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.