The Carnage Begins: S rated players from 2020 getting DQed in 2021

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
Now that we are completed with 40+ season and on week 2 of 18+ season ... a bunch of S rated (and A rated) players who played all of 2020 (some with 15+ matches) didn't get a C rating because of the pause on ratings are now getting DQed.

Creating a bit of a disaster on a few teams.

One is now joining my 3.5 team ... she had self rated as a 2.5 in 2019, didn't play enough against C rated players to generate a rating. Appealed up to 3.0 for 2020, played 17 matches at 3.0. Got DQ'ed to 3.5 in the past week ... but did not play a single match yet in 2021. So received the DQ based on 2020 play.

Have heard about roughly 10 (although I do not have proof of all) of both men and women around the league. Lots of captains complaining.

Main theme is if the system had just given appropriate C ratings (including bump ups) at end of 2020 no one would be dealing with this mess now. My guess is that it is going to get even worse in another month.
 

Rattler

Hall of Fame
Ah the USTA, shooting itself in the foot for league play once again. One of the me at reasons I don’t play league tennis anymore
 

Traffic

Hall of Fame
I do have a concern with a team mate that is S rated but played 4 matches in 2020 40+. Now in 2021, he plays singles and destroys a high rated player. We want to put him on singles but afraid of possible DQ. But it seems like the should be C rated by now because of his previous match history.

I'm more concerned with S rated players that joined this year. DQ the hell out of those sandbaggers!
 

leech

Semi-Pro
Yikes....this scenario is one that the USTA and experienced captains should have anticipated. It sucks for those players who started league tennis in 2019 (or even late 2018 but didn't play enough rated matches to qualify for a C rating) and have improved significantly. Those players should have a good idea that they have exceeded their initial self-rating level, and just play up, because it's almost a certainty that they will get DQ'd if they play at their nominal S-rated level.

I wish the USTA had counted results from 2020, as abbreviated as they may have been, to alleviate this issue. But there probably were valid concerns about that approach, too (for one, it could be a sandbagger's paradise to tank matches in a year where no postseason was taking place, and use that year to get bumped down if the USTA indicated it would proceed as usual with ratings promotions/demotions).
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
Now that we are completed with 40+ season and on week 2 of 18+ season ... a bunch of S rated (and A rated) players who played all of 2020 (some with 15+ matches) didn't get a C rating because of the pause on ratings are now getting DQed.

Creating a bit of a disaster on a few teams.

One is now joining my 3.5 team ... she had self rated as a 2.5 in 2019, didn't play enough against C rated players to generate a rating. Appealed up to 3.0 for 2020, played 17 matches at 3.0. Got DQ'ed to 3.5 in the past week ... but did not play a single match yet in 2021. So received the DQ based on 2020 play.

Have heard about roughly 10 (although I do not have proof of all) of both men and women around the league. Lots of captains complaining.

Main theme is if the system had just given appropriate C ratings (including bump ups) at end of 2020 no one would be dealing with this mess now. My guess is that it is going to get even worse in another month.
There's a blog somewhere warning this would happen ...
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
Yikes....this scenario is one that the USTA and experienced captains should have anticipated. It sucks for those players who started league tennis in 2019 (or even late 2018 but didn't play enough rated matches to qualify for a C rating) and have improved significantly. Those players should have a good idea that they have exceeded their initial self-rating level, and just play up, because it's almost a certainty that they will get DQ'd if they play at their nominal S-rated level.

