What are acceptable tactics when assembling/running a team?

Which of these are acceptable tactics for assembling and running a team?

  • Recruiting players from outside the area the team plays in

  • Recruiting players that appealed down

  • Including and continuing to use C rated players that are obviously clearly above level

  • Recruiting self-rated players

  • Having a roster that is 50% or more self-rated or appeal

  • Using self-rates that technically were ok when self-rated but wouldn't be if self-rating now

  • Playing self-rates in doubles if they are a better singles player (or vice versa)

  • Playing self-rates the minimum number of matches

  • Suggest players not go all out, last year (to get bumped down) or this (self-rate prevent strikes)

  • Protecting self-rates by playing court 3 and/or with high rated partners


Results are only viewable after voting.

schmke

Legend
In several of the threads about this year's Nationals there has been discussion of some teams and players that were clearly out of level. Many of the comments are in the 18+ 4.0M thread (https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-0m-usta-league-nationals-predictions.710902/) and center around the Intermountain team that had a bunch of self-rates, but mention of some other teams with perceived to be players well above level. And in the past, there have been notable captains/teams that would seem to have managed ratings to get bumped down or into appeal range only to make a run to Nationals.

This all got me thinking about what tactics would be considered acceptable in assembling a team. So I put this poll together with what I consider a pretty broad range of things a captain and their players might do to assemble a team to make a run at Nationals. Which of these do you consider acceptable? Which would you say aren't acceptable even if technically they don't break a rule (or at least can't be proven)?

The poll is limited to 10 answers, so I couldn't list everything I wanted to so a few options are probably a little gray, but it will be interesting to see how folks respond. And for the most part, local rules not withstanding, everything listed is legal (or extremely hard to prove).
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm not OK with the ones that involve arranging the lineup to hide/protect/de-emphasize self-rates.

I was advised by a captain to "go easy" in my remaining matches of my first year in USTA to reduce the chance of being DQd. My reply was that I couldn't do that: I would play my normal game and let the chips fall where they may [I did not get DQd but neither did it matter as we were never in serious contention].

On the teams I've been on/captained, we've never had a significant percentage of self-rates so it's never come up personally. Even the team that always wins [and usually undefeated at that] only had a couple of self-rates.

My view is skewed by the fact that I've never even made it out of league, let alone had a shot at Nationals. I play mainly for fun, competition, and camaraderie and if the stars align and we have post-season chances, great. But it's not a priority.

My answer is complicated: NTRP is to try and arrange competitive matches. If matches are no longer competitive due to sandbagging self-rates, then I'd be all for rule changes to clamp down. Given that I'm still getting competitive matches, the current system, with all of its flaws, still works for me.
 
The main thing that I think is "cheating" (or bad sportsmanship) is playing out-of-level players, who know they're out-of-level, and manipulating the rating system to prevent the rating system from noticing this. The clearest form of this cheating is deliberately telling people to tank; or picking self-rates who you (as a captain) know should be playing one level up, and then using various tricks to prevent them from getting DQed (playing them in doubles with an overrated partner, minimizing their play, etc.) If the rating system isn't being deliberately manipulated, playing good players is fine.

I don't mind having self-rates - everyone's got to start somewhere, and if they're honest self-rates and playing at the right level there's nothing wrong with that. (Of course, if they're deliberately playing at the wrong level, that's not okay!) I don't mind C-rated players that appear to be a bit out of level - as long as they got their rating honestly (i.e. continued to play their best in every match, didn't try and drop their rating deliberately). If they played fair then they probably aren't too far out of level anyway.

Don't care about recruiting from out-of-area. The levels are supposed to be uniform.

My main concern isn't really with teams advancing to nationals, I don't really care about that. I care about the matches they get - the point of the rating system is to get competitive matches, with two people reasonably close to each other in skill. So various tricks that lead to two players playing on court with each other when they are really far enough apart that they should never have been playing together are bad. But I don't care if a captain successfully makes a 4.0 team of all players that are, like, rated 3.999 (as long as that rating is accurate, and hasn't been manipulated to understate the players' skill level).
 
Hate the game, not the playa.
All the tactics you listed are legal and therefore legit, except for the one about asking players to tank.

Don't buy it. Lots of things that are legal are not legit, especially in rec play where there's no umpires, where lots of things are up to the players.

