I disagree. The ratings are very local with an attempt to match them up nationally by using benchmark players. How local? It will vary from league to league in the same area. It may or may not vary as much as .5 of a rating point, but it does vary due to a lot variables that impact the ratings for a league. Saying that a 4.0 from Fl is the same as 4.0 from Va is like expecting a women 4.0 to be the same as a guy 4.0. Between Fl and Va the weather is so different that given two new players starting at the same time you would expect that the new player in FL would be able to play more often against other players who also play more than their Va counter parts and that players in Fl would improve faster due to all the extra playing. Or here's another variable: teams from large cities should be stronger than teams from small towns. The more players you have to pick from in an area the easier it is to create a team of only very strong players. You could also pick two cities with the same population size and find that one has a really strong tennis program and the other a poorly run one; guess which city has the better players.
Looking at the list of national champs doesn't show the whole story.
He's a piece of the rest of the story:
For 2009
Mid-Atlantic is No. 1 at Nationals
Section Finishes with 14 Top 4 Finishes, Most of Any Section
Logically you would think that this area of the country with all its cold weather would not be able to compete with the tennis power house states. Yet we did better than Florida and California so how is that possible, it just doesn't make sense???
My understanding is that a few years ago the Mid-Atlantic Section decided that it was tired of doing poorly at the National Championships so they force a major ratings downgrade for our area. I remembered when it happened 3-4 years ago, a lot of people got moved down. Well it seems to have worked, we now do better at the National level.
The USTA saw too many players looking much better then their playing level and this year forced a correction back upwards. At first I thought it was just our area, but they did it equally across the country.
There are slight variations within any system, however, as a whole, the levels are fairly close, or how else would some of those smaller areas even have a chance at winning at Nationals. I mean Minnesota???? Do they play on ice skates? Puerto Rico, Oklahoma, Illinois, Tennessee - not what we consider tennis hot beds.
Also, since the NTRP system is based on .5 steps, any variation less than .5 is considered on level. A person who's actual computed NTRP is 4.1 and another’s who is at 4.4 are both considered 4.0's.
Yes, the warm weather players may have a chance to practice more, but they have jobs, families, chores, etc just like we do, the difference may be very small. Also, a lot of people in this area play year round indoors several times a week. Between clinics, club leagues and USTA, I play about 3 to 4 times a week during the winter, which is pretty close to the amount I play in the warmer months.
I do think it's possible to find areas with a larger number of stronger players in cities with larger and wealthlier populations, but still, I don't think the variation is more than one whole level as some have claimed on these boards (such as a Florida 4.0 = 5.0 elsewhere).
I don't know about previous adjustments in Mid-Atlantic’s NTRP, but seeing as how USTA tracks players ratings nationally, it would be hard to have a whole-sale drop of player's ratings in a single region and not have other regions notice and do the same and/or complain.
Also the bump in ratings for a lot of players was nation wide and not just concentrated in a few off-kilter regions. I think this suggests that ratings on are comparable nation wide.