Appeal Rules for USTA NTRP Ratings

With 2018 year-end ratings now published, players that aren't happy with where they ended up may take the steps to appeal their rating on TennisLink in the hopes of having it granted.  Some may appeal up so they can play on a team with friends, others may appeal down if they don't think they can compete at the higher level or flights aren't offered in their area at the higher level.

The USTA League regulations list a number of things regarding appeals, but some of the criteria used for appeals is not public.  I wrote a blog five years ago when some of the criteria was included in a communication from the USTA, but I believe the USTA can and does make changes to the criteria, possibly as often as each year, and those rules I wrote about are now dated and no longer valid.  So if you come across that blog, don't bank on it being accurate anymore.

What we do know is what is in the regulations and here is a summary of that.  Note that for the purposes of this article, I'm only addressing the standard auto-appeals.  Manual appeals for medical or other reasons are an entirely separate thing.

First, there are some special rules for players age 60 and over.  Here is the relevant language from the regulations.

2.05E Promotion of Players 60 or Over and 65 or Over 

2.05E(1) Any player who is 60 years of age or older prior to, or during, the calendar year in which such player plays his or her first local league match and has achieved the same rating level or lower for his or her three most recent year-end ratings, without benefit of appeal of the player’s year-end rating, will automatically be granted an appeal (A rating) if promoted, subject to 2.05E(3) below. NTRP Dynamic Disqualification procedures as outlined in 2.04B(3) apply. 

2.05E(2) All players age 65 or over, if promoted, will automatically be granted an appeal (A rating) of their current rating back to their previous valid year-end rating, subject to 2.05E(3) below. NTRP Dynamic Disqualification procedures as outlined in 2.04B(3) apply. 

2.05E(3) Any player who is clearly above level under the applicable Computer Methodology procedures will be denied an appeal of his or her year-end rating under 2.05E(1) and 2.05E(2).

This basically means players over 60 that have had the same C rating for their past three ratings will be automatically granted an appeal down if they are bumped up.

Players over 65 will always be granted an appeal down, except if their rating is too far into the range for the next level.  This latter part (2.05E(3) is new for 2019 and just closes a loophole where a player that really can play at the next level (their rating is above the "clearly above level") could appeal down, now they can't.

Ok, what about the rest of us?  That is covered by a pretty generic item in the regulations.

2.05C Appeal of Year-End Ratings. Year-end NTRP valid computer rating levels may be appealed or denied through TennisLink except for 2.05D Medical Appeals.

That doesn't offer a whole lot, it just says an appeal can be done using TennisLink.

As far as eligibility to appeal, there is this:

2.07 CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYERS. 

A championship player’s computer rating achieved as a result of play in National Championships may not be appealed down following the Championship Year it is received except as in Reg. 2.05D Medical Appeals and Reg. 2.05E Promotion of Players 60 or Over and 65 or Over.

This is just saying that players that go to Nationals are not eligible to appeal down at year-end of the year they go to Nationals, except for those age 60 or over (see above).

What else do we know about eligibility to appeal?  Not much.  In the past there have been documents that mention being within 0.05 of a threshold, or graduated allowances based on the number of matches played, but I have not seen any specifics of what the current criteria are.

If you go online to appeal and it is not granted, you will see a message something like this:

Automated Appeal Decision

Automated appeal requested up for <player name> is denied - Benchmark or out of appeal range.

That simply tells you you weren't eligible or are out of range.  Don't get confused by the "benchmark" terminology, I think that is just left over from when players did get "B" ratings for going to playoffs, but that rating designation is no longer used so you should just interpret it to tell you your appeal is denied with no other special qualifiers.

Note that in all cases, a player that has an appeal granted is subject to 3-strike DQ.  This is more or less the same as a self-rated player in that if your rating gets above the strike threshold three times, you are DQ'd and promoted to the next level immediately.

Should I learn more, I'll add to this blog entry, but I'm also interested in hearing from players that appeal on whether or not the appeal is granted, so don't hesitate to leave a comment or contact me.

How often do players that appeal their rating down get disqualified? Interesting Tennis League Stats

One of the challenges of USTA League is that players that are bumped up may feel they can't compete at the higher level and get frustrated with the game, or in some areas getting bumped up to a certain level, say 4.5 or 5.0, may limit or even kill one's ability to play league as there are no teams in an area at that level.

Similarly, players who aren't bumped up may feel their game has declined, or the situation in their area has had a reduction of players at their level, and they would like to appeal down to a lower level.

The "solution" the USTA has for these players is the option to appeal their rating.  And there are two ways to appeal, the auto-appeal or a manual/medical appeal.  And if you self-rate, as a new player or due to an expired rating, you can appeal as well.

For auto-appeals, after year-end ratings are published, there is a link on TennisLink to appeal your rating, and if your year-end rating meets various criteria, your request may be granted automatically right then and there.  The criteria can vary a bit year to year as the USTA can and does change it periodically, but it is basically that you didn't go to Nationals the prior year and your rating is close enough to the threshold.

If your auto-appeal does not work, you can file a manual appeal and it will be reviewed by an area/district/section committee tasked with reviewing appeals.  These are generally limited to medical appeals where a medical condition is permanent and affects some aspects of a player's game.  From what I've been told, you are not likely to get a medical appeal granted for a temporary medical condition that you are expected to recover from.

Now, before you go click the appeal button or file a manual appeal, beware that if your appeal is granted, you do become subject to strikes and 3-strike disqualification/promotion similar to that for self-rated players.

A natural question then is how often to players that appeal down get a 3-strike DQ?

Looking at data I have since 2014, it does not appear to be very often at all.  I only see 141 players that had an 'A' rating that subsequently were disqualified.  My data may not be complete or perfect, but I doubt there are many more than that and even considering we had a pandemic 2020, that is only about 25 per year.  Given there are around 5K-7K appeals each year, this is not a very high rate.

Why might this be?

I believe the reason is that players that appeal have an established rating that is lower than the appeal threshold, just over the threshold for their appealed to level, and the strike threshold is higher than that.  So if a player simply goes back to playing at their prior ability, they will generally remain below the strike threshold.

For example, while the USTA doesn't publish what all these thresholds are, lets assume a 3.5 is bumped up to 4.0 (their year-end rating is 3.51 or higher) but is just a few hundredths over (say 3.55) and this is within the appeal threshold and they can appeal down to 3.5.  Let's also assume the strike threshold is 3.7.  If this player simply goes back to playing at their 3.55 ability and their rating stays around that point, they will remain short of the strike threshold.

So, we can surmise that the majority of legitimate appeals probably don't result in a DQ.  A player simply plays similar to the prior year and they won't get strikes.  It is those that perhaps aren't justified that end up getting strikes and getting DQ'd.

One can probably debate whether giving players the option of appealing is really necessary.  While it can be used for the category of players I described above that are arguably legit, it can also be used by players that can compete at the higher level and are simply looking for an unfair advantage of being at the lower level.  Worse, players might have lost intentionally to manage their rating down to be able to appeal.  It is likely these that are DQ'd as going back to their real ability is higher than the strike threshold.

What do you think?

Are appeal players wildly out of level in your area?  Or are they basically the same as the strongest players at a given level?

Should the auto-appeal option remain?  Or is it ripe for abuse and all appeals should be reviewed or at least the criteria beefed up to weed out the non-legit uses?

