USTA does another survey

[schmke]

Folks that played USTA League probably got an e-mail with this survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PF65DZX

Questions identify your age/gender/level, then ask a variety of things.

One was about the format for 40 & Over and if you prefer 2 singles and 3 doubles or 1 singles and 4 doubles.

It also asks captains about their biggest pain point and what the USTA could do to help.

And after asking the section you are from (perhaps to tailor a few questions), I was asked about thoughts on early start league players being eligible to play through Sectionals at their lower level if bumped up at year-end. So it is interesting this is a big enough issue it made it to the survey.

 

[OnTheLine]

yup, I took it .... looks like my email is a multi-use link ... perhaps I will take it multiple times to get my points across

I do NOT want 40+ to move to 1 singles and 4 dubs.

Note: as I am in Intermountain and don't have early start leagues, I did not get that question ...

 

[dsp9753]

I mainly focused on what things I would like to see changed in USTA. I made the following comments.

1. Incentivize people to captain more teams. (Pay their league fee, gift cards, or something. Captaining can be chore and feels like a punishment at times. It is also, always the same few captains in all the leagues.)
2. Stop punishing captains for captaining. (In some leagues in my area, the captain needs to put down a deposit and responsible for all team financial obligations like match defaults. The captain then needs to get the money from the players. If the players don't pay, the captain is out of money from their own pockets. Isn't this the primary function of USTA?)
3. Incentivize captains for picking up new players. (Maybe like $25 for each new/self rated player you recruit for your team. I see the same people in leagues all the time now. New blood would be very welcome. Also, no one wants to gamble on picking up a random stranger most of the time as there is no upside. Also joining USTA and finding a team is pretty challenging unless you have someone to walk you through the process. Between paying for the captain's league fees and paying them for each new player, maybe there would be an influx of new captains and players? I am sure if you made the incentive high enough, people WILL do this.)
4. Make it easier for new players who want to play to actually find and join a team. (Current process is too convoluted. You need buy USTA membership first, then find a team to play on, and then pay for the league fees again. Finding that team to play on, who is captaining, when the leagues are, etc is too much of a challenge for a new player.)

 

[Traffic]

yup, I took it .... looks like my email is a multi-use link ... perhaps I will take it multiple times to get my points across

I do NOT want 40+ to move to 1 singles and 4 dubs.

Note: as I am in Intermountain and don't have early start leagues, I did not get that question ...

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Try to heard 9 ppl per match. It's tough enough to get 6 for summer MXD league.

 

[rod99]

i took the survey and mentioned that stricter guidelines should be put into place for self-rated players, particularly current or recent high school players. tennis recruiting sites should somehow factor into the self-rate questionnaire (i.e. if you are a 3 star recruit then you can't rate below a 5.0, regardless if you actually played in college).

 

[Mongolmike]

Same for me as rod99... I wrote self rates should not be eligible for playoffs unless stricter guidelines or vetting are in place.

 

[J_R_B]

My issue is that all matches should be mandated to be played at a venue located within the section. We had a team this year try to move a match an hour and a half away to a venue in North Jersey that is actually in the Eastern section part of NJ and change the time from noon to 8:00 AM just to screw with my team in the hopes we wouldn't be able to bring a strong lineup. All of the problems I've ever encountered in the Middle States NJ league have been with the Eastern-based teams playing in Middle States (because the Eastern NJ leagues suck in comparison - too many leagues and all with just 2 or 3 teams). North Jersey venues are usually terrible anyway. The indoor courts are ridiculously overpriced because of NYC, and we had to play once at outdoor courts in Perth Amboy that was basically in a ghetto with dirty courts with grass growing through them, broken glass all over, and broken nets. It's really a shame that Middle States even lets Eastern-based teams play in their leagues.

 

[kevrol]

yup, I took it .... looks like my email is a multi-use link ... perhaps I will take it multiple times to get my points across

I do NOT want 40+ to move to 1 singles and 4 dubs.

Note: as I am in Intermountain and don't have early start leagues, I did not get that question ...

In my local league they moved it to 3 doubles 0 singles.

 

[J011yroger]

My issue is that all matches should be mandated to be played at a venue located within the section. We had a team this year try to move a match an hour and a half away to a venue in North Jersey that is actually in the Eastern section part of NJ and change the time from noon to 8:00 AM just to screw with my team in the hopes we wouldn't be able to bring a strong lineup. All of the problems I've ever encountered in the Middle States NJ league have been with the Eastern-based teams playing in Middle States (because the Eastern NJ leagues suck in comparison - too many leagues and all with just 2 or 3 teams). North Jersey venues are usually terrible anyway. The indoor courts are ridiculously overpriced because of NYC, and we had to play once at outdoor courts in Perth Amboy that was basically in a ghetto with dirty courts with grass growing through them, broken glass all over, and broken nets. It's really a shame that Middle States even lets Eastern-based teams play in their leagues.