That's the whole definition of "bad sportsmanship", things that are technically legal but that you should not do.
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
It is hard for me to care too much about players playing out-of-level in USTA leagues. How many adult rec sports are there apart from USTA tennis where there are so many finely tuned levels to separate players of different skills and give them competitive matches? In many adult rec sports, you are lucky if there are even three levels like beginner, intermediate and open categories. It is part of why rec players who play basketball, baseball, hockey etc. think tennis players are ‘soft‘ as too many tennis players want to play against players who are only at same level or worser than them which is not something you can control all the time in other sports.

If I get to play a sandbagger who is playing out of level in USTA league, I look at it as a rare opportunity to play a 5.0 player as usually they are a closed clique of ex-college players or coaches and it is tough to get a match against one of them socially. Usually I take more risks on serves/returns, try to enjoy the beating and take whatever lessons I can get out of the match. If it is doubles, I try to get my partner to take the same attitude if we are overmatched.

Going to nationals is probably part of the motivation of less than 2-3% of all the players who play USTA leagues, but an unusually high number of them seem to frequent this forum.
 
Last edited:

Chalkdust

Professional
Don't buy it. Lots of things that are legal are not legit, especially in rec play where there's no umpires, where lots of things are up to the players.

That's the whole definition of "bad sportsmanship", things that are technically legal but that you should not do.
Yes but then who is the arbiter of "bad sportsmanship"?
Look at the threads about underarm serves, dropshots, hitting hard at an opponent at net, etc, and the varying opinions about what is or isn't sporting.
I actually agree with the sentiments of the post you made in this thread and that's how I would run my teams.
But I'm not going to whine about the tactics other teams might use as long as they are within the rules, even if I wouldn't use those tactics myself.
 
Yes but then who is the arbiter of "bad sportsmanship"?
Look at the threads about underarm serves, dropshots, hitting hard at an opponent at net, etc, and the varying opinions about what is or isn't sporting.

Nobody in particular. That's why there's arguments about it.

But saying "we don't all agree on what's good and what's bad sportsmanship" is not the same as saying "there's no such thing as bad sportsmanship, everything that you can get away with according to the rules is legit".
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
If I get to play a sandbagger who is playing out of level in USTA league, I look at it as a rare opportunity to play a 5.0 player as usually they are a closed clique of ex-college players or coaches and it is not tough to get a match against one of them socially. Usually I take more risks on serves/returns, try to enjoy the beating and take whatever lessons I can get out of the match. If it is doubles, I try to get my partner to take the same attitude if we are overmatched.

This is exactly the mindset I have. I've been fortunate enough in 4.5+ and in MXDs 9.0 to play against 5.0 guys and I relish the challenge even though I usually get worked.
 

McLovin

Legend
Need a "none of the above" option ...
I think item #1 is ok, although I think we need to define 'out of area'. For example, in Mid Atlantic, we have an area of Northern VA, Maryland, and DC, where it's 10-15 miles between where teams play. We all end up in the same Sectional tournament, but getting there, we're in different leagues.

So, recruiting someone from NOVA to play in Maryland is ok with me. But recruiting someone from NOVA to play in...Southwest Florida (which happened to me since my mother lives in Naples, and I politely declined), is not ok.

I will also say that the term 'recruiting' needs to be better defined. Being asked by a friend who is playing on a team that needs players is ok. But having a captain 'scout' local high schools, colleges, and clubs is a bit shady, if not creepy.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
My thoughts:
Getting someone out of area ... at least in my region is totally declasse. That would mean basically flying someone in or having them drive 4-5 hours.

Self-rates. New players to USTA have to play somewhere. If all captains were to shun or not invite S rates to their team exactly what would that accomplish?
There is a difference between getting a basic S rate and getting an S rate who has rated below their actual level

Protecting an S rate .... I am one of the few that think this is okay. But there is a caveat: an S rate that you believe is at level, even if on the higher side of at level. Definitely NOT for an S rate that is clearly out of level.

I think being strategic in how you play them is fine. If you know the 3.5S would get killed at 4.0 but do nicely at 3.5 (but not dominant) then fine ... put them in the right places with a strong partner to get them the C rating they deserve ... let the computer sort it out. (the right place is never D3)
However, the computer could dynamically DQ someone who doesn't deserve it if you put together a lineup wrong.
Example ... I could take a really low rated 3.5 player (let's say 3.01) place that player with a 3.0 playing up and put them on line 1. If they even get 4 games in a match they lose, I could bump the 3.0 and raise the 3.5 player considerably. (especially if late in the rating year)
Do that with an S rate and you are toying with a dynamic DQ that would be unjustified.
 

