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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should the USTA publish 2020 year-end NTRP ratings?

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

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

Yes - But give more lenient appeal thresholds

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

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

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

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

Other

Please Specify:

Created with Quiz Maker

40 & Over and 4 courts - What if Points Per Position was used? Vote in the poll!

A recent change to the USTA League regulations for 2020 modified the format for 40 & Over at the National level, specifically changing it to a 4-court format with 1 court of singles and 3 courts of doubles.  Sections are given the leeway to adopt it for local league play and Districts/Sectionals if they so choose, and I expect many to do so, and my section, Pacific Northwest, has said it will be used for 2020, and I've heard that NorCal will use it as well.

I highlighted a number of concerns in what I wrote above, and I know a group of players in PNW have lobbied the Section Coordinator to rethink the position, but I have not seen an official reply or response with any planned changes.

That doesn't stop me from speculating what might be done though.

Update 11/13 9:30pm: It appears my speculation was correct as the standings on TennisLink for the upcoming league now show the standings using Points Per Position.

If there really is a shortage of singles players, a 1 singles and 4 doubles format could be used to actually increase playing opportunities (9 players rather than 7 or 8) and avoid the issue with 2-2 ties.  But that isn't happening for 2020, so let's move on.

And the 2-2 ties is an issue with the 4-court format as the traditional team wins/losses for standings falls apart should there be 2-2 ties that can't be broken by the published tie-breaker rules.  And yes, it could and would happen.

One approach if a 2-2 tie really happens after the tie-breakers are exhausted is to just give the teams a "half win".  The challenge here is that TennisLink doesn't support it so it would have to be manually managed/tracked.  I believe this has been done in at least one section where a 4-court format was used in 2019.

Perhaps a better solution is something I noted could be done, that being to use a Points Per Position (PPP) format for standings.  For those not familiar with it, rather than standings being based on team wins/losses, they are based simply on points, where a team accumulates points for winning courts throughout the season.  This effectively removes the team win issue as teams wins are not something that is used for standings.

The PPP format allows for the points per position to be whatever is deemed appropriate by the section/district/area implementing it.  The format has been used in several sections for several years with different points allocations, for example, in the Eastern section where PPP has been used for a few years, a 3-court 5.0+ flight uses 2 points for 1S and 1D, and one point for 2D (221), but 5-court flights use a 5 for 1S, 4 for 2S, 6 for 1D, 4 for 2D, and 3 for 3D (54643).

A simple approach for my section (PNW), or any section adopting this new 4-court format for the first time, would be to use PPP with a single point for each court.  This effectively just makes the standings based on courts won/lost record rather than team wins, but does make it so a 2-2 team result is not an issue.  You don't get the satisfaction of the "win", both teams just accumulate 2 more points towards their total in the standings.

An alternative that is subtle but perhaps addresses a few issues is to assign 1 point to all courts other than 1D which will be worth 2 points.  This means each team match will have 5 points up for grabs.  While the team "win" no longer matters, this would result in two teams splitting the four courts having the team that won 1D accumulating 3 total points and thus getting the "win" which lends a little more satisfying resolution to the team match.

This approach also has the benefit of discouraging stacking if you think that is an issue.  In fact, PPP is often used with points allocations to discourage stacking as noted above.  So not only does 1D being worth 2 points create the allure of a "win", but it would help ensure players play their better players on 1D to go after the 2 points.

Also, in 4.5+, by making 1D worth two points, a team may play their 5.0 on 1D some and not only 1S which may open up singles playing opportunities for 4.5s where they may not have had them before if the 5.0 always played singles.  This at least partially addresses the concern that 4.5 singles opportunities will disappear with the 4-court format.

I think there are pros and cons to PPP where court 1 is weighted more heavily.  It does discourage stacking to a degree, but also takes away a strategy for captains to use to try to win the team match.  It could lead to a captain being less willing to play lower rated players at all as they can no longer lose that court and win the team match, losing the court is just lost points now and points accumulation may be at a premium.  I'll be honest, I'm on the fence on this one until I see it in action or do some more research.

Regardless, while I still don't agree with the decision to move to 4 courts for 40 & Over, a move to Points Per Position would address some of the issues.  It does not address the reduced playing opportunity in general, and the cutting in half of the singles playing opportunities, and this is really the bigger issue, but it is at least a step in the right direction and better than the original plan.

