Team in our League adding Self-rated High level players

J_R_B said:
I keep reading mostly to laugh at people who are continually whining about ringers out-ringing their own (completely legit, of course) ringeriness. And to mock them.
Click to expand...
There has been some of that. I forget which poster mentioned his team woes; then let it slip that his team had some amazing string of trips to regionals or nationals but couldn't win - that one did have me howling.

But I think there are a lot of legit issues that the USTA should be able to take care of. We're in the 21st century - we have computers with relational databases.
 
gmatheis said:
Former Junior who had a national or sectional ( foreign or domestic) ranking but did not tour or play in college - Age 35 and under is a 4.5 minimum.

Doesn't say what raking , just that they have one.
Click to expand...

Exactly, word by word from Self-rating guidelines from USTA. This guy is 22 years old who played Junior 18's with national ranking and 2 star rated recruit. That is 4.5 Minimum not 4.0. Oh and I forgot to mention, he beat one of the top 100 ranked junior nationally in a tournament.

My friend plans on waiting til he plays a few matches then will file Grievance as he was told to do by local USTA coordinator.
 
gmatheis said:
Former Junior who had a national or sectional ( foreign or domestic) ranking but did not tour or play in college - Age 35 and under is a 4.5 minimum.

Doesn't say what raking , just that they have one.
Click to expand...

Try getting the updated version buddy... http://www.coloradotennis.com/cta/ntrp/pdf/ntrp characteristics.pdf

"Domestic or foreign Adults ranked in the top 20 nationally or in a section in the top 10"

Age 30 and under 5.5, 31-45 5.5, 46-55 5.0, 56 & over 4.0

If they aren't top 10 then they don't have to answer sectionally ranked... thanks for playing though.
 
gmatheis said:
Try reading down a few lines on that chart "Buddy"

My my , don't we feel stupid now ?
Click to expand...

your are not interpreting the chart correctly. if you are, or were, not in top 10 (say boys) in your section you don't fit the criteria as 'ranked'. and if you have not committed to play college tennis at the time of self rating it is "OK" to self rate as 4.0. Then it is up to the computer (or you or your captains propensity to manage a player) to dq you or not.

usta has to draw the line somewhere. my understanding is this is where the line is drawn.
 
Last edited:
wrxinsc said:
admittedly these lines are a bit zig-zaggy. :)
Click to expand...

What about this line from the chart?

Former Junior who had a national or sectional ( foreign or domestic) ranking but did not tour or play in college
Age 35 or under - minimum ranking 4.5

How is that to be interpreted other than how it reads? Are you saying that the above use of ranking only applies to people who were formerly ranked in the top 10 in their section or in the nation? How do you know that?
 
Last edited:
These criteria are very confusing and ambiguous:

Domestic or foreign Junior 18's ranked in top
150 nationally
This one is clear. If you had a ranking in the top 150 nationally in 18s, you're subject to this guidelines. There is no mention of sectional rankings for juniors here.

Domestic or foreign Adults ranked in the top 20
nationally or in a section in the top 10
This refers to ADULT rankings, not juniors (i.e. adult tournament rankings). It is not clear whether age group rankings apply or just Open (I assume NTRP ranking don't apply because that would be stupid, but it doesn't specifically SAY that they don't, either...).

Former Junior who had a national or sectional ( foreign or domestic) ranking but did not tour or play in college
This covers sectionally ranked juniors, but it doesn't say what rankings apply. A kid who has a ranking of 300 in this section is certainly not a 4.5, much less a 30 year old who was ranked 300 as a kid and then quit playing competitively for 10 years, so interpreting this to mean any ranking seems unduly punitive. OTOH, it doesn't specifically say "top 10" or "top 20" or "top 50" or whatever, either, so who knows?
 
beernutz said:
I kind of feel stupid because I don't see what lines you are referring to.
Click to expand...

5th line from the bottom

"Former Junior who had a national or sectional ( foreign or domestic) ranking but did not tour or play in college"

unlike a few lines higher it does not have any specific ranking requirement(like top 10)

follow that line to the right to a pink box that says "Age 35 and under"

follow that up and it says 4.5
 
J_R_B said:
These criteria are very confusing and ambiguous:

Domestic or foreign Junior 18's ranked in top
150 nationally
This one is clear. If you had a ranking in the top 150 nationally in 18s, you're subject to this guidelines. There is no mention of sectional rankings for juniors here.

