How much USTA League play is taking place in 2021? Is participation up in some areas?

As January 2021 comes to an end, we are far enough into the new year to take a look at how much USTA League is actually being played as various areas of the country deal with the coronavirus pandemic in different ways.

For reference, I'll be using last year, play was not suspended at all in January, and looking at league matches in the 18 & Over, 40 & Over, and 55 & Over divisions, as those schedules year to year are generally the same when there is no pandemic affecting schedules.

Using this criteria, in January 2020, there were 11,461 team matches scheduled and 10,554 played.  The difference of around 900, or about 8%, is likely due to matches needing to be rescheduled due to weather or various other reasons and is not to be unexpected in January.

In January 2021, there were 6,389 team matches scheduled, down 44%, and 5,486 played, down 48%.  Let's take a look at why these numbers are down.

The obvious answer on the scheduled matches being down is the pandemic and some leagues simply not being played.  This is certainly true, play in PNW is postponed until at least March, league play has not started in either California section, and Northern has not started play.  But there has been league play in other sections, somewhat to significantly lower than last year in Eastern, Hawaii, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and New England, and near or normal match counts for January in other sections, with a few are even up slightly including Florida, Intermountain, and Texas.

Florida and Texas are both warm weather areas that generally are able to play outdoors in the winter and haven't had the restrictions other states have had, so the play being slightly up in these sections would seem to indicate strong interest in league play, perhaps even a slight bump from folks getting back into tennis last year as it was an allowed activity.

Intermountain is interesting as the main leagues are played outdoors and don't start until Spring in much of the section, but Nevada can play outdoors in January so the modest bump would seem to be attributed to that district and again, may be to be due to increased interest in tennis.

Southern is also a warmer weather area, but much broader area and population so more subject to restrictions or delays in some states and is down about 17%.

But Southern is likely an indicator of another factor in the decreased play, that being areas where leagues are able to play at normal levels, some players are choosing not to play.  This may be because they didn't play much last year and feel they are rusty and don't want to spend league fees to play yet, or they may be cautious and don't want to play until the COVID numbers drop more or the vaccinations are more widely available and administered.  The long term question for USTA League is if these players will come back or not.

A good way to look at this factor is to look at the number of teams and players registered for a league.  An area that started later than normal in January will still have teams and players registered even if matches scheduled/played are down.  And teams/players in a league isn't affected by leagues not being played.

Here is a chart by section showing the percent increase/decrease in the teams per league and players per league.  Note, just 12 of the sections have played in January so that is why only they are shown.  I've also included the percentage increase/decrease in scheduled team matches and leagues as well.

Here we can see some pretty dramatic changes between 2020 and 2021.

Just four sections have shown any growth in the teams/players registered in a league, just Southwest and Intermountain showing significant growth, and Intermountain is represented by a single league in Las Vegas where play is up.

However, there are a full eight sections showing a significant decrease in the teams and players per league.  The greatest decrease is in Mid-Atlantic where participation is down over 75% for each metric, and Middle States, Eastern, and Texas are also significantly down.

Middle States is also interesting in that the number of leagues is up a bit, but matches and teams/players per league are down.

I should note that while comparing the same month from 2020 to 2021 does mean that generally the same leagues are being compared, but they aren't necessarily exactly the same, and that can be seen in the chart above with the leagues played in January increasing or decreasing so some differences can be attributed to differences in the leagues being played in January.

Does this mean USTA League play in several sections is dying, while a few sections are growing?  One certainly shouldn't make that leap based on comparing a single month from 2020 to 2021, but it reveals some trends that it is worthwhile following the remainder of the year.

What are you observing in your are?

With no USTA League 2020 year-end ratings, can you still appeal? Will you appeal? Let me know!

2020 has been a strange year in many ways, and USTA League tennis has not been immune from its share of strangeness.  Leagues suspended, Nationals canceled, and no 2020 year-end ratings are a few of the highlights, or should I say lowlights.

On that last point, we would normally have had year-end ratings published in the last few days and I'd be writing several blog articles a day with observations and analysis (like this or this), and players would be reacting to who was/wasn't bumped up or down, and scrambling to figure out the rosters for upcoming league play.

Some players unhappy with their year-end rating would also be appealing their rating as we speak.  These are players who were bumped up or down and didn't think should have been, or weren't and thought they should have been.

There are standard rules for auto-appeals and players can click a button on TennisLink and get that decision immediately, but does that still apply now?

As I understand it, the button still works, but the short answer is no you won't have an appeal granted if it wasn't when your rating was published, ... well ..., for the most part.

When you click the appeal button, it is appealing your most recent year-end rating to the hundredth, and with no new year-end ratings being published, that is unchanged so the response to appealing should be the same no matter how many times or when you click the button.  Except ...

My experience is that the USTA periodically changes the appeal rules or thresholds, and when they do that, the new rules go into TennisLink and are used when the appeal button is pressed, even if the rating being appealed was already denied under the old rules.

For example, there is a 2021 regulation change for players 70+ that says an appeal down will be automatically granted, subject to standard DQ rules for appealed players.  I've been told of a player who had appealed when 2019 ratings came out and was denied, but is 70+ and appealed again in the past week or so and had it granted, so this appears to be a case of new appeal rules being applied resulting in a granted appeal where it wasn't granted in the past.

Now, it is possible the USTA modified appeal rules/thresholds that are not public and published in the regulations, so if you want to appeal your rating and were denied in the past, now is probably the time to try again as it might work, but there is no guarantee, and if it doesn't work I doubt the answer will change until 2021 ratings are published (fingers crossed!) a year from now.

If you do click the appeal button, leave a comment or send me an e-mail with the result, particularly if it is granted.  Gathering this data helps me figure out what appeal rules are being applied.

So, what if your auto-appeal doesn't work?  Are you out of options?

For (perhaps) this year only, the answer is no, there is another option.  The USTA's COVID-19 FAQ has a Q/A regarding players who feel they are no longer playing at their published rating and a new option for a manual appeal.  Give what I wrote about it a few weeks ago a read for all the details.

