Possible solutions to grossly above level teams at USTA League Nationals

The first two weekends of 2023 USTA League Nationals has found more or less the same team winning two events (18 & Over and 40 & Over 3.5 men) without much competition, which has raised the question about how teams are formed and how far above level players are by the time Nationals comes around.

Many people would agree there is a problem, and the "fair at-level competition" line has been crossed.  If that is the case, what steps could be taken to combat it and bring more fairness to Nationals?

Before I outline some ideas, it is probably good to summarize the issue.

The issue is that certainly at Nationals, but also at Sectionals and earlier rounds of playoffs, and even in local league play, you can have players that are significantly out of level and this results in noncompetitive matches and taking away the opportunity for legitimate at-level players to advance into playoffs.  Come Nationals, it becomes who was able to circumvent the rules the best to assemble a team of ringers who will end up winning.

There is also a safety factor at lower levels as grossly above-level players being on the same court and hitting with pace of a level or two higher player may actually be dangerous for the fair at-level players on the court.

The above level players aren't just self-rates, there are also players that appeal down, and players with C ratings that also end up being grossly out of level so all need to be addressed in my opinion.

What I list below is a bit of a hodgepodge of ideas on things that could be done that would result in increased competition both at the local level and through playoffs to Nationals.  Many of these ideas are not new, and some have been shared with me and I'm shamelessly stealing (thanks though!), and I've shared them with various USTA staff and written about them on my blog before, but this will serve as a collection of them all for posterity.

I'm also listing them in an order that prioritizes ideas that I think would both have a real impact and are reasonably doable.

On to the list.

Lower Strike Thresholds

The USTA doesn't publish what the strike thresholds are, but it is commonly known that they are pretty high, especially at lower levels, perhaps even so high that players have to be closer to a double bump than at level before they even get a single strike.  I understand the USTA doesn't want to penalize new players with a promotion that means they can't play with their team and leaves more than enough room for players to improve before they get a strike, but high strike thresholds are a gaping hole in the system that astute captains use to their advantage.  Lowering the strike thresholds would make it a lot more difficult to navigate the season with out of level self-rates or appeal down players.

Increased Match Requirements for Self-Rates and Appeals

The USTA has always required a minimum number of matches be played to be eligible for Nationals, and this was three for years.  This meant that a self-rate or appeal could play the minimum three matches and would have to avoid a strike in only one of those matches to be eligible for Nationals, so there would be virtually no way to get 3 strikes and be promoted and ineligible.  Consider players can't be disqualified during a Nationals and this was a loophole to be exploited.

A few years ago the USTA increased the minimum matches for self-rates to four, but that still isn't enough for the same reason highlighted above.  This should be increased to at least six in order to require players to actually play enough matches to have a real chance of getting strikes if they are above level.

If this means that captains have to play self-rates at the expense of computer rated players, so be it, perhaps strong computer rated players will shy away from joining teams with a lot of self-rates, or captains will limit the number of self-rates they have rostered.  Nearly every Nationals team has an adequate number of team matches to get their players eligible when you look at regular season, local playoffs, Districts/States, and Sectionals.

Incorporate WTN in Self Rating

Today there are guidelines and a questionnaire for players who are self-rating, but the process is vague enough that players can self-rate lower than they should.  The USTA encourages to self-rate at the higher level if there is doubt, anticipating inevitable improvement as the player plays matches, but there is no way to enforce that.

What would be ideal is if there were a more objective way to look at a player's history other than questions about playing in high school or college.  The USTA in coordination with the ITF has introduced such a measure with the World Tennis Number (WTN) which should be calculating ratings for players from their junior (and perhaps even high school?) and collegiate matches.  If the USTA were to establish a way to map WTN to NTRP (which I'm sure they have) this could be used to help ensure players self-rate at an appropriate level.

Make Bump Downs Subject to Strikes

There are already rules for players that appeal down that make them subject to strikes, but why not just make all bump downs subject to strikes?  If they are a legit bump down, there is no chance they are going to have their rating go back up so high as to get to the strike threshold, so this rule would only really affect players that manipulated their rating to get bumped down.

See discussion in the item below as it all applies, this just limits it to bump downs rather than all C rated players.

Make All Players Subject to Strikes

Today, computer rated players are not subject to strikes.  This means as soon as someone gets the coveted C rating they are golden and don't need to worry about anything, they can play all out.  This normally isn't an issue if the player got their C fairly, but some players have either tanked matches to get bumped down and get a C, or they self-rated and managed scores to get a C, and in both these cases their C level is fraudulent.

If all players were subject to strikes, this strategy wouldn't work, or work as well, and players that get a C and suddenly can't lose could get strikes and be DQ'd/promoted.

And I'm not sure there is really a downside to this.  Players that legitmately get a C and play at that level aren't going to get strikes and so nothing changes for them.  It is only those players that game the system to get their C, or are improving exceptionally fast, that would get strikes and be affected, and isn't it these cheaters or grossly out of level players that we want to catch?

Make Bump Ups Sticky

A common strategy among players gaming the system is to go all out in year 1 when they are on a super team and get bumped up only to have a "bad" year in year 2 to get bumped down, so they can go all out again in year 3 on another super team.  Making bump ups sticky for at least one year so players can't yo-yo back and forth would help address this.

Doing this across the board could have a slightly negative effect on legitimate bump downs, and if that is a concern there could be a qualifier on how high the year-end rating was.  For example if a 3.5 is bumped up to 4.0 with a 3.55 year-end rating, they wouldn't have the bump up be sticky, but if a player was bumped up to 4.0 with a 3.75 year-end rating, theirs would be sticky.  I don't think this would be an issue as it is highly unlikely that someone who does so well to get up to 3.75 is going to lose all that ability in one year.

And I'd propose the stickiness persist as long as the player's year-end rating remains above the "sticky threshold".  In essence it would be saying a player that is an upper half 4.0 can't be bumped down to 3.5 in one year, they have to go through being a lower half 4.0 first.

Or another type of stickiness that is more focused would be for any player bumped up that went to Nationals to not be able to be bumped down in the next year, i.e. a Nationals bump up is sticky for a second year.

