Playing on five teams?!?

[OrangePower]

Here in Norcal, you can play on multiple teams (within the same league and level) during the regular season, as long as each team is in a different local area. And in the SF Bay Area, the local areas are close together geographically speaking. So it's quite feasible to play on more than one team, and still not have to travel that much.

The catch is that once playoffs start, you can only play for one team.

USTA encourages playing on multiple teams, because $$$. And to be honest there is a general benefit, since it does lead to more players available in each local area, helps fill up teams that otherwise might not have enough players to register, and ends up leading to more matches for everyone.

The flip side: This guy I know is playing on five teams! He is a good player (singles), and is likely to help most of those teams make playoffs. Then he will choose the team to continue with, leaving the others very much weakened for playoffs. And this would be at the potential expense of the next team in the standings which did not make playoffs, but would then have been a better playoff team.

Not sure if there is a good way to address the negatives while still allowing playing on multiple teams in general. Interested if anyone has any good ideas.

 

[norcal]

Five teams? Wow, he must have an understanding wife and no kids! Or no wife and understanding kids lol.

 

[OrangePower]

Five teams? Wow, he must have an understanding wife and no kids! Or no wife and understanding kids lol.

No wife or kids. Young + single = lots of time for tennis. Also he is a bit socially awkward - shows up to play his match and then leaves immediately afterwards. Nice guy though and good player.

 

[Startzel]

Yeah it's a shame the code promotes fairness but the setup of the usta doesn't prompt fairness.

 

[OrangePower]

Yeah it's a shame the code promotes fairness but the setup of the usta doesn't prompt fairness.

Players who play on multiple teams influence the regular season standings in multiple areas, but since they can only play playoffs in one area, they then leave the non-playoff teams in those other areas unfairly impacted.
Question is, how to address this without going overboard and banning play in multiple areas. Because that does benefit everyone in other ways.
What would you do?

 

[schmke]

This sort of thing can happen a lot in some areas.

NorCal is one with all the nearby areas, but they are all part of the same district let alone section so players must decide pretty early in the whole playoff sequence which team they will go with.

Mid-Atlantic is another section where this happens a lot with a lot of different areas (Maryland has each county being a different area more or less) and districts (Maryland, Virginia, D.C.) and with different districts, players don't have to decide/commit as early, I think they can play in Maryland, D.C., and Virginia until Sectionals and only then have to decide.

And of course, in parts of the country like Eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and nearby areas, players can play in multiple sections (Middle States, Eastern, New England) and play all the way through Sectionals on different teams and only have to decide if they advance to Nationals on multiple teams in the same division/level.

 

[Angle Queen]

This sort of thing can happen a lot in some areas.

NorCal is one with all the nearby areas, but they are all part of the same district let alone section so players must decide pretty early in the whole playoff sequence which team they will go with.

Mid-Atlantic is another section where this happens a lot with a lot of different areas (Maryland has each county being a different area more or less) and districts (Maryland, Virginia, D.C.) and with different districts, players don't have to decide/commit as early, I think they can play in Maryland, D.C., and Virginia until Sectionals and only then have to decide.

Yep. And don't get me started on it. But what the heck is the internet for except rants.

What burns the most is the DC 'district' gets a straight walk to Sectionals. The rest of us schmucks in VA and MD have to slog our way through arduous District playoffs. Granted, we generally get more 'slots' than DC but it still burns.

 

[Startzel]

Players who play on multiple teams influence the regular season standings in multiple areas, but since they can only play playoffs in one area, they then leave the non-playoff teams in those other areas unfairly impacted.
Question is, how to address this without going overboard and banning play in multiple areas. Because that does benefit everyone in other ways.
What would you do?

Is there a solution other than to ban it?

 

[OrangePower]

Is there a solution other than to ban it?

I don't know - that's why I'm asking. Maybe someone has a creative idea.

