USTA changes membership structure - Adults bear the brunt of the costs? Last minute discount this week!

I received an e-mail this morning from the USTA announcing changes to their membership structure.  The e-mail was titled "Key Changes to your USTA Family Membership" and I received it because my wife and I play USTA and I signed us up under a family membership several years ago.  I don't know if members not using a family membership received this (or a similar) e-mail or not.

I signed us up using a family membership for a few main reasons.  First, it was a discount over two individual memberships, and related, it meant we didn't get multiple copies of Tennis magazine which we don't need.  Second, it got our memberships synchronized.

Well, it appears the family membership is gone, and they will only offer individual memberships going forward.  So there goes the discount families can get and I'm guessing once we are changed to individual, we'll begin getting two copies of Tennis magazine which is no value to us and just contributes to wasting another tree.

Additionally, it e-mail says memberships will only be one year, apparently the multi-year renewals, and associated discount, are now gone and we'll have to renew every year at the regular rate.  Now, in my case the family membership we got was a multi-year one and doesn't expire for a few years so these changes won't affect us right away, but I imagine a lot of members will be impacted in the next year or two.

The olive branch the USTA offers is a 50% discount on extending/renewing your Adult/Senior membership one year, but the offer is only for three days as it expires at the end of 2020.  As my family membership is still current, I can't take advantage of this offer, but if you can, use promo code GOPLAY50 during the checkout process.  Please let me know if this works for you or if it doesn't, what your situation is.

The above changes are a bit of a downer, so was there anything good in the e-mail?  After all, the e-mail leads with this:

"The USTA’s mission is to promote and develop the growth of tennis. We are pleased to announce that we are making key changes to our membership, which we believe will lessen barriers, provide better value, and overall create a better experience with the USTA."

What I just highlighted doesn't seem to promote the growth of tennis as it does away with discounts that we've had in the past (not withstanding the 3 day discount I can't take advantage of) which increases barriers and provides less value.  So what in what they are announcing is going to aid in the growth of tennis?

The good seems to be for Juniors and Organizations.

Junior membership will now be no cost and Juniors will be able to sign-up and play in sanctioned tournaments or leagues without first purchasing a USTA membership.  This is good news and should make it easier for parents to get their kids involved in USTA sanctioned events.

Starting in early 2021, USTA Organization membership will also be no cost.  This also seems like a good thing but I'm not sure what the cost structure was like in the past.

The e-mail includes a link to a page titled "Important Membership Changes" which summarizes things like this:

• Junior membership (under age 19) is available at no cost
• Adult membership is $44 and Senior membership (70+) is $42
• Organization membership is now available at no cost
• We no longer offer the following memberships: Family, Adult 3-year, Adult 5-year, Senior 3-year, Senior 5-year, or Lifetime.

It also states a reason for the changes is to "simplify our membership offerings to better service our customers and open up opportunities for better benefits".  If there really is better service and benefits, Adult and Senior members may not miss the discounts and convenience of family and multi-year memberships, but the USTA will need to deliver on that for folks to not walk away from these changes feeling they lost something.

If you have an existing family or multi-year membership, those will be honored, but you will have to convert to individual memberships renewed one year at a time once that expires.

The FAQ also notes provisions for pro-rated refunds for those memberships recently paid for that are now free.

To be honest, I'm not sure why the USTA didn't just do away with all fees to be a member, well, I do, they didn't want to lose those membership fees from Adults and Seniors who they figure are able to and will keep paying.  But the key segment to the shrinking of USTA League play is those under 40, notably those in their 20s, and having to pay a membership fee just to gain access to leagues where they then have to pay another fee per league, is certainly a barrier and may contribute to why younger players are not joining as quickly as older players are leaving.

What do you think?  The no cost memberships for Juniors and Organizations seem good and should lower barriers to playing tennis, but did the USTA need to do away with family and multi-year memberships for Adults and Seniors at the same time?  Were you taking advantage of those and will their absence change your view or participation in USTA events?

2021 PNW USTA Leagues postponed until March

In my section (Pacific Northwest), our Winter leagues start right away in the new year, generally the first or second weekend of January.

Unfortunately, the Governors of Washington and Oregon increased COVID-19 restrictions about three weeks ago and those included no indoor tennis, and should those restrictions continue into 2021, that makes playing USTA League matches are a no go.

There have been petitions circulated asking for indoor tennis to be exempt from the restrictions as it is proven to be a safe form of exercise, but apparently so far, no takers on granting that request.

Because of this, and the short-term outlook of COVID-19 numbers not improving, it appears the restriction will not be lifted soon, and as a result, the PNW section sent out notice today that 2021 Winter league play would not begin until at least March 5.

That may seem like a pretty extreme adjustment, a full two months, but a lot goes into planning and coordinating a league from confirming team to securing courts from facilities and creating a schedule bringing the teams and courts together.  It also doesn't make sense to start league play immediately upon restrictions being lifted, especially with 40 & Over injuries could be rampant if that were the case, so some ramp up time makes sense.

A delay until March 5 (or later) throws a monkey wrench into the rest of the schedule as well, and the e-mail mentions plans are being worked on to allow for all leagues to be played leading up to local playoffs and Sectionals, but until more is known about when restrictions may be lifted, no dates or plans can be shared.  We will all have to remain patient.

Note, league play is going on in quite a few sections, but not all, and should suspension of play continue well in to 2021, it will begin to introduce doubt into whether 2021 leagues can be completed and correspondingly, Nationals be held.  It would be really unfortunate if Nationals were canceled for two years running so let's hope we find a way to get leagues going again in all or at least most sections very soon.

TennisLink is officially gone ... for tournaments

I wrote last week about the new Play Tennis site for looking for USTA tournaments, observing that TennisLink seemed to be being retired for tournaments starting in 2021, the new site being the sole place players will search for and register for tournaments starting January 1st.

Well, today the USTA sends out an e-mail officially confirming that is the case.  The e-mail has the subject "Your New Destination for Registering for 2021 USTA Tournaments" and provides the same link I did to the new Play Tennis site, with a suggestion to bookmark it, which is a good thing as it wasn't easy to navigate to.

Note, you may also see the new site referred to as "Serve Tennis", which it was in a newsletter from my section also received today.

I did visit the site again and noticed some changes have been made already, notably rather than having you enter just a location in the search box, you can now specify the category (Junior, Adult, Wheelchair) and date range for the initial search.  Previously, category and date were filters you applied after searching on location.  It is nice to see they are trying to continue to improve it as it launches, so hopefully stay tuned for more.

I also see that there are now 773 tournaments listed, up from 420 a little over a week ago, and 105 are Adult tournaments, up from 35 previously.

The sorting by date still doesn't work, but hopefully that will be fixed soon.  And the distance filter is interesting in that it offers a fine grained control from 10 to 50 miles, but above that is only unlimited.  I think this should change to probably offer 10, 50, 100, 500, and unlimited.

What do you think?  Will you be looking for tournaments to play in as 2021 starts?

