I stopped by Fowkes' tennis complex while in Utah....

Very nice facility with maybe 6 indoors (I might be off by one or two here) and 5 outdoor courts, with 1 tennis court indoors divided into 4 pickeball courts. Everyone is very nice there too. Naturally, like any other facility the banners are displayed with pride from USTA success. No frills on the locker rooms , but awesome courts and lighting etc.

I also played at a couple other Utah / Park City / SLC locations. I decided to do a survey of the men and women playing there, to my surprise, no one knew A) of the success of the SunPro team(s) ,nor of Fowkes himself, but they knew of the SunPro club of course. The teaching pros knew him, one mentioned Fowkes carrying around a laptop during interclub competition to calculate the best lineups. (Honestly though he might have been conducting business since Fowkes is a successful/busy bidness man).

I'm sure the players who play 4.0 league know the SunPro teams, but it was interesting that the local general tennis players had no idea about any of it.
 

schmke

Legend
I also played at a couple other Utah / Park City / SLC locations. I decided to do a survey of the men and women playing there, to my surprise, no one knew A) of the success of the SunPro team(s) ,nor of Fowkes himself, but they knew of the SunPro club of course. The teaching pros knew him, one mentioned Fowkes carrying around a laptop during interclub competition to calculate the best lineups. (Honestly though he might have been conducting business since Fowkes is a successful/busy bidness man).

I'm sure the players who play 4.0 league know the SunPro teams, but it was interesting that the local general tennis players had no idea about any of it.
This just goes to show how the majority of USTA League players don't concern themselves with most of the fringe players and actions they take that get so much attention here on TT. Which is why I continually say that USTA League does work for the vast majority of players.

When I wrote about the Texas 3.5 teams one commenter on my blog insisted I could never have played tennis or league to think that what the Texas team did was unusual, he insisted 90% of players game the system. I think your survey is probably a data point to show that isn't the case, most players just enjoy being part of the team and competing with players of similar ability and go about their lives not worrying about who may be pushing the envelope or cheating their way to Nationals.
 
This just goes to show how the majority of USTA League players don't concern themselves with most of the fringe players and actions they take that get so much attention here on TT. Which is why I continually say that USTA League does work for the vast majority of players.

When I wrote about the Texas 3.5 teams one commenter on my blog insisted I could never have played tennis or league to think that what the Texas team did was unusual, he insisted 90% of players game the system. I think your survey is probably a data point to show that isn't the case, most players just enjoy being part of the team and competing with players of similar ability and go about their lives not worrying about who may be pushing the envelope or cheating their way to Nationals.
Well said, I still want to watch a documentary on a handful of these captains for entertainment.
 

m_rights

New User
This is an entertaining post. I live an hour north of Sunpro but I'm a woman so rarely overlap with the people on the frequently-mentioned 4.0 Sunpro team. I've seen them play once in a league match. The match was pretty close between the two teams iirc, though I'm learning from the forums it's likely the real sandbaggers might've not played that match. I'll be honest though, I can point to a few other teams in various leagues in the area that seem much more flagrant in terms of sandbagging, so the Sunpro team just doesn't stand out. WTT/ITT in particular has terrible sandbagging. Beyond that, I really think people just don't pay attention to teams outside of their own rating.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
... he insisted 90% of players game the system. I think your survey is probably a data point to show that isn't the case, most players just enjoy being part of the team and competing with players of similar ability and go about their lives not worrying about who may be pushing the envelope or cheating their way to Nationals.


I've watched literally 100's of matches over the last several years of Nationals at Surprise, from 3.0 to ITA College, and while there have been some CLEAR shenanigans of players out of level playing, for the most part it is always just some of the highest at level play. The other thread conversation (and conversation ad nauseam) about more populace areas having more consistent high level teams more often is important to factor around. And then captains in many of those larger populace areas just have that many more players to shuffle about on teams.

Yes, there is sandbagging and such. But for probably the opposite of the above quote, 90% of players are honestly just trying to play with 10% having a go at everyone.

Just my observations.
 
Very nice facility with maybe 6 indoors (I might be off by one or two here) and 5 outdoor courts, with 1 tennis court indoors divided into 4 pickeball courts. Everyone is very nice there too. Naturally, like any other facility the banners are displayed with pride from USTA success. No frills on the locker rooms , but awesome courts and lighting etc.

