The Effect of the Ratings Adjustment: Teensy Teams

[Cindysphinx]

I captain 3.5, and I am seeing something this year I've never seen before: Shrinking Rosters.

Usually for spring adult season, captains will try to have 17-20 players on their rosters. You need 8 players per match, and the singles players tend to get injured a lot. Our matches can be scheduled on any day of the week, which leads to a lot of scheduling conflicts. Plus, this is the end of the school year, and there are lots of graduations, school plays, college visits, weddings, athletic events . . . .

This year, captains are frantic to find enough players. The league's list of available players would normally have 20 3.5 players looking for teams. Last time I checked there were five. Average roster size of the 24 teams is 14 players. There is one team with just 10 players (!).

I think what may have happened is that each team lost a few players due to bumps to 4.0. And each captain thought she would easily find new players, as in the past. That left all of the teams too big to merge and all scrambling for the same pool of 3.5s. Further compounding matters is that most captains probably feel that adding 3.0s is not an appealing option because any 3.0 who was on the cusp of moving to 3.5 already moved up.

I had to kill myself to find 18 players. Then I lost one to a leg injury. And another has had chronic TE and PF for months. And one is pregnant. I have scoured our time zone to find more players and have struck out -- we have a 2-player rule that is making life difficult.

So we will go with 16 healthy players and hope like heck we don't start defaulting courts.

 

[Applesauceman]

What's a 2-player rule?

 

[Cindysphinx]

Two-player rule means you cannot have more than 2 players from one ladies adult team playing on another ladies adult team. It applies anywhere in Mid-Atlantic, so that's VA, MD, WV and DC.

 

[cak]

Here in my immediate section, women were bumped from 3.0 to 3.5, but not all that many to 4.0. So it resulted in a huge 3.5 pool. Men, meanwhile were bumped both up to 3.5 and up to 4.0, so their pool is still the same at 3.5. It also made for a weird mixed season, as often on a 8.0 mixed court the 4.0 women were stronger than the 4.0 men. (Men just bumped up to 4.0, women playing there forever...) It was kind of nice.

 

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Here in my immediate section, women were bumped from 3.0 to 3.5, but not all that many to 4.0. So it resulted in a huge 3.5 pool. Men, meanwhile were bumped both up to 3.5 and up to 4.0, so their pool is still the same at 3.5. It also made for a weird mixed season, as often on a 8.0 mixed court the 4.0 women were stronger than the 4.0 men. (Men just bumped up to 4.0, women playing there forever...) It was kind of nice.

I dont think we are going to see an impact on mixed until next season. The early start ratings did not reflect the big bump so there are lots of 7.0 partnerships that will have to play 8.0 next year and likewise at the 8.0 level. This provides the opportunity to clearly see what the impact will be. I have beaten 7.0 opponents pretty easily and then checked their performance on Tennis Link only to find out both players have been bumped to 4.0. Then you spend some time shaking your head trying to understand how they will compete at the higher level.

It certainly is going to make 7.0 and 8.0 poorer quality tennis respectively but that is going to be true across the board mens, womens, mixed ....

 

[cknobman]

Cindy,

Of your 16 players how many of them made their availability known to you before the season started? Did anyone give you dates they would/would not be available? Did anyone let you know if they would only be able to make 1 or 2 matches?

For those that let you know before the season started then it is understandable for not being available every week but for everyone else if they were not available on a consistent basis and caused you to default lines then I would not invite them back for the next season.

I still find it hard that with a team double the size of what plays on a given week would have trouble with defaulting courts.

FTR I co captain a team with 17 players and we have had a few close calls on defaults but have always been able to scrounge up enough guys to play. Unfortunately once or twice we actually had to start threatening people that we would not play them the rest of the season if they couldnt be available when we needed them. Surprisingly there were always a few that miraculously became available at the last minute. Youd be amazed at the amount of people that claim they are unavailable for some bs reason when they are actually doing nothing.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Cindy,

Of your 16 players how many of them made their availability known to you before the season started? Did anyone give you dates they would/would not be available? Did anyone let you know if they would only be able to make 1 or 2 matches?

No. The season schedule has not been released, so no one can say what their availability might be.

