USTA wants to "share" 2014 nationals with everyone
- Thread starter approachtennis
- Start date
I don't really have a problem with this suggestion, although it would be difficult to shoehorn into the context of the rating algorithm. I feel really bad for the part time players on my team who weren't on the nationals team and are not going to be able to find a 4.0 team to play for next year. Almost all of the guys who went to nationals are going to play for my 4.5 team whether they got bumped or not, but some of the other guys who didn't go are going to get shafted by these silly rules.
tennisjon
Professional
Ugh! That sucks. I played several guys who beat me and then got bumped and I didn't. I did awful in one nationals, not winning a match. On my other team that went to nationals, I didn't lose a set in the regular season, sectionals, or nationals. A lot has to do with when I got my concussions and how soon after I was back on the court. 5.0 is nearly a tennis death sentence in tennis, especially if you aren't a mid to high 5.0.
tennisjon
Professional
Its funny, there is a certain segment of the population that would pay extra money to play better or higher rated players than themselves just to get the extra experience playing better players. There is another segment of the population that plays to win and it doesn't really matter whether or not the match is competitive. For someone like me, who lives within an hour of two different sections and about 6 different districts, I have more options of play and if the match isn't competitive, its not that big of a deal. If I had to travel 1-2 hours for every match and that kept happening, especially if I was on the losing end each time, I am sure I wouldn't be happy. Doesn't mean I wouldn't play, but I might not play as much.
mikeler
Moderator
I would love to play in a 5.0 league if I can find one.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
I had my first experience with this new rule.
I play on an 8.0 mixed team. The team is weak, and each year we finish at the bottom. How weak are we? I often play Court One. Yeah. That weak. I don't care -- I get to play and I don't feel any pressure.
Well, I noticed we had a new female player this year. Strong player, lovely person. As it turns out, she couldn't get on any other team because of the new rule.
Sorry, but I think this new rule will be great for competition. Now she can play Court One for us. She will challenge her opponents in a way I could not. Meanwhile, I can cheerfully play Court Three and stink it up against weaker opponents rather than being so clearly in over my head.
I play on an 8.0 mixed team. The team is weak, and each year we finish at the bottom. How weak are we? I often play Court One. Yeah. That weak. I don't care -- I get to play and I don't feel any pressure.
Well, I noticed we had a new female player this year. Strong player, lovely person. As it turns out, she couldn't get on any other team because of the new rule.
Sorry, but I think this new rule will be great for competition. Now she can play Court One for us. She will challenge her opponents in a way I could not. Meanwhile, I can cheerfully play Court Three and stink it up against weaker opponents rather than being so clearly in over my head.
This works only if there are plenty of teams in the league and plenty of opportunities to play. This is the issue with my team. There are 18 people on my roster. Three got bumped, so that leaves 15 4.0s left on the roster. There were only 4 teams in the league, and mine has to disband (at 4.0). Therefore, there are 3 teams left in the league that can take a max of three players from my team and 15 players looking for spots. Therefore, just mathematically, the USTA has excluded at least 6 people from even having a chance to play in the league at their rating level. That's not good for business.
Furthermore, one of the captains of the other teams is a "nationals" player by virtue of playing a single match as a sub on (tennisjon's) 4.5 nationals team. He counts as one of the three nationals spots on his team, so there are really only 8 spots available for my players. Of the three teams, one is located 2 hours away and they may not want my players nor may my guys want to play two hours away. If they don't take players, then there are FIVE spots for 15 players, and the USTA's draconian rules have EXCLUDED 10 people from even having a chance to play in the league AT ALL next year. Again, I understand the rationale theoretically, but that is far too punitive.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
How about if six of the ten guys form two separate teams and recruit others to play up?
I know it's not ideal for those at the very top, but the rule is a good one for the vast majority of players in most places. You can't please everyone, I suppose . . .
You need to have 60% of your roster "at level", so they would need to recruit people more people at level in a 4.0 40+ league where almost everyone who is at that level locally is known to someone and everyone who wants to play USTA already is. It might be possible in 18+ if you have connections to local high schools & junior colleges, but that's a tall order in 40+ by people with no experience captaining or recruiting.
