Playing with or against self rated players

[oodlesoftennis]

thank you for any information you can provide. I’ve tried to figure this out on my own with no success.

I’m concerned with being bounced down after quite a few matches either partnered with or against a team with a self rated player. I can’t seem to understand whether it counts at all. It’s beginning to feel counter productive (in terms of my rating). In one instance we double bageled Our opponents and it didn’t raise my TR estimate at all. If anyone can help me to understand how who you play with and who you play against will impact.

Secondly would you say the TR or TLS estimate is more likely to reflect what the usta does?

thank you for any info!

 

[Cashman]

Never really understood why people stress so much about understanding ratings… you play who you play, you do your best, and the cards fall where they may

Embrace the zen state of mind

 

[Moon Shooter]

thank you for any information you can provide. I’ve tried to figure this out on my own with no success.

I’m concerned with being bounced down after quite a few matches either partnered with or against a team with a self rated player. I can’t seem to understand whether it counts at all. It’s beginning to feel counter productive (in terms of my rating). In one instance we double bageled Our opponents and it didn’t raise my TR estimate at all. If anyone can help me to understand how who you play with and who you play against will impact.

Secondly would you say the TR or TLS estimate is more likely to reflect what the usta does?

thank you for any info!

I don't think Self rated players effect your rating until they play 3 matches.(It might be four matches) Unless you yourself are a self rated player with fewer than 3 matches. Once they play 3 matches they get a dynamic rating that I believe TR will try to approximate.


I tried tennis league states and it did not have any player ratings in my district at all. I think it is very unlikely it is accurate.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Never really understood why people stress so much about understanding ratings… you play who you play, you do your best, and the cards fall where they may

Embrace the zen state of mind

You might as well ask why people care about the score in tennis.

"you play who you play, you do your best, and the cards fall where they may
Embrace the zen state of mind"

The ratings are the best, most publicized, and objective indicator of tennis strength we have.

 

[oodlesoftennis]

Never really understood why people stress so much about understanding ratings… you play who you play, you do your best, and the cards fall where they may

Embrace the zen state of mind

Thank you for your reply. I’m not exactly stressed

I don't think Self rated players effect your rating until they play 3 matches.(It might be four matches) Unless you yourself are a self rated player with fewer than 3 matches. Once they play 3 matches they get a dynamic rating that I believe TR will try to approximate.


I tried tennis league states and it did not have any player ratings in my district at all. I think it is very unlikely it is accurate.

thank you!!

 

[oodlesoftennis]

Thank you for your reply. I’m not exactly stressed but really just trying to understand how it is computed.

thank you!!

 

[Cashman]

You might as well ask why people care about the score in tennis.

No

The score is part of the game, ratings are ancillary

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

thank you for any information you can provide. I’ve tried to figure this out on my own with no success.

I’m concerned with being bounced down after quite a few matches either partnered with or against a team with a self rated player. I can’t seem to understand whether it counts at all. It’s beginning to feel counter productive (in terms of my rating). In one instance we double bageled Our opponents and it didn’t raise my TR estimate at all. If anyone can help me to understand how who you play with and who you play against will impact.

Secondly would you say the TR or TLS estimate is more likely to reflect what the usta does?

thank you for any info!

Talk to @schmke.

 

[oodlesoftennis]

Talk to @schmke.

Oh thank you for that. I’ll reach out to schmke!!!

 

[Moon Shooter]

No

The score is part of the game, ratings are ancillary

Best of 3 sets or best of 5? Or is it 2 sets and if your tied it is a ten point tie breaker? You cant have all of them in a match so you have to choose. Which are "part of the game" of tennis and which others are not really tennis but ancillary?

In the end any of these individual matches will just tell you about how you can beat this one person (or doubles team) because you do well against this or that style or you can exploit this or that weakness they have. When you have a rating it can tell you how you will do against the entire country. You rating is much more important than any individual score in telling you how good you are at this game. Assuming the rating is done half way decently.

 

[Cashman]

Which are "part of the game" of tennis and which others are not really tennis but ancillary?

