2019 USTA League Nationals Dates and Locations - For real this time! Oklahoma City a new site!

News about "Nationals" is a hot topic today!  I just wrote about NTRP Tournament Nationals, now USTA League Nationals.

It is almost April and in some areas, teams have already qualified for Sectionals, but until now we haven't known where and when the various 2019 USTA League Nationals would be.  I wrote a couple months ago about a schedule I'd found on a USTA site, but learned it was not accurate and the real schedule would be forthcoming.

Today I learned that the dates and locations are as shown below.  This should show up on the Nationals page on usta.com soon.

This schedule no longer has Mobile as a site which is consistent with the earlier one, but an interesting change in this official schedule is the addition of Oklahoma City for a couple events.  This appears to be at the expense of Arlington, TX which is no longer a host site.  Las Vegas was added last year and still has several events this year.

The busy sites are going to be the National Campus in Orlando, as you would expect, but Surprise, AZ is back as a site and will be hosting an event for every Nationals weekend but one.

It is good to see Mobile no longer being used given the rain issues of past years.  I'm guessing the significant rain issues from last year in Arlington contributed to it not being selected this year.

From all reports, the events hosted in Vegas and Surprise always go well so it is good to see them listed.  And you'd expect the National Campus to be used a lot and it is.  Still no return to California though, but the Southwest is represented very well, between the Surprise and Vegas sites there will be nearly as many events there (9.5) as Orlando (11).  So overall, a pretty good balance geographically with just a slight bias to the east.

I know nothing personally about the facility in Oklahoma City.  Perhaps some readers who are familiar with it will comment and share some information about it.  But it looks like it was the 2016 USTA National Facility of the Year, so that sounds promising, as does having 24 outdoor and 6 indoor courts.

There is a clear trend with all 55 & Over in Arizona and all Mixed in Orlando.  Vegas only has Adult 18 & Over events and no Adult 18 & Over event is in Florida, while Adult 40 & Over has a mix across the sites other than Vegas.

Here is the full list.

Adult 18 & Over

• 2.5W - October 11-13 - Darling Tennis Center - Las Vegas, NV
• 3.0 - October 11-13 - OKC Tennis Center - Oklahoma City, OK
• 3.5 - October 4-6 - Surprise Tennis & Racquet Complex - Surprise, AZ
• 4.0 - October 18-20 - Darling Tennis Center - Las Vegas, NV
• 4.5 - October 18-20 - Surprise Tennis & Racquet Complex - Surprise, AZ
• 5.0+ - October 4-6 - Darling Tennis Center - Las Vegas, NV

Adult 40 & Over

• 3.0 - October 18-20 - USTA National Campus - Orlando, FL
• 3.5 - October 18-20 - OKC Tennis Center - Oklahoma City, OK
• 4.0 - October 11-13 - Surprise Tennis & Racquet Complex - Surprise, AZ
• 4.5+ - October 25-27 - USTA National Campus - Orlando, FL

Adult 55 & Over

• 6.0 - November 8-10 - Surprise Tennis & Racquet Complex - Surprise, AZ
• 7.0 - October 25-27 - Surprise Tennis & Racquet Complex - Surprise, AZ
• 8.0 - November 1-3 - Surprise Tennis & Racquet Complex - Surprise, AZ
• 9.0 - November 8-10 - Surprise Tennis & Racquet Complex - Surprise, AZ

Mixed 18 & Over

• 6.0 - November 8-10 - USTA National Campus - Orlando, FL
• 7.0 - November 1-3 - USTA National Campus - Orlando, FL
• 8.0 - November 8-10 - USTA National Campus - Orlando, FL
• 9.0 - November 1-3 - USTA National Campus - Orlando, FL
• 10.0 - November 8-10 - USTA National Campus - Orlando, FL

Mixed 40 & Over

• All 4 Levels - November 15-17 - USTA National Campus - Orlando, FL

From my perspective, this is a very sensible schedule and uses sites where good/dry weather is almost assured and/or there appears to be some provision for indoor courts or a large number of courts to be used to catch up.

Oklahoma City is new and so we must do a weather check, but my quick research shows highs in the 70s and lows in the 50s, and while there are on average 5 days with rain, rainfall totals for the month average under 3 inches.  This is not as ideal as some of the other sites, but is noticeably better than Arlington with 7 days with rain and over 4.5 inches in October on average, better than Mobile, and even a little better than Orlando.

Now, if they'd only adopted my tie-breaker rule change proposal, all would be good!

What do you think?  Are you aiming to make it to one of the events?

USTA Tournament NTRP Nationals begin this weekend

Starting last year, the USTA began holding Nationals events for NTRP tournament players and is continuing with the offering this year.  In fact, the events begin this weekend with the 18 & Over singles in Naples, FL, and the 50 & Over singles in Surprise, AZ.  Next weekend finds the doubles events for both groups at the same sites.

Players and pairs will have qualified following the rules outlined in their section, often by accumulating points playing NTRP tournaments during 2018, and perhaps then playing in a Sectionals tournament to determine the top players that get to advance.