Those Eastern people are the scum of the Earth.

J

 

[OnTheLine]

In my local league they moved it to 3 doubles 0 singles.

Oh no, that is awful!
Does a team suddenly have to play standard 2 & 3 format when they make it to districts/sectionals? How on earth could a team advance well?

 

[MisterP]

Thanks @schmke for posting that survey. I focused on the 1 singles 4 doubles in our 40+ league here in SC. I don't agree with it. I don't think it's necessary at 40+. There are tons of fit 40 and 50 year olds in my area who love singles. I think it robs teams of their ability to use their best players.

 

[J011yroger]

Oh no, that is awful!
Does a team suddenly have to play standard 2 & 3 format when they make it to districts/sectionals? How on earth could a team advance well?

After Hurricane Sandy courts were in short supply so they cut men's 18+ to 1 singles and 2 doubles, then sectionals was 2 singles 3 doubles and nobody from LI had enough players qualified.

J

 

[kevrol]

Oh no, that is awful!
Does a team suddenly have to play standard 2 & 3 format when they make it to districts/sectionals? How on earth could a team advance well?

Why yes they do. This issue has been raised and they apparently don't care.

 

[OnTheLine]

After Hurricane Sandy courts were in short supply so they cut men's 18+ to 1 singles and 2 doubles, then sectionals was 2 singles 3 doubles and nobody from LI had enough players qualified.

J

Well what a shock. I get making an "emergency" alteration for an area that sustained so much damage ... but then you have to consider the additional ramifications and have concessions in place. At least I would think so. Probably why no one puts me in charge of anything though ...

Why yes they do. This issue has been raised and they apparently don't care.

That is shameful in my mind.
Is the local area relatively rural vs metro? Had it been able to support a healthy league prior to the line changes? Did league participation, number of teams, etc. increase or decrease after they made the change to fewer lines?

 

[schmke]

After Hurricane Sandy courts were in short supply so they cut men's 18+ to 1 singles and 2 doubles, then sectionals was 2 singles 3 doubles and nobody from LI had enough players qualified.

J

This. When local leagues alter their format, they put their teams at a disadvantage when they get to States/Districts/Sectionals where they have to play the standard format. Fewer courts means it is harder to get players qualified, and fewer singles courts means you don't need (and perhaps don't recruit) as many singles players, or they just get less competitive match play, and then when you need them you don't have them ready.

But I imagine the areas that feel they can't field a full 5 courts, either due to court availability or not having a lot of singles players, are lobbying the USTA to reduce it for Nationals, so I hope everyone votes and says not to change it. I agree 40+ can still field 2 singles courts, there are a lot of men at least that still play singles after 40.

 

[kevrol]

That is shameful in my mind.
Is the local area relatively rural vs metro? Had it been able to support a healthy league prior to the line changes? Did league participation, number of teams, etc. increase or decrease after they made the change to fewer lines?

Metropolitan. # of registered players has actually decreased since they made this change 2 years ago although # of teams has increased.

It's awful but they just don't care.

# of participants in 40+
2015 - 1355
2016 - 1256
2017 - 1253
2018 - 1166

Change was made beginning 2017.

 

[schmke]

Metropolitan. # of registered players has actually decreased since they made this change 2 years ago although # of teams has increased.

It's awful but they just don't care.

# of participants in 40+
2015 - 1355
2016 - 1256
2017 - 1253
2018 - 1166

Change was made beginning 2017.

I haven't looked closely, so this is a bit hypothetical, but here goes.

A general issue, more prominent in some areas, is that the USTA playing population is aging. This means that as those 40+ get older and a bit slower and those that liked playing singles become fewer, there aren't very many "new " 40 year olds to fill their spots and captains begin to find it harder to get singles players, and as a result, the LLC hears complaints about it and decides to go to 1 singles court or even none.

The drop in participation in 40+ then is sort of the cause of the format change, not the other way around, although it is perhaps a vicious cycle with the few that would play singles no longer interested in playing 40+ since the singles courts are gone. But there was a big drop 2015 to 2016 before the change.

 

[brettatk]

I voted for 1 singles and 4 doubles for 40+ because that's what we have always played down here through the playoffs. Our team recently has been stronger in doubles than singles so that format benefits us. They tried to switch it this past Fall but USTA GA put in a request and it was upheld. I'm betting by Spring we won't have a choice.

 

[kevrol]

Whatever the reason is, it's just idiotic to have an advancing league be a different format in the regular season than it is at districts and beyond.

 

[mogo]

I haven't looked closely, so this is a bit hypothetical, but here goes.

A general issue, more prominent in some areas, is that the USTA playing population is aging. This means that as those 40+ get older and a bit slower and those that liked playing singles become fewer, there aren't very many "new " 40 year olds to fill their spots and captains begin to find it harder to get singles players, and as a result, the LLC hears complaints about it and decides to go to 1 singles court or even none.

