What might the results from 2021 USTA League Nationals mean for year-end bumps? And why did some sections do so well?

I took a look at how each section did at Nationals, both at a high level and by division, and several sections did very well, Southern, SoCal, and Florida topped the list, while others struggled to make the semis more than a couple of times.  One logical question is why it can be so lopsided, and another is what it might mean for year-end ratings?

On the first question, I think there are several contributing factors.

One is that some sections just have more densely populated areas, so more players to pull from, so it isn't necessarily that a top 4.0 in section A is better than a top 4.0 in section B, rather section A just has more top 4.0s to form teams from and so they are a deeper team.

Another is that the road to Nationals for some sections is more grueling than others, and the team that survives and advances is more battle tested and prepared for Nationals and able to pull out the close matches.  Southern teams for example generally have to go through local playoffs, State playoffs where it is multiple flights leading to semis and a final, and then Sectionals where it is against multiple flights leading to semis and a final.  Many other sections may only have two rounds of playoffs, and a given round may involve just round-robin, or two small flights and a final.  Less matches in pressure situations may not prepare a team for Nationals as well.

It is also possible that despite the USTA's best intentions, their year-end benchmarking doesn't perfectly level the playing field across the sections.  For example, at 2019 year-end, Southern had a large number of players bumped up, but then in something of a reversal, suddenly a lot of players were able to appeal down.  It may be that the mass bump up was justified and would have leveled the playing field, but allowing the appeals tilted things in Southern's direction again.

But another big factor this year is that this is a 2-year rating period and there were no bumps in 2020.  This means there are players that had two years to improve and be clearly out of level now, but still be eligible to play at their 2019 year-end level at Nationals.  While this could happen in any section, it is more likely to happen in sections where more tennis could be played year-round, for example where COVID restrictions didn't close indoor courts for periods, and guess what, Southern, SoCal, and Florida certainly fit this definition.

What do you think?  Why did some sections do significantly better than others this year?

On to the next question of what all this means for 2021 year-end ratings.

I already wrote about Intermountain's success in the 18 & Over division, particularly for the women, and that that might mean more bump ups in the section than normal.  For the same reason, Southern, SoCal, and Florida very well could expect to see more bump ups than normal.

We know the USTA, whether with an override or as part of the normal year-end calculations, tends to have higher bump rates for sections that do well at Nationals, and in some years some sections are hit hard in what appears to be attempt to level the playing field.

What is unknown is if the USTA will feel compelled to make any adjustments this year with the 2-year rating period, or exactly how the 2-year rating period will affect things, or if things will just change organically.

My League Coordinator has already notified captains in our league starting in January that are now forming teams that they may expect more players to be bumped up than normal due to the 2-year rating period.  If that is true as a baseline, and sections that did well at Nationals get an even higher rate, we may see some "interesting" bump rates in two weeks when ratings are published.

What have you heard, or what do you think will happen?