Leave a comment and let me know.

With no USTA League 2020 year-end ratings, can you still appeal? Will you appeal? Let me know!

2020 has been a strange year in many ways, and USTA League tennis has not been immune from its share of strangeness.  Leagues suspended, Nationals canceled, and no 2020 year-end ratings are a few of the highlights, or should I say lowlights.

On that last point, we would normally have had year-end ratings published in the last few days and I'd be writing several blog articles a day with observations and analysis (like this or this), and players would be reacting to who was/wasn't bumped up or down, and scrambling to figure out the rosters for upcoming league play.

Some players unhappy with their year-end rating would also be appealing their rating as we speak.  These are players who were bumped up or down and didn't think should have been, or weren't and thought they should have been.

There are standard rules for auto-appeals and players can click a button on TennisLink and get that decision immediately, but does that still apply now?

As I understand it, the button still works, but the short answer is no you won't have an appeal granted if it wasn't when your rating was published, ... well ..., for the most part.

When you click the appeal button, it is appealing your most recent year-end rating to the hundredth, and with no new year-end ratings being published, that is unchanged so the response to appealing should be the same no matter how many times or when you click the button.  Except ...

My experience is that the USTA periodically changes the appeal rules or thresholds, and when they do that, the new rules go into TennisLink and are used when the appeal button is pressed, even if the rating being appealed was already denied under the old rules.

For example, there is a 2021 regulation change for players 70+ that says an appeal down will be automatically granted, subject to standard DQ rules for appealed players.  I've been told of a player who had appealed when 2019 ratings came out and was denied, but is 70+ and appealed again in the past week or so and had it granted, so this appears to be a case of new appeal rules being applied resulting in a granted appeal where it wasn't granted in the past.

Now, it is possible the USTA modified appeal rules/thresholds that are not public and published in the regulations, so if you want to appeal your rating and were denied in the past, now is probably the time to try again as it might work, but there is no guarantee, and if it doesn't work I doubt the answer will change until 2021 ratings are published (fingers crossed!) a year from now.

If you do click the appeal button, leave a comment or send me an e-mail with the result, particularly if it is granted.  Gathering this data helps me figure out what appeal rules are being applied.

So, what if your auto-appeal doesn't work?  Are you out of options?

For (perhaps) this year only, the answer is no, there is another option.  The USTA's COVID-19 FAQ has a Q/A regarding players who feel they are no longer playing at their published rating and a new option for a manual appeal.  Give what I wrote about it a few weeks ago a read for all the details.

So does this new manual appeal work?  I've heard of a few handful of players that have tried, and so far, all but one have been turned back by the section level appeal, and just one has been forwarded to National for review.  So it appears the criteria to be considered are pretty stringent, and in all likelihood very few players meet it and would have their appeal granted.

But again, if you contact your section to request this manual appeal, please let me know and the result either way.

USTA establishes new manual appeal criteria for 2020 year-end in lieu of publishing year-end ratings

The coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on everyone's life, including tennis players, in various ways.  For those that play USTA League, play was suspended and ultimately seasons canceled, Nationals were canceled, the decision was made to not publish year-end ratings, and even where play resumed, it has been suspended again in some areas.

On the subject of year-end ratings, from surveys I've done, most people wanted some form of year-end ratings to be published, but the USTA elected not to.  I wrote about the pros/cons of this, in my opinion there were a lot more cons, and offered suggestions on what should have been or could be done.  Others have written letters and contacted the USTA with their own suggestions.

Where this was in response to anything I or other wrote, I don't know, but somewhere along the way, the USTA's coronavirus FAQ was updated to reflect some modified appeal rules.  Specifically, this now appears:

Q: I have been playing matches during 2020 and believe that my match results reflect a different level of play.  Can I request a review of my rating based on my play history from 2020 play? 

A: Yes, players that have had at least 3 matches during 2020 and have generated at least 3 dynamic ratings may contact their Section to request a review.  The Section will review player details and send eligible players to National for review and processing.  It is important to note that players who request an appeal of their rating will receive an A rating type and will therefore be subject to Dynamic Disqualification or Promotion.  The eligibility guidelines for Appeals are proprietary, objective, and will be applied to all players submitting such Appeal requests.

This is nowhere close to actually publishing ratings and addressing all the issues that come with not doing so, but is an olive branch to those players that feel they are playing significantly above/below their level and should be at a higher/lower level for 2021 leagues.  Let's parse apart what exactly was said.

First, players must have played at least 3 matches and generated at least 3 dynamic ratings.  This is more or less what is normally required to get a new year-end rating, so makes sense that this be part of the criteria.

Second, this is not an auto-appeal like you can normally do after year-end ratings are published, but instead a player must contact their section to request a manual review.  See below for why (perhaps) they didn't make this the auto-appeal button on TennisLink.

Third, if a player is eligible after review by the section, it will be sent to National for review.  I think this is important, this is not something a section decides but rather they just determine eligibility and send to National.  Although, by determining eligibility, they can in effect not-grant it if they choose not to forward to National.

Fourth, players whose appeal is granted will be marked as an 'A' and thus subject to 3-strike DQs.  This makes perfect sense.

Fifth, and what I bolded above, eligibility guidelines are proprietary and objective and will be applied to all players.  This makes sense, but what does it really mean?  The proprietary part means they aren't telling us :). But objective and applied to all seems clear but is it?

Note, I believe players could always request a manual appeal and make their case so being able to do so is not new, but having it granted typically required extenuating circumstances or permanent medical issues.

Now, it appears there are specific and objective criteria that will be applied to all players.  If it is specific and objective and applied to all players, I don't know why they couldn't just make the auto-appeal button on TennisLink do it, perhaps it was just to reduce the number of people that do it as it is more work to find out who to contact and do it.  They very well may still have an influx of requests and with reduced staff wish it was an automated system.

However, note the word "guidelines".  That is somewhat at odds with "objective" and "applied to all players" as it sounds like they are just guidelines and the folks at a section can still review and determine which to send to National.  The reason for this is perhaps to weed out edge cases or situations where players have tanked matches and the section has more knowledge about this to know if the appeal should be reviewed by National.

Note, I have no issue with there being a manual review if it is to weed out sandbaggers who shouldn't have an appeal down granted.  I just hope sections and National are prepared for the volume of appeal requests they are going to receive.

Note also, players don't just appeal down, some do appeal up as they have improved and feel the system hasn't kept up and they want the challenge of playing at the higher level.  These players can always play up, but some like the validation of the rating by their name (even with the 'A').

My view is that, for 2020 at least, this is a good thing.  Players that are way out of level, too high or low, are not good for league play and in the absence of just publishing ratings to get the majority of players to the right level, this at least provides a way to get a subset addressed.  Without knowing the criteria, hard to say how well it will work though.

What do you think?  Are these what appear to be new, and perhaps only, for 2020 appeal rules appropriate and fair?  Are you likely to submit an appeal and try it out?

If you do submit an appeal, I'd love to hear from you and what the process is like and what response you get.  As always, I'll share what I learn (anonymously) and also write more as I hear more.

Need a ringer for your USTA League team? Find a sandbagging Senior!