So does this new manual appeal work?  I've heard of a few handful of players that have tried, and so far, all but one have been turned back by the section level appeal, and just one has been forwarded to National for review.  So it appears the criteria to be considered are pretty stringent, and in all likelihood very few players meet it and would have their appeal granted.

But again, if you contact your section to request this manual appeal, please let me know and the result either way.

USTA establishes new manual appeal criteria for 2020 year-end in lieu of publishing year-end ratings

The coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on everyone's life, including tennis players, in various ways.  For those that play USTA League, play was suspended and ultimately seasons canceled, Nationals were canceled, the decision was made to not publish year-end ratings, and even where play resumed, it has been suspended again in some areas.

On the subject of year-end ratings, from surveys I've done, most people wanted some form of year-end ratings to be published, but the USTA elected not to.  I wrote about the pros/cons of this, in my opinion there were a lot more cons, and offered suggestions on what should have been or could be done.  Others have written letters and contacted the USTA with their own suggestions.

Where this was in response to anything I or other wrote, I don't know, but somewhere along the way, the USTA's coronavirus FAQ was updated to reflect some modified appeal rules.  Specifically, this now appears:

Q: I have been playing matches during 2020 and believe that my match results reflect a different level of play.  Can I request a review of my rating based on my play history from 2020 play? 

A: Yes, players that have had at least 3 matches during 2020 and have generated at least 3 dynamic ratings may contact their Section to request a review.  The Section will review player details and send eligible players to National for review and processing.  It is important to note that players who request an appeal of their rating will receive an A rating type and will therefore be subject to Dynamic Disqualification or Promotion.  The eligibility guidelines for Appeals are proprietary, objective, and will be applied to all players submitting such Appeal requests.

This is nowhere close to actually publishing ratings and addressing all the issues that come with not doing so, but is an olive branch to those players that feel they are playing significantly above/below their level and should be at a higher/lower level for 2021 leagues.  Let's parse apart what exactly was said.

First, players must have played at least 3 matches and generated at least 3 dynamic ratings.  This is more or less what is normally required to get a new year-end rating, so makes sense that this be part of the criteria.

Second, this is not an auto-appeal like you can normally do after year-end ratings are published, but instead a player must contact their section to request a manual review.  See below for why (perhaps) they didn't make this the auto-appeal button on TennisLink.

Third, if a player is eligible after review by the section, it will be sent to National for review.  I think this is important, this is not something a section decides but rather they just determine eligibility and send to National.  Although, by determining eligibility, they can in effect not-grant it if they choose not to forward to National.

Fourth, players whose appeal is granted will be marked as an 'A' and thus subject to 3-strike DQs.  This makes perfect sense.

Fifth, and what I bolded above, eligibility guidelines are proprietary and objective and will be applied to all players.  This makes sense, but what does it really mean?  The proprietary part means they aren't telling us :). But objective and applied to all seems clear but is it?

Note, I believe players could always request a manual appeal and make their case so being able to do so is not new, but having it granted typically required extenuating circumstances or permanent medical issues.

Now, it appears there are specific and objective criteria that will be applied to all players.  If it is specific and objective and applied to all players, I don't know why they couldn't just make the auto-appeal button on TennisLink do it, perhaps it was just to reduce the number of people that do it as it is more work to find out who to contact and do it.  They very well may still have an influx of requests and with reduced staff wish it was an automated system.

However, note the word "guidelines".  That is somewhat at odds with "objective" and "applied to all players" as it sounds like they are just guidelines and the folks at a section can still review and determine which to send to National.  The reason for this is perhaps to weed out edge cases or situations where players have tanked matches and the section has more knowledge about this to know if the appeal should be reviewed by National.

Note, I have no issue with there being a manual review if it is to weed out sandbaggers who shouldn't have an appeal down granted.  I just hope sections and National are prepared for the volume of appeal requests they are going to receive.

Note also, players don't just appeal down, some do appeal up as they have improved and feel the system hasn't kept up and they want the challenge of playing at the higher level.  These players can always play up, but some like the validation of the rating by their name (even with the 'A').

My view is that, for 2020 at least, this is a good thing.  Players that are way out of level, too high or low, are not good for league play and in the absence of just publishing ratings to get the majority of players to the right level, this at least provides a way to get a subset addressed.  Without knowing the criteria, hard to say how well it will work though.

What do you think?  Are these what appear to be new, and perhaps only, for 2020 appeal rules appropriate and fair?  Are you likely to submit an appeal and try it out?

If you do submit an appeal, I'd love to hear from you and what the process is like and what response you get.  As always, I'll share what I learn (anonymously) and also write more as I hear more.

Unhappy with indoor tennis restrictions in Washington? Sign this petition!

Earlier this week, amid increasing COVID-19 numbers, the State of Washington Governor's office reintroduced restrictions on various indoor activities, including closing indoor activities at athletic clubs, meaning folks in Seattle and other parts of Washington are unable to play indoor tennis, and with temperatures in the 40s and periodic rain, we aren't playing outside either.

USTA League play in Seattle was wrapping up with 55 & Over playoffs just finishing in time (completed this past Sunday) but 18 & Over Mixed now having to be tentatively rescheduled for January.

I, among others, use tennis as their primary form of exercise in the winter here and not having it is more than an inconvenience, it can significantly affect one's well being.  The COVID-19 pandemic is certainly something to be taken seriously and certain restrictions may make sense, but evidence seems to show that when managed with the appropriate protocols and social distancing before and after play, tennis can be a safe activity with very low risk of transmitting the corona virus.

If you agree indoor tennis should not be a restricted activity, please express your support for an on-line petition to Allow safe, socially distanced indoor tennis in Washington!  As of this writing, 2,197 supporters have signed this petition and it is growing quickly.

Thanks to Diane Tien for getting this started!  Let's see how many signatures we can get!

It is 2020, anything could happen, could the NTRP as we know it be going away?

Preface: This post is highly speculative, but is based on a little reading of the tea leaves and I think could happen, so it is worth the speculation to think about.

