A New Roster Rule Emphasis for Tri-Level

Last week, as I wrote about a new undocumented rule imposed at the recent Tom Fey National Tri-Level Invitational Championships, I realized that a full understanding of another novel rule used at this event is necessary. In addition, I must give credit where credit is due. A new rule prohibiting players from retiring from matches at the center of last year’s lengthy series of posts is now well documented on the Tri-Level event’s official page. Clearly lessons were learned from last year’s fiasco. Similarly, the rule that is the focus of today’s post is well documented on the event’s site.

In fact, what we are exploring today is rooted in a fundamental breakdown in communication of how rules are flowed out and interpreted throughout the community that administers and plays Tri-Level events. It is also yet another example of how seasoned USTA players are frequently caught off guard because National Invitational events are not USTA League. Put another way, what people “know” and consider to be a standard part of league play does not always apply to that event, despite many similarities that only add to the confusion.

The Tom Fey Tri-Level National Invitational has an unusual roster composition rule that is unique to that event. While I am not sure how long that has been in place or documented, it has been that way since at least January 2023, the first time the Internet Wayback machine took a snapshot of the official event page. While that rule has seen some modifications between then and now, its essence has been consistent.

Per team, there is minimum requirement of six (6) players to a maximum of eighteen (18) players.  The roster minimum must include at least two (2) at-level players for each of the competing ratings levels. 

Tom Fey Tri-Level National Invitational Team Roster Rules, January 2023

Unfortunately, due to Tri-Level’s unique relationship with NTRP ratings, there are some questions about what “at-level” means. Since eligibility at each level is based on the previous year-end ratings, it is implicit that at-level includes players who were at one level who may have been bumped up (or down) for the following year. However, the January 2023 version of the rule excerpted above was ambiguous as to whether a player who had been bumped up could satisfy the roster minimum requirement.

The distinction matters because of another rule stipulation that has been in place since the beginning of the event. Each team must have two rostered players at each level on site and ready to play for each team match. That leads to another part of the Team Roster requirements for the event.

Players shall not play up NTRP levels unless there is an on-site injury or extenuating circumstances that require a team to play a player up a level to avoid defaulting a court. 

Tom Fey Tri-Level National Invitational Team Roster Rules, January 2023

This is where collective USTA League-oriented biases get in the way, as it is common and perfectly legal in most other formats to have single-level rosters that include quite a few players from the next level down. Most people would assume that valid extenuating circumstances for playing up would be player availability, whether that be for injury, emergency, or any personal commitment, as is true for USTA League. However, at Tri-Level, not having players available who were rated at the level of the line —at the end of last year, regardless of their current rating — is apparently a really big deal.

Interestingly enough, when I comb through the Tri-Level National Championships of yore, the need to have a competitor “play up” was exceedingly rare. However, that changed dramatically when the event was modified from one to three tiers of competition. Specifically when “High” Tri-Level became a thing, the frequency of “playing up” increased dramatically. The obvious reason for that is the shortage of players at 5.0, which leads to teams with fewer of those players on their roster. Additionally, 5.0 players are frequently at a point in life where their finances, work, or family commitments make it harder for them to travel, which is a nice way of saying that the flake factor is high in that already small cohort.

Playing up wouldn’t be a big deal for official USTA League play at any level. However, it apparently is to the current administrative team of The Tom Fey Tri-Level National Invitational Championships. Their overarching philosophy is that on-level play, albeit at last year’s level, is very important. I’m going to table my thoughts on that for a future post, but for now suffice it to say that I appreciate the fact that adding a level with a 5.0 line creates more playing opportunities for players who desperately need that competition. Still, that benefit comes with the reality that teams will more frequently turn up short. It creates a great example of the tradeoffs that sometimes must be made when designing a competitive framework.

Last year was the first year that Tri-Level was expanded to three tiers. That change was accompanied by a new clause in the Team Roster rules. That may have been in anticipation that teams might be challenged to field the 5.0 line at that level. Alternatively, perhaps it was in recognition that having the three tiers could potentially dilute the playing populations to the point where having enough on-level players on a roster might be an issue at other levels as well. Or maybe it was a simple decision that, as long as that part of the rules was being updated anyway, it was a good time to clarify what the tournament committee was already thinking. In any case, when more tiers were added, the following rule appeared for the first time.

