No, I will not, as that has NOT been the experience of the players I've written about in previous posts. Besides that, if a player gets DQed, he/she is no longer eligible to play in the state championships, so all the matches they've played that season would still be for naught...
USTA Players-do your teams play in order of strength?
- Thread starter SJS
- Start date
The level at which one self-rates has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on what their eventual computer rating may become. All a self-rating does is establish the MINIMUM level at which the player may START league play; In reality the self-rater starts out with a DNTRP of 0.00, period . . . the computer develops a rating based upon the self-raters match results against computer-rated players.
That's true. But if you self rate at 3.0, and start playing on a 3.5 team and start getting bageled, you can then go join a 3.0 team that season, without waiting a year. If you actually are a 3.5 the computer will verify it by the end of the year. If you were wrong, and you are actually a solid 4.0 you will still be DQ'd. It just gives you an out if you think you are better than you are.
Classes offered in 2007 by 10sfreak:
Tanking 101 - The art of losing a match on purpose while not bringing attention to your premeditated loss.
How to get to state with all your sandbaggers - Tanking 200 - Strategies to employ during the season to hide your out of level players. You'll arrive at state with full squad in tact and ready to battle the unsuspecting.
Cheating without a conscious - How to rationalize cheating when it's only in the moral sense. Many forms of cheating are those of which no rules are written. Although they may be considered crimes of moral behavior only counseling is included for those suffering personal guilt.
Peeking at your opponents scorecard - A must attend for those who will do anything to win. Covert methods of obtaining your opponents lineup prior to the match. This is great for those wanting to place their own players against opponents who you are sure they can't beat when a loss is in order.
How to use technolgy to cheat - This is a follow up to "Peaking at your opponents scorecard." Use of, listening devices, mirrored sunglasses and more will be covered so you'll never get busted and always know your opponents lineup before you fill out your scorecard.
How to register your new team members under aliases to avoid their existing NTRP rating - Name variations and new USTA numbers, How to and when to best employ this dastardly scenario. Also references to NorCal and mistakes they made an how to avoid the same fate.
More classes to come as 10sfreak thinks of them.
Uh, actually moron, only the first three apply. As for the remaining ones, if you can come up with some way I can get a peek at my opposing captain's line-up, I sure would appreciate it. That could come in real handy! I'm willing to learn all the new-fangled technology, but I'll need someone to teach me, so if you're available, come on down!
Now the registering under aliases, nah, I'll pass on that. None of us want to win under someone else's name - we all want the glory, the ticker-tape parade, the money, the endorsement deals, etc., none of which we could reap if we play under a pseudonym.
But I do appreciate your suggestions, and if you know anyone who wants to sign up, I'll let you be an assistant teacher - you seem to know an awful lot about it.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
For an advanced degree (Doctorate of Sleaze), be sure to poison the drinking water of unsuspecting opponents so they become ill and are forced to retire.
Exchange program available for students willing to travel to France and study with Christophe Fauviau, who will be released from prison in 8 years.
Exchange program available for students willing to travel to France and study with Christophe Fauviau, who will be released from prison in 8 years.
And your "credibility" is high? Huh? And who comes on to this website looking to validate their "credibility"? I'd say that very few of us know each other in person, so to even bring up someone's "credibility" in an online message board is quite hilarious. Dude, you crack me up!
Actually Cindy, I was thinking something a little less drastic, like the old Exlax trick. That'll do it! LOL!
Tony
vinouspleasure
Rookie
"be hard on the issues, soft on the person". I think you guys have moved beyond the issues to personal attacks. If you want to continue to bash each other, why not exchange email addresses and have at it? In the mean time, you are cluttering up an interesting thread with non-material posts.
Believe it or not vinous, I agree with you!
Tony
If there's nothing wrong with tanking or the way you go about it why don't you invite your league coodinator to the thread? Does your local league endorse your "scheduling losses"? Is your practice of "scheduling losses" out in the open in your league and division?
vinouspleasure
Rookie
Tony,
While I don't agree with what your views, I think you have the right to express and defend them without be called a cheater.
Thank you vinous, I really appreciate that.
As a matter of fact, there are players from other teams who know about our dilemma/intentions, including other captains. And they don't blame us for it: see, they too, have seen what's happened to other players in our league re getting DQed. Which is more than I can say for anyone else on this board.
So using one word to describe his "views" what would you call it?
So you sort of answered one of my 3 questions. You claim other players know of your pracitce of "scheduling losses". OK I'll take that as your answer, thanks. But you still have not answered my other 2 questions. If you won't invite you local league coodinator to this thread how does he/she feel about your "scheduling losses"? Does your league endorse "scheduling losses".