The NTRP system has been around for many years, far longer than I've been playing USTA League, and has gone through a variety of algorithm changes and periodic mass adjustments, but in general has worked very well for promoting competitive adult recreational competition.

But in the last few years, NTRP has been under increasing pressure from UTR, particularly with junior, collegiate, and lower level pro tournaments.  This is where UTR started and is strong, and while the USTA introduced the Junior NTRP, it is different and not connected to Adult NTRP and it appears has not gained the traction UTR has, at least in this segment.

The U in UTR is "Universal" and to be truly universal one has to have results from all matches, and UTR is aiming to do that and for the past few years has been scraping USTA matches from TennisLink and including them in their calculations.  This is where UTR is differentiated from NTRP, in that it calculates ratings for USTA League players plus all the juniors and collegiate players it always has, and includes ATP, WTA, and other pro tour matches, and I'm sure more.  One can debate how well UTR accomplishes a single universal rating with what are almost certainly disconnected populations of players, but the USTA with NTRP doesn't even attempt to incorporate matches outside of USTA play.

Perhaps in response to UTR, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) along with other governing bodies from the United States (USTA), England (LTA), and France (FFT) launched plans for the World Tennis Number (WTN) about a year ago.  I wrote my observations on the WTN after that.  The original press release called for WTN to be live in late 2019 and launched in participating organization's countries in 2020, but the WTN site still says "Coming Soon ...".

Another interesting connection here is that the ITF has contracted with Club Spark to build the platform for WTN, which happens to be the same company working on what is believed to be the replacement for TennisLink (and more).  What appears to be some of the "and more" is even live today at https://playtennis.usta.com.

So, if participating countries are to be adopting it soon, what about the USTA and NTRP?

With the same company that is implementing WTN also building the new TennisLink, it might seem easy for the USTA to perhaps decide to give NTRP a "make over" and just switch to using the WTN.  With the WTN being on a completely different scale (40 to 1 rather than effectively 2.0 to 7.0) this would seem to be a pretty radical change and a risky thing to do with a large population of adult league and tournament players used to the NTRP system.

It is possible the USTA would phase the WTN in, either publishing in parallel or using it for various segments of play, perhaps starting with juniors, then moving on to collegiate players and lower level pro-tour events, all to be aligned with the ITF and other countries and their use of the WTN.  In this scenario, it might find its way to USTA league and tournament players later, or again published in parallel to get people used to it.

This is where it gets interesting though.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated cancelation of many USTA leagues, nearly every Sectionals, and Nationals, the USTA decided to not publish year-end NTRP ratings for 2020.  I understand there may have been some within the USTA that wanted to go ahead and publish, but they were overruled.  In fact, rumor has it some changes have been made regarding the group responsible for NTRP ratings oversight within the USTA so changes appear to be afoot.

As part of this change, is it possible the USTA didn't want to publish 2020 year-end ratings because a switch to use WTN is coming in 2021 and it would be confusing to players to have just published year-end ratings in 2020 when rolling out a new system in 2021?  By not publishing 2020 year-end ratings might we see WTN rolled out by the end of 2021 and league play in 2021 while be NTRP's swan song?

I obviously don't know the answer, only those at the USTA do and perhaps even the USTA hasn't made final decisions on if and when changes are made.  But we've been waiting for a new TennisLink for years, and it just feels like it finally arriving, the launch of WTN, and the same company doing both, we could have a big bang of change coming in 2021, perhaps for 2022 league play.

What do you think?  How would you receive a change to the rating system used for tournament and league play?

What will the effects of no 2020 year-end ratings be? And what might my dynamic rating be now?

The USTA announced yesterday that there will be no 2020 year-end ratings.  Due to the suspension of play earlier this year during the COVID-19 pandemic, they elected to just "punt" and make one long 2020/2021 season instead of figuring out a way to publish ratings for those players that were able to play.

In my opinion, this is unfortunate for a number of reasons, but the decision deserves a full analysis of all the pros and cons and potential effects it will have.

2020 teams can stay intact for 2021

One obvious effect is that players will stay at their current level, and thus be able to continue to play on the same teams they were on for 2020.  I believe a number of players and captains had the view that a team was formed for 2020 and the opportunity taken away to "fulfill the dream" of playing a full season together and seeing how far they could advance, so it is only fair to leave ratings alone and let those players and teams have another go at it.

This can be seen as a pro or a con depending on your perspective as this has other effects as noted below.  But this is arguably the only pro in the list of effects even in its limited form.

Self-rated players at wrong level

The effect on self-rated players will be significant as none of those that played in 2020 will get year-end ratings and thus will remain self-rated.  On the surface, that may not seem like that big a deal, but when you drill in there are several side-effects to it.

To understand the effects, we need to look at what typically happens with self-rates.  In 2019, there were over 41K self-rates that got a 2019 year-end rating.  Of these, 63% stayed the same level, 23% were bumped up, and 14% bumped down.  This means that had the USTA not published year-end ratings in 2019 and self-rated players stayed the same level, 37% or over 15,000 players would be playing at the wrong level the following year, and over 9,500 of those playing at too low a level.

Now, in 2020 with the suspension of play, self-rated players will have played less and a lower number of them gotten the three matches in required to get a year-end rating.  My stats show that just under 16K self-rated players have played enough in 2020 to have gotten a 2020 year-end rating were those to be published.  With another month and a half of play before the normal year-end, this number may go up a bit, but we'll use 16K.

If 37% of those 16K should have been bumped up or down, that is nearly 6K players that will be out of level for 2021.  Of those:

• Over 2K will be "stuck" at too high a level and perhaps choose to not play anymore since they weren't bumped down
• Nearly 4K will be able to play at too low a level for the ability they've demonstrated

This should all be "fixed" at the end of 2021, but for 2021 something close to the above will be the situation throughout the year.  Whether these number are alarming or not and represent a competitive (dis)advantage or not may be debatable, but I think they are an issue and will lead existing players to be unhappy about their league experience when they have to play these 4K players that are playing below what their level should be.

Note, the above numbers do not include any new self-rates for 2021 that may also be out of level one way or the other, at least later in the year as they improve.

