I have been told that "the computer" has been run for all of the results from Sectionals this past weekend. This is third-hand information, but I heard that only one player, on the women's side, received his/her third strike up in Dallas. I didn't see the DQ reflected on tennislink yet, so I won't name names.
I'm sure some people would differ with me on this, but I personally feel the "tolerance" level is a bit too high and that we don't have enough DQ's, particularly for computer rated players. I realize that DQ's can be avoided with "score management", but I just feel that right now it's too easy for a guy to get his two matches in, maybe in a mixed doubles league, and then pretty much be safe for the entire next year. A John Kudrick type could probably survive the weekend and be eligible for Nationals should his team make it.
I like to play "what if?", particularly after we have lost. As noted, the computer was not run during Sectionals. What if it was? Would things have changed? Would captains have been more protective of their players? Would NOHO have been more careful with Heim? In 4.0, I have to think that Dallas might have sat Gene Davis in their 3-2 Waco win and my team might have advanced to Sunday. We'll never know, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I personally think DQ'ing a computer rated player during or following a tournament is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. If the computer system is so flawed as to put people in the wrong level then fire the programmer who wrote the programmer but don't fault the player for winning. That's like giving the Rockies the World Series Title because the Red Sox pitching was too good. Let the guy/gal play the rest of the season then bump them when the time is appropriate. This is the only sport I have ever seen where they punish you for winning!
ReplyDeletePeople are going to complain no matter how it is done.
ReplyDeleteIf there are too many DQ's due to the computer then the complaint will be that Texas won't be competitive at nationals.
Bottom line is that is an imperfect system that people find the constraints and exploit them.
That is how the game is played.
I think the "BCS" formula that they use should be publicized so that people understand exactly how it works. Right now it is a 'black box'. The counter argument to this is that people will manage scores against key opponenets.
However you slice it, people will work it over.
Congrats to Red/Bobo/Allen for exploiting the system in its current form and winning. I hope they do well in Tuscon.
Just so I am clear on what McCree just wrote: he thinks its ok for someone to self rate 5.0, who is clearly not a 5.0. Enter the "score management" process as the blogger puts it, get bumped down by the computer to 4.5, and play the new year at 4.5? Doesn't this allow people like Broach, and others like the SA National Champion team from 2006 get players in who truly dont belong. This sort of encourages tanking etc.
ReplyDeleteI'm on the other side of the fence from you Mel. The faster you get rid of out-of-level players, the better. It's not punishment, it's a correction, and only fair to the players at the correct level. Your own very good player Chadwick got smoked by Gene Davis (one of his several smokes). Had he been DQ'd earlier, you probably would have been facing Houston in the final. I don't blame the Houston guys for being disappointed at the DQ policy this year. Bill Sanders
ReplyDeleteSo what happens to that one player? She doesn't go to Nationals. I'm not typically a complainer but that just doesn't seem right. Send a team without the weapons that helped get them there. Run the computer along the way so that the best "possible" team goes. It was no doubt one of the college players off the 4.5 Women's team. If I were the Dallas women I'd not be happy. They could have represented the Section better. The other thing is the other college player on that team can't go. So they are going to get KILLED at Nationals.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Mel. If they are going to DQ people, get them out early. You can't wait until you are way to far in to do it. Everybody know the system is way messed up as far as self ratings go. Everybody will just have to agree to disagree.
ReplyDeleteThey did that last year and they got lots of complaints. The TTA held a special meeting to discuss and decided to run at the end. They'll never please everyone.
ReplyDeleteActually, what Mel is saying if the COMPUTER rates a person a certain level doesn't seem right to second guess the computer. Let them finish the season with impunity He's not talking about self-rated players. That's a whole different animal.
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about self-raters. That's a whole other can of worms. I'm talking about computer rated players.
ReplyDeleteIf the system moves someone up or down it shouldn't DQ them until the end of the season. To be honest I'm not sure what the right thing to do is but I do know that punishing someone for trying to win in the level the USTA suggests you play isn't the right thing to do.