Eliminate Auto Appeals

Today players that have a year-end rating a small amount over the threshold between levels may auto-appeal down and have it granted.  There are some eligibility rules that may not allow some players to do this, but by and large most players just over the threshold can automatically be given an "A" rating at the lower level.  These players are subject to  strikes and a DQ/promotion during the year, but see above for issues related to this that allow players that are genuinely above-level to slide by all year.

I get the idea behind auto-appeals, some players are barely bumped up and want to still play with their own team, and the USTA is sort of admitting that ratings aren't perfect and someone that is a 3.52 isn't really that different from a 3.49, so why not let the 3.52 appeal down.  Or some players that are bumped up may be at a level where there is no play in their area and they wouldn't be able to play USTA League anymore.

The problem is this is yet another exploitable rule as some players will unfortunately tank matches to try to get bumped down, and even if they don't succeed in the bump down, if they are close enough they can still appeal.  So if you have someone that is really a 3.75 player and they tank matches and get down to 3.55, they can perhaps appeal down to 3.5 and now you have a 3.75 playing as a 3.5.

If you get rid of auto-appeals, the legitimate cases for appeals can still be handled through the manual process.  Yes, this would be an inconvenience for the staff having to process these.

Again, if the first two items above were implemented that may tighten things up a bit and auto-appeals could still be allowed.

Don't Allow Self-Rates at Nationals

An alternative to the above changes to self-rate rules would be to simply not allow self-rates to play at Nationals.  If out of level self-rates are a major issue, this solves it very simply.

I don't really like this one though for a number of reasons, and I think the two items above would suitably address the issue, but I list this one for completeness.

All Manual Appeals Handled by National

Today players can file manual appeals or medical appeals and these are heard by district or section committees.  Despite any guidelines National may publish, these appeals don't appear to be processed consistently, e.g. in one section self-rate appeals are granted very easily while in another they aren't.  Or worse, some captains are friends with committee members and tend to get their appeals granted more often than captains without an in.

A solution to this is to have all of these appeals heard by National so they are applied consistently and there is no chance of local bias.

Allow DQs During Nationals

Today at Nationals, players that are subject to strikes won't be disqualified during a Nationals event.  Players can and are promoted after Nationals, but they can play all matches at that Nationals and no matches will be reversed.

Prior to Nationals, it is up to sections to decide how to handle this, and some do the same as Nationals and only consider strikes after the event, and others administer strikes and promotions after each match and will reverse results.  I've been disappointed to see more sections doing the former as that causes a few issues:

1. It lets what may be a "cheating" team continue to benefit from an out of level player well beyond when they've been determined to be out of level, e.g. a player could get their 3rd strike in their first Sectionals match and play 4 or 5 more with no penalty.  This isn't fair to the other teams with fairly at-level players.
2. If the "cheating" team wins, which they very well may since they have a clearly and identified out of level player, that player won't be eligible moving forward so the team that won and the team that advances aren't really the same team, and may in fact be a significantly weaker team.  That isn't fair to the other teams, nor to the section which isn't being represented by the strongest available team.

Back to Nationals, the situation is similar.  If a player is identified as being clearly above level in their first match, why let them keep playing?  I get that a player has gone to considerable expense to travel, and a team in theory could go with the minimum number of players and a DQ would mean they'd have to forfeit courts, but why is it fair for properly at level players to have to play players that will be DQ'd?  And why should a team benefit from a to be DQ'd player?

Disqualify/Suspend Captains/Players for Obvious Tanking

I admit it is hard to conclusively identify a tanked match.  Players can manage scores in a match so it is close and they win and you can't be sure it was a managed score.

But there are times where it is blatantly obvious from both the score line and from the ratings generated from the match.  If a player is consistently winning and generating match ratings of 3.8, then suddenly can't win a set and barely win a few games and generating match ratings of 3.2, you know something is fishy.  Especially when there are clear patterns of seasons/leagues used for the tanked matches.

Today, the USTA seems loathe to take action in these cases as they can't 100% prove the match was tanked.  I would like to think the USTA doesn't need to prove this 100% but instead can consider the match ratings and pattern, especially when an entire team is doing it, and suspend players under the sportsmanship clauses in the regulations.

Change the Algorithm

I realize this set of suggestions is highly unlikely, but I include them for completeness.

There are several things that could be done with the rating algorithm to address some issues.

One is to introduce some anti-tanking controls where matches that are significantly unexpected get thrown out so tanking matches would not be rewarded.  Or similar to USGA handicaps, base a player's rating on their best 50% of results.

One could also introduce some deterministic rules to year-end ratings to preclude some gaming the system scenarios.  Like the bump up stickiness I mention above.

What do you think?  Is there any merit to any of these suggestions?  Which would have the most impact?  Or how would you change the order from what I listed?

Or do you think it is fine as-is being a free-for-all as everyone is on the same footing, and just let the captain the best at gaming the system win?

Edit: Added the suspension/disqualification suggestion after the initial post.

Should computer rated player be able to be disqualified and promoted in USTA League play?

For those that play USTA League, it is pretty well known that new players, and those with expired ratings or a few other scenarios, are required to self-rate to determine the level they will play at when they join a league/team.  Since the self-rating isn't perfect, there is a system in place where a player's results are evaluated to determine if they are out of level, and if so, they can be disqualified from that level and promoted mid-season.  This is known as the three-strike DQ process.

It is also well known that players that have a current computer (C) rating are not subject to this three-strike DQ process, meaning they can play the entire year and improve and be out of level, even way out of level, during the year, and they are "golden" and can't be DQ'd or promoted.

See my FAQ question 16 for more discussion.

What can be interesting to look at is how players get their strikes.  Generally speaking it is when they win very easily over decent to good at-level players, but there are times when score lines that don't look out of whack can end up being strikes.

I was recently made aware of once such situation at NorCal Sectionals where a self-rated player lost a match in straight sets, and got their third strike!  On the surface that may not seem possible, but indeed it is, and in this case it was because the opponent they lost to was rated significantly higher than they were and so the loss was a "good" loss and rated very high.  And yes, my ratings agree with the three strikes and DQ.

