Should a DQ at PNW 40 & Over Sectionals have changed who is going to Nationals?

The primary USTA League Adult Sectionals are complete in the PNW and someone brought to my attention a player that was disqualified at the 40 & Over Sectionals this past weekend.

The player in question was a 3.5S and played on the men's 3.5 team that made it to and won the final, and the player played in all four of the team's matches going 4-0 without dropping a set and giving up a total of 13 games across the four matches, the equivalent of about 6-2,6-1 each match.

Going in to Sectionals, the player was 12-0 including going 6-0 playing up at 4.0 and not dropping a set in any of those matches.  Interestingly he had dropped four sets earlier in the year playing 3.5 but managed to win all four match tie-breaks.

Now, most people know you don't get DQ'd based on your win/loss record, it matters who you play (and play with in doubles) and it is entirely possible to go undefeated and not get strikes if you happen to play weak opponents or have really close scores.  But on the surface, this player was well above level and the DQ very well may have been justified and perhaps was even overdue.  But that isn't what I'm writing about.

Instead, the topic is how PNW allows out of level players to play through the completion of Sectionals and only be DQ'd and promoted after the event, letting all results stand.  Since the scenario happened this weekend, I wanted to walk through the implications of it and how it affected the other teams and who qualified for the final and advanced to Nationals.

I've written about this before, one time when the rule in PNW changed for 2022, and then it came up again earlier this year when National went the other way and will administer DQ's during Nationals starting in 2027.

So, back to what happened at Sectionals.  The player very well could have had one, maybe even two strikes going in to the event, and almost certainly had at least two of his matches at Sectionals recorded as strikes, but perhaps all four is possible.  But let's go through some scenarios.

Conservatively, he got this third in the final at Sectionals and if strikes were checked during Sectionals, he would have been DQ'd and his match reversed, and because this was a 2-2 win for his team, this would have become a loss and instead of going to Nationals, the opponent would be going instead.  That is a pretty big shift.

But let's consider if he would have gotten his third during the round-robin play.  If it were in the last match, then all three of his wins would have been reversed, and the 2-2 tie would be a 3-1 loss, and the two 3-1 wins would have become 2-2 losses, and instead of going 3-0 the team would have gone 0-3 and a different team would have advanced to the final and had a chance to go to Nationals.

If the third strike would have been from the second round-robin match, then the first two would have been reversed, but the team could have played a different player in the third, so they could have possibly gone 1-2, but still another team would have gone to the final.

Had the third strike been from the first match, then there is a chance they go 2-1 and still make the final, but that would have been really hard considering they would have replaced him with a significantly lower rated player and would have had a 6-0,6-0 loss contributing to the standings tie-breakers.

So, was this fair to the other teams?  In virtually no scenario does his team advance to Nationals if strikes were administered during the event.  And now that he is DQ'd, his the team going to Nationals is effectively not the same team as they are weaker without him, and arguably the section is not sending the strongest team possible.

Now, one of the arguments for only administering the strikes/DQ after the event is that players have paid money to travel and take time off and you don't want to ruin the trip for them after just one match.  Well, what about all the other team's players who also traveled and took time off and were forced to play an out of level player, or have their team take a team loss because of playing an out of level player, and lose their opportunity to go to Nationals because of it?  Should the priority be to be fair to those 40-50 players instead of worrying about the one out of level player getting to keep playing?

It seems clear that National has had a change of heart and feels it is better and more fair to all the opponents to administer strikes during the event, and Nationals is almost certainly a bigger investment from a travel and time standpoint.  So if National feels that way, shouldn't Sections follow suit?

What does your section do regarding this rule in playoffs, and what is your view on it?  Should strikes be administered during championships with results reversed?  Or should it only happen after the event letting matches played stand?

PNW 40 & Over Sectionals are done - Who is going to Nationals?

It is late August, which means PNW Sectionals for the 18 & Over and 40 & Over divisions have been played, so it is time to take a look at who is going to Nationals.

The 18 & Over was played a few weeks ago, here is who made the final and advanced for the 40 & Over.

• 2.5 Women - NWW-BTA-Hsu and NWW-AYTC-Tibbetts each won their flights 3-0, then BTA-Hsu won the final 3-0.  Note this is not a Nationals event.
• 2.5 Men - NWW-ETC-Box won the flight going 4-0.  Note this is not a Nationals event.
• 3.0 Women - N OR-MAC-Nguyen and SWW-TLTC-Paul each won their flights 3-0 before MAC-Nguyen won the final 4-0.
• 3.0 Men - NWW-WSC-Shen and NWW-STC-Wood won their flights each 3-0, then WSC-Shen won the final 3-1.
• 3.5 Women - N OR-PTC-Hill and SWW-LRC-Hudson won their flights 3-0 and 2-1 respectively, then PTC-Hill won the final 3-1.
• 3.5 Men - N OR-CRRC-Johnson and SWW-JTC-Severns won their flights 3-0, then CRRC-Johnson won the final 2-2 coming down to a 2 game differential to break the tie.
• 4.0 Women - N OR-MPRC-Huynh and SWW-TLTC-Simonson won their flights 3-0, then TLTC-Simonson won the final 3-1.
• 4.0 Men - N OR-PTC-Greenberg and SWW-JTC-White won their flights 2-1 and 3-0, then JTC-White won the final 2-2 by eight games in the tie-breaker.
• 4.5 Women - NWW-EDG-Allen and NWW-NTC-Wilson won their flights 3-0, with NTC-Wilson winning the final 3-1.
• 4.5 Men - N OR-PTC-Borosky and N OR-CAC-McGarity won their flights 3-0, then CAC-McGarity won the final 3-1.