I also played at a couple other Utah / Park City / SLC locations. I decided to do a survey of the men and women playing there, to my surprise, no one knew A) of the success of the SunPro team(s) ,nor of Fowkes himself, but they knew of the SunPro club of course. The teaching pros knew him, one mentioned Fowkes carrying around a laptop during interclub competition to calculate the best lineups. (Honestly though he might have been conducting business since Fowkes is a successful/busy bidness man).

I'm sure the players who play 4.0 league know the SunPro teams, but it was interesting that the local general tennis players had no idea about any of it.
Did you ask about the free seminar?
 

Creighton

Professional
This is an entertaining post. I live an hour north of Sunpro but I'm a woman so rarely overlap with the people on the frequently-mentioned 4.0 Sunpro team. I've seen them play once in a league match. The match was pretty close between the two teams iirc, though I'm learning from the forums it's likely the real sandbaggers might've not played that match. I'll be honest though, I can point to a few other teams in various leagues in the area that seem much more flagrant in terms of sandbagging, so the Sunpro team just doesn't stand out. WTT/ITT in particular has terrible sandbagging. Beyond that, I really think people just don't pay attention to teams outside of their own rating.
The real problem with sandbagging, especially at the level of Fowkes, is that it forces the other teams in the league to sandbag just to make the leagues competitive.

So it isn’t unsurprising that you would still see competitive play. If only one team was sandbagging and none of the matches were competitive, no one would continue to play in the leagues.
 

schmke

Legend
The real problem with sandbagging, especially at the level of Fowkes, is that it forces the other teams in the league to sandbag just to make the leagues competitive.
It forces other teams that are trying to go to Nationals to try to match the level of the top teams, but not everyone has designs on Nationals (most in fact don't).
So it isn’t unsurprising that you would still see competitive play. If only one team was sandbagging and none of the matches were competitive, no one would continue to play in the leagues.
I'm not sure I agree. If just one team is dominating, only matches against that team may not be competitive, every other team match will have competitive matches. In a flight of 10, each team would have 9 or 90% competitive matches.

Also, you are implying that teams/players that lose are going to quit playing? That is obviously not true, there are teams/players with losing records every year and most of them don't quit playing. Might some get discouraged and quit? Sure, but the mindset of the majority of USTA League players is not solely on winning. The very nature of competition is that for every team/player that wins, someone loses. If everyone that loses were to quit, league participation would be dropping far faster than it is.
 

Creighton

Professional
It forces other teams that are trying to go to Nationals to try to match the level of the top teams, but not everyone has designs on Nationals (most in fact don't).

I'm not sure I agree. If just one team is dominating, only matches against that team may not be competitive, every other team match will have competitive matches. In a flight of 10, each team would have 9 or 90% competitive matches.

Also, you are implying that teams/players that lose are going to quit playing? That is obviously not true, there are teams/players with losing records every year and most of them don't quit playing. Might some get discouraged and quit? Sure, but the mindset of the majority of USTA League players is not solely on winning. The very nature of competition is that for every team/player that wins, someone loses. If everyone that loses were to quit, league participation would be dropping far faster than it is.
I don’t think many teams try to go to nationals, but I think a large portion do want to win their local league. So that alone encourages them to sandbag to be competitive.

And to your last point, I think even those bottom teams attempt to find out of level players. I look at my own local league this season, the worst team had maybe the best singles player in the entire league.

So I struggle to believe there are many healthy leagues out there where there one team is a level or two above every other team in the league.
 

schmke

Legend
So I struggle to believe there are many healthy leagues out there where there one team is a level or two above every other team in the league.
Fair point, I think you are right that most flights don't have a single top team head and shoulders above the rest. There are other teams that try to compete with them.

My main point was that it isn't the case that every other team tries to compete at that level, and if they don't, they quit.
 
This just goes to show how the majority of USTA League players don't concern themselves with most of the fringe players and actions they take that get so much attention here on TT. Which is why I continually say that USTA League does work for the vast majority of players.

