Poll: The conundrum of Early Start Leagues and Ratings

Note: Poll below, please read to the end and participate!

USTA NTRP year-end ratings should be out in less than two weeks and with that, players will know what level they can play at for 2019.

Except some players are already playing "2019" seasons in what are called Early Start Leagues (ESLs).  These are leagues where for a number of reasons (schedule conflicts, court availability, just to get another season in), an area will have a league that is part of the 2019 championship advancement start in 2018.  An example in my area is 55 & Over and 18 & Over Mixed are ESLs that start in the Fall as that is when courts are available since 40 & Over and 18 & Over will use all the available courts in the Winter and Spring.

The challenge is getting players rostered at the right level for these ESL teams, and what to do if a player is bumped up at year-end.

Say for example you are a very good 3.5, on your way to being bumped up to 4.0, and there is an ESL in your area for Adult 18 & Over that starts in September.

• Should you be allowed to play as a 3.5 or should something be in place to let you know you are likely to be bumped up and must play as a 4.0 in the ESL?
• And if you are allowed to play as a 3.5 and are bumped up at year-end, should you be allowed to keep playing as a 3.5?

A number of years ago, the USTA employed Early Start Ratings to get players rostered at the appropriate level.  The way these worked is that a snapshot was taken of your dynamic rating a month or two before the ESL was to start, and if you were above the bump threshold, you were given an "E" rating that bumped you up.  Now, these E ratings didn't show up on TennisLink, but were only on Early Start Rating lists that each section/district/area would publish.  But our hypothetical 3.5 above could very well be a 4.0E and have to play as a 4.0 in the ESL, thereby avoiding the situation where he is on a 3.5 team and now a 4.0 after year-end ratings come out.

Note that it was possible that our player would be a 3.5E and then be bumped up to 4.0 at year-end.  Because they were a 3.5E they would be allowed to continue playing on this team as a 3.5 despite the bump up, unless their rating reached the clearly above level mark.

Now, several years ago, the USTA decided to do away with Early Start Ratings as the feedback they received from players and sections was that they were confusing.  There is a point to this as they weren't published on TennisLink, every area has their own date to take the snapshot and publish ratings, there had to be a special process to deal with players appealing their E rating, etc.  It was also possible that a player would be an Early Start bump up, and then not be bumped up at year-end which confused some players.

In lieu of them though, players now simply play at their current year-end (or DQ'd/promoted) level in an ESL.  This is simpler on the surface, but introduces another type of confusion on the back-end, as the USTA also said that players from an ESL that are bumped up are not eligible to play at the lower level at Nationals.  But each section had the choice of how long a player could keep playing at the lower level prior to Nationals, and some sections promote them immediately on year-end ratings being published, while others let them play at the lower level through Sectionals.

So, depending on the section, our hypothetical 3.5 may be bumped up immediately and not be able to play on their 3.5 ESL team anymore, or would be able to keep playing on it, despite now being a 4.0, through 2019 Sectionals.

In those sections where players can't play through Sectionals or into 2019 at the lower level, year-end ratings bring a whole new significance.  A strong ESL team could be gutted by the bump ups and not be able to continue, or at least be significantly weaker than before.  This is arguably the right thing to do though as it is fair to all the other legitimate 3.5 teams that don't have now 4.0s playing for them.  Especially come Sectionals where there may be districts/states that didn't have an ESL and thus only have at-level players on their roster.  It really isn't fair to them to have to play a team from another district/state that has above level players now.

But even the teams that can stay intact through Sectionals may ultimately be impacted as their team could win Sectionals, and then lose players that are ineligible for Nationals, or even not be able to go to Nationals as they don't have the minimum roster to go.

I have no reason to believe we are going back to Early Start Ratings any time soon, but I wonder if having them was a better situation, and if the weaknesses of the system couldn't be fixed rather than throwing the whole system out.

Were Early Start Ratings confusing to you?  Or is the potential impact to teams losing players at some point more confusing and detrimental to a team?

Similarly, did Early Start Ratings create a more level and fair playing field for all?  Or because an E rating could still change at year-end it didn't really make a difference?

I personally liked having Early Start Ratings, but then again, I'm a bit of a propeller head that likes this stuff.  But I didn't think they were confusing and I thought they were more fair as players are more likely to be playing at the right level.  And it also avoided the situation we have today where districts/states without ESLs are at an inherent disadvantage to those with ESLs.

But what do you think? Vote in the poll below.

What do you think of Early Start Leagues / Ratings?

Early Start Ratings were confusing, glad they are gone

The new system is more confusing with different rules on eligibility and out of level players being rostered

The new system isn't fair to other teams in areas where players can keep playing after being bumped

Players should get to stay on the team through Nationals even if they are bumped up

Early Start Leagues should go away to solve the problem

Keep the new system, it is better than Early Start Ratings

Bring Early Start Ratings back

Check all that apply, but please don't choose answers that conflict with each other

Created with PollMaker

Southern, and others, bit by the Nationals rule regarding early start league bump ups again

For a few years now, there have been no early start ratings and instead, players just played at their current level for early start leagues.  However, if they were bumped up at year-end, they became ineligible to play at the lower level at Nationals.

The problem is, some sections allow these players to continue to play on their teams through Sectionals.  This creates the awkward situation where a team wins Sectionals, but then may have their roster gutted if they have players that were bumped up for the current year.

Last year, a team in Southern won Sectionals but then didn't even have enough eligible players to go to Nationals, but others have been affected just by not having their best players eligible and having to go with weaker/smaller rosters.

This year, teams are being affected again.  I originally did my simulation and prediction of the 18 & Over 3.0 women, and Southern was far and away the team picked to win.  But when you remove the 8(!) players rostered who are now 3.5s, while they still have enough to make the trip, it is a much smaller/weaker roster.  This isn't just unique to Southern, but any section with early start leagues and this year the Southwest 3.0 women are in a similar situation with 5 players ineligible.

This really shakes up the strengths of the teams, and frankly puts those sections at a disadvantage at Nationals as they are not sending their strongest teams, as the Sectional runner up, or some other team beaten along the way, may be a stronger team when just Nationals eligible players are considered.

This isn't limited to the women either, the 18 & Over 3.0 men have also been impacted.  The Southern team has 7 players rostered that are ineligible for Nationals.

If you are from another section, I guess take advantage of it, but if you are on an affected team, I feel for you, but I also feel for the teams that lost to you along the way that could have perhaps been at Nationals if the eligibility rules were consistent across the sections and through the year.

What do you think?

The first casualty of the 2017 USTA League early start rule change

I've written several times about the new rule for 2017 early start leagues in USTA League play and how it was a a recipe for disaster.  I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but it appears we have our first casualty of the new rule and a Sectional winner won't be going to Nationals.

For those just joining the story, for 2017, the USTA got rid of early start ratings and instead required players in 2017 early start leagues starting in 2016 to just use their 2015 year-end rating for joining the early start league.  The gotcha was that players that were bumped up at 2016 year-end would not be eligible to play at 2017 Nationals at their lower level, whereas with early start ratings players could remain eligible as they would have rostered using their early start rating.

That sort of makes sense, you don't want someone who is a 2016 year-end 4.0 to be able to be playing at 2017 3.5 Nationals.  Where the USTA goofed though, in my opinion, is that they left it up to each section to determine if these bumped up players would be eligible to continue to play in their local league, local playoffs, state/district playoffs, and Sectionals.

Some sections elected to allow these bumped up players to play through Sectionals, meaning a team could win their section on the shoulders of bumped up players that would not be eligible to go to Nationals on the team.  Southern was one of the sections that took this route and I wrote about the impending issue in looking at some teams headed for Sectionals.

Without going through all my reasoning and how this is unfair to other teams that must play the "ineligible team", you can click on the links above to take another look, what I predicted might happen has happened if reports I've heard are correct.  I've been told that a team in Southern that won Sectionals does not have enough players to go to Nationals and is having to give up their berth.  Apparently the runner up does not have this problem and will be able to go.