So how is it fair for a self-rated player to be disqualified for being out of level if they are playing someone, at the same level, who is expected to and does beat them in straight sets?  How high does this opponent have to be rated?

For starters, the threshold for a player to get a strike isn't just the top of their level.  The USTA gives some leeway for players to improve and be above level before they begin accruing strikes.  The leeway given is greater at lower levels because normal improvement can happen faster at lower levels.  I think the threshold may be too high in the first place, but they are what they are.

For discussion purposes, lets say the threshold in question for this case was 0.2 higher than the top of the level and lets assume the level is 4.0, that puts the strike threshold at 4.20, meaning the self-rated player got their rating above that three times.  For them to have such a rating and be expected to lose in straight-sets to an opponent means that opponent's rating is well north of that, perhaps as high as 4.35-4.40.

This means we have a 4.0 match being played between someone rated around/over 4.2 vs someone around 4.4!  How is a "normal" 4.0 player supposed to compete?

I don't think anyone would be surprised to know that to advance and do well in playoffs, you need to have players rated near the top of the level, and even into the next level.  Players do improve, especially those that get into the competition and are trying to advance and put in hours of practice to get better, and there is something to be said for not penalizing someone that puts in this work.  But at what point is there too much improvement?

With self-rated players the USTA does set a threshold the player cannot improve past, but should C rated players have such a threshold too?

The situation I outline may be an outlier and you don't want to change the entire system for just a few outliers, but I also don't think implementing something to catch the outliers means the other 99% of players will be affected.  In fact, that 99% of players may be affected in a positive way if they don't have to face such out of level players.

Note, it is unfortunate but the problem is exacerbated at times by players willing to manage scores, throw matches, or other shenanigans to get bumped down or ensure they don't get bumped up, so they can be one of these "top of level" players.  A threshold for C rated players to be DQ'd would most likely be targeting these players as they genuinely should be at the higher level.  Might it catch the occasional legit player who just improved "too much"?  Sure, but regardless of how a player gets there, isn't it more fair to the 99% to promote the out of level player and not force at-level player to compete with them to advance?

I realize it is hard to determine where to draw the line, but I think having some threshold for C rated players is a worthy discussion.  It could perhaps be a bit higher than the self-rate strike threshold to give a little more leeway, but a case could be made it should be the same, or that if it is higher the self-rate strike threshold should be a bit lower to start.

What do you think?  Should Computer rated players get a "golden ticket"?  Or should there be some threshold they too can't exceed without being promoted?

How often do players that appeal their rating down get disqualified? Interesting Tennis League Stats

One of the challenges of USTA League is that players that are bumped up may feel they can't compete at the higher level and get frustrated with the game, or in some areas getting bumped up to a certain level, say 4.5 or 5.0, may limit or even kill one's ability to play league as there are no teams in an area at that level.

Similarly, players who aren't bumped up may feel their game has declined, or the situation in their area has had a reduction of players at their level, and they would like to appeal down to a lower level.

The "solution" the USTA has for these players is the option to appeal their rating.  And there are two ways to appeal, the auto-appeal or a manual/medical appeal.  And if you self-rate, as a new player or due to an expired rating, you can appeal as well.

For auto-appeals, after year-end ratings are published, there is a link on TennisLink to appeal your rating, and if your year-end rating meets various criteria, your request may be granted automatically right then and there.  The criteria can vary a bit year to year as the USTA can and does change it periodically, but it is basically that you didn't go to Nationals the prior year and your rating is close enough to the threshold.

If your auto-appeal does not work, you can file a manual appeal and it will be reviewed by an area/district/section committee tasked with reviewing appeals.  These are generally limited to medical appeals where a medical condition is permanent and affects some aspects of a player's game.  From what I've been told, you are not likely to get a medical appeal granted for a temporary medical condition that you are expected to recover from.

Now, before you go click the appeal button or file a manual appeal, beware that if your appeal is granted, you do become subject to strikes and 3-strike disqualification/promotion similar to that for self-rated players.

A natural question then is how often to players that appeal down get a 3-strike DQ?

Looking at data I have since 2014, it does not appear to be very often at all.  I only see 141 players that had an 'A' rating that subsequently were disqualified.  My data may not be complete or perfect, but I doubt there are many more than that and even considering we had a pandemic 2020, that is only about 25 per year.  Given there are around 5K-7K appeals each year, this is not a very high rate.

Why might this be?

I believe the reason is that players that appeal have an established rating that is lower than the appeal threshold, just over the threshold for their appealed to level, and the strike threshold is higher than that.  So if a player simply goes back to playing at their prior ability, they will generally remain below the strike threshold.

For example, while the USTA doesn't publish what all these thresholds are, lets assume a 3.5 is bumped up to 4.0 (their year-end rating is 3.51 or higher) but is just a few hundredths over (say 3.55) and this is within the appeal threshold and they can appeal down to 3.5.  Let's also assume the strike threshold is 3.7.  If this player simply goes back to playing at their 3.55 ability and their rating stays around that point, they will remain short of the strike threshold.

So, we can surmise that the majority of legitimate appeals probably don't result in a DQ.  A player simply plays similar to the prior year and they won't get strikes.  It is those that perhaps aren't justified that end up getting strikes and getting DQ'd.

One can probably debate whether giving players the option of appealing is really necessary.  While it can be used for the category of players I described above that are arguably legit, it can also be used by players that can compete at the higher level and are simply looking for an unfair advantage of being at the lower level.  Worse, players might have lost intentionally to manage their rating down to be able to appeal.  It is likely these that are DQ'd as going back to their real ability is higher than the strike threshold.

What do you think?

Are appeal players wildly out of level in your area?  Or are they basically the same as the strongest players at a given level?

Should the auto-appeal option remain?  Or is it ripe for abuse and all appeals should be reviewed or at least the criteria beefed up to weed out the non-legit uses?

Leave a comment and let me know.

When a DQ isn't a DQ?