Have you ever thought that maybe "scheduling losses" might be something he/she can certainly understand, but because of his/her position, might not want to know about it? And that, as the nice, considerate, tactful man that I am, I wouldn't want to put him/her in that kind of position? Have you no tact at all man?
Btw, for the record, what IS this to you, anyway? Why are you SO tore up about this? Or are you jawing at me just to be able to keep insulting someone? What's your motive? Hmmm?
Last edited:
OK, don't ask them to judge you smart guy, ask them to honestly judge the practice of "scheduling losses". Saying that they would not give and honest answer and secretly condone it is ludicrous. This is basic rationalization of behavior that is problematic.
You brought it up by, explaining your method, which is wrong, and claim it's not cheating because it's not in any rule book. Many things not in rule books are wrong and people with morals know what they are. Any credible person representing the USTA and Team Tennis would find the practice of tanking any tennis match on any level reprehensible. No reason supports it. I find it fascinating to engage someone who tries to defend a position such as yours. Typically they avoid the hard questions about the issue and try to turn in back on the person they are debating with.
Your turn to defend "scheduling losses" again.
Last edited:
vinouspleasure
Rookie
first, why do I have to use one word to describe his views? If asked to describe his views, I would say they are different from my views. In my league, stacking is considered cheating by most people. We've learned from this thread that's not the case in other leagues. Perhaps what he is doing is acceptable in his league.
whats important is to explore differences and learn, not to call each other names.
My "turn to defend scheduling losses again"?! Have you not read my posts?! Those posts, which you apparently haven't read, ARE my defenses of "scheduling losses"! What more can I write about it? I've stated it over and over, that my players do not want to get DQed for winning while playing at their COMPUTER-RATED level, which is something we've seen happen every season for the last two years to some other players in OUR league, not yours (I don't claim to know a single thing about YOUR league, and I would hope that you would extend me that courtesy as well). Period.
Huh, can't think of one word, that's what I thought cause you know what it is. You just a nicer person than me. I'll help you with a word. His practice of "scheduling losses" is, get ready, "different".
Get real. No one condones the practice of tanking. If they did they certainly would not admit to doing it to their opponent or at the least to an official with USTA.
I stack my line-ups every week in a different order. You can call me a cheater all you want. The big difference here is if you turned me in for "stacking" and could prove it the USTA would do nothing. If you turned me in for "tanking" or scheduling losses and could prove it I would receive some kind of sanction.
I'll take back calling him a cheater if he takes back calling everyone here a LIAR and calling me a Moron.
Last edited:
vinouspleasure
Rookie
first, I didn't call you a cheater. I said that in my league, its considered cheating. Clearly, in your league its not.
second, no one has to "take back" anything. What do you hope to accomplsih here? I think you've made your points, he's made his. All we have to do is move on to another thread and get on with our lives.
Anyhow, I've tried to help and now its time to take my own advice. See you in another thread.
Andfor, let's check your honesty here. Go back to post #144, the one in which I laid out a particular scenario. Now let's modify the scenario a little bit, shall we?
1. Your dynamic rating is now know-able to you through a rules change
2. You CAN be DQed at state, sectionals, or nationals, even in the FINALS
3. You're in the finals at Nationals
4. Your team has won 2, lost 2 in these finals, so the whole season is on your racquet, and how well you do.
5. You KNOW, because of how well you've done this season, and throughout the state, sectional, and national playoffs, that if you beat this last opponent by better than 6-4, 6-4 (that is, if he doesn't win at least 8 games off of you), that you'll be DQed, and your entire team loses the Nationals, and comes in second place.
6. You've already won the first set 6-4.
7. You're now serving for the second set and the match, at 5-3.
What do you do? Do you go ahead and beat this guy 6-3, thereby getting DQed, and losing the National championship not only for yourself, but for your teammates as well? Or, do you let him win 1 more game to ensure you don't get DQed?
Your answer is going to tell me all I need to know. Either you're going to be honest, or you're going to lie through your teeth. Your choice.
1. Your dynamic rating is now know-able to you through a rules change
2. You CAN be DQed at state, sectionals, or nationals, even in the FINALS
3. You're in the finals at Nationals
4. Your team has won 2, lost 2 in these finals, so the whole season is on your racquet, and how well you do.
5. You KNOW, because of how well you've done this season, and throughout the state, sectional, and national playoffs, that if you beat this last opponent by better than 6-4, 6-4 (that is, if he doesn't win at least 8 games off of you), that you'll be DQed, and your entire team loses the Nationals, and comes in second place.
6. You've already won the first set 6-4.
7. You're now serving for the second set and the match, at 5-3.
What do you do? Do you go ahead and beat this guy 6-3, thereby getting DQed, and losing the National championship not only for yourself, but for your teammates as well? Or, do you let him win 1 more game to ensure you don't get DQed?