USTA League team captains that are looking to make a run at/in playoffs will typically recruit players that are considered strong for their level.  One candidate group of players are those that were able to appeal down as they in theory were rated just into the range of the next higher level, but met the criteria to be able to appeal down.

There is actually a special class of these appeals that I hadn't thought about in this context before, the players that are able to take advantage of the Senior appeal rules.  As you'll see below, these players should really be in high demand.

For those that aren't aware, players age 60 and over that get bumped up are able to automatically appeal back down if they were at their former level for 3 consecutive years without the benefit of an appeal.  Players that are 65 and over won't even be bumped up in this situation.

Some seniors think these rules are discriminatory as it doesn't allow them to be recognized for improving their games, particularly those 65 and over.  They have a point, but the USTA rule is what it is.

The reason I bring this up is that when working on a ratings list today I came across a player that had played 30 matches as a 4.0 in 18 & over, 40 & over, and 55 & over leagues and my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings had him at 4.40 to end the year.  How on earth could someone with a rating that high that played 30 matches appeal down?  The appeal rules are clear, playing 30 matches would make a player ineligible for appeal, let alone my estimated rating having the player a lot closer to being a 5.0 than a 4.0.

After a few seconds, I had an "aha" moment and determined that the player must be over 60 and thus could take advantage of the 60 & over appeal down rule.  Sure enough, they'd had a 4.0C rating for the past several years without using an appeal, and they played in a 60 & over league a few years ago, so it all made sense.

For what its worth, this player clearly seems to be more than able to play at the 4.5 level.  While they did only play 4.0 in 2014, they went 26-4 including play in 18 & over and 40 & over leagues including 5-0 in 55 & over playoffs and finishing the year winning 11 straight and giving up only one set in that span and generating two match ratings into the range for a 5.0.  Here is a synopsis of their record and ratings chart:

Match Record: 26-4
Sets Won-Lost: 54-9
Games Won-Lost: 349-179
Best Match Result: 4.61 on 4/12/14
Worst Match Result: 3.65 on 2/23/14
Highest Estimated Dynamic Rating: 4.41 on 4/12/14
Lowest Estimated Dynamic Rating: 3.89 on 3/1/14

Does this look like a player that should remain a 4.0?

I'm sure this is an exception and most Seniors that are able to use this rule to appeal down are not a full 0.4 into the next higher NTRP level, but this one does seem like a case of the rule unfairly allowing an appeal down where the player could more than hold their own at the next higher level.

For what its worth, in 2015 so far, this player is 12-1 playing 4.0, so cleaning up again.  So they'll be bumped up at year-end and not be able to appeal down again right?  Well, they might be 65 next year and so won't even be bumped up!

So if you are looking for that ringer for your team, don't forget to look for a 60 year old that was bumped up and appealed down.  They may really be a solid level higher player and carry your team!

Bump downs for Seniors in USTA League Tennis

A fairly common question I get from folks, particularly Seniors, is why they haven't been bumped down and if they are close enough to appeal.  I actually just did an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report for someone this weekend that helped them decide to appeal and they were successful which pleased them greatly.

Why do people ask this and why is it important?

Players that have a bad year or know they have declining skills may play at a given level and not do well, even to the point of not having competitive matches.  It is natural for them to want to be bumped down simply to make their experience, and frankly the experience for those they play with and against, more enjoyable.  While this can happen with any age group, it is perhaps a little more common with Seniors as they begin to slow down a bit and can't play at quite the level they used to.

The problem is that because the NTRP algorithm can lag your current results a bit due to how the averaging is done, players that only play a handful of matches in a given year may not have their rating drop far enough to get the bump down.

For example, say a player has been a good 4.0 for many years and has a rating around 3.8.  Say they happen to not be able to play too much the next year and between the lack of play and age catching up with them, they get match ratings of 3.4, 3.5, and 3.3.  Taken by themselves, they look like a good 3.5 player.  But because they were carrying the 3.8 in to the year, with only three results, their rating doesn't fall below 3.5 and they don't get bumped down.

So players like the gentleman I did a report for are interested in why they weren't bumped down and how close they are to the threshold and if they can appeal.  With the new appeal rules, it is easier for players in this situation to appeal as by playing only three matches, the allowance for an auto-appeal is a full 0.1.

Now, these appeal rules aren't just for Seniors.  As described in my NTRP FAQ, the USTA allows for appeals for players that haven't played too many matches as they seem to understand that just a few matches may not result in the most accurate rating.  So any player can appeal and if they meet the criteria, it should be granted.  Can these appeal rules be used to someone's advantage trying to get bumped down to stack a team?  Sure, but in most cases the players are legitimately getting to the right level and/or the matches are still competitive, which is the whole goal of the NTRP system.

If you didn't get bumped down and are interested how close you might be an if an appeal might be successful, let me know.

Analyzing 2022 USTA NTRP year-end ratings - How often do appeals stick? How many are inappropriate?

I just wrote about 2022 year-end ratings and how many players have already appealed their rating, but a natural follow up question is how many of these appeals are really appropriate?

Allowing appeals is seemingly done for a few reasons:

• Players get bumped up but want to continue to play their their old team and friends
• Players get bumped up and there is no flight at the higher level and appealing down allows them to play
• Players are improving but just missed a bump up and want the validation of the higher rating by their name
• A team at the higher level needs players but roster limits require a minimum number of at-level players so if someone appeals up, they help meet that minimum number

One can debate which of the above, or other reasons there might be, are legitimate reasons to appeal, but one could also make the case that if someone appeals and then goes back to their old rating after a year, perhaps that appeal wasn't appropriate or justified.

Whether you agree with the characterization of this scenario indicating an inappropriate or unjustified appeal, it is a statistic we can look at so I went above doing so.  What I'll be doing is looking at players that appealed in year X but in year X+1 went back to their old level.

I will note that my data is not necessarily 100% perfect, but I think it is good enough for us to get a good idea of what happens with players that appeal.

First, looking at players that appealed their year-end level up:

• 2021 - 1,948 appeals up with 645, or 33%, bumped back down at 2022 year-end
• 2019 - 2,443 / 729 / 30%
• 2018 - 2,018 / 630 / 31%
• 2017 - 1,765 / 552 / 31%
• 2016 - 1,866 / 574 / 31%

This shows a pretty clear trend of around a third of appeal ups being "inappropriate".

What about appeal downs?  Here that is:

• 2021 - 3,307 appeals down with 1,060, or 32%, bumped back up at 2022 year-end
• 2019 - 4,706 / 1,544 / 33%
• 2018 - 3,123 / 1,400 / 45%
• 2017 - 2,151 / 834 / 39%
• 2016 - 2,122 / 834 / 39%

Here we see a higher percentage, but not quite as consistent year to year, of appeal downs being "inappropriate".

What do you think?  Do these stats tell us anything about whether the appeal system is working as intended?  Is it a concern that 30-40% of appeal players go back to their pre-appeal level?

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.

Analyzing 2022 USTA NTRP year-end ratings - Who appeals and in what direction?

Next up in our analysis of 2022 USTA NTRP year-end ratings, we take a look at appeals.

We aren't even a week post ratings release, and not everyone that is going to try to appeal has done so so these stats could change, but many that want to appeal will do it right away so I think it is still worthwhile to take a look now.

