Sections May Create Residency Requirements Rule 1.04E (1)

[Chelsie1]

"Sections may create residency requirement rules to encourage and foster local league play."

I am trying to build a case to present to our Sectional League Coordinator to encourage a rule that would help our local league. I would appreciate your positive insight.

Our district and local league is small and surrounded by several other districts that contain any where from 5-10 local leagues. Our teams advance directly to Sectionals. One of the other districts runs winter programs, so that allows them to bring whole teams to participate in our spring/summer adult/senior/mxd leagues. They may have won or come in second in their local winter leagues, but they still want to bring whole teams in an effort to have multiple shots at Sectionals and/or Nationals. The registered residents in our small local league are fed up--not wanting to be fodder. More often then not, none of the residents in our leagues are on the teams that represent our district at Sectionals. I personally think it's nice to have some actual residents of a local league represent that league during post-season play.

Rule 1.04E (1) seems to be able to address this situation. I've read about a rule used in Mississippi where 50% of players on teams advancing directly State Championships must reside in the local league in which the team is registered. I think this kind of residency requirement would "encourage and foster" our local league.

The Section admin seems to put the money generated by the added players over the concerns of the local league players. Or maybe they just need to hear our side...?

Can anyone give me an idea how best to approach this? Has anyone else had to deal with a similar situation? Anyone from Mississippi have any first hand knowledge? Anyone know how/why rule 1.04E(1) came to be?

Again, your positive, constructive insight would be appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[Spokewench]

Hi Chelsie: I am in a rural area that sounds similar to your area. We are a small district next to a large district. Our USTA league players were disgruntled about the larger district coming in and sandbagging teams into our area. Our District Board bounced around with ideas for residency requirements. However, sometimes we need the larger league to make our leagues work, i.e. get two teams and also we had the basic premise that if people want to play they should be able to. Anyway, in addition, we have two different geographical areas. One is cold and snowy in the winter and the other is really hot in the summer. So, a lot of people want to play in the good weather so players play in both areas during different times of the year and we want to encourage our players to be able to go to the larger district and their players to come to our smaller district. If you do residency requirements, you sometimes preclude your players from being able to play in the other district, sort of a tit for tat sort of thing. So, this is the rule that I came up with so that already advancing teams from the larger district cannot put super teams together to come up and win our league. What would happen is they would take people who were already qualified in the larger district, put them on a large team in our district in order to qualify the other players on the team and then the better players would play for the larger district at sectionals and the "lesser" players would qualify and go to sectionals for our smaller district.

2. Inter-District Play: A team may not advance to championship play if any of its Members qualify at any time for championship play in another District. This includes any Member that qualifies for championship play at any time during or after the NAZ League season is played. The team captain is ultimately responsible for compliance with this requirement. A waiver of these requirements may be granted subject to the vote of the Northern Arizona Executive Committee and/or the NAZ League Committee. (In effect September 10, 2012.)

As far as I know, you should have a Board of your District, they should have the ability to make local district rules like the one above or if you still want to do residency requirements, your district can also decide to do that as well.

There are a few districts that have residency requirements, not very many, but there are a few.

 

[Chelsie1]

Now that is what I'm talking about! I knew I had come to the right place!

Thank you so very much.

What has the impact been as a result?

 

[goober]

Hi Chelsie: I am in a rural area that sounds similar to your area. We are a small district next to a large district. Our USTA league players were disgruntled about the larger district coming in and sandbagging teams into our area. Our District Board bounced around with ideas for residency requirements. However, sometimes we need the larger league to make our leagues work, i.e. get two teams and also we had the basic premise that if people want to play they should be able to. Anyway, in addition, we have two different geographical areas. One is cold and snowy in the winter and the other is really hot in the summer. So, a lot of people want to play in the good weather so players play in both areas during different times of the year and we want to encourage our players to be able to go to the larger district and their players to come to our smaller district. If you do residency requirements, you sometimes preclude your players from being able to play in the other district, sort of a tit for tat sort of thing. So, this is the rule that I came up with so that already advancing teams from the larger district cannot put super teams together to come up and win our league. What would happen is they would take people who were already qualified in the larger district, put them on a large team in our district in order to qualify the other players on the team and then the better players would play for the larger district at sectionals and the "lesser" players would qualify and go to sectionals for our smaller district.