If playing in multiple areas is banned outright, there are a few teams in my local area that would not be viable. These are teams with cores of 10 or so local players, who then add on a handful of non-local players who make the team viable in terms of numbers. These are not teams with playoff aspirations, so they are not attracting ringers, just guys from out of the local area looking to get in a few more matches. Without those extra guys, these teams would have to combine. So for example instead of 2 added teams with 15 players each (including the out of areas), our local flight would have 1 added team with 20 locals. And then less individual matches for each of those players, and one less team match for every team in the league.

 

[Getting_Closer]

There is this lady in my area, playing on more than 5 teams: 4.0,4.5 women, 8.0,8.5,9.0 mixed, USTA, and some other local tennis org. She is a great player at net, winning most of the games except for the games she plays for 4.0 women, which is how she manages her 4.0 rating. Unbelievable, she goes to play off every year without rating promotion...

 

[kevrol]

I really don't see any problem with it. The captains of the teams they leave high and dry for the playoffs are the ones that should have a problem with it.

 

[brettatk]

There is this lady in my area, playing on more than 5 teams: 4.0,4.5 women, 8.0,8.5,9.0 mixed, USTA, and some other local tennis org. She is a great player at net, winning most of the games except for the games she plays for 4.0 women, which is how she manages her 4.0 rating. Unbelievable, she goes to play off every year without rating promotion...

That goes on around here as well. They have to lose enough during 18+ or 40+ so they can be eligible for their mixed and combo teams. Not really a big fan of them.

 

[Startzel]

I really don't see any problem with it. The captains of the teams they leave high and dry for the playoffs are the ones that should have a problem with it.

Why would those captains be mad? They got what they wanted out of the situation.

 

[kevrol]

If a guy played on my team only to leave and play against my team in the playoffs I wouldn't have him back on my team again.

 

[Startzel]

If a guy played on my team only to leave and play against my team in the playoffs I wouldn't have him back on my team again.

Ok. But what does this have to do with captains that recruit guys to play on the their team just to win their local league knowing they won't have them for playoffs?

 

[kevrol]

It doesn't. Still I don't have a problem with it. The more people that play in multiple local leagues the better. That leads to more vibrant leagues and overall improvement in tennis. Sure it's fun to go and compete in the playoffs but local league is what I enjoy most. I could easily play in 3 different local leagues here without having to drive more than 40 minutes (6-7 if I were willing to drive 1hr 10 mins.) I can't because of work/family but man am I jealous of those that can.

 

[OrangePower]

It doesn't. Still I don't have a problem with it. The more people that play in multiple local leagues the better. That leads to more vibrant leagues and overall improvement in tennis. Sure it's fun to go and compete in the playoffs but local league is what I enjoy most. I could easily play in 3 different local leagues here without having to drive more than 40 minutes (6-7 if I were willing to drive 1hr 10 mins.) I can't because of work/family but man am I jealous of those that can.

I agree with your perspective and generally I think it does much more good than harm (having players be able to play in multiple local areas).

But when team A with many non-locals causes local team B to be shut out of playoffs, and then team A loses their non-local players for playoffs, that's not good for the league either. Team A gets killed and does not represent the local league well. Whereas team B could have done a better job in playoffs and was arguably more deserving.

I don't have a solution though.

 

[Startzel]

I agree with your perspective and generally I think it does much more good than harm (having players be able to play in multiple local areas).

But when team A with many non-locals causes local team B to be shut out of playoffs, and then team A loses their non-local players for playoffs, that's not good for the league either. Team A gets killed and does not represent the local league well. Whereas team B could have done a better job in playoffs and was arguably more deserving.

I don't have a solution though.

we have a lot of local guys who just don't play USTA league tennis anymore because one of the clubs in town is notorious for recruiting out of town ringers .

I don't know how that's good for local league tennis.

 

[OrangePower]

we have a lot of local guys who just don't play USTA league tennis anymore because one of the clubs in town is notorious for recruiting out of town ringers .

I don't know how that's good for local league tennis.

