USTA NTRP year-end ratings should be out in less than two weeks and with that, players will know what level they can play at for 2019.
Except some players are already playing "2019" seasons in what are called Early Start Leagues (ESLs). These are leagues where for a number of reasons (schedule conflicts, court availability, just to get another season in), an area will have a league that is part of the 2019 championship advancement start in 2018. An example in my area is 55 & Over and 18 & Over Mixed are ESLs that start in the Fall as that is when courts are available since 40 & Over and 18 & Over will use all the available courts in the Winter and Spring.
The challenge is getting players rostered at the right level for these ESL teams, and what to do if a player is bumped up at year-end.
Say for example you are a very good 3.5, on your way to being bumped up to 4.0, and there is an ESL in your area for Adult 18 & Over that starts in September.
- Should you be allowed to play as a 3.5 or should something be in place to let you know you are likely to be bumped up and must play as a 4.0 in the ESL?
- And if you are allowed to play as a 3.5 and are bumped up at year-end, should you be allowed to keep playing as a 3.5?
A number of years ago, the USTA employed Early Start Ratings to get players rostered at the appropriate level. The way these worked is that a snapshot was taken of your dynamic rating a month or two before the ESL was to start, and if you were above the bump threshold, you were given an "E" rating that bumped you up. Now, these E ratings didn't show up on TennisLink, but were only on Early Start Rating lists that each section/district/area would publish. But our hypothetical 3.5 above could very well be a 4.0E and have to play as a 4.0 in the ESL, thereby avoiding the situation where he is on a 3.5 team and now a 4.0 after year-end ratings come out.
Note that it was possible that our player would be a 3.5E and then be bumped up to 4.0 at year-end. Because they were a 3.5E they would be allowed to continue playing on this team as a 3.5 despite the bump up, unless their rating reached the clearly above level mark.
Now, several years ago, the USTA decided to do away with Early Start Ratings as the feedback they received from players and sections was that they were confusing. There is a point to this as they weren't published on TennisLink, every area has their own date to take the snapshot and publish ratings, there had to be a special process to deal with players appealing their E rating, etc. It was also possible that a player would be an Early Start bump up, and then not be bumped up at year-end which confused some players.
In lieu of them though, players now simply play at their current year-end (or DQ'd/promoted) level in an ESL. This is simpler on the surface, but introduces another type of confusion on the back-end, as the USTA also said that players from an ESL that are bumped up are not eligible to play at the lower level at Nationals. But each section had the choice of how long a player could keep playing at the lower level prior to Nationals, and some sections promote them immediately on year-end ratings being published, while others let them play at the lower level through Sectionals.
So, depending on the section, our hypothetical 3.5 may be bumped up immediately and not be able to play on their 3.5 ESL team anymore, or would be able to keep playing on it, despite now being a 4.0, through 2019 Sectionals.
In those sections where players can't play through Sectionals or into 2019 at the lower level, year-end ratings bring a whole new significance. A strong ESL team could be gutted by the bump ups and not be able to continue, or at least be significantly weaker than before. This is arguably the right thing to do though as it is fair to all the other legitimate 3.5 teams that don't have now 4.0s playing for them. Especially come Sectionals where there may be districts/states that didn't have an ESL and thus only have at-level players on their roster. It really isn't fair to them to have to play a team from another district/state that has above level players now.
But even the teams that can stay intact through Sectionals may ultimately be impacted as their team could win Sectionals, and then lose players that are ineligible for Nationals, or even not be able to go to Nationals as they don't have the minimum roster to go.
I have no reason to believe we are going back to Early Start Ratings any time soon, but I wonder if having them was a better situation, and if the weaknesses of the system couldn't be fixed rather than throwing the whole system out.
Were Early Start Ratings confusing to you? Or is the potential impact to teams losing players at some point more confusing and detrimental to a team?
Similarly, did Early Start Ratings create a more level and fair playing field for all? Or because an E rating could still change at year-end it didn't really make a difference?
I personally liked having Early Start Ratings, but then again, I'm a bit of a propeller head that likes this stuff. But I didn't think they were confusing and I thought they were more fair as players are more likely to be playing at the right level. And it also avoided the situation we have today where districts/states without ESLs are at an inherent disadvantage to those with ESLs.
But what do you think? Vote in the poll below.
What do you think of Early Start Leagues / Ratings?
Created with PollMaker
No comments:
Post a Comment