Domestic or foreign Adults ranked in the top 20
nationally or in a section in the top 10
This refers to ADULT rankings, not juniors (i.e. adult tournament rankings). It is not clear whether age group rankings apply or just Open (I assume NTRP ranking don't apply because that would be stupid, but it doesn't specifically SAY that they don't, either...).

Former Junior who had a national or sectional ( foreign or domestic) ranking but did not tour or play in college
This covers sectionally ranked juniors, but it doesn't say what rankings apply. A kid who has a ranking of 300 in this section is certainly not a 4.5, much less a 30 year old who was ranked 300 as a kid and then quit playing competitively for 10 years, so interpreting this to mean any ranking seems unduly punitive. OTOH, it doesn't specifically say "top 10" or "top 20" or "top 50" or whatever, either, so who knows?
Click to expand...

exactly , I think what they are going for is making juniors rate higher unless they appeal. So if a former junior self rates under 4.5 without appealing a grievance can be upheld based on a violation of the self rate questions. If they did not do it this way a good 4.5+ junior could self rate as 4.0 and the only way to get rid of them would be through dynamic disqualification.
 
gmatheis said:
5th line from the bottom

"Former Junior who had a national or sectional ( foreign or domestic) ranking but did not tour or play in college"

unlike a few lines higher it does not have any specific ranking requirement(like top 10)

follow that line to the right to a pink box that says "Age 35 and under"

follow that up and it says 4.5
Click to expand...

I finally saw what you were talking about.

Does anyone know why the pdf document on the colorado website linked to above is different from the one linked to on the About Self-Rating USTA page http://www.usta.com/Play-Tennis/USTA-League/Information/About_Self_Rating/ ? http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/USTA_Import/USTA/dps/doc_13_7372.pdf

The colorado pdf is dated 2011 and the USTA one is dated 2007.
 
Last edited:
wrxinsc said:
your are not interpreting the chart correctly. if you are, or were, not in top 10 (say boys) in your section you don't fit the criteria as 'ranked'. and if you have not committed to play college tennis at the time of self rating it is "OK" to self rate as 4.0. Then it is up to the computer (or you or your captains propensity to manage a player) to dq you or not.

usta has to draw the line somewhere. my understanding is this is where the line is drawn.
Click to expand...

^^^
Correct... otherwise any kid that played one tournament would technically have some ranking.
 
beernutz said:
I finally saw what you were talking about.

Does anyone know why the pdf document on the colorado website linked to above is different from the one linked to on the About Self-Rating USTA page http://www.usta.com/Play-Tennis/USTA-League/Information/About_Self_Rating/ ? http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/USTA_Import/USTA/dps/doc_13_7372.pdf

The colorado pdf is dated 2011 and the USTA one is dated 2007.
Click to expand...

Because USTA National is terrible at updating their website... notice the high school player info on the updated one and you'll see that anyone who participated in state must self-rate at 4.0, which is how it currently is.
 
wrxinsc said:
your are not interpreting the chart correctly. if you are, or were, not in top 10 (say boys) in your section you don't fit the criteria as 'ranked'. and if you have not committed to play college tennis at the time of self rating it is "OK" to self rate as 4.0. Then it is up to the computer (or you or your captains propensity to manage a player) to dq you or not.

usta has to draw the line somewhere. my understanding is this is where the line is drawn.
Click to expand...

SunshineJS said:
^^^
Correct... otherwise any kid that played one tournament would technically have some ranking.
Click to expand...

beernutz said:
I finally saw what you were talking about.

Does anyone know why the pdf document on the colorado website linked to above is different from the one linked to on the About Self-Rating USTA page http://www.usta.com/Play-Tennis/USTA-League/Information/About_Self_Rating/ ? http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/USTA_Import/USTA/dps/doc_13_7372.pdf

The colorado pdf is dated 2011 and the USTA one is dated 2007.
Click to expand...

did you google and just follow a link to an old one perhaps?

The USTA does have the current version here
http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/ExperiencedGuidelines_02142011_V2pdf.pdf
 
beernutz said:
I finally saw what you were talking about.