Even if that rule didn't exist you were allowed to fill out teams almost entirely with people playing up, there were two teams in the 3.5 league with a total of 25 3.5-rated players. Basically, they would have to recruit the entire 3.5 league to play up to fill out their rosters to make up those two teams. There are at least a couple of the 3.5s in that league that could handle themselves playing up, but recruiting the entire league would mean that there would be a bunch of weak 3.5s that would be playing in the 4.0 league. I don't think that benefits anyone.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
They've lowered the roster level down to 40%, but I do see your point.
I've never been a fan of the requirement that most of the team be at level.
I am captaining ladies 8.5 combo for the first time. We will probably have 17 4.0s and three 4.5s. This is because 4.5 woman are hard to come by, so there is no reason they should join a new weak team when they can play on an established strong one.
What is the solution? If we are barred from playing 8.5, we would have to play 7.5. In my case, I only lost two 7.5 matches all of last year, so there is no challenge anymore. It's either form a new team or don't play combo at all.
When we play our matches in our inaugural season, we will likely be the team that gets smoked. Almost all of the ladies have experience at 8.5 ladies combo or 8.0 mixed, so it's not like I went out and grabbed a bunch of brand new 4.0s. But we are still 4.0s.
Over the years, hopefully we will improve and become more competitive. What's wrong with that?
I've never been a fan of the requirement that most of the team be at level.
I am captaining ladies 8.5 combo for the first time. We will probably have 17 4.0s and three 4.5s. This is because 4.5 woman are hard to come by, so there is no reason they should join a new weak team when they can play on an established strong one.
What is the solution? If we are barred from playing 8.5, we would have to play 7.5. In my case, I only lost two 7.5 matches all of last year, so there is no challenge anymore. It's either form a new team or don't play combo at all.
When we play our matches in our inaugural season, we will likely be the team that gets smoked. Almost all of the ladies have experience at 8.5 ladies combo or 8.0 mixed, so it's not like I went out and grabbed a bunch of brand new 4.0s. But we are still 4.0s.
Over the years, hopefully we will improve and become more competitive. What's wrong with that?
chatt_town
Hall of Fame
Why do you say good luck with finding a mixed team? Doesn't this rule apply across the board? So it looks like the team from Tennessee got their fun time in just in time. A men's team from the Johnson City area won the nationals at 40's + this past year I was told. I played them at state level. Good group of guys...very very deep team as well. I don't think I saw one guy play 2 singles the entire weekend in Knoxville. I'm a little confused by the rule as well as it basically saying that the computer is not doing the job so this is another way of taking care of it.
In case you haven't heard, there is a new rule the USTA has implimented nationwide. Read the rule carefully, it's not what it appears to be. For any of you that are on a men's or women's 18+ or 40+ team going to nationals in 2013, good luck trying to find a mixed doubles team in 2014 !
http://www.northern.usta.com/news/important_new_league_move_upsplit_up_rule/
This doesn't mean 3 players from a nationals team are the max that can stick together, it means 3 players from ANY team can play on ANY team... where this really hurts people in mixed doubles leagues. In the PNW section 2014 mixed leagues have already started, and there a lot of players that simply cannot find a team to play on, because of this new rule.
There is a change.org petition being put together: http://www.change.org/petitions/usta-adult-league-rules-committee-repeal-rule-2-06a
Here is the official reasoning from the USTA National folks:
"The move up split up rule is in place to prevent the same teams and players from dominating. National wants to share the national experience with as many players as possible."
If the USTA doesn't want the same players to dominate, then maybe they should either fix the computer so more of them get bumped up, or they should change that national championships to a system where we don't even keep score? Why even keep score unless you're there to try to win the matches and the national title? This really puts a big asterisk on the national champions banner, when USTA has to remove folks from the league that were successful the prior year.