Note that an alternative to PPP as I outlined above would be to just make the winner of 1D be the tie-breaker in the team-match if the courts split 2-2.  The problem with this is that this isn't an approved format that TennisLink supports, and unfortunately I think whatever is selected needs to be "TennisLink approved", and Points Per Position is.

If you are from PNW, what do you think?  Would you like to see Points Per Position adopted for the 40 & Over league since we appear locked in to the 4-court format?

If you aren't from PNW, is what I've outlined above something you'd like to see your section do should they adopt the 4-court format?

Voice your opinion and vote in the poll.

Given the 4-court (1S/3D) format for 40 & Over, what is your preferred approach for flight standings?

Traditional team wins/losses with the normal tie-breakers, ties won't really happen ...

Traditional team wins/losses with the normal tie-breakers, "half wins" in the event of a tie

Traditional team wins/losses with the 1D winner being the tie-breaker in the event of a 2-2 tie

Points Per Position where accumulated points determine the standings and team wins don't matter

Created with PollMaker

Note: Added another option to the poll a few minutes after posting.

Another rule change for 2020 USTA League - 40 & Over to be four not five courts - Poll to voice your opinion

The USTA sends out surveys periodically asking questions about player's experience or preferences.  One such survey was done earlier this year asking questions about the plus flights as well as the format for 40 & Over.

These surveys can be an indicator of changes to come, and in the case of plus flights we saw a rule change for 2020 forbidding players playing up from playing on court 1 in plus flights, e.g. a 4.0 cannot play court one in a 4.5+ flight.

What about the format for 40 & Over?  The 2020 regulations document I've seen still lists 2 singles and 3 doubles as the National format, but I am hearing that National has announced a change to 1 singles and 3 doubles for 2020.

Note: I believe this has just been announced by National and as such sections/districts/areas may not have fully digested it and come up with a plan yet.   I understand local leagues may have the option to adopt this format or stay with 2 singles and 3 doubles but am unaware of any decisions districts/areas have made one way or the other but expect each will be notifying players and captains of the decision for their local leagues soon.  I'd ask you be patient while they do so as asking your LC about it probably won't speed things up.  As I hear any announcements, I will write about them so stay tuned.

Now, on to my thoughts and analysis of the change.

I personally am not a fan of this change, I think there are a number of issues with it including fewer playing opportunities in general (just 7 players per team match rather than 8) and cutting in half the opportunities for singles players wanting to play 40 & Over.  And what about team scoring and standings now that you have just four courts and matches will end in 2-2 ties (see below)?

But why might this change have been made?  Certainly, the survey results may have shown support for it (but see below where I debunk survey results on this subject as potentially misleading), but I can also see some areas with limited court availability being in favor of it as it allows a team match to be played on four courts rather than requiring five.

In my area, there are some facilities with only four courts and today, this forces a split start time for matches where two (or three) matches go on at the start of the match, and the other three (or two) go on after they complete.  This makes for a long team match if one stays for the whole thing.  And it reduces the number of league matches and thus teams a facility can host when a team match takes up all the courts for 3+ hours.

With the new format, a four court facility can now host a team match all at the same time, and with one fewer court used, facilities can make it available to other members/players so a team match isn't taking up as many courts.  But I wonder how big of an issue this really is/was?

On the survey, I would not be surprised if there were a fair number of responses in favor of 1/3.  But let's think about it a minute.  In the 2/3 format, just two of the eight players play singles, 25%, and it is probably fair to say the makeup of a team is similarly 25% singles players and 75% doubles players.  Sure, some may play both but the player population at 40+ is certainly biased towards doubles players.

So, if you then do a survey of these players, and 70+% of them are doubles players that prefer doubles, what format do you think they'd vote for?  If the majority of players don't want to play singles, they will probably vote for fewer singles courts, with the 30-% of singles players that want two singles courts simply out voted.  I don't know what the survey results were, but this is a situation where I think the survey results needed to be not taken at face value but looked at in the context of the playing population.

And given that the 2/3 format already is biased towards doubles with 75% of the players playing doubles, why would you take away 50% of the few opportunities for singles players?  Only 14% of the players in a 1/3 format team match are now singles players, and that hardly seems representative.  You can't really trot out stats saying the majority of players over 40 play doubles and claim that is representative of interests, if the format you provide is biased towards forcing those players to play doubles ...