Does anyone know why the pdf document on the colorado website linked to above is different from the one linked to on the About Self-Rating USTA page http://www.usta.com/Play-Tennis/USTA-League/Information/About_Self_Rating/ ? http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/USTA_Import/USTA/dps/doc_13_7372.pdf

The colorado pdf is dated 2011 and the USTA one is dated 2007.
Click to expand...

It was updated in 2011. If you start at the Tennislink front page and then click through until you get to the About NTRP page, the experienced player guidelines in the link are the 2011 version.

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/ExperiencedGuidelines_02142011_V2pdf.pdf
 
SunshineJS said:
^^^
Correct... otherwise any kid that played one tournament would technically have some ranking.
Click to expand...

He/she would have to play a sectional tournament to get a sectional ranking. Different junior tournaments have points towards different rankings. In Middle States, level 3 through 6 tournaments are sectional ranking tournaments. Level 7-9 are district ranking tournaments. If a kid only plays DR level tournaments, he only gets district points and will NOT get a sectional ranking. Likewise, if a kid is super good and skips the DR tournaments and only plays SR tournaments, he will only get a sectional ranking and not a district ranking.

There was a college kid who played 4.0 last year who had a district ranking of 3 but didn't play sectional tournaments as a junior (and didn't play in college), so he rated at 4.0 (he eventually got dynamically DQ'd at sectionals anyway...).
 
J_R_B said:
I don't think so.

http://www.usta.com/Play-Tennis/USTA-League/Information/About_NTRP/

Is this the page you are referring to? If you click on the link for Experienced Player Guidelines right under where it says NTRP Levels, you get the 2011 pdf.
Click to expand...

The link below which has a hyperlink to the old pdf of NTRP guidelines is apparently to an outdated webpage that the USTA just hasn't removed from their site. I found it by typing in the phrase 'self rating' in the search box and it was the second result.

http://www.usta.com/Play-Tennis/USTA-League/Information/About_Self_Rating/
 
beernutz said:
The link below which has a hyperlink to the old pdf of NTRP guidelines is apparently to an outdated webpage that the USTA just hasn't removed from their site. I found it by typing in the phrase 'self rating' in the search box and it was the second result.

http://www.usta.com/Play-Tennis/USTA-League/Information/About_Self_Rating/
Click to expand...

i have noticed that problem frequently when using the google. mostly at the state level for our section related to league championships. if you follow the clicks through the main website all is current. if you click the google heading you get old stuff sometimes. messed me up before!
 
I am always looking to add a self rated ringer or two. Sadly, finding them can be tough. They have been hunted to near extinction... Especially at 40s.
 
beernutz said:
What about this line from the chart?

Former Junior who had a national or sectional ( foreign or domestic) ranking but did not tour or play in college
Age 35 or under - minimum ranking 4.5

How is that to be interpreted other than how it reads? Are you saying that the above use of ranking only applies to people who were formerly ranked in the top 10 in their section or in the nation? How do you know that?
Click to expand...

Beernuts, it is what it means. I checked again with the local USTA coordinator and co-ordinator told me that player self-rates to 4.5. If that person is dishonest and rate himself to 4.0, he can be disqualified once Grievance is filed. Which my friend intends to do, exactly that.

If any confusion, always ask your local USTA coordinator. That is the best way
 
Last edited:
gmatheis said:
exactly , I think what they are going for is making juniors rate higher unless they appeal. So if a former junior self rates under 4.5 without appealing a grievance can be upheld based on a violation of the self rate questions. If they did not do it this way a good 4.5+ junior could self rate as 4.0 and the only way to get rid of them would be through dynamic disqualification.
Click to expand...

This is what the local USTA co-ordinator said as well.
 