I'll refrain from naming the team as this is not official and until teams show up in the Nationals flights on TennisLink nothing is certain, but the short story is the team only had eight 2016 year-end at level players and either decided that wasn't enough, or perhaps one member couldn't go and the USTA doesn't allow teams to go to Nationals if they don't have a full roster.

Update: A deeper look reveals while the team had eight 2016 year-end at-level players on the roster, one had only played two matches on the team and a player must have played three to be eligible for Nationals, so they did only have seven eligible to go which National does not allow.

It may be this is the only team this happens to, other teams may be affected but not to this degree, but it is something I'd think a section would want to avoid.  Why have a format set up where a team that wins Sectionals can't go to Nationals?  That doesn't seem fair to their opponents at Sectionals or even States/Districts that got beaten by players and a team National considers ineligible.  Sure, the second place team gets to go, but what about the team that was second in their Sectionals flight and didn't get to make the final.  Or the second place team States/Districts that lost out on a trip to Sectionals?

What do you think?

2017 18 & over Georgia State Championships - What is common about the winners?

The 18 & over State Championships in Georgia were held the past few weekends and in light of my commenting on the effect of the demise of early start ratings and the confusion that could ensue as a result, I thought it would be interesting to take a look and how things played out given that Georgia has a lot of early start leagues and teams.

As a reminder, the issue is that with no more early start ratings, players play in early start leagues using their current rating, e.g. folks used their 2015 year-end level instead of an early start level for early start leagues last year.  The other change is that USTA National decided that players that were bumped up at year-end would not be eligible to play at Nationals.

Each section gets to choose at what point those bumped up players become ineligible through Sectionals though, and Southern decided to let those players remain eligible through Sectionals.  This means that a team could win Southern Sectionals and have a number of players on the roster that help the team win that would not be eligible to play at Nationals.  This effectively means a different team makes the Nationals trip, likely not as strong/deep as another team that would have a full roster of eligible players.

So we can now start to take a look at if what I predicted is indeed happening.  Here is the make-up of the teams that won 18+ Georgia States.

Women:

• 2.5 - 6 players at level and 4 that were bumped up, if this team wins Sectionals, they'd only have 6 eligible and 5 are required to play a match, so barely enough.
• 3.0 -  7 players at level, 4 that were bumped up, and 1 playing up, so with one playing up, the bare minimum of 8 required just to fill the courts for a match.
• 3.5 - 3 playing up, 11 at level, and just 1 bumped up, so a fairly complete roster should they advance to Nationals.
• 4.0 - 1 playing up, 10 at level, and a full 5 that were bumped up.  These 5 bumped up all played in the State final so having just 3 players from their preferred line-up is really a different team.
• 4.5 - 14 at level and 3 bumped up.

So every women's team would be affected if they went to Nationals, several significantly impacted.

The men are a bit different:

• 3.0 - 9 at level and 3 bumped up
• 3.5 - 14 at level and 3 bumped up
• 4.0 - 11 at level
• 4.5 - Roster full of self-rates except for one player

The men are not impacted as much, but still losing 3 of your best players is pretty significant.

Now, for the issue to crop up, the teams above have to win Sectionals, and that is certainly not a given.  But having above level players on the roster certainly gives them an advantage over other teams that were not early start league teams and have to have only players at level.  Of course, a few other states in Southern have early start leagues so could be bringing similarly stacked teams.

I will continue to monitor, so stay tuned.

How will the new rules for early start leagues for 2017 affect USTA League Nationals? The mess and confusion is beginning.

I've written a bunch of previews of both the 40 & over and 18 & over USTA League Nationals over the past few weeks.  But are these really the teams likely to be at Nationals?  Some might be, but it is probably likely that many aren't, and perhaps some on my list are already eliminated.  Let me explain why.

First, just because a team has a high top-8 average does not mean they are likely to win Sectionals, or even make it there.  In some areas, a team must win their sub-flight and/or win their local playoffs, then go to Districts/States and win, and then go to Sectionals and win.  It is possible that just one loss in local league play or any level of playoffs could keep a top-rated team from advancing.

And even with a top team, one loss can happen, either due to match-ups, perhaps an opponent successfully stacks their line-up, or they have a big roster and don't play their best players in some matches either to get some lower rated players in a match or because some players aren't available.

Upsets do happen and may have happened already, some teams on my lists have already been eliminated by not winning their local league or local playoffs.

Second, and part of the reason why some teams may already be eliminated, are Early Start Leagues.  These are 2017 leagues that started play in 2016, some as early as May or June, and so their local league, and perhaps local playoffs are complete already, and it is possible a top team did not advance.

But the more interesting thing about Early Start Leagues is the rule change for 2017 where there were no Early Start Ratings and players just registered for teams and played at their 2015 year-end level.  The good teams typically have good players, and many of these good teams had players get bumped up at 2016 year-end, and per the 2017 National regulations, these players will not be eligible to play at the (lower) level they are rostered at on the team.

Now each section was allowed to decide how long these bumped up players could continue playing at their lower level, and some like the Pacific Northwest elected to rule these players ineligible right away and not let them play at Sectionals, while others like Southern elected to allow these players to continue playing on their teams at the lower level all the way through Sectionals.

Now there are pros and cons to each approach, but in my opinion it is better to rule these players ineligible as soon as you know they won't be able to play at Nationals.  I wrote about why I thought this rule change was a bad idea, and why I thought players should be ruled ineligible right away, but it boils down to not doing so allowing teams to advance that won't be able to go to Nationals, or at least with the roster they won their Section with.  This seems unfair to their opponents, and isn't in the best interest of the section, as they will be sending a weaker team to Nationals than they might be otherwise.

We can begin to see this happening with some of the teams in my Nationals previews.  For example, there is a men's 3.0 team from Atlanta that is rated very high on my 18+ 3.0 preview that has a 13 player roster, but six of those players were bumped up to 3.5 so won't be eligible for Nationals at 3.0.  If this team were to win their section, they couldn't even field a team at Nationals.

And it isn't unique to Atlanta or Georgia, there is a high rated 18+ 3.0 men's team from Alabama that has a 15 player roster and eight of the players were bumped up to 3.5 leaving just seven eligible.  But because Southern allows these players to continue to play, they can advance on to States, and because they are such strong teams, likely Sectionals.  In fact, it is likely that the majority of teams at Sectionals could fall into this category.  It could happen that there is no team even at Sectionals that could field a team at Nationals.  So who will go?

So I predicted this mess, we are beginning to see it happen.

As a result, the previews I've done are completely accurate regarding who the strongest teams are, and in some sections would be the favorites are to make and/or win Sectionals, but may not reflect who the strongest Nationals eligible rosters are.  Keep that in mind as you review them.

I will be doing updated previews later in the year, and I'll try to factor this in, so stay tuned.

Why early start ratings were a good thing for USTA League - A look at the problems we'll face in 2017

I've written before about the USTA doing away with early start ratings for 2017 and commented on why I thought it wasn't a good decision.  Well, I've come across a team that shows exactly why that is the case.

I came across a Mixed 8.0 team that is playing in an early start league and like most 8.0 teams is made of up a mix of 3.5s, 4.0s, and 4.5s.  Presently, this team has ways to field as many as four 4.5M/3.5W pairs and three 4.0M/4.0W pairs for a given match.

That's not bad, even if a few players are bumped up and become ineligible to play at their rostered levels, they should be able to still field a good team.  The problem is, this team may have more than just a few players bumped up.  And since this team is playing in a section where ineligible players won't be able to play at Sectionals, this could be an issue.

If my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings are accurate at all, it is entirely possible that three of their 4.5 men could be bumped up making them ineligible to play on the team at all since they'd be 5.0s.  Ok, but they still have 4.0 men right?  Yes, but two of those are likely to be bumped up to 4.5.  Ok, but those could still play with 3.5 women right?  Yes, but four of those are likely to be bumped up to 4.0.