Matthew ATX

Semi-Pro
I don't see any issue with having out of area players, except in situations like Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston/Noho where players have tank teams in the other city to keep their bogus ratings.

I play in both San Antonio and Austin. SA plays on Saturday and Austin plays on Sunday, so it just gives me extra day of competitive play.
 
Protecting an S rate .... I am one of the few that think this is okay. But there is a caveat: an S rate that you believe is at level, even if on the higher side of at level. Definitely NOT for an S rate that is clearly out of level.

If the S rate is at level, then they don't need to be protected, though! They'll play their best, and get a rating appropriate to their skill. To me it seems that explicitly "protecting" someone's rating (i.e. artificially suppressing their rating) only makes a difference if the player is out-of-level.
 
Wait, what?

J
AHahahaha, tales from the USTA. Regular season match, arrive at the away team's facility to play a match, I see quite a lot of people there, men and women. I wonder, wow, they really have a fan base. Turns out one of my double's opponents died the night before, heart attack while playing at the club, the night before! They/we played the match in his honor. It was sobering.
 

Vox Rationis

Professional
@jmnk I see the differences in our thinking boils down to whether or not question 3 is okay. I think this poll represents the views of the more avid usta league members so it might not represent the views of the entire usta population but the results are interesting nonetheless.
 

Booger

Hall of Fame
The main thing that I think is "cheating" (or bad sportsmanship) is playing out-of-level players, who know they're out-of-level, and manipulating the rating system to prevent the rating system from noticing this. The clearest form of this cheating is deliberately telling people to tank; or picking self-rates who you (as a captain) know should be playing one level up, and then using various tricks to prevent them from getting DQed (playing them in doubles with an overrated partner, minimizing their play, etc.) If the rating system isn't being deliberately manipulated, playing good players is fine.

I consider it a responsibility to the game to call out this tomfoolery and ridicule them in public. A few years back, I got smoked in a 5.0/5.5 tournament. Googled his name and it turned out he was playing futures the year before.

Congrats, you ruined the tournament for everyone so you could smoke a bunch of middle aged dads and weekend warriors.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
I consider it a responsibility to the game to call out this tomfoolery and ridicule them in public. A few years back, I got smoked in a 5.0/5.5 tournament. Googled his name and it turned out he was playing futures the year before.

Congrats, you ruined the tournament for everyone so you could smoke a bunch of middle aged dads and weekend warriors.

Um, 5.5s are supposed to be playing futures and middle aged dads should not be playing 5.5.

J
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
No way. We had some D3 college kids, a few higher level college guys who always did well, but no pros or anyone with points.

Ok, well if you called your 4.5 tournament a 5.0/5.5 tournament you can't be upset when a real 5.5 shows up.

J
 

Booger

Hall of Fame
Ok, well if you called your 4.5 tournament a 5.0/5.5 tournament you can't be upset when a real 5.5 shows up.

J

I don't think I've seen a true pro in a USTA 5.5 before, unless we're talking about 40 year olds who played a few tournies in their prime.
 

Vox Rationis

Professional
I don't think I've seen a true pro in a USTA 5.5 before, unless we're talking about 40 year olds who played a few tournies in their prime.
The few 5.5s I know were either former futures level professionals (the best one had a career high around 300) or former 5 star juniors.
 

Booger

Hall of Fame
The few 5.5s I know were either former futures level professionals (the best one had a career high around 300) or former 5 star juniors.


Most of my league is former college players, but no pros or 5 stars. We even have a self taught guy who picked up tennis after college. Guy who won this year was a former mid-tier player at Florida without any pro experience.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Don't buy it. Lots of things that are legal are not legit, especially in rec play where there's no umpires, where lots of things are up to the players.

That's the whole definition of "bad sportsmanship", things that are technically legal but that you should not do.

Your own view is not that different from Chalkdust. Basically it is all fine unless people are deliberately losing games. You disapprove of having high rated players teamed up in doubles with "overrated players." But unless the player was recently injured it is hard to be so sure they are overrated. Can you have anyone team up with an "overrated" player?

Most of the issues seem to be about Self rates and appeals. There is no compelling reason to have self rated or appeal players playing in a league that is based on rating. New players can play a few matches and get their rating before playing in the league. That would solve the problems.