All deviations from at level play require prematch approval from the tournament director.    

Tom Fey Tri-Level National Invitational Team Roster Rules

Again, this is another case of how USTA League bias and experience clouds captain and player understanding of that stipulation. A captain at last year’s Tri-Level event who was short a player for the 5.0 line was directed to only play his “stronger” 4.5s at the top level. He understood that meant the 4.5s on the roster who were promoted to 5.0 at the end of the year. Last year, the tournament did not dictate which player from his roster had to be played up, and each lineup that he turned in was accepted without pushback. This was distinctly different than what recently happened at that event.

The USTA Texas Houston team’s saga described last Wednesday in “Tri-Level Nationals Strikes Again” did not result because new rules were imposed this year but rather because rules that were previously loosely enforced became a point of emphasis. Frustratingly, SoCal gave the other Sections a heads-up that this would happen at a Section League Coordinator conference call held last summer. As it turns out, news of the new point of emphasis flowed out well in some Sections. In others, not so much.

To put a finer point on it, without an actual rule change, some Section representatives on that call may have failed to recognize the full implications that rigorous enforcement would bring. There are a few indications that some Sections and teams were caught off guard by the new strict interpretation of Team Roster requirements. Through the grapevine, I heard that NorCal sent a third place team to the event because the top two finishers at Sectionals couldn’t muster the minimum mix of players at each level on their roster. I know for a fact that Missouri Valley sent their men’s “High” Tri-Level 2nd place team because the team that won couldn’t hit the roster minimums either.

Under the circumstances, it is likely that when the USTA Texas Houston team showed up to the event a player short, the Tri-Level tournament committee suspected they had gamed the system by registering a player that they knew would not travel to the event. For their part, the Houston team was bewildered that they were being treated like they had broken a rule and felt like they were being unfairly disadvantaged by having their lineup dictated to them. Ironically, the tournament committee claims they were forcing Houston to play straight up, but arguably made a decision that weakened the team on the 5.0 line. If the Tri-Level tournament committee believed that Houston had intentionally violated the roster rule, it is easy to understand why the Houston’s team’s appeal to play their preferred line at 5.0 fell on deaf ears.

This confusion would never occur in USTA League, as there is a defined structure and formality to how USTA Rules and Regulations are documented and flowed down through the Sections to the local level. Unfortunately, the same degree of rigor does not exist for National Invitationals such as Tri-Level. It is easy to understand how communication on this one fell through the cracks.

My primary quibble with the tournament committee’s decision to only approve one player at 5.0 is that there is a big difference between requiring “pre-match tournament director approval” and “the tournament director will dictate which player(s) are eligible to play up.” Especially when one, and only one, player is designated in that capacity from otherwise logically equal options. The Houston team from USTA Texas had two 4.5s on the roster who had been promoted to 5.0 and attended the event. Either player was providing “on-level” competition at their 2025 NTRP rated level to their prospective opponents.

If Tri-Level wants to continue that practice in future events, I suggest updating the Team Roster Rules to better manage player and team expectations. Additionally, I think it would be a good practice to highlight points of emphasis with existing rules on the event page rather than only verbalizing it in the Section League Coordinator meeting. We now know from experience that the news doesn’t flow down uniformly or cleanly throughout all the Sections.

As long as players compete at the National Tri-Level Invitational Championships and other National Invitational events, they should know that the tournament administration may create novel rules inconsistent with USTA League National Regulations. Additionally, new points of emphasis or interpretations can emerge with little to no notice. Players should review the current National Invitational issued rules before competing in local and Sectional events to hedge against the possibility that changes may not flow down cleanly throughout their Section.

Next Wednesday, I will explore how Tri-Level rules were (and were not) propagated through USTA Texas this year. The following week, I will look at these events through the lens of player experience. That is a great case study in how various objectives and benefits of alternative play formats create tradeoffs.