USTA League Regulations Changes for 2025

It is only May, 2024, but the 2025 USTA League Regulations are already having to be prepared as there are 2025 leagues starting already with Georgia's early start leagues.

A 2025 regulations link has shown up on the USTA League Resources page, and here are my observations from a quick read through the document.

The document does not say "Draft" like some others in the past have at this time of year, so I assume it is official, but you never know if they'll decide to change something.

The only "Major Regulation Change" listed at the beginning of the document has to do with a section filing a grievance against a team for full team defaults, so at a high level there are no big changes coming.  This is a bit odd, I think most every year I've been reviewing this has had a handful of changes so I guess the USTA thought the regulations were in a good spot already.

The 2024 regulations allowed for Sections to run Mixed leagues as straight-level leagues (3.0, 3.5, 4.0, etc.) instead of combined levels (6.0, 7.0, 8.0, etc.) through Sectionals and there had been speculation that was a precursor to Nationals changing to straight-levels in 2025, but that does not seem to be the case.  I'm only aware of Southern choosing to implement this so far.

In fact, the only other highlighted changes in the document are related to full team defaults or matches where the majority of matches are not played.  So for all intents and purposes, 2025 has the same regulations as 2024.

At Nationals last year there was some pretty severe ratings manipulation that led to a double National champ, and there was a thought that perhaps the USTA would do something to crack down on it, but nothing in the regulations despite my offering a host of options.

Last, we had an undefeated team at Nationals not make the semis last year, and there was again speculation that might lead to some sort of change to address the scenario, but as it relates to the regulations, no change there.  That isn't to say documents about the event itself couldn't address changes to the format, but so far all FAQs I've seen don't indicate any change.

What do you think?  What regulation change were you hoping for?

Pacific Northwest Local Playoff Survey - Change the format?

A few weeks ago, the league coordinators in the Northern Oregon (Portland) and Northwest Washington (Seattle) areas sent out a survey on the playoff format used for local playoffs.

This is a topic because 4 years ago the playoff format was changed from a traditional single elimination draw to having a "first place" draw and "second place" draw where the first place draw final loser got a second chance of advancing to Sectionals by playing the second place draw winner to determine the wildcard.

Note: The teams advancing to local playoffs are the top-2 teams in each sub-flight, thus the first and second place teams noted.

The reason this was done is because both areas send two teams to Sectionals and in the prior traditional single elimination format, both teams that make the final know they are going to Sectionals making the final somewhat meaningless.  In an effort to make the matches all have meaning, the new format was introduced.

Some weren't fond of the format and apparently enough gave feedback to the coordinators that a survey with three options was offered to get feedback.  The survey is now closed, but the results and decision have not been published yet.  Still, I thought it would be useful to look at the options and do some analysis of them.

The survey had a link to a description of the options so take a look at that for all the details.  But a summary of the options is:

• Option A - Current format, first place teams draw, winner goes to sectionals, loser plays winner of second place teams draw for wildcard
• Option B - Alternate multi-draw format where just top-two (in the example) or four teams (presumably if applicable) go into the first place teams draw to avoid having byes to deal with, but otherwise the same as option A.
• Option C - Traditional single elimination draw as it used to be.

I thought it would be useful to do some analysis to see what the real (dis)advantage was for each team.

The issue with option A is that when there aren't two (or four) first place teams, both draws end up having team(s) that get a bye, e.g. in a three sub-flight situation there are three first place teams (and three second place teams) each draw has one team with a bye which is perhaps not equitable as two first place teams have to play a first match while the highest seeded second place team gets a bye.  Here is an example draw.

So, would you rather be the #2 or #3 seeds (2nd or 3rd first place team) having to play a first place team and win to stay in it, or the #4 seed (1st second place team) with a bye and getting to play the winner of two second place teams?

I created a simulation with the draw scenarios, and as a baseline first said all the teams were equal and there was a 50% chance of any team winning head to head.  When this is done, the chances of advancing to Sectionals was:

• #1 seed - 75%
• #2 and #3 seeds - 37.5%
• #4 seed - 25%
• #5 and #6 seeds - 12.5%

So it is better to be the #2 or #3 seeds simply because if you win the first match, you do get the second chance at advancing if you lose the first place final.  But it is somewhat close to the #4 seed getting the bye.  And there is a clear advantage to being the #1 seed.