2. Inter-District Play: A team may not advance to championship play if any of its Members qualify at any time for championship play in another District. This includes any Member that qualifies for championship play at any time during or after the NAZ League season is played. The team captain is ultimately responsible for compliance with this requirement. A waiver of these requirements may be granted subject to the vote of the Northern Arizona Executive Committee and/or the NAZ League Committee. (In effect September 10, 2012.)

As far as I know, you should have a Board of your District, they should have the ability to make local district rules like the one above or if you still want to do residency requirements, your district can also decide to do that as well.

There are a few districts that have residency requirements, not very many, but there are a few.

LOL I know the players/teams that did this to your area and I am not surprised at all they did this after they failed to advance out of districts for first time in many years. They pretty much are the group that will bend any rule and game the system any way they can.

BTW your rule does not preclude teams in your area going to the bigger district and taking the best players off the nonplayoff teams and adding them to their rosters. I have noticed that this has happened in the past.

 

[floridatennisdude]

In other states, I've seen 50% rules. An example is Charlotte which is right on the SC border. Lots of Charlotte folks play both NC and SC leagues. I think SC has a rule against having too many out of state folks. Not sure if it is a state or district thing.

 

[dode]

I believe that here only two players on a team may be from outside the district.

John

 

[gmatheis]

In other states, I've seen 50% rules. An example is Charlotte which is right on the SC border. Lots of Charlotte folks play both NC and SC leagues. I think SC has a rule against having too many out of state folks. Not sure if it is a state or district thing.

I live very close to the NC border but I live in SC , infact I live so close that I play a majority of my recreational tennis in NC.

I believe the rule you are talking about is based on state residency and only requires a certain percentage of the team to be from the state (50 or 60% i think)

Unfortunately I know several people who live just barely in NC who do not play league because of this. They would play in SC if they could but cant because of the residency requirements , and they don't play in NC because the matches are actually farther away from them.

 

[gmatheis]

Hi Chelsie: I am in a rural area that sounds similar to your area. We are a small district next to a large district. Our USTA league players were disgruntled about the larger district coming in and sandbagging teams into our area. Our District Board bounced around with ideas for residency requirements. However, sometimes we need the larger league to make our leagues work, i.e. get two teams and also we had the basic premise that if people want to play they should be able to. Anyway, in addition, we have two different geographical areas. One is cold and snowy in the winter and the other is really hot in the summer. So, a lot of people want to play in the good weather so players play in both areas during different times of the year and we want to encourage our players to be able to go to the larger district and their players to come to our smaller district. If you do residency requirements, you sometimes preclude your players from being able to play in the other district, sort of a tit for tat sort of thing. So, this is the rule that I came up with so that already advancing teams from the larger district cannot put super teams together to come up and win our league. What would happen is they would take people who were already qualified in the larger district, put them on a large team in our district in order to qualify the other players on the team and then the better players would play for the larger district at sectionals and the "lesser" players would qualify and go to sectionals for our smaller district.

2. Inter-District Play: A team may not advance to championship play if any of its Members qualify at any time for championship play in another District. This includes any Member that qualifies for championship play at any time during or after the NAZ League season is played. The team captain is ultimately responsible for compliance with this requirement. A waiver of these requirements may be granted subject to the vote of the Northern Arizona Executive Committee and/or the NAZ League Committee. (In effect September 10, 2012.)

As far as I know, you should have a Board of your District, they should have the ability to make local district rules like the one above or if you still want to do residency requirements, your district can also decide to do that as well.

There are a few districts that have residency requirements, not very many, but there are a few.

So let me see if i get this right ... if player A is on 2 teams (1 in each district) and both of player A's teams win their district then neither of player A's teams are allowed to go?