With no USTA League 2020 year-end ratings, can you still appeal? Will you appeal? Let me know!

2020 has been a strange year in many ways, and USTA League tennis has not been immune from its share of strangeness.  Leagues suspended, Nationals canceled, and no 2020 year-end ratings are a few of the highlights, or should I say lowlights.

On that last point, we would normally have had year-end ratings published in the last few days and I'd be writing several blog articles a day with observations and analysis (like this or this), and players would be reacting to who was/wasn't bumped up or down, and scrambling to figure out the rosters for upcoming league play.

Some players unhappy with their year-end rating would also be appealing their rating as we speak.  These are players who were bumped up or down and didn't think should have been, or weren't and thought they should have been.

There are standard rules for auto-appeals and players can click a button on TennisLink and get that decision immediately, but does that still apply now?

As I understand it, the button still works, but the short answer is no you won't have an appeal granted if it wasn't when your rating was published, ... well ..., for the most part.

When you click the appeal button, it is appealing your most recent year-end rating to the hundredth, and with no new year-end ratings being published, that is unchanged so the response to appealing should be the same no matter how many times or when you click the button.  Except ...

My experience is that the USTA periodically changes the appeal rules or thresholds, and when they do that, the new rules go into TennisLink and are used when the appeal button is pressed, even if the rating being appealed was already denied under the old rules.

For example, there is a 2021 regulation change for players 70+ that says an appeal down will be automatically granted, subject to standard DQ rules for appealed players.  I've been told of a player who had appealed when 2019 ratings came out and was denied, but is 70+ and appealed again in the past week or so and had it granted, so this appears to be a case of new appeal rules being applied resulting in a granted appeal where it wasn't granted in the past.

Now, it is possible the USTA modified appeal rules/thresholds that are not public and published in the regulations, so if you want to appeal your rating and were denied in the past, now is probably the time to try again as it might work, but there is no guarantee, and if it doesn't work I doubt the answer will change until 2021 ratings are published (fingers crossed!) a year from now.

If you do click the appeal button, leave a comment or send me an e-mail with the result, particularly if it is granted.  Gathering this data helps me figure out what appeal rules are being applied.

So, what if your auto-appeal doesn't work?  Are you out of options?

For (perhaps) this year only, the answer is no, there is another option.  The USTA's COVID-19 FAQ has a Q/A regarding players who feel they are no longer playing at their published rating and a new option for a manual appeal.  Give what I wrote about it a few weeks ago a read for all the details.

So does this new manual appeal work?  I've heard of a few handful of players that have tried, and so far, all but one have been turned back by the section level appeal, and just one has been forwarded to National for review.  So it appears the criteria to be considered are pretty stringent, and in all likelihood very few players meet it and would have their appeal granted.

But again, if you contact your section to request this manual appeal, please let me know and the result either way.

Looking for a 2021 USTA tournament? Welcome to USTA Play Tennis!

The demise of TennisLink has been rumored for many years, some of it wishful thinking by those forced to use it, but some of it based on reports and news we've heard from the USTA about replacing it.

I wrote a few months ago about some forthcoming changes coming, namely around tournaments at first, and it appears those changes are imminent.

If you go to TennisLink Tournaments, the Find a Tournament and Advanced Search are still there, but searching for tournaments in 2021 results in none being shown.  However, if you go to the new PlayTennis site, or more specifically the tournament search there, you will find 2021 tournaments there.  It appears TennisLink is being retired for tournaments, junior and adult, effective the start of the new year and the new site will be used for searching and registering for them going forward.

I note the specific tournament search page because as I write this, it isn't easy to navigate to.  There may be some ways to get there somewhere, but I found no link to it on the PlayTennis main page nor TennisLink, and on the main USTA site you can find a link but have to know just where to go.  So just use the direct link I gave.

Once there, you can search by location and do a variety of filtering based on Junior/Adult/Wheelchair, different genders or age ranges, section/district, event type, or distance from the search location.  It would be nice to be able to search on a name as well but that is missing right now.  You can sort by distance from the search location or date, although the date sorting doesn't seem to be working as I write this and there are some other growing pains typical of a new site you may run across.

There are an increasing number of tournaments showing up, 420 last I checked, but 90+% of them are junior tournaments, so those of us adults looking for senior or NTRP tournaments in 2021 are going a bit wanting right now.  Only 35 Adult tournaments listed and only 2 remotely close to me means no tournaments in my area for awhile it appears.

Now, it is a new system and Tournament Directors and other staff need to be trained and switch to using it and that may take some time, but it appears to be a USTA sanctioned tournament, it will have to be on the new site.  Throw in COVID, reduced staff from layoffs, and TDs being unsure if they'll be able to hold their events and I'm sure that explains why tournaments are slow to show up, but we are less than a month from 2021 now so let's hope more tournaments are added soon.

For those that play USTA League, an obvious question is if/when will leagues use the new site?  As I wrote before, I'm sure that is in the plans but I'm guessing it won't be ready for 2021, so 2022 at the earliest.

USTA League play is already suspended in some areas, what are the chances 2021 leagues are played to completion and Nationals is played?

 2020 has been a strange year in many ways, including its impact on USTA League play.  Leagues were suspended in the Spring leading to many not resuming and Nationals being canceled.

Some areas did resume play over the Summer, at least with alternate/secondary leagues, and some areas begin 2021 season play with Early Start Leagues as they've always done taking advantage of play resuming in their respective sections, but some sections have never resume league play and with the rise of COVID-19 numbers, league play is being suspended once again in other areas.

All of this begs the question, what might happen in 2021?  Might leagues be suspended/canceled again?  If so, at what point are 2021 Nationals in jeopardy of being canceled?

One way to look at it is to look at when leagues are normally played across all the sections, and correspondingly what impact any suspensions or delays in play will have.  Using the 2019 league year as the benchmark, here is when matches were played by month for the 18 & Over division.

We see the bulk of the matches are played in March and later, but a good number are played in the first two months of the year as well as September thru December of the prior year, and even some played back in May and June thanks to Early Start Leagues in Georgia.

And for the 40 & Over division.

A similar story here, but March is the busiest month by far, and January and February are as busy as the Spring and early Summer months.  There is also some Early Start League activity in the last few months of the prior year but not as much as for 18 & Over.

What does this all mean?

The short story is that while the bulk of league play occurs March or later and may not be impacted by any continued or new suspension of play as we move into 2021, there is a fair amount of play in January and February, and there may be play from ESLs that have not started or finished as we move into 2021, that has been or will be impacted if play is suspended at the start of the year.

I'm sure sections and districts have some flexibility with scheduling and can absorb a month, or perhaps two months, of delay and still find a way to get league play complete, but you can see that if any possible suspension of play continues into March on top of that, it becomes more difficult to get all the matches in.

Now, as we know, restrictions regarding playing tennis and league play have not been consistent through the country.  Based on local COVID-19 statistics and capacity of the healthcare system to take on the sick, and how conservative the respective state governments are regarding playing it safe and shutting more down or for longer, some areas may not have any restrictions while others. may be restricted and unable to play for an extended period of time.  This may lead to a situation where some sections complete play through playoffs and Sectionals and are ready for Nationals, while other sections do not.