Everyone knows deliberately throwing games is cheating. The rest is ok if it is within the rules.
 
This is a good place to revisit all the situations I've encountered, just for fun:
1. 4.5 entire team losing every match for 2 seasons in a row to get down to 4.0 to make a run in Dallas. I think they failed to win Texas which is mildly interesting.
2. Houston forming super teams of the all-stars in the city, not really that bad I guess, but some lived 200 miles away.
3. A division 2 player who was playing in college while doing 4.5 combo as a 4.0 and wearing his division 2 team warmups to the matches lol, to the guy talking about public shaming, my teammates on the court next to me said something on every changeover. He was a nice guy though and fun to play.
4. Teaching pro self rating at 4.0 and bringing some self-rate youths to this years TN sectionals, two teams had multiple people with undefeated 4.5 records and winning 5.0 records playing 4.0. One of them was kind of funny, he hit some tweener winners in singles, kind of making a farce of the whole thing while dominating.
5. Geography scrabble, self-raters making it on two teams to sectionals in Georgia/TN and Dallas/Ft. Worth (just state).
6. 3.5 self rate who played division 2 line 1 and 2 singles with a very good record in 2009, no injury or loss of athleticism.

Doesn't quite compare to Utah, but just in case Utah thought people were picking on them.
 
Your own view is not that different from Chalkdust.

Not sure on that.

Basically it is all fine unless people are deliberately losing games.

I do not agree with this. As discussed in this thread, there are a number of ways of manipulating the rating algorithm to underrate a player besides deliberately losing games. I think those are all bad sportsmanship as well.

You disapprove of having high rated players teamed up in doubles with "overrated players."

No, I wouldn't say I disapprove of that.... I think all sorts of pairings are fine. ...unless you're doing it to prevent a player from being accurately rated by the algorithm, in order to keep them at a level where they dominate rather than letting them get bumped to a level where they'd have good matches.

But unless the player was recently injured it is hard to be so sure they are overrated. Can you have anyone team up with an "overrated" player?

Right, that's why this is an issue of sportsmanship, rather than of rules. I totally can see how an individual player might not know these things! Someone just joins USTA, self-rates, plays their best, they certainly don't know if they're underrated or overrated or whatever, they might play with strong or with weak players. ...but if a captain is routinely recruiting people with no rating, having them rate at a level where they dominate, and using various tricks to prevent the rating algorithm from noticing this discrepancy until it's too late - yeah, they know what they're doing, and it's not good.

[quite]Most of the issues seem to be about Self rates and appeals. There is no compelling reason to have self rated or appeal players playing in a league that is based on rating. New players can play a few matches and get their rating before playing in the league. That would solve the problems.[/quote]

It would not solve the problems, because the league is the place where these players would go to to play matches. They've got to start *somewhere*, and league play is what USTA has.

Everyone knows deliberately throwing games is cheating. The rest is ok if it is within the rules.

OK within the rules, but plenty of things that are "within the rules" are bad sportsmanship.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
I do not agree with this. As discussed in this thread, there are a number of ways of manipulating the rating algorithm to underrate a player besides deliberately losing games. I think those are all bad sportsmanship as well.


If someone plays their best tennis every game they are not "manipulating" the ratings. If they are not playing their best tennis then they are cheating.

Right, that's why this is an issue of sportsmanship, rather than of rules. I totally can see how an individual player might not know these things! Someone just joins USTA, self-rates, plays their best, they certainly don't know if they're underrated or overrated or whatever, they might play with strong or with weak players. ...but if a captain is routinely recruiting people with no rating, having them rate at a level where they dominate, and using various tricks to prevent the rating algorithm from noticing this discrepancy until it's too late - yeah, they know what they're doing, and it's not good.

Another issue with self rates. Having people self rate their top end is begging for problems. The self rate form should give a floor but actual play should give the top end.

Most of the issues seem to be about Self rates and appeals. There is no compelling reason to have self rated or appeal players playing in a league that is based on rating. New players can play a few matches and get their rating before playing in the league. That would solve the problems.
It would not solve the problems, because the league is the place where these players would go to to play matches. They've got to start *somewhere*, and league play is what USTA has.

No they would not need to play their matches in the league. They could play matches against teammates and get their rating.
 