Note: Apologies in advance to those that have regulations phobia.  I'm going to be doing some quoting and explaining of some USTA League regulations.

Note 2: If you read through it all, I do get around to asking for your opinion at the end, would love to get people's thoughts here on the blog or in Facebook comments.

Now, on to the topic at hand.

It is pretty common knowledge that a USTA League player that is 3-strike DQ'd and promoted to the next level is not allowed play at their lower/DQ'd level after the DQ occurs. Here is the rule from the USTA Regulations (emphasis mine).

2.04B(3) Following an NTRP Dynamic Disqualification, the player may not play at the disqualified NTRP level of play or any lower NTRP level of play in either singles or doubles for the remainder of the Championship Year and for the succeeding Championship Year.  In any Division using combined levels, the combined NTRP rating of the disqualified player and partner may not surpass the level of competition. A player who has been moved up as a result of an NTRP Dynamic Disqualification in the Adult Division must immediately adjust his/her NTRP level of play in the Mixed Division.

It is also pretty well known that a player cannot be DQ'd at Nationals.  Here is that rule:

2.04B(2) Championships NTRP Dynamic Disqualification. There will be no NTRP Dynamic Disqualifications at National Championships.

What is perhaps not well known and I've seen happen is that a player can be DQ'd after Nationals if they accumulate a third strike at Nationals.  Here is a relevant rule on how DQ's would affect play at subsequent championships/Nationals (emphasis mine).

2.04B(5) Individuals who receive their third strike while participating in an Early Start League (ESL) must immediately adjust their NTRP level of play. Such players may not participate at the disqualified NTRP level in a previous year’s championship for which they may have qualified.

Note that this seems go to against another rule saying strikes aren't even checked at Nationals (emphasis mine):

2.04B NTRP Dynamic Disqualification Procedures. Dynamic ratings will be calculated for all Adult Division players during local league competition and at every level of championship competition below National Championships to determine if any players have reached the NTRP Dynamic Disqualification criteria

But I have seen players DQ'd as a result of play at Nationals, so 2.04B only seems to be followed during the event but the strikes are calculated after the event.  In fact, it happened this year in an interesting case.

The player was self-rated this year and went to one of the Adult Nationals events in mid-October, and apparently got a third strike there (despite 2.04B) as they are shown at the next higher level with a 'D' now on TennisLink, and the date shown for the DQ is in October a few days after that Nationals finished with no other matches played.  Note that this player is rostered on a team in a 2019 ESL which is perhaps why their strikes were checked and the DQ/promotion recorded which is why I quoted 2.04B(5) above and believe it applies.

The player also went to 18 & Over Mixed Nationals three weeks after the Adult Nationals and per rule 2.04B(3) and 2.04B(5) above, would seem to have been required to play at their new/promoted level, but they played with a partner rated such that it is clear they were allowed to play at their lower/DQ'd level.

Further, the player also qualified for 40 & Over Mixed Nationals this weekend and the same thing happened again.

So why were they allowed to play?  The rules do seem to be at least a bit ambiguous, or at least somewhat in conflict with each other, so must be interpreted, and apparently the interpretation was to allow them to play.

One interpretation (A) of the rules is that DQ's don't happen at a given Nationals event, e.g. a player will not be DQ'd during the weekend of a specific event they are playing at, but can occur after the event like we see happened in this case.  Given the player shows up as a 'D' at the promoted level on TennisLink, this would seem to be what happened, the player was DQ'd.

Another interpretation (B) might be that once Nationals start, a player cannot be DQ'd from any Nationals event that year.  This is perhaps the interpretation used to allow them to play, even though the player does show up as DQ'd on TennisLink.  The rationale may be that the DQ should not have been calculated per 2.04B and so that supersedes it being published and they are acting as if it wasn't published.

I am not a lawyer, but my reading of the rules is that interpretation A is more correct, the player should not have been allowed to play at their lower/DQ'd level.  In my opinion, more of the rules support it, and more importantly the rules that say no DQ's occur or strikes aren't checked at Nationals don't seem to have been followed, the player does show up on TennisLink at DQ'd, so the other rules should then kick in.

Even if you consider the "at" in 2.04B(2) to be ambiguous to a specific event or all Nationals, 2.04B(5) applies in this case as the player is participating in an ESL, got their third strike, and so must immediately adjust their NTRP level, including not being able to participate at the DQ'd level in a 2018 championship.  The boxes for this rule seem to have all been checked and thus it should apply.  And 2.04B(5) would seem to have been written explicitly for this scenario.

If the intent of the "at" in 2.04B(2) was to mean cannot be DQ'd from any Nationals event once they have been started, and 2.04B(5) is there only to potentially DQ a player prior to any Nationals event starting, one can see that side of the argument.  But then why do they show up as DQ'd on TennisLink?

Playing devil's advocate for a minute, I can see an argument that a player may be playing at Nationals on consecutive weekends and have made travel plans for the second already when they are DQ'd after the first, and that it would not be fair to not allow them to play and be out the travel expenses.  I can poke two holes in this though.

First, this is the accepted danger/risk of having self-rated players on a Nationals team.  The USTA already gives a wide berth allowing self-rated players to improve and not get strikes.  By the time they've gotten 3 strikes they really have demonstrated themselves to be way above level and that their self-rating was not accurate.  And in this case, the player went 5-1 at Nationals at the new/promoted level!  Allowing them to play isn't fair to all their opponents and opposing teams, a significantly larger number than the player in question and their teammates.  Shouldn't the rule be biased towards being fair to the larger number of players, and fair to those that didn't violate a rule and get DQ'd?

Second, the events affected were Mixed where it being a "combo" league, it was possible for this player to still play at their promoted level on the team, just with a lower rated partner.  E.g. for 7.0 Mixed, a 3.5 that is DQ'd to 4.0 can still play on the team, they just must play with a 3.0 partner.  So this player was still eligible to play both Mixed events, just with a different partner, so their travel expenses would not be for nought.

