One of the big issues is that the format inherently allows for there to be more than four 4-0 teams, but just four teams advance to the semis, so it is possible for a 4-0 team to be sent home. All teams should know this going in and take steps to give themselves the best chance at winning the standings tie-breaker between the 4-0 teams, but it would still be really tough if a team goes 4-0 and doesn't advance.
While the chances of it happening are usually very very small, it is always possible and in fact has happened at least twice. Earlier this year at the 55 & Over National Invitational, the 7.0 flight had five 4-0 teams and Eastern was tied with Southern and Midwest at 4-0 and 8-4 on courts, but lost more sets and missed out on the semis.
Then this weekend at 40 & Over 3.0 Nationals it happened again with Texas being 4-0 and 12-4 on courts, but PNW at 4-0 and 13-3 on courts beat them out for 4th.
And just a few weeks ago it very nearly happened and came down to the last match where Southern lost a 2-2 match where winning a match tie-break or a few more games would have resulted in five 4-0 teams.
You might say, it has only happened twice, what is the big deal? But tell that to that Eastern and Texas teams it happened to. And it has very nearly happened several other times and only upsets prevented it from happening. And it has happened numerous times at Sectionals events (also here and here), although this is largely on the section for implementing the format poorly.
What is the solution? There are several that could be considered.
One would be to go back to four flights where just the flight winners advance. By definition, you can only have one undefeated team in a full round-robin flight, but doing this would lose all the benefits of the un-flighted round-robin format, namely not having flights with different numbers of teams, all teams getting an equal number of matches (four), and a team that loses early still having a real chance to advance. I don't think I'd recommend doing this.
Two would be to introduce quarterfinals so you could take the top-8 teams in the standings. There is no way you can have nine 4-0 teams with the format, so this would guarantee an undefeated team gets to advance. It would also address some of the inequities with the standings tie-breakers that are used, as they really don't work well when the teams being compared may not have played any common opponents can have significantly different strengths of schedule.
The challenge with this is it is adding a match to the schedule meaning teams would have to play three matches on one of the days, or the final is played on a 4th day (Monday) of the event. Now, I'm guessing teams would prefer to play an extra match or stay an extra day to avoid the scenario of an undefeated team being sent home. And many teams may stay through Monday and not rush out on Sunday anyway.
Three would be a variation of quarter finals where instead of taking a full 8 teams, there is a provision to have a play-in game between the 4th and 5th 4-0 teams if necessary to determine the 4th seed to go to the semis. This would only be done if required, so would only add a match on the off chance this occurs, and while it would put these teams at a disadvantage having to play an extra match, I think it is still more equitable than sending a 4-0 team home. Teams would know in advance they don't want to be in the 4th/5th game and try to take steps to avoid it.
A fourth option would be to redo the schedule after three matches in order to ensure undefeated teams play each other so it is decided on the court. For example, in the case that happened this weekend, with five 3-0 teams and none of them playing each other, the schedule gets modified so at least the 4th and 5th teams in the standings play each other so you are guaranteed no more than four 4-0 teams. Logistically this might be hard to do, but it would address the issue without adding days or matches. One could also debate the fairness of only doing this for the 4th/5th teams and letting the other 4-0 teams play potentially weaker opponents so perhaps the redoing of the schedule need to include all the teams.
A fifth option would be to construct the schedule in a way to minimize the chance of it happening. Today, the schedule is seemingly random which is great in that there is no bias, but given the large variation in team strength at Nationals it means some teams can end up with easy schedules and others with hard schedules which is not terribly fair when the teams are ultimately compared in standings using wins, courts, sets, games. And in fact, we can see that this weekend where the five 4-0 teams happened, my simulation said there was a very good chance of it happening for this very reason, five strong teams got some of the easiest schedules, which greatly increased the chances of it happening.
If instead of a random schedule the teams were seeded or a strength identified like my simulations do, and then the round-robin schedule done in a way to have as equal schedule strength as possible, the chances of more than four 4-0 teams would go way down. There would still be a chance of course, but if this was done then perhaps just the third play-in option could be used in the rare case it happens.
Sixth and last, like the fifth option this doesn't completely solve it but would reduce the chances of it happening, and that is to implement some of my suggestions to get rid of wildly out of level teams at Nationals. As noted in the fifth option, the chances of more than four 4-0 teams is high because some teams are head and shoulders better than others, and if they get favorable schedules it is likely they all win. Well, why are some teams head and shoulders better? It is a combination of things that my suggestions would address by lowering strike thresholds, making more players subject to strikes, preventing tanking, and more. If the teams are simply more similar, it becomes less likely a lot of teams go 4-0.
What would I do? I personally think several of my suggestions in the sixth option need to be done regardless and that would help. That alone may help make fairer schedules, but I think my fifth option needs to be done too to make the schedules more even. After that, I'd vote for having quarterfinals, but would also support doing the play-in game.
What do you think? What is the solution to this problem? Or do you think it isn't a problem?
Excellent suggestions, even if I don't like most of them actually being used. I don't like having more than 4 undefeated teams, so I'd like the USTA to try to at least limit this from happening.
ReplyDeleteHaving 4 team matches compared to 3 is more ideal, so option 1 isn't ideal though it'd be the easiest solution to eliminate more than 4 undefeated teams. Option 2 extends to another day-don't think that's very feasible. But having 8 teams advance seems kinda cool. I like option 3 the best, and only implemented if necessary. Option 4 seems very unfair and I don't like the schedule changing mid event. Option 5 is great but how? While your simulations are usually very spot on, they're not official. Option 6 is great too, but that's more about the systemic problem of USTA that needs to change throughout the year, not really with the actual team that wins sectionals, unless it's with certain players striking out after winning sectionals/before nationals.
