Self-Rating Rules

[mpnv1990]

I was looking through the mixed doubles rosters in my area, and I saw something that blew my mind.

The granddaughter of a legendary college basketball coach joined and self-rated herself as a 2.5. She played college basketball as a center at a P5 school and professionally overseas.

She’s 6’5” and can just camp herself at the net and smash overheads.

If you’re a collegiate and professional athlete in another sport, don’t you have to self-rate as at least a 3.0?

 

[naylor73]

I doubt professional experience in another sport has any bearing on self-rating.

 

[mpnv1990]

I doubt professional experience in another sport has any bearing on self-rating.

The NTRP guidelines say that somebody like that should self-rate at 3.0, but I wasn’t sure if that was a mandate or not.

 

[naylor73]

The NTRP guidelines say that somebody like that should self-rate at 3.0, but I wasn’t sure if that was a mandate or not.

It’s not mandated. The guidelines say ‘should consider’ not must.

 

[TennisOTM]

Exact wording:

"Players new to tennis who have had competitive experience in other sports should consider the rapid improvement anticipated and not rate below 3.0."

Hard to argue that it's a mandate, though it's a pretty strong suggestion depending on how your interpret the wording.

I wonder if the self-rating questionnaire askes this question about "competitive experience in other sports?"

 

[Moon Shooter]

Usta has posted videos on YouTube that you can use to determine what someone should self rate at.

 

[esgee48]

Depends on sport. If you’re a pool player vs a soccer player or a football defensive lineman. The soccer player should consider 3.0, but certainly not the other 2 examples.

 

[PK6]

As I’ve said before get rid of self ratings!!!

 

[Purestriker]

Usta has posted videos on YouTube that you can use to determine what someone should self rate at.

Ha. Those videos are funny. Their 3.5's look like most 3.0's in actual play.

 

[kevrol]

Ha. Those videos are funny. Their 3.5's look like most 3.0's in actual play.

Tennis always looks a level lower than it actually is when you're observing. The effect is especially pronounced on video.

 

[Purestriker]

Tennis always looks a level lower than it actually is when you're observing. The effect is especially pronounced on video.

Definitely see that on YT videos or when we film our matches. But some of those are pretty funny.

 

[socallefty]

I watched the 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0 male videos. There is a huge difference between how the 4.0 and 4.5 players look and hardly any difference between the 4.5 and 5.0 videos. Maybe it is because they used a player who learned on his own with unconventional shots on the 4.0 video and players with coached textbook technique on the 4.5/5.0 videos. Hard to tell the difference between the two coached players just watching on video and not being on court with them.

The 4.0 does look like a typical 4.0 though as does the 4.5.

 

[Creighton]

Ha. Those videos are funny. Their 3.5's look like most 3.0's in actual play.

That's because so many people rate themselves incorrectly and the videos are trying to correct it.

 

[Bill Lobsalot]

As I’ve said before get rid of self ratings!!!

People need a way to get started. 2.5 minimum is a starting point. People generally rate themselves higher than they actually are, so they're not sandbagging. but just the opposite.

 

[Purestriker]

That's because so many people rate themselves incorrectly and the videos are trying to correct it.

Might be too late for that now.

 

[LOBALOT]

People need a way to get started. 2.5 minimum is a starting point. People generally rate themselves higher than they actually are, so they're not sandbagging. but just the opposite.

To your point. I know a guy that played all through his youth then quit and came back and self rated 4.0. In my opinion he is 3.0.

He played a couple of 4.0 matches and got completely clocked. He attempted to appeal and got denied and the local office told him he would have to play his way down the ladder. He struggled to find teams as it would take one point to see he wasn't a 4.0. It took 2 years of getting annihilated before he eventually was bumped down to 3.0.

He described it like starting out a chuck roast and spending 2 years going through a meat grinder and coming out the other end hamburger.

 

[Chalkdust]

Hard to predict with certainty exactly how quickly those with experience in other sports will improve at tennis, but I have two anecdotes:

1. Male ex-BB player, played D1 and then pro oversees but not NBA, started tennis late 30's, took 3 years to get to 4.5, and then another few to peak at 5.0.

2. Female recent college grad, played D1 volleyball, self-rated 3.0, bumped to 3.5 end of that 1st year, and then to 4.0 end of the following year. Lost track of her after than but she was still improving fast at that point.