I thought the NTRP computer system was put in place to police the system. Why should national ignore the hard work of those that do make nationals and essentially kick them out of the league for the next year. This rule goes too far. I think everyone can agree that having to have no more than 3 players from any team is a good idea, but having 3 "nationals players" on any team, when you throw in mixed there is just insane.
For something like 7.0 or 8.0 mixed doubles there are 12 mens/womens teams that feed into that league (18+ and 40+), and an average of 12-14 players on a team. That's hundreds of nationals players that qualify each year, and if they happen to be from the same city/district, then it becomes impossible to form enough mixed doubles teams to support the new rule.
chatt_town
Hall of Fame
This sounds like a bunch of former junior kick @$$ players getting their rocks off beating up on regular folks that picked up tennis in their 30's and 40's and trying to have fun only for a bunch of teaching pros to come out and take the fun out of it kicking folks in every year. I to think this is probably one of the better things they have come up with. I know the team that is somewhere in Ga that has been kicking in teams for years at the 7.5 level will not be happy to hear this. This is a team that had pretty much 5.0 and 4.5 players playing 7.5 men's combos but because they only play combos were never subject to being bumped(which is stupid to begin with). Like some others have stated. You might have to settle for playing your 7 matches at districts like everyone else and move on to the next league like the rest of us do year and year out. I know I've played maybe 10 or 12 state tourneys over the years but I've only played with one team that ever won State. So I think it should be surprise some times to go to nationals. Teams shouldn't be booking rooms now for June's nationals(knowing they will win districts, states etc...).lol
I REALLY dislike this rule. Just disqualifying the team from the playoffs for 3 years would have made much more sense and easier logistically.
We had a 4.0 team at my club that went to the sectionals and now they had to create two separate teams because of this. This unnecessarily eats up valuable court time. Not only that, to fill out the roster, several 3.5 guys are asked to play up (including me), but I am hesitant as if I get bumped up after playing up, I may not be able to join the team next year when they get back to a single team again.
This rule is just dumb, dumb, dumb.
We had a 4.0 team at my club that went to the sectionals and now they had to create two separate teams because of this. This unnecessarily eats up valuable court time. Not only that, to fill out the roster, several 3.5 guys are asked to play up (including me), but I am hesitant as if I get bumped up after playing up, I may not be able to join the team next year when they get back to a single team again.
This rule is just dumb, dumb, dumb.
Cindy (or anyone), could you please point me to the requirement that 40% of the players be at level?
I captained a singles team last summer that had no opponents in our time slot, so we all had to play up one level in order to play at all. We finished in the middle of our bracket anyway, so the fact that we all played up didn't mean that our opponents had no competition when they played us.
ednegroni
Rookie
I don't agree with this rule. I don't mind playing in a losing team but not being able to play in the same team as my group of friends would suck.
I'm from Puerto Rico and there are about 8-9 4.5 teams each year, with that number possibly going down with the addition of the 40+ league. From this past year, about 22-25 4.5 players won the trip to the Nationals, which would mean they would have to split at least into 7+ teams.
Some of them will play with teams that won't have a shot at winning, that won't be playing with close friends in the same team, and some probably just won't play because of that.
I'm from Puerto Rico and there are about 8-9 4.5 teams each year, with that number possibly going down with the addition of the 40+ league. From this past year, about 22-25 4.5 players won the trip to the Nationals, which would mean they would have to split at least into 7+ teams.
Some of them will play with teams that won't have a shot at winning, that won't be playing with close friends in the same team, and some probably just won't play because of that.
Last edited:
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
On reflection . . .
Maybe the better way to address these issues is to attack it at the individual level.
Decide that no self-rated player can advance to the post-season at all.
Decide that players who compete at nationals one year are ineligible for the post-season in the following year.
That way, people can play with their friends all they want and dominate, but they can't advance. Players in small leagues would be affected only occasionally.
Maybe the better way to address these issues is to attack it at the individual level.
Decide that no self-rated player can advance to the post-season at all.
Decide that players who compete at nationals one year are ineligible for the post-season in the following year.
