Fiend at Court Unplugged
In “When a USTA Level 4 Tournament… Isn’t” three weeks ago, I repeatedly emphasized the phrase: “The draw format of a tournament should not materially alter the rankings point allocation for the players.” The reason for belaboring that foundational truth is that it is key to understanding the ongoing player frustration over the USTA tournament rankings points allocations. In the intervening time, I continue to wonder if the policy makers have fully accepted or internalized that feedback. Perhaps an example will help.
The 2021 Texas Masters Men’s 18+ 3.0 doubles draw only had 5 entries. Those competitors were placed into a single round robin pool. They ended up with the following Order of Finish.
| Order of Finish | Points Awarded | |
| Bergeron, J / Valadez, P Shavano Park, TX/San Antonio, TX | 1 | 1515 |
| Casias, R / Bosquez, J San Antonio, TX/Pleasanton, TX | 2 | 1065 |
| Matthews, R / fisher, j Round Rock, TX/Georgetown, TX | 3 | 915 |
| Rasmussen, M / Indraneel, S Taylor, TX/Austin, TX | 4 | 765 |
| Vansteel, M / Baca, J DALLAS, TX/Corpus Christi, TX | 5 | 615 |
A single pool round robin tournament is one of the formats explicitly specified in the “2021 USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System.” The points awarded to those competitors aligns 100% with that document for a Level 4 tournament.
Moving over to the Men’s 18+ 3.5 doubles draw reveals a full competitive field of 8 teams. Per the traditional Master’s tournament format, the teams were placed into two preliminary Round Robin pools with the winners advancing to one final championship match. The following table reflects both the preliminary round robin and final order of finish.
| RR Finish | Final Order of Finish | Current Points Awarded | 2021 USTA Ranking Table | Logical Order of Finish Points | ||
| Cruz, P / Ochoa, J (5)Helotes, TX/San Antonio, TX | 2/1 | 2 | 3-4 | 247 | 247 | 765 |
| Allen, T / Pugh, R (8)Austin, TX/Austin, TX | 0/3 | 4 | 5-8 | 15 | 15 | 525 |
| Ozaki, K / Panati, S (1)Austin, TX/Austin, TX | 3/0 | 1 | 1 | 1515 | 939 | 1515 |
| Hearn, F / Martinez, N (4)San Antonio, TX/Austin, TX | 1/2 | 3 | 5-8 | 131 | 131 | 525 |
| Epperson, C / Conner, D (7)Frisco, TX/Savannah, TX | 0/3 | 4 | 5-8 | 15 | 15 | 525 |
| Martin, C / Kayser, T (2)San Antonio, TX/West Lake Hills, TX | 3/0 | 1 | 2 | 1065 | 363 | 1065 |
| Yarbrough, J / Cates, K (3)Waxahachie, TX/Fort Worth, TX | 1/2 | 3 | 5-8 | 131 | 131 | 525 |
| Jordan, J / Totah, M (6)Austin, TX/Austin, TX | 2/1 | 2 | 3-4 | 247 | 247 | 765 |
That particular format is not explicitly listed in the “2021 USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System.” The points awarded to those competitors when the rankings list was initially published following the Masters is reflected in the “2021 USTA Ranking Points” column of that table. Those numbers align precisely with the “Tournaments With Round Robin Preliminary Rounds & SE Draw of 4 Playoff” table. For a Level 4 tournament, 116 points are awarded for each preliminary round robin win and the the final match is worth an additional 576 points, winner take all. (Level 4 tournaments award 15 participation points for players which are reflected in the totals.)
When the the rankings updates were first published following the Masters, the winners of the Men’s 3.0 Doubles brackets received 1515 points. The winners of the Men’s 3.5 Doubles bracket only received 939 points. The player outcry reflected the innate understanding that winning an 8 team division cannot possibly be worth fewer ranking points than winning a 5 team division at the same Level of tournament.
The disparities continue on down the line, with each player in the 5 team draw receiving considerably more points than the corresponding finishers in the 8 team draw.
The problem illustrated in this example is not an issue with the USTA Digital Platform. There is a philosophical error in the rankings tables that needs to be corrected by policy. Those ranking tables are under the purview of the USTA Adult Competition Committee. Any deviation from the ranking points tables in the “2021 USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System” requires approval by the ACC.
Indeed a departure has been made. The “Current Points Awarded” column reflects the point totals for each of these players as this post was written. Based on those adjustments, it appears that the ACC has elected to modify the point totals for only the first and second place finishers. Making a policy exception of that nature is a monumentally big deal. I don’t know of anybody that objects to those point adjustments.
Additionally from the current ranking point allocations above, it also appears that the ACC has elected to NOT adjust the point totals for the competitors that finished 3-8. The justification for that decision is that making a policy exception of that nature is a monumentally big deal. That argument doesn’t hold water in a situation where an exception is already granted to part of the field.
Formal communication from the ACC to the players explaining the decision and rationale is desperately needed. That would enable players to determine if their rankings points are correct per policy. Nobody should be in the position of having to read the tea leaves in the rankings lists to discern what policy decisions have been made. Unfortunately that is exactly the situation.
Let’s consider what needs to happen point by point from a player perspective:
- Players need to know what their rankings points should be per policy. In other words, addendums and/or modifications to the ranking point tables must be documented and communicated to the player community. It is insufficient to simply say that it is the “2021 USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System” when clearly exceptions have been made. Those exceptions must be documented.
- Players need to calculate what their rankings points should be per published USTA policy. Currently the playing community does not have enough information to complete that exercise because there are clearly exceptions being made without explanation.
- Players need to reconcile their ranking point totals per policy with what is reflected in the Digital Platform. There are still latent issues with the totals in the Digital Platform. Without understanding the policy it is impossible for players to discern if there are errors and the source of any errors.
- Players need to be clear when providing feedback if issues with their rankings are related to policy decisions or accuracy of the Digital Platform.
There has to be a way to distinguish policy issues from digital platform implementation issues. Clarifying the policy would go a long way toward eliminating the confusion. Treating each request as an isolated issue fails to comprehend the big picture. The USTA and the ACC needs to focus on the forest, not the trees.
As a parting shot that illustrates the philosophical errors in the “2021 USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System” tables, the team that finished last in the Men’s 3.0 doubles bracket lost all four matches they played. They were awarded 525 points for their efforts.
Contrast that with the second place team in the Men’s 3.5 doubles bracket. That team initially received only 363 points per the current rankings tables. That team actually won three matches. A system that awards a winless team 525 points and a team that wins three matches 363 points based on the bracket selected is inherently flawed.
Even after the points were adjusted for the Finalists in the Men’s 3.5 Doubles draw, the inequity remains. Once again the winless 3.0 team received more points than the two teams who finished 2-1 and the two teams that finished 1-2 in pool play. Again, that is a system that is inherently flawed.
The USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System tables have to be updated for 2022 to address the foundational errors. “The draw format of a tournament should not materially alter the rankings point allocation for the players.” That has to be a priority heading into next year.
- 2021 USTA Adult Tournaments Ranking System, USTA Web Hosted Document, viewed 11/11/2021.
