Is this DQ Ridiculous?

[clutch21]

Hey guys/gals,

So I just started play USTA league tennis this year in Texas. After speaking to some people, including putting a video up on talk tennis to find out an approximate rating, I decided to play 4.0 USTA (Some people told me 3.0-3.5 but I went ahead and self rated 4.0). I started playing tennis for the first time during my junior year in high school and now I'm 20. I have been playing pretty consistently over that time span (barring one year where I didn't really play). Just a little background, I play a solid counterpuncher game. I have a pretty deadly topspin forehand, a decent serve, and a weakish but very consistent slice backhand. My biggest weapon is my speed.

So far this season I have played 3 singles matches. I won them 6-3, 6-4. 6-3, 6-0, and 6-2, 6-4. My captain didn't want me playing singles anymore for the time being, just in case a "long shot" of getting DQ-ed, so he moved me to doubles which does not suit me as well. I have played four doubles matches an have split results- 3-6, 1-6. 6-2, 6-2. 5-7, 6-7. and 6-2, 6-1.

Anyways, today I received a call from the NTRP coordinator for USTA saying that I had been disqualified at 4.0, and he was now bumping me up to 4.5. Is it just me or is this kind of ridiculous? I mean, according to my results I played well at 4.0 but nothing that I would consider dominant or "out of level" play.

To make matters worse, our team was most likely on track to go to sectionals which would have been an awesome experience. Does this DQ seem justified or did I just catch some horrible luck?

 

[anubis]

I don't know why you think it's horrible luck. You're clearly not being challenged enough and you're probably better off at 4.5. By moving you up, USTA is trying to protect other 4.0s that are no where near ready for 4.5 play from getting slaughtered (and thus no longer enjoying the game). It's a built-in protection to keep sandbaggers from steamrolling through the season in an unfair way (though this probably isn't the case with you).

You just happened to get caught in their very-widely cast net. You'll probably have more fun in 4.5 and won't have to worry too much in being DQ'ed. Less pressure on you, PLUS your 4.5 team will be very excited to have you.

It's often more cool to have a new guy join a team because he was WAY too good for the prior level... as opposed to just some random guy who self-rated.

Just my .02

 

[t135]

Depends on who you beat!!

 

[J_R_B]

"Justified" isn't the right word for it. It's a computer algorithm, not someone making a judgment, so nothing has to be justified. It seems like bad luck for you, but it's hard to say without more background on the opponents.

 

[spot]

It sounds like you were a bit unlucky. It also sounds like you would hang no problem at 4.5 so that is where you should be playing. I think as a general rule it should be a goal for USTA that the best players on playoff teams are not self rated.

 

[AR15]

I haven't played any counter punchers with "pretty deadly topspin forehand".

A correctly rated self rater should have at least a loss or two, or more even scores like a 6-4, 7-5, or 7-6.

And USTA does not simply look at your scores. The strength of your opponents is taken into consideration.



Isn't is odd that so many teams makes it to the tournaments with self rated players like you? wink

 

[clutch21]

I haven't played any counter punchers with "pretty deadly topspin forehand".

A correctly rated self rater should have at least a loss or two, or more even scores like a 6-4, 7-5, or 7-6.

And USTA does not simply look at your scores. The strength of your opponents is taken into consideration.



Isn't is odd that so many teams makes it to the tournaments with self rated players like you? wink

Well then I guess you haven't played anyone like me yet.. wink. As I stated in my original post I have two losses in doubles, so I'm 5-2 this season. Also, I am not the best player on the team. We have two other singles players who are either better or right around the same level as I am.

 

[JLyon]

Well then I guess you haven't played anyone like me yet.. wink. As I stated in my original post I have two losses in doubles, so I'm 5-2 this season. Also, I am not the best player on the team. We have two other singles players who are either better or right around the same level as I am.

I see 2 strikes in the doubles alone and one or 2 strikes in singles, so seems like it was justified, it sucks but look like Computer ruled you above level, but yes it does stink for your team. BTW it does not matter if you lose, if you're beating "B" Rated players.

 

[clutch21]

I have nothing against playing 4.5.. now that I know that I can hang. But, I think some of you are missing one of the points that I was making. It is very late in the season so I can't just join a 4.5 team. So i'm finished. I wasn't "whipping" people at the 4.0 level so you can't really call me a sandbagger. My biggest victory was 6-0, 6-3 and my opponent played horrible on that given day. I understand that this is just how the system works, but it just sucks.