When I wrote about the Texas 3.5 teams one commenter on my blog insisted I could never have played tennis or league to think that what the Texas team did was unusual, he insisted 90% of players game the system. I think your survey is probably a data point to show that isn't the case, most players just enjoy being part of the team and competing with players of similar ability and go about their lives not worrying about who may be pushing the envelope or cheating their way to Nationals.
This was my first year playing USTA but have been on the forums for several years and have lots of friends who play, so I had an ok idea of how it all worked. However, lots of my local tennis friends have zero idea how the post season worked (and some that it even existed)
 

Klitz

Rookie
This was my first year playing USTA but have been on the forums for several years and have lots of friends who play, so I had an ok idea of how it all worked. However, lots of my local tennis friends have zero idea how the post season worked (and some that it even existed)
Was your experience aligned with the consensus on this forum? Was the "sandbagging worse, on par, or not as egregious as you were led to believe. How much better would your team have to have been to legit have a chance to win it all?
 

tennis3

Hall of Fame
When I wrote about the Texas 3.5 teams one commenter on my blog insisted I could never have played tennis or league to think that what the Texas team did was unusual, he insisted 90% of players game the system. I think your survey is probably a data point to show that isn't the case, most players just enjoy being part of the team and competing with players of similar ability and go about their lives not worrying about who may be pushing the envelope or cheating their way to Nationals.
It's like saying that 90% of drivers run red lights, stop signs, cut everyone off on the interstate, etc. If that were the case, traffic simply wouldn't move. Nearly everyone at any given time is driving "normal". But we notice the "few" people who aren't. And every time we drive, there are always those "few" people all along our commute, giving the illusion that "90% of drivers are maniacs".

Most people playing league and just playing to have some fun. But we notice the "few" people that are 5.0 and playing in the 4.0 league.
 

Creighton

Professional
Was your experience aligned with the consensus on this forum? Was the "sandbagging worse, on par, or not as egregious as you were led to believe. How much better would your team have to have been to legit have a chance to win it all?

He went to nationals in his first season at USTA so his perspective is probably skewed. Would be better to hear from his opponents.
 

TennisOTM

Professional
So I struggle to believe there are many healthy leagues out there where there one team is a level or two above every other team in the league.

If "healthy" can be defined by participation numbers, then there's little evidence that a super-team presence caused the local league to become unhealthy. Here are the numbers for the local league of the three-peat 4.0 national champs:

2019 (1st year of three-peat): 13 teams, 221 players
2022: (last year of three-peat): 14 teams, 223 players
2023 (year after three-peat): 14 teams, 211 players

If "healthy" is better defined by whether the participants enjoyed their league experience, then I don't have good data for that. But having played in the above leagues, I can say that the presence of the champs did little to diminish my and my teammates' enjoyment. Even when we played that team (a small minorty of matches) we had some healthy battles on the court, which is what most of us are looking for.

I'd wager that most players in the league actually had no idea their league produced the national champs three times. I'm sure there were a few of the more competitive captains who were annoyed they couldn't win the 18+ league, but some of those were active in other Nationals-advancing leagues and were able to make the trip in 40+, tri-level, or mixed leagues.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
It seems some of the guys who claim people like Fowkes are far too concerned about winning adult rec tennis level based national championships rent a lot of headspace to him. I think many people don’t really care because they *really* don’t care much about who wins level based adult rec tennis national championships. Sure it might be nice and a cool story to tell but beyond that ….
 

Creighton

Professional
If "healthy" can be defined by participation numbers, then there's little evidence that a super-team presence caused the local league to become unhealthy. Here are the numbers for the local league of the three-peat 4.0 national champs:

2019 (1st year of three-peat): 13 teams, 221 players
2022: (last year of three-peat): 14 teams, 223 players
2023 (year after three-peat): 14 teams, 211 players

If "healthy" is better defined by whether the participants enjoyed their league experience, then I don't have good data for that. But having played in the above leagues, I can say that the presence of the champs did little to diminish my and my teammates' enjoyment. Even when we played that team (a small minorty of matches) we had some healthy battles on the court, which is what most of us are looking for.

I'd wager that most players in the league actually had no idea their league produced the national champs three times. I'm sure there were a few of the more competitive captains who were annoyed they couldn't win the 18+ league, but some of those were active in other Nationals-advancing leagues and were able to make the trip in 40+, tri-level, or mixed leagues.