In the end though, I don't think the situation this causes is a good thing and is arguably a con.

Existing players at the wrong level

Self-rated players are far more volatile with their ratings than established players, but there is still change from year to year for existing players so the effect of their not moving needs to be looked at.

In 2019, about 85% of established players stayed the same level, 5% were bumped down, and 10% bumped up.  With fewer matches played, fewer players would be in a position to be bumped up or down, but using my ratings, it appears about 5% of players would be in line to be bumped up and 2.5% bumped down.

This means that for 2021, these 7.5% of players will be out of level, and similar to the self-rates, those that should be lower may decide not to play where they aren't competitive, and those that should be higher get to unfairly prey on lower rated opponents.

If you don't believe this can be significant, here is a chart from my Estimated Dynamic Rating Report showing how a player has improved this year.

This is a player who started the year as a strong 4.0, but is now far closer to being a 5.0 than even a 4.5, but per the USTA's decision, they will remain a 4.0 for 2021.  Does that make sense?

Note that I picked a particularly egregious case to show, but there are a lot more that are still too high and should be bumped up.

I think leaving established players at their old level is a con, albeit perhaps not a huge one given the relatively small percentage, although the actual number is around 11K rated too low and 5.7K too high.  Add with the self-rated numbers, and that means about 15K players playing at a level below where they should be and 8K stuck at too high a level.  That is not insignificant.

Self-rated players managing their rating

As I understand it, a player's matches from 2020 will count towards their dynamic rating and 2021 year-end rating, and as noted above, nearly 4K of them will enter 2021 with a rating that is too high for their self-rate level.  It is possible they are even carrying strikes from 2020 (although I'm not certain these will carry over or not).

Now, this is probably a good thing in that if they really are out of level they are well on their way to getting a 3-strike DQ and being promoted up a level which "fixes" the problem noted above.  However, we all know there are captains that follow their self-rated player's performance closely and they may encourage their player to manage their rating to avoid getting disqualified.

Managing ratings is never a good thing as it keeps players at the wrong level and can make a mockery of matches that are played and reduce the satisfaction a player has from league play.  It can also wreak havoc with ratings giving a player too much credit for a result when they beat a higher rated player that is tanking the match.

So I think this effect is definitely a con.

Players trying to achieve a goal unfulfilled

The vast majority of USTA League players play for fun, to have competitive matches against similar skilled players and aren't fixated on Nationals or forming a super team, etc.  Many of these may be looking to improve and achieve a goal and be looking to be bumped up.  That goal will go unfulfilled for 2020 as their only official validation is the year-end rating that will now not be published.

The good news is that those that want to get an idea of where they stand, and at a minimum see what direction their rating is going, can do so by getting one of my Estimated Dynamic Rating Reports.  These reports given an estimate of where your dynamic rating is and gives a lot of insight into your rating and how it has changed and statistics to help you identify what is and isn't working.  I've continued to do these all year and these can be a great way to fill in the gap from no year-end ratings from the USTA.  Contact me if you are interested in getting a report.


By my analysis, the only good thing from the decision to not publish 2020 year-end ratings is that teams get to stick together for 2021.  I wrote this months ago and pointed out some of the above issues when I did my analysis and recommendation on what the USTA should do.  I also included a poll where just 22% voted for not publishing at all like the USTA did.

Is allowing 2020 teams to stick together for 2021 really a good idea given all the other issues?  Did the USTA make a mistake and just take the easy path in making this decision?


Update: Based on feedback to this blog and what I've heard, I wrote up more comments and reaction here.

Breaking News! - USTA National announces decision regarding 2020 year-end NTRP ratings

USTA League play was suspended for several months earlier this year due to COVID-19, and subsequently the USTA announced there would be no USTA League Nationals in 2020.

With a limited number of matches played, and no Nationals, a natural question was what would the USTA do with year-end ratings for 2020?  I wrote my thoughts on the subject awhile ago, but today the USTA sent an e-mail out to members with their decision and plan for year-end ratings.

From the e-mail:

"While the NTRP system remains sound, given all of the impacts COVID-19 has had on play, the USTA has made the difficult decision not to run or publish year-end NTRP ratings for 2020."

So there you have it.  There will be no year-end ratings for 2020.  Players will not be bumped up or down from their 2019 level.

I was hoping this wouldn't be the result, I think there are issues with this that will cause problems in 2021 and could have been addressed as I noted earlier, but they took the easy course of action to just not publish ratings.

The USTA did publish an FAQ, a few key notes from there:

• Players will use their most current valid NTRP level for 2021.  If their most current level has now expired, they will be required to self-rate again.
• Self-rated players will remain self-rated, or have to self-rate again if their S rating is over 2 years old.
• DQ's from 2020 will still apply, these players do not revert to their pre-DQ rating.
• Appealed 2019 year-end ratings remain as they were appealed.
• Matches played in 2020 will count towards the 2021 year-end ratings.

A few specific issues I see with this decision are:

• Players on their way down that should have been bumped down based on their results won't be and perhaps will choose not to play in 2021 because they can't compete at their carry over level.
• Players on their way up that should have been bumped up based on their results won't be and will get to prey on opponents at the lower level.
• Self-rated players will remain self-rated which is both unfulfilling for them, but given that a large percent of self-rates have their rating change after their first year means this large percentage will now be at the wrong level for 2021.
• Players with an expiring rating will now have that rating expire and become self-rated.

The net result is there will perhaps be more self-rated players than normal, and a larger number of players playing out of level one way or the other.  I think this could have been mitigated by at least calculating year-end ratings for self-rates, but could also have calculated year-end ratings for those players that got enough matches in and/or played enough prior to the suspension of play.

We will see how 2021 goes.  What do you think of the decision?

Update: I did an analysis on the effects and pros/cons of the decision here.

USTA gets rid of membership fees! ... For Juniors and Organizations ...

I just received an e-mail from the USTA, and expect all members did, outlining some changes to memberships, including the elimination of membership fees for some!  Unfortunately, for the majority of those reading this blog who play Adult leagues and tournaments, your membership fees did not go away 😢.