But if the three sub-flights aren't really equal (they never are) and the #4 seed is actually a very strong team and just happened to be beat by another really strong team in their flight to be in second place, and the #3 seed came from a weak flight where the #3 team isn't that strong, a reasonable scenario plays out as:

• #1 seed - 79.9%
• #2 seed - 46.1%
• #3 seed - 28.5%
• #4 seed - 29.7%
• #5 seed - 7.9%
• #6 seed - 7.9%

Here the #4 seed has a slightly better chance than the #3 seed.

The other perhaps inequitable aspect of this format is that the #1 seed could be #1 simply because they had a weaker flight compared to the #2 seed so has a better standings record, but they get a huge advantage and can even lose their first match and not be eliminated.  Every other team has to win their first match.  This doesn't seem quite fair.

Option B aims to address this last point by putting the #1 and #2 seed on equal footing so just one team doesn't have the huge advantage.  This is how that looks.

This avoids any byes which seems like a good thing, but it is a big disadvantage to be the #3 seed.  This is a first place team and perhaps is the #3 seed simply because they were in the toughest flight.  But they will be required to win three in a row despite being a first place team, while the other two first place teams get a huge advantage of only having to win one match and not being out of it if they lose their first match.

Here is the equal chance of each team winning advance percentages:

• 1st and 2nd seeds - 75%
• 3rd thru 6th seeds - 12.5%

This is a huge difference and advantage to being the top-2 seeds.  To me that seems too extreme, particularly for the #3 seed to be shunted into a draw with no built-in advantage over a bunch of second  place teams, one of which the #3 seed had to play and probably beat in their sub-flight already.

Last, option C is a traditional single elimination draw with byes for the top-2 seeds, but no second chance if they lose.  This is what it looks like:

Here is how the advance percentages play out with an equal chance of each team winning a match.

• 1st and 2nd seeds - 50%
• 3rd thru 6th seeds - 25%

Being a top-2 seed has a built-in advantage, but it is not nearly as big as for option B.  This seems more equitable to me and doesn't penalize the #3 seed nearly as much.

Of course option C has the original issue (if you consider it one) of the final not having any impact on advancing.  It only decides who the local champion is, and ensures the winner won't be in the flight at Sectionals with the other main area winner, i.e. the Sectionals flights always have the Seattle winner in a flight with the 2nd place Portland team, and Portland winner in a flight with the Seattle 2nd place team.

I think there are two ways to address this issue.

First, just accept it doesn't have much meaning and play it anyway, or perhaps don't even play the match which saves having to schedule the finals which reduces the demand for courts (a good thing for facilities).  If it isn't played, flip a coin to determine Sectionals flights.

Second, create more incentive to win the final.  It could be monetary, something like waiving the team fee for local playoffs for the winner, or a more significant trophy for being the winner, or be creative coming up with something else.

What do you think?  What would you, or did you vote for and why?

I voted for option C, and while not asked, would advocate creating more incentive to win to make the final meaningful.

2024 Seattle Area 40 & Over Playoffs - Any 4-court 2-2 ties?

The past two weekends saw the Seattle area 40 & Over local playoffs take place.  While the National format for 40 & Over has gone back to a 5-court format (1 singles and 4 doubles), the Pacific Northwest Section is sticking with the prior 4-court format for this year at least.

That means we continue to live with the possibility of 2-2 ties, and with playoffs, important matches that decide who will advance are being decided by the tie-breakers.  How many did we have the past few weekends?

There were a total of 46 team matches played over the two weekends, and of those, 14 (30%) were tied on courts.  Of those 14, five (36%) were tied on sets.

Taking a look at those five:

• Women's 3.0 - Each team won a match in straights and a match in a super tie-break.  There was a single game difference, a 6-2 vs a 6-3 set.  Had both of those been 6-3, it would have gone to the court 1 doubles winner and the team win would have swapped.
• Women's 3.0 - All courts in straights, two for each team, singles won 6-1,6-1 which resulted in a 6 game difference.
• Women's 4.0 - All courts in straights, two for each team, one team (A) had a 6-1 set, the other (B) had a 6-0 set, but the 6-0 set wasn't enough for team B as they had a 7-6 set vs team A having a 6-3 set to counter it, one game better for team A and the win.  Had team B won one more game, it would have gone to the court 1 doubles winner and team B would have won.
• Women's 4.0 - Each team won a match in straights and a match in a super tie-break.  Singles was won 6-1,6-1 by one team and that contributed to a three game difference giving them the win and a spot at Sectionals.
• Men's 4.0 - Each team won a match in straights and a match in a super tie-break.  Team A had an advantage in the straight set comparison being a game better, but team B won a 6-0 set and a 6-1 set to contribute to a four game difference and the team win.  This match decided the wildcard winner and a spot at Sectionals.

