Self rate explanation
- Thread starter MRfStop
- Start date
Depends on if you're male or female.
3.5 for Female (assuming between 26 and 50)
4.0 for Male (assuming 26-35)
3.5 for Female (assuming between 26 and 50)
4.0 for Male (assuming 26-35)
OnTheLine
Hall of Fame
I can tell you that answer .... a teammate of mine, 56 years old at the time of her self-rate, put in she played college tennis, it then asked level, she put junior college.
Told her she had to self-rate not lower than 3.5
And that is OVER 50 ...so even though the form shows you can rate as low as 3.5 that is not what the computer may do in reality.
FWIW, I think the link @kevrol posted is really quite an accurate guide to getting people to the right level
The only thing that it doesn't account for is breaks of not playing for 10+ years which could have someone rated too high in their first year back ... but then the computer will take over for the shaking off the rust.
Told her she had to self-rate not lower than 3.5
And that is OVER 50 ...so even though the form shows you can rate as low as 3.5 that is not what the computer may do in reality.
FWIW, I think the link @kevrol posted is really quite an accurate guide to getting people to the right level
The only thing that it doesn't account for is breaks of not playing for 10+ years which could have someone rated too high in their first year back ... but then the computer will take over for the shaking off the rust.
@kevrol has the guidelines right, but keep in mind that there's a lot of variance at the level of junior college tennis. I even know guys who went on to play ATP after JC.
If they were playing at a relatively strong program, and whether or not they kept playing after are very relevant. I wouldn't be surprised if they're 4.5 or higher.
If they were playing at a relatively strong program, and whether or not they kept playing after are very relevant. I wouldn't be surprised if they're 4.5 or higher.
It depends on where they play in the lineup. There is a JC program around here. The #1 is typically at least 4.5. They occasionally get a real player who is a solid 5.0. These players typically contend for the national championship at their level. Sometimes the #1 can be as low as 4.0.
However, after you get past the top 2 or maybe 3, they're playing anyone at the school who wants to play. Lower lineup players can be anywhere from low 4.0 down to 3.0. A lot of times they have guys who played JV or didn't even play at all in high school. It would suck to make people like this rate at an artificially high level if they want to play league tennis.
OnTheLine
Hall of Fame
I 100% agree and I have found with our LC and our sectional panel .... they are quick to do a review and are quite reasonable.
I know personally of 2 instances where based on the recommendation of a club pro the S rate was dropped down by 0.5 in one case and 1.0 in the other. (the second was a former D2 player under age 26 who was put into 5.5, after the appeal got allowed to be at 4.5 and went 3-5 in regular season 18+ 4.5 league)
With injury appeals however, man they don't give anyone anything.
Moveforwardalways
Hall of Fame
According to the self rate questions, no lower than 4.0. But honestly, if you are under 30 and started for a JUCO you are probably a 4.5 or will be very soon.
Surecatch
Semi-Pro
I just did the self-rate yesterday after joining USTA for the first time and was sort of surprised. It asks a bunch of questions about what level I'd played at....JC, college, if I was a world class player now or in the past. Then it gave me 3.0 (I'm 53 years old btw) although I've always played in local leagues and classes (non-USTA stuff) that were called 3.5 level. So, I don't really care but I was a bit surprised because I expected questions about my actual skills and not just how long I've played etc. Mostly it clued me in to the idea that I really don't understand the USTA's procedures in this realm. haha. I guess my only concern is that I not be required to compete in a level that is not suitable for me. The classes and leagues around here that I know of that are called 3.0 I would mostly be too good for.
My observation is if there aren't actual ratings involved folks typically overestimate their levels. So even though it might say 3.5 league it is probably in actuality 3.0 level tennis.
Well, for one, what the questionnaire returns is a minimum self-rate level. It is intended to make sure people with certain tennis backgrounds are not allowed to self-rate at a level that would be clearly too low for them. You can choose a level higher than the minimum if you know you're a higher level and the questionnaire just doesn't fit well with your background.
