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?

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.

Has USTA Florida botched the random round-robin format again?

In 2022 at Florida 18 & Over Mixed Sectionals, a disaster happened where two undefeated teams were sent home in the 9.0 flight.  Might it happen again?

This happened because the unflighted round-robin format was used with 10 teams with two sets of five teams on each side playing four teams on the other side.  This means in theory if all the teams on one side win, there could be five 5-0 teams, and they only took two teams to a final.  It is all explained here.

What is worse is they had five strong teams on one side and five weaker teams on the other, and sure enough four teams went 4-0 and two were sent home.

You would think an event like this happening would be a great learning opportunity and steps would be taken to prevent it from happening again.  Well, sort of.

This year, again at 18 & Over Mixed Sectionals, there are again 10 teams at both the 6.0 and 9.0 levels, and unflighted round-robin is being used with each team playing four matches.  The good news is it appears they will take the top-4 to semis instead of just the top-2.  Phew, we are safe then right?

Not so fast ...

Both levels appear to have had the short-sighted "two sides of five teams each" approach to scheduling, so there still remains a chance of five undefeated teams!

Here is what it looks like for 6.0 flight if you visually look at the schedule.

Yep, there are clearly two groups of five teams, the top row plays the bottom row, and it is possible either row could go 5-0.

And for the 9.0 flight.

We see the same thing here.

Now, will it happen?  The chances are probably low, but the mere fact the format is used in a way that allows for it to happen when it could easily be avoided is a gaffe.  All one has to do is actually make a random schedule instead of constructing a schedule that explicitly allows for the worst case scenario.

I don't know if anyone from the USTA Florida reads my blog, but if so, I volunteer my services for free to review your unflighted round-robin schedules in the future so this can be avoided.  I would prefer to nip this sort of thing in the bud before it is rolled out and can't be changed.  It isn't fair to the players involved.

Let's hope the worst case doesn't happen for the players' sake.  If the disaster is avoided, that doesn't mean the format is ok, it just means they got lucky.

Even the National format with 17 teams and a schedule that actually appears random has a chance of sending an undefeated team home and it has happened (also here).

Good luck to all the teams involved.  Make sure you smash your opponent lest you go 4-0 and lose out on the standings tie-breaker.

It happened again, SoCal has an undefeated team sent home from Sectionals

I wrote several months ago that the SoCal section appeared to be running their Sectionals using an unflighted round-robin format that was begging for an undefeated team to be sent home.  Well, it happened again this weekend's 40 & Over Sectionals.

The 3.5 women had a whopping 18 teams in the flight, and only three matches scheduled for each team which creates a very good chance of the situation to happen.  For comparison, there is a small chance of it happening at Nationals (and it has happened), and there they have 17 teams playing four matches so you can only imagine the risk goes way up with an additional team and one fewer match.

The way things played out, there were five undefeated teams and only four could advance, so one was sent home.  Here were the standings:

1. OC LLW - 3-0 / 15-0 / 30-2 / 177-67
2. SFV - 3-0 / 10-5 / 21-11 / 149-117
3. V-WD - 3-0 / 10-5 / 21-13 / 145-118
4. BC - 3-0 / 9-6 / 19-14 / 157-118
5. SD - 3-0 / 9-6 / 21-14 / 153-130

So SD was left out, and worse, the broken standings tie-breakers bit them too!  The tie-breaker is sets lost and BC and SD were tied, and the USTA chooses to ignore sets won and goes straight to games lost where SD and lost more games.  Well, given they played, and won, two more sets, one can understand how they would have lost more games.

What do you think?  Was SD given the short end of the stick and unfairly left out of the semis?  Or every team knew the rules and just needed to play better.

USTA League Regulations Changes for 2025

It is only May, 2024, but the 2025 USTA League Regulations are already having to be prepared as there are 2025 leagues starting already with Georgia's early start leagues.

A 2025 regulations link has shown up on the USTA League Resources page, and here are my observations from a quick read through the document.

The document does not say "Draft" like some others in the past have at this time of year, so I assume it is official, but you never know if they'll decide to change something.

