New Southern Rule for 2024

[fantastic]

Our area was just informed that starting in 2024, states within the southern section will have to start playing straight lines for mixed. This means that for 9.0, you cannot have a 5.0/4.0 pair. It has to be a 4.5/4.5 combination, unless a 4.5 wants to play with a 4.0. This is not a national rule. I inquired as to why, and I was told information would be coming out in the next few weeks.
I'm pretty bummed.

 

[JLyon]

I have heard this as well, watch the MXD numbers go down especially at 8.0 and 9.0

 

[kevrol]

From what I have heard is that this is the directions nationals is going and it's up to each section if they want to implement in 2024. Likely in 2025 it will be mandatory.

 

[Cashman]

I mean, it will reduce flexibility but the matches will surely be way better

Always seemed crazy to me that you could pair a 5.0 man with a 4.0 woman, that's no fun for anyone

 

[Vox Rationis]

So they’re trying to do everything they can to reduce usta numbers? Got it.

 

[Cashman]

So they’re trying to do everything they can to reduce usta numbers? Got it.

it could well increase numbers. you are ignoring the fact that

• most mixed comps suffer from a shortage of women
• the way USTA mixed currently works is extremely un-fun for women

Seriously, a 4.0 woman is realistically 1.5 levels below a 5.0 man. Putting them in the same league is cooked. That's like making a 4.0 man front up against a bunch of 5.5s every week.

Yeah sure - now and again, it's a great learning experience. But all the time? Getting beat on by your opponent and sidelined by your partner week-in, week-out? That sucks and let's not pretend otherwise.

There are TONS of great women doubles players out there who simply refuse to play mixed because it is so lopsided and un-fun. If you can bring them back, it will be a massive help for the sport.

Mixed/combo doubles is a cash cow at our club, it's by far the most popular league we have. Men and women LIKE playing together. You just have to do it right.

 

[Creighton]

So they’re trying to do everything they can to reduce usta numbers? Got it.

Probably will increase numbers as the same people can't win 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0.

 

[schmke]

Some districts/states in Southern have done 55+ as straight levels already so this is consistent with that.

 

[ATX Tennis]

Tough enough to fill my mixed team with different ratings combos. Don’t think I can if it’s straight rating. Many of the local mixed players are husband/wife, and many are not the same rating.

 

[Cashman]

Tough enough to fill my mixed team with different ratings combos. Don’t think I can if it’s straight rating.

it will become a lot easier if the new rules attract more players

 

[ATX Tennis]

it will become a lot easier if the new rules attract more players

We’ll see. Mixed is more social than serious around here. Outside of the few captains that are trying to make sectionals every year, I don’t think this change would be well received. But I’ve been wrong before…

 

[nyta2]

IMO, it's a good rule, and should be national (odd that it's not... what happens at nationals?)
i've been playing 8.0mx, and there's a monster difference between a 4.5 guy and a 3.5 girl (similar to me playing a 3.0 guy)...
so much so, there's often an unwritten rule between me and the other 4.5 guy, not to crush each other's partner (at net).

 

[mpnv1990]

They need to do it nationally as opposed to only individual sections. Otherwise, the individual section is at a disadvantage.

In addition, the USTA needs to adjust NTRP ratings for women so that when you see a 3.5 rating for a man and woman, for example, you know they’re equal. The UTR already does this. They rate 3.5 women much lower than 3.5 men.

 

[nyta2]

In addition, the USTA needs to adjust NTRP ratings for women so that when you see a 3.5 rating for a man and woman, for example, you know they’re equal. The UTR already does this. They rate 3.5 women much lower than 3.5 men.

i always thought women's ntrp just followed what women's clothing sizes have done over the years ;P

 

[Purestriker]

Makes sense.

 

[schmke]

IMO, it's a good rule, and should be national (odd that it's not... what happens at nationals?)

A straight-level 4.0 Mixed team by definition also meets the requirements for a 8.0 combination Mixed team, so just like has happened for straight-level 4.0 55+ teams from Southern, they go and compete at Nationals at the 8.0 level.

