It happens in 55+ too!

[schmke]

A question was asked in another thread about the SoCal 55+ 8.0 mens team that just won Nationals (see https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...r-their-ugly-head-again.738668/#post-16897110).

Since that thread was about the flawed tie-breakers the USTA uses and this was changing the subject, I thought I'd start a new thread. Here are the pertinent quotes from that one:

I heard SoCal won 55+ 8.0 Men this weekend. Are they mostly computer ranked players or do they have a lot of self-rated players?

They had two 3.5S guys who both should be bumped up to 4.0 at year-end. One went 33-0 including 6-0 in 18+ and 5-0 in 40+ and was arguably about to be (or perhaps will be now this week) DQ'd. So perhaps there is a self-rate problem even for 55+ players!

Ok, the 7.0 team that played the previous weekend was "better". And yes, the 33-0 3.5 guy was on it too.

There were 7 other self-rates on the 7.0 team:

• 3.0S, 9-0, no sets lost all year, he was DQ'd to 3.5 after last weekend so one was caught! But after the fact, and that is the problem.
• 3.0S, 10-0, no sets lost all year, 4-0 in playoffs, 2-0 at Nationals, system doesn't catch him
• 3.0S, 12-0, one set lost all year
• 3.0S, 10-0, one set lost all year
• 3.5S, but was a 4.0B and 4.0C in the past, self rated as 4.0S in 2019 but was allowed as a 3.5S this year. 7-0, two sets lost all year, probably fairly rated but shows intent across the team
• 3.5S, 5-1 (a loss!) but only two playoff matches so "not good enough" as a 3.5 to play at Nationals, but also was a 4.0M and 4.0S in the past and somehow allowed down, more intent
• 3.5S, 3-0, but fairly rated, didn't play any playoffs so clearly he wasn't "good enough" as a 3.5 like his underrated teammates

So, the shenanigans happen at 55+ too. If there is one player that stands out, it is perhaps innocent. But when there are eight self-rates that are questionable, something is wrong. And the system as-is didn't catch any of them (one after Nationals doesn't count).

Oh, and the SoCal 7.0 team won Nationals too.

 

[Cobra Kai]

Looks like 7.0 55+ was flawed based on your analysis above and a bunch of captains last year (I played at the 4.0 men's 18+ and 40+ Nationals) wrote to the rules committee to limit the number of self-rated and/or appeal down players to 3 that could advance to Sectionals and Nationals to prevent teams from doing this. The only level I would allow more would be the 2.5 women and maybe the 3.0 level since there are numerous players that are entry level at that rating getting into tennis and if you are that desperate to win a 2.5 women's title then so be it.

The 8.0 55+ was not as egregious this year with So. Cal only having 2 self-rated 3.5 players with one player clearly above his rating level which the system did not catch and DQ him during the year. The rest of the team was very solid and did not think they had any sandbaggers on the team. If USTA wanted to prevent future abuse of the self-rated/appeal down players, just limit advancement to Sectionals and Nationals and that way, you have a "Level Based" competition based on their computer rated players. This doesn't limit the "sandbaggers" but it clearly prevents the self-rate abuse going rampant. Right now at the 18+ and 40+ it is a two tiered competition level with computer rated teams having a low probability to win the title.

 

[schmke]

Looks like 7.0 55+ was flawed based on your analysis above and a bunch of captains last year (I played at the 4.0 men's 18+ and 40+ Nationals) wrote to the rules committee to limit the number of self-rated and/or appeal down players to 3 that could advance to Sectionals and Nationals to prevent teams from doing this. The only level I would allow more would be the 2.5 women and maybe the 3.0 level since there are numerous players that are entry level at that rating getting into tennis and if you are that desperate to win a 2.5 women's title then so be it.

The 8.0 55+ was not as egregious this year with So. Cal only having 2 self-rated 3.5 players with one player clearly above his rating level which the system did not catch and DQ him during the year. The rest of the team was very solid and did not think they had any sandbaggers on the team. If USTA wanted to prevent future abuse of the self-rated/appeal down players, just limit advancement to Sectionals and Nationals and that way, you have a "Level Based" competition based on their computer rated players. This doesn't limit the "sandbaggers" but it clearly prevents the self-rate abuse going rampant. Right now at the 18+ and 40+ it is a two tiered competition level with computer rated teams having a low probability to win the title.

Just saw your post about 55+ 8.0. Glad to hear it was competitive and fun even if SoCal won it only losing two courts all event. Like you say, their 8.0 team wasn't filled with self-rates.

But their 7.0 team was and was similarly dominant. Suggestions like yours would have helped prevent the 7.0 team from advancing, or at least playing all of the self-rates at Nationals, perhaps helping to level the playing field.