From the e-mail:

Starting now, you can become a USTA Junior member at no cost. Juniors can now sign up to play in a USTA sanctioned tournament or league without first having to purchase a USTA membership.

So Juniors no longer have to be members to play in tournaments or leagues.

Continuing:

USTA Adult and Senior membership will still come at the same standard cost, but we are working on enhanced benefits, better discounts and more value with your membership.

So no change for Adults, but more value to be coming.

Continuing:

If you deliver tennis, USTA Organization Membership will be at no cost starting in early 2021. Similar to our customer membership, we will be consolidating benefits you can access at no cost, as well as incentives and rewards that you get simply for growing the game.

So organization membership is no-cost as well.

Something many of you are probably also wondering is if anything will be done regarding a credit for membership for 2020 since in all areas leagues and tournaments were suspended for several months, and some play has still not restarted.  I have not heard one way or another on that subject.

Where is the love for the Adults that play leagues and tournaments?  Enhanced benefits sounds nice, but those are often benefits that many players don't find that valuable.  But perhaps we'll be surprised.

I think it is great that juniors can play in leagues and tournaments without being a member, eliminating that barrier makes sense especially right now as parents may be struggling financially if they have been impacted by COVID-19.

It also makes sense that organizations can be members at no-cost as the USTA wants facilities to be affiliated and offer USTA programs.

But I'd think something is appropriate for Adult members too, at least rolling over the 2020 membership to 2021 as a good faith gesture to encourage players to come back as leagues and tournaments get going again.

What do you think?

USTA NorCal cancels all remaining 2020 and early start 2021 leagues

USTA League play has resumed in the majority of sections in one form or another.  NorCal was an exception with the plan being to resume play in September, but the section just notified players that is no longer the case and all 2020 Adult League play has been canceled.

In addition, a few areas normally have early start leagues in the Fall for the following year, and all of those 2021 leagues have been postponed.

I'm sure this was a hard decision, but one forced by the situation with COVID-19 and current restrictions in California.  You might ask how is SoCal playing some matches?  Play there is very limited and only in some areas, and there may be local rules allowing or restricting play, and it appears NorCal thought trying to play in some areas and not others, or having to adapt as restrictions play was not in the best interest of league play.

"With state, county and city orders and guidelines changing and potentially becoming more restrictive than the last without notice, the number of temporary rule changes, continuous play adjustments and the resulting disruption would not allow for the player-friendly and inviting league experience the Adult League Department aims for."

While it appears Flex Leagues are available for play, the plan is for play to resume for 2021 at the beginning of the year, but that of course is subject to change.

Stay safe everyone.

Will there be 2020 USTA League year-end ratings? Still to be determined 😕

USTA League play was suspended for several months, and even though it has resumed in a number of areas, there will be no Nationals this year, and in most sections it appears Sectionals and lower rounds of playoffs may not happen either.

A natural question then becomes, what will happen with year-end ratings for 2020?  I wrote my thoughts on the subject a couple months ago and have asked questions and been on the lookout for any indication of what might happen, but heard today that the USTA has not made a decision one way or the other yet.

There are pros and cons to publishing ratings, although I fall on the side of seeing more pros in doing the publishing, at least on a limited basis.  I did run a poll in my earlier post and here are the results as I write this today.

While there is not a clear cut consensus, it does seem more players are wanting ratings calculated than not, with 63% wanting them calculated, perhaps with limited matches and/or more lenient appeal thresholds.  Just 22% voted an outright no, with another 14% with qualified no's.

It may be the USTA knows, or at least has a good idea, what they will do and is just waiting to announce so that leagues are played with a little doubt to prevent all out tanking of matches in the event matches played now do count.  For now though, we wait and see.

For what is is worth, I got this news indirectly via an NTRP Ratings webinar National (Heather Hawkes) put on for NorCal.  Thanks to my NorCal readers for the info and it is good to see National is continuing with this webinar series which Heather has been doing across all the sections the past few years.

Is USTA Tennis back for 2020? Where league matches are being played during the COVID-19 pandemic

When COVID-19 hit the US this Spring, tennis was hit hard with play at all levels and disciplines suspended or impacted.  The USTA suspended all sanctioned play for several months and canceled USTA League Nationals, but even upon resumption left it up to sections on how and when to resume.

This has led to varying degrees of resumption, so I thought I'd take a look to see where league matches are being played.  In rough order of matches played since May it is:

• Southern
• Intermountain
• Midwest
• Texas
• Missouri Valley
• Mid-Atlantic
• <the above all over 1000 team matches played>
• Southwest
• Florida
• Eastern
• Northern
• Middle States
• Pacific Northwest
• Southern Cal
• New England
• Hawaii

The only sections missing are NorCal and Caribbean, my understanding is NorCal is looking to resume league play in September.

So play has resumed, Southern and Intermountain are each over 4,000 team matches played.

How is play where you are?  Are you playing league matches?  Are you holding off to be safe?

USTA National reorganizes resulting in layoffs and an office closure

ESPN reported today that the USTA has gone through a reorganization that has cut about 20% of their staff (110) and will result in the office in White Plains, NY closing.

The reorganization has been in the works since 2018 but was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact to date and I'm sure potential impact to the US Open, which is the main revenue generator for the USTA.

It appears those impacted may have leaned towards those over the age of 50 and with 15 or more years experience, as in the past few weeks those staff were reportedly offered "voluntary departure" with a pretty generous severance.  The story does not say if the severance received for those ultimately let go was the same or not.

Regardless of who is impacted, it is sad to see, but perhaps not a surprise that the USTA is not immune to what is affecting nearly every other organization.

I have no insight into where the cuts were and what it means to USTA League or any other adult programs, which is probably what the majority of my readers care about.  Note of course that this reorganization is specifically about USTA National.  Each section is its own organization and whether or not there are cuts or changes at those levels is separate, but perhaps related as funding from National may be changing going forward.

More USTA sections lay out plans for resuming League play - PNW and NorCal

Most areas in the country a re beginning to reopen, and with that USTA sections are laying out plans for resuming USTA League play.