On top of that we were likely going to sectionals which would have been a lot of fun. Also, I live in Austin. We don't have 4.5 USTA tennis in the fall... so I won't be able to play for quite awhile.

 

[cknobman]

It really is hard to say without knowing any of the people you played.

Even though you had 2 losses none were in singles and all of your wins were in straights (most of them pretty easy straights too).

As a self rate with no history to go off of its quite easy to get a dq especially if you beat some quality players.

 

[cknobman]

I have nothing against playing 4.5.. now that I know that I can hang. But, I think some of you are missing one of the points that I was making. It is very late in the season so I can't just join a 4.5 team. So i'm finished. I wasn't "whipping" people at the 4.0 level so you can't really call me a sandbagger. My biggest victory was 6-0, 6-3 and my opponent played horrible on that given day. I understand that this is just how the system works, but it just sucks.

On top of that we were likely going to sectionals which would have been a lot of fun. Also, I live in Austin. We don't have 4.5 USTA tennis in the fall... so I won't be able to play for quite awhile.

Tournaments.

 

[JLyon]

I have nothing against playing 4.5.. now that I know that I can hang. But, I think some of you are missing one of the points that I was making. It is very late in the season so I can't just join a 4.5 team. So i'm finished. I wasn't "whipping" people at the 4.0 level so you can't really call me a sandbagger. My biggest victory was 6-0, 6-3 and my opponent played horrible on that given day. I understand that this is just how the system works, but it just sucks.

On top of that we were likely going to sectionals which would have been a lot of fun. Also, I live in Austin. We don't have 4.5 USTA tennis in the fall... so I won't be able to play for quite awhile.

Don't worry you will have plenty of Passing Shots to hit while you prepare for the shorten fall season, yes there is an abbreviated fall season for 4.5 1 singles, 2 doubles.

 

[goober]

Well then I guess you haven't played anyone like me yet.. wink. As I stated in my original post I have two losses in doubles, so I'm 5-2 this season. Also, I am not the best player on the team. We have two other singles players who are either better or right around the same level as I am.

5-2 record does not preclude 3 strikes. You could potentially have a 3-5 record with 3 strikes. I had 4.0S player that got bumped with a 3-3 record. Not being the best player on your team is also irrelevant for Dq purposes.

So basically sux for you. Try to play some mixed, tournaments or flex until next season.

 

[clutch21]

Don't worry you will have plenty of Passing Shots to hit while you prepare for the shorten fall season, yes there is an abbreviated fall season for 4.5 1 singles, 2 doubles.

Haha, Are you from Austin? I didn't know there was a season in the fall.. thats cool.

 

[clutch21]

Tournaments.

Good call. I forgot about tournaments.

 

[escii_35]

Hey guys/gals,

So he moved me to doubles which does not suit me as well. I have played four doubles matches an have split results- 3-6, 1-6. 6-2, 6-2. 5-7, 6-7. and 6-2, 6-1.

Should have started with dubs. I'm a horrific mens doubles player with a game that needs work. I found out over the course of a year of 3.5 dubs I picked up 2 grievances and a strike.

Sheesh I only went 6-3.

 

[OrangePower]

5-2 record does not preclude 3 strikes. You could potentially have a 3-5 record with 3 strikes. I had 4.0S player that got bumped with a 3-3 record. Not being the best player on your team is also irrelevant for Dq purposes.

Yup. In fact you could potentially have a 0-3 record and still have 3 strikes :shock:

Very unlikely of course, but for example 3 losses to good opponents where the opponents win like 1-6 6-3 1-0 could do it. It's all about the number of games won/lost and against who... in example above you get 9 games opponent gets 8, so according to the computer you are better, and if opponent has good dynamic NTRP there's a potential strike.

 

[cll30]

I'm from Austin and over the last several years have played with or against about 7 of your opponents or teammates. No doubt some of them have improved since I last played them, but I think you may have just been a bit unlucky. If you were a computer rated 4.0 I don't think anyone would think your record was out of line.

 

[clutch21]

Its just pretty frustrating because there are several other players in the league, including some of my teammates who have been pretty dominant this season. I'm talking undefeated with easy straight sets. It's a broke system if these players can't be DQed just because they aren't "self-rate". If the whole point of the DQ system is to stop sandbaggers then all league members regardless of self rate should be bumped immediately if they are deemed "out of level".