The only "Major Regulation Change" listed at the beginning of the document has to do with a section filing a grievance against a team for full team defaults, so at a high level there are no big changes coming.  This is a bit odd, I think most every year I've been reviewing this has had a handful of changes so I guess the USTA thought the regulations were in a good spot already.

The 2024 regulations allowed for Sections to run Mixed leagues as straight-level leagues (3.0, 3.5, 4.0, etc.) instead of combined levels (6.0, 7.0, 8.0, etc.) through Sectionals and there had been speculation that was a precursor to Nationals changing to straight-levels in 2025, but that does not seem to be the case.  I'm only aware of Southern choosing to implement this so far.

In fact, the only other highlighted changes in the document are related to full team defaults or matches where the majority of matches are not played.  So for all intents and purposes, 2025 has the same regulations as 2024.

At Nationals last year there was some pretty severe ratings manipulation that led to a double National champ, and there was a thought that perhaps the USTA would do something to crack down on it, but nothing in the regulations despite my offering a host of options.

Last, we had an undefeated team at Nationals not make the semis last year, and there was again speculation that might lead to some sort of change to address the scenario, but as it relates to the regulations, no change there.  That isn't to say documents about the event itself couldn't address changes to the format, but so far all FAQs I've seen don't indicate any change.

What do you think?  What regulation change were you hoping for?

Pacific Northwest Local Playoff Survey - Change the format?

A few weeks ago, the league coordinators in the Northern Oregon (Portland) and Northwest Washington (Seattle) areas sent out a survey on the playoff format used for local playoffs.

This is a topic because 4 years ago the playoff format was changed from a traditional single elimination draw to having a "first place" draw and "second place" draw where the first place draw final loser got a second chance of advancing to Sectionals by playing the second place draw winner to determine the wildcard.

Note: The teams advancing to local playoffs are the top-2 teams in each sub-flight, thus the first and second place teams noted.

The reason this was done is because both areas send two teams to Sectionals and in the prior traditional single elimination format, both teams that make the final know they are going to Sectionals making the final somewhat meaningless.  In an effort to make the matches all have meaning, the new format was introduced.

Some weren't fond of the format and apparently enough gave feedback to the coordinators that a survey with three options was offered to get feedback.  The survey is now closed, but the results and decision have not been published yet.  Still, I thought it would be useful to look at the options and do some analysis of them.

The survey had a link to a description of the options so take a look at that for all the details.  But a summary of the options is:

• Option A - Current format, first place teams draw, winner goes to sectionals, loser plays winner of second place teams draw for wildcard
• Option B - Alternate multi-draw format where just top-two (in the example) or four teams (presumably if applicable) go into the first place teams draw to avoid having byes to deal with, but otherwise the same as option A.
• Option C - Traditional single elimination draw as it used to be.

I thought it would be useful to do some analysis to see what the real (dis)advantage was for each team.

The issue with option A is that when there aren't two (or four) first place teams, both draws end up having team(s) that get a bye, e.g. in a three sub-flight situation there are three first place teams (and three second place teams) each draw has one team with a bye which is perhaps not equitable as two first place teams have to play a first match while the highest seeded second place team gets a bye.  Here is an example draw.

So, would you rather be the #2 or #3 seeds (2nd or 3rd first place team) having to play a first place team and win to stay in it, or the #4 seed (1st second place team) with a bye and getting to play the winner of two second place teams?

I created a simulation with the draw scenarios, and as a baseline first said all the teams were equal and there was a 50% chance of any team winning head to head.  When this is done, the chances of advancing to Sectionals was:

• #1 seed - 75%
• #2 and #3 seeds - 37.5%
• #4 seed - 25%
• #5 and #6 seeds - 12.5%

So it is better to be the #2 or #3 seeds simply because if you win the first match, you do get the second chance at advancing if you lose the first place final.  But it is somewhat close to the #4 seed getting the bye.  And there is a clear advantage to being the #1 seed.