Like was noted though, it arguably puts these teams at a disadvantage, although I think Southern has done pretty well in 55+ so perhaps National level teams aren't really at a disadvantage as they likely have strong at-level players across the board, perhaps even some on their way to being bumped up.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Why even call it 7.0 or 8.0 or 9.0 then?

Just call it 3.5 mixed, 4.0 mixed, 4.5 mixed, etc

 

[Moveforwardalways]

This change will help with imbalances, but mixed doubles is imbalanced by definition. So we will see how much it helps. It definitely will make women more comfortable on the court. But honestly, 3.5 women do not have to sign up for 8.0 mixed and face 4.5 guys. They can play 7.0 and not not have to worry about that.

 

[ATX Tennis]

I’ve found that most of the women enjoy playing “up” in mixed. It might not make for the best matches, but I haven’t heard a lot of complaints about that. Maybe this will get more higher end guys that didn’t enjoy the disparity, but at least in my area, I just don’t see this growing the number of teams. This wasn’t even in my top 5 of USTA league complaints. It’s certainly way behind the 4 line 40+ format, which to USTA’s credit is being fixed.

 

[nyta2]

This change will help with imbalances, but mixed doubles is imbalanced by definition. So we will see how much it helps. It definitely will make women more comfortable on the court. But honestly, 3.5 women do not have to sign up for 8.0 mixed and face 4.5 guys. They can play 7.0 and not not have to worry about that.

they should just use wtn number ranges (or utr),.. not ntrp, which is a bell curve bucketing methodology (vs metric of skill)

 

[Cashman]

I’ve found that most of the women enjoy playing “up” in mixed.

Well obviously - it’s a self-selecting cohort

The ones who don’t enjoy it don’t do it

 

[Vox Rationis]

it could well increase numbers. you are ignoring the fact that

• most mixed comps suffer from a shortage of women
• the way USTA mixed currently works is extremely un-fun for women

Seriously, a 4.0 woman is realistically 1.5 levels below a 5.0 man. Putting them in the same league is cooked. That's like making a 4.0 man front up against a bunch of 5.5s every week.

Yeah sure - now and again, it's a great learning experience. But all the time? Getting beat on by your opponent and sidelined by your partner week-in, week-out? That sucks and let's not pretend otherwise.

There are TONS of great women doubles players out there who simply refuse to play mixed because it is so lopsided and un-fun. If you can bring them back, it will be a massive help for the sport.

Mixed/combo doubles is a cash cow at our club, it's by far the most popular league we have. Men and women LIKE playing together. You just have to do it right.

I get how it can make the skill differences more balanced and make the overall product better but I don’t see how it will increase numbers in the long run. Right now a 4.0 can play 7.0, 8.0, 9.0. After the rule change they can only play 8.0 and 9.0 but with a disadvantage as an 8.5 team. For many higher rated players this rule means fewer or no playing opportunities at all. How many areas have 10.0 mixed leagues? Not many. So most 5.0s won’t be able to play at all. 4.5s will only get to play 9.0 now. And there are many 4.5/3.5 or 4.0/3.0 or even 3.5/2.5 couples that want to play together. I just don’t see how there’s enough people who currently consider mixed unfun because of the imbalance to offset the amount of people who won’t even have the opportunity to play much anymore. But we’ll see what the numbers look like after the change gets implemented. I’m totally open to being wrong.

 

[Creighton]

Right now a 4.0 can play 7.0, 8.0, 9.0. After the rule change they can only play 8.0 and 9.0 but with a disadvantage as an 8.5 team.

I think this is the problem. There might be fewer "players" going forward but you're more likely to see more unique players.

Right now there is just a small portion of the population that are taking away playing opportunities from all the people who are just in the middle of their rating level.

 

[schmke]

I think this is the problem. There might be fewer "players" going forward but you're more likely to see more unique players.

Right now there is just a small portion of the population that are taking away playing opportunities from all the people who are just in the middle of their rating level.

How are they taking away playing opportunities from others? Is there a limit on the teams or flights in your area and others that want to play can't form another team?