So, this team that has 16 players on the roster, could end up being able to field only two pairs after year-end bumps.  They'd have several 4.5 men but only one 3.5 woman, and then a bunch of 4.0 women but only one 4.0 man.  A few players are borderline bumps so there is a chance they could field a third pair, but just two pairs is entirely possible.

Now, this team is not doing anything illegal.  The USTA has elected to have teams formed using 2016 year-end ratings and all these players were computer rated at year-end.  But it is entirely possible that this team could beat up on teams in local league and still be able to use these players as rostered in local playoffs and win there, but then not be able to field a team for Sectionals.

Sure, if the team can't field a team, the runner up can be offered the spot.  But it still isn't really fair to the teams that had to play the team during the regular season or playoffs.  Some team will miss out on a playoff spot to this team, and then at least two other teams will be precluded from advancing in playoffs having to play this team and make it to the final.  And should there be a wildcard offered to Sectionals for this district, the runner-up would already be going, so who gets the offer to go when the winner can't field a team?  Will the semi-final losers have to play to decide that or will some tie-breaker be used?  It could become a bit of a mess.

But this also isn't really fair to the team that has the bump ups as they've formed their roster per the rules and may be precluded from advancing to Sectionals when players are bumped up.

Like I said before, early start ratings, while not perfect, served a purpose and that was to make it more likely players would be rostered on early start teams at their proper level and greatly reduce the chance of players being out of level and messing up rosters after year-end ratings come out.  Without them, players and teams, and not just the team with players being bumped up, will be significantly affected negatively.  I think we will be wishing we'd had early start ratings back when all is said and done.

Hypothetical USTA Eastern Long Island 2017 Early Start List

I've written about the USTA doing away with Early Start Lists and as a service have decided to publish some hypothetical Early Start Lists of my own.  I already published a list for Seattle, Southern Oregon, and Eastern Washington, and I already branched outside the Pacific Northwest the with Metropolitan Region district in the Eastern section, now here is the Long Island district.

But before you take a look at the list, the same comments and caveats as before still apply.

1. The list is based on my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings.  This is not a list from the USTA and is not to be used for registering for Early Start Leagues.  It is only hypothetical.
2. While my ratings are very accurate for the vast majority of players, they are not perfect and may be a few hundredths off in which case I could have a player at 3.52 and an early start 4.0 while their real rating is 3.49 which would be a 3.5.
3. Early Start Ratings do not necessarily tell you what your year-end rating will be, even if you don't play any more matches.  Year-end calculations factoring in playoffs and how your area/district/section did in playoffs can move player's ratings up or down from the Early Start level.
4. If you don't see your name and you expected a bump up/down, or you see your name and are surprised and want to know why, contact me at ratings@teravation.net and I can give you details on how to get an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report that will give all the background on why your estimated rating is where it is.
5. Note that I'm publishing this list a bit early.  I think the Early Start List for this area was published in August last year, but folks were interested so I'm doing it now.

With that said, on to the list!  The below shows only those players that I estimate would be bumped up or down on the Early Start List and I simply show a name, city, and the hypothetical Early Start level.  If your name isn't shown, I estimate your rating to be unchanged.

First the women:

Name	City	Level
Ada Luz Coonerty	Garden City	3.0
Adele Mancuso	Brooklyn	4.5
Aina Erickson	Sea Cliff	4.5
alison brooks wallace	Lloyd Harbor	3.5
Alison Sannella Galloway	Baldwin	2.5
Alison Seipp	Glen Head	3.5
Alistaire Bambach	Garden City	3.5
Allison Greenberg	Delmar	5.0
Alyssa Sepe	Rockville Centre	3.5
amy chiang	Syosset	3.0
Amy Damelio	Cold Spring Harbor	3.0
Anastassia Schlussel	Lawrence	3.5
andrea dunbar	Greenlawn	3.5
Andrea Nugent	Port Jefferson Station	3.5
Angela Castillo	Closter	4.5
Angela M. Scarnato	Wantagh	2.5
Anique Lee	Long Beach	3.0
Annabelle Rosenzweig	Merrick	2.5
Anne McConville	Fort Salonga	3.5
Antonella Karlin	East Rockaway	5.0
Aphrodite Vorillas	Manhasset	4.0
Arlene P Northcote	Halesite	3.0
Armi Viti	Babylon	2.5
Barbara A. Borden	Hewlett	3.5
Barbara Perri	Floral Park	3.5
Barbara T Schmidt	Rockville Centre	2.5
Barbara Yusko	Sayville	3.0
Belle Tia	Levittown	2.5
Beth Costa	West Babylon	4.0
Beth L. Mercante	Lido Beach	4.0
Bonnie Liebman	Commack	3.5
Brenda P. Rosenberg	Melville	4.0
Bridget Reynolds	East Northport	2.5
Carol Diamond	Rockville Ctr	3.0
Caroline Austin	Stony Brook	3.5
Carolyn Faith Schechner	Bellmore	2.5
Carolyn Kris	Old Bethpage	3.0
Caryn Gallitto	Merrick	3.0
Catherine M. Crifasi	Malverne	3.0
Catherine Wang	Bayside	3.0
Cathy Caldwell	Copiague	3.0
Cheryl M. Segall	Syosset	4.5
Christine Kara Pullian	Merrick	3.5
Christine R. Klouda	Port Jefferson Station	3.5
Cindy L Couluris	Patchogue	3.0
Connie Insignares	E Northport	3.5
Cori Forster	Dix Hills	2.5
Corinne Moschetti	Sayville	3.5
Dale Elgort	Melville	4.0
Dana Slackman	Commack	4.0
danielle paulus	Port Jefferson	3.0
Dawn H. Young	Sayville	3.5
Debbie Franks	Selden	4.5
Debbie Groark	Long Beach	2.5
Debbie Hung	Setauket	3.5
Deborah A. Trimboli	Massapequa Park	3.0
Deborah Gage	Merrick	2.5
Deborah Sarah Gallin	Setauket	2.5
deborah T defelice	Cold Spring Harbor	3.0
Devon Carroll	Cold Spring Harbor	4.0
Diane Meyers	Long Beach	2.5
diane noto	Merrick	3.5
Donna Hallas	Levittown	3.0
Doreen Lynn Cook	Smithtown	4.0
Doris Ann Duignan	Lynbrook	3.0
Elizabeth Levit	Bellmore	4.0
Elizabeth M. Keely	Oakdale	4.0
Elizabeth Murray	Garden City	3.5
Elizabeth Signore	Glen Head	3.0
Ellen Huang	Farmingdale	3.5
Ellen Huhulea	Rockville Centre	4.5
Ellie Wang	Syosset	3.5
Emma Julie Brandt	Huntington	4.0
Faith Reiss	Merrick	3.5
Francine Zinerco	Seaford	4.0
Gaetana Smith	Lloyd Harbor	3.0
Georgina Merrihew	Islip	3.5
Geri Verola	Glen Head	3.5
Ginny McGowan	Hempstead	3.5
Hali Rachel Katz	Woodbury	5.0
Heather Moskowitz	Woodbury	3.0
Heidi Esposito	Port Washington	4.5
Helen Rubin	Woodbury	3.5
Helene G. Messilaty	Hewlett	3.5
Ilene Glatman	Commack	2.5
Iveta Scioscia	East Setauket	3.0
Jaclyn L. Morrison	Merrick	2.5
Jacqueline Peiffer	Bethpage	2.5
Jane Brown	Huntington	4.0
Jane D Thaler	Oyster Bay	3.5
Janine Debellis	Cold Spg Hbr	4.0
Jayne H Golub	Woodbury	3.0
Jean M Skolnick	Sayville	3.0
Jean Tanklowitz	East Meadow	3.0
Jeanette Romano	East Setauket	4.0
Jeanne-Marie Buccellato	Garden City	4.0
Jeannie Luna	Smithtown	3.0
Jemmifer Fridman	Huntington Station	5.0
Jen Kelly	Manhasset	3.5
Jenna Levin	East Meadow	3.5
Jennifer Marshak	East Setauket	4.0
Jennifer Rose Schonhoff	Saint James	3.5
Jennifer Suh-McCormack	Bayport	4.0
Jenny Bencardino	Jericho	2.5
Jerilyn Jud	Glen Head	4.5
Jill Marie Rector	Long Beach	3.0
Joann Esposito	Huntington	3.0
Josefina M. Essex	Sayville	3.0
Joy Borrero	Bayport	3.5
Joy martinsen	Fort Salonga	3.5
Judy Damore	Setauket	4.0
julie mischo	Bayport	3.5
Karen Calace	West Palm Beach	3.0
Karen Dunbar	Lake Grove	3.5
Karen E Groeger	Rockville Centre	3.5
Karen Levine	Bellmore	4.5
Kate Kincaid	Huntington	4.0
Katherine VandeBerghe	Commack	4.5
Kelly Ann Mason	Setauket	3.5
Kendall Kutner	Rockville Centre	4.0
Kiki Sandra Haas	Cedarhurst	3.5
Kim Oricoli	Northport	3.5
kim scanlon	Commack	3.5
Kirstin Stickney	Brightwaters	3.5
kris adams	Port Jefferson	3.5
LaDonna Yousha	Wantagh	3.5
Laura Greenfield	Smithtown	3.5
Laureen Carapellucci	Amityville	2.5
Lauren Castellano	Long Beach	4.0
Lauren Siegel	Deer Park	3.0
Laurie Schoenfeld	Dix Hills	4.0
Leah Carroll	East Meadow	3.0
leslie ann levchuck	Greenlawn	3.0
Lily Tang	Brooklyn	3.5
Linda Goldstein	Oceanside	3.0
Linda Krauthamer	Commack	4.0
Linda Sarfati	Bellmore	3.5
Lisa Landau	Bellmore	4.0
Lorelei McGlynn	Northport	2.5
Lori Bader	Oceanside	3.5
Luzan Moore	Long Beach	4.0
Marci J. Last	Hewlett	3.5
Marcie M. Zeitlin	Great Neck	4.0
Margaret McNamara	Hauppauge	3.0
Maria J. Mineo	Mount Sinai	2.5
Marian B. Morris	Long Beach	2.5
Marilena F DiScala	Syosset	3.5
Marilyn M. Durso	Massapequa	3.5
Marisa Ruta	Garden City	2.5
Marlaina Teich	Merrick	4.0
Mary Ann Ferguson	Rockville Ctr	3.0
Mary Margaret Mohrman	Southampton	3.0
Mary McLean	East Islip	3.0
Mary N. O'Grady	East Northport	3.0
Maryclair Leistman	Garden City	3.0
Marylou McCabe	White Plains	3.0
Maxine Sharon Oresky	Syosset	3.5
mehves sucato	Astoria	4.0
melissa reichbach	Roslyn	3.0
Melissa Schneider	Oceanside	2.5
Micheline Laurent	East Northport	3.5
michelle nuccio	Merrick	3.5
Milta R. Maryles	East Northport	3.5
Mina Fournaris	Setauket	2.5
MINA MANDELBAUM	Roslyn Hts	3.5
Mindy D. Ehrlich	Commack	3.0
Misha Monticciolo	Coram	4.0
Nancy DAmato	Commack	3.5
Nancy Lefkowitz	Manhasset	4.0
Naomi glazer	Woodbury	2.5
Nikki Ullman	Huntington Station	3.5
Nina Litvinenko	Mount Sinai	3.5
Ninoska Malik	Melville	4.0
Pamela Charles	Great Neck	4.0
Patricia Calire	Lake Grove	3.0
Peggy L Maslow	Port Washington	3.5
Penny Zagalis	Douglaston	3.5
Ramona Adriana Weinstein	Rockville Centre	4.0
Rekha Gupta	Glen Head	3.5
Robin Baren	Commack	3.0
ROKSOLANA SHYYKA	south setauket	2.5
Rosalynn Steele	Long Beach	3.0
Salpi Cooperstone	Merrick	3.5
Shari Brown	Merrick	3.5
Shelley Van Blerkom	Bayside	3.5
Sloane A Barrie	Jericho	3.0
Sondra Glueck	Great Neck	4.0
Staci D. Gura	Bellmore	4.0
Stephanie Fein	Merrick	4.5
Susan A. Bacey	Dix Hills	4.5
Susan Barry	Rockville Centre	3.5
Susan May	Huntington	3.0
Susan Merola	Merrick	3.0
Susan Spagnoli	Stony Brook	2.5
Suzanne M. Sullivan	Rockville Ctr	4.0
Suzanne Prezorski	Deer Park	3.0
Sydney Betts Voros	Setauket	3.0
Tara Kelly	Rockville Centre	3.5
tatiana frekhtman	Woodmere	3.0
Terri Ciaramello	East Rockaway	3.5
Terry Reich	Valley Stream	2.5
Theoni Anagnostou	Merrick	3.5
Therese Direnzo	Oyster Bay	3.5
Tracey Reyhani	Woodbury	2.5
Tracy Kleinberg	Dix Hills	3.5
Tricia Y Kaplan	Mount Sinai	2.5
Troy Holt	Setauket	4.0
Virginia Ross	Oyster Bay	3.5
wendy funk	Bellmore	4.5
Wendy Lee Janny	Stony Brook	4.5
Wendy Stechman	Seaford	3.5
Wendy Streigold	Valley Stream	4.5
Yvonne Evelyn	Huntington	3.5
Zebo Sokolskiy	Hewlett	2.5
Zsuzsa Price	Bay Shore	3.5

And the men:

Name	City	Level
adam jagoda	Oakdale	4.0
Alan G. Schoenberg	Oceanside	3.5
Andreas Berner	New York	4.0
Anthony J Leggio	Centereach	3.5
Arkady Frekhtman	Woodmere	3.5
asher abitbol	West Hempstead	3.5
Benjamin L Mazza	Bellmore	3.5
brian ketover	Woodbury	4.0
Cameron Daniels	Oakland Gardens	5.0
Cecil M. Hollins	Laurelton	4.0
Charles Zadoff	Lynbrook	3.0
Chris A Morales	Astoria	5.0
Dane Phillips	Plainview	4.5
Danny Kresh	Commack	4.0
Darren Senzon	Stamford	4.0
David Berman	Merrick	3.5
David J. Brent	Woodmere	4.0
David Ng	East Williston	3.5
Devang Madhu Parmar	auburndale	5.0
dilip s nair	Islip	3.5
Ernesto Puteri	Seaford	3.5
Gary J McNulty	Smithtown	4.5
gary kittredge	Miller Place	3.5
George H Brooks	Northport	4.0
Gregg DiNino	East Meadow	4.0
Gregory Ciuffo	Merrick	4.0
Horst Steinsdoerfer	Levittown	4.0
HSIAOPIN LIU	Farmingdale	4.0
Ivor Chan	Rosedale	3.5
Jason Pessel	Rockville Centre	4.0
Jayson Blau	Forest Hills	4.5
Jeffrey M. De Weever	Farmingdale	4.5
Jerry Chang	Sands Point	4.5
Jim Walther	Copiague	3.5
john cissel	Saint James	4.0
John K Yoo	Setauket	4.0
John Thomas James	East Patchogue	4.0
Jonathan Klein	Carle Place	5.0
Jonathan P Nelson	Setauket	4.0
Joseph Polestino	Greenlawn	5.0
Joseph Tabak	Valley Stream	4.0
Joshua Slifkin	Forest Hills	5.0
Julian Dickson	Wyandanch	3.5
Kenneth Gaudio	Miller Place	4.5
Kevin Droutman	Lake Grove	4.0
Kevin Kim	Rocky Point	4.5
Kevin Peters	Manorville	4.0
Lawrence Ham	Freeport	3.5
Marc Spencer Werner	New York	4.5
Mario Montoya	East Setauket	3.5
Mariusz Jaskowski	Malverne	3.5
Mark E Daly	Forest Hills	4.0
Mark Fischl	Huntington	5.0
Mark Freeley	East Setauket	3.5
Mark H Goldman	Port Washington	4.0
Mark Julian Baker	North Baldwin	5.0
Matthew Spindler	Roslyn	4.5
Michael Cohen	Merrick	3.0
Michael Joseph Casamassima	Smithtown	4.5
Michael Slutsky	Stony Brook	3.0
Michael Yeamans	Farmingville	3.5
mike solow	Rockville Centre	4.0
Patrick M. Ruddick	Massapequa Park	4.0
Peter Hsieh	Great Neck	3.5
Peter Morgis	Armonk	4.0
Phil Monticciolo	Coram	3.0
Ralph P Habib	Northport	4.0
Rick Y. Chen	Fresh Meadows	4.0
Robert Kaiserman	Setauket	3.5
Robert M Morgillo	Plainview	4.0
Robert S. Chesney	Malverne	4.5
Robert Thomas Lynch	Mount Sinai	3.5
Ross Binder	Merrick	4.0
Ryan T. Musalo	Massapequa Park	5.0
Shane Lefebvre	Deer Park	4.0
Shashikanth Sevanan	Kings Park	3.5
Stan Yurynets	Rockville Centre	3.5
steve geller	East Quogue	4.5
Stuart Kamelhar	Bellmore	3.5
Talbert A Isaacs	Jamaica	4.0
Timothy Shelley	Long Beach	3.5
Vikram Gupta	Bayside	4.5
Wayne Freeman	Port Jefferson Station	3.5