Clearly there is some interpretation to be made with the rules and regardless of what the right interpretation was, one was made and the players at the Mixed Nationals this year will carry on.  What I think is more important now is that this is cleared up in the future, specifically that the language in the regulations is clarified or enhanced to be clear on how this should be handled, even if it is interpretation B, just so there isn't controversy about it.

But I've stated my case for not allowing them to play.  What do you think and why?  Am I being too strict it not allowing them to play?  Should there be some leniency during Nationals?  How should the regulations be changed or clarified?

Another interesting USTA League Dynamic NTRP disqualification correctly predicted by my ratings

I've written about interesting disqualifications I've come across before, and I recently learned about one that I thought was worthwhile writing about.

This player was DQ'd despite having a losing record, but I've see this happen before with a 1-3 record and another with a 2-4 record.  What is unique about this new one is it was in just 3 matches with a 1-2 record.  So there is no guessing as to which matches were strikes!

So how can a player go 1-2 and get DQ'd?

Using my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings, here is the player's chart.

The chart shows the self-rated 4.0 had ratings well into the 4.5 range for each match, each being a strike.  So my ratings agree with/correctly predict the strikes and DQ yet again.

The player played doubles the first two matches losing both but by close scores.  That alone isn't going to generate a strike though, otherwise a lot more self-rated players would get strikes.  What caused these matches to be rated so high is that the opponents were high rated 4.0s, but more importantly the partner was a pretty low rated 4.0.  This is a recipe for a strike as the computer looks at the ratings of the players involved and figures the self-rate has to be really good to have carried a low rated partner to such a close loss against strong opponents.

Then the third match was a lopsided singles win that was high rated and would seem to confirm that the self-rate really was that good and carried the partner in the doubles losses.

So yes, it is possible to get strikes and be DQ'd with a losing record in just 3 matches.

If you are aware of any other strange or unexpected DQ's, let me know.

I went 1-3 and got disqualified from my USTA League NTRP level! Correctly predicting NTRP DQ's

Ok, it wasn't me, but I was told about a situation where a player played four matches, winning just one, and was 3-strike DQ'd and promoted up a level.

On the surface, it wouldn't seem like a 1-3 record should result in any more than one strike let alone three, but unexpected DQs can happen like I've written about before.  If we take a closer look at this one, it appears it is another as my ratings agree with and would have predicted the strikes and DQ.

In this case, the player was a self-rated 4.5 and playing in a 4.5+ league.  That alone can increase the chances of getting strikes because the player may end up playing against 5.0s, so it is similar to playing up which is often a sure fire recipe for getting strikes.  But what do my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings say about these four matches?

The first match was indeed played against two 5.0s, and with a 4.5 partner.  The 4 & 2 loss was considered more than respectable in this case and the computer says it generated a rating well into the range for a 5.0.  Strike 1.

The second match was a match tie-break loss but not against any 5.0s this time, but one opponent was a 4.5 that had appealed down so a strong one.  This match did not generate a strike, but still resulted in a very high 4.5 match rating.

The third match was a 1 & 1 win against a good and very good 4.5 playing with a so-so 4.5.  The computer looks at that and says the self-rated player had to be the reason for such a lopsided score and resulted in another very high rating.  Strike 2.

The last match was a 1 & 3 loss against some good 4.5s and resulted in a high in the range for a 4.5 match rating, but the way the algorithm works the dynamic rating is calculated from the prior ratings too and the result was a dynamic rating still over the threshold for a strike despite the match itself not being over.  Strike 3.

That is what my ratings say, what did the USTA say?  I received a copy of the DQ letter and it indeed identified the three matches I did as the strikes.

So another DQ that my ratings got right.  If you'd heard of or seen a strange DQ, let me know about it and I'll take a look.

Three strike disqualifications after Nationals, it happens!

It is pretty common knowledge that players are not subject to three-strike DQ's at Nationals.  If you are a self-rate or appeal player and you aren't DQ'd through your Sectionals, you are eligible to play at Nationals and won't get a DQ during play there.

But did you know that you can get DQ'd after Nationals?  I guess I just hadn't thought about it, always just figured year-end ratings come out relatively soon after, but I just noticed that several players that played at last weekend's Nationals were indeed DQ'd and promoted up a level.

The three I saw were from a Texas 4.0 team that made the final but did not win and two of them were the one's I'd mentioned earlier as barely missing a DQ during the regular season.  They both likely had 5 strikes at Nationals but no matches are reversed and the players are just promoted to the next level.

What about the SoCal team that beat them?  They didn't have any DQ'd, but then again they didn't have the appeal or self-rates Texas had.

And what about the Texas 3.0 team that won the prior weekend?  They didn't have any, but they had fewer self-rates and the threshold for strikes for a 3.0 has a lot more tolerance than for 4.0.

What does this mean?  Just that these players were playing well above level by the time Nationals was played and get promoted early rather than waiting for year-end.  There are certainly other players from their Nationals that will be bumped up too, they just have to wait.

More on the "DQ and reverse" rule adopted by some USTA sections

I wrote a couple days ago about how the "DQ and reverse" rule regarding matches played by DQ'd self-rated players can have interesting effects on the results at USTA League playoffs and result in premature celebration.

Someone commented on that blog and I came across a scenario in a section where the rule is to DQ and reverse where the DQ effect was even deeper.

Imagine team A going in to their last match against team B with both having 2-0 records, the winner advancing to Nationals.  Team A wins their 3rd court while 1D is still finishing.  Team A 1D goes ahead and finishes and wins in a match tie-break, so a 4-1 win and off to Nationals right?

Not so fast.  Team A 1D had a self-rated player that was DQ'd in that last match.  Ok, so 3-2 win and off to Nationals then right?

Not so fast.  Team A had an earlier 3-2 win where the DQ'd player had won, and since this was now reversed too, that became a 3-2 loss.  So now the teams are both 2-1 and the courts won tie-break (this was before the new rule using head-to-head earlier) sends team B to Nationals.  This happens despite the fact that they just lost 4-1 (even 3-2 if you want to reverse the DQ'd match) to the other team.