First, my analysis shows that 2,633 player have successfully appealed, 1,476 of them down and 1,157 up.  For comparison, for 2021, 4,107 appealed down and 2,335 appealed up.

Where it gets more interesting is when splitting it out by gender.  Of the 1,476 appeals down, 632 of them were women and 844 were men.  That is a similar ratio to 2021, perhaps a bit more heavy towards men.  But for appeals up, it switches and women do it more with 953 women and just 204 men.  Again, this is a similar ratio to 2021.

So more women appeal up than down, and a lot more men appeal down than up.

But part of this may have to do with the levels players are at.  It is generally the case that lower rated players are more likely to appeal up and higher rated ones are more likely to appeal down.

Here are the appeals down and up for women using the appealed from level.

• 2.5 - 0 / 670
• 3.0 - 191 / 753
• 3.5 - 449 / 390
• 4.0 - 622 / 52
• 4.5 - 411 / 2
• 5.0 - 165 / 0
• 5.5 - 18 / 0

And the men.

• 2.5 - 0 / 71
• 3.0 - 46 / 188
• 3.5 - 473 / 148
• 4.0 - 835 / 54
• 4.5 - 626 / 7
• 5.0 - 254 / 0
• 5.5 - 17 / 0

We see that a lot of 2.5 and 3.0 women appeal up, and interestingly more 3.5s appeal down to 3.0 than up to 4.0.  At 4.0 and above there are very few appeals up and the majority are down.

The men also have more appeals up at 2.5 and 3.0 and that swaps at 3.5 and by a much larger ratio than the women with 3x appealing down vs the women vs just 15% more for the women.

What do you think?

An early look at 2021 USTA NTRP year-end rating appeals - women appeal up and down, men appeal down

2021 year-end ratings have been published for 11 days now, and I've done some analysis already, but I thought I'd take a look at how many players have successfully appealed.

Note of course, there very well may be more players that appeal and have it granted in the future.  As hard as it may be to believe, not everyone lives and dies by their year-end rating and some players may not think about appealing until they start signing up for leagues in the new year.

But a lot of players do try their appeals right away, so at this point, I think we can get a good idea of the general trends.

First, at a high level, for players that received a 2021 year-end C rating, there have been 3,546 successful appeals 2,186, or 62% of them down and 1,360, or 38% up.  So more appeals down than up, but not quite a 2 to 1 ratio.

Next, breaking it out by gender, the women account for 2,166, or 61% of the appeals and 47% were down and 53% were up.  This is quite balanced and pretty close to 50/50.

For the men, they were just 39% of the appeals and a whopping 84% were down and just 16% up.  Clearly the men are biased towards appealing down.

But the level matters too, as it is more understandable that lower rated players may have a desire to appeal up while higher level players want to appeal down, sometimes just to have more playing opportunity.

For the women, here is how it breaks out for each year-end C rating and how many appealed either way:

• 2.5 - 337 up
• 3.0 - 66 down, 476 up
• 3.5 - 206 down, 294 up
• 4.0 - 342 down, 35 up
• 4.5 - 281 down
• 5.0 - 118 down
• 5.5 - 11 down

We do see that as the year-end level goes up it swaps from players appealing up to appealing down.

For the men, here is how it breaks out:

• 2.5 - 16 up
• 3.0 - 12 down, 85 up
• 3.5 - 197 down, 80 up
• 4.0 - 433 down, 34 up
• 4.5 - 377 down, 3 up
• 5.0 - 138 down
• 5.5 - 5 down

We see more appeals up at 3.0, but unlike the women the swap to more down happens at 3.5.  And the men have far fewer appealing at all at 2.5 and 3.0.

It appears men are more likely to appeal down than women are, but this is in large part because men tend to have more players appeal at the middle/higher levels than the women, and it is more likely that higher level players are going to appeal down than up.

What do you think?

USTA League changes for 2021 - Plus flights are gone!

The USTA typically publishes the regulations for the upcoming year,  at least in draft form, in the Spring,  but with COVID-19 affecting things it ended up being late July this year.  While I recommend that you get/read the full doc, I'm sure many of you just want to know "What changed?".

For those of you in that camp, here is a summary.

First, the big change is plus flights appear to be gone.  As a reminder, these were flights at the top of each division (5.0 for 18 & Over and 4.5 for 40 & Over) that were designated 5.0+ and 4.5+ and allowed teams to roster and play 5.5 and 5.0 players respectively.  This was done to give the 5.5/5.0 players more playing opportunity as in many areas, there was not critical mass to have a 18 & Over 5.5/Open flight and/or 40 & Over 5.0 flight.  In order to have the plus players play against each other, they were required to play on court 1 (singles or doubles).

The problem is, while plus flights could work well, they introduced some issues.  The main one was that a team may not have a plus player on their roster, or not available for a match, and that led to throwing court 1 at times, which was just a waste of time for the plus player.  This was especially true when say a 4.5+ team without a 5.0 for a match would have a 4.0 playing up play a 5.0 in singles.  Even when 5.0s were rostered and available, they could play in singles or doubles so wouldn't always face each other, which could lead to uncompetitive matches even when a court wasn't being thrown.

Several sections had been lobbying for changes or getting rid of plus flights, and some had tried to impose restrictions saying players playing up couldn't play on court 1 in plus flights.  But now that is no longer an issue as plus flights are gone.

What happens to those plus players without a flight now?  The regulations do appear to allow for sections and areas to have an 18 & Over Open flight and 40 & Over 5.0 flight for these players, and even have playoffs through Sectionals, there just won't be a Nationals for those levels.

My view is this does remove the problems noted above, but may leave some players without a league to play in as not all areas will be able to have Open and 5.0 flights due to limited players at those levels.  If you are a 40+ 5.0, your only option may be playing against the youngsters in 18 & Over.

Second, there are some changes to appeal rules for senior players.  The past few years, those 60+ could appeal down a bump up if they'd been at the same level for 3 years, and those 65+ could auto-appeal down a bump up if they were not higher than the "clearly above" threshold.  Now, those 70+ have their own rule, they can just auto-appeal down whether bumped up or not, as long as they are not higher than the "clearly above" threshold.

This "clearly above" threshold probably needs some explanation.  Normally, appeal rules do allow for someone to appeal down if they are just over the bump threshold, typically something less than 0.1.  The clearly above threshold is higher than that, it varies by level but you can assume something like 0.2-0.3 over the threshold.

This means someone 70+ that is a 4.0 but has been struggling but stays a 4.0 can appeal down to 3.5 more easily than before.

I think this change probably makes sense, although it is probably pretty rare that a 70+ player has played and is struggling and doesn't get bumped down or is low enough to appeal under the normal rules.

Third, last year brought a 4-court format for 40 & Over at the National level and there was much consternation about it and how 2-2 ties would be broken.  It was discovered TennisLink was somewhat broken and there were undocumented rules for how ties were broken, and National finally clarified things after more than 30 ties occurred.

Now, that clarification is in the regulations.  They state that for Nationals, 40 & Over will be 4-courts and ties broken ultimately by the winner of court 1 doubles.  Of course they still list game winning percentage as a criteria which will always be 50% for both teams, so it is meaningless.  But at least they have something there to break the tie where last year they didn't.