The drop in participation in 40+ then is sort of the cause of the format change, not the other way around, although it is perhaps a vicious cycle with the few that would play singles no longer interested in playing 40+ since the singles courts are gone. But there was a big drop 2015 to 2016 before the change.

Have to agree.....I mostly play singles 95% of the time for league and maybe 2 other people on my team. If I keep going at the rate I am when I hit 40 in 3 yrs I don't think I will enjoy playing singles all the time. I can see a shift in only 1 singles becoming the norm. Guess I better start working on my net game!

 

[OnTheLine]

Metropolitan. # of registered players has actually decreased since they made this change 2 years ago although # of teams has increased.

It's awful but they just don't care.

# of participants in 40+
2015 - 1355
2016 - 1256
2017 - 1253
2018 - 1166

Change was made beginning 2017.

Totally baffling to me.

 

[J011yroger]

Whatever the reason is, it's just idiotic to have an advancing league be a different format in the regular season than it is at districts and beyond.

I agree. Play by the national rules or don't advance.

Two good players can carry a 1s 2d team.

J

 

[Devil_dog]

Have to agree.....I mostly play singles 95% of the time for league and maybe 2 other people on my team. If I keep going at the rate I am when I hit 40 in 3 yrs I don't think I will enjoy playing singles all the time. I can see a shift in only 1 singles becoming the norm. Guess I better start working on my net game!

 

[mogo]

@Devil_dog

CLASSIC!!!!!!!

 

[J_R_B]

Those Eastern people are the scum of the Earth.

J

Yeah, you get it, North Jersey, amirite?

 

[ChaelAZ]

Agree with incentivizing things a little more. WOuld like to see money upt back into the tens of thousands of memebers of leagues who are paying, instead of, sayyyyyy...a mutli-million dollar facility and subsidizing for a few hundred hopeful players who know the right people.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I would say stop letting 4.5 men partner with 3.5 women. Mixed should be on level only, So 8.0 mixed should have only 4.0s on court or lower.

 

[schmke]

I would say stop letting 4.5 men partner with 3.5 women. Mixed should be on level only, So 8.0 mixed should have only 4.0s on court or lower.

Or make Mixed on the 0.5, e.g. 6.5, 7.5, 8.5, and make it so the ratings gap either way can only be 0.5, so you'd have 4.0 men with 3.5 women or 3.5 men with 4.0 men in 7.5 Mixed.

 

[J011yroger]

I think mixed should be more than 3 courts.

J

 

[QuadCam]

Oh no, that is awful!
Does a team suddenly have to play standard 2 & 3 format when they make it to districts/sectionals? How on earth could a team advance well?

We had that happen in our 18+ 4.5 league this year. District matches were 1 singles / 2 doubles. At sectionals (states), it was normal 2 singles / 3 doubles.

 

[Doan]

Or make Mixed on the 0.5, e.g. 6.5, 7.5, 8.5, and make it so the ratings gap either way can only be 0.5, so you'd have 4.0 men with 3.5 women or 3.5 men with 4.0 men in 7.5 Mixed.

That would be much better than the current 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 Mixed league going on right now where you're allowed a 1.5 level difference. A 4.5 guy with a 3.0 women hugging the net is a tough combo to beat.

 

[J011yroger]

That would be much better than the current 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 Mixed league going on right now where you're allowed a 1.5 level difference. A 4.5 guy with a 3.0 women hugging the net is a tough combo to beat.

Oh dear.

J

 

[J011yroger]

Hey, genius idea! Three courts at level two courts .5 down.

So 9.0 would have courts 1,2&3 be 9.0 and courts 4&5 be 8.5.

J

 

[Cindysphinx]

Hey, genius idea! Three courts at level two courts .5 down.

So 9.0 would have courts 1,2&3 be 9.0 and courts 4&5 be 8.5.

J

Five courts are tough. Around here, our two main county facilities have six indoor courts so if you have five-court leagues it gets hard to get everything scheduled.

Also, your roster would have to be enormous. Our roster limit is 20 for mixed, and it can be hard to find enough players for particular matches given that you've only got 10 men and ten women.

The best mixed matches I have had are when everyone on the court is the same level. So why don't we just go with that? Even mixed combo (7.5) gets a 4.0 guy crushing the ball at a 3.5 woman. That's too much of an imbalance, IMHO.

 

[J011yroger]

Five courts are tough. Around here, our two main county facilities have six indoor courts so if you have five-court leagues it gets hard to get everything scheduled.

Also, your roster would have to be enormous. Our roster limit is 20 for mixed, and it can be hard to find enough players for particular matches given that you've only got 10 men and ten women.

The best mixed matches I have had are when everyone on the court is the same level. So why don't we just go with that? Even mixed combo (7.5) gets a 4.0 guy crushing the ball at a 3.5 woman. That's too much of an imbalance, IMHO.

I get to play plenty of even doubles against men of my level.

The whole point of mixed is the uneven teams.

J