Nostradamus said:
This is so typical of some in-experienced captain making dumb decisions. We have a local league and USTA league. Not everyone knows of this local league since most of the USTA guys don't play in this. but the level 4.0 or 4.5 are about the same roughly. Now this new captain thinks he can self-rate these several guys that have been playing 4.5 level( Played College tennis too) in the local league and add them to his USTA 4.0 team and get away with it. :???:
He thinks now he can win the division and go to the playoffs and maybe the nationals. I play in this local league and USTA league both, so I can clearly see this is cheating. but these guys haven't played USTA league before so they are Self-rating to 4.0.
This really is bad because it give other teams in the division that was close to winning the division last year, NO chance to compete for the playoff spot. What kind of Blatant Cheating is this ?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the USTA-- not entirely the USTA's fault its people who abuse the system however it could be policed better
 
rainman007 said:
Welcome to the USTA-- not entirely the USTA's fault its people who abuse the system however it could be policed better
Click to expand...

rainman, now a guy that was playing division 3 college tennis just 2 years ago has rated himself as 3.5 players. What is going on here ?
 
rainman007 said:
Welcome to the USTA-- not entirely the USTA's fault its people who abuse the system however it could be policed better
Click to expand...

Like it or not policing is left up to the members.

Nostradamus said:
rainman, now a guy that was playing division 3 college tennis just 2 years ago has rated himself as 3.5 players. What is going on here ?
Click to expand...

Please file your protests or shut up :twisted: and just play tennis. Those who see the blatant Self-Rate cheating and do nothing about it are adding to the problems.
 
Looks like this thread has been beat to death but an observation.

I have been a competitive athlete in a number of sports, football, track and field, triathlons, adventure racing and others. I have been playing tennis for eight years and have attained a 4.5 level and the one thing that has always astounded me is, why anyone would want to play below their level.

I can honestly say I have only seen this in tennis. I'm not bothered by it, just amazed people would rather beat someone weaker, not equal.

I dont think it says anything about the sport, just the person.
 
dflores said:
Looks like this thread has been beat to death but an observation.

I have been a competitive athlete in a number of sports, football, track and field, triathlons, adventure racing and others. I have been playing tennis for eight years and have attained a 4.5 level and the one thing that has always astounded me is, why anyone would want to play below their level.

I can honestly say I have only seen this in tennis. I'm not bothered by it, just amazed people would rather beat someone weaker, not equal.

I dont think it says anything about the sport, just the person.
Click to expand...
It's simple, especially when getting bumped to 4.5 and higher. In some areas, there are very few 4.5 teams, some clubs don't even have one. Getting bumped could mean having to drive farther to play USTA matches and not being able to play with your friends. For professional sports, I'd agree, you want to challenge the strongest possible opponent, to improve your ranking, get more money, etc. However, for recreational sports, it's more than a challenge, it's also about having fun. In fact, for some people, having fun is a priority.
 
dflores said:
Looks like this thread has been beat to death but an observation.

I have been a competitive athlete in a number of sports, football, track and field, triathlons, adventure racing and others. I have been playing tennis for eight years and have attained a 4.5 level and the one thing that has always astounded me is, why anyone would want to play below their level.

I can honestly say I have only seen this in tennis. I'm not bothered by it, just amazed people would rather beat someone weaker, not equal.

I dont think it says anything about the sport, just the person.
Click to expand...

Since I got bumped down to a 4.0 this year, I have heard endless stories about the strong competition from sandbaggers. In both 40+ and 18+ I have not seen any evidence of this at all and I have looked. This story started as during the playoffs I'll see someone good, followed by districts, followed by sectionals but I have yet to see any really strong 4.5s. The top guys who are considered sandbaggers seem like low to mid level 4.5 guys who would be completely non-competitive at 4.5 singles. They probably shouldn't be playing 4.0 but I can't really fault them as this is the only level where they can be competitive.

From my short time reading these threads they always seem to boil down the exactly the same thing which is "I am an awesome x.y player and anyone who can beat me must be sandbagging because I rule". The next line of logic following this is "I must right the world of this injustice by being an *******".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
USTA doesn't care about Self-rated sandbager
Replies
23
Views
3K
TennisOTM
T
B
Players in same league, same level, but different flights
Replies
4
Views
2K
JLyon
J
L
Limiting self-rated players in Adult league postseason?
2
Replies
88
Views
7K
Startzel
S
L
Self rate/appeal players eligible for Nationals with just TWO matches played (reduced from FOUR)
Replies
7
Views
722
CosmosMpower
CosmosMpower
F
Self rated tri level players
Replies
5
Views
737
kevrol
K
Back
Top