Metrics Matter

In the world of data analytics, “you get what you measure” is a cautionary reminder that implementing performance metrics modifies human behavior. When done correctly, data collection and tracking can result in dramatic improvements. Unfortunately, organizational history is full of examples where performance measures were implemented that inspired people to do exactly the wrong thing.

Additionally, the imperative that organizations have to “follow the data” is only valid if data collection is accurate and relevant to the decision at hand. That is why care must be taken with any measurement system to ensure that it closely aligns with the desired outcomes.

In the case of the USTA, almost everything should support the mission “to promote and develop the growth of tennis.” Consequently, increasing participation is a reasonable objective for any product or program implemented by the organization. That includes USTA League. It is perfectly reasonable for the USTA to define metrics to track and assess participation.

The primary metric the USTA uses to measure League participation is counting the total number of registrations. In fact, from an organizational perspective, that makes sense because every time a person registers for USTA League, both the local and National organizations earn revenue off the registration fee. Healthy cash flow is a great metric in almost any organizational setting.

However, for USTA League to show strong performance, there is pressure to demonstrate continuous growth. One way to do that is by attracting more players to register for League play. That might involve advertising, offering beginning clinics, or some plan for transitioning casual players into league players. That is a lot of work that might generate modest gains.

An alternate way to increase League registrations is to create a new format of play. For example, running two League seasons in the Fall and the Spring is fairly common in my local area. While only one of those can “Advance” to post-season play at the Sectional and National Levels, that potentially doubles “participation.”

40+, 55+, 18-40, Combo, Tri-Level, and Mixed leagues all add additional registrations to the USTA League performance coffers. So does having Leagues with multiple flights that allow players to register in the same League twice. While some of these boutique formats undoubtedly attract a few new players, a lot of the “participation” is the same people, registering over and over across various formats.

In “USTA League Supersized,” I wrote about mega teams that have massively bloated rosters. League organizers have no incentive to encourage or cap the number of players who can register on a team. When you are measuring success by registrations, the organization loves large rosters, even if they are so big that many players will not realistically play even two matches.

Another initiative on the drawing board is to increase the number of lines played in one type of league and eliminate singles in favor of doubles. If implemented, that change will require teams to carry more players and thus create more registrations. The fact that this is under consideration reflects the insatiable desire to generate more registrations. It might also be an indication that the USTA is running out of capacity to create yet another form of League play.

I don’t for a second believe that changing the way that USTA League participation is measured will automatically help tournaments. However, there is value in shifting the emphasis to counting individual players engaged in USTA League play, regardless of how many teams they join.

It is possible to implement a measurement framework that more closely aligns with the health of the tennis ecosystem. For example, success measures that focus on a healthy distribution of participants at the two tails of the bell curve would be beneficial. If local League organizers and the Sections were measuring a success metric of players who engage in both tournaments and Leagues, I guarantee that we would see marketing and participation in tournaments increase.

Before an effective metrics system can be devised, there must be some agreement on what constitutes a healthy ecosystem. USTA League dominates the calendar, leaving USTA tournaments grasping at viability. Something has to change to bring that into a better balance.