I hear everyone that you can get DQed easily, even if your losing too, but don't you guys think that is pretty absurd? I mean it's one thing if someone is wrecking 6-1, 6-2, etc every match to DQ them, but it's another to DQ someone for going 5-2 and having some pretty close sets. At the very least I should be able to finish out the season that I paid for.

 

[clutch21]

Also, some of you mentioned that it depends on who you are playing.

Well, my last strike came this past sunday. I played doubles with my teammate who is 9-0 this season. We played a doubles team with one guy who is 1-8 this season and his teammate who was 1-1 (and was playing for the first time in two months after being injured).

Seems bogus to me.

 

[wrxinsc]

Its just pretty frustrating because there are several other players in the league, including some of my teammates who have been pretty dominant this season. I'm talking undefeated with easy straight sets. It's a broke system if these players can't be DQed just because they aren't "self-rate". If the whole point of the DQ system is to stop sandbaggers then all league members regardless of self rate should be bumped immediately if they are deemed "out of level".

I hear everyone that you can get DQed easily, even if your losing too, but don't you guys think that is pretty absurd? I mean it's one thing if someone is wrecking 6-1, 6-2, etc every match to DQ them, but it's another to DQ someone for going 5-2 and having some pretty close sets. At the very least I should be able to finish out the season that I paid for.

you understand of course that self rating is the main arena where people can cheat. that's why the system is designed the way it is. nothing involving people is perfect, but its certainly not 'broke' as you so eloquently put it.

you probably just sound like this on the forum 'cause you were dq'd.

several folks on my wife's teams this year (she played up and at level) were dq'd. it happens. they got over it and are now playing at level. you should to.

 

[J_R_B]

Its just pretty frustrating because there are several other players in the league, including some of my teammates who have been pretty dominant this season. I'm talking undefeated with easy straight sets. It's a broke system if these players can't be DQed just because they aren't "self-rate". If the whole point of the DQ system is to stop sandbaggers then all league members regardless of self rate should be bumped immediately if they are deemed "out of level".

I hear everyone that you can get DQed easily, even if your losing too, but don't you guys think that is pretty absurd? I mean it's one thing if someone is wrecking 6-1, 6-2, etc every match to DQ them, but it's another to DQ someone for going 5-2 and having some pretty close sets. At the very least I should be able to finish out the season that I paid for.

You can get DQ'd if you're losing, but that is very, very rare, and usually is a product of playing someone who is already playing up and winning at the next level. As far as stopping "sandbaggers", the USTA considers sandbaggers to be people who self-rate out of level, not people who play and get a legitimate computer rating and then improve within the rating level. That is why the B & C rated players aren't subject to dynamic DQ. Is the system perfect? Obviously not, but it does work pretty well 99% of the time. You may be the exception, but I can't say for sure.

 

[johndagolfer]

Are DQ's normally delivered by phone? That sounds rather fishy to me or at least I don't understand it. I thought that the computer would have DQ'd him automatically rather than receiving a call.

 

[clutch21]

You can get DQ'd if you're losing, but that is very, very rare, and usually is a product of playing someone who is already playing up and winning at the next level. As far as stopping "sandbaggers", the USTA considers sandbaggers to be people who self-rate out of level, not people who play and get a legitimate computer rating and then improve within the rating level. That is why the B & C rated players aren't subject to dynamic DQ. Is the system perfect? Obviously not, but it does work pretty well 99% of the time. You may be the exception, but I can't say for sure.

Saying that I self rated "out of level" is ridiculous. I went 5-2. I had one bagel set in 7 matches. I more or less did the same as about every other one of my teammates. Only I'm self rated and their not. So now I'm DQed. My team now has to forfeit all those wins because I was obviously trying to sandbag with my awesome talent at the 4.0 level. Now my team drops from first place and probably won't go to sectionals anymore. It's probably not a broken system but I still feel that a DQ wasn't warranted. Especially given the implications it had on my entire team.

 

[psYcon]

Haha, Are you from Austin? I didn't know there was a season in the fall.. thats cool.

I'm from Austin as well, and coincidentally I was also part of the Passing Shots 4.0 team back in 2009, which is when it went to sectionals. Bacon has an amazing eye for talent.

Oddly, I too self-rated myself as a 4.0 and went on to get 10-2 in singles with some of my victories involving handing out bagel sets. But I never got DQ'ed, and after sectionals got bumped to 4.5.