That way, people can play with their friends all they want and dominate, but they can't advance. Players in small leagues would be affected only occasionally.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
nobldy is supposed to dominate if the rules are fair and players are judged fairly. that is the spirit of USTA
schmke
Legend
The rule applies to players on the final roster of teams that advanced to or qualified for Nationals, so I'm not sure why your teams that advanced to Sectionals would be affected.
ednegroni
Rookie
I don't think there's a clear way to balancing the league/teams. EVERYONE should have a shot at getting to the Nationals again.
I think the USTA will have to create some sort of rating that will filter players that have an excellent record at the Nationals but haven't been bumped up yet. (e.g. John Smith has a .800 record with minimum 8 matches played at the Nationals, he may only play 2 matches).
Another thing I've thought about before is that those players that have been "benchmarked (Nationals)" can only play the first singles or first doubles (like the 5.5s in the 5.0 category).
I think the USTA will have to create some sort of rating that will filter players that have an excellent record at the Nationals but haven't been bumped up yet. (e.g. John Smith has a .800 record with minimum 8 matches played at the Nationals, he may only play 2 matches).
Another thing I've thought about before is that those players that have been "benchmarked (Nationals)" can only play the first singles or first doubles (like the 5.5s in the 5.0 category).
I played against one of your part timers in mixed this spring ... all the way in PA, LOL. And that was after I had to leave my original team because there were too many nationals players.
Anyway, if you see this, email me through my profile. I had an interesting conversation with Ann LoPrinzi about this topic today, and I might need your input, if you want to share it.
Topaz
Legend
I had always wondered why I didn't ever see a post about this rule. I must have missed it, as I'm not around as much anymore.
I haven't read the whole thing, but here are my 2 cents:
This rule pretty much screwed my entire year. I was on the roster of a mixed team that went to nationals. I was played once, in twenty matches. So, did not even qualify for nationals. And yet, I was branded with the scarlet N for this entire year.
Even in an area full of teams, the fact that each team only gets 3 nationals players spots, along with being under 40 (more over 40 teams here) combined with so many teams going to nationals from this area last year means no mixed for me. At any level or age group. A few weeks ago, a friend and I managed to create a mixed league at 8.0 and 9.0 with only two teams at each level...mostly so we could just play.
I expected to have trouble finding a mixed team. What I did not expect was having trouble finding a women's team. Sure enough, those three spots go fast, and there are more than enough people, in this area, to fill them. Its like Battle Royal for one of those three spots...on any team, no matter if its a 'good' team or not.
What irks me the most? I DIDN'T GO TO NATIONALS.
I can't believe that whoever came up with this rule even thought it through. It has to be costing them money. I'm one of those crazy people that join a ton of teams. Not this year.
This rule wasn't necessary. Everyone already has a shot at Nationals. You have to earn it. You have to be one of the best players. And you also need a lot of luck. This rule doesn't change any of that.
I haven't read the whole thing, but here are my 2 cents:
This rule pretty much screwed my entire year. I was on the roster of a mixed team that went to nationals. I was played once, in twenty matches. So, did not even qualify for nationals. And yet, I was branded with the scarlet N for this entire year.
Even in an area full of teams, the fact that each team only gets 3 nationals players spots, along with being under 40 (more over 40 teams here) combined with so many teams going to nationals from this area last year means no mixed for me. At any level or age group. A few weeks ago, a friend and I managed to create a mixed league at 8.0 and 9.0 with only two teams at each level...mostly so we could just play.
I expected to have trouble finding a mixed team. What I did not expect was having trouble finding a women's team. Sure enough, those three spots go fast, and there are more than enough people, in this area, to fill them. Its like Battle Royal for one of those three spots...on any team, no matter if its a 'good' team or not.
What irks me the most? I DIDN'T GO TO NATIONALS.
I can't believe that whoever came up with this rule even thought it through. It has to be costing them money. I'm one of those crazy people that join a ton of teams. Not this year.