But if the three sub-flights aren't really equal (they never are) and the #4 seed is actually a very strong team and just happened to be beat by another really strong team in their flight to be in second place, and the #3 seed came from a weak flight where the #3 team isn't that strong, a reasonable scenario plays out as:

• #1 seed - 79.9%
• #2 seed - 46.1%
• #3 seed - 28.5%
• #4 seed - 29.7%
• #5 seed - 7.9%
• #6 seed - 7.9%

Here the #4 seed has a slightly better chance than the #3 seed.

The other perhaps inequitable aspect of this format is that the #1 seed could be #1 simply because they had a weaker flight compared to the #2 seed so has a better standings record, but they get a huge advantage and can even lose their first match and not be eliminated.  Every other team has to win their first match.  This doesn't seem quite fair.

Option B aims to address this last point by putting the #1 and #2 seed on equal footing so just one team doesn't have the huge advantage.  This is how that looks.

This avoids any byes which seems like a good thing, but it is a big disadvantage to be the #3 seed.  This is a first place team and perhaps is the #3 seed simply because they were in the toughest flight.  But they will be required to win three in a row despite being a first place team, while the other two first place teams get a huge advantage of only having to win one match and not being out of it if they lose their first match.

Here is the equal chance of each team winning advance percentages:

• 1st and 2nd seeds - 75%
• 3rd thru 6th seeds - 12.5%

This is a huge difference and advantage to being the top-2 seeds.  To me that seems too extreme, particularly for the #3 seed to be shunted into a draw with no built-in advantage over a bunch of second  place teams, one of which the #3 seed had to play and probably beat in their sub-flight already.

Last, option C is a traditional single elimination draw with byes for the top-2 seeds, but no second chance if they lose.  This is what it looks like:

Here is how the advance percentages play out with an equal chance of each team winning a match.

• 1st and 2nd seeds - 50%
• 3rd thru 6th seeds - 25%

Being a top-2 seed has a built-in advantage, but it is not nearly as big as for option B.  This seems more equitable to me and doesn't penalize the #3 seed nearly as much.

Of course option C has the original issue (if you consider it one) of the final not having any impact on advancing.  It only decides who the local champion is, and ensures the winner won't be in the flight at Sectionals with the other main area winner, i.e. the Sectionals flights always have the Seattle winner in a flight with the 2nd place Portland team, and Portland winner in a flight with the Seattle 2nd place team.

I think there are two ways to address this issue.

First, just accept it doesn't have much meaning and play it anyway, or perhaps don't even play the match which saves having to schedule the finals which reduces the demand for courts (a good thing for facilities).  If it isn't played, flip a coin to determine Sectionals flights.

Second, create more incentive to win the final.  It could be monetary, something like waiving the team fee for local playoffs for the winner, or a more significant trophy for being the winner, or be creative coming up with something else.

What do you think?  What would you, or did you vote for and why?

I voted for option C, and while not asked, would advocate creating more incentive to win to make the final meaningful.

2024 Seattle Area 40 & Over Playoffs - Any 4-court 2-2 ties?

The past two weekends saw the Seattle area 40 & Over local playoffs take place.  While the National format for 40 & Over has gone back to a 5-court format (1 singles and 4 doubles), the Pacific Northwest Section is sticking with the prior 4-court format for this year at least.

That means we continue to live with the possibility of 2-2 ties, and with playoffs, important matches that decide who will advance are being decided by the tie-breakers.  How many did we have the past few weekends?

There were a total of 46 team matches played over the two weekends, and of those, 14 (30%) were tied on courts.  Of those 14, five (36%) were tied on sets.

Taking a look at those five:

• Women's 3.0 - Each team won a match in straights and a match in a super tie-break.  There was a single game difference, a 6-2 vs a 6-3 set.  Had both of those been 6-3, it would have gone to the court 1 doubles winner and the team win would have swapped.
• Women's 3.0 - All courts in straights, two for each team, singles won 6-1,6-1 which resulted in a 6 game difference.
• Women's 4.0 - All courts in straights, two for each team, one team (A) had a 6-1 set, the other (B) had a 6-0 set, but the 6-0 set wasn't enough for team B as they had a 7-6 set vs team A having a 6-3 set to counter it, one game better for team A and the win.  Had team B won one more game, it would have gone to the court 1 doubles winner and team B would have won.
• Women's 4.0 - Each team won a match in straights and a match in a super tie-break.  Singles was won 6-1,6-1 by one team and that contributed to a three game difference giving them the win and a spot at Sectionals.
• Men's 4.0 - Each team won a match in straights and a match in a super tie-break.  Team A had an advantage in the straight set comparison being a game better, but team B won a 6-0 set and a 6-1 set to contribute to a four game difference and the team win.  This match decided the wildcard winner and a spot at Sectionals.