Welcome to the club Mr. RG I may even play you sometime next year (in 4.5 leagues that is).

 

[floridatennisdude]

Well then I guess you haven't played anyone like me yet.. wink. As I stated in my original post I have two losses in doubles, so I'm 5-2 this season. Also, I am not the best player on the team. We have two other singles players who are either better or right around the same level as I am.

When I got computer bumped from 4.0 to 4.5, I had similar results as you. I was winning in straight sets in singles and playing dead even in doubles. I always tell people that I am a 4.5 singles player and 4.0 doubles player. The few 4.5 doubles or combo matches I have played, I have been destroyed.

Good news is that I haven't had any trouble acclimating to 4.5 and you probably won't either. Speed is the most important thing and if you develop good court smarts, you'll win at 4.5.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Saying that I self rated "out of level" is ridiculous. I went 5-2. I had one bagel set in 7 matches. I more or less did the same as about every other one of my teammates. Only I'm self rated and their not. So now I'm DQed. My team now has to forfeit all those wins because I was obviously trying to sandbag with my awesome talent at the 4.0 level. Now my team drops from first place and probably won't go to sectionals anymore. It's probably not a broken system but I still feel that a DQ wasn't warranted. Especially given the implications it had on my entire team.

You definitely rated out of level. The proof of this is that you were DQ'd, despite an effort to hide in doubles.

As for the idea that your singles opponents didn't play very well . . . yes, that is probably true. That's because they were legitimate 4.0s playing someone one level higher.

Sorry, I don't have much sympathy for people who get DQ'd. You say you will miss out on a trip to sectionals. Well, I'd be going to sectionals too if I were playing one USTA level too low.

 

[SweetH2O]

Comparing yourself to your teammates that are on a team expecting to get to sectionals isn't a good comparison either. Most, or at least many, teams that make it to sectionals have players that play at a level higher than the computer says. It's just that there is more scrutiny of self-rated players by the league, so you get bumped now while they have to wait for the end of the year for it to happen.

 

[psYcon]

You definitely rated out of level. The proof of this is that you were DQ'd, despite an effort to hide in doubles.

As for the idea that your singles opponents didn't play very well . . . yes, that is probably true. That's because they were legitimate 4.0s playing someone one level higher.

Sorry, I don't have much sympathy for people who get DQ'd. You say you will miss out on a trip to sectionals. Well, I'd be going to sectionals too if I were playing one USTA level too low.

oh please. no you would not be going to sectionals. It's a team effort, not a frickin' one man show.

 

[li0scc0]

I would agree you should have been DQ'd, most likely, given your performance in Singles.
In my opinion, self-rating should mean the player is, AT BEST, an average player for that self-rate level.
That said, nobody should be reading you the riot act for stating your opinion on the subject. I share your frustration and understand it.

 

[JLyon]

Haha, Are you from Austin? I didn't know there was a season in the fall.. thats cool.

ATatu posted some information to his blog talking about a reduced fall season that is not used for qualification.
Do not live in Texas anymore but still like to follow Texas Sectional Tennis.

 

[J_R_B]

Saying that I self rated "out of level" is ridiculous. I went 5-2. I had one bagel set in 7 matches. I more or less did the same as about every other one of my teammates. Only I'm self rated and their not. So now I'm DQed. My team now has to forfeit all those wins because I was obviously trying to sandbag with my awesome talent at the 4.0 level. Now my team drops from first place and probably won't go to sectionals anymore. It's probably not a broken system but I still feel that a DQ wasn't warranted. Especially given the implications it had on my entire team.

I didn't say YOU did, certainly not intentionally, just that the intent of the DQ system is to catch people who do. As far as being more or less the same as your teammates except self-rated, well, that makes you NOT the same. The USTA clearly intends to distinguish between people who play tennis at the same skill level but one self-rated before they were the cream of the crop of that rating level and then improved and people who self-rate at a level where they are already one of the best at the rating level. There IS a significant difference in the eyes of the association.

 

[tennismonkey]

DQ is not ridiculous. Especially if the players you played (both the ones you beat and lost to) had high dynamic ratings.

But missing out on sectionals and league tennis sucks. You likely have an entire team roster's email and phone listing - so now you have people to hit with. Plus you keep them sharp for postseason play. And sign up for tourneys.

 

[boilerfan]

Looking at your results on tennislink, I have to say I think you were just unlucky with the order that you played the matches and the combinations of scores.