SO basicly you dont mind if people from the larger district come in and fill up your losing teams , they just better not be on the winning team (asuming they are on a strong team in their own district)

 

[goober]

So let me see if i get this right ... if player A is on 2 teams (1 in each district) and both of player A's teams win their district then neither of player A's teams are allowed to go?

SO basicly you dont mind if people from the larger district come in and fill up your losing teams , they just better not be on the winning team (asuming they are on a strong team in their own district)

IT is actually a reasonable solution. There were 2 problems that I saw. First a superteam was made from out of district players for the sole purpose of going to sectionals from an easier district. Another problem was that certain in-district teams recruited top players from the other bigger section after their districts were over to play in league which were still ongoing. By not forcing a residency requirement you would still allow people to play in the smaller district from the bigger district, but you would eliminate bringing the ringers or forming of superteams made up of players that lived 2+ hours away. If a player had real desire to play in both districts and he or she could persuade the smaller district they were not doing it for one of the above reasons they could apply for a waiver. Before teams and players started pulling these shannigans there were very few players playing in both districts.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Chelsie, thanks for bringing this up. (BTW, will you share with us your geographic area?)

Here's my experience, with a bit of background.

I live in the DC metro area, and there is a lot of crossing boundaries among the main areas in our section (DC, MD, VA). Most of us like having the extra playing opportunities.

It is well known that if you want to go to Nationals, the road leads through DC. DC is very small and advances straight to sectionals. As Chelsie said, it is quite common for SuperTeams from VA or MD to play DC, mop the floor with the DC players and then go to sectionals.

I went to 3.5 ladies senior nationals in 2011 on a DC team. All six of the players who played live in Maryland. Did our captain attempt to field a SuperTeam? Yes and no. She did recruit three new strong players to the team (I was one), but it wasn't because we were on top MD teams. We were just on the cusp of being bumped up *and* were turning 50 that year.

I would be opposed to residency requirements. For instance, I play DC adult season primarily because I want to play on additional teams and DC is closer to me than other leagues in my own state. And I play NOVA day league because it is the only spring day league in the area, so far as I know.

I do like your idea of having small districts like DC limiting eligibility based on whether players have qualified for sectionals elsewhere. That is very fair. It wouldn't do much to prevent SuperTeams from storming DC -- there are plenty of strong players on the non-qualifying teams -- but it's a start.

I will mention, mostly to be provocative and generally quarrelsome, that the dilemma Chelsie identified is a very good reason for Mid-Atlantic to dilute the voting power of VA. VA may have had so much voting power that it could block measures like residency requirements.

 

[Angle Queen]

It is well known that if you want to go to Nationals, the road leads through DC. DC is very small and advances straight to sectionals. As Chelsie said, it is quite common for SuperTeams from VA or MD to play DC, mop the floor with the DC players and then go to sectionals.

...

I will mention, mostly to be provocative and generally quarrelsome, that the dilemma Chelsie identified is a very good reason for Mid-Atlantic to dilute the voting power of VA. VA may have had so much voting power that it could block measures like residency requirements.

Shall I take the bait? Well, kinda.

The situation Chelsie describes is indeed much like the Metropolitan Washington DC area....

Unlike the area John/dode from Kansas City is in...which is part of the Heart of America District in the Missouri Valley Section. They, apparently, have some modicum of residency requirements...but it's probably because of a more "real" District delineation. KC and its metro area easily cover two states (which would conventionally be different "Districts" in USTA) and isn't that far from two other "states/districts"....that "residency" may have been enough of an issue for them to speak to it even given their designated area.

Wash DC has its head in the sand when it comes to tennis (and whole bunch of other stuff but I'll stay away from non-tennis politics). Like Chelsie said, quite truthfully I believe in her original post, she believes her district may be concerned about "the money generated by the added players over the concerns of the local league players." I've said that too: if you want to determine why things are the way they are, follow the money.

But as gmatheis points out, the solution helpfully articulated by Spokewench out in AZ that seems to work for them, may not be exactly "fair" either.

