Are some districts/states not sending teams to USTA League Southern Sectionals?

It is that time of year when Sectionals are being played across the country.  Sectionals is where teams from the various districts in a section all come together to play to see who will win and represent the section at Nationals.

Not all districts send teams to Sectionals at every gender and level as some areas/district just don't have critical mass for enough teams at every gender and level.  But the main levels are generally represented by each district.

In the Southern section there are 11 districts and these align with 11 states, those being Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.  Thus a full flight would be 11 teams representing each state.

In taking a look at some flights, it appears not all states are represented, and not just at the genders/levels on the fringes.

At the 18 & Over Southern Sectionals, ignoring the 2.5 and 5.0 levels where it is common for some states to be absent:

• 3.0 women - Only 6 teams listed, Arkansas, Georgia, and South Carolina are missing
• 3.0 men - Only 8 teams listed, North Carolina is missing
• 3.5 women - Only 8 teams listed, Georgia is missing
• 3.5 men - Only 6 teams listed, Alabama, Kentucky, and South Carolina are missing
• 4.0 women - All states listed
• 4.0 men - Only 6 teams listed, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee are missing
• 4.5 women - Only 8 teams listed, Alabama missing
• 4.5 men - Only 8 teams listed, Mississippi missing

That is only one gender/level where all 9 states are there!  And three where three teams are missing!  So this isn't just a state missing here or there.  And some states are missing that are considered hot beds of tennis.

Note that the 3.0 and 4.0 levels are taking place this weekend so those teams are certainly set, while the 3.5 and 4.5 levels are next weekend, and I believe the deadline for entry has past so I doubt any teams are going to be added, but perhaps TennisLink is just not up to date and more teams will be there for 3.5 and 4.5.

The 40 & Over Southern Sectionals is also going on this weekend and next weekend:

• 3.0 women - 10 teams are listed!  They are sending two from Mississippi, not sure why
• 3.0 men - Only 6 teams listed, Kentucky, Georgia, and North Carolina missing
• 3.5 women - 10 teams are listed!  They are sending two from Alabama
• 3.5 men - Only 8 teams are listed, Alabama missing
• 4.0 women - 10 teams are listed!  Georgia gets two at this level
• 4.0 men - All states are listed
• 4.5 women - Only 6 teams are listed, Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Carolina missing
• 4.5 men - Only 8 teams are listed, Kentucky is missing

Interestingly, this is not quite as bad as 18 & Over with four flights having full representation, and for some reason the Section has elected to have wildcards and 10 teams for the 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 women.

One would actually think there are more teams and players at 18 & Over compared to 40 & Over, so there would be less chance of states skipping out.

Note that at 40 & Over the 3.0 and 4.0 levels are next weekend while the 3.5 and 4.5 are this weekend.  So they are staggered from 18 & Over so if players were on teams going to both, they would be able to.

So why are some states not sending teams?  And why is 18 & Over less represented than 40 & Over?

I can think of a few reasons, so I'll throw them out here, but I'd love to hear from folks in Southern if they know what is going on.

Going to Sectionals is a sizable commitment from a time and money perspective and perhaps some aren't willing to take it on.  This can especially be the case in Southern where depending on where the event is held, there can be a bunch of travel.

This year 18 & Over is being held in Mobile, AL on the back to back weekends while 40 & Over is in Rome, GA.  There is no perfect location for all states, but these are reasonably central locations and have been used on a regular basis so aren't new.  And the states skipping some events are not far from these locations at all, so it can't be just this reason.

Players could be on teams qualified for both 18 & Over and 40 & Over and are just picking one to attend.  I haven't done analysis of this, but I don't think the schedule is significantly different from prior years so if this were the reason, we would expect to have seen it in the past.

Teams could feel they have no shot at winning, perhaps due to knowledge or history of super teams from some states, and so don't want to go knowing they are likely to lose.  While this is possible, history tells us that super teams have come from nearly all of the states in Southern including some of those skipping events this year.

Are there other reasons?  Those from Southern, what is the inside scoop on what is going on?

But even if any of the above reasons are true and the States winner from some states opts out, why wouldn't the state send the runner up from States so they are represented?  I imagine in some cases if the winner opts out late and the members of the runner up have already made other plans, the runner up may also opt out.  But it still seems odd for so many teams to be missing.