Any and all scoring systems are part of the game by virtue of it being something that happens whilst you are on the court

Ratings are just administrative nonsense that has nothing to do with the activity of actually playing tennis, the obsession people have with them is ridiculous

 

[Dartagnan64]

Any and all scoring systems are part of the game by virtue of it being something that happens whilst you are on the court

Ratings are just administrative nonsense that has nothing to do with the activity of actually playing tennis, the obsession people have with them is ridiculous

The biggest issue with ratings is that it tries to ascribe a discrete variable to what is actually a continuous variable. it’s not like 4.0 is a separate bundle of players but rather a spectrum. So outcomes often get determined on where the computer draws the line. It’s an artificial edifice.

While it does bother me a bit when folks intentionally sand bag to earn meaningless intermediate level tennis trophies, I still view playing these people as a challenge to test myself against.

Ratings need to be relegated to what they were originally meant for: a general indicator of player skill so people can have a competitive match.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Any and all scoring systems are part of the game by virtue of it being something that happens whilst you are on the court

Ratings are just administrative nonsense that has nothing to do with the activity of actually playing tennis, the obsession people have with them is ridiculous

The main point of both scoring and ratings is to try to quantify who is a better tennis player. A good rating system is just much better at it.

When you suggest that ratings have nothing to do with someone's tennis playing and is just administrative nonsense - it tells me we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[oodlesoftennis]

Any and all scoring systems are part of the game by virtue of it being something that happens whilst you are on the court

Ratings are just administrative nonsense that has nothing to do with the activity of actually playing tennis, the obsession people have with them is ridiculous

okay again, I’m not stressing about it. Not am I obsessed. My concern is that bumping down will prevent my from playing up one level from my current level. It’s not anything more than that.

 

[Moon Shooter]

The biggest issue with ratings is that it tries to ascribe a discrete variable to what is actually a continuous variable. it’s not like 4.0 is a separate bundle of players but rather a spectrum. So outcomes often get determined on where the computer draws the line. It’s an artificial edifice.

Ratings are based on a mathematical formula. They attempt to differentiate player skill based on results in an objective way. They can do that very well as long as the system is sensible and players are not incentivized to distort the results.

While it does bother me a bit when folks intentionally sand bag to earn meaningless intermediate level tennis trophies, I still view playing these people as a challenge to test myself against.

You are testing yourself less against a sandbagger than you are against someone who plays their best tennis every match and therefore has a rating that is more accurate. If you beat the non sandbagger and they have a higher rating that is an indicator that you are improving your game.

But assuming you can tell who the sandbaggers are beating them is no test at all. By definition you likely wouldn't even know if you are testing yourself against their best effort. You may just be getting gifted some rating points. Winning or losing against a sandbagger is meaningless because you don't know who you played.

Ratings need to be relegated to what they were originally meant for: a general indicator of player skill so people can have a competitive match.

Or else what?

Your view seems to be the approach USTA has always taken. And we have USTA shrinking as amateur tennis grows.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Your view seems to be the approach USTA has always taken. And we have USTA shrinking as amateur tennis grows.

Tennis has become increasingly popular in Canada where there is no national computerized ranking system. Everyone is self rated. So ratings are just a rough estimate people use to compete. And for the most part it works out pretty well. Everyone pretty much accepts that there will be sandbagging and it's not really a big deal as it serves as motivation to get better than the sandbagger. OPEN is the only category immune to sandbagging and where the money tennis is played. The rest of us are trying to compete and let the chips fall where they fall.

Ratings are based on a mathematical formula. They attempt to differentiate player skill based on results in an objective way. They can do that very well as long as the system is sensible and players are not incentivized to distort the results.

But they still end up categorizing people somewhere along a relatively arbitrary spectrum. So in the end if you are at that upper end of the discrete category you have a greater chance of winning than if you are at the lower end. but if you shift those markers slightly to the right, suddenly the crappy 4.0 becomes the great 3.5 and the great 4.0 becomes the middling 4.0.

 

[schmke]

Tennis has become increasingly popular in Canada where there is no national computerized ranking system. Everyone is self rated. So ratings are just a rough estimate people use to compete. And for the most part it works out pretty well. Everyone pretty much accepts that there will be sandbagging and it's not really a big deal as it serves as motivation to get better than the sandbagger. OPEN is the only category immune to sandbagging and where the money tennis is played. The rest of us are trying to compete and let the chips fall where they fall.