Some very close matches, two were just one game away from the result being reversed.  And two of these 2-2 ties were for a spot to advance to Sectionals.

Sectionals will continue to use the 4-court format, we'll see how things go there.

It is 2024! What is going on with the 40 & Over format?

For my first post of 2024, I thought I'd take a look at how things are playing out with the court format in the 40 & Over division.

For those paying close attention or that read my post on the subject, you know that the National format for 40 & Over for 2024 is changing back to a 5-court format after several years of a 4-court format.  The 4-court format had some challenges, dealing with 2-2 ties for one, and was not very popular with many players, so the change back to 5-courts is welcome.

However, the change back did not just revert to the prior 2-singles / 3-doubles format, but instead is a 1-singles / 4-doubles format.  This is perhaps good for getting players matches, 9 line-up spots instead of 8, but doesn't address those wanting to play more singles.

Now, this change may not really be a change where you are.  Sections/districts/areas have always had the ability to run local leagues using alternate formats, and many do, and some planned to stick with 4-court or other formats for 2024.  It is still very early in 2024, but I thought I'd take an early look at what formats are being used.

Keep in mind that some leagues haven't started yet and I'm only looking at those that have started or at least have schedules up.  Also keep in mind that a given league may have multiple formats as sometimes lower or higher level flights will use a 3-court format to require fewer players.

With that said, as of today, there are 104 leagues that have flights continuing to use the 1-singles / 3-doubles format and just 42 that are using the National 1-singles / 4-doubles format.  There are even 9 choosing to use 2-singles / 3-doubles.  Still the 4-court format is far and away the most common.

And this isn't something where different sections have standardized on a format.  As of right now, only Eastern is using a single format (1-singles / 3- doubles) and there are others not using 1-singles / 4-doubles at all including Intermountain, Mid-Atlantic, Middle States, Midwest, Northern California, Pacific Northwest, Southern California, and Southwest, but all other than Eastern are using multiple formats.

I think this is an indication that the change in the regulations to a 4-court format was done late enough that many areas had already planned on continuing the format from 2023, or facilities prefer to not dedicate as many courts to USTA play keeping more available for other use.

What this means to players and teams is that as you progress through the season and advance in playoffs, the format used may change.  Local playoffs will likely use what was used in local league play, but come Districts, States, or Sectionals, you may need to field a line-up requiring more players, and certainly those that go to Nationals will have to use the 1-singles / 4-doubles format.  Keep that in mind as you recruiting players and get them matches to be qualified for post-season play.

What are you seeing in your area?  What reason have you been given for the format being used?

How often are 2-2 ties happening at 2023 USTA League Nationals?

We've had three weekends of play at Nationals where the 40 & Over division has had events, and with the 4-court format used for 40 & Over, that means 2-2 "ties" are happening.  There are established tie-breakers when the team match ends in a 2-2 tie so that all works, but I still think it is silly that the 4-court format exists and thankfully it appears to be going away next year!

But since it is used this year, it is always interesting to look to see how many matches end in 2-2 ties, and how far down the tie-breaker rules matches go to be decided.

As background, see my prior analysis on 2021 and 2022 matches using this format where we see a pretty consistent trend of around 26% of team matches ending in 2-2 ties, around 10% of all of them being tied on sets, and around 1% of all matches being tied on games and being decided by the court one winner.

So far, the 3.0, 3.5, and 4.5 levels of 40 & Over have played with the 4.0 level to be played this coming weekend.

Overall there have been 226 team matches played, and 62 (27%) have ended in 2-2 ties.  Of those 62, 43 were decided by the sets lost tie-breaker leaving 19 (8.4%) to be decided by the games lost tie-breaker, and 18 of those were, with just one (0.44%) having to be decided by the winner of court one doubles.  These numbers are generally consistent with past years, although the number having to be decided by the court one doubles winner is a little lower than past years.