No more Early Start Ratings, how will captains recruit and form their rosters? New info from the PNW section

If you are a regular reader of this blog, this is not news to you, I've written before that Early Start Ratings are gone for 2017 leagues and the PNW section elected to not allow bumped up players to play at their early start level at Sectionals.  Southern on the other hand is allowing players to play through Sectionals at their early start level even though they can't play at Nationals at that level.

What is new is that in another PNW newsletter today, they provided a link to a page saying more about the subject and going so far as to suggest teams think about the implications of bump ups and make sure they have players of appropriate levels to accommodate potential bumps.

For example, an 8.0 Mixed team may have a roster full of 4.0 men and women.  If any of those players were to be bumped up to 4.5, they would be ineligible to play at Sectionals as they would have to play with a 3.5.  So the suggestion is to have a 3.5 or two on the roster so the bumped up 4.5 can still play.  Now the 3.5 still has to have played their two matches to be eligible for Sectionals, so they may have to play as a "7.5" pair or the team needs to have a corresponding 4.5 for them to play with.  Note that if a 4.5 were to be bumped up, they could not play at all going forward as a 5.0/3.0 combination is not valid for 8.0 Mixed.

This can lead to some interesting recruiting and team formation.  Do you get strong players for their level and risk them being bumped up at year-end and wreaking havoc on the roster?  Do you avoid having just just players at one level to give some flexibility?  Or do you avoid having only the "best" players to try to ensure you don't have problems?

To try to help players with this, I've been publishing some hypothetical early start lists for several different areas, and will likely publish more, and folks can use these to see if I project players to be bumped up at this point.  You probably wouldn't want to get a complete roster of players projected to be bumped up!

But the early start lists I publish don't show the players that may be just a hundredth or so away and could be bumped up at year-end, nor can you tell how close a player is that is going to Sectionals and could have their rating go up.  So if you'd like more information on a player or list of players, contact me and I can help with recruiting, player lists, team reports, or just regular individual reports to help you see where players are likely to be rated and their risk of being bumped up at year-end.

How are you going to form your early start team?

Earlier 2017 Manhattan Early Start List now for entire Metropolitan Region

I just updated the Early Start List I created for the Manhattan area in the Metro Region of the Eastern section to be for the whole Metro Region.  So many players cross over that adding the other three areas only made the list a little longer.

Enjoy!

Hypothetical USTA Eastern Metropolitan Region 2017 Early Start List

I've written about the USTA doing away with Early Start Lists and as a service have decided to publish some hypothetical Early Start Lists of my own.  I already published a list for Seattle, Southern Oregon, and Eastern Washington, and I thought I'd branch outside the Pacific Northwest so here is the Metropolitan Region district in the Eastern section.

Update: This was originally just the Manhattan area in the district, but I went ahead and made it the whole district given how many players cross-over to play in multiple areas.

But before you take a look at the list, the same comments and caveats as before still apply.

1. The list is based on my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings.  This is not a list from the USTA and is not to be used for registering for Early Start Leagues.  It is only hypothetical.
2. While my ratings are very accurate for the vast majority of players, they are not perfect and may be a few hundredths off in which case I could have a player at 3.52 and an early start 4.0 while their real rating is 3.49 which would be a 3.5.
3. Early Start Ratings do not necessarily tell you what your year-end rating will be, even if you don't play any more matches.  Year-end calculations factoring in playoffs and how your area/district/section did in playoffs can move player's ratings up or down from the Early Start level.
4. If you don't see your name and you expected a bump up/down, or you see your name and are surprised and want to know why, contact me at ratings@teravation.net and I can give you details on how to get an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report that will give all the background on why your estimated rating is where it is.
5. Note that I'm publishing this list a bit early.  I think the Early Start List for this area was published in August last year, but folks were interested so I'm doing it now.

With that said, on to the list!  The below shows only those players that I estimate would be bumped up or down on the Early Start List and I simply show a name, city, and the hypothetical Early Start level.  If your name isn't shown, I estimate your rating to be unchanged.

First the women:

Name	City	Level
Alma Weinstein	Bardonia	3.5
Amanda Meyer	Baltimore	3.5
andrea hamar	Bronx	4.0
Ann Marie Collins	New York	3.0
Anne Kelly	New York	3.5
Annette C Borst	New York	3.5
Antonella Karlin	East Rockaway	5.0
Ayako Minatodani	New York	4.5
Beth L. Mercante	Lido Beach	4.0
Blair Brzeski	New York	4.0
Cari Harewood	Forest Hills	2.5
Carol Ann Myers	Armonk	3.5
Catherine Donovan	New York	3.0
Catherine Jackson	New York	3.5
Catherine Tharin	New York	3.5
Charlotte Ganberg	Bronx	3.5
Chelsea Maeda	New York	3.0
Cindy Lacqua	Staten Island	3.5
Daisy Siemon	New York	4.0
Debra R. Bricker	New York	3.5
Denise A. Fiallo	New York	3.0
Denise K. Cohen	Ossining	4.0
Denise McDonald	Manasquan	3.0
Devon Carroll	Cold Spring Harbor	4.0
Donna Healy	Freeport	3.5
Dorsey W. Montenecourt	New York	3.0
Edna T Diolata	Brooklyn	3.0
Eileen Pollack	New York	3.0
Elaine Philis	New York	3.5
Elena Apostolides	New York	4.0
Elisabeth deBourbon	New York	3.5
Elizabeth Roesch	Brooklyn	3.0
Ellie Wang	Syosset	3.5
Esther Hong	New York	3.0
Evadne E. Bennia	New York	3.5
Evelyn Lamb	Brooklyn	4.0
Halina T. Pavels	New York	4.0
Heide Marie Bliss	Yonkers	4.0
Helene G. Messilaty	Hewlett	3.5
Hilary Finn	Brooklyn	2.5
Hyungran Lee	Fresh meadows	4.0
Inaya Assal	Bronx	4.0
Iris Shih	New York	3.0
Jane Beal	New York	4.0
jill deborah seelig	New York	3.0
Joy E. Tegtmeyer	New York	4.0
Julia Kates	New York	3.0
Justine Cooper	Brooklyn	3.5
Katarzyna Skalska	Middle Village	3.0
Katherine Hamilton	Long Island City	3.5
katie Leanne Walker	Forest Hills	3.5
Kayoko Ito	Eastchester	4.0
Kei Imanishi	Pennington	4.5
Kelly Henson	New York	3.5
Kimberly Pang	New York	3.5
Laura Parcell	Brooklyn	3.5
lauren savoy	New York	3.0
Leonila Jewell	Jamaica	3.0
Lily Tang	Brooklyn	3.5
Linda Eichenbaum	New York	4.0
Lorena Salgado	Ozone Park	3.5
lori grunsfeld	Staten Island	3.0
Luzan Moore	Long Beach	4.0
Margaret Gorman	Brooklyn	4.0
MARIJA CUTURIC	New York	3.0
Marina E. Galeano	Pleasantville	4.0
Mary Jane Reisinger	New York	3.5
Mary Keough	WHITE PLAINS	3.5
mehves sucato	Astoria	4.0
Melissa A. Murphy	New York	3.0
Michele D. Miller	Dobbs Ferry	4.5
Misha Monticciolo	Coram	4.0
Monika Granata	New York	3.5
Nancy Aranow	Hartsdale	3.5
Nesta George	Brooklyn	4.0
Nicola Chiba	New York	3.5
Patricia McNamara	New York	3.5
Rachael S Ellenbogen	Slingerlands	3.5
Randi Ann Coppola	Harrison	4.0
Rebecca L. Danchik	New York	3.5
Rebecca Wehrle	Haledon	3.5
Rezan C. Graf	Pound Ridge	4.0
Robin Brady	Bronx	3.5
Robin L. Breuer	Hackensack	3.0
Salpi Cooperstone	Merrick	3.5
Sara C Willett	New York	3.5
Sarah Ann Mannion	New York	4.5
Sarah Liddle	White Plains	4.5
Sondra Glueck	Great Neck	4.0
Stephanie Vogt	New York	3.5
Susan A. Bacey	Dix Hills	4.5
Susan A. Robichek	Haworth	3.5
Susan M. Peck	New York	3.5
Susan Smey	Putnam Valley	4.5
Susie Choi	New York	3.5
Suzanne Prezorski	Deer Park	3.0
Suzanne R. Shapiro	Long Is City	3.5
Tammy Caress	New York	3.5
Venus Jones	Bronx	4.0
Wanda P. Nadal	Glen Rock	3.5
Wendy Johnson	New York	3.0
Yelena Korolikova	Staten Island	2.5
Yimei He	Forest Hills	4.0

