Should a DQ at PNW 40 & Over Sectionals have changed who is going to Nationals?

The primary USTA League Adult Sectionals are complete in the PNW and someone brought to my attention a player that was disqualified at the 40 & Over Sectionals this past weekend.

The player in question was a 3.5S and played on the men's 3.5 team that made it to and won the final, and the player played in all four of the team's matches going 4-0 without dropping a set and giving up a total of 13 games across the four matches, the equivalent of about 6-2,6-1 each match.

Going in to Sectionals, the player was 12-0 including going 6-0 playing up at 4.0 and not dropping a set in any of those matches.  Interestingly he had dropped four sets earlier in the year playing 3.5 but managed to win all four match tie-breaks.

Now, most people know you don't get DQ'd based on your win/loss record, it matters who you play (and play with in doubles) and it is entirely possible to go undefeated and not get strikes if you happen to play weak opponents or have really close scores.  But on the surface, this player was well above level and the DQ very well may have been justified and perhaps was even overdue.  But that isn't what I'm writing about.

Instead, the topic is how PNW allows out of level players to play through the completion of Sectionals and only be DQ'd and promoted after the event, letting all results stand.  Since the scenario happened this weekend, I wanted to walk through the implications of it and how it affected the other teams and who qualified for the final and advanced to Nationals.

I've written about this before, one time when the rule in PNW changed for 2022, and then it came up again earlier this year when National went the other way and will administer DQ's during Nationals starting in 2027.

So, back to what happened at Sectionals.  The player very well could have had one, maybe even two strikes going in to the event, and almost certainly had at least two of his matches at Sectionals recorded as strikes, but perhaps all four is possible.  But let's go through some scenarios.

Conservatively, he got this third in the final at Sectionals and if strikes were checked during Sectionals, he would have been DQ'd and his match reversed, and because this was a 2-2 win for his team, this would have become a loss and instead of going to Nationals, the opponent would be going instead.  That is a pretty big shift.

But let's consider if he would have gotten his third during the round-robin play.  If it were in the last match, then all three of his wins would have been reversed, and the 2-2 tie would be a 3-1 loss, and the two 3-1 wins would have become 2-2 losses, and instead of going 3-0 the team would have gone 0-3 and a different team would have advanced to the final and had a chance to go to Nationals.

If the third strike would have been from the second round-robin match, then the first two would have been reversed, but the team could have played a different player in the third, so they could have possibly gone 1-2, but still another team would have gone to the final.

Had the third strike been from the first match, then there is a chance they go 2-1 and still make the final, but that would have been really hard considering they would have replaced him with a significantly lower rated player and would have had a 6-0,6-0 loss contributing to the standings tie-breakers.

So, was this fair to the other teams?  In virtually no scenario does his team advance to Nationals if strikes were administered during the event.  And now that he is DQ'd, his the team going to Nationals is effectively not the same team as they are weaker without him, and arguably the section is not sending the strongest team possible.

Now, one of the arguments for only administering the strikes/DQ after the event is that players have paid money to travel and take time off and you don't want to ruin the trip for them after just one match.  Well, what about all the other team's players who also traveled and took time off and were forced to play an out of level player, or have their team take a team loss because of playing an out of level player, and lose their opportunity to go to Nationals because of it?  Should the priority be to be fair to those 40-50 players instead of worrying about the one out of level player getting to keep playing?

It seems clear that National has had a change of heart and feels it is better and more fair to all the opponents to administer strikes during the event, and Nationals is almost certainly a bigger investment from a travel and time standpoint.  So if National feels that way, shouldn't Sections follow suit?

What does your section do regarding this rule in playoffs, and what is your view on it?  Should strikes be administered during championships with results reversed?  Or should it only happen after the event letting matches played stand?

2027 USTA League regulations published - DQs at Nationals?

We are in the heart of 2026 USTA League season with leagues in many areas in full flight and some districts are getting ready for playoffs, and some sections will even have Sectionals soon.  So why am I writing about the 2027 regulations?

Well, this is the time of year they get published as some areas (Georgia) have Early Start Leagues for the 2027 championship year starting soon, and the regulations need to be published in order to administer the leagues.