Your answer is going to tell me all I need to know. Either you're going to be honest, or you're going to lie through your teeth. Your choice.
I said you can call me a cheater for stacking. What I meant is that I would not be offended because there is nothing wrong with stacking. If folks in your league don't like it stacking that's fine. I would kindly advise you as I advised another to be careful of those who accuse others of stacking in your non-stacking league. A healthy does of skepticism of how others are indirectly trying to manage the league may not be a bad thing. There is no true formula available to measure one teams strength of line up. Not one offered by the USTA that I know of that would work across the masses. Only way to judge line-up strength are subjective and open to individual opinion and interpretation.
Thanks and good luck this season.
Before I answer your question show me where I can find my individual NTRP rating you say is available. I'll answer your question as soon as you provide me a link. At the very least show me somewhere on the USTA website that says your moving in season Dynamic NTRP is available for all to see. I'm not talking about a players rating from last year. I can not find anywhere on the USTA website where you can view player NTRP ratings and see how close a player would be to moving up or down.
Last edited:
There is no way to view someone's dynamic rating. As for tanking matches, that is cheating plain and simple. If anyone on your team is worried about being DQ'ed then they are probably playing at the wrong level. As for the scenario presented earlier, there is no way in Hell someone will be DQ'ed in the final match at Nationals unless they had won their other matched 1,1 or similar and they would have been DQ'ed well before the final.
As for the stacking that is a non-issue since technically everyone in the league is of the same rating (4.0, 4.5, etc...).
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
I know exactly what I'd do, up 5-3 and serving for the match.
I'd go for four aces in a row.
Thanks J. That's what I thought about viewing dynamic ratings. Freak has implied they are for all to view NTRP ratings which I have not heard of and doubt although I am waiting for his answer. Secondly I would alway try to win any match I play no matter what some rating computer may or may not do afterwards. Who gives a **** about what a computer says about yours or my tennis anyway. Third in his (unlikely) match senario where I knew if I won it may hurt my team, I would most likely just not play in the match in the first place. Like you said his scenario is most likely one that would not exist.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
10sfreak's scenario was a hypothetical based on facts that do not exist today. It, like most hypotheticals, was designed to prove a point.
The point is that all of us would cheat like he does under the right circumstances, and anyone who says they are not a cheater because they have too much personal integrity is a liar.
Just wanted to clear that up!
The point is that all of us would cheat like he does under the right circumstances, and anyone who says they are not a cheater because they have too much personal integrity is a liar.
Just wanted to clear that up!
Last edited:
10sfreak's scenario was a hypothetical based on facts that do not exist today. It, like most hypotheticals, was designed to prove a point.
The point is that all of us would cheat like he does under the right circumstances, and anyone who says they are not a cheater because they have too much personal integrity to play fair is a liar.
Just wanted to clear that up!
The hypothetical example is a dumb one. Anyone close to that situation with a brain would not play in a match in the first place if their individual winning of a match would jepordize the team outcome. That's why I have 15 players on my team. Does this make me a liar? I don't think so, it just makes me a smarter captain than Freak.
Yeah, and I just fell off a turnip truck!
Yep Cindy, you just hit the nail on the head with that! Although I don't believe you'd go for the win in that situation, and think that you're simply lying to prove how "ethical" you are in tennis, at least YOU were smart enough to recoginze a hypothetical situation, which is more than I can say for SOME people, right Andfor?10sfreak's scenario was a hypothetical based on facts that do not exist today. It, like most hypotheticals, was designed to prove a point.
The point is that all of us would cheat like he does under the right circumstances, and anyone who says they are not a cheater because they have too much personal integrity is a liar.
Just wanted to clear that up!
Last edited:
Topaz
Legend
Why are you so hostile? Why can't you just accept that others do things differently than you, and it doesn't mean you are better or they are better...just *different*? There's more than one way to captain a team.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
People are frequently hostile and defensive when they know they are doing the wrong thing.
You are so angry about this. Nice name calling. You are showing your intelligence. Now you are adding additional criteria to your hypothetical situation. Now only 8 folks are avialable to play? Why did you not come up with that in the first place?
BTW, I would still not play someone who would jeopordize the overall standing of the team. I would take a default under your scenario as it is the only smart thing for a captain to do.
If I had a player who under your scenario who would lose by DQ if they won, then why whould I play them in the first place?
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
10sfreak, at our state playoffs yrs ago, watched a 4.0 player kill our singles player in the 1st set. When a verifier watched his match during the 2nd set, he put on the goggles and took a high dive, lost it. Third set, King Kong was back on the bldg, crushing our guy at will.
