A non-negligible number of players have started traveling out-of-Section to compete in USTA tennis tournaments. Today’s post is essentially a breakdown of the nuances and complications created by that fact. If you are wondering what any of this has to do with monetary policy, you’ll just have to stick around to the end.
When I use the term “out-of-Section” to describe tournament play, I do not mean USTA Nationally Sanctioned Level 1 through 3 tournaments. It is a basic expectation that Nationally sanctioned events will attract players from across the country as well as internationally.
At the present time, I am also excluding Senior age-group open tournament play. The national-level tournaments are currently not limiting the number of entries, so rolling standings are not a factor in who will be selected to compete in those tournaments. Additionally, Senior age-group open players have to play (and do well) at Level 1 and 2 tournaments to earn high rankings. It doesn’t really matter where else they play.
This leaves us with NTRP-level play. When the USTA rolled out the unified National Tournament framework, that initiative was coupled with an NTRP National Championship with restricted entries. Theoretically, those slots at NTRP Nationals are hard to obtain. However, the current reality is that many of the NTRP levels and divisional slots in that tournament are going unfilled.
Additionally, I am focusing my attention on tournaments at Levels 4 and 5. Quite frankly, that is where the problem is rooted. While technically there are lower-level tournaments, the ranking points for play at that level are essentially negligible.
Someone sidled up to me last Friday at Tri-Level sectionals with an interesting reaction to the “Have Racquet, Will Travel” post which went out earlier that morning. My observation that people traveling out-of-Section was a 3.5 phenomenon was countered with the idea that the practice is prevalent at that level because it is the largest population of players. That cohort experiences the most competition to earn a “golden ticket” endorsement to NTRP Nationals. In other words, out-of-Section travel is widespread at 3.5 because it is one of the few NTRP levels that is actually competitive right now. It’s a great point.
My home Section of Texas uses the year-end USTA National Rankings to award endorsements into the NTRP National Championships. From my perspective, turning advancement to Nationals into an arms race of who can afford to travel to the most out-of-Section tournaments to chase easy ranking points is a problem for many reasons.
First, pervasive out-of-Section play reduces participation in in-Section tournaments. The practice also disenfranchises the players that cannot afford frequent travel and who consequently don’t have a realistic chance to compete. That is contrary to the USTA strategic objective to make tennis an inclusive sport that is welcoming to diverse participants. You’re not supposed to have to be rich to compete in tennis (anymore), but the pendulum sure is swinging hard back in that direction.
One possible solution to this disparity is empowering the Sections to exclude out-of-Section play when considering the selection of players for NTRP Nationals. While the USTA prohibits the Sections from creating their own ranking list (future topic) there is nothing that dictates how each Section’s allotment of players is selected for NTRP Nationals. Not every Section uses the National Rankings to pick their players.
My local Section of Texas could elect to give an automatic bid to the players who win the Level 4 Sectional tournament and the Level 4 Masters. The remaining slot(s) in Texas could theoretically be awarded to the player who earned the highest number of ranking points in their “Best 5” tournaments played within the Section.
However, there is an issue with that solution. Texas is a large Section with many players that do not have a reasonable opportunity to play tournaments without extensive travel. For example, I don’t begrudge my friends in Wichita Falls who regularly play the Oklahoma City Level 5 tournament. It is actually closer to where they live than any other tournament in Texas at any level. (The Cotton Bowl is slightly further from doorstep to doorstep.)
Excluding ranking points from tournaments that are closest to a player’s home due to arbitrary Sectional boundaries is absurd. Similarly, if a player from West Texas has to buy a plane ticket to play in a tournament in Houston, I don’t see much of a difference if they would rather fly to Denver or Albuquerque.
The real problem with the pervasive out-of-Section play is rooted in the fact that the USTA broke the competitive pyramid when creating the National Framework. While there were guidelines for the number of tournaments that each Section could have at each level, ignoring those suggestions is widespread in many of the other Sections. In Texas, there are two Level 4 tournaments each year. Other sections literally have a Level 4 tournament on a monthly basis.
The issue with out-of-Section play isn’t the fact that it is occurring, but rather because of the frequency. The exclusivity of Level 4 and Level 5 events is broken. Even Texas is starting to sanction more Level 5 tournaments because participation is being hurt by the unconstrained practices in the other Sections.
I have posts planned for later this Spring that further explore how the USTA Adult tournament competitive pyramid is broken. Until then, if I could wave a magic wand and change one thing about the USTA National Adult Tournament Regulations, it would be creating a hard limit on tournaments at Level 4 and Level 5. Each Section should be able to sanction two closed Level 4 tournaments in a calendar year. Each Section should be able to sanction 12 Level 5 tournaments during that same period. That would go a long way toward fixing the problem.
Historically, Texas Sanctioned only 12 Level 5 tournaments and called them “Major Zones.” Those events attracted the best players because of the limited supply and exclusivity. What is happening to tournament tennis is similar to when countries use unconstrained monetary policy. When you print more money, the currency is devalued.
When a player can play a Level 4 or Level 5 tournament every week, playing tournaments is devalued. Creating more of these tournaments isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.
For comparison, the USTA section I’m in holds NTRP level 7 qualifying tournaments in its different regions throughout the year. Finalists at these local tournaments qualify for the related yearend NTRP sectional tournaments. The finalists of the yearend sectional tournaments advance to nationals.
It’s a straightforward process that allows players from all over the section to play one or more local level 7 tournament to qualify for the level 4 sectionals and a chance to make level 1 nationals. I’m surprised every USTA section doesn’t use this format.