Self-rated player DQ'd at Sectionals

[Cindysphinx]

I see that a self-rated 3.0 player on a 7.0 mixed team was DQ'd at Mid-Atlantic Sectionals.

Last time I checked, the Mid-Atlantic DQ rule was that a DQ for a self-rated player meant reversal of all matches played that season. DQ for a computer-rated player meant reversal for only the last match played.

So how come only the last match for this lady was reversed? I checked the results for the last mixed season, and DQ appears next to her name for all of her wins, but none were reversed.

Just curious . . .

 

[nocab]

I'm no expert, so this is just a guess. It might be because if their results were overturned from the season then they would not be the 1st team and they would not be going to sectionals. So once the season is over if a player is DQ'd it will only affect the post-season results or any new season which has already started.

 

[10sany1]

Cindy,

I have had a computer rated player DQ'd from one of my times during sectionals. A DQ during regular season affects the whole season. A DQ during a post season event (district or sectionals) on effect matches played in the post season event.

 

[mista-k]

your talking about the player who got a grievance letter filed...

EDIT:
oops...wrong lady...apparently this lady I was talking about did have ALL of her matches DQd as well

 

[Moz]

I know the history behind this one if it's the one I am thinking of and it's pretty sordid.

The girl in question used to play for Baylor University but was rated 3.0 by her captain.

How did they think they'd get away with it? The captain lied about her first name. If it's the girl I am thinking of her first name has a very strange spelling. She went 14-0 and they were set for sectionals before an opposing captain did some research.

Totally despicable.

 

[Nellie]

Yes - I don't see how they could logistically default all of the matches for the season because it could change around playoff standings - league standings, etc, retroactively without having any mechanism to fix the changes in standing

 

[Cindysphinx]

I know the history behind this one if it's the one I am thinking of and it's pretty sordid.

The girl in question used to play for Baylor University but was rated 3.0 by her captain.

How did they think they'd get away with it? The captain lied about her first name. If it's the girl I am thinking of her first name has a very strange spelling. She went 14-0 and they were set for sectionals before an opposing captain did some research.

Totally despicable.

Ooooh! I know the team/captain in question, and this is not the first time they have deliberately circumvented the system. In fact, if the rumors are true, the nominal captain is not the captain. The real captain (who is just a player on the team) got disciplined by USTA by putting a former pro on the team as a 4.0 (or was it 4.5?) and is barred from captaining. That's the word on the street, anyway. So she gets others to be the nominal captain.

I do think they should go back and reverse all of the matches, even after a team has made it to sectionals or nationals. Let the stench of the DQ waft all over Tennislink, and let everyone know where they would have wound up in the standings had they not underrated.

 

[Topaz]

I know the history behind this one if it's the one I am thinking of and it's pretty sordid.

The girl in question used to play for Baylor University but was rated 3.0 by her captain.

How did they think they'd get away with it? The captain lied about her first name. If it's the girl I am thinking of her first name has a very strange spelling. She went 14-0 and they were set for sectionals before an opposing captain did some research.

Totally despicable.

A former college player rated at 3.0? I hope some action comes against the captain of this team. Ugh. And I believe you are correct, as her name is very unusually spelled.

 

[Topaz]

Ooooh! I know the team/captain in question, and this is not the first time they have deliberately circumvented the system. In fact, if the rumors are true, the nominal captain is not the captain. The real captain (who is just a player on the team) got disciplined by USTA by putting a former pro on the team as a 4.0 (or was it 4.5?) and is barred from captaining. That's the word on the street, anyway. So she gets others to be the nominal captain.

I do think they should go back and reverse all of the matches, even after a team has made it to sectionals or nationals. Let the stench of the DQ waft all over Tennislink, and let everyone know where they would have wound up in the standings had they not underrated.

Then maybe she needs to be barred from playing, period.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I think they need to suspend the nominal captain and ban the player.

This team played my mixed team and stomped us 3-0. Our No. 2 doubles team that played this lady only managed three games. No fair!!