FWIW, last year there were some events with just 8 teams, but only one with less than that and that was the 18 & Over 4.5 women, compared to a full five with just six teams this year.  So this year definitely has more teams missing.

What do you think?  Why is this happening this year?

Unflighted Round-Robin Format - USTA Southern gets it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The clause reads:

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

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

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

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

2021 Southern Combo Sectionals are this weekend - Get a simulation report!

While USTA League Nationals are over, and ratings are due out in days, USTA League playoffs continue, and in the Southern section is holding it's Combo League Sectionals this weekend.

More and more sections are adopting the unflighted round-robin format and it appears it is being used for Combo Sectionals, which makes it fun for me as that is when my simulation reports are useful and give an idea how balanced the schedules are and who is most likely to advance to the semis.

I've already done one simulation report for one of the levels at the event, if you are interested in getting one yourself, let me know!

Digging in to the Great Southern Bump of 2019 - Level distribution by state

I wrote yesterday about how men in the Southern section were bumped up at significantly higher rates than the national averages.  I also took a look at the distribution of players by level in Southern compared to national averages.

The logical next step is to drill into the data and see if whatever was done was done consistently throughout the section or if some states were more/less impacted.

As a reminder and baseline, here is the distribution of Southern men by level.

See the earlier posting for all the details, but key thing is that there were and are still more 3.5s than 4.0s, and there were nearly twice as many 3.0s as 4.5s but those counts are now basically equal.  Nationally there are about the same 3.5s and 4.0s and roughly the same 3.0s and 4.5s.

Alphabetically, we will start with Alabama.

Alabama definitely had 2.5s and 3.0s bumped up, and given the influx of them there were 3.5s bumped up too, although just a modest drop in count.  There were a lot of 4.0s bumped up as the count went down despite the influx and the 4.5s were the beneficiaries, that count went way up as did the 5.0s.  There are now significantly more 4.5s than 3.0s, but still more 3.5s than 4.0s.

Next, Arkansas.

Arkansas did have players bumped up from 2.5 through 3.5, those counts did go down from 2018 to 2019, but 4.0s and above had their counts go up, supportive of the hypothesis that there was a general redistribution towards the higher levels.  Note that Arkansas still has fewer 4.0s than 3.5s but a lot closer than before, and it is nearly equal between the 3.0s and 4.5s.

Next, Georgia.

Georgia was only modestly out of whack with the national averages, but has almost no 2.5s now and 3.0s were bumped up too.  More 3.5s were bumped up than came in and while there were a lot of bumps up to 4.5, the 4.0s grew.  Georgia is now very close to the national averages with about the same number of 3.0s as 4.5s and 3.5s as 4.0s.

Next, Kentucky.

Kentucky had bump ups at 2.5 and 3.0, but a lot at 3.5 given their count went down even with the bump ups coming in 4.0 was the beneficiary with a big increase.  4.5 and 5.0 also went up significantly.  There are now significantly more 4.0s than 3.5s and 4.5s than 3.0s.  Kentucky was perhaps a state that did not need an adjustment to align with national averages, but still got it.

Next, Louisiana.

Louisiana also had bump ups, there are hardly any 2.5s anymore, and we see an increase in the number of 4.0s, 4.5s, and 5.0s.  They are not yet to the national averages with way more 3.0s than 4.5s and noticeably more 3.5s than 4.0s.

Next, Mississippi.

Mississippi had a lot of bump ups at 3.0s and the number of 3.5s went up as a result.  There were bump ups to 4.0 but more went from 4.0 to 4.5 and 4.5 to 5.0.  Mississippi does have nearly as many 4.5s as 3.0s, but there are still a lot more 3.5s than 4.0s.

Next, North Carolina.

North Carolina had a fair number of bump ups from the lower levels, the 4.5s and 5.0s having the largest increase.  They have more 4.5s than 3.0s now, and just a few fewer 4.0s than 3.5s.  They have more 4.5s than 3.0s, but still a few more 3.5s than 4.0s.

Next, South Carolina.

Just a small percent of 2.5s bumped up, but quite a few 3.0s went to 4.0, with a lot of 3.5s to 4.0, and 4.5 and 5.0 both picked up some players.  They are still biased towards the lower levels with a lot more 3.0s than 4.5s and a lot more 3.5s than 4.0s.