Some very close matches, two were just one game away from the result being reversed.  And two of these 2-2 ties were for a spot to advance to Sectionals.

Sectionals will continue to use the 4-court format, we'll see how things go there.

Simulating 2023/2024 USTA League Tri-Level National Invitational - 3.5/4.0/4.5 Women

This weekend is the 2023/2024 Tri-Level Invitational and this year I'm giving my simulations a go.

I've been doing these simulations since 2018 and have found that the four semi-finalists are usually in the top six to seven projected teams, and more often than you might think, I project the four semi-finalists perfectly.  There are surprises sometimes and a mid-pack team overachieves and advances, that is why the matches are played on the courts and not on a computer.  Still, it is interesting to do these simulations and see how the projections do.

Why do these simulations you ask?  The primary reason is that the format for USTA League Nationals is now a flight-less random round-robin where each team plays four other random opponents.  This introduces significant variations in schedule strength, the possibility of an undefeated team not making the top-4, and teams vying for the top-4 perhaps not having played head-to-head and unfortunate tie-breakers being used.  The simulations aim to educate folks on how it all works and look at what may happen.  Also see this write-up for some things to know about Nationals.

As I did for Nationals in the Fall, I'll be primarily just giving the data from the simulation and not writing a bunch of words.  Most of it is self-explanatory, but the favorites and contenders will be listed in alphabetical order.  If you want more details, I can do my simulation report for you.  Doing Tri-Level is new for me so we'll see how this goes.

On to the projections from the simulation, continuing with the 3.5/4.0/4.5 Women after doing the Men a bit ago.

Teams: 16 (Caribbean missing)

Chance of 3 undefeated: 9%

Chance of 4 undefeated: <1%

Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%

Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 81% / 4

Favorites: Mid-Atlantic, New England, Northern

Contenders: Middle States, Midwest, NorCal, SoCal, Texas

Fringe: Intermountain, Florida, Southern

One team is a favorite over the others and the only team forecast to go 4-0, but 3-1 and perhaps even 2-2 could make the semis as it is competitive behind the big favorite.

For those interested, I offer a variety of reports to make Nationals more fun and help captains prepare.  I have a Simulation Report that has all of the details of the simulation including the average ratings for each team, each team's schedule strength, the most likely record for each team, and the chance of each possible record for each team.  I also offer reports to help teams scout opponents in more detail, both a Flight Report with full roster averages, top-8 averages and played by court averages for each team, as well as full Team Reports with detailed ratings for each rostered player and stats who who plays with who and on which court and how they do together.  Contact me if interested in any of these reports.

Simulating 2023/2024 USTA League Tri-Level National Invitational - 3.5/4.0/4.5 Men

This weekend is the 2023/2024 Tri-Level Invitational and this year I'm giving my simulations a go.

I've been doing these simulations since 2018 and have found that the four semi-finalists are usually in the top six to seven projected teams, and more often than you might think, I project the four semi-finalists perfectly.  There are surprises sometimes and a mid-pack team overachieves and advances, that is why the matches are played on the courts and not on a computer.  Still, it is interesting to do these simulations and see how the projections do.

Why do these simulations you ask?  The primary reason is that the format for USTA League Nationals is now a flight-less random round-robin where each team plays four other random opponents.  This introduces significant variations in schedule strength, the possibility of an undefeated team not making the top-4, and teams vying for the top-4 perhaps not having played head-to-head and unfortunate tie-breakers being used.  The simulations aim to educate folks on how it all works and look at what may happen.  Also see this write-up for some things to know about Nationals.

As I did for Nationals in the Fall, I'll be primarily just giving the data from the simulation and not writing a bunch of words.  Most of it is self-explanatory, but the favorites and contenders will be listed in alphabetical order.  If you want more details, I can do my simulation report for you.  Doing Tri-Level is new for me so we'll see how this goes.

On to the projections from the simulation, starting with the 3.5/4.0/4.5 Men.

Note: This was updated an hour after originally posting with improvements to the simulation

Teams: 17

Chance of 3 undefeated: 15%

Chance of 4 undefeated: 3%

Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%

Chance of 6 undefeated: <1%

Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 90% / 4

Favorites: Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic, MOValley, SoCal, Southern

Contenders: Middle States, Midwest, NorCal

Fringe: Texas

This looks fairly competitive with five teams having a >50% of making the semis, and three more contending for a spot.  And no team has a most likely record of 4-0 and six having 3-1 records most likely.  With just three courts a match, the chances of tie-breakers going to sets and games is pretty high.