Last edited:

Booger

Hall of Fame
1. 4.5 entire team losing every match for 2 seasons in a row to get down to 4.0 to make a run in Dallas. I think they failed to win Texas which is mildly interesting.

What??

ugh.gif
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
I think item #1 is ok, although I think we need to define 'out of area'. For example, in Mid Atlantic, we have an area of Northern VA, Maryland, and DC, where it's 10-15 miles between where teams play. We all end up in the same Sectional tournament, but getting there, we're in different leagues.

So, recruiting someone from NOVA to play in Maryland is ok with me. But recruiting someone from NOVA to play in...Southwest Florida (which happened to me since my mother lives in Naples, and I politely declined), is not ok.

I will also say that the term 'recruiting' needs to be better defined. Being asked by a friend who is playing on a team that needs players is ok. But having a captain 'scout' local high schools, colleges, and clubs is a bit shady, if not creepy.
I think there is a difference between getting players to "make a team" and getting players to "stack a team". If a captain is passing up on players that are more local, getting players further away just for strength of team, then I am not OK with that.
 
If someone plays their best tennis every game they are not "manipulating" the ratings.

Why would you say that? If you you play with or against affects your rating, and the captains are deliberately choosing where to play somebody in order to prevent their rating from crossing a particular threshold, why is that not "manipulating the ratings"?

Sure, in the long run, if you play your best in each match, the rating will probably eventually converge to where it should be. But the point is that by selectively choosing where to play someone, captains can prevent the rating from reflecting the player's ability until after Nationals.

Some of the methods used for this are:
1. Self-rating someone at a level where the captain expects they should dominate, instead of the level where they would have the closest matches.
2. During the regular season, deliberately avoiding putting this player in matchups where the rating algorithm could pick up on their skill. This could be pairing them with a known high-rated partner and putting them against a weaker team (so that even a blowout loss doesn't mean their rating is very high). OR putting them in a line where they know the opponents are going to default (so it counts as a "match played" for the purposes of qualifying for the next level, but obviously doesn't affect ratings). Or deliberately playing them only in situations where they won't be able to play their best, while avoiding situations where they could (e.g. playing a doubles specialist in singles or vice versa).
3. Minimizing the number of matches they play, so that the algorithm can't pick up on their true level.

In all these cases, by the way, I'd say the *captain* is more likely to be manipulating the ratings, not the *player*. The player might not be doing anything wrong - they show up when scheduled, play their best, answer questions truthfully, etc. None of the actions by themselves are wrong - nothing wrong with a player only available only a few matches during the regular season, nothing especially suspicious about a player mis-rating themselves (self-ratings can be way off, it's just a guess), nothing wrong with a player being matched with or against a particular opponent.

...but the captain knows if they're doing this legitimately or if they're trying to game the rating system, and it's pretty clear what captains are doing that if you look at the whole pattern. They're trying to ensure that a player that belongs at a higher level (i.e. would have competitive matches at that higher level, and has uncompetitive easy wins at the lower level) does not get a rating that reflects that.

I don't think that's good sportsmanship.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Why would you say that?

Because it is true.
If you you play with or against affects your rating, and the captains are deliberately choosing where to play somebody in order to prevent their rating from crossing a particular threshold, why is that not "manipulating the ratings"?

They can not control who plays on the other team. There can be some issues due to USTA having huge ranges in the same level and then an arbitrary line that prevents people at the upper an lower end from playing people that are actually exactly the same skill level is USTA's problem.

Even if we assume that ratings can be manipulated even when players play as well as they can. And even assuming it is just impossible for USTA to solve this. What do you want captains to do? Put self rates with doubles partners that they know are likely to lead to a DQ? I mean are they supposed to unlearn what they know?

Of course a good captain will not have a player get disqualified if they know how to prevent it by simply pairing him with a different team mate. Do you think a good captain will just say well I don't care if you get disqualified so I am going to pair you with someone that will likely lead to that?

Sure, in the long run, if you play your best in each match, the rating will probably eventually converge to where it should be. But the point is that by selectively choosing where to play someone, captains can prevent the rating from reflecting the player's ability until after Nationals.

Some of the methods used for this are:

1. Self-rating someone at a level where the captain expects they should dominate, instead of the level where they would have the closest matches.

Solved by not allowing self rates at all.