I am not sure exactly how the ratings are run, but the dude with the long name might have screwed you a bit because he played up. He played 4 matches at 4.5 right before you were bumped which probably raised his rating.

I have also always heard the self-rates build their rating up at the beginning, so playing singles and winning early on probably got you, even though the guys you beat were not top level guys(2 of them even look to be recently bumped up from 3.5).

 

[goober]

Its just pretty frustrating because there are several other players in the league, including some of my teammates who have been pretty dominant this season. I'm talking undefeated with easy straight sets. It's a broke system if these players can't be DQed just because they aren't "self-rate". If the whole point of the DQ system is to stop sandbaggers then all league members regardless of self rate should be bumped immediately if they are deemed "out of level".
.

That was the case up until several years ago. Anybody could be Dq'ed if they got 3 strikes. Basically it caused a huge uproar among playoff teams because right in the middle of districts/sectionals they would lose a bunch of C and B rated players to DQ. Online petitions were started, people were threatening to leave, many angry calls and emails were made. So they changed it C and B players could not be DQ but everybody else could. It is not a perfect system. In some ways it is easier to game the system now than it was before since once you get the C or B rating you are set. The threshold for bumping players that have C or B ratings is very low from what I have seen. There are tons of players that have winning records through districts, sectionals and naionals and still don't get bumped.

 

[cknobman]

Are DQ's normally delivered by phone? That sounds rather fishy to me or at least I don't understand it. I thought that the computer would have DQ'd him automatically rather than receiving a call.

I had a friend and teammate who was notified of his impending DQ via phone from our league coordinator.

 

[wrxinsc]

Are DQ's normally delivered by phone? That sounds rather fishy to me or at least I don't understand it. I thought that the computer would have DQ'd him automatically rather than receiving a call.

its not a rather situation. national's computer runs the calcs each night and sends out reports. the director of leagues (or the like depending on your district) gets that report each day. the director sends an email or makes a call to the player who received the third strike and their captain (who doesn't know how to game the system, or doesn't care to)

 

[clutch21]

I'm from Austin as well, and coincidentally I was also part of the Passing Shots 4.0 team back in 2009, which is when it went to sectionals. Bacon has an amazing eye for talent.

Oddly, I too self-rated myself as a 4.0 and went on to get 10-2 in singles with some of my victories involving handing out bagel sets. But I never got DQ'ed, and after sectionals got bumped to 4.5.

Welcome to the club Mr. RG I may even play you sometime next year (in 4.5 leagues that is).

Haha.. yeah I'll probably see you next year

 

[ProPlayer]

Sorry but this is why the USTA are major dumbasses.
they guy you played was probably a 3.5 who got bumped in the "big bump"
I've come across way to many of these guys, and it sucks, so what now I have to play up, and I dont know if im getting a legit level player or a bump up, conversely theres they guys that didnt get bumped. So if I play up .5 and I play a guy that didnt get bumped.....

the USTA SUCKS, someone please form a new orginization!!

 

[ProPlayer]

but this is one huge reason not to play league, in league there a great chance of getting bumped, but in tournaments, its almost zero.

 

[Staidhup]

Bottom line, if you are a self rated player, no history, win at singles, split in doubles, your bound to be DQ'd. I used to play with a guy who wins over 80% of his doubles matches, doesn't play singles, plays on two teams, 4.0 and 3.5 and has never been moved up. The key is set score, games won and lost differential, not wins and loses. I asked him once what the deal was, he responded, did you have fun out there?

 

[atatu]

Yes, the DQ is ridiculous, I'm amazed that this guy got DQ'd but we've got former D1 and satellite level players in the 4.5 league in Texas who are ok because they are "computer rated." Let's say this poor guy plays 4.5 next year and he has to play someone like Sydney Jim who is playing 4.5 in Houston, what would the result be ?

 

[goober]

Yes, the DQ is ridiculous, I'm amazed that this guy got DQ'd but we've got former D1 and satellite level players in the 4.5 league in Texas who are ok because they are "computer rated." Let's say this poor guy plays 4.5 next year and he has to play someone like Sydney Jim who is playing 4.5 in Houston, what would the result be ?

I am surprised that Sydney Jim has a 4.5 rating. It won't last long though. He has a 6-2, 6-2 win over a 5.5 player.

 

[J_R_B]

I am surprised that Sydney Jim has a 4.5 rating. It won't last long though. He has a 6-2, 6-2 win over a 5.5 player.