 

[Topaz]

I think they need to suspend the nominal captain and ban the player.

This team played my mixed team and stomped us 3-0. Our No. 2 doubles team that played this lady only managed three games. No fair!!

It isn't fair, it is total crap, and the fact that they let that captain continue as a player after she pulled this last year is crap, and jeez Cindy! LOL! You've got me all worked up!!!

Get your captain to find out what they are going to do! Seriously, they should at least suspend them, but hopefully ban them, too. It isn't like it is a first offense for this 'organization'.

I saw that they put her at #3 doubles sometimes??? WTH???

 

[Cindysphinx]

It isn't fair, it is total crap, and the fact that they let that captain continue as a player after she pulled this last year is crap, and jeez Cindy! LOL! You've got me all worked up!!!

Get your captain to find out what they are going to do! Seriously, they should at least suspend them, but hopefully ban them, too. It isn't like it is a first offense for this 'organization'.

I saw that they put her at #3 doubles sometimes??? WTH???

AHAHAH!! I know someone else who will positively have steam coming out of her ears over this.

One of my former combo players is on this team. She is a computer-rated and legit 3.0. She was flat-out told she wasn't going to be playing in the playoffs.

You think she's gonna be peeved when she figures out that she was benched so they could run this little scam and play a ringer instead?

 

[raiden031]

I know the history behind this one if it's the one I am thinking of and it's pretty sordid.

The girl in question used to play for Baylor University but was rated 3.0 by her captain.

How did they think they'd get away with it? The captain lied about her first name. If it's the girl I am thinking of her first name has a very strange spelling. She went 14-0 and they were set for sectionals before an opposing captain did some research.

Totally despicable.

How do they know she is the same person from Baylor university?

 

[Topaz]

How do they know she is the same person from Baylor university?

The name is not a hard stretch, plus pictures are a pretty easy way to figure it out.

 

[crazytennis]

A former college player rated at 3.0? I hope some action comes against the captain of this team. Ugh. And I believe you are correct, as her name is very unusually spelled.

Jesus, it is really this cut throat in the USTA sections ? Sorry, I'm a USTA newbie.

Edit: I just checked and Baylor is a D1 college. And the opposing captain rated the player 3.0 ? haha. Either the captain really wants to win bad or is just a member here in the forum.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Very annoying, that.

Remember all the trouble I went through when one of my day league players wasn't allowed to self-rate at 3.5? She played at a Division 1 school back in the day (but didn't play much, she said). Decades later, she has had kids, put on considerable weight, is out of shape, and hasn't played.

She asked me what she should do about her collegiate history, asking whether she should just omit it when self-rating. I said heck no, that we'd take it to USTA and they would let her self-rate lower. She did as I suggested and rated honestly. The computer assigned her a 5.0 rating (or was it 4.5 -- I can't remember now).

Everyone who knew her thought it was a joke. I mean, she wasn't anywhere near the strongest player on our 3.5 team, so how is she a 4.5? She thought it was a joke too.

Anyway, I set up a practice doubles match with her and two C 3.5 teammates, just to see if she could hang with us. She was, without question, the weakest player on the court. Whoever partnered with her lost. Good loopy forehand, basic serve, no volleys, poor mobility. She appealed down, and I sent in a letter explaining what I knew and saying I would have no qualms in saying she is no higher than a 3.5 and would accept the consequences of a DQ if I were wrong.

No dice. They wouldn't let her go lower than 4.0. I couldn't put her on my team, and no other 4.0 day team was interested. She wound up playing 7.5 combo, paired with 3.5s. She lost all of her matches convincingly. Alas, combo doesn't affect ratings, so until she can get on a 4.0 adult team or mixed team or play some tournaments, she will be forever stuck at an inappropriately high level.

Now I know all I had to do was have her change a few letters in her first name!

Cindy -- figuring nice guys finish last

 

[crazytennis]

bad joke...sorry

 

[investorofmercy]

The really sad thing is that she will now be able to play 3.5 womens or 7.0 mixed with a 3.5 player.... her "other" name is a 4.5 player who had 1 loss in 2 years at 4.0 BEFORE playing for Baylor.