Now, if the team A DQ'd player was really out of level as the DQ indicated, you can make the argument that this is the right thing.  Team A shouldn't benefit from having an out of level player.  But it introduces complications and delays regarding going back farther into prior round robin phases to have the champion ultimately determined.

It also creates situations where a team may actually benefit from throwing a match against a self-rated player in order to get them DQ'd and reverse an earlier match.  Imagine a scenario where team A is 4-0 in round-robin play and is playing a 2-2 team B in their last match.  There is no chance for the team B right?  Best case is they win and only get to 3-2 and team A is 4-1.

Not so fast.  In this case, team B could lose the match 3-2, and have a record of 2-3 while team A's is 5-0, but team B end up winning and advancing.  How?

If team A has a self-rated player that is carrying two strikes and won a court in a prior 3-2 win, and team B throws the match against that player causing them to be DQ'd.  It is also possible that if the match wasn't thrown, the player would not have gotten a third strike.

In this scenario, that team A 3-2 win becomes a 3-2 loss.  Ok, the records are now team A 4-1 and team B 3-2.  But wait, that prior team A 3-2 win now gets reversed too and team A falls back to a 3-2 record.  One can then conjure up scenarios where team B wins the tie-breaker between the teams at 3-2.

So, as unlikely as this scenario may seem, the extra delays and checks to determine the champ, and this incentive to throw matches or other related shenanigans are possibly the argument some sections use to not adopt the "DQ and reverse" approach.

Premature celebration in USTA League playoffs - It can be the difference between going to Nationals or not

I was looking at results from some of the USTA League Sectionals played this past weekend and came across what appears to be an interesting situation.  I'll preface my comments by saying I'm getting all my information just from looking at scores on TennisLink and reading between the lines, but think I have it right.

In the Florida 18 & over 3.5 final, Duval and South Miami/Dade faced off and the score sheet shows South Miami/Dade won 3 courts and Duval 2.  Further, it appears that court 1 singles was tied at a set apiece when the South Miami/Dade player retired.  Now, perhaps there was an injury, but my guess is that the player saw or was told the team had won 3 courts so the team match was over and so retired to go celebrate rather than finish the match as it meant nothing at this point right?  The team was headed to Nationals!

Well, not so fast apparently.  If you look at the draw for the final, it shows Duval beating South Miami/Dade 3 courts to 2.  What happened here?  Going back to the score sheet, you will notice that court 2 singles was a 6-1,6-2 win for South Miami/Dade, but that player is noted as being DQ'd.  Further, the asterisk indicates that not only was the player DQ'd so not eligible to play at this level going forward, but the match was reversed and awarded to the opposing team.  Thus, in the standings, and for what counts as far as who goes to Nationals, Duval won the match.

If all of this is accurate, I'm guessing the South Miami/Dade court 1 singles player is kicking himself for retiring, or even if he was injured, for not trying to find a way to eke out the match tie-break as that could have been the difference between going to Nationals or not, the not happening in this case due to the retirement.

So the lesson learned is, don't retire to celebrate a seeming 3-2 win in playoffs unless you are 100% certain the scores from all the courts will stand.  So to be safe, unless you are at Nationals where DQ's and match reversals don't happen, just don't retire from a match.

Another scenario where a Computer (C) rated player had a successful grievance filed against them

I wrote last week about when a USTA NTRP C rating isn't really a C rating and I heard about another scenario today.

This player had played at a small college but self rated as a 2.5, got DQ'd to a 3.0, and had a year-end rating of 3.5, then while playing as a 3.5 had a grievance filed against them.  The USTA ignored the C rating and instead looked at what they should have self-rated at and DQ'd them and promoted them to be a 4.5.

So if you think you can slip one by and ignore your experience and the self-rate guidelines, watch out, you could have a grievance filed against you even after your get the coveted C rating.

When is a USTA NTRP computer (C) rating not really a C rating?

A lot of people that play USTA are aware of the general rules regarding self-rated (S) players being subject to three strike disqualifications.  This is where a new player goes through the self-rating process to get assigned to an NTRP level but, whether innocently or deliberately, they self-rate too low and end up being promoted up a level mid-year and results to date are usually reversed as well.  This process is in place to try to catch players that self-rate too low as it is unfair to the established players at that level.

What not so many may be aware of is that there is also a process where a grievance can be filed against a player asserting that they self-rated incorrectly and should be playing at a higher level.  Specifically, USTA documents state:

Any league captain, coordinator or member of a championship committee has the right to file a NTRP Grievance against a player and/or captain. The grievance will claim that the player and/or captain committed or condoned obtaining a Self Rate or possesses a rating which is at a lower NTRP level but has demonstrated the ability to compete at a higher NTRP level.

They also mention:

1. The Grievance must be against a player of the following rating types: This list includes S, M, T, Dynamic Early Start League and Medical type ratings. A player with a valid NTRP Computer (C) rating, a Benchmark (B) rating, or a granted Automatic Appeal of a Computer (C) rating is not subject to a NTRP grievance.
2. The complaint must state that the player has self-rated or possesses a rating which is too low and may also include information that a team captain or other person conspired to obtain that incorrect rating.

I have bolded and underlined the important part for the purposes of the following discussion.

I was recently made aware of an interesting NTRP rating grievance where a C rated player had a grievance filed against them and it was upheld!  This would seem to be in direct conflict with the grievance protocol documented above.

The situation is a high schooler new to the game self-rates as a 3.0 a few years ago but only plays in leagues that don't count towards his rating so he doesn't get a C rating.  His game improves and he ends up appealing up and/or self-rating again at 3.5 in a following year and does play Adult and gets a 3.5C rating at the end of last year.

What he fails to disclose or use when self-rating again however is that he did end up playing in high school nor does he mention that he walked on at a small Division II school and played there with meager success.

He plays this year with his 3.5C and does very well winning all of his matches, but some in match tie-breaks and only one that would really be considered a lopsided win.  Nevertheless, someone files a grievance against him citing his playing history in high school and college that would arguably require he self-rate at 5.0.  The committee agrees and he gets DQ'd up to 5.0!