As for the questions, they are intentionally objective, not subjective. Asking a person if they played in college is not a matter of opinion. You either did or you didn't. Asking what your junior ranking was (if you had one) is not a matter of opinion. If you were ranked #74 in Nor Cal section, then that's what it was. Asking someone if they have a strong topspin backhand or something like that is subject to the person's opinion of their skills and will elicit different answers from different people who actually have the same skills. So, instead of the subjective questions, they ask the objective questions knowing that the majority of people with that given tennis background will be a certain level.
Surecatch
Semi-Pro
Makes perfect sense, thank you. It's just all new to me, I don't care in the least what my level is classified as etc. I'm just trying to take the mystery out of it for myself a newbie and hopefully fit in well. I'm going to play in a tournament in December and so I guess I'll see how I fit it with the level hierarchy then. Looking forward to that. Thanks again for the explanation.
Good luck. Typically, when someone gets a minimum rating below the level they think they are or the level they intend to play, I recommend selecting a level one step below the intended level. In other words, if you believe you are 3.5, but you are allowed to rate at 3.0, then I would recommend doing that, especially if you intend to play in a league for a team. The reason for this is that you are allowed to play one level up from your rating, but not down, so rating one level lower allows you to move down easily if you start playing at a level for the first time and find out that you overestimated where you actually belong. What I mean is that, if you intend to join a 3.5 team, you can do that with a 3.0 rating. If you play a couple matches for the team at 3.5 and just get blown out where you don't feel like you're even competitive at that level, with a 3.0 rating, you can simply just sign up for a 3.0 team and start playing in the 3.0 league. If you choose 3.5 from the start and 3.5 turns out to be too high, you cannot because players with a 3.5 rating are not allowed on 3.0 teams, and you have to either get a sectional official to change your rating or keep getting blown out and wait for your rating to change at the end of the year.
MRfStop
Hall of Fame
There was a grievance submitted against a player in our leave that self rated as 4.0. This is his first season playing USTA. If you put his name into google his college stats come up.
The USTA Georgia league coordinator requested that he give an explanation of why he didn't provide that he played college tennis in his self rating. He only put that he played junior tennis and a little bit of highschool. I haven't heard if he responded.
The USTA Georgia league coordinator requested that he give an explanation of why he didn't provide that he played college tennis in his self rating. He only put that he played junior tennis and a little bit of highschool. I haven't heard if he responded.
this is what I do not get. If you play often already, even in non-USTA sanctioned leagues, surely you have played with folks that do have official computer USTA ranking. You know how you do against them. Why do you need some very, very vague and generic self-rate thingy then? You should know exactly what level you are.
Matthew ATX
Semi-Pro
When I filled it out, I hadn't played since high school, which was nearly 20 years ago. I didn't play in college. After answering those questions, it put me at 3.0 as well. I am at the top of the 4.0 realm. I just appealed up to 4.0 and played there.
Traffic
Hall of Fame
Agree.
My captain asked me about my thoughts on an opponent's club roster. The one person I picked out was a s rated 3.5 female. She is going into her 2nd year of college (doesn't play for college team). She was #1 player in hs and also competed at the state level.
My son has played Mixed doubles with several different girls for his JTT. Even the lowest level partner (UTR 5) was better than many of the 3.5 adult females on the team. This 19y/o girl is much stronger than current UTR 5s. So not sure how they got away with the 3.5s rating.
So our captain basically said that if she blows us out of the water, we might consider complaining. If she barely wins, then nothing you can really do.
R1FF
Professional
She’s not a 3.5 either.
Tho I wont try to explain how she got away with the rating. There’s no rational way to explain it. The system is easily taken advantage of. Nothing more to it than that.
On the self-rate there is a question about HS tennis and I belive if you played at State level for HS you are automatically a 4.0S ? Only way is to appeal down and get that granted somehow.
dsp9753
Semi-Pro
If people are answering the questionnaire honestly, there is nothing to take advantage of. The latest self rating guide is linked below. It says only if you get to the semis or finals of states are you a 4.0. Any one found cheating on the self rating guidelines, it should be relatively easy to dispute their claims by finding their tennis history online.
