Does the USTA's 3-strike DQ system work? Looking at DQ's after Nationals

Those that follow USTA League know that there is a process in place for new players to self-rate based on playing history, but to help ensure this process is not abused there is a 3-strike DQ system to identify players that may have self-rated too low and proactively promote them to the next higher level.

Note that the system identifies strikes when a players rating exceeds a level dependent threshold.  The USTA does not disclose what the threshold are (although I have a pretty good idea) but does say they are higher than just the top of the level the player is playing at.  For example, the top of the range for a 3.5 player is 3.50, but they may not get a strike unless their rating exceeds, say 3.75.  This is done to allow players to have some natural improvement without being "punished" with disqualification and promotion.  And a fair number of at-level computer rated players will improve during the year too so having some self-rates still eligible with similar ratings isn't all that out of whack.

Now, the system does "work", it will routinely DQ and promote a number of players each year, but does it really work well?

One measure of working well would be that any out of level players are identified and deemed ineligible prior to Nationals.  While players are not DQ'd during Nationals, if they've accumulated 3-strikes at the end of any Nationals event, they can be DQ'd and promoted then.

I would posit that if a player is DQ'd after they play at Nationals, then the system didn't work as that player that has proven to be clearly above level and you'd expect the system to determine that before they get to an event as important as Nationals and get to lay waste to rules abiding opponents that likely have no shot against the clearly above player.

Additionally, if a self-rate is double bumped at year-end but was not DQ'd prior to Nationals, I'd argue that is a failure of the system too.

I'm sure not everyone will disagree with the above statement, but lets go with it and see if the system "failed" after one weekend of Nationals.

There have been some players marked as DQ'd/promoted that played at Nationals, and by the following Friday I'd hope any that were DQ'd have been reflected, and as of the writing of this, three players were DQ'd after playing at Nationals.

One player from New England was DQ'd, they went undefeated all year losing only one set, including 2-0 at Nationals.  Now going undefeated does not necessarily mean a player should be or have been DQ'd, they may have played weak opponents.  And my ratings for this player show they likely didn't have more than one strike until their Sectionals, but arguably could have gotten their third there (it was very close).  But they did get their 3rd strike at Nationals with my ratings showing all their Nationals matches played rated two levels above the level they were playing!  If someone can do that, they probably shouldn't have been playing at the level they were and the system should have caught that.

Another player from SoCal was DQ'd, they went undefeated in 18+ until Nationals where they lost one match in the semis.  They did lose two Tri-Level matches during the year, but had half of their Nationals matches rate two levels above the level they were playing and they very well could be double bumped.  My ratings also say they perhaps should have been DQ'd prior to Nationals but they weren't.

The third from Missouri Valley was DQ'd, they went 5-1 at Nationals with half their matches rating two levels above the one they were playing, and my ratings similarly say they should have been DQ'd prior to Nationals but they weren't.  They are also a borderline double bump candidate.

So here we have three players the system did not catch that my ratings say should have been, two may be double bumped, and the USTA 3-strike DQ system did not flag them and make them ineligible.  Why not?

Note that none of these players clearly tanked matches, so it isn't like they gamed the system to avoid strikes and suddenly turned it on at Nationals.  They did well at Nationals, but had done well during the year too.

It is possible the strike threshold is higher than I think it is and that is why they didn't get strikes.  If so, I'd suggest the threshold is significantly too high.  Shouldn't players who can play several individual matches with ratings two levels higher be flagged as ineligible sooner.  And they all had similarly high rated results during the year.

It is possible that my ratings are too high and I'm making a big deal out of nothing.  But when these players were undefeated or nearly so, the only losses being to other questionable players, I don't think it is "nothing".

Did the players perhaps accumulate 3-strikes but it was swept under the rug?  I doubt this, as while strikes in local league and district/state/sectional playoffs are managed by local staff, I'd think National staff would review eligibility for Nationals and anything would be caught there.

Now, for 2020 the USTA has instituted a new rule to try and preclude teams from "hiding" self-rates and appeals and qualifying them for Nationals with few matches played, but it is important to note that all of these players played 12, 6, and 10 matches respectively, well over the new rule's 4 requirement, so the new rule would have had no impact on their eligibility.

What do you think?  Is this a problem?  Is someone being DQ'd after Nationals an indication the system is broken?  Should the system have found players like the three above ineligible prior to Nationals?  Is the strike threshold too high if players like these can make their way through to Nationals?