 

[cks]

That's because so many people rate themselves incorrectly

+1

 

[Purestriker]

To your point. I know a guy that played all through his youth then quit and came back and self rated 4.0. In my opinion he is 3.0.

He played a couple of 4.0 matches and got completely clocked. He attempted to appeal and got denied and the local office told him he would have to play his way down the ladder. He struggled to find teams as it would take one point to see he wasn't a 4.0. It took 2 years of getting annihilated before he eventually was bumped down to 3.0.

He described it like starting out a chuck roast and spending 2 years going through a meat grinder and coming out the other end hamburger.

They should have played some adult rated tournaments if they could not find teams that wanted them.

 

[mpnv1990]

To your point. I know a guy that played all through his youth then quit and came back and self rated 4.0. In my opinion he is 3.0.

He played a couple of 4.0 matches and got completely clocked. He attempted to appeal and got denied and the local office told him he would have to play his way down the ladder. He struggled to find teams as it would take one point to see he wasn't a 4.0. It took 2 years of getting annihilated before he eventually was bumped down to 3.0.

He described it like starting out a chuck roast and spending 2 years going through a meat grinder and coming out the other end hamburger.

That’s why I like UTR. Season is one month. You get killed. You move down next month. You can also challenge people outside your scheduled matches while you get killed in your regular matches.

 

[LOBALOT]

That’s why I like UTR. Season is one month. You get killed. You move down next month. You can also challenge people outside your scheduled matches while you get killed in your regular matches.

I agree. I think they need some sort of right away dynamic approach and I know about the strikes thing and the penalties the team faces and all.

I think they need to just go.... bloop you were a 3.5 now you are a 4.0 go find a team in the middle of the season and the team just keeps going.

Likewise bloop you were a 3.5 now you are a 3.0 go find a team.

With computers today like UTR it can be done instantaneously.

The USTA system seems to be like some sort of punch card based process knowing them..... "OK its the holidays and it is off hours let's load this batch of cards while we have free cycles on the PDP-11"

 

[Chalkdust]

He played a couple of 4.0 matches and got completely clocked. He attempted to appeal and got denied and the local office told him he would have to play his way down the ladder. He struggled to find teams as it would take one point to see he wasn't a 4.0. It took 2 years of getting annihilated before he eventually was bumped down to 3.0.

They should have played some adult rated tournaments if they could not find teams that wanted them.

Sure, if you REALLY want to play USTA and are willing to run through hoops to eventually get to the appropriate level, then yeah.
You can play tournaments (and pay the entry fees) and get hammered, or start your own league team to get matches (and get hammered), or beg to play on someone else's weak team to get hammered. And then maybe eventually you get bumped down and can get to play competitive matches locally.
Or you can just say, eh, USTA is just not worth it for me, I'll find other avenues for playing.

 

[LOBALOT]

Sure, if you REALLY want to play USTA and are willing to run through hoops to eventually get to the appropriate level, then yeah.
You can play tournaments (and pay the entry fees) and get hammered, or start your own league team to get matches (and get hammered), or beg to play on someone else's weak team to get hammered. And then maybe eventually you get bumped down and can get to play competitive matches locally.
Or you can just say, eh, USTA is just not worth it for me, I'll find other avenues for playing.

This was like 15 years ago now. After the beating he just quit playing.

 

[TennisOTM]

People need a way to get started. 2.5 minimum is a starting point. People generally rate themselves higher than they actually are, so they're not sandbagging. but just the opposite.

Do USTA League self-rated players self-rate correctly? Do men sandbag and women over rate?

2016 USTA League Nationals are going on in full force, and unfortunately that means a few cases of questionable self-rated players comes up...

computerratings.blogspot.com

See link - this has been analyzed by @schmke - he found that most self-rates rate themselves correctly, in that something close to 70% of self-rates who get their first computer rating get their S rating confirmed with a C.

You could argue that ~30% is a pretty big error rate, though there's probably a big chunk of those who were legitimately close to the border and the S rate was not unreasonable.

Among those who got bumped after their first year, most of them were bump-ups. The two biggest contributors to that stat were 2.5S women and 3.0S men. How many of those were players who "should" have self-rated higher, versus honest beginners who improved faster than they expected? Hard to say.

