A Case Against NTRP Ratings Expiration

In a previous post (Enhancing the NTRP System to Save Tournament Tennis), I briefly mentioned my belief that USTA NTRP Ratings should never expire. A recent example from the last Tri-Level Sectionals in USTA Texas illustrates one of the downsides of ratings expiration. While this is an edge case that is likely to rarely recur, it is an interesting lens through which to consider the full implications of ratings expiration.

I first wrote about the decline of the tennis scene in Wichita Falls in “Life on the Border: Tennis Wastelands.” My childhood hometown used to be a hotbed for the sport, but when I wrote that post, it simply wasn’t that way anymore. I further detailed the situation in “Waking Up in a Tennis Wasteland.” Since those posts were first published, a lot has changed for the better. The tennis centers are now under incredibly good leadership, and players are filling the courts.

Unfortunately, one of the side effects of the city’s dark days of tennis is that the remnant players who were once engaged in the competitive USTA tennis ecosystem are struggling to maintain active Computer ratings. Without any NTRP level-based play in their local area, they have few opportunities to get enough matches to prevent ratings expiration. While some have sustained their tennis by playing tournaments and competing in leagues in Fort Worth or Dallas, that comes at the cost of a four-hour round-trip drive multiple times throughout a season.

In recent years, Wichita Falls hasn’t had enough players to conduct a USTA League at any level. As the player pipeline now starts to refill, it is critically important to the viability of tennis in the area to keep NTRP computer ratings current for as many players as possible. “An Ode to Tri-Level Team Competition” previously outlined how the unique format of Tri-Level was being leveraged as an effective way to get some of those players the necessary matches. Since Wichita Falls is a “Qualified CTA” in Texas, and Tri-Level is a National Invitational, the city has been able to assemble teams that advanced straight to Sectionals without the local play that they don’t have enough players to conduct.

Someone recently remarked that what I outlined in the previous paragraph is an “off-label” use of Tri-Level play. It is an idea that I initially agreed with, but over the past few weeks, my perspective has changed. The organizers of the Tom Fey Tri-Level National Invitational Championships are crystal clear that the primary guiding philosophy of that event is to provide level-based play. Examination of their rules established for the event reveals complete consistency with that objective. Providing level-based play is also the intent of the overall NTRP competitive framework. In fact, since USTA League already offers level-based play at every NTRP level, that benefit is adequately covered for most players in large population areas and for those rated in the center of the NTRP performance bell curve.

I have recently come to a more nuanced way to express my beliefs about the value of Tri-Level play. The format is uniquely good at providing level-based competition for players at the edges of viability within the NTRP framework. In other words, the Tri-Level format delivers NTRP-rated matches to players for whom standard USTA League play doesn’t work. It is an idea that I hope we never lose sight of.

There are a couple of examples of the edge populations that Tri-Level effectively serves.

When Tri-Level expanded to add “High-Tri,” topped by a 5.0 line, the format provided a new competitive outlet for NTRP-rated play in places where the player numbers at that level is too small to sustain traditional NTRP Leagues. Tri-Level provides these higher-rated players, 5.0s in larger metropolitan areas, and 4.5s or lower in smaller areas, with an opportunity to conduct a Tri-Level local league if there are enough players in their area to fill out two teams. Alternatively, if they don’t have enough players for that, they can advance directly to Sectionals to get some matches. Put succinctly, High-Tri provides a valuable competitive outlet for players at the upper edge of the USTA competitive framework who frequently do not have a place to play otherwise.

As a personal example, when I recently confronted the 5.0 ratings abyss before eventually hitting the appeal button, the lack of perceived opportunity to get rated matches at that level was one of the primary drivers of that decision. I am embarrassed to admit that at the time, I overlooked the fact that Tri-Level was an option to get a few 5.0-rated matches in if I were willing to captain a team.

