Did the USTA find a way to kill USTA League growth in a growing area? Another look at the effect of 4-court format for 40 & Over in 2020 USTA Leagues

The format for the USTA League 40 & Over division has changed in most sections to a 4-court format with 1 singles and 3 doubles courts being played.  This results in just 7 playing spots per team instead of 8 with t he 2 singles / 3 doubles format.

I wrote earlier about the potential effects of this and looked at the 40 & Over division in my area to see how team and player counts had changed.  I did that right at the start of the season, and so the player counts may have been low as some players procrastinate signing up.

Well, we are several weeks in to the season so I thought I'd update the stats.  Here is the same table as before with current information.

Champ Year	Teams	Total Rostered	Unique Rostered
2016	207	3,369	3,071
2017	230 (+11%)	3,661 (+8.7%)	3,301 (+7.5%)
2018	247 (+7.4%)	3,948 (+7.8%)	3,502 (+6.1%)
2019	257 (+4.1%)	4,131 (+4.6%)	3,697 (+5.6%)
2020	277 (+7.8%)	4,030 (-2.4%)	3,620 (-2.1%)

We see that the player counts have gone up from the earlier analysis, but the total and unique rostered counts are still down, both just over 2%.  This compared with the consistent growth the past three years.  And this despite there being nearly 8% more teams.

Sure, the league is not over, more players may sign-up and perhaps get the counts back to even with 2019.  But it appears the growth we'd seen in Seattle 40 & Over may have been stunted by the change to a 4-court format.

There were players who were very upset by the change, particularly the loss of playing opportunities for singles players, and vowed to not play.  It appears that might have come to fruition.

Was this what the USTA was hoping for?  I'd think not, but you never know.

Tie-breaker change coming to TennisLink? SoCal varies how 40 & Over is handled

As more 40 & Over leagues are getting underway, I'm learning of more variations in how the leagues are being played, and that a potential change is coming to TennisLink to offer another way to break ties.

I have been keeping track of what I hear/learn about how different sections and districts adapt to the change National made to use 4-courts for 40 & Over.  I just added some new information I heard about Southern California and that is that:

• Most leagues will use the 4-court format of 1 singles and 3 doubles courts
• Scoring/standings will be team wins
• In the event of a tie on games lost, the visiting team will be declared the winner*
• Some 4.5+ flights (Orange County for one) will continue to use 5-courts to give more singles playing opportunity to 4.5s
• Some 4.5+ flights will use a 3-court 1 singles 2 doubles format

There is an * above because it appears SoCal would prefer to break 2-2 ties by declaring the winner to be the team that won court 1 doubles.  But, TennisLink can't do that today, it would have to be done manually making the team standings on TennisLink not reflect reality.  So they are sticking with what TennisLink can do, which is to give the win to the visiting team.

Unless ...

Apparently all the furor over this change and exposing the tie-breakers National documented as being insufficient has caused National to say a change may be made to TennisLink to allow a league to have the 2-2 ties ultimately broken by awarding the win to the team that won court 1 doubles.  As I understand it, this would be the sequence of rules for determining the team win:

• Winner of the most courts
• In the event of a 2-2 tie, loser of the fewest sets
• Should that tie, lower of the fewest games
• Should that tie, whomever won court 1 doubles would be the winner

It is unclear when this will be done though, so SoCal and other areas may have to stick with what TennisLink can do, which is give the win to the visiting team, or a league can elect to use Points Per Position (PPP).

I do have to wonder, PNW made the change to use PPP and weight court 1 doubles higher, and if this TennisLink option would have been available if it would have been used.

What do you think?  If a league is going to play a 4-court format, do you prefer PPP or would you prefer?

Get a gift card for referring a friend to USTA League

My research has shown that USTA League participation is declining, primarily in the 18 & Over division.  Since 40 & Over and 55 & Over are all growing, it appears the decline is due to, at least in part, players aging and choosing to not play 18 & Over not being replaced by new under-40 players.

It appears the USTA may have come to the same conclusion and is making an effort to grow the ranks of 18-39 players in USTA League with a "Refer a Friend Promotion".

I'm a bit late in writing about this as the promotion runs from November 15, 2019 thru February 15, 2020, but there is still a month to take advantage of it.  Now, before you rush out to refer each other for your upcoming Winter/Spring team, you'll want to know the terms of the promotion which are:

• From Nov. 15, 2019 to Feb. 15, 2020, you may be eligible to be rewarded with a $25 gift card when you refer a friend to join a team
• To be eligible to receive this offer, you must refer a new or lapsed 18 to 39-year-old player to a USTA League team
• When the new or lapsed 18 to 39-year-old player registers to a USTA League team in TennisLink, they must list your name and email address as the person who referred them

One key thing is the "may", which I believe is just a "while quantities last" limit, and I don't know the limit.

But other is that this is valid only for new or lapsed players age 18-39.  So you can't just refer your regular teammates that have played in the past few years, nor will this work if you refer a new or lapsed player that is 40 or older.