Now I am somewhat surprised the change was to 1/3 rather than 1/4.  A 1/4 format would have avoided the 2-2 team match tie issue, and it would have actually increased playing opportunity as there would be 9 instead of 8 spots in each team match.  I hope this is not the case, but someone suggested to me there were a lot of survey results asking for 2/3 or 1/4, and someone at the USTA decided to split the difference and do 1/3 was a happy medium 😏 But I'm guessing the fewer courts was attractive to facilities, or in smaller areas it was thought requiring 9 players for a team match would result in more defaults or would require larger rosters and thus fewer teams could be formed.

The other potential reason for this is that it was perceived that some teams were not competitive in 40 & Over because they didn't have two strong singles players.  I'm sure it is true that not every team has strong singles players, but in 18 & Over not every team has two strong singles players either so I don't really see the difference.  In either case, I don't see how dumbing down the competition at the expense of promoting singles play is a good thing.

What about defaults?  Is it possible 40 & Over had a lot of defaults at 2 singles and so it was perceived 2 singles was not needed as a court?  I don't think the data supports that at all.  I took a look at the matches in 18 & Over and 40 & Over for 2018 and here is how things compare as it relates to defaults.

In 18 & Over, 6.4% of all courts were defaulted by one team while in 40 & Over it was 6.6%.  While 40 & Over is a bit higher, that is hardly significant and not an indicator that 40 & Over is defaulting courts at an abnormally high rate because all 5 courts can't be filled.

But what about where the defaults occurred?  In looking at this stat, keep in mind that USTA rules dictate that if a team is missing one person and the others all want to play, they must default 2 singles first so it is going to be the court most often defaulted.  Court 3 doubles of course could be defaulted instead, but then another player is missing out on playing.

In 18 & Over, 38% of the defaults occurred on 1 singles while in 40 & Over 36% occurred there.  So this certainly does not support the notion that court 2 singles was being defaulted at an alarming high rate as it is lower than the rate for 18 & Over.  Based on this stat, if anything, 18 & Over should have had its format changed to just 1 singles court!

I've mentioned the scoring several times, so what about it?  Having four courts does present a problem where team wins are decided by who won the most courts.  Yes, you will still have some 4-0 and 3-1 wins, but a lot of those 3-2 wins or 2-3 losses are going to become 2-2 ties.  So now we come to tie-breakers and if you read my blog, you know what I think of the tie-breakers the USTA uses.

For clarity, here are the rules for determining what team wins if the courts tie 2-2 as I understand them.

1. Sets: Loser of the fewest number of sets
2. Games: Loser of the fewest number of games
3. Game Winning Percentage: Total games won divided by total games played

You see the same sets lost and games lost tie-breakers I've written about before.  The good news is #3 is there taking into account games won as well at least, but being used after games lost it really won't have that large an impact and will often times not identify a winner as it will be the same for each team.

And what if it is still tied after #3?  I have not heard but will try to find out.

There you have my thoughts.  I don't think the change is a good idea for lots of reasons, and don't see any real benefit for the players in the new format.  But what do you think?

Leave a comment here on the blog or on Facebook, or vote in the poll below.

Do you prefer the new 1 singles / 3 doubles or existing 2 singles / 3 doubles format for 40 & Over

1 singles / 3 doubles

2 singles / 3 doubles

Created with SurveyMaker

Poll: USTA League teams in plus leagues being discouraged from stacking - New regulations on their way?

It is reasonably well understood that in USTA League play, there is no special meaning to court 1 vs 2 vs 3 (except for plus leagues, see below), and captains are not obligated to play their best players on the lower numbered courts.  Even with that understanding, many captains do play relatively straight-up with stronger players on court 1 and/or weaker players on court 3.

What this leads to though is some captains to stack their line-ups to try and get the 3 court wins necessary for a team win even if it is at the expense of a near guaranteed loss of the other 2 courts.  They reason it is better to get their best players on say singles 2, and doubles 2 and 3 where they can win, than play straight-up and risk any of those players losing a court resulting in a 3-2 loss.

Some find stacking distasteful, others see it just as part of the strategy of team sports.  After all, in football don't you try to identify your strengths and opponent's weaknesses and maximize the situations were you have an advantage?

Despite some not liking stacking, it is accepted that it is allowed and part of the game.  But when the plus leagues were introduced several years ago, the problem got worse.

Plus leagues, or more correctly plus flights/levels, are where a team is allowed to have a few next level players on their roster.  This generally happens in 40 & Over at the 4.5 level and 18 & Over at the 5.0 level.

For example, a 40 & Over 4.5+ team can have three 5.0's on the roster, and two can play in a given match.  There is a further restriction though, the 5.0's must play on court 1, either both in doubles or one in doubles and the other in singles.  The idea being that you want to try to have competitive matches for all players so requiring the 5.0's to be on court 1 helps ensure they play each other.