You can see the whole 2027 USTA League Regulations document if you like, but I've given it a quick read and here is a summary of changes.

The big news is highlighted as #4 in the major changes for 2027 and is this:

Players may now be dynamically disqualified through National Championships 2.04B(2)

Does this mean what it sounds like?  Reading that paragraph of the regulations, the answer seems to be yes.  Specifically:

Players who are NTRP dynamically disqualified during National Championships shall be notified by the National staff, who shall follow 2.04B(2)a and 2.04C(2)

What is 2.04B(2)?  It is the option where dynamic ratings are calculated throughout the event and disqualify players that meet the criteria, and reverse their matches.

This is a big change.  In the past players could get disqualified as a result of matches at Nationals, but it was calculated and checked only at the conclusion of the event and notification done post-event with no matches reversed.  With this change, it is possible a team could make the semis only to have a player disqualified and matches reversed and fall out of the semis as a result.

It appears sections will still have the option to enforce strikes during playoffs or only at the conclusion, but National has changed what they are electing to do.

Is this a good change?  I think so, as a strategy some teams would employ would be to hide players in the regular season, and use them just enough in playoffs to advance, and once they made it to Nationals they wouldn't need to worry about strikes and could go all out.  And yes, every year there would be some players disqualified after Nationals, so it did happen.  Now, it didn't happen a lot, so this really probably only affects those few scenarios, but when it did happen, observations were it was pretty egregious seeing the level of play exhibited.

Now, one can argue that every team has above level players at Nationals and that is generally true, but the strike thresholds are high enough that to get strikes you really have to be clearly above level and this rule change may help combat the tactic I describe above.  Also, one could make the case it isn't fair to a player to travel to Nationals and potentially get disqualified after one match, but it also isn't fair to at level players to have to play a clearly out of level player, and it seems the USTA is perhaps now putting the interest of the other players ahead of the out of level self-rate.

What do you think?

But there are other changes in the regulations as it relates to dynamic ratings and disqualifications.

A subtle change is that Mixed exclusive players are now eligible to be dynamically disqualified.  Astute readers may ask, didn't this already happen?  Yes, the 2026 regulations state that participants in Mixed leagues can already be dynamically disqualified, but those are for self-rated or appealed rating players playing Mixed.  The change for 2027 seems to be that players that get a Mixed exclusive M rating are still subject to strikes and disqualification unlike players that get a C rating from Adult play.  This is probably a good idea but perhaps begs the question, why not do it for C rated players too?

Another change is that dynamic ratings will now be calculated for Adult 65 & Over and Mixed 55 & Over leagues.  In the past, it was just Adult 18/40/55 and when Mixed was added the 18/40 divisions, but now really all the Nationals/Invitational leagues will be included.  Another good change in my opinion.

One non-rating related change is that electronic line calling may now be used for USTA League play.  Specifically, sections can declare if they will allow it and establish procedures for it.  I haven't played with electronic line calling so can't offer an opinion on how accurate or useful it is, but an unbiased line calling mechanism seems like a good thing in those tight matches when players are sometimes seeing the ball land where they want and not where it really landed.

There are some miscellaneous other changes, but I think I hit the big ones.

Do you like these changes?  Are there others you'd like to see made?

Pacific Northwest / Northwest Washington ESL playoffs this weekend - Follow along!

I live and play in the Seattle area and we have a few leagues run as early start leagues (ESLs) and those leagues have their local playoffs this weekend, the leagues being Adult 55 & Over and Mixed 18 & Over.

Something cool that our League Coordinator has done before and is doing this year to make it easier to follow along is to have a Google Sheet that will show results (that one for 55+) as they happen to make it easier for folks to follow along that aren't at the event, or even are at the event.

I've advocated for awhile for doing more to make these events easier to follow so it is great to see this being done.  Thanks Jill!

How do you follow playoff events in your area?  Do you just click refresh on TennisLink incessantly hoping scores get entered?  Is there another app/site/page used to provide updates?  Is social media used to push real time updates out?

2025 USTA NTRP Year End Ratings Are Out!

The year-end NTRP ratings were published last night, a little earlier than expected at around 9pm EST, and with that players are rabidly checking their rating and determining what that means for what teams they can join and how captains can form their teams.

