2018 USTA League Regulations - What is changed or new?

The 2017 USTA League year is nearly complete, the last Nationals (55+) will be played this weekend starting tomorrow.

That just means the 2018 year is about to begin!  Well, it really has already begun as some sections have Early Start Leagues that started play in the past few months, or in the case of Georgia way back in the Spring!  These are leagues that, regardless when they start playing, will be on the advancement path to 2018 Districts/States, Sectionals, and Nationals.

No matter when your 2018 league play starts, it is important to know what the regulations are for the year.  The USTA rarely makes radical changes, but it seems each year does bring with it a few minor changes so it is worth going over what those are.

Note that I'm basing what I write below on several "Draft" 2018 regulations documents I've seen dated October 18th, so I'm pretty sure it is what will be final and I've actually had confirmation of several things from other sources.

Move-up/Split-up

The big change is regarding the move-up/split-up rule.  This rule has been tweaked from year to year, but in general is in place to restrict the ability of teams that went to Nationals in one year to stay together at the same level the next year.  I guess the idea is that the USTA doesn't want the same players on the same team coming back to Nationals year after year, instead want some new blood to have an opportunity.

Now, you might expect that a good Nationals team would have a bunch of players bumped up and so naturally not be able to stay together at the old level, but the USTA feels the need to have this rule in place as well.

In past years the rule has stated that no more than 3 players from a Nationals team could be on the same roster of a team the next year.  At one point, the restriction was on any team, Adult or Mixed, 18+, 40+, or 55+.  Then it was relaxed to not apply to Mixed, and this year there is another change relaxing the restriction a bit.  Specifically, the restriction is only on a team at the same level and age group.  Here is the specific language:

National Championship teams are required to Move Up or Split
Up only in the age group from which their team advanced the
previous year.

This means that if a 40+ 3.5 team went to Nationals in 2017, they will only be able to have three of those players on the same 3.5 40+ team in 2018, i.e. they must "split-up", but the entire team (at least those that remain 3.5s) could form a new 18+ 3.5 team.  Correspondingly an 18+ Nationals team could have their entire roster form a 40+ team the next year (well, the players still have to be eligible for 40+!) while just 3 could be on the same roster of an 18+ team at the same level.

That that the rule also states that these requirements only apply to players that had 3 matches on the team so players with two or fewer matches are eligible to be on the same team the next year regardless.

So this gives players a little more flexibility to continue to play with the same group of friends or teammates and not have to split up.

Note of course, the "move-up" option is still available, that 40+ 3.5 team could move up as a team to 4.0 to form a 40+ 4.0 team and they could stick together.

Note also that the Nationals regulations allow a section to impose their own rules restricting team composition, although I'm not aware of any that add restrictions beyond the national rule.

Early Start Ratings

This is not new, but it is worth re-iterating.  For 2017 leagues, the USTA did away with Early Start Ratings, and instead, players signing up for Early Start Leagues would use their current year-end rating.  However, if a player was subsequently bumped up at year-end, they would not be eligible to play at Nationals at the prior level, but their eligibility to continue playing through Sectionals was up to each section to decide.

A section could decide to do a number of things, the most common were:

• Make the player ineligible to continue at the lower level immediately
• Let the player complete local league/playoffs but be ineligible for Districts and/or Sectionals
• Allow the player to continue at the lower level through Sectionals

My section, Pacific Northwest, chose the second option while some like Southern chose the third which could cause some competitive inequities and scenarios where teams won Sectionals and could not go to Nationals.

From what I've seen so far, Sections are sticking with their choice for 2018.  Here is the language from the Southern document:

Players who are found to have valid computer ratings, after the appeal process, that place them above the NTRP level at which they are competing may continue their participation at the lower NTRP level through the conclusion of the Southern championship. They shall not be permitted to advance to any National Championship at the lower NTRP level. Prior team matches played are valid.

And from the PNW document:

Players who are found to have valid computer ratings, after the appeal process, that place them above the NTRP level at which they are competing may continue their participation at the lower NTRP level through the conclusion of the Local League Season (this includes Local League Playoffs). Players who are found to have valid computer ratings, after the appeal process, that place them above the NTRP level at which they are competing will not be allowed to participate at the lower NTRP level for the Sectional Championships.

FWIW, I prefer the PNW rule as I believe it is fairer and more equitable to all the teams in the section and helps ensure the best eligible team advances to Nationals.

Grievances

There are provisions for filing grievances against players that may have violated self-rating, eligibility, or other rules, and most every section imposes a filing fee, the typical amount I've seen being $50 and that is what my section documents.

In perusing the Southern regulations document I found, a change called out is that the filing fee is now $100!  While you do get that returned if a penalty is imposed, that still seems like it might be a pretty big barrier and deterrent to folks filing legitimate grievances, which IMHO would be unfortunate.  I wonder what the rationale was for this?  The 2017 regulations don't seem to list a fee at all, so this seems a pretty extreme change.

What do you think of the rules changes, or in some cases lack of change?  Or what section specific rules do you have that are worth talking about?  Let me know by contacting me or leaving a comment.