Fiend at Court Unplugged
The USTA League Move-Up/Split-Up rule was put into place to keep the same teams from advancing to the National Championships in consecutive years. Usually I perceive that league play and the associated regulations are depressive influences on tournament culture. Today is a rare exception. It is quite possible that tournaments can appropriate a thing or two from league regulations to improve the overall ecosystem.
Yesterday I discussed the Move-Up regulations in “USTA League: A Move-Up/Split-Up Loophole.” With apologies to the Broadway musical “Hamilton,” I certainly wasn’t “In the room where it happened.” However, it is reasonable to speculate that the logic that drove that rule is a philosophy that underpins the NTRP system. A team or player performing at the top of an NTRP level should “Move-Up” the following season.
It is a quirk of USTA tennis that the “best” tournament players are not routinely bumped up to the next level the following year. I have personal experience with this. As an NTRP computer rated 4.5, I played predominately 5.0 tournaments one year including Texas Masters Championships which I won. The following year, I was somehow still computer rated 4.5. When I make the assertion that the USTA underweights tournament tennis, that is one of the data points that shapes that opinion.
While writing this post, I did a quick spot check on the correlation between rankings and NTRP ratings the following season for Women’s 3.5 18+ Singles in 2021. Only 6 out of the top 10 were bumped up to 4.0 the following season. I was actually somewhat surprised that it was that high. However, one of the remaining 4 was demoted to NTRP 3.0. Cases like that also shape my perception that there is little correlation between tournament performance and NTRP ratings.
In fact, examining the record of the player who was bumped down is a great illustration of how the tournament pyramid is broken. Most of her rankings points came from Level 4 events competed in shortened format with a tiny draw. A full treatment of why that is bad for tournament tennis is in the following three posts for anyone who is interested.
- NTRP vs Competitive Pathway
- NTRP National Championships: You Want That Supersized?
- Making NTRP Tournaments Work
That series of posts outlined a case for why the NTRP National Championships should not award any rankings points. In the same spirit, I am also starting wonder if a tournament rule similar to the USTA League “Move-Up” rule would be beneficial. I think that it is worthy of consideration.
The NTRP National Championships is an incentive mechanism put into place to inspire and motivate participation in USTA tournaments. The USTA League “Move-Up” reflects two fundamental truths about building a healthy competitive ecosystem. First, more players will participate if there is a realistic opportunity to make it to that event. Second, and perhaps more importantly for tennis, a player who advances to USTA Nationals should aspire to repeat the feat at the next NTRP level.
The NTRP National Championship tournament was appropriated from League play because that mechanism is believed to drive participation. The Tournament regulations must necessarily consider all the rules that Leagues have learned are needed to make it work, not just the cherry on top.
Maybe they did. Like I said, I wasn’t in the room where it happened. It is yet another opportunity for increased transparency.
Thanks! I made the correction.
In the 5th paragraph, second sentence, I think two words are out of order,
“shortened format with and a tiny draw”. I think it should read “and with”. Or you could just leave out “and”.