I think it's important to recognize that your local league produced the Intermountain nationals representative the year immediately after Fowkes quit participating. That would be evidence that Fowkes wasn't the only captain with players out of level. It speaks to the idea that for a league to maintain its "fun" with someone like Fowkes, it inherently forces the other teams to cheat more than they have in the past.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
It seems some of the guys who claim people like Fowkes are far too concerned about winning adult rec tennis level based national championships rent a lot of headspace to him. I think many people don’t really care because they *really* don’t care much about who wins level based adult rec tennis national championships. Sure it might be nice and a cool story to tell but beyond that ….

As a newbie in tennis, you haven't invested as much time and effort to improve and compete as others have, only to continually see shenanigans dismiss that in a way. That isn't a slight of 'renting headspace', but for those who advanced and pushed themselves only to run up against stacking and other ratings legerdemain, it can get rightfully frustrating. Maybe your own limits keep you from having that goal, and sure playing for fun is a great reason to play, but let's not demean those who can compete and have goals to win nationals either. I am the first to throw out "rec tennis is serious" in some instances, but I still recognize the frustrations and acknowledge it's a legit goal.
 
Last edited:
If "healthy" can be defined by participation numbers, then there's little evidence that a super-team presence caused the local league to become unhealthy. Here are the numbers for the local league of the three-peat 4.0 national champs:

2019 (1st year of three-peat): 13 teams, 221 players
2022: (last year of three-peat): 14 teams, 223 players
2023 (year after three-peat): 14 teams, 211 players

If "healthy" is better defined by whether the participants enjoyed their league experience, then I don't have good data for that. But having played in the above leagues, I can say that the presence of the champs did little to diminish my and my teammates' enjoyment. Even when we played that team (a small minorty of matches) we had some healthy battles on the court, which is what most of us are looking for.

I'd wager that most players in the league actually had no idea their league produced the national champs three times. I'm sure there were a few of the more competitive captains who were annoyed they couldn't win the 18+ league, but some of those were active in other Nationals-advancing leagues and were able to make the trip in 40+, tri-level, or mixed leagues.
My own small sample size inquiry reflects this , I played at the SLC tennis and health club, only the pro knew of Fowkes as I mentioned above, I think Fowkes was walking around with a laptop analyzing matchups and lineups to win a interclub competition so the pro remembered him. The players at the club had no idea Fowkes existed or that a local team won a nationals title much less 3 times.
It seems some of the guys who claim people like Fowkes are far too concerned about winning adult rec tennis level based national championships rent a lot of headspace to him. I think many people don’t really care because they *really* don’t care much about who wins level based adult rec tennis national championships. Sure it might be nice and a cool story to tell but beyond that ….
My head has a lot of space reserved for unique behavior and since I play tennis and already don't consider USTA team tennis results worthy of more effort than play with people you enjoy playing with, at level, and try to win, my fascination with unusual behavior within a hobby of mine is very interesting.

He can have my headspace, I want to know why? Why is this important to him? Why do other people lose on purpose to go down so they can win a trophy and a trip beating players they should beat easily? They probably don't know why either.
 

denoted

Semi-Pro
Among players of roughly equal level, tennis is contingent and intransitive. I suspect the uber-captaining personality derives much of the satisfaction from the endeavor in taking steps to eliminate this inherent unpredictability, mostly through the decisive stratagem of making his players out of level while also convincing himself, at least partially, that some line-up tactic or data analysis is the major factor.
 

TennisOTM

Professional
I think it's important to recognize that your local league produced the Intermountain nationals representative the year immediately after Fowkes quit participating. That would be evidence that Fowkes wasn't the only captain with players out of level. It speaks to the idea that for a league to maintain its "fun" with someone like Fowkes, it inherently forces the other teams to cheat more than they have in the past.
It's maybe a testable theory. Something like the @schmke "shenanigans score" could be used to test if the league's overall shenanigans across other teams have been increasing. I would guess that there has not been much change - I certainly don't feel like I'm playing in a league overrun by cheaters, but I guess I don't have anything to compare.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
As a newbie in tennis, you haven't invested as much time and effort to improve and compete as others have, only to continually see shenanigans dismiss that in a way. That isn't a slight of 'renting headspace', but for those who advanced and pushed themselves only to run up against stacking and other ratings legerdemain, it can get rightfully frustrating. Maybe your own limits keep you from having that goal, and sure playing for fun is a great reason to play, but let's not demean those who can compete and have goals to win nationals either. I am the first to throw out "rec tennis is serious" in some instances, but I still recognize the frustrations and acknowledge it's a legit goal.

