The USTA’s point-per-round philosophy is readily apparent when examining the ranking points tables for single group round robin tournaments. The fact that tables is plural isn’t a typo. Two tables were in effect for different time periods in 2021. Both the original tables and the changes that were made reflects a misguided dedication to a points-per-round philosophy. The USTA is making the problem much harder to solve than it needs to be.
I need to pull back the curtain on this one to share that this is a hard post to write for many reasons. I sincerely don’t want any individual or group to be offended by my perspectives. I recognize that the recent changes that were made by good people trying to be responsive to tournament player feedback. Fundamentally, we all want the same thing for Adult tournament tennis: fostering high levels of player engagement and participation.
My motivation in writing this post is trying to show how a mischaracterizing the current USTA “Cumulative Tournament Performance” ranking system (my term) as “points-per-round” (the USTA’s term) has led the effort astray. That mistaken philosophy has made the USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System much more complicated than it has to be.
Clarity on the problem that we are all trying to solve is essential. The problem outlined in this post is inequities in player tournament ranking points allocated within the current USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System document. A related issue is that the structural issues with the regulations and unnecessary complexity has greatly contributed to the errors exhibited by the ranking system software.
Significant issues are still present in both the regulations and the software as this post is released. In aggregate, those issues contributed to player perception that the tournament system is capricious, arbitrary, and simply not fair. It also leads to player perception that the USTA isn’t listening or taking meaningful steps to address the problem.
My objective with this post is to establish with clarity the nature of the problem that we are all trying to solve. There is a very simple solution to the well documented problems if we can we collectively find a way to acknowledge them, understand the root cause, and approach the solution set with an open mind.
Round Robin Points Per Round
The table that was in place for single group round robins during the early months of 2021 reflects what I would consider to be a pure points per round philosophy. That table is pasted below for convenient reference (Email readers who block images in their privacy settings should click here to see the post with images. This is one of those posts where the pictures are essential.)
I will be using the Level 1 tournaments as an example throughout this post. Basic arithmetic reveals that per this (now obsolete) table, every match win in a round robin was worth 750 points. The fact that there is a new table makes it pretty clear that the USTA Adult Competition Committee (ACC) felt compelled to make an update. There must have been a reason that drove the change.
Examining the new table, coincidently still in effect for 2022, shows that it still reflects a points per round philosophy. However, the points that are earned for each win were modified.
Under the new version of the table, players no longer receive a uniform number of points for each match win. In fact, the point value for each win jumps around with non-linear values. The first win in a round robin tournament is worth 1500 points. The second and third wins are now worth only 300 additional points respectively. The fourth win is worth 900 additional points.
Paradoxically, this reveals that the USTA ACC has at least a glimmer of understanding that the key to resolving the rankings points inequities is to take an “order of finish” based approach. The ACC may not be aware of this shift on the conscious level or even have a term to describe it. However, this particular update indicates that a shift is starting to happen.
I also want to believe that the USTA ACC made the update in response to player feedback on the points allocations documented in the current system. However, I have recently become jaded because the tournament ranking software has never performed the rankings calculations correctly per the regulations. The USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System policy document and the software that implements it should always be in lockstep agreement. That has not been achieved at any point in time.
There is a chance that the update to this particular table was a good faith attempt to bring the USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System policy document into alignment with the calculations implemented erroneously in the current rankings system software. That is the tail wagging the dog, but still a legitimate way to get there. Unfortunately the recent revisions only work if there are exactly five players in a round robin group AND one of the players goes 4-0 AND one player goes 3-1.
The solution is epically bad for the myriad of other permutations.
The 2 Player Scenario
If only two players enter a division in a tournament and there is no practical or agreed to way to combine with another division, the draw should still be played. Typically when that occurs, the tournament director selects First Match Losers Consolation (FMLC) with both players automatically advancing to the Finals for one match. In the FMLC draw format for a Level 1 tournament, the winner of the Finals will receive 3000 points.
According to the USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations document, the losing finalist in this scenario receives no points. The regulations are unequivocally clear that a player has to win a match in the tournament to collect performance ranking points. (However, sometimes the ranking system software miscalculates that. “An FMLC FUBAR” is the post to read for anyone who wants to go down that rabbit trail. )
If a tournament director wanted to get cute, they could theoretically create a two-person round robin draw as an alternative to an FMLC bracket. Only one match will be played either way. However the winning player would then only receive 1500 points for winning the tournament under the current table.
