I did an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report for a player recently whose rating was well over 3.5 at year-end, but wasn't bumped up to 4.0 at year-end and stayed 3.5. They were curious before getting the report as to what was going on with their rating, and were even more so after seeing the report. So what happened?
This was example of a player 65 or older for which the no bump-up rules kicked in. When I wrote last fall about the new appeal rules, I also mentioned that players 65 and older won't be bumped up from their prior year-end rating. And this report was example of this rule in action.
The rule appears to be in place to prevent older players from being bumped up inadvertently and having to play a level up where their experience may not be a positive one. However, in some cases, it may be appropriate for a player to be bumped up so the blanket rule seems to be perhaps inappropriate.
To be fair to the USTA, players 65 & over are allowed to appeal up if they so choose. But they have to choose to do so and many players won't, either because they aren't aware, or because they like being able to play with a higher rated partner in 55 & over or 65 & over.
What do you think? Should seniors have special rules for bumps and appeals?
No, there should not be special rules based on age. If a player can achieve good enough results to rate up, s/he should be rated up. Age or style of play should have nothing to do with it. This is preposterous.
ReplyDeleteI would tend to agree. If someone happens to improve, that should be reflected in their rating. There are rules in place to allow appeal downs, and perhaps those should be a little more lenient for older players, but there shouldn't be a hard and fast "can't be bumped up" rule. I'm sure the USTA got complaints from older players that were bumped up and felt they couldn't compete, and this was their response.
DeleteNope
ReplyDeleteHow about a tiered by age and rating approach. For example over 65 won't get bumped to 4.0, over 50's won't get bumped to 4.5, over 40's won't get bumped to 5.0. I play 4.5 40's and 18's, several over 50's went to nationals at 4.0 over 50's and got bumped to 4.5. They are not doing too well and will probably get bumped down again. They are not getting any better. My 4.5's over 40's team went to nationals and a couple of guys got bumped to 5.0. They are not playing this year.
ReplyDeleteInteresting idea. I think having hard and fast rules will always have exceptions though. And I think it would be a recipe for disaster to have caps on anything under 65. I know guys in their 50s and 60s that can easily hang at 4.5 and even 5.0. Not everyone can, but capping the ones that can would be a mistake.
DeleteSeriously? People who go to nationals are complaining that they got bumped up? Give me a break...
ReplyDeleteSome people that win like to keep winning and are afraid they won't be able to playing up a level. So they complain ...
DeleteWe are a community of 55+ players, most of whom have dropped out of USTA - many because of the no bump-up rule. Why are players allowed to dominate at a lower level with no threat of being bumped up or DQ'd just because of their age? Who cares how hold you are - it's how you play.
ReplyDeleteUSTA has thrown seniors under the bus - doesn't make sense.
Personal opinion is a rating is a rating. Whatever your Dynamic NTRP rating ends up as, should be where you should start the next season, regardless of age. However, I do believe USTA sanctioned tournament results should always factor in, otherwise the possibility of getting bumped back down, if you can't find a team at the higher level puts players in a real bad situation. I know quite a few players with ratings that really have no USTA league options, other than mixed doubles because they can not hang at their current rating. At least if their tournament results reflect their true level, it would be adjusted. Also "exceptions" always lead to more arguments for similar situations.
ReplyDeleteGood point about the "no options" for some players that are bumped up and no team will have them. It would be nice if tournaments were (or weren't) counted consistently across sections, but when you include them, then it provides another opportunity for sandbaggers to have a secondary place to manipulate their rating down after it goes up from the 18/40 & over Spring league play.
DeleteBut my solution for that is have the algorithm detect sandbagging and throw those results out! :)