I have been playing tennis about 2 to 3 times per week for about 5 years straight. Given my 3.0 rating I would love to plead newbie but I think I have to face the music. I take *tennis* pretty seriously and I am a competitive person and can compete.

Do you mean I am a newbie to USTA tennis? Ok I suppose I have been doing that for a bit over 2 years. But even as I participate in USTA tennis and captain teams it just seems more and more strange that people would want to win nationals at a lower level as opposed to get bumped to a higher level. I admit I wanted to go to nationals for tri-level because of where and when it is at.

For me, I would much rather be bumped to 4.0 then win nationals at 3.0 and never get bumped. Both are extremely unlikely. But if I "won nationals" at 3.0 that would just mean I and others on my team should really be at least a 3.5. So why not just have the goal of becoming a 3.5?

I think if your goal is to win nationals at a certain level then, of course, you will want a team that is out of level. You can either flat out cheat by throwing games or you can game the system. I mean I think I am a better doubles player then singles player. So I might be able to stay at 3.0 by making sure I get a bunch of singles matches in. I know others that are much better at singles then doubles they can keep their rating low by making sure to get some rated doubles matches in. And of course there are other strategies of how to bury self rates by playing them at lower courts with higher level players, appealing down etc. I mean I could also play a bunch of double headers too because I am pretty much exhausted after the first set of a singles match so anything after that will help tank my rating.

But by definition most of the "winning nationals" strategies have nothing to do with gaining tennis skill because it is a skill leveled league. If I get better I should get bumped. And getting bumped signals you are better at tennis then winning nationals but staying at that lower level.
 

Creighton

Professional
It's maybe a testable theory. Something like the @schmke "shenanigans score" could be used to test if the league's overall shenanigans across other teams have been increasing. I would guess that there has not been much change - I certainly don't feel like I'm playing in a league overrun by cheaters, but I guess I don't have anything to compare.

Yes, it becomes the new normal. The captain that went to nationals this year is a former Fowkes player.
 
D

Deleted member 804934

Guest
I think it's important to recognize that your local league produced the Intermountain nationals representative the year immediately after Fowkes quit participating. That would be evidence that Fowkes wasn't the only captain with players out of level. It speaks to the idea that for a league to maintain its "fun" with someone like Fowkes, it inherently forces the other teams to cheat more than they have in the past.
I'm new to USTA and didn't play tennis in high school but was a baseball and basketball player. My question is a hit with my dad who is a 4.0. He beats me really bad. I'm better than a 3.0 level but want to play competitive. When I played 3.5 a win they get mad and say I'm sandbagging and shouldn't be playing. When I play with my dad's friends I'm the worst of the 4 playing but most athletic. All the guys are over 40 and it is more fun and competition. With my age the older 3.5 guys give me a hard time. I have a good forehand and serve but haven't figured out a backhand yet. My dad was telling me about Utah and these blogs. These are very interesting to read b/c I would like to be on a team that goes to nationals b/c I played at a high baseball level and with my brothers was great to travel and play. I see the best 4.0 teams can beat the lower 4.5 teams and same for 3.5. At what point is it tanking or managing verse trying to compete with Utah or other teams like that? What other markets do this? Is it all teams that go to nationals? Do the bigger markets dominate? I'm learning and very curious as I want to get better and play with my dad but he said I'm not ready b/c even at sectionals 4.0 most could play 4.5 level. Thoughts and thanks for reply.
 

cks

Hall of Fame
I want to get better and play with my dad
I would recommend getting weekly private lessons with a tennis pro and setup a long term self improvement plan. Then self-rate, find a USTA team, and play. If you are like me, you will be surprised to learn just how wide each NTRP band (3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5) is in terms of skill.
 
I’m with CKS, each band is super wide. USTA says a high X.X will beat a low X.X 0 & 0. Makes self rating a little bit difficult if you don’t know (roughly) where the people you’re playing fall in the spectrum.