That point discrepancy is a travesty. The only reasonable counter argument against that claim would be a concern that players in small draws are not entitled to the same points as divisions with larger participation. That would be a short-sighted position to take.
The players in small tournament divisions have done exactly what the USTA wants them to do. They entered the tournament. Those players should not be punished because the USTA failed to attract higher participation to their division. In fact, penalizing those players with a reduction in ranking points is likely to cause them to opt out of future events.
It would also be possible to arrive at a two person round robin from a three person draw that had a player drop out. If the tournament director removed a withdrawing player from the draw, then that would leave a two person round robin with no walkovers.
As a short term band-aid fix, he USTA tournament software should prevent tournament directors from selecting the round robin format for two person divisions. (It may already do that, but I don’t have access to the software to check.)
None of these issues would occur with the order of finish point allocation table that appear at the bottom of this post.
3 and 4 Player Scenarios
Round robin play is the obvious selection when only three players enter a division of a tournament. From the dim recesses of my memory, I am pretty sure that I have seen a three person FMLC, but cannot find an example of that at the moment.
There are only two performance outcomes in a 3 person round robin. We will first examine the points allocation when the match records end up as 2-0, 1-1, and 0-2. In that scenario, the undefeated winner of the tournament would be rewarded with 1800 points rather than the 3000 that they would have received had the draw been an FMLC bracket. The runner-up would receive 1500 points rather than the 2100 that should go to that position. The winless player should not receive any points per the regulations.
If the players pull off the trifecta split of the three matches and go 1-1, 1-1, and 1-1, all three players will receive 1500 points per the tables in the USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations. The USTA has an existing tie-break procedures that should be used to determine who goes home with the trophies and the Champions points.
After the tie-break criteria is applied, the Champion should actually receive 3000 points, the runner up should receive 2100 points, and the 3rd place player should receive 1800 points. The points-per-round tables in the USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations reduce those point allocations across the board.
Paradoxically, there is an “error” in the rankings system software that actually calculates the single group round robin format as order-of-finish. Most players would probably agree that the software is performing the ranking point calculation correctly. However, it is an error because it is not in compliance with the standard established in the USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations document.
In the interest of preserving space and time, I will observe that similar issues can occur in 4 person round robin divisions. I have also included the round robin tie-break rules currently in the USTA regulations as an appendix to this already ridiculously long post.
Once again, none of these issues would occur with the order of finish point allocation tables that appear at the bottom of this post.
The 5 Player Scenario
There is a tacit assumption build into the current round robin ranking tables in the USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations that precisely 5 players should be in each round robin group. That is apparent because in order for a player even have the possibility to earn the Champions point allocation for the tournament, they have to defeat 4 other players.
What is particularly annoying about that assumption is that the tournament directors in my region almost exclusively use FMLC when a division has 5 players. In other words, the USTA has optimized the round robin tables around a scenario that rarely happens at least where I live.
All that being said, it might be tempting to think that since the point tables were tailored for 5 person round robins that there would be no issues with the points calculations. Unfortunately, we all know what is coming next.
The round robin point table works if the players in a 5 person division cooperate to produce results that have an inherent clean order of finish. For example, 4-0, 3-1, 2-2, 1-3, and 0-4. In that case, every player would get the same number of ranking points that they would have received for their order of finish in a FMLC bracket. Huzzah!
Unfortunately, round robin pools have a nasty habit of not turning out that cleanly. In fact, any other outcome other than the records outlined above produces some degree of ranking points inequities. For example, if the pool played out as 3-1, 3-1, 2-2, 2-2, and 0-4, then the top two players would only receive 2100 points. The Champion, as determined by the round robin tie-break procedures would be shorted 900 points.
Guess what!?! None of these issues would occur with the order of finish point tables that appear at the bottom on this post.
The 6 Player Scenario
At one of the NTRP Nationals tournaments this year, a round robin pool was contested with 6 doubles teams. It was the right decision that supports more tennis for all the participants. However, it also produces interesting rankings point anomaly. In a 6 team round robin pool, it is possible for more than one team to win four matches.
As an example, the results could plausibly wind up as 4-1, 4-1, 3-2, 2-3, 1-4, and 1-4. According to the ranking tables, the 4-1 teams would both receive the Champions 3000 points. There should only be one Champion in any given tournament.
