Responding to the OP
Where I haven't read every response to this thread, I have read most. This was a good post OP. Any post that engenders impassioned responses, that get's people engaged is a good thread.
Excuse me if anything I say here has already been covered, as I said, I read most, but not all responses. As is the case with almost any situation, there are two sides to every story, which doesn't mean that one side doesn't have right more on their side than the other, but things are usually a certain shade of gray, sometimes darker, sometimes lighter.
Let's get some "housecleaning" out of the way.....
- If league tennis had existed when I graduated from college I would have been in a very similar situation as you, so I empathize. The "one size fits all" rating of all college players is inaccurate and not the best way to handle this by the USTA. There are approximately 442 Division 3 schools in the United States, there are approximately 312 Division 2 schools and there are approximately 347 Division 1 schools. (Rough numbers) How many schools out of those approximately 1,101 schools have tennis teams? I don't know, let's estimate conservatively that 50% do, which puts us at 550.5 (look out for the half of school, I hear their number one player is awesome!) And by the way, this doesn't include JUCOs or NAIA schools. I think we could all agree, that across 550 schools, there is probably a wide range of tennis talent. Everything from, I don't know, 3.0 (I am being pretty arbitrary here) to world class players are playing. So, to label everyone as a 5.0 (if that is what the USTA is doing, and I am taking the OPs word for it) seems inaccurate at the least, and downright wrong needing to be fixed at the worst.
- However, as is often the case, and the OP will learn this as he graduates and starts working if he hasn't learned this already, quite often, a process, or a decision is made where the principals know it isn't the best way to do things, but there are no better alternatives at that time. Maybe the USTA realized that it just wasn't cost effective to do this any other way simply due to the diversity of players. For example, I attended the Division 3 national championships about 10 years ago.........these guys were not players I played against at Division 3 when I was in college. They looked like pros, literally, could be playing Sattelite level tennis (no need to look any further than Eric Butorac to see an example of this.) And I am sure nowadays, the lowest of the low D3 schools have some pretty novice players, so even within D3 it would be very difficult to just apply a blanket rating. But what is the USTA supposed to do? Maybe rate everyone at 5.0 but give you the option to show up at a certain place at a certain time to go through a rating session like the USTA used to do for the "general population" years ago? Interesting thought, but not posting to solve this problem.
Now for the fun....
- Let's get back to the gray for a sec here.....OP, I would love to know what your record was playing your one year at 3.5. It strikes me that someone isn't going to file a grievance against a player, or even notice a player that is middle of the pack or losing at a certain level. On the other hand, if someone is obviously better and/or dominating, league participants might look into the player's background. Your initial post strikes me as a bit disingenuous, why would people file a grievance? Were you kicking butt at 3.5? Did you self rate at 3.5 because you really believed you were a 3.5, or was it because you had friends, or knew people on a team, and they told you "hey, self rate at 3.5 and you can play with us and we will dominate."
- While I already agreed that the USTA policy of a blanket rating of 5.0 for NCAA players is probably not the best way to do things, the USTA came back and granted you a 4.5 rating. They compromised. For arguments sake, let's say that this is still above your playing level............OK........soooooooooo.......GO FOR IT!!!!! OP, you're a college tennis player, D3, this is technically "open" tennis", no ratings here. I am sure in the 4 matches or however many you have played, you played people that were worse than you and played players that were better. You're playing open tennis, but you don't want to test yourself at 4.5? I would think a competitor such as yourself, who is currently playing open tennis, would want to go against the best they could. What is the downside, so let's say you get pummeled for a season. Ok, how many matches does someone play on three USTA league teams (mixed and mens) in a year......what, maybe 18 matches? (total guess, but that might be generous.) So, you lose 18 matches over the course of a year, but you gain the great experience of playing against excellent competition and probably become a better player for it. Great experience! Now, after one year of playing, you are probably a better player than you were, and you are dropped to 4.0, where you should be. That sounds pretty good to me.
- Instead, you went ahead and tried to "game" the system by self rating and misrepresenting yourself. I think it has been established here that the general consensus was this was not a great idea. I don't know what emotions you were feeling, or what your thought process was, so I won't judge, but you broke the rules. Even if the rule you broke was wrong (the blanket rating of 5.0s for all NCAA players), you still broke it. And while I have sympathy for you, and the rule should be improved, breaking rules by misrepresenting yourself within the paradigm that is USTA ratings is not the way to fix the situation or get the rules changed. Now you have to be held accountable, and that is playing as a 5.0. You say there are no 5.0 teams in your area, well, that is part of the punishment, you will have to go travel to find a team to play on. You will have to spend a season getting lumped up at 5.0, but this is the price you will have to pay.
In summary.........
OP, look on the bright side of things. Go out, play your 5.0 season of penance, (really, how many matches will that be, 4 or 5?) take pride in the fact that you're playing against great competition, embrace it and make yourself a better player. And every time you have to drive an hour or 2 to get to a match, or your putting more gas in your car, take that time to remember that there is a price to pay for breaking the rules, even if the rules are bad or inequitable. But also use that time wisely, think about how best to get that bad USTA rule changed. Work toward that instead of coming up with ways to circumvent or break the rules. Yes, the system is broken, but by breaking the rules you're making it more broken rather than trying to fix it.
In summary part 2........
Not to get deep, but I think USTA league tennis is a great petri dish for sociological and psychological observation. There is a lot of great people who play league tennis, but I see many high character people doing low character things when it comes to playing league tennis. What I would love to see is people being accountable, embracing competition and wanting to test themselves to be the best they can be. Does that sound ridiculously idealistic and a bit naive possibly, probably yes, but c'mon, we are adults here, this is just tennis, it ain't life, have some perspective......
- If the ball is out, or even if it is close and you aren't sure, give the point to your opponent. Do you really want to win by stealing questionable points? Does that feel good to win that way?
- Does sandbagging, appealing (not sure if you can even do this anymore), combining matches across type in a certain way (I played only 3 men's matches this season, but 5 mixed, 8 combo, and 6 interspecies matches), self rating inaccurately, etc, etc, so you can play at a level below what you really are feel good? Does pummeling inferior competition feel like an accomplishment?
Or, does getting bumped up, going out and finding a team, embracing the new challenge, taking your lumps along the way, problem solving, working to improve, being disciplined and becoming a better player feel good? Knowing that you are testing yourself to the best of your capabilities.
Sport is about embracing the challenge and being the best you can be. Even if you get crushed at a certain level, it beats playing at a low level and crushing everyone because you are artificially representing yourself. I would rather finish in last place, playing at the appropriate level, or a level above, knowing that I am improving as a player and working hard, and being pushed to be the best that I can be, than win a national championship on a team where I am playing a level down. I would rather lose a match, than win knowing I called a ball out that was really in. I would rather play solid, sportsmanlike tennis and lose than push the limits of the hindrance rule by doing whatever these people do on court to try to distract their opponent.
Just sayin, it might be harder, but doin the "right" thing is also more rewarding......
