USTA introduces new player summary dashboard

The USTA sent out an e-mail earlier today to presumably all USTA members, announcing a new player summary dashboard players will see when they login to usta.com.

Specifically, when you are logged in, there is supposed to be a summary that shows your NTRP level and your WTN, both singles and doubles.  This is great, except ...

The example they included in the e-mail, at least the one I received, is a bit nonsensical.  It lists the following information on the dashboard:

• NTRP Rating: 2.5S
• Self Rated Skill Level: Advanced
• Singles WTN: 17.9
• Doubles WTN: 16.5

So we have someone that self-rated at the lowest level available but is "Advanced"?  And has WTN ratings that you might find NTRP 5.0s having?  Yes, it is just a screenshot/image in an e-mail, but you'd think the USTA could have created one that isn't a set of contradictions.

Moving on, when you login and go to the Home page, there is no sign of the player summary dashboard.  You see a huge image with the text "National Tennis Players" that takes up a good half to two-thirds of the screen depending on your resolution and how big you have your browser window, and scrolling down a half page or more still reveals nothing about the player summary dashboard.

There is a link on the right near the top of the page to navigate to "My Profile" and doing so does get to a page that has some profile information, but at least on my browser on a laptop, I don't see the player summary dashboard.  Here though i can scroll down a page and see my NTRP level and both WTN ratings, but it is laid out differently than the example in the e-mail.  So where is this new player summary dashboard?

It turns out that back on the Home page, if you scroll down a page and a half or more, you finally get to the summary like was in the e-mail.  It is a reasonably nice layout of the pertinent information all in one place so that is nice, but it would be nice if one didn't have to do so much scrolling or navigating to get to it.  UTR for example has your rating right at the very top of the page, and on the profile page even begins to show some recent matches without having to scroll.

So the summary is nice, but it would be better if it was more prominently displayed or easier to get to.

Another observation is that I have been a C rated player for years, but the summary has a spot for a self-rated skill level that I can select.  I'm not sure what the meaning of that would be, but it is there.

There is another button on the summary to "Scout" players.  It sounds like something useful, but does nothing but take you to the existing page to search for a player.  Note that this search is more useful than the one on the WTN site.

On the profile is big "World Tennis Number" text that is a link to the WTN site, but that is all it goes to, the generic site.  If you navigate to another player's profile, then there is a link to view their WTN profile and it goes directly to them, but that doesn't show up for me on my profile which is odd.

Regarding the WTN site, their search is terrible.  Trying to search for friends and teammates by name often doesn't bring them up, but brings up other players with a matching first name but a different last name than I searched for.  And when you find a player to have to ensure animations to show the WTN to see the number.  It is all very awkward and the USTA site is actually better for this for the most part.

What do you think of the new summary?  Do you even care about tracking your WTN?  Do you find either of the USTA or WTN sites useful to go scout players?

Unflighted Round Robin - SoCal is at it again in 2024

The USTA began using the unflighted round-robin format for Nationals quite a few years ago now, and a number of sections began using it for Sectionals along the way.  Unfortunately, it has been used inappropriately in some cases leading to situations where undefeated teams were left out of advancing on to the semis or finals.

It has even happened at Nationals, twice in fact, as while the use of the format there has a low chance of it happening, it is possible.

It has happened in NorCal, and I believe they have changed their format to avoid the issue.

The Southern California section has flirted with disaster in the past, more than once, as they insist on having on the order of 18 teams in a flight use the format with just three matches played, a recipe for disaster.  Well, they continue to do it in 2024.

SoCal has a varying number of teams in the one large flight and then they generally have them play three matches with the top-4 in the standings advancing on to the semis.  If there are enough teams, generally around 14 or more, it is not only impossible to have a schedule guaranteed to avoid more than four undefeated teams, but the chances of it happening are real.

Last weekend they had:

• 40 & Over 3.5 women - 18 teams, a real chance of five undefeated teams, but some upsets only had three.  Still, seven teams tied at 2-1 for the questionable tie-breakers to decide.
• 40 & Over 4.5 women - 12 teams and they did three flights which is sensible, although you then are picking one second place team to advance.