When people self-rated at the highest levels, they still tended to be correct but the misses were more often bump-downs, not suprisingly. Women tended to over-rate themselves more often than did men.

4.0S men seemed to be the most statistically un-biased of any rating/gender combo - 75% of them ended up being accurate, while the other 25% was split 50/50 between bump-ups and bump-downs.

 

[Purestriker]

Sure, if you REALLY want to play USTA and are willing to run through hoops to eventually get to the appropriate level, then yeah.
You can play tournaments (and pay the entry fees) and get hammered, or start your own league team to get matches (and get hammered), or beg to play on someone else's weak team to get hammered. And then maybe eventually you get bumped down and can get to play competitive matches locally.
Or you can just say, eh, USTA is just not worth it for me, I'll find other avenues for playing.

Yes, not playing USTA is the easiest option. But in some areas, that is the only option for league play.

 

[time_fly]

Do USTA League self-rated players self-rate correctly? Do men sandbag and women over rate?

2016 USTA League Nationals are going on in full force, and unfortunately that means a few cases of questionable self-rated players comes up...

computerratings.blogspot.com

See link - this has been analyzed by @schmke - he found that most self-rates rate themselves correctly, in that something close to 70% of self-rates who get their first computer rating get their S rating confirmed with a C.

You could argue that ~30% is a pretty big error rate, though there's probably a big chunk of those who were legitimately close to the border and the S rate was not unreasonable.

Given that the bump rate among C-rated players is around 5 to 8% overall, 30% among S-rated is definitely a significant difference. I did a similar style of analysis using TennisRecord dynamic NTRPs, and only within my own state (Connecticut). Obviously those aren’t official, but you can get a more granular picture of the rating distribution within a level versus just who was bumped up and down.

Although TR records aren’t official and may not mirror USTA’s dNTRP perfectly, the C-rated players do tend to follow a bell curve within their own levels as expected. As @schmke noted, the ladies S-rated players skew low, with a bell curve centered lower than the C-rated curve and more of a tail in the bump down range. Also most of the female S-rated players are 2.5 and 3.0s.

On the male side, there are a surprisingly large number of 3.5 and 4.0 self-rates, with almost 50% of the 3.5 guys being self rated last year. The 2.5 level basically doesn’t exist in our area. The S-rated men, at 3.0 and 3.5 particularly, barely follow a bell curve; it’s more like a uniform (flat) distribution with as many players in the bump up & down areas as the center of the level.

This fits my observation of the dynamics at our club. Women generally want to have a high rating next to their name and many of the S-rated players are legitimate beginners who took up tennis as adults. On the mens’ side, many of the self-rates are guys who used to play tennis and are coming back to it, or athletes from team sports transitioning into tennis. Guys, especially older guys, who self rate using the general descriptions of the NTRP levels tend to overrate themselves. Young guys, athletes, and players that get recruited to USTA by team captains in general tend to be ringers.

Unlike with the ladies, there really is no league / level for male newbies in our area; if a guy is new to tennis and not already a solid athlete in some other sport, he should expect to practice and take lessons or clinics for at least a year or two before trying USTA even at the 3.0 level.

 

[socallefty]

I tried USTA for the first time in 2000 when they had ratings clinics where there was an official to evaluate it. I self-evaluated on the form based on my junior background even though I hadn’t played much for a decade and the evaluator went along with it. Entered a couple of tournaments and got my head beaten in. I started playing tennis regularly again at my club, but didn’t play USTA for another 12 years. When I tried USTA leagues 12 years later, I was fine at the level I had originally self-rated 12 years before.

 

[LOBALOT]

I tried USTA for the first time in 2000 when they had ratings clinics where there was an official to evaluate it. I self-evaluated on the form based on my junior background even though I hadn’t played much for a decade and the evaluator went along with it. Entered a couple of tournaments and got my head beaten in. I started playing tennis regularly again at my club, but didn’t play USTA for another 12 years. When I tried USTA leagues 12 years later, I was fine at the level I had originally self-rated 12 years before.

That happens too. All of us have something funky in our strokes but when we groove them through hitting a lot of balls we settle in where we should be.

My problem is I finally settled in when my reflexes were shot and I couldn't move any more so have started and ended consistently all the way through even though I think I am way better a tennis player now than when I picked it back up at 43 after being away for 22 years...