Since I'm not in an area where such thing might matter, I generally don't have a skin in this game...except...as someone in a District that contains such an adjacent area....I'll admit I'm somewhat resentful (as we've both bantered about in other threads) of those in my District that live close to another District, like Chelsie's....that get that "go past GO, go straight to Sectionals."

And, FWIW, I don't think this District/Sectional-advancement stuff has anything to do with the whole VA voting power mess. That struggle...is all about the money and the power...for everything else.

But back to the OP: I'd personally be for some sort of residency (or even work) requirement....especially along the lines of what John/dode says they use. I see nothing wrong with a rule saying that 2 players/20% (or heck, even 33%) of the team can be from outside "The District." If that "District" finds, over the years, that they can no longer field any competitive teams for their Sectional competitions (à la WVA in the Mid-Atlantic)...then it's time to re-evaluate the "why"...and propose another solution.

 

[Spokewench]

What we are precluding is this: the large section has team placing 1 and 2 in their district for sectionals. they then bring half of team 1 to qualify team 2 in the smaller district and then the half of team 1 that played on the team in order to qualifty team 2 plays on the larger district team at section and team 2 plays for our smaller district. This is what is not fair.

 

[Humble_Warrior]

Don't this can work in mid -Atlantic without hurting at least three districts that form the section. How far do you want to take residency requirements - down to the county level? Mid -Atlantic section has a weir makeup in my opinion. The VA district appears to be organized base on region(NOVA, Richmond, Roanoke, VA Beach, etc) whereas MD is organized by county. DC encompasses the entire district; and WV is pretty nonexistent for most levels. Requiring a certain number of players to be residents of the district would dilute the competition in all but the larger population centers -in this case NOVA or Montgomery county.

 

[Spokewench]

So let me see if i get this right ... if player A is on 2 teams (1 in each district) and both of player A's teams win their district then neither of player A's teams are allowed to go?

SO basicly you dont mind if people from the larger district come in and fill up your losing teams , they just better not be on the winning team (asuming they are on a strong team in their own district)

No, the majority of our leagues do not run at the same time; so one league is over before the other one starts. Most of the leagues in larger district are decided way before our leagues in smaller district start due to the fact that it is warm down there and cold up here, and also because smaller district has to play all matches on weekends due to travel of up to 2 1/2 hours for local competition. First paragraph is incorrect; second paragraph is correct.

It is the fact that player A comes to play in smaller district, but has no intention of playing in sectionals for smaller district also. They are only there to qualify other players from larger district and then they go play on the larger district team at sectionals.

 

[J_R_B]

NJ is actually split between sections - NY area in Eastern and the rest in Middles States. A couple years ago, one of the captains put together a super team from the best players from MS NJ and PA districts and played in NJ Eastern. The team blew through all of the state playoffs and came in second in sectionals but only because a couple of the best players couldn't make it up for the first match on Friday of sectionals. Unsurprisingly, the next year, NJ Eastern implemented a residency requirement.

I was actually on that superteam, but I was hurt for the postseason.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Don't this can work in mid -Atlantic without hurting at least three districts that form the section. How far do you want to take residency requirements - down to the county level? Mid -Atlantic section has a weir makeup in my opinion. The VA district appears to be organized base on region(NOVA, Richmond, Roanoke, VA Beach, etc) whereas MD is organized by county. DC encompasses the entire district; and WV is pretty nonexistent for most levels. Requiring a certain number of players to be residents of the district would dilute the competition in all but the larger population centers -in this case NOVA or Montgomery county.

I agree that a residency requirement isn't the best solution in our area.

I do like the idea of saying that any player who qualifies for Districts in MD or VA cannot be eligible for sectionals on a DC team.

Say I play on the top MD team in my county. We advance to MD districts, where we lose.

Say I then sign up on a DC team, hoping to be the top DC team and advance to sectionals. I can do that, but I will be eligible for sectionals. Any decent captain would decline to have me on her DC team.

Still, there have been years when the top MD teams skipped MD altogether and only played for DC. The only way to prevent that is a residency requirement.