I wish the USTA had counted results from 2020, as abbreviated as they may have been, to alleviate this issue. But there probably were valid concerns about that approach, too (for one, it could be a sandbagger's paradise to tank matches in a year where no postseason was taking place, and use that year to get bumped down if the USTA indicated it would proceed as usual with ratings promotions/demotions).
Lots of options to address the sandbaggers, I offered several up on how to handle 2020 year-end. In the end, I think the USTA elected to just not publish because their system wasn't set up to publish without Nationals being played and didn't want to do the work to adjust and publish ratings using some other method, even for a subset of players like self-rates and appeals.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
One is now joining my 3.5 team ... she had self rated as a 2.5 in 2019, didn't play enough against C rated players to generate a rating. Appealed up to 3.0 for 2020, played 17 matches at 3.0. Got DQ'ed to 3.5 in the past week ... but did not play a single match yet in 2021. So received the DQ based on 2020 play.
Can you elaborate on this? If the player has not played any more matches since 2020, their strike/DQ situation should not have changed so the delayed DQ is puzzling. Only reason would seem to be the LC was delinquent in reviewing strikes and administering the DQ?

<edit/add>
Actually, I'm guessing it had to have been an administrative DQ, not one from strikes from 2020 play as the player likely played in a non-advancing league and that shouldn't generate strikes. Perhaps there was a grievance or in your district LCs are doing some sort of manual review of self-rates? What reason was given for her being promoted to 3.5?
 
Last edited:
Now that we are completed with 40+ season and on week 2 of 18+ season ... a bunch of S rated (and A rated) players who played all of 2020 (some with 15+ matches) didn't get a C rating because of the pause on ratings are now getting DQed.

Creating a bit of a disaster on a few teams.

One is now joining my 3.5 team ... she had self rated as a 2.5 in 2019, didn't play enough against C rated players to generate a rating. Appealed up to 3.0 for 2020, played 17 matches at 3.0. Got DQ'ed to 3.5 in the past week ... but did not play a single match yet in 2021. So received the DQ based on 2020 play.

Have heard about roughly 10 (although I do not have proof of all) of both men and women around the league. Lots of captains complaining.

Main theme is if the system had just given appropriate C ratings (including bump ups) at end of 2020 no one would be dealing with this mess now. My guess is that it is going to get even worse in another month.
An organization whose life blood is membership enrollment and participation should never treat its members so shabbily. W/out members USTA is an empty shell. No one has to have USTA membership to do anything. USTA's first priority has never been its members but itself.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Main theme is if the system had just given appropriate C ratings (including bump ups) at end of 2020 no one would be dealing with this mess now
Why the USTA delay in bumping up these 2020 players. This 3.0 player played 17 matches in 2020 and the computer should have bumped to 3.5 months ago. Not at the last moment when players are registering.

This just creates chaos and disorder as if we did not have enough of that from the covid lockdowns.

Why are they so slow, bureaucratic and incompetent. Is Suresherer running the USTA.
:unsure:
 
Last edited:

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Why the USTA delay in bumping up these 2020 players. This 3.0 player played 17 matches in 2020 and the computer should have bumped to 3.5 months ago. Not at the last moment when players are registering.

This just creates chaos and disorder as if we did not have enough of that from the covid lockdowns.

Why are they so slow, bureaucratic and incompetent. Is Suresherer running the USTA.
:unsure:
USTA should just do an auto-evaluate every X matches instead of waiting for this year end garbage.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
Can you elaborate on this? If the player has not played any more matches since 2020, their strike/DQ situation should not have changed so the delayed DQ is puzzling. Only reason would seem to be the LC was delinquent in reviewing strikes and administering the DQ?

<edit/add>
Actually, I'm guessing it had to have been an administrative DQ, not one from strikes from 2020 play as the player likely played in a non-advancing league and that shouldn't generate strikes. Perhaps there was a grievance or in your district LCs are doing some sort of manual review of self-rates? What reason was given for her being promoted to 3.5?
Her last match in 2020 was in mid-December. She received the DQ notification after she had registered for a 3.0 team (but played no matches) in February.

NOTE: our non-advancing Fall league that runs Sept - Dec absolutely generates strikes and counts towards ratings.

I would not be surprised if our LC did a manual review of S rates ... she is pretty awesome and proactive.

Reason given: Her results indicate that she is playing out of level. She cannot remember the exact wording, although letter did indicate strikes.
 