 

[socallefty]

My problem is I finally settled in when my reflexes were shot and I couldn't move any more so have started and ended consistently all the way through even though I think I am way better a tennis player now than when I picked it back up at 43 after being away for 22 years...

At 55, my stroke technique is much better and my mental/strategic skills are much better, but I am a lot slower and less athletic than in my youth. I still don’t know which way to bet if my current version playing with modern equipment (Strike Tour/Gut-poly hybrid) played my college-age version (Max 200G/full gut) - in singles. In doubles, I am a better doubles player now for sure as I didn’t play doubles till I turned forty.

 

[J_R_B]

I watched the 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0 male videos. There is a huge difference between how the 4.0 and 4.5 players look and hardly any difference between the 4.5 and 5.0 videos. Maybe it is because they used a player who learned on his own with unconventional shots on the 4.0 video and players with coached textbook technique on the 4.5/5.0 videos. Hard to tell the difference between the two coached players just watching on video and not being on court with them.

The 4.0 does look like a typical 4.0 though as does the 4.5.

4.5 is like the gatekeeper level to actual good tennis. At 4.5, you start to see guys (other than just one off ringers) who were trained as juniors for tournaments with proper footwork and stroke mechanics and high level college experience (i.e. good D2/D3/NAIA or D1). 4.0 is like the end of the weekend hack levels. At 5.0, it's now all high level trained athletes, without any of the 4.0 bleedthrough of sloppy tennis into the lower 4.5 levels.

 

[Moon Shooter]

That's because so many people rate themselves incorrectly and the videos are trying to correct it.

I haven’t looked at the videos in a long time. But there is no question that 3.0 male category as it exists includes a lot of decent players. And I am not just saying that because I’m a 3.0 player. The top male 3.0 players are up there with solid female 4.0 players with 5.xx utr ratings. When you consider that the 3.0 men’s category is basically the beginning of league play you have women’s 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and part of 4.0 before you get out of men’s first catagory. I think there are plenty of men that would like to play league tennis but even the 3.0 category is too much. I really think all the men should get bounced up to the same level they would be at the womens level. That way there would be some leagues for men at these various lower levels of play.

 

[mpnv1990]

I haven’t looked at the videos in a long time. But there is no question that 3.0 male category as it exists includes a lot of decent players. And I am not just saying that because I’m a 3.0 player. The top male 3.0 players are up there with solid female 4.0 players with 5.xx utr ratings. When you consider that the 3.0 men’s category is basically the beginning of league play you have women’s 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and part of 4.0 before you get out of men’s first catagory. I think there are plenty of men that would like to play league tennis but even the 3.0 category is too much. I really think all the men should get bounced up to the same level they would be at the womens level. That way there would be some leagues for men at these various lower levels of play.

3.0 men’s is not that difficult once you develop decent technique.

 

[Lex]

I haven't played USTA since 2019 (never made it to State/Sectionals). 4.5C rating
To rejoin USTA after 2 elbow surgeries and an achilles surgery...I'm rated a 4.5S

No HS or college tennis experience, 56 yr old. I haven't hit the ball in almost 2 yrs. 4.5S

I did appeal but we will see. Doesn't look like USTA will be in my future.

 

[innoVAShaun]

 

[J_R_B]

I haven’t looked at the videos in a long time. But there is no question that 3.0 male category as it exists includes a lot of decent players. And I am not just saying that because I’m a 3.0 player. The top male 3.0 players are up there with solid female 4.0 players with 5.xx utr ratings. When you consider that the 3.0 men’s category is basically the beginning of league play you have women’s 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and part of 4.0 before you get out of men’s first catagory. I think there are plenty of men that would like to play league tennis but even the 3.0 category is too much. I really think all the men should get bounced up to the same level they would be at the womens level. That way there would be some leagues for men at these various lower levels of play.

You're not going to be at the top of 3.0 right away as a beginner, but the bottom of 3.0 definitely sucks, so it's not like you're going to be eating tennis balls in every match as a 3.0 beginner.

