Expired rating? Need to self-rate? Here is how it works

When the USTA didn't publish 2020 year-end ratings, they also didn't change the rules regarding expired ratings.  The result is that a number of players that would have gotten 2020 year-end ratings didn't, and as a result had their rating expire meaning they have to self-rate again to play in 2021.

For example, consider a player that played in 2017 and got a year-end rating, but didn't play the minimum number of matches in 2018 or 2019, but did in 2020 before/after the pandemic shut things down.  Normally this player would have gotten a 2020 year-end rating and been fine for 2021 but now has to self-rate.

And for older players that have a 2-year expiration, they could have played in 2018, not had enough matches in 2019, but did in 2020, so missed just one year, and in 2021 they have to self-rate again.

This seems like a miss on the USTA's part.  First of all they should have published 2020 year-end ratings, but if they weren't going to, they should have suspending expiring ratings for one year, at least for those that played in 2020.

But they didn't so we have the situation we are in now.  Between all the self-rates from 2020 that didn't get ratings and these players that have to self-rate that perhaps shouldn't have had to, we likely have record numbers of self-rated players.

This has contributed to the increased rate of 3-strike DQs, but also raised questions on how self-rating works.

I was reminded of this when someone pointed me to an Essential Tennis video where Ian goes through the self-rate process as he is planning to begin playing USTA League again.  He raises a number of questions or criticisms of the process, and I left a comment there explaining things, but I thought it would be a good idea to write it up here too.

The USTA has a set of guidelines and a self-rating questionnaire to help players identify the minimum level they can self-rate at.  Ian goes through the guidelines and questionnaire, and concludes that the guidelines would require him to self-rate at 4.0 or higher based on his Div II college experience, but he knows he is competitive with 4.5s so he'd like to self-rate at that level.  But when he completes the questionnaire, the system spits out 5.0 as the minimum!

Before explaining what happened, I'd point out that Ian saying he'd elect to self-rate at 4.5 instead of 4.0 is the right thing to do.  What the self-rate questionnaire spits out is not the level for a player, but the minimum, and the USTA expects players to self-rate higher if they feel it is appropriate and Ian is following this guidance.  That said, he could always self-rate at 4.0 and play up at 4.5 which gives him a safety net of being able to play 4.0 if he plays 4.5 and finds out he is in over his head (not suggesting he would be, just offering an example).

Now, what happened?  While Ian didn't fall into the exact situation I explained above of an expired rating that wouldn't have happened with 2020 year-end ratings, he did have a prior 5.0C rating from 2013 when he was bumped up from 4.5 (that my ratings agree with BTW).  The USTA has a rule that when you have an expired rating and self-rate again, you can self-rate no lower than your most recent prior rating, which means Ian's 5.0 sets that as the minimum.

Does doing this make sense?  I think so, as while the questionnaire helps get players with no USTA record at a reasonable level, a real playing record is almost always better, even if the rating is several years old.  Basically, real match results, even from 8 years ago, are more indicative of a players ability than how they answer questions about their high school or collegiate experience from 15-20 years ago.

But why ask all the questions then if the answers were just going to be ignored?  The answer is that not everyone with an expired rating falls into Ian's situation.  It is possible that since the player last played USTA, their playing history has "improved" and the guidelines would call for a higher minimum rating than their last rating.  Take for example a high school senior that plays USTA League the Spring before graduating and gets a 4.0 year-end rating.  But then they go on to college and play and get experience that the guidelines require a minimum rating of 4.5.  If the questions weren't asked and answered, but instead it just said a minimum of 4.0 from the prior rating, the self-rate process couldn't spit out the 4.5 that is now appropriate.

Ian also pointed out that while the guidelines have age as an input, the questionnaire never asked for his age.  This is because he was logged in to his account which has his date of birth so it already knew his age to factor that in.

The guidelines also have a lot of granularity regarding varying levels of collegiate experience which makes things look complicated.  Ian asks if all of that is necessary.  I think it is as someone could play at a junior college and a 4.0 would be appropriate, but someone who is a top player at a Div I school could very well be a 5.5 or 6.0.  To get players slotted in at the right level, you need a lot of questions to narrow in on that.

Now, Ian last played in 2018 which was 8 years ago now, so shouldn't the process factor that in and consider while he was a 5.0 in 2013 he might not be now?  That is a good point and perhaps it does in some cases, but he is at an age where a decline due to age is not a given, so the system errs on the side of not letting the player get too low a level automatically.

So what is Ian to do if he really thinks being a 5.0 is too high a level?  There are provisions for appealing the minimum self-rating that is spit out, and a player can make their case and have a person/committee review it and perhaps grant the appeal.  And appeals are sometimes successful so it isn't just theoretical.

Hopefully this helps explain how things work.  Feel free to leave a comment with any questions.