 

[blakesq]

College and High School are different, I know, but I was a varsity player at my large high school (700+ graduates a year). After not playing tennis for about 10 years, i got back into it and was rated a 3.5 (not self rated, but the system where you had to play in front of a USTA rater). So, it is possible that a Baylor ex college player could be a 3.0. Possible, but not probable, imho.

Very annoying, that.

Remember all the trouble I went through when one of my day league players wasn't allowed to self-rate at 3.5? She played at a Division 1 school back in the day (but didn't play much, she said). Decades later, she has had kids, put on considerable weight, is out of shape, and hasn't played.

She asked me what she should do about her collegiate history, asking whether she should just omit it when self-rating. I said heck no, that we'd take it to USTA and they would let her self-rate lower. She did as I suggested and rated honestly. The computer assigned her a 5.0 rating (or was it 4.5 -- I can't remember now).

Everyone who knew her thought it was a joke. I mean, she wasn't anywhere near the strongest player on our 3.5 team, so how is she a 4.5? She thought it was a joke too.

Anyway, I set up a practice doubles match with her and two C 3.5 teammates, just to see if she could hang with us. She was, without question, the weakest player on the court. Whoever partnered with her lost. Good loopy forehand, basic serve, no volleys, poor mobility. She appealed down, and I sent in a letter explaining what I knew and saying I would have no qualms in saying she is no higher than a 3.5 and would accept the consequences of a DQ if I were wrong.

No dice. They wouldn't let her go lower than 4.0. I couldn't put her on my team, and no other 4.0 day team was interested. She wound up playing 7.5 combo, paired with 3.5s. She lost all of her matches convincingly. Alas, combo doesn't affect ratings, so until she can get on a 4.0 adult team or mixed team or play some tournaments, she will be forever stuck at an inappropriately high level.

Now I know all I had to do was have her change a few letters in her first name!

Cindy -- figuring nice guys finish last

 

[flash9]

No Way!

College and High School are different, I know, but I was a varsity player at my large high school (700+ graduates a year). After not playing tennis for about 10 years, i got back into it and was rated a 3.5 (not self rated, but the system where you had to play in front of a USTA rater). So, it is possible that a Baylor ex college player could be a 3.0. Possible, but not probable, imho.

Have you ever watched D1 College Tennis? I can not believe you have if you truly believe the above statement!

NO WAY! I watched women's tennis at Texas A&M (the SouthWest Conference in which Baylor had teams) in the late 1980's and there is no way anyone of these women's skills could drop to a 3.0's level even after 20 years! You could make one of them stand in one spot and still they would beat any 3.0 player! Their shot placement and control would be just too much for any 3.0 player!

 

[kylebarendrick]

If, according to the self-rating guidelines, a good high school player must self rate at 3.5 or higher, then there is no excuse for any college player to rate below that.

From what I've seen lately, I'd argue that anyone that has had a coach (and I'm not talking aboyut paying a pro for lessons - that's different) should self-rate no lower than 4.0.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Well, I'll admit to not having ever laid eyes on a women's D1 player.

Now I'm starting to wonder whether my recollection is correct that she was a D1 player. Is Univ. of Maryland D1?

Anyway, Kyle, you are clearly correct, and USTA agreed with you on my prospective teammate. I guess the guidelines work well for 99% of players. This lady was clearly in the other 1%.

 

[Topaz]

Well, I'll admit to not having ever laid eyes on a women's D1 player.

Now I'm starting to wonder whether my recollection is correct that she was a D1 player. Is Univ. of Maryland D1?

Anyway, Kyle, you are clearly correct, and USTA agreed with you on my prospective teammate. I guess the guidelines work well for 99% of players. This lady was clearly in the other 1%.

I thought the woman in question was from Baylor? I believe Baylor is Div 1. They had one player make the NCAA singles final this year. A strong tennis school.