Remember, our league *does not* schedule a particular gender/level for a particular day of the week. One match can be Monday at 9 pm. Then the next can be Thursday at 7 pm. Then the next can be Saturday at 3. It's not like everyone knows that all ladies 3.5 matches will always be Wednesday.

For those that let you know before the season started then it is understandable for not being available every week but for everyone else if they were not available on a consistent basis and caused you to default lines then I would not invite them back for the next season.

Even I am not available for every match.

My team has never defaulted a match because we lacked enough available players. This season could be the first. The roster size problems are unfortunate because defaults affect the standings, and that's not fair. The league rule is to disregard any 5-court defaults that would affect the standings for the top teams, but if a team defaults 2 courts and still contests the other three, that's still a nice boost to their opponents' standing.

And if I told my players they had to play a match "or else," they would tell me to go Forehand myself. It is not reasonable to ask players to cancel a vacation or miss their kid's school concert to play a league tennis match.

Cindy -- whose goose is cooked if a match is scheduled over Memorial Day Weekend

 

[cknobman]

Cindy,

Your USTA league runs a little different then ours. Our league matches are every Saturday (times vary of course) unless both coaches mutually agree to a different day.

So even before the season starts we know that we will need to be available on Saturday's for matches and this gives everyone on the team a chance to speak up early if they fear they will have limited availability.

Of course there are always unexpected things that can cause someone to be unavailable and that is understandable but if a player tells us they will be available for the season we generally expect them to play especially when it means defaulting a line if they dont.

Sorry to hear of your situation I can see that not having any idea of what day your playing could pose a problem. I guess I should be glad our league dosnt put us in that type of a situation.

As for worrying about players getting upset with us when we have to almost forcibly request someone play, our area has over 20 4.0 teams (many of them with over 18 players) so finding replacements is not hard too do.

 

[Perry the Platypus]

Average for us is about 14 people. Seems weird that teams would need so many....

 

[Cindysphinx]

It would be very unfair to put a flight's matches on a particular day of the week. Remember, a lot of our matches are scheduled on weeknights. Most of the folks who work day jobs hate hate hate the 9 pm start times because they won't finish until 11:00 and may not fall asleep for an hour or more after that.

So who gets the awesome Saturday and Sunday slots, and who get the crap Monday-Thursday slots?

Eh. Having random scheduling makes everyone share the pain. I usually have a mix of players, some of whom prefer the late weeknight slots and some who prefer the weekend slots.

Also, we are talking about a county league, not an internal club league. Folks play on multiple teams. You need a big roster lest captains wind up fighting to see who gets a particular player for a tough match.

 

[Manhattan Captain]

Youd be amazed at the amount of people that claim they are unavailable for some bs reason when they are actually doing nothing.

Awesome, begging people that don't want to play, nice.

 

[cknobman]

Awesome, begging people that don't want to play, nice.

Exactly, I hate doing that and it is precisely why these individuals do not get invited back to the team. Sometimes you just learn the hard way letting new people on the team thinking they actually want to play but then are always unavailable for some reason.

It baffles me why some people want to join a USTA team but never want to play. Last spring we literally had 2 people on the roster that never played a single match

 

[Geezer Guy]

Remember, our league *does not* schedule a particular gender/level for a particular day of the week. One match can be Monday at 9 pm. Then the next can be Thursday at 7 pm. Then the next can be Saturday at 3. It's not like everyone knows that all ladies 3.5 matches will always be Wednesday.

I think you've said before that you like it that way, but I would hate it. I've got leagues I play in on Monday nights, Tuesday nights, Thursday nights and Saturday afternoons. I've got a group of friends that play together every Sunday afternoon, and different group on Friday afternoons, and a long-standing grudge match every Monday morning. Plus I'm in a couple of flex leagues. Being in a USTA league that played willy-nilly throughout the week would make it really hard to schedule my "regular" activities. I'm kinda surprised they do it that way. (Seems like it would be hard for clubs to schedule the court time as well.)

 

[JavierLW]

I think you've said before that you like it that way, but I would hate it. I've got leagues I play in on Monday nights, Tuesday nights, Thursday nights and Saturday afternoons. I've got a group of friends that play together every Sunday afternoon, and different group on Friday afternoons, and a long-standing grudge match every Monday morning. Plus I'm in a couple of flex leagues. Being in a USTA league that played willy-nilly throughout the week would make it really hard to schedule my "regular" activities. I'm kinda surprised they do it that way. (Seems like it would be hard for clubs to schedule the court time as well.)