In my section, Pacific Northwest, all normal/advancing league play has been canceled but a Summer Social League is planned and teams are starting to form.  It is an 18 & Over Mixed league using a similar format to the recently new 18-39 Coed league, that being World Team Tennis like format.

In this format a team match consists of six no-ad set matches, first to six games wins, a 9-point tie-breaker played at 5-5.  The team match will be played on two courts with men's/women's doubles first, men's and women's singles next, and two courts of mixed doubles last.

There are a variety of WTT like rules including playing lets on serves, substitutions during a set, and coaching being allowed.  See this for the full rules including guidelines for Covid-19 conscious line-up exchanges and play with everyone serving with their own balls.

The matches will not count for ratings, and the league will run from July 17 thru August 30.  The goal is 4-6 matches per team, and a team could form with just four players.

The other big news is the league is free!  Well, sort of.  You still have to register on TennisLink and it will charge its $3 fee.  Guest fees at clubs will still apply as well.

PNW has also earlier stated that 2021 early start leagues are planned as normal for this Fall.

Northern California has also notified players of their plans for resuming play, an update from their prior plans.  They plan to open registrations for Adult 18 & Over, Adult 40 & Over, and Mixed 55 & Over at the in June.

Adult 18 & Over will replace the normal Fall Combo league and play from August 10 thru October 4, with local playoffs and even Sectionals finishing up in mid-November.  Players already registered for the earlier planned 18 & Over will receive a credit to be automatically applied to a future registration.

The 40 & Over league was in session so needs to be finished and will do so from August 3 thru 30 working towards Sectionals October 9 thru 11.

Mixed 55 & Over also needs to complete play and will do so September 14 thru October 4, Sectionals in early November.

It appears Tri-Level is planned as a weekend event in late October, and Adult 65 & Over is still TBD with a. survey forthcoming.


What is happening in your area?  Do you plan to play or sit out the remainder of 2020?

Resuming USTA League play now up to individual sections and districts

The USTA originally issue a statement suspending sanctioned events including USTA League, through May 3 this year, then extended it through May 31.  The logical question was, would it be extended yet again?

It appears the answer is no, there will not be a blanket extension of the suspension and it will be up to each section or district to determine how to begin sanctioned play again for USTA League and other team, junior, and social events.  National events including Pro and other ITF related events remain suspended through July 31 in line with the ITF and ATP suspensions of play.

This is based on a statement from USTA Southern yesterday, where they state:

Beginning June 1, the suspension of USTA Sanctioned products and events noted below will now be at the discretion of the USTA Sections and local health authorities. USTA Southern is passing the decision on to our nine State Associations and local health authorities.

Perhaps sections had this information prior to this announcement and were making plans to resume events in June, but June 1 is just 5 days away now so sections may be scrambling to come up with plans, but hopefully they had tentative plans that are ready to go if they deem it appropriate and local rules allow resumption of play.

Stay tuned for announcements from sections.  What are you hearing in your area?

And as play resumes, be sure to read my thoughts on 2020 year-end ratings and vote in the poll there.

Note: National has a link with the same content as Southern here.

Poll: What should the USTA do about 2020 year-end NTRP ratings?

COVID-19 has made this a strange year in many ways and USTA League play is no exception.

USTA League Nationals has been canceled, and with that, some sections have decided to cancel Sectionals and other playoffs leading up to those.  With varying levels of playoffs being played, the need to play regular season leagues varies too.

In some areas, play started and a regular season was mostly but not completely finished.  Some of these areas are planning to resume play and complete the season, but others have already said it is canceled.

Other areas may have completed a regular season, but did not get to playoffs yet.

And many areas, for one or more leagues, didn't even get started yet, and it is questionable if matches will ever be played.  Some areas are planning to begin play when allowed for at least a few leagues

Those that do start or resume play may do so with revised formats, some dropping to 3 courts to make more available for more matches, others choosing to play 5 courts instead of 4 (as was the new rule for 40 & Over this year) since it won't be leading up to Nationals.

Many players are just wanting to be able to play again.  I know in my area clubs are just beginning to re-open with restricted rules, but players are flocking to public courts seeking out an opportunity to play.  Will these players want to get back to playing USTA League?  Or with the season disrupted to they not feel the need?

Regardless, there have been and will be more USTA League matches played this year, and as such a big question becomes, what will the USTA do with 2020 year-end NTRP ratings?

Some players played a fair number of league matches as originally planned, and as such have played enough to ordinarily get a new year-end rating.  Those areas that resume/begin play will only add to this total.  So even without Nationals or other playoffs leading up to that, there is sufficient match play to calculate ratings.

But, year-end ratings normally factor in Nationals and how sections and specific players did there as part of their benchmark calculations.  These are an important part of ratings, to help balance things across all of the sections to try to make sure that a 3.5 in Mid-Atlantic is relatively the same as a 3.5 in Northern California.  In the absence of Nationals, what should be done?

One approach would be to just throw 2020 out as if it never happened, and have players just keep their 2019 (or prior if they didn't have a 2019) year-end rating and use it for 2021.  This has some merit, teams were formed and never had a chance to play or finish a season, this approach would let those teams stay as-is for 2021 and get their chance then.

Another approach is to go ahead and calculate 2020 year-end ratings for those that played enough matches with an alternate approach to doing so.  This could simply be using a player's final dynamic rating, or some other factors could be included in the absence of Nationals.

The problem with the first approach is that player's abilities do change year to year as players practice and improve, or as they get older and skills diminish.  Throwing out 2020 completely means there is no chance for any of these changes to be reflected.  It would seem that if a player played the minimum 3 matches to get a new year-end rating, they should get one so if their game improved or declined, that can be reflected and they play at the appropriate level for 2021.

This is especially true for self-rated players.  If they get the requisite 3 matches in, why should they have to stay self-rated for 2021 leagues?  About 35% of all self-rates in a given year are bumped up or down at year-end, so it would seem to be a big miss if all of these players remained self-rated.  You would have a significant number of players who should have been bumped up and get to play too low a level, or another significant group that lost badly in 2020 and are stuck having to play at too high a level.