Or, are you talking about your teammate, did she go to Maryland? Still, I'm pretty sure they are Div I as well.

 

[Nellie]

I cannot figure out what happened, because according to the tennislink computer, the Maryland 3.5 team does not exist anymore. It's like they got erased from the records.

I cannot tell if the DQ player got a dynamic computer rated DQ (moved to 3.5) or if it was verified that she was deceitful in registering. In that case, I could see the team/captain getting sanctioned.

If the lady was truly was the player from Baylor who played in 2005(!), she is supposed to self-rate at 5.5. according to the USTA chart.

 

[OrangePower]

In this particular case, it seems that the discussion about the self-rating guidelines, and whether they are appropriate or not, is just not relevant... because it looks like there was a deliberate attempt by the captain and player in question to disguise the player's identity and history. This indicates that they clearly knew that the player was not a legitimate 3.0, but were attempting to cheat the system anyway. No guidelines can prevent this. I'm glad they were caught out and hope they are both banned for life.

 

[Topaz]

I cannot figure out what happened, because according to the tennislink computer, the Maryland 3.5 team does not exist anymore. It's like they got erased from the records.

I cannot tell if the DQ player got a dynamic computer rated DQ (moved to 3.5) or if it was verified that she was deceitful in registering. In that case, I could see the team/captain getting sanctioned.

If the lady was truly was the player from Baylor who played in 2005(!), she is supposed to self-rate at 5.5. according to the USTA chart.

I ran into that as well Nellie...but I think it is just the link from the section championships that is broken. Try a few other ways to bring up the roster.

 

[Nellie]

I still cannot figure out the the DQ - the player is DQ'ed but still shows a 3.0 rating (whereas other self rated players getting bumped up show the higher rating)

 

[Topaz]

I still cannot figure out the the DQ - the player is DQ'ed but still shows a 3.0 rating (whereas other self rated players getting bumped up show the higher rating)

I know, I wondered that too...maybe they don't know what to do with her yet?

 

[Cindysphinx]

I thought we were talking about a 7.0 mixed team. Is there also a ladies 3.5 team having this issue?

 

[Cindysphinx]

I still cannot figure out the the DQ - the player is DQ'ed but still shows a 3.0 rating (whereas other self rated players getting bumped up show the higher rating)

It takes a day or two for the rating itself to be changed. The DQ shows up immediately in match results. I've no idea why.

 

[Nellie]

Sorry - I meant 7.0 mixed.

And the DQ was a week ago. I just wanted to see whether the DQ was performance based (since she was pounding people) or was based on dishonesty as suggested above.

 

[Cindysphinx]

What did you decide, Nellie? Performance-based?

When I looked at the results, the first thing that occurred to me is that they were throwing games to trick the computer. That 4.0 guy is very strong, so I don't see how he and a D1 player don't double-bagel everyone. As Topaz noted, her appearance on Court 3 is also suspect, as people around here do tend to assign courts based on strength . . . .

 

[raiden031]

What did you decide, Nellie? Performance-based?

When I looked at the results, the first thing that occurred to me is that they were throwing games to trick the computer. That 4.0 guy is very strong, so I don't see how he and a D1 player don't double-bagel everyone. As Topaz noted, her appearance on Court 3 is also suspect, as people around here do tend to assign courts based on strength . . . .

This is the same analysis I had. Her results are good, but they aren't as good as I would think for a strong 4.0 male and a D1 female at 7.0 mixed.

 

[Topaz]

I would agree with you guys. Plus, I do know the 4.0 guy on the team that they beat at sectionals, and he is *very* strong, and I see that score...oh yeah, sandbagger!!!

People that good can totally 'control' the scores of a match.

Ugh! Grrrr!!! I think their punishment should be to let us at 'em!!!! Makes me so mad!!!

 

[diredesire]

Maybe she didn't know her own rating, and posted a "rate me" video here at TW. That would explain the whack rating that she came up with for herself...



(Just poking some fun at the tips/instruction section)