Just a couple of finals came down to 2-2 ties, but quite a few more in round-robin did.

As far as what area won the most, the tallies are:

• NOR (Portland) - 5
• NWW (Seattle) - 4
• SWW (Tacoma/Olympia) - 1

More balanced than 18 & Over was.

Congratulations to all the Sectional Champs!

PNW 18 & Over Sectionals are complete - Who is going to Nationals?

It is late August, which means PNW Sectionals for the 18 & Over and 40 & Over divisions have been played, so it is time to take a look at who is going to Nationals.

The 18 & Over was played a few weeks ago, here is who made the final and advanced.

• 2.5 Women - NWW-ETC-Hsu and NOR-IRV-Sebastian each went 3-0 in their flight and then NWW won the final 2-1.
• 2.5 Men - Two NWW teams, HBSQ-Reda and MI-Chang won their flights 3-0 and HBSQ-Reda won the final 3-0.  Note that 2.5 men is not a Nationals event so they are not headed there.
• 3.0 Women - NWW-RBW-Chau and NWW-AYTC-Tong each went 3-0, and in the final AYTC-Tong won 4-1.
• 3.0 Men - EW-PC-Bjella and NOR-THPRD-Kadam/Udyavara each won 3-0 with NOR winning the final 4-1.
• 3.5 Women - NWW-WSC-Hashimoto and NWW-ETC-Zhu won their flights 3-0, then ETC-Zhu won the final 3-2.
• 3.5 Men - NWW-WSC-Yue and NOR-SHC-Lumetta won their flights each 3-0, then WSC-Yue won the final 4-1.
• 4.0 Women - SWW-TLTC-Mettler and EW-IND-Rose each won their flights 3-0, with TLTC-Mettler winning the final 4-1.
• 4.0 Men - NWW-TUK-Newman and NWW-WSC-Low went 2-1 and 3-0 respectively, with TUK-Newman winning the final 4-1.
• 4.5 Women - NOR-VTC-Mikalatos and NOR-THPRD-Ly went 3-0 each, then VTC-Mikalatos won the final 3-2.
• 4.5 Men - EW-PFC-Griner and NWW-TCSP-Liu each went 3-0, with TCSP-Liu winning the final 5-0.
• 5.0 Women - NOR-PTC-Kowalewski won the single flight going 3-1 and beating out NWW-AYTC-Kohrs on the courts tie-breaker.
• 5.0 Men - NWW-MI-Condiotty won the single flight going 4-0.

It is interesting that only in two cases did a flight winner not go undefeated, and one of those the flight win was mostly wrapped up before the loss, and in the other the flight winner just needed one court in their last match.  Also, just three of the ten finals were won by one court.  So I'm sure there was some drama in individual matches, but in the standings and finals, not so much.

As far as what area won the most, the tallies are:

• NWW (Seattle) - 8
• NOR (Portland) - 3
• SWW (Tacoma/Olympia) - 1

That is pretty typical for 18 & Over that Seattle wins the most.

Congratulations to all the Sectional Champs!

World Tennis Number (WTN) algorithm changes coming

I saw a mention of an email sent out from World Tennis Number about algorithm changes, but I hadn't seen it, so I went and visited their site and in the news section is a story on World Tennis Number Algorithm Enhancements 2026.

Many of you probably don't follow your WTN, as for USTA League players it is largely meaningless other than it being a rating you can track.  But it doesn't directly relate to your NTRP rating or dynamic rating, nor is it used for anything related to leagues.  I'm a ratings geek so I do follow mine, and if you follow yours too I'd be interested in hearing from you or leaving a comment about your experience with it.

If you have followed along with WTN news, you will be aware that this isn't the first time there have been changes.  At a minimum there were changes in 2024 to try to have WTN ratings represent a player's ability more quickly, and widespread adjustments in 2023 to redistribute players along the 40:1 scale.  You can see all my WTN posts here.

So, this isn't the first change, what is changing now?  A quote from the article is the changes will "improve rating accuracy, reflect real match performance, and support player development at all levels of the game".  Here are some highlights from the news article above:

• Changes go into effect for the calculations on August 12th
• There will be a rolling 3-year rating window where older results gradually drop out of the calculations
• The algorithm will use game-level scores, not just who won the set
• Ratings may be "gently adjusted" based on age, time since last match, and "typical development patterns"

The biggest news to me is the move from only looking at who won a set to factoring in the score of the set.

Up to this point, if you won 7-6,7-6 the WTN algorithm would treat that the same as if you won 6-0,6-0.  In my opinion, there were pros and cons to this.