The format for the events are up to 32 players being put in up to 8 flights for three round-robin matches each, followed by the 8 flight winners advancing to a standard quarter-finals, semi-finals, and final.  In order to get all the matches in, potentially six over the 3-day weekend, the events use the Fast Four scoring.

Players qualify to play at a given level based on having either a 2017 or 2018 year-end rating at that level.  This means that a 2017 year-end 3.5 who played 3.5 level tournaments all year and got bumped up to 4.0 at 2018 year-end is still qualified to play at the NTRP Nationals at the 3.5 level.  I believe the rationale is that this is the Nationals event for players who qualified during 2018, so might as well let them continue to play at that level they were eligible for during that year.

Note that I believe it also allows a player who was a 4.0 during 2017 but got a 3.5 2018 year-end rating to be eligible at the 3.5 level, but I'm not sure how many sectionals qualifying and selection criteria would provide a path for these players at the 3.5 level.

The feedback I heard from last year's event was that it was very good, even if the Fast Four format was a little new/short/quirky for some.  There will be some players that are looked at as sandbaggers, particularly those players that were bumped up at 2018 year-end but are still playing at their lower level, but that is just the nature of any Nationals event.

What do you think?  Are you going?  Do you wish you were going?  What was the qualification process like in your section?

The result of my USTA League regulations change proposal - Wait and hope for next year ☹️

I wrote a few months ago about the proposal I had submitted to the USTA regarding changing the standings tie-breaker rules that are presently in the USTA League regulations.  I recently learned that the rules committee found my proposal thought provoking, but has elected to not put it in place for the 2020 regulations.

There was an acknowledgment that it was perhaps time to revisit the tie-breaker rules, and a task force may be formed to do so, but because there had been a big change to the Nationals format for 2018, they didn't want to introduce a significant change again the following year.

I have to say I'm disappointed the USTA chose not to adopt my proposal as I think it is pretty clear that the current tie-breaker rules have some serious shortcomings and fixing the rules would benefit all players throughout all phases of the season, not just at Nationals.

For those just joining the conversation, the synopsis of the proposal was that the current rules for determining standings is as follows:

• Team won/loss record
• Individual court won/loss record
• Head-to-head
• Sets lost
• Games lost

The main issue with the current rule is the last two criteria.  Sets lost and games lost only look at half of the statistics available, i.e. they ignore sets won and games won.

Consider a scenario where two teams play in a six team flight and play each other team twice.  The two teams are tied on record at 9-1 having split in their head-to-head matches, and are also tied on individual courts, say each one is 38-12.  Per the tie-breaking rules, we would next to go sets lost to break the tie.

Let's say both teams won each of their 38 courts in straight sets, and team A lost all of their courts in straight sets while team B had half of their losses go to third set tie-breaks.  By the sets lost tie-breaker, both teams would have lost 24 sets (two sets lost for each of their 12 losses) and so the tie-breaking would go on to games lost.  But this completely ignores that team B won 6 more sets than team A did due to winning a set in six of their losses.  Certainly winning a set even in a loss is better than losing in straight sets isn't it?  Per the current rules, that isn't considered and doesn't matter.

My proposal was to use sets won/lost differential, or if teams were tied on sets lost to next look at sets won to break the tie.  In either case, team B would correctly be chosen over team A in my scenario above.

But what about games lost?  This is where the current rules are the most egregious.

Consider again team A and team B that have identical stats down to all but one match.  In that one match, team A loses 6-0,6-0, while team B loses 7-6,7-6.  Per the games lost tie-breaker, team A will have lost 12 games while team B lost 14 games, and team A, the team that lost 6-0,6-0, would be chosen over team B because they lost fewer games.  Clearly, at least to me, but apparently not the USTA, it is better to play a close match and extend a set to a tie-break rather than not even winning a game.  A team would also be penalized for losing a set 7-5 or 7-6 instead of 6-4 as that is 7 games lost vs 6.  The USTA is basically saying if you are going to lose a set, lose it quick and don't try to keep it close which is just silly.

Again, my proposal was to use games won/lost differential, as this would equitably give a team credit for keeping their losses close vs being blown out.  And my hope was that the issue with games lost would be so clear that at least changing it would be adopted, but alas no.

Note that under the current rules, the games lost tie-breaker flaw just compounds the sets lost rule above, as since neither sets differential or sets won will be used first, more ties will fall to this rule to be decided and it will clearly pick the wrong team a lot of the time.

In the majority of league play, determining standings never gets to breaking ties with sets lost so the issue rarely crops up.  It is even more rare that it gets to games lost.   But it does happen.

I personally had a friend whose team lost out on the games lost tie-breaker when under my proposed change they wouldn't have.  And my section's coordinator who sponsored my rule change had also seen cases where a team that had a lopsided loss unfairly came out ahead because of the games lost tie-breaker.

But with the new format for Nationals last year, the chances of these tie-breakers coming into play went way up, and in fact they did rear their ugly head several times.  I analyzed all of the Adult Nationals in 2018 and there were four situations where teams were tied and, in my opinion the wrong team advanced due to the current sets lost or games lost tie-breakers.