It's another example of how someone thinks they are the only area on earth that's running a county league.

It's simple math, you do it one way and now you suddenly have this need to have 18 or more players on your team because they are going to be unavailable half the time or more.

Or you have a smaller roster of players that can play most of the matches because they can set aside their plans to play then.....

It's not saving anyone from playing late. If you have all different levels and genders playing all week long, if it's planned well enough ahead of time you can spread them out evenly anyway. (that's what we do)

Mixing them all around randomly doesnt help with that and it could make it more unbalanced on a particular night.

Plus I dont know about the women, but most of the men on my team have a night that their wives "let them" play. And usually they never can do anything on the weekends because that's "family time".

 

[Cindysphinx]

I think you've said before that you like it that way, but I would hate it. I've got leagues I play in on Monday nights, Tuesday nights, Thursday nights and Saturday afternoons. I've got a group of friends that play together every Sunday afternoon, and different group on Friday afternoons, and a long-standing grudge match every Monday morning. Plus I'm in a couple of flex leagues. Being in a USTA league that played willy-nilly throughout the week would make it really hard to schedule my "regular" activities. I'm kinda surprised they do it that way. (Seems like it would be hard for clubs to schedule the court time as well.)

Yeah, I can see that. It sounds like great swaths of your non-work time is available for tennis, which is nice. The system you describe allows you to compartmentalize because each of the competing demands also compartmentalizes.

Alas, the schools, employers, elderly parents, and spouses sometimes make demands on a person, and they have an unfortunate habit of making these demands at unpredictable times. For instance, I am supposed to go to team practice this Saturday, and as I sit here I cannot tell you whether I will or will not be able to make it. I will need to know my husband's work demands, and even he doesn't know them yet.

So I carve out tennis evenings when I can. If every 3.5 ladies match happened on Wednesday evenings and only on Wednesdays . . . that really wouldn't help me much in carving out tennis time. It would simply mean that I would miss out on tennis that week even if the other six days of the week were wide open.

It does give you some interesting results. On the rare occasions when my teams have been upset by much weaker teams, the loss can be attributed to funky availability among my players (coupled with the other captain's ability to send her A team to dispatch us). Can't complain, though. That dynamic is exactly how *we* have pulled off some amazing upsets of stronger teams.

 

[Cindysphinx]

It baffles me why some people want to join a USTA team but never want to play. Last spring we literally had 2 people on the roster that never played a single match

Yeah, I had that problem some years back. People signed up and then were unavailable for just 1-2 matches. They were just trying to reserve their spot on a desirable team, hoping that someday their schedule would free up.

The way I finally dealt with it was by splitting court fees equally. Then they paid for 5-6 matches even if they only played 1-2 due to their own unavailability.

This season will be the first in a long time when we aren't going to split the fees equally. I really hope I don't start seeing a placeholder problem again . . . .

 

[Applesauceman]

Two-player rule means you cannot have more than 2 players from one ladies adult team playing on another ladies adult team. It applies anywhere in Mid-Atlantic, so that's VA, MD, WV and DC.

Interesting, but from my experience you can't serve two masters, so why would a team allow a player to play on another team in the first place?

 

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Interesting, but from my experience you can't serve two masters, so why would a team allow a player to play on another team in the first place?

In Delaware we have 15 - 3.5 teams and 16-4.0 teams plus some 3.0's and 4.0's in adult mens and close to that number in senior mens tennis. This does not include the women's teams. All of these teams play in roughly a 20 square mile area.

Pretty much every one (except 4.0 adult men) play on several different teams. Women routinely play up 1 level above their rating. Add in seniors and super seniors and some folks are involved with 5-6 different USTA teams in the summer. At least here, there is no question of letting someone else play on another team ... it is expected.

 

[cknobman]

Yeah, I had that problem some years back. People signed up and then were unavailable for just 1-2 matches. They were just trying to reserve their spot on a desirable team, hoping that someday their schedule would free up.

The way I finally dealt with it was by splitting court fees equally. Then they paid for 5-6 matches even if they only played 1-2 due to their own unavailability.