Having the threat of being DQ'd midseason would make me "sandbag" more to keep the flags from flying.
So Mel, if Rusty Branch gets a computer rating for an ex-college player by having him play and lose in a tournament, that player (let's call him Jeremy Stone in this example) should be untouchable for the entire next season, regardless of how much he crushes everyone?
ReplyDeleteTournaments are something the TTA/USTA are going to have to address. Right now you don't need to self rate to play tournaments. Seems if it's a USTA sanctioned event and you don't have a rating they should treat those players the same as league players. Assuming you did self rate (the same as playing league for the first time) then Jeremy Stone should be treated as a self-rated player and not a tournament player. THAT is definitely a huge flaw in the current system.
ReplyDeleteMel must be a 4.0 guy. Still playing in the sand box. Give Rusty and Red an inch and they take a mile.
ReplyDeleteMel, since you don't know what the right thing to do is, I'll be glad to help you. It's called play at the appropriate level. If you are sandbagging to keep red flags from flying (your words), that's your first clue you're in the wrong level. If you beat #15 Men's Open player Chris Doyal, that's your second clue.
ReplyDeleteI personally have no idea who Jeremy Stone or Red is. If they find a way around the system (which it sounds like they already have) then it needs to be addressed.
ReplyDeletePersonally I don't care what they do. What I'm more concerned about is whether or not the USTA is treating it's players fairly as a whole.
I think the guys at the Texas Section office have made strides to improve the system and if only one person at Sectionals was bumped then clearly the system is on the right track.
If you have issues with people email Ken McAllister at kmcallister@texas.usta.com. He is a terrific guy and addresses everyones issues fairly and promptly.
Busted I guess. Sad thing is I was bumped down by the USTA after only losing 1 match the year before.
ReplyDeleteFault me for that?
Both sides make valid points as far as disqualifying a player and when should it occur. However, the reality is that much won't change under the current system.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious.
Who thinks they should bring back on court rating verification clinics(for those players without ratings) prior to league play? Also, the USTA had verifier's present at Districts, Sectionals, and Nationals trying to DQ players out-of-level.
Im just saying, that, is taking the human element out of ratings a good or bad thing?
I guess the goal of growing the game is more important than the integrity of the game.
Mel,
ReplyDeleteCaptains work the system by self rating players the previous year, having them tank matches or play not so quality matches to get themselves computer rated for the next year. Now you understand what some are complaining about.
In regards to the comment about the on court verification. I think a system of both computer and human verification would be best. Don't know the particulars of how to make it work but in my case I don't think I would have ever been bumped down to 4.0 if a verifier would have watched.
ReplyDeleteJust a little FYI.........Last year Lubbock 3.0 Men defeated Dallas' 3.0 National Championship team in pool play. Dallas' players were intentionally tanking to the point of playing with their other hands! They did it in order to not be DQ'd before nationals if they in fact won sectionals. As we know they won sectionals and nationals and the trickle down effect is that the computer believed Lubbock was better than Dallas and 85% of the Lubbock 3.0's got bumped up. In turn we barely had enough 3.0's to have a league and the 3.5 league was saturated with weaker players which will bump up average 3.5's to 4.0 and it just goes on and on.
Well guys it's been fun having this conversation but I gotta get back to work.
Good luck next year!
Wow. Interesting story. Thanks for sharing that.
ReplyDeleteMel, I "busted" you earlier not to be contentious. On the contrary, I congratulate you for building a fine team that could take down Dallas. A couple of others came close this year, but you are the only one who could close the deal. I just thought it seemed odd that you were mildly complaining about a flawed computer system, while at the same time being an enormous benefiary of that system. IMO, you, Gene Davis of Dallas, and Colin McKinsey of Austin are this year's Holy Trinity of outrageous computer ratings. Nevertheless, I wish you well at nationals, and you bring the title back to Texas where it belongs.