Surecatch
Semi-Pro
I don't need it......I completed the self-rating upon joining the USTA because it was required, as I understood it initially, in order to play in certain leagues or tournaments etc. As I said, I don't care what level it put me at, I was only looking for other experiences because I'd always thought of ratings as skill based, and then found that the questions were more experienced based.
CosmosMpower
Hall of Fame
I'd say you're very close to 4.5 if not 4.5 already.
MRfStop
Hall of Fame
What’s your opinion of this? Response to the grievance:
After careful consideration of all available information, the Southern NTRP Grievance Committee agreed upon the following: The committee is responsible for ensuring that players properly complete the self-rate questionnaire. After reviewing the grievance and supporting information, the committee finds that the grievance should be dismissed.
The information provided reflects that Mr. ***** played tennis at **** College, which was, at the time of Mr. **** attendance, a member of the National Junior College Athletic Association. Although it appears that the college had petitioned to move to Division II in 2010, the evidence reflects that petition was initially denied, and ***** College did not become a Division II school until 2014. Mr. **** play was, therefore, at the junior college level, which would place him at a 4.0 minimum level.
Mr. ***** did not respond to the grievance. Because Mr. ***** rating is correct based on the evidence provided, however, the committee concludes that the grievance is dismissed. Mr. ***** will not be suspended; no matches will be reversed, and he will maintain his rating of 4.0.
—————-
The player that the grievance was submitted against did not disclose that he played Junior College. He only put that he played juniors and “some” highschool.
After careful consideration of all available information, the Southern NTRP Grievance Committee agreed upon the following: The committee is responsible for ensuring that players properly complete the self-rate questionnaire. After reviewing the grievance and supporting information, the committee finds that the grievance should be dismissed.
The information provided reflects that Mr. ***** played tennis at **** College, which was, at the time of Mr. **** attendance, a member of the National Junior College Athletic Association. Although it appears that the college had petitioned to move to Division II in 2010, the evidence reflects that petition was initially denied, and ***** College did not become a Division II school until 2014. Mr. **** play was, therefore, at the junior college level, which would place him at a 4.0 minimum level.
Mr. ***** did not respond to the grievance. Because Mr. ***** rating is correct based on the evidence provided, however, the committee concludes that the grievance is dismissed. Mr. ***** will not be suspended; no matches will be reversed, and he will maintain his rating of 4.0.
—————-
The player that the grievance was submitted against did not disclose that he played Junior College. He only put that he played juniors and “some” highschool.
Did he self-rate at 4.0, though?
If he self-rated at 4.0, after playing junior college and being over age 25, then that was an appropriate level both based on his high school and his junior college play (according to the questionnaire and the response posted above). So it makes sense that there were no sanctions, since he was playing at a legal level.
If he self-rated at 4.0, after playing junior college and being over age 25, then that was an appropriate level both based on his high school and his junior college play (according to the questionnaire and the response posted above). So it makes sense that there were no sanctions, since he was playing at a legal level.
am1899
Legend
I was witness to a similar set of circumstances. A player who was currently on a Division 1 collegiate roster self rated at 4.0. After said player blew a couple 4.0’s off the court, a grievance was filed. In spite of grievance uncovering said player’s untruths, if not outright lies, on the self-rate questionnaire...the grievance was dismissed unanimously. The grievance committee said that since player was a walk-on at D1 college, and “hadn’t played” (in spite of having played a few exhibition matches)...the player was properly self rated at 4.0. Further they said they could find no evidence that said player intentionally lied on the questionnaire.
What a joke. LOL
What a joke. LOL
MRfStop
Hall of Fame
What about intentionally not putting that he played college in the self rate questionnaire? He was rated 4.5 in 2012 and 2013 but didn’t play any leagues until this fall season.
Well, it's wrong to omit information, but if he didn't self-rate at the incorrect level, then I'm not sure there is any recourse. Typically, the penalty for misrepresenting background information is to be moved to the level you normally would have self-rated into, but in this case, he's already at that level because he didn't actually sandbag anything, he just didn't indicate all of his experience.