One level/gender stands out as the one with the most ties this year and that was the 4.5 women round-robin where 14 of the 34 team matches (41%) were tied 2-2, five were tied on sets (15%) and the one tied on games  (3%) happened here.

Interestingly none of the 2-2 ties for the 4.5 women were in the semis/3rd-4th/final, but the other levels/genders had some:

• 3.0 women - The final was a 2-2 tie decided on sets.
• 3.0 men - Each semi and the final were 2-2 ties!  Each one decided on sets.
• 3.5 women - One semi, the 3rd-4th, and final were 2-2 ties, the final decided on sets.
• 3.5 men - Both semis and the 3rd-4th were 2-2 ties.
• 4.5 men - 3rd-4th and the final were 2-2 ties, the final decided by 2 games!

 That is 12 of 24 or 50%, so the matches are more closely matched than regular season for sure, but also round-robin matches it appears.

We'll see how this weekend's matches go!

What do you think, are you sorry to see the 4-court format go?  Did you like the excitement of counting sets and games? 🤣

How to fix the USTA League Nationals format so an undefeated team isn't sent home

The USTA has been using an un-flighted round-robin format at Nationals for a number of years now, and for regular readers of my blog, you know I've written about a number of things that are issues with the format.  There are some positives of the format too of course, but it would be great if some steps were taken to mitigate the issues.

One of the big issues is that the format inherently allows for there to be more than four 4-0 teams, but just four teams advance to the semis, so it is possible for a 4-0 team to be sent home.  All teams should know this going in and take steps to give themselves the best chance at winning the standings tie-breaker between the 4-0 teams, but it would still be really tough if a team goes 4-0 and doesn't advance.

While the chances of it happening are usually very very small, it is always possible and in fact has happened at least twice.  Earlier this year at the 55 & Over National Invitational, the 7.0 flight had five 4-0 teams and Eastern was tied with Southern and Midwest at 4-0 and 8-4 on courts, but lost more sets and missed out on the semis.

Then this weekend at 40 & Over 3.0 Nationals it happened again with Texas being 4-0 and 12-4 on courts, but PNW at 4-0 and 13-3 on courts beat them out for 4th.

And just a few weeks ago it very nearly happened and came down to the last match where Southern lost a 2-2 match where winning a match tie-break or a few more games would have resulted in five 4-0 teams.

You might say, it has only happened twice, what is the big deal?  But tell that to that Eastern and Texas teams it happened to.  And it has very nearly happened several other times and only upsets prevented it from happening.  And it has happened numerous times at Sectionals events (also here and here), although this is largely on the section for implementing the format poorly.

What is the solution?  There are several that could be considered.

One would be to go back to four flights where just the flight winners advance.  By definition, you can only have one undefeated team in a full round-robin flight, but doing this would lose all the benefits of the un-flighted round-robin format, namely not having flights with different numbers of teams, all teams getting an equal number of matches (four), and a team that loses early still having a real chance to advance.  I don't think I'd recommend doing this.

Two would be to introduce quarterfinals so you could take the top-8 teams in the standings.  There is no way you can have nine 4-0 teams with the format, so this would guarantee an undefeated team gets to advance.  It would also address some of the inequities with the standings tie-breakers that are used, as they really don't work well when the teams being compared may not have played any common opponents can have significantly different strengths of schedule.

The challenge with this is it is adding a match to the schedule meaning teams would have to play three matches on one of the days, or the final is played on a 4th day (Monday) of the event.  Now, I'm guessing teams would prefer to play an extra match or stay an extra day to avoid the scenario of an undefeated team being sent home.  And many teams may stay through Monday and not rush out on Sunday anyway.

Three would be a variation of quarter finals where instead of taking a full 8 teams, there is a provision to have a play-in game between the 4th and 5th 4-0 teams if necessary to determine the 4th seed to go to the semis.  This would only be done if required, so would only add a match on the off chance this occurs, and while it would put these teams at a disadvantage having to play an extra match, I think it is still more equitable than sending a 4-0 team home.  Teams would know in advance they don't want to be in the 4th/5th game and try to take steps to avoid it.

