Some of you have said that nearly all teams competing at Sectionals & Nationals are loaded with ringers, sandbaggers,etc. and some say they are all cheaters. Well, clearly some poeple just like to whine. But others may not understand. So here are a few things to consider:
1. NTRP levels are just numbers. The USTA could have chosen colors; green blue, red etc. The purpose was to achieve some level of consistency so that players could compete against others of roughly the same ability.
2. The USTA defines what type of performance is acceptable at each level. I do not define the levels and neither do any of the bloggers on this site. The level of acceptable performance for each NTRP category is very broad.
3. The USTA HAS ALREADY pretty clearly defined what constitutes acceptable performance for each level and they used verifiers to implement their standards. (Verifiers were eliminated a few years ago for cost savings reasons and replaced by the computer algorithms driven by match scores.) The verifiers had to go through mandatory training and they were paid (not voluteers) by the USTA to do their job. Verfiers attended all National and Sectional tournaments as well as many district championships. Players wore numbers pinned to their back to facilitate the evaluation process. Captains could protest if they felt an opposing player was too strong for their level. Players deemed too strong by verifiers were DQed. The point here is that the USTA (through their verifiers) defined what peformance level was acceptable for each NTRP range. It worked this way for over 10 years and the standard was very consistent year to year.
4. The results of this process were 1) a practical definition of what performance level is acceptable at each NTRP level and 2) a reasonable amount of consistency across the country. I'm not saying the system did not have problems, because it did. I'm just relating what happened. The narative descriptions of levels are so general they are of little use. So a practical definiton emerged from actual USTA practice & administration.
5. At Nationals MOST (not all) matches are very competitive for both men & women at all levels. At Sectionals most matches are competitive as well. There is clearly a good deal of consistency across the country _ at least at higher levels of acceptable performance. But there are many lopsided matches at the local level.
6. Over the past 10 + years, the level of play at Nationals has been remarkably consistent year-to-year. For example, the overall skill level of competition at this year's Men's 3.0 Nationals was no better than the Men's 3.0 Nationals 10 years ago and actually somewhat lower in 2007. Same goes for 3.5, 4.0 etc. If there had been verifiers in 2007, the same teams and same players would have been competing at Nationals _ because they were within the historical standards of what is acceptable play defined by the USTA.
7. Over the last 10 + years tens of thousands of men & women at all levels have played at Sectionals & Nationals. Some people would claim that most were sandbaggers _ and that of course would mean tens of thousands of sandbaggers over the years. Other claim that you MUST have a bunch of sandbaggers to reach Nationals. This is largely a PERCEPTION problem. The STANDARDS OF ACCEPTABLE PLAY AS DEFINED BY THE USTA IS SIMPLY HIGHER THAN SOME PEOPLE REALIZE. Some may diagree with how the USTA has established those standards, but it is what it is.
8. If you want to get a good feel for what is "acceptable performance", watch a National tournament or a Sectional finals. That is the standard of acceptable play intentionally established by the USTA. Players with greater than acceptable skill levels are DQed.
BOTTOM LINE
Has there been tens of thousands of sandbaggers over the years? Of course not. Do some individuals have a different view of what should be acceptable performance at various levels? For sure!
I'm sure there are some case of cheating & sandbagging but really very few across the country. The USTA has defined what is an acceptable standard of play for each level and the vast majority of players (including Sectional & National players) fall within that acceptable range. And yes the range is very broad.
It is fine to say we should change the standards. Perhaps lower the standards for each level or perhaps have more levels. If you want to see change I'm willing to sign the petition. But it is not OK to paint all National players and teams as sandbaggers & cheaters. They are playing within the rules & within the standards of acceptable skill levels established by the USTA. And those standards of acceptable play have remained pretty consistent over the last 10 + years.
MISCELLANEOUS
The USTA chose to make the NTRP categories very broad. The USTA website tells us that a very high level 3.5 player is EXPECTED to beat a very low level 3.5 player by a score of 6 - 0, 6 - 0. (I did not make that up.) Many people say that that is ridiculous. Well, I agree. I'm not defending the system, that's just how it works. And actually the situation is worse because the standard of acceptable play is set somewhere above the high end of each level. Years ago there were many fewer League players and it would have been difficult to have more NTRP levels. Now the number of players is dramatically higher and having more NTRP levels probably makes a lot of sense. More NTRP levels would equate to narrower skill ranges & closer matches.