Note, this clearly means the 4-court format is here for another year at least.  Lots of folks rallied against it but it is no surprise that National is sticking to their guns since it won't get a full test in 2020 with no Nationals and many areas perhaps not even holding their leagues.

That is it for the big changes.  There are a few other small ones of note, those being:

• There have been a few cases where teams showed up to playoffs without the minimum required players.  The regulations allow for waivers, language has now been added to presumably limit waivers being granted as "Waivers are only intended for extreme circumstances" now appears in the document.
• Miscellaneous changes to align with the removal of plus flights.

Not a lot of changes, but with an abbreviated season I wouldn't have expected many.

What do you think?

Another Senior that was able to appeal down and is now a ringer - Get this one on your team!

I wrote a few days ago about the rules that allow for players 60 & over to automatically appeal down if they get bumped up, but had been at the lower level for three consecutive years.  This can lead to situations like I cited where a player that is clearly above level, gets to play at a lower level.  They are in essence the perfect ringer.

Well, I found another one that was able to appeal down even farther.  The prior one I wrote about was able to appeal from a 4.4 Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating down to be a 4.0, a 0.4 drop.  The one I found this evening was able to to appeal down a whopping 0.51, from 4.51 to be a 4.0.

Here is the chart so you can see the full effect.

This player had a great year going 33-5 and 8-1 in the playoffs, the one loss being a match tie-break.  They can clearly play at the 4.5 level and even arguably at 5.0, but due to the Senior appeal rule, get to be a 4.0 for 2015.

Now, to be fair, this player is only 7-4 in 2015, so perhaps age really does catch up with you and this rule is appropriate most of the time.  Getting to appeal down 0.51 is still a huge amount though.

USTA League year-end NTRP ratings will be out soon, what if I want to appeal?

The USTA League year came to a close on 11/1 when the last Adult Nationals completed play.  As players wait for year-end ratings to come out in a few weeks, a common question I get when generating reports for players is if they'll be able to appeal their 2015 year-end rating.

Interestingly, I get questions about appealing up and down.  Not everyone wants to play at the lowest level possible, some like the challenge of playing stronger players or want the validation of having the higher rating by their name.

In any case, I received a newsletter from the USTA a couple years ago outlining changes to the appeal rules.  To my knowledge, these are the rules still in effect, and give that link a read, but the short summary is that you aren't eligible to appeal down if you played in playoffs nor are you eligible to appeal down if you played more than 10 matches.  If you played less than 10 matches, there is a varying threshold used for the auto-appeals that gets smaller the more matches you play.

The idea seems to be that if you've played in playoffs, and thus been part of the benchmark calculations, the USTA feels your rating is accurate and other's ratings were based off yours, so you shouldn't be able to appeal.  And if you play enough matches, they also believe the NTRP algorithm has enough data to give you an accurate rating.

Now, if you are a player 60 or older, there are some special rules that allow you to appeal down in some cases, or even preclude you from being bumped up.  I've written how these rules could be viewed as discriminatory, but they seem to still be in place.

If anyone knows these rules are no longer accurate or that they have changed, please let me know.

Does the USTA NTRP system discriminate against Seniors?

I create Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Reports for lots of USTA League players, and a common question from many is if they'll be able to appeal their rating.  This is sometimes from players that would like to be bumped up and sometimes those that want to be bumped down.

I've written about the rules regarding appeals before and included a mention of some of the special rules regarding players 60 and over, but recently someone shared with me that they thought these rules were actually age discrimination.

First, lets review the rules.  Any player that is 60 years of age or more can have an appeal down automatically granted if they have been at the same or lower NTRP rating level for the three most recent valid year-end ratings without benefit of an appeal.  Further, players that are 65 of age or more will never be bumped up, although they can appeal up.  I believe this rule was new for the 2014 season, and before that older players simply had a larger tolerance for being able to appeal down.

The rule seems to have been put in place to address concerns from older players that may be slowing down that they would be bumped up and be at a level that they can't compete which would not be good a good experience for them or their partners/opponents.  This seems to be a nice concession to these players to ensure a positive league experience, so what is the problem?

The key thing is that not all older players are actually on the decline, and some that are perhaps new to the game may even be improving.  For these, it may actually be a goal to get bumped up to validate their improvement and for a 65 year old that has a great year and has achieved what would normally be a bump up, they'll never know as they are simply kept at the same level next year.  So, in a way, they are being discriminated against as they can't ever have that validation of their improvement.

Additionally, if these players actually improve enough to be bumped up, it is actually unfair to their opponents as well as they are really above level.

If the USTA really did want to change the rule to allow 65 & older to not be bumped up, a better solution may have been to have the players be bumped up at year-end, but allow an auto-appeal down.  This would let those that are concerned about playing at a higher level as their skills and movement decline stay down should they want by appealing, but still let those looking to get bumped up to validate their improvement to accomplish that.

Of course, one could argue that a proper rating system shouldn't have to have these exceptions and if the algorithm says a player should be bumped up, they should play at that level the following year.  There is some merit to this and perhaps the old rule with just a larger tolerance for being bumped down is still appropriate.

What do you think?

USTA League rule changes for 2017

Every year, the USTA publishes a new set of regulations and usually makes a few tweaks or changes to some of the rules.  Here is a summary of what is changing for 2017.

To start, and this is not new news, but to reiterate, Early Start Ratings are gone.  They were not published in 2016 for 2017 early start leagues and players simply played on early start teams based on their 2015 year-end NTRP level.  However, these players will not be eligible to play at Nationals at that level if they are bumped up at the end of 2016.  Each section gets to decide how long a bumped up player may continue at the lower level and some will let them play through Sectionals and others won't.

Something I've written about before are the rules regarding seniors for being (or not as the case may be) bumped up.  The prior rules said players 65 year of age or more simply wouldn't be bumped up.  This was a bit crazy, it was arguably discrimination to not allow a player to have their improvement be recognized and thankfully for 2017 this has changed.  Now players will be bumped up, but allowed to appeal down rather than simply not being bumped up.  Note if they do appeal, they will be subject to strikes and disqualification now.

Also regarding appeals, in the past, anyone that played in a championship (playoffs, i.e. Districts, States, Sectionals, Nationals) was not eligible to appeal their rating down.  The rule has now changed to say that only players that play at Nationals will be ineligible to appeal down.  Players that played in earlier stages of playoffs will be eligible to appeal down, but of course must meet the appeal criteria for it to be granted.

Note that I gleaned these changes from a draft of the 2017 regulations from earlier this year, so this is not the final regulations, but it is the currently linked document on TennisLink.

Texas demonstrates the foolproof plan to win USTA League Nationals - Game the system by tanking matches

The second week of 2023 USTA League Nationals is complete, and the first two weekends had the 18 & over and 40 & Over 3.5 events take place.

For the men, Texas won both events and did so with two teams with the same captain and very similar rosters and roster construction.  Twelve players played matches for the 40 & Over team, and 8 of the 12 and the 7 highest rated by my ratings were also on the 18 & Over team.

On one hand, this is a tremendous accomplishment!  But when you think about it, with level based play, it isn't terribly surprising that a strong 40+ team could augment themselves with some younger players and have a strong 18+ team too.

When doing my simulations, both teams were far and away the favorites to win it all.  And they came through with the 40+ team going 14-2 in round-robin, and while the semi was a 2-2 win, the two lost courts were retired after they already had it wrapped up, and the final was 3-1.