ReplyDeleteThe whole rating system is arbitrary. The only way to fix it is more clearly define what a 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 etc. player is. Because in the 4.5 level, I play against guys who seem to be low 4.0 players and I also play against guys who should be 5.0 to 5.5. In other words, the "computer", is giving way too much leeway in ratings inside the individual levels. This needs to be tightened up some how. I like the idea of self rated players who played college tennis having to meet age standards etc. to be able to play in the 4.5's.
ReplyDeleteI also think that teams that play at sectionals shouldn't be able to bring players in just to play in the semi's and finals. I don't really have a good reason why. It just seems a little under the table. What do you think?
I agree with the last poster. The levels are already defined, but there needs to be ammendments that address the loop holes especially within league play. Of course definitions means nothing if players are not verified through a competent and non-partial process. I personally have no problem bringing in folks to play the semis and finals as long as they are "legal" according to whatever rules are in place.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of ammendments/changes can we suggest to the league?
ReplyDeleteThis is where it is difficult and arbitrary. The computer can't define what kinds of shots people can hit. It can't see what kind of serve or return that you have. It can only go by match results, which is already questionable. This might be where human verifiers come into play. A human can see if you are 20 or 50 years old and can run like a rabbit.
ReplyDeleteThe solution is to tighten up the definition as to what a 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 4.5 etc is. I don't think that the computer can do this.
We have guys in the 4.5 rated level who can't direct where they are going to serve. So, what should a 4.5 player be able to do on the court that is different from a 4.0 or 5.0? The original definitions as defined by USTA years ago could have been on the right track, but now is clearly way out of whack. The USTA official definition of a 4.5 is nowhere near the level of the current day 4.5 players, especially at the sectional level. Some of the new rules for self rated players is a help. But there is still such a wide gap in the 4.5 level for sure. Some of these people need to be rated 4.0 and some 5.0.
The computer could be a help in finding sandbaggers by throwing out a red flag on people that routinely slaughter everyone in the league,then suddenly lose to a low rated player in that level. The red flag could signal someone in the league to look as to whether it was a late match or not and question the player and captain and make a decision on whether to default that match, or suspend the player or not. This may be going a little too far, but it just an idea. Clearly the honor system is not working very well.
Verifiers are not going to happen any time soon. The USTA spent way too much on the DNTRP Computer Rating System to get rid of the verifiers.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that most issues arise from former/current collegiate players playing out of level. If a similar self-rate Experienced Player Guidelines table was applied to all players, not just self-rates, then most of these issues would be resolved. A case example would be Wanja. It would not matter that he is currently computer rated at 4.5, he would have to play at the level determined by the Experienced Player Guidelines table until he reaches a certain age before the computer can adjust his rating down. As with the current self-rate setup, you could always appeal if the individual feels they have a special circumstance, but at least it would require human intervention. Fred
ReplyDeleteI like that idea. There are probably a few databases out there that could be partnered with the USTA to verify college players at various levels to make this happen.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that 4.5 has become a melting pot for 4.0-5.0 players. Would love to see enough 5.0s out there to make 5 line matches.
I also thought it was strange to not utilize the DQ computer this year. Also on that note we got the msr's an so far to my knowledge no one has been rejected on their appeal. WTF? We had to snail mail our request with $5 and we have a league roster deadline on Sunday and I am still waiting on letters to be returned. I know the TX sections are busy these two weekends but it really makes for a lot of scrambling and waiting for us to get started on our Fall league which is important here almost as much as the Spring.
ReplyDeleteI like the note someone left earlier about correcting these players and ultimately with the goal of having more teams and players at higher levels. Once there is fair competition at the high and low ends of our leagues then hopefully us folks in the middle will be on par with each other.
