So, hop on over to TennisLink or the USTA app and see where you ended up. Did you get what you expected?
I love to get feedback and interesting stories or scenarios, drop me a note at ratings@teravation.net.
So, hop on over to TennisLink or the USTA app and see where you ended up. Did you get what you expected?
I love to get feedback and interesting stories or scenarios, drop me a note at ratings@teravation.net.
Both the app and tennis Link are just spinning and nothing is loading.
ReplyDeleteI think they did it an hour or two early to try to get ahead of the crunch, but now that everyone knows, the site is crashing ...
DeleteIs everyone's rating out at the same time? It seems like many players' ratings I looked at aren't out yet.
ReplyDeleteI too observed a few still saying 2023, but most were 2024, but now the site is unresponsive.
DeleteIf you go in through the blue app and dont log in, and click scout players, that is working.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it seems to be working now.
DeleteI am noticing Northern Oregon only has upward movement in ratings. I see 4.0s going 4.5 but almost no 4.5s going down. Same goes for 3.5s and 5.0s going up but virtually no one down. Usually there is balance since it should be a null sum game. Are other regions seeing same? Is USTA up to something?
ReplyDeleteStats from one county (Anne Arundel Maryland):
ReplyDeleteMoved up - 8%
Moved down - 7%
No change - 85%
That is close to the normal average of 6% down and 9% or so up.
DeleteIs that national average? Our club only had 2 or 3 players at each level/each gender move up and almost no one moved down- I actually don’t know anyone at all that moved down. We’re at a club of about 200-300ish players, I would guess
DeleteTR was spot on for our 4.0 team. A few expected bumps. How much do your ratings differ?
ReplyDeleteMine are usually more accurate :)
DeleteSeriously, there is no general comparison. TR can be right on small groups, but the evidence from folks commenting here and other places including directly to my e-mail is that they are often way off and hit a very low percentage at times. My ratings miss too, but generally I'm right 90+% of the time on year-end rating levels.
Thanks for the reply. As I mentioned a few suspected bumps so not earth shattering predictions. I am interested in the future if WTN will correlate closely with NTRP.
DeleteTR was very off for myself and several of my friends. We emailed Kevin and he was spot-on with who moved up and who didn’t. One friend of mine was 3.60 on TR and did not get moved up to 4.0 player. Another was a 3.59 on TR but didn’t get moved up. One person who did get moved up to 3.0 was showing a 3.0 on TR - so just barely over the line and he was moved up. I don’t trust TR anymore for the up and down movement.
DeleteHow do you see the moved up and moved down percentages for your region?
DeleteTR was just simply correct about 3 bumps on our team. People that had been teetering the line for years and had nice seasons. A few teams that we had played had some surprise no bumps, they mostly seemed to be players new to USTA.
DeleteI was just looking 10.0 mixed nationals results and tennislink doesn't have the Final scores listed, which is odd, unless it wasn't played for some reason. But I found a SoCal website saying their team won 10.0, so it must've been played. I feel like I've noticed Finals matches in other instances never entered when played either. Have you noticed this before?
ReplyDeleteThe 10.0 final got rained out. So SoCal and NorCal shared the title
DeleteThe article I found did say that. Wish tennislink would say that somewhere. Though the article says both teams agreed to be co-champions. That seems odd the tournament officials wouldn't have the final say in determining if the courts were playable or not.
DeleteWeird how the 3rd place match was played but not the Final.
The 3rd place matches must’ve been shorter. The final started but they were still playing when it started pouring. There was too much rain to finish that day.
DeleteThat's odd by the tournament committee. 6.0/8.0 had their SF/F at 8am/10am with the 3rd place match at 1pm, which is strange the 3rd place match is being played much later. 10.0 played their SF/F at 1045am/1245pm with their 3rd place match at 130pm. Everything finished except the 10.0 final. They should know rain is coming and have all the matches start earlier, but all the other matches did finish though.
DeleteNothing shady was going on. They had to do it that way. It rained Saturday evening during the last round of 10.0 pool play matches. So a lot of the matches were incomplete. They had to finish all the 10.0 matches Sunday morning to determine who would play the semis. The courts were still wet in the morning so play didn’t resume til 8:30am, including for 6.0 and 8.0 I think.
DeleteNobody's suggesting anything shady was going on, but just all seems a bit odd on the timing. The tournament committee needs to condense the matches or something to try to finish them in a more ideal way.
DeleteSince this will impact your 40+ team. Curious your thoughts on the if your team goes to nationals they have to move up or split up (only 3 on the same team) rule? I feel like for competitiveness it’s a good idea but dislike the impact it has on majority of the team. Forces players to join different clubs or just sit out a year etc especially for the players who played very little or no post season matches. Forces captains to pick who can stay on team if they can even field a team! Not sure I have a better solution, but seems like it discourages some people from playing which is not good!
ReplyDeleteGood question, and pertinent to my team this year.
DeleteIn general I see the reason for the rule, it is one arrow in the USTA's quiver to try to keep playoffs/districts/sectionals/nationals open to all and prevent the same players from coming back year after year. Many Nationals teams don't have a lot of players bumped up, at least at 40+ (it is usually just a few to a handful for most teams) so the rest of players could stay together and add a few and make a run at Nationals again. The question is, is this happening a bad thing? And if so, is this the proper mechanism to prevent it? Or should something else (more players bumped up) be a more important factor?
But yes, this does have a pretty dramatic impact on players on the team. My team is out of a club where it is primarily club members that are on teams, and even being in a reasonably populated area like Seattle, my club usually has just two 40+ 4.0 teams. Even with our smaller roster (12) we had 9 that remained 4.0, so getting them all on teams at our club would require three teams, and we simply don't have enough 4.0s to support that. So some players have had to go find teams out of other facilities or clubs to play on.
This is definitely an impact to us, but it is only 9 players in this case, and the USTA seems to think inconveniencing us is ok if it improves the experience for the greater population.
Thanks for your response - I really don’t like the idea of breaking up a team that worked hard to advance especially when it forces people to sit out or pay to join another club, I think more aggressive rating up might be a better solution but that can also lead to the same problems. No system will be perfect but I feel like getting to nationals would be something that could motivate a team to get better and instead it kinda kills the team(especially the middle and lower players on it)
DeleteYeah, we were not a juggernaut, we went 1-3 at Nationals and had only three bumped up, and we squeaked our way to Sectionals (2-2 win won on games) and Nationals (2-2 win won on games) so we were not destroying the competition.
DeleteI do see the reason for move-up/break-up, but it could perhaps be applied to those teams that make the semis, but that could still lead to the same team dominating locally year after year which is part of what I think they want to avoid.