In the past, even without a pandemic, not every section sends a team at every level, so I doubt that one or even two sections not having teams to send would cancel Nationals.  But what if three or four don't send teams?  At what point does National decide to cancel?  Or would they carry on if at least half the sections send teams, and perhaps even open up wildcards for runners up from Sectionals to advance to Nationals?

Let's all hope it doesn't come to that and the restrictions preventing play in some areas are lifted soon and everything can go on more or less as planned.

USTA establishes new manual appeal criteria for 2020 year-end in lieu of publishing year-end ratings

The coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on everyone's life, including tennis players, in various ways.  For those that play USTA League, play was suspended and ultimately seasons canceled, Nationals were canceled, the decision was made to not publish year-end ratings, and even where play resumed, it has been suspended again in some areas.

On the subject of year-end ratings, from surveys I've done, most people wanted some form of year-end ratings to be published, but the USTA elected not to.  I wrote about the pros/cons of this, in my opinion there were a lot more cons, and offered suggestions on what should have been or could be done.  Others have written letters and contacted the USTA with their own suggestions.

Where this was in response to anything I or other wrote, I don't know, but somewhere along the way, the USTA's coronavirus FAQ was updated to reflect some modified appeal rules.  Specifically, this now appears:

Q: I have been playing matches during 2020 and believe that my match results reflect a different level of play.  Can I request a review of my rating based on my play history from 2020 play? 

A: Yes, players that have had at least 3 matches during 2020 and have generated at least 3 dynamic ratings may contact their Section to request a review.  The Section will review player details and send eligible players to National for review and processing.  It is important to note that players who request an appeal of their rating will receive an A rating type and will therefore be subject to Dynamic Disqualification or Promotion.  The eligibility guidelines for Appeals are proprietary, objective, and will be applied to all players submitting such Appeal requests.

This is nowhere close to actually publishing ratings and addressing all the issues that come with not doing so, but is an olive branch to those players that feel they are playing significantly above/below their level and should be at a higher/lower level for 2021 leagues.  Let's parse apart what exactly was said.

First, players must have played at least 3 matches and generated at least 3 dynamic ratings.  This is more or less what is normally required to get a new year-end rating, so makes sense that this be part of the criteria.

Second, this is not an auto-appeal like you can normally do after year-end ratings are published, but instead a player must contact their section to request a manual review.  See below for why (perhaps) they didn't make this the auto-appeal button on TennisLink.

Third, if a player is eligible after review by the section, it will be sent to National for review.  I think this is important, this is not something a section decides but rather they just determine eligibility and send to National.  Although, by determining eligibility, they can in effect not-grant it if they choose not to forward to National.

Fourth, players whose appeal is granted will be marked as an 'A' and thus subject to 3-strike DQs.  This makes perfect sense.

Fifth, and what I bolded above, eligibility guidelines are proprietary and objective and will be applied to all players.  This makes sense, but what does it really mean?  The proprietary part means they aren't telling us :). But objective and applied to all seems clear but is it?

Note, I believe players could always request a manual appeal and make their case so being able to do so is not new, but having it granted typically required extenuating circumstances or permanent medical issues.

Now, it appears there are specific and objective criteria that will be applied to all players.  If it is specific and objective and applied to all players, I don't know why they couldn't just make the auto-appeal button on TennisLink do it, perhaps it was just to reduce the number of people that do it as it is more work to find out who to contact and do it.  They very well may still have an influx of requests and with reduced staff wish it was an automated system.

However, note the word "guidelines".  That is somewhat at odds with "objective" and "applied to all players" as it sounds like they are just guidelines and the folks at a section can still review and determine which to send to National.  The reason for this is perhaps to weed out edge cases or situations where players have tanked matches and the section has more knowledge about this to know if the appeal should be reviewed by National.

Note, I have no issue with there being a manual review if it is to weed out sandbaggers who shouldn't have an appeal down granted.  I just hope sections and National are prepared for the volume of appeal requests they are going to receive.

Note also, players don't just appeal down, some do appeal up as they have improved and feel the system hasn't kept up and they want the challenge of playing at the higher level.  These players can always play up, but some like the validation of the rating by their name (even with the 'A').

My view is that, for 2020 at least, this is a good thing.  Players that are way out of level, too high or low, are not good for league play and in the absence of just publishing ratings to get the majority of players to the right level, this at least provides a way to get a subset addressed.  Without knowing the criteria, hard to say how well it will work though.

What do you think?  Are these what appear to be new, and perhaps only, for 2020 appeal rules appropriate and fair?  Are you likely to submit an appeal and try it out?

If you do submit an appeal, I'd love to hear from you and what the process is like and what response you get.  As always, I'll share what I learn (anonymously) and also write more as I hear more.

Unhappy with indoor tennis restrictions in Washington? Sign this petition!

Earlier this week, amid increasing COVID-19 numbers, the State of Washington Governor's office reintroduced restrictions on various indoor activities, including closing indoor activities at athletic clubs, meaning folks in Seattle and other parts of Washington are unable to play indoor tennis, and with temperatures in the 40s and periodic rain, we aren't playing outside either.

USTA League play in Seattle was wrapping up with 55 & Over playoffs just finishing in time (completed this past Sunday) but 18 & Over Mixed now having to be tentatively rescheduled for January.

I, among others, use tennis as their primary form of exercise in the winter here and not having it is more than an inconvenience, it can significantly affect one's well being.  The COVID-19 pandemic is certainly something to be taken seriously and certain restrictions may make sense, but evidence seems to show that when managed with the appropriate protocols and social distancing before and after play, tennis can be a safe activity with very low risk of transmitting the corona virus.

If you agree indoor tennis should not be a restricted activity, please express your support for an on-line petition to Allow safe, socially distanced indoor tennis in Washington!  As of this writing, 2,197 supporters have signed this petition and it is growing quickly.

Thanks to Diane Tien for getting this started!  Let's see how many signatures we can get!

How did the new playoff format workout for Seattle Adult 55 & Over playoffs?

Local playoffs for the Seattle area 55 & Over league were played this past weekend and were the first to use a new playoff format that put all the 1st place teams in one draw and the 2nd place teams in another draw.

I've written up my thoughts on the format that gives the 1st place draw final loser a second chance to make the playoffs by beating the 2nd place draw winner, so it makes sense to take a look and see how things played out and if any 2nd place draw teams were able to advance.

At the 6.0 level, the women had TCSP beat Lower Woodland in the 1st place draw, then Lower Woodland had a second chance to advance by beating HBSQ, but HBSQ came through with the win for the 2nd place draw winner.

The 6.0 men had AYTC beat CAC/SL in the 1st place final, AYTC then played ETC who won the 2nd place draw and again, the 2nd place draw winner won with ETC advancing.