A fourth option would be to redo the schedule after three matches in order to ensure undefeated teams play each other so it is decided on the court.  For example, in the case that happened this weekend, with five 3-0 teams and none of them playing each other, the schedule gets modified so at least the 4th and 5th teams in the standings play each other so you are guaranteed no more than four 4-0 teams.  Logistically this might be hard to do, but it would address the issue without adding days or matches.  One could also debate the fairness of only doing this for the 4th/5th teams and letting the other 4-0 teams play potentially weaker opponents so perhaps the redoing of the schedule need to include all the teams.

A fifth option would be to construct the schedule in a way to minimize the chance of it happening.  Today, the schedule is seemingly random which is great in that there is no bias, but given the large variation in team strength at Nationals it means some teams can end up with easy schedules and others with hard schedules which is not terribly fair when the teams are ultimately compared in standings using wins, courts, sets, games.  And in fact, we can see that this weekend where the five 4-0 teams happened, my simulation said there was a very good chance of it happening for this very reason, five strong teams got some of the easiest schedules, which greatly increased the chances of it happening.

If instead of a random schedule the teams were seeded or a strength identified like my simulations do, and then the round-robin schedule done in a way to have as equal schedule strength as possible, the chances of more than four 4-0 teams would go way down.  There would still be a chance of course, but if this was done then perhaps just the third play-in option could be used in the rare case it happens.

Sixth and last, like the fifth option this doesn't completely solve it but would reduce the chances of it happening, and that is to implement some of my suggestions to get rid of wildly out of level teams at Nationals.  As noted in the fifth option, the chances of more than four 4-0 teams is high because some teams are head and shoulders better than others, and if they get favorable schedules it is likely they all win.  Well, why are some teams head and shoulders better?  It is a combination of things that my suggestions would address by lowering strike thresholds, making more players subject to strikes, preventing tanking, and more.  If the teams are simply more similar, it becomes less likely a lot of teams go 4-0.

What would I do?  I personally think several of my suggestions in the sixth option need to be done regardless and that would help.  That alone may help make fairer schedules, but I think my fifth option needs to be done too to make the schedules more even.  After that, I'd vote for having quarterfinals, but would also support doing the play-in game.

What do you think?  What is the solution to this problem?  Or do you think it isn't a problem?

Well, it happened - An undefeated team misses the semis at USTA League Nationals!

Ever since the new format for USTA League Nationals came out, I've written about the possibility of more than four undefeated teams leading to a team without a loss missing out on the semis and being sent home.  It very nearly happened two weeks ago, an upset in the last match prevented it, and it has nearly happened several times at prior year's Nationals.

And in fact it has happened at a "National" event in the past, it was just 55 & Over Mixed 7.0 in April of 2022 at what is technically an "Invitational", but it uses the same format of Nationals so it effectively is a Nationals.  At that event, Eastern was 4-0 and tied on courts with two teams ahead of them, but lost more sets so lost the tie-breaker.

Well, it happened again, and this time at "real" Nationals, the 40 & Over 3.0 men's event.

I wrote in my simulation of the event that there was perhaps the largest chance of it occurring we'd seen, 16%, and after one day my updated simulation said the chances were now 34% as the five 2-0 teams didn't play each other on Saturday, so if they all just won, it would happen.

Each team won their 3rd match and each one faced an 0-3 or 1-2 team in their final match, so there was a strong probability it would happen at this point and it did.

The final standings were:

Middle States - 4-0 / 15-1
NorCal - 4-0 / 14-2
Southern - 4-0 / 14-2
PNW - 4-0 / 13-3
Texas - 4-0 / 12-4

The tie-breakers were clear, the 4-0 teams that were 13-3 or better on courts advanced, which mean Texas who won each of their matches 3-1 would not go the semis.

There are a few unfortunate things here.  The main one is that the format allows for a team to go to Nationals and not lose a team match, but not advance.  That has to be tough for the team and I hope they knew it was a possibility and this wasn't a surprise.