Obviously that's not good, but then again neither is causing some local teams to become non-viable numbers-wise if they can no longer use non-locals.

There has to be a good middle ground solution; we're just not seeing it yet.

 

[schmke]

Is there a solution other than to ban it?

I think you could limit it. I don't know what the right limit is, but say a player was limited to playing on 2 teams (in different areas) in the same division/level. This would allow it so those less populated areas could get enough players/teams, but not have a single player on 5 rosters which like was said can skew results or get teams qualified for playoffs that can't field a competitive team.

 

[schmke]

Yep. And don't get me started on it. But what the heck is the internet for except rants.

What burns the most is the DC 'district' gets a straight walk to Sectionals. The rest of us schmucks in VA and MD have to slog our way through arduous District playoffs. Granted, we generally get more 'slots' than DC but it still burns.

Live in Hawaii. You could have to play only 8 local league matches to go to Nationals! http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-easiest-way-to-play-tennis-at-usta.html

 

[gmatheis]

This is making something out of nothing.

 

[J_R_B]

Here in Norcal, you can play on multiple teams (within the same league and level) during the regular season, as long as each team is in a different local area. And in the SF Bay Area, the local areas are close together geographically speaking. So it's quite feasible to play on more than one team, and still not have to travel that much.

The catch is that once playoffs start, you can only play for one team.

USTA encourages playing on multiple teams, because $$$. And to be honest there is a general benefit, since it does lead to more players available in each local area, helps fill up teams that otherwise might not have enough players to register, and ends up leading to more matches for everyone.

The flip side: This guy I know is playing on five teams! He is a good player (singles), and is likely to help most of those teams make playoffs. Then he will choose the team to continue with, leaving the others very much weakened for playoffs. And this would be at the potential expense of the next team in the standings which did not make playoffs, but would then have been a better playoff team.

Not sure if there is a good way to address the negatives while still allowing playing on multiple teams in general. Interested if anyone has any good ideas.

We have this, too, although it's not considered a problem at all. Teams in Middle States can only have 4 common players with another team in the section but in a different district. Here, you can play in all of the local playoffs and only have to pick a team if both teams make the sectional round. Many of the strong teams recruit the stronger players from the teams in neighboring districts to play 2 matches in the regular season and the local playoffs and then have that team as a backup plan to play in sectionals in case their primary team misses out. Also, if a player comes into the league who is a strong player on a weak team, that player will typically get invited to play on a strong team in a neighboring district.

There are also players who play in Eastern (or sometimes Mid-Atlantic) as well as MS. There are no shared player rules between those teams in different sections, so you can see whole teams playing in both MS NJD and Eastern NJ.

 

[Startzel]

I think you could limit it. I don't know what the right limit is, but say a player was limited to playing on 2 teams (in different areas) in the same division/level. This would allow it so those less populated areas could get enough players/teams, but not have a single player on 5 rosters which like was said can skew results or get teams qualified for playoffs that can't field a competitive team.

If a league can't field two teams without players from outside their area, they probably shouldn't have a local league.

 

[OrangePower]

We have this, too, although it's not considered a problem at all. Teams in Middle States can only have 4 common players with another team in the section but in a different district. Here, you can play in all of the local playoffs and only have to pick a team if both teams make the sectional round. Many of the strong teams recruit the stronger players from the teams in neighboring districts to play 2 matches in the regular season and the local playoffs and then have that team as a backup plan to play in sectionals in case their primary team misses out. Also, if a player comes into the league who is a strong player on a weak team, that player will typically get invited to play on a strong team in a neighboring district.

There are also players who play in Eastern (or sometimes Mid-Atlantic) as well as MS. There are no shared player rules between those teams in different sections, so you can see whole teams playing in both MS NJD and Eastern NJ.