 

[silentkman]

I haven’t looked at the videos in a long time. But there is no question that 3.0 male category as it exists includes a lot of decent players. And I am not just saying that because I’m a 3.0 player. The top male 3.0 players are up there with solid female 4.0 players with 5.xx utr ratings. When you consider that the 3.0 men’s category is basically the beginning of league play you have women’s 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and part of 4.0 before you get out of men’s first catagory. I think there are plenty of men that would like to play league tennis but even the 3.0 category is too much. I really think all the men should get bounced up to the same level they would be at the womens level. That way there would be some leagues for men at these various lower levels of play.

The 3.0 range is 2.51 to 3.00

 

[loveallcats]

Usta has posted videos on YouTube that you can use to determine what someone should self rate at.

Those videos look all pretty good, even the 2.5 ones honestly. I've seen C rated 4.0 players who look like the 2.5s on usta videos. Just saying... Lol

 

[Moon Shooter]

You're not going to be at the top of 3.0 right away as a beginner, but the bottom of 3.0 definitely sucks, so it's not like you're going to be eating tennis balls in every match as a 3.0 beginner.

Some 3.0s are older guys. Since there is no 2.5 men’s league, there is a huge number of men that might be interested in league play, but they are not competitive with the utr 4-5 men also in the 3.0 level. Utr 1-5 covers large group of men.

 

[TennisOTM]

Some 3.0s are older guys. Since there is no 2.5 men’s league, there is a huge number of men that might be interested in league play, but they are not competitive with the utr 4-5 men also in the 3.0 level. Utr 1-5 covers large group of men.

My area has pretty active 3.0 men's leagues (hundreds of players), and there's not a single one who is UTR 5. There are maybe a rare few who are UTR 4, and those are very likely to get bumped up. The 3.5 men range is probably about UTR 3.75-5.25.

 

[Purestriker]

My area has pretty active 3.0 men's leagues (hundreds of players), and there's not a single one who is UTR 5. There are maybe a rare few who are UTR 4, and those are very likely to get bumped up. The 3.5 men range is probably about UTR 3.75-5.25.

Ha! I know of a 5.02 UTR player who is a 3.0C and I am sure I could find another.

 

[mpnv1990]

Ha! I know of a 5.02 UTR player who is a 3.0C and I am sure I could find another.

That’s an upper end 3.5.

 

[Purestriker]

That’s an upper end 3.5.

Yep and he is one, but not in USTA or UTR's ratings.

 

[naylor73]

Ha! I know of a 5.02 UTR player who is a 3.0C and I am sure I could find another.

Lol yeah we had a 6.94 self rate at 3.0 for low tri last year.

 

[Moon Shooter]

TennisOTM
At one point 3 or 4 of the six 3.0 opponents I played at regionals had a 5.xx rating. Today only 2 of the six do. Tomorrow who knows?

Locally our 3.5 players are between utr 3.5 and 5.0 (for example a 3.5 that recently got bumped to 4.0 but was able to appeal down has a 4.88) 4.75- 6.0 for 4.0 men. My own utr is around 4.0 sometimes higher sometimes lower - today it is 3.89. A 3.0 that got bumped to 3.5 but was able to appeal down has a utr of 4.02 today. I think the utr in our area seems to have inflated women’s ratings with a 3.5 female I played mixed doubles with showing a 4.47 utr rating. No way she would be competitive with the men in my area with that utr rating. And a 3.0 female I just played doubles with has a 4.23 utr. Again not competitive with the men who have the same utr rating. Maybe the mixed play is deflating some of the men’s utr ratings in my and your area?

 

[Purestriker]

Lol yeah we had a 6.94 self rate at 3.0 for low tri last year.

Hahah. Most of my rockstar 3.5's are around 6.10 to 6.25. So that is ridonkulas.

 

[Roforot]

TennisOTM
At one point 3 or 4 of the six 3.0 opponents I played at regionals had a 5.xx rating. Today only 2 of the six do. Tomorrow who knows?

Locally our 3.5 players are between utr 3.5 and 5.0 (for example a 3.5 that recently got bumped to 4.0 but was able to appeal down has a 4.88) 4.75- 6.0 for 4.0 men. My own utr is around 4.0 sometimes higher sometimes lower - today it is 3.89. A 3.0 that got bumped to 3.5 but was able to appeal down has a utr of 4.02 today. I think the utr in our area seems to have inflated women’s ratings with a 3.5 female I played mixed doubles with showing a 4.47 utr rating. No way she would be competitive with the men in my area with that utr rating. And a 3.0 female I just played doubles with has a 4.23 utr. Again not competitive with the men who have the same utr rating. Maybe the mixed play is deflating some of the men’s utr ratings in my and your area?