I'll try to post some analysis shortly, but my quick observation is that there seems to have been fewer bumps up and down than normal.  I haven't run across many surprising bump ups, but quite a few surprises where players perhaps should have been bumped up and weren't.

Stay tuned for more.

Simulating 2025 USTA League Nationals - 40 & Over 3.5 Women

USTA League Nationals for 2025 continue this weekend!  The schedule is slightly less compressed this year being played in five instead of four weekends, but still more compressed than past years where it was seven weekends.

This weekend has three events, 18 & Over 3.0 in Scottsdale, 40 & Over 3.5 in Surprise, and 40 & Over 4.5 in San Diego.

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

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

Because of the fairly compressed schedule, I likely won't have the time to do previews/simulations of all events, but will try to do a few.  Let me know which you'd like to see!

Like I did last year, I'll be primarily just giving the data from the simulation and not writing a bunch of words.  Most of it is self-explanatory, but the favorites and contenders will be listed in alphabetical order.  The strengths are based on played averages.  Contact me if you want to learn more.

On to the projections from the simulation, here is the 40 & Over 3.5 women.

Teams: 17

Chance of 3 undefeated: 13%
Chance of 4 undefeated: 1.3%
Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%

Chance of 6 undefeated: <1%

Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 90% / 4
Strongest / weakest team strength: 3.63 / 3.37
Toughest / easiest schedule: 3.58 / 3.48
Favorites: Florida, Intermountain, Southern
Contenders: Eastern, Middle States, Midwest, New England, NorCal, SoCal

Have a chance: Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic, MOValley, Southwest

Just three teams are favorites, but there are a bunch that are contenders for the last spot and more that have a chance.  I have just four teams without a realistic chance of making the semis.  When looking at most-likely record, 5th place is 2-2 so it will be really competitive to see who steps out of the 10 teams projected to finish 2-2 and try to get a semi-final spot.  Or could we have our first 2-2 semi-finalist?

Given how competitive it may be, there is little chance of four 4-0 teams, but there are still scenarios where there could be five or six.

What do you think?

Simulating 2025 USTA League Nationals - 40 & Over 3.5 Men

USTA League Nationals for 2025 continue this weekend!  The schedule is slightly less compressed this year being played in five instead of four weekends, but still more compressed than past years where it was seven weekends.

This weekend has three events, 18 & Over 3.0 in Scottsdale, 40 & Over 3.5 in Surprise, and 40 & Over 4.5 in San Diego.

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

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

Because of the fairly compressed schedule, I likely won't have the time to do previews/simulations of all events, but will try to do a few.  Let me know which you'd like to see!

Like I did last year, I'll be primarily just giving the data from the simulation and not writing a bunch of words.  Most of it is self-explanatory, but the favorites and contenders will be listed in alphabetical order.  The strengths are based on played averages.  Contact me if you want to learn more.

On to the projections from the simulation, here is the 40 & Over 3.5 men.

Teams: 17

Chance of 3 undefeated: 24%
Chance of 4 undefeated: 6.2%
Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%

Chance of 6 undefeated: <1%

Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 89% / 4
Strongest / weakest team strength: 3.68 / 3.39
Toughest / easiest schedule: 3.65 / 3.49
Favorites: Caribbean, Southern, Texas
Contenders: Middle States, NorCal, Northern, PNW

Have a chance: SoCal

I list just three favorites, but two of the contenders are a fraction away from being favorites, and the other two are nipping at their heels.  So it feels like 7 teams vying for 4 spots.  All 7 have a better than 11% chance of going 4-0, so it should be very competitive.

There are some ways for there to be five 4-0 teams but it seems pretty slim.

What do you think?

Simulating 2025 USTA League Nationals - 40 & Over 4.0 Men

USTA League Nationals for 2025 continue this weekend!  The schedule is slightly less compressed this year being played in five instead of four weekends, but still more compressed than past years where it was seven weekends.

This weekend has three events, 18 & Over 4.5 in Surprise, 40 & Over 3.0 in San Diego, and 40 & Over 4.0 in Scottsdale.

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

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

Because of the fairly compressed schedule, I likely won't have the time to do previews/simulations of all events, but will try to do a few.  Let me know which you'd like to see!