 

[OrangePower]

I don't have any insight into residency rules and the like. But it seems everyone is focusing on 'fairness' of who makes sectionals and so on. Does that really matter so much to you? I would be happy to have more strong players participating in my local league regardless of how it affects my grandiose sectionals and nationals aspirations - more players and more teams means more strong people to play with and a better local league season. Isn't that the primary goal after all?

 

[Humble_Warrior]

I agree that a residency requirement isn't the best solution in our area.

I do like the idea of saying that any player who qualifies for Districts in MD or VA cannot be eligible for sectionals on a DC team.

Say I play on the top MD team in my county. We advance to MD districts, where we lose.

Say I then sign up on a DC team, hoping to be the top DC team and advance to sectionals. I can do that, but I will be eligible for sectionals. Any decent captain would decline to have me on her DC team.

Still, there have been years when the top MD teams skipped MD altogether and only played for DC. The only way to prevent that is a residency requirement.

Our captain recruited players from other districts knowing that they would play with thrir other team if we both got to the sectionals. We won our league but we lost five guys from our team when we started sectional play.

 

[goober]

I don't have any insight into residency rules and the like. But it seems everyone is focusing on 'fairness' of who makes sectionals and so on. Does that really matter so much to you? I would be happy to have more strong players participating in my local league regardless of how it affects my grandiose sectionals and nationals aspirations - more players and more teams means more strong people to play with and a better local league season. Isn't that the primary goal after all?

Does it matter to me personally- no. I am more amused by the lengths people will go to make sectionals. Driving 2+ hours for a league out of your districts is pretty much right up there with tanking matches to keep your rating down. I think it is borderline insane, yet a large number of seemingly rationale adults in USTA leagues are willing to do both.

If you were strictly interested in playing stronger players, you could easily just play up one level your current one and you pretty much assure yourself of always having a tough match.

 

[OrangePower]

If you were strictly interested in playing stronger players, you could easily just play up one level your current one and you pretty much assure yourself of always having a tough match.

Not just about playing stronger players, it's about playing *more* players, some of which happen to be stronger.

For example, I am a 4.5. Yes, I could try get some extra matches by playing 5.0, but 5.0 teams are pretty scarce, and they only play 3 lines. So there would not be many playing opportunities for an average 4.5 like myself on a 5.0 team assuming I could find one.

On the other hand, if more 4.5s from outside the area play within my district, that means there will be more 4.5 teams overall, which means more regular season matches for everyone including me.

 

[J_R_B]

I don't have any insight into residency rules and the like. But it seems everyone is focusing on 'fairness' of who makes sectionals and so on. Does that really matter so much to you? I would be happy to have more strong players participating in my local league regardless of how it affects my grandiose sectionals and nationals aspirations - more players and more teams means more strong people to play with and a better local league season. Isn't that the primary goal after all?

This is where I am on this. I don't really care, and frankly, if it brings more competition, I'm all for it. Here, Philly and NJ districts are just a river apart, so most people play both.

Does it matter to me personally- no. I am more amused by the lengths people will go to make sectionals. Driving 2+ hours for a league out of your districts is pretty much right up there with tanking matches to keep your rating down. I think it is borderline insane, yet a large number of seemingly rationale adults in USTA leagues are willing to do both.

If you were strictly interested in playing stronger players, you could easily just play up one level your current one and you pretty much assure yourself of always having a tough match.

There are so many different sections and districts around here, that there is a lot of cross-border fraternization. Players from the general area have found teams in MS NJD, MS PATD, MS Central PA, Eastern NJ, Eastern Manhattan, MS Delaware, and occassionally even Mid Atlantic MD. Driving 2 hours to be a mercenary isn't all that uncommon at all. I view it a lot differently than throwing games or matches, which is against the very spirit of the game and of sport in general.