But they still end up categorizing people somewhere along a relatively arbitrary spectrum. So in the end if you are at that upper end of the discrete category you have a greater chance of winning than if you are at the lower end. but if you shift those markers slightly to the right, suddenly the crappy 4.0 becomes the great 3.5 and the great 4.0 becomes the middling 4.0.

I think part of the discussion/disagreement is due to terminology.

On one hand, and what I think @Dartagnan64 is referring to, there is the coarse grained NTRP "rating", which to me is more of a "level" given how coarse grained it is. It is this level that has the arbitrary thresholds and is a spectrum that a player falls in. This only gives a general idea of what player may be better/worse and two players with the same level are said to be "compatible" but not guaranteed to have a "competitive" match (depending on how one defines competitive).

On the other hand, what I think @Moon Shooter is advocating for is being more transparent with a player's dynamic rating. This being far finer grained would give more insight into who the higher rated player may be and is not subject to the arbitrary levels or spectrum described above.

So, one should probably be clear which term is being discussed.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Tennis has become increasingly popular in Canada where there is no national computerized ranking system. Everyone is self rated. So ratings are just a rough estimate people use to compete. And for the most part it works out pretty well. Everyone pretty much accepts that there will be sandbagging and it's not really a big deal as it serves as motivation to get better than the sandbagger. OPEN is the only category immune to sandbagging and where the money tennis is played. The rest of us are trying to compete and let the chips fall where they fall.

Tennis is also popular in the US. The question is what if anything the organizations whose purpose is supposedly promoting tennis are doing a good job of it. When you see tennis going up but membership and participation in the organization going down it is a red flag. You should at least consider that maybe the organization is out of touch with what tennis players want.

If there is no computer rating then there is only sandbagging in a general sense. There would be no need to throw games which I believe is the most clear cut way to sandbag. If people are just making claims about their rating with no actual numbers to ground what those claims mean then it seems impossible to objectively say anyone is sandbagging. I could claim I am a 5.5 and when someone says well actually this guy is a 4.5 and he could easily beat you I could just say oh no he is a 6.5!

What do adult rec players get from joining the Canadian national tennis association?

But they still end up categorizing people somewhere along a relatively arbitrary spectrum. So in the end if you are at that upper end of the discrete category you have a greater chance of winning than if you are at the lower end. but if you shift those markers slightly to the right, suddenly the crappy 4.0 becomes the great 3.5 and the great 4.0 becomes the middling 4.0.

I agree the cut offs are so seperated that they become silly. It is silly that a low level 4.0 may be identical in strength to a high level 3.5 but they are not allowed to play. Instead the low level 4.0 must play another 4.0 that may completely blow him off the court. That is why USTA should not hide the full ratings from the membership. People would then be able to understand the system and it would gain more legitimacy.

 

[Cashman]

The main point of both scoring and ratings is to try to quantify who is a better tennis player.

no, the main point of scoring is to determine who wins a match

the main point of ratings is just to group players of roughly similar ability together, which is administrative

if you determine your worth as a tennis player by reference to either then I feel sorry for you

 

[Cashman]

okay again, I’m not stressing about it. Not am I obsessed.

if you say so, my friend

 

[Moon Shooter]

no, the main point of scoring is to determine who wins a match

the main point of ratings is just to group players of roughly similar ability together, which is administrative

if you determine your worth as a tennis player by reference to either then I feel sorry for you

If by “tennis worth” you mean someone’s “ability to win tennis games” then you should look at how they scored in a match. But a rating is an even better way to help determine their ability to win tennis games. So I guess you can feel sorry for me. If you don’t look at scores of their tennis matches, or their rating what do you reference?

 

[Matthew ATX]

okay again, I’m not stressing about it. Not am I obsessed. My concern is that bumping down will prevent my from playing up one level from my current level. It’s not anything more than that.

If you're a 4.0 who is losing enough at that level that you may get bumped down to 3.5, why are you concerned about being able to play 4.5? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

 

[Cashman]

a rating is an even better way to help determine their ability to win tennis games

a rating is just an arbitrary administrative method of putting people of roughly similar ability on the same court, most of the time

If you are obsessing about the minutiae of how a rating is calculated and tying your worth as a tennis player to how some number moves (as you and many people on this site seem to) then you have turned it into something it is not

When it comes to playing the game the white lines are your locus of control, and there is little purpose or joy to be had in worrying about the extraneous crap

 

[Moon Shooter]

If you're a 4.0 who is losing enough at that level that you may get bumped down to 3.5, why are you concerned about being able to play 4.5? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

Yes I think he is concerned he wouldn’t be able to play with 4.5s due to having his rating skewed by self rates.

