Last August, the USTA rolled out new qualification standards for the NTRP National Championship tournaments. The updates are effective for this year’s events in 2023. I previously made a post about the new rules at the time but focused primarily on the new tie-break procedures in “NTRP Nationals Ch-ch-ch-changes” since I had advocated for that exact thing. More recently, the changes in selection procedures have created some consternation within the Adult playing community, at least in my home Section of Texas.
The full effects of the new qualification policy and associated timelines are only now becoming apparent. We are currently at the point in the tennis calendar where, in previous years, most players definitively knew if they had qualified for the tournament by now. That simply cannot be determined because the race for qualification isn’t over yet.
While there is a lot of concern over the timelines, the situation isn’t as dire as some are imagining. I see evidence that the USTA anticipated and tried to mitigate some of the potential issues. It is a fascinating case study for me because every decision leads to secondary side effects. This weekend I am breaking that down to examine the good, the bad, and some potential borderline ugly ramifications that may arise from the new implementation.
As an editorial aside, I am confident this post would be improved if written as a parody of the children’s book “If You Give a Pig a Pancake.” (<-Sponsored Link) Alas, I just don’t have the bandwidth for that level of artistic expression this week.
The update I regard as the primary catalyst that precipitated many of the other cascading qualification and selection changes is a new eligibility decision regarding players who have been bumped up an NTRP level at the end of the previous calendar year. Those people can no longer play in the tournament at their prior level. Most players seem to think that is a good thing, with the obvious exception of those players who have been promoted. In any case, that is a decision that cannot be made in isolation.
As another editorial aside, I think that change was made because it didn’t seem fair to allow players competing significantly above level to continue to prey on the hapless people they victimized when qualifying for the event in the first place. That probably isn’t the official USTA wording or position, but sometimes you have to read between the lines.
I wholeheartedly believe requiring players to compete at their current NTRP level is a fundamentally good decision. However, that comes with an unintended side effect. There is an irreconcilable disconnect between the apparent desire to have NTRP Nationals work like an end-of-year Championship and the tyranny of the actual calendar. I will expand on that idea later this weekend.
It also created an inconsistency in how to handle Automatic Qualifiers (AQ) versus how to handle players and Sections who use the National Standings List as a basis for selection. That is also a topic for later this weekend. Fun times.
For today, we are focusing on the downstream effect stemming from the idea that USTA most likely felt a responsibility to accommodate promoted (and demoted!) players with an opportunity to accumulate enough ranking points at their new NTRP level to qualify for the Championships. A perceived benefit of that decision is that it makes the event work more like an end-of-year Championship because players can compete for ranking points right up until the entry deadline.
Unfortunately, that creates another side effect that brings us toward what is causing concern within the playing community, at least in Texas. The 12-month rolling National Standings Lists are used for the rankings-based selection of players. That means most players without a designated AQ spot will not know for certain if they have been selected until after the entry deadline. The primary concern is whether players will have enough time to make their travel arrangements.
The entry deadline for all the NTRP Championships in 2023 is five weeks in advance of the dates for competition. For example, the entry deadline for the 18+ Singles National Championship in San Diego is February 29, and the first day of play is April 5. That is a much earlier registration deadline than most tournaments and a timeline that I believe has been imposed by the USTA. While the vast majority of players will not know if they have been selected until about a month before the event, that is much longer than the two-week setbacks that are used for most tournaments.
That means that the tournament directors should not be allowed to extend the entry deadline under any circumstances. Additionally, it is incumbent on them to promptly process and publish the selection list. For a National Championship event where most players likely need airline travel and lodging, the TDs must perform quickly and efficiently during that time period. I am assuming there will be a lot of national oversight on that.
Nevertheless, those players who prefer to plan ahead are faced with the choice of whether to make travel arrangements now or wait until their participation is confirmed. Rolling the dice and locking in airfare and hotel right now risks cancellation fees if they are not selected. On the other hand, waiting until the last minute to pay premium prices for a middle seat and lodging is also less than optimal. It’s a first-world tough choice.
In fact, for the brackets to muster full participation, there is likely to be a trickle-down effect as players who were initially selected discover that they are unable to swing the travel. That will open a spot for someone who will have even less time to work out the logistics of attendance. Some players may have significantly reduced timeframes between notification of selection and the start of the tournament.
There is one more final side effect to consider for this year. Historically, most draws at this tournament have not been filled through the Sectional allocation of spots. Another new policy this year is to fill out the field by selecting players in ranking order from the 12-month rolling standings list once the AQ players have been sorted out.
That is a great decision because it is how a National Championship tournament should work. Unfortunately, due to the relatively tight travel planning window, relatively low-ranked players who are in the local proximity of the venue may get into the event simply because they don’t have the hurdle of travel logistics.
That means we can probably all look forward to the USTA touting increased participation numbers and breathlessly announcing that the event is more popular than ever. If the tournament regresses to a field that is mostly local players and essentially evolves into a glorified Level 6 that awards Level 1 ranking points, that would be a terrible thing.
It would be even worse to celebrate that.
- About NTRP: National Championships, USTA Informational Page, viewed 1/12/2023