So apparently, at least in this section/district, a C rated player can have a grievance filed against them.

Should the player have self-rated at a higher level when they redid it after walking on at a division II college?  Yes, and there are provisions for doing so at the right level and then appealing down.  But is he playing at a 5.0 level?  Almost certainly not, my ratings have him as a likely bump up to 4.0 at year-end, but nothing egregious seems to going on here.

I understand the grievance is being fought, so perhaps this isn't over yet, and if I hear more I will share it.  But beware C rated players, you may not be as golden as you thought.

Have you received a three strike DQ'd in USTA League tennis? Get a free report that explains why

I made a free report for three strike disqualified players offer last year and had quite a few people take me up on it.  I just had someone ask about it so figured I'd make the offer again.

So, if you've been three strike disqualified during the 2014 USTA League season and can provide me your DQ letter that includes the matches that were strikes, I will generate an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report for you that will help explain the DQ to you.

Why do I do this?  First, it is always interesting to look at DQ's as there are some strange ones out there, but I can usually explain them.  Second, looking at DQ's and knowing which matches are strikes helps me validate my ratings and algorithm so I can improve the accuracy for everyone.

So if you'd been DQ'd, let me know!

It is only February, but the 3 strike DQs have begun in USTA League

In USTA League play, new players self-rate at a certain level based on answering a series of questions.  When answered correctly, this usually results in the player beginning play at the proper level.  However, sometimes, whether deliberate or not, a player self-rates too low.

To try to avoid uncompetitive and unfair situations where a self-rated player is playing at too low a level, the USTA has a 3-strike DQ process where if a player's dynamic rating exceeds a level specific threshold 3 times, they are disqualified at that level and promoted to the next.

I recently learned about an unexpected DQ after just 3 matches and was asked to generate an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report for the player.  The report confirmed that my estimated ratings agreed that 3 strikes had occurred.

While there very may have been other DQs already in 2014, this was the first I did a report on.  Since the DQ was in just 3 matches, the chart is kind of boring so I won't show it, but each match rating was above the strike threshold resulting in each dynamic rating being over as well.

I'm often asked why strikes occur and the simple answer is that the player has demonstrated that they are playing well above level.  In this case, the player played with a lower rated partner and beat some higher rated opponents.  The specifics varied a bit from match to match, but the consistent theme was that he carried the weaker partner to wins and that is a recipe for getting strikes.

As is usually the case, there are fears and concerns that the player won't be able to compete at the promoted level.  This usually isn't the case, although the player likely won't win most of their matches at the higher level.  This doesn't mean they aren't now at the right level though.

Players like to win and if they have a losing record for a season they think they should get bumped down.  But what many like to forget is that for every winner there is a loser and losing a match to a strong opponent may be expected and the loss doesn't mean their rating should go down.  Not all losses hurt a rating, a loss could actually raise your rating, and similarly not all wins raise a rating.

So if you get DQd or bumped up, relish the opportunity to raise your game and embrace the challenge.  It is the DQ or bump wasn't appropriate, your rating will come down and you'll move down to the appropriate level, but given enough matches and as long as players aren't trying to manipulate ratings, they work for 99% of players.

More unexpected DQs and non-DQs explained

I've explained a number of DQs in the past (see here and here for a couple) using my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings and someone shared with me an unexpected DQ as well as an unexpected one during the Sectionals in the Eastern section of the USTA that I took a look at.  Once again, my ratings explain them showing how accurate they are.

First, this player had some very good results and the team fully expected him to be DQ'd but decided to just keep playing him as the Eastern section doesn't reverse matches for DQ'd players.  Despite a list of easy straight set wins, through Sectionals, he wasn't DQ'd.

My ratings do show that he likely had a strike from his first match of the year, but then managed to have his rating hover between 4.5 and 4.6 in large part because of a very low match rating in his second match.  Here is his full chart.

So while I can't confirm my ratings are exactly correct in this case, we only know he wasn't DQ'd, I seem to have gotten this one right.

Second, this player started the season as a 4.0 but got DQ'd to 4.5 during the mixed season, and so had to enter the men's season as a self-rated 4.5.  He went into Sectionals with one win (6-4,7-6) and one default win and proceeded to win 4 matches at Sectionals, 3 in match tie-breaks, and gets DQ'd which was very unexpected.

My ratings show that it is possible that he actually had 4 strikes at Sectionals, and was able to get the 4th simply because the match was played the same day and they may not have had a chance to do the calculations before the 2nd match.  Here is his full chart.

This shows pretty clearly that the first match at Sectionals was the key one generating a huge match rating of 5.33.  When the next two matches were also very good, his fate was sealed.

How did he generate such a high rating in that first 8/23 match?  He played with a partner that happened to be rated on the lower end of the 4.5 range and against two very strong 4.5s (likely to be bumped up).  Being only his second rated match, his rating is calculated as what it would have to be to make the match result correct and that was 5.33.

So my ratings have again gotten it right.  A player everyone thought would be DQ'd wasn't, and a player that on the surface looked unlikely to be DQ'd was.

If you've been DQ'd, and especially if you can share your DQ letter with me, let me know.

Comparing an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report with a real USTA League DQ letter

I created some Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Reports for a team last week and one of their players had been three-strike disqualified so I had the opportunity to take a look at it.  This isn't new, I've done this many times and generally find that I can explain the DQ.

What was interesting about this one was that the DQ letter they forwarded to me not only identified which matches were strikes, but listed the dynamic rating for each match.  This was a huge opportunity for me to do a more detailed comparison and here is what I found.

The player in question had self-rated as a 4.0 and played 7 matches, all doubles, going 6-1.  Here are the scores, the dynamic rating in the DQ letter, and my estimated rating after each match.

Match Result	Dynamic NTRP	Estimated Dynamic NTRP
Won 7-5,0-6,1-0	3.97	4.01
Won 6-4,6-1	4.36	4.49
Won 7-5,6-1	4.23	4.22
Won 6-2,7-6	4.16	4.15
Lost 6-3,6-2	4.17	4.17
Won 6-2,4-6,1-0	4.19	4.17
Won 6-4,7-5	4.20	4.20

While my estimates weren't perfect for all 7 matches, they were close, and from the 3rd match on no more than 0.02 off and exact on 2 of the ratings.  I think that is accuracy I can live with.