 

[goober]

There are so many different sections and districts around here, that there is a lot of cross-border fraternization. Players from the general area have found teams in MS NJD, MS PATD, MS Central PA, Eastern NJ, Eastern Manhattan, MS Delaware, and occassionally even Mid Atlantic MD. Driving 2 hours to be a mercenary isn't all that uncommon at all. I view it a lot differently than throwing games or matches, which is against the very spirit of the game and of sport in general.

I am sure it may be considered common in some districts. Let's put it this way. Before teams starting figuring out that it was an easy way to get to sectionals there were very few players that played in both districts. So the mercenary component was definitely there in this case. Obviously the smaller league agreed with me in this particular instance.

Personally I think it is crazy to drive 4+ hours round trip for a regular league match that may last only 60-90 minutes. But maybe that is just me.

 

[J_R_B]

I am sure it may be considered common in some districts. Let's put it this way. Before teams starting figuring out that it was an easy way to get to sectionals there were very few players that played in both districts. So the mercenary component was definitely there in this case. Obviously the smaller league agreed with me in this particular instance.

Personally I think it is crazy to drive 4+ hours round trip for a regular league match that may last only 60-90 minutes. But maybe that is just me.

Also, I think one big difference with you is that you have one huge, tough district that can dominate a smaller, sparser district. All of the various districts around here are on relatively equal footing.

 

[Chelsie1]

LOL I know the players/teams that did this to your area and I am not surprised at all they did this after they failed to advance out of districts for first time in many years. They pretty much are the group that will bend any rule and game the system any way they can.

BTW your rule does not preclude teams in your area going to the bigger district and taking the best players off the nonplayoff teams and adding them to their rosters. I have noticed that this has happened in the past.

______________________________
The thing I like about this Arizona rule is that anyone can play in the league. It does not affect competion/revenue adversely. It just says that if someone one your team is already qualified for post-season play, your team will not be allowed to advance--thus allowing more people to participate and possibly end up at Nationals.

 

[Chelsie1]

I live very close to the NC border but I live in SC , infact I live so close that I play a majority of my recreational tennis in NC.

I believe the rule you are talking about is based on state residency and only requires a certain percentage of the team to be from the state (50 or 60% i think)

Unfortunately I know several people who live just barely in NC who do not play league because of this. They would play in SC if they could but cant because of the residency requirements , and they don't play in NC because the matches are actually farther away from them.

_________________________________________________________
Once you implement residency requirements, unless you don't need outside players to maintain your programs, the tit-for-tat can turn very restrictive.
Not so good for "growing" the game.

 

[Chelsie1]

IT is actually a reasonable solution. There were 2 problems that I saw. First a superteam was made from out of district players for the sole purpose of going to sectionals from an easier district. Another problem was that certain in-district teams recruited top players from the other bigger section after their districts were over to play in league which were still ongoing. By not forcing a residency requirement you would still allow people to play in the smaller district from the bigger district, but you would eliminate bringing the ringers or forming of superteams made up of players that lived 2+ hours away. If a player had real desire to play in both districts and he or she could persuade the smaller district they were not doing it for one of the above reasons they could apply for a waiver. Before teams and players started pulling these shannigans there were very few players playing in both districts.

_____________________________________________________

Exactly. It's not that we don't want players from other districts, it's that we don't want them to occupy all the seats on the bus to sectionals. One ticket per person.

 

[Chelsie1]

LOL I know the players/teams that did this to your area and I am not surprised at all they did this after they failed to advance out of districts for first time in many years. They pretty much are the group that will bend any rule and game the system any way they can.

BTW your rule does not preclude teams in your area going to the bigger district and taking the best players off the nonplayoff teams and adding them to their rosters. I have noticed that this has happened in the past.

______________________________________________________________

The beauty of it, to me, is that anyone who wants to play in any league can. But you cannot have more than one post-season qualification at the expense of another district. So teams may recruit players from anywhere,
but in the post-season you can't hold down more than one seat.

 

[Chelsie1]

Chelsie, thanks for bringing this up. (BTW, will you share with us your geographic area?)

Here's my experience, with a bit of background.

I live in the DC metro area, and there is a lot of crossing boundaries among the main areas in our section (DC, MD, VA). Most of us like having the extra playing opportunities.