Still, this is an opportunity to (re)introduce a player to USTA League and get a gift card out of it.  And with the new 18-39 league being played in many sections, there is a new league that may be attractive to the 18-39 crowd.

For those in my area (PNW/Seattle), we just started our 40 & Over league and obviously registrations for it won't qualify, but the 18-39 league is going right now, and registration is open for the 18 & Over league, so go recruit a few new players and get yourself a gift card!

SoCal is at it again - 18 team random round-robin with only 3 matches per team

The Southern California section of the USTA has a local doubles league in the Fall that culminates in Sectionals near the beginning of the new year.  I came across the planned schedule for the event to be played January 24-26 and noticed that while most of the levels have standard flights, the 4.0 women's event has 18 teams playing a flightless random round-robin.

For those following along, you know that Nationals has used the format the past couple years with generally 17 teams each playing 4 matches against randomly selected opponents.  The top-4 in the standings advance on to the semis.   The format has worked reasonably well, but with 17 teams and 4 matches per team does have the possibility of 5 (or more) undefeated teams resulting in a team without a loss not advancing.  It also shines the light on the standings tie-breaker shortcomings in deciding who advances when there is a tie, which is usually very likely.

The format has been used by some sections for various levels of playoffs too.  NorCal made the mistake of using it for Districts last year where a 4.0 mens team went undefeated and did not advance to Sectionals when the format was used with 22 teams each playing just 3 matches.  Southern Cal had planned to use the format for Tri-Level Sectionals with 13 teams each playing only 2 matches, but were bailed out when several teams didn't show up.

Now, the format can work, but it must be used with the right ratio of teams to matches.  Nationals with 17 teams and 4 matches is stretching it, what NorCal did with 22 teams and 3 matches was just egregious, and the plan for SoCal to use it for their upcoming Sectionals looks questionable too as they have 18 teams each playing just 3 matches.  The chances of disaster are not as great as NorCal with 22 teams and 3 matches, but there is still a good chance of 5 undefeated teams.

Why do sections do this?  I don't know, they are either just not thinking or refuse to consider statistics and the likelihood of it happening.  I have not looked at the specific teams/schedule, but there is a decent chance that 5 or even 6 teams could go undefeated for SoCal SCTA Doubles Sectionals.

NorCal has new USTA League roster limit rule for 2020 overturned by National

For the 2020 USTA League season, Northern California instituted some new rules regarding how many players with various rating types could be on the same team.

Basically, the rule limits how many self-rates, appeals, and DQ'd players can be on a roster.  For example for most Adult teams playing 4 or more courts for a match, just 5 total players with an S, A, or D could be on the same team.

I believe these rules were instituted to limit the creation of super teams loaded with players who appealed down or are self-rates, and to limit the ability of these teams to field more or less the same team in multiple areas.

The problem exists because of the large population in the Bay Area and proximity of areas resulting in a good chance of 10 or more players in the same or adjacent areas being able to appeal down, and then forming effectively the same team in multiple areas.  Or brand new teams are formed with a majority of players being self-rated and with the USTA's DQ rules being perhaps too lenient, it isn't a good look when established players have no shot of advancing to playoffs when predominantly self-rated ones do, and those teams replicate in multiple areas to boot.

One could make the argument that both of these situations, allowing more or less the same "super" team to play in 2, 3, or more areas, or teams loaded with self-rates, isn't fair to the other players trying to advance to playoffs.

I'm sure there are varied opinions on whether this new rule is fair or not, but apparently it ran afoul of National regulations and so they are being removed ...

... except ...

Some areas in NorCal (Reno) run their 40 & Over Adult and Mixed as early start leagues, so by the time this decision was made, those had already played.  So to be fair to those teams, the rest of the NorCal teams playing their 40 & Over leagues later will have to abide by the new rules as well.  But all other divisions will not be bound by the new rules.

For those interested, here is the actual language from the new, now partially defunct, rules:

1.04D(4)a All Adult and Mixed Division team rosters at the 3.0 or combined 6.0 and 6.5 NTRP levels may include up to six (6) players with a Self-rating (S), Appealed (A), Dynamically Disqualified or Promoted (D).

1.04D(4)b In Adult and Mixed Divisions at the 3.5, 4,0, 4.5, 4.5+ or combined 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, 9.0, 9.5 and 10.0 NTRP level utilizing three individual matches within a team match, a team roster may include up to three (3) players with a Self-rating (S), Appealed (A), Dynamically Disqualified or Promoted (D).

1.04D(4)c In Adult Divisions at the 3.5, 4,0, 4.5, 4.5+ NTRP level utilizing four or more individual matches within a team match, a team roster may include up to five (5) players with a Self-rating (S), Appealed (A), Dynamically Disqualified or Promoted (D).

And here is the National rule the above runs afoul of:

1.04D(4) Team. A team shall consist of players eligible to compete at a specific NTRP level of competition in accordance with the following table. A Section may limit the number of players on a team who have an individual NTRP level lower than the team NTRP level. A Section may also limit the number of players who appear on a team roster, but may not have fewer than the minimum number of players as shown in the following table:

Apparently the interpretation of the National rule is that a section is not allowed to limit the number of players with a rating type on a team.