The 18+ team went 18-2 in round-robin and won their semi 3-2, yes the two losses were retirements, and then won the final 3-2, yes the two losses were retirements where they were up a set on both.  So they really only lost two courts.

The 18+ team had a top-10 average of 3.72, an unheard of 0.09 ahead of the next team, and a 99% chance of making the semis, and the 40+ team had a top-10 average of 3.69 and a 99.8% chance of making the semis.  Teams so strong and clearly better than the opponents don't come along very often.

This begs the question, how did they do it?  How does a 3.5 team (e.g. NTRP ratings between 3.01 and 3.50) end up with a top-10 average of 3.72?

I'm sorry to say it doesn't appear either team was formed in a way that follows the spirit of the rules and good sportsmanship.  And this isn't the first time this team/captain has done this.

For those that don't want to read all the details below, the tldr is that to win 3.5 Nationals, you need a group of 4.0 players that alternate winning one year, and tanking matches the next so they get bumped down to 3.5, or are close enough to appeal down.  Rinse and repeat, ideally with two groups of players so you always have one group that has tanked down to 3.5 to make a run to Nationals with.

On to the details.  Specifically, the majority of both rosters, at least the portions that played the bulk of the matches at Nationals, have serious questions about how they arrived at their 3.5 level.  Here is a summary of the 18+ team with an asterisk denoting those also on the 40+ team:

• Player 1 - DQ'd to 4.5 in 2017, 2017 year-end 4.5C, then didn't play, self-rate as 4.5 in 2021 and somehow appeals down to 4.0, then has three lopsided losses in 2022 to get a 3.5C.  Goes 18-1 this year, including 6-0 at Nationals losing just 5 sets all year.
• Player 2 - 2012 and 2013 (perhaps earlier too) 4.5C, then a 4.0C thru 2021 when they appealed down to 3.5.  The 4.0 matches thru 2018 were all competitive, but in 2021 they were suddenly lopsided losses leading to the bump down.  Goes 11-1 this year including 5-1 at Nationals losing 3 sets all year.
• Player 3 - Self rated in 2022 as a 4.5, then somehow got it appealed down to 3.5.  As a self-rate somehow had close scores in the regular season, e.g. a win 0-6,6-3,1-0, before winning seven playoff matches in a row all in straight sets, losing an average of 1.9 games per set.  Was DQ'd to 4.0 after 18+ Nationals where he went 4-0 losing just 2.25 games per set.
• Player 4 - Self-rated in 2023, went undefeated all year (18-0) until the Nationals final when he retired up a set when the team clinched the win, so likely would have been 19-0.
• *Player 5 - Self-rated 3.5 in 2020, played two matches, both lopsided losses, but didn't play three so remained self-rated for 2021 where he did play three, all lopsided losses, and got a 3.5C.  Proceeds to go 27-1 in 18+ and 40+ including 11-0 at Nationals, only losing 4 sets all year.
• *Player 6 - A 4.0C from 2015 thru 2021 when he was able to appeal down to 3.5.  In 2017 went 8-0 at 4.0 (two retirement losses in playoffs when match was clinched) including going to 4.0 Nationals, but then in 2018, 2019, and 2021 can't win a set with 9 lopsided losses to get low enough to appeal down at 2021 year-end.  In 2023 goes 18-5 including 9-1 at Nationals.
• Player 7 - A self-rated 3.5 in 2021 and gets a 3.5C and somehow keeps it in 2022.  Goes 7-1 in 18+, but only plays twice at Nationals.
• *Player 8 - Bounced back and forth between 3.5 and 4.0 since 2012, but was 4.0C in 2019 after playing on same team winning 40+ Nationals, then 9 lopsided losses in 2021 didn't get him bumped down, but then 0-11 all lopsided in 2022 did get him bumped down.  Goes 16-1 this year, 4-0 at 40+ Nationals.
• *Player 9 - A 4.5 in 2013 and then a 4.0 2014 thru 2022, but was close enough to appeal down to 3.5.  Got close enough to appeal with 3 lopsided losses not winning a game in any of them.  2021 also had lopsided losses but wasn't enough to get bumped down or to appeal.  Goes 15-1 this year, 7-0 at Nationals ignoring a retirement when up a set.  Was on same team that went to 2017 18+ Nationals where they won the title.
• *Player 10 - A 4.0 at the end of 2019 and 2021, and went to Nationals 3 times (18+ and 40+ 3.5, 55+ 8.0) in 2019.  A bunch of losses, some lopsided, in 2021, then nothing but lopsided losses in 2022, leading to the bump down.  This year goes 28-3 including 4-0 at Nationals this weekend losing just one set.

I could go on, the theme continues.  You see the majority of players have been a 4.0 or even 4.5, or were required to self-rate at 4.0 or higher, have lopsided losses to get bumped down or establish a 3.5C, and once that is done, suddenly can't lose.  My ratings have every one of these players at 3.70 or higher, and those with playing histories have been that high or higher in past years, so they are clearly have mid/upper 4.0 ability.  The only way to become a 3.5 is to tank matches which most of them do.

And this is not the first time this team or these players have done this.  This captain has taken teams to Nationals many times, sometimes at both 18+ and 40+ like this year, and has use this same or similar approach to roster construction in those years.

Now, one can argue that once you get to Nationals, every team has above level players and that is true.  But there is a difference between legitimate 3.5s improving during the year, and 4.0s that have tanked just going back to their real ability.  The 4.0s have a proven upside that is likely higher than any normally improving 3.5, and that gives an unfair advantage at Nationals as was proven the past two weekends.

You can also make the case that this Texas team isn't the only one that has players that tank matches, and that is true too.  But I have not seen an entire roster created in this way.  Most other Nationals teams have a few players bumped down or appealed down, or a few inappropriate self-rates that have avoided a DQ, but Texas has an entire roster of such players.

The end result is that the 18+ and 40+ 3.5 men's Nationals were a bit of a joke.  When analysis before the event clearly has such dominate favorites that deliver, there is no real competition, and if the USTA can't offer teams competitive matches in level-based play at Nationals, has the promise of level-based play been entirely lost?

It would be great of the USTA were to crack down on this somehow, but it hasn't happened to date as this keeps occurring.  I would never encourage other teams to follow this model, but in the absence of any action being taken, other teams may have to just to be able to compete.  Or maybe if more teams do it the USTA will do something about it.

What do you think?  Is this just the way Nationals is?  Or should there be a line that shouldn't be crossed and Texas is crossing it?

Note: To try and identify roster construction issues ahead of time, I've created a Shenanigans Score.

Possible solutions to grossly above level teams at USTA League Nationals

The first two weekends of 2023 USTA League Nationals has found more or less the same team winning two events (18 & Over and 40 & Over 3.5 men) without much competition, which has raised the question about how teams are formed and how far above level players are by the time Nationals comes around.

Many people would agree there is a problem, and the "fair at-level competition" line has been crossed.  If that is the case, what steps could be taken to combat it and bring more fairness to Nationals?

Before I outline some ideas, it is probably good to summarize the issue.

The issue is that certainly at Nationals, but also at Sectionals and earlier rounds of playoffs, and even in local league play, you can have players that are significantly out of level and this results in noncompetitive matches and taking away the opportunity for legitimate at-level players to advance into playoffs.  Come Nationals, it becomes who was able to circumvent the rules the best to assemble a team of ringers who will end up winning.