To be more accurate, we'd have to see more common unisex leagues. This would knock some of the women down; in my experience a woman has to be 0.5 -1.0 NTRP higher to compete at least in singles. I wonder if the women you describe only play same sex USTA singles? I've heard some UTR leagues don't separate men and women?

 

[J_R_B]

Some 3.0s are older guys. Since there is no 2.5 men’s league, there is a huge number of men that might be interested in league play, but they are not competitive with the utr 4-5 men also in the 3.0 level. Utr 1-5 covers large group of men.

So what? Those guys will still be able to compete against 90% of 3.0s, most of which are just like that. There are obviously some ringers at the 3.0 level, but like everything else in the USTA leagues, it's perfectly fine and competitive for almost everyone. If you don't want to play because there are a couple guys in the league that can kick your ass, that's on you.

 

[Moon Shooter]

So what? Those guys will still be able to compete against 90% of 3.0s, most of which are just like that. There are obviously some ringers at the 3.0 level, but like everything else in the USTA leagues, it's perfectly fine and competitive for almost everyone. If you don't want to play because there are a couple guys in the league that can kick your ass, that's on you.

No the spread is too large to be competitive. We have about 25 2.5-3.0 men players. As the captain why would I choose and play players from the bottom half? We are thinking of doing an A and a B team but it will likely be a slaughter. The B team is not getting their full money worth when they know they will not advance post season. The Upper end players with UTRs in the UTR upper 3 and low 4s are head and shoulders above the lower end of the spectrum. That is why women have 4 different levels for the same spread of playing abilities. That is UTR 1-4.5 is divided into USTA 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Low end 3.0 men playing high end 3.0 men is the same as having upper 3.5 or lower 4.0 women play the 2.5 women.

 

[Moon Shooter]

To be more accurate, we'd have to see more common unisex leagues. This would knock some of the women down; in my experience a woman has to be 0.5 -1.0 NTRP higher to compete at least in singles. I wonder if the women you describe only play same sex USTA singles? I've heard some UTR leagues don't separate men and women?

I think Schmke uses the term "coed play" to describe what should happen. That is singles play mvf or doubles play that involves mfvff or mmvff or mmvfm. USTA has no truly coed leagues (and in my area UTR is pretty much exclusively based on USTA play as we have no UTR events) so the different pools or ratings between men and women never equalize. When you have only mfvmf the women might have inflated or deflated ratings as a whole compared to the men but the rating system will not be able to suss that out because both teams have women with inflated or deflated ratings. So it just continues. It might sort of equalize by men playing other areas where there is truly coed leagues. But those are so rare and it goes both ways. When the men who play in coed leagues play against men with relatively deflated ratings then men with the more accurate (relative to the women) ratings will get deflated. The same will happen for the women. UTR is much better then WTN when it comes to these two pools. I think that is because UTR does actually have coed events - where as WTN doesn't seem to have much. Plus USTA recently just demolished WTN ratings by manually giving men a much worse rating sort of like a hand of God. WTN has many other issues that we talked about in this thread where their system was exposed as having predictive value barely better then a coin toss.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ction-competition.743979/page-4#post-17753369

 

[J_R_B]

No the spread is too large to be competitive. We have about 25 2.5-3.0 men players. As the captain why would I choose and play players from the bottom half? We are thinking of doing an A and a B team but it will likely be a slaughter. The B team is not getting their full money worth when they know they will not advance post season. The Upper end players with UTRs in the UTR upper 3 and low 4s are head and shoulders above the lower end of the spectrum. That is why women have 4 different levels for the same spread of playing abilities. That is UTR 1-4.5 is divided into USTA 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. Low end 3.0 men playing high end 3.0 men is the same as having upper 3.5 or lower 4.0 women play the 2.5 women.

You're just ******** to hear yourself ***** (yet again). Every league I've ever played in (or even seen) has teams that know they won't make the postseason before the season even starts. Not a single one thinks they're "not getting their full money's worth". You have a special penchant for picking the absolute dumbest arguments possible.