2. During the regular season, deliberately avoiding putting this player in matchups where the rating algorithm could pick up on their skill. This could be pairing them with a known high-rated partner and putting them against a weaker team (so that even a blowout loss doesn't mean their rating is very high). OR putting them in a line where they know the opponents are going to default (so it counts as a "match played" for the purposes of qualifying for the next level, but obviously doesn't affect ratings). Or deliberately playing them only in situations where they won't be able to play their best, while avoiding situations where they could (e.g. playing a doubles specialist in singles or vice versa).

The last situation may have some validity. But the second just has to do with self rates. The first is the problem with how USTA set up the league and simply being rational as explained above.

3. Minimizing the number of matches they play, so that the algorithm can't pick up on their true level.

Again a self rate issue and yes of course having people self rate into a league that is supposed to be only for rated players is begging for issues. They should stop it.
In all these cases, by the way, I'd say the *captain* is more likely to be manipulating the ratings, not the *player*. The player might not be doing anything wrong - they show up when scheduled, play their best, answer questions truthfully, etc. None of the actions by themselves are wrong - nothing wrong with a player only available only a few matches during the regular season, nothing especially suspicious about a player mis-rating themselves (self-ratings can be way off, it's just a guess), nothing wrong with a player being matched with or against a particular opponent.

...but the captain knows if they're doing this legitimately or if they're trying to game the rating system, and it's pretty clear what captains are doing that if you look at the whole pattern. They're trying to ensure that a player that belongs at a higher level (i.e. would have competitive matches at that higher level, and has uncompetitive easy wins at the lower level) does not get a rating that reflects that.

I don't think that's good sportsmanship.

The Captain doesn't fill out the self rate form. The captain should try to avoid having their players get disqualified due to them stupidly pairing the player. They are letting the player down and the team down if they don't. You are trying to lash out at someone because to justify USTA's stupid self rate policy. This is misdirected.
 
And even assuming it is just impossible for USTA to solve this. What do you want captains to do? Put self rates with doubles partners that they know are likely to lead to a DQ?

A DQ is not a punishment! It is an indication that the player should have been playing at the higher level all along. Captains should be making an honest effort to help players find the level at which they are competitive and have good matches. If the captain is worrying that a player might be DQed if they're paired with the wrong player, they should probably help that player find a team at the next level up!

Of course a good captain will not have a player get disqualified if they know how to prevent it by simply pairing him with a different team mate. Do you think a good captain will just say well I don't care if you get disqualified so I am going to pair you with someone that will likely lead to that?

The easiest way to prevent them from being disqualified is just to have them play at a higher level! If you think they belong at a particular level, then they play them at that level and don't worry about ratings. If you think they'll be disqualified if you play them with the wrong partner, they shouldn't be playing at that level to begin with.

Solved by not allowing self rates at all.

Everyone started without a rating before they play their first match. That first match, and the next few, have to be at SOME level. That's what the self rate is - a guess as to what level is best for a person to start at.


The Captain doesn't fill out the self rate form. The captain should try to avoid having their players get disqualified due to them stupidly pairing the player.

The correct way to "prevent players from being disqualified" is to play them at the level at which they'll be competitive, not by trying to prevent the rating system from realizing they're dominant at the level they're been played in. If a captain sees that a person has made an obvious mistake on their self-rate form (they are way better, or way worse, than their self-rate indicates) then that's the mistake to be corrected (either by playing or appealing up, or appealing down), rather than trying to make their inaccurate self-rating look reasonable for long enough for them to help the team dominate.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
A DQ is not a punishment! It is an indication that the player should have been playing at the higher level all along. Captains should be making an honest effort to help players find the level at which they are competitive and have good matches. If the captain is worrying that a player might be DQed if they're paired with the wrong player, they should probably help that player find a team at the next level up!

In some districts a DQ is a punishment. Matches played are forfeited. It is the same consequence as someone that lied on their self rate form. I agree the captain should help find the self rate a new team that regard.

But when "A typical match result for a player, for example, with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of whom are 3.5s, would be 6-0, 6-0 in favor of the higher rated player." it can be hard to say.

Combined with the fact that no captain actually knows anyone's dynamic rating this can be pretty hard to tell for sure. USTA says tennis record is very off base. I just joined a team and the captain maybe played in 3 clinics with me. I have very little idea what rating I am and neither of us knows how well I would play in matches. Again this is why people who want to play in leagues should play a few matches and get a rating.