The 7.0 women Lower Woodland beat HBSQ-Cho in the 1st place final, and they face HBSQ-Vitcovich who won the 2nd place final, and this time the 1st place final loser came through with HBSQ-Cho advancing.

The 7.0 men had three teams in each draw, and CAC/SL with the bye in the 1st place draw won their final over TCSP, but TCSP got a second chance to advance by playing STC who had the bye in the 2nd place draw and won that final, and TCSP came through notching another advancement for the 1st place draw final loser.

The 8.0 and 9.0 levels for men and women had just one flight, so the top-2 teams automatically advanced and there were no local playoffs.

So, with a limited sample size, we see the wildcard spot went to the 1st place draw loser twice, and to the 2nd place draw winner twice.

This format will be used for Mixed 18 & Over (when we manage to get those playoffs in) and I believe it will be for Adult 40 & Over as well, so we'll get more data from those.  Stay tuned.

Update on Seattle area Adult 55 and Mixed 18 Playoffs - So close!

In many of the districts in the Pacific Northwest section, several leagues are played in the Fall as Early Start Leagues.  In Seattle, these are the Adult 55 & Over and Mixed 18 & Over leagues.

In 2020, getting any league in has been a challenge in most areas, but with the relaxing of restrictions over the summer and clubs open for indoor tennis, we were optimistic that these Fall league could be played to completion including local playoffs.

In most years, the league runs from September thru November, with local playoffs typically the first two weekends in December.  This year, our League Coordinator Jill anticipated that COVID-19 would claw its way back in the fall and made the smart move to schedule matches more aggressively and have the regular season and local playoffs done before Thanksgiving.

Well, we almost pulled it off!  55 & Over playoffs were this past weekend and 18 & Over were scheduled to be played this coming weekend, but alas the Governor in Washington announced that due to increasing testing and hospitalization statistics, a number of restrictions would be reintroduced including closing indoor athletic facilities and unfortunately tennis clubs are included in that.  And with temperatures in the 40s with rain, outdoor play isn't really an option.

Jill and our section office are lobbying the Oregon and Washington Governor's offices to allow indoor tennis to be played, or at least first on the list of activities to have the restrictions lifted, but for the next month at least in Washington, we are shut down and indoor tennis can't be played.

As a result, our 18 & Over Mixed playoffs are postponed, tentatively until January.  The current plan is:

• 6.0 level will be played out of Columbia Athletic Club/Silver Lake 1/8-1/10/21
• 8.0 level will be played out Tennis Center Sand Point 1/7-1/10/21
• 7.0 and 9.0 will be late Jan/early Feb - more details to come

All of this assumes restrictions will be lifted enough for play to resume.

For those following along, you are probably wondering about Adult 40 & Over which is due to start in January, and I'm sure that league is also subject to the restrictions being lifted as it is scheduled to start play 1/8.

PNW Seattle giving new playoff format another shot for 2021 18 & Over Mixed

Before COVID-19 ended our 40 & Over season in the Seattle area, we were working our way towards a new local playoff format.

I wrote much more at the time, but the short story is in a league where the 1st and 2nd place team in each sub-flight advance to playoffs, the new local playoff format places all the 1st place teams in one draw and all the second place teams in the other.  The winner of the 1st place team draw advances to Sectionals, while the loser of that match plays the winner of the 2nd place team draw for the chance to advance to Sectionals as a wildcard.

I wasn't terribly fond of the format then, and while we didn't get a chance to see it in practice yet, I'm still leery of it for the simple reason that it doesn't seem to reward 1st place teams enough.  While by making the final of the 1st place bracket they assure themselves of an extra shot at advancing even if they lose that final, they still have to make it to the final by winning one or two matches and do so against other first place teams.  One can almost make the argument that it may be easier to win two matches in the 2nd place bracket against 2nd place teams to make that final, and the have to play only one first place team, and that being one that could be playing their 4th match of the weekend at that point.

What do you think?

It is 2020, anything could happen, could the NTRP as we know it be going away?

Preface: This post is highly speculative, but is based on a little reading of the tea leaves and I think could happen, so it is worth the speculation to think about.

The NTRP system has been around for many years, far longer than I've been playing USTA League, and has gone through a variety of algorithm changes and periodic mass adjustments, but in general has worked very well for promoting competitive adult recreational competition.

But in the last few years, NTRP has been under increasing pressure from UTR, particularly with junior, collegiate, and lower level pro tournaments.  This is where UTR started and is strong, and while the USTA introduced the Junior NTRP, it is different and not connected to Adult NTRP and it appears has not gained the traction UTR has, at least in this segment.

The U in UTR is "Universal" and to be truly universal one has to have results from all matches, and UTR is aiming to do that and for the past few years has been scraping USTA matches from TennisLink and including them in their calculations.  This is where UTR is differentiated from NTRP, in that it calculates ratings for USTA League players plus all the juniors and collegiate players it always has, and includes ATP, WTA, and other pro tour matches, and I'm sure more.  One can debate how well UTR accomplishes a single universal rating with what are almost certainly disconnected populations of players, but the USTA with NTRP doesn't even attempt to incorporate matches outside of USTA play.

Perhaps in response to UTR, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) along with other governing bodies from the United States (USTA), England (LTA), and France (FFT) launched plans for the World Tennis Number (WTN) about a year ago.  I wrote my observations on the WTN after that.  The original press release called for WTN to be live in late 2019 and launched in participating organization's countries in 2020, but the WTN site still says "Coming Soon ...".

Another interesting connection here is that the ITF has contracted with Club Spark to build the platform for WTN, which happens to be the same company working on what is believed to be the replacement for TennisLink (and more).  What appears to be some of the "and more" is even live today at https://playtennis.usta.com.

So, if participating countries are to be adopting it soon, what about the USTA and NTRP?

With the same company that is implementing WTN also building the new TennisLink, it might seem easy for the USTA to perhaps decide to give NTRP a "make over" and just switch to using the WTN.  With the WTN being on a completely different scale (40 to 1 rather than effectively 2.0 to 7.0) this would seem to be a pretty radical change and a risky thing to do with a large population of adult league and tournament players used to the NTRP system.

It is possible the USTA would phase the WTN in, either publishing in parallel or using it for various segments of play, perhaps starting with juniors, then moving on to collegiate players and lower level pro-tour events, all to be aligned with the ITF and other countries and their use of the WTN.  In this scenario, it might find its way to USTA league and tournament players later, or again published in parallel to get people used to it.

This is where it gets interesting though.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated cancelation of many USTA leagues, nearly every Sectionals, and Nationals, the USTA decided to not publish year-end NTRP ratings for 2020.  I understand there may have been some within the USTA that wanted to go ahead and publish, but they were overruled.  In fact, rumor has it some changes have been made regarding the group responsible for NTRP ratings oversight within the USTA so changes appear to be afoot.

As part of this change, is it possible the USTA didn't want to publish 2020 year-end ratings because a switch to use WTN is coming in 2021 and it would be confusing to players to have just published year-end ratings in 2020 when rolling out a new system in 2021?  By not publishing 2020 year-end ratings might we see WTN rolled out by the end of 2021 and league play in 2021 while be NTRP's swan song?