Last edited:

schmke

Hall of Fame
I just took a look at the number of DQs in 2021, and the rate of them per match or per player, and the rate is up around 60% over 2019 and 2020 in the same period. This would seem to support my hypothesis that there would be a lot more players out of level in 2021 than normal (I'd estimated 15K).

More on my blog.
 

Purestriker

Rookie
I just took a look at the number of DQs in 2021, and the rate of them per match or per player, and the rate is up around 60% over 2019 and 2020 in the same period. This would seem to support my hypothesis that there would be a lot more players out of level in 2021 than normal (I'd estimated 15K).

More on my blog.
Wow. I have seen a few in the Southern section, but not to that degree. Maybe that is about to change.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
An organization whose life blood is membership enrollment and participation should never treat its members so shabbily. W/out members USTA is an empty shell. No one has to have USTA membership to do anything. USTA's first priority has never been its members but itself.
The organization's lifeblood is a 2 week tournament at the end of summer. Everything else they do is for the lols.

J
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
I just took a look at the number of DQs in 2021, and the rate of them per match or per player, and the rate is up around 60% over 2019 and 2020 in the same period. This would seem to support my hypothesis that there would be a lot more players out of level in 2021 than normal (I'd estimated 15K).

More on my blog.
That is a huge increase. When you think of the number of people who played as an S rate in 2019 but not enough matches to get a C rating, and then played 2020 again no C rating ... this increase should surprise no one.

I am guessing most of the DQs are at the sub 4.0 level?
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
That is a huge increase. When you think of the number of people who played as an S rate in 2019 but not enough matches to get a C rating, and then played 2020 again no C rating ... this increase should surprise no one.

I am guessing most of the DQs are at the sub 4.0 level?
Through a day or two ago, promoted to:

3.0 - 14
3.5 - 37
4.0 - 32
4.5 - 32
5.0 - 5
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
My takeaway: not a lot of 4.5 sandbaggers .....
I don't think that's too surprising. The people who could be "sandbaggers" at 4.5 are former college players and other pretty high level players. Most people at that level aren't interested in playing down for the glory, and even if they wanted to, almost all of them are going to have a history that will make it more difficult to get past the self-rating screen.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
Through a day or two ago, promoted to:

3.0 - 14
3.5 - 37
4.0 - 32
4.5 - 32
5.0 - 5
Since these are raw numbers ....

Given that the volume of players who self rate at 2.5/3.0/3.5 is likely far bigger than those that self rate at 4.0 or higher the percentage that are being DQed is far higher at 4.0/4.5 than those that are lower.

Also means that my assumption was dead flat wrong. I had not expected to see a relatively flat raw number distribution .... even though the strike threshold for lower ranks is much higher than at higher ranks.
 

Purestriker

Rookie
I don't think that's too surprising. The people who could be "sandbaggers" at 4.5 are former college players and other pretty high level players. Most people at that level aren't interested in playing down for the glory, and even if they wanted to, almost all of them are going to have a history that will make it more difficult to get past the self-rating screen.
There is also a portion that do not want to get moved to 5.0 in some areas because there are not a lot of people to play against.
 

joeydivine

New User
Now that we are completed with 40+ season and on week 2 of 18+ season ... a bunch of S rated (and A rated) players who played all of 2020 (some with 15+ matches) didn't get a C rating because of the pause on ratings are now getting DQed.

Creating a bit of a disaster on a few teams.

One is now joining my 3.5 team ... she had self rated as a 2.5 in 2019, didn't play enough against C rated players to generate a rating. Appealed up to 3.0 for 2020, played 17 matches at 3.0. Got DQ'ed to 3.5 in the past week ... but did not play a single match yet in 2021. So received the DQ based on 2020 play.

Have heard about roughly 10 (although I do not have proof of all) of both men and women around the league. Lots of captains complaining.