I actually agree with the committee on this one. Exhibition matches aren't matches and aren't necessarily played by the strongest players. If he wasn't committed to / recruited by the program and didn't play in any official matches for the school, then I wouldn't consider him a D1 college player. There are many schools where anyone can walk on and practice with the team and even get in exhibitions, but that doesn't mean that you are anywhere near good enough to play for the school.
Your recourse in this case is dynamic DQ. If he keeps blowing the 4.0s off the court, he'll get DQ'd anyway.
I would have to disagree, if a walk-on it means the players is hitting day in and day out with the team, yes may not make on court for matches but imagine the level of improvement due to the daily coaching and practice with players 5.0+ every day. 4.0 should be boring to that player.
The problem is that it doesn't make him a 5.0, either, which is the D1 guideline, and it depends on the school. There are plenty of D1 schools where there are actual lineup players that aren't 5.0.
am1899
Legend
Yep, that was the point I was gonna make.
Also, the idea that exhibition matches “aren’t matches” is a tough one for me. I get that they aren’t official matches. But IMO, they aren’t meaningless, at least within the context of assessing level for USTA play.
Regardless, you are right that dynamic disqualification is a thing. But only if the LLC is looking for strikes, yes? And after the 2 blow-outs, captain clearly started hiding the player and telling player to manage scores. So...yeah.
I get that but most D1's that give scholarships are 5.0 minimum. It in the end depends on the school and that needs to be looked at when filing grievances and ruling on them.
having seen even low tier SEC/Big 12 schools, even their lower line players and bench walk-ons were Top 200 National players and were walk-ons to these schools for a reason, not just some kid coming off the club team for hits and giggles.
xFullCourtTenniSx
Hall of Fame
Hitting with good players doesn't make you a good player. At best it makes you a good wall or ball machine to practice with. Being a good player requires being able to win games and sets off of other good players. If ratings were based off of who you practice with, I could be a 5.5, but I'm not remotely at that level.
Revisiting this one... as a relative beginner, this is something I struggle with as I look to expand my stable of hitting partners. I've been told by an instructor that I should tell people I'm a 3.0 or perhaps just above that. However, he prefaced that comment by saying he thinks most people exaggerate their rating, so his message to me was "you should tell people you're a 3.0 or 3+". I'm planning to hit with someone who says he's a 3.5+. He used to play quite a bit, but hasn't in a while and is now admittedly of shape. I'm guessing he'll be much better than me, though I stay in very good shape so will have fitness/endurance on my side.
tennis tom
Legend
Sounds like it could be a fairly even match if you can keep the ball in play, not making unforced errors, running him around--the ol' "hit it where they ain't" routine.
Yeah, similar for me. It suggested 3.0 but I knew I would be competitive at 4.0 (from playing with a group). I don't remember appealing up though - I think I was able to specify 4.0s despite it recommending 3.0s. It was over a decade ago though so I could be forgetting.
Anyway I ended up playing a couple years at 4.0 and then got bumped up to 4.5. In hindsight maybe I should have rated 3.0 - Nationals here I come
Again, the rating that is supplied is a minimum, not a recommendation. It's the rating that you can't justify going below (without explicit authorization from the section) based on your background. If you know you are a higher level, they are not suggesting you play at their minimum anyway.Yeah, similar for me. It suggested 3.0 but I knew I would be competitive at 4.0 (from playing with a group). I don't remember appealing up though - I think I was able to specify 4.0s despite it recommending 3.0s. It was over a decade ago though so I could be forgetting.
Anyway I ended up playing a couple years at 4.0 and then got bumped up to 4.5. In hindsight maybe I should have rated 3.0 - Nationals here I come
Understood, but one could self rate at the minimum, even knowing that it's too low, and be safe from grievances. That together with some creative score management to avoid DQ = Nationals glory.