I obviously don't know the answer, only those at the USTA do and perhaps even the USTA hasn't made final decisions on if and when changes are made.  But we've been waiting for a new TennisLink for years, and it just feels like it finally arriving, the launch of WTN, and the same company doing both, we could have a big bang of change coming in 2021, perhaps for 2022 league play.

What do you think?  How would you receive a change to the rating system used for tournament and league play?

Is your 2021 40 & Over USTA League sticking with 4 courts?

The 2020 USTA League season never had a chance to complete with very few areas even able to complete their local league, let alone much of any playoffs.  As a result, means the new (for 2020) 4-court format with one court of singles and three of doubles for the 40 & Over leagues never got to be fully exercised and we never had a chance to see how it would work through playoffs.

My section (PNW) was one that said they'd survey players after the season so opinions would be based on a full season, and a survey was done, but with the COVID-19 suspension of play and no Nationals, USTA National didn't change anything and so my guess is most sections still stick with the same format and rules for 2021 as they had for 2020.

And in fact, in my area the e-mails went out about starting to form teams for 2021 and it was confirmed we will use the same format.

Now, a change I wrote about earlier is that the 40 & Over leagues will no longer have plus-flights, meaning there will be no 4.5+ flights and instead it will just be a straight 4.5 flight with no 5.0s on the rosters.  So that is one new wrinkle for 2021 and it won't be exactly like 2020.

I was critical of the 4-court format change when it happened, partly because it allowed for 2-2 ties with horribly broken tie-breakers, and still feel largely the same, and most agreed with me.  But what do you think now?  Was the 4-court format not so bad after-all?  Has your opinion changed as we head into 2021?

More on the effects of the USTA not publishing 2020 year-end NTRP ratings

The USTA announced a couple weeks ago that they would not be publishing year-end NTRP ratings for 2020.  I wrote up my thoughts on the effects of this and the pros and cons, and that garnered a number of comments and other actions.

First, I've seen some comments on my blog and in other forums that are worth mentioning.  Here are a few quotes:

"It's nice if your team can stick together, but should this really happen if there's players wrongly rated on it?"

"I guess you can see some crazy strong teams come 2021. ... and then S rated players that were probably right on target that have improved a lot and may not be rated correctly."

"That's the thing, though. I played three matches after the ratings came out that should have put me back below the threshold. Sucks that I can't appeal down, because I belong at the lower rating."

"WOOHOO! "

"happy for you and bummed for others." 

"USTA leagues can be quite a shady business. I'm surprised Nationals wants to add to it and make it worse than a normal year next year by not publishing. Why not fix the current problems with ratings at the very least?"

"What I expected, but I had hoped they would bump those that were clearly out of level (up and down) as well as give C ratings to any S rated player with at least 3 matches."

"I’d have rather they bumped folks up and down at the end of the year. If they say that the number of matches were down, well, that just means not many people will get bumped. But the folks who cleaned up or need a bump down who have lost all season should get bumped imo."

"I should have been bumped to 4.5 but I guess at least I will get a chance to go to nationals next year (if they are held)"

Clearly a mix of reactions, some were excited about keeping teams together but think the USTA should have published 2020 year-end ratings which is consistent with the poll I did earlier in the year.

Next, there are some players out there that felt strongly enough about the lack of ratings being the wrong choice that they've written a an open letter to the USTA encouraging others to send it or otherwise express their opinion to the USTA at customercare@usta.com.  I also encourage anyone with an opinion agreeing or disagreeing with the decision to e-mail your feedback or let your League Coordinator know what you think.

Last, Rich Neher re-published my effects blog in his Tennis Club Business newsletter.  Thanks Rich!

What will the effects of no 2020 year-end ratings be? And what might my dynamic rating be now?

The USTA announced yesterday that there will be no 2020 year-end ratings.  Due to the suspension of play earlier this year during the COVID-19 pandemic, they elected to just "punt" and make one long 2020/2021 season instead of figuring out a way to publish ratings for those players that were able to play.

In my opinion, this is unfortunate for a number of reasons, but the decision deserves a full analysis of all the pros and cons and potential effects it will have.

2020 teams can stay intact for 2021

One obvious effect is that players will stay at their current level, and thus be able to continue to play on the same teams they were on for 2020.  I believe a number of players and captains had the view that a team was formed for 2020 and the opportunity taken away to "fulfill the dream" of playing a full season together and seeing how far they could advance, so it is only fair to leave ratings alone and let those players and teams have another go at it.

This can be seen as a pro or a con depending on your perspective as this has other effects as noted below.  But this is arguably the only pro in the list of effects even in its limited form.

Self-rated players at wrong level

The effect on self-rated players will be significant as none of those that played in 2020 will get year-end ratings and thus will remain self-rated.  On the surface, that may not seem like that big a deal, but when you drill in there are several side-effects to it.

To understand the effects, we need to look at what typically happens with self-rates.  In 2019, there were over 41K self-rates that got a 2019 year-end rating.  Of these, 63% stayed the same level, 23% were bumped up, and 14% bumped down.  This means that had the USTA not published year-end ratings in 2019 and self-rated players stayed the same level, 37% or over 15,000 players would be playing at the wrong level the following year, and over 9,500 of those playing at too low a level.

Now, in 2020 with the suspension of play, self-rated players will have played less and a lower number of them gotten the three matches in required to get a year-end rating.  My stats show that just under 16K self-rated players have played enough in 2020 to have gotten a 2020 year-end rating were those to be published.  With another month and a half of play before the normal year-end, this number may go up a bit, but we'll use 16K.

If 37% of those 16K should have been bumped up or down, that is nearly 6K players that will be out of level for 2021.  Of those:

• Over 2K will be "stuck" at too high a level and perhaps choose to not play anymore since they weren't bumped down
• Nearly 4K will be able to play at too low a level for the ability they've demonstrated

This should all be "fixed" at the end of 2021, but for 2021 something close to the above will be the situation throughout the year.  Whether these number are alarming or not and represent a competitive (dis)advantage or not may be debatable, but I think they are an issue and will lead existing players to be unhappy about their league experience when they have to play these 4K players that are playing below what their level should be.

Note, the above numbers do not include any new self-rates for 2021 that may also be out of level one way or the other, at least later in the year as they improve.

In the end though, I don't think the situation this causes is a good thing and is arguably a con.

Existing players at the wrong level

Self-rated players are far more volatile with their ratings than established players, but there is still change from year to year for existing players so the effect of their not moving needs to be looked at.

In 2019, about 85% of established players stayed the same level, 5% were bumped down, and 10% bumped up.  With fewer matches played, fewer players would be in a position to be bumped up or down, but using my ratings, it appears about 5% of players would be in line to be bumped up and 2.5% bumped down.