Last, Tennessee.

There are some remarkable changes here.  2.5s are non-existent, and nearly all 3.0s were bumped up to 3.5 where the count of 3.5s nearly tripled!  There had to be some bump downs from 4.0 for that to happen and the 4.0s stayed about the same while the 4.5s and 5.0s here took precipitous drops.  Tennessee is clearly an exception to the general bump up across the levels trend.  This probably deserves more research on its own.

What do you think?  Does this dovetail with what you've seen with your friends and teammates?

The Great Southern Bump of 2019 - USTA Southern men get historic bump up rates

I've been going through my post-NTRP ratings published analysis and what was a little smoke when looking at bump up/down rates at a high level has turned into a raging fire as I've drilled in.

Here is a summary of what I've posted so far regarding bump up rates of players that had a C rating at the end of 2018 and 2019.

• 2.5 men - Southern had 75% bumped up, nationally 52%
• 3.0 men - Southern had 33.1% bumped up, nationally 21.8%
• 3.5 men - Southern had 18.2% bumped up, nationally 11.2%
• 4.0 men - Southern had 17.8% bumped up, nationally 10.9%
• 4.5 men - Southern had 19.8% bumped up, nationally 6.7%
• 5.0 men - Southern had 6.3% bumped up, nationally 1.5%

The Southern men had the highest bump up percentage among all the sections at every level!  And it was significantly above the national average, usually 60+% greater, but about 3 times greater for 4.5s and 4 times for 5.0s.  It is pretty much unheard of for there to be nearly 20% of 4.5s bumped up and anywhere close to 6% of 5.0s.

That begs the question, what has this done to the distribution of players across the levels?  Let's look again at the distribution nationally for the men.

In this chart, it shows stats for both 2018 and 2019 to easily see the change year to year, and the length of the bar is the number of players at that level, while the label at the end of the bar is the percentage of players at that level that year.

We see a "normal" distribution, the center being just about right between 3.5s and 4.0s.  And compared to 2018, not a dramatic change, the percent being 3.5 dropped slightly, 4.0s down half a percentage point, and the 4.5s up just over 2 points, with 5.0s up half a point.

Now, the distribution in Southern.

This is somewhat different in that the center of the "normal" curve is closer to 3.5 than 4.0.  We see that it has changed quite a bit though and moves closer to the mid-point between them with the 2.5 percent dropping 1 point, 3.0 percent dropping over 4 points, 3.5 dropping 0.4, 4.0 going up nearly a point, 4.5 going up a whopping 3.2 points, and 5.0 going up nearly 2 points.

Or put another way, it appears 2.5s moved to 3.0, more 3.0s moved to 3.5, but even with the influx of 3.5s the number went down slightly as just as many 3.5s moved to 4.0.  The number of 4.0s did grow, but there were still a lot that moved up to 4.5, and quite a few 4.5s moved to 5.0.

So there was a definite shift upwards which dovetails with the bump up percentages reported above.

One might ask the question, why was and is Southern biased more towards lower levels, and was the large number of bump ups a reaction to that to try and make the distribution closer to what it is nationally?  It could be that the USTA League playing population is older in Southern and happens to have more lower rated players, but clearly it is different than the national distribution, even after the noticeable bump ups.

However, an adjacent section, Florida, perhaps also with an older population of USTA League players, is actually biased slightly towards the higher rated players already.  Here is Florida's distribution chart.

Florida had some movement from 3.5 to 4.0 and 4.0 to 4.5, but already had more 4.0s than 3.5s, and more 4.5s than 3.0s unlike Southern.

So it would seem someone decided that Southern players were generally underrated, or at least out of whack with the national distribution, with a distribution biased too far towards 3.0 and 3.5, and steps needed to be taken to change that distribution and get more 4.0s and 4.5s.

What do you think?  Is the distribution of Southern's men being towards the lower levels an issue and was the redistribution needed and appropriate?

Note: "The Great Southern Bump of 2019" was a phrase I thought I coined, but an acquaintance had done so as well so credit goes to "OTL".

2019 Southern 18 & Over USTA League Sectionals Recap

The Southern section held their 18 & Over Sectionals this weekend, actually the last finals finishing up today, and here is a recap.

