Self-Rating Criteria: “Played High School Tennis”

Self-rating might be the most controversial topic in all of USTA League tennis. It’s one of those dark places where objectivity goes to die. Players are universally convinced that their own self-ratings—and those of their recently recruited teammates—are completely accurate and justified. At the same time, every other self-rated player in USTA League tennis is regarded as a sandbagging cheater exploiting the system. It’s an asymmetric thought process that breeds suspicion, resentment, and ultimately, unnecessary drama.

After sharing the story of my daughter’s self-rating journey last Wednesday, I’ve been taking a deeper look into the current USTA self-rating guidelines. For those who missed that post, she self-rated as a 4.5 in March of her senior year in high school, which was absolutely justified based on her playing history at that time. Then, in a run that shocked us all, she and her partner made it to the Texas 6A Mixed Doubles State Championships. That unexpected result raised some eyebrows and caused a few people to question whether her 4.5 rating was too low.

However, under current USTA self-rating guidelines, if she had won the championship, she could now self-rate as a 4.0. However, she didn’t, so the guidelines technically allow her to self-rate at 3.5. It’s absurd that a player who made a deep run at one of the most competitive high school state tournaments in the country could be rated 3.5. She’s obviously too strong for that level, and quite frankly, too strong to be a 4.0 either.

This is where the self-rating guidelines really break down. “Went to state” isn’t a uniform achievement across the board. If you’ve ever watched matches from all divisions at the Texas State High School Championships, you know that “Went to state” looks very different depending on the classification. When my daughter played in that event, I watched players from Class B through 6A all competing on adjacent courts. Until you get to about 3A, most of those players are performing at a 3.0 level… charitably. At 6A, the tennis is much stronger. Many of those kids are already playing at a 5.0 or 5.5 level, and are destined for Division I college teams if they choose to. (Another self-rating guideline that deserves further examination as well.)

To make matters worse, the current self-rating guidelines apply to anyone who played high school tennis in the past twenty years. That means an 18-year-old just aging into adult tennis is evaluated using the same criteria as a 37-year-old who last hit a ball competitively two decades ago. That’s nuts.

When my daughter made her run to the state tournament in 2015, there were people grumbling that she should have been a 5.0. In Texas, I would be hard pressed to argue with that. In other Sections, where the states are smaller, and the weather is less tennis-friendly, it’s arguably easier to make it to state. The point here is that this “guidance” isn’t particularly valuable. It’s a blunt instrument trying to measure with false precision, and it varies wildly depending on geography and classification.

The more I look at the self-rating criteria, the more I believe that the USTA should leverage the data it already has. Players who competed in USTA junior tournaments have USTA records. Many have UTRs or ITF World Tennis Numbers (WTN) ratings. That data exists and is trackable. There is simply no reason to put those players through the self-rating process at all. Way back in 2020, in “Solving the NTRP Initialization Problem for Former Juniors,” I surfaced the idea that Junior tennis players should be assigned a NTRP computer rating on their 18th birthday. I thought it was a good idea at the time, and I still do now.

Let the algorithm do the work. If there’s enough data to generate a reliable NTRP rating, we should use it. Self-rating introduces subjectivity and controversy in a space where objectivity is not only possible—it’s already sitting in the data the USTA already has. Eliminating unnecessary self-rating judgements for all players with a junior tennis history, the USTA could remove a massive pain point and eliminate a lot of drama.

1. General & Experienced Player Guidelines, USTA-hosted guideline, no version information, marked as Updated February 2019.