This means that for 2021, these 7.5% of players will be out of level, and similar to the self-rates, those that should be lower may decide not to play where they aren't competitive, and those that should be higher get to unfairly prey on lower rated opponents.

If you don't believe this can be significant, here is a chart from my Estimated Dynamic Rating Report showing how a player has improved this year.

This is a player who started the year as a strong 4.0, but is now far closer to being a 5.0 than even a 4.5, but per the USTA's decision, they will remain a 4.0 for 2021.  Does that make sense?

Note that I picked a particularly egregious case to show, but there are a lot more that are still too high and should be bumped up.

I think leaving established players at their old level is a con, albeit perhaps not a huge one given the relatively small percentage, although the actual number is around 11K rated too low and 5.7K too high.  Add with the self-rated numbers, and that means about 15K players playing at a level below where they should be and 8K stuck at too high a level.  That is not insignificant.

Self-rated players managing their rating

As I understand it, a player's matches from 2020 will count towards their dynamic rating and 2021 year-end rating, and as noted above, nearly 4K of them will enter 2021 with a rating that is too high for their self-rate level.  It is possible they are even carrying strikes from 2020 (although I'm not certain these will carry over or not).

Now, this is probably a good thing in that if they really are out of level they are well on their way to getting a 3-strike DQ and being promoted up a level which "fixes" the problem noted above.  However, we all know there are captains that follow their self-rated player's performance closely and they may encourage their player to manage their rating to avoid getting disqualified.

Managing ratings is never a good thing as it keeps players at the wrong level and can make a mockery of matches that are played and reduce the satisfaction a player has from league play.  It can also wreak havoc with ratings giving a player too much credit for a result when they beat a higher rated player that is tanking the match.

So I think this effect is definitely a con.

Players trying to achieve a goal unfulfilled

The vast majority of USTA League players play for fun, to have competitive matches against similar skilled players and aren't fixated on Nationals or forming a super team, etc.  Many of these may be looking to improve and achieve a goal and be looking to be bumped up.  That goal will go unfulfilled for 2020 as their only official validation is the year-end rating that will now not be published.

The good news is that those that want to get an idea of where they stand, and at a minimum see what direction their rating is going, can do so by getting one of my Estimated Dynamic Rating Reports.  These reports given an estimate of where your dynamic rating is and gives a lot of insight into your rating and how it has changed and statistics to help you identify what is and isn't working.  I've continued to do these all year and these can be a great way to fill in the gap from no year-end ratings from the USTA.  Contact me if you are interested in getting a report.


By my analysis, the only good thing from the decision to not publish 2020 year-end ratings is that teams get to stick together for 2021.  I wrote this months ago and pointed out some of the above issues when I did my analysis and recommendation on what the USTA should do.  I also included a poll where just 22% voted for not publishing at all like the USTA did.

Is allowing 2020 teams to stick together for 2021 really a good idea given all the other issues?  Did the USTA make a mistake and just take the easy path in making this decision?


Update: Based on feedback to this blog and what I've heard, I wrote up more comments and reaction here.

Breaking News! - USTA National announces decision regarding 2020 year-end NTRP ratings

USTA League play was suspended for several months earlier this year due to COVID-19, and subsequently the USTA announced there would be no USTA League Nationals in 2020.

With a limited number of matches played, and no Nationals, a natural question was what would the USTA do with year-end ratings for 2020?  I wrote my thoughts on the subject awhile ago, but today the USTA sent an e-mail out to members with their decision and plan for year-end ratings.

From the e-mail:

"While the NTRP system remains sound, given all of the impacts COVID-19 has had on play, the USTA has made the difficult decision not to run or publish year-end NTRP ratings for 2020."

So there you have it.  There will be no year-end ratings for 2020.  Players will not be bumped up or down from their 2019 level.

I was hoping this wouldn't be the result, I think there are issues with this that will cause problems in 2021 and could have been addressed as I noted earlier, but they took the easy course of action to just not publish ratings.

The USTA did publish an FAQ, a few key notes from there:

• Players will use their most current valid NTRP level for 2021.  If their most current level has now expired, they will be required to self-rate again.
• Self-rated players will remain self-rated, or have to self-rate again if their S rating is over 2 years old.
• DQ's from 2020 will still apply, these players do not revert to their pre-DQ rating.
• Appealed 2019 year-end ratings remain as they were appealed.
• Matches played in 2020 will count towards the 2021 year-end ratings.

A few specific issues I see with this decision are:

• Players on their way down that should have been bumped down based on their results won't be and perhaps will choose not to play in 2021 because they can't compete at their carry over level.
• Players on their way up that should have been bumped up based on their results won't be and will get to prey on opponents at the lower level.
• Self-rated players will remain self-rated which is both unfulfilling for them, but given that a large percent of self-rates have their rating change after their first year means this large percentage will now be at the wrong level for 2021.
• Players with an expiring rating will now have that rating expire and become self-rated.

The net result is there will perhaps be more self-rated players than normal, and a larger number of players playing out of level one way or the other.  I think this could have been mitigated by at least calculating year-end ratings for self-rates, but could also have calculated year-end ratings for those players that got enough matches in and/or played enough prior to the suspension of play.

We will see how 2021 goes.  What do you think of the decision?

Update: I did an analysis on the effects and pros/cons of the decision here.

USTA gets rid of membership fees! ... For Juniors and Organizations ...

I just received an e-mail from the USTA, and expect all members did, outlining some changes to memberships, including the elimination of membership fees for some!  Unfortunately, for the majority of those reading this blog who play Adult leagues and tournaments, your membership fees did not go away 😢.

From the e-mail:

Starting now, you can become a USTA Junior member at no cost. Juniors can now sign up to play in a USTA sanctioned tournament or league without first having to purchase a USTA membership.

So Juniors no longer have to be members to play in tournaments or leagues.

Continuing:

USTA Adult and Senior membership will still come at the same standard cost, but we are working on enhanced benefits, better discounts and more value with your membership.

So no change for Adults, but more value to be coming.

Continuing:

If you deliver tennis, USTA Organization Membership will be at no cost starting in early 2021. Similar to our customer membership, we will be consolidating benefits you can access at no cost, as well as incentives and rewards that you get simply for growing the game.

So organization membership is no-cost as well.

Something many of you are probably also wondering is if anything will be done regarding a credit for membership for 2020 since in all areas leagues and tournaments were suspended for several months, and some play has still not restarted.  I have not heard one way or another on that subject.

Where is the love for the Adults that play leagues and tournaments?  Enhanced benefits sounds nice, but those are often benefits that many players don't find that valuable.  But perhaps we'll be surprised.

I think it is great that juniors can play in leagues and tournaments without being a member, eliminating that barrier makes sense especially right now as parents may be struggling financially if they have been impacted by COVID-19.

It also makes sense that organizations can be members at no-cost as the USTA wants facilities to be affiliated and offer USTA programs.

But I'd think something is appropriate for Adult members too, at least rolling over the 2020 membership to 2021 as a good faith gesture to encourage players to come back as leagues and tournaments get going again.

What do you think?