This rule wasn't necessary. Everyone already has a shot at Nationals. You have to earn it. You have to be one of the best players. And you also need a lot of luck. This rule doesn't change any of that.
Topaz
Legend
Rumor mill in my area is that it will be gone next year. I bet the damage to their bottom line is really the only thing they care about.
Hey, at least I'm saving money, right?
mikeler
Moderator
It all comes down to the bottom line.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
I got an idea. To be fair, Automatic OUT of the playoff if that team won the division last season. So if one team wins the season in the fall, automatically they can't win the division again in next season. If the same team comes in 1st place, automatic 2nd place team qualifies
Edberg's Iceburg
New User
What do you think of this rule?
"If you qualify for nationals and your rating is within 0.1 (or 0.15 or something) of being bumped up to the next level, you will be bumped up at year end with no hope of appeal"
This way the teams that qualify for nationals will have all of their "big guns" bumped so the team will be weakened, but it will not affect the guys lower down on the team who are just along for the ride.
"If you qualify for nationals and your rating is within 0.1 (or 0.15 or something) of being bumped up to the next level, you will be bumped up at year end with no hope of appeal"
This way the teams that qualify for nationals will have all of their "big guns" bumped so the team will be weakened, but it will not affect the guys lower down on the team who are just along for the ride.
This is the most onerous part of the rule. I don't really have a problem with limiting the number of people who actually played at nationals from playing together, but it really shouldn't extend to the subs other part time players that didn't even go to the championships. Between that and the bump-ups, that should ensure that a superteam will be sufficiently split up.
mikeler
Moderator
I was not a starter but got benchmarked and bumped up probably because I was zoning in 1 of my 4 matches. If I had a perfect 8 for 8 record in all sets and no set my opponent won more than 2 games, I would be fine with being bumped up. I won 6 out of 8 sets though.
Bump up are a different issue, this is about the split up rule. We all know the rating algorithm is imperfect but generally does a good job. You don't have to dominate every set of every match to deserve to be bumped, especially if you are playing sectional and national level competition.
schmke
Legend
If that was the 2 & 1 win at Sectionals over a guy that went 18-5 last year, yep, that would do it. When you only play 4 matches, one fantastic result can skew things.
mikeler
Moderator
1 result should not have that much weight though. I was in the zone and he fell apart.
schmke
Legend
Even if you ignore that it was a playoff match (so one could argue it should carry more weight), since you only played 4 matches it would be 25% of your rating. And given the way the algorithm works effectively giving more recent matches more weight, this match would be a little more than 25% since it was the 3rd of your 4 matches.
Now, perhaps you are making the case for "outlier" results to be given less weight? There is an argument for this, especially if you are trying to identify and not include or give less weight to matches that players may be throwing to try to manipulate their rating. I'm not suggesting your opponent was doing this at all in this case of course.
bruintennis
Semi-Pro
This rule is ********! I got bumped to 5.0 this year and am putting together a 5.0 team of guys on our previous teams who have been bumped up over the last couple of years. I have four guys who were bumped up to 5.0 this year and went to nationals last year and my league coordinator just called me to say I need to remove one guy.
This is so stupid. We are playing a higher level this year and we still can only have 3 guys on our team that went to nationals last year.
This is so stupid. We are playing a higher level this year and we still can only have 3 guys on our team that went to nationals last year.
mikeler
Moderator
I'm in the same boat as you. I'm now Captain of a 5.0 team and it has been hard fielding a team. I've got 5 guys on the roster that want to play so if anyone can't make it, right now I'll have to default a line. One of my guys appealed down after he signed up and is now a 4.5 who does not want to play on the team and risk getting bumped back up. I've got one 4.5 and 4 of us "5.0s". The other teams we are playing had two 5.5s last year one of whom got bumped to 6.0 this year! We are going to get crushed in these matches but I guess that is what it takes to correct the flawed system.
It is a weird quirk of the rule that guys who played together on a team at 4.5 last year can all move up together and play on a 5.0 team together, but they can't add other guys from other teams that went to nationals and also got bumped up. Not sure what the rationale for this part of the rule is, it seems to me that if it is a higher level team you should be able to fill it with people bumped from the lower level due to nationals.
