Yesterday, I wrote about how the USTA Texas tournament ranking system once incentivized participation in small tennis tournament divisions by awarding 1st and 2nd place ranking points when there were only two entries. Today, I am turning my attention to another innovative practice which was also cast aside from that section’s legacy ranking system. Texas used to have a method for awarding ranking points across divisions when players were combined into a single draw.
Let’s say a tournament had two Singles players who entered a 45+ age group open division and two others that entered 55+. If the 55+ players agreed to play in a combined division at 45+, the Section would still award the 55+ players with 1st and 2nd place ranking points based on how they performed in the younger division. For example, if one of the 55+ players won the combined draw, they would receive 1st place ranking points for both the 45+ and 55+ divisions.
When players agree to combine divisions, it supports and enables more match play for everybody involved. That is consistent with this site’s “More tennis is always the answer” guiding principle. As I wrote about last weekend, many players who enter tournaments are motivated by the opportunity to play matches, while others may prioritize ranking points. In the scenario above, if either of the 55+ players felt they needed the ranking points, they might have refused to agree to the combined divisions. If that transpired, each division would have been competed as a single match.
For many players, when tournaments don’t deliver enough match play, it eventually becomes a negative factor when deciding when and where to play. Expecting people to repeatedly spend time and money traveling for a single match is unsustainable. Even when tournaments are in a player’s local area, the time hit of rearranging weekend plans for that single match when one or more league matches were likely available potentially tips the scales.
Last year, I entered Women’s 18+ 4.5 Singles at the Level 4 RBC Wealth Management Open in Houston, which is held over the Easter weekend. Only one other person entered that division, and only two were in the field for Women’s Open. When the tournament asked if I would be willing to combine divisions, I responded that I would do whatever the other 4.5 entry preferred. She opted for more matches, so we all competed in an Open Round Robin. While I was happy to prioritize the increased match play over ranking points, what I logically earned at that tournament would have put me in a good position to qualify for the Texas Masters in Women’s 4.5 Singles.
In other words, forgoing those ranking points had a real negative impact for me. Additionally, the fact that I didn’t earn those early season ranking points influenced my playing decisions throughout the remainder of the year. As I looked at other potential opportunities to play, it was accompanied with an overwhelming sense of “why bother?” For example, even though I went down to play doubles at the Texas Sectionals tournament, playing in the Singles draw under brutally hot weather conditions just wasn’t worth it to me.
The USTA Ranking point system is intended to motivate tournament participation. Unfortunately, that incentive is negated when players are stripped of the opportunity to earn ranking points in the division they entered. Players willing to compete in a combined draw should not have to choose between supporting increased match play or doing what is best for their ranking. It is high time to examine how USTA Texas used to approach this situation and explore how those principles could be implemented within the USTA National Tournament Framework.
The simple reality is that participation in the higher levels of competition in both tournaments and leagues continues to wane. Something needs to be done to jump-start participation and provide players in marginalized divisions with the basic opportunity to play.
