An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
The USTA has announced that starting in 2021, NTRP Adult tournaments will be divided into three age tiers. The stated reason for NTRP age divisions is that it will increase participation at tournaments. In fact, the planned elimination of Mixed Doubles from NTRP tournaments was justified by projecting that the additional age tiers will create so much participation that there will no longer be courts available to accommodate Mixed.
When the USTA announced the intent to host an individual NTRP National Championship tournament for 2018, I was surprised to see separate divisions for NTRP 18+ and for NTRP 50+. The reason I was puzzled to see that, was because the bifurcation is inconsistent with the USTA assertions about the NTRP system. As I have explored this topic, I am starting to wonder if the USTA is in the midst of an NTRP identity crisis.
Yesterday I wrote about the strengths of the USTA NTRP System. Today we are examining the flip side of that coin, which are the weaknesses. While there are legitimate criticisms that can be made over the fidelity or granularity of the system, the primary issues with the NTRP system are the incentives of the league framework that surrounds it, rather than with the system itself.
The NTRP system was invented by the USTA Education and Research (E&R) office in 1978. The USTA officially created the league system the following year in 1979. The formalization of league play, as enabled by the NTRP system, fueled an explosive boom in USTA membership. Level-based play was the key to drawing increased and widespread participation in the sport.
Before I delve too deeply into this topic, I believe that there is some evidence to suggest that the USTA has either intentionally, or perhaps unconsciously, already slotted the NTRP as a competitive strength. From the outside looking in, it appears that the NTRP system is deeply ingrained within the USTA organization.
1 response
Today we are transitioning over to the side of my tennis consumer analysis that addresses the people who are engaged in tennis. Further segmentation within that market are people who are engaged in tennis in a non-playing capacity and people who play tennis. I drew a Venn diagram of these two segments acknowledging that there is some degree of overlap between those two groups.
I am delivering on the promise I made yesterday to spend the rest of the weekend examining what a comprehensive consumer analysis for tennis entails. The image that accompanies this post is my literal first draft of that effort. First, let’s revisit the statement that sent me down this path.
One of the most interesting aspects of the “2021 Adult Tournament Changes” published by the USTA is the claim that the new structure would make it easier to market tennis to the consumer. If this means that the USTA is actually about to start marketing tennis tournaments, this is super exciting news. As I previously observed in “Donald Dell Fires Shots Across the USTA Bow,” I cannot recall seeing an advertisement for playing tennis outside of a tennis context. Ever.
One of my favorite sayings is “When all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.” When thinking about how to retain junior players as they transition into adult tennis, tournaments are like the USTA’s hammer while leagues are the USTA’s wrench. Both are valuable tools, unless confronted with a screw.
Yesterday I expressed skepticism that the reason that junior players do not transition directly into adult tournaments is because they are confused about the structure. I believe that the real point of uncertainty is understanding how they fit within the NTRP system. That difficulty arises both when looking for an event to play as well as during the self-rating process.