No, people tend to get hostile when others keep calling them names. Read my response to vinouspleasure. He doesn't agree with my position, but he's also NOT calling me names. Do you detect any hostililty in my responses to him?
Hey, I DO accept that others captain differently than I do: I just wish some of these other posters could extend the same courtesy to me. Read vinouspleasure's responses. He doesn't agree with me, but he's civil about it, and doesn't call names.
See, some people apparently consider "stacking" to be cheating or playing dirty. And I can kinda understand that feeling, 'cause when you play your weakest player at #1 singles for instance (when you know that your opponent's #1 singles player is virtually unbeatable), you're not giving your opponents the "most competetive" match possible. But, I "stack" my players, and even if I didn't, I wouldn't think of calling teams that do, cheaters. Is it too much for me to ask for the same courtesy? Someone may not agree with my team's plans, but there's NOTHING in the rules against it, so how can those other posters call me a cheater? THAT is why I'm "so hostile"! If you'll note, I haven't been hostile to Cindy, 'cause she at least has the mental faculty to understand what I'm getting at, even if she vehemently disagrees with my position.
Damn dude, can you not read? Read my hypothetical situation again.
Done? Ok, I wrote that his opponent has to win at least 8 games. Did you miss that? Let me spell it out for you again: He can't win by a better margin (go look that word up if you're having trouble with it) than 6-4, 6-4, so if he wins 6-4, 6-3 he gets DQed.
Daggone, Cindy didn't have ANY problem understanding the hypothetical situation. I guess she's showing her intelligence as well, huh?
"Nice name calling"?!?! That's a joke, right? Dude, even another poster, one who doesn't agree with me, called you on the name-calling. But I guess in your eyes, calling someone a cheat isn't REALLY name-calling, right? Like I asked earlier, what are you, 13 or 14 years old?
How did he know the guy was a verifier? Until reading some of the other posts, I didn't know there were any verifiers at the playoffs!
Don't really know the situation you're referring to, whether that guy was a sandbagger or not (sounds like he might have been, specially since he could turn it on at will, rather than just having a really good day), but my guys aren't killing our opponents, but we are winning most of our matches. Although, we all know that we're going to have a hell of a time at state against the Atlanta teams. Oh well...
Andfor, when reading a scenario, read it AS IT IS. Don't speculate that there are 6 or 7 other available players. I gave a HYPOTHETICAL situation, the purpose of which, was to see what people would do in such a situation. I wanted to see how many of you people criticizing me would be honest enough to admit that, under certain conditions/situations, you WOULD take a dive for the good of the team. Evidently, none of my fellow posters are HONEST enough to admit that they would lose ONE FREAKIN' GAME in order for their team to win the National championship. Now that's sad...
Last edited:
Since I called you a cheater that gives you the greenlight to call me name after name? You're cool. It's hypothetical, I understand that. What I don't understand is how you as a captain can know that winning 1 more game is going to get you defaulted. Help me understand that. Is that hypothetical also? If I new that before the match I would not play.
Let me ask you this question again for the 2nd time. If I knew before the match started that my win would jeoprdize the team then why would I play in the first place, even if I only had 8 players?
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
15-20 yrs ago we had USTA officials roaming the courts during State playoffs and could red flag players by sight that were obviously out of range. Haven't been to state and sectional playoffs in 3 yrs, maybe that has changed. If you have a team capable of reaching Nat'ls, losing a few games along the way to keep everyone eligible is not much to ask. Is it ethical?
HELLO!!!!! YES, THE WHOLE SCENARIO WAS HYPOTHETICAL!!!!! Don't you get that?! Dude, do you UNDERSTAND what the word "hypothetical" means? It means it's not real, but given certain circumstances, it COULD happen. The captain, the players, everyone "knows" that my player could get DQed, because, HYPOTHETICALLY, the dynamic ratings are now know-able to each player. Dude, again, it was a HYPOTHETICAL situation. Please go run this by an adult you know, and listen to what he/she says about it.
Ok, one more time for ya. My player would have to win by NO BETTER THAN a 6-4, 6-4 margin. Get it? In other words, if he wins 6-4, 6-3, he gets DQed. If he wins 6-4, 7-5, he's ok, and our team wins the money, the glory, the ticker-tape parade, the women, etc. (Ok, before you respond to this, that's a JOKE!)
Dude, if you don't understand this HYPOTHETICAL situation by now, I'm afraid someone else will have to explain to you, 'cause I've done all I can.
Where on the USTA website can I see NTRP ratings down to the hundreth of a point? You say they can be viewed, where are they? This is the second time I have asked this question. Is this hypothetical also?
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
Also curious, is there a way to view actual NTRP ratings? My appeal was denied and I want to see the actual number.
Similar threads
