if that demand is specifically for coed clinics.

No clinic I've been to excludes by gender; they are formed based on skill.

There is demand for mixed doubles even though it is a mess with the rating system.

But somehow we are to believe there would be no demand coed leagues. I bet you would say there is no demand for mixed doubles if usta did not allow that.

I have no evidence that there is demand and if so, how much. Nor can I prove that there is no demand.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
The hypothetical chart in @schmke's linked blog post seems quite plausible for how gender-neutral leagues would look at different levels, and it's interesting to imagine would the different league levels would be like:

Seems the new "2.5" league would be exactly the same as the current 2.5 women's leagues, although on the @schmke chart it does look like there is a tiny sliver of men - does that mean there are actually a few men who currently receive 2.0C ratings?

The new "3.0" league would also be nearly entirely women. The (current 2.5) men playing in this league would be true hardly-ever-played beginners who perhaps would appreciate having a place to compete where they currently do not.

The new "3.5" league would be about 80% women. This league might have a weird dynamic. The massive number of current 3.5 women include many 3.5-for-lifers who have settled in at this level. Not sure how they'd feel having their party crashed by current 3.0-level men, especially the subgroup of 3.0 men who are athletic beginners who improve quickly.

The new "4.0" league, consisting roughly of current 4.0 women and current 3.5 men, would have a massive pool of available players and be about half/half men and women. This would be an interesting one, and I'm enjoying imagining how the dynamics of such a league could play out. Many teams would have a mix of men and women, but some captains would perhaps choose to create all-men or all-women teams, and there could be some excellent Riggs/King-style grudge matches. Imagine the entertaining response on this message board if an all-woman team made a run to the National title.

The new "4.5" league would be about 25% women, current 4.5 women playing with current 4.0 men. As a 4.0 man I would happily join this league. I've played in level-based clinics that include 4.5 women and it's been nothing but enjoyable. I also don't see why the minority of women who are good enough to reach 4.5 would object to the opportunity to test themselves against a larger pool of players?

The new "5.0" league would basically be the current 4.5 men's league with a few very-good women allowed to join in if they want to. Who would object?

Part of the reason there are so few 2.0 men is because there is no 2.5 men’s leagues. When the top 3.0 is supposed to beat the bottom 3.0: 6-0 6-0 it is very hard to play in a 3.0 league and end up with a 2.5c rating let alone a 2.0c. Plus most men and women don’t want to try to compete in leagues where they clearly can’t compete. So it’s not the case that every male regardless of age and overall health athleticism is going to win 6-0 6-0 against every female the first day they pick up a racquet. Those men just don’t have a league to play in and if they do play in 3.0 they likely have inflated ratings.



So there are men that play in 3.0 leagues that are not better than many of the 2.5 women and if they combined the ratings that would be more clear. The .5 difference is a good rule of thumb but it is not perfect. And it is definitely not the case that every 3.0c male I know would beat every single 3.0 female I know 6-0 6-0. Usta should use the full dynamic rating to figure out how this would work.
 

LOBALOT

Legend
Let's face it. USTA adult tennis is broken and any of these types of changes is not going to fix it. They need to move to a dynamic rating system that they use and enforce immediately. You get bumped you immediately go to the next level up. You stink you have the option to immediately move down to the next level down.

However, I don't think the USTA believes in their algorithm and trusts it will function in this manner given the $$$$$$ they wasted on their "new" web site which is a reproduction of a mess to navigate and still doesn't include basic functionality.

They need to just replace all the leadership. I know I sound like a grumpy old fudy dud but I really want this sport to succeed and grow and after what I saw with my son during his time in juniors and what I endure captaining 4 teams a summer season it frustrates me that they do not put effort into producing just average results.
 

Creighton

Professional
So there are men that play in 3.0 leagues that are not better than many of the 2.5 women and if they combined the ratings that would be more clear. The .5 difference is a good rule of thumb but it is not perfect. And it is definitely not the case that every 3.0c male I know would beat every single 3.0 female I know 6-0 6-0. Usta should use the full dynamic rating to figure out how this would work.

If there is a 2.5 lady better than a man playing 3.0, then the lady isn't a 2.5

What you're complaining about would be someone abusing the leagues that exist and not actually indicative of a failure of the USTA.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Do it outside of USTA.


I already have a job.

There is a demand for clinics. I can't verify if that demand is specifically for coed clinics.

No clinic I've been to excludes by gender; they are formed based on skill.

The reason clinics are coed is it makes it easier to fill up with people of the “same level” and that is what people are more concerned with rather than having the “same gender.” (although I am sure in some areas they have enough people that they can seperate out by gender and I think many men and women would prefer that, it is just that playing level is much more important to players.) Clinics are run by private entities that want to make money on the clinics. So they are sensitive to demand. USTA may be quasi private but adult rec tennis pales compared to the huge money firehose they have with endorsements for Pro tennis etc. that USTA has no incentive to actually care what adult rec players want. Adult rec tennis is like this tack on program for USTA.