But another is that the criteria used to determine which team doesn't advance isn't exactly equitable.  Yes, Texas had the worst individual court record of the five teams, but the format used for Nationals doesn't have teams play the same opponents, and it is even possible that the teams tied at 4-0 don't play any common opponents.

This means one team could have a really tough schedule and eke by going 4-0 while another has a really easy schedule on their way to 4-0.  The team with the tough schedule will likely have more close wins and a worse individual court record, and as a result fare worse in the tie-breaker and not advance.

In this case, Texas played 1-3 Southwest, 2-2 Intermountain, 1-3 New England, and 1-3 Midwest, a combined 5-11.

PNW just ahead of them played 1-3 New England, 3-1 Caribbean, 2-2 Florida, and 1-3 Eastern, a combined 7-9, perhaps a tougher schedule.

But Southern got 0-4 Hawaii, 1-3 Midwest, 0-4 SoCal, and 1-3 Southwest, a combined 2-14!  This is clearly an easier schedule than Texas and likely contributed to Southern's individual court record being 14-2 to Texas' 12-4.

And NorCal got 0-4 SoCal, 2-2 Florida, 0-4 MOvalley, and 0-4 Hawaii, also a combined 2-14, a very weak schedule.

Middle States opponents were 4-12, so a bit tougher than Southern's and NorCal's, but not exactly tough.

My preview highlighted the schedule strengths to be:

• Middle States - 3.05
• NorCal - 3.05
• Southern - 3.08
• PNW - 3.05
• Texas - 3.07

So NorCal, Middle States, and PNW had easier schedules than Texas.

If we look at who actually played, the played schedule strengths were:

• Middle States - 2.99
• NorCal - 2.99
• Southern - 3.03
• PNW - 3.05
• Texas - 3..05

Here Texas had the toughest schedule, NorCal and Middle States the easiest.  So there is something to the theory that Texas may have missed out on the semis simply because they had the toughest schedule.

This makes it especially tough for a team to lose out by one court when they had one of the two toughest schedules and the other teams they were in a tie with had easier schedule.

With a random round-robin schedule, it is hard to create similar schedules, but I'm not sure any attempt is made to make more of an equitable schedule and perhaps there should be.

To be fair, I've written about this for years and I have to hope everyone involved knew of this possibility going in, so everyone knew the rules and the possibility of this and what they may need to do to win the tie-breaker.  If so, them is the rules everyone is playing by so you have to accept it.

Stay tuned, I'll be posting my suggestions on how to fix this soon.  But what do you think?  Is it a problem that a 4-0 team can miss out on the semis?  Are the unequal schedules an issue?  Or everyone knows the rules going in so it is what it is?

Update: See my suggestions on how to avoid this happening again.

Week 4 team/player shenanigans from USTA League Nationals

Getting to Nationals is hard, particularly if you follow the rules.  To get there you need players at the very top of your level, and frankly a number of them that are on their way to a bump up, and even then you may run into teams that have formed their teams a little more successfully.

One would like to think there is a limit to what you'd see at Nationals, but competition makes people do interesting things and sometimes things are taken what most would consider to be too far.  I like to write about some of the scenarios I see when doing my analysis and simulations of Nationals, and folks will share with me some interesting cases too that I look into and sometimes write about.

With that said, here is a sample of a few from this weekend.  I hinted at a few in this week's simulations, but more detail is shared here.

This is by no means a comprehensive accounting of every suspect player or team, nor is it intended to accuse all of them of cheating in some way.  It is merely observations of what is at a minimum interesting situations that have occured.

First up is a team with a lot of self-rates.  Players that self-rate are not necessarily wrong or bad, but it is something that we've seen abused from time to time.  Many self-rated players remain the same level at year-end and some are even bumped down, but those that get bumped up, especially if they fill a team at Nationals, make you go hmmm.

The 18 & Over 4.0 women's team from Texas has small roster of just 10, and 9 of those players are self-rated!  Again, that isn't necessarily bad, but the fact they won Sectionals and as I write this won their first match at Nationals 4-1, one might think they had at least a few players that should have been 4.5s from the start.