My recommendation is to play USTA for fun and find a team you like being on. It’s really easy to add tennis to your travels (every trip I’ve gone on in the last 5-8 years I’ve taken my racquet and played tennis). Nationals is a great experience but I wouldn’t sweat it your first year of USTA
 
D

Deleted member 804934

Guest
Thanks CKS and JordanWinning. The teams seem to be very good and if your not in the clicks you don't seem to get playing time. I guess each market has this but will figure it out. Even my dads team has a ton of talent and they try to win. I guess a guy named Dong Le runs everything from 3.0 to 4.0 or all the good teams around here so the other teams don't stand a chance. I hear that is the same problem in Houston that one captain runs Houston and stacks his team as well. Is that the same in other markets? Looks like Utah has the same issues.
 

cks

Hall of Fame
Is that the same in other markets?
I think most folks who play USTA league, just want to play tennis and find that the league does a pretty good job of providing those matches. Are there outliers? Of course, and those are the interesting stories that are fun to read on this board. You just need to pick your goals and play. Do you want to become a better tennis player? Do you want your team to go to sectionals/nationals? Do you want to just play tennis with your buddies? All of these are fine goals.

I wanted to play USTA league play so I would know where I fall in the pecking order of tennis players. I wanted to hang out with and practice with and play with a good group of fellas that enjoyed tennis. And I want to improve and become a better tennis player.
 
Last edited:
Thanks CKS and JordanWinning. The teams seem to be very good and if your not in the clicks you don't seem to get playing time. I guess each market has this but will figure it out. Even my dads team has a ton of talent and they try to win. I guess a guy named Dong Le runs everything from 3.0 to 4.0 or all the good teams around here so the other teams don't stand a chance. I hear that is the same problem in Houston that one captain runs Houston and stacks his team as well. Is that the same in other markets? Looks like Utah has the same issues.
If you are good, D Lee will find youuuu :0. He runs some flex leagues too so he's got his eyes all over the metroplex.
 

TennisOTM

Professional
Yes, it becomes the new normal. The captain that went to nationals this year is a former Fowkes player.
I looked into it and see very little evidence of cheating on this year's team that went to Nationals. They did not produce a shenanigans score worthy of mentioning in schmke's blog post. They did have one very good young self-rated guy, but even there, the guy was openly playing and winning 4.5 league single matches, while also getting blowout wins over high-end 4.0 players in the regular season, basically daring USTA to DQ him but somehow they never did. I suppose it's possible that he tanked in a couple of his losses, but if he was really actively trying to avoid DQ then why play 4.5 at all?

Other than him, only two other players on the team were bumped up to 4.5 at year end. Both of those were 4.0C guys who don't appear to have tanked their way to 4.0 in previous years. In fact I remember both of them being pretty dominant in 2022 and being annoyed that USTA failed to bump them up then.

There were eight other 4.0 guys in the league who got bumped up and were not on the Nationals team, so if the captain was trying to put together a dominant superteam of the best area players, he could have done much better. He did, of course, make it to Nationals, but seems to have had some luck there too, as both Nevada and Colorado had players DQ'ed during the Sectionals tournament.

Basically just your everday solid 4.0 team that got a couple of lucky breaks with borderline USTA ratings and a weak showing by other Intermountain teams to make Nationals, where they went 0-4.
 
Bad news, y'all. It's going down again for real. BR and JW are some of the new cast of characters. Same ugly formula. For example, should JW, who has two recent victories over 8 UTR players recorded for the world to see, self-rate at 4.0? And he has less accolades on a Google search than BR, who is also self-rating at 4.0. Ummm, no.

I can't even be bothered anymore really to create a thread with the title something like "Will there be a three-peat and then a repeat-a-year-later league national champion at 18+ 4.0M?"

 
Last edited:

TennisOTM

Professional
Bad news, y'all. It's going down again for real. BR and JW are some of the new cast of characters. Same ugly formula. For example, should JW, who has two recent victories over 8 UTR players recorded for the world to see, self-rate at 4.0? And he has less accolades on a Google search than BR. Ummm, no.

I can't even be bothered anymore really to create a thread with the title something like "Will there be a three-peat and then a repeat-a-year-later league national champion at 18+ 4.0M?"