Main theme is if the system had just given appropriate C ratings (including bump ups) at end of 2020 no one would be dealing with this mess now. My guess is that it is going to get even worse in another month.
?
You can get a DQ and be bumped UP after appealing UP?
If you appeal up you're obviously not a sandbagger, why would they even consider a DQ?
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
?
You can get a DQ and be bumped UP after appealing UP?
If you appeal up you're obviously not a sandbagger, why would they even consider a DQ?
The DQ is based on your match ratings. It's an automated process done by the computer. If your match ratings at the higher level are still too high, you'll get DQ'd up to the next level.
 

joeydivine

New User
The DQ is based on your match ratings. It's an automated process done by the computer. If your match ratings at the higher level are still too high, you'll get DQ'd up to the next level.
Thanks.
Sounds like a good reason not to appeal up - or improve - if your improvement is just going to make you look like a cheater.
 

Creighton

Rookie
I don't think that's too surprising. The people who could be "sandbaggers" at 4.5 are former college players and other pretty high level players. Most people at that level aren't interested in playing down for the glory, and even if they wanted to, almost all of them are going to have a history that will make it more difficult to get past the self-rating screen.
This and the fact there aren't many "playing up" opportunities for 4.5. I would imagine the majority of players that have been disqualified have played up at the next higher level.
 

Creighton

Rookie
Thanks.
Sounds like a good reason not to appeal up - or improve - if your improvement is just going to make you look like a cheater.
The people who generally get DQ already look like cheaters because they're so far out of level, even before they get disqualified.
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
Thanks.
Sounds like a good reason not to appeal up - or improve - if your improvement is just going to make you look like a cheater.
The USTA has tried to destigmatize the dynamic DQ by calling it "promotion" instead of DQ. If you get the dynamic DQ because you really just improved that much since you rated yourself and not because you were trying to game the system to play at a lower level, you shouldn't be branded as a cheater.
 

joeydivine

New User
The USTA has tried to destigmatize the dynamic DQ by calling it "promotion" instead of DQ. If you get the dynamic DQ because you really just improved that much since you rated yourself and not because you were trying to game the system to play at a lower level, you shouldn't be branded as a cheater.
I wasn't referring to self-rated players. I was referring to players who get to the end of the year, expecting a bump up to the next level, and the bump doesn't happen.

Realizing they've been beating everyone at their level, so it's not fair to keep playing there, they click the "appeal" button and are immediately granted a promotion to the next level. They now have an "A" by their rating.

The usta decides not to adjust any ratings for 2 years - that's two years worth of growth and improvement. Because that player chose to appeal - UP - that player can now be DQ'd and have a D by their rating instead.
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
I wasn't referring to self-rated players. I was referring to players who get to the end of the year, expecting a bump up to the next level, and the bump doesn't happen.

Realizing they've been beating everyone at their level, so it's not fair to keep playing there, they click the "appeal" button and are immediately granted a promotion to the next level. They now have an "A" by their rating.

The usta decides not to adjust any ratings for 2 years - that's two years worth of growth and improvement. Because that player chose to appeal - UP - that player can now be DQ'd and have a D by their rating instead.
If you have a C rating and appeal up to get an A rating, I don't think you can get DQ'd for that. In the OP, the player had a 2.5 S rating in 2019, but didn't play enough matches to get a C rating, so she appealed her 2.5 S up to 3.0 S with a self-rating appeal in 2020, but since no 2020 YE ratings were issued, she still had a 3.0 S rating from 2019 (and appealed in 2020), and then got DQ'd from that S rating. If you appeal a C-rating down to an A-rating, you can get DQ'd from that (although it is much more difficult than with an S-rating), but if you appeal a C-rating up, I don't think you can.
 