First, the weather.  The event was again in Mobile, and again there was rain.  So much that by the end they were playing no-ad and short sets to 4 rather than 6.  Note that 40 & Over is back at Mobile against this weekend and the forecast is for a 50% chance of scattered thunderstorms Saturday thru Monday, so there could be format changes again.  Let's hope the rain isn't too bad and a Sectionals Champ isn't decided with a short format.

Second, this Sectionals used the flightless random round-robin format for some events, it appears where there were fewer than 10 teams and so they couldn't have two five team flights.  Thankfully, unlike NorCal's use of the format where they had as many as 21 teams in the round-robin and each team play only 3 matches, Southern had each team play 4 round-robin matches and with only 7-9 teams in the round-robin, there were no undefeated teams left out from advancing to the semis.

That isn't to say things were always clear-cut.  There were some ties for the advancing spots:

• The 2.5 women had seven teams in the round-robin and three teams tied at 2-2 for 3rd-5th, but the 3rd and 4th teams had better court records.
• The 4.0 women had nine teams in the round-robin and a 4-way tie for 4th at 2-2, but one team had a better court record and advance, but still very close.  One super tie-break goes the other way in a number of matches and the result is a lot different.
• The 4.5 women had eight teams but no tie for the last advancing spot.
• The 3.0 men had eight teams and a 3-way tie for 4th, the advancing team having the better court record.
• The 5.0+ men had seven teams and a 2-way tie for 4th, the advancing team having the better court record.

So the format seemed to work well, and thankfully things were decided on court records and didn't get to the bad tie-breakers.

Third, we need to check if any Sectional Champs were early start league teams with bumped up players that won't be eligible at Nationals.

• The 3.0 men had a Georgia and Alabama team in the final, both from ESLs with players that are now 3.5s, and Georgia won.  They have just one 3.5 though so the team will largely be the same at Nationals.
• The 4.5 women had an ESL Georgia team in the final, but they did not have any year-end 5.0s and lost to Kentucky in the final anyway.
• The 4.0 women had an ESL Tennessee team in the final with one year-end 4.5, but Louisiana won the final.
• The 3.0 women had an ESL Georgia team with 7(!) now 3.5s playing a Tennessee ESL team with 3 now 3.5s.  Georgia predictably won and now goes to Nationals with a radically different roster than they won Sectionals with.  The seven ineligible players played in 66% of the player slots in round-robin.
• The 2.5 women had an ESL Tennessee team with 6 of 10 eligible players now 3.0s win and advance to Nationals.  Note that these 3.0s may be eligible for Nationals as the 2.5 level is granted an exception and players must be "clearly above level" to not be eligible for Nationals.

So one team will definitely be affected, and two others may have minor impacts to their Nationals eligible rosters.

Were you at the event?  How did it go or what are your thoughts?

Southern USTA League 18 & Over Sectionals are complete, teams headed to Nationals - Issues with ESL bumped up players yet again

Southern held their Sectionals for 18 & Over this past weekend in Mobile, and I hear it was hot and humid so a trying test of tennis for those involved.  But with the completion, we have a another Section's representatives for Nationals determined.

I've looked at how many Nationals teams have been sent by state in the past few years, so thought it would be interesting to see where this year's winners were from.

For the women:

• 2.5 - Georgia*
• 3.0 - Tennessee*
• 3.5 - Arkansas
• 4.0 - Mississippi
• 4.5 - North Carolina

And for the men:

• 3.0 - Alabama*
• 3.5 - Georgia *
• 4.0 - Kentucky
• 4.5 - North Carolina
• 5.0+ - South Carolina

Congratulations to all the teams.  And with 8 of the 9 states represented, all showed well.  Just Georgia and North Carolina had multiple winners.

You see I have an asterisk by several teams above.   This is to denote the team came from an Early Start League (ESL) meaning they played their regular season during 2017.  The reason this is interesting is that these teams may have players that were bumped up at 2017 year-end, and with the demise of Early Start Ratings, Southern has elected to allow these players to continue to play on these teams at their rostered level even though their 2017 year-end level is now a level higher.

This more or less gives these teams an advantage over their opposition that has only at-level players, and we see that at the lower levels, 2.5 and 3.0 for the women and 3.0 and 3.5 for the men, this advantage was apparent with these teams winning the sectional title.