There is also a safety factor at lower levels as grossly above-level players being on the same court and hitting with pace of a level or two higher player may actually be dangerous for the fair at-level players on the court.

The above level players aren't just self-rates, there are also players that appeal down, and players with C ratings that also end up being grossly out of level so all need to be addressed in my opinion.

What I list below is a bit of a hodgepodge of ideas on things that could be done that would result in increased competition both at the local level and through playoffs to Nationals.  Many of these ideas are not new, and some have been shared with me and I'm shamelessly stealing (thanks though!), and I've shared them with various USTA staff and written about them on my blog before, but this will serve as a collection of them all for posterity.

I'm also listing them in an order that prioritizes ideas that I think would both have a real impact and are reasonably doable.

On to the list.

Lower Strike Thresholds

The USTA doesn't publish what the strike thresholds are, but it is commonly known that they are pretty high, especially at lower levels, perhaps even so high that players have to be closer to a double bump than at level before they even get a single strike.  I understand the USTA doesn't want to penalize new players with a promotion that means they can't play with their team and leaves more than enough room for players to improve before they get a strike, but high strike thresholds are a gaping hole in the system that astute captains use to their advantage.  Lowering the strike thresholds would make it a lot more difficult to navigate the season with out of level self-rates or appeal down players.

Increased Match Requirements for Self-Rates and Appeals

The USTA has always required a minimum number of matches be played to be eligible for Nationals, and this was three for years.  This meant that a self-rate or appeal could play the minimum three matches and would have to avoid a strike in only one of those matches to be eligible for Nationals, so there would be virtually no way to get 3 strikes and be promoted and ineligible.  Consider players can't be disqualified during a Nationals and this was a loophole to be exploited.

A few years ago the USTA increased the minimum matches for self-rates to four, but that still isn't enough for the same reason highlighted above.  This should be increased to at least six in order to require players to actually play enough matches to have a real chance of getting strikes if they are above level.

If this means that captains have to play self-rates at the expense of computer rated players, so be it, perhaps strong computer rated players will shy away from joining teams with a lot of self-rates, or captains will limit the number of self-rates they have rostered.  Nearly every Nationals team has an adequate number of team matches to get their players eligible when you look at regular season, local playoffs, Districts/States, and Sectionals.

Incorporate WTN in Self Rating

Today there are guidelines and a questionnaire for players who are self-rating, but the process is vague enough that players can self-rate lower than they should.  The USTA encourages to self-rate at the higher level if there is doubt, anticipating inevitable improvement as the player plays matches, but there is no way to enforce that.

What would be ideal is if there were a more objective way to look at a player's history other than questions about playing in high school or college.  The USTA in coordination with the ITF has introduced such a measure with the World Tennis Number (WTN) which should be calculating ratings for players from their junior (and perhaps even high school?) and collegiate matches.  If the USTA were to establish a way to map WTN to NTRP (which I'm sure they have) this could be used to help ensure players self-rate at an appropriate level.

Make Bump Downs Subject to Strikes

There are already rules for players that appeal down that make them subject to strikes, but why not just make all bump downs subject to strikes?  If they are a legit bump down, there is no chance they are going to have their rating go back up so high as to get to the strike threshold, so this rule would only really affect players that manipulated their rating to get bumped down.

See discussion in the item below as it all applies, this just limits it to bump downs rather than all C rated players.

Make All Players Subject to Strikes

Today, computer rated players are not subject to strikes.  This means as soon as someone gets the coveted C rating they are golden and don't need to worry about anything, they can play all out.  This normally isn't an issue if the player got their C fairly, but some players have either tanked matches to get bumped down and get a C, or they self-rated and managed scores to get a C, and in both these cases their C level is fraudulent.

If all players were subject to strikes, this strategy wouldn't work, or work as well, and players that get a C and suddenly can't lose could get strikes and be DQ'd/promoted.

And I'm not sure there is really a downside to this.  Players that legitmately get a C and play at that level aren't going to get strikes and so nothing changes for them.  It is only those players that game the system to get their C, or are improving exceptionally fast, that would get strikes and be affected, and isn't it these cheaters or grossly out of level players that we want to catch?

Make Bump Ups Sticky

A common strategy among players gaming the system is to go all out in year 1 when they are on a super team and get bumped up only to have a "bad" year in year 2 to get bumped down, so they can go all out again in year 3 on another super team.  Making bump ups sticky for at least one year so players can't yo-yo back and forth would help address this.

Doing this across the board could have a slightly negative effect on legitimate bump downs, and if that is a concern there could be a qualifier on how high the year-end rating was.  For example if a 3.5 is bumped up to 4.0 with a 3.55 year-end rating, they wouldn't have the bump up be sticky, but if a player was bumped up to 4.0 with a 3.75 year-end rating, theirs would be sticky.  I don't think this would be an issue as it is highly unlikely that someone who does so well to get up to 3.75 is going to lose all that ability in one year.

And I'd propose the stickiness persist as long as the player's year-end rating remains above the "sticky threshold".  In essence it would be saying a player that is an upper half 4.0 can't be bumped down to 3.5 in one year, they have to go through being a lower half 4.0 first.

Or another type of stickiness that is more focused would be for any player bumped up that went to Nationals to not be able to be bumped down in the next year, i.e. a Nationals bump up is sticky for a second year.

Eliminate Auto Appeals

Today players that have a year-end rating a small amount over the threshold between levels may auto-appeal down and have it granted.  There are some eligibility rules that may not allow some players to do this, but by and large most players just over the threshold can automatically be given an "A" rating at the lower level.  These players are subject to  strikes and a DQ/promotion during the year, but see above for issues related to this that allow players that are genuinely above-level to slide by all year.

I get the idea behind auto-appeals, some players are barely bumped up and want to still play with their own team, and the USTA is sort of admitting that ratings aren't perfect and someone that is a 3.52 isn't really that different from a 3.49, so why not let the 3.52 appeal down.  Or some players that are bumped up may be at a level where there is no play in their area and they wouldn't be able to play USTA League anymore.

The problem is this is yet another exploitable rule as some players will unfortunately tank matches to try to get bumped down, and even if they don't succeed in the bump down, if they are close enough they can still appeal.  So if you have someone that is really a 3.75 player and they tank matches and get down to 3.55, they can perhaps appeal down to 3.5 and now you have a 3.75 playing as a 3.5.

If you get rid of auto-appeals, the legitimate cases for appeals can still be handled through the manual process.  Yes, this would be an inconvenience for the staff having to process these.

Again, if the first two items above were implemented that may tighten things up a bit and auto-appeals could still be allowed.

Don't Allow Self-Rates at Nationals

An alternative to the above changes to self-rate rules would be to simply not allow self-rates to play at Nationals.  If out of level self-rates are a major issue, this solves it very simply.

I don't really like this one though for a number of reasons, and I think the two items above would suitably address the issue, but I list this one for completeness.

All Manual Appeals Handled by National

Today players can file manual appeals or medical appeals and these are heard by district or section committees.  Despite any guidelines National may publish, these appeals don't appear to be processed consistently, e.g. in one section self-rate appeals are granted very easily while in another they aren't.  Or worse, some captains are friends with committee members and tend to get their appeals granted more often than captains without an in.