Creighton

Rookie
If you have a C rating and appeal up to get an A rating, I don't think you can get DQ'd for that. In the OP, the player had a 2.5 S rating in 2019, but didn't play enough matches to get a C rating, so she appealed her 2.5 S up to 3.0 S with a self-rating appeal in 2020, but since no 2020 YE ratings were issued, she still had a 3.0 S rating from 2019 (and appealed in 2020), and then got DQ'd from that S rating. If you appeal a C-rating down to an A-rating, you can get DQ'd from that (although it is much more difficult than with an S-rating), but if you appeal a C-rating up, I don't think you can.
Anyone with an A can get a DQ, but I've never heard of anyone actually appealing up who was good enough to get DQd.
 

Purestriker

Rookie
Anyone with an A can get a DQ, but I've never heard of anyone actually appealing up who was good enough to get DQd.
That very thing just happened to a player in our area. She was a 2.5S and decided to appeal up to 3.0 because they were not going to play 2.5 anymore. Played at both the 3.0 level and 3.5 level matches this season and just got DQ'd (3.5D).
 
I just took a look at the number of DQs in 2021, and the rate of them per match or per player, and the rate is up around 60% over 2019 and 2020 in the same period. This would seem to support my hypothesis that there would be a lot more players out of level in 2021 than normal (I'd estimated 15K).

More on my blog.
For those interested:

 

Creighton

Rookie
That very thing just happened to a player in our area. She was a 2.5S and decided to appeal up to 3.0 because they were not going to play 2.5 anymore. Played at both the 3.0 level and 3.5 level matches this season and just got DQ'd (3.5D).
That's a bit different than what most people think of appealing up because she was already an S rate so her rating wasn't protected. I was thinking about a player who had a protected C rating and appealed up.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
3 teams in an entire league? So what a quad round robin?

And good for you ... outdoors is so much more fun!
Normally, we would have about nine teams. It’s just the same three teams playing each other over and over.

Outdoors is awful. You can have weather at any time, which means delay and rescheduling. And because matches start at 7 instead of 9, you have to allow for traffic.

I am busy at work and I have a four month old puppy. I really wish I weren’t captaining.
 
Normally, we would have about nine teams. It’s just the same three teams playing each other over and over.

Outdoors is awful. You can have weather at any time, which means delay and rescheduling. And because matches start at 7 instead of 9, you have to allow for traffic.

I am busy at work and I have a four month old puppy. I really wish I weren’t captaining.
Couldn't you get Becky to do it? :D
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
Normally, we would have about nine teams. It’s just the same three teams playing each other over and over.

Outdoors is awful. You can have weather at any time, which means delay and rescheduling. And because matches start at 7 instead of 9, you have to allow for traffic.

I am busy at work and I have a four month old puppy. I really wish I weren’t captaining.
Tell the puppy Uncle Jolly says hi!

J
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
Normally, we would have about nine teams. It’s just the same three teams playing each other over and over.

Outdoors is awful. You can have weather at any time, which means delay and rescheduling. And because matches start at 7 instead of 9, you have to allow for traffic.
I played the 3.5 18's and 40+ this season for the first time in a bit. Same guys as forever. 9 teams in 18's and we went 8/1 and have the first championship Thursday (1v4 and 2v3, then a final). 40+ we only had 5 teams, but played 8 times and we went 8/0 and have to play last seasons winner next Monday for the championship. Normally there are a dozen or so teams in 3.5 and 4.0.

For us it seems more that too many players were playing up, and no worries about anyone getting DQ'd. Though our top guys having played the last few seasons with solid records probably should have been bumped to 4.0. We will see.
 

JLyon

Hall of Fame
I am watching several young guys that played 2-3 matches in 2020 before COVID, so they are entering 2021 with "S" ratings will be interesting to track some scores.
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
I can't believe people actually prefer playing tennis indoors so they don't have to experience the natural environment

They are probably the same people who prefer doubles because they don't have to run

Next thing will be automatic racquets so they don't have to swing
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
I can't believe people actually prefer playing tennis indoors so they don't have to experience the natural environment

They are probably the same people who prefer doubles because they don't have to run

Next thing will be automatic racquets so they don't have to swing
Non sequitur?

J
 
Top