The easiest way to prevent them from being disqualified is just to have them play at a higher level! If you think they belong at a particular level, then they play them at that level and don't worry about ratings. If you think they'll be disqualified if you play them with the wrong partner, they shouldn't be playing at that level to begin with.


Again USTA does not share the dynamic ratings with the captains. So captains hedge against this uncertainty. If they should clearly be playing at a different level then USTA should just let us know before. If you look at the players playing in nationals what percentage "should be playing at a higher level?" Are more than half of those playing out of level? If a guy has 2 great doubles matches is the captain supposed to know it is him that is the ringer and it is not his partner that improved? If he plays singles is the captain supposed to know whether the 6-0 6-0 is not just a typical result or a lucky match.

USTA knows dynamic ratings but they do not share the information with captains. Im not saying captains don't cheat by throwing games and putting clearly higher level self rates on teams. But the answer is USTA should just stop with the self rates. The form can provide a floor but using it as the roof is silly. Everyone playing in a rating capped league should have a computer rating.

Everyone started without a rating before they play their first match. That first match, and the next few, have to be at SOME level. That's what the self rate is - a guess as to what level is best for a person to start at.

No. In your first match you do not have a rating. Your game will not effect the person you play against (unless they are also self rated and have insufficient games or something like that.) Self ratings are not used in the calculation at all. USTA should have someone play a few matches to get an established rating and this is solved.



The correct way to "prevent players from being disqualified" is to play them at the level at which they'll be competitive, not by trying to prevent the rating system from realizing they're dominant at the level they're been played in. If a captain sees that a person has made an obvious mistake on their self-rate form (they are way better, or way worse, than their self-rate indicates) then that's the mistake to be corrected (either by playing or appealing up, or appealing down), rather than trying to make their inaccurate self-rating look reasonable for long enough for them to help the team dominate.

Captains shouldn't be asked to punish their team due to uncertainties caused by USTA. USTA makes this entire process a shell game and then tries to blame the players and captains.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
Most of my league is former college players, but no pros or 5 stars. We even have a self taught guy who picked up tennis after college. Guy who won this year was a former mid-tier player at Florida without any pro experience.

Aren't you a 4.5?

J
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
Most (but not all) of the things on this list are acceptable. Things that are unacceptable are the things that involve not playing in good faith: misrepresenting self-rating information, creating a second account to avoid rating at a prior level. Tanking games, sets, or entire matches to manipulate your rating, reporting scores incorrectly, playing on a self-rating that would no longer be valid (this is the self-rating a college commit at 4.0 before they commit and using them at that level after when they should self-rate 5.0 or higher...), or other stuff like that. Looking for favorable matchups or only playing a minimum number of matches is no big deal at all. Playing C-rates who are out of level is fine too, as long as the C-rating is not due to tanking in a previous year.
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
No Qualms About These:
Recruiting players from outside the area the team plays in
I don't ever have a problem with this, but something that's probably often overlooked is region. I live on a border with cities in different regions on each side. There are a lot of people who play in both regions to have more opportunities. It's very limited here, but again, even if it wasn't there's no foul. The lines are arbitrary sectioning for management purposes and nothing to do with competition.

Including and continuing to use C rated players that are obviously clearly above level
With the caveat that the player couldn't have "cheated" to get this rating, it is what it is. Especially with this multi-year period we're currently in, that person gets the benefits of the improvements to their game, and you can benefit accordingly.

Recruiting players that appealed down
Maybe I'm biased, as someone who appealed down in the past to avoid being stuck without a local league. If the USTA lets you play in that league then so be it. If a captain is trying to build as strong a team as possible then it makes sense to target highly rated people. If the "strike system" works properly then the captain is also incurring risk by putting them on the team.

Recruiting self-rated players
* with the assumption that the captain doesn't know they've improperly rated. Again, there should be risk here for a captain picking up players who are subject to disqualification, and in a working system that would help police abuse.
Note: I'm aware the USTA system is flawed, but we can't prosecute all the arguments at once.

Having a roster that is 50% or more self-rated or appeal
Same as above, this *should* be very risk due to the likelihood of strikes. Further, I'd have no objection to the USTA putting a cap on the number of appeals/self-rates that's much lower than 50%. I firmly oppose the idea of completely blocking appeals from post-season advancement, and I'm pretty sure I'd oppose the same for self-rates if pushed.