This weekend they have:

• 40 & Over 3.0 women - 14 teams, not a big chance but it could happen.
• 40 & Over 4.0 women - 18 teams again, a real chance it could happen.

I understand that to get to 18 teams, the section may have even awarded wildcards to teams that didn't win their area or flight.  If so, exacerbating the problem just to give wildcards also seems questionable.  No wildcards and 16 teams reduces the risk with unflighted round-robin, or with 16 teams you can have four flights of four.

I'm not sure why SoCal keeps doing this, it will bite them at some point.

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.

Simulating 2023/2024 USTA League Tri-Level National Invitational - 3.5/4.0/4.5 Women

This weekend is the 2023/2024 Tri-Level Invitational and this year I'm giving my simulations a go.

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

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

As I did for Nationals in the Fall, I'll be primarily just giving the data from the simulation and not writing a bunch of words.  Most of it is self-explanatory, but the favorites and contenders will be listed in alphabetical order.  If you want more details, I can do my simulation report for you.  Doing Tri-Level is new for me so we'll see how this goes.

On to the projections from the simulation, continuing with the 3.5/4.0/4.5 Women after doing the Men a bit ago.

Teams: 16 (Caribbean missing)

Chance of 3 undefeated: 9%

Chance of 4 undefeated: <1%

Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%

Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 81% / 4

Favorites: Mid-Atlantic, New England, Northern

Contenders: Middle States, Midwest, NorCal, SoCal, Texas

Fringe: Intermountain, Florida, Southern

One team is a favorite over the others and the only team forecast to go 4-0, but 3-1 and perhaps even 2-2 could make the semis as it is competitive behind the big favorite.

For those interested, I offer a variety of reports to make Nationals more fun and help captains prepare.  I have a Simulation Report that has all of the details of the simulation including the average ratings for each team, each team's schedule strength, the most likely record for each team, and the chance of each possible record for each team.  I also offer reports to help teams scout opponents in more detail, both a Flight Report with full roster averages, top-8 averages and played by court averages for each team, as well as full Team Reports with detailed ratings for each rostered player and stats who who plays with who and on which court and how they do together.  Contact me if interested in any of these reports.

Simulating 2023/2024 USTA League Tri-Level National Invitational - 3.5/4.0/4.5 Men

This weekend is the 2023/2024 Tri-Level Invitational and this year I'm giving my simulations a go.

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

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

As I did for Nationals in the Fall, I'll be primarily just giving the data from the simulation and not writing a bunch of words.  Most of it is self-explanatory, but the favorites and contenders will be listed in alphabetical order.  If you want more details, I can do my simulation report for you.  Doing Tri-Level is new for me so we'll see how this goes.

On to the projections from the simulation, starting with the 3.5/4.0/4.5 Men.

Note: This was updated an hour after originally posting with improvements to the simulation

Teams: 17

Chance of 3 undefeated: 15%

Chance of 4 undefeated: 3%

Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%

Chance of 6 undefeated: <1%

Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 90% / 4

Favorites: Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic, MOValley, SoCal, Southern

Contenders: Middle States, Midwest, NorCal

Fringe: Texas

This looks fairly competitive with five teams having a >50% of making the semis, and three more contending for a spot.  And no team has a most likely record of 4-0 and six having 3-1 records most likely.  With just three courts a match, the chances of tie-breakers going to sets and games is pretty high.

For those interested, I offer a variety of reports to make Nationals more fun and help captains prepare.  I have a Simulation Report that has all of the details of the simulation including the average ratings for each team, each team's schedule strength, the most likely record for each team, and the chance of each possible record for each team.  I also offer reports to help teams scout opponents in more detail, both a Flight Report with full roster averages, top-8 averages and played by court averages for each team, as well as full Team Reports with detailed ratings for each rostered player and stats who who plays with who and on which court and how they do together.  Contact me if interested in any of these reports.