A couple of years ago, the USTA unveiled a new unified adult tournament framework. One of the breathless exhortations about it touted “ONE nationwide points-per-round ranking system.” It is a perplexing statement because neither the current nor any of the legacy ranking systems are in actuality points-per-round systems. The misnomer may be at the root of misunderstanding on how an effective ranking system should be structured within the USTA.
I have been contemplating where the idea that “points-per-round” was the right characterization for the current ranking system may have originated. The ranking system that was in place prior to the adoption of the current framework may provide insight into where the organization was coming from when the term apparently came into use.
Performance Based Ranking Systems
The USTA rankings system used when I competed as Junior in the 1970’s and early 80’s was calculated by a semi-secret computer algorithm. It was a performance based system that dynamically adjusted the player rankings based on the quality of their match wins and losses. The calculation was weighted heavily on the strength of the opponent and the match outcome.
Under that system, It really didn’t matter in what tournament or in what round a match occurred, only that it was sanctioned by the USTA. From a rankings point perspective a “good win” could come in the first round or the finals. The same goes for “bad losses.” However, usually in a tournament the strength of opponent increases as the tournament progresses. Matches in later rounds usually (but not always) carried more value.
Under the dynamic performance based ranking system, the only way for a player to improve their ranking is to win against higher ranked players or to just play a match with a closer score than the computer would have predicted. Consequently the concepts of a “good win” and “bad loss” were firmly entrenched in the way people understood and talked about match results during my Junior days. The USTA dynamic performance based ranking system worked pretty similar to how UTR and (presumably) the emerging WTN ratings are calculated.
One key difference is that the rankings lists weren’t published until the end of the year. However, players knew. Tournament seeding makes it pretty obvious who the top ranked players were. The ranking lists were routinely provided to tournament directors so they could seed their tournaments. It was all supposed to be a big secret but everybody was in on the charade.
Computer Rankings, Incentives, and Player Behavior
The primary issue with the legacy dynamic performance based ranking system is that it created an incentive for players to duck competitive play to “protect their rankings.” If a player had performed well at tournaments early in the rankings period, then they were “risking” their ranking if they entered more tournaments where they might incur a “bad loss.”
In other words, the performance based ranking system incentivized the top-ranked tennis players to avoid tournament play. To counteract that, the USTA and the individual Sections created systems that forced players to compete in a minimum number of events. In Texas, Junior players were required to play a certain number of “Major Zone” tournaments plus the Sectional Championships in order to qualify for one of the Texas Section endorsements for Nationals.
This system created an interesting pattern of player behavior reflected in the tournament participation cycle that hinged around the Nationals tournament calendar. The Texas Section received ~10 endorsements to USTA Nationals during that era. That means that the top ~10 players were absent from local tournaments during the summer Nationals season. That sparked a cascading series of decisions by other players to also avoid competition during that time.
Players ranked in the ~11-15 range had little incentive to play tournaments without the top players because they had no opportunity to improve their ranking through “good wins.” Playing against the other players in their own tier could not tangibly improve their ranking. However, those players had a lot to lose. Entering a tournament exclusively filled with lower ranked players could only result in expected wins and bad losses. It was a textbook no-win situation.
That effect cascaded on down throughout the rankings until it reached the tier of players who didn’t have a realistic chance of earning a National endorsement. Those players would play for the love of the game and for competitive development with the hope that their matchplay experience would give them a better shot the following year.
That is the place in the Junior ranking system where I lived.
Better Incentives and Better Behaviors
It is pure speculation on my part, but I think the USTA recognized the absurdity of a ranking system that incentivized people to not play. It is bad for Junior player development and the overall tennis ecosystem. My personal theory is that the current ranking system implemented for both Junior and Adult tennis was originally conceived to solve the problem of players minimizing tournament participation.
The current “points-per-round” ranking system removes the penalty or risk from playing as many tournaments as possible. Under the current approach accumulated ranking points are not lost by playing more tournaments where the player might potentially lose all their matches. Instead points disappear only as they expire each year.
Cumulative Tournament Performance
If I were proposing a name for the system in effect today, I would call it a “Cumulative Tournament Performance” ranking system. The legacy ranking system is better described as a “Dynamic Match Performance” system.
Points-per-round is not a valid descriptor for tournament ranking system at all. Instead, that term describes a particular method to quantify player performance within a single tournament. Even then points-per-round is only applicable to a small subset of draw types. Points-per-round is not an optimal approach to take for most draw formats.
Tomorrow I will continue this thread by describing the case where points-per-round actually makes sense. I think that may have been where the idea that points-per-round was a good idea essentially emerged. There is also an outside chance I may finally getting around to talking about the downside of points-per-round draw formats.
- Adult Tournament Structure: Top Things to Know, USTA National, viewed April19, 2022.
I stumbled onto your blog while searching for “cheating”, “sandbagging”, “recreational sports”, “USTA”, and “NTRP”. The topics discussed and your insight are fascinating and inch-perfect. I am wondering if you have seen the current petition circulating across the country calling on USTA to close the loophole in Mixed Leagues?
https://www.change.org/p/close-the-ntrp-rating-system-loophole-in-usta-leagues
As we know mixed matches don’t count towards your NTRP rating. Thus, the loophole allows for players to be creative and game the system. Mixed leagues also have Nationals, like Adult Leagues. This added incentive increases the likelihood for some players to sandbag their way to Nationals. Would hope that you could share your thought about this petition and bring attention to USTA Mixed Leagues in your upcoming blog. Would love to provide you with data or information regarding this topic as well.
Thank you!
Thanks for the pointer. I signed the petition. I am glad that you stumbled onto my site and will add mixed NTRP ratings to my list of potential future topics. Welcome aboard!