 

[oodlesoftennis]

Yes that is correct. The number of SRs was extraordinary. Every match almost.

 

[oodlesoftennis]

If you're a 4.0 who is losing enough at that level that you may get bumped down to 3.5, why are you concerned about being able to play 4.5? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

its not that I list that much but it IS that my wins essentially never counted bc of playing against or with new self rated players.

 

[PK6]

Self ratings are cheating!!!! Most if not all will rate themselves lower when they shouldn’t, play at your level not lower level!!! USTA must get rid of this rule!!!

 

[Matthew ATX]

Self ratings are cheating!!!! Most if not all will rate themselves lower when they shouldn’t, play at your level not lower level!!! USTA must get rid of this rule!!!

How are new players supposed to join, then?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Self ratings are cheating!!!! Most if not all will rate themselves lower when they shouldn’t, play at your level not lower level!!! USTA must get rid of this rule!!!

How does one know one's level if one hasn't played USTA before and doesn't know anyone who does?

The questionnaire gives a minimum rating based on the answers. Most people mistake it for the correct rating. So at least some of the self-rates who are playing below their level are doing so only because that's what the algorithm gave them, not because they are sandbagging.

And, believe it or not, there are those who have an initial rating that's too high because of past play that's no longer as relevant because of age, injury, etc. Those people end up frustrated and leave the system. I'm assuming the USTA therefore errs on the side of caution: better to have the rating be too low than too high.

That's not to say that there are no sandbaggers; it's just not a major [or even minor] problem in my experience. YMMV.

 

[Matthew ATX]

How does one know one's level if one hasn't played USTA before and doesn't know anyone who does?

The questionnaire gives a minimum rating based on the answers. Most people mistake it for the correct rating. So at least some of the self-rates who are playing below their level are doing so only because that's what the algorithm gave them, not because they are sandbagging.

And, believe it or not, there are those who have an initial rating that's too high because of past play that's no longer as relevant because of age, injury, etc. Those people end up frustrated and leave the system. I'm assuming the USTA therefore errs on the side of caution: better to have the rating be too low than too high.

That's not to say that there are no sandbaggers; it's just not a major [or even minor] problem in my experience. YMMV.

Here, it just depends on how far you want to go. If you're okay finishing third or worse in your city, it's not a big deal at all. You'll have fun and get a good amount of competitive matches. If you want to make it to Sectionals, you'll need a few out of level people. If you want to make it to Nationals, you'll need a good number of well out of level people.

 

[PK6]

How does one know one's level if one hasn't played USTA before and doesn't know anyone who does?

The questionnaire gives a minimum rating based on the answers. Most people mistake it for the correct rating. So at least some of the self-rates who are playing below their level are doing so only because that's what the algorithm gave them, not because they are sandbagging.

And, believe it or not, there are those who have an initial rating that's too high because of past play that's no longer as relevant because of age, injury, etc. Those people end up frustrated and leave the system. I'm assuming the USTA therefore errs on the side of caution: better to have the rating be too low than too high.

That's not to say that there are no sandbaggers; it's just not a major [or even minor] problem in my experience. YMMV.

It is cheating!!! Why have players who are at higher level playing lower level. That’s wrong!!! Play at your level not below. Especially if your high school/college champion? How are they a 3.0s???? ********!!!! The sandbagging needs to be gone as it’s ruined USTA!!! Self ratings need to be gone forever!!! Next season would be perfect time to do away with this.

 

[silverwyvern4]

This season ends october 31 and then ratings will be locked in?

 

[HBK4life]

It is cheating!!! Why have players who are at higher level playing lower level. That’s wrong!!! Play at your level not below. Especially if your high school/college champion? How are they a 3.0s???? ********!!!! The sandbagging needs to be gone as it’s ruined USTA!!! Self ratings need to be gone forever!!! Next season would be perfect time to do away with this.

Lol cheating. Are you new to USTA? That’s the way it is sad to say.