Like I did last year, I'll be primarily just giving the data from the simulation and not writing a bunch of words.  Most of it is self-explanatory, but the favorites and contenders will be listed in alphabetical order.  The strengths are based on played averages.  Contact me if you want to learn more.

On to the projections from the simulation, here is the 40 & Over 4.0 men.

Teams: 17

Chance of 3 undefeated: 37%
Chance of 4 undefeated: 14%
Chance of 5 undefeated: 1.4%

Chance of 6 undefeated: <1%

Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 83% / 4
Strongest / weakest team strength: 4.10 / 3.86
Toughest / easiest schedule: 4.01 / 3.91
Favorites: Florida, Middle States, Midwest, Texas
Contenders: Missouri Valley, Southern

Have a chance: NorCal

This event appears pretty top heavy with four pretty clear favorites and thus a decent chance of four 4-0 teams.  The overall favorite to make the semis isn't the strongest team, but benefits from the easiest schedule.  There are a few contenders that could spoil it and there is a 1.4% chance of five 4-0 teams.

What do you think?

2025 USTA League Nationals Week 1 Day 2 Recap

Day two is in the books, and despite some continued delays due to rain in Arizona, semi-finalists are set, and even played in some cases.  Here is a recap.

The 2.5 women saw NorCal, Caribbean, and MO Valley all finish 4-0 and were joined by Southern at 3-1.  The simulation nailed it with those four being the top-4 favorites, although it called for just one to have a most likely record of 4-0.

The 3.5 men had Midwest and SoCal finish 4-0, and were joined by PNW and Florida at 3-1.  Midwest was a surprise being just a contender in the simulation, while SoCal and PNW were contenders, and just Florida was a favorite.

The 3.5 women had two 4-0 teams in Texas and Midwest, and then a 3-way tie at 3-1 / 12-8 for two spots with Mid-Atlantic and Florida taking it over New England on fewer sets lost.  Texas and Florida were favorites, but the other two were just in the have a chance category in the simulation.

The 4.0 men was really competitive with several of the top teams playing each other, the end result was Florida at 4-0, then a whopping seven (!) teams at 3-1 with Texas, Eastern, and Intermountain being the ones to advance.  Note that Texas played Florida and Intermountain, and Florida played Eastern, so there is a good chance of a rematch in the final.  The simulation had all four of these teams as favorites and also predicted a bunch of 3-1 teams.

The 4.0 women had three 4-0 teams, those being NorCal, Southern, and Florida, and then SoCal was the best of three 3-1 teams.  The simulation had NorCal, Southern, and SoCal as the top-3 favorites, and Florida was a contender as the 6th pick, so not bad.

Then the 5.0 men had two 4-0 teams in Southwest and Midwest, then PNW and Intermountain joined them at 3-1.  Midwest was a big surprise, the only team not highlighted in the simulation, but PNW and Intermountain were favorites and Southwest just a "has a chance" team.  And this event already played their semis with Southwest and Midwest advancing with 2-1 wins.

Last, the 5.0 women also had two 4-0 teams in Intermountain and Midwest, and SoCal and PNW were the only 3-1 teams so they joined them in the semis.  All four teams were favorites in the simulation so nailed this one too.  They also played their semis with PNW and Midwest advancing.

Good luck to all the teams on Sunday!

2025 USTA League Nationals Week 1 Day 1 Recap

Day 2 of week 1 of the 2025 USTA League Nationals is about to start, so with that a recap of day 1 is in order.

As I understand it, rain did arrive in the Phoenix area causing some delays in the morning and perhaps briefly in the afternoon, but the move to short sets actually allowed some events to get ahead of schedule to guard against more delays today when more rain is forecast.  I heard of some grumbling that they could have gotten everything in under the normal format, but we'll see if getting ahead was a good idea based on today's weather.

On the courts themselves, the 2.5 women saw the top-5 teams in the simulation remain the top-5 forecast teams after day one, but with the ordered juggled somewhat.  Caribbean, Northern, and MO Valley should be locks, and be joined by Southern, or maybe Midwest or upstart PNW in the semis.  There is a 13% chance of four 4-0 teams.