So what can be done?  I don't believe my proposal is dead.  As I understand it the USTA wants to wait and see how this year's Nationals go and may consider it again next year.  But the rules committee does solicit feedback from each section, so if you feel strongly about this, let your section staff know so that they can represent your interests.

Wildcard Weekend of Seattle 40 & Over Local Playoffs is complete

This past weekend found many local area teams playing in the first "Wildcard Weekend" for the 40 & Over teams in the Seattle area.

Truth be told, it was really just the first round (or two) of local playoffs and not just for wildcards, but this year it is spread over two weekends.

Alas, my team did not advance to local playoffs, but I watched several matches of friends and former teammates and there was some good and competitive play.

In a few cases, not just the first round matches but even semi-finals were already played, and with what has become the traditional wildcard to Sectionals being given to the second place team from local playoffs, those teams that are in this coming weekend's final have already both qualified for Sectionals!  Congrats to those teams.

For those teams that are already in the final, or happen to play their semi-final this weekend and get there, I'll digress for a minute and share my experience from a few years ago captaining a team that advanced to Sectionals.  We made the local playoffs final and new we had a spot, and I elected to play a number of players that didn't play in the semi-final in order to give them a chance to play in playoffs but also give them some valuable experience to prepare for Sectionals.  We ended up losing the final 3-2 which put us in the flight at Sectionals with the first place team from Portland.  Alas, we lost to that team 3-2, the last court in a super tie-break.  Had we won our local playoff final, we would have avoided this team until the Sectionals final.  I can't say the result would have been different, but I do still think about how things might have been different if we won the local playoff and were seeded in the other flight at Sectionals.  Something to think about for those captains that are fortunate to have such decisions to make.

Good luck to all those still in local playoffs this coming weekend!

New survey from the USTA - 40 & Over league and 4.5+ level

I received an e-mail today with a survey regarding the 40 & Over USTA League.  I don't know if this was targeted towards select players, perhaps those recently playing in a 40 & Over, or went to a larger audience.  FWIW, the 40 & Over league in my area just had our last weekend of play before we have local playoffs the next two weekends, so the timing does seem related to that.

Some of the questions included:

• Format of the matches, 2 singles / 3 doubles vs other formats like 1 singles / 4 doubles or 1 singles / 3 doubles.
• Whether to keep 40 & Over 4.5 a plus league (allowing 5.0s) or make it a straight 4.5 flight.

The second question may have been shown because it asked my level so it was a pertinent question for me.  I'm not sure what a 2.5-4.0 would have been asked.

Did you get the survey?  If so, what questions did it ask you?

Update: I learned that the survey went out to players currently 39 or older and some of the questions were tailored based on the level played.  That is consistent with some of the comments I've seen on my Facebook page.

Seattle area 40 & Over USTA League nearing completion - Local playoffs in just over 2 weeks!

It is only the first week of March, but in the Seattle area our 40 & Over league is nearly done with its regular season and local playoffs are in less than three weeks.  As such, some teams have wrapped up playoff spots while others are still being hotly contested.

For those following along, you may remember that last year our local playoffs had, for most levels, only each sub-flight winner and one second place team across all sub-flights advancing.  That gave teams pretty thin margins during the regular season as one bad match, perhaps with some of their best players missing, and their playoff chance could be gone.

The challenge last year was with the growth of USTA League in Seattle, the court demands to run local playoffs had grown to the point that it was difficult to get one or even two clubs to provide enough courts in one weekend for all the matches to be played.

Thankfully, this year we are back to the top-2 teams in each sub-flight advancing to local playoffs.  Our League Coordinator, Jill Borgida, came up with the idea of a "wildcard weekend" the week before local playoffs to get the first round of matches in reducing the burden for the actual local playoff weekend, and coordinated with clubs to get their support for those matches so all the matches can be played!  Thanks Jill!

The schedule does have quite a few different facilities being used so there isn't a central club or two where someone can camp out and watch all the matches, but I think the players are ok with that if it means more teams make playoffs and more players get to play.

Note, the new 18-39 co-ed league has also been run concurrently with the 40 & Over and its playoffs are also taking place at the same time, so that made securing courts a bit of a bigger task as well.

If you see Jill, be sure to thank her for her efforts on this, and please do thank the clubs for their part in making their facilities available.  Many of these are private clubs and they aren't obligated to do it, so let's make it all run smoothly so we can continue this model in the future.

As for the playoffs themselves, I will be doing reports to help teams scout opponents and plan their line-ups, and also look back at my simulations from the start of the year to see how well they predicted the teams to advance.

And with the 18 & Over league just about to start, it is never too early to start planning for that season and my flight reports, team reports, and simulations can be valuable tools for that.  And of course, I can do individual reports for any player at any time.

For those not in Seattle, all the reports I note above are available for players from any section or area and with your league getting ready for playoffs or perhaps just getting ready to start, I'd love to hear from you.

Contact me (ratings@teravation.net) if interested in any reports, or leave a comment here or on Facebook with your thoughts on the new playoff format for this year.