How about a variation on #2, where the top 6 make it to Sunday, the top 2 get first round byes and 3v6 and 4v5 the first round. Gives some incentive to be 1 and 2, while there’s little chance to have more than 6 undefeated teams.
DeleteI like the idea of 6, but agree with Michael that having it always part of the format means 3 matches in a day or a final on Monday.
DeleteAs far as the play-in only when necessary, you could perhaps squeeze it in Saturday night allowing for the Sunday schedule to remain the same.
What about using option 4 but rescheduling after the first day? You could have all of the 2-0 teams playing each other to ensure fewer undefeated teams. Chess tournaments use a Swiss format that matches players after each round with hundreds of participants.
ReplyDeleteInteresting idea, but that's still changing things mid tourney, which I don't think should be done if unnecessary. In your example, if all the 2-0 teams play each in the 3rd round on Saturday at nationals, this would likely benefit all the 1-loss teams more which isn't fair to the 2-0 undefeated teams. This format with random pool play opponents will never be the absolutely fair, but if truly random it's probably the fairest format possible. Changing the schedule mid tourney isn't random and less fair overall.
DeleteThe schedule change would likely have to include the best 1-1 teams in the "winners" group so they'd have a chance. But I agree it is logistically hard.
DeleteAnd I think you can do random but have more equal schedules. I have a tool that will generate that based on my ratings right now and am sure it would have more competitive play/results.
True, but not necessarily. Just seems a bit more unfair to me if schedules are changed mid tourney. USTA could obviously improve a lot of things, and most of these things are easy fixes.
Delete2 thoughts.....1st would be what about restructuring the Sections?
ReplyDeleteIt's been pointed out numerous times before how requiring more matches for self-rated players presents a concern as some sections have so few matches thru their local/state/sectionals – so kill 2 birds with 1 stone here and reduce the total sections count.
I come from the Southern section and our post-season travels are across 9 states…..less than ideal but making a bigger section out of one or 2 that today is geographically very small doesn’t seem like a big challenge. We to deal with Sectionals anywhere in our 9 states, even locations that don’t have an airport……but hey the postseason especially at Sectionals and beyond is a small subset of the whole USTA Recreational Adult League program and I'm curious if restructuring the Sections has been considered in the past…
So what are the possibilities to make an easy 16 Sections to go back to 4 flights of now 4 teams each? Not my favorite move as this option reverts to the 3-match schedule for everyone at Nationals. But also, 6 matches in a weekend IS very tough, especially when singles is involved. We're adults here, no longer in juniors……
OR, after 3 matches, take all the teams in contention of making the final 4 and those teams all face off (in some fashion TBD) to still determine who the top 4 teams are, but don’t remove the 4th match for all the teams not in contention so that way they still get their 4 matches played. This option could prevent the tanking done by teams that get into a clinch position, and also could be more exciting as you create a 1-match play-in draw basically of the 8 or 10 or 12 teams that are mathematically in contention. To me though, don't rank the teams to be e.g. 1-v-10, 2-v-9, etc...still keep it randomized so no 1 team is feeling like just because they played tougher teams to start and are the lowest to be "seed" with a 2-1 record now playing the #1 3-0 team....it's still random and the 2-1 team is still fighting for a playoff spot. I know this option might look like a full "play-in round" and it could have more than 8 teams who are mathematically still in contention, and so then you could possibly have a team win in this "play-in round" who finishes 5th or lower and now they feel left out.
DeleteOk fine, cut the sections down to well below 15! Lol. Makes me wonder what is the maximum number you could have in a random unflighted draw so as to never have more than 4 left with a 4-0 record?
Just throwing ideas out there at this point! Great feedback though from everyone here.
Combining 2 sections into 1 doesn't solve the 'not enough matches for self-rated players' problem. This just creates more travel, which limiting travel should be a priority. The regular seasons wouldn't change though, just postseason some.
DeleteIt seems like the sections are very spread out already. If anything, I'd increase more sections. The Southern section could easily be 3-4 sections itself. Not that every section would come to nationals for every division, but if there's 20 sections, that's 4 flights of 5 teams. If less than 20 teams, then do random pool play like we've seen this past few years.
While avoiding more than 4 undefeated teams is ideal, it's only happened 2x in 4 years or so. To me, this isn't enough of a problem that really needs substantially fixed. Maybe a little tweaking at most. I don't know how many nationals are being played, probably around 50-55 every year if we count tri-level, 55 mixed, 65 adult. While unfortunate, this scenario is only happening around 1% of the time.
Good point! Also the outlandish self-rate problems is probably a lower percentage of the total USTA league players when consider all supposed 300,000+ they claim...yet we are always talking about that issue of fair play.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for more sections and back to flights. But the problem of having more than 4 teams at 4-0 after the unflighted draw is a higher possibility as more teams are in the pool. We use the unflighted play for State and Sectionals but also that's for 8-teams and it works quite well.
What if Nationals made 2 flights in this unflighted format, and then take the top 2 teams of each "flight"? Or all undefeated teams in the 2 flights get automatic bids to the playoffs? This would allow for a better determination of the top 2 teams among the 8 in the flight (or potential 0 if you keep 17 sections to have separate flights of 8 & 9)
Self-rates get attention because of their role on teams at Nationals (and Sectionals).
DeleteYes, more sections would require quarterfinals or something similar.
Two flights is an interesting idea, I'll have to look at the chances of three undefeated in a flight in that scenario.