What do you think?  Was NorCal trying to do the right thing by instituting limits and would make for fairer competition?  Or limits like these aren't fair and should never be in place?

Does Points Per Position create more drama for USTA League captains?

The Points Per Position (PPP) format for USTA League matches is increasingly being used, in part due to the 4-court format the 40 & Over division is adopting in many sections . for 2020.  PPP has also been used in some sections as the standard format for a few years now.

I do wonder though, as it is used more and more, if it is going to make it harder for captains to manage their player's egos and create more drama?

Without PPP every court is just a single court contributing towards the team's total for that match.  Win more courts than your opponent, you win the team match and notch a win in the standings.  Each court being worth the same amount went along with the USTA stated position that there was no requirement to roll out a line-up in order of strength, there was no inference that the best players were to be on court 1 rather than court 3.

Given this, a captain could fall back on that statement and when someone complained about being on court 2 or 3, the captain could reply that court doesn't matter, and he thought the opponent would play their strongest pair there and that is why he played the player there.  It basically gave the captain an out to halt any discussions and turmoil regarding who was better than why Bob or Sue gets to play court 1 and Jim or Tammy doesn't.

With PPP though, this simply isn't a true statement anymore.  In nearly every PPP scenario, the courts are not equally weighted, court 1 is often worth more than court 2 is more than court 3.  So now, unless a captain is still doing a tactical sacrifice (harder to justify now), who the captain thinks is the best players is exposed by the line-up that is used.  They can no longer fall back on "all the courts are the same".

Is this going to cause for drama for captains?  Will they have more players griping about the court they play on?

For those that have used PPP, what is your experience?  Does it increase or decrease the burden on the captain to establish a pecking order and manage egos?

An initial look at the effect of 4-court format for 40 & Over in 2020 USTA Leagues

New 2020 leagues for USTA play are starting right away in some areas.  Where these leagues are in the 40 & Over division, it provides an opportunity to look at the impact or result of moving to a 4-court format.

In the Pacific Northwest, several districts start their 40 & Over leagues right away in January, so I thought I'd take a look at some team and player statistics to see if anything jumps out.

One hypothesis is that with the move from 8 to 7 players per match, and just one singles court per match, rosters may be slightly smaller, but it may also result in a few extra teams being created as the surplus players get together to create new teams.

Note that with play starting right away, the number of teams is set, but players may continue to sign-up as the season progresses so the player counts may go up.

Here are some statistics for the Seattle area 40 & Over division for the past few years.  All years prior to 2020 were the standard 5-court format with 2S/3D and for 2020 it is 4-courts with 1S/3D.

Champ Year	Teams	Total Rostered	Unique Rostered
2016	207	3,369	3,071
2017	230 (+11%)	3,661 (+8.7%)	3,301 (+7.5%)
2018	247 (+7.4%)	3,948 (+7.8%)	3,502 (+6.1%)
2019	257 (+4.1%)	4,131 (+4.6%)	3,697 (+5.6%)
2020	277 (+7.8%)	3,674 (-11%)	3,340 (-9.7%)

The first thing to note is that this division has been growing year on year for awhile now.  So it is a little tricky to say if continued growth is just from that trend continuing or an effect of the new format.  But I'll make some observations.

First, the growth rate of teams had been going up, but has taken a jump up for 2020.  This would seem to support the hypothesis above, that a few new teams were formed that might not have been with the 5-court format because smaller rosters are needed.

Second, the rostered players has also been growing, but a slight slowing of the growth rate.  As of right now, there is a dramatic drop in the rostered players, but like I noted above that is likely due to some players procrastinating signing up and the roster counts will go up.

But roster sizes have been between 15.9 and 16.2 from 2016 thru 2019, and right now they are just 13.2.  Every team would have to add about 3 players to get back to what has been normal.  That could happen, I will have to check in on this stat mid-season.  But if registration were to go up he same as teams, we'd expect the total rostered to get up to 4,450.  Anything short of that would support the hypothesis that roster sizes have gotten smaller as a result of the format change.

Third, the unique rostered just gives an idea how many unique players there are vs total registrations.  So several hundred players are playing up each season to play on multiple teams.

Too soon to make any conclusions, but stay tuned for more.

Do you play in an area that is starting 40 & Over shortly and do you have a format change?  If so,  let me know and I'll take a look at the stats.

Happy New Year! It is 2020, USTA League starts right away

With the ringing in of the new year, we now can look forward to the 2020 USTA League year getting under way.  Well, sort of.  As always, some areas started the 2020 championship year early with Early Start Leagues, but in may areas, the new year brings with it the start of league play in some divisions.

In my area, Seattle, 40 & Over starts right away with matches this coming weekend.  And other parts of Pacific Northwest begin 40 & Over in January too.

Since it is 40 & Over starting with the new 4-court format, I look forward to hearing what people think of it, whether they stick with team wins for standings or use some form of points-per-position.

I will also do some analysis on how the number of teams and rostered players has changed in 40 & Over.

Happy New Year!