Appeal players are also a group that one could argue should get a new year-end rating.  These players had a higher or lower rating but were close enough to appeal.  If their rating has leapt up or down from the matches they did play in 2020, that would seem to be a pretty strong data point saying the appeal was perhaps not appropriate and they really should be at the higher or lower level.

Personally, I think there should be 2020 year-end ratings and all players that played 3 matches should get one.  I think there are more problems from players playing with ratings that are based on results from 18+ months ago than there are for 2020 teams not having had their chance to play a full season.

Now, the dark side of league play is that some players that know their remaining matches will count will use them to tank matches to try and offset good results from earlier in the year to stay at their level, or try to get bumped down.  If this is a significant concern, the USTA could elect to only use matches played prior to the suspension of play.  This still seems more reasonable to me than throwing out the whole year.

Note that even if all matches played are used, and certainly if only those played prior to the suspension count, there will be a lot of players that don't end up playing 3 matches and have their 2019 rating carry over anyway.  It just seems wrong to not use matches played in good faith for those that did play, especially for self-rated players.

For reference, in the 2019 rating year, there were just under 134K team matches played in 18/40 & Over leagues.  So far in 2020, just under 35K have been played.  Thirty-five thousand is a significant number, but about 25% of what might have been played had 2020 been a normal year.  This means, a lot of players will stay the same for 2020 anyway, no need to throw all of 2020 out to accomplish that.

But what do you think?  To get your feedback, I've set up a poll with a number of options, please vote as I'm genuinely curious what people think in general.

Should the USTA publish 2020 year-end NTRP ratings?

Yes - Just use year-end dynamic rating if played 3 or more matches

Yes - Figure out a "Nationals-less" benchmark calculation

Yes - But give more lenient appeal thresholds

Yes - But only use matches played prior to the suspension of play

Yes/No - Only do it for self-rates and appeals, not for everyone else

Yes/No - Only do it for self-rates, not for everyone else

No - Publish no new ratings, everyone carries over from 2019

Other

Please Specify:

Created with Quiz Maker

PNW surveys players on 40 & Over league - Voice your opinion!

There was a lot of angst and discussion about USTA National's move to a 4-court format for 40 & Over in 2020 and most sections following suit.  General feedback I heard, and survey's I did, revealed the vast majority of players didn't like the format for a variety of reasons.

I've heard that some sections as they plan to resume play for 2020 are going back to a 5-court format for 40 & Over since there are no Nationals and in most cases no Sectionals or other playoffs, as this gives more opportunity to play and I think sections heard that player's didn't like the 4-court format.

In my section, Pacific Northwest, we were promised a survey after the season, and while the seasons in most districts were stopped short, in Seattle we got all but one weekend of regular season play in, and since none of the leagues are being resumed, the season is over and we have our survey!

I just took the survey, and here is what was asked along with my answers and thoughts.

Player, captain, or did not play?

I did not captain this year, was only a player.  It will be interesting to see if they break the results out by player vs captain and how different they are.


Did you like the 4-court format with 1 singles and 3 doubles?

I did not like it for all the reasons I've written about before.


Which match format do you prefer for the Adult 40 League 3.0-4.5+ levels?   (pick 1st/2nd of)

• 1 singles / 4 doubles
• 1 singles / 2 doubles
• 2 singles / 3 doubles
• 3 doubles
• 2 singles / 2 doubles
• 1 singles / 3 doubles

This is a reasonable question and has numerous options, so hopefully the bad math National used to move to a 4-court format doesn't happen again.  It does offer two 5-court formats, two 4-court formats, and two 3-court formats.  It is light on singles with just two options having 2 singles courts and one having no singles.

I picked 2S/3D as my first choice because I think that is the right combination of singles and doubles and gets 8 players in a match and has an odd number of courts so team wins are clear.

My second choice was 1S/4D.  I struggled with this as I hate to drop to just 1 singles court, but the only other 2 singles court option was 4 courts which is even and I don't like, and only gets 6 players in a match which I don't like.

Which team match scoring method do you think works best for this league for 3.0-4.5+ levels?

• Team wins (if even courts, normal tie-breakers ultimately 1D winner the last breaker)
• Points per position

I chose team wins as my preferred.  Teams are, well, teams, and I think each match having a winner based on courts is important.  I did comment that I do prefer PPP if it is an even court format as I don't like the tie-breakers used to break 2-2 ties.

Should Points Per Position continue to be used in the Pacific NW?

I answered it should be if a league uses an even court format, otherwise it should not.

What is your first choice for some Points Per Position options?

• Three options for 1S / 3D listed along with other/comment
• 3321
• 1211
• 2221

This is an impossible question, and three options is pretty slim given the infinite possibilities.  They also focused on just 1S / 3D, which I guess you have to lest this explode with all the permutations.  I picked 3321 of these simply because I believe PPP should give more weight to court 1 and go down from there, and that is the only option that does that.

All in all, a reasonable survey.  I look forward to seeing the results and how the section interprets them.

If you play in PNW, please do take the survey yourself.  You should have received an e-mail from the section with a link.  If not, reach out to your League Coordinator or drop me a note.

A few COVID-19 Updates: Some courts opening, more play canceled including Southern Sectionals

It has been a few weeks since I posted an update, mainly because there hasn't been much to report on.  But enough time has passed, that there are a few things worth discussing.

First, many areas are beginning to slowly re-open and tennis courts that were closed are starting to be made available again.  In my area most high school and other public courts were closed, and players had to scrounge to find the few private or community courts that were still open.  Thankfully, a couple weeks ago as phase 1 of reopening begin some high school courts were opened, and they have been mostly flooded with players, many from my club (it is about a mile away).  However, my club remain closed.