On one hand, winning sets, and the match, is what matters, how you do it doesn't really matter, so if someone had a track record of winning close matches, they should be rewarded for that.  The algorithm was also a little simpler and easier to understand (or reverse engineer?) and less prone to being gamed by someone managing scores.  If someone played enough and against stronger and weaker players and accumulated wins and losses, their rating would settle it and represent their level.

On the other hand, ignoring the score is ignoring valuable data.  Clearly, winning 6-0 is different than 7-6 and ignoring that seems foolhardy.  If someone plays a strong opponent and keeps it close, they don't get rewarded for that, and if that player happened to always play strong players and lose, their rating could perhaps inappropriately keep getting worse.  Using the score in a set would allow for rewarding a player for keeping it close.  And if someone didn't play a lot of matches, their rating could inappropriately go up or down based on very few matches with limited data, and using the game score would fill in some gaps.

Now, in the algorithm to date, winning sets in a given match was not treated equally, but how much it helped your rating depended on your rating and the rating of your opponent.  Win a set against a much weaker opponent and your rating would improve very little.  Win a set against a stronger opponent and that would raise your rating a lot.  So some of the cons were mitigated a bit and there would be some limit on what a player's rating could get to by only ever playing weaker players and winning.

So, is this change a good thing?  I think so, but it will depend on exactly how it is implemented.  I don't know of anyone trying to game their WTN, but using game scores opens the door to that.  But if that is a rare occurrence, WTN ratings may become a little more representative of a player's ability.

What do you think?

Pacific Northwest / Northwest Washington ESL playoffs this weekend - Follow along!

I live and play in the Seattle area and we have a few leagues run as early start leagues (ESLs) and those leagues have their local playoffs this weekend, the leagues being Adult 55 & Over and Mixed 18 & Over.

Something cool that our League Coordinator has done before and is doing this year to make it easier to follow along is to have a Google Sheet that will show results (that one for 55+) as they happen to make it easier for folks to follow along that aren't at the event, or even are at the event.

I've advocated for awhile for doing more to make these events easier to follow so it is great to see this being done.  Thanks Jill!

How do you follow playoff events in your area?  Do you just click refresh on TennisLink incessantly hoping scores get entered?  Is there another app/site/page used to provide updates?  Is social media used to push real time updates out?

2026 USTA League Regulations - Changes to appeal rules

The USTA has published the 2026 USTA League Regulations and while there are not a lot of changes, there is an important one for players that advance to Sectionals or Nationals.

For as along as I remember, it has been well known, and the regulations have documented, that players that play at Nationals are not eligible to appeal their year-end rating.  Here is the specific language from the 2025 USTA League Regulations.

2.07 CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYERS.

A championship player’s computer rating achieved as a result of play in the Adult 18 & Over and Adult 40 & Over National Championships may not be appealed down after the Championship Year it is received except as in Reg. 2.05D Medical Appeals and Reg. 2.05E Age Related Appeals of Players 60 or Over.

Well, this has changed for 2026 to also include players that play at Sectionals.  Here is the new language with the key change bolded.

2.07 CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYERS.

A championship player’s computer rating generated as a result of play in the Adult 18 & Over and Adult 40 & Over Sectional or National Championships may not be appealed down after the Championship Year it is received except as in Reg. 2.05D Medical Appeals and Reg. 2.05E Age Related Appeals of Players 60 or Over.

This will significantly increase the number of players that won't be eligible to try to do an auto-appeal down when their year-end rating is published.

The last few years there have been over 400 teams and nearly 5,000 players on rosters and over 3,000 players that have played at 18 & Over and 40 & Over Nationals.  In 2024 I have just over 3,300 players playing at Nationals.

If we expand this to include Sectionals too, the numbers go way up.  Each of the 17 Sectionals will typically have five to nine teams at Sectionals for every gender and level and that is reflected in there being well over 3,000 teams, over 32,000 players rostered, and around 22,000 players playing at Sectionals or Nationals.  Specifically in 2024 I have just over 21,500 players playing at Sectionals or Nationals.

So with this rule change, there will be about 6.5 times more players not eligible to appeal their ratings.  Based  on how many players got computer ratings at the end of 2024, about 9.1% of players getting new C ratings won't be eligible to appeal, up from 1.4% of players under the prior rule.

I don't know this is the case, but I'm guessing this rule change was put in place to address complaints that the same players always go to Sectionals, and they are enabled by being able to appeal down and stay the same level.  But how many players took advantage of the old rule and actually appealed down?

It appears that for the last few years, of those players that were on a Sectionals roster but not Nationals, a little under 700 were able to appeal.  Of those that played, it is under 500 that were able to appeal.  And in 2024 there were around 17.6K that played at Sectionals and not Nationals, so just 2.4% were actually able to appeal.

So on the surface, it seems like a significant rule change, but when you look at the numbers, in practice it affects a very small number and percentage.

All that said, I do like the rule and since it doesn't affect that many players, it isn't that significant a change.

What do you think?

Note: The initial writing of this blog had slightly inflated numbers for the players at Sectionals and has been corrected above.