Well, sure, if you really want to cheat, it's hard to stop no matter what. The system is set up to work for people playing fair with as many safeguards as they can reasonably have to prevent/stop/punish the cheaters, but there's no way to stop everyone, especially once people are willing to actually lose on purpose. The percentage of people willing to go to those extremes is very low, especially outside TX. They just get a lot of attention.
Lots of grey area. If the self rate guidelines suggest say 3.5 for someone who knows they could actually play mediocre 4.0, and they go ahead and self rate 3.5, is that cheating?
And if someone winning comfortably loses focus and takes their foot off the gas a little and wins 4 & 4 rather than a possible 1 & 1, is that cheating?
The real problem here is having a 'national championship' based on entirely artificial level distinctions.
There should just be a regular season where the only goal is good tennis against similarly skilled competition, instead of all this unnatural focus on playoffs based on fabricated levels.
USTA needs to get their dues somehow.
I'd say yes. If someone knows they are a "mediocre 4.0" (meaning they'd win some and they'd lose some at 4.0), and self-rate at a level where they're beating everyone, they are not self-rating honestly.
I'd say no, unless they're deliberately throwing games. Ups and downs in motivation are normal and part of the game.
That depends. If they are actively playing socially against 4.0C rated league players and know that they are that level, then that is what they should self-rate. I'd say most people who are self-rating are new to USTA league tennis and maybe have played a couple players on a team and gotten an invite to play on the team from them. For these people, I typically recommend self-rating at 3.5 then play 4.0. That gives you a couple matches to make sure you are really a 4.0 level league player with a free out to 3.5 if your first couple matches are blow out losses. This one is definitely a grey area in terms of our discussion, but each person should be able to evaluate their own situation if they are doing it honestly.
This one depends on what you mean by "taking their foot off the gas". If you mean that they actively lose games to manage their score, then yes, that is clearly cheating. If you mean that they don't play with the same intensity that they would against top competition and therefore don't produce their best result, that's just human nature. The dynamic "promotion" catches those people who win 6-1 6-1 anyway even when they are not playing at full intensity. Those are the people who are far enough out of level that they need to be "promoted" anyway. Unfortunately, it's the the people who are actively losing games we'd all prefer to see get DQ'd - not just "promoted" but DQ'd and thrown out of the league - but that's nearly impossible to enforce because you need to be in a person's head to do it.
I definitely disagree with this. For all of its flaws, the USTA league system with the nationals as a goal does far more good than harm. Playing in a section where this type of ratings manipulation cheating is NOT a significant problem, the playoffs to compete for a nationals spot is really fun and a great competition. The teams here realize that it's entirely possible that the sectional winner will run into a team at nationals that really has no business playing at that level and only got there through nefarious means, but it is what it is. It's just a cool tennis vacation with your friends who you went to war with all season at that point.
Well, let's look at some pros and cons. I'm going to use 2019 Norcal men's 4.0 18+ as an example. I'm not in Norcal myself but their custom website is just so much easier to navigate than tennislink.
Number of teams: 163
Number reaching Districts: 25
Percentage: 15%
Number reaching Nationals: 1
Percentage: 0.6%
Ok, so a pro is that the goal of Nationals can be fun to chase. But realistically what percentage of players are in position to even contemplate competing for it? In my example only 15% of teams even reach Districts. I would wager at least 2/3 of the teams enter the season knowing they don't even have a shot at Districts. And at least 80% enter the season with no hope of Nationals. So the large majority of players are in it for the regular season, not playoff participation.
The cons of course are the increased incentives for players and captains to engage in various degrees of shady behavior in an attempt to progress - the gamut from ratings manipulation, gamesmanship on court, dubious line calling as the stakes get 'higher', etc.
More insidious is the shift of focus that de-emphasizes the regular season, which is what most people enjoy most and play for, in favor of playoffs, which only a minority of people really care about.
"Shift of focus" where? If as you say 80% of the players don't care about nationals, then whose focus is being shifted? Here on this board? Who cares about this place?
Hehe, yeah definitely on this board, but point well taken that it's not representative.