At this point, USTA has had plenty of time to make changes that could prevent this kind of team building from being successful. Examples:
  1. They have not changed the minimum self-rating for the best recent high school players (4.0). Even a high school #1 singles state champion can self-rate 4.0 if that is their highest tennis achievement. The guys on the current team did not even play singles for their high school teams (they were doubles state champs/finalists).

  2. They have not incorporated universal ratings into the self-rate criteria. UTR has been around for awhile but USTA has refused to acknowledge it. They have adoped WTN but have failed to make it useful. One of the current players has a 18.2 singles WTN. Does that mean he's too good for 4.0? Perhaps, but USTA can't or won't tell us.

  3. They have not meaningfully changed the DQ, promotion, or playoff-eligibility rules for self-rated players. There are many ways that USTA could make it much harder for very strong self-rated players to be eligibile to dominate Nationals without first being DQ'ed or promoted, but they haven't.

  4. They have not used their penalty-point system to automatically penalize captains. A captain could get an automatic small penalty for each of their self-rated players who gets dq'ed, promoted, or bumped up. Small so that only the captains who often and repeatedly have these players accumulate enough penalties to trigger consequences. But their system does not do this.
Given the USTA's lack of action on all these items for several years, why wouldn't this captain feel welcome, even encouraged, to continue using his strategy?
 

schmke

Legend
At this point, USTA has had plenty of time to make changes that could prevent this kind of team building from being successful. Examples:
...
Given the USTA's lack of action on all these items for several years, why wouldn't this captain feel welcome, even encouraged, to continue using his strategy?
This.

If all players arrive at their C ratings honestly, and self-rates follow the rules/guidelines, how can you fault any team for taking it to the Nth degree?

This captain, from my review, has not engaged in any obvious tanking of matches by his players to get bumped down or avoid bump ups, nor to avoid strikes during the year. He does try to play self-rates in positions (court 2 or 3) to mitigate their risk of strikes, or have players that may play singles later play doubles early in the year, but nothing in the regulations says this is against the rules. There is a mention in the rules about not playing at a level one knows is too low, but how is that to be determined by a player or captain? Sure it may be honorable for someone to say "4.0 is too low for me", but putting a player/captain in the position of having to do that is not a good solution as where does one draw the line? If player A opts to appeal up but player B who is equivalent doesn't, ...

I agree the rules can and should be tightened up. The USTA has WTN and I've suggested (and heard rumblings it may happen) it be used as part of self-rating and that would help, but it takes years for rules to change and it hasn't happened yet. I think the strike thresholds are too high and should be lowered, but that isn't' likely to happen. I agree the point penalty system needs to be administered and followed.

The only thing that can be done is A) the player to get strikes and be DQ'd, or B) for someone to file NTRP grievances (can be other captains OR USTA staff) against players and have them upheld. The challenge with the latter is while there is provision for the grievance committee to DQ/promote without there being strikes, I don't think it happens often and typically requires a self-rating violation to have occurred or something else specific. Simply saying "they are too good" isn't sufficient without something else. And in one case, I heard such a grievance was upheld, but then it was appealed and overturned (this one should have been overturned, the initial grievance committee overstepped, which is the challenge).

The challenge with strikes is as above, the thresholds are too high and there are legit ways to mitigate the risk of strikes. Add in that from what folks have posted here, sometimes the new players on these teams played in high-school but then haven't played for a year or two so may be rusty, and initial results may even be average for the level, but as the rust wears off, and the players improve from what appear to be legendary practice situations, they do improve and by late in the year are clearly above level, but the early results from rust and strike mitigation, and thresholds that are too high, allow the players to still be eligible come Nationals.

I have not looked at this latest team at all and can't speak to rules being followed or not or how much envelope pushing is going on here. What I wrote is based on past observations of this team and others that follow similar approaches that are legal per the regulations. This team/captain may just take it farther than most others, either in the number of players on the edge, or the degree to which they improve during the year, so they did stand out winning the consecutive Nationals.
 
At this point, USTA has had plenty of time to make changes that could prevent this kind of team building from being successful. Examples:
  1. They have not changed the minimum self-rating for the best recent high school players (4.0). Even a high school #1 singles state champion can self-rate 4.0 if that is their highest tennis achievement. The guys on the current team did not even play singles for their high school teams (they were doubles state champs/finalists).