It is well known that if you want to go to Nationals, the road leads through DC. DC is very small and advances straight to sectionals. As Chelsie said, it is quite common for SuperTeams from VA or MD to play DC, mop the floor with the DC players and then go to sectionals.

I went to 3.5 ladies senior nationals in 2011 on a DC team. All six of the players who played live in Maryland. Did our captain attempt to field a SuperTeam? Yes and no. She did recruit three new strong players to the team (I was one), but it wasn't because we were on top MD teams. We were just on the cusp of being bumped up *and* were turning 50 that year.

I would be opposed to residency requirements. For instance, I play DC adult season primarily because I want to play on additional teams and DC is closer to me than other leagues in my own state. And I play NOVA day league because it is the only spring day league in the area, so far as I know.

I do like your idea of having small districts like DC limiting eligibility based on whether players have qualified for sectionals elsewhere. That is very fair. It wouldn't do much to prevent SuperTeams from storming DC -- there are plenty of strong players on the non-qualifying teams -- but it's a start.

I will mention, mostly to be provocative and generally quarrelsome, that the dilemma Chelsie identified is a very good reason for Mid-Atlantic to dilute the voting power of VA. VA may have had so much voting power that it could block measures like residency requirements.

____________________________________________________________
Virginia is for Tennis Lovers!

 

[Chelsie1]

I don't have any insight into residency rules and the like. But it seems everyone is focusing on 'fairness' of who makes sectionals and so on. Does that really matter so much to you? I would be happy to have more strong players participating in my local league regardless of how it affects my grandiose sectionals and nationals aspirations - more players and more teams means more strong people to play with and a better local league season. Isn't that the primary goal after all?

___________________________________________________

Hence, the beauty of the rule! Your very best are welcome! But, if your
very best (or whoever) have already qualified in one district, they may not progress to that same championship play via this particular district.

We are entitled to having different goals. One of the best players I know never participates post-season.

 

[OrangePower]

___________________________________________________

Hence, the beauty of the rule! Your very best are welcome! But, if your
very best (or whoever) have already qualified in one district, any other teams they have joined may not progress.

We are entitled to having different goals. One of the best players I know never participates post-season.

Yes I agree, each person should be allowed to play on just one team in the postseason.

We have a similar rule in Norcal... we are divided into Local Areas, and a player can play in multiple local areas, but then if more than one of those teams advances to postseason play, the player must decide which one of the teams to continue playing with.

EDIT: Although maybe the difference there is that in Norcal we restrict it by individual player, and not by limiting an entire team from progressing if any of their players is on any other playoff bound teams. That seems too broad.

 

[J_R_B]

Yes I agree, each person should be allowed to play on just one team in the postseason.

We have a similar rule in Norcal... we are divided into Local Areas, and a player can play in multiple local areas, but then if more than one of those teams advances to postseason play, the player must decide which one of the teams to continue playing with.

EDIT: Although maybe the difference there is that in Norcal we restrict it by individual player, and not by limiting an entire team from progressing if any of their players is on any other playoff bound teams. That seems too broad.

It's less broad in Middle States. If you're on multiple teams that make the district playoffs in different districts, you can play in all of the district playoffs, but if more than one of your teams makes the sectional championships, you have to pick just one to play for exclusively at sectionals before sectionals start (i.e. if you're on a Philly team and a NJ team at sectionals, you can't play for your Philly team and then decide to play for NJ if the Philly team loses). However, if you commit to one team at sectionals and your OTHER team makes nationals, you can re-join it at nationals.

The other thing that we have that is the biggest limiting factor is common player rules. Any two teams in the same section but different districts can only have up to 4 common players. Therefore, you can't assemble a single super-team and win every district with all of the same players. So, we have a lot of players playing across district boundaries but because of the common player rules, a lot of times you end up playing against players in one district that are your teammates in a different district. It actually fosters comradierie among everyone because eventually you are teammates and become friends with almost everyone.