Topaz
Legend
There are many parts of this rule that do not make sense and are not even close to being fair. It makes you wonder who came up with it, and how it got so far without anyone correcting at least part of it. We have all listed many examples how this rule is punishing people , restricting play, and making it hard to form teams. It doesn't take a genius to see that these things would have happened.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
But . . .as a captain, I like the rule. It has resulted in more parity in the league.
What really stinks is this 40 plus league. What a waste.
What really stinks is this 40 plus league. What a waste.
If you have a move up team, you can't add players from ANY other nationals team, not just other bump up nationals players. The intent of the rule is to prevent a team from moving up and then adding nationals players from the higher level and going right back at the higher level. Frankly, the part of it that you are describing is a quirk that is really stupid. If you have a "move up" team, you should be allowed to add as many nationals player as you want from any team as long as they played in nationals at the lower level. What I mean is that, if the bump ups and other strong players from a 4.0 18 & Over nationals team want to combine with the bump ups from a 4.0 40 & Over nationals team to try to have a better team at 4.5, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to.
schmke
Legend
JRB: I took a team to nationals last year at 3.0 40+ and 6 of us got bumped up to 3.5. We had 5 people play together on a 3.5 40+ team with no issues. We started playing 18+ with 7 of us and were just told we can't do that. They never said this at the captains meeting at Nationals. They said you could play together if you moved up. They didn't say if you move up you can ONLY play at 40+ and no other age group. The USTA knows this isn't right and is giving 4 people their money back after already having played AND isn't counting those matches against us. My captain talked to the Sectional coordinator and I talked to someone at the National office and they are all scrambling. They said the rule is being modified to be interpreted in a "more kindler and gentler manner." We are a "move up" team and we aren't even trying to add other Nationals players. We just want to stay together. I couldn't agree with you more. I feel awful for my teammates.
I dont think there will be too much of a problem except for 5.0 adult league. Every other league and level can either be "move up" or "split up" without much problem. I guess if you absolutely have to play 5.0 adult, you can just skip a year in between? I dont know.
I would like to see the backlash this causes a few years from now. I can see some of the smaller sections having problems where they cant form a realistic team if all the 2.5/3.0/4.5/5.0 players in their section have been to nationals the year before. But, even then, it's "nationals" only right? You can still have a damn good time playing to sectionals... and then not accept the national invite... but that sounds kinda bad... lol...
I think I remember them saying you can only have one "move up" team, so if you declared your intention to move up your 40s team in 18s and adhered to the split up rule in 40s, they may have allowed that, but they won't allow a move up team in both 40s and 18s. Whatever, though, the rule definitely needs to be "kinder and gentler". I understand the intent, but they took it way too far. In NJ, they're probably losing at least 20 players (mostly in 4.5) because they simply don't have teams to play on. There are around 50 4.5 (or 5.0 and 40+) nationals players who played in Middle States NJ last year. There are 7 teams total between 18s and 40s. Split the 50 players into 3s and do the math. There are A LOT of people left out.
JRB:
They are saying the only team you can move up with is the age group you went to Nationals with. This is the clarification chart the USTA sent my captain.
http://assets.usta.com/assets/647/15/League_Clarification_and_chart.pdf
They are saying the only team you can move up with is the age group you went to Nationals with. This is the clarification chart the USTA sent my captain.
http://assets.usta.com/assets/647/15/League_Clarification_and_chart.pdf
I've already had to skip a season even before this rule. Now it is going to make things even worse. I'm more worried about the 10.0 mixed than the 5.0 mens. There are tons of mens teams, but very few mixed teams (usually 3) and that is my favorite league.
Even if you qualify for nationals and don't accept it, all the players on that team are still considered national players. This happened to me in the 2012 season where we qualified but did not go. Then another team in our section went instead. It made forming teams the next year impossible because there were already only 3 teams in the league.