The problem is, if team A plays their 5.0's together in doubles and team B has one in singles and one in doubles, what is the incentive for team A to play their best available singles player on court 1 if they think or know they'll face a 5.0 there?  From a strategy standpoint, if they play that strong singles player on court 2 they can't face a 5.0 there and have a better chance of winning a court.

The problem gets worse if a team doesn't have 5.0's on the roster or available for a match.  Again team A has no reason to put their best 4.5's on court 1 to potentially face 5.0's, they'd be better off playing them on court 2 so they don't "waste" their best players in a likely to lose scenario.  Some captains have gone so far as to play 4.0's playing up on court 1 to sacrifice those courts.  This is generally not done out of spite or anything, it may just be that due to availability a 4.0 has to be in the line-up, and if they are likely to lose anyway, it might as well be against the opponent's best giving the other courts a better chance to win.

While stacking can make sense from a team strategy standpoint, it also means that a court or two is likely not going to have a competitive match.  Since a key reason for level based play is to try to have competitive matches, this can leave a bad taste in one's mouth, especially if someone had to drive an hour each way for a match and is paying a guest/away team fee to play what may be a 30 minute 6-0,6-0 win.

Apparently, in at least one area of the country, there have been enough complaints about these uncompetitive matches that a notice was sent out to captains saying that the intent of the plus leagues is for the plus players to play each other, and stacking with players playing up on court 1 goes against the spirit of the league.  It ended asking that captains stop the practice of putting 4.0 players on court 1 in a 4.5+ flight.

The notice even hinted that this was something being looked at by USTA National and that changes to the regulations may be forthcoming if the issue continued or got worse.

I can see both sides of the argument.  A team without 5.0's is already at a disadvantage, so any rule that forces them to not sacrifice on court 1 just increases that disadvantage.  But this is "just" recreational tennis and the goal is competitive matches so it isn't fair to someone to make the trip for an away match that isn't competitive.

I think there are probably a couple options to fix it.

One is to acknowledge that plus leagues do bring meaning to the court number, and make a simple change that not only must plus players play on court 1, but players playing up cannot play on court 1.  This doesn't completely remove the stacking arrow from a captain's quiver, but would help avoid the gross mismatches that can occur.  And certainly a team isn't going to have more than five players playing up.

A second solution is to remove court 1 rule entirely, and let a captain play their 5.0's on whatever court they want.  This would introduce more strategy to line-ups, but would likely result in 5.0's playing each other less of the time.  But a team that is stacking would have a harder time matching up their 4.0 against the opponent's 5.0 so it would be an improvement.

A third option is a hybrid of the two, and more complicated so I'm sure the USTA would never do it, but bear with me a minute.  Keep the rule that requires 5.0's to play on court 1, but also require that both captains declare before exchanging line-ups if they are playing two, one, or zero 5.0's that day.  If the teams are not playing the same number of 5.0's, the team playing more of them is allowed to play the difference on a court other than 1.

For example, team A has two 5.0's but team B has one.  Team B must play their 5.0 on a court 1, but team A only has to play one of their 5.0's on a court 1, the other may play on any court.  If team B had no 5.0's, then team A could play both their 5.0's on any court.

This third option still gives captains the ability to strategically stack, but give the other captain the ability to adapt with their plus players to try to avoid uncompetitive matches.

What do you think?  Is this a problem?  If so, what is the best solution?  Vote in the poll below.  Or leave a comment here or on Facebook.

Should the rules be changed regarding stacking in plus leagues?

No, it is fine as-is, let captains stack even if it results in uncompetitive matches

Yes, change it so players cannot play up on court 1

Yes, remove the rule requiring plus players to play on court 1

Yes, change it so plus players can play on any court if the opponent doesn't have a plus player

Created with PollMaker

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

Poll: Changing a USTA League season schedule - What went into the decision making process for Southwest Washington

I wrote about the 2019 schedule for Northwest Washington (Seattle), and other areas in the Pacific Northwest section have some similar changes with the addition of the 18-39 league for example.

What I learned in the past week is that in Southwest Washington (Tacoma/Olympia) has not only added the 18-39 league, but has moved some other leagues around.  Specifically, this year, 40 & Over was played January thru March (Winter), and 18 & Over April thru June (Spring) as normal leagues.  The 55 & Over league was played in the Fall as an early start league.