 

[JordanWinning]

I have two thoughts on this:
1) this all but eliminates playing opportunities for 5.0s (in most sections). Trickle down, this will make tanking even more prevalent in 4.5 men’s leagues to avoid bumps and there will be 5.0 men’s team specifically made for guys to get bumped down. I’m nowhere near a 5.0 but know most of the (USTA playing) 5.0s in my area/section, and their opportunities are already super limited.
2) this doesn’t seem to bode well for combo leagues if this is the approach to mixed. Might be reading into it too much but definitely a bummer if “competitive balance” becomes the main goal of RECREATIONAL sports

Total aside: I’m a strong 3.5 with a very above average serve for a 3.5 player so I get paired with a strong 4.5 woman in 8.0 mixed and am having a blast. Disappointed this opportunity is likely going away

 

[ATX Tennis]

I’m just not seeing this group of mixed wannabes that would play but for the format. One thing I can see is this will create fewer, but stronger, super teams lead by captains who have connections to many of an area’s stronger players. My club’s mixed population wouldn’t even support 3.0 or 4.0. It could probably support a 3.5 team if they find a captain.

 

[time_fly]

I’ve found that most of the women enjoy playing “up” in mixed. It might not make for the best matches, but I haven’t heard a lot of complaints about that.

My experience is similar. The women like the chance to play with advanced guys, but the guys generally hate it. I’d like to see them do straight x.0 leagues (6.0, 7.0, etc) with balanced pairs but experiment with some x.5 combo leagues where there can be a 0.5 difference in level between partners. Especially if the woman is the higher rating I think the qualify of the matches could go up.

 

[Creighton]

How are they taking away playing opportunities from others? Is there a limit on the teams or flights in your area and others that want to play can't form another team?

Sure theoretically these other players could start their own teams but there is generally a critical mass of court availability and people willing to captain.

 

[Creighton]

My experience is similar. The women like the chance to play with advanced guys, but the guys generally hate it. I’d like to see them do straight x.0 leagues (6.0, 7.0, etc) with balanced pairs but experiment with some x.5 combo leagues where there can be a 0.5 difference in level between partners. Especially if the woman is the higher rating I think the qualify of the matches could go up.

The 5.5/6.5/7.5 might be the right balance for mixed.

I think @Moon Shooter plays that style of mix.

 

[mpnv1990]

Who cares about participation numbers if the quality sucks?

I’m only a pitiful 3.5, but I would have a field day playing against a 2.5 woman in 6.0 mixed doubles.

 

[!<-_->!]

So tl;dr is essentially shrinking the NTRP differential from 1.0 to 0.5? Would that be an accurate interpretation of this?

 

[Cashman]

I get how it can make the skill differences more balanced and make the overall product better but I don’t see how it will increase numbers in the long run. Right now a 4.0 can play 7.0, 8.0, 9.0. After the rule change they can only play 8.0 and 9.0 but with a disadvantage as an 8.5 team. For many higher rated players this rule means fewer or no playing opportunities at all. How many areas have 10.0 mixed leagues? Not many. So most 5.0s won’t be able to play at all. 4.5s will only get to play 9.0 now. And there are many 4.5/3.5 or 4.0/3.0 or even 3.5/2.5 couples that want to play together. I just don’t see how there’s enough people who currently consider mixed unfun because of the imbalance to offset the amount of people who won’t even have the opportunity to play much anymore. But we’ll see what the numbers look like after the change gets implemented. I’m totally open to being wrong.

It depends what you mean by 'numbers'. It sounds like you mean the number of players available to a specific league. USTA is probably more interested in the number of unique individuals playing league tennis, which is not the same thing.

The one thing that really fascinates me about USTA how many different permutations and combinations of leagues there are. To take your 4.0 example - you are right, currently they can play 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 mixed. They can also play 4.0 singles AND 4.0 doubles (potentially also at multiple age levels). Presumably there is also some tri-level in there as well. It seems like (no doubt @schmke can correct me if I'm off base) a lot of these leagues draw heavily on the same core group of people playing across multiple competitions. No doubt there are a lot of hardcore players out there who enrol in everything, just to get more shots at Sectionals or whatever.