How did he get a 4.5C rating? He didn't play in the 2011 championship year, and his only matches in the 2011 calendar year were in the 4.5+ early start 2012 league where he beat a 4.5C 6-0 6-0 and a 5.5C 6-2 6-2. Somehow, that should not comopute to 4.5C.

 

[goober]

How did he get a 4.5C rating? He didn't play in the 2011 championship year, and his only matches in the 2011 calendar year were in the 4.5+ early start 2012 league where he beat a 4.5C 6-0 6-0 and a 5.5C 6-2 6-2. Somehow, that should not comopute to 4.5C.

He also played 5 matches of doubles in a 4.5+ league and went 3-2. Most of the players were 4.5 in that league so that may have something to do with it although the win over the 5.5 player should have negated that. That win came late in the year (november) so it * may* have not counted in the final year end rating. I don't know but obviously a guys just playing futures a couple years ago and still his 20s should not have a 4.5C rating.

 

[psYcon]

I am surprised that Sydney Jim has a 4.5 rating. It won't last long though. He has a 6-2, 6-2 win over a 5.5 player.

That 5.5 player (Scott Bayer) is a self-rate. I checked his tennis link scores and he has lost to other 4.5 players. So that 6-2, 6-2 victory is more like a victory over a 4.5. Secondly Sydney Jim has won some closer matches against other 4.5s, with scores like 7-6 , 6-4 etc.

So in essence he's more like a very strong 4.5 at the moment.

 

[NLBwell]

It all depends who you played, so in that way, you were probably unlucky. If you have a really good day against a top 4.0 player who is having a bad day, you might win by a lot and get a strike against you. If you played great against a lower ranked guy and wiped him out, it probably wouldn't have affected you much.

 

[wrxinsc]

It all depends who you played, so in that way, you were probably unlucky. If you have a really good day against a top 4.0 player who is having a bad day, you might win by a lot and get a strike against you. If you played great against a lower ranked guy and wiped him out, it probably wouldn't have affected you much.

Not exactly correct. The computer averages back when calculating the dynamic rating. So a strike occurs when a player strings several unexpected results together.

The rating obtained for each player is averaged with a maximum of their previous three dynamic ratings and that number becomes their new current dynamic rating. (Indirectly this connects the current dynamic to all previous matches but weights the four most recent matches more heavily.)

The reason for this averaging is to even out the ratings in cases where some unusual situation causes an atypical result.

 

[anubis]

Here's my psychological assessment of the situation with self-rated players:

I'd be willing to bet that most people who self-rate go at least one level below their assumed level, just to be safe. No one wants to go in all cocky only to get their ego bruised when they lose consistently. Its a gamble, but perhaps we want to have fun more often than not. Playing a level that's too high and getting beaten regularly isn't fun, so a lot of people avoid it when they can.

So they fill out the self-rating questionnaire through USTA. The end says "Joe, you're a 4.0 player." And Joe signs up for a 3.5 league because he's rusty, hasn't played in years, and his racquet has 5 year old strings on it. He didn't bet on the fact that he'd "get his sea legs back" quicker than expected and is handily wiping the floor with his opponents.

As they say, boom goes the dynamite: he gets DQed and is miserable. I'm sure this happens all the time, all across the country.

 

[ProPlayer]

Here's my psychological assessment of the situation with self-rated players:

I'd be willing to bet that most people who self-rate go at least one level below their assumed level, just to be safe. No one wants to go in all cocky only to get their ego bruised when they lose consistently. Its a gamble, but perhaps we want to have fun more often than not. Playing a level that's too high and getting beaten regularly isn't fun, so a lot of people avoid it when they can.

So they fill out the self-rating questionnaire through USTA. The end says "Joe, you're a 4.0 player." And Joe signs up for a 3.5 league because he's rusty, hasn't played in years, and his racquet has 5 year old strings on it. He didn't bet on the fact that he'd "get his sea legs back" quicker than expected and is handily wiping the floor with his opponents.

As they say, boom goes the dynamite: he gets DQed and is miserable. I'm sure this happens all the time, all across the country.

WRONG, its quite the other way around, WAY too many people playing up!!!
so because the FUSTA bumps all these people then they get beat, the one who beats them gets DQed???

with that moronic logic.... 3.0s should sign up at 5.0 then when they 5.0s cream them, the 5.0s get DQed...

um...how is the FUSTA still in business??? "the donald young, business model"!