A couple of comments left against “Trying Times at Tri-Level” recently observed that USTA League roster size can vary significantly from market to market. I already had one post outlined against that theme in my potential future topics list. The additional fodder from these comments inspired me to a deeper exploration of the complex dynamics of roster size. If you follow this site for the “overthinking,” this weekend’s posts are for you.
Roster size management is one of the most important yet highly under appreciated skills of efficient USTA League captains. Since the Trophy Husband manages an insane number of teams, this is a topic that comes up over the breakfast table with surprising frequency. While he copes with the tactical realities, my currently blissful non-captaining state gives me the luxury to focus on the systemic forces that make roster size management so complicated.
The USTA League registration process requires prospective captains to request a team number by a certain date. For the team to “make” they subsequently also have to register a minimum roster size before a second deadline. Typically the minimum players required are just enough to field a complete lineup. As the captain works through that recruiting process, the calendar start and stop times will be roughly known. However, the total number of matches that the team will play is yet to be determined.
I have played in a two team League where the initial schedule published was much shorter than either captain anticipated. Unfortunately, there were already so many people registered on both teams, that there simply weren’t enough slots for everyone to play twice as required for Sectional eligibility. Fortunately in my most recent brush with that situation, the captains jointly lobbied the local league administration to add additional weeks to the schedule.
Similar issues can arise when a League contains an odd number of registered teams. Mathematically, that requires some bye weeks or requires teams to play a double-header. That can be a disadvantage to the team that has to play back-to-back.
Limiting roster size is one potential solution to this problem. An obvious way to determine a reasonable cap is to ensure every player has the opportunity to play twice. Unfortunately, team registration concludes before the number of matches is known. It is simply impossible to calculate a maximum roster size on the basis of available match play.
Additionally, local league regulations make it difficult to impose a maximum roster size due to the penalties for whole team defaults during local play. For example, in Dallas, a team that defaults a plurality of lines is kicked out of the remainder of the League and is forced to split up the following season. The following excerpt from the Dallas Tennis Association League Regulations documents the penalties.
If a “team default” occurs for any reason during round robin play, the defaulting team will (1) default all remaining matches in the round robin, (2) not be eligible for the same Local League Championship for that season, and (3) all team members of the defaulting team must split up in the following season with no more than 4 members of the defaulting team on any one team in the following season.
Dallas Tennis Association League Regulations, viewed 2/23/2023.
If that seems draconian, get a load of the penalties in place over in Fort Worth. All players on a team that defaults an entire match are suspended from ALL league play for a period of 11 months. Here is the relevant excerpt from the Greater Fort Worth League Regulations.
A team must play a majority of the lines for a match. (USTA Reg 2.01C(3).) 4/5 Line league-must play 3; 3-line league, must play 2 lines. Any team defaulting an entire match will have all players on the roster suspended from all Fort Worth USTA League Tennis leagues for a period of 11 months from the start date of the league the infraction occurred.
Greater Fort Worth League Regulations, viewed 2/23/2023.
I really don’t see a reasonable way to impose hard limits on roster size as long as the penalties for whole-team defaults are in place. Players who register on a team at the first of the season with the intent of playing the majority of weeks can become unavailable for a variety of legitimate life reasons. Injury and long term family emergencies are two of the more obvious reasons a player might not be able to play.
Depending on the relationship between the captains, sometimes teams work together to ensure the minimal number of lines are played. Typically that involves rescheduling one or more matchups. However, the social dynamics between some captains are such that any chance to screw over the other team with a whole season disqualification will not be allowed to pass.
The consequences of potential whole-team defaults is one reason why roster sizes in these cities tend to be larger. However, that is not the only reason that roster bloat occurs. In the same two markets, there is another powerful motivating force that leads to those very large rosters.
That is the subject of tomorrow’s post.