If you received a DQ letter that included your ratings like this player did, please contact me and I'll generate a report for you for free comparing my estimates with the actual ratings and helping you understand why the ratings were what they were.  You may also contact me if you are just interested in purchasing an individual or team report as well.

Have you been 3 strike disqualified in USTA League tennis? Get a free report that explains the DQ

Analyzing USTA League disqualifications is one of the interesting things I get to do with my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings.  I'm usually able to predict or explain most DQs which is a confirmation that my algorithm is pretty darn close to estimating ratings correctly.

But when I can't explain one, the details of the DQ allow me to look at my algorithm and figure out how I can fine tune it a bit more.  Because this review is so valuable to me, I'm offering a free Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report to the first 5 USTA League players to contact me that received a DQ during the 2013 season.  In order to qualify for the free report, you'll need to send me the actual DQ letter you received with the details about which matches resulted in strikes.

Thanks!

Update: I've made the offer again for 2014.

Analysis of a strange Dynamic NTRP DQ in USTA League

A challenge with any rating system is how to rate new players/teams.  Do they get a default starting rating and if so, what is the default?  Or is there no initial rating and it gets generated from the first few matches/games?  In either case, should iterations be performed where the rating at some point in time is used as the starting rating?

In the case of the algorithm the USTA uses for calculating dynamic ratings as part of the NTRP, all indications are that new players, those that self-rate to join a league, do not have a rating and get their initial rating from their first few matches.  I've heard that come year-end rating time, a second pass through the calculations may be done that uses the player's end of year dynamic rating and this probably does make sense.

This is all fine and good, but in a league where the purpose of the rating is to promote competitive play, how can the league keep ringers or sand-baggers from self-rating too low so as to dominate their play?  This is where the NTRP system has provisions for disqualifying a player at a given level if their play demonstrates they self-rated too low.  Specifically, it is a 3 strikes system where if their rating exceeds a particular threshold 3 times, they get DQ'd at the level in question.

By and large, the system works pretty well.  The USTA sets the thresholds such that "natural improvement" is allowed, particularly at lower levels, without a disqualification occurring.  This means though, that some players that likely are playing below level may eke by and not get DQ'd, especially if they are doing the less than honorable manipulating of the system to keep matches close or throw matches to keep their rating low.

But occasionally, even with the thresholds allowing for improvement, a player gets DQ'd where on the surface, they shouldn't be.  One such situation was brought to my attention this week and I thought I'd share my analysis of why it happened.

The player in question self-rated as a 4.5 and proceeded to play in an 18 and over 4.5 league.  He played 6 matches going 2-4 with the following scores, all in doubles:

• 1/13 - Lost 2-6, 7-6, 1-0
• 2/2 - Lost 6-0, 6-4
• 3/10 - Won 6-2, 6-4
• 3/14/ - Lost 3-6, 6-1, 1-0
• 4/12 - Won 7-5, 6-3
• 4/28 - Lost 7-6, 6-0

It appears the DQ occurred after the 4/12 match (their "D" rating date is 4/19) so somehow, in going 2-3, they generated 3 strikes.  How could this happen?  They certainly don't appear to be dominating their league, they've lost more than they won in fact, and they aren't playing up (the usual way to get DQ'd or bumped up).

The key is that the NTRP system doesn't look at wins and losses, instead it looks at games won/lost and the current ratings of all players involved in the match.  Ok, so the 2-3 (2-4) record doesn't strictly matter, but in only 3 of the first 5 matches that appear to have generated the 3 strikes did he even win more games than the opponents.  Does simply winning more games result in a strike?

Not necessarily.  We still need to dig deeper, specifically at the ratings of his partner and opponents.  To aid in that, here is his performance chart.

The first match, despite being a loss, generated a pretty good match rating, over 4.5.  This is for two reasons.  First, his team won 2 more games than the opponent due to the first set.  Second, and more importantly, he played with a 4.0 partner (I had his rating at 3.8) against two 4.5s (4.21 and 4.01).  The NTRP computer calculates that in order to play with a weaker partner and win more games than stronger opponents that his rating had to have been the just over 4.5 you see in the chart.

In the second match, he loses pretty badly, but is still playing with the same 4.0 partner but this time the partners are stronger 4.5s (4.43 and 4.23).  This time, despite the 8 game deficit, because of his weak partner, they were supposed to lose and he still generates a pretty good match rating, just under 4.5.

Now, it is doubtful that either of these matches generated a strike.  My guess is that the threshold for a 4.5 is somewhere around 4.65 so both of these were ok.

The third match was the big one.  He and the same 4.0 partner win 2 & 4 against two 4.5s (4.08 and 4.40) and the computer says for that to happen, he would have had to have a rating of 5.0!  This match also generates his first full dynamic rating of 4.66 which is likely a strike.

The fourth and fifth matches are more of the same, although in the fourth he plays with a different partner.  However it is again with a 4.0 (3.97) and against two strong 4.5s and is reasonably close.  The fifth match is back with the first 4.0 partner and is a win.  These two matches keep his rating right around that 4.65 number and were likely the 2nd and 3rd strikes.

So what have we learned.  The key thing is if you are self-rated and play with a weaker partner, particularly one that is playing up, it is going to be easy to get a relatively high rating, especially if the opponents are stronger and results are competitive.  Had this player had a partner that was stronger and had the same results, he would not have been DQ'd.

Was this DQ just?  I don't know, but it can certainly be explained as I've done above and if he isn't a 5.0, he seems to be a pretty strong 4.5 as he is able to carry weaker opponents to pretty good results against good to very good 4.5 opponents.

Interested in seeing your own performance chart and estimated rating?  See this for an example and contact me to learn more.

Update: I received word that it was indeed the 3/10, 3/24, and 4/12 matches were the strikes so my estimates seem to be pretty accurate.