USTA NorCal cancels all remaining 2020 and early start 2021 leagues

USTA League play has resumed in the majority of sections in one form or another.  NorCal was an exception with the plan being to resume play in September, but the section just notified players that is no longer the case and all 2020 Adult League play has been canceled.

In addition, a few areas normally have early start leagues in the Fall for the following year, and all of those 2021 leagues have been postponed.

I'm sure this was a hard decision, but one forced by the situation with COVID-19 and current restrictions in California.  You might ask how is SoCal playing some matches?  Play there is very limited and only in some areas, and there may be local rules allowing or restricting play, and it appears NorCal thought trying to play in some areas and not others, or having to adapt as restrictions play was not in the best interest of league play.

"With state, county and city orders and guidelines changing and potentially becoming more restrictive than the last without notice, the number of temporary rule changes, continuous play adjustments and the resulting disruption would not allow for the player-friendly and inviting league experience the Adult League Department aims for."

While it appears Flex Leagues are available for play, the plan is for play to resume for 2021 at the beginning of the year, but that of course is subject to change.

Stay safe everyone.

How has COVID-19 affected Fall Early Start Leagues in Seattle?

In my area, Seattle, we have 2021 early start leagues beginning in a couple weeks, specifically 18 & Over Mixed and 55 & Over Adult.  These have been routinely played in this same slot for a number of years, which means we can look at trends on participation and compare to this year to see how things may be changing.

The obvious reason things may change is COVID-19, and I just wrote about some new scoring rules we will be using in the Pacific Northwest section because of it, and it is natural to look at these trends and see if there is an impact due to the pandemic and player's behavior or willingness to play.

First as a baseline, I looked at the 2017 through 2020 league years for 18 & Over Mixed and here are the number of teams and unique players signed up:

• 2017 - 172 / 2,265
• 2018 - 180 / 2,311
• 2019 - 179 / 2,327
• 2020 - 173 / 2,249

While there is some variation, the numbers are pretty consistent so let's take the average of 176 teams and 2,288 players as representative.

For this Fall's 2021 league season, all the teams are signed up and there are just 141, down 20% from the average of the last 4 seasons.  The number of players is just 1,253 but the season hasn't started yet and more players will sign up, so it is a little preliminary to compare that number.

I also looked at the 55 & Over Adult league.  Here are the historical stats:

• 2017 - 84 / 1,034
• 2018 - 92 / 1,126
• 2019 - 105 / 1,249
• 2020 - 114 / 1,383

There is some clear growth here, so for comparison I'll use the most recent stats from 2020.  But arguably it was on track to be north of 120 teams.

For this Fall's 2021 league season, the 55 & Over Adult has just 87 teams, down 24% from 2020 but again, perhaps down more from where it might have been.

These sort of changes are rarely due to a single reason, but I think we can point to COVID-19 as the reason this year.  Whether players are concerned about the risks of playing and interacting with others outside their family/personal circle, or their personal situation has changed to not allow playing, there is clearly a decline in those electing to participate in these leagues this Fall.

Whether you are in Seattle and part of the above stats, or playing (or not) elsewhere, why are you planning to play (or not) this Fall and into 2021?

And if there are other areas with early start leagues you'd like me to look at, leave a comment here or on Facebook.

USTA Pacific Northwest to use timed matches for 2021 Early Start (2020) Fall leagues

USTA League has resumed in nearly all sections to varying degrees, but with no Nationals this year the majority of play is essentially just for fun and to get back out on the courts playing tennis again.

But in one area (Georgia), play has started for 2021 with early start leagues, and other sections will do the same this Fall, PNW where I am, being one.

In most districts in PNW, the Fall early start leagues are Mixed 18 & Over and Adult 55 & Over, but regardless, in my district (Seattle) our League Coordinator just notified us of a format change for the Fall leagues compared to what we've done in the past.

In PNW, particularly for non-Summer leagues, we tend to play USTA League indoors.  It isn't true  that it rains all the time here, but particularly in the Winter it is too cold/wet to play outdoors consistently, and even in the Spring and Fall it can be hit and miss and rather than having scheduling issues, we just have leagues scheduled indoors.

The challenge with this is indoor facilities generally have fixed court times, usually 90 minutes in my area but at a club or two it is 75 minutes.  Not every match ends in the allotted amount of time though, so how does one handle that?

Many clubs will provide or ask that the home team book an overflow court to be used to complete any matches not finished after 90 (75) minutes so as to not delay the subsequent booked courts (which are often another league match).  Some clubs do allow a match some leeway, say 10-15 minutes, for a match to finish on the court they are on if they are nearly complete.

Most of the time this works, but sometimes matches don't finish and there is no court available, and then the players in the match must arrange to finish the match at a later date.  This is kind of a pain, but rare enough that we deal with it.

In this time of trying to play league matches during the COVID-19 pandemic though, the above process is problematic for several reasons.

Clubs are trying to avoid players congregating and limit the interaction and exposure players have to each other, so having a situation where teams are waiting around for prior matches to finish, or players are switching courts and increasing their exposure to others is not ideal, and may even violate current state protocols or restrictions.  If the latter were to happen and be reported, it is possible a state could elect to ban the scenarios required for league play at all and we'd have suspended seasons again.

Also, asking players to hang around and figure out when/where to complete a match, or just the act of doing so is also increasing exposure and risk so that is not desired.

You will note that while timed matches are a valid USTA format, the process I noted PNW uses did not call for the use of them.  That is now changing, and at least for the Fall of 2020, we will have timed matches.

Since we haven't had timed matches in PNW, my readers there, or others where they haven't been used, may be wondering what exactly it is.  The answer, basically, is that a process is established for how to determine a winner at or near the end of the allotted time if the match will not complete.  The process is not the same in every area using timed matches, but here is the gist of what PNW will use this Fall as I understand it.

If a match is completed, it is entered as a completed match as is normally done.

If, when time expires, a match is not completed, it is entered as a timed-match with the score reflecting all completed games.

If a game is in progress when time expires, it does not count.  However, a point in progress when time expires is completed and does count.  If the completion of the final point results in a game being completed, that game counts.

The winner of a timed match is the player(s) that won the most games.  If the match score is tied on games, a single deciding point is played following the normal serving sequence when time expired, and the receiver gets choice of side unless it is mixed doubles and then it is gender to gender.  The winner of this point will be declared the winner.

If a first set or match tie-break is in progress, the player(s) leading in the tie-break is declared the winner.  If the score is tied in the tie-break, a deciding point is played as noted above.

There are some edge cases not covered with what I just wrote and am trying to get clarification on how it will work and will provide an update and example scenarios in another post so stay tuned.

What do you think?  Do you like timed-matches and wish PNW would have been using them for time constrained matches all along?  Are they ok as a temporary measure to appease the state so we can play?  Or do you hate the idea regardless of the scenario?

Is the end of TennisLink for USTA League near? Yes and no ...

It has been rumored for many years that TennisLink is on its last legs and soon to be replaced.  Yet here we are in 2020 still using it for USTA leagues and tournaments.  But is the end near?

