Should computer rated player be able to be disqualified and promoted in USTA League play?

For those that play USTA League, it is pretty well known that new players, and those with expired ratings or a few other scenarios, are required to self-rate to determine the level they will play at when they join a league/team.  Since the self-rating isn't perfect, there is a system in place where a player's results are evaluated to determine if they are out of level, and if so, they can be disqualified from that level and promoted mid-season.  This is known as the three-strike DQ process.

It is also well known that players that have a current computer (C) rating are not subject to this three-strike DQ process, meaning they can play the entire year and improve and be out of level, even way out of level, during the year, and they are "golden" and can't be DQ'd or promoted.

See my FAQ question 16 for more discussion.

What can be interesting to look at is how players get their strikes.  Generally speaking it is when they win very easily over decent to good at-level players, but there are times when score lines that don't look out of whack can end up being strikes.

I was recently made aware of once such situation at NorCal Sectionals where a self-rated player lost a match in straight sets, and got their third strike!  On the surface that may not seem possible, but indeed it is, and in this case it was because the opponent they lost to was rated significantly higher than they were and so the loss was a "good" loss and rated very high.  And yes, my ratings agree with the three strikes and DQ.

So how is it fair for a self-rated player to be disqualified for being out of level if they are playing someone, at the same level, who is expected to and does beat them in straight sets?  How high does this opponent have to be rated?

For starters, the threshold for a player to get a strike isn't just the top of their level.  The USTA gives some leeway for players to improve and be above level before they begin accruing strikes.  The leeway given is greater at lower levels because normal improvement can happen faster at lower levels.  I think the threshold may be too high in the first place, but they are what they are.

For discussion purposes, lets say the threshold in question for this case was 0.2 higher than the top of the level and lets assume the level is 4.0, that puts the strike threshold at 4.20, meaning the self-rated player got their rating above that three times.  For them to have such a rating and be expected to lose in straight-sets to an opponent means that opponent's rating is well north of that, perhaps as high as 4.35-4.40.

This means we have a 4.0 match being played between someone rated around/over 4.2 vs someone around 4.4!  How is a "normal" 4.0 player supposed to compete?

I don't think anyone would be surprised to know that to advance and do well in playoffs, you need to have players rated near the top of the level, and even into the next level.  Players do improve, especially those that get into the competition and are trying to advance and put in hours of practice to get better, and there is something to be said for not penalizing someone that puts in this work.  But at what point is there too much improvement?

With self-rated players the USTA does set a threshold the player cannot improve past, but should C rated players have such a threshold too?

The situation I outline may be an outlier and you don't want to change the entire system for just a few outliers, but I also don't think implementing something to catch the outliers means the other 99% of players will be affected.  In fact, that 99% of players may be affected in a positive way if they don't have to face such out of level players.

Note, it is unfortunate but the problem is exacerbated at times by players willing to manage scores, throw matches, or other shenanigans to get bumped down or ensure they don't get bumped up, so they can be one of these "top of level" players.  A threshold for C rated players to be DQ'd would most likely be targeting these players as they genuinely should be at the higher level.  Might it catch the occasional legit player who just improved "too much"?  Sure, but regardless of how a player gets there, isn't it more fair to the 99% to promote the out of level player and not force at-level player to compete with them to advance?

I realize it is hard to determine where to draw the line, but I think having some threshold for C rated players is a worthy discussion.  It could perhaps be a bit higher than the self-rate strike threshold to give a little more leeway, but a case could be made it should be the same, or that if it is higher the self-rate strike threshold should be a bit lower to start.

What do you think?  Should Computer rated players get a "golden ticket"?  Or should there be some threshold they too can't exceed without being promoted?