I guess that makes me feel grateful that in Norcal players can only play for one team in local playoffs!
I doubt this would happen in reality, but in theory, imagine if the best four players (2 singles plus 2 dubs) in your section banded together and formed teams in as many districts as logistically possible. They would just need some local players to fill in the numbers for each team, but if the ringers played in most matches, they could get most team wins by themselves (two singles lines plus a dubs line).
This strategy then guarantees them advancing out of the section without any resistance since once they choose which of their teams to play on for sectionals, the rest of the playoff teams become lame ducks.
Unlikely to ever happen, but it would be popcorn time if it ever did ;-)

 

[winchestervatennis]

If a league can't field two teams without players from outside their area, they probably shouldn't have a local league.

How dare they live in a rural area and want to play league tennis. The nerve of some people...

 

[OrangePower]

I think you could limit it. I don't know what the right limit is, but say a player was limited to playing on 2 teams (in different areas) in the same division/level. This would allow it so those less populated areas could get enough players/teams, but not have a single player on 5 rosters which like was said can skew results or get teams qualified for playoffs that can't field a competitive team.

Maybe something like that, and maybe also require players that are on multiple teams to declare which is their 'playoff' team ahead of time?
That way they would still be recruited for the regular season by teams that just need more players to have critical mass, but are less likely to be recruited as ringers by teams that are looking to make deep playoff runs.

 

[tennis_ocd]

There has to be a good middle ground solution; we're just not seeing it yet.

Require that all league players have wives.

 

[OrangePower]

Require that all league players have wives.

LOL COTD!

Sad thing is the player who prompted this thread, who is playing on 5 Adult 18 & Over teams, is actually over 40... in our previous league season just ended, he played on 4 Adult 40 & Over teams plus 5 Mixed 40 & Over teams!!!

Hey, maybe this is his way of looking for a spouse!

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

How dare they live in a rural area and want to play league tennis. The nerve of some people...

And they're probably a bunch of pushers [not "real" tennis], play both singles and doubles [deliberately sandbagging on one or the other], and S&V at 3.0/3.5 when everyone knows such players cannot execute such tactics.

Indeed, the audacity.

 

[J_R_B]

I guess that makes me feel grateful that in Norcal players can only play for one team in local playoffs!
I doubt this would happen in reality, but in theory, imagine if the best four players (2 singles plus 2 dubs) in your section banded together and formed teams in as many districts as logistically possible. They would just need some local players to fill in the numbers for each team, but if the ringers played in most matches, they could get most team wins by themselves (two singles lines plus a dubs line).
This strategy then guarantees them advancing out of the section without any resistance since once they choose which of their teams to play on for sectionals, the rest of the playoff teams become lame ducks.
Unlikely to ever happen, but it would be popcorn time if it ever did ;-)

That would be interesting, but I have never seen a situation where there were 4 people that were so far above everyone else everywhere that they alone could dominate every district. Plus, it wouldn't "guarantee" anything. People often play in NJ, DE, & Philly, all being within an hour drive. Some people on the eastern part of Philly district play for Eastern PA, too. There is still Central PA, which is a 2-3 hour drive from Philly, and Allegheny (i.e. Pittsburgh), which is at least a 5 hour drive from Philly. I can't see anyone from Philly ever trying to play there as well as the rest of the districts, so no one will ever have every district beaten going into sectionals. Plus, there are multiple flights in Philly and NJ and you can only be on one team per district, so you'd have to be good enough to guarantee beating every winning team in the other flights in the district playoffs, not just good enough to win the regular season league. If there are 4 players that good that they can kill everyone in the whole section, why do they have to run around dominating every district? Just play for the local team and dominate everyone else at sectionals...

The more common situation is that there are 1-3 teams in each league with a chance to win the league at the outset. Whichever one emerges as the favorite by the roster deadline starts adding a few strong players from the other districts to try to get them over the hump in the playoffs. I don't really think there is anything underhanded about it.

 

[J_R_B]

LOL COTD!