And the men:

Name	City	Level
Adam Gerber	New York	4.5
Adam J. Finkelstein	Greenwich	4.5
Alan M Friedman	New York	3.0
Albert Cousins	Long Island City	2.5
Amit Bafna	Englewood Cliffs	4.0
Andreas Berner	New York	4.0
Arthur Kell	Brooklyn	4.5
Bartosz Sikora	Ramsey	4.0
Blake Spahn	New York	4.5
Brad Dunn	Saugerties	3.0
Brady Bartlett	North Bergen	5.0
Brendan Alan Moser	Kew Gardens	3.5
Brett Cornell	Astoria	3.5
Cesar Gonzalez	Yonkers	3.5
Chau Khuong	Forest Hills	4.5
Chris McGee	Brooklyn	4.5
Christopher Daniels	New York	4.0
Christopher Walther	New York	4.5
Cidric Trinidad	Forest Hills	4.5
Dan Jones	North Merrick	4.5
Daniel Bindler	Merrick	3.5
Darcy Mitchell	New York	4.5
David Schwartz	Lyndhurst	5.0
David Seidner	Roslyn Heights	4.5
Devang Madhu Parmar	auburndale	5.0
Douglas Brian Savino	Chappaqua	4.0
eric shvartser	Brooklyn	3.0
Eric Yong Jin	Staten Island	4.5
Fungseng Mui	Brooklyn	3.0
Georgio A Dano	Staten Island	4.5
GowriShankar Vembu	Scotch Plains	4.0
H Steve Kim	New York	4.5
Han Bo	Middle Village	3.0
Horst Steinsdoerfer	Levittown	4.0
HSIAOPIN LIU	Farmingdale	4.0
Ian Katz	New York	4.5
Isaac Halpern	New York	3.5
Ivor Chan	Rosedale	3.5
Jason T Willinger	Beverly Hills	4.0
Jaspreet Singh	Hicksville	4.0
Javinne McCoy	Briarwood	3.5
Jeff R. Cunningham	New York	4.0
Jeremy Mindich	New York	4.0
Jodi Nainggolan	Levittown	4.5
Julien Morel	Astoria	5.0
JUNG HOON PARK	Little Neck	4.0
Ken wong	Brooklyn	4.0
Kevin carlyle Robinson	New York	3.5
Kevine Masuka	Hempstead	3.5
Koray Yilmaz	Brooklyn	3.5
Kuo Hung Wu	Bronx	4.0
Laurent Nguyen Ngoc	New York	4.0
Luc M Demortier	New York	3.5
Marc Spencer Werner	New York	4.5
Marcel Heinrichs	New York	3.5
Mariusz Jaskowski	Malverne	3.5
Mark E Daly	Forest Hills	4.0
Mark H Goldman	Port Washington	4.0
Matthew Spindler	Roslyn	4.5
Michael Joseph Casamassima	Smithtown	4.5
Michael T. Peterson	Brooklyn	3.5
Michael Tarlow	New York	3.0
Mikel Maurolagoitia	New York	4.5
Neil Torpey	New York	4.0
Nick Bridoy	New York	4.5
Nickola Ristic	New York	5.0
Ninad Shah	Whitestone	2.5
Nishad Deshpande	Astoria	3.5
omar stanley bailey	Brooklyn	3.0
Patrick Smollen	New York	4.5
Paul Zuffa	New York	4.0
Paulo Guilherme de Souza	Astoria	4.0
Randall Smalley	New York	5.5
Rick Y. Chen	Fresh Meadows	4.0
Roger S. Freed	Brooklyn	3.5
Rusty Wright	Pelham	4.5
Sadik Sendich	Staten Island	4.5
Scott Dainton	Forest Hills	3.0
Scott Rader	New York	4.0
Sean Hartley	New York	3.0
Seth Nelson	Kansas City	4.5
Seth Sarelson	New York	4.0
Stephane Aknin	New York	4.0
Stephen Reich	New York	4.0
Thibault Ducarme	New York	5.5
Thomas B. Bishop	Piscataway	3.5
Tim Shan	New York	4.0
Tongkun Liu	Forest Hills	3.5
Victor M. Mercado	Floral Park	4.5
Waihong Ho	Brooklyn	4.0
walter baker	New York	3.5
Wayne Freeman	Port Jefferson Station	3.5
Xavier Poutas	New York	4.0
Yixuan Ma	Long Island City	4.0
Yoshi Kobari	Brooklyn	4.5

Hypothetical USTA Pacific Northwest Eastern Washington 2017 Early Start List

I've written about the USTA doing away with Early Start Lists and as a service have decided to publish some hypothetical Early Start Lists of my own.  I already published a list for Seattle and Southern Oregon, here is another for Eastern Washington.

But before you take a look at the list, the same comments and caveats as before still apply.

1. The list is based on my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings.  This is not a list from the USTA and is not to be used for registering for Early Start Leagues.  It is only hypothetical.
2. While my ratings are very accurate for the vast majority of players, they are not perfect and may be a few hundredths off in which case I could have a player at 3.52 and an early start 4.0 while their real rating is 3.49 which would be a 3.5.
3. Early Start Ratings do not necessarily tell you what your year-end rating will be, even if you don't play any more matches.  Year-end calculations factoring in playoffs and how your area/district/section did in playoffs can move player's ratings up or down from the Early Start level.  And in the PNW section, our One Doubles league does count towards year-end ratings so those results can change a player's rating.
4. If you don't see your name and you expected a bump up/down, or you see your name and are surprised and want to know why, contact me at ratings@teravation.net and I can give you details on how to get an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report that will give all the background on why your estimated rating is where it is.

With that said, on to the list!  The below shows only those players that I estimate would be bumped up or down on the Early Start List and I simply show a name, city, and the hypothetical Early Start level.  If your name isn't shown, I estimate your rating to be unchanged.