The 3.5 men saw favorites NorCal, Texas, and Florida struggle, but NorCal still could make the semis with SoCal, PNW, and Midwest being minor surprises.  Look out for New England and Middle States too.  The simulation called for a very competitive event and that appears to be happening with virtually no chance of four 4-0 teams, just a 5% chance of three, and a likely 5-way tie for the last spot.

The 3.5 women has the simulation's top-4 picks all still in the top-6 projected finishers, but they are not locks with a full 7 teams having between a 22% and 42% chance of taking the last two semi-finalist spots.  Look for Southern and Texas to be there, but then, who knows, but PNW and Southwest perhaps have the inside track.  Also very competitive though with no chance of four 4-0 teams and just an 8% chance of three.

Unaffected by whether were the 4.0 events in San Diego where the 4.0 men has the top-4 favorites all still in the top-5, but a few already played each other and more do today.  Still, look for Texas, Florida, Eastern, and MO Valley to move on with Mid-Atlantic and NorCal lurking.  But look for perhaps three 3-1 teams and tie-breakers to be important.

The 4.0 women has the simulation's top-3 favorites nearly locked in for the semis in the same order, and contender Florida looking good for a spot as well.  Hawaii, Mid-Atlantic, MO Valley, and Texas are lurking though.  There is a 5% chance of four 4-0 teams and 32% chance of three.

Back in Arizona, the 5.0 men had projected mid-pack Southwest leap to the favorite category joining favorites PNW, NorCal, and Intermountain as most likely to advance.  Mid-Atlantic and Midwest will try to have a say though.  There is likely a bit tie at 3-1 for the last spot, probably 5 teams but a 26% chance of six of them being tied.

Last, the 5.0 women has four teams running away with it with PNW, SoCal, Midwest, and Intermountain basically locked in to the semis already, due in part to everyone but Florida having played three matches already.  Just Mid-Atlantic has a small shot at playing spoiler.  There may be a tie at 3-1 for the last spot, but Mid-Atlantic is behind on the courts tie-breaker and even with a sweep could be left out.

I hope the rain stays away today, good luck everyone!

This weekend's USTA League Nationals in Arizona may be using short sets

I wrote a few days ago about the potential rain in the Phoenix area, and it appears the forecast is bad enough that the USTA is going to proactively start the event using an alternate shorter format, I'm guessing short sets starting each set at 2-2, and play no-ad.

The forecast for Friday and Saturday calls for thunderstorms and a chance of flash flooding, so hopefully with the short format matches can get played relatively on schedule and there will be minimal delays.

I think it is the right move by the USTA to do this proactively and get as ahead of it as possible as trying to fit matches in using an even shorter format later would be worse.

I'm guessing both Surprise and Scottsdale will go to this format which means the 18 & Over 2.5, 3.5, and 5.0 events will be affected.  The 4.0 events are in San Diego and the forecast appears near perfect there.

Simulating 2025 USTA League Nationals - 18 & Over 3.5 Men

USTA League Nationals for 2025 begin this weekend!  The schedule is slightly less compressed this year being played in five instead of four weekends, but still more compressed than past years where it was seven weekends.

This weekend has four events, 18 & Over 2.5W and 5.0 in Scottsdale, 3.5 in Surprise, and 4.0 in San Diego.

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

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

Because of the fairly compressed schedule, I likely won't have the time to do previews/simulations of all events, but will try to do a few.  Let me know which you'd like to see!

Like I did last year, I'll be primarily just giving the data from the simulation and not writing a bunch of words.  Most of it is self-explanatory, but the favorites and contenders will be listed in alphabetical order.  The strengths are based on played averages.  Contact me if you want to learn more.

On to the projections from the simulation, I already did the 18 & Over 4.0 men, 3.5 women, and 4.0 women, next up, the 18 & Over 3.5 men.