Sad thing is the player who prompted this thread, who is playing on 5 Adult 18 & Over teams, is actually over 40... in our previous league season just ended, he played on 4 Adult 40 & Over teams plus 5 Mixed 40 & Over teams!!!

Hey, maybe this is his way of looking for a spouse!

The most teams I've seen one person play for in a league season (including mixed and tri-level) is 18.

 

[OrangePower]

The most teams I've seen one person play for in a league season (including mixed and tri-level) is 18.

So then how many teams did this person end up playing for over the year?
Thinking that this would be a majorly expensive proposition!

 

[J_R_B]

So then how many teams did this person end up playing for over the year?
Thinking that this would be a majorly expensive proposition!

He played at least one match for all 18 and probably at least 60-70 total. The indoor matches add up quickly, but the outdoor summer leagues are cheap. In the men's leagues spring/summer, the home team pays court fees, and his regular team played at a high school, so his whole summer league court fees for that team were $0.

 

[bleach]

Here in Norcal, you can play on multiple teams (within the same league and level) during the regular season, as long as each team is in a different local area. And in the SF Bay Area, the local areas are close together geographically speaking. So it's quite feasible to play on more than one team, and still not have to travel that much.

The catch is that once playoffs start, you can only play for one team.

USTA encourages playing on multiple teams, because $$$. And to be honest there is a general benefit, since it does lead to more players available in each local area, helps fill up teams that otherwise might not have enough players to register, and ends up leading to more matches for everyone.

The flip side: This guy I know is playing on five teams! He is a good player (singles), and is likely to help most of those teams make playoffs. Then he will choose the team to continue with, leaving the others very much weakened for playoffs. And this would be at the potential expense of the next team in the standings which did not make playoffs, but would then have been a better playoff team.

Not sure if there is a good way to address the negatives while still allowing playing on multiple teams in general. Interested if anyone has any good ideas.

I've played on multiple teams in different local areas several times. If I think there's a chance one or both of the team might win the local and move on, I'll tell the captain which team (if any) I would advance with to playoffs before signing up. It's never been an issue, although I have seen very strong teams in local leagues be reduced to very weak team for the playoffs. But everyone seems happy.

 

[chay337]

We have this, too, although it's not considered a problem at all. Teams in Middle States can only have 4 common players with another team in the section but in a different district. Here, you can play in all of the local playoffs and only have to pick a team if both teams make the sectional round. Many of the strong teams recruit the stronger players from the teams in neighboring districts to play 2 matches in the regular season and the local playoffs and then have that team as a backup plan to play in sectionals in case their primary team misses out. Also, if a player comes into the league who is a strong player on a weak team, that player will typically get invited to play on a strong team in a neighboring district.

There are also players who play in Eastern (or sometimes Mid-Atlantic) as well as MS. There are no shared player rules between those teams in different sections, so you can see whole teams playing in both MS NJD and Eastern NJ.

That's strange. I was told by the coordinator of Middle States that a player can only join one team in the section. TennisLink actually restricts a player from joining CNJ and a NNJ team. For Eastern, there are no rules and sectional rule applies.

 

[Startzel]

How dare they live in a rural area and want to play league tennis. The nerve of some people...

They can still play league tennis in another area large enough for a minimum of two teams.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

They can still play league tennis in another area large enough for a minimum of two teams.

Might be a problematic solution depending on the distance involved.

 

[J_R_B]

That's strange. I was told by the coordinator of Middle States that a player can only join one team in the section. TennisLink actually restricts a player from joining CNJ and a NNJ team. For Eastern, there are no rules and sectional rule applies.

CNJ, NNJ, and SNJ are all flights in NJD. You can join only one team in NJD. You can't join one team in NNJ and another in CNJ but you can join one NJD flight and a team in Philly district in PA or DE district.

 

[Startzel]

Might be a problematic solution depending on the distance involved.

It will be problematic for them to travel the same distance an outside ringer would have to travel?