Things Are Getting Murky Here

Using self-rates that technically were ok when self-rated but wouldn't be if self-rating now
I'm unclear on how this would play out. Did they self-rate a couple years ago, and are now much better but didn't get league play to lock it in? We're getting into the semantics here, but if someone is incorrectly self-rated, then I don't think it's appropriate.

Playing self-rates in doubles if they are a better singles player (or vice versa)
If the intent is to play them in doubles until you need the better play and switch, that's scummy, but almost impossible to prove. I wouldn't do it, but it's simply exploiting a flaw in the NTRP.

Playing self-rates the minimum number of matches
Again, if the intent is to game the system, that's one thing. However, if you're worried that racking up 3 strikes over 2 years of tennis is possible because they're at the higher end of their rating... maybe it's being practical.

Protecting self-rates by playing court 3 and/or with high rated partners
I guess I can't say how effective this would be to really judge it. I presume there's some intent to game the ratings, but I'd be curious to see if it actually works.


At the end of the day, it's a competition, and there is a framework for how that competition is to be held. I could hear an argument that some things aren't the best "sportsmanship", but that's different from allowable. This is true of gaining on-court advantages too(ie exploiting a physical weakness in your opponent). I'd even suggest that "stacking" your lineup isn't illegal, even though it will frustrate a lot of people. The USTA "encourages" captains to put their players in order of strength, and I'm sure that's with the intent to provide the most competitive matches for everyone.

Intentionally gaming the system is an entirely different beast, and there's no real defense to be made for that.
 

leech

Semi-Pro
I'm unclear on how this would play out. Did they self-rate a couple years ago, and are now much better but didn't get league play to lock it in? We're getting into the semantics here, but if someone is incorrectly self-rated, then I don't think it's appropriate.

Example: Player X is 18 years old and played four years of HS varsity tennis, playing #1 singles and goes undefeated her senior year. On March 31, Player X self-rates as a 3.5. On April 1, Player X commits to play tennis for a Division III college. On April 2, Player X registers to play on an 18+ 3.5 team. Had she self-rated a day later, she would have had to self-rate no lower than 5.0.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
Example: Player X is 18 years old and played four years of HS varsity tennis, playing #1 singles and goes undefeated her senior year. On March 31, Player X self-rates as a 3.5. On April 1, Player X commits to play tennis for a Division III college. On April 2, Player X registers to play on an 18+ 3.5 team. Had she self-rated a day later, she would have had to self-rate no lower than 5.0.

How much did the captain pay for this one?
 

leech

Semi-Pro
How much did the captain pay for this one?

This was just a hypothetical example of #6 of @schmke's list.

I did run across a 4.0S at 18+ Nationals who should have self-rated herself minimum of 5.0 because she attained a top 10 Sectional ranking and top 150 National ranking as a junior, but skated through the season without any successful ratings grievances filed against her. I noticed that she is also on the roster of an 18+ 8.0 MXD team headed to Nationals, so inquired whether she could be the subject of a ratings grievance prior to that Nationals. I was told that the USTA will not hear any ratings grievances more than 48 hours past Sectionals, so she's Scott-free to play as a 4.0.
 
This was just a hypothetical example of #6 of @schmke's list.

I did run across a 4.0S at 18+ Nationals who should have self-rated herself minimum of 5.0 because she attained a top 10 Sectional ranking and top 150 National ranking as a junior, but skated through the season without any successful ratings grievances filed against her. I noticed that she is also on the roster of an 18+ 8.0 MXD team headed to Nationals, so inquired whether she could be the subject of a ratings grievance prior to that Nationals. I was told that the USTA will not hear any ratings grievances more than 48 hours past Sectionals, so she's Scott-free to play as a 4.0.
Good to know the ladies are getting in on the action. I will say, to my knowledge, there is no a lot of sandbagging to the extreme of males by females in Texas. There are females that play on way too many teams, multiple cities at the same level in the same season, but not really out of level per se.
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
Example: Player X is 18 years old and played four years of HS varsity tennis, playing #1 singles and goes undefeated her senior year. On March 31, Player X self-rates as a 3.5. On April 1, Player X commits to play tennis for a Division III college. On April 2, Player X registers to play on an 18+ 3.5 team. Had she self-rated a day later, she would have had to self-rate no lower than 5.0.
Thanks for the explanation. I would suggest in this case she has intentionally underrated herself, so that's unfair. I view the self-rating as a transient status, and this sort of detail should be meaningful.
 
Top