That seems a little bit of a crazy strategy to me. Running leagues is expensive, and there's a lot more margin in USTA memberships than league registration fees, so the marginal benefit of getting existing members to play more often is small. You really don't want to over-cater to your existing membership base - the goal is simply to give them just enough tennis to make them renew their membership each year. The whole game is maximising revenue per match/league - which means more people playing less tennis.

i.e. if improving the quality of the mixed doubles product attracts new people to buy USTA memberships - a reduction in the overall number of mixed leagues/matches isn't a bug, it's a feature.

 

[schmke]

It depends what you mean by 'numbers'. It sounds like you mean the number of players available to a specific league. USTA is probably more interested in the number of unique individuals playing league tennis, which is not the same thing.

The one thing that really fascinates me about USTA how many different permutations and combinations of leagues there are. To take your 4.0 example - you are right, currently they can play 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 mixed. They can also play 4.0 singles AND 4.0 doubles (potentially also at multiple age levels). Presumably there is also some tri-level in there as well. It seems like (no doubt @schmke can correct me if I'm off base) a lot of these leagues draw heavily on the same core group of people playing across multiple competitions. No doubt there are a lot of hardcore players out there who enrol in everything, just to get more shots at Sectionals or whatever.

That seems a little bit of a crazy strategy to me. Running leagues is expensive, and there's a lot more margin in USTA memberships than league registration fees, so the marginal benefit of getting existing members to play more often is small. You really don't want to over-cater to your existing membership base - the goal is simply to give them just enough tennis to make them renew their membership each year. The whole game is maximising revenue per match - which means more people playing less tennis.

i.e. if improving the quality of the mixed doubles product attracts new people to buy USTA memberships - a reduction in the overall number of mixed leagues/matches isn't a bug, it's a feature.

I think the USTA is interested in several different metrics. One is membership, whether you play or not. Another is probably unique players that sign-up and play, but perhaps the one they care about the most, because it has dollars directly associated with it, is registrations. So yes, they do like it when one player plays 4.0 and plays up on a 4.5 team and plays both 18+ and 40+ and plays 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0 Mixed, and plays Tri-Level, and plays in the flex singles league, and ... as that is more money into the cofers of the section and National. Running leagues is expensive, but having an additional team or two in each flight in each league is a small incremental cost/effort that is worth the extra money from the additional registrations.

If league participation goes down, revenues go down and sections are having to find ways to cut expenses, meaning coordinator positions go away or become part-time or volunteer.

 

[Vox Rationis]

It depends what you mean by 'numbers'. It sounds like you mean the number of players available to a specific league. USTA is probably more interested in the number of unique individuals playing league tennis, which is not the same thing.

The one thing that really fascinates me about USTA how many different permutations and combinations of leagues there are. To take your 4.0 example - you are right, currently they can play 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 mixed. They can also play 4.0 singles AND 4.0 doubles (potentially also at multiple age levels). Presumably there is also some tri-level in there as well. It seems like (no doubt @schmke can correct me if I'm off base) a lot of these leagues draw heavily on the same core group of people playing across multiple competitions. No doubt there are a lot of hardcore players out there who enrol in everything, just to get more shots at Sectionals or whatever.

That seems a little bit of a crazy strategy to me. Running leagues is expensive, and there's a lot more margin in USTA memberships than league registration fees, so the marginal benefit of getting existing members to play more often is small. You really don't want to over-cater to your existing membership base - the goal is simply to give them just enough tennis to make them renew their membership each year. The whole game is maximising revenue per match/league - which means more people playing less tennis.

i.e. if improving the quality of the mixed doubles product attracts new people to buy USTA memberships - a reduction in the overall number of mixed leagues/matches isn't a bug, it's a feature.

More unique players is definitely a good thing. My issue is that people are willing to stop playing usta all together when they see changes they don’t like such as their playing opportunities being reduced. This is supported by usta membership numbers dropping every year for the last like decade more or less. (Not to simplify the issue as I’m sure there’s plenty of other reasons for the decline). So I don’t think it’s safe to assume the player who could play 8.0 and 9.0 but can now only play 9.0 will still be willing to pay the annual fee just to play less tennis.