 

[Startzel]

Maybe something like that, and maybe also require players that are on multiple teams to declare which is their 'playoff' team ahead of time?
That way they would still be recruited for the regular season by teams that just need more players to have critical mass, but are less likely to be recruited as ringers by teams that are looking to make deep playoff runs.

I think you're making an assumption that will make these players less attractive. However, captains that are recruiting outside players would still rather win their local league than lose it. So they will continue to recruit these players even if they have no chance to have them in the playoffs.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It will be problematic for them to travel the same distance an outside ringer would have to travel?

The outside ringer is a non-sequitur. I'm only considering the person in question and how he might not want to drive the extra distance. As to your hypothetical outside ringer, I'll leave that to you.

 

[Startzel]

The outside ringer is a non-sequitur. I'm only considering the person in question and how he might not want to drive the extra distance. As to your hypothetical outside ringer, I'll leave that to you.

So you're just arguing to argue with no intent to contribute any substance to the discussion?

Noted.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

So you're just arguing to argue with no intent to contribute any substance to the discussion?

Noted.

If you call responding to your claim

"They can still play league tennis in another area large enough for a minimum of two teams."

"not contributing any substance to the discussion," I guess so. You argued for a solution of the person playing in another league and I countered that it may be far away. Comparing that person's drive to a hypothetical outside ringer was not part of my plan.

 

[Startzel]

If you call responding to your claim

"They can still play league tennis in another area large enough for a minimum of two teams."

"not contributing any substance to the discussion," I guess so. You argued for a solution of the person playing in another league and I countered that it may be far away. Comparing that person's drive to a hypothetical outside ringer was not part of my plan.

You were responding to an argument discussing if outside ringers should be allowed so small areas could have a local league. You don't get to ignore that part halfway through the discussion.

 

[OrangePower]

I think you're making an assumption that will make these players less attractive. However, captains that are recruiting outside players would still rather win their local league than lose it. So they will continue to recruit these players even if they have no chance to have them in the playoffs.

I'm making the assumption that non-playoff-eligible players will be less attractive to *some* captains. They will remain attractive to captains needing to bolster their team's numbers just to keep the team viable, which is a good thing. They will remain attractive to captains that want to win local league even if they then have no hope in playoffs, as you point out. But they will be less attractive to teams with playoff aspirations, since those teams would then rather use roster spots for players who can help them in both local league and playoffs if at all possible.

 

[Startzel]

I'm making the assumption that non-playoff-eligible players will be less attractive to *some* captains. They will remain attractive to captains needing to bolster their team's numbers just to keep the team viable, which is a good thing. They will remain attractive to captains that want to win local league even if they then have no hope in playoffs, as you point out. But they will be less attractive to teams with playoff aspirations, since those teams would then rather use roster spots for players who can help them in both local league and playoffs if at all possible.

Or the team with playoff aspirations will find them more attractive because they can win a bunch of local league matches thus saving the captain's self rated ringers to be available for playoffs or to limit the risk of his core players being bumped the following season.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

You were responding to an argument discussing if outside ringers should be allowed so small areas could have a local league. You don't get to ignore that part halfway through the discussion.

Sure I get to ignore it. Because how far the outside ringer has to drive is not my concern; it's your concern. You brought it up. My concern was how far the non-outsider has to drive in response to your solution of the non-outsider playing another league. If you want to keep talking about how far the the outside ringer has to drive, have at it.

Also, according to you, I had "no intent to contribute any substance to the discussion". If that's the case, why bother responding to my non-substantive contribution?

 

[Startzel]

If that's the case, why bother responding to my non-substantive contribution?

It honestly bothers me how illogical your posts are at times. I know I shouldn't, but I have hope one day you will realize it.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It honestly bothers me how illogical your posts are at times. I know I shouldn't, but I have hope one day you will realize it.

That my posts bother you or that they are illogical?

If the illogic of my posts only bothers you some of the time, I must not be very logical because, given the disparity between your logic and mine, I would think my posts would bother you all of the time.

Happy tennising, Startzel.