This season will be the first in a long time when we aren't going to split the fees equally. I really hope I don't start seeing a placeholder problem again . . . .

Yeah we do that too. Everyone pays the same court/drink/balls fees regardless of how many matches they play and the fees are prepay so you dont play a match until you pay the fees. Works fairly well but we still manage to get people who pay the league and team fees and yet are never available. Goes to show you that money really is no object to some people.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Interesting, but from my experience you can't serve two masters, so why would a team allow a player to play on another team in the first place?

To clarify, you can't play on two teams in the same level in the same county, as then you would be serving two masters. You can play on multiple teams across various counties, and you can play up.

As for who decides whether a player plays on more teams . . . it's the player who decides. Often captains will ask star self-rated players not to play up because of the risk of DQ, but it is up to the player to decide whether to comply.

 

[precision2b]

No.

And if I told my players they had to play a match "or else," they would tell me to go Forehand myself. It is not reasonable to ask players to cancel a vacation or miss their kid's school concert to play a league tennis match.

Cindy -- whose goose is cooked if a match is scheduled over Memorial Day Weekend

That is a new one for me LOL!!!:mrgreen:

 

[Cindysphinx]

^Cant take credit for it. I saw it somewhere on this board.

It does seem like a nice way to avoid a Code Violation, though.

 

[OrangePower]

Yeah we do that too. Everyone pays the same court/drink/balls fees regardless of how many matches they play and the fees are prepay so you dont play a match until you pay the fees. Works fairly well but we still manage to get people who pay the league and team fees and yet are never available. Goes to show you that money really is no object to some people.

I've had similar experience. Everyone pays the same fee, but some people don't make themselves available much.

A couple of folks I've noticed purposefully make themselves unavailable against what they perceive as the stronger teams. Perhaps as an attempt to protect their win-loss records.

But with most folks there is no pattern - they seem happy to pay the fee and then not play much.

Probably for Cindy this is more of a deterrent since I think in her area the fee also covers court costs which are significant. In my area court costs are not high and the total fee for the season is only around $50.

 

[cknobman]

I've had similar experience. Everyone pays the same fee, but some people don't make themselves available much.

A couple of folks I've noticed purposefully make themselves unavailable against what they perceive as the stronger teams. Perhaps as an attempt to protect their win-loss records.

But with most folks there is no pattern - they seem happy to pay the fee and then not play much.

Probably for Cindy this is more of a deterrent since I think in her area the fee also covers court costs which are significant. In my area court costs are not high and the total fee for the season is only around $50.

$50!!!!:shock: edit: I just noticed you said total cost which I hope is USTA registration + court fees/etc...

In my area court fees(4 home matches - not accountable for fees when we are visitor) + drink fees (for both teams when we are home) + 1 case of balls for season = $20 per person.

 

[Cindysphinx]

$50!!!!:shock: edit: I just noticed you said total cost which I hope is USTA registration + court fees/etc...

In my area court fees(4 home matches - not accountable for fees when we are visitor) + drink fees (for both teams when we are home) + 1 case of balls for season = $20 per person.

Here, Tennislink fees are . . . oh, who can remember. Maybe $30? The real cost is for indoor court time. $17 for 2 hours/player, including balls.

In DC, Tennislink registration is $75, which covers all costs except balls. Maybe 10 matches for the season.

In NOVA ladies day, registration was about $25. Then you pay $11/match for outdoor play, plus the cost of balls.

 

[OrangePower]

$50!!!!:shock: edit: I just noticed you said total cost which I hope is USTA registration + court fees/etc...

In my area court fees(4 home matches - not accountable for fees when we are visitor) + drink fees (for both teams when we are home) + 1 case of balls for season = $20 per person.

Actually the $50 was not including USTA registration which is about $20. So our total cost is $70. But we have 8 home matches (long season, I know). So our total total cost per match is probably the same as yours.

 

[Blade0324]

Wow Cindy the way your league schedule works is really crazy, I can't imagine having to deal with that. We have set days that all of our matches are played so it makes it easier. The largest teams around here are usually 12-13 players with many including mine having only 11.

 

[Cindysphinx]

^You'd do fine. You'd just get a bigger roster!

 

[Blade0324]

You are definately earning the big bucks they pay you to captain in your section, that's for sure.