Now, this sort of makes sense that the lower levels would benefit the most.  This is where there are the most new players that are naturally improving, and likely where the rosters are more likely to have bumped up players and have an advantage.  Once players get to the 4.0 and above levels, the improvement year to year is not typically as large and so there are likely fewer situations there are year-end bumped up players on these rosters, and even when there are they are likely not as clearly above level as at the lower levels.

The other interesting thing is that these now above level players are eligible to play at Southern Sectionals, but will not be eligible at Nationals (with one caveat).  This means the teams as constructed for Sectionals may not be the team that goes to Nationals, they will invariably be a weaker team with their best players missing.

For example, the Georgia 2.5 women's team is nearly entirely comprised of now 3.0 level players.  Given this, it isn't a big surprise they won 2.5 Sectionals and given what I said above, you'd think this team couldn't even field a team at Nationals.  They should be able to as there is a caveat in the National rule allowing 2.5 teams to have 3.0 level players on their National roster as long as a player is not "clearly above level", and it appears they have only one of these perhaps.  It appears that player is most definitely going to be a 3.5 next year and is perhaps even a borderline 4.0!  That would be something to see, play at 2.5 and 3.0 States and 3.0 Sectionals (she played on a 3.0 team too) in 2018, and get a 4.0 year-end rating a few months later.  That would be a rare progression.

But even without this player, the other 2.5 teams at Nationals are going to be facing mostly computer rated 3.0s which doesn't seem entirely fair, even if other teams likely have players that are going to be bumped up to 3.0 at 2018 year-end.

But the Tennessee 3.0 women's team does not have the clause allowing any now 3.5s to play at Nationals as 3.0s, and they have a whopping 8 of these players that won't be Nationals eligible.  That leaves just 9 players rostered that are 3.0s, and one of these doesn't appear to have gotten enough matches in to be eligible, so they have only 8 eligible players which is the minimum to send a team and is a difficult row to hoe with 4 matches in 2 days with a small roster.   But it appears there is a player who had only one regular season match that was allowed to play in local playoffs and had they not been allowed to, would not have the matches to be eligible.  Most areas require two regular season matches to be eligible so curious what happened here, as without this player they may not be able to send a team to Nationals.  This happened last year with a men's team, a Sectionals winning team that couldn't go to Nationals.

The men's 3.0 team from Alabama is also going to be impacted.  They have 7 now 3.5s that won't be playing at Nationals, but do appear to have 9 3.0s that are eligible so won't be forced to not go, but will certainly be a far weaker team with just their 3.0s and be playing 4 matches in 2 days with a small roster.

The Georgia 3.5 team won't be affected by this rule, but that is only because it is an entire roster of self-rated players and none played enough in the 2017 rating year to get a year-end rating so none of them are now a level higher.

I have to say that Southern's rule allowing these bumped up players to play doesn't seem fair to the competition they faced which is limited to having at-level players on the roster, both the other teams at Sectionals and the opponents of the Georgia 2.5 team at Nationals.

What do you think?  Do you prefer allowing teams to stay together through Sectionals even with now bumped up players?  Or should these players become ineligible soon to be more fair to the competition?

USTA Southern 2016 18 & over Sectionals Day 1 Review

Day 1 is complete at the Southern 18+ sectionals and here is how things stand for a few select flights.

The 3.0 Men Flight II saw the favorite in the flight, Louisiana-Potter/Richardson, race out to a 2-0 record while form held behind them with the two lowest rated teams going winless and the two mid-pack teams both picking up a win.

The 3.5 Women Flight II has the favorite, Alabama-Raggio with a 2-0 record, while North Carolina-Sheeler was expected to vie for 2nd in the flight but is 0-2.

The 4.0 Men Flight I saw the favorite, Alabama-Fusaiotti go 2-0, but the upstart in the flight is Mississippi-Harden who had the lowest top-8 rating in the flight but had a nice 4-1 win today.

Last, the 4.5 Women Flight I has the favorite, North Carolina-Morris a surprising 0-1 after a close 3-2 loss, while the lowest rated team, Arkansas-Palacek is 1-0.

A lot of tennis still to be played.  Stay tuned for more updates or if you'd like to get a flight report and see who the favorites are or who their strong competition is, contact me.