I've written about the rules regarding appeals before and included a mention of some of the special rules regarding players 60 and over, but recently someone shared with me that they thought these rules were actually age discrimination.
First, lets review the rules. Any player that is 60 years of age or more can have an appeal down automatically granted if they have been at the same or lower NTRP rating level for the three most recent valid year-end ratings without benefit of an appeal. Further, players that are 65 of age or more will never be bumped up, although they can appeal up. I believe this rule was new for the 2014 season, and before that older players simply had a larger tolerance for being able to appeal down.
The rule seems to have been put in place to address concerns from older players that may be slowing down that they would be bumped up and be at a level that they can't compete which would not be good a good experience for them or their partners/opponents. This seems to be a nice concession to these players to ensure a positive league experience, so what is the problem?
The key thing is that not all older players are actually on the decline, and some that are perhaps new to the game may even be improving. For these, it may actually be a goal to get bumped up to validate their improvement and for a 65 year old that has a great year and has achieved what would normally be a bump up, they'll never know as they are simply kept at the same level next year. So, in a way, they are being discriminated against as they can't ever have that validation of their improvement.
Additionally, if these players actually improve enough to be bumped up, it is actually unfair to their opponents as well as they are really above level.
If the USTA really did want to change the rule to allow 65 & older to not be bumped up, a better solution may have been to have the players be bumped up at year-end, but allow an auto-appeal down. This would let those that are concerned about playing at a higher level as their skills and movement decline stay down should they want by appealing, but still let those looking to get bumped up to validate their improvement to accomplish that.
Of course, one could argue that a proper rating system shouldn't have to have these exceptions and if the algorithm says a player should be bumped up, they should play at that level the following year. There is some merit to this and perhaps the old rule with just a larger tolerance for being bumped down is still appropriate.
What do you think?
I think people like to win, and when they don't win, they complain. Because older people are generally shown more respect than younger people, their complaints were perceived as "valid" by the rule-makers.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right. The USTA doesn't want to be losing members because they are unhappy and one could probably claim discrimination for making them play at a bumped up level. But my argument isn't that the policy is wrong, but that the implementation is. Just let those that don't want to be bumped up appeal down rather than doing a blanket "no one gets bumped up".
DeleteI don't see how it could be considered discrimination if they would be treating everyone equally by bumping them up their results warrant it. It's the exceptions they are creating that is the problem.
DeleteAll this change in the rules has done in our community of seniors is create a lot of sandbagging.
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate? I'm unclear how the rule change would promote sandbagging as there is no need to sandbag as you can play as well as you want and know you won't be bumped up. So what benefit is there to sandbagging?
DeleteHere's an example: we have 2 ladies who were winning everything at 3.5 so were bumped up to 4.0. They won nothing at 4.0 so were bumped down to 3.5. Then the new rule went into effect. So now they are now back on their previous 3.5 team and winning so their team is winning again. This will continue to be the case because these 2 can never be bumped up. I believe this gives their team a totally unfair advantage because they have 2 players who should be 4.0's, not 3.5's. This is not only true with USTA teams here but also affects local league play and local tournaments which dictate you must play at your NTRP level if you have one. So these 2 ladies are playing at 3.5 when they are clearly 4.0's. How is this fair? It may be good for these 2 ladies but certainly not good for their opponents.
DeleteGood point, I guess it does encourage a senior to sandbag one year knowing that if they can get down, they are safe from every going back up. Like I've said before, they should just let the algorithm do its job, just perhaps be more tolerant on appeals. Blanket rules that preclude players from being bumped up don't make sense.
DeleteDon't forget the USTA, in their infinite wisdom, also eliminated National playoffs for the Adult 65 Division (although I might point out that we pay the same fees as other age divisions). So while they might tout tennis as the "sport for a lifetime", they are definitely discriminating against those of us at the end of the line. Doesn't age, in and of itself, have a tendency over time to lower one's abilities? If so, why arbitrarily keep a player at a lower level? Here in Southern California we have 4.5 computer-rated players who appealed and were moved back down-- not because they aren't good, merely because of their age. If that's not sandbagging I don't know what is.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why it got rid of Nationals for 65+. Perhaps with the addition of the 40+ division and the associated Nationals, they think they ran out of staff or facilities or schedule to keep them going. If so, I think that is a silly argument but anyway.
DeleteI don't think the league fees are an issue though. In every section/district I know of, advancing to playoffs introduces additional fees a team has to pay, so the league fees really are just paying for the regular season.
And yes, while I think the USTA was well intentioned in letting 60+ appeal down and 65+ not be bumped up, i.e. they don't want to lose older players who think they can't compete if they get bumped up, it still feels wrong. If an older player is justified in being bumped up, let them be. Either trust the algorithm or don't. And by not even bumping a player up at all when they should be, you are taking away the ability to accomplish a goal perhaps.
The most I can see that would be appropriate would be to increase the tolerance for appealing down a bit for older players, but there should be no blanket rule to allow any appeal down and certainly not a rule to completely ignore a bump up and just keep them the same level due to age.
Very good post. I know a lot of guys that focus more on their tennis after retiring in their 60s when they have more free time, and improve quite a bit, especially at the 3.0 and 3.5 levels. The USTA policy of not bumping them automatically when their ratings improve seems misguided.
ReplyDelete