 

[DynastyFury]

It is cheating!!! Why have players who are at higher level playing lower level. That’s wrong!!! Play at your level not below. Especially if your high school/college champion? How are they a 3.0s???? ********!!!! The sandbagging needs to be gone as it’s ruined USTA!!! Self ratings need to be gone forever!!! Next season would be perfect time to do away with this.

I find it funny that a self-confessed cheater is getting so worked up to the point of wildly calling other cheaters without understanding what S&V said.

If you read what S&V said, as long as someone is answering the rating questionnaire honestly, you will get a minimum self-rating. S&V made a good point that… how does one know what one’s rating is if he/she never play USTA before? It is a good point because ratings are based on winning and official results, not how you hit the ball or your footwork.

There is def a good argument in erring on the conservative side in terms of the system spitting out an initial low rating versus a high rating.

 

[Moon Shooter]

According to one USTA guideline someone posted, any male under 25 that played on any d3 team should automatically have a minimum 5.0 men's rating! Some D3 players are indeed that good. But some have UTRs in the 3.XX.

 

[travlerajm]

According to one USTA guideline someone posted, any male under 25 that played on any d3 team should automatically have a minimum 5.0 men's rating! Some D3 players are indeed that good. But some have UTRs in the 3.XX.

In my experience, very few D3 players are 5.0 level even when they are in college. Most fall somewhere within the 4.5 level band.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

In my experience, very few D3 players are 5.0 level even when they are in college. Most fall somewhere within the 4.5 level band.

Every ex-D3 I've encountered was either a high 4.5 or a 5.0.

 

[DynastyFury]

Every ex-D3 I've encountered was either a high 4.5 or a 5.0.

I have a story…. Last fall, I was playing up in a 4.0 tournament and met a kid in my first round that had a commitment to a division III college. My UTR was middle 4 and his was 7+. I must have played the greatest tennis ever in my life with maximum luck…. and him his worst match ever to pull off a huge upset. 6-3, 1-6, 10-5.

He proceeded to wreck everyone in consolations.

When reflecting upon my best matches, I still cannot believe how I won. I check his records from time to time. While he fell to middle 6s in UTR from his college matches, I have no doubts that he would cream me if we ever play again.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I have a story…. Last fall, I was playing up in a 4.0 tournament and met a kid in my first round that had a commitment to a division III college. My UTR was middle 4 and his was 7+. I must have played the greatest tennis ever in my life with maximum luck…. and him his worst match ever to pull off a huge upset. 6-3, 1-6, 10-5.

He proceeded to wreck everyone in consolations.

When reflecting upon my best matches, I still cannot believe how I won. I check his records from time to time. While he fell to middle 6s in UTR from his college matches, I have no doubts that he would cream me if we ever play again.

When he turns pro, you can regale your friends: "Yeah, I beat that guy in the Pandemic after having walked to the tournament 5 miles uphill in the snow while being chased by rabid weasals."

 

[OnTheLine]

Every ex-D3 I've encountered was either a high 4.5 or a 5.0.

There is a huge difference in D3 schools. There are D3 like Dartmouth. Their tennis levels probably rival some D1 schools. Then there are D3 schools like Hiram College where my 50 year old self could probably be a starter. Then there is everything in between.

A young woman joined my 3.5 team a couple years ago. Maybe 30 years old .... maybe. Played college tennis at Loras College in Iowa. I really do not know how, but she had all the team logo wear to prove it, all in garish purple. She got bumped down to 3.0.

 

[Booger]

There is a huge difference in D3 schools. There are D3 like Dartmouth. Their tennis levels probably rival some D1 schools. Then there are D3 schools like Hiram College where my 50 year old self could probably be a starter. Then there is everything in between.

A young woman joined my 3.5 team a couple years ago. Maybe 30 years old .... maybe. Played college tennis at Loras College in Iowa. I really do not know how, but she had all the team logo wear to prove it, all in garish purple. She got bumped down to 3.0.

Many D3 schools do not give scholarships for tennis, at all. Some only have 1 or 2. And they don't fudge it by giving them phony baloney "academic" schollies.

I happened to stroll by a regional college tennis meet last week. I saw a surprising amount of 3.5-ish play. Waiter's tray serves, shank city, moonballing, etc.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

There is a huge difference in D3 schools. There are D3 like Dartmouth. Their tennis levels probably rival some D1 schools. Then there are D3 schools like Hiram College where my 50 year old self could probably be a starter. Then there is everything in between.