It is not a secret that the USTA has been working on a replacement for the past couple years, there are mentions of a new Tennis Event Product or Serve Tennis around and it appears Club Spark is the company working on it.  But I've recently heard that players will see it first as Tennis Management Tools (TMT) targeting USTA tournaments and likely launch in 2021.

Now, some information I've seen indicated it was supposed to launch in 2020, perhaps some pieces even in 2019, so 2021 is certainly no guarantee, but I'm sure COVID-19 and other events have contributed to the slip to 2021.

Features I believe are planned include:

• Facility Management
• Social Leagues
• Drop-in Events
• Tennis on Campus
• Net Generation Events
• Sanctioned and Non-Sanctioned Tournaments

You will notice I don't include USTA Leagues, but I'm sure it is on the roadmap and just wasn't in the near term goals I saw, although my guess is not until 2022 or later.  So I expect we'll be using TennisLink for at least another full year+ for leagues.

By starting with tournaments, the USTA may be trying to go head to head with UTR and their platform for tournaments.  It will be interesting to see how they compare and if tournament directors choose one or the other to setup and manage their tournaments.

Note that part of what is coming is already here to some degree.  See https://playtennis.usta.com/ where organizations and individual providers can setup accounts and seemingly have a web-site and manage contacts and interacting with them.  Nothing really on leagues and tournaments and some of the other items above, nor anything for players, but I'm sure it is in the works.

It is encouraging to see some progress being made, although it appears it is still early and resources for tournament and league players are still a little ways off.  Stay tuned as I learn more.

Will there be 2020 USTA League year-end ratings? Still to be determined 😕

USTA League play was suspended for several months, and even though it has resumed in a number of areas, there will be no Nationals this year, and in most sections it appears Sectionals and lower rounds of playoffs may not happen either.

A natural question then becomes, what will happen with year-end ratings for 2020?  I wrote my thoughts on the subject a couple months ago and have asked questions and been on the lookout for any indication of what might happen, but heard today that the USTA has not made a decision one way or the other yet.

There are pros and cons to publishing ratings, although I fall on the side of seeing more pros in doing the publishing, at least on a limited basis.  I did run a poll in my earlier post and here are the results as I write this today.

While there is not a clear cut consensus, it does seem more players are wanting ratings calculated than not, with 63% wanting them calculated, perhaps with limited matches and/or more lenient appeal thresholds.  Just 22% voted an outright no, with another 14% with qualified no's.

It may be the USTA knows, or at least has a good idea, what they will do and is just waiting to announce so that leagues are played with a little doubt to prevent all out tanking of matches in the event matches played now do count.  For now though, we wait and see.

For what is is worth, I got this news indirectly via an NTRP Ratings webinar National (Heather Hawkes) put on for NorCal.  Thanks to my NorCal readers for the info and it is good to see National is continuing with this webinar series which Heather has been doing across all the sections the past few years.

USTA League changes for 2021 - Plus flights are gone!

The USTA typically publishes the regulations for the upcoming year,  at least in draft form, in the Spring,  but with COVID-19 affecting things it ended up being late July this year.  While I recommend that you get/read the full doc, I'm sure many of you just want to know "What changed?".

For those of you in that camp, here is a summary.

First, the big change is plus flights appear to be gone.  As a reminder, these were flights at the top of each division (5.0 for 18 & Over and 4.5 for 40 & Over) that were designated 5.0+ and 4.5+ and allowed teams to roster and play 5.5 and 5.0 players respectively.  This was done to give the 5.5/5.0 players more playing opportunity as in many areas, there was not critical mass to have a 18 & Over 5.5/Open flight and/or 40 & Over 5.0 flight.  In order to have the plus players play against each other, they were required to play on court 1 (singles or doubles).

The problem is, while plus flights could work well, they introduced some issues.  The main one was that a team may not have a plus player on their roster, or not available for a match, and that led to throwing court 1 at times, which was just a waste of time for the plus player.  This was especially true when say a 4.5+ team without a 5.0 for a match would have a 4.0 playing up play a 5.0 in singles.  Even when 5.0s were rostered and available, they could play in singles or doubles so wouldn't always face each other, which could lead to uncompetitive matches even when a court wasn't being thrown.

Several sections had been lobbying for changes or getting rid of plus flights, and some had tried to impose restrictions saying players playing up couldn't play on court 1 in plus flights.  But now that is no longer an issue as plus flights are gone.

What happens to those plus players without a flight now?  The regulations do appear to allow for sections and areas to have an 18 & Over Open flight and 40 & Over 5.0 flight for these players, and even have playoffs through Sectionals, there just won't be a Nationals for those levels.

My view is this does remove the problems noted above, but may leave some players without a league to play in as not all areas will be able to have Open and 5.0 flights due to limited players at those levels.  If you are a 40+ 5.0, your only option may be playing against the youngsters in 18 & Over.

Second, there are some changes to appeal rules for senior players.  The past few years, those 60+ could appeal down a bump up if they'd been at the same level for 3 years, and those 65+ could auto-appeal down a bump up if they were not higher than the "clearly above" threshold.  Now, those 70+ have their own rule, they can just auto-appeal down whether bumped up or not, as long as they are not higher than the "clearly above" threshold.

This "clearly above" threshold probably needs some explanation.  Normally, appeal rules do allow for someone to appeal down if they are just over the bump threshold, typically something less than 0.1.  The clearly above threshold is higher than that, it varies by level but you can assume something like 0.2-0.3 over the threshold.

This means someone 70+ that is a 4.0 but has been struggling but stays a 4.0 can appeal down to 3.5 more easily than before.

I think this change probably makes sense, although it is probably pretty rare that a 70+ player has played and is struggling and doesn't get bumped down or is low enough to appeal under the normal rules.

Third, last year brought a 4-court format for 40 & Over at the National level and there was much consternation about it and how 2-2 ties would be broken.  It was discovered TennisLink was somewhat broken and there were undocumented rules for how ties were broken, and National finally clarified things after more than 30 ties occurred.

Now, that clarification is in the regulations.  They state that for Nationals, 40 & Over will be 4-courts and ties broken ultimately by the winner of court 1 doubles.  Of course they still list game winning percentage as a criteria which will always be 50% for both teams, so it is meaningless.  But at least they have something there to break the tie where last year they didn't.

Note, this clearly means the 4-court format is here for another year at least.  Lots of folks rallied against it but it is no surprise that National is sticking to their guns since it won't get a full test in 2020 with no Nationals and many areas perhaps not even holding their leagues.

That is it for the big changes.  There are a few other small ones of note, those being:

• There have been a few cases where teams showed up to playoffs without the minimum required players.  The regulations allow for waivers, language has now been added to presumably limit waivers being granted as "Waivers are only intended for extreme circumstances" now appears in the document.
• Miscellaneous changes to align with the removal of plus flights.

Not a lot of changes, but with an abbreviated season I wouldn't have expected many.

What do you think?