First the women:

Name	City	Level
Angela Gibbar	Coeur D Alene	3.5
April Denike	Spokane	4.0
Ashley Michelle Macias	Yakima	4.0
Barbara J Seatter	Hood River	3.5
Barbara J. Umbdenstock	Spokane	3.0
Beth Orgain	Hood River	3.0
Bonnie J Osborne	Depoe Bay	3.0
Brenda Windsor	Hood River	4.0
Bridget Horner	Athol	4.0
Candace Kay Wing	Goldendale	3.5
Carol Ann Furman	Hayden	2.5
Carrie Engle	Portland	4.0
Cathi A. Lannon	Hood River	4.0
Charity Dawn Rose	Spokane	3.5
Chris Reitz	Hood River	3.0
Claire Griffin	Hood River	3.5
Courtenay Dey	Hood River	4.0
Crystal Eddy	Fairchild Air Force Base	3.0
Cyndie Lempesis	Post Falls	3.5
Dawn Marie Degrasse	Yakima	3.5
Debbie Lynne Fuller	Hood River	3.5
Diane L. Carey	Yakima	4.0
Gina Joleen Bryan	Spokane	3.5
Ginny Mahl	Otis Orchards	3.5
Iris Harrison	Sandpoint	3.5
Jackie Maryann Andrewjeski	Wenatchee	4.0
Jaime Morrison	Spokane Valley	4.0
Jaime Nicole Borton	Yakima	3.5
Jan L. Hodgson	Wenatchee	3.5
Jenessa Reid	West Richland	3.0
Jenifer M Christensen	Coeur D Alene	3.5
JENNIFER BELOY	White Salmon	3.5
Jennifer Joyce Senske	Spokane	3.0
Jeralyn Snellgrove	Mosier	3.0
Joani Roller	Wenatchee	3.0
Joanne Heyamoto	Spokane	3.0
Jody lee Davey	Richland	3.5
Judi M. Brown	Yakima	3.5
Julie Lubbe	Spokane	3.5
Karen Belzer	Kennewick	4.0
Katherine Bechtel Karlson	White Salmon	4.0
Kathleen E. Burns	Spokane	5.0
Kathryn Carlsen	Spokane	3.5
kathy pauline dinwiddie	East Wenatchee	3.0
Katie Laura Kinsfogel	Hood River	4.5
Kellee Ann Bates	Chattaroy	4.0
Kelley Aagesen	Dalton Gardens	3.5
Kiersten Shelby	Spokane Valley	3.5
Kimberley A Pierret	Pasco	3.5
Kimberly A. Bayley	Spokane	3.5
Kristina M P. Fager	Spokane	4.0
Kristina Van Breda Kolff	Spokane	3.5
Laura Stewart	Selah	3.0
Laurie Stanley	Spokane Valley	3.0
Lea Williams	Coeur D Alene	4.5
Leanne McEachern	Newport	3.0
Leslie Jones	Hood River	3.0
Liberty C. Andis	Yakima	3.0
Lindy Bentley	Kennewick	3.5
Lisa Ann Hagen	Spokane	3.5
Lisa Jane Dumais	Veradale	3.5
Lisa K Volle	Portland	4.0
Lorena Mayuga	Kennewick	3.5
loretta k gohd	Kennewick	4.0
Maria Alexandrovna Kostina	Hayden Lake	4.0
Maria Martin	Yakima	3.5
Marian L Menke	Spokane	3.0
Marjorie Byrne	Mt Hood Prkdl	4.0
Mary Pierce	The Dalles	2.5
Mary Robbins-Wenker	Yakima	3.0
Michele Yvette Ladd	Yakima	4.0
Minou Anh Thu Chau	Camas	4.5
Nancy Foley	Hood River	4.0
Nancy Lauck	Hermiston	3.0
Rachelle Janna Kershaw	Yakima	3.5
Rathini Woodworth	Richland	3.5
ReNae Michelle Sevigny	Yakima	3.5
Renee Goodman	Yakima	2.5
Sally J. Anderson	Hood River	4.0
Sandra Andrews	Newport Beach	4.0
Sarah Hamilton	Liberty Lake	3.5
Sharon Pataky	Liberty Lake	2.5
Stephanie Butler	Spokane	3.0
Susan C. Morrison	Zillah	4.0
Susan K. Servick	Coeur D Alene	4.0
tamey phillips	Dalton Gardens	3.0
Tammy Hutchison	Kennewick	3.5
Tracy Lea vanHalderen	Spokane	3.5
tracy lynn carlsen	Coeur d Alene	4.0
Valerie Whitman	Spokane	3.0
Xia Suter	West Richland	4.5

And the men:

Name	City	Level
andrew mesler	Wenatchee	3.5
Ariana Soroush Entezari	Spokane	4.0
Bart Keller Munson	Kennewick	3.5
Brad Teeter	Mount Vernon	4.0
Brett Alan Kaiser	Spokane	4.5
Bruce R. Johnson	Liberty Lake	3.0
Bryan G Osborn	Spokane Valley	3.5
Carlos Olivares	Yakima	3.0
Chris D. Andrus	Richland	3.5
Chris Dupont	Spokane	3.5
Christopher Osborn	Spokane Valley	4.0
Daniel Foster	Yakima	5.0
Daniel Higgins	Juliaetta	4.0
David A. Roth	Newman Lake	3.5
David Wallace Donaldson	Zillah	3.5
Dean M Stuart	Hayden	3.5
Derek John Peacock	Richland	4.0
Dillon Delabarre	Seattle	4.5
Duane Wilson	Liberty Lake	3.5
Duke D. Dixon	Coeur D Alene	5.0
eors markos	Twisp	3.0
Erle Furbeyre	Spokane	3.5
Gary Lackey	Yakima	3.0
James L. Degrasse	Yakima	3.5
Jason Ladum	Spokane	4.0
Jason Martin	Spokane	4.0
Jason Rubright	Yakima	3.5
Jeff Barker	Rathdrum	4.0
Jeong Lee	Auburn	4.5
Jepson West	White Salmon	4.0
Jesus Bravo	Richland	3.5
John Hooper Landefeld	Kennewick	2.5
John L Smoot	Kennewick	2.5
John Williams	Coeur D Alene	4.5
Jonathan Peacock	Richland	3.5
Joshua C Shoemaker	Richland	3.0
Keith D. Koch	Leavenworth	4.0
Keith M Metully	Spokane	4.0
Ken F. Burgess	Spokane	2.5
Kristofer Ramos	Tieton	3.5
Kristofer Wright	Spokane	4.0
Kyle Smithgall	Spokane Valley	4.5
Landon Martin	Cashmere	3.5
Mark Norman	Cheney	3.0
Mark Robitaille	Coeur D Alene	3.5
Marty Munson	Spokane Valley	3.0
Matthew Crusselle	Richland	4.0
Michael Rudick	Yakima	3.5
Mike Dean West	Spokane Valley	3.5
Mike L Christianson	Selah	2.5
Mike V. Aagesen	Dalton Gardens	3.5
Mitchell J Roach	Kennewick	2.5
Nathan Lipton	Richland	3.5
Nicholas Almeida	Frederick	3.5
Owen B. Suagee	Chelan	4.5
Patrick D DeMars	Spokane	3.5
Paul Bernard	Hayden	4.0
Paul Trotter	Yakima	4.0
Peter David Rayner	Spokane	4.0
Rahul Sharma	Greenacres	4.0
Richard Splichal	Spokane	4.0
Robert Kransberger	Yakima	2.5
Robert P. Cox	Selah	4.0
Ruben Garcia	Coeur D Alene	3.5
Scott D. Anderson	Spokane	4.5
Scott Dowson	West Richland	3.5
Scott Jacky	Yakima	3.5
Shaun Michael Whitney	Hayden	4.5
Terry A. Marden	Prosser	4.5
Terry J. McHugh	Post Falls	3.5
Tim Kast	Coeur D Alene	3.5
Timothy Miller	Ellensburg	4.0
Tyler Charles Van Horn	Yakima	4.5
Vincent Daniel Lopes	Snohomish	3.5
Vincent Paul Hood	Yakima	2.5
Wes Haynes	The Dalles	3.5

Hypothetical USTA Pacific Northwest Southern Oregon 2017 Early Start List

I've written about the USTA doing away with Early Start Lists and as a service have decided to publish some hypothetical Early Start Lists of my own.  I already published a list for Seattle, and had a request for Southern Oregon, so here that is.