For those interested, I offer a variety of reports to make Nationals more fun and help captains prepare.  I have a Simulation Report that has all of the details of the simulation including the average ratings for each team, each team's schedule strength, the most likely record for each team, and the chance of each possible record for each team.  I also offer reports to help teams scout opponents in more detail, both a Flight Report with full roster averages, top-8 averages and played by court averages for each team, as well as full Team Reports with detailed ratings for each rostered player and stats who who plays with who and on which court and how they do together.  Contact me if interested in any of these reports.

2023 Tri-Level Nationals is in San Diego this weekend!

USTA League Nationals are generally all held in October and November each year, but several of the Nationals events find themselves being played early in the year.  One of those is Tri-Level Nationals.

Technically, the event is called the Tom Fey Tri-Level Nat'l Invitational as for many years, it wasn't a USTA sponsored event but instead was run by Tom Fey, the Tennis Director at Indian Wells Tennis Garden for many years, and done as an Invitational.  Tom passed away far too soon a few years ago, and the event now bears his name, but now the USTA runs the it as a National Invitational.

The timing of the event remains the same, right around the time of the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells, but this year it is in San Diego.  Also, for many years the Invitational invited teams playing in the 3.5/4.0/4.5 division to play, but now the USTA holds the event for three different divisions for both genders, 3.0/3.5/4.0, 3.5/4.0/4.5, and 4.0/4.5/5.0.

The stature of the event has grown as a result with teams from all of the sections participating in at least one event.

• Women's 3.0/3.5/4.0 has 14 teams (Hawaii, Intermountain, and Midwest missing)
• Men's 3.0/3.5/4.0 has 14 teams (Hawaii, Caribbean, and Intermountain missing)
• Women's 3.5/4.0/4.5 has 16 teams (Caribbean missing)
• Men's 3.5/4.0/4.5 has the full 17 teams
• Women's 4.0/4.5/5.0 has 9 teams
• Men's 4.0/4.5/5.0 has 9 teams

That is a whopping 79 teams all playing over the weekend, which it appears necessitates some different scheduling to what we normally see for a Nationals.  Normally it is a Friday to Sunday event, but this weekend has:

• 3.5/4.0/4.5 division being played 3/7 thru 3/9
• 4.0/4.5/5.0 division being played 3/8 thru 3/10
• 3.0/3.5/4.0 division being played 3/9 thru 3/11

Even with the staggered schedule, it is too big for one venue so the event is being co-hosted by Barnes Tennis Center and Balboa Tennis Club.

Given all the rain in California this year, a weather check is in order and the start of the event looks in a little danger as there are thunderstorms forecast for the 6th with hail possible and rain showers lingering into the morning of the 7th, but after that all looks fine with cloudy to partly cloudy skies the rest of the days.

Good luck to all the teams!

2024 USTA League Nationals schedule is availalble - Only 4 weekends this year!

Calendar year 2024 is just getting started, and many sections have league play underway, but some areas had early start leagues and local league play is already over.  In both cases teams are progressing towards USTA League Nationals typically held in October and November.

For those teams aspiring to get to Nationals, knowing the schedule and locations can be useful and there is a PDF of the schedule here.

The summary is that there will be four sites for 2024:

• Barnes Tennis Center in San Diego, CA
• Scottsdale Ranch Park & Indian School Park in Scottsdale, AZ
• Surprise Tennis and Racquet Complex in Surprise, AZ
• USTA National Campus in Orlando, FL

A significant change is that Nationals don't start until mid-October, where they have typically started the first weekend of October, even starting late in September on occasion including last year.  This means just four weekends of Nationals compared with seven in 2023.  Here are the dates and events:

• October 18-20
• 18 & Over 2.5 women - Scottsdale
• 18 & Over 5.0 - Scottsdale
• 18 & Over 4.0 - Surprise
• 18 & Over 3.0 - San Diego
• 40 & Over 3.5 - Orlando
• October 25-27
• 18 & Over 3.5 - San Diego
• 40 & Over 3.0 - Scottsdale
• 40 & Over 4.0 - Orlando
• 40 & Over 4.5 - Surprise
• November 1-3
• Mixed 18 & Over 6.0 / 8.0 / 10.0 - Surprise
• Mixed 18 & Over 7.0 / 9.0 - Orlando
• 55 & Over 7.0 / 9.0 - Scottsdale
• November 8-10
• 18 & Over 4.5 - Surprise
• Mixed 40 & Over 6.0 / 8.0 - San Diego
• Mixed 40 & Over 7.0 / 9.0 - Orlando
• 55 & Over 6.0 / 8.0 - Scottsdale

We see that every location is used each week except for San Diego skipping the third weekend.  And we see events are much more compressed with four to seven events each weekend.  In 2023, there were just two to four most weekends.