Competition was tough, but heat was the major factor this past weekend in Dallas. Ben & I did not fare well with the heat... We especially struggled in the afternoon matches, so we decided we must get in better condition for Nationals, and be better prepared next summer for Dallas. There was a comment and a little rumour that Ben & I might be tanking to stay at 4.5... Not the case at Sectionals and won't happen at Nationals. At Sectionals, we must give credit to those that beat us. We played some solid teams, but were very disappointed at our play and our conditioning... Going 2-3 this year at Sectionals was not our goal after going 3-1 last year. Kingwood's Steve Valentine & Glenn Wright, who are both friends of mine, played a stellar match against us in the finals. I did not get to see Armstrong/Hulbert play much, but they are always tough too. Those 2 teams based on performance may have been the best 2 4.5 teams up there this past weekend. They flat kicked our tails. So, no sandbagging here. Hopefully, Ben & I can regain some of our confidence and swagger leading up to Nationals. One thing's for sure; -the temps and heat index will be a lot more tolerable in Tucson come October. Great tournament by the Kingwood Crush, who on paper looked to be the deepest team. Jimmy did an awesome job, especially considering the injuries and missing players this past weekend. They are a great team, and we were lucky to catch them while they were down. Good luck to all the Texas Teams heading to Nationals. All the Best, Craig Bobo
ReplyDeleteCompetition was tough, but heat was the major factor this past weekend in Dallas. Ben & I did not fare well with the heat... We especially struggled in the afternoon matches, so we decided we must get in better condition for Nationals, and be better prepared next summer for Dallas. There was a comment and a little rumour that Ben & I might be tanking to stay at 4.5... Not the case at Sectionals and won't happen at Nationals. At Sectionals, we must give credit to those that beat us. We played some solid teams, but were very disappointed at our play and our conditioning... Going 2-3 this year at Sectionals was not our goal after going 3-1 last year. Kingwood's Steve Valentine & Glenn Wright, who are both friends of mine, played a stellar match against us in the finals. I did not get to see Armstrong/Hulbert play much, but they are always tough too. Those 2 teams based on performance may have been the best 2 4.5 teams up there this past weekend. They flat kicked our tails. So, no sandbagging here. Hopefully, Ben & I can regain some of our confidence and swagger leading up to Nationals. One thing's for sure; -the temps and heat index will be a lot more tolerable in Tucson come October. Great tournament by the Kingwood Crush, who on paper looked to be the deepest team. Jimmy did an awesome job, especially considering the injuries and missing players this past weekend. They are a great team, and we were lucky to catch them while they were down. Good luck to all the Texas Teams heading to Nationals. All the Best, Craig Bobo
ReplyDeleteYeah Bobo it probably didn't hurt that half your team including yourself are all ex or current division one college players.
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, have any of you complaining about Bobo's team seen them play, or played against them? While they are all very good players, there are two players that are not 4.5 summer league players: Heim and Wanja (Ford should be included too). However, they have computer ratings that are calculated by the USTA and that is all that matters. Most captains would jump at the chance to find players like this, and it just so happens that they got them first.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like it, avoid the summer leagues and play tournaments.
The "Little State" tournament is being held in Waco this weekend. The tournament was designed for runners-up, though I'm not sure exactly who is eligible nowadays.
ReplyDeleteThe Austin (Howitzers/Humphrey) team is a quality team that definitely would have given non-Kingwood Houston 4.5 playoff teams a run for their money. They face the prospect of losing Dan Garza to 5.0...it will be interesting to see how they use him this weekend. I'd be tempted to use him in ways to help him keep his 4.5 rating if I were their captain...
Beaumont is looking for more open players in the Labor Day Tourney. If you win the men's open division you will get to play doubles with Marty Fish and Robby Generpi down here. If you go to the USTA Texas section you'll get more info on that.
ReplyDeleteShamus Darden
Not everybody is a cheater like you Greg.
ReplyDeleteI doubt he tanked, but Garza lost both his matches this weekend against good players. He should stay 4.5
ReplyDeleteMel,
ReplyDeleteMy question is how you can be a USPTA Professional 1 level teaching pro and play 4.0. By the UPSTA definition, a Level 1 teaching pro must be at least a 4.5. They would probably not be happy that a pro advertising themselves as USPTA Level 1 is playing 4.0 league tennis! Your benefits(rackets, etc) are tied to that qualification.
tennis is suppose to be fun ... now its like a war zone with people cheating, breaking rackets, wanting to fight, too competitive ! take a chill pill or else league tennis will get a bad name.
ReplyDelete