This weekend, I’m continuing to explore how USTA competition delivery mechanisms incentivize player behavior. In particular, I want to revisit something previously described in “How NTRP Tournament Fragmentation Hurts 18+ Players.” Specifically, how ranking points are awarded when a tournament division has only two entrants creates an inflection point that can either drive or discourage participation. While ranking systems are designed to ensure fair competition, the structural quirks can create unintended consequences.
Before the legacy USTA Texas ranking system was deprecated by the rollout of the USTA National tournament framework, a draw that contained only two competitors awarded ranking points to both “Finalists.” When that occurred, a single match was played, and the winners received first-place ranking points while the losers received second-place points. Participation in a two-entrant division guaranteed two things. A match would be played, and ranking points would be awarded.
For a draw to “make” in any tournament, it must attract a minimum number of entries—which means someone has to be the first to commit. Under the Texas rule that awarded ranking points to both players in a two-person draw, the first entrant had a clear incentive to sign up, knowing that only one more player was needed to ensure the division would happen. Once that occurred, other players scanning the entry list were also encouraged to join, regardless of their confidence in winning, because they were guaranteed both a match and probable ranking points. As a result, a second player often materialized, driven by that dual incentive.
In the previous paragraph, I didn’t say guaranteed ranking points for a reason. Once a division had two entries, it was significantly more likely to attract a third. The next person to enter was incentivized by the opportunity to play two matches and only having to win once to earn second-place ranking points. In those days, draws were still small, but at least they happened much more frequently than they currently do.
When the USTA National tournament framework was unveiled, if there was any consideration of adopting this particular Texas rule, it was likely dismissed based on a fundamental principle codified in the Regulations. Players cannot earn ranking points for receiving byes. From a ranking integrity standpoint, awarding points for a match that did not require a victory is counterintuitive. However, that neglects to consider the social dynamics that encouraged participation in low-entry divisions as evidenced under the Texas system.
Like any decision, there is a tradeoff. Under the old Texas rule, some players earned ranking points without winning a match. However, attracting a second player who was potentially incentivized by the prospect of those “free” ranking points often triggered a snowball effect that brought in additional competitors. In contrast, under the current system, many divisions fail to materialize simply because no one wants to be the first to commit. Why bother if it is likely that no others will follow?
The risk of awarding “unearned” ranking points is far outweighed by the benefits of fostering more tournament play for historically low-participation divisions. If the goal is to promote competitive opportunities and keep tournament draws viable, the USTA should seriously consider revising how ranking points are handled in divisions when only two people/teams enter. Counterintuitively, supporting two competitor draws with “unearned” awarding ranking points reduces the number of times that contingency is necessary. More people materialize once it is clear the draw will make.