This means that some players that would go to multiple Nationals will have a lot harder time doing it this year.  Someone can still go to 18 & Over and 40 & Over at the same level as there is no overlap there (but they are nearly all consecutive weekends), but the schedule for Mixed makes it nearly impossible for someone to go at two levels in the same age division.  For example, in 2023, if you were a 4.0, you could have played 7.0 and 8.0 Mixed at either 18 & Over or 40 & Over as they were on different weekends.  That is no longer possible.

The main 18 & Over and 40 & Over Adult divisions are typically first and that remains the case, but are compressed down into nearly just two weekends (18 & Over 4.5 oddly is now the last weekend) instead of the typical four to five weekends.

Why was this done?  I'm not sure, but can guess the following contributed:

• USTA staff having to cover seven consecutive weekends of Nationals is a lot.
• Surprise was used for six consecutive weekends last year and may have wanted a reduced commitment.
• The USTA may have wanted to spread the Nationals experience around by reducing the ability for the same players to go to many events.
• The USTA wanted Orlando used every weekend of Nationals and it is hard to do so early in October with the chance of hurricanes.
• The USTA wanted to make it harder on me to get all my simulations and predictions done each weekend (just kidding).

Seriously, this will make it harder to follow along with many more events going on simultaneously.  I certainly will be busier if I try to pull of previews, simulations, and updates for all the events.

What do you think of this change?  Were Nationals too drawn out before and getting it all done in four weeks is better?  Or did you prefer the prior schedule?

It is 2024! What is going on with the 40 & Over format?

For my first post of 2024, I thought I'd take a look at how things are playing out with the court format in the 40 & Over division.

For those paying close attention or that read my post on the subject, you know that the National format for 40 & Over for 2024 is changing back to a 5-court format after several years of a 4-court format.  The 4-court format had some challenges, dealing with 2-2 ties for one, and was not very popular with many players, so the change back to 5-courts is welcome.

However, the change back did not just revert to the prior 2-singles / 3-doubles format, but instead is a 1-singles / 4-doubles format.  This is perhaps good for getting players matches, 9 line-up spots instead of 8, but doesn't address those wanting to play more singles.

Now, this change may not really be a change where you are.  Sections/districts/areas have always had the ability to run local leagues using alternate formats, and many do, and some planned to stick with 4-court or other formats for 2024.  It is still very early in 2024, but I thought I'd take an early look at what formats are being used.

Keep in mind that some leagues haven't started yet and I'm only looking at those that have started or at least have schedules up.  Also keep in mind that a given league may have multiple formats as sometimes lower or higher level flights will use a 3-court format to require fewer players.

With that said, as of today, there are 104 leagues that have flights continuing to use the 1-singles / 3-doubles format and just 42 that are using the National 1-singles / 4-doubles format.  There are even 9 choosing to use 2-singles / 3-doubles.  Still the 4-court format is far and away the most common.

And this isn't something where different sections have standardized on a format.  As of right now, only Eastern is using a single format (1-singles / 3- doubles) and there are others not using 1-singles / 4-doubles at all including Intermountain, Mid-Atlantic, Middle States, Midwest, Northern California, Pacific Northwest, Southern California, and Southwest, but all other than Eastern are using multiple formats.

I think this is an indication that the change in the regulations to a 4-court format was done late enough that many areas had already planned on continuing the format from 2023, or facilities prefer to not dedicate as many courts to USTA play keeping more available for other use.

What this means to players and teams is that as you progress through the season and advance in playoffs, the format used may change.  Local playoffs will likely use what was used in local league play, but come Districts, States, or Sectionals, you may need to field a line-up requiring more players, and certainly those that go to Nationals will have to use the 1-singles / 4-doubles format.  Keep that in mind as you recruiting players and get them matches to be qualified for post-season play.

What are you seeing in your area?  What reason have you been given for the format being used?