Teams: 17

Chance of 3 undefeated: 10%
Chance of 4 undefeated: 1%
Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%

Chance of 6 undefeated: <1%

Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 92% / 4
Strongest / weakest team strength: 3.83 / 3.51
Toughest / easiest schedule: 3.73 / 3.61
Favorites: Florida, NorCal, Texas
Contenders: Caribbean, Eastern, Middle States, Northern, PNW, SoCal, Southwest

Have a chance: Midwest, Southern

The simulation likes three teams above the others, and one of those a near lock to make the semis, just that one having a most likely record of 4-0 (62% chance).  And in a very rare occurrence, the last semi-finalist is projected to be 2-2 with 10 teams having that record.  Now, it is likely that with so many teams having a most likely 2-2 record, one steps up and finishes 3-1, but clearly this is a close competition for that last spot.

What do you think?

Simulating 2025 USTA League Nationals - 18 & Over 4.0 Women

USTA League Nationals for 2025 begin this weekend!  The schedule is slightly less compressed this year being played in five instead of four weekends, but still more compressed than past years where it was seven weekends.

This weekend has four events, 18 & Over 2.5W and 5.0 in Scottsdale, 3.5 in Surprise, and 4.0 in San Diego.

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

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

Because of the fairly compressed schedule, I likely won't have the time to do previews/simulations of all events, but will try to do a few.  Let me know which you'd like to see!

Like I did last year, I'll be primarily just giving the data from the simulation and not writing a bunch of words.  Most of it is self-explanatory, but the favorites and contenders will be listed in alphabetical order.  The strengths are based on played averages.  Contact me if you want to learn more.

On to the projections from the simulation, I already did the 18 & Over 4.0 men and 3.5 women, next up, the 18 & Over 4.0 women.

Teams: 17

Chance of 3 undefeated: 28%
Chance of 4 undefeated: 6.3%
Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%

Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 89% / 4
Strongest / weakest team strength: 4.18 / 3.91
Toughest / easiest schedule: 4.07 / 3.95
Favorites: Missouri Valley, NorCal, SoCal, Southern
Contenders: Florida, Hawaii, Intermountain, Midwest

Have a chance: Mid-Atlantic

The simulation likes three teams above the others, all having a most likely record of 4-0, but a fourth still just qualifies as a favorite.  Three of the contenders do have a better than 10% chance of going 4-0 as well, so there could be a good competition for the last spot with four teams having a most likely record of 3-1 for that spot.

There is a decent chance of four 4-0 teams but just a slim chance of five of them, and a minuscule but possible chance of six. 

What do you think?

Yes, there could be six undefeated teams for 18 & Over 3.5 Women too!

I just did my simulation for the 18 & Over 3.5 women, and like I did for the 18 & Over 4.0 men, I noticed that there is a chance of six 4-0 teams!  In fact, there are two different ways it could happen!

Here are the two diagrams showing how it could happen.

One can clearly see two different scenarios where there are six teams, and different ones in each scenario, that all don't play each other and so they could each go 4-0.  Now, it is pretty unlikely it happens, but still it is possible.

I'll try to keep an eye out for this for other events and post the visualization for them too.

Simulating 2025 USTA League Nationals - 18 & over 3.5 Women

USTA League Nationals for 2025 begin this weekend!  The schedule is slightly less compressed this year being played in five instead of four weekends, but still more compressed than past years where it was seven weekends.

This weekend has four events, 18 & Over 2.5W and 5.0 in Scottsdale, 3.5 in Surprise, and 4.0 in San Diego.

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

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

Because of the fairly compressed schedule, I likely won't have the time to do previews/simulations of all events, but will try to do a few.  Let me know which you'd like to see!

Like I did last year, I'll be primarily just giving the data from the simulation and not writing a bunch of words.  Most of it is self-explanatory, but the favorites and contenders will be listed in alphabetical order.  The strengths are based on played averages.  Contact me if you want to learn more.

On to the projections from the simulation, I already did the 18 & Over 4.0 men, next up, the 18 & Over 3.5 women.

Teams: 17

Chance of 3 undefeated: 13%
Chance of 4 undefeated: 1.7%
Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%

Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 87% / 4
Strongest / weakest team strength: 3.70 / 3.43
Toughest / easiest schedule: 3.63 / 3.49
Favorites: Florida, SoCal, Southern, Southwest, Texas
Contenders: Intermountain, Missouri Valley

Have a chance: Eastern, Mid-Atlantic, Middle States, Midwest, PNW

The simulation likes five teams for four spots, all having a better than 40% chance of making the semis, and as a result not a lot of contenders, but a big group of teams that have a chance.  The five favorites all have a most likely record of 3-1, but one has a 41% chance or 4-0 and three more have better than a 20% chance.

