I made a startling discovery in the USTA Adult Ranking System document last week. There are actually two Round Robin tables that were in effect in 2021. Additionally, the change opens a tiny window into the thought process of the USTA Adult Competition Committee. (ACC) To top it off, I also realized there is an alternate way to look at a recent error I documented in Round Robin tournament ranking points calculations.
Configuration management of the public facing website is not the forte of the USTA. There are multiple versions of the USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System lying around. For example, the first link that Google serves to me is the document that went into effect January 1, 2021.1 If I keep scrolling down, I might click through to a USTA web page titled “Adult Tennis Tournament Rankings.”2 That page has links to pdfs for the 2021 and 2022 Adult Tournament Ranking System.3
The Plot Thickens
The 2022 Adult Tournament Ranking System contains two points tables for single pool Round Robins. The first table is for tournaments that started August 1, 2021 or later. The second table is for tournaments prior to that time. Thinking that through, it means that the 2021 Adult Tournament Ranking System document is no longer valid for the latter part of the year. The 2022 Adult Tournament Ranking System version fully covers 2021.
I think the USTA should annotate the 2021 version to reflect that is has been superseded. I don’t mind retaining deprecated documents for people like me who might be interested in the legacy document previously in effect. I have some thoughts on how to organize and present that data. However, that is enough time on the configuration management rabbit trail for today.
Back To Adult Tennis Rankings
The picture below reflects the two Round Robin rankings points tables that are printed in the 2022 version of the document. (Once again, some email programs block the image based on the privacy settings. If you don’t see the picture, I recommend visiting the post directly on fiendatcourt.com.)
I have recently come to appreciate is that there is a subtle divergence between the way the USTA uses the term “Points Per Round” and what I consider to be a more precise accurate definition. I think these tables are marked as “Points Per Win” rather than “Points Per Round” because the USTA is also starting to come to the same realization.
In the second table (the one for tournaments prior to 7/31/2021), every match won at a Level 1 tournament is worth the same 750 points. That is a Points Per Round system. Matches in an equivalent stage of the tournament are all worth the same number of points.
In the other table (the one that is in effect for all tournaments after 8/1/2021), the first match won at a Level 1 tournament is worth 1500 points. The second and third matches won are each worth an additional 300 points. The fourth match won is worth 750 points. That is not a Points Per Round system. I cannot quibble with the characterization as Points Per Win.
Almost (But Not Quite) Order of Finish.
The very first table in the Adult Tournament Ranking System document is for Feed-In Championship through Quarterfinals (FICQ) brackets. That tournament format is inherently an Order of Finish system.
FICQ draws can be quite large. The full table in the USTA document will accommodate a 256 player FICQ draw. The one I generated and wrote about in “The Fix is In” supports that same number. Extremely large draw sizes in Adult tournaments would be a good problem to have. High participation is completely compatible with Order of Finish.
The table below shows the points awarded for finishing in the top 4 positions in a Level 1 FICQ tournament.
Those point totals should look familiar. They correspond to the Points Per Win values indicated in the recently added Round Robin table. The new USTA table is a flawed attempt to replicate Order of Finish. My theory is that the new table was created after player outcry over the inequity between the points awarded to players in Round Robin draws and players assigned other draw formats.
It would be more intuitive if this table was expressed as “Order of Finish.” In fact, that would look almost exactly like the top of the FICQ table.
| Description | Finish | Points |
| Champion | 1 | 3000 |
| 2nd Place | 2 | 2100 |
| 3rd Place | 3 | 1800 |
| 4th Place | 4 | 1500 |
One More Rabbit Trail
I believe that the USTA ranking calculation software is coded as if the Round Robin table is Order of Finish rather than the Points Per Win. Recall that a winless player was awarded 1500 points for a 4th place finish in the Women’s 5.0 Singles bracket at the 2022 NTRP National Championships in Surprise. (The post “Even More Rankings Calculations Issues” more fully describes that problem.)
If that ranking calculation was performed according to the Points per Win table in the USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System, then that player would not have been awarded any points at all. The most logical way the mistake could have occurred is if the system is coded as Order of Finish coupled with another error. It is a traditional (but ambiguous) part of the USTA Adult Ranking System that players have to win a match to collect tournament performance points. The new software system that performs the ranking calculations has consistently made that error in single group Round Robin tournaments.
Finishing Shots
Why the USTA elected to fix the points inequities in the single group Round Robin but not the two stage Round Robin format is a mystery to me. I suspect that devotion to Points Per Round makes that particular problem seem much harder to solve than it actually is.
This particular change corrects ONE of the errors in the USTA Adult Tournament Regulations document. However, the solution also created ONE new problem. Tomorrow I am going to describe the ONE new issue and a case for why it is not the best option for tournament tennis.
- USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System, effective January 1, 2021, viewed April 19, 2022.
- Adult Tennis Tournament Rankings, undated USTA web page, viewed April 19, 2022.
- USTA Adult Tournaments Ranking System, as of February 2022, viewed April 19, 2022.