That changes later this week though as tennis clubs are being allowed to reopen, it seems for just tennis.  My club is a health club with a pool as well and only tennis is being opened and with these rules:

• Court times will be 1 hour and 15 minutes with a 15 minute changeover period [we are normally 90 minute court times]. You must exit the court when your court time is up.
• Singles play only. The only exception for doubles play is immediate family members living under the same household.
• Maintain the 6-foot social distancing requirement.
• Please go directly to your court and avoid socializing before or after.
• No bathrooms will be available.
• All garbage cans, benches, and scorecards have been removed.
• No towels or water will be accessible (please bring your own).

This is a step forward and will ease the burden on local high school and other public courts.

What about USTA League play?  Several sections have outlined plans to begin play again, I wrote about Southern California having a plan to resume and even play Sectionals, while Pacific Northwest threw in the towel on 2020 leagues and will just begin league play with our 2021 early start leagues in the Fall.

Other sections have been trying to map out plans to complete leagues and even get playoffs in, but Southern has canceled most Sectionals (18/40/55/65/Mixed/Combo) and I wouldn't be surprised to see more follow suit.

What is going on in your area?  Are courts and facilities reopening?  Is there a plan to get league play going again in June or July?

ALTA opens registration for Summer 2020, tentative schedule published

Organized tennis has been suspended in the United States for a couple months now, but some areas have announced plans for restarting leagues, and ALTA has joined those doing so.

Right or wrong, some states are opening for business more quickly than others and Georgia is one of those on the quicker route, and as a result ALTA notified members in an e-mail that registration for Summer leagues on Monday May 4.

Now, that doesn't mean play begins right away, leagues don't actually start until mid/late June, specifically:

• Senior Women - June 18 - July 30
• Senior Men - June 19 - July 31
• Mixed Doubles - June 20 - August 1

The e-mail does not that the dates are subject to change, but there is at least something to look forward to for Atlanta area players.

USTA SoCal outlines tentative schedule for the remainder of 2020 - Will you plan to play?

We know the USTA has suspended play through May 31.  We also know that National has canceled USTA League Nationals for 2020.  I also hypothesized what a continuation of league play may look like, but we haven't had much concrete information on what actually will happen, in large part due to the unknown of when play will resume.

The Pacific Northwest did announce that 40 & over would not be completed, nor would 18 & Over or Mixed 40 & Over be played, and correspondingly all Sectionals were being canceled.  There will be a free "Welcome Back to Tennis" league in the Summer, and Fall Early Start Leagues for 2021 are still scheduled to begin as planned.

I just learned that Southern Cal has tentative plans for resuming play, and they are going to try to finish and play all scheduled leagues.  This was from the San Fernando Area but mentions Sectionals, so seems to be applicable for the whole section:

• Adult 18 & Over will start the 2nd or 3rd week of June  and play through October 9.  All levels will play 1 court of singles and 2 courts of doubles
• Adult 40 & Over which was suspended will be completed, teams with "critical" matches have until August 28 to complete them
• Adult 55 & Over will play September thru November
• Adult 65 & Over will play September thru October
• Mixed 18 & Over which was suspended will be completed, teams with "critical" matches have until August 7 to complete them
• Mixed 40 & Over will start 1st week of July and play through mid-September
• Tri-Level will start the 1st week of July and play through the Summer
• Mixed Tri-Level TBD
• Fall SCTA Doubles will play September thru December
• Sectionals Schedule:
• Adult 18 & Over in November using 1 singles and 2 doubles
• Adult 40 & Over in September or October
• Adult 55 & Over in December or January
• Mixed 18 & Over in August or September
• SCTA Doubles in January as usual

I'm guessing that "critical" matches are those remaining matches in suspended leagues that have an impact on standings.  Thus, matches between teams out of the running do not need to be played.

So if you live in SoCal, you may still get to play the majority of your leagues and matches.  Will you still do so?  Or are you leery of coming back to play too quickly?  Or with no Nationals, you've lost interest?

Leave a comment, let your voice be heard.

Update on today's breaking news - More details on USTA League Nationals and PNW information for 2020 and 2021

I wrote earlier today about the USTA announcing the extension of the suspension of play through May 31 and also the canceling of USTA League Nationals.

I have since received an e-mail, with basically the same text as the PDF I linked to earlier, but it did have a few new pieces of information.

First, there is an FAQ on the canceling of Nationals, a few items from it being:

• Canceling Nationals may provide more opportunity for local league play, presumably by allowing districts and sections to extend their local leagues into the late Summer and Fall, rather than canceling leagues and/or squeezing them into small windows on the calendar to try to meet the schedule required for Nationals.
• For teams that may have already qualified for 2020 Nationals, they are not given an invitation to 2021 Nationals, instead teams must qualify during 2021 league play.  These teams will not be subject to move-up/split-up in 2021 though.
• Move-up/split-up does not carry over.  2019 Nationals teams are able to reform for 2021.
• National Invitationals that take place in early 2021 (Adult 65 & Over and Mixed 55 & Over) are not part of this cancellation.
• Sections may choose to still hold Sectionals.
• Ratings continue to be calculated, discussions taking place on how the lack of Nationals will impact year-end ratings.

Regarding membership and league fees, the USTA is not deciding at this point to refund membership fees, but will continue to evaluate it.  Regarding league fees, decisions are up to each section.

My e-mail appears to have been tailored for my section (PNW) as it has a paragraph stating 2020 Sectionals have been canceled (so there is at least one section not planning to still hold them).  Here are all the pertinent points from the FAQ:

• All Sectionals canceled for 2020.
• All advancing local leagues scheduled for the Spring and Summer have been canceled.
• A "Welcome Back to Tennis" league will be hosted by the section free of charge tentatively planned for mid-June thru August.
• The 2021 Early Start Leagues that normally begin play in September 2020 are still planned and schedules for those are forthcoming.
• Those that registered for leagues that were canceled will have the registration transferred to an advancing Fall (Early Start) league.  If the player does not play in said league, they will receive a refund less processing fees.
• Tournaments scheduled after May 31 are still tentatively planned.

There you have it from PNW at least.  We'll see what other sections do.

The free league in the summer is certainly a nice olive branch to get players playing again, good move by PNW IMHO.  The rest of it is largely as you might expect.

Thoughts on what PNW is doing?  What is your section doing?  What do you think should be done?