You’re tired of hearing all this, right? This issue does not occur with the order of finish point table that appears in the very next section.
The Order of Finish Fix
The simple fact of the matter is there is no equitable solution to round robin format ranking points allocation using the de facto points-per-round system. No matter how the points are adjusted, it creates some inequities. Fortunately, shifting the perspective to order of finish creates a solution that works on all round robin permutations.
Without further adieu, here is my proposal for replacing the current round robin rankings point tables in the USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations with one that takes a strict order of finish based approach.
The way this table is used is that once the round robin is completed, the rankings points are awarded to each player based on their order of finish. This table works for up to an 8 person round robin, which accommodates three players more than the tables currently in the USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System document.
However, I am not entirely satisfied with that solution. It is more elegant to design the structure of the USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System so that the document contains a single “master” point allocation table. In fact, I have previously proposed that very thing in “The Fix is In: Repairing the USTA Tournament Points Allocation Tables.” Here is the table from that post.
This rankings table works for all existing draw formats with the exception of the Team Tennis tournaments outlier as discussed yesterday in “Team Tennis and Ranking Points.” Team tennis would still need a dedicated point table.
The benefit of the master table approach it becomes almost impossible to create points inequities based on draw format or division size. A lot of the issues and errors in the new system would simply go away with this new approach.
As an additional benefit, this approach will also result in a less complex implementation of the rankings system software. Paradoxically, I know that that may not initially be seen as a benefit with the USTA since the culture of toxic positivity asserts that the software is either working or almost working. (It’s not. )
The sections of each draw format within the USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System would be updated to contain instructions for determining order of finish. The order of finish is then mapped onto the single master table. The rankings system software essentially perform a lookup rather than a calculation.
It is trivial to determine an order of finish for a single group round robin. It is only slightly more complex but still very easy to do the same thing for a two stage round robin tournament. Additionally, this approach does not constrain the size of round robin pools which is another clear benefit.
These alternate tables are beautiful, efficient, and solve all the inequities that exist in the myriad of the tables in the USTA Adult Tournaments Ranking System. It simplifies the implementation of the ranking point software. It promotes flexibility to tournament directors which can offer these formats without penalizing and potentially alienating the player community.
What’s The Downside?
The USTA Adult Tournaments Ranking System needs to be completely rewritten. The same is true of the software that implements that standard. It will feel like starting over, but both the document and the software are riddled with issues and errors. The most important consideration is not the sunk cost invested in the current system, but rather the most efficient way to achieve a best in class digital platform from where we are. We all want to build a system that serves the entire tennis ecosystem for years to come.
The quickest way to get there is to address the foundational structural issues embedded within the USTA Adult Tournaments Ranking System. As a second phase, the software rankings system should be updated as a faithful implementation of those standards. The effort necessarily has to start from a firm foundation. The simple fact of the matter is that we didn’t have that when these new standards and software implementation were unveiled.
If we ever decide to take that step, the revised version of the USTA Adult Tournaments Ranking System will probably be shorter than this post.
- USTA Adult Tournaments Ranking System, as of February 2022, viewed April 29, 2022.
- USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations, Amended December 2020, viewed April 29, 2022.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2022
Round Robin Tie-Break Criteria
Section VII.A of the USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations defines the round robin tie break criteria for certain shortened formats that I have rarely seen used. That same section points to the Friend at Court section II.B.6.c for the criteria for the round robin tie break criteria for more traditional formats of play that players are likely to encounter.
Determining order of finish. The player who wins the most matches is the winner. If two players are tied, then the winner of their head to-head match is the winner. If three or more players are tied, the Referee shall use the following steps in the order listed to break all ties.
The Referee shall break as many ties as possible using a given step before using the next step. These steps are:
• The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving just the tied players;
• The player with the highest percentage of sets won of all sets completed;
• The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving the players who remain tied;
• The player with the highest percentage of games won of all games completed;
• The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving the players who remain tied;
• The player with the highest percentage of sets won of sets completed among players in the group under consideration;
• The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving the players who remain tied;
• The player with the highest percentage of games won of games completed among the players under consideration; and
• The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving the players who remain tied.If the Referee has applied all the steps and a tie still cannot be broken, the Referee shall use a random drawing among the remaining tied players to determine their order of finish.
Friend at Court section II.B.6.c