 

[Cashman]

Running leagues is expensive, but having an additional team or two in each flight in each league is a small incremental cost/effort that is worth the extra money from the additional registrations.

Sure. But that presupposes that the league's existence is financially justified in the first place.

I guess to take a step back, the fundamental question is "what is the purpose of running a league". In the USTA-as-a-business sense, that is "to get people to buy memberships". Memberships are where the bulk of the margin is, because people are paying $44 for nothing. USTA basically operates on the Costco model - the profit doesn't come from the the thing they sell you, it's from getting you to pay to access the thing they sell you.

So - the value of a league is determined by its ability to drive membership signups. I would wager someone at USTA has looked at the current MXD offering and determined that it is underperforming in this area. That is - we don't have a lot of people signing up specifically because they want to play in their local 8.0 MXD league. This means two things:

• The upside to change is massive - there is a big opportunity to revamp the MXD into something that gets non-members excited to buy a USTA membership
• The downside to change is limited - if existing members are playing in multiple leagues, they are less likely to ditch their USTA membership because their MXD league is consolidated/eliminated/turned into something they dislike

Don't get me wrong - not leaving money on the table means ensuring leagues are full, and cross-signups are important to ensuring leagues are full. But because there is so much more value in attracting new customers than cross-selling to existing ones, which leagues you offer needs to be optimised for the former rather than the latter.

More unique players is definitely a good thing. My issue is that people are willing to stop playing usta all together when they see changes they don’t like such as their playing opportunities being reduced. This is supported by usta membership numbers dropping every year for the last like decade more or less. (Not to simplify the issue as I’m sure there’s plenty of other resins for the decline). So I don’t think it’s safe to assume the player who could play 8.0 and 9.0 but can now only play 9.0 will still be willing to pay the annual fee just to play less tennis.

For sure, this is the risk. I guess the way I see it - we agree the current product is not working. People are leaving USTA. So, the product needs to change.

Are these specific changes going to be good or bad? Who knows. Personally I think it is a good move and will attract more people than it alienates - but I suppose we will see.

 

[schmke]

@Cashman, valid points about driving more memberships, and if this change results in that that would be big for the USTA. But several observations from the past few years would indicate the individual league registrations are a big deal.

First, over the past 10-15 years, we've seen the USTA add more leagues to give more players playing opportunity, all the while memberships and/or unique participants has been dropping. This screams trying to extract more revenue from the same or fewer members. Perhaps they do think that membership has been dropping because few players get to hog all the playing opportunities by playing at multiple levels, but I'm not sure that is the case and regardless, this is a big reversal from what they've been doing in the past.

During COVID, when memberships presumably didn't plummet over the initial 3-6 months, but registrations did as leagues were canceled, sections were forced to lay league coordinator folks off pretty quickly (half the staff in one section I heard), exactly because registration revenue is what keeps them alive. National gets the membership revenue and then distributes it out to the sections based on some criteria, but sections get the majority of their revenue (for league players at least) from league registrations and without this, they cannot operate.

To me at least, both of these are a clear indication more league registrations is important for the sections to survive. In fact, in mid-2020 I was told leagues were their number one priority to try to recover, but there was a 30% loss in revenue due to canceling leagues that year. In fact, several sections made up "welcome back" leagues as soon as they were able to to try to generate a little revenue, and restarted normal leagues as quickly as possible even with pretty severe restrictions (mask required during play, timed matches with required gaps between matches to ensure players didn't interact, no spectator viewing). Could part of this been to get people to also renew their membership? Sure, but again, I think the sections get a larger amount of revenue from league registrations than memberships because National has to take their cut out of memberships.

Now, maybe the structure of the USTA is all wrong, or the organization is top heavy causing too much of the membership revenue from getting to the sections and the people doing the work, which requires lots of registrations to keep the section afloat. If so, perhaps this shoudl be fixed too, but from what I've observed, registrations are what allow sections to exist and survive.

 

[JordanWinning]

“Now maybe the structure of USTA is all wrong…”

Now I think we’re getting somewhere

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Lol this will mess up rural southern so badly, hard enough just getting teams to sign up.