Many of us did see dramatically more players DQed in 2007 especially at the lower levels. We can't be sure but it looks like the USTA tighten it's tolerance levels within the computer to perhaps begin lowering the standard of play at various levels.
1. NTRP levels are just numbers. The USTA could have chosen colors; green blue, red etc. The purpose was to achieve some level of consistency so that players could compete against others of roughly the same ability.
2. The USTA defines what type of performance is acceptable at each level. I do not define the levels and neither do any of the bloggers on this site. The level of acceptable performance for each NTRP category is very broad.
3. The USTA HAS ALREADY pretty clearly defined what constitutes acceptable performance for each level and they used verifiers to implement their standards. (Verifiers were eliminated a few years ago for cost savings reasons and replaced by the computer algorithms driven by match scores.) The verifiers had to go through mandatory training and they were paid (not voluteers) by the USTA to do their job. Verfiers attended all National and Sectional tournaments as well as many district championships. Players wore numbers pinned to their back to facilitate the evaluation process. Captains could protest if they felt an opposing player was too strong for their level. Players deemed too strong by verifiers were DQed. The point here is that the USTA (through their verifiers) defined what peformance level was acceptable for each NTRP range. It worked this way for over 10 years and the standard was very consistent year to year.
4. The results of this process were 1) a practical definition of what performance level is acceptable at each NTRP level and 2) a reasonable amount of consistency across the country. I'm not saying the system did not have problems, because it did. I'm just relating what happened. The narative descriptions of levels are so general they are of little use. So a practical definiton emerged from actual USTA practice & administration.
5. At Nationals MOST (not all) matches are very competitive for both men & women at all levels. At Sectionals most matches are competitive as well. There is clearly a good deal of consistency across the country _ at least at higher levels of acceptable performance. But there are many lopsided matches at the local level.
6. Over the past 10 + years, the level of play at Nationals has been remarkably consistent year-to-year. For example, the overall skill level of competition at this year's Men's 3.0 Nationals was no better than the Men's 3.0 Nationals 10 years ago and actually somewhat lower in 2007. Same goes for 3.5, 4.0 etc. If there had been verifiers in 2007, the same teams and same players would have been competing at Nationals _ because they were within the historical standards of what is acceptable play defined by the USTA.
7. Over the last 10 + years tens of thousands of men & women at all levels have played at Sectionals & Nationals. Some people would claim that most were sandbaggers _ and that of course would mean tens of thousands of sandbaggers over the years. Other claim that you MUST have a bunch of sandbaggers to reach Nationals. This is largely a PERCEPTION problem. The STANDARDS OF ACCEPTABLE PLAY AS DEFINED BY THE USTA IS SIMPLY HIGHER THAN SOME PEOPLE REALIZE. Some may diagree with how the USTA has established those standards, but it is what it is.
8. If you want to get a good feel for what is "acceptable performance", watch a National tournament or a Sectional finals. That is the standard of acceptable play intentionally established by the USTA. Players with greater than acceptable skill levels are DQed.
BOTTOM LINE
Has there been tens of thousands of sandbaggers over the years? Of course not. Do some individuals have a different view of what should be acceptable performance at various levels? For sure!
I'm sure there are some case of cheating & sandbagging but really very few across the country. The USTA has defined what is an acceptable standard of play for each level and the vast majority of players (including Sectional & National players) fall within that acceptable range. And yes the range is very broad.
It is fine to say we should change the standards. Perhaps lower the standards for each level or perhaps have more levels. If you want to see change I'm willing to sign the petition. But it is not OK to paint all National players and teams as sandbaggers & cheaters. They are playing within the rules & within the standards of acceptable skill levels established by the USTA. And those standards of acceptable play have remained pretty consistent over the last 10 + years.
MISCELLANEOUS
The USTA chose to make the NTRP categories very broad. The USTA website tells us that a very high level 3.5 player is EXPECTED to beat a very low level 3.5 player by a score of 6 - 0, 6 - 0. (I did not make that up.) Many people say that that is ridiculous. Well, I agree. I'm not defending the system, that's just how it works. And actually the situation is worse because the standard of acceptable play is set somewhere above the high end of each level. Years ago there were many fewer League players and it would have been difficult to have more NTRP levels. Now the number of players is dramatically higher and having more NTRP levels probably makes a lot of sense. More NTRP levels would equate to narrower skill ranges & closer matches.
Many of us did see dramatically more players DQed in 2007 especially at the lower levels. We can't be sure but it looks like the USTA tighten it's tolerance levels within the computer to perhaps begin lowering the standard of play at various levels.