 

[BHSC]

I live very close to the NC border but I live in SC , infact I live so close that I play a majority of my recreational tennis in NC.

I believe the rule you are talking about is based on state residency and only requires a certain percentage of the team to be from the state (50 or 60% i think)

Unfortunately I know several people who live just barely in NC who do not play league because of this. They would play in SC if they could but cant because of the residency requirements , and they don't play in NC because the matches are actually farther away from them.

_________________________________________________________
Once you implement residency requirements, unless you don't need outside players to maintain your programs, the tit-for-tat can turn very restrictive.
Not so good for "growing" the game.

Here is why SC has the resident rule. The rule is a result of NC based teams (playing in SC leagues) creating situations where SC was unable to send a representative at certain USTA levels to the Southern Sectionals.

It used to be that you could have plenty of out of state players on a given USTA team. As one example, one year the SC State (aka District) champions in the 4.5 level was a team made up almost entirely of Charlotte area players. This situation in and of itself was perfectly fine. No problem at all. I should mention that SC holds its state championships in May, before it gets too hot.
NC, on the other hand, waits until July to hold its state championships or at least it did in this instance. Well, the same 4.5 team that won SC also qualified, played and won the NC 4.5 championships. After this victory, the team decided that it would represent NC in the Southern Sectionals. The Charlotte group lets SC know that it needs to find a new representative only 2 weeks before the Southern Sectionals and nearly 2 months after the Charlotte group won the SC event.

SC asks the 4.5 finalists and then each of the 4.5 semifinalists, but no one can get a team together on such late notice. The Southerns is a Thursday-Sunday event, so you have to be able to take off at least a couple of days of work to go. More if you count Wednesday travel. Not everyone can do that at the last moment. Plus it’s been so long since the SC event, that many people have made other plans for the summer. As it turns out, SC has to tell the Southern Section that it will not be able send a representative to the Southern Sectionals even though it had plenty of SC based teams that would have been willing to go at the completion of the SC Championships. I should also add that it turned out after the SC State event that the #1 player on the Charlotte based 4.5 team had just graduated from a D III college where he was a top 20 ranked singles player. Of course at that point, no scores can be changed, but the player was then DQ’d and bumped to 5.5. You can imagine that the SC League officials were a bit upset.

I believe this type of situation has occurred at more than one level. When your State/District is unable to send representatives to events because of the actions of players from outside your State/District, it creates some hard feelings.

SC decides that the only way to prevent this problem in the future is to require the majority of players on a team have to be from within the state. Plus, the SC state champions now have to commit to playing the Southerns within a week of winning SC and pay the fees or else lose their spot. Otherwise, a group from out of state, especially a state that holds its championships much later, can potentially hold SC “hostage” by potentially waiting until the last moment to commit or de-commit.

 

[Chelsie1]

So let me see if i get this right ... if player A is on 2 teams (1 in each district) and both of player A's teams win their district then neither of player A's teams are allowed to go?

SO basicly you dont mind if people from the larger district come in and fill up your losing teams , they just better not be on the winning team (asuming they are on a strong team in their own district)

Hi! Had to think about it a bit, but no, that's not it. Players may be on teams in several districts that have qualified for post season play. However, if a player also plays on a team in the small district which uses this local rule, THAT team may not advance to post-season play. It does not apply to the progression in other districts--just the small one that has implemented this rule.
So...."if player A is on 2 teams (1 in each district) and both of player A's teams win their district" --that player's team would not be able to advance
in the district that implements this rule. He would still be eligible to do so in
other districts that do not not use this rule.

SO basicly anyone from any district would be free to play on a team in this small district, BUT that team may not advance if any of the members have qualified in other districts. Now...what effect this would have on the league remains to be seen. 1. I think some people who have never participated in post-season play might get a chance. 2. If strong teams are looking for competition than they are free to enter the league. 3. Would players stop
playing in the league? Don't know, but I don't think so. 4. Berths to sectionals couldn't be held down by the same group of people-this is what was happening in NAZ. Thank you, gmatheis. Appreciate your point-of-view.