 

[sureshs]

it could well increase numbers. you are ignoring the fact that

• most mixed comps suffer from a shortage of women
• the way USTA mixed currently works is extremely un-fun for women

Seriously, a 4.0 woman is realistically 1.5 levels below a 5.0 man. Putting them in the same league is cooked. That's like making a 4.0 man front up against a bunch of 5.5s every week.

Yeah sure - now and again, it's a great learning experience. But all the time? Getting beat on by your opponent and sidelined by your partner week-in, week-out? That sucks and let's not pretend otherwise.

There are TONS of great women doubles players out there who simply refuse to play mixed because it is so lopsided and un-fun. If you can bring them back, it will be a massive help for the sport.

Mixed/combo doubles is a cash cow at our club, it's by far the most popular league we have. Men and women LIKE playing together. You just have to do it right.

I am not sure about the LIKE part

 

[loveallcats]

I think it would be harder to field a team, at least in smaller towns. It's hard enough to get 5.0/4.0 and 4.5/4.5 combos to make up enough players for a team where I'm at. Further limiting that will be hard to field a team.

 

[Purestriker]

Lol this will mess up rural southern so badly, hard enough just getting teams to sign up.

No big deal, they usually can’t win state, let alone sectionals or nationals.

 

[ATX Tennis]

No big deal, they usually can’t win state, let alone sectionals or nationals.

I think the point is they may not even be able to form teams.

 

[Purestriker]

I think the point is they may not even be able to form teams.

I get that. But If you can’t win, or be competitive then play outside USTA.

 

[schmke]

I get that. But If you can’t win, or be competitive then play outside USTA.

Wow! If the only people to play USTA were the ones with a chance to be competitive and advance, unique player participation would plummet.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

No big deal, they usually can’t win state, let alone sectionals or nationals.

Lolz, mixed nationals. If a tree falls in the Foret and no one sees it... in this case if no one cares....

 

[Purestriker]

Wow! If the only people to play USTA were the ones with a chance to be competitive and advance, unique player participation would plummet.

That’s true. Maybe I’ve gotten too cynical but there is a big gap between rural and bigger cities. At State that actually hurts player development and advancement. My ratings go down playing those teams even when I win easily.

 

[Purestriker]

Lolz, mixed nationals. If a tree falls in the Foret and no one sees it... in this case if no one cares....

We are aligned on mixed. I’d rather play combo.

 

[JLyon]

Southern League Committee is getting raked across the coals, vast majority are against the new rule going into place.
Southern rationale is that MXD has gone down 12% since 2019.

 

[travlerajm]

Southern League Committee is getting raked across the coals, vast majority are against the new rule going into place.
Southern rationale is that MXD has gone down 12% since 2019.

Watch it go down another 12% in one year with the new rule.

Participation is dropping, so let’s restrict who can participate. Brilliant.

 

[Lord Of The Strings]

Count me in the camp that thinks this is a good move. I think the leagues will be more competitive, more people will sign up (heck of a lot easier/less intimidating to just reach out to your on-level captain counterparts of the other gender and say "hey, wanna team for a 7.0/8.0/9.0 mixed team?"), and there'll be less of the "unspoken/unwritten rules" of two 4.5 guys not really hitting with the 3.5 ladies on the court.

I'm not saying that there won't be some folks negatively impacted, but I think it'll mostly be the people with teams currently set up to dominate mixed leagues (so who really cares if they have to find a new way to win?), and some clubs who like to field mixed teams that are mostly spousal teams of varying levels.

As for the rural folks, a lot of the rural districts in my state struggle to field spring teams at levels like 3.5 (18+ or 40+) let alone 2-3 teams. But in my home district, there were 20 men's 18+ 4.0 teams in the spring and 22 women's 18+ 4.0 teams in the spring. There are currently 11 mixed 8.0 teams. You're talking about close to 75% drop off in play there. Which is crazy. If you can drive that participation number up by 10%, then you'll more than make up for any rural areas who can no longer field the 1 or 2 they previously could.