The tie-breakers will be important as teams 3, 4, and 5 are all projected to have 12-8 individual court records, so one good team is going to be left out of the semis.

What do you think?

There could be six undefeated teams at USTA League 18 & Over 4.0 men's Nationals!

In looking at the details of the projections from my simulation for the 18 & Over 4.0 men this morning, I noticed that it said there was a chance of six 4-0 teams!  This has happened before, but I thought I'd take a deeper look this time.

I had posted a visual diagram of the schedule earlier, but hadn't taken a close look to see what was possible, but the simulation highlighted it.  Here is the same diagram with the potential 4-0 teams in this scenario highlighted in green.

One can clearly see there are six teams that all don't play each other and so they could each go 4-0.  Now, it is pretty unlikely it happens as Hawaii and Northern are not even in my list of teams that have a chance to make the semis let alone go 4-0.

I'll try to keep an eye out for this for other events and post the visualization for them too.

Simulating 2025 USTA League Nationals - 18 & Over 4.0 Men

USTA League Nationals for 2025 begin this weekend!  The schedule is slightly less compressed this year being played in five instead of four weekends, but still more compressed than past years where it was seven weekends.

This weekend has four events, 18 & Over 2.5W and 5.0 in Scottsdale, 3.5 in Surprise, and 4.0 in San Diego.

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

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

Because of the fairly compressed schedule, I likely won't have the time to do previews/simulations of all events, but will try to do a few.  Let me know which you'd like to see!

Like I did last year, I'll be primarily just giving the data from the simulation and not writing a bunch of words.  Most of it is self-explanatory, but the favorites and contenders will be listed in alphabetical order.  The strengths are based on played averages.  Contact me if you want to learn more.

On to the projections from the simulation, first up, the 18 & Over 4.0 men.

Teams: 17

Chance of 3 undefeated: 11%
Chance of 4 undefeated: 1.0%
Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%
Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 92% / 4
Strongest / weakest team strength: 4.16 / 3.96
Toughest / easiest schedule: 4.11 / 4.03
Favorites: Eastern, Intermountain, Mid-Atlantic, Texas
Contenders: Florida, Missouri Valley, NorCal, Southern

Have a chance: Middle States, Midwest, SoCal

The simulation likes the top team a lot due to an easy schedule but still just 38% chance of 4-0.  But then there is a group of four teams with a 33% to 60% chance of making the semis, and five more with a better than 12% chance.  Overall five teams have a most likely record of 3-1 and then eight are at 2-2, so a competitive event it appears so court records and the tie-breakers will be important.

What do you think?

Will it rain on the first weekend of 2025 USTA League Nationals?

2025 USTA League Nationals is starting in a few days, and with that we need to do our weather checks.

Several events are in the greater Phoenix area (Surprise and Scottsdale), and the current forecast calls for showers and a heavy thunderstorm on both Friday and Saturday.  That sounds ominous, but I'd think the courts should dry quickly so hopefully they get all the matches in without having to alter the format.

The other site this weekend is San Diego, and there is a chance of a shower Saturday morning, otherwise sunny and pleasant, so I'd think everything will be fine there.

Stay away rain!

2025 USTA League Nationals begin in three days

USTA League Nationals season for 2025 is upon us with a full seven events will being played this coming weekend, October 10-12.  All of Nationals will occur over the next five weeks, which is one more than in 2024, but still two fewer than in 2023.

Scottsdale, Surprise, and San Diego will all be hosting events this weekend with Orlando joining the fun the last two weekends of Nationals.

I will try to get some of my previews/predictions done each weekend, but with this fairly compressed format and 6-7 events a weekend, I may not get to all of them.  Please leave a comment to vote for which events you'd like to see previews for.

Good luck to all the teams competing the next five weekends!

2026 USTA League Regulations - Changes to appeal rules

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

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

2.07 CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYERS.

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

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

2.07 CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYERS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

Unflighted Round-Robin Format - USTA Southern gets it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The clause reads:

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

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

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

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