A young woman joined my 3.5 team a couple years ago. Maybe 30 years old .... maybe. Played college tennis at Loras College in Iowa. I really do not know how, but she had all the team logo wear to prove it, all in garish purple. She got bumped down to 3.0.

Understood. It's just that I have yet to meet an ex-D3 that I'm better than.

Then again, I've played against 2 ex-D1s and didn't get crushed: one was in his 40s and the other played for a small D1 school.

 

[OnTheLine]

Many D3 schools do not give scholarships for tennis, at all. Some only have 1 or 2. And they don't fudge it by giving them phony baloney "academic" schollies.

I happened to stroll by a regional college tennis meet last week. I saw a surprising amount of 3.5-ish play. Waiter's tray serves, shank city, moonballing, etc.

I really don't think that D3 schools can give an athletic scholarship at all in any form. It may be a factor in admitting a student but not in scholarship/financial aid

 

[Booger]

I really don't think that D3 schools can give an athletic scholarship at all in any form. It may be a factor in admitting a student but not in scholarship/financial aid

75% of D3 athletes receive some sort of aid. They just package it as an academic or needs based scholarship. Plenty of dudes out there on academic schollies with 2.5 high school GPA's, but coincidentally can dunk a basketball or serve 120mph.

But some schools really do treat athletics like intramural, casual activities. That's where you see 3.5 tennis.

 

[travlerajm]

Every ex-D3 I've encountered was either a high 4.5 or a 5.0.

Most of my experience playing tournaments against D3 players was 20 years ago, before The Great Bump Up, when lots of my 4.5 buddies suddenly became 5.0, without their level actually changing.

 

[FloridaAG]

There is a huge difference in D3 schools. There are D3 like Dartmouth. Their tennis levels probably rival some D1 schools. Then there are D3 schools like Hiram College where my 50 year old self could probably be a starter. Then there is everything in between.

A young woman joined my 3.5 team a couple years ago. Maybe 30 years old .... maybe. Played college tennis at Loras College in Iowa. I really do not know how, but she had all the team logo wear to prove it, all in garish purple. She got bumped down to 3.0.

Dartmouth is in the Ivy League and ECAC and is a Division 1 school last I checked. Tennis is also a sport that the Ivy League competes fairly well in against major D1 schools with a quick check sowing Dartmouth, Cornell and Columbia were all in the Top 50 at various points in 2020.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Every ex-D3 I've encountered was either a high 4.5 or a 5.0.

If they are told they can't self rate below a 5.0 that would make sense wouldn't it?

Not many of the guys on these rosters will be playing USTA tennis if they have to self rate at a 5.0:

Tennis & Pickleball Ratings & Events | UTR Sports

Find tennis and pickleball events, leagues, and tournaments near you. Get your free UTR Rating and UTR Pickleball Rating (UTR-P) within minutes.

app.universaltennis.com

Tennis & Pickleball Ratings & Events | UTR Sports

Find tennis and pickleball events, leagues, and tournaments near you. Get your free UTR Rating and UTR Pickleball Rating (UTR-P) within minutes.

app.universaltennis.com

Tennis & Pickleball Ratings & Events | UTR Sports

Find tennis and pickleball events, leagues, and tournaments near you. Get your free UTR Rating and UTR Pickleball Rating (UTR-P) within minutes.

app.universaltennis.com

I wouldn't be surprised if many d3 teams have no cuts at all. Students just play if they like tennis.

I am not sure if everyone on a d2 team has a scholarship (or at least not full scholarship) but they also have some lower utr players for example check these rosters:

Tennis & Pickleball Ratings & Events | UTR Sports

Find tennis and pickleball events, leagues, and tournaments near you. Get your free UTR Rating and UTR Pickleball Rating (UTR-P) within minutes.

app.universaltennis.com

https://app.universaltennis.com/colleges/1841?t=1

Tennis & Pickleball Ratings & Events | UTR Sports

Find tennis and pickleball events, leagues, and tournaments near you. Get your free UTR Rating and UTR Pickleball Rating (UTR-P) within minutes.

app.universaltennis.com

If USTA sticks to those guidelines they will of course not have many adults playing USTA tennis during or right after college. College students are mostly over 18.