  2. They have not incorporated universal ratings into the self-rate criteria. UTR has been around for awhile but USTA has refused to acknowledge it. They have adoped WTN but have failed to make it useful. One of the current players has a 18.2 singles WTN. Does that mean he's too good for 4.0? Perhaps, but USTA can't or won't tell us.

  3. They have not meaningfully changed the DQ, promotion, or playoff-eligibility rules for self-rated players. There are many ways that USTA could make it much harder for very strong self-rated players to be eligibile to dominate Nationals without first being DQ'ed or promoted, but they haven't.

  4. They have not used their penalty-point system to automatically penalize captains. A captain could get an automatic small penalty for each of their self-rated players who gets dq'ed, promoted, or bumped up. Small so that only the captains who often and repeatedly have these players accumulate enough penalties to trigger consequences. But their system does not do this.
Given the USTA's lack of action on all these items for several years, why wouldn't this captain feel welcome, even encouraged, to continue using his strategy?
Very well said @TennisOTM. Thank you.

I would also encourage anyone interested in solutions to read @schmke's posts entitled "Possible solutions to grossly above level teams at USTA League Nationals" and "Introducing the 'Shenanigans Score,' metric to identify teams that may be gaming the system in USTA League play" on his blog. They are excellent as well.

What this captain and the Texas one are doing is just what USTA leagues are now. It's sad.
 
This team/captain may just take it farther than most others, either in the number of players on the edge, or the degree to which they improve during the year, so they did stand out winning the consecutive Nationals.
This.

The odds of winning three Nationals at the 4.0 18+ level are around 0.000000000300763. That is calculated by considering there are around 1,500 teams a year at that level and multiplying 1/1500 three times. The captain stands out, indeed. And having an 18.2 WTN self-rate player stands out as well as many other things if one digs in a bit. USTA can't be bothered.

It's good material for data analysis at least. This captain is not the only one who likes doing that. There is value in our storytelling for sure.

And this forum provides a sense of community. It's entertaining stuff for @FuzzyYellowBalls to take video footage of SunPro, have @Vox Rationis show the video of the ringer tanking, read @schmke's analyses and the insights posters on here come up with, etc. It's just hard to make this kind of stuff up.
 
Last edited:

denoted

Semi-Pro
Your reasoning is a bit flawed about odds. First of all, if every team had a random distribution of all players, and all the teams were willing to go to Nationals, then the odds would be 1/1500. But a substantial portion of teams wouldn't go to Nationals even if they could win state and sectionals. There are probably more like 70-100 teams that a) are determined to go given the opportunity and b) have a chance of winning state/sectionals. You could probably look at section strength to make a determination within those groups for more informative odds at that point.

If there was 4.0 18 team in memory that started the season with no ambition other than to drink at after the local matches and ending up winning it, I'd love to hear about it, though I suspect there would a great deal of post-hoc reinterpretation.
 
Your reasoning is a bit flawed about odds. First of all, if every team had a random distribution of all players, and all the teams were willing to go to Nationals, then the odds would be 1/1500. But a substantial portion of teams wouldn't go to Nationals even if they could win state and sectionals. There are probably more like 70-100 teams that a) are determined to go given the opportunity and b) have a chance of winning state/sectionals. You could probably look at section strength to make a determination within those groups for more informative odds at that point.

If there was 4.0 18 team in memory that started the season with no ambition other than to drink at after the local matches and ending up winning it, I'd love to hear about it, though I suspect there would a great deal of post-hoc reinterpretation.
OK, good points. But should it be that way? What is "good" league tennis? I think many others have provided nice examples in this forum. And it does not involve these captains running things in the ways they are enabled to do.

I mean, most people would like to win when the play. And having one team consistently have players with such extensive tennis histories, like tennisrecruiting.com rankings in the 500's, etc., which for almost every other team, is a self-rate 5.0, seems unfair imho. People have hammered this point home, but a handicap rating system is not meant be be manipulated this way.

It's like tennis capitalism if I were to theorize about it--marketing for this club at the expense of other schmucks.
 
Last edited:
Top