2026 USTA League Regulations - Changes to appeal rules

The USTA has published the 2026 USTA League Regulations and while there are not a lot of changes, there is an important one for players that advance to Sectionals or Nationals.

For as along as I remember, it has been well known, and the regulations have documented, that players that play at Nationals are not eligible to appeal their year-end rating.  Here is the specific language from the 2025 USTA League Regulations.

2.07 CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYERS.

A championship player’s computer rating achieved as a result of play in the Adult 18 & Over and Adult 40 & Over National Championships may not be appealed down after the Championship Year it is received except as in Reg. 2.05D Medical Appeals and Reg. 2.05E Age Related Appeals of Players 60 or Over.

Well, this has changed for 2026 to also include players that play at Sectionals.  Here is the new language with the key change bolded.

2.07 CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYERS.

A championship player’s computer rating generated as a result of play in the Adult 18 & Over and Adult 40 & Over Sectional or National Championships may not be appealed down after the Championship Year it is received except as in Reg. 2.05D Medical Appeals and Reg. 2.05E Age Related Appeals of Players 60 or Over.

This will significantly increase the number of players that won't be eligible to try to do an auto-appeal down when their year-end rating is published.

The last few years there have been over 400 teams and nearly 5,000 players on rosters and over 3,000 players that have played at 18 & Over and 40 & Over Nationals.  In 2024 I have just over 3,300 players playing at Nationals.

If we expand this to include Sectionals too, the numbers go way up.  Each of the 17 Sectionals will typically have five to nine teams at Sectionals for every gender and level and that is reflected in there being well over 3,000 teams, over 32,000 players rostered, and around 22,000 players playing at Sectionals or Nationals.  Specifically in 2024 I have just over 21,500 players playing at Sectionals or Nationals.

So with this rule change, there will be about 6.5 times more players not eligible to appeal their ratings.  Based  on how many players got computer ratings at the end of 2024, about 9.1% of players getting new C ratings won't be eligible to appeal, up from 1.4% of players under the prior rule.

I don't know this is the case, but I'm guessing this rule change was put in place to address complaints that the same players always go to Sectionals, and they are enabled by being able to appeal down and stay the same level.  But how many players took advantage of the old rule and actually appealed down?

It appears that for the last few years, of those players that were on a Sectionals roster but not Nationals, a little under 700 were able to appeal.  Of those that played, it is under 500 that were able to appeal.  And in 2024 there were around 17.6K that played at Sectionals and not Nationals, so just 2.4% were actually able to appeal.

So on the surface, it seems like a significant rule change, but when you look at the numbers, in practice it affects a very small number and percentage.

All that said, I do like the rule and since it doesn't affect that many players, it isn't that significant a change.

What do you think?

Note: The initial writing of this blog had slightly inflated numbers for the players at Sectionals and has been corrected above.

Unflighted Round-Robin Format - USTA Southern gets it!

I've written several times over the years how the Southern California section has deployed the unflighted round-robin format in less than ideal ways where undefeated teams can be left out of advancing to the semis/final, and it has happened, most recently just a month ago.

Well, I happened to be looking at how the Southern section uses the format and am pleased to acknowledge that Southern does it right!

The challenge SoCal has is they have too many teams, and too few matches.  Some of SoCal's flights have 18 teams, and then each one only plays three matches, which is a recipe for disaster.  SoCal isn't alone as Florida has deployed the format where two teams got left out, and even at Nationals where there are fewer teams (no more than 17), National makes sure the teams play four matches each which mitigates the risk of having too many undefeated teams, although a fifth has happened a couple times.

Southern on the other hand has no more than 9 teams, and even with half the teams SoCal may have they get each team four matches!  That accomplishes several things:

• Gets each team more matches and more playing time for players
• More fairly identifies the top teams as more teams play more opponents
• Virtually eliminates the chance of an undefeated team being sent home

When there are 8 or 9 teams in the flight, Southern takes the top-4 teams into a draw starting with semifinals and in this format, there is virtually no way of having a fifth 4-0 team.  But if there are fewer than 8 teams the take just the top-2 teams to a final.

In this latter case, there may be the potential for a third 4-0 teams in extreme cases, but instead of sticking their head in the sand and hoping it doesn't happen, Southern has a clause in the rules to handle it!

The clause reads:

In the rare instance that there are more undefeated teams than allowed in playoffs, an additional playoff match may be added to accommodate the extra undefeated team. (For example, there are three undefeated teams in a partial round robin group of seven teams after four team matches against randomly selected opponents. A playoff match between the #2 and #3 team, based on standings, may be added to determine which team is placed in the final playoff against the #1 team.)

I think this is perfectly reasonable, and is something I've written about and suggested to National staff be implemented, so am pleased to see Southern doing it.  Yes, it creates an extra match that has to be fit in somewhere, but I think that is eminently more fair than telling a 4-0 team, that may have gone 4-0 with the toughest schedule of the 4-0 teams and lost out on a courts, sets, or games tie-breaker as a result, that they don't advance.

To my knowledge, even National has not adopted a clause like this to address the possibility of sending an undefeated team home, so well done Southern for leading the way.

What do you think?  Should National and all sections adopt language like this in how they implement the format?