Yep, it happened again, yet another undefeated team sent home at Southern California Sectionals

I'm growing tired of having to write these blog posts, but until SoCal USTA fixes their format and it stops happening, I'll keep pointing it out.

What is "it" you ask?

Southern California chooses to use the unflighted round-robin format for their Sectionals, at least for some divisions and levels, but does so with too many teams and not enough matches, leading to the possibility that more than four teams go undefeated and one (or more) of them get left out of making the semi-finals.

It has happened before in SoCal, just two months ago at 40 & Over Sectionals, and last year as well.  And this weekend it happened for the 18 & Over 3.5 women with 18 teams in the flight and each team playing just three matches.  That is a recipe for disaster and sure enough, there are five 3-0 teams.

I feel bad for SD WD LLW 3.5 Mtn View/ Jackie Saenz as they won their three matches, but it wasn't enough.  Now, they won each one 3-2 and so had the least impressive individual court record and that is the first tie-breaker in this case, and hopefully they knew going in winning 3-2 three times might not be enough, but that is still tough to swallow.

SoCal players, why do you stand for this?  Are you giving your section leaders your thoughts?  Or are you ok with it as is?

Note: I took a look and it appears that there was a greater than 6% chance there would be six 3-0 teams, and over a 23% chance of five 3-0 teams.

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?

2026 USTA League Regulations - Changes to appeal rules

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

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

2.07 CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYERS.

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

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

2.07 CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYERS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

Unflighted Round-Robin Format - USTA Southern gets it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The clause reads:

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

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

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

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

And it happened again - An undefeated team is sent home at SoCal Sectionals

I wrote yesterday about the possibility of an undefeated team missing out on making the semi-finals and being sent home at 40 & Over SoCal Sectionals, and indeed it happened.

The 3.5 Women's flight had 18 teams and they played unflighted round-robin with each team playing just three matches.  This is ripe for problems and it has happened before and yet SoCal continues to use the format.

This time, there were six teams that were 2-0 after day one and none of them played each other in their 3rd match so it was possible that there would be six 3-0 teams and two sent home, but only five won leaving them all 3-0.  With just four spots for the semis, the 5th place 3-0 team is sent home.

As of right now, the four semi-finalists aren't populated, but standings show:

1. OC - RCI - 3-0 / 10-2 / 20-8
2. LA - WC - 3-0 / 9-3 / 18-6
3. SDNC - Fairbanks Ranch - 3-0 / 9-3 / 18-8
4. SD SDTRC - 3-0 / 8-4 / 19-9
5. LLW - Bake - 3-0 / 8-4 / 17-10

Tough luck for LLW.  They didn't lose a match, won the same number of courts as SD SDTRC, but lost one more set so they miss out.

This is known beforehand I assume, so teams should know it might happen and what they need to do to avoid it, but it is still a terrible format and way to decide the teams to advance to the semis.

What do you think?

Is USTA Southern California at it again?

It is that time of year when some sections start to have playoffs and Sectionals, and that means it is time to see what flawed formats get used.

USTA SoCal has a history of using the unflighted round-robin format in questionable ways, specifically having too many teams and not enough team matches leaving the door open to a team going undefeated in round-robin and missing out on making the semis.

Last year the 2024 40 & Over 3.5 Women had a 3-0 team go home, and worse, they got the raw end of the deal on the broken standings tie-breakers.  And it has nearly happened several times before.

Well, they appear to be consistent if nothing else, as they are doing the same format with the same issues this weekend, but at least only for one flight.  The 40 & Over 3.5 Women again have 18 teams and each playing just three matches.

Will a team go undefeated and be left out of the semis?  There is no guarantee, but there is a really good chance of it.

2025 USTA League Nationals Schedule

It is only January, but 2025 early start leagues were played in the Fall and more leagues have just started, so it isn't too early to start thinking about Nationals.

The 2025 schedule is very much like the 2024 schedule with Orlando, San Diego, Scottsdale, and Surprise all hosting events.  What is different is that the events are spread over five weekends instead of the four we had last year.  This means events begin October 10th this year.

Here are the dates, locations, and events.

• October 10-12
• 18 & Over 2.5 Women - Scottsdale
• 18 & Over 3.5 - Surprise
• 18 & Over 4.0 - San Diego
• 18 & Over 5.0 - Scottsdale
• October 17-19
• 18 & Over 4.5 - Surprise
• 40 & Over 3.0 - San Diego
• 40 & Over 4.0 - Scottsdale
• October 24-26
• 18 & Over 3.0 - Scottsdale
• 40 & Over 3.5 - Surprise
• 40 & Over 4.5 - San Diego
• October 31-November 2
• Mixed 18 & Over 7.0 / 9.0 - Orlando
• 55 & Over 7.0 / 9.0 - Scottsdale
• November 7-9
• Mixed 18 & Over 6.0 / 8.0 / 10.0 - Surprise
• Mixed 40 & Over 6.0 / 7.0 / 8.0 / 9.0 - Orlando
• 55 & Over 6.0 / 8.0 - Scottsdale

We see the normal progression of 18 & Over to 40 & Over to 55 & Over and Mixed.

What is new from what I recall is that 40 & Over is being done all the same weekend at the same location.

Also interesting is that Orlando isn't be used until 10/31, when the past few years it was used the week earlier, typically around the 20th.  The late season hurricanes of recent years could very well be influencing this aspect of the schedule.

What event are you hoping to make it to?