As background, many sections have 2015 leagues that start during 2014. This is often due to court availability or other scheduling reasons or wanting to spread leagues out across the year and not try to have them all starting at the same time in January-March of 2015. Since it is a 2015 league though that will have Nationals in the Fall of 2015, it doesn't really make sense to allow someone to play with their 2013 year-end rating, but since the league starts before 2014 year-end ratings are out, what to do?
Early start ratings are the solution. They are basically a snapshot of a player's dynamic rating as of a cut-off date that is a month or two before the early start leagues start. In most sections this falls in the July/August timeframe for leagues starting in September and October. This will usually identify players that are going to be bumped up or down at year-end and gets them playing at the right level for 2015.
However, early start ratings are not perfect, and sometimes players will be bumped up or down in year-end differently than they were for early start. In the case where a player wasn't bumped for early start but is at year-end, what happens to that early start team then?
Not every section is the same. Some (case A) force the player to play at their new level immediately. Others (case B) let them finish the regular season at their rostered level but have to play at the new level beyond that. A few (case C) let the player continue playing at their rostered level the entire season through Nationals.
Which of these is the most equitable is debatable, but what is clear is that with the larger number of players being bumped up, those teams that have the case A or B rules could be significantly affected. Players are either not eligible at all, or must now play with a lower rated partner which can make it difficult for a team to have enough valid players to play a match.
But even the case C rule teams can be affected. While players are allowed to play at their rostered level, there is a clause still promotes them to their year-end level on the team if their rating reaches the "clearly above level" (strike level). This is arguably fair to the team's opponents, why should they have to play a "4.0" that is now a strong 4.5, but just like the case A and B teams, this can wreak havoc on a roster.
For example, I just learned about an 8.0 Mixed team that had four of their 4.0 men be clearly above level and told they have to play as 4.5s now. The problem is there are only two 3.5 women on the team that can even play with the glut of 4.5 men. Further, there is now only one 4.0 man left to play with the glut of 4.0 women. This team has effectively been force to play their two 3.5 women and one 4.0 man every match. And with the regular season over this weekend, there is no opportunity to add any players to be able to field a team more easily. They were playoff bound but may have to pull out.
I don't know the right answer. It doesn't seem fair to opponents to have to play out of level players. But it also doesn't seem fair to decimate a team that played by the rules and fielded a team using the published early start ratings. And it is hard to tell a section that they have to wait for year-end ratings and can't have early start leagues.
What do you think?
Does this mean players from the PNW(all playing the 2015 season with new ratings) play Nationals against players from some sections using their old ratings?
ReplyDeleteTechnically that is possible Rudd, but only if the section started their gender league before Dec 1st, and used option "C" described above. I do not know for sure, but suspect this is by far the minority of sections. Even so, 3.03E(1)b provides that "player[s]...subject to an
DeleteNTRP Grievance includ[e] players who entered an Early Start League at
an NTRP level lower than their current year-end rating level." What this effectively means is that even if, after year end ratings, that ESL player was not high enough to qualify for the "clearly above level" threshold, they could be disqualified through a targetted challenge. This is NOT the same as striking out however, that is done by the computer. I do know, from personal experience however, that the NTRP grievance committees consider (amongst other factors) whether the player would have generated strikes. I also know of at least one case where a player was DQ'd by an NTRP grievance when he had only two matches that would have resulted in strikes. This is the long way of saying that the situation you describe is probably rare, and there are at least some additional safeguards.
Also wondering if ESL players have their strikes(if any) reset and if so when. Our district Missouri/Iowa allows the players that got bumped to play through the end of the calendar year, however if the player played two matches and the plays a 3rd, could he get a 3rd strike resulting in default of the early match wins and take a way match wins? What ever the rules are they should be enforced universally.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why the rules are different for different sections. How does that make the playing field level at Nationals? My 8.0 mixed team is destroyed. It makes fielding a team so difficult. I don't have a crystal ball......
ReplyDeleteIt really does seem to be crazy, I am one of the impacted players and what I struggle with is that I have only played one additional eligible match since early start ratings came out and it was a win in the first round of our local playoffs (but out team lost). I was not bumped in early ratings and now I am allegedly above the mid point so I now cannot play on either the 7.0 or 8.0 mixed teams that I was on. This not only impacts me but my 3.0 partner cannot now play moving forward as I was the only 4.0 man on the team. There really should be more visibility to the numbers and the criteria so people have true insight into why these decisions are being made
DeleteI don't know where you and one of the posters below are getting "above the mid point" from. The clearly above level mark is the same level as the strike level--aka the level at which a self rated player would generate a strike. The strike level has been pretty widely established to be .05, or 10% into the next level. The reason there is such an outcry this year is because USTA did something different in its year-end calculations, resulting in a higher number of people being bumped (and therefore logically people's NTRP's are increasing by more). As a result, way more people are now becoming subject to this rule than in previous seasons (where it did happen but was a lot more rare). Also, one should keep in mind that if you are PNW or another section that uses the "C" method described above, that method is the least severe. I think your real complaint, and everyone else who is understandably miffed as an impacted player/team, is with the USTA for (probably) changing the way their year-end calculations were done this year without any prior notice or information.
DeleteFair enough--should have used the above "strike level" rather than mid-point...
DeleteI guess just give Bob H. a hard time.
DeleteI like the new rule. It can strike out players from mixed league now. And it is fair to everyone. I heard that mixed rating doesn't count as NTRP. Don't know why mixed is special, 3.5 men should be same as 3.5 women, right?
ReplyDeleteThere is at least one other case: in New England, bump-ups get to play with their old-level teams for 10 days. This gives captains a fighting chance to recruit some new players if needed.
ReplyDeleteFor Northwest, you must have 2 matches remaining to add new players. This bump up happened two days before the season ends. It seems to be a bad practice.
ReplyDeleteSome teams have already completed their season with their old ratings while others still have one more match having to use their new ratings! We were unlucky enough to have one more match to play.
DeletePersonally, I think that all players should play at their new "published" ratings...That would affect ALL teams fairly...Most players have a sense that they might be bumped up and captains could/should "anticipate" accordingly...Nobody anticipates that they'll
ReplyDeletehave players (in our case 4) that go above the mid-point!
Shouldn't we send a petition to the National USTA and have it equal across the board. You must play at level. It isn't fair for National competition to be playing ESL players who are now rated above level.
ReplyDeleteI would tend to agree with that, especially when some ESL's start very early in the prior year.
Delete