But before you take a look at the list, the same comments and caveats as before still apply.

1. The list is based on my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings.  This is not a list from the USTA and is not to be used for registering for Early Start Leagues.  It is only hypothetical.
2. While my ratings are very accurate for the vast majority of players, they are not perfect and may be a few hundredths off in which case I could have a player at 3.52 and an early start 4.0 while their real rating is 3.49 which would be a 3.5.
3. Early Start Ratings do not necessarily tell you what your year-end rating will be, even if you don't play any more matches.  Year-end calculations factoring in playoffs and how your area/district/section did in playoffs can move player's ratings up or down from the Early Start level.  And in the PNW section, our One Doubles league does count towards year-end ratings so those results can change a player's rating.
4. If you don't see your name and you expected a bump up/down, or you see your name and are surprised and want to know why, contact me at ratings@teravation.net and I can give you details on how to get an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report that will give all the background on why your estimated rating is where it is.

With that said, on to the list!  The below shows only those players that I estimate would be bumped up or down on the Early Start List and I simply show a name, city, and the hypothetical Early Start level.  If your name isn't shown, I estimate your rating to be unchanged.

First the women:

Name	City	Level
Alejandra Clemens	Woodburn	4.0
Amanda Marie Ahern	Bend	3.5
Amy Kirk Eklund	Eugene	2.5
Amy Patton	Ashland	3.5
Angela Mischelle Hamilton	Eugene	3.0
Ann B. Yost	Albany	3.5
Ann M. Frischkorn	Bend	3.0
Ann Martin	Salem	3.0
Anne Dean	Eugene	3.5
Annette Hatley	Keizer	3.0
Annette R. Henderson	Bend	3.5
Annette Thompson	Bend	4.5
Ashley Fear	Salem	4.0
Ayako Y James	Chicago	3.5
BARBARA GABRIELA GHIO	Salem	3.0
Barbara Vasquez	Ashland	3.0
Blanche P. Sabo	Canby	3.5
Bonnie J Osborne	Depoe Bay	3.0
Brigitte Doris Hamilton	Salem	2.5
Cara Cain	Salem	3.5
Catherine Frischmann	Corvallis	4.0
Catherine L. Muensterman	Bend	3.5
Charlotte A. Rieder	Salem	3.0
Cheryl B. Hunt	Eugene	3.0
Cheryl Yoder	Winchester	2.5
Christin Hinds	Salem	3.0
Christina Michelle Chapman	Salem	2.5
Dana Leigh Richardson	Salem	3.5
Diane Guthrie	North Bend	2.5
Edith Moerschell	Eugene	3.0
Elise Crum	Eugene	4.0
Elizabeth Harn	Eugene	3.0
Esther Celis	Eugene	3.0
Evangeline Laurie	Eugene	3.5
Gale Peterson	Sutherlin	3.5
Hildur Ragnarsson Schmidt	Bend	3.0
ILIMA ANN AIU	Bend	2.5
Jane Brass Barth	Corvallis	3.5
Jane Ingle	Eugene	3.5
Janet D. Wells	Central Point	3.5
Jeanne K. Haskell	Carmichael	4.5
Jennifer Ablow	Eugene	3.0
Jennifer Snelling	Eugene	3.0
Jerita Osmin	Bend	3.0
Judy Conroy	Corvallis	3.0
Judy Rowan	Redmond	3.0
Julie Flager	Aumsville	4.0
Julie S Duvall	Eugene	3.0
Karen S. Osuna	Eugene	4.5
Karin Hamm	Salem	3.5
Karin Main	Corvallis	2.5
Kathleen H. Lee	Philomath	2.5
Kay Riedl	Salem	2.5
kelli von maur	Eugene	3.0
kelly j morales	Salem	3.0
Kerry Moyer	Salem	3.5
Kim M Herber	Salem	3.0
Kimberly A. Quach	Portland	4.5
Kirsten Collins	Salem	2.5
krissi martes	Jasper	3.0
Kristen B. Wehrman	Bend	3.5
Kristin Lynn Nelson-Sick	Eugene	3.5
Kristina Ann Parker	Eugene	3.5
Laura Irene Steinwand	Roseburg	3.5
Laurel P Ewing	Bend	3.0
Laurie Hammill	Grants Pass	3.5
Leanne McEachern	Newport	3.0
Leslie A. Hofferd	Bend	4.0
Linda Campbell	Salem	3.5
Linh-Phuong Nguyen Nguyen	Salem	3.0
LISA VILSTRUP WITNAUER	Ashland	3.0
Liz O'Donnell	Corvallis	4.5
Lucy Skjegstad	Roseburg	3.0
Lynn R. Goeke	Salem	3.5
Lynne Lenker	Gleneden Beach	3.0
Margaret Swadener	Keizer	3.0
Marianne P Bradshaw	Salem	3.5
Marlene G. Enos	Eugene	3.5
Mary Anderson	Lake Oswego	4.5
Mary J. Hummel	Lincoln City	3.0
Maryclaire Collis	Bend	3.5
Nancy Walz	Ashland	3.5
Olivia Steele	Bend	4.0
Pam Tice Smith	Bend	3.0
raquel eleanor hecht	Eugene	4.0
Renee Elizabeth LaFrance	Eugene	3.0
Rhonda Caroline Lawson	Eugene	3.5
Robin Beckwith	Newport	3.0
Robyn Roark Morley	Salem	2.5
Ruby Marine	Bend	4.0
Saeko Kasai	Springfield	4.0
Sammi Lehmann	Corvallis	2.5
Sandra Berge	Bend	3.0
Sarah Medary	Eugene	3.5
Shelby Kristine Roth	Roseburg	4.5
Sheri L. Ambrose	Lincoln City	3.0
stacey clouse	Medford	3.0
Stacey Nyman	Bend	3.0
Stacia Hammond	Salem	3.5
Stephanie Rene Foreman	Salem	3.0
Susan A. Manganaro	Sunriver	3.5
Susan G. Massey	Bend	4.5
Susan J Wilson	Albany	3.0
Susan Shafroth Macomson	DuPont	3.0
Susanna R. Ross	Bend	3.0
Suzanne Algara	Eugene	3.0
Taylor Brook Root	Roseburg	4.0
Tracy Victoria L'Etoile	Bend	4.0

And the men:

Name	City	Level
Alan Karam	Salem	4.0
Anthony Losco	Eugene	3.0
Brian Whalen	Eugene	4.0
Bruce J. Brubeck	Eugene	3.0
bruce mckay	Eugene	4.0
Cole Eibel	Roseburg	4.5
Cory Frazer	Springfield	4.5
David Clark	Salem	3.5
Duy Nguyen	Salem	3.0
Erik Fernandez	Bend	4.5
George Owens	Jefferson	3.0
Hoang Nguyen	Portland	4.0
Jason Bradford	Corvallis	4.0
jerry a trapp	Junction City	3.5
Joaquin Peralta	Salem	3.5
John Bartell	Eugene	3.5
John Follett	Eugene	3.5
Kenneth Pierce	Grapevine	4.0
Michael L. Hughes	Klamath Falls	4.0
Rick S. Yurk	Salem	4.0
Robert Stevens	Salem	4.0
Ron P. Saunders	Bend	4.5
Stacy Chance	Eugene	4.0
Stan K. Ihori	Sherwood	3.0
Stephen Victor Robinson	Eugene	3.0
Steve Smith	Eugene	3.5
Travis Holz	Eugene	4.0
Warren Sablosky	Eugene	3.5
Will Calkin	Eugene	3.5
Zachary Leininger	Klamath Falls	4.5