A solution to this is to have all of these appeals heard by National so they are applied consistently and there is no chance of local bias.

Allow DQs During Nationals

Today at Nationals, players that are subject to strikes won't be disqualified during a Nationals event.  Players can and are promoted after Nationals, but they can play all matches at that Nationals and no matches will be reversed.

Prior to Nationals, it is up to sections to decide how to handle this, and some do the same as Nationals and only consider strikes after the event, and others administer strikes and promotions after each match and will reverse results.  I've been disappointed to see more sections doing the former as that causes a few issues:

1. It lets what may be a "cheating" team continue to benefit from an out of level player well beyond when they've been determined to be out of level, e.g. a player could get their 3rd strike in their first Sectionals match and play 4 or 5 more with no penalty.  This isn't fair to the other teams with fairly at-level players.
2. If the "cheating" team wins, which they very well may since they have a clearly and identified out of level player, that player won't be eligible moving forward so the team that won and the team that advances aren't really the same team, and may in fact be a significantly weaker team.  That isn't fair to the other teams, nor to the section which isn't being represented by the strongest available team.

Back to Nationals, the situation is similar.  If a player is identified as being clearly above level in their first match, why let them keep playing?  I get that a player has gone to considerable expense to travel, and a team in theory could go with the minimum number of players and a DQ would mean they'd have to forfeit courts, but why is it fair for properly at level players to have to play players that will be DQ'd?  And why should a team benefit from a to be DQ'd player?

Disqualify/Suspend Captains/Players for Obvious Tanking

I admit it is hard to conclusively identify a tanked match.  Players can manage scores in a match so it is close and they win and you can't be sure it was a managed score.

But there are times where it is blatantly obvious from both the score line and from the ratings generated from the match.  If a player is consistently winning and generating match ratings of 3.8, then suddenly can't win a set and barely win a few games and generating match ratings of 3.2, you know something is fishy.  Especially when there are clear patterns of seasons/leagues used for the tanked matches.

Today, the USTA seems loathe to take action in these cases as they can't 100% prove the match was tanked.  I would like to think the USTA doesn't need to prove this 100% but instead can consider the match ratings and pattern, especially when an entire team is doing it, and suspend players under the sportsmanship clauses in the regulations.

Change the Algorithm

I realize this set of suggestions is highly unlikely, but I include them for completeness.

There are several things that could be done with the rating algorithm to address some issues.

One is to introduce some anti-tanking controls where matches that are significantly unexpected get thrown out so tanking matches would not be rewarded.  Or similar to USGA handicaps, base a player's rating on their best 50% of results.

One could also introduce some deterministic rules to year-end ratings to preclude some gaming the system scenarios.  Like the bump up stickiness I mention above.

What do you think?  Is there any merit to any of these suggestions?  Which would have the most impact?  Or how would you change the order from what I listed?

Or do you think it is fine as-is being a free-for-all as everyone is on the same footing, and just let the captain the best at gaming the system win?

Edit: Added the suspension/disqualification suggestion after the initial post.

Summary of USTA NTRP meeting in Seattle - A few new regulations in the works!

The PNW NTRP ratings meetings I wrote about a few weeks ago happened this week and I was able to attend the one held in Seattle (Bellevue).  I believe a recording was done in Seattle and it may be made available, but I thought it would still be useful for me to write a quick summary and some observations.

Before I start though, thanks to USTA National for sending Heather out and to the PNW section and Adam and Jill for setting it up and making it happen.

Attendance in Seattle was a bit less than I'd expected, and less than I understand attended in Portland.  Seattle USTA League players, where were you?!  However, those that attended were vocal and had plenty of questions.

Heather Hawkes from USTA National was the main speaker and Adam Hutchinson, the Section League Coordinator in the PNW was there too.  Heather went through a very informative presentation on the background behind the NTRP system and how it works, and some myths and misconceptions to boot.  Everything I heard was consistent with what I've shared with folks over the years and have documented in my FAQ.

There were a lot of questions about ratings and the USTA publishing dynamic ratings to the hundredths, but it seems pretty clear that is not in the works.  The sites that publish (woefully inaccurate) ratings lists were discussed and the USTA definitely does not endorse or encourage their use, and Heather pointed out a lot of the reasons for this and the problems those sites cause.  She also mentioned my blog you are reading here and said a few nice things about it (thanks Heather!).

A couple things were mentioned that were new as it relates to some National and PNW regulations changes that will happen or are being considered for 2019.  I preface this with the disclaimer that while this was mentioned in a public forum and I believe is all accurate, the regulations have not been published yet and until they are, nothing is official.

First, I've written before about the National rules in place for players 60 and older, or 65 and older to automatically appeal their rating down if they are bumped up at year-end.  These basically say that players 60 & older can auto-appeal down regardless of how high their rating is, if they had been at the lower level for three consecutive years without appealing.  And those 65 & older can auto-appeal down period if they are bumped up.

Well, that is changing for 2019.  The general rules are still the same, but there is a qualifier that a player may not be at the 'clearly above level' and still be able to appeal.  The 'clearly above level' is basically the strike threshold and is higher than the top of the level (to allow for some improvement), and the purpose of this rule is to prevent players who, even in their 60s, have put in the work and been able to improve and are clearly able to play at the higher level, from appealing down as letting them play at the lower level isn't fair to the other players at the level nor in the spirit of the purpose of NTRP based league play.

This change is a change nationally so will apply to all players, and I'm all for it.  It prevents the rule that is in place to allow seniors to appeal down from being abused.

Second, as I also wrote about before, there are some leagues or flights that use a points per position scoring for team matches.  What this means is that rather than winning or losing a team match by winning more courts than the other team (e.g. 3-2, 4-1, 5-0), and having standings based on team won/loss record, points are assigned to each court and you simply accrue points for the courts you win, and the standings are based on those accrued points.

The purpose of this scoring is to encourage teams to play their better players on court 1 by having a greater points incentive there than on court 2 and 3, the idea being that it can help combat situations where teams will stack their line-up or sacrifice a weak player on court 1 leading to an uncompetitive, and frankly unsatisfying match, for both players.

This has been used in a few areas the past few years, the Eastern section for one, and apparently it may be coming to the PNW section to be piloted in the 40 & Over 4.5+ league.  I don't know that the points assignment has been determined, but in Eastern they use 5 points for court 1 singles and 4 points for court 2, then 6, 4, and 3 points for courts 1 thru 3 doubles.  This means 22 points are up for grabs in each match and it doesn't really matter if you win more courts or not, just that you accrue points.

Adam said that it is being proposed for the 40 & Over 4.5+ flights because there have been complaints of teams sacrificing weak players on court 1.  I understand the rationale for trying points per position, but I'm not sure it is going to have the desired effect.  See what I wrote before for more details, but it will certainly change the dynamic about the matches and how you win your flight and make playoffs and take away the onus of winning the team match.  And when teams know they can't beat the other team's best player, it still won't result in the weaker team choosing to play their best player on court 1.  But I'll reserve judgement and see how it works in 2019, and from what I've heard those areas that have been using like it.

Were you at the meeting?  Anything I missed or what did you think?

Update: The video from the meeting is available, see details here.