The Southern team in the 18 & Over 4.0 men's event has a player who was a 4.5 in the past then didn't play, and then it appears self-rated as a 4.5 but got an appeal down to 4.0 granted.  What has he done?  He went 12-1 through Sectionals, the one loss a huge outlier to say the least, and he probably barely avoided a DQ.  As I write this, he is 1-0 at Nationals probably accruing another strike (but it doesn't matter at Nationals).  Was this perhaps an inappropriate appeal down granted?

The 18 & Over 4.0 men's team from Texas has a player that isn't eligible because they were DQ'd and promoted to 4.5 mid-year, but they were a 2022 year-end 4.0C, so how did that happen?  It appears the player was a 5.0C in the past, then didn't play so had to self-rate.  Instead of self-rating under their existing account, they created a new one and self-rated as a 4.0!  They played in 2022 going 3-0 to start, perhaps on their way to a 4.5 year-end rating, then suddenly couldn't win going 0-4 to close the year, all lopsided scores, leading to the 4.0C.  Apparently someone figured this out at 40 & Over Sectionals and the USTA DQ'd him to 4.5 and merged the accounts.

Yes, Southern and Texas have the highest Shenanigans Scores for the 4.0 men's event.

How might some of these shenanigans, whether deliberate or innocent, be addressed?  See my lengthy write-up of suggestions on how to address grossly out of level teams at Nationals.  Several of the items discussed there likely would have addressed the scenarios above.

Now, one can always argue that someone has to be the best at a level, and people will complain about whoever that happens to be, and that if you eliminate them, it then just leaves someone else for everyone to complain about.  That may be true, and is the shortcoming of arbitrary level based play, but I also think some actions that are taken to try to be the best at a level do go too far and should be cracked down on.

What interesting scenarios have you seen at this year's Nationals?

Possible solutions to grossly above level teams at USTA League Nationals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On to the list.

Lower Strike Thresholds

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

Increased Match Requirements for Self-Rates and Appeals

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

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

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

Incorporate WTN in Self Rating

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

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

Make Bump Downs Subject to Strikes

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

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

Make All Players Subject to Strikes

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

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

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

Make Bump Ups Sticky

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

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

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

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

Eliminate Auto Appeals

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

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

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

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

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

Don't Allow Self-Rates at Nationals

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

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

All Manual Appeals Handled by National

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

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

Allow DQs During Nationals

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

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

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

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

Disqualify/Suspend Captains/Players for Obvious Tanking

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

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

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

Change the Algorithm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See my FAQ question 16 for more discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not all USTA League sections will be going to 5-courts for 2024 40 & Over

I wrote last week about what appears to be a change back to a 5-court format for the 2024 season of 40 & Over USTA League play, albeit a new one singles / four doubles format and not the prior two singles / three doubles setup.

What I did not highlight is that just because National changes the format, it doesn't mean every section or area will follow suit.  Individual sections have always had the ability to run their local leagues using a different format than will be used at USTA League Nationals, and some did it in the past when the National format was 2S/3D and some used an alternate format when Nationals changed to 1S/3D.  This was typically done at a district or area level and not across an entire section, but it still happened.

Some would use a 3-court format if rosters were small to promote more teams, some stuck with 5-courts when National went to four, and some used a 1S/4D format in the past when National used 2S/3D.

Well, it appears some areas are planning to not adopt the 5-court format for 2024 and stick with the same 4-court format in use for the last few years nationally.

One of those is my section (Pacific Northwest) or at least my area (Seattle/Northwest Washington) as our 2024 schedule shows 40 & Over still being 1S/3D.  I've also heard that other areas are sticking with 4-courts.

I'm guessing court availability is the driver in some areas for staying with 4-courts.  Particularly in areas where 40 & Over is played early in the year and it is still cold/wet and it is played indoors, courts can be at a premium, and now that facilities had several years of 40 & Over only using 4-courts, they don't want to go back.  This is perhaps an unintended consequence of trying out the 4-court format for several years.

Most 40 & Over leagues for 2024 haven't started yet, many won't for 6 months, so all this could change I imagine.  But these things are usually planned well in advance and some may stick with 4-courts to see how it goes in 2024.

What are you hearing will be done in your area?