TLDR: I go on for a bit below, and please do read it if you have time, but the short story is the schedule change has been made to try and increase participation, and while I hope participation does increase, I'm skeptical it will as it seems there are some factors that are going to make that difficult that may not have been considered or given enough weight.

Now, on to the details!

For 2019, Southwest Washington is swapping the slots for 55 & Over and 40 & Over, the latter becoming an early start league played this Fall and 55 & Over moving to the January thru March slot as a regular league.

Why was this change made?  The main reason appears to be that there has been a drop in participation in the Winter/Spring leagues and they are looking to try to do things to reverse this trend.  Here is the chart that was provided in a document on the schedule changes from the coordinator.

We can see that 18 & Over has dropped a bit each year, down 89 registrations or 8% from 2015 to 2018.  The 40 & Over also dropped, 5% from 2015 to 2017 but came up a bit for 2018 to make the 3-year drop just 41 or 4%.  Regardless, the decline appears to be real in both leagues, a total decline of 130 or 6%.

So what might be causing the decline?  The schedule change document mentioned that players had made comments that having the two different leagues played back to back caused them to decide to play just one or the other and not both like they had in the past.  It also said a survey was done, where some of the comments presumably were made, that indicated support for 40 & Over to be played in either Winter or Fall, although it did indicate there was more support for leaving it in the Winter (3.34 vs 2.48 weighted score).

If this is all true, one can see how a change might be a worthwhile thing to try to see if it helps participation.  But is there other data to consider?  Does the data support this conclusion?  Or what are the implications of a change like this?

First, what is missing from the above chart is the 55 & Over participation numbers.  By my calculations, those have gone up each year since 2015 from 460 to 524, an increase of 64 or 14%.  The increase of 64 does not completely offset the loss of 130 from the other two leagues, but still gives reason to believe there may be something else going on.

What that something else might be is that players are simply getting older.  In the three years from 2015 to 2018, all those age 52-54 turned 55 and became eligible to play 55 & Over, and common sense says they will have decided to play in that league and may decide to drop 18 & Over as they no longer need to play the "youngsters" to get a second league in.  And some of those 55+ players may have reached retirement age and/or decide to spend some of the Winter in the desert which makes them unavailable for the 40 & Over season.

If both of these factors are significant contributors to the decline, it may be that the 40 & Over and 18 & Over leagues being back to back is not as big a factor as the comments indicate, and instead the real issue is that the void created by some players getting older is not being filled with new players under 40.

Second, are the players playing in multiple leagues declining?  Or are the individual leagues declining on their own?

My analysis shows that 655 players were rostered on both an 18 & Over and 40 & Over team in 2015.  This declined to 591, or down 64, in 2018 so yes, fewer players are playing in both leagues.  But we can also look at other combinations.

The count of those playing both 55 & Over and 18 & Over went 227, 215, 249, and 227 in the four years ending 2018.  So on average, this has stayed pretty flat.

The count of those playing both 55 & Over and 40 & Over went 261, 313, 316, and 335, an increase of 84, so a pretty dramatic increase.  In fact, this increase was more than the 18/40 decrease.

So what does this tell us?  The decline in 18/40 but flat in 18/55 would seem to support the notion that players prefer to play both leagues when there is a gap between them.  However, the increase in 40/55 would seem to support what I wrote above, that the player population is growing older and is just more comfortable doubling up in 40/55 than with 18 & Over.  It is likely that both are a factor, but the increase in 40/55 being larger tells me the age factor is larger.

Third, what are the implications of this change?  It may seem simple, but given the nature of each league and the early start league rules, it is actually quite significant.

As an early start league, players in the 2019 40 & Over league will now register with their 2017 year-end rating.  These players will be eligible at that level on their teams through local playoffs in December, but if they are bumped up at 2018 year-end will be ineligible to continue playing on their team at Sectionals at their rostered level.  In fact, a team could have enough players bumped up that they win local playoffs and can't even field a team at Sectionals.  Correspondingly, if a player is bumped down at year-end, the 40 & Over season will already have been played and these players won't be able to play 40 & Over at their new level until the 2020 season.

Note that it is the demise or early start ratings that makes both of these issues worse than they would be otherwise.

Both of these early start implications are going to put the Southwest Washington teams at Sectionals at a disadvantage.  On the first point, they could lose their best players to bump ups while teams from other areas playing 40 & Over in the Winter or Spring won't be affected.  On the second point, all of the other areas will have been able to include bumped down players to their rosters.  Now, admittedly, this is only going to impact the one or two teams at each level that advance to Sectionals, but it is going to make it a lot tougher for those teams to compete with the other areas, particularly those from Portland and Seattle that already had an advantage of having many more players to draw from.