Another “edge” that Tri-Level serves is the players from smaller CTAs that lack the numbers to sustain a local league at all. This brings us to a “Mid-Tri” team that Wichita Falls assembled to compete at USTA Texas Tri-Level Sectionals this year. In a series of unfortunate circumstances, the two 4.5-rated players scraped up for that roster had ratings that expired at the end of the 2024 season. I do not believe that either player or their captain was aware when they registered for the team that expiration was imminent. Players whose ratings expire by definition are on the periphery of the USTA competitive ecosystem and not likely to be in tune with the ratings expiration lifecycle.

The Tom Fey USTA Tri-Level National Invitational Rules have many ratings requirements for participation in the National Championships. However, as detailed as they are, players who held a valid Computer rating for the 2024 season that expired and wound up unrated for 2025 are still in a gray area.

To be eligible to compete in the Invitational:

• Player must have a valid “C” (computer-generated NTRP rating) or an “A” computer-generated NTRP rating of their “C” rating after the 2024 year-end ratings are published. This applies to all players except “T”, “S”, and “M” rated players.
• If the player appeals their “C” rating up or down after 2024 year-end ratings and granted, the player may still play at the rostered level or original “C” rating generated from year-end ratings.
• All 2023 “C” rated and “A” computer-generated rated players must play at the level at which they were rostered in the 2024 season.
• All “T”, “S” and “M” rated players must play at the C rating generated/published at the end of the 2024 season. If they do not receive a C rating after the 2024 year-end ratings, they are ineligible to participate in the Invitational.
• Any player who received a 2024 Year End rating that is more than one level higher than their previous rating must play at their new level.

2025 Tom Fey USTA Tri-Level National Invitational Ratings Requirements

These rules repeatedly state that players must have obtained a valid Computer rating at the end of the 2024 season. However, the two 4.5 players from Wichita Falls had valid Computer ratings at the end of the 2024 season. What they didn’t have was an active Computer rating at the start of the 2025 season.

Additionally, the language around Tournament “T”, Self “S”, and Appealed “A” rated players on the roster stipulates that they must play enough matches to convert those ratings to a valid Computer “C” rating for the season starting in 2025. There is no language that covers Computer-rated players whose rating expires at the end of the season, most likely because the scenario is exceedingly rare. Since the National Invitational does not recognize 2025 promoted players for satisfying roster minimums as described in “A Ratings Expiration Edge Case,” that also creates a precedent for potentially allowing players with expired ratings to also compete at their prior Computer rating.

However, this is all an academic exercise. It is important to understand that the rating requirements levied above only apply to eligibility to compete at the Tom Fey National Invitational Championships. It is up to each Section to determine the method of advancement and player eligibility. Theoretically, the players from Wichita Falls could have been allowed to compete in Sectionals, using their active Computer ratings for 2024, which feed into a National event that is conducted in 2025, but one that uses 2024 ratings. (If this seems confusing, it is because it is exactly that.)

Had the Wichita Falls team with these players been allowed to play and somehow won Sectionals to advance to the National Championships, then and only then would the National tournament committee take up the question of their eligibility. It is possible they would have allowed the players to compete. It is also possible that they would have decided these players were ineligible, preventing the entire team from meeting roster minimum requirements. In that case, the second-place team from Texas would receive the Texas endorsement to compete in the event. There isn’t a lot of downside to either scenario. I have never known a second-place team to complain when they suddenly get to go to Nationals after initially coming up short.

It is time to come full circle to the original point of this post. This situation could have been avoided altogether if USTA ratings never expire. The player exclusion would simply not have happened. This episode is also an example of how the differences between the rules for National Invitationals and USTA League continue to create confusion throughout the competitive tennis community.

Ultimately, this boils down to a question of how the USTA chooses to handle edge cases. The Tom Fey USTA National Tri-Level Invitational greatly benefits the competitive framework by providing a mechanism for inclusion that serves tennis players on the margins who are isolated by geography or rating level. Consequently, these edge case eligibility decisions are ultimately a choice between pulling marginalized players in… or pushing them out. If the goal is to grow the game and make tennis more reflective of our total population, embracing the edges would seem to be the way to go.