I have no evidence that there is demand and if so, how much. Nor can I prove that there is no demand.

There is demand for coed tennis for the exact same reasons there is demand for coed clinics and mixed doubles leagues.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
If there is a 2.5 lady better than a man playing 3.0, then the lady isn't a 2.5

What you're complaining about would be someone abusing the leagues that exist and not actually indicative of a failure of the USTA.

3.0 is the lowest men’s league in many places. So of course there is going to be 2.5 women better then men playing in 3.0. In many areas alll the 2.5 and 2.0 men play in 3.0.
 

Creighton

Professional
3.0 is the lowest men’s league in many places. So of course there is going to be 2.5 women better then men playing in 3.0. In many areas alll the 2.5 and 2.0 men play in 3.0.

But you've said a 2.5 lady is a 2.0 man. So you're just talking yourself into circles... as usual.

And there isn't a demand for coed clinics. There are demand for clinics and being co-ed doesn't affect the enjoyment for the people participating because they're not competing. They're learning.
 
1. Not a precis mathematical forumula. More like a rough estimate along the lines of if we we offer things that appeal to wider audience - which is not really contested - we will get more customers. I think 30% is conservative. How many more customers do you think offering a coed league bring?




2. Its a thought experiment to help you consider the cost halving the total tennis pool that people can draw players from is having on USTA leagues. Of course it is a stupid idea when you think of it. Yet that is what USTA is doing.


3. You said local coodinators do not want coed leagues. I said I don't know what you are talking about. My local coodinator pushes any sort of options that she can. Why do you think she would not love to have some coed leagues? I am not sure USTA will combine ratings and allow coed leagues next year.




4. I am not sure what you mean. My example of offering a league that is not restricted to gender is directly applicable to tennis.



5. Ok I think you make a good point because she went there at the age of 10. But she turned pro at 14. If she wasn't exposed to tennis at a young age here in Central Illinois she would not have done that. We have many tennis playing adults that are passing the sport on to younger players. Whether after that they have the top academy in Florida Chicago or Peoria is irrelevant.
1. I'm not sure, I have nothing that suggests your estimate is wrong, I don't really have a better guess.

2. I do find your thoughts interesting, they need a bit of a wrangler or organizer maybe?

3. Well, you have a good coordinator then, let her know your ideas.

4. That's why I am using numbers, this number "4" is from when you suggested tennis should be marketed or marketing dollars should be spent on rural areas because "any product you want to name" is also marketed to the entire United States. Then I said no, tennis depends on weather, courts, people who might like to exercise, it's not quite the same as any product. At some point despite the numbering you started asking me questions about tennis variety and now saying "my example of offering a league...". That has nothing to do with this narrow subject I was trying to discuss apart from all the other ideas. That's what I mean by an idea wrangler, to keep you focused on different parts of a discussion instead of bouncing around.

5. There's no rule saying a great tennis player can't be born somewhere, but like I said that has little to do with the overall quality of tennis players in certain parts of the world. Weather, population, courts, and other good players to practice against are a big factor in raising the overall quality of players in an area.
 
For the general clinic discussion...I went to a 2 hour men's only clinic this morning, once we were done, the women's only clinic started. It's pretty normal. We had 36 guys spread out over 6 courts, indoors of course.
 

TennisOTM

Professional
Wow I actually did find a guy in my area who got a 2.0C rating based on his results in 3.0 men's league. There are no 2.5 men's leagues here, so he had to play in 3.0. He got destroyed by all 3.0 opponents and also lost to other 2.5 guys who were playing in 3.0, which made it mathematically possible to get a 2.0C. He has successfully appealed to 2.5A so he'll be able to play league again this year - otherwise he'd be locked out of playing 3.0.

I suppose there are a handful of guys around the country who experience this, and perhaps there are a lot more of the same ability who would like to compete but don't want to get destroyed in 3.0 year after year. But if there really are a lot of these guys, wouldn't the market dictate 2.5 men's leagues being more common?
 

LOBALOT

Legend
Wow I actually did find a guy in my area who got a 2.0C rating based on his results in 3.0 men's league. There are no 2.5 men's leagues here, so he had to play in 3.0. He got destroyed by all 3.0 opponents and also lost to other 2.5 guys who were playing in 3.0, which made it mathematically possible to get a 2.0C. He has successfully appealed to 2.5A so he'll be able to play league again this year - otherwise he'd be locked out of playing 3.0.

I suppose there are a handful of guys around the country who experience this, and perhaps there are a lot more of the same ability who would like to compete but don't want to get destroyed in 3.0 year after year. But if there really are a lot of these guys, wouldn't the market dictate 2.5 men's leagues being more common?

I think that was me
 
Top