Now, you might argue that when 55 & Over was an early start league the same issues existed.  That is true, but just sort of.  First, most other areas run their 55 & Over as an early start league so no one was disadvantaged by doing it differently.  Also, 55 & Over is a combination league, that means a 7.0 team for example can have 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 players on the roster, so there is more flexibility to absorb a player being bumped up at year-end that 40 & Over does not have.

One advantage Southwest Washington will have with 55 & Over is that they will be able to have the just bumped down players on their rosters where the other areas won't.  But there are fewer levels/teams/players in 55 & Over so the advantage will benefit far fewer players and teams, and it is a smaller advantage and less likely to come into play given the combination nature of the league and fewer levels played.

So, IMHO, 55 & Over seems much more well suited to being the early start league than 40 & Over.

Another dynamic with leagues in the Northwest is when players may migrate south for the Winter or vacations.  The typical time for this is January thru March which is smack dab during the 55 & Over season now.  The gotcha here is that the players most likely to do a Winter migration are probably those age 55+.  So that growth I noted above in the 55 & Over league may turn around as players may be out of town during that season now.

I've written a lot, hopefully it all made sense, but what do you think, particularly if you play in Southwest Washington?  Is this schedule change for the better?  Is it worth trying something different to try to increase participation?  Or is it going to make it more challenging for older players to play league and is ignoring the real issue which is the lack of new under 40 players?

I think there are some challenges to this schedule working out for the better, but I do hope it does and participation goes up, and teams that go to Sectionals feel they can compete.

If you are so inclined, please leave a comment here or on Facebook, and vote in the poll below if you are from Southwest Washington.

Do you like the Southwest Washington schedule change?

Yes, it will increase participation

Yes, it is better for my schedule

Yes, it gives SWW 55 & Over teams an advantage at Sectionals

Don't care, I'll play the same leagues regardless

No, it puts SWW 40 & Over teams at a disadvantage at Sectionals

No, it doesn't address the real reason for the decline in participation

No, it is worse for my schedule

You may vote for multiple selections.

See this blog for details on the changes to the schedule.

Create a Poll with PollMaker

Poll: What should be done about allowing players to play up?

I recently wrote on the subject of competitive matches in USTA League play and how playing up affects that.  I offered some suggestions on how to address the issues while still allowing it, and some of the feedback in comments and on Facebook have added to the ideas, so I thought a poll would be in order to collect everyone's position or opinion.

See below for the poll, you can vote for multiple options as most are not mutually exclusive, but try not to vote for each of the few that are :)

I've included a little discussion on the options in the poll below it if you want to better understand what you are voting for.

What should be done about playing up in USTA League

Leave it alone, allowing playing up is needed and ok

Don't allow playing up at all, causes too many problems

Reduce the percent of roster that can be below level

Limit the number of below level players in a match line-up

Require below level players to play higher numbered courts, e.g. 3 then 2

Don't allow playing up in plus leagues

Eliminate the roster limit waiver for move-up Nationals teams

Other

Please Specify:

QuizMaker

Presently National limits the below level players at 50%, but some sections have a lower limit and apparently some a higher one. Reducing it further could be either a lower percentage or a fixed number, say three, like is done for above level players in plus leagues.

There presently is no limit on how many below level players can be in a given line-up.  If they are on the roster, they can be in the line-up.  Limiting this would probably be a fixed number like two or three.

Presently a below level player can play on any court and captains can use this to "throw" a match on court 1 while putting stronger players on 2 or 3 to try to win the team match. Limiting below level players to only play on court 3 then 2 would be similar to plus leagues where above level players must play on court 1.

You can vote for both a limit the having to play higher numbered courts to combine them and you'd have a situation where you could play two below level players, but they'd have to be both on court 3 doubles or one on court 3 doubles and one court 2 singles.  This again is like what is done for plus leagues.

The playing up problem is particularly bad in plus leagues where you can have a 5.0 playing a 4.0 on court 1. Adopting one or more other options can partially address this, but one could also just not allow playing up in plus leagues at all.

Presently, a team that goes to Nationals must split up (no more than 3 from the same roster on a team at the same level) or move-up. When they move up, the 50% roster limit is waived so they can have as many playing up as they want. This only affects a handful of teams, but perhaps it should be eliminated.

If you have another idea, write it in!